Bertie Mbumbo
I feel compelled to express my opinions as a citizen of this nation and an inhabitant of the Bwabwata National Park area, based on the Ministry of Environment, Tourism and Forestry’s response to the statement of ombudsman.
From the content of the ombudsman’s statement, I concluded that he was addressing the Ministry of Environment, Tourism and Forestrys system and wasn’t addressing personal issues. He also claimed to favor animals over human life.
This has been the cry from the community. Although it cannot be denied, it requires careful consideration and a reexamination of the ministry’s policies that are most likely to suit the community.
The duties of the ombudsman include looking after the well-being and security of citizens. Further, it is argued that people’s wellbeing is dependent on the natural resources, which includes animals that are managed by humans as part of conservation services.
Although the ombudsman attempted to explain the situation by suggesting ways that things could be managed in that particular ministry, it appears that he did not have sufficient ministerial facts, but had the knowledge necessary to understand the mandates of the ministry. The ministry misinterpreted the well-intentioned statement meant to give human life preferable treatment as misleading and devoid of truth. Let’s suppose that the ministry was correct when it responded to the ombudsman’s statement.
The question is not whether it was respectful, harmonious, and appropriate to respond to him in the manner the ministry did, even though it was Sunday (20/03/2022), when the universe was busy worshipping, glorifying, and asking forgiveness. I am referring here to the language choice, vocabulary and assertive expressions made of some facts. My limited knowledge indicates that I believe the minister’s response was not only harsh but also insulting to the Ombudsman as an individual. They even went so far as to quote his duties as a reminder. This is considering the fact that he’s a legal expert and his hiring process was thoroughly scrutinized by a high level panel of legal- and human resources experts.
I must admit that the ministerial declaration was factual enough. It didn’t need arrogant language. As if the ministry were on the platform to unleash bullets about the long-running disagreement with the Hambukushu Traditional Authority over the Bwabwata National Park that all of us know.
I have seen this country’s office-bearer making serious errors on public platforms. However, I did not see any corrective action in the way that the ministry for environment has done it. The President incorrectly stated that the DTA party won the Kavango region in 1989. Would it have been fair for the Director of Electoral Commission of Namibia, to publicly address the President to deny those allegations? Correcting facts is important, but only on the appropriate platforms that are proportional to the person’s position. The truth is that there are many things the ministry can do to improve management of human-wildlife conflict. It is crucial to engage with the community to create policies that reflect domestic conflicts, not copy and paste policies that don’t address human-wildlife clashes at local level. Even though the ministry has signed conventions, they still have the right to accommodate our domestic situation and produce good results when implementing it local. Contrary to what the ministry claims, such as the Revised National Policy on Human-Wildlife Conflict Management, and the huge benefits that the community are entitled, I still have some provocative questions to add to the statement by the Ombudsman. However, I maintain my position that my points don’t possess any ministerial facts that support my claims.
Public awareness, practical, technical solutions, stakeholder engagement, coordination and coordination are all said to be in full swing. This is how the government is trying to address the problem of human-wildlife conflicts. Are these documents real? Or are they merely drafted documents that do not reflect actual experience?
Many solutions and initiatives, such as the construction and support of countrywide solutions and initiatives, such as mobile kraals, livestock-proof kraals, crocodile enclosures/fences or provision of water for people away from the river, elephants-proof walls around water installations, wire around crop fields, wire with cans around chilli pepper fences and chilli bombs, and electric fencing, have been implemented. Is this a real possibility? Are there any concrete evidences to support it?
It is legal to maintain that all other national parks were declared in this manner before independence. However, the ministry should not forget that only the Bwabwata National Park has been re-proclaimed. Therefore, consultations with the community leadership were essential, as stipulated in article 1 of the Namibian constitution, which states that the people have the power to declare national parks.
Refusal to engage traditional authority to benefit from the available livelihood and economic advancement. It is also wrong to say that they refused. However, it was the ministry that refused engagement with the community and its leaders to discuss the Bwabwata issue in detail before the reproclamation took effect. This despite traditional authorities’ stance to engage them through correspondence with various offices and stakeholders to ensure that we can reach economic advancements and benefit. To this end, I will challenge ministry to provide any correspondence that they received inviting the traditional authority for engagement prior to the re-proclamation.
Community benefits include rural electrification projects and the building of classrooms, scholarships, funeral aid, permanent structures for traditional authorities, and water provision. Is this a reflection of the ground? If so, what evidence is there to support these claims?
The hunted game is only available to the Fumu/hompas in Kavango. Sometimes, the ministry may reject their request. This means that traditional authorities are not appreciated and they are less considered (fumu/hompas).
I can confirm that human-wildlife conflict is still on the rise due to ongoing harassment and distraction of wildlife within the community, including their crop farming.
Surprisingly, the ministry for environment claims to be bound to international and national obligations under the conventions and treaties. However, this does not mean they have to ignore their domestic intervention rights or their rights to make reservations about any provisions of the convention to help their domestic situation.
One example is the harvesting crocodiles. This would help reduce human-wildlife conflict, benefit the community by selling the meat, skins, and enable the community to fund their projects.
