Land Reform, Range Ecology, and Carrying Capacities in Namaqualand, South Africa

Abstract

In South African rangeland management, there is a long history of using the notion of carrying capacity as a central planning tool for environmental conservation and agricultural modernization. Today, in the new South Africa, the ''need'' for livestock keepers to adhere to a defined carrying capacity in order to conserve rangeland resources and to achieve economic development remains an institutionalized ''fact.'' In this article, we use interviews, livestock and rainfall data, policy documents, and aerial photos to discuss the idea of carrying capacity as it is currently used in the implementation of land reform in Namaqualand in the Northern Cape Province. This article is a contribution at the interface of human ecology and political ecology, linking environmental issues to economic constraints, land rights, social justice, and values. Policymakers and extension services usually see carrying capacity as a purely technical issue. We argue that this is problematic because it gives privilege to environmental sustainability and to one particular perception of the ideal landscape at the expense of livelihood security and poverty alleviation. It also perpetuates the colonial myth that the private ranch system is an ideal one, independent of disparate production goals and unequal economic opportunities and constraints, and it ignores evidence going back more than half a century that the Namaqualand range is capable of sustaining livestock densities far greater than those recommended. The winners that emerge from the current policy focus on carrying capacity are the few emergent black commercial farmers as well as conservationist interests; the losers are the majority of poor stockowners in the communal areas.

When not every response to climate change is a good one: Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation

“…Community-based adaptation initiatives are increasing in response to the top-down, technical approaches promoted by the scientific discourse on climate change (Huq and Reid, 2007). In the dominant scientific discourse, practices of the poor have often been blamed for environmental degradation, and resource control has consequently been transferred from local populations to central governments or to private actors (Benjaminsen et al, 2006). The third principle of sustainable adaptation recognizes that successful responses involve integrating local knowledge with other sources of knowledge about climate change.…”

Recent trends in the climate of Namaqualand, a megadiverse arid region of South Africa

“…10 The Succulent Karoo biome, including the Namaqualand region, is globally recognised as a biodiversity hotpot that is particularly vulnerable to climate change, 11 not only because of the high levels of biodiversity but also because of a high dependence of the region's population on natural resources, livestock production, and dryland agriculture. 12,13 Modelling studies have indicated that the Succulent Karoo may suffer a reduction in spatial extent of up to 40% as well as consequent reductions in the abundance and diversity of endemic species as a result of changes in temperature and rainfall. 14,15 In terms of individual species' responses to climate change, a study by Broennimann et al 16 found that geophytes and succulents, which make up over half of plant species in Namaqualand, were particularly vulnerable to climate change.…”

Misreading the Arctic landscape: A political ecology of reindeer, carrying capacities, and overstocking in Finnmark, Norway

“…Turner 1993;Bassett & Koli Bi 2000;Benjaminsen et al 2006;. While researchers and policymakers have been 'misreading African landscapes' (Fairhead & Leach 1996), we ask whether there is ground for a parallel shift in thinking about the Arctic.…”