Environmental perceptions and practices of livestock keepers on the Namaqualand Commons challenge conventional rangeland management

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

Journal of Arid Environments www.elsevier.com/locate/jaridenv

Environmental perceptions and practices of livestock keepers on the Namaqualand Commons challenge conventional rangeland management Nicky Allsoppa,, Catherine Laurentb, Laure M.C. Debeaudoinc, M. Igshaan Samuelsc a

ARC-LBD: Range and Forage Unit, c/o Department of Biodiversity and Biological Conservation, University of the Western Cape, P Bag X17, Bellville 7535, South Africa b INRA-SAD, 16 Rue Claude Bernard, 75 231 Paris Cedex 5, France c Department of Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, University of the Western Cape, P Bag X17, Bellville 7535, South Africa Received 6 September 2005; received in revised form 6 September 2006; accepted 15 November 2006 Available online 16 January 2007

Abstract In South Africa, interventions in communal rangelands proposed by most agriculture-sector institutions are still dominated by the belief that communal herders have little technical skills and by the tenets of ‘‘the tragedy of the Commons’’, assuming that individual livestock keepers are selfish, norm free, and aiming at maximising short-term offtake and that there is no consistent management of the commons. In this study we show that practices of a diversity of livestock keepers on the Leliefontein Commons of Namaqualand are at odds with this viewpoint: access to rangeland and its use are structured by collective norms and concerns regarding both the sharing of resources and their long-term sustainability. We also show that part of the management of the commons relies on grazing practices which involve tacit and formalised technical knowledge that can be described and modelled. Livestock keepers assess the heterogeneity of the grazing quality of the commons. They are aware of the toxicity and unpalatability of some plants, of the way this differs according to the amount ingested and the availability of other forage, and of the variations of these two factors over seasons of grazing. They classify grazing areas and decide on daily grazing routes according to a complex set of criteria. Carrying capacity of each area is not considered as a fixed parameter but

Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 959 3373; fax: +27 21 959 1376.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Allsopp), [email protected] (C. Laurent), [email protected] (M. Igshaan Samuels). 0140-1963/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.11.005

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

741

rather as a variable dependant on rainfall. Seasonal movements between areas are designed accordingly. These findings offer a new perspective for research agendas on technical models and extension measures for communal rangeland management particularly in arid and semi-arid areas. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Communal pastoral systems; Herder practices; Perceptions of rangeland condition; Grazing management models; Tragedy of the Commons; Agricultural development; South Africa

1. Introduction In South Africa, interventions concerning the development and conservation of natural resources in communal rangelands are still dominated by the belief that communal herders have little technical skills and by the tenets of ‘‘the tragedy of the Commons’’ paradigm (Hardin, 1968) assuming that livestock keepers are selfish, aiming at maximising only short-term offtake and are not embedded in any system of collective norms that might result in a consistent management of the commons. According to these hypotheses, commons may be viewed as a cause of destruction of natural resources and poor livelihoods. But the reality can be quite different and the inevitability of resource destruction in open access has been heavily contested since 1968. As Ostrom et al. noted in their review of 1999 (Ostrom et al., 1999), ‘‘although tragedies have undoubtedly occurred, it is also obvious that for thousands of years people have self-organised to manage common pool resources, and users often do devise long-term sustainable institutions for governing these resources’’. Management is the key issue. Hardin (1998), commenting later on his 1968 paper and the criticisms he had received, admitted that ‘‘repeatedly I found fault with my own conclusionsythe weightiest mistakeywas the omission of the modifying adjective ‘unmanaged’’’, adding that ‘‘with an unmanaged commonsyruin is inevitable’’. Indeed observations in various situations having very different histories, systems of government and policy development processes (Rohde et al., 2006) show that in spite of the institutional transformations of the post-apartheid period in South Africa, in spite of the changes occurring in the organisation of local authorities and land use regulation, commons are often managed. In the long-term, sustainable management not only requires ability to establish collective rules and authority to solve conflicts. It also necessitates capacities to design and to implement farm practices that are relevant to the objectives of the community (in term of access to land for different groups, sustainability of natural resources, etc.). In South Africa such capacities are usually denied to communal livestock keepers who are often considered by extension services as ignorant with no reasoned grazing practices. Consequently, sustainable commons management is seen as a non-realistic goal. Benjaminsen et al. (2006) have described the persistence of a reductionist approach where advisory services assume that the application of commercial livestock management practices, underpinned by concepts of carrying capacity, will ensure sustained and increased incomes and improve rangeland condition. They show the centrality of this approach despite numerous studies indicating that traditional behaviour of pastoralists in Africa and elsewhere is not based on ignorance, selfish motives and an absence of norms, and stress ‘‘yits broad bureaucratic appealyreducing complex natural processes to

