logo
Documentary explores elephant issues in Botswana from a pro-hunting perspective

Documentary explores elephant issues in Botswana from a pro-hunting perspective

Daily Maverick23-04-2025

A new documentary explores the thorny issue of elephant hunting in Botswana, giving voice to the rural poor who are often voiceless in the polarising debates around such issues.
In 2014, former Botswana president Ian Khama banned elephant hunting. The measure, imposed the year before Cecil the Lion's demise in neighbouring Zimbabwe put African trophy hunting firmly in the crosshairs of Western public opinion, was lauded by animal welfare organisations.
Botswana has an elephant population of about 130,000 by most estimates and trophy hunting was not a threat to the species' survival in the country.
But it was a source of income and meat for poor rural communities that had to actually share their living space – including their fields for crops and livestock grazing and water sources – with the world's largest living land mammal.
Their voices are heard in a short but insightful and vividly shot documentary, A Fine Balance: A Botswana Elephant Documentary, released on 22 April.
'Animals are now roaming the streets and we are basically ploughing for the elephants,' Anthony Karabo, a resident of the remote Sankuyo village, says through a translator.
The documentary is a product of Blood Origins, a nonprofit 'whose mission is to convey the truth about hunting and promote conservation efforts'.
That will be a red flag to some. But the Humane Society and other animal welfare NGOs also make documentaries in pursuit of an agenda and they all contribute to the complex debates around wildlife and conservation issues.
And in the case of this Blood Origins documentary, it is rural Batswana – the people whose views on Botswana's elephants should have the most weight but are seldom considered – who are the subject matter.
The narrative spun by the authorities when the ban was imposed was that photographic tourism – which does generate income and jobs in some regions of Botswana such as the Okavango Delta – would replace the revenue and employment that had flowed from hunting.
'Money would continue to come into the trusts to support the local communities. All the good things would happen,' says narrator Robbie Kroger.
That scenario was a mirage as most of Botswana's hunting concessions are unsuitable for game viewing because of their remoteness, lack of amenities, relatively dull landscapes and dearth of the teeming herds of visible game that are the magnets for the photographic crowd.
In 2019, Khama's successor, Mokgweetsi Masisi, lifted the ban in response to the demands of rural communities and the new government has not reimposed it.
Against the backdrop of a renewed push by the UK government – with broad bipartisan support – to ban the import of hunting trophies, this documentary is a timely reminder that while much of the British public backs the initiative, Africans do not.
The documentary takes viewers to Sepako village where the locals gather water by bucket from a watering hole in the sand.
'… over the past few years there has been a lot of conflict with the elephants. When there is no water anywhere else, they come here. The residents of the village end up spending the night here guarding the water,' Chief Joseph Ramaditse says.
'Because when the elephants come they destroy everything and then bury it (the water). Then the cows end up with no water to drink.'
While gathering water, one young lady says the community is afraid of the elephants 'because they pose a danger to our lives'.
Elephants and buffalo are a constant presence and menace in the village, with spoor seen right next to houses and people afraid to walk after dark. People have given up farming because of the damage that the big critters inflict on their crops.
Isaac Tshwaane was killed by an elephant in the area and his daughter Kelebeletse Paolosi says the animals 'destroy people's lives'.
Amid this conflict, the consensus among the rural inhabitants is that hunting is essential.
'The years 2014 to 2018 (when the ban was in place) were very difficult years for us. And then, the current president opened hunting again… and life has changed for the better,' says Timex Moalosi, the chief of Sankuyo village.
At another village where hunting and photographic tourism both take place in the area, Tuelo Kebuelemang, a board member of the Mababe Trust, says the coffers would be bare without hunting.
'Hunting is the one that pays money into the trust. So if hunting stops, no money goes into the trust,' she says.
Kroger and his crew also visit a massive hunting concession known as NG13 where the hunting of a big tusker in 2022 sparked a wave of Western outrage which echoed the furore over Cecil the Lion.
That led to calls for hunting to be banned in the area and replaced with photographic safaris, prompting Kroger to go and see for himself if that was a viable option.
Spoiler alert: it's not.
For one thing, it takes a long time to get there – an uncomfortable journey on rough sand roads which one of the crew's vehicles at one point gets stuck in. Kroger notes that during the ban on hunting, no one had expressed any interest in setting up shop in the area to offer photographic tourism.
'I've seen two impala,' Kroger says along the way, holding two fingers up for emphasis. 'You can try to convert this to ecotourism, sink waterholes, wildlife will come. But why would someone come here? It's mopane raisin bushveld that has elephant, zebra, ostrich, it will then have impala, sable, roan. But you can see that anywhere.'
Leon Kachelhoffer, a hunting outfitter in NG13, says no one was interested in developing it for photographic tourism before he came long because 'it's a marginal area, it's completely undeveloped. It doesn't have any permanent water so the game moves out… It's not a great site for ecotourism.'
Kroger and his crew then proceed to take a game drive over the deep sand roads and after almost 17 minutes they catch sight of a wildebeest bull. After 45 minutes the second animal, a bull giraffe, emerges from the bush.
There are animals about – there is plenty of scat and spoor – but you just do not see them, which is the point of a photographic safari.
The documentary also records the aftermath of an elephant hunt in the area – footage that many viewers will no doubt find upsetting.
'It's fucking sad,' Kroger admits. 'But then you realise what this animal is going to do, where this animal is going, the mouths that it's going to feed. There's 130,000 of these things in Botswana. Is it not a resource that they can use? It is, but it's an elephant, it's not a cow.'
Several members of the local community butcher the elephant for food – a welcome source of protein. The tusks will be mounted as a trophy in some foreign land, but the animal is not wasted.
At just under 40 minutes, A Fine Balance is crisply narrated and the camerawork is superb.
One minor quibble that this reviewer has is Kroger's use of the term 'ecotourism' as a separate activity from hunting. In my view hunting and fishing are both forms of ecotourism.
Many critics will dismiss this documentary as pro-hunting propaganda and that point is fair game. But how does one dismiss the views of Botswana's rural communities?
The animal welfare and rights narrative is almost entirely a Western construction, reflecting the views of a demographic that is overwhelmingly white, urban, educated and middle class. It is a discourse that is largely alien to rural Africa, one fashioned to advance an agenda driven by folks up north who do not have to live with the harsh reality of sharing space with elephants.
A Fine Balance has done a fine job of balancing that perspective with the one that obtains in rural Africa. DM

