A/HRC/15/37/Add.2 63. These provisions flow from the Declaration’s fundamental purpose of addressing historical injustices and ongoing disadvantages suffered by indigenous peoples, and of promoting positive measures to ensure that the rights of vulnerable indigenous peoples are protected. In line with the Government’s acknowledgment of the need to address historical injustices and prejudice, the Government should take effective steps to provide redress for marginalized indigenous peoples, including with regard to the dispossession of lands and natural resources. V. An emblematic case: the Central Kalahari Game Reserve 64. Representative of the difficulties faced by non-dominant indigenous peoples confronted by historical and ongoing patterns of marginalization, including with regard to Government development strategies, is the situation of those groups whose lives were drastically changed by the establishment of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. The game reserve was established in 1961 to protect wildlife resources and to provide Basarwa living in the area with land on which to continue their hunter-gatherer way of life. At that time, there were approximately 3,000–4,000 people living in the game reserve, the majority who were Basarwa, and the rest Bakgalagadi. While hunting and gathering was generally not permitted in the game reserve, an exemption was made for people whose primary subsistence was derived from wild plants and animals. The lifestyle of the residents was viewed as consistent with the preservation of wildlife inside the game reserve. 65. Over time, the lifestyles of the Basarwa and Bakgalagadi residents of the game reserve changed with the drilling of boreholes to provide access to water and the Government’s establishment of a school and health post at !Xade under the Remote Area Development Programme, which encouraged an agro-pastoralist lifestyle and led to the keeping of some livestock within the reserve. 66. In 1985 the Government investigated the situation in the reserve and found that the communities were depleting the wildlife and natural resources, that the communities’ lifestyles were no longer consistent with the objectives of the reserve, and that it was costprohibitive to provide services within the reserve. On those grounds, the Government decided to relocate all people residing within the reserve to outside settlements. The Government maintains that the relocations were voluntary and only occurred after a series of consultations and public meetings that took place between 1986 and 1996. While it is clear that some residents consented to the relocation, it is equally clear that the consultation process was inadequate and that many of the residents were simply unwilling to relocate. 67. There are serious concerns about whether consent to relocation, when it was given, was in fact freely given. The Special Rapporteur received information that measures such as the termination of services inside the reserve, the dismantling of existing infrastructure, the confiscation of livestock, harassment and ill-treatment of some residents by police and wildlife officers, and hunting prohibitions were used as inducements to relocate. Some former inhabitants of the game reserve interviewed by the Special Rapporteur spoke of the Government’s termination of services to their communities in 2001 as one of the main factors in their decision to relocate. According to several sources, the Government prohibited hunting during the relocations and confiscated goats and other livestock, and then cut off the residents’ water supply, terminated food rations, and told residents that they would be able to benefit from these services at the new settlements. 16 GE.10-13968