ARTICLE IN PRESS 742

N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

rudimentary arithmetic;’’ as ‘‘it ‘objectifies’ matters relating to the sound use of natural resources, abstracting natural processes from social aspirations and differentiation’’. With regard to technical management, numerous development projects in Africa attempt to improve livestock husbandry and rangeland management practices in pastoral systems but fail to deliver the improvements sought by their implementers. One reason is that ecological evidence shows that carrying capacity levels for livestock are not particularly relevant in arid systems (Benjaminsen et al., 2006; Ellis and Swift, 1988). Other reasons are that outside intervention seeks to change local livestock keeping objectives and practices without recognising that these are a consequence of many years of interaction within a social and ecological environment which relies on specific rules and knowledge (e.g. Coppolillo, 2000; Mapinduzi et al., 2003; Oba and Kotile, 2001; Sheuyange et al., 2005; Turner and Hiernaux, 2002). It seems strange that notions like ‘‘the tragedy of the Commons’’ remain so appealing to state agents tasked with overseeing the use of commons. Of course, it can be argued that often economic or ecological evidence may be used narrowly to reinforce power relations in favour of larger livestock keepers, rather than to develop alternative development choices, which recognise conflicts of interest and the complexity of the human–natural resource relationship (Homewood, 2004; Kepe et al., 2005; Laurent, 2005). On the other hand, it is also legitimate to wonder to what extent we can learn from present small-scale farmers’ practices in South Africa since most traditional systems have been dismantled during the apartheid period, and many traditional practices may have been impoverished by successive resettlements (Laurent et al., 1998). In this study we investigated grazing practices among livestock keepers of an arid rangeland under a particular form of communal tenure. This analysis is based on observations that were carried out in Namaqualand from April 2000 to May 2001 (Debeaudoin, 2001). We show how these observations constitute a body of local knowledge which guides livestock keeping practices. Thus, lack of capacity is not a rational argument for a priori rejection of the principle of communal rangeland or for dismantling the existing commons through individual appropriation or titling of the land. The question is rather how to assess and formalise existing knowledge contributing to the current management of commons and how to use this to ensure more sustainable utilisation of commons resources. Ultimately, what is at stake is not only the future of the resource but also how access should be guaranteed to different categories of livestock keepers, both with subsistence and commercial objectives since the commons are populated by many people, other than those with commercial interests, who benefit from rangeland resources (Cousins, 1998; Ainslie, 2002). 2. Methods 2.1. Study area The Leliefontein Communal Area, in the Kamiesberg Municipality of Namaqualand, is occupied by 1500 households spread over 10 villages. People were classified as ‘‘coloured’’ prior to 1994. The majority are poor and depend on welfare grants and remittances sent from outside (Anseeuw et al., 2001). More than 50% of the ‘‘coloured’’ households of the Northern Cape had an annual income of less than R12 660 (Statistics

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

743

South Africa, 1995). The most extensive land use in the area is livestock keeping (sheep and goats), based on a system of several herds, each with one or more owner, herded from stockposts situated in the commons. Numbers of livestock are estimated to be at double the recommended stocking rate of the Northern Cape Department of Agriculture, however, long-term records show that stock numbers have fluctuated greatly between years (Hoffman et al., 1999). The study was confined to the original 192,000 ha of rangeland and did not include 32,627 ha of land acquired through land redistribution after 1994 since most of this land was made available for grazing,1 on conditions set by the Department of Agriculture, only after the end of this study from 2001 onwards. The area is mountainous, 200–1800 m above sea level, and is characterised by warm, dry summers, and cold, wet winters with on average 100–300 mm annual rainfall depending on location. Rainfall can be inferred from long-term rainfall monitoring in the western part of Leliefontein (M.T. Hoffman unpublished data) as being equal to or above average during 1999, the year preceding the study, and although lower in 2000, well distributed through the year. The vegetation is composed of succulent karoo, mountain renosterveld and mountain fynbos shrublands (Desmet, 2007). 2.2. Research methods Twenty six livestock keepers, including active herders and owners who did not herd, were interviewed individually in a preliminary stage during April–June 2000 to get their perceptions on rangeland and livestock farming issues. During this study we also interviewed nine professionals active in agricultural extension or research in the Namaqualand rangelands to get their viewpoint of the commons. This group comprised of two agricultural extension officers, two animal husbandry specialists, two ecologists, one social scientist and one agricultural economist. Semi-structured interviews were used for both groups with open-ended questions concerning (i) the identification of livestock and rangeland related problems perceived as priorities in the Leliefontein area; (ii) problems associated with livestock husbandry in the area; (iii) opinion on livestock keeping focussing on: communal management of the rangeland, rangeland condition, effectiveness of livestock husbandry in the area, importance and role of livestock for people. Herders’ practices were ascertained in two stages: 26 herders were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire in their homes or at stockposts, and 14 of these were selected after the initial round for accompaniment in the field in order to observe their practices directly. All these respondents were active herders, 12 were hired herders and the rest were owner-herders. Three were women. Respondents were selected from four villages, Leliefontein village, Nourivier, Spoegrivier and Karkhams, to represent the diversity of six types of livestock keepers that was modelled in a former typology that distinguished the poorest households keeping heads of small stock for subsistence, well-off people with secure jobs (shops, civil servants) hiring a herder to keep a large herd, full time livestock keepers trying to make a living from this activity or different sorts of part time farmers relying on other source of income (regular salaries, irregular wages, remittances) (Anseeuw, 2000; Modiselle, 2001). The 14 herders who were interviewed whilst tending 1

The verb to graze is used throughout to include browsing. Both sheep and goats in Leliefontein derive a high proportion of their forage from shrubs but ephemeral plants and grasses are also eaten.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 744

N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

their animals were chosen on the basis of their willingness to talk and availability, their apparent experience and knowledge of farming and to achieve a diversity in herd size, location of grazing and management. The initial questionnaire on herder practices took between 1 and 2 h to administer. The herders were asked to discuss herd composition since one herd may gather animals from several owners (up to five in the study). This was followed by questions about the classification and mapping of grazing areas, herd movement between areas during a day and over a year, daily herd management and reasons for choices, their knowledge of plant properties especially with respect to forage quality and toxicity, relationships with other herders, their objectives as livestock keepers and assessment of success in livestock farming. Herder practices were observed in the field since it was likely that herders did not necessarily analyse their daily practices, or may be responding on the basis of what they assumed the questioner would like to hear rather than what they themselves did. Interviews in the field were open in order to let in ‘‘surprising information’’. New topics were not introduced but herders were encouraged to elaborate on aspects covered in the initial round of interviews. Each herder was accompanied throughout one day in the field and on returning to the stockpost until the late afternoon. Livestock are kept at stockposts overnight and follow grazing routes which return to the stockpost on a daily basis. The initial round of field interviews was conducted from July to December 2000 while the herders were in the winter grazing areas. Three of these herders who had moved to summer grazing areas were accompanied again on their herding route during February 2001 when conditions were hotter and drier. In total 26 interviews were completed with herders and 17 days were spent accompanying 14 herders. Further informal and formal (see Samuels et al., 2007) interactions with livestock keepers and agricultural advisors on several occasions between 1999 and 2005 also inform our knowledge of herders’ perceptions and practices. Initial analyses of the interviews divided practices into different management subdivisions based on practices regarding grazing, reproduction, management of offspring, etc. In the second phase of the analysis the actual practices of herder observed in the field were separated from their conceptions of herding, which could differ from each other. Models of grazing management were developed from the analysis of interviews and direct observations to derive general concepts which describe the choice of grazing areas and grazing routes by herders on a daily and longer term basis. Analyses were carried out according to methods described by Meuret (1993, 1996). 3. Results 3.1. Perceptions on livestock keeping The interviews show wide discrepancies between the livestock keepers on the one hand and the rangeland professionals on the other hand, regarding the problems which should be considered as priorities, the reasons for these problems and even how the respondents conceptualised the links between grazing and natural resource dynamics. Livestock keepers in Leliefontein state that there is too little land available in the commons. They felt that this is for historic reasons which saw ‘‘coloured’’ people restricted to small parcels of land through legislation enacted during the 19th and 20th Centuries. The majority did not perceive a need to reduce livestock numbers while six of the rangeland professionals (out of

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

745

nine) said that the area was overstocked and that stock reduction was required. Half of the livestock keepers thought that there was a need to rest certain areas which were regarded as overgrazed but they proposed that this could be achieved by moving to other parts of the commons with some of the livestock, a solution which was not envisaged by the rangeland professionals. It was confirmed that people keep livestock for various objectives such as for regular or occasional income, subsistence (milk and meat) and savings, often combining more than one of these. When subsistence and saving goals are prioritised, livestock owners have a high aversion to risk. Consequently, they choose hardy species, crossbreeds and mixed herds whereas most rangeland professionals do not take survivorship into account and think that ‘‘serious’’ livestock keepers should favour the marketability of the animals and, hence, aim first for quality of the final product. The majority of livestock keepers said that there is an upper limit to how many livestock the rangeland can carry but they considered that this is determined by actual rainfall. Hence, they regard rangeland as being able to carry different numbers of livestock depending on rainfall variability. This is contrary to the majority of rangeland professionals’ views which assume that an equilibrium state in vegetation conditions can be maintained using fixed carrying capacity, associated with short-term rest of paddocks on a rotational basis. Our experience of agricultural professionals in Namaqualand is that they keep on ignoring the reasons why people keep livestock and the impact this has on household food security in the region and support only those few farmers who appear willing to commercialise their activities. They do not consider the role of local knowledge in guiding grazing practices. This can be illustrated, for example, by training provided to livestock keepers on the commons by an ecologist unfamiliar with the region on the palatability of local plants. Funding provided by government for agricultural development in the last 7 yr has gone largely into infrastructure development such as fencing and waterpoint development, mostly on the new lands, and short-term work creation schemes. No effort is made to engage with the majority of livestock keepers in trying to identify constraints to livestock keeping on the commons and developing solutions to these with the herders. 3.2. Livestock keepers’ practices The livestock keepers’ statements are consistent with the principles which guide their practices. Observations confirmed that access to rangeland and its use are structured by collective norms and concerns regarding both the sharing of the resources and their longterm sustainability. They also showed that part of the management of the common relies on grazing practices which involve tacit and formalised technical knowledge that can be described and modelled. 3.2.1. Norms regulating access to rangeland Livestock keepers agreed that a set of collective rules exist, albeit unwritten, which guided their use of rangeland in the Leliefontein area. These include:



People are recognised as having rights of access to the grazing resources through birthright or close family ties within the Leliefontein commons. People retain these rights even if they leave the commons (usually temporarily) to seek work in other

