Text - Rhodes University

DRYLAND CONSERVATION AREAS, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, LIVELIHOODS AND 

NATURAL RESOURCE VALUES IN SOUTH AFRICA. THE CASE OF KGALAGADI 

TRANSFRONTIER PARK 

GLADMAN THONDHLANA 

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PHD IN 

SCIENCE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 

FACULTY OF SCIENCE 

RHODES UNIVERSITY 

NOVEMBER 2011

ABSTRACT 

Contemporary conservation and development understanding in both policy and academic circles 

espouses that natural resources have a significant contribution to the livelihoods of local people 

and that knowledge of this can better foster conservation policies that are consistent with 

livelihood and ecological needs. This thesis is based on research conducted in the southern 

Kalahari region, South Africa among the San and Mier communities bordering Kgalagadi 

Transfrontier Park. It looks at the importance of natural resources to the San and Mier 

community groups and ascertains the extent of resource use and its value within broader 

livelihood portfolios. It also focuses on the cultural values of natural resources and interactions 

among institutions and actors and how these shape natural resource governance and livelihood 

outcomes. Overall, natural resources represent an important livelihood source contributing up to 

32 % and 9 % of the total income of the San and Mier respectively or up to 46 % and 23 % if 

livestock incomes are included. However, the dependence on, diversification patterns and 

distribution of natural resource income vary substantially between and within the two 

communities. With regards to the cultural values attached to natural resources by the San and 

Mier, the findings show that these arise from an incredibly diverse and sometimes conflicting 

array of values that punctuate the two communities’ way of life and they are inextricably linked 

to resource use. Lastly, governance of natural resources in the co-managed Park and communitymanaged 

resettlement farms is characterised by complex institutional arrangements, compounded 

by the existence of multiple actors that have multiple and sometimes conflicting objectives – as 

shaped by different meanings and interpretations of natural resources. Heightened inter- and 

intra-community conflicts are common, notably resource use conflicts between the San and Mier 

and between the San ‘modernist’ and ‘traditionalist’ groups. This demonstrates that the 

communities’ livelihood dynamics in general and the dependence on natural resources in 

particular, are closely linked with ecological, economic and social factors including history, 

culture and present livelihood needs. By exploring the social-environment interactions, the study 

highlights the complexities and diversity of resource use for livelihoods that should be taken into 

consideration for both conservation and development policy interventions and research. The 

main argument of the study is that the contribution of natural resources to local livelihood 

portfolios in co- and community-managed areas, can be better understood through a 

consideration of cultural dynamics and institutional arrangements since these condition natural 

resource access, value and use. 

i

DECLARATION 

I, Gladman Thondhlana hereby declare that this thesis is my own original work, has not been 

submitted for any degree or examination at any other university, and that the sources I have used 

have been fully acknowledged by complete references. This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of a 

PhD in Environmental Science in the Faculty of Science at Rhodes University, South Africa. 

Signature: ____________________________ Date: _______________________ 

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. i 

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii 

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vii 

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. viii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... ix 

PART 1: BACKGROUND, RESEARCH OVERVIEW AND METHODS ................................. 1 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: NATURAL RESOURCES, LIVELIHOODS AND PROTECTED AREAS .. 1 

1.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2RESEARCH GAPS AND PROBLEMS IN STUDIES LINKING CONSERVATION, LIVELIHOODS 

AND DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................ 3 

1.3 KGALAGADI TRANSFRONTIER PARK (KTP) AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES .................... 5 

1.4 AIMS AND KEY QUESTIONS UNDERLYING THE STUDY ............................................................ 6 

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES.................................................................................................................. 7 

1.6 THESIS OUTLINE ................................................................................................................................. 8 

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT: PARKS, CONSERVATION AND 

LIVELIHOODS - FROM A GLOBAL TO A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE .................................................... 9 

2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 9 

2.2 CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT .............................. 9 

2.2.1 Key strands and switches in conservation thinking ............................................................................. 9 

2.2.2 Transfrontier Parks (TFPs) and Contract Parks ................................................................................. 13 

2.2.3 Conservation beyond park fences ...................................................................................................... 15 

2.2.4 Culture, institutional dynamics and natural resource governance...................................................... 16 

2.3 DRYLAND ECOSYSTEMS AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS ............................................................. 19 

2.4 A SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 20 

2.4.1 Conservation policy ........................................................................................................................... 20 

2.4.2 South African policy context on sustainable use in parks and surrounding landscapes .................... 21 

2.4.3 Drylands of South Africa ................................................................................................................... 22 

2.4.4 Land Reform in South Africa............................................................................................................. 23 

2.4.5 Land reform and poverty alleviation .................................................................................................. 24 

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH APPROACH, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND METHODS ................ 26 

3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 26 

3.2 CONTEXTUALISING VALUATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN LIVELIHOOD RESEARCH 

.................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

3.2.1 Natural resource valuation ............................................................................................................... 27 

3.2.1.1 Understanding value ....................................................................................................................... 27 

3.2.1.2 Economic valuation ........................................................................................................................ 28 

3.2.1.3 Criticism of economic valuation 29 

3.2.2 TEV framework for determining economic value ............................................................................. 32 

3.2.3 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) ................................................................................ 35 

3.2.4 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework ...................................................................... 37 

3.2.4.1 MA framework ................................................................................................................................ 38 

iii

3.3 CONCEPTUALISING INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 39 

3.3.1 Understanding institutions ................................................................................................................. 39 

3.3.2 Understanding governance of natural resources ................................................................................ 41 

3.3.3 The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework ........................................................ 42 

3.4 IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIVELIHOOD STUDIES ....... 44 

3.5 OVERVIEW OF METHODS EMPLOYED IN THIS STUDY ............................................................ 48 

3.6 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................... 50 

PART II: CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS .................................. 51 

CHAPTER 4: STUDY AREA AND CONTEXTUAL SETTING: DESCRIPTION OF THE KALAHARI 

REGION AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE KTP AND ITS LAND CLAIMANTS ........................ 51 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 51 

4.2. THE KALAHARI REGION, THE KGALAGADI TRANSFRONTIER PARK AND THE LOCAL 

COMMUNITIES BORDERING THE PARK .................................................................................... 51 

4.2.1 Biophysical characteristics of the Kalahari region ............................................................................. 51 

4.2.2 Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park ............................................................................................................. 53 

4.2.2.1 The pre-land restitution history of KTP (1865 to 1994) ................................................................. 54 

4.2.2.2 The post-land claim history of the Park (from 1994 to present) ..................................................... 57 

4.2.3 The local people and their socio-economic status.............................................................................. 61 

4.2.3.1 The San: Their lifestyle, dispossession from land and current socio-economic status ................... 62 

4.2.3.2 The Mier: Their lifestyle, dispossession from land and current socio-economic status ................. 65 

4.3 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 67 

CHAPTER 5: WILD NATURAL RESOURCE USE, INCOME AND DEPENDENCE AMONG THE SAN AND 

MIER COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................... 68 

5.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 68 

5.2 RESEARCH METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 73 

5.2.1 Data collection ................................................................................................................................... 73 

5.2.2 Data analyses ..................................................................................................................................... 75 

5.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 76 

5.3.1 Characteristics of the San and Mier respondents and households ..................................................... 76 

5.3.2 Household livelihood diversification, dependence, incomes and values from different livelihood 

activities and sources of income ................................................................................................................. 76 

5.3.3 Household dependence on incomes from and value of different direct natural resource-based 

livelihood activities (excluding livestock) .................................................................................................. 81 

5.3.4 Households dependence on value of and incomes from livestock ..................................................... 84 

5.3.5 Natural resource income (direct natural resource and livestock and livestock products sales) for cash 

generation .................................................................................................................................................... 89 

5.3.6 The safety net function of natural resources (wild natural resources and livestock) ......................... 91 

5.3.7 Links between household characteristics and natural resource use ................................................... 93 

5.4 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 98 

CHAPTER 6: CULTURE, CULTURAL VALUES OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE CONSERVATION 

LINK .................................................................................................................................... 99 

6.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 99 

6.2 CONCEPTUALISING CULTURE AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................... 101 

6.2.1 Culture.............................................................................................................................................. 101 

iv

6.2.2 Elements of culture .......................................................................................................................... 102 

6.2.3. Cultural values ................................................................................................................................ 104 

6.3 RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................................... 105 

6.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 106 

6.4.1 Knowledge of culturally important plants and animals ................................................................... 106 

6.4.2 Cultural values related to direct-use (values) of plants and animals ................................................ 107 

6.4.2.1 Medicinal plants ............................................................................................................................ 107 

6.4.2.2. Wild food plants ........................................................................................................................... 109 

6.4.2.3 Wild animals ................................................................................................................................. 111 

6.4.2.4 Cultural tradition related to livestock production ......................................................................... 112 

6.4.3 Cultural values related to intangible elements in the landscape....................................................... 114 

6.4.3.1 Sacred sites .................................................................................................................................... 114 

6.4.3.2 Rituals and healing dances ............................................................................................................ 115 

6.4.4 Indigenous knowledge around biodiversity use ............................................................................... 116 

6.4.4.1 Indigenous knowledge of sustainable plant and animal use ......................................................... 116 

6.4.4.2 Traditional knowledge of sustainable livestock production .......................................................... 119 

6.4.5 The transmission of cultural knowledge from generation to generation .......................................... 120 

6.4.6 Imbiwe field school .......................................................................................................................... 122 

6.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 124 

CHAPTER 7: ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS GOVERNING NATURAL RESOURCE ACCESS AND 

MANAGEMENT IN THE DIFFERENT LAND PARCELS ............................................................. 126 

7.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 126 

7.2 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: PARKS, PEOPLE AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS ......... 128 

7.2.1 Transfrontier Parks (TFPs) and Contract Parks ............................................................................... 128 

7.2.2. Frameworks and approach .............................................................................................................. 128 

7.3 RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................................... 131 

7.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 132 

7.4.1 The actors: roles, constituencies and governance arrangements ...................................................... 132 

7.4.2 Park and Contract Park actors and institutions ................................................................................ 134 

7.4.2.1 SANParks and Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Management (KTPM) ........................................... 134 

7.4.2.2 The Joint Management Board (JMB) ............................................................................................ 135 

7.4.3 Actors and institutions in the resettlement farms ............................................................................. 136 

7.4.3.1 The San Communal Property Association (CPA) ......................................................................... 136 

7.4.3.2 The Mier Municipality and community ........................................................................................ 137 

7.4.4 External organisations supporting institutional, development and governance arrangements ........ 138 

7.4.4.1 South African San Institute (SASI) ............................................................................................... 139 

7.4.4.2 San Technical Advisors and Africa Safari Lodge Foundation ...................................................... 140 

7.4.4.3 Peace Parks Foundation, Farm Africa and Private operator(s) ..................................................... 140 

7.4.5 Interactions among actors and governance of natural resources in the Park and resettlement farms 

.................................................................................................................................................................. 141 

7.4.5.1 Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Management (KTPM) and resource governance in the Park ........ 142 

7.4.5.2 NGOs, interactions with community groups and natural resources governance .......................... 145 

7.4.6 Conflicting interests and heterogeneity within communities ........................................................... 147 

7.4.7 Accountability and benefit perceptions ............................................................................................ 152 

7.4.7.1 Accountability aspects within the San community ....................................................................... 153 

7.4.7.2 Accountability aspects within the Mier community ..................................................................... 156 

7.4.7.3 San and Mier perceptions of benefits ............................................................................................ 158 

v

7.5 CORE STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN THE PARK 

AND RESETTLEMENT FARMS ............................................................................................................ 161 

7.6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 163 

PART III: INTEGRATION, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ............................................. 165 

CHAPTER 8: NATURAL RESOURCES, LIVELIHOODS, GOVERNANCE AND COMPLEXITY IN THE 

KALAHARI: A SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS ............................................................................... 165 

8.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 165 

8.2 UNDERSTANING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO RURAL 

LIVELIHOODS IN THE KALAHARI ..................................................................................................... 166 

8.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 166 

8.2.2 The relationship between cultural values, institutional arrangements and the contribution of wild 

natural resources to rural livelihoods ........................................................................................................ 166 

8.2.1.1. Household attributes (B) .............................................................................................................. 167 

8.2.1.2. Cultural values (C) ....................................................................................................................... 168 

8.2.1.3 Institutions and actors (D) ............................................................................................................. 170 

8.2.1.4 Outcomes (E) ................................................................................................................................ 171 

8.2.1.5 Interactions amongst components of the model ............................................................................ 171 

8.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR ACHIEVING CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES IN 

THE PARK AND FARMS ....................................................................................................................... 172 

8.3.1 Information dissemination ............................................................................................................... 173 

8.3.2 Understanding preferences ............................................................................................................... 174 

8.3.3 Natural resources management in the Park and resettlement farms ................................................. 175 

8.4 IDEAS FOR ENSURING NATURAL RESOURCE AND LIVELIHOOD RESEARCH RELEVANT 

FOR CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND PRACTICE ...................................... 177 

8.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 181 

REFERENCES AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................. 183 

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 207 

APPENDIX 1: ALL PLANTS CITED BY THE SAN AND MIER SAMPLE RESPONDENTS. ............................... 207 

APPENDIX 2: PLANT USE BY PART USED BY SAN AND MIER (ADAPTED FROM MANNETTI, 2010) ........ 209 

APPENDIX 3: MEDICINAL PLANTS HARVESTED IN THE CONTRACT PARK ON A PERMIT SYSTEM .......... 211 

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF ALL WILD ANIMALS MENTIONED BY THE SAN AND MIER AND THEIR USES......... 212 

APPENDIX 5: RESOURCE VALUATION HOUSEHOLD SURVEY .................................................................. 213 

PLACE: SOUTHERN KALAHARI, SOUTH AFRICA 

.................................................................................................................................................................. 213 

APPENDIX 6: STANDARDISED QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (ADOPTED 

FROM REID ET AL., 2004) .......................................................................................................................... 226 

APPENDIX 7: QUESTIONNAIRE ON INSTITUTIONS AND ACTORS ............................................................. 227 

vi

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1: A brief overview of key policies informing natural resource management approaches in 

South Africa ........................................................................................................................................ 22 

Table 2.2: Distribution of aridity zones in South Africa per province (after Hoffman et al., 1999 cited 

in de Villiers et al., 2002) .................................................................................................................... 23 

Table 3.1: Classification of provisioning and cultural values (Adapted from MA, 2003).................. 38 

Table 3.2: Key determinants of natural resource value ....................................................................... 46 

Table 4.1: Chronology and summary of key historic events in the southern Kalahari region ............ 56 

Table 5.1: Direct-use value (USD/household/year) and income share (%) of natural resources to 

aggregated household income from selected studies (Adapted from Shackleton et al., 2011) ........... 69 

Table 5.2: Selected studies demonstrating the influence of culture and institutions on natural 

resource use ......................................................................................................................................... 70 

Table 5.3: Selected attributes of the San and Mier communities ........................................................ 72 

Table 5.4: Characteristics of the San and Mier respondents and households (SE = standard error of 

the mean) ............................................................................................................................................. 76 

Table 5.5: Mean annual income ± SE (in ZAR) and percentage (%) of total income (in parentheses) 

from different livelihood sources stratified by income quintile for sampled San households ............ 77 

Table 5.6: Mean annual income ± SE (in ZAR) and percentage (%) of total income (in parentheses) 

of different livelihood sources stratified by income quintile for sampled Mier households ............... 78 

Table 5.7: Percentage of San (S) and Mier (M) households that used, harvested, received (as gifts), 

bought and sold selected natural resources ......................................................................................... 81 

Table 5.8: Mean annual income of different natural resources and activities ± SE (in ZAR) and 

percentage (%) (in parentheses) of total natural resource-based income stratified by income quintile 

for sampled San households ................................................................................................................ 82 

Table 5.9: Mean annual income of different natural resources and activities ± SE (in ZAR) and 

percentage (%) (in parentheses) of total natural resource-based income stratified by income quintile 

for sampled Mier households .............................................................................................................. 83 

Table 5.10: Number of livestock and direct use-values (in ZAR) of livestock (excluding poultry) for 

San and Mier households in 2009 ....................................................................................................... 85 

Table 5.11: Estimated direct use-values (USD) and income share (%) of livestock from selected 

studies ................................................................................................................................................. 87 

Table 5.12: Mean natural resource-cash income (in ZAR) and percentage (%) of total natural 

resource (NR) income stratified by income quintile for San and Mier samples ................................. 89 

Table 5.13: OLS regression of natural resource income against socio-economic variables for San 

sample ................................................................................................................................................. 94 

Table 5.14: OLS regression of natural resource income against socio-economic variables for the 

Mier sample ........................................................................................................................................ 96 

Table 6.1: Main medicinal plants used by San and Mier communities ............................................ 108 

Table 7.1: Summary of Ostrom’s design principles (Adapted from Ostrom, 1990:90) .................... 130 

Table 7.2: Various actors and institutions responsible for natural resources governance ................ 133 

Table 7.3: NGOs and independent actors and their primary areas of focus ...................................... 139 

Table 7.4: Knowledge of local constitutional rights among San respondents .................................. 154 

Table 7.5: Proportion of Mier respondents with knowledge on different land parcels and their 

management ...................................................................................................................................... 156 

Table 7.6: San respondents’ general benefit perception from the Park and farms ............................ 158 

Table 8.1: A holistic way of conceptualising the role of natural resources in natural resource and 

livelihood research (Adapted from Baumann, 2004) ........................................................................ 180 

vii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.1: Total Economic Value Framework (Adapted from Jin et al., 2003) ................................ 33 

Figure 3.2: Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (Adapted from Ostrom et al., 1994) 

............................................................................................................................................................ 42 

Figure 4.1: Location of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and surrounding areas. 25 % of the park 

land in South Africa (Adapted from Dierkes, K., in Massyn and Humphrey, 2010) .......................... 54 

Figure 5.1: Dependence on the main income sources for San and Mier ............................................. 80 

Figure 7.1: Nested actors involved in land and natural resources governance (Adapted from 

Thondhlana et al., 2011) ................................................................................................................... 141 

Figure 8.1: Framework for understanding the contribution of natural resources to livelihoods ....... 167 

Figure 8.2: A framework for understanding natural resource-related conflicts (Adapted from Wilson 

and Bryant, 1997: 98) ....................................................................................................................... 178 

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The writing of this thesis would not have been possible without the support and words of 

encouragement from different funding organisations and many friends, colleagues, fellow 

graduate students, community groups and relatives. The bulk of the funding for this project was 

provided by the International Foundation for Science, Stockholm, Sweden, through a research 

grant. Financial support from the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) through 

the Environmental Policy Research Unit (EPRU), School of Economics, at the University of 

Cape Town is also gratefully acknowledged. The EPRU is especially thanked for organising and 

funding workshops and conferences where part of this work was presented. I am also indebted to 

the Norwegian Research Council, through the Yggdrasil programme for funding a fellowship in 

the Department of International Environment and Development Studies (NORAGRIC), at the 

Norwegian University of Life Sciences, where among other things, this thesis was partly written. 

