Botswana officially opened hunting today. Great job to all involved in helping get this open again! A rare win in today's climate.


Link to official statement and Facebook press release can be found HERE


MEDIA INVITATION- PRESS CONFERENCE- LIFTING OF THE HUNTING SUSPENSION IN BOTSWANA

The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension . Since its imposition, the hunting suspension has become a topical subject in the country. There developed two schools of thought with some of the view that if hunting was re-instated, communities would support conservation as they realise the potential value and associated income to be derived from wildlife resources and related activities; and as a result, the annual population would increase. On the other hand, some people were of the view that the suspension would lead to animal population increases; it would promote conservation especially for the species that experienced reduction.

It was against this background that in June 2018, a Cabinet Sub Committee on Hunting Ban Social Dialogue was established to kick start a social dialogue aimed at reviewing the suspension on hunting. The process involved a nationwide process including holding Kgotla meetings and consulting with Local Authorities, affected communities, NGO’s, tourism businesses, conservationists, researchers and other stakeholders.
The fundamental issue that emerged was the appreciation by citizens that they were being consulted. This was seen as necessary for building on the national principles of: Democracy, Development, Self-reliance, Unity and Botho.

Some of the findings of the Cabinet Sub Committee on Hunting Ban and Social Dialogue were as follows:

i) The number and high levels of human-elephant conflict and the consequent impact on livelihoods was increasing;
iv) Predators appear to have increased and were causing a lot of damage as they kill livestock in large numbers;
v) There is a negative impact of the hunting suspension on livelihoods, particularly for community based organisations that were previously benefiting from consumptive utilisation;
vi) The lack of capacity within the Department of Wildlife and National Parks leads to long response time to problem animal control reports; and
vii) The general consensus from those consulted was that the hunting ban should be lifted.

On the basis of these issues, the Government has reflected and assessed the recommendations, and lifted the suspension.

You are therefore invited to a press conference that will be held by the Minister of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism, Honourable Onkokame Kitso Mokaila which will focus on the lifting of the hunting suspension, details of its implementation and decisions made regarding other recommendations from the Cabinet Sub Committee on Hunting Ban and Social Dialogue. The press conference will be tomorrow afternoon, 23rd May from 1400hrs at the Ministry Conference Room.
The Ministry would like to reiterate that it will work with all stakeholders to ensure that re-instatement of hunting is done in an orderly and ethical manner, and in accordance with the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act and the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks (Hunting and Licensing) Regulations.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

A. Mmolawa
FOR/ACTING PERMANENT SECRETARY

Great news but what animals will be open to hunting? Everything, some or just elephants?

Great job Botswana

Great news!!

quote:

Originally posted by GunsCore:
Great news but what animals will be open to hunting? Everything, some or just elephants?

From what I gathered after the meetings earlier this month, there will be other game online as well as elephants. The press release also mentioned predators, which would indicate lion and leopard.

This is a huge win.

Greg

It would be nice if quotas and areas could be allocated ASAP so the operators can get their boreholes back up and running.

This is really good news if it works out. You can bet that those in Botswana will take a social media beating over this decision, I hope the decision weathers the storm and I hope the hunting fraternity will promote the community empowerment and benefit aspect as well as the conservation aspects of this decision.
As for what species, from what I have been told by one that was involved, they look at it the same way as Greg. At least for right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Safari2:
It would be nice if quotas and areas could be allocated ASAP so the operators can get their boreholes back up and running.

Agreed, let's hope this is all sorted out at or after tomorrows press conference.

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:
This is really good news if it works out. You can bet that those in Botswana will take a social media beating over this decision, I hope the decision weathers the storm and I hope the hunting fraternity will promote the community empowerment and benefit aspect as well as the conservation aspects of this decision..

100% agree, it needs to be the focal point for the whole program and needs to spread across all of Africa for this to continue.

