Chinese logging and other plans in Zambezi should be halted

Ben S. Siyambango ­Nzehengwa writes:

There is at present in the Zambezi Region an area called State Forest where logging and cutting of trees was altogether prohibited before independence.

The area was first designated in the late 1970s by the former administration for Caprivians, which saw the necessity to preserve and protect that corridor mainly for two reasons, i.e. the protection of rare and valuable forestry species to mitigate environmental degradation caused by soil erosion since that area is in deep Kalahari sands. Secondly, it was to protect the wild animal corridor routes between Zambia, the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel (ECZ) and former the Bechuanaland Protectorate, since the area is used as an animal migration route. The area was administered by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry which was part of the administration for Caprivians until February 1990 and therefore did not fall under any Traditional Authority in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel.



DOES THE LAW APPLY?

There are now questions pertaining to the status of this forest because the area has been identified as a potential site for tobacco farming. One of the questions being raised so far is whether the forest was gazetted by the former administration for Caprivians? It should be borne in mind that this was not possible because prior to the independence of Namibia that region or area was administered directly from South Africa in accordance with Proclamation 147 of 1939 by the Union of South Africa, which transferred the administration of ECZ from former German South West Africa to the South African Minister of Bantu Affairs.

Additionally, there were laws in place which prohibited the application of laws passed by both the South African Parliament and the SWA Assembly over former ECZ. Therefore, both the Forest Act of South Africa and the Forest Ordinance of SWA 1971 did not apply to former ECZ.

However, on 10th June 1999 Namibian government promulgated an Act of Parliament, i.e. Application of Laws to the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, Act 10 of 1999. This Act provided for the application of certain laws to the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, the operation of which was excluded by virtue of the provision of certain pre-independence laws.

Whereas Section 38(5) of the SWA Constitution Act 1968 (Act no 39 of 1968) provided that no Act of Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and no ordinance of the Legislative Assembly of the then Territory of South West Africa passed on or after the first day of November 1951 would apply in that part of the said territory that was demarcated and known as the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel unless it was expressly declared so to apply.

And whereas, notwithstanding the repeal of that section by Article 147 of the Namibian Constitution that provision presently still has effect by virtue of Section 11(2) of the interpretation proclamation, 1920, (proclamation no 37 of 1920).

And whereas it is considered necessary to empower ministers to extend the said Eastern Caprivi Zipfel the operation of laws, which by virtue of South West Africa Constitution Act, 1968, presently do not apply in that part of the territory.

Now, therefore be enacted by the Parliament of the Republic of Namibia as follows:

A minister responsible for any ministry in which and law is administered which is not applicable by virtue of the provisions of section 38 (5) of South West Africa Constitution Act 1968 (Act no39 of 1968) as repealed by article 147 of the Namibian Constitution, in that part of the territory which was known as Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, may by notice in the Gazette declare such Law to be applicable also in the said Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, with effect from a date specified in such notice.

Meanwhile, the Forest Act 2001 was passed in Parliament with some provision to declare certain areas as State Forests. However, to date no such laws have been made applicable in the Eastern Caprivi and this could mean both the Forest Act of 2001 and the Environmental Manage­ment Act no 7 of 2007 may be subject to the above stipulations.



A FIRM NO

Furthermore, the tobacco plantation does not necessarily have to be located where a State Forest has already been designated unless of course the promoters have ulterior motives with regard to the resources within the State Forest.

Eastern Caprivi Zipfel is currently an area under dispute and bringing controversial projects such as a tobacco plantation here to be imposed on the community is not a solution. The destruction of the ecosystem and habitats of the region by people who do not hail from the area is simply not acceptable.

Seeing that charity begins at home why can't the tobacco project be taken to China or to the villages of those behind the project? We say no to a tobacco project in a State Forest or to any project likely to impact negatively on our environment.