Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:11:32.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between Global Interests and Local Needs: Conservation and Land Reform in Namaqualand, South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Tor A. Benjaminsen ,
Thembela Kepe  and
Stine Bråthen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the case of the creation and expansion of Namaqua National Park in Namaqualand, South Africa, to highlight the contradictions between global interests in biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods. Despite the policy shift in the conservation literature from ‘fortress’ to community-based conservation, we argue that in practice conservation still tends to dominate when there is a trade-off between Western-style conservation and support to the livelihoods of marginalized communities. This can again be explained by the hegemony of a conservation discourse that is shared by a network of actors. The article highlights the role played by powerful environmental organizations and wealthy individuals supporting conservation at the expense of land redistribution in Namaqualand. The combination of scientific research and finances provided by this actor-network aided the creation and expansion of the Park. Local people, however, see the expansion of the Park as direct and unfair competition for land that they wish to acquire through the land redistribution programme, as well as an indirect challenge to their local livelihoods. Whatever the merits of their case, it seems clear that communities aspiring to more land, together with advocates of human rights and poverty alleviation, remain on the margins in terms of policy influence, especially when they pursue goals that are perceived by the conservation advocates to be in conflict with those of biodiversity conservation.

Cet article présente le cas de la création et de l'expansion du parc national Namaqua dans le Namaqualand, en Afrique du Sud, pour mettre en lumière les contradictions entre les intérêts mondiaux de conservation de la biodiversité et les moyens d'existence locaux. Malgré le changement de politique observé dans la littérature consacrée à la conservation, où la notion de 〈forteresse〉 fait place à celle de conservation communautaire, l'article soutient que dans la pratique, la conservation a encore tendance à dominer en cas d'arbitrage entre conservation à l'occidentale et soutien aux moyens d'existence de communautés marginalisées. Ceci peut aussi s'expliquer par l'hégémonie d'un discours de la conservation partagé par un réseau d'acteurs. L'article souligne le rôle des puissantes organisations environnementales et de riches particuliers qui soutiennent la conservation au détriment d'une redistribution des terres au Namaqualand. L'effet conjugué de la recherche scientifique et des moyens financiers apportés par ce réseau d'acteurs a favorisé la création et l'expansion du parc. La population locale, quant à elle, considère que l'expansion du parc est en compétition directe et injuste pour les terres qu'elle souhaite acquérir dans le cadre du programme de redistribution des terres, ainsi qu'une menace indirecte sur les moyens d'existence locaux. Quelle que soit la valeur de leur argument, il semble clair que les communautés qui aspirent à plus de terres, avec les défenseurs des droits de l'humain et de la réduction de la pauvreté, restent à la marge en termes d'influence sur la politique, notamment lorsqu'ils poursuivent des objectifs perçus par les partisans de la conservation comme étant contraires à ceux de la conservation de la biodiversité.

Type
Research Article
Information
Africa , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 223 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © International African Institute 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K. and Svarstad, H. (2001) ‘Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses’, Development and Change 32 (4): 681–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aliber, M. (2003) ‘Chronic poverty in South Africa: incidence, causes and policies’, World Development 31 (3): 437–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allsopp, N., Laurent, C., Debeaudoin, M. C. and Samuels, M. I. (2007) ‘Environmental perceptions and practices of livestock keepers on the Namaqualand commons challenge conventional rangeland management’, Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4): 740–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anseeuw, W., Laurent, C., Modiselle, S., Carstens, J. and van der Poll, S. (2001) ‘Diversity of rural farming households and policy issues: an analysis based on a case study in the northern Cape Province’. Paper presented at the African Institute of South Africa conference on ‘South Africa since 1994: lessons and prospects’, Pretoria.Google Scholar
Beinart, W. (2003) The Rise of Conservation in South Africa: settlers, livestock, and the environment 1770–1950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjaminsen, T. A., Rohde, R. F., Sjaastad, E., Wisborg, P. and Lebert, T. (2006) ‘Land reform, range ecology, and carrying capacities in Namaqualand, South Africa’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (3): 524–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, R. (1993) At the Hand of Man: peril and hope for Africa's wildlife. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1981) ‘Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so’ in Knorr-Cetina, K. and Cicourel, A. (eds), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: toward an integration of macro and micro sociologies. Boston: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chapin, M. (2004) ‘A challenge to conservationists’, World Watch Magazine (November–December): 17–31.Google Scholar
Cowling, R. and Pierce, S. (1999) Namaqualand — a Succulent Desert. Vlaeberg: Fernwood Press.Google Scholar