The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland, is 

acknowledged for sponsoring a conference where some of the research work in this thesis was 

presented, with positive criticism. Through the grant-holder of a National Research Foundation 

research incentive grant, Dr Sheona Shackleton, I am indebted to the NRF of South Africa for 

partly funding my studies. 

Special thanks are due to my principal supervisor Dr. Sheona Shackleton who worked an extra 

mile in securing me funding for this project. Her invaluable advice, comments and availability 

and attention to my work was awe-inspiring. The time she spent discussing with me, drafts she 

objectively queried and critiqued is a demonstration of her commitment and scholarly panache. 

She challenged me to work and think beyond the limits I had never imagined. To Sheona: many 

thanks. My co-supervisor Professor James Blignaut deserves to be mentioned for his unwavering 

support. He helped me to see the need for balance in my arguments. Together my two 

supervisors offered me the academic space to critically look at aspects and push the frontiers of 

knowledge, in a field that I fondly would like to significantly contribute to. 

A lot of people and organisations helped me complete fieldwork in the Kalahari, South Africa. 

South African National Parks, the Department of Land Affairs, South African San Institute, San 

ix

Traditional leadership notably the Kruiper family, San Technical Advisors, community 

representatives, Mier municipality, various lodge operators, fellow research colleagues Lelani 

Mannetti and Johane Dikgang, our translator, Willem Schalke who sometimes went beyond the 

call of duty and everyone who may not have been mentioned, but contributed to this work are 

acknowledged. Special thanks are due to the San and Mier communities, for their willingness to 

participate and give information during interviews. Staff and students of at the Department of 

Environmental Science are thanked for their support. I especially want to thank Zelda Odendaal 

and Kathy Cassidy for their administrative and technical support respectively; and Georgina 

Cundill, Gosia Bryja and Leigh Stadler who offered their time to read earlier drafts of different 

thesis chapters. To Mike Powell, the digs experience in your Victorian house was special and the 

walks in your farm made my meditation easier. To the NORAGRICERS at the Department of 

International Environment and Development (NORAGRIC), Norwegian University of Life 

Sciences, who welcomed me and made me feel at home during my 8-month stay between 2010 

and 2011, especially Johanna Teurlings for administrative support and Pål Vedeld for priceless 

intellectual guidance on one of the chapters of this thesis and fellow PhD students, and many 

others too many to mention, a big thank you for your encouragement to finish this thesis. Tendai 

Chella, Nancy Amuzu, Bright Agodzo, Timothy Munjoma and Hanne Stanset and her family 

also made my Norwegian experience unforgettable. I am also grateful to my long time 

undergraduate friends at the University of Zimbabwe, Costa Hofisi, Blessing Makwambeni, 

Sheunesu Ruwanza, Robson Hapaori and Daniel Muhau who have always been there to listen to 

my PhD journey. 

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without support from my family. My 

beloved parents Johnson and Lindale who supported me financially throughout my university 

studies and encouraged me to stand tall when faced with challenges deserve a special thank you. 

My brothers, Lawrence and Gershom were always by my side emotionally. My daughter, Haidee 

Nomufaro, was the main source of inspiration and a pillar of strength. I have managed to 

improvise, adapt and overcome during this period. Lastly, I would like to thank God for the gift 

of life and good health during the course of my studies. 

x

PART 1: BACKGROUND, RESEARCH OVERVIEW AND METHODS 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION: NATURAL RESOURCES, LIVELIHOODS AND PROTECTED 

AREAS 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

Contemporary literature and empirical evidence show that international awareness of the 

importance of natural resources in the lives of rural communities throughout the world has 

grown over time (Campbell et al., 1997; Wollenberg and Ingles, 1998; Cavendish, 2000; 

Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 2001; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2000; 2004a; Campbell and Luckert, 

2002; Kepe, 2002; MA, 2003; Araia, 2005; Dovie et al., 2007; World Bank, 2004, 2007). 

Drawing from Shackleton and Shackleton (2007), the term ‘natural resource’ is used in this 

study to refer to any raw or processed product that is produced from a wild biological 

resource that is harvested or used in-situ for either domestic consumption and non- 

consumption or small-scale trade. In signifying the role of natural resources in rural 

livelihoods Dovie (2004), Shackleton and Shackleton (2004b) and Vedeld et al. (2004), 

among others, note that millions of people globally make use of a wide range of forest and 

other wild natural resource products not only for household consumption but also for cash- 

income generation (Chapter 5, Section 5.1). Some of the major debates and arguments in 

natural resources, livelihoods and poverty alleviation studies have been around 

conceptualising how the commercialisation of natural resources by local people can be used to 

add value to livelihoods (Shackleton, 2005; Shackleton et al., 2008). 

It is argued that guiding and enhancing the use of natural resource-based products in domestic 

and wider markets provides a possible approach to contribute to increasing livelihood security 

and poverty reduction, thereby providing incentives for natural resource conservation and 

sustainable use (Anorld and Ruiz Perez, 2001; Wunder, 2001; Shackleton, 2005; Chapter 2; 

Chapter 5). In support of earlier contentions, Cavendish (2000) posits that wild resources 

contribute to rural livelihoods in a number of ways, generally adding to a diversified 

livelihood portfolio. They can supplement livelihoods through direct provisioning, trade, and 

in times of hardship they can serve as safety nets (Shackleton et al., 2000b; 2008). This 

importance of biodiversity and other ecosystem services for poor rural people has led to 

1

greater effort to link conservation and rural livelihoods both in protected areas such as 

national parks and beyond them (e.g. in communal lands surrounding parks). 

In demonstrating and quantifying the role and importance of natural resources to livelihoods, 

there has been much effort to determine the monetary value of the resources used (Cavendish, 

2000; Shackleton et al., 2000a; 2002; Campbell and Luckert, 2002; Vedeld et al., 2004; 

Blignaut and Moolman, 2006; Mmopelwa and Blignaut, 2009; Chapter 5). The absolute 

values obtained, however, differ between studies in relation to a range of contextual factors 

such as proximity to markets, currency strength, diversity of resources available, abundance 

of key resources, biodiversity, opportunity costs, (Shackleton et al., 2000b) and other factors 

such as culture and social institutions (Kepe, 2002; 2008a; Chapter 6; Chapter 7). For 

example, the contribution of natural resources to total livelihood income ranges from over 50 

% in some settings to less than 20 % in others (Campbell et al., 2002). All these studies 

indicate that the majority of rural households makes use of wild resources from their 

immediate environment for either subsistence or commercial purposes or both. Therefore, this 

clearly indicates the vital part that could be occupied by the natural resources sector as either 

a formal or informal rural poverty alleviation strategy. 

The realisation that rural people benefit from natural resources for everyday use and income 

generation has resulted in changes to park conservation philosophy and practice. A significant 

number of parks in Africa, and South Africa in particular, now embrace the ‘sustainable use 

principle’ to meet both community needs and ecological integrity. Furthermore, the 

recognition that parks should not be treated as conservation islands in a sea of degraded lands 

(Pollard et al., 2003) but be seen as islands of conservation in a sea of human development 

(WPC, 2003) has given birth to a relatively new approach commonly referred to as 

‘conservation beyond fences or parks’. This approach calls for the integration of conservation 

efforts in and beyond parks with the ‘sustainable use principle’ applied across the landscape 

(see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3). 

Both scientific and non-scientific (traditional) conservation techniques are considered in these 

initiatives and hence find common ground in the quest for meeting conservation and 

livelihood needs across landscapes. These approaches are based on the assumption that access 

to resources will encourage communities to respect and use these in such a way as to ensure 

2

long term sustainability. Access creates an incentive for wise use of resources by inducing 

behavioural change that will promote sustainable biodiversity use and conservation (Hutton 

and Leader-Williams, 2003; Muchapondwa et al., 2009). Pretty (2006) stresses that such 

incentive-driven models of conservation should be nurtured and encouraged. Therefore, this 

demonstrates that parks offer livelihood opportunities through direct use and other non-use 

values of natural resources and are living models for modern conservation policy and practice 

(Shackleton, 1996 cited in du Toit et al., 2003). 

1.2 RESEARCH GAPS AND PROBLEMS IN STUDIES LINKING CONSERVATION, 

LIVELIHOODS AND DEVELOPMENT 

Despite the ever increasing studies and evidence on the economic importance of natural 

resources for local livelihoods (Section 1.1), relatively few studies have been conducted in 

dryland ecosystems in Southern Africa such as the Kalahari (some exceptions are Milton and 

Bond, 1986; Barrow and Mogaka, 2007; Kerven and Behnke, 2007 and Madzwamuse et al., 

2007). Madzwamuse et al. (2007) contend that studies linking livelihoods and wild resources 

in dryland landscapes have received inadequate attention and that the evidence of contribution 

of resources to livelihoods has seldom been aggregated to make the case for investment in 

dryland management at both local and national levels. More often than not, policy makers 

have relied on special pleading (Madzwamuse et al., 2007) and intuition (Ferraro and 

Pattanayak, 2006) rather than systematic assessment to determine the contribution of 

resources to livelihoods. Notwithstanding the large area of South Africa under arid conditions 

and in the context of dryland parks and their surrounding environments, there has been little 

systematic analysis of their importance, especially to local communities who have historically 

benefited from these ecosystems. 

Moreover, most studies have not attempted to assess all components of the livelihood 

portfolio with a few exceptions (for example, Cavendish, 2000; Dovie, 2004), yet diversified 

livelihoods is a key characteristic of rural economies (Shackleton et al, 2000b). The Poverty 

and Environment Network (PEN), an international network and research project on poverty, 

livelihoods and forest resources under the Centre for International Forest Research (CIFOR), 

represents one of the few initiatives to systematically consider the full scale of livelihood 

benefits offered by wild natural resources. Without such crucial knowledge, policy 

interventions to optimise dryland resources contribution to national development and poverty 

3

eduction could be misguided (Anderson et al., 2004). Some concerns have been voiced 

regarding the perceived rate of degradation and unsustainable use of the arid zones (e.g. van 

Rooyen, 1998; de Villiers et al., 2002). If correct, this could undermine the value of this 

natural capital in meeting the basic needs of many households living in drylands such as the 

Kalahari where this study is based. 

Shackleton et al. (2000b) further draw attention to the sectoral focuses and lack of multi- 

disciplinary research that have caused linkages between livelihoods and resource-use systems 

to be neglected. For example, it is argued that social dimensions such as cultural values 

(Cocks, 2006) and other social institutions that shape use (Kepe, 2008a) have been overlooked 

in wild resources and livelihoods studies. Lack of such integrated studies is in part the reason 

why there is little understanding of the significance of resources to rural livelihoods in 

drylands. Consequently, few policies specifically target drylands in many countries (Anderson 

et al., 2004). Livelihoods and natural resources studies should pay more attention to specific 

cultural and institutional contexts to provide more comprehensive and reflective insights on 

the significance of resources. Without such critical information, the contribution of natural 

resources to the livelihoods of people will not be properly conceptualised and contextualised. 

Consequently, unintended bias can result from implementing conservation and development 

or macro-economic policies that fail to take into account the special challenges and 

opportunities of drylands (Anderson et al., 2004). 

Knowledge of the value of the use of natural resources and their contribution to livelihoods 

and quality of life is needed to incorporate natural resource access and use into conservation 

and development planning. It is almost impossible to design and develop a system for 

sustainable resource use in and beyond parks without such knowledge. Furthermore, without 

such studies, it will also be problematic to develop and recognise the natural resource sector 

as a serious and significant rural development opportunity, more so in a dryland ecosystem 

context. The advantage of holistic assessments of land-based livelihoods is that they facilitate 

understanding of the multiple and diverse ways in which ‘natural capital’ is still crucial for 

many people within their suite of livelihood strategies (Shackleton et al., 2000b). Therefore, it 

is important to differentiate between the daily use of natural resources in household 

provisioning (subsistence) and its contribution to household income (cash income) relative to 

other livelihood sources to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of how important 

4

natural resources are to rural peoples’ livelihoods in a diversified rural economy. This study 

attempts to estimate and understand the importance of natural resource use to the lives of local 

people in the Kalahari dryland of South Africa. 

1.3 KGALAGADI TRANSFRONTIER PARK (KTP) AND THE LOCAL 

COMMUNITIES 

In 2008, South African National Parks (SANParks, 2008) issued a call for expression of 

interest to undertake research to investigate and develop a system for sustainable resource use 

by the #Khomani San (Bushmen) and Mier communities in Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 

(hereinafter KTP or the Park) and the surrounding (resettlement) communal lands. This thesis 

is a response to this call. No systematic, comprehensive research had been done in the area 

since the successful #Khomani San and Mier land claim in 1999, and presently limited 

knowledge exists regarding the contribution and importance of natural resources to the 

livelihoods of the local San and Mier communities. Thus, in line with SANParks’ sustainable 

use principles, research was required to determine the multi-dimensional use value of wild 

natural resources (socio-economic, cultural and spiritual values) relative to the communities’ 

broader livelihood. This project aims to enhance our understanding of the significance of 

dryland natural resources for both consumptive and non-consumptive purposes and, through 

this, analyse the opportunities for conservation interventions that will lead to enhanced 

livelihood security and improved relations between KTP and the neighbouring San and Mier 

communities. 

The study focuses on the KTP and local #Khomani San (indigenous and traditionally hunter- 

gatherers) and Mier communities (traditionally stock farmers) located in the Northern Cape 

Province of South Africa (see Chapter 4). The KTP situation is unique and will provide a 

learning point for future conservation and development initiatives. First, it is the first so called 

‘Peace Park’ in Southern Africa with a well documented infamous historic past of forced 

evictions of indigenous people. Second, in line with contemporary conservation approaches of 

involving local communities, it has embraced this principle by awarding a section of the Park 

(referred to as a Contract Park, see Section 2.2.2) to local communities. Third and last, the 

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Management is also actively involved in conservation and 

livelihoods efforts beyond the Park (SANParks, 2009, pers comm.). Therefore, the 

conservation authority, SANParks, does not want to see its parks as islands of conservation in 

5

a sea of degraded environments. However, this in itself creates complex challenges in terms 

of understanding how resource value is realised both inside and outside the Park given 

different resource access agencies (cultural and socio-institutional dynamics) (see Chapters 6 

and 7 respectively) in and out of the Park. This is because efforts aimed at combining poverty 

reduction/livelihood needs and conservation in and beyond parks have mixed outcomes, both 

positive and negative (Gartlan, 1998; Oates, 1999; Adams et al., 2004). 

While it can be said that the San represent one of the best studied groups of indigenous 

peoples in the world today, much of the work that has been done has concentrated on their 

history and foraging adaptations (Hitchcock, 1987). However, relatively little in the way of a 

detailed analysis of the socio-economic significance of natural resources to these people has 

been done, despite their reputation for being ‘close to nature’. The Mier on the other hand 

represents a group that has been largely overlooked in previous studies and they are not 

considered as an indigenous community in some circles (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3). The 

neighbouring San and Mier communities were historically locked in chronic poverty and 

relative shortages of land, technologies, education, health, labour and life chances (Chennells, 

2001) and therefore the biodiversity-human relationship is of critical importance. In the 

absence of job opportunities and other income generating projects people may look to the 

environment for daily needs and continued survival. Therefore, the rationale for undertaking 

this research lies in the preceding arguments, including factors such as the history of 

#Khomani San and Mier (of dispossession in terms of land and access to resources) where 

they were separated from the plants and animals they once foraged and hunted (see Chapter 

4). There is also significant information on the history of the Park and the #Khomani San and 

Mier communities that provides excellent contextual background and SANParks specifically 

needs data regarding the direct-use and cultural values of dryland resources to communities in 

order to achieve its co-management and sustainable resource use objectives. 

1.4 AIMS AND KEY QUESTIONS UNDERLYING THE STUDY 

Given the preceding context and motivation, the overarching aim of this study is to determine 

the contribution of dryland natural resources to the livelihoods of local #Khomani San and 

Mier communities and to identify and understand the cultural and institutional arrangements 

and contexts that constrain or help the integration of land and its resources into the two 

6

communities’ livelihood portfolios. The study seeks to explore the following specific 

questions: 

What are the direct-use values of the wild natural resources to the #Khomani San and 

Mier communities? 

How important are wild natural resources (in both cash and non-cash terms) to the 

#Khomani San and Mier communities relative to other livelihood sources? 

What are the cultural significances and values (ethical, spiritual, symbolic, 

educational, existence and bequest values) of wild natural resources to the #Khomani 

San and the Mier communities? 

What are the institutional arrangements (including actors) that govern access and 

management of these natural resources within and outside the Park? 

What do the findings from the above questions mean for conservation, sustainable 

natural resource management and livelihoods improvement for the #Khomani San and 

Meir within the KTP and surrounds? 

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 

This study is premised on the following hypotheses: 

Natural resources play an important role in the livelihoods of rural dwellers in the 

Kalahari area. 

Cultural values shape the importance attached to natural resources and therefore 

cultural values represent a framework in which the value of natural resources is 

negotiated, contested and interpreted. 

