Officials in Namibia are fighting to maintain the coexistence of humans and wildlife in a growing conflict
“Wildlife to cherish, or leave it to perish”, questioned Miguel Nelago Kamatoto, CEO of in a fiery opening speech. Down in the state of Hardap in Namibia, humans and wildlife are locked in conflict, as both parties are forced to vie for a diminishing supply of water, as well as the various plagues that befall the area. However, in a conflict where both sides have the right to justice, is it possible to come to a consensus through resolve, or will we have to resort to a solution where one side pays the price?
After settling the many technical issues plaguing the inquiry, the debate opened, however slow, on the issue of finding a solution to mitigate conflicts between humans and animals in the region. Laura Brown, a researcher of the Namibian Elephant Conservation, repeatedly pushed for the fencing of animals while providing them with adequate resources for survival. However, this idea was strongly criticized by the rest of the council for its inhumanity and impracticality.
A more favourable idea brought up by the council was that of increasing ecotourism in the area, as this would not only raise awareness of conservation efforts for local wildlife, but would also positively impact the tourism industry in Namibia, while providing more jobs for locals. This idea was supported by many in the committee, including Denis Hesemans of Sky Balloon Namibia, and the CEO of Namibia Natural Reserve, Nils Odendaal. However, however beneficial, Director of Environmental Affairs Teofilus Nghitila pointed out that while this solution is feasible in the long run, it did not provide immediate relief for the short-term issues that the region faced, such as the drought that deprived both animals and mankind alike of potable water.
Eventually, through several recursive discussions, the council had finally settled upon their agenda, which was to first address the issue of the drought, followed other crises as a whole. However, just as this happened, the council was thrown into chaos once again, as an update arrived reporting that several farmers in the Huibes Conservancy had suffered Jackal attacks, and yet were unable to do anything about them. This brought up the question of whether the conservancy should be dissolved, seeing as the strict regulations limited local farmers from taking action to protect their farmland and themselves from attacks from wildlife, which are becoming increasingly common.
The delegates thus agreed to refocus their priorities to appeasing the Huibes Conservancy, by proposing amendments to the constitution. Many had suggested the loosening of several rules in the constitution, such as the fact that no harm may come to the animals in the Conservancy, as well as the barring of building protective infrastructure such as fences. As the end of the council session drew near, in spite of the many unmoderated caucuses held and the many ideas flying around, no concrete directive had been proposed on issue of Huibes Conservancy, still no concrete action had been taken with regards to correction of the constitution or addressing the needs of the conservancy as the discussions dragged on.
Finally, after a heated consultation with the management of Huibes Conservancy, the delegates at long last agreed upon several amendments to the constitution, including expanding the amount of land given to farmers, allowing farmers to construct infrastructure such as fences to protect their personal property, compensation for damage done to personal property by local wildlife as well as allowing farmers to defend themselves without repercussions in the event of a direct attack from animals.
This would allow humans for the first time to harm animals in the conservancy, but only if absolutely necessary to guarantee their own safety. Director Nghitila had also elaborated that he would eventually like to increase ecotourism efforts in the conservancy, such that locals could transition to ecotourism-related jobs in the future, which are more stable in income than farming. “We want to show the people that we care about them as well,” he said.
There was a little discussion about after regarding steps to take to regarding regulation of water in the drought, where some suggestions put forth include increasing the amount of potable water for both humans and educating farmers on resourceful water usage in agriculture, the provision of drip irrigation systems to local farmers from the Desert Lion Conservation, as well as the possible excavation of groundwater.
With so many promising ideas to explore, it is indeed unfortunate that the inquiry was unable to find the time to debate the pressing issue of tackling the drought in Hardap in today’s council session. However, these suggestions show us hope that a solution which can satisfy both parties is in reach, and we can only pray that these preliminary suggestions will be able to propel a more productive and decisive debate in the upcoming council sessions.
“Wildlife to cherish, or leave it to perish”, questioned Miguel Nelago Kamatoto, CEO of in a fiery opening speech. Down in the state of Hardap in Namibia, humans and wildlife are locked in conflict, as both parties are forced to vie for a diminishing supply of water, as well as the various plagues that befall the area. However, in a conflict where both sides have the right to justice, is it possible to come to a consensus through resolve, or will we have to resort to a solution where one side pays the price?
After settling the many technical issues plaguing the inquiry, the debate opened, however slow, on the issue of finding a solution to mitigate conflicts between humans and animals in the region. Laura Brown, a researcher of the Namibian Elephant Conservation, repeatedly pushed for the fencing of animals while providing them with adequate resources for survival. However, this idea was strongly criticized by the rest of the council for its inhumanity and impracticality.
A more favourable idea brought up by the council was that of increasing ecotourism in the area, as this would not only raise awareness of conservation efforts for local wildlife, but would also positively impact the tourism industry in Namibia, while providing more jobs for locals. This idea was supported by many in the committee, including Denis Hesemans of Sky Balloon Namibia, and the CEO of Namibia Natural Reserve, Nils Odendaal. However, however beneficial, Director of Environmental Affairs Teofilus Nghitila pointed out that while this solution is feasible in the long run, it did not provide immediate relief for the short-term issues that the region faced, such as the drought that deprived both animals and mankind alike of potable water.
Eventually, through several recursive discussions, the council had finally settled upon their agenda, which was to first address the issue of the drought, followed other crises as a whole. However, just as this happened, the council was thrown into chaos once again, as an update arrived reporting that several farmers in the Huibes Conservancy had suffered Jackal attacks, and yet were unable to do anything about them. This brought up the question of whether the conservancy should be dissolved, seeing as the strict regulations limited local farmers from taking action to protect their farmland and themselves from attacks from wildlife, which are becoming increasingly common.
The delegates thus agreed to refocus their priorities to appeasing the Huibes Conservancy, by proposing amendments to the constitution. Many had suggested the loosening of several rules in the constitution, such as the fact that no harm may come to the animals in the Conservancy, as well as the barring of building protective infrastructure such as fences. As the end of the council session drew near, in spite of the many unmoderated caucuses held and the many ideas flying around, no concrete directive had been proposed on issue of Huibes Conservancy, still no concrete action had been taken with regards to correction of the constitution or addressing the needs of the conservancy as the discussions dragged on.
Finally, after a heated consultation with the management of Huibes Conservancy, the delegates at long last agreed upon several amendments to the constitution, including expanding the amount of land given to farmers, allowing farmers to construct infrastructure such as fences to protect their personal property, compensation for damage done to personal property by local wildlife as well as allowing farmers to defend themselves without repercussions in the event of a direct attack from animals.
This would allow humans for the first time to harm animals in the conservancy, but only if absolutely necessary to guarantee their own safety. Director Nghitila had also elaborated that he would eventually like to increase ecotourism efforts in the conservancy, such that locals could transition to ecotourism-related jobs in the future, which are more stable in income than farming. “We want to show the people that we care about them as well,” he said.
There was a little discussion about after regarding steps to take to regarding regulation of water in the drought, where some suggestions put forth include increasing the amount of potable water for both humans and educating farmers on resourceful water usage in agriculture, the provision of drip irrigation systems to local farmers from the Desert Lion Conservation, as well as the possible excavation of groundwater.
With so many promising ideas to explore, it is indeed unfortunate that the inquiry was unable to find the time to debate the pressing issue of tackling the drought in Hardap in today’s council session. However, these suggestions show us hope that a solution which can satisfy both parties is in reach, and we can only pray that these preliminary suggestions will be able to propel a more productive and decisive debate in the upcoming council sessions.
Comments
Post a Comment