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:
This is really good news if it works out. You can bet that those in Botswana will take a social media beating over this decision, I hope the decision weathers the storm and I hope the hunting fraternity will promote the community empowerment and benefit aspect as well as the conservation aspects of this decision.
As for what species, from what I have been told by one that was involved, they look at it the same way as Greg. At least for right now.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:
This is really good news if it works out. You can bet that those in Botswana will take a social media beating over this decision, I hope the decision weathers the storm and I hope the hunting fraternity will promote the community empowerment and benefit aspect as well as the conservation aspects of this decision.
As for what species, from what I have been told by one that was involved, they look at it the same way as Greg. At least for right now.

They should respond to the naysayers as either racists or ecological colonialists.

This is being spread far and wide on social media. I am not sure that is a good idea.

I hope nra, sci, dsc and all other orgs are ready with videos, memes and other facts about what bots will benefit from hunting. Botswana will have a huge social media shit storm coming against them.

Hope they ride it out and it will open up.

I have a pretty good, informative discussion going on Elephants Without Borders FB Page.
They posted the hunting ban reversal on their page today. I posted and responded to several comments on this article.

Love the reversal of bad policy. It’s a justified slap upside the head to Ian Khama. Let’s hope the government stands behind it when the blowback hits.

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:
I hope nra, sci, dsc and all other orgs are ready with videos, memes and other facts about what bots will benefit from hunting. Botswana will have a huge social media shit storm coming against them.

Hope they ride it out and it will open up.

Absolutely - a great time to flood the debate with pro conservation based hunting media tools

Best News i have heard for a long time and a Moral Victory for Communities,Hunters and wildlife.

Can Ivory be imported to US?

quote:

Originally posted by Capt. Purvis:
Can Ivory be imported to US?

You can apply, but to date they have not approved or denied any of the import permits since Trump made THIS Twitter statement about elephant.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This is being spread far and wide on social media. I am not sure that is a good idea.

It is a good idea.

Enough of being on the defensive.

I gave that up a long time ago.

So called animal rights and environmentalists are nothing but eco terrorists!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This is being spread far and wide on social media. I am not sure that is a good idea.

It is a good idea.

Enough of being on the defensive.

I gave that up a long time ago.

So called animal rights and environmentalists are nothing but eco terrorists!

Yes, we have to define ourselves and not let our critics define us.

quote:

Originally posted by Greg Brownlee:

quote:

Originally posted by Capt. Purvis:
Can Ivory be imported to US?

You can apply, but to date they have not approved or denied any of the import permits since Trump made THIS Twitter statement about elephant.

I think its because of this influence...

Lara Trump leads fight for animal advocates
..she has given the issue considerable credibility with major decision makers,” said her key ally, Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States.

The Trump Family Likes to Kill Animals. Can Lara Trump Get Them To Stop?

http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?...1024&dir=2019/may/24



Hunting ban: Why was it lifted? What's next?

PRESS STATEMENT: In June 2018, a Presidential Sub-Committee of Cabinet was tasked to initiate a social dialogue aimed at reviewing the ban on hunting. The process entailed a nationwide process including holding Kgotla meetings, consultation with Local Authorities as well as other stakeholders.

By CORRESPONDENT Fri 24 May 2019, 11:48 am (GMT +2)


The fundamental issue that emerged was the appreciation by citizens that they were being consulted. This was seen as necessary for building on the national principles of: Democracy, Development, Self-reliance, Unity and Botho.

Some of the findings of the Cabinet Sub Committee on Hunting Ban and Social Dialogue were as follows:

i) The number and high levels of human-elephant conflict and the consequent impact on livelihoods was increasing;

ii) Predators appear to have increased and were causing a lot of damage as they kill livestock in large numbers;

iii) There is a negative impact of the hunting suspension on livelihoods, particularly for community based organisations that were previously benefiting from consumptive utilisation;

iv) The lack of capacity within the Department of Wildlife and National Parks leads to long response time to problem animal control reports; and

v) The general consensus from those consulted was that the hunting ban should be lifted.

