NECESSITY OR OVERREACH? ANALYSING NAMIBIA’S DECISION TO CULL SEVEN HUNDRED ANIMALS

INTRODUCTION –

Currently, Namibia is grappling with a severe drought, which has significantly impacted its ability to grow crops and therefore sustain its population. With 84% of its food reserves used up, the country is experiencing a hunger crisis. The Namibian government, in trying to respond to the crisis, has determined to cull seven hundred animals citing the need to generate enough meat that will sustain its population as well as reduce competition for the dwindling grazing and water resources. From the anthropocentric standpoint, this decision “solves” two problems: feeding the population and conserving limited natural resources.

A decision of this kind, however, has implications far beyond the sovereign borders of the land of Namibia. As it symbolizes a challenging conflict between the need to address Namibia's food crisis and the right to be free from hunger, and the necessity of preserving biodiversity and safeguarding emerging animal rights.

THE NEED TO BALANCE THE RIGHT TO FOOD WITH THE PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY –

Treaties, an essential source of International human rights law, have increasingly recognized the need for the protection of biodiversity by acknowledging the interdependence of all living beings. This can be evidenced by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (hereinafter referred as ‘CITES’), to which Namibia is a party. It recognizes that these species are irreplaceable elements of the earth’s natural system and must be preserved for the benefit of both present and future generations. Another such instrument is the Convention on Biological Diversity (hereinafter referred as ‘CBD’) which requires Namibia to protect its biodiversity through sustainable practices to maintain a balance of ecosystems.

However, the mass culling by Namibia contradicts all these commitments.

NECESSITY: NAMIBIA’S JUSTIFICATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW –

Namibia has justified its move on the grounds of necessity. Article 25 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts permits the invocation of necessity if the act safeguards an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril. In this case, the essential interest Namibia sought to protect was the survival and well-being of its population, which faced the grave and imminent peril of hunger. However, necessity is not an open-ended justification and requires proof that it was the only option available to safeguard that essential interest.

When tested against the cornerstone of necessity, Namibia’s justification falls short. As a ratified member of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (hereinafter referred as ‘ICESCR’), Namibia under Article 2 has a positive obligation to progressively realize the rights outlined in the treaty. Among these rights, Article 11 of ICESCR explicitly recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to adequate food. To fulfil these obligations, states are encouraged to seek international assistance and cooperation. Therefore, this provision offers Namibia an avenue to seek international support and assistance to address its food insecurity.

Given this, Namibia has alternative means available to protect its people from the fear of hunger. The country could have garnered international support and cooperation to address its food insecurity in a way that aligns with CBD and CITES. Moreover, for a long-term solution, Namibia instead of resorting to drastic measures like the mass culling of animals, which may seem like a quick fix, could have relocated the animals. By reducing competition for food and water resources, relocation would address the root of the problem while avoiding unwarranted harm to wildlife. Therefore, Culling was not the only option; it was a decision, not an inevitability.

Thus, Namibia’s reliance on necessity is unpersuasive. If feasible alternatives existed, like in this case the ability to seek aid from other member states, then the criteria for invoking necessity cannot be said to have been sufficiently met. 

ANIMAL RIGHTS AS AN END IN ITSELF –

Additionally, international jurisprudence is moving beyond the protection of animal welfare merely for human benefit. Increasingly, animals are being recognized as living beings with intrinsic value, deserving protection not just because of their role in the ecosystem,

but because they have rights of their own. This represents a great shift, from considering animals as a means to some other end to considering them as rights holders themselves.

The ruling in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., marked the first step in line in India, by recognizing that animals are sentient beings with an intrinsic value. The court held that animals have a basic right to life and dignity. Additionally, in 2022, in the Estrellita monkey case, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador further advanced this notion by interpreting the rights of animals within the constitutional guarantee of protection of the rights of nature.

In addition to the domestic legal frameworks, regional international human rights law frameworks have also recognized the intrinsic value of animals. For instance, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, pronounced a very powerful judgment. The court highlighted the idea that the right to a healthy environment stands as an autonomous right, one that goes beyond protecting the environment solely for the benefit of humans. The Court asserted that elements of nature are legal interests in themselves, deserving protection even when there is no direct or immediate threat to human life or health.

CONCLUSION –

Thus, in the midst of a food crisis, Namibia’s plan to slaughter seven hundred animals, brings to light the tension between human rights and the state’s international commitments to protect biodiversity and animal welfare. Although Namibia may have justified its actions by using the defense of necessity under international law, it is debatable if all other options had been explored before taking this extreme step.

Considering Namibia's responsibilities under international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the issue is not just one of survival but also one of sustainability and global accountability. Namibia's decision-making is further impacted by the global shift towards recognizing animal rights as ends in themselves, rather than just a means to achieve human-centric goals.

Consequently, as international human rights evolve it is crucial for Namibia to strike a careful balance, even in times of crisis.

Author: Ishita Soni