Elsevier

Geoforum

Volume 39, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 452-465
Geoforum

Market triumphalism and the CBNRM ‘crises’ at the South African section of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.09.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Transfrontier conservation has taken Southern Africa by storm, where the modus operandi remains simple and intuitive: by dissolving boundaries, local benefits grow as conservation and development spread regionally. However, in the case of South Africa’s section of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, political and economic change redirects benefits to support ‘modern’ economies at the expense of rural livelihoods through community-based natural resources management (CBNRM). Neo-liberal agendas promoted by government and the transfrontier park derail efforts at decentralizing CBNRM initiatives beyond markets and state control. This paper argues that ‘hybrid neoliberal’ CBNRM has arisen in private and public sector delivery of devolved conservation and poverty relief projects as ‘tertiary production’ for regional development. As a result, ‘CBNRM’ projects related to and independent of transfrontier conservation support private sector interests rather than the resource base of rural livelihoods. Concluding sections assert that CBNRM can counter this neoliberal trend by supporting the land-based economy of local users living near the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park.

Introduction

Transfrontier conservation has taken Southern Africa by storm. The modus operandi remains simple and intuitive: by dissolving boundaries, local benefits grow as conservation and development spread regionally (Sandwith et al., 2001, Ferreira, 2004). The recent trend in the region is for transfrontier initiatives to harness these benefits locally by bridging conservation and development through ‘community-based natural resources management’ (CBNRM). Supposedly scaling up CBNRM principles ensures benefits trickle down to poor, resource ‘dependent’ people near transfrontier areas (Katerere et al., 2001, Van der Linde et al., 2001, GLTP, 2004). We argue, however, that the neoliberal mode in which TFCA planners draw on ‘CBNRM ideals’ – conservation for local people that enhances natural capital and social equality – favors private sector investment in non-consumptive resource uses, rather than resource-based livelihoods (Kellert et al., 2000, Wolmer, 2003, Hughes, 2005). The assumption holds that drawing households into service sector activities, such as nature-based tourism, reduces local dependencies on natural resources in order to externalize use and environmental costs (Harvey, 2005). Nevertheless, as economic restructuring informs CBNRM and regional ‘deagrarianization’ (Bryceson, 1996, Rigg, 2006), studies suggest that poor households continue to diversify the use of natural resources for subsistence and/or cash supplements (Cousin, 1999, Dovie et al., 2002, Shackleton, 2004). Because ‘deagrarianization’ remains incomplete, with a mix of economic sectors, we question the wisdom of neoliberalism supporting and merging with transfrontier-related CBNRM (see Banda, 2002) – the range of ‘community-based’ projects focusing on conservation and development through and/or in association with transfrontier conservation.

We argue that the CBNRM ideal underlying TFCAs in South Africa (IUCN, 2002, DAI, 2003a, DAI, 2003b) follows what McCarthy (2005) calls ‘hybrid neo-liberalisms’: the merging of capitalism and conservation to by-pass the ‘subsistence core’ of rural livelihoods. Compared to other countries in the region, South African transfrontier planners make use of a robust national economy to buoy public–private sector investments in ‘community-based’ activities, such as tourism, to finance transfrontier conservation. Increasingly, private sector investments support ‘integrated conservation and development’ and now finance CBNRM, or tourism-based CBNRM associated with transfrontier conservation (Banda, 2002, DAI, 2003a, DAI, 2003b, GLTP, 2004). However, as TFCAs employ such ‘hybrid’ CBNRM, projects fail to reinvest in the resource base of rural households (DAI, 2003a, Turner, 2004), privileging local involvement in low paying service sector jobs and devaluing diverse rural production strategies. Donors, funders and planners now follow this logic to facilitate transfrontier conservation that purportedly supports rural peoples’ livelihoods in the service sector (Van Amerom, 2002, Wolmer, 2003, Hughes, 2005).

Our paper seeks to examine the effects of neoliberal ‘community-based’ approaches through and in association with transfrontier conservation on livelihoods near the South African section of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (the GLTP or ‘Great Limpopo’) – Kruger National Park (KNP or ‘Kruger’).3 We contribute to the literature by describing how major political and economic transformations influence the character of CBNRM at Kruger and the GLTP, and how, in turn, project outcomes affect rural livelihoods nearby. South African agencies participating in the shift from coercive conservation to ‘conservation and development’, once supported by race-based spatial segregation, use free market principles to run community-based approaches through national and regional programs that support transfrontier conservation – a neoliberal program rooted in South Africa’s conservation elite and political economic history (see Hughes, 2005).

