Botswana’s conservation policies are driven by profit, not science
Leaked grant requests reveal financial ties to Safari Club International.
Proponents of the sustainable utilization of wildlife criticized Botswana’s decision to ban elephant hunting in 2014 for pandering to emotions and ignoring science. In their opinion, the decision was another example of foreign animal rights activists and organizations influencing conservation practices to the detriment of African people and wildlife.
Not long after the ban was implemented, stories and studies emerged describing the negative effects on local communities and elephants. Joseph Mbaiwa published a study demonstrating how local communities lost income, employment opportunities, and social services. The loss of benefits translated to negative perceptions of wildlife that, in turn, increased elephant poaching.
Mbaiwa’s study proved crucial in winning over support for a reversal of the hunting ban. When Botswana’s president, Mokgweetsi Masisi, officially lifted the ban in 2019, sustainable use proponents rejoiced. It finally seemed science had won out over emotions.
However, when we look at the larger context of Botswana’s conservation policies, we see science is being pushed aside for the benefit of profit-seeking individuals.
We can start by refuting the claims the original hunting ban in 2014 was based solely on emotion and ignored science. In contrast, the claims hunting was needed to reduce the elephant population, save ecosystems, and reduce human-elephant conflict were supported largely by emotions.
Regarding elephant overpopulation, the Great Elephant Census (GEC) found Botswana’s population numbered much fewer than the previously estimated 250,000 elephants. The GEC determined Botswana only had about 130,000 elephants and there was a 15% decline since 2010. Previous research also showed there was no ecological reason to reduce elephant numbers.
The idea hunting elephants can reduce conflict with rural communities has been around for a long time. However, researchers argue this type of lethal conflict resolution is controversial and questionable. Hunting elephants can also cause lasting psychological damage that promotes aggressive behavior towards humans.
There is an argument that can be made for the 2014 hunting ban from a scientific perspective, but Mbaiwa’s study also makes an argument for lifting the ban. However, the decision to allow hunting again should be criticized because Mbaiwa has financial ties to the industry.
Mbaiwa is business partners with American hunter and investor Jeff Rann of 777 Ranch and Rann Safaris. Rann held concessions in Botswana before the hunting ban was lifted but was reassured of the government’s plans to change the policy by Mbaiwa back in 2018. The pair have since bought a concession in the Okavango area in a joint venture.
Unsurprisingly, Rann won two elephant hunting packages for the upcoming season during Botswana’s auction. If you’re following along, we have a scientist, whose study was influential in overturning a hunting ban, directly profiting from the decision. This constitutes a conflict of interest questioning the integrity of Mbaiwa’s previous studies.
And Mbaiwa’s future studies will also need to be heavily scrutinized. He is a member of a research team that submitted a grant request to Safari Club International Foundation seeking funding for a project dedicated to furthering the sustainable use cause.
The team of researchers that included Mbaiwa asked for about $48,000 to further research the effects of the previous hunting ban in a project titled Assessing the Impacts of Safari Hunting and Implications of a Hunting Ban in Botswana, Namibia, and the greater Kavango- Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. This project expects to come away with data that can be used to promote the importance of hunting for conservation and rural communities.
Included in the SCIF document was another grant request from a project asking for $400,000 over a four-year period to promote the benefits of hunting for leopard conservation. The proposal states one of the goals of the program is to ensure hunting maintains its role as a critical conservation practice. The team plans to use the data from the study to combat the hunting industry’s opposition.
Success of this project will be defined as specifically benefiting Safari club members and the sustainable use industry in Africa. This means hunting stays on the table as a conservation tool and that no further restrictions are placed on leopard trophy imports or exports. Direct benefits are expected for hunters and concession holders but are not listed for community members.
The issue with these grant proposals isn’t necessarily that they can be funded by Safari Club International Foundation. The biggest concern is how these proposals are written with the explicit intention of benefiting the sustainable use industries. This shows a clear bias and will impact the scientific integrity of the projects.
Science should be the driving force behind wildlife trade and hunting decisions. However, the opposite is true when it comes to Botswana’s policies. Profit-seeking individuals are driving the direction of scientific studies. This is especially concerning when the general public is told to listen to science and not their emotions. How can we expect people to support conservation practices if they can’t trust scientists?