ARTICLE IN PRESS 746



 

N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

centres, but it is rare for people to access these rights beyond the first generation of those leaving the commons permanently. Livestock keepers rights to establish and maintain one or more stockposts were not formally recognised, but once a stockpost was established it was regarded by the rest of the community as being appropriated by the livestock keeper, and may be kept in the family for several generations. However, there are areas of the rangeland where stockposts are established for shorter time periods, and several livestock keepers may establish stockposts here at different times. The area immediately around a stockpost (100–200 m radius) is regarded as accessible to that livestock keeper only. Whilst herders are careful not to allow their grazing routes to overlap with those of nearby herds, areas away from the stockpost are not regarded as exclusive. We are aware of only one major transgression in the last 6 yr when a livestock keeper fenced an area of rangeland which formed part of the grazing routes of other livestock keepers. Opinion was unanimous that he was transgressing norms and he removed the fence. Cropping lands are regarded as forbidden areas during the growing season. Water points are usually regarded as being accessible by all. Where these are very closely associated with a stockpost or cropping lands, other herders will establish rights of access with the person regarded as having ‘‘ownership’’ of the area. Access to water is seldom the cause of dispute but may involve a cost paid in the form of a sheep or goat for slaughter. Many dug wells are developed and maintained through cooperative action among herders, whilst wind or solar pumps are established by local authorities but frequently neglected thereafter.

Whilst livestock keepers try to keep as many animals alive as they can they do not try to increase animal numbers beyond that which they can manage. They not only recognise a trade-off between keeping more animals and maintaining animal condition, but they also express the need to respect other livestock keepers’ grazing areas, crop lands and waterpoints, and not to monopolise the rangeland at the expense of other people. As in many other places (Dietz et al., 2003), some contradictions and conflicts may arise between groups who differ in goals (for example subsistence versus commercial farming), power positions, perspectives, etc, but these conflicts are considered as part of the community’s problems that should be solved collectively, and escalations of conflict are extremely rare, and do not come close to the scale or level of violence reported amongst livestock keepers competing for resources on disputed rangelands elswhere. Indeed the capture of the new lands by the wealthiest inhabitants (Lebert and Rohde, 2007), whilst livestock keepers on the commons represent all classes of people (Anseeuw et al., 2001) suggests that the activities of the larger livestock keepers on the old commons may have been constrained by the norms of common property regimes (Ostrom, 1990). 3.2.2. Constraints guiding grazing practices For the herders of the commons of Leliefontein, grazing management is not solely based on the nutritional value of the vegetation:



Animal safety is compromised by the presence of toxic plants, predators, steep or rough terrain and cold weather. The safety criteria become increasingly important when there are young animals in the herd.

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

 

747

Animal intake is dependant on season and amount of rainfall. In different seasons or following rain different areas provide different grazing quality depending on plant composition. Grazing strategies must consider water availability, presence of croplands and other herds, and try to guarantee herder’s needs for minimum comfort.

Herders classify grazing areas according to this complex set of criteria and take these into account when deciding seasonal and daily herding patterns.

Abundance of toxic plants

3.2.3. Daily grazing routes In the field interviews herders showed that a ‘‘target zone’’ was chosen each day based on these criteria. However, observation and analysis of grazing practices following Meuret (1993, 1996) highlighted differences in the amount of control herders exercise over their herds on their daily herding route, which divided herders into four categories viz. ‘‘leaders’’, ‘‘delegatory leaders’’, ‘‘managers when necessary’’ and ‘‘followers’’ (Debeaudoin, 2001). On a daily basis herders will select different routes. Most herders will direct the herd in the morning so that the same route is not taken on consecutive days to avoid excessive trampling which they say will destroy vegetation and increase soil disturbance. Among the ‘‘manager when necessary’’ and the ‘‘follower’’ groups, the animals can decide their daily route direction. However, if livestock consistently choose one route for several days the herder will redirect them along another route. While all the above factors are taken into account when determining the grazing route, a model (Fig. 1) can be developed to show how the rangeland can be classified into different zones depending on two factors: abundance of toxic plants and abundance of preferred grazing species. Herders select a grazing route within these parameters depending on the hunger of their animals and their excitement. If animals do not look particularly hungry the aim will be to take them to the target area with low presence of toxic plants and intermediate forage quality where they will be well fed and watered before returning to the stockpost (Fig. 1). This will generally be an area of widespread availability. If animals look hungry when they are released from the stockpost in the morning, they will first be taken to

Forbidden area Late afternoon meal

Excitement moderation

Target zone & water

Appetite moderation

Grazing quality Fig. 1. Representation of different grazing zones used by livestock herders in selecting daily routes based on forage quality and abundance of toxic plants.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 748

