Editorial Comment: Facts, not rhetoric, the answer

Zimbabwe is an open society and those wishing to influence Government policy can, and frequently do, lobby for alternatives, especially where different policies can lead to the same desired results.

The management of natural resources has a particularly rich history of partnerships between Government and non-Government bodies and of debate that has led to improvements and consensus.

This is why it is so unfortunate that the new Hwange Conservation Consortium has decided on confrontation, and done it in such a way that the Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate has had to make it clear that it does not recognise this new non-governmental organisation.

As the ministry notes, the law makes it clear that the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority is the sole regulatory and management body for all wildlife conservation. The authority became an independent body, largely derived from the old Government Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management, largely as a result of lengthy debate initiated by NGOs who felt a more powerful and independent agency was needed than a department within the civil service, and interesting example of when lobby groups did change Government policy.

This is not to say that the authority is the source of all wisdom; it can get things wrong but since it does consult widely as it draws up coherent, rational programmes that try and balance conflicting needs it usually does well.

The HCC would be far more effective if it believes there is a better plan to lobby within the system. And the ministry has made it clear that it has no problems with organisations working with the ZPWMA and in fact has advised the HCC to do this.

Others in the past have changed policies by joining the debate and by sensible lobbying. In the 1980s the Wildlife Society of Zimbabwe hosted debates and talks and backed research into the best ways of controlling tsetse, at that time largely fought by blanketing vast areas of northern Zimbabwe with DDT. By presenting research from a wide range of disciplines, the society was able to show that the environmental damage was severe, and that there were other solutions that cost no more that would do the job as well. Policy changed.

Even a single issue lobby group can have an impact if it uses the correct channels. Again in the 1980s there was a plan to develop the next hydro-electric scheme at Mupata Gorge, possibly the best site technically but one that would flood the Mana Pools and cause a lot of other damage. A group of very concerned people formed the Zambezi Society and initiated public debate, drawing out a lot of research.

Sensibly, instead of just voicing opposition, the society sought environmental impact assessments and cost-benefit analyses and asked that all options to augment power supplies were examined, instead of just one.

The debate and the resulting research did push through a change. It was found that the environmental costs of Mupata were huge, that the alternative scheme at Bakota had far lower environmental costs while being only marginally below Mupata on technical grounds.

So the decision was taken that Bakota Gorge would be the site of the next hydro-scheme. The Zambezi Society made it clear all along that it was not opposed to the desire and need for a new hydro scheme. It accepted that this would happen. What it wanted was the best scheme, and by concentrating on the means of achieving that, rather than opposing the end, it was able to uncover the facts that made a change in the initial decision.

The HCC should follow these routes if it wants to amend the Wildlife Management Plan. Accepting the goals of the plan has to be the first step. Then it is possible to debate what are the best ways of achieving those goals. If the facts are presented that suggest something better than what we have, then we will change. But it needs facts, not rhetoric, and it does require acceptance that the Government is the final arbiter and the only way of improving a programme is to work with those who have to implement that programme.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey