Online Reporter
Theseus Mauruki Shambare in Victoria Falls
There was something almost poetic about the way the Secretary-General of Luxembourg’s Economic and Social Council, Daniel Becker, arrived at the Zimbabwe Tripartite Negotiating Forum Global Summit in Victoria Falls.
As the morning road stretched from his place of stay to the summit venue, Becker was not expecting the journey to become part of the summit experience itself.
Then, there it was.
An elephant appeared along the tarred road, its massive frame emerging from among the trees as Becker travelled towards the summit. He watched, taking in a sight that, for someone from Luxembourg, belonged more naturally in the pages of a school textbook than on a morning commute.
“In Luxembourg, even in a Grade One textbook, you cannot find a picture of a baboon or an elephant,” said Becker.
For him, coming to Zimbabwe was already a rare experience. Yet the country had not finished introducing him to its wild side.
During an excursion to Victoria Falls yesterday, Becker was drenched by the spray of Mosi-oa-Tunya, “the Smoke That Thunders”.
Soaked by the Falls, he did not complain.
“It was a blessing,” he said.
By the final morning of the five-day summit, baboons and impalas had joined the elephant on his growing list of encounters with animals in the wild.
But inside the resort, where even the golf course has over the years had to accept that elephants sometimes have the right of way, the conversation was about something seemingly far removed from wildlife.
It was about algorithms.
It was about artificial intelligence (AI), climate finance, the future of work, investment, industrialisation, social protection and whether economies can become more technologically advanced without leaving workers, communities or the natural environment behind.
The inaugural TNF Global Summit, which began on September 21 and ended yesterday, brought together Government, business, labour, investors, development partners, academics and other stakeholders from across the world under the theme: “Inclusive Growth, Decent Work, Beneficiation and Investment Promotion.”
It ended with the adoption of the Victoria Falls Declaration.
The setting itself made the contrast difficult to ignore.
Outside the conference rooms, Victoria Falls continued doing what it has done for generations: elephants moving through the landscape, trees responding to pressure and the Zambezi River feeding one of the continent’s most remarkable natural spectacles.
Inside, delegates were trying to work out how human systems should respond to equally profound disruptions.
AI was one of them.
Becker argued that the technology debate should ultimately return to a much simpler question: What is all this intelligence being used for?
“Seeing these animals this morning was a good reminder that ultimately the question is not only how intelligently we use AI, but what we choose to use that intelligence for,” he said.
Suddenly, the elephant outside and the algorithm inside did not seem so far apart.
Both were about adaptation. Both were about living within changing environments.
And both raised the question of how human beings should shape the environment in which they, and other forms of life, must survive.
Artificial intelligence can process information faster, identify risks and assist investment decisions. But the technology itself is not the destination.
“The technology itself is not the objective. The objective is the outcome,” Becker said.
For Luxembourg, he explained, the emphasis is increasingly on moving from simply collecting environmental, social and governance (ESG) data to using it intelligently.
AI can help assess climate risks such as flooding, droughts and extreme weather events, screen investments and identify potential greenwashing.
However, Becker cautioned against allowing machines to become decision-makers.
“AI should not decide where climate finance goes. Rather, AI should help us obtain the evidence behind decisions faster, more broadly and more transparently,” he said.
That distinction mattered in Victoria Falls because the summit was not simply a technology conference.
Delegates were grappling with the human consequences of technological change.
If machines become more capable, what happens to workers? If businesses become more productive, how should the gains be shared? If investment changes the structure of an economy, who benefits from the new opportunities?
And if a country pursues green growth, how does it protect workers and communities whose livelihoods may depend on industries undergoing transition?
Raúl Henríquez, Director and Secretary-General of Curaçao’s Social and Economic Council, brought the discussion closer to the workplace.
“AI is an instrument; the impact on human beings matters,” Henríquez said.
For him, that meant resisting the temptation to assume that technology developed elsewhere would automatically fit another economy.
“What works in Luxembourg may not work in Zimbabwe,” he said, stressing the importance of technologies suited to local circumstances and ecosystems.
Businesses, he said, needed practical advice on technologies that work within their own contexts, while workers needed accessible opportunities to learn as their responsibilities evolved.
“Workers need accessible opportunities to learn, including as responsibilities change,” Henríquez said.
Social dialogue, he argued, could help identify these needs before investment decisions were made and help determine how productivity gains could contribute to sustainable enterprises and improved outcomes for workers.
Tourism offered a particularly appropriate case study.