The interactions, different interests and unequal power relations among different 

actors (groups, individuals and organisations) generally shape the institutional 

landscape and governance of natural resources, particularly resource access for 

livelihood use by different San and Mier users. 

The predominant postulation behind this study is that recognition of the use, importance and 

value of natural resources to local people will assist the Park in sustaining natural resource 

use, ensuring biodiversity conservation and meeting human livelihood needs. The livelihood 

and cultural importance of natural resources in the area provides the basis for considering 

sustainable access and use arrangements and for building community-park relationships. 

Further, the study explores the links between the direct use values of natural resources, the 

7

cultural values underlying (and shaping) such uses and the institutional arrangements 

(including actors) that guide natural resource access and management in the Park and 

resettlement areas in an integrated and holistic manner. Such an approach assists in the 

understanding of natural resource use dynamics and allows for identification of the multiple 

challenges in natural resource management, and consequently making it easier to design 

useful and relevant recommendations. 

1.6 THESIS OUTLINE 

Chapter 1 presents an introduction and background to the study. Chapter 2 looks at the 

conservation trajectory from early separatist approaches to inclusive approaches with a view 

to bring to light the foundation of modern conservation practice. Subjects and policy 

frameworks related to sustainable resource use in and beyond parks are discussed at length to 

provide a framework within which natural resource contribution and value to livelihoods 

could be understood better. In Chapter 3, theoretical and conceptual frameworks influencing 

the research, the study’s methodological approach and methods are discussed. Chapter 4 is a 

presentation and analysis of the general location of the study site, biophysical characteristics, 

historical background, general land use patterns, and socio-economic attributes. This provides 

a context within which natural resource contribution to local livelihoods can be 

unambiguously understood and appreciated. Chapter 5 presents the contribution (monetary 

value, desirability and usefulness) of natural resources to rural livelihoods. Chapter 6 

discusses the cultural values (non-monetary, ethical significance, symbolic dimensions) of 

natural resources and the interconnectedness of cultural values and natural resource use. It 

also discusses how culture shapes resource access and use. The relationship between different 

actors and institutions and natural resource governance is presented in Chapter 7. This 

provides a broad understanding of how a combination of cultural factors (in Chapter 6) and 

institutional dynamics influence natural resource access, use, management and livelihoods of 

the San and Mier. Natural resources and their use cannot be disconnected from the issues of 

natural resource governance by different institutions. Chapter 8 presents a synthesis and 

conclusion of the study findings. Each of the results chapters (Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7) is 

written as an independent paper to allow easy conversion for publication. Therefore, there 

might be some overlaps in the discussions between these and the initial literature review and 

context chapters (Chapters 1, 2 and 3). 

8

CHAPTER 2 

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT: PARKS, CONSERVATION AND 

LIVELIHOODS - FROM A GLOBAL TO A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE 


The concept of conservation with people in parks is now common currency in international 

conservation literature and debates. However, the concept of ‘conservation beyond parks’ is 

relatively new in Africa, and more so in South Africa (see Pollard et al., 2003). What is 

common though, in most of the deliberations on conservation in and beyond parks are the 

livelihood- biodiversity linkages. Most researchers agree that the concept of livelihoods (at 

least) includes cultural and social (institutional) dimensions, and that failure to understand and 

consider these on the one hand or isolating them on the other hand may lead to a poor 

understanding of the value of natural resources to rural livelihoods and consequently impact 

on conservation success (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 2001; Kepe, 2008a). 

2.2 CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT 

2.2.1 Key strands and switches in conservation thinking 

There is a steadily growing, but at times dichotomous, body of knowledge on ‘conservation 

and development’ in conservation literature (Gartlan, 1998; Chapin, 2004). Extremist 

conservation biologists on the one hand, argue for conservation without people (see Oates, 

1999; Terborgh, 1999; Sunderland, 2006), while a relatively new resurgent group of 

commonly labelled social scientists view conservation and people as inextricably linked 

(Murphree, 2000). The growing and proven evidence of the contribution and value of natural 

resources to livelihoods both in parks and out of them has been a key driver for the growing 

support of people-centred approaches to conservation (see Chapter 7). 

Historically, conservation strategies have been dominated by attempts to reserve places for 

nature, and thus separate humans and other species (Carruthers, 1995, 1997; Hulme and 

Murphree, 1999; Pretty, 2006). A model which has been called ‘fortress conservation’, the 

‘fences and fines approach’ (Wells et al., 1992) or ‘coercive conservation’ (Peluso, 1993) 

dominated conservation thinking internationally for much of the 20 th century (Pollard et al, 

2003). This conservation approach was premised particularly upon the USA idea of a natural 

park as a pristine or wilderness area (du Toit et al., 2003; Pretty, 2006) and the British notion 

9

of a nature reserve that is managed intensively (Adams, 2004). Wilderness areas were 

envisioned as pristine environments comparable to those that existed before human 

interference, with delicately balanced ecosystems that needed to be preserved for present 

enjoyment and non-extractive use only (Pretty, 2006). Thus, traditional conservationist beliefs 

generally hold the view that there is an inverse relationship between human actions and the 

well being of the ecosystem (Pretty, 2006). This same sentiment is expressed more profoundly 

by Carruthers (1995). She posits that, referring to Kruger National Park in South Africa: 

“Since its inception and sporadic development, management has been driven by a desire to 

minimise human influences and maintain ‘pristine’ characteristics, no doubt shaped by the 

romanticised European view of the natural landscape before twentieth-century modernisation” 

(cited in Freitag- Ronaldson and Foxcroft, 2003). 

However, with increasing and broad conservation knowledge, ‘protectionist’ conservation 

principles and practice came under fierce but justified criticism that led to the emergence of 

conservation with people. There is a popular belief among social scientists that 

conservationists are contemptuous of human needs and quality of life that they valued plants 

and animals over and above people (Hoff and McNutt, 1994). This enduring tension between 

resource exploitation and conservation has always been at the heart of conservation debates 

(Wilson and Bryant, 1997). Political changes too (especially with the advent of democratic 

practices) also inspired a new interest in decentralisation and community participation in 

conservation projects (World Bank, 2004). New and innovative programmes, aimed at 

removing or reducing conflicts between protected areas and people, signalled a shift in 

international thinking on conservation issues (Fabricius, 2004). 

The new conservation approach emerged in different names such as co-management (Kelleher 

and Phillips, 1999; Murphree, 2000; Borrin-Feyerabend et al., 2000, 2004; Berkes, 2008b; de 

Koning, 2009), community-based natural resources management/conservation (Campbell et 

al., 2001; Fabricius et al., 2004; Kiss, 2004; Berkes, 2007), joint-management and Integrated 

Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) (ICEM, 2003; Agrawal and Redford, 2006) 

among others and in various degrees of application in different countries and regions. These 

projects attempted to ensure the conservation of biological diversity by reconciling the 

management of protected areas with social and economic needs of local people (Wells et al., 

1992; McNeely, 1995; Borrini Feyerabend et al., 2000). This type of conservation that links 

10

up with the livelihoods of the neighbouring residents is seen as an ideal way through which 

realised value (in monetary sense) can be appropriated for human use (Wells, 1996; Hulme 

and Murphree, 1999; Salafsky and Wollenburg, 2000, cited in Kepe, 2002). 

Some of the factors leading to the criticism of ‘exclusionist’ approaches include, but are not 

limited to, the increased risk of marginalisation which resulted directly from the loss of 

traditional land rights, the risk of food insecurity, the risk of social disarticulation and the 

associated ‘extinction of indigenous knowledge’ (Pretty, 2006), and the risk of protected areas 

conversion into uncontrolled illegal activities such as poaching and protests (Palmer et al., 

2002; World Bank, 2004). For example, in 1995, the Dwesa-Cwebe community in the Eastern 

Cape Province of South Africa invaded the Dwesa and Cwebe reserves as a symbolic act of 

defiance against ‘protectionist approaches’. Once inside, they began plundering shellfish in 

the marine reserves and decimating indigenous inland forests (Timmermans, 1999). This 

protest strategy attracted much public and official attention that resulted in redressive 

interventions from many quarters including conservation authorities, local Government, local 

leadership and NGOs. 

Thus, the need for conservation with social justice is precisely considered as one of the key 

motivations behind people-based approaches. The Declaration on the “RIGHT TO 

DEVELOPMENT” asserts that all human beings have an inalienable human right to 

development. According to Attfield and Wilkins (1992), development precisely refers to a 

comprehensive, social, economic, cultural and political process which aims at the constant 

improvement of the well being of the entire population and all its individuals on the basis of 

their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of 

benefits (Attfield and Wilkins, 1992). The two basic principles of social justice are a) equality 

and equity in distribution of material goods such as natural resources and; b) participation in 

decisions affecting one’s or community life (Hoff and McNutt, 1994). The former is crucial in 

exploration of the causal associations between misdistribution, poverty and exhaustion of 

natural resources, while the latter has been the foundation for new approaches that are 

founded on decentralisation of political power which would foster both community 

participation and the sustainable use of natural resources. Five categories of social justice are 

distinguished namely participatory, distributive, commutative, contributive and retributive 

justice (see Blignaut, 2004). The common currency in all the mentioned categories is a 

11

highlight of the fact that everyone has a fundamental right of access to natural resources 

needed to satisfy all basic human rights. 

Social justice also means that the survival rights of the oppressed and disenfranchised should 

be protected. In some instances, it entails giving back land resources to local and indigenous 

people who have a historical record of forceful evictions from parks and other forms of 

protected areas (Ramutsindela, 2002; Kepe et al., 2005). Lee (2006) asserts that there is no 

substitute for the winning of land rights as a way of conferring dignity and self reliance. The 

form of resettlement may depend on local conditions, but people could be settled inside or 

outside protected areas, with sustainable use as a key principle underlying conservation 

efforts. Resettlement areas and Contract Parks are such examples of land given to local 

communities (such as the San and Mier) outside and inside parks respectively (Reid et al., 

2004). It is not surprising therefore, that sustainable development was extended to make an 

explicit reference to justice, equity, and elimination of poverty during the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. World leaders agreed that biodiversity 

and resource conservation must be fully integrated into strategies for economic development 

and are essential elements of sustainable livelihoods at local scales. 

Today, there is a growing number of field conservation projects where at least some 

livelihood needs have been realised. For example, the Dzanga-Sangha project in south- 

western Central African Republic, despite operational problems, has been hailed as flagship 

of people-centred conservation (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 2001). The project is engaged in the 

management of natural resources within a multi-use protected area, compromising the 

Dzanga-Ndoki National Parks and the Dzanga-Dende Special Forest Reserve. The project is 

successful in conserving the forest’s abundant and diverse plants and animals, developing 

eco-tourism potential and protecting the socio-economic rights of the indigenous Ba’Aka 

people who exclusively depend on wildlife as their source of livelihoods (Ntiamoa-Baidu et 

al., 2001). The understanding in community involvement, joint-management or co- 

management is that some forms of extractive use, if well managed, properly monitored and 

based on understanding of biological limits to use, generate funds and provide positive 

incentives to drive habitat and species conservation (Bond, 1994; Child, 1995; Murphree, 

1996; Hulme and Murphree, 1999). This approach has seen the emergence of Contract Parks 

12

as a way of promoting sustainable use (both extractive and non-extractive use) for meeting 

both ecological and human needs (see Reid et al., 2004). 

2.2.2 Transfrontier Parks (TFPs) and Contract Parks 

A Transfrontier Park (TFP) (or Transfrontier Protected Area) is typically defined as “an area 

of land and/or sea that straddles one or more boundaries between states, sub-national units 

such as provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limits of national 

sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent parts are especially dedicated to the protection 

and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources and 

managed co-operatively through legal or other effective means” (Sandwith et al., 2001:3). In 

South Africa, these TFPs that link ecosystems across international borders are also referred to 

as ‘Peace Parks’. Some TFP agreements specify that each country should give particular 

attention to developing and involving communities living adjacent to the park (see Chapter 4, 

Section 4.2.2; Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1). This is parallel to current trends in literature that 

support the view that TFPs often help to reunite communities historically divided by arbitrary 

political divisions and improve people-park relations (Hanks, 2003). Since the official launch 

of the KTP in May 2000, a number of other TFPs (with co-management arrangements) have 

been formed and more are in the planning process, not just in South Africa (e.g. the Great 

Limpopo Transfrontier Park and the Ai-!Ais-Richtersveld Transfrontier Park) but in the rest 

of Africa as well (Büscher, 2010). 

The advent of Contract Parks (in TFPs and other parks) worldwide was seen as a way of 

involving local people in the management of resources that they have traditionally relied 

upon. A Contract Park is defined as “any land that is either privately or state owned that is 

managed by an agreement reached between the owner (state or private) and a conservation 

agency such as the South African National Parks (Boonzaier, 1996). The ‘Contract Park’ land 

is legally specified and its boundaries, identification, ownership and status are clearly 

established (Robinson, 1985, cited in Reid et al., 2004). At times it entails negotiations with 

surrounding local residents and negotiating for ‘Contract Parks’ in which communal land is 

incorporated within game reserves or part of existing parks demarcated into separate units so 

that they can be used for conservation and development purposes (Wynberg and Kepe, 1999; 

Kepe et al, 2005; Holden, 2007; Kepe, 2008b). Conceptually, the conservation discourse 

behind Contract Parks recognises that alternative forms of income generation, with genuine 

13

economic incentives, must be offered in order to protect the parks and meet community needs 

(Reid et al., 2004). In most Contract Park projects, eco-tourism is held up as ‘the promise of 

the future’ for alternative income generation. These ‘community-based’ Contract Park 

projects range from allowing local people limited use of resources inside them, to giving local 

people almost complete control of the project (Kepe, 2002). Supporting this position was the 

president of the IUCN, during the World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, when he argued 

that “if local people do not support protected areas, then they cannot last” and that protected 

areas should be now seen as “islands of biodiversity in an ocean of sustainable human 

development” with their benefits extending far beyond their boundaries. 

However, co-management approaches in general and particularly in protected areas, have 

been subject to criticism. Locke and Dearden (2005) (cited in Adams, 2006) warn that the 

recent paradigm shift towards greater community participation weakens the ability of 

protected areas to preserve wild biodiversity, and Terborgh (1999) insists that “active 

protection of parks requires a top-down approach because enforcement is invariably in the 

hands of police and other armed forces” and further discusses the failures of ecotourism and 

the sustainable development movement. Brockington (2004) believes that ‘fortress 

conservation’ is still in practice in some localities. Drawing from his experience in Nkomazi 

Game Reserve in Tanzania, Brockington argues that: “the lessons of history are that new 

mechanisms of natural resource use and management can be imposed by powerful groups on 

weaker, marginal peoples, and that this situation has continued without effective challenges 

for many years… we have to acknowledge the existence of the powerful forces mitigating 

against just solutions in order that the justices which community conservation portends might 

become reality” (cited in Fabricius and Kock, 2004:32). 

Sceptics of people-centred conservation argue that projects that seek to integrate conservation 

and development have tended to be overambitious and underachieving. Brockington et al. 

(2006) highlight that the potential benefits of integrating biodiversity with management and 

planning for livelihood needs are substantial, but a few examples of successful 

implementation exist. Marshal Murphree (2000:2), a key proponent of Community Based 

Conservation (CBC) argues that, “successes recorded (with CBC) are isolated and externally 

initiated and heavily subsidised by the outside world” and therefore, that this thought (of 

CBC) is still an aspiration for many parks and their authorities. Adams et al. (2004), contend 

14

that although it is desirable to satisfy the goals of biodiversity and poverty reduction 

simultaneously, it may only be possible under specific institutional, ecological, and 

developmental conditions. Hayes (2006) warns that given the mounting arguments against the 

environmental efficacy of community-based conservation programmes and the recent 

backlash against sustainable development and local participation in resources management, it 

appears that the pendulum maybe once again swinging in favour of the traditional park 

(protectionist) paradigm. Fabricius (2004) suggest that conservation projects should not be 

evaluated generically, rather a case by case approach will provide a justified and objective 

state-of-affairs of CBNRM projects. 

However, despite the criticisms noted above resource use is still not a choice but an 

imperative for many households living in rural Africa and more so for the poorest (World 

Bank, 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2004b; Pretty, 2006). Therefore, 

conservation efforts that embrace sustainable use by the local poor are essential if we are to 

address the Millennium Development Goals, since, for some individuals, natural resources are 

perceived as central to their survival and in most cases local people are characterised by 

extreme poverty (World Bank, 2004). Ferraro and Pattanayak (2006) argue that successful 

conservation projects that involve local people, though few and far from being perfect show 

how local communities can benefit from conservation and thus, provides a path for future 

conservation initiatives. Since the establishment of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, (and the 

subsequent creation of a Contract Park inside the KTP), similar establishments have been seen 

elsewhere in South Africa. Contract Parks in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park and Ai- 

!Ais-Richtersveld National Park are such examples. The principal national conservation 

agency responsible for the management of these parks is South African National Parks 

(SANParks). KTP remains a prime example and a model for future conservation practice (that 

attempts to embrace local livelihood needs) not only in South Africa, but also in the whole of 

Africa. 

2.2.3 Conservation beyond park fences 

For much of the twentieth century most parks were managed as distinct units separate from 

their surrounding landscapes (Pollard et al., 2003; Rao and Ginsberg, 2010). However, with 

improving understanding that conservation areas do not exist in a vacuum but are nested and 

connected in a heterogeneous, social, economic, environmental and political matrix that 

15

influences their origins and development (Pollard et al., 2003), the practice of ‘island’ 

conservation has been challenged (Fabricius et al., 2006). Importantly, much of the earth’s 

biodiversity is found outside parks and therefore, conservation advocates are challenged to 

move the principles and practices beyond fences through support for ‘conservation by the 

people’ (Murphree, 1996; Rao and Ginsberg, 2010). Muchapondwa et al. (2009), contend that 

the land that is outside of protected areas could potentially alter ecological functions inside 

protected areas and subsequently leading to biodiversity loss, given that protected areas are 

always part of larger ecosystems. Hence there is need to expand management interventions 

beyond parks or protected areas (Chapter 1, Section 1.1). This approach is also pro-poor in its 

thinking and strategies since it also pursues what Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, (2006) call 

‘double sustainability’ (as it endeavours to protect both the biodiversity and people’s 

livelihoods at the same time). 

