Why should the world care about the environment in places like Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Rwanda?

If there are any reasons why the world should care about the environmental issues in Africa, two immediate reasons come to mind: geopolitics and the concept of a global village. There are as many other reasons why any sane person should run as far away from the continent as posible. Even though Africa has great potential and resources, her endless woes and the buffoonery of her leaders, are an enduring night-mare that causes sleeplessness to the rest of the world.

However, people in Europe, Asia, America and the rest of the world are still drawn to Africa because it is almost impossible to shut the continent out from the rest of the world.

Africa's link with the rest of the world began with the scramble for her, where Great Britain, France, Portugal and Germany to mention a few, acquired colonies in Africa. Following independence from the colonial governments, political instability and internal conflicts have left an endless litany of human and environmental degradation in the continent.

In the case of Mozambique, Rwanda and Zimbabwe, the world's attention has been caught by the threat to their unique fauna and flora.

In some of the African conflicts, (like the liberation war in Mozambique) vested interests ensured that support (military and otherwise) continued to flow in from the former rulers.

For this, and other historical links, it has been difficult for the world, particularly the western world to turn a blind eye to what is going on in these countries.

On the other hand, the natural environment knows no boundaries. For instance, the well known annual migration of wildebeests in the Maasai-Mara and Serengeti National parks is a cross-border affair between Kenya and Tanzania. If there is disease outbreak among these animals or their environment is affected, it would not just be Kenyan or Tanzanian, but a regional problem.

This illustrates the fact that an environmental issue in one part of the world can take a global dimension, depending on its magnitude.

That said, the world has become a small village. Technological advancement in media reporting has ensured that the effects of the floods in Mozambique, the degradation of Gishwati forest in Rwanda, and malpractices in the Zimbabwean national parks are flashed in our living room television screens.

It therefore follows that a civilized world (knowing the importance of ecosystems), would use all resources at its disposal to restore any environmental degradation before it worsens. Furthermore,environmental issues linked to internal conflicts tend to have a spiral effect on neighboring countries.

In 1994, for example, one million Tutsis fled into neighboring Congo. Most of these refugees who did not have food, and shelter turned to the natural habitat for food and materials for building their homes. In effect the natural environment in Congo was now supporting a bigger population than it did before.

The net result was that both the political and environmental repercussions of war had now sucked in Congo, Uganda and all the international communities with vested interests there.

ln the Gishwati forests of Rwanda, the thick African mahogany, and the strangler figs were chopped down, to create room for potato and maize fields. The end result has been eroded terraces, and landslides that have killed people. Lake Kivu, on the Rwanda-Congo border now carries excess nutrients that pollutes rivers and affects the fishing industry.

War, conflict and political instability destroy even well-established economic institutions. In Zimbabwe, deforestation, poaching and unsustainable resource exploitation is destroying what was once among the best managed National park systems in the world.

Around Victoria Falls and Hwange National park, poaching for subsistence and for commercial purposes is on the rise. Since poaching is a high stakes activity, use of sophisticated weapons means that visitors, for fear of their safety, would avoid this part of Africa.

What this translates into is that an important foreign exchange earner has been brought to its knees. This exposes Zimbabwe to lending institutions like the World Bank, and IMF as an irresponsible regime which has failed to protect a sustainable natural resource.

In the case of Mozambique, the twelve year conflict resulted to massive destruction of the natural resource base. Wildlife was hunted both for meat and trophy by FRELIMO and RENAMO. That meant that the natural habitat in Gorongosa National park and the Zambezi delta were not self-sustaining. With destruction to infrastructure, the tourist industry had virtually come to a standstill. The natural environment could not sustain itself, threatening the very livelihood of subsistence farmers.

When hunger threatens a people, their natural recourse has always been to migrate to the neighboring countries who often cannot cope with the sudden influx of a large population; this was the case with Mozambicans who spilled into most of the southern African countries.

Massive resources have had to be mobilized to help not only in reconstruction, as was the case in Mozambique, but also in conservation of threatened species of wildlife like the rhino in Zimbabwe.

These, and many others, underscore the need for the world to care about the environment in Mozambique, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.

Bibliography:

www.crisisgroup.org

www.worldlife.org/bsp/publicat ions/africa/146/mozambique.pdf

www.und.ac.za/und/indic/archiv es/crime/issue10/conserv.html