Our wildlife policies should steer clear of vested interests

Mmegi Editor | Saturday March 1, 2014 17:56

Our policy development systems therefore need to have an all-inclusive philosophy so that all the various competing interests can find articulation. This would mean that the policies developed take into cognisance the various competing interests and indeed attempts to balance them.

However, in some instances, we have found that some interests seem to take precedence over others, even where it would make sense to balance the competing agendas for a much more suitable policy position. This is more obvious in our wildlife policies.

In recent times, there has been debate over how wildlife resources should be utilised. In the debate, there is always the powerful and internationally connected lobbies of conservationists and their nemesis and no less powerful pro-hunting lobby. As it stands, the conservationists have won the day with the implementation of the hunting ban. However, in all this cacophony, one of the most important voices is not given a hearing. The indigenous community members have been left out of this discussion. No one ever wonders how the hunting ban incorporates the needs of the subsistence hunter who kills an antelope to feed his family. Every native Motswana who seeks to benefit from wildlife in the country is seen as a poacher.

The conservation and hunting lobbies are characterised by an arrogant disregard of indigenous needs. President Ian Khama and his closeness to the powerful wildlife interests have turned the government even further away from an understanding of the local needs of ordinary people when it comes to developing policies for the utilisation of natural resources. Some will accuse us of attempting to permit wanton plunder of wildlife resources in order to  voice our concerns. We do not seek to entertain such mischievous misinterpretation of valid input. The reality is that it is simply not sustainable for conservation to work if it does not take into account the use of resources by ordinary inhabitants of the land.

Communities and their members are some of the most voiceless in our society. They do not have experts and copious amounts of documents on websites and members in the hallowed halls of the world’s power centres. They may never even get to be addressed on what their needs are by the very people who purport to represent their interests in public office. However, that is not a good enough excuse. A government should always seek to get the views and serve the interests of even the most powerless of its country.

We wonder if the hunting ban or indeed the philosophy of our government’s wildlife conservation policy takes the interests of the ordinary citizen on board.