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SA not ready for fallout if Israel-Iran ceasefire fails, warns UJ professor
SA not ready for fallout if Israel-Iran ceasefire fails, warns UJ professor

The Citizen

time4 hours ago

  • The Citizen

SA not ready for fallout if Israel-Iran ceasefire fails, warns UJ professor

As the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds, the world watches with bated breath to see what will happen next between the two regional powers. To gain insight into the situation, Caxton Local Media spoke to Dr Suzy Graham, professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg. Discussing the ceasefire, Graham explained that although it is still early days, the truce holds real potential, though it remains inherently fragile. 'Its longevity hinges on disciplined diplomacy, credible inspections, and political will from all actors. If any of these break down, especially due to hardliners or indirect aggression via proxies, the truce could unravel quickly,' she said. For now, however, the signs are cautiously optimistic. A ceasefire on edge: What's holding it together? Graham believes the ceasefire was primarily driven by a rapid cycle of escalation and daring diplomacy aimed at avoiding further catastrophic conflict. Although the ceasefire appears to be working, she warned that initial breaches from either side could lead to its deterioration. She described the thought of a third world war as unthinkable. 'Despite social media speculation, the probability of a full-scale World War III remains low, but not zero,' Graham said. South Africa's position: Legal, vocal, and diplomatic Speaking about South Africa's stance on the Israel-Iran conflict and how it aligns with the country's broader foreign policy, Graham said South Africa will almost always call for dialogue in any conflict situation. 'The South African government has been vocal in strongly condemning the recent military strikes on Iran, describing the attacks as violations of international law. It has urged all parties, Iran, Israel, and the USA, to engage in UN-led dialogue, emphasising diplomacy, restraint, and nuclear inspection,' she explained. Regarding the potential impact on South Africa if the conflict reignites and becomes a wider regional crisis, Graham said the country would likely continue championing international law, human rights, and nuclear non-proliferation. She noted that South Africa could strengthen its moral leadership among Global South and Muslim-majority countries. 'At the same time, the country could face intense backlash from Israel and Western allies, particularly the USA, Germany, and the UK, especially if Pretoria doubles down on its International Court of Justice genocide case or calls for sanctions. 'South Africa could see reduced goodwill from Western investors or governments, especially if tensions rise over its international legal campaigns or alignment with Iran.' 'In the immediate term, South Africa would likely call for a ceasefire, condemn aggression, and activate international and legal channels. In the short term, it might push for UN and BRICS statements and engage the African Union and Global South partners. 'In the mid-term, it would need to manage economic fallout, reinforce public diplomacy, and maintain BRICS plus solidarity. In the longer term, South Africa could use the crisis to push for UN Security Council reform, nuclear disarmament, and multipolar global governance.' Graham emphasised that if South Africa is drawn into the conflict, its role would be principled, vocal, and legalistic, not military. 'It may be drawn in politically, but not militarily,' she said. 'The country's focus would remain on shaping the normative global order, not engaging in hard power projection.' What escalation could mean for South Africa Although South Africa would not be militarily involved, Graham said a wider Middle East conflict would hit its economy hard, particularly through rising fuel prices, increased trade costs, and inflation. 'An escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict could seriously disrupt global oil flows, and South Africa, as an energy-importing nation, would feel the effects quickly and deeply. 'The country's inflation rate, currency, fiscal stability, and household livelihoods would all come under pressure.' When asked if South Africa is prepared for possible knock-on effects of war, such as cyberattacks or disruptions in trade, Graham said the country is not fully ready for the complex and interconnected consequences of a major regional war involving Iran and Israel. 'While it has some institutional frameworks and economic policy tools, South Africa lacks a coordinated national resilience strategy, particularly for cyber threats and maritime trade disruptions. 'A greater focus on strategic planning, inter-agency coordination, and public-private resilience building is urgently needed.' Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!

