Ersial Hunting port Prohibition) Bill

In her defence against the accusations of neo-colonialism and telescopic (or myopic) philanthropy, Lady Fookes mentions a letter she received from the former President of Botswana, Lieutenant General Ian Khama.

Khama talks about his experience of over 23 years as head of the Defence Force, as Vice President and then as President.

According to the letter being waved as a trump card by Lady Fookes, Khama’s interest in this Bill being passed – come hell or high water, is not for the safety or economic wellbeing of his people, the Batswana. Khama’s concern is that safari hunting undermines the “gene pool of male lions, elephants and other species by only shooting the most magnificent species in each category.”

Khama talks about hunting quotas being manipulated because of corruption. He “believes that photographic safaris contribute far more to the creation of employment, revenue streams and so forth.”

But what is glaringly absent is the evidence that attests to any of these claims – because if it were the case, Khama would have been at pains to produce that evidence.

No compassionate human takes pleasure in seeing animals gunned down for their tusks and horns in the name of sport – be it an over breeding species of deer in the UK or large unruly herds of elephant in Africa.

But this is not to say that we should blindly pursue ‘no hunting’ policies at the expense of black African’s lives and livelihoods. Both animal lives and human lives matter profoundly but how do we retain the balance? The UK’s Import Prohibition Bill purports to be the answer to this dilemma.

But the transcript of The House of Lords debate, paints a disturbingly different picture.

I am a black British woman who was born and bred in rural Botswana. To be precise, I was born in Lentswe-Le-Moriti village, a small hamlet in the Tuli Block, an area of Botswana which retains large populations of Africa’s ‘big five’.

I still have family living in this area that, like everyone who lives there, care dearly about the welfare of all the animals that they share this beautiful part of Botswana with. Animal conservation is unquestionably an intrinsic part of Botswana’s culture.

On March 17, 2024, I sat through a three-hour briefing at the Botswana embassy, where I had the privilege to hear directly from the people who live in the areas of Botswana that will be negatively impacted by the passing of this Bill. I got to hear how the people in these areas care for the wildlife. One of the delegates talked about how his community provides feeding and drinking troughs throughout the local game reserves and national parks.

I also learnt from Modukanele who works for the Ministry of Environment and Tourism that Botswana, contrary to what the proposed Bill assumes, is ethically and morally mindful of how it manages, prevents and mitigates human-animal conflict in rural areas. In my conversation with Modukanele, he detailed the ethically guided measures that his ministry implements in order to humanely manage and control the surging numbers of elephants who have chosen Botswana as their home.

In rebutting the myths currently being peddled and perpetuated by a significant minority of the white British liberal elite, Modukanele had this to say.

Every year the Botswana government, through the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, issues a quota for different species of wildlife that can be hunted. The quota/selection issued is based on scientific analysis of the wildlife populations.

Each rural community in Botswana is allocated its own quota. Most of the communities partner with a professional safari company to sell their quotas in international safari markets across the world.

CITES allocates Botswana an annual quota of 400 elephants, a staggering number that Botswana has never reached. Fact: If the Bill passes, there will be limited income to fund the currently well established and ongoing wildlife management and conservation efforts. Botswana is an extremely dry country and providing water and animal feed to its wild animals during the dry season is an essential part of mitigating human-wildlife conflict. Without funds, currently being generated through sustainable Safari hunting tourism, the lives and livelihoods of people in elephant prone areas will be put at serious risk and large unmanaged herds of elephants will be at a greater risk of poaching. Lord Lilley

rightly argues that this contentious Bill “assumes that Africans do not know what is in their own interests and cannot run their own countries, and that…[the British] have a right to tell them how to do so”.

He points out that the supporters of the Bill “accept that it will deprive some poor people of their income.”

In highlighting the problematic tone of the Bill, Lord Lilley brings The House of Lord’s attention to a letter which he sarcastically characterises as “very thoughtful…from an advocate of this Bill [who is quoted as saying] “Oh, it’s only £200 million that will be lost”.

Lord Lilley concludes by summing up the disturbing colonial mindset as a move that “makes liberal white people feel good…[by] patronisingly tell[ing] Africans who lose their jobs that they can still rely on [Britain’s] aid programmes, which makes white liberals feel better.”

Betty Knight* is a visiting lecturer at The University of Winchester (Transatlantic Travel Literature)

Doctoral Researcher: Critical and Creative Writing (The University of Winchester, UK: 2020 – 2026)

Research Interest – Settler coloniser/ Transatlantic literatures, colonial/postcolonial literature and cultural/voice appropriation