N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

an area of appetite moderation. This will be an area high in preferred grazing plants and will usually be rare in the landscape. Once their appetite has been modified by intake of high-quality forage they can be taken to the target zone to satisfy their need for food on more commonly available forage of intermediate preference. If animals have satiated their appetite and are well watered in the target zone, the herder may choose to take them back to the stockpost past an area for a late afternoon meal. This will be an area with high-quality forage but where a high presence of toxic plants is also possible (Fig. 1). The animals will be calm after grazing and drinking water. Hence, they will take care in selecting which plants to browse and will benefit from high-quality forage without running the dangers of ingesting poisonous plants. Herders regard adult livestock as being able to distinguish toxic plants and say that young livestock learn this through imitation. Among plants in the high forage quality-high toxicity group in the late afternoon meal zone are plants that are recognised by herders as being toxic if taken in large quantities, when in flower or when ingested in the absence of other plants, e.g. Lebeckia multiflora, Wiborgia monoptera and Galenia africana, but which can be browsed in smaller quantities without harm. A less common strategy was followed by two of the herders who dealt with excited animals by choosing a specific route for them which will calm them down. Livestock may be excited after a night restricted in a pen and will run around haphazardly browsing plants. These animals are not grazing effectively and may run the danger of ingesting toxic plants or trampling good forage. The herder will take them to an area for excitement moderation with poor quality forage but low toxic plant presence. Once they have relaxed they can be taken to the target area where they will graze efficiently. These results show some similarities in the principles guiding the daily herding practices of Leliefontien herders with those observed in the French Alps. In both cases animal behaviour and preferences are essential in the choice of route to ensure that animals make the best use of forage (Meuret, 1993) despite dissimilar environments. 3.2.4. Seasonal grazing movements In addition to these daily routes, there are seasonal movements that are determined by the need to protect crops, avoid toxic or unpalatable plants, avoid temperature extremes and provide water as well as grazing quality. Certain parts of the rangeland, especially the renosterveld and fynbos, are regarded as providing poorer quality grazing at certain times of year, whilst poisonous or unpalatable plants are more likely to be grazed when there are few palatable alternatives present. During wet periods water becomes available in ephemeral sources and plants provide water as well, so herds are not so dependant on remaining near fixed water points at these times, but in the hot summer herds need water every day which is only available at a restricted number of waterpoints. Temperature extremes, very hot on the low lying lands in summer and cold at higher altitudes in winter, will also encourage herders to relocate. Whilst this seasonal movement is recognised as providing some areas a chance of rest from grazing and trampling, among the 26 herders, eight did not move, 14 moved between two locations in a year, and four moved between more than two location (see also Baker and Hoffman, 2006 for additional information on stockpost movements). Among those who moved more frequently the desire to seek fresh grazing once one area was exhausted was a reason for moving. Five of those who did not move said they had access to good grazing conditions all year round. Three who did not move said they would prefer to move

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

749

but were constrained by lack of resources to establish another stockpost away from areas not already grazed by other livestock keepers. There was not always congruence between all the factors which determine seasonal rangeland condition assessment and herders have to compromise in selecting grazing areas which would best satisfy their needs. For example, one herder chose to move from an area with high numbers of toxic plants which were killing his lambs to higher lying land with fewer poisonous shrubs, but still had a high lamb mortality due to the more severe cold at higher elevations. 4. Discussion These results show that it would be dangerous to base the development of agricultural policy for communal rangelands on oversimplified views of pastoral communities which deny that informal but shared norms are capable of regulating activities around natural resource use, and which ignore the actual knowledge of herders. In the case of the Leliefontein commons two major factors deserve attention. Firstly, these commons are managed and there exist capacities and knowledge that can be a basis for designing new management schemes in the post-apartheid era. We are not, by any means, close to the theoretical conditions of Hardin’s statement that ‘‘the unmanaged commons would be ruined by overgrazing; competitive individualism would be helpless to prevent the social disaster’’ (Hardin, 1998). Whilst there is evidence of ecological change associated with the grazing system on the Leliefontein commons (Allsopp, 1999; Anderson and Hoffman, 2007; Todd and Hoffman, 1999), there is no evidence that this system has become less productive over 50 yr in terms of the number of livestock kept on the range or that the changes are inconsistent with human impacts globally (Benjaminsen et al., 2006). Secondly, a large diversity of people and groups, differing in goals and perspectives are using these commons (Anseeuw, 2000; Modiselle, 2001) and future management scenarios must take cognisance of this complex social situation if sustainable resource utilisation is to be maintained (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). By ignoring these factors, policy interventions aimed at communal rangelands may wrongly appraise both the range of solutions that are actually available to improve the management of the commons, and the depth of the conflicts and negative social and economic consequences that may result from measures which would support a single group of livestock keepers while restricting access to the commons of others (Allsopp et al., 2003; Lebert and Rohde, 2007). Interventions based on assumptions that external technical knowledge is superior to local knowledge and including land alienation have disrupted traditional patterns of land use and resulted in declining productivity on rangeland in other parts of Africa (Oba et al., 2000). Livestock keepers in Leliefontein, and elsewhere in Africa (e.g. Coppolillo, 2000; Oba and Kotile, 2001; Sheuyange et al., 2005), have developed complex resource management systems, they are innovative and adapt practices to match their individual constraints. They are not ignorant about their grazing resources contrary to perceptions that users of communal land are lacking in knowledge of rangeland ecology. They assess the heterogeneity of the grazing quality of the commons. They are mindful of the toxicity and unpalatability of some plants, of the way this differs according to the amount ingested and the availability of other forage, and of the variations of these two factors over seasons. They have designed specific grazing routes accordingly, as part of their management