We suggest that the neoliberal agenda setting the bottom line for conservation policy and practice effectively produces hybridized ‘transfrontier-related’ CBNRM that misses the essence of community-based conservation: assisting impoverished communities set priorities and make decisions for developing natural assets and social equality to reduce livelihood vulnerability and improve conservation (Berkes, 1989, Western and Wright, 1994, Berkes, 2004). We support this assertion by first tracing how regional developments before, during and after Apartheid have influenced devolved conservation between Kruger and the Great Limpopo. We then investigate how the deregulation of policy and practice at Kruger informs its CBNRM initiatives, and how these initiatives parallel and inform the GLTP’s program of devolved conservation.4 This discussion is premised on how mergers of neoliberalism and ‘devolved’ conservation at Kruger and elsewhere, extend to and connect with the transfrontier park’s initiative of using private sector/NGO support to ‘out source’ ‘hybrid CBNRM’. Following this, we draw on a case study of Welverdiend village to demonstrate how and why transfrontier-related CBNRM is ‘misaligned’ with local livelihood strategies and conservation objectives. In line with the above definition, we argue that ‘genuine’ CBNRM can support rural livelihoods in a sustainable manner, that is, investing in sufficient stocks of human, social, natural, physical and financial capital (Scoones, 1999, Ellis, 2000). We contrast and compare livelihoods with project support for local capitals, including household social relations, the use of productive resources, and the sale of commodities, and examine whether such factors are supported by ‘transfrontier-related’ CBNRM. We conclude that successful CBNRM depends on how well it targets and reinvests in livelihood multiplicity, particularly natural resources.

Case study data were collected from July 2005 to February 2006 and involved a mixed-method approach among resource users, NGOs, and government officials. Semi-structured interviews were with farmers, different resource users, and traditional leaders, while intra-household interviews were with middle-aged and elderly women (totaling 30 interviews). We chose each group to ensure a representative cross-section of individuals most active in negotiating access to and use of different natural resources in the community. Middle-aged and elderly women, for example, gave historical insights into how changes in the dynamic between gender and labour were tied to regional socio-political and economic change. Three research assistants were trained to conduct a livelihood questionnaire (random sample, n = 172 of 300 households (57%) in half the settlement, known as Welverdiend B)5 to uncover the links between livelihood diversification and support from ‘CBNRM’ projects independent of or related to the transfrontier park. A policy document analysis was also carried out by both authors. Pseudonyms are used throughout this paper.

Section snippets

Transfrontier conservation and community-based natural resources management

Transfrontier conservation is centre stage of a polemical debate over just how to bridge conservation and development at different institutional scales in Southern Africa. Proponents argue that by expanding protected areas across political and economic boundaries, nations, communities and wildlife benefit from social, economic and ecological multiplier effects. Conservation through transfrontier parks encompasses ‘land and sea that straddle one or more boundaries between states, sub-national

Conclusion

Transfrontier conservation continues to be upheld as an effective means for promoting regional development and securing vast spaces for conservation. The fact that transfrontier conservation supposedly delivers tangible benefits to communities makes it an appealing alternative for politicians, planners and practitioners. In South Africa, it is presumed that the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park holds untapped potential for broad and local solutions to ‘conservation and development’, the basis of

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge their respective funders (see first page), the support of Dr. Wayne Twine and Laura Yeatman at the Wits Rural Facility, TPARI staff Dr. Conrad Steencamp, Daniel Marnewick and Makere, and other faculty at the University of the Witwatersrand. We also thank Drs. Katie Willis (editor, Geoforum), Christian Kull and David Hughes for constructive criticisms of this paper. We give a very special thanks to the people of Welverdiend who endured many hours of

References (85)

  • Banda, G., 2002. Conflict management in a community-based transboundary natural resources management initiative: a case...
  • S. Batterbury

    Landscapes of diversity: a local political ecology of livelihood diversification in southwestern Niger

    Ecumene

    (2001)
  • T.J. Bembridge et al.

    Woodfuel in Ciskei: A headload study

    South African Forestry Journal

    (1990)
  • F. Berkes

    Rethinking community-based conservation

    Conservation Biology

    (2004)
  • D. Bryceson

    Multiplex livelihoods in rural Africa

    Journal of Modern African Studies

    (2002)
  • Büscher, B.E., T. Dietz 2005. Conjunctions of governance: the state and the conservation-development nexus in Southern...
  • J. Carruthers

    Creating a national park, 1910 to 1926

    Journal of Southern African Studies

    (1989)
  • Collinson, M., Wittenberg, M., 2001. Labour Force Dynamics in a Rural Part of South Africa: the Agincourt sub-district...
  • M. Collinson et al.