Important in conservation beyond fences is the empowering of communities and individuals 

to take full responsibility for managing natural resources adjacent to protected areas that 

contribute to their sustainable livelihoods. On the basis of several case studies in South 

Africa, Fabricius and de Wet (1999) concluded that “the main negative conservation impacts 

of forced removals from protected areas are that they contribute to unsustainable resource use 

outside the protected areas, because of increased pressure on natural resources in areas 

already degraded due to overpopulation” (cited in Fabricius and de Wet, 2002). The theme of 

the 5 th World Parks Congress on ‘Benefits Beyond Boundaries’ captures the euphoria of 

community benefits from protected areas and beyond. The theme is viewed as a way of 

challenging people to understand the many values and benefits that areas beyond protected 

areas offer (Miller, 2003 cited in Ramutsindela, 2006). The KTP has programmes targeted at 

the surrounding communal lands where the San and Mier communities live, after being 

provided with land ownership outside the Park following their successful land claim. The 

concept is that if resources are managed sustainably, especially within the local cultural and 

institutional contexts, both local communities and the ecosystem will be sustained, 

consequently avoiding pressure on Park resources. 

2.2.4 Culture, institutional dynamics and natural resource governance 

At the heart of contemporary conservation paradigms are the influences of cultural 

background and social institutional arrangements in terms of natural resource access, use and 

16

governance. Culture and other social institutions are important in access and use of natural 

resources in given contexts (e.g. Kepe, 2002, 2008a; Matose, 2008; Chapter 3, Section 3.4; 

Chapter 5, Section 5.1; Chapter 6; Chapter 7). Cultural, spiritual, and heritage values exert a 

strong influence on local preferences and well being. It is also argued, for instance that the 

notional value that elements of the environment have for different people is a reflection of 

values embodied in their cultures (Byers, 1996; Rao and Ginsberg, 2010). Thus, natural 

resource use ultimately originates from within the constellation of shared goals to which a 

society aspires – elements that transform natural resources into satisfaction of human needs. 

Though proponents of strict protectionist approaches still spearhead for intensively and 

strictly managed protected areas, other studies contend that other land-use regimes may 

provide effective means for communities to enforce rules and that protected areas do no better 

than alternative governance structures (Hayes, 2006). The debate on the role of local 

institutions in biodiversity conservation and livelihoods linkages has been discussed at length 

in the literature (Ostrom, 1990; Western and Wright, 1994; Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997; 

Neumann, 1997, 1998; Hulme and Murphree, 2001). Most authors also agree that institutions 

shape access and use of resources in a given context (Kepe, 2002, 2008a; Matose, 2008). 

Institutions are regarded as levers through which human behavior could be controlled and 

resources could be sustainably managed (see Chapter 7). Therefore considering different 

cultural orientations and institutional configurations, the environment that is being valued 

becomes a site of conflict between competing notions of value and interests of the different 

people. 

However, very few studies on resource use and livelihood dynamics have looked at the 

influence of cultural aspects (such as identity, traditional knowledge, myths, norms, etc) and 

institutional configurations on resource access, use, livelihoods and management (see Matose, 

2008). Furthermore, there has been less focus on cases of land restitution in protected areas 

(such as the KTP) where co-management is often seen to be applicable (de Koning, 2009). A 

very big complement of studies has failed to realise that protected areas and areas adjacent to 

them are sites of nested and complex institutional arrangements. Hence, the knowledge and 

understanding on how the value placed on resources by resource users is influenced by 

various institutional arrangements is still shallow. A focus on the influence of institutions is 

critical in this study as co-management has been seen as the only strategy in memorandum of 

17

agreements to reconcile land restitution in protected areas (Kepe, 2008b). Institutional and 

natural resource governance issues are quite different between co-managed parks and 

community-managed land. Governance aspects in parks often involve the principal 

conservation agency (usually Government agencies) and representatives of local 

communities, and though rules are designed through collaborative means, communities are 

relatively powerless and their needs and aspirations are rarely addressed (Sayer et al., 2000; 

Brockington, 2004). In community-owned land, natural resource management responsibilities 

often entirely lie with the community through locally elected committees of traditional 

leadership. However, inter and intra community conflicts are common, with certain groups of 

people possessing more decision making powers than others (Ellis, 2010; Thondhlana et al., 

2011). In the context of the KTP, management of resources could be relatively easy in the 

Park, while it could be more challenging outside the Park due to increased complexity ranging 

from power relations, cultural differentiation, other competing land uses and heightened inter- 

and intra-community heterogeneity among others. Different land tenure regimes such as the 

Contract Park, the rest of Park, surrounding game farms and communally-owned (See Chapter 

4, Section 4.2.2.2) resettlement land mean different management arrangements. 

Community-owned land, such as the resettlement farms owned by the San and Mier 

communities in the Kalahari is what is normally referred to as common property, implying a 

system of common governance for resources where use of the resources by separate units like 

households produces external effects for each other (Vatn, 2005). Therefore, by establishing 

common property over the resources at stake, the San and Mier communities regulate 

interactions through rules about who is allowed to do what concerning the common resources. 

State property such as the KTP, is about internalising the externalities by bringing them under 

one common set of goals, and one common governance structure, in this case, the state (Vatn, 

2005). Co-management of state land such as the KTP, is in response to the fact that action by 

one unit has external influence over the other. For example, if the Park management decides 

to restrict resource access in the Park, local communities may not be able to use resources that 

have multi-dimensional meaning to their livelihoods. Therefore, joining management efforts 

(co-management) is seen as a way of transforming the external problem e.g. resource access 

restriction into an internal one, which can then be treated with the common management 

structure of key actors. The Joint Management Board (JMB) of the KTP is such management 

18

structure that is supposed to represent the interests of SANParks, the San and Mier, key 

stakeholders in the Contract Park agreement (see Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2.2). 

However, each land arrangement faces different challenges with the management of 

communally-owned resettlement land being particularly challenging due to the aforesaid 

factors. Understanding the functioning of these different resource regimes (through examining 

culturally and institutionally rooted interactions) is critical in designing approaches that can 

contribute to the sustainable management of natural resources in the different resource tenure 

regimes. This is especially important in situations where local communities are involved in 

co-management of some parcels of land such as the Contract Park, as in this case study. 

2.3 DRYLAND ECOSYSTEMS AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS 

Attention to drylands and rural livelihoods becomes salient to this study as more than 91 % of 

South African lands is classified as arid or drylands (de Villiers et al., 2002). The Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2003) defines a dryland “as land where plant production is 

limited by water availability”. Drylands as defined by the Convention to Combat 

Desertification, refers to lands where annual precipitation is less than two thirds of potential 

evaporation, from dry sub-humid areas (ratio ranges 0.50 - 0.65), through semi-arid, arid and 

hyper-arid (ratio < 0.05), but excluding polar areas. Dryland ecosystems including sub-humid, 

semi-arid, arid and hyper-arid areas occupy approximately 50 % of the Earth’s terrestrial 

surface (Madzwamuse et al., 2007). The Kalahari region, where this study is based, is a semi- 

desert area which receives less than 200 mm of rainfall annually (see Chapter 4, Section 

4.2.1). 

More than 35 % of the world’s population live in drylands, and many people directly depend 

on them for their livelihoods for goods and services such as food, fodder, fibre, medicine and 

so forth (Madzwamuse at al., 2007), contrary to the once popular notion that viewed drylands 

as wastelands (Bulpin, 1965). According to Anderson et al. (2004), African drylands alone are 

home to 268 million people or 40 % of the continent’s population and excluding deserts, 

comprise 43 % of the continent’s surface area. Some of these drylands are marginalised and 

contain many of the Africa’s poorest and most food-insecure people. Most of the drylands, 

particularly hyper-arid and arid lands are nominally regarded as extensive grazing lands for 

livestock or game (Grossman and Ganda, 1989). 

19

Drylands also provide habitat for wildlife and are critical to the survival of many migrating 

species. In addition, such drylands are often the last reserves of this game as the land is 

unsuitable for conversion into agriculture or forestry. Despite comparatively low species 

numbers, biodiversity is crucial to maintaining ecosystem functions in drylands. Losing 

species in dryland systems may result in the reduction of resilience, productivity and 

livelihood security far more quickly than in more humid environments especially given the 

increasingly evident encroachment of human activity into the very dry and hyper-arid areas. 

Madzwamuse et al. (2007), contend that although drylands have fewer species than the tropics 

or semi-tropics, they are characterised by a high degree of endemism and also contain wild 

resource products with high use and non-use values. For example, the value of land under 

wildlife in the arid Lowveld region of South Africa has been found to be potentially higher 

than other land-use option (Blignaut and Moolman, 2006). As a result, most researchers, 

practitioners, donor agencies and government departments are being compelled to re-examine 

their perceptions of drylands (such as the Kalahari) as wastelands or useless areas (e.g. 

Barrow and Mogaka, 2007; Madzwamuse et al., 2007). Drylands have been presented with 

new names such as ‘the real jewels of the Kalahari’ (Madzwamuse at al., 2007), ‘undervalued 

national economic resources’ referring to Kenya’s drylands (Barrow and Mogaka, 2007) and 

the ‘hidden value’ (Araia, 2005). Anderson et al. (2004), contend that productive and 

prosperous enterprises in a dryland context can only flourish where people in drylands are not 

only able to secure the necessary investment, largely for water and infrastructure 

development, but also where the contribution of natural resources to their livelihoods is 

clearly understood. 

2.4 A SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT 

2.4.1 Conservation policy 

After the first democratic elections in 1994, the new ANC government of South Africa 

realised that protected areas had remained inaccessible to the majority of South Africans and 

few benefits were derived from these, hence the need to come up with initiatives that benefit 

local communities (DET, 1997). Conservation without people was a characteristic of the pre- 

1994 apartheid era in which the basic philosophy of protectionism prevailed, particularly with 

an explicit emphasis on the repudiation of the human element (Carruthers, 1997). Of 

particular concern was the fact that most protected areas were established within some of the 

most poverty stricken parts of the country and in most instances at severe costs to indigenous 

20

and local communities. However, South Africa recognised that parks are assets of 

unsurpassed value which both conserve biodiversity and potentially generate substantial 

socio-economic benefits to local communities and the nation as a whole. Since then, the 

preconditions for and discourses on the sustainability of conservation areas are being 

rewritten as the practice of fortress conservation is increasingly challenged (Pollard et al., 

2003). Since the early 1990’s the conservation sector in South Africa has made strides to 

emulate their counterparts in the rest of Africa and elsewhere, by incorporating rural 

livelihoods and social justice – in practice or at least in principle – into conservation planning 

(Wynberg and Kepe, 1999; Cock and Fig, 2000 cited in Kepe, 2002). Many of the 

conservation areas, such as the KTP are located in the dry regions of South Africa. 

2.4.2 South African policy context on sustainable use in parks and surrounding 

landscapes 

Table 2.1 provides a brief overview of some of the key policies that have guided natural 

resource management strategies and actions and continue to affect people-natural resource 

relationships in South Africa. This should not be seen as exhaustive though. South Africa is a 

signatory of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The CBD is widely seen as a turning 

point in conservation, in its embodiment of holistic strategies to ensure the conservation and 

sustainable use of biological resources (Kepe, 2002). The CBD’s main objectives are the 

conservation of biodiversity; the sustainable use of biological resources; and the fair and 

equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. Article 8 (j) of the 

CBD calls for approval of local people in promoting wider use of their knowledge and sharing 

with them the benefits of such commercial utilisation of knowledge (UNEP, 1992). This non- 

binding instrument has provided an impetus and precursor to community-based conservation 

in and beyond parks in South Africa and elsewhere. Having signed the CBD agreement in 

1992 and in line with the requirement of Article 6 of the convention, South Africa developed 

a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and approved the National Environmental 

Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 among other initiatives. A key feature in these 

strategies and plans is the involvement of indigenous and local communities in conservation 

planning, particularly those communities with a history of forced eviction from their ancestral 

lands. The awarding of ancestral land back to the indigenous San and Mier communities in 

the KTP is partly seen as a result of the Declaration of the rights of indigenous people (Table 

2.1). 

21

Table 2.1: A brief overview of key policies informing natural resource management 

approaches in South Africa 

Key policy Influence on people and parks 

Global policies 

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples 

United Nations Convention to Combat 

Desertification (UNCCD) 

2.4.3 Drylands of South Africa 

Provides the minimum standards for the survival, dignity 

and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world. 

Provides a framework to combat land degradation (that 

cause desertification) and mitigate the effects of drought 

in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas through 

national action programmes that incorporate long-term 

strategies. The strategies are supported by international 

cooperation and partnership arrangements. 

South African policies 

Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004 Calls for integrated and cooperative governance of 

biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of indigenous 

biological resources and the fair and equitable sharing of 

benefits from indigenous resources. 

Protected Areas Act No. 57 of 2003 Stipulates a comprehensive and consultative planning 

process for the management of national parks and other 

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action 

Plan of 2003 

protected areas. 

South Africa is required to develop national strategies, 

plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable 

use of biodiversity and equitable sharing of benefits 

derived from genetic resources. 

National Forest Act of 1998 The status of some tree species such as Acacia erioloba, 

Acacia haematoxylon and Boscia albitrunca are listed in 

the Red List of South African Plants as declining and 

hence they are protected by National Law. 

Objective 1.4 of the White paper of 2000 Promotes environmentally sound and sustainable 

SA National Biodiversity Strategy and the 

development in areas adjacent to or within protected 

areas. 

Advocates for sustainable natural resource use. 

Durban Accord 

SANParks Draft Policy on Resource Use SANParks to “familiarise itself with historical 

relationships between the protected area, its resources and 

stakeholders, particularly against the backdrop of 

historical ownership of and access to land and resources”. 

Nearly 91 % of the South Africa is arid, semi-arid or dry sub-humid and falls broadly within 

the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) definition of affected 

drylands (de Villiers et al., 2002). About 8 % is considered hyper-arid while only about 1 % 

of the surface areas of South Africa may be defined as humid. The distribution of the five 

22

aridity zones is represented in Table 2.2. The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park is located in the 

Northern Cape province of South Africa. As indicated in the above table, the Northern Cape, 

unlike others, is the most arid province consisting of arid and hyper-arid conditions only. 

Table 2.2: Distribution of aridity zones in South Africa per province (after Hoffman et al., 

1999 cited in de Villiers et al., 2002) 

Province 

Hyperarid 

% Aridity class according to ratio of MAP:PET 

Arid Semiarid 

23 

Dry sub- 

humid 

Humid Total 

area 

0.65 Km 2 

Eastern Cape 0 34 51 12 3 169 863 

Free State 0 34 65 1 0 129 798 

Gauteng 0 0 100 0 0 18 186 

KwaZulu-Natal 0 0 60 31 8 92 333 

Mpumalanga 0 0 88 9 3 77 780 

Northern Cape 24 76 0 0 0 362 739 

Northern 

0 30 68 1 0 123 190 

Province 

North West 0 57 43 0 0 116 178 

Western Cape 8 64 24 2 2 129 503 

Total km 2 96 142 566 944 477 169 61 532 17 783 1 219 570 

% of total area 8 47 39 5 1 100 

2.4.4 Land Reform in South Africa 

In 1994, consequent to the end of apartheid, the South African government instigated an 

ambitious, policy-driven land reform and restitution programme intended to reduce social 

disparities and improve the lives of those marginalised by the Apartheid system of segregation 

and discrimination (Williams, 1996; Levin and Weiner, 1997; Ramutsindela, 1998; 

Bradstock, 2004; Kepe et al., 2005). Land Reform in South Africa is divided into three 

programmes namely Land Redistribution, Land Tenure Reform and Land Restitution. The 

main objectives of the land reform programme are to (a) redress the injustice of the past; (b) 

foster National reconciliation and stability; (c) underpin economic growth, and (c) improve 

household welfare and alleviate poverty (DLA, 1997). According to Kepe et al. (2005), the 

land restitution policy (under which the San and Mier land claims fall) aims to restore land or 

provide alternative forms of redress (e.g. alternative land, financial compensation or 

preferential access to state development projects) to people dispossessed of their rights to land 

by racially discriminatory legislation and practice after 1913. The Northern Cape’s

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights promises that “a person or community 

dispossessed of property is entitled either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress. 

This is in accordance to the South African Constitution mission to build a better future based 

on social justice”. 

One of the most contentious rural land restitution cases in South Africa is that of the 

Dwesa/Cwebe on the ‘Wild Coast’. The non-resolution of land claims on the Wild Coast had 

been a source of numerous land-related conflicts (Kepe, 2001). Most of these claims were in 

relation to land reserved for nature conservation, or land targeted for economic development 

(see Kepe, 2001). Villagers who lost land to the Dwesa/Cweba Nature Reserves finally had 

their land rights restored in July 2001, after many years of mayhem. Another notable example 

is the Makuleke community in the Northern part of Kruger National Park. It represents one of 

the first large-scale community-based rural land claims in conservation areas in South Africa 

and arguably set an excellent precedent for land claims in other important conservation areas 

(Ramutsindela, 2002). 

Given the emerging acknowledgement of the realised value of natural resources to the 

livelihoods of many rural South Africans, several authors argue that it is worth asking whether 

land reform, amongst other things, can enhance this value by raising productivity levels and 

increasing access to and control over the resources and contribute to the reduction of poverty 

(Shackleton et al., 2000a, 2000b; Kepe, 2002). Such knowledge is important in determining 

and informing future natural resource use plans in resettlement land especially land that is 

inside and outside parks, such as the park land (in the KTP) and communal resettlement 

farms (adjacent to the KTP) awarded to the San and Mier communities of the Kalahari (see 

Chapter 4). 