On the basis of these issues, The Government has assessed all these recommendations and has accepted all but one recommendation which makes reference to regular culling of elephants and establishing an elephant meat canning including production of pet food. This was rejected because culling is not considered acceptable given the overall continental status of elephants. Rather, a more sustainable method such as selective cropping should be employed.

Therefore the principal recommendation that has been adopted is the one which proposes the re-instatement of hunting.

(i) Essentially:

• Hunting will be allowed on a small, strictly controlled basis, with fewer than 400 elephant licenses to be granted annually, as has been approved by CITES.

• Priority will be given to Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and Trusts in allocation of hunting quotas (over 50% of quota to be given to CBOs and Trusts).

• Hunting will be re-instated only in designated Concession Hunting Areas (CHAs.)

• There will be equitable distribution of citizen hunting quota.

• Citizen hunting license shall not be transferable.

• An effective hunting quota allocation system shall be developed based on science;

• Animals to be included in the hunting quota shall be those currently reflected in Schedule 7 of the Wildlife and National Parks Act of 1992.

• Special game license will not be re-instated due to existence of other government social safety nets to cover for such

(ii) A legal framework that will create an enabling environment for growth


of safari hunting industry will be developed;

(iii) The Botswana elephant population will be managed within its historic range;

(iv) An effective community outreach programme within the elephant range for Human Elephant Conflict mitigation will be undertaken;

(v) Strategically placed human wildlife conflict fences will be constructed in key hotspots areas;

(vi) Game Ranches will be demarcated to serve as buffers between communal and wildlife areas;

(vii) Compensation for damage caused by wildlife, ex gratia amounts and the list of species that attract compensation be reviewed; and other models that alleviate compensation burden on government be considered;

(viii) All wildlife migratory routes that are not beneficial to the Country’s conservation efforts will be closed;

(ix) The Kgalagadi south westerly antelope migratory route into South Africa will be closed by demarcating game ranches between the communal areas and Kgalagadi Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs).

In all the actions taken, whether for or against any recommendations, the guiding principles were: the need to conserve our natural resources, the need to facilitate human wildlife co-existence; and scientific management of our elephants and other wildlife species.

All the above notwithstanding, Government shall continue to monitor the situation and may cause for periodic review of the recommendation approved. In doing so, Government shall endeavor to consult the affected communities, community leadership, non-Governmental Organisations, etc.

Botswana Government is convinced that tourism can be fully exploited sustainably to benefit the economy.

Sustainable tourism calls for the development of tourism policies that assure the safeguarding of social, cultural and natural resources and guarantee that these assets can meet the needs of present and future populations and tourists.

It is for this reason that Government has also approved strategies for facilitating citizen participation in the tourism sector. The strategy has several models which advocate for, among others:

i) The allocation of existing vacant concessions and identified sites solely to citizen companies, joint ventures, community trusts and community of citizen consortia;

ii) Where existing concession operators issue more than 25% of shareholding to citizen companies, consortia, joint ventures or community trusts, a fixed period lease of 30 years be issued under the new leaseholding;

iii) Land allocated to citizens through tourism citizen economic empowerment model be used as collateral by allottees to secure shareholding and or partnerships.



Felix Monggae - Acting Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.8bc7d4dea8e4



Botswana hires Hollywood firm to fight elephant hunting PR

By Brian Slodysko and Michael Biesecker | AP May 24 at 3:15 PM



WASHINGTON — The Botswanan government has enlisted a public relations firm with deep ties to Hollywood to push back against the bad publicity generated by the southern African nation’s decision to lift its ban on elephant hunting.

42 West, a firm mostly known for its work with celebrities and the film industry, notified the U.S. Justice Department last week that it will be working with Botswana’s tourism ministry, according to a filing made under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The firm will be paid $125,000 over the next two months — with the possibility of more work to come — for developing talking points and a communications plan that “articulates Botswana’s policy on elephant hunting” that will be delivered to “key U.S. and other Western audiences,” according to its filing.

