Part of the "offer" is that they must live their own lives freely in nature. I guess that implies that there's no maintenance cost for them. Cost to maintain nature on the other hand...
"Too much wolves, people is not safe!" so they treat with violence unless are allowed to kill them. A year later "wildboars invasion! toddlers in danger" so they require to be hunted (by them). Then is a chain of "too much foxes", that lead to "rabbits destroyed our food", and then is "mice alert!", and then is rats, and then "this asphalt has a plague of fire ants, why we need to suffer so much?"...
Is an endless dismantling spiral of bullshit, and is very profitable for a few.
Botswana has "too much investors" ravaging nature, and elephants have ivory that other countries still crave.
I can predict your dismay when eventually realize that dogs kill much more people than wolves.
You will not truly understand the pressures on both wildlife and people unless you live in a populous location . The people living close to wildlife are already marginalized and disenfranchised and when conservation does not account for their livelihoods it does not work.
There is not much ivory or trade in India, elephants are revered in religion and strongly protected by the government federally and locally, the friction still exists between farmers and wild life.
To quote the Botswana minister it is easy to sit in [city] and comment on the nature of their conservation, go there and live their lives and then make sweeping statements.
The quote from the Botswanian president is very applicable to your comment: “It is very easy to sit in Berlin and have an opinion about our affairs in Botswana. We are paying the price for preserving these animals for the world.”