The global environmental crisis has drawn increasing attention to how state power should be deployed towards achieving ecological objectives. Hence, scholars have debated the form and functions that the state might take within a sustainable political-economic model. The concept of the green state is central to this debate but the concept itself raises further questions about whether and how African states fit into this categorisation. In this article, we contribute to these debates by arguing that Botswana has been greening over time and that the Ian Khama regime took this process to a high level through the hunting ban in 2014. The country orchestrated its greener model of capitalist accumulation and gross domestic growth through the wildlife economy, which is anchored on environmental policies that fuse together domestic and global interests. Between 1966 and 2018, political leaders authorised these policies that in turn shaped power relations in the wildlife sector, particularly between the state and the private sector, to the detriment of local communities.

There has been a shift in natural resource management worldwide. This paper describes how modern institutions and policies influence management and shape access to and utilization of resources by rural communities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. It is rooted in the framework of adaptive co‐governance within social‐ecological systems, and employs a critical literature review to analyse access to and use of natural resources in rural Botswana. Prior to the establishment of community‐based natural resource management (CBNRM) in Botswana in 1989, resource governance was dominated by strong traditional institutions that were responsible for natural resource management and decision‐making. Contemporary natural resource governance is characterized by a bureaucratic system that invariably undermines the role of traditional institutions in natural resource governance. Findings indicate that policies and regulatory instruments deny rural communities adequate access to and utilization of resources available within their immediate environment. In spite of an orientation towards an anthropocentric approach to natural resource management (as in the case of CBNRM), the current governance system continues to undermine the inclusion of local resource users as legitimate stakeholders in the decision‐making process.

No abstract

Since the publication of the influential text, An African Miracle, much scholarship has focused on Botswana's supposed “exceptionality” anchored in the country's economic growth and sustained democracy. Botswana's success story has proved enduring and versatile, being deployed in numerous contexts including in relation to Botswana’s status as a conservation “safe haven” in southern Africa. Many green plaudits are associated with the tenure of former president Ian Khama (2008–2018), who broke with longstanding tradition and actively campaigned against his own vice president and successor, President Mokgweetsi Masisi. Their acrimonious relationship is multifaceted but in this article, we refer to disputes over wildlife conservation policy wherein Masisi rolled back his predecessor's signature conservation policies, focusing specifically on the reversal of the hunting ban, the disarming of some anti-poaching officers, and changes in Botswana's stance in international environmental diplomacy regarding ivory and the CITES regime. We contend that Khama's conservation decisions—underpinned by lack of consultation and green violence—made Botswana a “green miracle” to outside observers while contravening the central principles of local democratic practice such as therisanyo (consultation) cherished in the country. We argue that Masisi's reversal of Khama-era positions that were unpopular with conservation-adjacent communities represents not a “fall from grace,” but rather the bringing back down to earth of policies that had alienated the local population, thus indicating the potential to pursue inclusive governance that domestically Botswana acclaims.

No abstract