That puts 42 West in an awkward spot. Big-game hunting is a deeply divisive issue, particularly in Hollywood, and numerous celebrity activists have spoken out against killing the world’s largest land mammal for sport, including some calls for a tourism boycott of Botswana.



Among the firm’s clients is actress Meryl Streep, who has been a vocal opponent of the sale and importation of ivory, which in 2014 she called a “product of horrific cruelty to elephants, who could very well become extinct within decades if we don’t act now.”

Allan Mayer, a principal with 42 West who is leading the effort, declined to comment on Friday. Streep publicist Leslee Dart, a 42 West co-CEO who is named in the filing, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Botswana has been a relatively safe refuge for elephants on a continent where illegal poaching and habitat loss has sent their numbers into sharp decline. The country is home to an estimated 130,000 African elephants — about a third of all that remain.

After its initial announcement on Thursday was met with social media blowback, the Botswanan government clarified on Friday that it plans to issue no more than 400 elephant hunting permits per year.


Elephant hunting is already legal in Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia and South Africa. With a population of just over 2 million people, Botswana has more space than some of its more densely populated neighbors for elephant herds to roam. Still, the government said there have been a growing number of conflicts between elephants and humans — especially farmers.

Groups lobbying in favor of trophy hunting, such as U.S.-based Safari Club International, have long argued that the fees paid by well-heeled American and European hunters provide essential revenue for cash-strapped African governments to fund anti-poaching and conservation programs. A licensed two-week elephant hunting safari can cost more than $50,000 per person, not including airfare, according to advertised rates.

The African elephant has been classified as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act since 1978. Though President Donald Trump has decried big-game hunting on Twitter as a “horror show,” his administration has reversed Obama-era restrictions on the importation of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia. Elephants have long been hunted for their hides and tusks, either for taxidermy trophies or ivory used for carving and jewelry making.


Botswana’s hunting ban was put in place under a previous president, Ian Khama, an outspoken conservationist. But the current president, Mokgweeti Masisi, has advocated for reopening the nation to hunting, and the decision to lift the ban comes ahead of general elections in October.

Masisi raised eyebrows earlier this month when he gave stools made of elephant feet to regional leaders while hosting a meeting on the animals’ fate.

The American talk show host Ellen DeGeneres tweeted Tuesday: “President Masisi, for every person who wants to kill elephants, there are millions who want them protected. We’re watching. #BeKindToElephants.”

___

Associated Press writer Cara Anna contributed to this report from Johannesburg, South Africa.

Effing libtards

quote:

Originally posted by Safari2:
I have a pretty good, informative discussion going on Elephants Without Borders FB Page.
They posted the hunting ban reversal on their page today. I posted and responded to several comments on this article.

I made such a compelling discussion on that thread without getting adversarial that EWB elected to delete the thread and not allow me further comments on their FB Page.

quote:

Originally posted by Safari2:

quote:

Originally posted by Safari2:
I have a pretty good, informative discussion going on Elephants Without Borders FB Page.
They posted the hunting ban reversal on their page today. I posted and responded to several comments on this article.

I made such a compelling discussion on that thread without getting adversarial that EWB elected to delete the thread and not allow me further comments on their FB Page.

Typical of the hypocrites!

It is up to all our hunting organizations to make it this a success.

EWB is nothing but a fake money grabbing bunch of idiots playing on the sentimentality of the idiots living in cities!

I knew President Trump’s “horror show” comment would come back.

https://www.prweek.com/article...phant-policy-account



Added 1 hour ago by Thomas Moore

The entertainment focused agency signed the deal in mid-May.

News



LOS ANGELES: Entertainment PR firm 42West is pulling out of a deal with the government of Botswana to provide communications strategy for the country’s elephant hunting policy.

"While the nature of what 42West was hired to do for the Botswana Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources, Conservation and Tourism has been grossly misrepresented, we have ended this relationship," the agency said in a statement.

