As crisis after crisis strikes Namibia, the meandering debates of officials have to speed up
“This is like the third time you’ve come asking for us, and we’ve already told you what we want,” the representative of the management of Huibes Conservancy demanded exasperatedly. The representative continued to lambast the delegates for their repeated questioning and inaction, and she was justified in it - It was around 5.20pm, and although roughly two hours of discussion had passed, no concrete amendments had yet been made on the Huibes Conservancy Constitution.
The issue with the Huibes Conservancy’s constitution arose when people began to criticize the harsh laws governing farmers and locals living within the conservancy limits, which include harsh penalties for the construction of fences to prevent animals from trespassing into private property, as well as harm to animals. There were further sanctions as well on the size of farmland within the area and keeping of pets. Though these laws existed for a good cause - to protect the wildlife residing within the conservancy, they also limited the livelihoods of farmers greatly, and also prevented them from defending themselves or their property from animals, as they would be the ones to pay the fine should they harm animals. This growing discontent was further exacerbated when reports came of jackal attacks on farmers and their land, with the farmers being unable to lift a finger to retaliate for fear of fines.
After the issue was first raised, updates continually poured in as the situation developed. However, even with such a dynamic and pressing a situation as this, why did the inquiry take so long to agree upon a consensus for the conservancy? We might attribute this to the meandering, unharried pace of the debate, as well as the indecisiveness of the differing members of the inquiry.
In spite of the pressing need to resolve the issue amidst the growing discontent of Huibes Conservancy, the council seemed unaware that this was a race against time, as not only did they have to resolve the human-wildlife conflict in the conservancy, but also try to move onto debate for the main crisis of the drought plaguing the Hardap region. Many discussions had taken place among many different gatherings of delegates, with many rightfully good and feasible solutions raised among the delegates. However, the council was slow to come together to vote on a definitive directive to solve the crisis.
In the case that this would be due to the organizations having their own agendas, we feel that indeed, it is understandable that many organizations in the inquiry, being organizations dedicated to the conservation of particular types of wildlife such as desert lions or cheetahs, might be hesitant to allow the harming of such animals. Not only would it have some effect on local wildlife populations if this was allowed, but it might proceed down the slippery slope where humans are wrongfully convinced that it is alright to harm animals even when it is not necessary.
Of course, this is something that none of us would want. Needless harm to wildlife morally wrong, and also an affront to our human dignity. But the members of the Namibian Inquiry on Protecting Property, Livelihood and Environment, as humans and leaders of Namibia, first and foremost have a duty to the other people of Namibia in ensuring that they can live without fear.
Quoting from paragraph 2418 of the Catholic Catechism, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.” It is one thing to allow for the coexistence of humans and wildlife. It is another to prioritize the safety of wildlife over the livelihoods of humans. That is why it is commendable that the inquiry made the tough, but right decision to allow for the harming of animals in self-defence in Huibes Conservancy.
Moving forward into future debates, we foresee that this inquiry would face many more crises similar to this one. Understandably, it is not easy at all to come up with a solution that would appease all people in all departments. In that, it is imperative that the inquiry does not lose sight of their direction, and focus on firstly maintaining the coexistence between wildlife and humans in Namibia, and when that is not possible, the safety of humans in the area. By the Catechism, animals are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. We cannot possible equate an animal life to a human life, and thus humans should take priority, though we should definitely not harm animals unless absolutely necessary as a last resort either.
It is important that the members of the inquiry understand that a crisis is a race - in every moment that passes, people and wildlife are suffering in this conflict as the issue remains unresolved. Hence, while we thank the members for their efforts today, we also call upon the members of the inquiry to engage debate with more urgency and increased cooperation with each other such that we can arrive upon a consensus for all.
“This is like the third time you’ve come asking for us, and we’ve already told you what we want,” the representative of the management of Huibes Conservancy demanded exasperatedly. The representative continued to lambast the delegates for their repeated questioning and inaction, and she was justified in it - It was around 5.20pm, and although roughly two hours of discussion had passed, no concrete amendments had yet been made on the Huibes Conservancy Constitution.
The issue with the Huibes Conservancy’s constitution arose when people began to criticize the harsh laws governing farmers and locals living within the conservancy limits, which include harsh penalties for the construction of fences to prevent animals from trespassing into private property, as well as harm to animals. There were further sanctions as well on the size of farmland within the area and keeping of pets. Though these laws existed for a good cause - to protect the wildlife residing within the conservancy, they also limited the livelihoods of farmers greatly, and also prevented them from defending themselves or their property from animals, as they would be the ones to pay the fine should they harm animals. This growing discontent was further exacerbated when reports came of jackal attacks on farmers and their land, with the farmers being unable to lift a finger to retaliate for fear of fines.
After the issue was first raised, updates continually poured in as the situation developed. However, even with such a dynamic and pressing a situation as this, why did the inquiry take so long to agree upon a consensus for the conservancy? We might attribute this to the meandering, unharried pace of the debate, as well as the indecisiveness of the differing members of the inquiry.
In spite of the pressing need to resolve the issue amidst the growing discontent of Huibes Conservancy, the council seemed unaware that this was a race against time, as not only did they have to resolve the human-wildlife conflict in the conservancy, but also try to move onto debate for the main crisis of the drought plaguing the Hardap region. Many discussions had taken place among many different gatherings of delegates, with many rightfully good and feasible solutions raised among the delegates. However, the council was slow to come together to vote on a definitive directive to solve the crisis.
In the case that this would be due to the organizations having their own agendas, we feel that indeed, it is understandable that many organizations in the inquiry, being organizations dedicated to the conservation of particular types of wildlife such as desert lions or cheetahs, might be hesitant to allow the harming of such animals. Not only would it have some effect on local wildlife populations if this was allowed, but it might proceed down the slippery slope where humans are wrongfully convinced that it is alright to harm animals even when it is not necessary.
Of course, this is something that none of us would want. Needless harm to wildlife morally wrong, and also an affront to our human dignity. But the members of the Namibian Inquiry on Protecting Property, Livelihood and Environment, as humans and leaders of Namibia, first and foremost have a duty to the other people of Namibia in ensuring that they can live without fear.
Quoting from paragraph 2418 of the Catholic Catechism, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.” It is one thing to allow for the coexistence of humans and wildlife. It is another to prioritize the safety of wildlife over the livelihoods of humans. That is why it is commendable that the inquiry made the tough, but right decision to allow for the harming of animals in self-defence in Huibes Conservancy.
Moving forward into future debates, we foresee that this inquiry would face many more crises similar to this one. Understandably, it is not easy at all to come up with a solution that would appease all people in all departments. In that, it is imperative that the inquiry does not lose sight of their direction, and focus on firstly maintaining the coexistence between wildlife and humans in Namibia, and when that is not possible, the safety of humans in the area. By the Catechism, animals are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. We cannot possible equate an animal life to a human life, and thus humans should take priority, though we should definitely not harm animals unless absolutely necessary as a last resort either.
It is important that the members of the inquiry understand that a crisis is a race - in every moment that passes, people and wildlife are suffering in this conflict as the issue remains unresolved. Hence, while we thank the members for their efforts today, we also call upon the members of the inquiry to engage debate with more urgency and increased cooperation with each other such that we can arrive upon a consensus for all.
Comments
Post a Comment