Can peace hold? Rwanda and DRC deal to end regional conflict
Can peace hold? Rwanda and DRC deal to end regional conflict

The South African

time5 hours ago

  • The South African

Can peace hold? Rwanda and DRC deal to end regional conflict

A peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was signed in Washington on 27 June 2025. With diplomatic support from allies in the region, the United States and Qatar helped to broker the deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the event at the State Department in Washington, DC. Furthermore, the March 23 Movement (M23) rebel group did not sign the accord but remains central to the continued peaceful dialogue in Doha. In addition, within 90 days, both countries agreed to implement a disengagement plan for 2024. The agreement includes a framework for regional economic integration as well as a framework for cooperative security. According to the agreement, Rwanda has ninety days to withdraw its troops from the east of the DRC. As a result, DRC will mandate an operational strategy for the neutralisation of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), provided Rwanda removes its defensive measures. The deal makes it easier for the Congolese government and M23 representatives to negotiate in Qatar. Within 30 days, a cooperative security oversight body will proceed to guarantee compliance. Enhancing regional trade in vital minerals like cobalt and lithium is another goal of the agreement. The United States will have access to mineral rights in the DRC, according to President Donald Trump. Rwanda's foreign minister, Olivier Nduhungirehe, described the deal as 'a turning point' for the area. The DRC's foreign minister, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, stressed the importance of justice and sovereignty. The agreement could allow for billions of dollars in Western investment in the region, according to U.S. officials. Over seven million people are displaced in the east of the DRC, and the agreement included a commitment to protect and advance humanitarian access for those affected. Within a few weeks, heads of state will be concluding a comprehensive economic protocol in Washington. Before the endorsement of the economic framework commences, progress in the Doha negotiations is considered a crucial priority. The peace deal includes procedures for verifying the disarmament of militias and the withdrawal of the army from the region. Trump's Africa advisor, Massad Boulos, affirmed the United States' involvement in facilitating the minerals deal. Regional analysts and experts, including Michelle Gavin of the Council on Foreign Relations, expressed concern that the deal does not adequately address M23's territorial gains. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news

WTO fisheries agreement gains momentum, but will Africa's coastal states rise to the challenge?
WTO fisheries agreement gains momentum, but will Africa's coastal states rise to the challenge?

Daily Maverick

time16 hours ago

  • Daily Maverick

WTO fisheries agreement gains momentum, but will Africa's coastal states rise to the challenge?