2.4.5 Land reform and poverty alleviation 

Andrew et al. (2003), argue that the Land Reform Programme as a poverty alleviation strategy 

has not made significant progress. It has been found in a recent study that 50 % of all land 

reform projects have failed to make beneficiaries permanently better off (CDE, 2008b cited in 

Martens, 2009). For this reason, Goebel (2005) argues that it is increasingly becoming 

difficult to convincingly argue that land reform will alleviate rural poverty. For example, land 

transferred in a redistribution process in Limpopo province was found to be either abandoned 

24

or used less productively than before (McCusker, 2004). This commentator further contends 

that it is not the quantity of the land but the quality of the benefits derived from the land that 

matters and the support and capacity that is provided after the redistribution or restitution of 

the land. Often people are left to fend for themselves. Within the context of this study, an 

analysis of different institutional arrangements and systems of state support will help in 

understanding how they constrain or improve the capacity of local communities (the San and 

Mier) to manage their land and improve their livelihood strategies. 

The 2003 World Parks Congress held in Durban stressed that biodiversity conservation and 

protected area management must be socially sound, that is, “must strive to reduce and in no 

way exacerbate poverty” (IUCN, 2004). While IUCN recommends to its members that 

“where negative social, cultural, and economic impacts occur as a result of protected areas 

creation or management, affected communities should be compensated (IUCN, 2004), 

conservation organisations have not yet translated this recommendation into practice by 

adopting consistent formal resettlement policies. Government officials sometimes openly 

argue that the costs of resettling park inhabitants according to socially sound guidelines will 

be too high (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006). Therefore, it has been argued that land reform 

is not contributing to improved livelihoods as mere access to land does not mean better 

livelihoods or better land-use practices (Andrew et al., 2003). 

However, while this evidence is not contested, most of the indicators of a successful land 

reform are biased towards crop production while little is known about the contribution of land 

reform in terms of natural resource access and use, and importance for cultural and identity 

fulfilment in the case of the San and Mier. In addition, the relationship between livestock 

ownership and resource use (grazing and browsing) is also rather shallow at this stage. The 

San and Mier communities received land outside the KTP through the land restitution 

programme as a way to improve their livelihoods (see Chapter 4). Some of the households 

own livestock among other livelihood strategies and options. Understanding these 

relationships (between land reform, resource use, livestock ownership, institutions and 

livelihoods) will shed light on the different interest between resource groups/users between 

and within communities. 

25

CHAPTER 3 

RESEARCH APPROACH, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND METHODS 


This Chapter presents a particular view on the research approach to the study and explores 

ways in which specific understandings of resource value and how it manifests become salient 

to the issue of natural resource use and management in the context of the complete livelihood 

portfolio. A key distinction that this Chapter will seek to draw out is between the tangible and 

intangible dimensions of natural resources by looking at the frameworks for understanding the 

direct-use and non-use values of natural resources (i.e. the Total Economic Value (TEV) and 

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) frameworks. Methodological shortcomings of 

neo-classical or traditional valuation approaches will be highlighted and integrative 

approaches (e.g. the Sustainable Livelihood Framework) will be discussed. 

The TEV (Figure 3.1) and the MA (Table 3.1) frameworks are relevant in this study as they 

are useful in conceptualising and identifying the multiple values attached to natural resources 

and, in particular, the culturally-inspired uses of natural resources enjoyed by the San and 

Mier communities of the Kalahari. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) is used as 

a methodological approach to understand the conditions, the alternatives and strategies and 

the limitations that affect the livelihoods of the sampled San and Mier households, with 

regards to natural resource use and management. The Institutional Analysis and Development 

(IAD) framework (Figure 3.2) is specifically used to explore the different actors and 

institutions responsible for natural resource access and management in the Park and the 

resettlement farms and how these interact to influence natural resource management and 

livelihood outcomes. The above-mentioned approaches will be used in a holistic way to 

explore the links between the direct use values of natural resources, understood in 

combination with the cultural values uses of natural resources and the institutions shaping 

resources use and management in the KTP and the community-managed resettlement farms. 

The Chapter also takes a brief look at some of the leading determinants of resource value with 

an articulation of how and why natural resource significance manifests differently in different 

localities. The line of argument is that in order to get a deeper understanding of the intricacies 

26

of wild natural resource use and management in and out of park systems in Africa generally 

and in South Africa in particular, there is need to change the rather shallow perceptions of 

what the landscape and its resources mean to the indigenous and local communities inhabiting 

these landscapes. 

3.2 CONTEXTUALISING VALUATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN 

LIVELIHOOD RESEARCH 

This study is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing on the above approaches that link fields such 

as economics, ecology, sociology, history and politics among others. Given the 

interdisciplinary nature of the study, the methods were drawn from diverse disciplines to give 

a balanced understanding of the contribution of resources to local livelihoods. One advantage 

of drawing from diverse approaches is the opportunity of social explanations of ecological 

and economic phenomenon – contributing to bridging the gap between quantitative and 

qualitative methods of data enquiry. According to Creswell (2003), quantitative research 

establishes statistically significant conclusions about a population by studying a representative 

sample of the population. Qualitative research describes an event in its natural setting and is 

described as a subjective way to look at life as it is lived and an attempt to explain the studied 

behaviour (Abusabha and Woelfel, 2003; Walsh, 2003). Creswell (2003) affirms that 

quantitative and qualitative methods of enquiry both seek to explain events from different 

perspectives, and are therefore both valid ways to evaluate a phenomenon in the proper 

context. 

3.2.1 Natural resource valuation 

This section provides the conceptual and theoretical base and framework for the study’s 

objectives (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4) addressed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. 

3.2.1.1 Understanding value 

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘value’ has a number of possible 

meanings (Hawkins, 1990 cited in Lynam et al., 2002). Four definitions relevant to this study 

are noted. Firstly, value is interpreted as the amount of money, goods, or services considered 

being equivalent to a thing or for which it can be exchanged. Secondly, value may refer to 

desirability, usefulness and importance. Thirdly, value can denote the ability of a thing to 

serve a purpose or cause an effect. In the context of ecosystem services, this refers to services 

27

such as flood control, waste absorption, etc. Lastly, the term value can allude to one’s 

principles or standards, in other words, one’s judgment of what is valuable or important in 

life. It is evident that these four definitions can be associated with (1) economic, (2) social, (3) 

ecological, and (4) ethical/philosophical concerns, respectively (Lynam et al., 2007). 

Therefore, this indicates that wild natural resource value has economic, social, ecological and 

ethical dimensions. In general, this study uses the term ‘value’ in the sense of (1) monetary 

and (2) desirability, usefulness, and (4) ethical importance (non-monetary, e.g. cultural value). 

The above definitions and discussions draw us to social constellations - social interactions and 

processes that are imbedded in practice which shape the value people can derive from natural 

resources (Kepe, 2002; 2008a) and the resultant relativity of values in time and space. In 

supporting the above contention, Farber et al. (2002:378), state that: “Values ultimately 

originate from within the constellation of shared goals to which a society aspires – value 

systems – as well as the availability of ‘production technologies’ that transform things into 

satisfaction of human needs”. 

3.2.1.2 Economic valuation 

Ecosystem services valuation has been for a long time a key element in the design of policies 

aimed at sustainable natural resources management (Keyzer et al., 2006). Resource valuation 

is the process whereby a particular resource, or resource product or service is assigned a 

numeric value, usually in a monetary form. It enables a decision process to determine which 

service or set of services is valued most highly and how to develop approaches to maintain 

services by managing the system sustainably (Farber et al., 2002; MA, 2003; Turner et al., 

2003). Indeed, up until now, economic valuation strategies dominated debates and took centre 

stage in informing environmental policies in most parts of the world. This approach appealed 

to the theory of markets – to the goals of maximising utility and to the centrality of money as 

a universal measurement for differences in human desires, of use values and of elements and 

processes in nature (Kepe, 2008a). The economic valuation approach has also been widely 

applied in the management of natural resources in communal lands (see Shackleton et al., 

1999; 2002; Turpie, 2003; Dovie et al., 2004; 2006; Turpie et al., 2006). 

28

Drawing from Harvey (1996), there are several arguments supporting the rationale behind the 

use of money as a measure of value. First, money is considered as the only means by which 

people value significant aspects of the environment daily. Second, money is regarded as the 

only well understood and universal measure of value that currently exists. The assertion is that 

money reduces the complex and multidimensional values of resources (including subjective 

non-use values such as aesthetics) to a simple objective denominator (money) that is 

understood by everyone in most societies. Lastly, it is argued that speaking in monetary terms 

is the only language that holders of social power and most government officials understand. 

Therefore, whenever a good is marketed, as in the case of fuelwood, fodder or other minor 

natural resources products, its exchange value, approximated by market price, can be used as 

a measure of value. For a more detailed theoretical thinking behind the valuation of ecosystem 

services see for example Constanza et al., (1997); Heal (2000); Hannon (2001); de Groot et 

al., 2002; Farber et al., (2002); Howarth and Farber, (2002) and Limburg et al., (2002). 

3.2.1.3 Criticism of economic valuation 

The major critique of traditional or conventional resource valuation methods (based solely on 

direct market prices) is that many environmental goods and services are not traded in formal 

markets. This is the reason why past valuation methods have been disputed as relying on an 

arguably narrow target (market indicators/prices only) (Gram, 2001; Kepe, 2008a). It is not 

the intention of this study to discredit conventional valuation methods, rather the aim is to 

reflect on their weaknesses and why integrated approaches (such as Sustainable livelihoods 

approaches) are favourable. Kepe (2008a) observes that researchers agree that neo-classical 

economic valuation has limitations when it comes to addressing total economic values and 

moral values fully (see for example, Farber et al., 2002). Given the absence of formal 

markets, it could be argued that relying on actual market prices for valuation is flawed 

(Cavendish, 2002). As a consequence, some natural resource services may be excluded from 

household budget surveys, a common scenario in past valuation studies, leading to an 

underestimation of the contribution of resources to rural livelihoods. 

One key assumption in conventional economics is that market values are determined through 

a market process in which people or groups can express their preference for various goods or 

services. Values are expressed in the outcome of their exchange prices. The assumptions are 

29

that markets are free and competitive and that buyers and sellers have the same power and 

have equal access to information (Kepe, 2008a). In reality though, no single group or 

individual can influence the market outcomes in their favour (IIED, 1997). It is argued that 

price generally approximates the value of the resource in exchange and not its value in use 

(Smith, 1937: 28 cited in Chopra, 1993). Subsistence users without much access to cash may 

not be able to impute a high exchange value to products that for them have a high assigned 

use value (Chopra, 1993). There is therefore need to examine local economies and the non- 

cash transactions of natural resources. Such transactions are normally affected by socially- 

rooted interactions. Hence the need to link natural resources use with a host of cultural and 

institutional factors embedded within societies. 

These approaches also fail to consider the indirect-monetary value of resources (household 

provisioning in the form of savings) (see Shackleton et al., 2000b) and non-monetary value 

such as shade provided by trees, burial sites, and other cultural values. Blignaut and de Wit 

(1999) argue that certain things in the landscape have values that make them non-quantifiable 

in monetary terms, for example, life and beauty (i.e. social and cultural dimension of wild 

resources). The underlying factor that results in uncertainty around quantification and 

monetisation of natural resources is the lack of consideration of the real dimensions of human 

behaviour rooted in neo-classical economic assumptions (Blignaut and de Wit, 1999; Araia, 

2005). These traditional approaches lack consideration of the multi-dimensionality of human 

behaviour and recognition of the un-substitutability of products. This is the reason why full 

accounting of ranges of various values of complimentary and competitive services has 

become the major focus of contemporary valuation attempts. 

In light of the above weaknesses, and in efforts to complement conventional economic 

valuation methods, many researchers argue the importance of using innovative approaches 

and multi-disciplinary tools to fill the gaps and to address limitations effectively. The 

importance and necessity of including community perspectives in natural resource 

management (see Tapela et al., 2007) has encouraged the development of a range of valuation 

approaches and methodologies (Chambers, 1992; Campbell and Luckert, 2002; Nemarundwe 

and Richards, 2002). One of the greatest strengths of qualitative research based methods is the 

ability to go beyond numbers (Kepe, 2008a) and discuss vital qualitative issues, as well as 

explore differentiation across natural resources users and other stakeholders, a feature that 

30

previous traditional economic methods have failed to incorporate (Cavendish, 2002). 

Practitioners who approach resource valuation without a consideration of qualitative values 

often exclude the knowledge, preferences, and values of the people affected or concerned by 

the outcome (Long and Long, 1992; Tapela et al., 2007). 

Researchers however, note that it is always a combination of conventional economic methods 

and relatively qualitative approaches that makes valuation results robust. For example, Lynam 

et al. (2007), remind us that qualitative tools are rarely used alone but are typically part of a 

series of methods and procedures. Integrative approaches also encourage diverse perspectives, 

multiple interpretations and a multidisciplinary analysis (IIED, 1997). In addition, qualitative 

approaches can also provide an opportunity for the researcher to identify power relations in 

the field, for example, leaders and influential individuals can be recognised and gender 

relations can be analysed. An analysis of these embedded social interactions is critical in 

economic valuation, as it helps explain behaviour and how resource value manifest under 

varying social circumstances. Furthermore, this gives insight into the ways in which the 

economic, political, socio-cultural and environmental aspects are linked as well as what the 

stakes are for different groups of actors. Therefore, this indicates that there is no ‘one method 

fits all’ or ‘magic method’ when it comes to valuation attempts in resource and livelihood 

studies. In a nutshell, it is noted that both quantitative and qualitative tools have different 

foundations and theoretical applications. However, integrating them is mutually beneficial. 

Hence, any wild natural resources and livelihood assessments should consider economic, 

social, ecological and cultural dimensions (ethnicity, taboos, norms, myths) for robust and 

reliable results. Apart from the methodological challenges and shortcomings highlighted, 

there are also other matters of concern in previous valuation studies that need to be taken into 

account. 

Firstly, and referring to a study by Peters et al. (1989), Sheil and Wunder (2002) note 

omissions of some products, for example, medicinal plants and wildlife that appeared of little 

consequence, given the high value already obtained. The warning here is that attention should 

be given to resources that are deemed to be of low value since they could be low in absolute 

monetary terms but highly considered in people’s lives. In some cultures, children in 

particular, may gather fruits or hunt small animals and eat them away from home (Colfer et 

al., 1997; Gram, 2001). Returning home with a full stomach and gaining a more balanced diet 

31

from multiple natural resource products may be therefore, important in some contexts. This 

should as a result, be considered in valuation studies. On the other hand, most people place 

importance on the materials that they need to build their property such as homes and kraals 

but do not necessarily harvest the construction material regularly. Hence researchers should 

ideally not overlook this as some communities do not place much value on resources if they 

are not used on a daily basis. 

Furthermore, Sheil and Wunder (2002) draw our attention to another dimension that should be 

considered in wild resources and livelihood studies. There is a risk of strategic bias whereby 

community members may react in various ways to the perceived opportunities and threats of 

being researched. People may seek to bias their recorded natural resource uses upwards so as 

to be better recognised, for example, being seen to be using a larger area, or collecting more 

natural resources than usual. At the same time, a downward bias may arise from the secrecy 

surrounding taboos, illegal activities, shame, conflicting uses, or jealousies. Lastly, there is 

also an argument that the available per hectare harvest levels recorded at any time should not 

be simply extrapolated as a yearly constant into an infinite future because of destructive 

harvesting practices. Understanding the context in which resource valuation is undertaken is 

seen as one way to address the aforesaid criticisms. Tapela et al. (2007:62) pertinently argue 

that research arrangements in general must be understandable and agreeable with local 

interests, and that, as far as possible, research must justify its relevance to local concerns. 

3.2.2 TEV framework for determining economic value 

The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them contribute 

to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total 

economic value of the planet (Constanza et al., 1997). In light of the preceding assertion by 

Constanza et al. (1997), it comes as no surprise that the mainstream economic approach to 

valuation takes an instrumental (usage-based) approach and seeks to combine various 

components of value into an aggregate measure of resource value labelled Total Economic 

Value (TEV) (White and Crus-Trinidad, 1998). The concept of TEV therefore, provides a 

framework for the valuation of many natural resources (Barbier et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 

2002; MA, 2003; Brander et al., 2006) and is needed for designing meaningful and successful 

policies in this sector. 

32

The TEV framework (Figure 3.1) views ecosystem goods and services as the flows of benefits 

to humans provided by the stock of natural capital or resources (de Groot et al., 2002). Total 

economic value is an aggregate of total use value and total non-use value. Use value is 

normally divided into direct-use value, indirect use value and options value. Direct-use value 

refers to the value derived from the use of raw materials and physical products from natural 

resources (i.e. provisioning services) (Oliver, 1995; Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3). In other words, 

direct-use values arise from the consumption of wild food products, for example, wild fruits, 

medicinal plants, wild vegetables and honey among others, and use of resources such as fuel 

wood, manure and building material. It may also include non-consumptive uses such as shade, 

burial sites and enjoying recreational and cultural amenities such as wildlife viewing (IIED, 

1997; MA, 2003). 

Figure 3.1: Total Economic Value Framework (Adapted from Jin et al., 2003) 

33

Indirect-use value refers to the value associated with indirect ecosystem services or functions, 

such as storm protection or flood control, nutrient retention, microclimate stabilisation and 

maintenance of water quality (i.e. regulating services) (Oliver, 1995; MA, 2003; Brander et 

al., 2006). People usually benefit from these but do not necessarily consume them in a direct 

way. Option value is the premium placed on or the willingness to pay for maintaining the 

possibility of future use of a resource (Munasinghe and Lutz, 1993; Dharmaratne and Strand, 

1999; Brander et al., 2006). In a clear maintenance of the preceding assertion, Oliver (1995), 

describes option value (which could be direct or indirect) as the willingness to pay to maintain 

the resource weighted by the probability that the resource will be used at some future date. 

Option value can also be classified under non-use values and therefore cuts across use and 

non-use values. Quasi-option value is the value of what people are willing to pay to avoid 

irreversible decisions until new information reveals whether certain ecosystems have 

currently unknown values (MA, 2003). 

