David Masiziani
Who would’ve ever thought that Namibia, the 34th-largest country and the third least-densely populated country in the world, would today be faced with the issue of land?
Namibia boasts 86 conservancy areas, with the Kunene region being the highest with around 36, and the Zambezi with 15 conservancies.
Salambala in the Zambezi region was one of the first conservancies to be registered back in 1998 by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. It covers 93 300 hectares, with its core area equalling 14 000 hectares.
The name Salambala originates from a historical myth of two lovers, Nsala and Mbala, who were banished to the forest following great protests from their respective families about their affair. Marita van Rooyen calls it “forbidden romance”. Salambala boasts abundant wildlife, including four of the big five in Africa, and a high and incredible diversity of bird species. Its landscape is dominantly Mopani woodlands and plains of grassland.
Some adequate and truly good things have been written about t h e Sa l amb a l a conservancy. It is portrayed a successful cons e r vancy that gene r ates mone y t h r o u gh t r op hy h u n t i n g . It i s s aid to suppor t the sur rounding c ommu n i t i e s by funding some of their projects. However, it is shocking and interesting to learn that behind Salambala’s “written” success lay claims of illegitimacy. There is a land dispute, and some communities whose ‘ancestral land’ is evidently within the ‘core area’ of the conservancy are in courts against the conservancy. These communities have known Salambala as their home from the early and mid-1970s. These communities argue that there were little or no proper consultations prior to the establishment of the conservancy, which if true, makes the conservancy illegitimate. The Ministry of Environment and Tourism outlines in the Guidelines for the Management of Conservancies and Standard Operating Procedures, that “the need and desire for forming conservancies has to come from the communities themselves.” Now, if the directly affected communities oppose the establishment of the conservancy, who then consented to it?
Amid land disputes all over Namibia, could we possibly say that conservancies have also to a great extent, like commercial farming, taken much of the land?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great thing for Namibia to be known as the “first African country to enshrine the protection of the environment into her constitution.”
But, at what stake?
Is it not shocking and just too much that “over 42% of Namibia’s surface area is under some form of conversation management – more than any other country in the world?”
Of course, this wouldn’t be a problem if everybody had a piece of land.
I acknowledge that unrealistic conservation regulations expect humans and animals to live harmoniously in an unending conflict.
I’m not in any way against nature conservation, or the protection of wildlife. I’m just asking questions of primacy. Not long ago, when lions let loose from Etosha, the minister of environment and tourism then was nicknamed the Minister of Lions. Is wildlife more portentous than human life?
L o o k i n g a t the surface area apportioned to wildlife in the good name of conservation, it is natural to suspect that in the eyes of government, wildlife is more important than human life in Namibia. This is what I’d call reverse dominion.
The issue of land, in terms of commercial farming, is dominated by the white minorities, some black elites and/ or politicians.
I shouldn’t have a problem with that, as long as their ownership is legitimate. I have a problem when a people under three million does not have access to land; when animal rights become superior to human rights.
By the way, has anyone checked the list of Fundamental Human Rights? I searched for something like the right to land/space or an area to live on, etc. but, I struggled to find the right to “life, pursue happiness, to grow old, etc.” Sorry, where will you put that “life and happiness”? On whose land will you “get old”?
Our very wise politicians who have the money to spend came up with a bitter initiative in the name of “willing-buyer willing-seller policy” to buy back the land.
Wh i l e they pu r cha s ed unprofitable land through this policy with the intent to house the so-called previously disadvantaged communities, they also gave more than half the country to wildlife.
We know that the Zimbabwean way didn’t work out very well, but there must be an amicable solution to the land issue in Namibia. Let the land land in the hands of the people of this country.
David Masiziani is an English teacher.