Botswana, home to more than 130,000 elephants, roughly one‑third of Africa’s savanna elephants, faces a critical ecological imbalance.
The nation’s elephant numbers have soared beyond its ecological carrying capacity, fueling intense human‑wildlife conflict, crop destruction, and even fatalities.
In response, the Botswanan government finally and controversially lifted a five‑year moratorium on elephant hunting in 2019.
The rationale was rooted in evidence gathered during a consultation process: rural communities, particularly those not suited to photographic tourism, were bearing the brunt of wildlife incursions and losing vital income during the ban.
Reintroducing regulated hunting was presented as a pragmatic tool, balancing wildlife numbers, economic needs, and conservation.
The Science Behind Legalized Trophy Hunting
This freshly reinstated policy for regulated hunting rests on a framework that emphasizes scientific planning and inclusive governance. Botswana established Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs), with quotas determined by rigorous aerial surveys and population dynamics.
These strict quotas, such as off takes significantly lower than recommended sustainable levels, are key to maintaining ecological balance.
In this model, over half of hunting quotas are allocated directly to Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), aiming to ensure that rural communities reap both financial benefits and a voice in resource management.
The licensing process is designed to favor Botswana-based operators, and all revenue from quota issuance flows back through the Department of Wildlife and National Parks.
As a result, revenue from elephant hunting surged, nearly doubling to $4 million in 2024 from approximately $2.7 million in 2023. For many communities, these funds are vital lifelines supporting development and conservation-related projects.
Conservation Outcomes and Human-Wildlife Coexistence
Supporters argue that regulated hunting serves dual purposes: managing wildlife numbers and improving coexistence between humans and large mammals.
Experts report that eliminating older male elephants, a strategy purported by authorities, does not harm breeding dynamics, especially when balanced within a vast population of over 130,000 animals.
Moreover, prior bans unintentionally spurred poaching and eroded local goodwill towards conservation.
A number of studies, including one by IIED, revealed that hunting bans had led to increased human-wildlife conflict, community dissatisfaction, and a decline in conservation incentives.
Controversy and Criticism
Despite these claimed benefits, skepticism persists. Critics question whether quotas are genuinely science‑based, pointing to irregularities in monitoring and quota setting, even suggesting non‑compliance with international norms like CITES.
Allegations of corruption, unethical hunting practices, and misallocation of funds within the Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) system further tarnish the model’s credibility.
From a human rights standpoint, some community members feel explicitly marginalized. As recounted in a 2025 report, locals complain that they’re unaware of how hunting revenues are distributed and receive little tangible benefit.
One activist starkly summed up the feeling: only the hunter and the government benefit, while communities do not.
The ethical debate remains unresolved. While Botswana frames regulated hunting as an accountable means of conservation, many international advocates argue it remains problematic.
This tension grew, particularly as Europe pushed to ban trophy imports, a move Botswana called “colonial meddling” and strongly opposed, citing the harmful economic impact it could have on communities dependent on hunting revenue.
What the Future Holds
Botswana’s model illustrates a real-world experiment in conservation: leveraging regulated hunting to address overpopulation, fund communities, and deter poaching. Early data suggests economic revitalization and reduced conflict where photographic tourism isn’t viable.
Yet sustainability hinges on transparency, enforcement, and equitable benefit sharing. Without rigorous oversight and community engagement, critics warn that the system risks sacrificing ethical stewardship for short-term gains.
The international pressure intensifies, challenging Botswana to validate its approach or pivot to alternatives that align with global conservation priorities.
As the country grapples with this complex balancing act, one thing is clear: finding harmony between humans and wildlife requires more than one-size-fits-all solutions.