Non-use values are those values, which are independent of an individual’s present or future 

direct or indirect use (Dharmaratne and Strand, 1999). Non-use values are normally divided 

into existence value and bequest value (Figure 3.1). Existence value is the value attached to 

knowing that an environmental asset exists even though the value attributer may not be 

interested in current or future consumption of the resource (Dharmaratne and Strand, 1999; 

Chapter 6, Section 6.1). Oliver (1995) supports the same argument that existence value arises 

from the notion that individuals who make no use of a particular natural resource may gain 

utility from the mere existence of the resource, even if there is no intention to use the resource 

in the future. This sentiment links with human value systems – appreciating that we share the 

world with other living things that deserve to exist. 

Bequest value is the value that an individual derives from ensuring that the resources will be 

available for his or her heirs or future generations (Barbier et al., 1997; Chapter 6, Section 

6.1). Bequest value is summarised as the willingness to cooperate (through monetary or non- 

monetary means) for conservation and preservation of natural resources, to avoid irreversible 

changes specifically for the benefit of future generations. Bequest, existence and option 

values are closely linked to spiritual and cultural values (another key objective of this study) 

since they are not tangible but have a significant influence on conservation (see Oliver, 1995; 

Posey, 1999; Cocks and Dold, 2004; Cocks, 2006). Bequest and existence values are 

34

traditionally more important for the San people because of their long history of strong 

attachment to nature (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3.1 and Chapter 6). 

In summary, the total economic value of a natural resource is the sum of use and non-use 

values. Using the TEV framework is not about creating a dollar value only, but also 

demonstrating the range of values that need to be considered when designing policies for 

sustainable natural resources management (IIED, 1997). However, as Oliver (1995) notes, 

identification is only the first step in assisting conservation policy development, and what is 

required is some means of quantifying each element in monetary and non-monetary terms. It 

should be noted that the values represented by use value in the left-hand side of Figure 3.1 are 

more easily derived and tangible. For example, direct use values in particular, such as 

consumption of fuelwood, are fairly easy to estimate since they are easily quantifiable. 

Moving towards the right-hand side of Figure 3.1, values become more difficult to grasp and 

measure. For the purposes of this study, and to develop a useful guide to understanding 

cultural values, option, bequest and existence values will be classified as cultural values. 

The realisation that some aspects of natural resource use are difficult to value in monetary 

terms, has led to the emergence of integrative approaches in resource use and livelihood 

studies. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) is one such approach. The new 

integrative approaches are premised upon the recognition that the social aspect of natural 

resources is not separate from, but inevitably co-constituted through the natural or biological, 

just as the material and cultural/symbolic dimensions of natural resource use are also fully 

intertwined. 

3.2.3 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) 

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) (Scoones, 1998; Chapter 1, Section 1.1), was 

used as a conceptual approach to understanding the circumstances, options and constrains of 

the two community groups. The term ‘livelihood’ and what it means has been extensively 

discussed among academics and development practitioners (see for instance Ellis, 1998, 

Chambers and Conway, 1992; Francis, 2000). The common consensus emerging from the 

various discussions is that livelihood is about the ways and means of making a living. The 

most commonly used definition of livelihood stems from the work of Chambers and Conway 

(1992) who state that a livelihood “comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material 

35

and social resources) and activities required for a means of living”. Broader understandings of 

livelihood include matters of finding or making shelter, transacting money or preparing food 

(Wallman, 1984), but is related to the issues and problems of access and changing political, 

economic and socio-cultural circumstances. This suggests that livelihood could be 

conceptualised as equally a matter of the ownership and circulation of information, the 

management of social relationships, the affirmation of personal significance and group 

identity, and the inter-relation of each of these aspects to the other (Wallman, 1984). 

Therefore, efforts or strategies such as poverty reduction, for instance, through the sustainable 

use initiatives such as that in the KTP and the surrounding communal lands aims at more 

sustainable livelihoods. 

The livelihoods approach focuses on poverty reduction interventions by empowering the poor 

to build on their own opportunities, supporting their access to assets, and developing an 

enabling policy and institutional environment. This approach is particularly suited to a study 

of this nature since it provides a complete guide on how livelihood outcomes manifest given 

different processes and structures such as culture and institutions. The sustainable livelihoods 

concept and framework adopted by DFID in the late 1990s (building on work by IDS, IIED, 

Oxfam and others) have been adapted by different organisations to suit a variety of contexts, 

issues, priorities and applications. 

The SLF identifies livelihood assets in terms of five types of capital with which people are 

differently endowed namely human capital, social capital, physical capital, financial capital 

and natural capital. There is a general agreement that the livelihoods concept has social, 

cultural and political dimensions, as well as material ones (Turner, 2004). Therefore, the 

outcomes can be thought not only in terms of cash income and other subsistence uses (such as 

daily use of fuelwood, food security), but also in less material terms, such as well-being, 

social, cultural or religious status or human rights. Specifically, the framework shows how 

people pursue a range of livelihood strategies in order to achieve livelihood outcomes, both 

material and intangible. In community-based conservation terms, natural resources correspond 

to natural capital. For these natural resources to be managed sustainably, human and social 

capital must be available and appropriately deployed. The status, networks, roles and 

relationships that shape how people interact in their access to, use and governance of natural 

resources are elements of social capital (Section 3.4; Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2.3; Chapter 7 

36

Sections 7.4.6 and 7.5. The framework also shows that a number of ‘transforming structures 

and processes’ can influence the efficacy with which local assets are used in pursuit of 

livelihood strategies (Turner, 2004). 

In this framework, ‘structures’ are the organisational hardware (both public and private 

sector) that influences people’s lives and to which people may (or may not) have access such 

as legislatures, government departments, NGOs, private corporations etc. ‘Processes’ are the 

many structured and unstructured ways in which people relate to each other, for example, 

policies, cultural practices, legislation, gender relations, power structures, local institutions 

(Turner, 2004; Jones and Carswell, 2004). These structures and processes are at the heart of 

this study (as one of the objectives) as they influence how resources are accessed and used 

and therefore have an impact on resource significance at household level. 

The framework’s practical application is fairly summarised in Scoones’s (1998:3) statement 

that: “Given a particular context (of policy setting, politics, history, agroecology and socio- 

economic conditions), what combination of livelihood resources (different types of ‘capital’) 

result in the ability to follow what combination of livelihood strategies (agricultural 

intensification/extensification, livelihood diversification and migration) with what outcomes? 

Of particular interest in this framework are the institutional processes (embedded in a matrix 

of formal and informal institutions and organisations) which mediate the ability to carry out 

such strategies and achieve (or not achieve) such outcomes”. This provides a much more 

flexible conceptual platform for analysing livelihoods as pathways, explicitly focusing on 

access to opportunities, varying interests and the workings of power. 

3.2.4 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework 

As discussed earlier, it is common practice in economics both to refer to goods and services 

separately and to include the two concepts under the term services (MA, 2003). In this study, 

all these benefits are considered as natural resources or ecosystem services because it is 

difficult to determine whether a benefit provided by an ecosystem is a good or a service, for 

instance, shade from trees. Moreover, when people refer to ecosystem goods and services, 

cultural values are largely unexamined and therefore often misunderstood (MA, 2003). The 

meaning of ecosystem services is expounded in Box 1. This study focuses on the so called 

provisional and cultural services (Section 3.2.4.1). 

37

Box 1: Understanding Ecosystem Services: Adapted and expanded from 

MA (2003). 

Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits obtained by people from ecosystems or 

ecological units. This definition is derived from two other commonly referenced and 

representative definitions: “Ecosystems services are the conditions and process through 

which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human 

life. They maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods, such as seafood, 

forage timber, biome fuels, and natural fibre, and many pharmaceuticals, industrial 

products, and their precursors (Daily, 1997b:3).” 

The services include provisioning services such a food and water, regulating services 

such as flood and disease control, cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and 

cultural, and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions 

for life on Earth. 

3.2.4.1 MA framework 

For operational purposes, and drawing from the Millennium Ecosystem Services Framework 

of 2003, this study will recognise two types of ecosystem services namely, provisioning 

services and cultural services (Table 3.1). 

Table 3.1: Classification of provisioning and cultural values (Adapted from MA, 2003) 

Provisioning services Cultural services 

Products obtained from ecosystems Non-material benefits obtained from 

ecosystems 

Food (plant and animal) Spiritual and religious 

Fuel wood Sense of place 

Medicinal plants Cultural heritage 

Construction material Aesthetic 

Biochemicals Recreation and ecotourism 

Genetic resources Inspirational 

Freshwater Educational 

The framework is simple and hence ideal for unproblematic understanding and conception. 

Furthermore, it corresponds perfectly with this study’s objectives of establishing the direct- 

use and cultural values of resources to the local San and Mier communities. This study looks 

at direct-use values only and non-use values (provisioning and cultural services respectively, 

see Box 1 and Table 3.1), otherwise referred to as cultural values in this context. Specific 

details about the provisioning and cultural services will be paid attention to in Chapters 5 and 

38

6 respectively. This corresponds to use value (direct-use value goods) and non-use value 

(optional, bequest and existence values) under the TEV framework. Provisioning services 

such as biochemicals, genetic resources and fresh water are not covered by this study. Other 

important (indirect-use values) ecosystem services such as regulating services (e.g. climate, 

disease and water regulation and water purification) are beyond the scope of this study, and 

were the focus of a separate PhD study during the same period (see SANParks, 2008). 

3.3 CONCEPTUALISING INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

This section provides the theoretical and conceptual background for understanding institutions 

and governance of natural resources (see also Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4; Chapter 7). 

3.3.1 Understanding institutions 

There are two notable definitions of institutions. The New Institutional Economy identifies 

institutions as rules of the game – that act as external constraints. North (1990:3) typically 

defines institutions in this framework as “... the rules of the game in a society, or more 

formally, the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction”. Neo-Classical 

Institutionalists describe institutions as cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and 

activities that provide stability and meaning to social behaviour (Scott, 1995). This study 

somewhat cut across the two definitions, since both are well suited to discussing the dynamics 

of institutions, actors, interests and values among other issues. It draws on insights from 

institutions as rules of the game (North 1990; Vatn, 2005) but also pays particular attention to 

the many actors involved (organisations and individuals) in instituting, monitoring and 

enforcing of these rules. 

Therefore, in this study, institutions are understood as “the prescriptions that humans use to 

organise all forms of repetitive and structured interactions, including institutionalised cultural 

values as well as formal organisations” (Ostrom, 2005:1, cited in Jones and Boyd, 2011; 

Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2). Merely focusing on institutions as formal and informal rules may 

provide too narrow a perspective given that there is often a mismatch between rules and what 

people actually do (e.g. Holmes-Watts and Watts, 2008). Rules cannot easily be analysed 

independently (Richardson, 2004). Instead, focussing on actors, their interests, their value 

39

systems, whom and what these actors represent, what they say they do and what they actually 

do in practice may provide a deeper understanding of the role of different institutions in 

natural resource governance. In fact, actors sometimes protect certain institutional values, 

conventions, norms and legal rules (Vatn, 2005) and therefore their actions could be generally 

viewed as a representation of their institutional orientation and values. Moreover, actors are 

responsible for initiating or maintaining institutions at different and multiple levels including 

local level, regional level and multi-national level (Vacarro and Norman, 2007). In other 

words, actors can craft, perpetuate and reproduce institutional values. Indeed, actors and their 

choices are important components of this study’s analyses. 

Institutions are social constructs and therefore are not normally neutral (Vatn, 2005). The 

power to form institutions to support one’s interest may bear unequal and oppressive 

outcomes (Robbins, 2004; Chapter 7). Sheil and Wunder (2002) maintain that revealing the 

subtleties of power play between stakeholders can be crucial in understanding the distribution 

of natural resources among people. Robbins (2004) argues that a focus on asymmetries of 

power among actors provides valuable perspectives in understanding and explaining 

institutional performance. This means that natural resource value in rural livelihoods is 

realised through social contestations that are shaped by complex institutions at local and 

external levels (Kepe, 2008a; Cousins, 1999). Therefore, different social and institutional 

settings at the local level can determine how different actors regard natural resources and 

hence influence the arrangements for governance of those resources. 

Consequently, the relationship between institutions and governance of natural resources could 

be understood in different ways that are important in informing this study. First, institutional 

arrangements may facilitate or constrain access to natural resources or certain type of 

resources by certain groups (i.e. the power aspect). Second, institutions may be responsible 

for coordinating processes and actions to produce more efficient natural resource management 

(for example, by securing cooperation) amongst actors. Lastly, institutions may be 

instrumental in resolving conflicts to ensure social justice (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1). 

Kepe (2008a) however cautions that institutions responsible for natural resource governance 

are often characterised by conflict and ambiguity as much as by harmony and 

complementarity. In particular, power relations are embedded within institutional forms, 

40

“making contestation over institutional practices, rules and norms always important” 

(Scoones, 1998). Therefore, institutions are shaped in a space of interests, values, conflict and 

coordination. In sum, a deeper understanding of institutions (including actors), interactions 

and power dynamics may be the key to better inform policy for good natural resource 

governance and management. 

3.3.2 Understanding governance of natural resources 

Governance is described as the act or manner of governing and it is about power, relationships 

and accountability (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004; Forsyth, 2007). The IUCN Collaborative 

Management Working Group (CMWG) and Theme Indigenous and Local Communities, 

Equity and Protected Areas (TILCEPA) (2004:1) defines natural resource governance as: 

“The interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and 

responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders 

have their say in the management of natural resources – including biodiversity conservation”. 

It encompasses the processes that shape how social priorities are made, how conflicts are 

acknowledged and possibly resolved, and how human coordination is facilitated (Vatn, 2005). 

Moreover, it includes the actions of the state and may encompass actors such as communities, 

businesses and NGO's among others. Governance is closely related to the achievement of 

management objectives, the sharing of relevant responsibilities, rights, costs and benefits, and 

the generation and sustenance of community and financial support for sustainable use of 

resources (CMWG and TILCEPA, 2004). 

Issues such as struggles over power, practices, justice, knowledge, trust, social capital, 

accountability and ethnicity are increasingly being paid attention to, in understanding how 

certain institutions influence the value placed on resources by users in order to govern 

resource access, use and benefits (Robbins, 2004; Benjaminsen et al., 2006; 2008; Collomb et 

al., 2010). The concept and practice of governance is therefore recognised as centrally 

important for conservation in parks and beyond them, to maintain biodiversity integrity and 

improve livelihoods – where institutions emerge as levers for good natural resource 

management by regulating the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community 

(North, 1990; Ostrom, 1990). 

41

There are different types of natural resource governance namely state governance, private 

governance, joint (co) governance and community governance – distinguished on the basis of 

management authority, responsibility and accountability according to legal or customary 

legitimate rights (CMWG and TILCEPA, 2004; Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4). The different types 

of governance arrangement often have different conservation and livelihood outcomes 

(CMWG and TILCEPA, 2004). This study is especially interested in co-management and 

community-based management since natural resource arrangements in the Park and 

resettlement farms represent these management types respectively (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 

4). Community-based management, such as in the farms, are often better understood by 

drawing insights from the common property theory (Ostrom, 1990; Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2). 

3.3.3 The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework 

The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Figure 3.2; Chapter 7, Section 

7.2.2) is often used in understanding how actors behave in collective action setting and the 

institutional foundations that form such settings. 

(A) PHYSICAL 

WORLD 

(B)COMMUNITY 

(C) RULES-IN- 

USE 

(E) ACTION 

ARENA 

-Situations 

-Actors 

Figure 3.2: Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (Adapted from Ostrom et al., 

1994) 

42 

(D) PATTERNS 

OF 

INTERACTIONS 

(F) OUTCOMES

Ostrom (2007:44) asserts that the IAD framework offers researchers a way to understand 

processes by outlining a systematic approach for analysing institutions that govern actions and 

outcomes within collective choice arrangements. The IAD framework (Figure 3.2) identifies 

four types of variables that are assumed to affect policy processes and outcomes (Ostrom et 

al., 1994) as: (A) attributes of the physical world, (B) attributes of the community within 

which actors are embedded, (C) rules that create incentives and constraints for certain actions, 

and (D) the patterns of interactions among actors. 

The physical world (A) varies from place to place and might typically include elements such 

as climate, terrain, diversity of species present, stock of natural resources, temporal and 

spatial variability of natural resource units, current condition and other physical factors that 

impact the state of the ecosystem and the humans that interact with it (Ostrom, 1990). The 

community (B) is an important context that affects individual actions, including things like 

“generally accepted norms of behaviour, the level of common understanding about action 

arenas, the extent to which preferences are homogeneous, and distribution of resources among 

members” (Ostrom, 1990:45). The rules of the game (C) are the principal means actors use to 

influence processes and outcomes in natural resources management. The patterns of 

interactions (D) reflect the impact of rules of the game on institutional leadership, priorities, 

communication, collaboration, and accountability. The principal focus of investigation is on 

the action area (E) (Figure 3.2). The action situation is described as the social space where 

individuals interact, exchange goods and services, engage in appropriation and provision 

activities, solve problems, or fight (Ostrom et al., 1994:28). An actor is the individual, or 

group functioning as a corporate actor, who takes action based on preferences and values 

among others. 

Performance reflects the outcomes (F) produced by the patterns of interactions of different 

actors responsible for community-based management in terms of participation and benefits 

(i.e. in the resettlement farms and co-management in the Park, in this case study). According 

to (Koontz, 2003:3), the framework is “one particularly useful framework, which has 

structured inquiry across a broad array of policy sectors and disciplines”. This framework is 

relevant for this study since it acknowledges that within systems everything is connected to 

everything else (Richardson, 2004; Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2). 