    Trends in internal labour migration from rural Limpopo Province, and implications for the spread of HIV/AIDS in rural South Africa

    Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

    (2006)
  • B. Cousin

    Invisible capital: The contribution of communal rangelands to rural livelihoods in South Africa

    Development Southern Africa

    (1999)
  • B. Cousins

    Agrarian reform and the ‘Two Economies’: Transforming South Africa’s countryside

  • DAI, 2003a. (Development Alternative Incorporated) Great Limpopo TBNRM Initiative. Measuring Institutional Engagement...
  • DAI, 2003b. NRBEs and Grantees Supported By the Great Limpopo TBRNM Initiative. Summary descriptions of NRBEs and...
  • de Villier, B., 1998. Land Claims and National Parks – Joint management in the Makuleke Settlement Compared Against...
  • DEAT, 2005. Provincial EPWP/poverty Alleviation Project Report. Limpopo Provincial Government. Department of Economic...
  • D. Dovie et al.

    Direct use values of woodland resources consumed and traded in a South African village

    International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology

    (2002)
  • D. Dovie et al.

    The fuelwood crisis in Southern Africa – relating fuelwood use to livelihoods in a rural village

    GeoJournal

    (2004)
  • M. Draper et al.

    African dreams of cohesion: Elite pacting and community development in transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa

    Culture and Organization

    (2004)
  • Dzingirai, V., 2004. Disenfranchisement at Large: Transfrontier Zones, Conservation and Local Livelihoods. IUCN ROSA....
  • R. Eastwood et al.

    Premature deagriculturalization? Land inequality and rural dependency in Limpopo Province, South Africa

    The Journal of Development Studies

    (2006)
  • F. Ellis

    Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries

    (2000)
  • Fabricius, C. 2001. A Social Ecology Policy for South African National Parks. DANCED and SANParks, Rhodes...
  • S. Ferreira

    Problems associated with tourism development in Southern Africa: The case of transfrontier conservation areas

    GeoJournal

    (2004)
  • M. Galvin et al.

    The politics of decentralisation and donor funding in South Africa’s rural water sector

    Journal of Southern African Studies

    (2003)
  • GLTP, 2002. Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park Joint Management Plan. Joint Policy and Management Guidelines (USAID and...
  • GLTP, 2004. Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, Meeting of the GLTP Conservation, and Safety and Security Committees on...
  • Hall, R., 2004. Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa: A Status Report. A PLAAS Research Report no....
  • D. Harvey

    A Brief History of Neoliberalism

    (2005)
  • C. High et al.

    The comparative value of wild and domestic plants in home garden of a South African rural village

    Agroforestry Systems

    (2000)
  • D.M. Hughes

    Rezoned for business: How eco-tourism unlocked black farmland in Eastern Zimbabwe

    Journal of Agrarian Change

    (2001)
  • D.M. Hughes

    Third nature: making space and time in the Great Limpopo conservation area

    Cultural Anthropology

    (2005)
  • Cited by (55)

    • Reconfiguring Frontier Spaces: The territorialization of resource control

      2018, World Development
      Citation Excerpt :

      By redefining and enclosing the environment, conservation strategies turn native homelands into attractions, environmental services, and other kinds of commodities, which can be given commercial value and sold to tourists, philanthropic organizations, and governments. In particular, environmental protection schemes such as REDD+ or Payment for Environmental Services operate within a market logic that fundamentally disrupts local figurations of space by creating new enclosures, redefining the nature of resources (Arsel & Büscher, 2012; Büscher & Dressler, 2012; Dressler & Büscher, 2008). The commodification of spatial esthetics is fundamental in the opening up of new tourism frontiers.

    • Tourism dynamos: Selective commodification and developmental conservation in China's protected areas

      2017, Geoforum
      Citation Excerpt :

      It can also earn hefty sums for outside parties. Alongside other ways of commodifying nature, tourism yields benefits that are often tilted away from local residents (Dressler and Büscher, 2008; King and Stewart, 1996), raising concerns that market-based conservation practices, while justified with participatory rhetoric, in practice co-opt participatory measures (Lele et al., 2010; McAfee and Shapiro, 2010; McElwee, 2012). This merger of participatory and market techniques is often called neoliberal conservation (Igoe and Brockington, 2007; McCarthy, 2005).

    • Transboundary Initiatives and Snow Leopard Conservation

      2016, Snow Leopards: Biodiversity of the World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    The author’s research was supported by the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon (Award Number SBR-9521914). The usual disclaimers apply: “Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendation expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or Carnegie Mellon”.

    2

    The author’s contribution to this paper is made possible through the continuous support of the Amsterdam Institute for International Development (AIID) and CERES, the Dutch Research School for Resource Studies for Development.

    View full text