The firm, known largely for its entertainment work and representing clients such as Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks and Hugh Grant was set to be paid $125,000 for a five-month contract. It was planning to develop strategic messaging for a new Botswana policy about the hunting of elephants, PRWeek reported on May 22.

That same day, the southern African country said it had lifted a ban on elephant hunts that had been in place since 2014. The action drew a backlash on social media, including from Ellen DeGeneres, who tweeted, "President Masisi, for every person who wants to kill elephants, there are millions who want them protected. We're watching. #BeKindToElephants."

Shortly thereafter, Botswana’s government reportedly issued a clarification stating that it will issue no more than 400 elephant hunting permits per year.

A 42West representative declined to comment on the agency withdrawing from the contract.

Cowards

Not at all surprising that they pulled out.Is surprising that they signed on in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Richards:
Not at all surprising that they pulled out.Is surprising that they signed on in the first place.

they took the cash without knowing where Botswana is ...

Wait a minute; did I get this right?

They’re a public relations firm?

And they don’t even know how to manage their own public relations?

My view is - they’re losers.

I only hope the government does not follow suit.

https://allafrica.com/stories/201906040735.html



Botswana: 'Ngamiland, Chobe Want Trophy Hunting' - Study

The prohibition of hunting activities without immediately putting in place an alternative to address the impact of the ban such as loss of jobs from safari hunting, loss of game meat and loss of revenue has exposed and rendered local communities more vulnerable, researcher Israel Blackie, a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology- University of Botswana, has found.

Published in a Social Sciences journal cogent on May 02, 2019, Blackie's research was on The impact of wildlife hunting prohibition on the rural livelihoods of local communities in Ngamiland and Chobe District Areas, Botswana. Respondents to questions posed during the research indicated that they were more likely to ignore government and/or connive with poachers. The majority (91.2%) of respondents in the study who include local communities' heads of households and/or their representatives and key informants would like to see the wildlife hunting prohibition being reversed or lifted since they see wildlife hunting as playing a significant role in rural livelihoods.

Botswana Government has been caught up in a tricky situation where locals have been demanding the lifting of the hunting ban because of the worsening human-wildlife conflict while wildlife conservationists in Europe and USA threaten to boycott local tourism in objection to trophy hunting. Consequently, President Mokgweetsi Masisi and Minister of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism Kitso Mokaila have been appearing before different fora to explain Botswana's position on the matter. At home, there is growing skepticism about the state's perceived agenda of pleasing the developed world or global north at the expense of the local populace. The prevailing global norms as they affect national conservation policies continue to shape citizens and state relations particularly those residing in the northern districts of Botswana where the livelihood needs of human beings and wildlife habitat overlap.

Even though they were aware that wildlife hunting has been dominated by foreign hunting safari companies, respondents in Blackie's research insisted that it had contributed to improvements in the rural livelihood. They count the losses due to the hunting ban to include loss of employment, loss of revenue to both CBOs and individual households and loss of game meat. One of the village elders in Gudigwa expressed this dissatisfaction with the hunting prohibition as follows:

"Government wants to eliminate the San culture so that maybe we could be the Batswana like them. We are no longer allowed to hunt even though our culture is intrinsically embedded to wildlife hunting. I wonder what kind of children we are going to raise who will not know even how to track down nor hunt wildlife. Gudigwa village is like a death trap. If we go to the north (NG22) of our village, we are prevented from doing so by the Wildlife and Botswana Defence Force under the pretext that we will otherwise be tempted to poach the wildlife. Yet again we are also prevented by the Bambukushu ethnic tribe to access developments which are located to the south en-route to townships such as Shakawe and Maun which are the modern centres where major developments are located. That's why our children seem to be drinking lots of alcohol because they do not have much to do since introduction of hunting prohibition", (80-year-old man, Gudigwa village).

The hunting prohibition has also led to local CBOs abandoning the provision of community benefits such as old age, orphans and disability allowances as well as students' scholarships. Funding for these community benefits was mainly derived from revenue generated through the sale of community hunting quotas including the sale of wildlife by-products such as meat from hunting safaris.