43

3.4 IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIVELIHOOD 

STUDIES 

In the course of this study, the need to consider context in wild resources and livelihood 

studies has come to the fore. Given factors such as spatial, temporal, cultural and institutional 

conditions (Table 3.2), whose similarity is not common across different regions and within 

regions, many scholars advocate for context specific approaches (see for example, Sheil and 

Wunder, 2002; MA, 2003; Kepe, 2008a). These basic factors, given the name of ‘terms of 

assessment’ (Sheil and Wunder, 2002), define and delimit the scope of each study and as well 

as the interpretation of results and any potential research conclusions. 

Kepe (2008a) in particular emphasises the need to situate resource value within the local 

livelihood context, where social interactions and differentiation are seen to affect who uses 

what resources, and how much of the available resources – thus bringing in the non-monetary 

aspects of wild natural resource value (desirability, usefulness and importance). This thinking 

is supported by the MA’s (2003) argument that when assessing ecosystem services, it is often 

convenient to bind the analysis spatially and temporally with reference to the ecosystem 

service or services being examined since landscapes are mosaics of different human uses. 

Some areas can be managed for multiple uses, but some uses are mutually exclusive (Byers, 

1996; Byers et al., 2001). 

Sheil and Wunder (2002) raised questions about the participatory dimensions of valuation 

attempts. Questions asked were: to what extent do the researchers actually consult local 

people and understand their costs and benefits, their context and motives for choosing among 

livelihood and land use options? The questions point out to the need to take into account vast 

differences in biophysical and historical, social and economic contexts. Social obstacles to the 

realisation of potential resource importance should not be ignored. In principle, each 

contextual factor might influence the broader interpretation of the economic significance of 

wild resources. Furthermore, it may also provide insights on which to base decisions 

concerning resource management, and to relate the results to other settings. An attempt to 

clarify the many factors affecting the specific results from a single study area has the 

advantage of enabling the examination of the conclusions with respect to other sites. The 

diversity of the products, markets, and livelihood outcomes involved in the sector must be 

appreciated. Thus, in most circumstances, a case specific approach will be needed. This is 

44

ecause different products will have different potentials and problems which produce diverse 

outcomes. 

In the context of dryland ecosystems, Barrow and Mogaka (2007), suggest that it is important 

that decision makers have a better understanding of the particular conditions of land use 

management. They argue for example that the management conditions in most cases should 

favour extensive and communally managed systems and be able to cope with aridity and 

temporal and spatial variability in rainfall. For instance, livestock production has proved to be 

a viable form of land use in many arid landscapes. Livestock in turn, depend totally on the 

natural ecosystem goods and services (pasture, brows, water). However, in some dryland 

areas, direct-use of natural resources rather than livestock production is a key livelihood 

strategy both in terms of direct incomes and household provisioning for daily use (see for 

example, Kerven and Behnke, 2007; Madzwamuse et al., 2007). 

In a nutshell, a growing number of researchers argue that discussions on natural resources- 

based livelihoods that are out of context, despite novel intentions, can easily lead to 

inappropriate conclusions (Byers, 1996; Sheil and Wunder, 2002; Kepe, 2008a). These may in 

turn lead to misguided actions. Therefore, for ecosystem services and livelihood research to 

have an impact on conservation and development policy and on decision making, livelihood 

conclusions need to be place-specific rather than generalised. As noted by IIED (1997), local 

level valuation assists to avoid generalisations about the landscape outside of the study area, 

and magnifies local understanding of present and future values for better local level 

biodiversity resources management. 

In the context of this study, such insights are considered useful in avoiding a shallow and 

narrow understanding of the contribution of resources to local communities’ livelihoods and 

consequently provide guidance for appropriate interventions and designing incentives for 

sustainable natural resources management in dryland ecosystems. This study draws from the 

above lessons by situating the study in the biophysical, social, economic, historical and 

political context of the Kalahari region (Chapter 4) so as to achieve better understanding of 

the contribution of natural resources to local people’s livelihoods and context-relevant policy 

recommendations. Drawing from earlier works and in an effort to draw attention to the 

45

importance of context in wild resources and rural livelihood studies, some of the factors that 

are considered pertinent to this study will now be discussed (Table 3.2). 

Table 3.2: Key determinants of natural resource value 

Determinant Brief explanation 

Spatial factors and resource 

availability 

Ecosystem services are unevenly distributed in 

accordance to landscape variability. Richness of 

area in terms of biodiversity means more 

important livelihood resources. 

Temporal factors Time affects what amount of a natural resource is 

harvested during which periods of the year. 

Cultural factors 

Cultural, spiritual, and heritage values exert a 

strong influence on local preferences and well 

being. 

History Situating natural resource users e.g. foragers, in 

history is essential to any deeper understanding of 

them and their way of life in modern times. 

Social and institutional factors Realised and notional values of resources to rural 

livelihoods are socially constructed and contested. 

Resource access and use is mediated by complex 

institutions at local and external levels. 

The discussion and presentation should not be seen as exhaustive, rather it should be seen as a 

reflection on some of the main issues considered significant. First, landscapes are diverse and 

therefore ecosystem services are unevenly distributed and experienced in different ways by 

people in accordance to landscape variability. Spatial patterns thus affect use patterns 

significantly (IIED, 1997; Sheil and Wunder, 2002). In dryland environments livelihood 

opportunities are limited. For example, the alternatives that people have such as crop 

production and livestock farming are risky activities. Consequently, natural resources may 

become more important or valued both for everyday use but also as a safety net to fall back on 

during high risk periods such as drought (Chapter 5). Second, in terms of temporal factors, 

one dimension of time that is an important determinant of resource value is seasonality. Time 

affects what amount of a natural resource is harvested during which periods of the year. 

46

Third, it is argued, for instance that the notional value that elements of the environment have 

for different people is a reflection of values embodied in their cultures (Byers, 1996; Chapter 

6). In addition, the notional value of importance will be higher for people with a few other 

forms of livelihoods and also where there are a few forms of alternative livelihood as in 

isolated dryland system. Thus the environment that is being valued becomes a site of conflict 

between competing notions of value and interests of the different people (O’Neill, 1997 cited 

in Kepe, 2008a), for example between immediate local economic needs, cultural values and 

conservation needs (Benjaminsen et al., 2008). Fourth and last, to understand decisions about 

natural resource use, and the resultant benefits and value to the people, there is a special need 

to have a clear perception of their history and context in terms of natural resource access and 

use (Sheil and Wunder, 2002; Chapter 4). 

It has become increasingly important for wild resources and rural livelihood studies to pay 

particular attention to local level institutions (Chapter 7). It is vital to note that most rural 

African landscapes have a multiplicity of users (normally from within the same community). 

Therefore, these landscapes are multiple-use environments. Hence the relationship between 

these dynamic and diverse landscapes (multiple use) and the differentiated users (multiple 

users) could be analysed and understood through how these people derive their livelihoods by 

having legitimate control over resources (Leach et al., 1999 cited in Kepe, 2008a). The ability 

to have effective command over natural resources is based on firstly, securing resources 

access and use rights and secondly on a series of processes that transform the rights into 

livelihood outcomes. Kepe (2008a) argues that realised and notional values of resources to 

rural livelihoods are socially constructed and contested hence a focus on social institutions as 

terrains of negotiation is critical (see also Chapter 7). He further argues that these institutions 

are characterised by conflict and ambiguity as much as by harmony and complementarity, 

especially with respect to communally owned resources. 

Therefore, apart from spatial and cultural factors, this study will focus on institutions as a key 

factor influencing resource value and sustainable management of resources (Chapter 7). This 

is especially important considering that the study area is characterised by different land 

parcels (tenure system) i.e. the main park, Contract Park, game farms and resettlement 

(communal areas), which are under different management regimes (Chapter 4, Section 

4.2.2.2). 

47

3.5 OVERVIEW OF METHODS EMPLOYED IN THIS STUDY 

The above discussed frameworks (in earlier sections) were used to design the study such that 

it uses multiple methods, including quantitative surveys as well as key informant interviews. 

As earlier noted, there is a growing consensus emerging from the literature on fieldwork 

methods that the research output will be of higher quality if methods are combined as they 

yield different but complementary data (Campbell and Luckert, 2002; Kepe, 2002). 

Standardised and semi-structured interviews combined a structured quantifiable approach 

with an unstructured approach (see Reid et al., 2004). The methods were designed to (a) 

determine the contribution of natural resources to the livelihood of the two local communities, 

relative to other livelihood sources and (b) identify and understand the social landscape 

arrangements (cultural and institutional) and contexts that constrain or help the integration of 

land and its resources into the beneficiaries’ livelihoods portfolios in a sustainable way (see 

Chapter 1, Section 1.4). Both are key issues that should be brought into the ongoing policy 

debate about co-management and sustainable use of natural resources. The livelihoods of the 

#Khomani San and the Mier communities were chosen because both received land in 1999 

through the Government Land Restitution Programme (Chapter 4). Two case studies (San and 

Mier) provide a deeper understanding of some issues and aid in understanding some aspects 

such as culture and its influence on livelihood strategies such as resource use. This case study 

approach is a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a 

particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of 

evidence (see Robson, 1993). 

Primary data were collected during 2009 and 2010 using structured household surveys 

(Appendix 5), semi-structured key informant interviews (Appendix 6) and observations. The 

respondents were purposely selected based on being part of the San and Mier communities 

who were beneficiaries of the 1999 land claim (see Chapter 4). At the time of the land claim, 

there were around 300 San claimants and this number was expected to rise to approximately 

1000, as the verification process of the people claiming to be part of the #Khomani San was 

being finalised (Bosch, 2005). The target of this research was to survey all San households 

located in the resettlement farms (Andriesvale, Uitkoms, Erin, Witdraai, Scotty’s Forty and 

Miershoop pan). While it was easy to locate San households in the farms, it was somewhat 

difficult in other locations (Rietfontein, Welkom and Askham) since some San members were 

integrated into the Mier community. In such circumstances, snowball sampling was used, 

48

where known San members in these mentioned locations were used to locate other San 

households (see Bryman, 2008). The snowball sampling technique had the advantage of 

expanding the sample beyond contacts known to the researcher in the first stage of his project. 

In total, 100 San households were surveyed, representing roughly all San households (80 in 

total) situated in the resettlement farms (at the time of the study) and 20 households located in 

small locations (Rietfontein and Welkom) (see Figure 4.1). A similar number (for 

comparative purposes) of Mier households (100) were sampled from different locations 

(Askham, Welkom, Groot Mier, Klein Mier and Rietfontein) also using the snowball or chain 

referral sampling technique. 

The questionnaire collected information on socio-demographic dynamics and the natural 

resources harvested (see Chapter 5, Section 5.2) and the cultural aspects (Chapter 6, Section 

6.3) and institutional dynamics (Chapter 7, Section 7.3) related to natural resources access and 

use by San and Mier communities. Questions relating to culture focused on facts, myths, 

beliefs and attitudes, while those relating to institutions evolved from a review of community- 

based conservation initiatives, assessing what factors affected success or failure (see Reid et 

al., 2004). 

In the second phase, 50 questionnaires (Appendix 7) were purposely administered to 

respondents who had indicated that they had knowledge about the various actors responsible 

for natural resources management in the resettlement farms and the Contract Park. The second 

set of questionnaires was specifically tailored to capture indicators of governance 

performance (such as participation, decision making, attitudes towards leaders and 

accountability) and indicators of socioeconomic benefits provided by the Park and 

resettlement farms such as whether respondents had received benefits or whether community 

projects had been implemented as promised and points of conflicts (see Collomb et al., 2010). 

The Mier were not covered in the second phase since a majority of households (92 % out of 

100) indicated (in the first phase) they were either not a member of any governance body or 

did not have any idea about existence of any local institution except for the Municipality. 

The surveys targeted household heads as the respondents and key decision makers in the 

absence of household heads. The surveys and personal interviews were conducted in the local 

language Afrikaans, with the help of a local translator (with a matric certificate, the highest 

49

level of secondary education). The translator was thoroughly trained before the surveys, with 

the help of an Afrikaans-speaking MSc student, who was doing a study during the same 

research period. A trial run was done in the field to make sure no information was lost during 

translation. 

Standardised semi-structured interviews were conducted with community leaders as they had 

a good understanding of the state of affairs of the Contract Park. Subjectivity or bias was 

minimised through interviews with different community members. Semi-structured interviews 

sought to describe and explore interviewees’ thoughts about the Park and provide a fuller 

understanding of key issues that might have been overlooked during structured interviews. 

This also provided enough time to listen to the communities’ side of the story. The specific 

methods used, data collected and programmes for analysis are discussed at length in each of 

the appropriate empirical chapters. 

3.6 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Sheil and Wunder (2002) argue that even the best livelihood and natural resource study 

cannot quantify all potential values. Some natural resource products are consumed away from 

the settlement during medicinal plant collection, fuelwood and livestock herding trips making 

it difficult to measure the exact quantities of consumed resources (see Gram, 2001). Weights 

of grass and wood for construction were also difficult to establish since neither wood nor 

grass is regularly collected though highly valued. Quantities of medicinal plants were also a 

challenge to establish since the quantities were very low and so they could not be measured 

by any standard spring balance scales. A kitchen scale had to be used later. The communities 

are also generally secretive with regards to medicinal plants. Most of the knowledge is 

protected knowledge purportedly on a general suspicion about how the outsiders will use the 

information. This is especially so for the San, since there has been previous conflict between 

them and outsiders. A case in point is the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) 

who registered a valuable patent from an indigenous plant, Hoodia (known for its appetite 

suppressant properties), without prior informed consent of the San (Chennells, 2007; Table 

4.1; Chapter 7, Section 7.4.6). Consequently, the San have become increasingly secretive on 

information regarding their indigenous medicinal plants and their uses. 

50

PART II: CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 

CHAPTER 4 

STUDY AREA AND CONTEXTUAL SETTING: DESCRIPTION OF THE 

KALAHARI REGION AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE KTP AND ITS LAND 

CLAIMANTS 


The main purposes of this Chapter (drawing on literature and field surveys) is (a) to provide 

the reader with an understanding of the study area and (b) to build and fully understand the 

context in which this research is undertaken, including the factors that could influence the two 

main research questions, the results and interpretation of these. The study aims to (a) 

determine the contribution of natural resources to the livelihood of the two local communities, 

relative to other livelihood sources and (b) identify and understand the social landscape 

arrangements (cultural and institutional) and contexts that constrain or help the integration of 

land and its resources into the beneficiaries’ livelihoods portfolios (see Chapter 1, Section 

1.4). The area has a complex history and without fully understanding this it is not possible to 

understand the current situation or interpret the results. 

4.2. THE KALAHARI REGION, THE KGALAGADI TRANSFRONTIER PARK AND 

THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES BORDERING THE PARK 

4.2.1 Biophysical characteristics of the Kalahari region 

The term Kalahari is derived from the Setswana word kgalagadi meaning the ‘thirst land’. 

The Kalahari region is a vast, gently undulating and sandy semi-desert ecosystem 900 m 

above sea level. It spans Botswana, Namibia and South Africa (Madzwamuse et al., 2007). 

The region is subject to extreme variations in temperature, reaching 45º C in summer to well 

below freezing point in winter (van Rooyen, 1998). Most of the rain falls between January 

and April with an average annual precipitation rate of 200 mm (Low and Rebelo, 1998). A 

high variability in the amount and timing of rainfall is often reported, with several years of 

below average rainfall, as well as years of above average annual rainfall accompanied by flash 

floods risk (Massyn and Humphrey, 2010). Grass production after years of good rainfall poses 

a risk of uncontrollable veld fires. There is no surface water except in seasonal shallow pans 

and fossil valleys (Madzwamuse et al., 2007). The soils (windblown sand) have low levels of 

51

nutrients. The arid nature of the Kalahari region, as well as absence of potable underground 

water presents obvious constraints on development initiatives. Bradstock (2006) notes that 

low average rainfall, intermittent surface water and poor soils make agricultural production of 

any type a testing land use option. Given limited opportunities in the Kalahari drylands, wild 

‘free’ natural resources potentially constitute an important livelihood source for both 

subsistence use and cash income generation for many people. 

Though the Kalahari region is often described as one of the harshest environments inhabited 

by man (e.g. Chennells, 2001), it is populated by uniquely adapted fauna and flora. The 

Kalahari is not an empty desert or wasteland as commonly imagined. More accurately 

described as savannah or sandveld, it is a region that encompasses complex ecosystems and 

incredible diversity of wildlife (fauna and flora) (Brinkhurst, 2010). In terms of vegetation 

characteristics, shrubby Kalahari dune bushveld predominates (van Rooyen and Bredenkamp, 

1996) and is distinguished by scattered shrubs of grey camel thorn (Acacia haematoxylon) and 

grasses such as dune bushman grass (Stipagrostis amabilis), gha grass (Centrropodia glacica) 

and giant three-awn (Aristida meridionalis). A second component of vegetation, the thorny 

Kalahari dune bushveld, is characterised by sparsely scattered trees of camel thorn (Acacia 

erioloba), shepherd trees (Boscia albitrunca) and false umbrella thorn (Acacia luderitzii). 

These trees are listed in the Red List of South African plants as declining and hence are 

protected by National Law (National Forest Act of 1998) yet they are still crucial for local 

people’s livelihoods. 

Tourism opportunities and development potential in this semi-arid area builds on a 

combination of its vast and unique bio-physical landscape and a rich cultural history making it 

‘a must see’ for visitors. Undulating dunes, clear skies (and star gazing), scattered individual 

camel thorn trees – many of them with gigantic nests of the sociable weavers (birds), its 

wilderness experience, hunting opportunities, the general diversity of wildlife in the 

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP), interesting local San and Mier history present an 

attractive ‘tourism experience’ for most would-be tourists (Massyn and Humphrey, 2010). 

52

4.2.2 Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 

The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) (Figure 4.1) is situated in the Kalahari desert in 

Northern Cape Province of South Africa and Botswana from 22° 10” East, 20° 0” West, 24° 

6” North and 26° 28” South. The KTP consists of an area of 37 256 km² (SANParks, 2006) 

and is one of the very few conservation areas of this magnitude left in the world (Bright, 

2005; Scovronick and Turpie, 2009). The Park is the prime attraction and a major economic 

generator in the area. The number of bed and camping nights sold in 2008 was 32 977, with a 

total guests of 25 208 (Massyn and Humphrey, 2010). Market segmentation shows that 72 % 

of the tourists were local South Africans, 27 % overseas and 1 % from Southern African 

Development Community (SADC). 

