The two places, Namibia in southwest Africa, and Sicily, the island-province in the south of Italy, are as far from each other geographically as one can imagine. Namibia is a poor and undeveloped country compared to Sicily, which is part of Italy, a member of the G7, one of the most industrialised and rich countries.
The drought in the two places – a case of acute scarcity – comes in different forms. In Namibia, the failure of monsoon has destroyed agriculture on a large scale. People are struggling for food. And the government is thinking of culling wild animals in the national parks, including 83 elephants, and to dis-tribute to the hungry people.
In Sicily, it is the scarcity of water. There is an acute shortage of water. The local government is ration-ing water, allowing supply once in two weeks. People are forced to buy water at exorbitant prices from private water-tanker suppliers. People in Sicily feel helpless, but they have no alternative but to pay the price.
It would not be easy to generalise from these two incidents, one in Europe and the other in Africa. But the global dimension of the problem stares us in the face. There is change in the pattern of monsoon. The monsoon is erratic, and it is causing shortages which are affecting the people at large. The gov-ernments are helpless because they have no control over the monsoon.
But there are lessons to be drawn, and measures to be taken to counter the crisis. The question to be raised in Namibia is whether people can eat the animals in the wild. The Namibian authorities plan to cull 723 animals, including 83 elephants, 30 hippos, 60 buffaloes, 100 blue wildebeest, 300 zebra and 100 eland. The argument offered by the authorities is that the animal population has grown large, and it had turned into a man-beast conflict.
It is reckoned that in southern Africa, the elephant population is 200,000, the largest in Africa. The au-thorities will have to check whether the meat of these animals is fit for human consumption, especially that of elephants, hippo and zebra. The consumption of their meat should not lead to medical prob-lems in the future.
And the natural question is: why is it that the Namibian government is not import-ing food, and if it is not able to pay for the imports, why is it not seeking food aid from the United Na-tions agencies?
The magnitude of the drought in Sicily is of a different dimension. Water scarcity can lead to all sorts of problems, including medical crises. But it seems that the local authorities are treating it as a temporary crisis. It is not the case that every drop of water has disappeared.
The authorities are appealing to citi-zens who own private wells to share the resource with the needy neighbours, and the private owners of wells are being promised rewards.
If the water crisis persists, then there will be major consequences. It could lead to migration, it could affect the prosperity of the people through fall in tourism, through shortage of food because of the failure of agriculture. And this could lead to mass migration.
The challenge that Namibia and the Italian government in Sicily face is indeed grave. If the drought in the two places is to be traced to the effects of climate change, then there is an urgency to counter cli-mate change issues at the global level. There would also be need to find local solutions to drought in the two places. In Namibia, it could mean recharging the water table, preserving green cover through forests so the monsoon plays less truant. In Sicily, it could mean changes in lifestyle. There are no readymade solutions. But there is need to think hard about them.
