Bertie Mbumbo

I feel compelled to give my views as a citizen of this country and an inhabitant of the area where the Bwabwata National Park is situated on the response from the Ministry of Environment, Tourism and Forestry to the statement of the ombudsman. 

I deduced from the content of the ombudsman’s statement that he was addressing his opinion about the Ministry of Environment, Tourism and Forestry’s system and not personal, that he alleged to favour animals more above human life. 

This has been the cry of the community, which cannot be disputed, but needs careful consideration and revisiting of the ministry’s policies that are likely to suit the community and address their domestic human-wildlife conflict being experienced every time. 

In summary, the duties of the ombudsman are to look after the wellbeing of the citizens in the country. It is further interpreted that the people’s wellbeing derives from the natural resources, including the animals that are made to be managed by human beings as part of conservation services. 

Although the ombudsman explained by suggesting how best things could be managed in that ministry, it appears that the ombudsman did not have enough ministerial facts in his possession, but has the know-how about the ministry’s mandates. Be that as it may, the well-intended statement that was meant to give human life preferable treatment was interpreted by the ministry in its statement as devoid of any truth, and ultimately defensive and misleading. Let’s assume that the ministry was correct in its official response to the ombudsman’s statement. 

The question rather remains whether it was proper, respectful and harmonious to respond to the ombudsman in the way the ministry responded, even on a Sunday (20 March 2022), while the universe was busy worshipping, praising and glorifying God and asking for forgiveness and repentance. I am referring to the language’s tone, choice of vocabulary and assertive expression of some facts. In my little knowledge, I feel that the ministerial response was not only harsh, but it belittled the ombudsman as an individual, to an extent that they even went rogue by quoting his duties as a reminder, considering the fact that he is a legal expert and his recruitment went through serious scrutiny by a high panel of legal and human resources experts. 

I must admit that the ministerial statement was factual enough and did not need arrogant language to prove a point, as if the ministry was on the platform to unleash bullets on the long-dragging difference with the Hambukushu Traditional Authority about the Bwabwata National Park that we all know.

 I have seen an office-bearer in this country making serious mistakes on public platforms, but I did not witness any corrective response done in the manner the ministry of environment has done it. Not long ago, the President erroneously stated that in 1989, the DTA party won in the Kavango region. Would it have been right for the Director of the Electoral Commission of Namibia to publicly respond to the President to refute those allegations? Of course, correction of facts are important, but on appropriate platforms proportional to the person’s position. The truth is that the ministry has a lot to do to improve the management of human- wildlife conflicts, and this can only be addressed if proper consultation and education are carried out, rather than being too defensive and arrogant. The importance of community engagement is to develop policies based on the domestic conflicts experienced, and not to copy and paste policies that do not address human-wildlife conflicts at local level. Despite the ministry signing conventions, they still have full rights of accommodating our domestic situation that will yield good results when implementing it locally. Contrary to the claims made by the ministry, such as the Revised National Policy on Human-Wildlife Conflict Management and to huge benefits that the community are entitled to get, I am still left with some provocative questions complementing the statement made by the ombudsman, while still maintaining my position that my points do not possess any ministerial facts to prove my claims, and these are as follows:

The public awareness, practical, technical solutions, stakeholders’ engagement and coordination are claimed to be in full swing and is addressing the problem of human-wildlife conflict. Is this a reality on the ground, or just mere drafted documents which do not reflect practical experiences?

Solutions and initiatives such as the construction of livestock-proof kraals, mobile kraals, crocodile enclosures/fences, provision of water for people and animals away from the river, elephants’ proof walls around water installations, wire with tins around crop fields, chilli pepper fences, chilli bombs, electric fencing and many more have been implemented and supported countrywide. Is this a reality on the ground, and is there any evidence to this effect?

Maintaining that all other national parks were proclaimed in this manner before independence and such proclamation remains legal. But in the same manner, the ministry should maintain the fact that only the Bwabwata National Park was re-proclaimed, and therefore consultations with the community and its leadership was of utmost importance, as enshrined in article I of the Namibian constitution that states that power is vested in the people.

Refusal of traditional authority to take advantage of the available livelihood and economic development. This too is wrong to point that they refused, but it’s the ministry that refused to engage the community and its leadership to discuss the issue of Bwabwata in detail before the re-proclamation took place, despite the traditional authority’s stance to engage the ministry on the issue through correspondence with different offices and stakeholders before we could arrive at benefit and economic advancements. To this effect, I will challenge the ministry to provide any correspondence where they invited the traditional authority for engagement before the re-proclamation of the park in question.

Community benefits such as rural electrification projects, building classrooms, scholarships, funeral assistance, building permanent structures for the traditional authorities and water provision. Is this too a reflection on the ground, and is there any practical evidence to support the claims?

Benefit of the hunted game for the fumu/hompas in the Kavango region only happens on request, and sometimes the ministry rejects their request, which means there is no appreciation for traditional authorities and less consideration for them (fumu/hompas).

I can confidently confirm that human-wildlife conflicts are still on the rise because of continuous harassment and distraction of wildlife in the community, including communal farming and their crop farming.

Lastly, but also shockingly to note, the ministry of environment is claiming to be committed to national and international obligations through the treaties and conventions. But this does not oblige them to ignore their domestic interventions neither their rights to make reservations to any provisions of the convention to accommodate their domestic situation when they implement it locally. 

A practical example is the harvesting of crocodiles that is never taken seriously by the ministry, which would help reduce human-wildlife conflict and at the same time benefit the community by selling the meat and skins, and utilise the income to empower the community by funding their projects.