Desmet, P. G. (2007) ‘Namaqualand: a brief overview of the physical and floristic environment’, Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4): 570–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Toit, J. T., Walker, B. H. and Campbell, B. M. (2004) ‘Conserving tropical nature: current challenges for ecologists’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 (1): 12–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, M. T., Allsopp, N. and Rohde, R. F. (2007) ‘Sustainable land use in Namaqualand, South Africa: key issues in an interdisciplinary debate’, Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4): 561–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hongslo, E. and Benjaminsen, T. A. (2002) ‘Turning landscapes into “nothing”: a narrative on land reform in Namibia’, Forum for Development Studies 29 (2): 321–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (2003) Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: cases from Africa. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Kepe, T. (2004) ‘Land restitution and biodiversity conservation in South Africa: the case of Mkambati, Eastern Cape Province’, Canadian Journal of African Studies 38 (3): 688–704.Google Scholar
Kepe, T. and Cousins, B. (2002) ‘Radical land reform is key to sustainable rural development in South Africa’. Policy Brief No. 3, Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
Kepe, T., Wynberg, R. and Ellis, W. (2005) ‘Land reform and biodiversity conservation in South Africa: complementary or in conflict?’, International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 1 (1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, M. and Mearns, R. (1996) ‘Environmental change and policy’ in Leach, M. and Mearns, R. (eds), The Lie of the Land: challenging received wisdom on the African environment. Oxford: James Currey.Google Scholar
Lebert, T. and Rohde, R. (2007) ‘Land reform and the new elite: exclusion of the poor from communal land in Namaqualand, South Africa’, Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4): 818–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. B. and Rebelo, A. G. (1996) Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Department of Environment and Tourism.Google Scholar
Maddox, G. (2002) ‘“Degradation narratives” and “population time bombs”: myths and realities about African environments’ in Dovers, S., Edgecombe, R. and Guest, W. (eds), South Africa's Environmental History: cases and comparisons. Cape Town: David Philip.Google Scholar
Magome, H. and Murombedzi, J. (2003) ‘Sharing South African National Parks: community, land and conservation in a democratic South Africa’ in Adams, W. M. and Mulligan, M. (eds), Decolonizing Nature: strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
May, H. (2006) ‘Soebatsfontein’ in Surplus People Project, Hope for the Future: lessons and learnings. Cape Town: Surplus People Project.Google Scholar
May, H. and Lahiff, E. (2007) ‘Land reform in Namaqualand, 1994–2005: a review’, Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4): 782–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namaqua National Park (2002) ‘Summary of proposed land acquisitions in NNP’. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Penn, N. (2004) ‘Land rights, missionaries and surveyors: Khoisan identity and the Komaggas community’ in History of Surveying and Land Tenure: surveying and land tenure at the Cape 1813–1912. Collected Papers, Vol. 2. Cape Town: Institute of Professional Land Surveyors and Geomaticians of the Western Cape.Google Scholar
Ramutsindela, M. and Tsheola, J. (2002) ‘Transfrontier conservation areas: a framework for managing peace and nature in southern Africa?’ in Benjaminsen, T. A.Cousins, B. and Thompson, L. (eds), Contested Resources: challenges to the governance of natural resources in Southern Africa. Cape Town: PLAAS, School of Government, University of the Western Cape.Google Scholar
Rohde, R. F., Hoffman, M. T. and Allsopp, N. (2003) ‘Hanging on a wire — a historical and socio-economic study of Paulshoek village in the Leliefontein communal area of Namaqualand’. PLAAS Research Report No. 4, Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government, University of the Western Cape.Google Scholar
Sanderson, S. (2005) ‘Poverty and conservation: the new century's “peasant question”?’, World Development 33 (2): 323–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, S. E. and Redford, K. H. (2003) ‘Contested relationships between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation’, Oryx 37 (4): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SANParks (2006) ‘Namaqua National Park park management plan’. October.Google Scholar
Surplus People Project (1997) ‘Namaqualand District Planning and Management Project. Report on the current situation concerning livestock farming in reservations, municipal areas (including communal areas) and areas with communal grazing in Namaqualand’. Printed report. Springbok: Surplus People Project.Google Scholar
Surplus People Project (1999) ‘Namaqualand District Planning and Management Project’. Final report. Springbok: Surplus People Project.Google Scholar
Surplus People Project (2003) ‘Case study two: the Hondeklipbaai community’. Unpublished report prepared by Sue Tilley, copy in possession of the authors.Google Scholar
Todd, S. W. and Hoffman, M. T. (1999) ‘A fence-line contrast reveals effects of heavy livestock grazing on plant diversity and community composition in Namaqualand, South Africa’, Plant Ecology 142: 169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooyen, M. W. (2002) ‘Management of the old field vegetation in the Namaqua National Park, South Africa: conflicting demands of conservation and tourism’, Geographical Journal 168 (3): 211–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, G. and Murray, M. (2000) ‘An investigation of commonages in Namaqualand’. Report. Department of Land Affairs, Northern Cape.Google Scholar
Wisborg, P. (2006) ‘It Is Our Land: human rights and land tenure reform in Namaqualand, South Africa’. PhD thesis, Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric), Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås.Google Scholar
Wisborg, P. and Rohde, R. (2005) ‘Contested land tenure reform in South Africa: experiences from Namaqualand’, Development Southern Africa 22 (3): 409–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WWF–South Africa (2003) ‘The making of a legacy’, Veld and Flora 89 (2): 44.Google Scholar
Wynberg, R. and Kepe, T. (1999) ‘Land reform and conservation areas in South Africa: towards a mutually beneficial approach’. Report, World Conservation Union (IUCN), Pretoria.Google Scholar