Curaçao, like Victoria Falls, is seeking to build a smarter and more sustainable tourism destination.
But becoming smarter, in Henríquez’s view, should not mean becoming less human.
“Becoming smarter should strengthen local businesses and improve the work of those who welcome visitors,” he said.
The message was simple: technology must be adapted to people, rather than people being forced to adapt to technology.
That principle extended beyond technology.
Elena Topoleva-Soldunova of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation challenged delegates to reconsider the role of civil society in development.
“NGOs should not be seen only as contractors delivering social services,” she said.
Their distinctive value, she argued, lies in their proximity to communities.
“NGOs possess community knowledge, local trust and the ability to detect problems early,” Topoleva-Soldunova said.
In her model of development, Government provides policy, rights and infrastructure; business brings investment and capacity; labour contributes workers’ voices, skills and practical knowledge; while civil society contributes local knowledge, trust and flexibility.
“People should be co-authors of development,” she said.
It was another version of the same conversation taking place around AI.
Different parts of society have different strengths.
The challenge is not to make one replace the other, but to find ways for them to work together.
Her argument fitted neatly into the summit’s broader emphasis on social dialogue.
The challenge is getting Government, business, labour, civil society and communities around the same table before decisions are made, rather than asking communities to react after decisions have already been taken.
Inside the conference room, that principle was tested in real time.
Perhaps nowhere was this more evident than in the debate over the Victoria Falls Declaration itself. The document sought to capture the summit’s broad priorities around inclusive growth, decent work, beneficiation, investment promotion, green growth, digitalisation and stronger institutional cooperation.
Yet agreeing on the wording proved to be part of the social dialogue process.
At one stage, sections dealing with implementation, monitoring and accountability were suspended after delegates questioned whether participating economic and social councils had the mandate to make binding commitments on behalf of their institutions.
One delegate from Luxembourg made the concern explicit, saying he could not commit his council to provisions that had not been considered by its governing structures.
The room paused. The document was reconsidered. Some provisions were removed, while others were amended.
A proposed new global co-operation platform was also questioned because existing international structures already performed related functions.
The language was adjusted.
The debate was not a sign of failure. It was social dialogue in its most literal form: people disagreeing over the details of a common document until they could collectively accept the wording. Eventually, the declaration was adopted as a common framework focused on inclusive growth, decent work, beneficiation and investment promotion.
The moment was revealing.
The summit was discussing how to live with disruption, but it was also demonstrating the more difficult task of learning to live with difference.
Different institutions had different mandates. Different countries had different systems. Different sectors had different interests.
Consensus, therefore, did not mean everyone started from the same position.
It meant finding language and commitments capable of accommodating those differences.
Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Edgar Moyo captured that point in his closing remarks.
“The closure of this summit is not the end of our engagement, but the beginning of continued dialogue, co-operation and collective action,” said Minister Moyo.
“The value of this summit will ultimately be reflected in the actions that follow.”
His words carried weight because the summit had deliberately moved beyond a narrow labour agenda.
Discussions ranged from industrialisation and beneficiation to green growth, energy security, agriculture, digitalisation, platform work, skills development, investment and social protection.
The final question, therefore, was not whether technology should be embraced.
It was how it should be governed.
Not whether investment should come, but what kind of investment creates productive capacity, decent work and lasting value.
Not whether economies should become greener, but how the transition can protect workers, enterprises and communities.
And perhaps most importantly, whether development can move forward without severing its relationship with the natural systems that sustain it.
For five days, the resort became a meeting point between those two worlds.
Outside, the trees around the resort bore the marks of elephants that had stripped them of their leaves. At first glance, they appeared damaged beyond repair. Yet nature has its own rhythm of recovery.
Given space and time, trees can sprout again, regenerate and become part of a renewed forest, even when the rains have not yet arrived.
There was a lesson in that too.
Nature does not always survive by resisting change. Sometimes it survives by adapting to it.
Inside the conference rooms, delegates were wrestling with a similar question in human terms: How do societies adapt when the environment, technology and economies around them are changing?
The elephant did not need an algorithm to survive. The algorithm did not need an elephant to function.
But the people designing the future need to understand both.
They need technology that works with people, development that works with communities and economic growth that can coexist with the natural environment.
In the end, perhaps that was the thread running through five days of speeches, panel discussions, negotiations and a declaration in Victoria Falls.
It was not simply a conversation about how to move forward.
It was a conversation about how to move forward together.
And as Becker discovered on that morning journey to the summit, sometimes the most complex conversation about the future begins with something very simple: an elephant standing by the road.
