A/HRC/31/59/Add.1 63. Nonetheless, the nomination of the delta has created mixed feelings. On the one hand, the communities concerned fear an accelerated trend towards the loss of their culture and are worried that their traditional livelihood activities might be restricted, particularly in the core zone. This is exacerbated by suspicion and mistrust of the Government, as well as misunderstandings and disagreements regarding some government decisions, such as hunting bans and fishing and harvesting regulations. Furthermore, there are rumors about the possible fencing off of the area and eviction of communities. There are also uncertainties as to how the site will be managed and the consequences of the listing on access to delta-based sources of livelihood and to sites of cultural and historical significance. Some people stressed that they “had the feeling” that they would not be able to access some specific sites in the delta. 64. At the same time, there is hope that new opportunities will open up for communities to participate in the management of the area and use their specific knowledge to maintain the biodiversity of the area and their cultural heritage. San leaders in particular have repeatedly emphasized that they wish to be actively involved in the decision-making and management of the site. 65. During her visit, the Special Rapporteur was pleased to receive the Government’s assurances that there will be no fencing off of the area, nor eviction of local communities, nor disruption of their rights of access to natural resources. She was also pleased to be informed, after her visit, that consultations were ongoing through, for example, a multistakeholders community consultative conference held in Maun in March 2015. 3. Central Kalahari Game Reserve 66. The Central Kalahari Game Reserve was established in 1961 to protect the wildlife and to serve as a place of sanctuary for the San peoples, where they could live their traditional hunter/gatherer way of life.40 The lifestyle of those communities of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 people was then considered as consistent with the preservation of wildlife in the game reserve. Over time and with the support of the Government, the communities developed an agro-pastoralist lifestyle and kept some livestock within the reserve.41 67. The reserve has been at the centre of considerable controversy since the Government’s decision, in 1985, to relocate all the residents to settlements outside the reserve. The reasons were that the lifestyles of the communities were no longer consistent with the objectives of the reserve and that maintaining services within the reserve were cost-prohibitive. Some residents, convinced by the Government’s scheme for development outside the reserve, in particular in New Xade, moved out voluntarily in the 1990s. However, the consultation process was inadequate and many residents were unwilling to relocate.42 68. The forced relocation of the remaining population in 2002, following the closure of all the services by the Government, resulted in a certain number of residents approaching the High Court to claim their right to continue to live on their land. In 2006, the Court ruled that the eviction was unlawful and unconstitutional, while not condemning the termination of basic services.43 It also ruled that it was unlawful and unconstitutional for the 40 41 42 43 16 See Botswana Tourism, Central Kalahari Game Reserve, available at www.botswanatourism.co.bw/ destination/central-kalahari-game-reserve. A/HRC/15/37/Add.2, chap. V. Ibid., para. 66. See High Court of Botswana, Roy Sesana and Others v. The Attorney General, Misca. No. 52/2002, judgement of 13 December 2006,para. 55.7.