98
4
has classified Namaqualand as one of 25 ‘biodiversity hotspots’ in the world.
Scientists and environmentalists have long claimed that the small-scale livestock
farming carried out in the communal areas is a threat to biodiversity (Todd and
Hoffman 1999; Desmet 2007; Hoffman et al. 2007). In their description of ‘overgrazing’ and ‘desertification’ in Namaqualand, Cowling and Pierce (1999:138) wrote for
example that
» … the amount of land under communal use can be expanded – as is, indeed,
happening today. Ultimately, however, this land will also be desertified unless
some way can be found to manage it within the limits imposed by its production potential.
These attitudes are rooted in the dominant views during colonialism of the agricultural methods of ‘native Africans’ being ecologically destructive and economically
ineffective (Maddox 2002). Today, these attitudes are still central within the dominant discourse of small-scale agriculture in Africa, particularly in South Africa
where this discourse is re-produced by the Department of Agriculture, white farmers, national park authorities and other environmental authorities, national and
international environmental groups, and many scientists. As a consequence, conservationists and scientists have mobilized funds for expansion of protected areas and
implementation of other environmental measures (Hoffman et al. 2007). These
funds have come from wealthy South Africans as well as conservation organizations
such as WWF and Conservation International.
One may, however, argue that it is ethically problematic to prioritise protection
of biodiversity at a maximum level over the fight against poverty in an area that has
been through 300 years of repression and marginalization under colonial rule and
apartheid (Benjaminsen et al. 2006; Benjaminsen et al. 2008) (see also 7 Chap. 7). It
seems as if environmental protection has taken over as an argument for a continued
uneven distribution of land in Namaqualand. Neither is it in any way certain that
the livestock kept by poor people have the negative effects on pastures and biodiversity that many claim (Benjaminsen et al. 2006; Allsopp et al. 2007; Hongslo et al.
2009). After several hundred years of intensive livestock keeping there is still a high
endemic biodiversity in Namaqualand. It is also interesting to note that Namaqua
National Park was established on some of the hardest used land in Namaqualand.
Much of the land that is now part of the national park was previously managed by
the mining company De Beers that kept sheep on the land to supply mine workers
with meat.
Namaqua National Park was established in January 2002 and thereafter
expanded rapidly. In 2006, the park covered 93,000 hectares, and in 2020, it has
extended to 146,000 hectares. The park and its rapid expansion have been in direct
competition with land reform (Benjaminsen et al. 2008) (. Fig. 4.1).
Land redistribution in South Africa is market-based, meaning that the agricultural
authorities assist people with little or no land in buying farms that are up for sale.
These farms are still mostly owned by white people. Each family has the right to a
certain level of support based on certain criteria, which in practice imply that many
families (50–100 or more) must come together to manage land, which previously
Chapter 4 · Conservation Discourses Versus Practices
4
has classified Namaqualand as one of 25 ‘biodiversity hotspots’ in the world.
Scientists and environmentalists have long claimed that the small-scale livestock
farming carried out in the communal areas is a threat to biodiversity (Todd and
Hoffman 1999; Desmet 2007; Hoffman et al. 2007). In their description of ‘overgrazing’ and ‘desertification’ in Namaqualand, Cowling and Pierce (1999:138) wrote for
example that
» … the amount of land under communal use can be expanded – as is, indeed,
happening today. Ultimately, however, this land will also be desertified unless
some way can be found to manage it within the limits imposed by its production potential.
These attitudes are rooted in the dominant views during colonialism of the agricultural methods of ‘native Africans’ being ecologically destructive and economically
ineffective (Maddox 2002). Today, these attitudes are still central within the dominant discourse of small-scale agriculture in Africa, particularly in South Africa
where this discourse is re-produced by the Department of Agriculture, white farmers, national park authorities and other environmental authorities, national and
international environmental groups, and many scientists. As a consequence, conservationists and scientists have mobilized funds for expansion of protected areas and
implementation of other environmental measures (Hoffman et al. 2007). These
funds have come from wealthy South Africans as well as conservation organizations
such as WWF and Conservation International.
One may, however, argue that it is ethically problematic to prioritise protection
of biodiversity at a maximum level over the fight against poverty in an area that has
been through 300 years of repression and marginalization under colonial rule and
apartheid (Benjaminsen et al. 2006; Benjaminsen et al. 2008) (see also 7 Chap. 7). It
seems as if environmental protection has taken over as an argument for a continued
uneven distribution of land in Namaqualand. Neither is it in any way certain that
the livestock kept by poor people have the negative effects on pastures and biodiversity that many claim (Benjaminsen et al. 2006; Allsopp et al. 2007; Hongslo et al.
2009). After several hundred years of intensive livestock keeping there is still a high
endemic biodiversity in Namaqualand. It is also interesting to note that Namaqua
National Park was established on some of the hardest used land in Namaqualand.
Much of the land that is now part of the national park was previously managed by
the mining company De Beers that kept sheep on the land to supply mine workers
with meat.
Namaqua National Park was established in January 2002 and thereafter
expanded rapidly. In 2006, the park covered 93,000 hectares, and in 2020, it has
extended to 146,000 hectares. The park and its rapid expansion have been in direct
competition with land reform (Benjaminsen et al. 2008) (. Fig. 4.1).
Land redistribution in South Africa is market-based, meaning that the agricultural
authorities assist people with little or no land in buying farms that are up for sale.
These farms are still mostly owned by white people. Each family has the right to a
certain level of support based on certain criteria, which in practice imply that many
families (50–100 or more) must come together to manage land, which previously
Chapter 4 · Conservation Discourses Versus Practices