ARTICLE IN PRESS 750

N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

strategies. This can be seen in the variety of herder types as well as in the excitement modification strategy of two of the herders. These practices refute suggestions that the herders are lacking in animal husbandry skills. Above all, this study allows us to model these practices. By doing so, these results provide foundations for formalising part of the tacit knowledge herders rely on and for building technical knowledge on grazing route management that takes into account animal behaviour. In order to translate tacit knowledge into formalised technical knowledge that might be taught to both extension officers and herders it will be necessary to assess the performances of the practices that were observed and specify under which circumstances they might be improved. These results also provide new hypotheses to be tested in further research agendas. For example, we can test whether herded animals make better use of forage in heterogeneous environments than unherded livestock. If confirmed, such findings would not only explain ‘‘unexpected’’ good technical performances of livestock keepers on the commons (Anseeuw, 2004; Rohde et al., 1999), they also broaden and transform the perspectives available for designing further technical models and extension measures in these areas. However, such a shift may prove quite difficult to achieve. Livestock keepers differ strongly from rangeland professionals in how they see the relationship between animal numbers and rangeland condition (see also Mapinduzi et al., 2003). Rangeland professionals generally assume that rangeland condition is the primary factor to be taken into account for grazing management, which contrasts with the diversity of factors used by the livestock keepers on the commons to determine grazing strategy. In addition, rangeland professionals favour an equilibrium perspective which supposes that animal numbers directly influence vegetation condition. These scientific hypotheses (despite the constraints to testing all variables in a complex environment) are assumed superior to farmers’ perceptions in interpreting vegetation change (e.g. Hudak, 1999). Short-term rest is often recommended for vegetation recovery. Rangeland professionals also work within the carrying capacity paradigm that land has a set livestock carrying capacity which will ensure stable production under variable climatic conditions, although most will acknowledge the need to reduce carrying capacity during periods of drought. Livestock keepers make a direct link between the amount of rainfall and the condition of their livestock as a reflection of the impact of rain on forage availability. In other pastoral systems in Africa, this has led to the realisation by scientists that animal numbers are to varying extents uncoupled from vegetation condition (non-equilibrial systems) and that vegetation responses are more complex than equilibrium models would suggest (see Vetter, 2005 for an elaboration of this debate). Interviews with professionals working in the commons in Namaqualand showed that the dominant perception, especially among agricultural advisors, was that the communal lands were overstocked and that this was leading to vegetation degradation. In terms of the definition for degradation used by Benjaminsen et al. (2006) (i.e. a decline in secondary productivity) they find little evidence to support this view. Our analysis of seasonal and daily grazing routes suggests that when resting for specific purposes can be justified on ecological grounds, current practices offer options since herders are flexible in their herding routes, provided certain constraints can be removed. Access to more land, thus, may limit the depredations of drought (Samuels et al., 2007). Constraints include the requirement for more land, the need to facilitate movements of herds over any great distances (transport facilities at lower costs, etc.) and of establishing stockposts, and the desire to stay near

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

751

family and friends. However, it is by no means clear under which circumstances resting will improve rangeland condition (see Simons and Allsopp, 2007). Rather than believing that resting will provide a panacea, specific measures should be carried out to assess its impact in different situations and to improve the efficiency of seasonal movements to guarantee the long-term sustainable use of natural resources. The rangeland professionals showed that, in addition, they had a tendency to regard livestock keeping as an occupational activity aimed at generating a regular income from sales, whereas the commons are used by many livestock keepers with other objectives and interests. This study confirmed that if livestock keeping on the commons is seen as a regular occupational activity by some people, for many others in Namaqualand it is primarily seen as a form of investment providing long-term security and access to cash during crises and as a source of food (Anseeuw, 2000; Hendricks et al., 2004; Modiselle, 2001). One has to recognise that the situation is complex because of the diversity of livestock keepers who do not share the same immediate and future interests and have different practices. The struggle of larger farmers to monopolise communal areas in many places around the world, the resistance of poor farmers and the endless sequences of crisis and compromises which is the essence of commons management institutions since the eighteenth century, has been described by historians and social scientists dealing with land tenure changes on numerous occasions. In such a situation, external support may provide assistance to improve the government of the commons (Dietz et al., 2003) but it may also support one group against another. Agrawal and Gibson (1999) consider the recognition of multiple actors in communities by researchers, policy makers and development agents as important if community-based resource management is to be supported in a meaningful manner. Indeed, a better knowledge of the diversity of livestock keepers objectives enabled the proposal of differentiated extension support for each type of situation (Modiselle et al., 2006). The almost complete absence of examples of transgression of the rules regarded by livestock keepers in this study as governing the commons suggest that it is the shared norms which govern common resources, rather than the occupation of a defined spatial unit, or social homogeneity which may define the Leliefontein community’s relationship with their environment (cf. Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). These shared norms have resulted in a pastoral system that through ownership of livestock, sharing of livestock products and the recognition of livestock keeping as a way of life, is a unifying feature of the Leliefontein and other Namaqualand communities. Despite more than 200 yr of restriction to small areas of land and the imposition of colonial and apartheid policies, this pastoral system has persisted suggesting that informal institutions have been effective in ensuring adherence to norms, and that tacit knowledge supporting herders’ practices are effective in this environment. In the post-apartheid Leliefontein situation, observations showed that extension services pursue interventions aimed mainly at supporting livestock farmers with commercial objectives operating on communal land, often ignoring other livestock keeping groups. Since commercialisation of their operations is not the aim of the majority of livestock keepers, the agricultural services fail to address many of the needs of the land users in communal areas. They concentrate their efforts on those livestock keepers who have adopted a profit motive, or pay lip service to such a motive to better exploit the proffered services. However, if advisory services are successful in these interventions it will be at the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 752