"Lifting the wildlife hunting prohibition, therefore, could trigger an increased value chain as local communities partake in conservation of wildlife as it will generate employment," Blackie concludes, adding that Government should maintain both consumptive and non-consumptive tourism according to the suitability of the CHAs. This is mainly because the prevailing wildlife management statutes such as the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act (1992), CBNRM policy (2007) and the Wildlife Conservation Policy (2013) promote inclusive management and utilisation of natural resources, he observes. Further, Blackie reiterates that even when wildlife hunting was allowed, 322 elephants were successfully hunted out of the 396 elephant quota given by CITES (Botswana Wildlife Hunting Report, 2013). However, he cautions that lifting of the hunting prohibition should be exercised with caution lest communities continue to be exploited by professional hunting safari companies as has been the case before the 2014 hunting ban was enforced.

Consultation

Blackie also concludes in the study that the decision to prohibit wildlife hunting was not necessarily the problem but rather the manner in which the decision was taken and implemented because it was announced without prior consultation with local communities who were only informed of the policy change. The study found that the implementation of the wildlife hunting prohibition was carried out without adequate consultation with local communities. Rather it was conveyed to local communities as a government policy directive.

This approach has "removed the sense of pride for owning land and natural resources" and thus created a perception that locals do not own the wildlife resources (including those in their CHAs). "Local communities now view the wildlife as state property, and any costs that arise out of wildlife is attributed to the government and therefore they demand full compensation for such costs (crop damage, livestock predation and loss of human life)," concludes Blackie.

Consultation at grassroots level would have been consistent with the principle of decentralising decision-making in community-oriented natural resources management programmes.

DeKock (2010) noted that the first CBNRM principle calls for decision-making at the lowest relevant level within the community where capacity to implement communal programmes or initiatives exists or can be built and thus create a sense of ownership. Similarly, Ngwira et al. (2013) also found that government plays a critical and major role in decision-making regarding the utilisation of natural resources in most southern African countries. They found that in many cases, usufruct rights are conferred by administrative decrees and management agreements instead of legislation and a right-based approach. Decentralising natural resource conservation creates an avenue for local communities to become more democratic and encourages effective participation unlike in centralised settings where leadership consolidation and organisational elitism are inevitable (Michaels, 1958). Decentralisation of decision-making in natural resources management to community levels is premised on the notion that greater participation in public decision-making is a positive good in itself and that it can improve efficiency, equity, development and resource management (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999).

Given that, local communities' awareness of the natural capital around them matches or supersedes that of scientific enquiry (Table 4). Progressive conservation policies can be reinforced by taking into consideration the depth and wealth of indigenous ecological stewardship. The results of this study lend credence to the CBNRM policy's claim that "local populations have greater interest in the sustainable use of natural resources found in their locality than a distant government or private management institution which may lack understanding and genuine interest in local environments" (CBNRM Policy, 2007, p. 1).

Discussions on why respondents want the hunting prohibition reversed revealed that the incessant appeals to lift the hunting ban are at the very least meant to provide the locals with employment opportunities as a livelihood option. The respondents suggested that livelihood needs could have been met through the immediate implementation of photographic safari tourism in 2014 when the ban on wildlife hunting came into effect. The wildlife prohibition, however, did not invalidate existing leases such as leases for hotels and lodges or other natural resources use such as gathering veldt products. The views of respondents that the hunting prohibition be reversed largely arises from the fact that tourism product diversification has had limited success even though the CBNRM programme and policy have never explicitly presented wildlife hunting as the only natural resource that can be used within the confines of the tourism industry. The study also found that CBOs failed to move into the hotel and accommodation sector even though such enterprises are the biggest revenue sources in tourism. For example, out of a total of 198 (156 Ngamiland and 42 in Chobe) accommodation facilities in the study area, local communities own about 10 (5%) through their JVPs (Department of Tourism, 2013; Centre for Applied Research, 2016). Most CBOs own campsite grounds which also provide accommodation facilities for tourists though campsites usually attract lesser fees than hotels and lodges. The 198 accommodation facilities in the study areas translate to 37.5% of the national accommodation facilities with a 25.3% national employment rate in the tourism sector. Local CBOs could be generating sufficient revenue and employment had they invested in hotels and lodges since employment generated by CBOs is often reserved for local community members.

