Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro
Despite losing one of his cattle to a lion recently, Dr Erastus Mukuaruuze, a pastoralist in the Kunene Region (yesteryears’ Kaoko) and an old wise persona of note, hence the popular reference to him as “Dr,” did not become disillusioned or disappointed with the government’s conservation policy, particularly conservancies in his native Kaoko, as the Kunene Region is today known.
Nor did he lose faith in the Swapo Party of Namibia, of which he is a member.
Now 89 years old and expectedly very much deep-rooted in his traditions, especially of his native Kaoko, one of the last bastions, if not the only remaining bastion, of Otjiherero culture, the reference to “Dr” cannot but make one wonder what this actually means.
Is it part of the fashion, especially the craving among politicians to be known as “Dr” as much as few of them have swotted to earn such an accolade?
But for this octogenarian to be known as such is not strange at all, as he has proven himself, especially with regard and respect to his culture and tradition, in which he is certainly not only a guru but well-versed and thus deserving of the accolade of “Dr.”
More than anything, therein lay his steadfastness, a factor of the many years that he has been on mother earth and the many storms, political, ideological, and otherwise, he must have weathered all this time.
It is not so much because he may have been benefiting from any of the conservancies, not to mention the fact that nothing much have these conservancies done for the likes of him, pastoralists from grave to cradle, with the increasing human-wildlife conflicts that the region has been experiencing, the conservancies notwithstanding.
If his latest loss of a cattle is anything to go by, there is no telling how many cattle he may have lost in this manner. But there can be no mistaking, judging from his age and the increasing incidences of human-wildlife conflicts, that the conservancies notwithstanding, he must have endured much.
Still, his belief in the conservancies seems not only unshakable but unmistakable. Whether such is underwritten by his unbroken belief and unflinching support and loyalty to Swapo, only time will tell.
But more than anything, it seems this has much to do with his wisdom, a product of aging, having had the better as much as the worst of colonialism and equally post-colonialism, giving him the advantage of being in and of the post-colonial era, and thus the vantage position to compare the good and worse of both worlds.
Hence his belief that conservancies cannot be an end in themselves. The logic of his wisdom being that conservancies are and must be a means towards the end. But what is this end?
To paraphrase him: if conservancies are and can no longer serve the best interests of communities, then their usefulness and essence cannot but become suspect. It is clear to Dr Mukuaruuze that conservancies cannot exist in their own right with little and/or no impact on surrounding communities.
But somehow they must socio-economically be of benefit to the communities in which they are situated and/or are operating from and among. As much as he duly recognises that here and there conservancies, relatively, have something trickling down to communities, the trickling down must not be all that is to the conservancies.
He added that if conservancies cannot and are not serving their purpose, then they do not have the right to exist.
More often than not, conservancies have seemed like an end in themselves, this end being the satisfaction of the aesthetic cravings of especially, if not exclusively, foreigners. Conserved for, more than anything, tourists.
Without any empirical evidence that revenue generated by tourist activities justifies the existence of such conservancies, let alone how much of such revenue actually and/or by any means goes into developing the areas in which they are located, not to mention justifying the trouble the country goes to in sustaining the conservancies.
Yes, it is understandable that conservancies cannot solely exist for tourism purposes only, let alone for conservation per se, not to mention the need for maintaining an equilibrium in the ecosystem, as much as for posterity for the indigenes themselves, meaning the advantage of modern-day generations experiencing the wildlife first-hand in their country. But do they?
But be that as it may, the bottom line is: what is in it for the local communities? Conservation policies and measures must not lose sight of the fact that between such policies and measures there is a trade-off, something very much encapsulated by Dr Mukuaruuze when comparing the pre-colonial and post-colonial conservation policies and measures.
Pointing out, for example, that during the pre-colonial era, any wild animal preying on their domestic animals had to be put down, as the people were allowed to put down any problem wild animal.
Not only were they allowed to do so, but also equipped by being armed with rifles, as well as with lethal snares and the like.
But foremost, wild animals were a ready source of meat for the people, which is rarely the case today, with hunting, understandably due to increased poaching, forbidden.
Ordinary communities have been deprived of for the sake of conservation must somehow be compensated for. It is not clear what this compensation is, not to mention the meagre amount a member of a community who has lost their animal to a wild animal is paid.