N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

expense of the majority of livestock keepers who will find themselves marginalised and restricted from access to grazing land when commercial farming practices are put in place. This is likely to lead to greater inequity in the division of resources among people who are currently benefiting from access to the commons, to deterioration of the livelihoods of the poorest households and to exacerbation of conflicts between different groups. Other development paths need to be explored for the commons of South Africa. The development of technical intervention for communal rangelands based on concepts in the tragedy of the Commons, assumptions that rangeland is degraded by communal practices, that herders have no technical skills and that production for the market is the most important motive are misguided attempts to intervene in systems which are still insufficiently understood (Rohde et al., 2006). This study of livestock keepers in Leliefontein shows that a better understanding of the objectives, ecological knowledge and grazing practices of livestock keepers might help agricultural support services to find innovative solutions for using and sustaining the commons. Acknowledgements Our wholehearted thanks go to Mr. Sakkie van der Poll of the Northern Cape Department of Agriculture for facilitating this study and to the livestock owners and herders in Leliefontein who gave freely of their time and knowledge. Funding in terms of the Franco/South African Science and Technology Agreement is acknowledged. Financial support from GEF and UNEP through the Desert Margins Programme is also acknowledged. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments. References Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27, 629–649. Ainslie, A., 2002. Introduction: setting the scene. In: Ainslie, A. (Ed.), Cattle Ownership and Production in the Communal Areas of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, Report no 10. School of Government, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa, pp. 1–17. Allsopp, N., 1999. Effects of grazing and cultivation on soil patterns and processes in the Paulshoek area of Namaqualand. Plant Ecology 142, 179–187. Allsopp, N., Ainslie, A., Laurent, C., Debeaudoin, L., 2003. What kinds of knowledge will improve the prospects for successful interventions in communal rangeland systems in South Africa. International rangeland Congress. In: Allsopp, N., Palmer, A.R., Milton, K.P., Kerley, G.I.H., Hurt, C.R., Brown, C.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the VIIth International Rangeland Congress. Durban, South Africa, pp. 1820–1823. Anderson, P.M.L., Hoffman, M.T., 2007. The impacts of sustained heavy grazing on plant diversity and composition in lowland and upland habitats across the Kamiesberg mountain range in the Succulent Karoo. Journal of Arid Environment 70 (4), 686–700. Anseeuw, W., 2000. Household; family, economic entity. the identification of relevant economic entities for development (A case study in South Africa). MSc Thesis. ENSAM/ INRA. 98 p.+annexes. Anseeuw, W., 2004. La conversion professionelle vers l’agriculture marchande et politiques publiques. Le cas de mineurs du Northern Cape. Grenoble, UPMF, De´partement d’Economie Internationale, The`se de Doctorat en Sciences Economiques, 432pp. Anseeuw, W., Laurent, C., Modiselle, S., Carstens, J., Van Der Poll, S., 2001. Diversity of the rural farming households and policy issues. An analysis based on a case study in the Northern Cape Province. African Institute of South Africa 2001 Conference ‘‘South Africa since 1994: Lessons and prospects, Conference paper, Pretoria, 17pp. Baker, L., Hoffman, M.T., 2006. Managing variability: herding strategies in communal rangelands of semi-arid Namaqualnd, South Africa. Human Ecology 34, 765–784.