Despite the high cost of illegal fishing, only a third of African countries have signed the landmark agreement that will soon take effect. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies is on track to be adopted this year, with Ghana the latest African country to ratify. Nine more ratifications are needed to reach the total of 111, which activates the treaty. The landmark deal will come into force in what looks like a ' super year ' for ocean governance. Yet only about a third of African states have ratified it, raising questions about whether the agreement risks faltering where the benefits are most needed. The Food and Agriculture Organization's most recent State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report says Africa's fisheries are among the most vulnerable and highly affected by overfishing and illicit, unreported and unregulated fishing. Little of Africa's marine fish stocks are caught sustainably. This presents the continent with a unique trifecta of challenges: subsidised foreign fleets, weak ocean governance, and climate change combine to undermine the sustainability of marine resources. Small pelagic stocks in West Africa have collapsed, East African coral reef fisheries run below sustainable yields, and coastal livelihoods and food security are under threat. Current estimations suggest that at least $11.2-billion in African revenue is lost annually due to illegal exploitation. In this context, the fisheries deal should be a major step in addressing unlawful fishing and harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing. Globally, 102 countries are officially recorded as having ratified the agreement. Several others, including Ghana, have completed domestic ratification, but aren't yet reflected in the official count because they still need to conclude the formal procedure. The agreement targets three areas contributing to the depletion of marine resources, with two implementation phases. First, it bans subsidies linked to exploiting overfished stocks, aiming to bolster conservation and awareness about weak regulatory oversight. Second, it prohibits fishing subsidies in high seas areas beyond the purview of regional fisheries bodies, where enforcement gaps are common and migratory fish stocks are vulnerable. Finally, it bans subsidies to vessels involved in illegal fishing. These measures respond to longstanding concerns about the role of subsidies in enabling overfishing and illegal fishing, especially by distant-water fleets. Although the benefits for Africa are clear, the reception seems lukewarm, with just 20 African countries having officially ratified the agreement. Most support has come from West Africa, where the Economic Community of West African States has urged its members to support the initiative. In East and southern Africa, only four coastal states have ratified: Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles and South Africa. One probable reason is limited awareness and technical capacity since the agreement is essentially a trade instrument, not a conventional fisheries or environmental treaty. So understanding the deal's implications requires coordination between national agencies responsible for fishing, environment, trade and foreign affairs. The agreement is nevertheless on track to enter into force before year-end, underscoring the importance of Africa's readiness to successfully implement it. For one thing, implementation will likely come with financial and resource implications. The agreement requires all WTO members to create a national subsidy inventory documenting the nature, recipients and purpose of fisheries subsidies. This will require inter-agency coordination, political commitment, and new digital reporting systems, potentially adding costs for African states. At the same time, a lack of capacity or political will to implement may see countries become targets for illegal fleets, since the agreement is only as strong as states' ability to enforce it. This is especially likely since the prohibition is not triggered automatically, but only once a relevant party determines a transgression has occurred. That party could be the coastal state against which a transgression has been committed, one whose flag is used by the vessel involved in illegal fishing, or a relevant regional fisheries management organisation/arrangement. However, the arrangements are not always well equipped to deal with illegal fishing, and their ability to respond depends on member states' commitment and capacity. And flag states, especially those providing flags of convenience, are seldom willing to enforce rules that undermine their profits. This means the successful use of the agreement will depend on countries' ability to detect illegal activity and collect evidence. That doesn't diminish the initiative's utility, but highlights the challenges African countries could face as they prepare for implementation. To maximise the agreement's benefits, governments should prioritise three actions. Self-assessment tool First, they must use the WTO's self-assessment tool to systematically align national policies with the agreement's requirements. Identifying legislative, regulatory and institutional gaps may require technical assistance or capacity-building support. Second, states should strengthen coordination among fisheries, trade and finance ministries to ensure coherent policy implementation and transparent reporting on subsidies and conservation measures, as mandated by the agreement. Third, African countries are well positioned to leverage the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism, which provides resources for developing nations to upgrade fisheries management, enhance compliance and help small-scale fishers achieve sustainable practices. This support becomes available to member states on ratifying the agreement. However, the deal alone is not a panacea. It is a useful addition to countries' toolkit in their fight against illegal and unsustainable fishing — but its effectiveness will depend on the actions of African coastal and flag states. Countries should use existing maritime mechanisms, such as the Djibouti and Yaoundé codes of conduct, as well as their regional maritime security strategies. The African Union (AU) and the AU Development Agency could provide technical support and capacity building, and raise awareness among member states as they have done before. The absence of a robust WTO enforcement mechanism means African countries must simultaneously invest in strengthening their maritime security and implementing international accords like the Agreement on Port State Measures. Enhanced surveillance, port inspections and regional collaboration are vital for intercepting illegal catches and deterring illicit operators. Without these complementary measures, the risks to Africa's food security, economic stability and regional security will persist. DM

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store