The first decision, the most important in our opinion, is the directive of the Ministry of Local Government asking that with immediate effect, revenue from projects of Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) should be given to and controlled by rural district councils. The feeling is that if implemented, this decision would be going at the opposite of what has been done, with significant success, in the recent past in southern Africa in general and in Botswana in particular. This might have serious negative effects on the conservation of natural resources, in preventing local populations directly concerned to benefit from the sustainable use of such resources and consequently to loose an incentive to conserve and manage these resources wisely and sustainably. The main reasons for such decision were apparently that wildlife should benefit to the whole nation and that funds obtained from wildlife use were not properly used by community trusts not always able to produce audited accounts.

When learning about that decision, we wondered whether this could affect as well further attempt by Botswana, and consequently neighbouring countries, to get quotas for the export of elephant ivory at the next CITES CoP. In effect, one key element of the conditions under which Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe obtained an experimental quota at CoP10 in Harare was the establishment of "mechanisms to reinvest trade revenues into elephant conservation" (Decision 10.1), with the understanding that such mechanisms would include financial contributions to local communities sharing the same habitat than elephants. A similar clause is still included in CITES Decision 11.3 regarding ivory. Under it, the proceeds [of the disposal of ivory stocks] would be directed "into enhanced conservation, monitoring, capacity building and local community-based programmes". A similar condition could be attached to any future export quota for ivory and if a country is unable to demonstrate that the proceeds of the sale of ivory will be used in such a way, it may not be able to get the expected quota or, at least, it would loose a significant argument to defend its quota proposal.

We have been told that there is no connection between the community funds in question and the money that was set aside for community use under CITES decisions on elephants. The latter is governed by a Board of Trustees and is only disbursed for the purposes of implementation of specific projects that are submitted to the Board. This money will therefore not be sent to the Council for safe keeping but disbursed for the execution of agreed projects. This is reassuring for the past but may we be sure that this would also apply in the future?

In conclusion, IWMC World Conservation Trust would like to associate itself with those who have expressed already to the Government of Botswana their hope that the decision will be reversed, in the interest of the local communities and of the management and conservation of the natural resources with which they live.

The second decision is that of the Minister of Industry and Commerce to ban lion hunting for one year. It was taken after farmers were prohibited from killing lions as problem animals, because the numbers involved are very high and disproportionate to the damage caused and in some areas there is a serious decline in lion numbers. We can understand the rationale behind the decision, although we may assume that the excessive killing of ‘problem’ animals took place against a proper implementation of the law. If such assumption is correct, we may have some doubt that the ban from killing problem lions will be better enforced than the existing law if this is not associated with appropriate enforcement measures.

The Conference of the Parties to CITES has recognized "that the killing of leopards may be sanctioned by countries of export in defense of life and property and to enhance the survival of the species" and, consequently, has adopted successive resolutions to facilitate the non-commercial trade in skins, including hunting trophies, of that Appendix-I species. Similar decisions were also taken for the cheetah. In both cases, Botswana benefits from export quotas granted by the Conference of the Parties. It would therefore be surprising that a comparable possibility be refused for an Appendix-II species, such as the lion. We expect therefore that the one-year ban on lion hunting will not be extended and that this period of time will be used to find better ways, in consultation with all those interested, to have the law adequately implemented and enforced, to the benefit of all, including the lions.