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

753

Benjaminsen, T.A., Rohde, R., Sjaastad, E., Wisborg, P., Lebert, T., 2006. Land reform, range ecology and carrying capacity in Namaqualand, South Africa. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, 524–554. Coppolillo, P.H., 2000. The landscape ecology of pastoral herding: spatial analysis of land use and livestock production in East Africa. Human Ecology 28, 527–560. Cousins, B., 1998. Invisible capital: the contributions of communal rangelands to rural livelihoods in South Africa. In: de Bruyn, T.D., Scogings, P.F. (Eds.), Communal rangelands in Southern Africa: a synthesis of knowledge. Proceedings of a Symposium on Policy-making for the Sustainable Use of Southern African Communal Rangelands. Department of Livestock and Pasture Science. University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. pp. 16–29. Debeaudoin, L.M.C., 2001. Livestock farming practices in a communal rangeland, Leliefontein, Namaqualand. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa, 158pp. Desmet, P., 2007. Namaqualand—A brief overview of the physical and floristic environment. Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4), 570–587. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912. Ellis, J.E., Swift, D.M., 1988. Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: alternate paradigms and implications for development. Journal of Range Management 41, 450–459. Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243–1248. Hardin, G., 1998. Essay on sciences and society: extensions of ‘‘The tragedy of the Commons’’. Science 280, 682–683. Hendricks, H.H., Midgley, J.J., Bond, W.J., Novellie, P.A., 2004. Why communal pastoralists do what they do in the Richtersveld National Park. African Journal of Range Forage Science 21, 29–36. Hoffman, M.T., Cousins, B., Meyer, T., Petersen, A., Hendricks, H., 1999. Historical and contemporary land use and desertification of the karoo. In: Dean, W.R.J., Milton, S.J. (Eds.), The Karoo: Ecological Patterns and Processes. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 257–273. Homewood, K.M., 2004. Policy, environment and development in African rangelands. Environmental Science Policy 7, 125–143. Hudak, A.T., 1999. Rangeland mismanagement in South Africa: a failure to apply ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 27, 55–78. Kepe, T., Wynberg, R., Ellis, W., 2005. Land reform and biodiversity conservation in South Africa: complementary or in conflict. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Management 1, 3–16. Laurent, C., 2005. Biodiversity conservation against small-scale farming? Towards new types of land crises. In: The Changing Politics of Land in Africa: Domestic Policies, Crisis Management and Regional Norms. Conference, Pretoria. 18–29 November 2005. 11pp. Proceeding on CD Rom ISBN 0-620-35602-. Laurent, C., Van Rooyen, J., Bonnal, P., Carstens, J., Hubert, B., 1998. Systems approaches for agriculture and rural development in the South African transition situation. 15th International Symposium of the association for farming Systems Research-Extension. South Africa: 30 November–3 December 1998. Pretoria. Lebert, T., 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), 818–823. Mapinduzi, A.L., Oba, G., Weladji, R.B., Colman, J.E., 2003. Use of indigenous ecological knowledge of the Maasai pastoralists for assessing rangeland biodiversity in Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 41, 329–336. Meuret, M., 1993. Piloter l’ingestion au paˆturage. In: Landais, E., (Eds.): Pratiques d’e´levage extensif: identifier, mode´liser, e´valuer. Et. Rech. Syst. Agraires De´v. 27, pp. 161–198. Meuret, M., 1996. Organizing a grazing route to motivate intake on coarse resources. Annales de Zootechnie. 45 (Suppl.), 87–88. Modiselle, S., 2001. Rural household diversity in the Leliefontein district of the Northern Cape Province of South Africa. M. Inst Agrar. University of Pretoria, 116pp. Modiselle, S., Van Rooyen, C.J., Laurent, C., Makhura, M., Anseeuw, W., Carstens, J., 2006. Towards describing small scale agriculture: an analysis of diversity and the impact thereof on extension services. The case of the Leliefontein area (Northern Cape, South Africa). South African Journal of Agriculture Extension 34, 303–317. Oba, G., Kotile, D.G., 2001. Assessment of landscape level degradation in southern Ethiopia: pastoralists versus ecologists. Land Degradation Development 12, 461–475. Oba, G., Post, E., Syvertssen, P.O., Steneth, N.C., 2000. Bush cover and range condition assessments in relation to landscape and grazing in southern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology 15, 535–546. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 754

N. Allsopp et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 70 (2007) 740–754

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R., Policansky, D., 1999. Revisiting the Commons: Local lessons, Global challenges. Science 284, 278–282. Rohde, R., Hoffman, M.T., Cousins, B., 1999. Experimenting with the commons: a comparative history of the effects of land policy on pastoralism in two former ‘reserves’ in Namibia and South Africa. Land reform and agrarian change in southern Africa occasional paper; no. 12.: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape,. Bellville, South Africa. Rohde, R.F., Moleele, N.M., Mphale, M., Allsopp, N., Chanda, R., Hoffman, M.T., Magole, L., Young, E., 2006. Dynamics of grazing policy and practice: environmental and social impacts in three communal areas of Southern Africa. Environmental Science Policy 9, 302–316. Samuels, I., Allsopp, N., Knight, R., 2007. Patterns of resource use by livestock during and after drought on the commons of Namaqualand, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environment 70 (4), 728–739. Simons, L., Allsopp, N., 2007. Rehabilitation of rangelands in Paulshoek, Namaqualand: understanding vegetation change using biophysical manipulations. Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4), 755–766. Sheuyange, A., Oba, G., Weladji, R.B., 2005. Effects of anthropogenic fire history on savanna vegetation in northeastern Namibia. Journal of Environmental Management 75, 189–198. Statistics South Africa, 1995. Annual Report 2004/05. http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/AnnualReport/ AnnualReport2004.pdf, 128p. Todd, S.W., Hoffman, M.T., 1999. A fenceline contrast reveals effects of heavy grazing on plant species diversity and community composition in Namaqualand, South Africa. Plant Ecology 142, 169–178. Turner, M.D., Hiernaux, P., 2002. The use of herders’ accounts to map livestock activities across agropastoral landscapes in Semi-Arid Africa. Landscape Ecology 17, 367–385. Vetter, S., 2005. Rangelands at equilibrium and non-equilibrium: recent developments in the debate around rangeland ecology and management. Journal of Arid Environment 62, 321–341.