In several situations we have seen the suppression of the voices of the voiceless. Namibia has planned to kill hundreds of its majestic species of animals, including elephants, zebras, buffaloes, and antelopes, to combat their recent drought situation exemplifying another such situation. Some who are normally against Namibia's wildlife policy have expressed fury at these intentions, while others who know nothing about Namibia have expressed confusion.
The incredibly bad rainfall season of 2023–2024 led to Namibia's worst drought in a century. The majority of the country's crops in the northeastern regions have completely failed, leaving those areas with an acute food crisis.
Communities in the drier western regions of the nation that depend more on cattle are marginally more tolerant to drought than crop farmers; nonetheless, this dreadful season follows numerous other droughts (such as those that occurred in 2022–2023, 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019), from which this region has not yet fully recovered. This year the situation has been made worse by El Nino.
“This exercise is necessary and is in line with our constitutional mandate where our natural resources are used for the benefit of Namibian citizens,” the country’s Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Tourism said in a press statement on August 26. They are of the opinion that animal meat would give relief to the hungry citizens affected by the drought.
However, Namibia being in the most drought-prone area of Africa and facing recurring droughts raises questions on their implementation of fairer strategies to combat the problem. Killing such a huge number of animals would create disbalance between the natural world and the human world.
The argument that wildlife or other natural resources can be used to serve human needs justly becomes fallacious here since it is known how from July to August, this region anyway faces poor growth of some very vital crops. Such cases demand keeping food stocks to serve later in these situations of droughts.
The government is concerned that animals may have to travel in search of food and water during the drought, thus posing a threat to human populations. However, implementing innovative strategies fostering coexistence rather than destruction can also serve as an alternative.
Programs that promote education, create wildlife corridors, and involve local communities in conservation efforts can help reduce conflicts and ensure a balanced approach to wildlife management. Moreover, non-lethal techniques should be implemented to avoid such conflicts.
Culling some animals is another way the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Tourism intends to lessen the impact of the drought on wildlife, according to a statement from the ministry. According to the government, it would assist "in managing the current grazing pressure and water availability...in certain parks and communal areas where we feel numbers exceed available grazing and water."
But the lack of compassion in this approach calls for exploration of alternative approaches to managing wildlife during drought conditions. One effective strategy would be to enhance water and food provisioning by establishing supplemental feeding stations and developing artificial waterholes to ensure wildlife have access to essential resources. Besides, investing in habitat restoration and expanding protected areas can improve resource availability and ecosystem resilience.
The CEO of Vantara promised Vivaan Karani, the High Commissioner of the Republic of Namibia, in a letter that the Gujarat-based animal welfare charity was ready to offer permanent care or interim housing to animals facing euthanasia. This initiative highlights the importance of collaborative measures to find a middle-path solution. Similarly, it is necessary for more and more countries to step up and provide such solutions to the affected nation. Opponents have minimized the drought, preferring to draw attention to the national elections in November as the catalyst for the cull.
Though political decisions ultimately drive all government actions, it is implausible to think that SWAPO, the ruling party, could inflate the effects of a record-breaking drought to coincide with their election. Indeed, if these were prosperous and plentiful times, SWAPO would feel more at ease with the political climate in Namibia. Political decisions are indeed inescapably made by governments.
However, using a severe drought as an excuse for divisive actions like culling might be interpreted as putting short-term political benefits ahead of morally sound and long-term fixes. By making it seem like that the culling to be an essential reaction to the drought, the administration might draw focus away from more environmentally friendly and compassionate options that could ease the situation without going to such extreme lengths. This putting short-term gains ahead of long-term issues by political parties, frequently fall short of addressing the crisis's underlying roots.
Actions like suaging voter fears or demonstrating decisive action would cause issues to worsen in long-term. To address both the immediate effects of the drought and the larger ecological needs, the government should invest in comprehensive solutions that integrate scientific research, community engagement, and long-term planning rather than concentrating on self-serving techniques.
The stimulation of local economies relied on culling by selling meat and byproducts might lead to unfavorable incentives putting short-term profit ahead of long-term conservation. This strategy undermines more humane, sustainable alternatives like habitat restoration and community-based wildlife management and runs the risk of extending an exploitative cycle. At some point, the financial gains might be outweighed by ethical and ecological imbalance. Thus there is a need for balanced conservation policies that will ultimately maintain ecosystems and animals.
Considering moral, practical, and ecological reasons, it is imperative that animals in Namibia be protected from culling. Being both vulnerable as well as valuable beings, animals should be safeguarded. Each species is critical to preserving ecological balance and supplying basic functions; culling has a negative ecological impact on ecosystems and biodiversity.
Non-lethal alternatives are frequently more humane and sustainable when it comes to controlling wildlife. If humans have a right to live, so do animals because the planet was their home before ours because according to Darwin's evolution, we, ourselves, emerged from apes. By defending animal rights and encouraging conservation, we conserve biodiversity, maintain the integrity of ecosystems, and recognize the inherent
worth of every living thing.
About the Author
I am Sanchari Mukherjee, a student doing Masters in English from the reputed Presidency University, Calcutta. I love writing and appreciate art in all forms. Being a literature major, i have learnt to critically comment on situations and contexts of various kinds. I take a lot of interest in current affairs and like to cover those topics in articles I write. Really glad that you came across my blog, hope you found it informative!
Comments