Wildlife conservation has been one of the defining responsibilities of my public life. My commitment to protecting Botswana’s wildlife did not begin when I became president. It developed during my years in the Botswana Defence Force (BDF), where I came to understand that protecting our country’s natural heritage could, in certain circumstances, require the same determination, discipline and sacrifice that we demand when defending our national sovereignty.
As commander of the BDF, I became increasingly concerned about the threat posed by poaching. Our wildlife was not simply being lost; organised poaching was becoming a threat to the security of the country and to an important part of Botswana’s national heritage.
I therefore supported and oversaw the deployment of the BDF in anti-poaching operations. Soldiers were given the responsibility of assisting the relevant authorities in protecting wildlife, particularly in areas where the scale and remoteness of the problem made conventional law enforcement approaches difficult.
This was never intended to turn the military into a wildlife agency. Rather, it was a recognition that the defence force had capabilities – personnel, logistics, communications, mobility and the ability to operate in remote areas – that could make an important contribution to the national effort against organised poaching.
When I subsequently became president of Botswana, I continued to regard wildlife protection as a national priority. The role of the BDF in anti-poaching operations therefore continued.
My position was based on a simple principle: Botswana’s wildlife belongs not only to those of us who are alive today, but also to generations of Batswana who have yet to be born. We have a responsibility to ensure that they inherit a country in which elephants still roam our wilderness, rhinos can once again establish viable populations and our natural landscapes and all wildlife remain an important part of our national identity.
The hunting debate
I suspended hunting – all hunting of all species, not just trophy hunting. That suspension was one of the most controversial conservation decisions of my presidency. Trophy hunting – the act of extracting a part of our national heritage for repatriation to (mostly) foreign lands – was the part that attracted the greatest attention.
The hunting ban was introduced as a response to what we regarded as a serious conservation concern and the need to examine whether wildlife populations were being sustainably managed.
Hunting was incompatible with conservation.
There were – and remain – strong arguments for banning hunting.
Communities living alongside wildlife bear many of the costs from problem animals. They experience crop damage, loss of livestock and, in some circumstances, threats to human life.
Conservation must work for the people who live alongside wildlife.
At the same time, we cannot allow the legitimate difficulties faced by communities to become an excuse for the disappearance of wildlife. The answer must be to develop policies and programmes with interventions that recognise such realities concerning human-wildlife conflict. Arguments that trophy hunting generates revenue for communities and thus increases their tolerance threshold for conflict do not bear up under scrutiny, and hunting trophy bulls may exacerbate the very problem hunters purport to be solving.
Bringing back the rhino
Rhino conservation has been particularly important to me.
The return and reintroduction of rhinos to Botswana represented more than the restoration of one species. It demonstrated that determined conservation action can reverse some of the damage caused by decades of exploitation of wildlife.
Rhinos are among the most threatened large mammals on the continent. Their survival requires security, habitat protection, scientific management and a sustained commitment over many years.
Reintroducing rhinos also carries a profound symbolic message. Conservation should not simply be about trying to prevent species from disappearing. Where circumstances allow, we should also have the ambition to restore species to landscapes where they once belonged.
That requires patience. Wildlife conservation does not operate according to political cycles. A government may serve for five years, 10 years or longer, but a successful conservation programme may take generations to bear its full results.
The role of the military
Some people have questioned whether the military should be involved in wildlife protection. It is a legitimate question.
My own experience leads me to believe that there are circumstances in which the defence force can make a valuable contribution, particularly when poaching becomes organised, heavily resourced and transnational in nature. This is where regional cooperation becomes an important priority too. A professional defence force, working with wildlife authorities, can support the fight against organised, transnational wildlife crime, including where countries share transfrontier parks.
The military cannot, and should not, be the only answer to poaching.
We need effective wildlife authorities, police, prosecutors, courts, intelligence services, customs officials, local communities and international cooperation. We also need to address the international criminal networks that finance and facilitate the illegal wildlife trade.
A poacher in a remote part of Botswana is often only one link in a much larger chain.
Conservation must include communities
Perhaps the most important lesson I have learnt is that conservation cannot succeed if local communities feel excluded from the benefits of wildlife.
Botswana has been blessed with extraordinary wildlife and some of the most remarkable wilderness areas in Africa. This has created an important tourism industry and generated employment and revenue. But we must constantly ask whether sufficient benefits reach the communities that live with wildlife every day.
If a farmer loses cattle to predators, or crops to elephants, it is not enough to tell that farmer that wildlife is valuable to the nation. We must find practical ways of sharing the benefits and reducing the costs.
The future of conservation will depend increasingly on finding that balance.
Looking ahead
When I look back on my years in the BDF and subsequently as president, I see a consistent thread: the belief that Botswana has a duty to protect what makes this country unique.
The decisions we made were not always popular. Some remain subjects of debate. That is inevitable when dealing with issues as complex as wildlife, rural livelihoods, tourism, hunting and national security.
But leadership sometimes requires taking decisions based on what one believes is in the long-term national interest, even when those decisions are controversial.
Our wildlife is one of Botswana’s greatest assets, but I do not believe we should regard it merely as an economic asset. It is part of our heritage and part of the identity we pass from one generation to another.
When I served as commander of the BDF, I saw the need to use the capabilities of our defence force to help protect that heritage. As president, I continued that commitment through broader conservation policies, including the hunting suspension and efforts to restore endangered species such as the rhino.
The responsibility now belongs to all of us, not only in Botswana but across southern Africa more broadly.
We must protect our wildlife, but we must also protect the people who live with it. We must listen to science, respect communities, enforce our laws and ensure that Botswana – not distant interests – remains firmly in control of decisions concerning our natural heritage.
If we succeed, future generations will not have to read about Botswana’s wildlife as something that once existed.
They will be able to see it, hear it and experience it for themselves.
That, ultimately, is what conservation is about: ensuring that what we inherited is still there for those who come after us.
Lessons for South Africa
Botswana does not exist in a vacuum, and regional cooperation remains a significant priority. Neighbouring countries are strongest against the illicit wildlife trade when their conservation efforts support one another. I serve as patron of the Guardian Angel Wildlife and Marine Trust (GAWMT) because I believe in its approach. GAWMT is a registered South African public benefit organisation, with offices in Johannesburg and Cape Town, and does practical work in communities such as Alexandra as well as in conservation education. The Trust works with communities and young people to build a love of wildlife as national heritage, and it works with the South African National Defence Force on youth education. My view is that South Africa will be well served by the work of GAWMT in supporting young people, communities and those who already serve, so that conservation and public duty strengthen one another, including in our shared transfrontier parks. DM
Comments
Scroll down to load comments...