Most local communities have in the past 15 years (+) failed to utilise some of their prime and scenic community use zones in their delineated CHAs. For example, the Kazikin campsite, which belongs to the STMT, has a carrying capacity of 50 beds although only 2 accommodation structures consisting of 2 beds each have to date been developed. Also, the facility was constructed through a donation from the government of Japan and not from money earned through hunting. Discussions with STMT management indicates that STMT prioritised community social benefits such as building one roomed houses for the destitute, funeral assistance, construction of toilets, sponsoring a football team as well as fitting stand pipes for the provision of clean running water. Even though the above services are important, investing in sustainable income generating projects such as constructing hotels and lodges would potentially have offered better returns. Development of community use zone areas such as in NG 34 and others have the potential to become profitable business ventures and possibly lead to improvements in community livelihoods.

As noted earlier, the wildlife hunting prohibition did result in a loss of employment and revenue accruing to CBOs. Local communities were also compelled to either suspend or abandon some of their social services to community members due to the unavailability of funds. In line with the tenets of social exchange theory, the study also established that allowing local communities to derive benefits from the utilisation of wildlife resource has a positive influence on local people's attitudes towards wildlife (McCool & Martin, 1994; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Látková & Vogt, 2012; Mir et al., 2015). It should be noted that some of these communities, especially those of Ngamiland, are very poor, and their livelihoods are extremely vulnerable and their employment is at the lower end of the tourism sector. It could therefore be argued that hunting and CBNRM have failed to contribute to rural development at a larger scale. Tourism and hunting in these areas simply created dependency and now that has been extended to the drought relief (Ipelegeng) work programme. Vaughan, Katjiua, Mulonga and Murphy (2004) argued that countries should find a means of incorporating local hunting on a few select wildlife species as an incentive for local populations to actively participate in the conservation of their natural resources.



Land bank

Through the tourism land bank initiative, government has taken upon itself to subdivide large concessionaires to avail tourism investment land for more citizen participation through tender advertisement of these tourism concessions. However, delays and perceived lack of transparency in the implementation of the tourism land bank initiative have led to grave speculation leading to unsubstantiated and pre-emptive disapproval of the initiative on the basis that it is an extension and replica of the then hunting tourism which favoured private hunting safari companies at the expense of local communities. Commentaries from Khwai FGD also attest to these fears:

"Foreign professional hunters who used to dominate hunting expeditions now dominate photographic guiding escorts since their hunters' permits allow them, and project them as highly qualified and experienced. The strict requirements for professional hunters discourage us [locals] from undertaking this course". (Focus Group Discussion, Khwai).

The tourism land bank violated the Tribal Land Act (1968) which gives the land boards authority to govern and manage land in tribal areas. The current situation where the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism has together with the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation subdivided and advertise tourism concessions in WMAs has been received with mixed reactions. Four years after the introduction of the tourism land bank initiative, none of the citizens have been allocated tourism sites in the prime tourism areas of the Okavango or Chobe districts. The land bank initiative seems to have further centralised the management of community tourism land. In essence, government has un-procedurally transferred tribal land into state land thinking that it is empowering local communities, something that is likely to further impoverish locals as they do not have the requisite financial capacity to attract and develop these high-end tourism sites. The tourism land bank initiative has essentially disempowered local communities from venturing into high-end and profitable tourism enterprise as they no longer have land rights as in the past before introduction of land bank. It is with facilitation and secure land rights that CBOs could attract investors who could in turn use it as collateral in formal credit markets to access funding. Perhaps a rural development policy should promote secure land rights so that CBOs could use the land rights to access financial assistance from private banks.