Africa-Press – Botswana. On Tuesday 29th July, the National Assembly was expected to pass the second reading of the long-awaited Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Bill, 2025. The mood in the chamber was reflective, coming just a day after the passing of the Minister of Lands and Agriculture, Micus Chimbombi a statesman known for his dedication to rural development and conservation justice. But as tributes faded, the legislative debate sharpened. And while the Bill was formally passed, it became clear that much of the discussion circled around one dominant theme: trophy hunting — and, more specifically, whether local communities derive any meaningful benefit from it. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking the Bill was primarily a Trophy Hunting Revenue Sharing Act, rather than a comprehensive law to democratise natural resource governance. Speaker after speaker expressed concern — and sometimes frustration — over how little of the value generated by international trophy hunting safaris reaches the villages in whose territories these animals live and die. That rural communities remain poor despite abundant wildlife is not merely unfortunate. It is systemic. And the CBNRM Bill, while well-intentioned, makes only a timid attempt at confronting that system.
Local benefits, global optics
Critics rightly questioned whether the Bill’s administrative reforms — the registration of Community-Based Organisations (CBOs), the creation of advisory committees, and provisions for audits — would lead to substantive changes in local livelihoods. As often stated, “You cannot eat a constitution, nor can you bank a policy. People need incomes.” Nowhere is this truer than in the trophy hunting economy. Currently, community benefits are mediated through opaque arrangements with hunting operators and reliant on the goodwill of bureaucrats. Communities are recipients, not stakeholders. The Bill does little to change this. It enshrines procedure but sidesteps power.
Hon Unity Dow was among the most outspoken. She argued that the Bill’s definition of “natural resources” is both narrow and outdated. By excluding land, minerals, and water from its scope, the legislation reinforces artificial silos that have long impeded integrated development. “For rural people, land and water are not separate from nature,” she noted. “They are nature.” Her critique was echoed across the aisle. If the government is serious about “Transformation” — the word emblazoned across its policy documents — then surely it must expand the framework to all natural resources, not just flora and fauna.
Transformation — or just a touch-up?
This is perhaps the crux of the matter. The self-styled “Second Republic” came into office with bold promises to transform the way Botswana governs, develops, and distributes. But this Bill, in the view of many, reads more like a technical makeover of the 2007 CBNRM policy than a transformative instrument. It reorganises and clarifies — but it does not disrupt. It does not challenge entrenched hierarchies, nor does it vest real control in the hands of communities.
Where is the subsidiarity? Where is the innovation? Where is the clause that gives communities primary authority over the resources they’ve stewarded for generations? The Bill’s architecture still centralises decision-making. District Commissioners remain the signatories to CBO accounts. Central authorities must vet community boards. Quotas for wildlife use must pass through multiple levels of permission. It is as if empowerment is treated as a risk — a resource to be doled out in teaspoons rather than assumed as a right.
If that is transformation, then it is written with a small “t”.
Beyond hunting: The economics of empowerment
Even if trophy hunting were more fairly distributed — which is itself uncertain given the tightening ethical and market pressures around it globally — it would still not be enough to lift communities out of poverty. The international appetite for hunting is declining, constrained by regulation, public opinion, and changing tourism preferences. In that context, the fixation on hunting revenues as the core of community benefit feels like chasing a mirage. What is needed is a broader economic vision — one that links conservation to diversified livelihoods. Yet the Bill is largely silent on this. There is no substantive treatment of eco-tourism, no mention of carbon markets, no support mechanisms for sustainable harvesting, no incubation of climate-resilient enterprises. Without such provisions, communities remain stuck in the low-value periphery of Botswana’s environmental economy. In contrast, countries like Brazil have taken bold steps to empower local populations through what’s been termed the “Cowboy and Spacemen’s Economy” — a hybrid model where rural cooperatives manage forests, harvest sustainably, generate income, and protect biodiversity, all supported by national policy. Botswana could do the same. The Bill could have embraced this logic. It did not.
Institutional realignment still missing
Another issue raised in the debate was institutional coordination. The new CBNRM Department will be housed in the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, yet its work inherently involves the Ministries of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Local Government, and even Education. Without a built-in mechanism for cross-ministerial alignment, implementation risks falling into the cracks of departmental turf. Edwin Dikoloti, the Acting Minister of Lands and Agriculture, acknowledged this gap. He told the Botswana Gazette that, “CBNRM provides an opportunity for the local community to take control of their natural resources which will surely empower them and in so doing improve their well-being.” He also went on to suggest that more can be done noting that greater alignment across sectors is essential – including his own Ministry. It is to be noted that alignment is currently nowhere in the text.
From statute to struggle: The road ahead
To be clear, the passage of the Bill is significant. After two decades of operating under policy without legal backing, CBOs now have a statutory framework. The Bill introduces accountability mechanisms — such as audits and transparent registration — that can reduce misuse and improve governance. These are necessary reforms.
But they are not sufficient.
What the Bill lacks is a vision that goes beyond regulatory tidiness. It lacks a rights-based philosophy that says: communities are not just participants, they are owners. It lacks economic imagination, structural boldness, and political courage. These absences are not just technical — they are ideological. The real test will now shift to implementation. Can the new Department demonstrate agility and empathy? Will advisory committees empower or police? Will this be a platform for dynamic, locally driven development — or just another layer of form-filling and reporting? The burden now lies with civil society, progressive MPs, and informed citizens to push for amendments, demand accountability, and propose supplemental regulations that restore the radical potential of CBNRM.
Toward act two: The real transformation
The CBNRM Bill, 2025, is Act One. It deserves to pass. But it must not pass unchallenged. If the Second Republic is to be more than a rebrand — if it is to mean anything to a widow in Kgalagadi or a youth cooperative in Seronga — then its policies must reflect Transformation with a capital T. That means expanding community benefit to include all natural resources: land, minerals, water, forests, wildlife, and the knowledge systems that sustain them. It means ensuring that economic empowerment is not an aspiration but an outcome. It means regulating with trust, not suspicion. And it means crafting laws not just to govern the present — but to unlock the future. This Bill is the beginning of a conversation, not the end. Let us not file it away. Let us annotate it, debate and amend it, and most importantly — let us live it in the lives of those who have always lived with the land.
Source: Botswana Gazette
For More News And Analysis About Botswana Follow Africa-Press
