Namibia – a country with less than 3 million population – to be exact 2,645,805, in 2024 – is facing the worst food crisis amidst the worst drought in decades. To solve the hunger crisis, the Namibian government announced to sacrifice 723 wild animals namely elephants, hippos, buffaloes, impalas, wildebeests, and zebras on August 29 – a decision condemned by the wildlife conservationist.
“This is a tragic and short-sighted approach,” said Emmanuel Kankara, an activist working for the Namibian Wildlife Conservation Trust. “This isn’t about feeding people; it’s about winning votes,” said Edgar Toivo, another conservationist. “These elephants are critical to the ecosystem, and their loss would be devastating,” said Matana Ng’weli, a wildlife scientist at Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute specializing in elephant conservation. And there are many more concerns and condemnations.
While the Namibian Government was suggested to look at the root cause of the food crisis and to focus on efficient agricultural technology, what does condemnation and advice mean to those malnourished people who waded through rugged terrain desperately searching for food and water? Albeit, I am not able to fathom their desperation as I never starved except for ritual fasting during Ramadan.
While acknowledging the failure and shortsighted approach of the Namibian Government, let us think about possible means to saving the hungry lives before we show our concern about the wildlife and ecosystem.
According to the UNEP 2023 report, different kinds of food waste exist. More than 900 million tons of food were lost in the supply chain, from harvest to reaching retail shelves in 2021. A different category of food waste comprises suboptimal food – defined for various causes such as the distortion of shape, near-expiry date, and packaging or wrapping. However, the intrinsic nutrient quality and safety of the foods remain unchanged. Much of those foods go to the bin because of consumers’ reluctance to purchase or consume those suboptimal food – eventually thrown as waste.
According to a report from UNEP 2024, global household, food service, and retail food waste was estimated to be 1.05 billion tons in 2022. In reality, the data might be far less than the actual food waste. A simple math tells us that 2,876,712 tons of food go to waste every day – numerically that is more than the head counts in Namibia.
Surely one Namibian would not need one ton (1000 Kg) of food a day for their survival. On average, 1-1.5 Kg of food per day is sufficient for an average human. Thus, considering other categories of food waste, a couple of thousand times more food is going to waste than a human needs a day.
The concern is how to send that food – before it goes to waste – to the hungry people around the world. Looking at the advancement of transport technology, we can claim confidently that the world today does not lack the logistics and resources to send those foods to Namibia and elsewhere. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines were sent to every corner of the world in weeks if not in days.
It could be argued that the situation during the pandemic was acute and not chronic, while the food shortage and famine in African countries is a chronic problem. Hence solving an acute problem is not the same as a chronic one. Yet, it is not a strong argument.
For the sake of peace and democracy, world leaders have shown their ability and enthusiasm to provide a continuous supply of warheads and arms to anywhere in the world. Sending a continuous supply of food to a famine-stricken country is not a big deal.
Therefore, wildlife conservationists and scientists might consider putting pressure on the world leaders to aid the agenda of food supply to the hungry people on a regular basis. In addition, they also could have their own agenda to collect and distribute foods that are potentially “destined” to go to waste among the hungry people in Africa. Even regular passenger aircraft could offer a certain space to transfer food to those who are in need.
While wildlife and environment protection groups have their own budget for many environmental protection programs and projects, they could have one on food distribution to the hungry people. This could be justified with the rationale that wildlife will continue to live for the balance of the ecosystem rather than becoming the meal of hungry people. Furthermore, if those Africans remain healthy, the target for environmental protection will be easier to achieve too.
The author is the Deputy Executive Director of International Institute of Public Policy and Management, Universiti Malaya.
Leave a comment