53

Figure 4.1: Location of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and surrounding areas. 25 % of the 

park land in South Africa (Adapted from Dierkes, K., in Massyn and Humphrey, 2010) 

4.2.2.1 The pre-land restitution history of KTP (1865 to 1994) 

Information on the early history of the KTP is largely drawn from the Park Management Plan 

of 2006 (SANParks, 2006). The KTP, Africa’s first Transfrontier park (Hanks, 2003), was 

formed by the amalgamation of the former Kalahari Gemsbok National Park in South Africa 

54

and the Gemsbok National Park in Botswana in April 2000. Its major biodiversity 

characteristics are a large herbivore migratory and arid ecosystem which supports a fully 

functional large carnivore predator/prey system and an important refuge for a large raptor 

community (Kepe et al., 2005; SANParks, 2006). 

Before European settlement in the late 19 th century, the South African part of the KTP was the 

San (Bushmen) people’s hunting and gathering territory. However, the land eventually 

became attached to the Cape Colony and the government subdivided it into farms for White 

settlers from 1897. However, the settlers were slow to take the newly surveyed farms and the 

Cape Government decided to give them to ‘coloured’ farmers instead. The term ‘coloured’ in 

South Africa refers to an ethnic group of mixed-race who possess some Sub-Saharan Africa 

origin but not enough to be considered black according to South African laws since they often 

possess substantial ancestry from other continents such as Europe and Asia. With the outbreak 

of World War 1 in 1914 (Table 4.1), the Union of South Africa Government drilled a series of 

boreholes along the Auob River bed in case they wanted to invade South West Africa. Guards 

were recruited from the local community to protect and maintain the boreholes and were 

permitted to settle next to the boreholes with their families and livestock. Nonetheless, this 

corridor was never used to invade South West Africa and the borehole guards (coloureds) 

stayed on, largely forgotten by the authorities. 

However, due to the harsh Kalahari environment, the coloured farmers struggled to make a 

comfortable living from their farms. They therefore, together with the biltong (dried/cured 

meat that originated in South Africa) hunters from further afield gradually went on game 

hunting sprees. It is reported that the only areas not impacted were in the more remote reaches 

of the upper Nossob River, where the San people (historically) lived in harmony with animals 

and plants. To protect the ecosystem from wanton degradation by the farmers and biltong 

hunters, the then Minister of Lands Piet Grobler decided to proclaim the area a National Park 

in 1931. Land was purchased from European settlers south of the Park to resettle the coloured 

people. In 1938, the British government proclaimed a new game reserve across the Nossob in 

what is today Botswana. After World War 1, game fences were erected along the Park’s 

western and southern boundaries but the Eastern boundary remained unfenced and open for 

animal migration from east to west. 

55

Table 4.1: Chronology and summary of key historic events in the southern Kalahari region 

Date Key event 

1865 The Mier community flees British rule in the Cape Colony, comes to live in the Northern 

Cape, and displaces many of the San in the process. 

1884 A German national, Stoffel Le Riche ventures into the Kalahari from Namibia. 

1891 Park area, part of which the Mier had occupied annexed to Botswana formerly Bechuanaland. 

1913 Natives Land Act of 1913 forcibly displaced the local indigenous communities across the 

country. 

1914 Union of SA Government drills boreholes along the Auob river to provide their troops with 

water as a strategic move to invade South West Africa, now Namibia (outbreak of World War 

1). 

1920’s Farmers and biltong farmers start to kill game as food supplement due to the harsh 

environment but to unsustainable levels. 

1930 The Coloured Persons Settlement Areas (Cape) Act was implemented. 

1931 Kalahari Gemsbok National Park proclaimed by the then Minister of Lands, Piet Grobler, to 

prevent the further depletion of game by farmers and biltong hunters through the National 

Parks Act. 

1931 Land purchased south of the park to resettle the land-dispossessed “coloured” community now 

known as the Mier. 

1938 The British government proclaimed a new game reserve across the Nossob in what is today 

Botswana i.e. present day Botswana Gemsbok National Park. 

1938 Game fences erected along the Park’s western and southern boundaries, eastern boundary 

remains unfenced for animals to migrate from east to west. 

1948 An informal verbal agreement of a Transfrontier Park between the conservation authorities of 

the then Bechuanaland Protectorate (now Botswana) and the Union of South Africa (now 

South Africa). 

1955 Race classification in South Africa through the Group Areas Development Act, Act No 69 of 

1955 introduced resulting in further marginalisation of the San and exacerbated their loss of 

identity as a distinct ethnic group due to their classification as ‘coloured’. 

1970 Most San had totally been dispossessed of their traditional land in the Kalahari, and were 

spread all over South Africa, living in small groups or clans. 

June 1992 Representatives from the South African National Parks Board and the Department of Wildlife 

and National Parks of Botswana set up a joint management committee to manage the area as a 

single ecological unit. 

1994 New democratic government elected in South Africa. 

1995 The #Khomani San and Mier launch a land claim for return of their ancestral land rights in the 

park. 

1996 Major uproar, as hoodia gordinii, a desert succulent plant traditionally used by the San is 

secretly patented by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) a South African 

government research organisation. 

Early 1997 A management plan drafted, reviewed and approved by the two conservation agencies of 

Botswana and South Africa. 

March 1999 Former Deputy President Thabo Mbeki signs an historic land restitution settlement with the 

#Khomani San tribe of Kalahari Bushmen. 

March 1999 First phase of the land claim completed as the government returned 40, 000 ha and 42 000 ha 

of farmland outside the park to the #Khomani San and Mier respectively. 

April 1999 Botswana and South Africa signs a historic bilateral agreement to manage their adjacent 

National Parks, as a single ecological unit. 

May 2000 Former Presidents Festus Mogae of Botswana and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa formerly 

launch Southern Africa’s first peace park, the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. 

May 2002 25000ha of land given to the San (San Heritage park) and 30000ha to the Mier (Mier Heritage 

Land) forming the together forming the community !Ae Hai! Kalahari Heritage Park. 

August 2002 The Joint Management Board (JMB) is established. 

July 2007 !Xaus Community Lodge in the Contract Park opens. 

56

In June 1992, representatives from the South African National Parks Board (present day 

SANParks) and the Department of Wildlife and National Parks of Botswana set up a joint 

management committee to manage the area as a single ecological unit. An integral feature of 

the agreement was that each country would provide and maintain its own tourism facilities 

and infrastructure, giving particular attention to developing and involving communities living 

adjacent to the Park. 

In South Africa, as part of the shifting conservation paradigm, the idea was later to allow local 

San and Mier communities access and sustainable resource use rights in the Park, against a 

background of land dispossession where both the San and Mier were not only confined to 

smaller territories, but also prevented from practicing their traditional foraging and livestock 

rearing practices respectively. Getting access to the Park was seen as a way of addressing 

some of the social-economic challenges (such as high levels of unemployment, low education 

levels, dependence on state grants, alcoholism, domestic violence, and associated social 

problems) (see Ellis, 2010) that had become characteristic of, particularly, the San as a result 

of land dispossession. However, the challenges of basically pitching relatively powerless 

communities against powerful and organised Park management (which resulted in further 

disempowerment) were overlooked. 

4.2.2.2 The post-land claim history of the Park (from 1994 to present) 

After the election of a democratic government in 1994, the San were enabled to prepare and 

submit a claim for the restitution of their traditional land in the Kalahari, most of which lay 

within the KTP, asserting that its members had been illegally alienated from their ancestral 

lands following the proclamation of the Park in 1931 (Bosch and Hirschfeld, 2002; Kepe et 

al., 2005; Bradstock, 2006; Ellis, 2010). In a land settlement encouraged by a worldwide 

acknowledgement of their rights as reflected in the UN General Assembly ‘Decade of 

Indigenous Peoples’ (Oldam and Frank, 2008), and other provisions relating to indigenous 

people (Garcia-Alix and Hitchcock, 2009), part of the San land was returned to them. “At the 

time of the land claim, the San had become thoroughly fragmented as a people, some eking 

out a humble living as ‘live attractions’ at tourist resorts, where foreign visitors could 

photograph and meet the semi-naked ‘skin-clad’ little people” (Chennells, 2001:272). This 

livelihood strategy is still popular practice today among the San, in particular crafters, as an 

income generating activity. 

57

The motivation for the land claim, according to Useb (2000), was that the San’s loss of land 

meant the loss of natural resources. Lee (2006) argues that to the San people, land means life 

and without land the San cannot survive. Furthermore, the San do not feel healthy if they 

cannot find wild vegetables, fruits, medicinal plants and meat. One aspect unique to this group 

of people is their need to walk in the bush and talk and reconnect to nature. Therefore, without 

land they are unable to live according to their culture and in the process lose their identity. 

Indeed, cultural and spiritual connection to land was one of the key arguments in their land 

claim process (Chennells, 1999, 2001; Holden, 2007; Grossman and Holden, 2009). 

The first phase of the land claim was completed in March 1999, as the government returned 

40 000 ha of farmland outside the Park and more than 25 000 ha inside the Park (Bosch and 

Hirschfeld, 2002). This was in line with the government’s land restitution programme (see 

Chapter 2, Section 2.4.4) in which the aim was to restore land to those people who were 

displaced forcibly after June 1913 as a consequence of the Natives Land Act and the Native 

Trust and Land Act of 1936 (DLA, 1997; Bradstock, 2006). This land was to be used for the 

benefit and development of the #Khomani San that were members of the overall Communal 

Property Association (CPA) – registered co-owners of this land. The restitution of communal 

land rights procedure in South Africa involves an observance of the Communal Property 

Associations Act 28 of 1996, which enables communities to form Communal Property 

Associations (CPAs), for the purposes of acquiring, holding and managing property on a basis 

agreed to by members of a community (SAHRC, 2004; Chapter 7, Section 7.4.3.1). The San 

also intended to use this restitution to recapture their language and culture and reconstruct 

their identity (Chapter 6, Section 6.4.6). 

The Mier land claim overlapped with that of the San community (Chennells, 1999). They 

claimed areas within the Park from which they were also displaced when the nature reserve 

was first established in 1931 (Bosch, 2005; SANParks, 2006). A settlement framework was 

concluded in 1999 and the agreement resulted in the transfer of about 42 000 ha of land 

outside the Park to the Mier community. In accordance to the terms of the final 2002 

agreement, the South African Government further transferred the ownership of about 30 000 

ha of Park land, called the Mier Heritage Land, to the Mier community (Bosch, 2005). It is 

reported that the Mier, in the face of a desperate land need themselves, freely gave 7 000 ha of 

their land to the San as a remarkable gesture of reconciliation since they displaced the San in 

58

the Kalahari in the 19 th century (Chennells, 2001; SANParks, 2009, pers comm.). It was 

believed this would help lay a foundation for future partnerships in this area. The land given 

to the San and Mier communities is divided into parkland and community-managed 

resettlement land or farms outside of the park about 60 km from the main gate. There was an 

agreement that no San member would settle permanently in the Park. Three types of parkland 

access rights are recognised and organised into three main zones, namely the Contract Park, 

Commercial Preference Zone (V-Zone) and the San Symbolic and Cultural Zone (S-Zone) 

(Figure 4.1). 

The Contract Park 

The land within the KTP which was transferred to the San and Mier communities functions as 

a jointly-owned Contract Park (a combination of San and Mier heritage land, Figure 4.1) 

known as the !Ae!Hai Kalahari Heritage Park (see also Bosch and Hirshfeld, 2002). The aim 

of the Contract Park is to enable ecotourism opportunities, including hunting, camping trails, 

walking trails and a tourism lodge, for the benefit of the communities. Presently a commercial 

partner is operating !Xaus Lodge (owned by the communities) while ensuring that the 

interests of and benefits to the partner (theoretically at least) do not supersede those of the 

owners. The Contract Park is jointly managed by SANParks, (the national conservation 

authority) and the two communities through a Joint Management Board (JMB) (Reid et al., 

2004; Kepe et al., 2005; SANParks, 2006; Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2.2). Other actors such as 

NGOs, Department of Land Affairs, San Technical Advisors and the San Traditional Council 

are involved but in advisory roles (see Chapter 7). 

The benefits from the Contract Park so far are only in the form of job opportunities 

(employment and crafts selling) and the generated income does not directly accrue to both 

San and Mier households. The income is reportedly used for the community (!Xaus) lodge 

maintenance and general development of the San and Mier area (housing, water, etc). Apart 

from eco-tourism ventures, the co-management agreement in theory allows the San to carry 

out cultural practices, hunt (in a traditional way) and collect culturally important wild foods 

and medicines. However, at the moment traditional use of wild natural resources in the 

Contract Park is still curtailed and hunting has not yet happened (see Chapter 7, Section 

7.4.5.1; Chapter 8, Section 8.3). 

59

The Commercial Preferential Zone (V-Zone) 

The second zone is the Commercial Preferential Zone (V-Zone) that borders the Contract Park 

(see Figure 4.1). Only the #Khomani San have priority to exercise commercial and cultural 

rights in this zone (Chennells, 2001; SANParks, 2006; Grossman and Holden, 2009). The V- 

Zone provides the San with access to the Auob river system, one of the two major rivers 

where the majority of game congregates. The San are also expected to exercise the rights to 

further ecotourism activities in partnership with SANParks, with the exception that by law, no 

commercial hunting is allowed (although traditional hunting is). In carrying out all activities, 

the San must abide by the provisions of the National Parks Act and need to inform the Park 

management prior to such visits (Chennells, 2001). 

San Symbolic and Cultural Zone (S-Zone) 

The third zone is a San Symbolic and Cultural Zone (S-Zone) (Figure 4.1) (effectively the 

remainder of the park) with limited commercial rights. According to the co-management 

agreement, only members of the San community are allowed relatively free access for 

purposes such as visiting culturally and symbolically important sites, food or medicine 

gathering and educational trips under the control of Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 

Management. In terms of the concession, the private ecotourism organisation (yet-to-be- 

selected) for the community will be granted the rights by SANParks to operate a commercial 

ecotourism enterprise in the entire Park while ensuring that employment opportunities (e.g. 

trackers) and economic empowerment schemes benefit the San (Chennells, 2001; Bosch and 

Hirschfeld, 2002). 

San and Mier Resettlement Farms 

The San resettlement farms are divided into eight farms designated for specific activities 

namely; Miershoop pan (game farming); Witdraai, Erin, Sonderwater and Rolletjies 

(traditional purposes and ecotourism), Uitkoms (subsistence use) and Scotty’s Ford and 

Andriesvale (livestock farming) (Figure 4.1). It should be noted that the majority of the San 

people live in the farms (Andriesvale, Uitkoms, Witdraai, Scotty’s Forty and Erin) located 

about 60 km away from the KTP. During the research period only two household resided in 

Sonderwater, a farm bordering the Contract Park (see Figure 1). 

60

The Mier resettlement farms are divided into game farms and land for livestock grazing and 

browsing. Crop production is virtually non-existent while livestock production is the main 

agricultural activity. Part of the land designated for livestock production is communally 

owned, while some of the land is leased to households at a monthly rental charge. A few 

households own land that was either passed from earlier generations or bought from the Mier 

Municipality. Hunting in the Mier game farms is only allowed upon payment of hunting fees 

to obtain a hunting license. Like the San situation, fuelwood collection is prohibited in the 

game farms and Contract Park but allowed in the leased and community-owned farms. It 

should be emphasised that according to the National Forest Act of 1998, for certain plant 

species (e.g. Acacia erioloba, Acacia haematoxylon and Boscia albitrunca) listed as declining 

in the Red List of South African Plants, fuelwood collection is only allowed for subsistence 

use rather than commercial purposes. Nevertheless, field observations showed that illegal 

fuelwood harvesting for commercialisation in both communities was a common activity. The 

size of the leased farms and individually owned farms range from 1900 ha to 3065 ha. 

Farmers who own or rent these large pieces of land often have bigger livestock herds than 

farmers who do not own land (who graze their livestock in communal land). Most households 

do not qualify for credit loans as they do not have collateral security. 

4.2.3 The local people and their socio-economic status 

The local San and Mier communities are considered ‘indigenous people’ in land and natural 

resource use agreements in the KTP and surrounding farms. However, the definition of 

‘indigenous people’ is a contested one. For the purposes of this research, the 1993 draft UN 

Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples definition approved in 1994, following the 

famous Cobo definition, will be adopted. According to Jose R. Martinez Cobo: 

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which: 1) have a historical 

continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their 

territories; 2) consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now 

prevailing in those or parts of them; 3) form at present non-dominant sectors of 

society, and; 4) are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations 

their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued 

existence as a people, and 5) in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social 

institutions, and legal systems” (United Nations, 1994 ). 

61

The #Khomani San of the Kalahari in South Africa fits this typical mould of UN indigenous 

people definition. The San are traditionally hunter-gatherers, a typical aspect of most 

indigenous communities. However, though beyond the scope of this study, there have been 

questions on whether the Mier people could be defined as indigenous or not (Chapter 1, 

Section 1.3). This is because they do not fit a number of the criteria used. Nonetheless, the 

Mier community is considered indigenous in this study context (and from the point of view of 

the land claim settlement) as they successfully claimed land that they were forcibly removed 

when the Park was formed. Furthermore, as noted, they are today viewed as indigenous in all 

the contractual agreements in the Park. 

4.2.3.1 The San: Their lifestyle, dispossession from land and current socio-economic status 

The Kalahari is home to the San people, commonly considered to be the earliest inhabitants of 

the Southern-African sub-continent and one of Africa’s oldest indigenous peoples (Barnard, 

1992; Hitchcock, 1987; 1996; 2002; Chennells, 1999; 2001; 2009; Holden, 2007). The San or 

Bushmen as they prefer to be called are the only indigenous hunter-gatherer people in the 

area. Before the influx of Bantu people from the North, the San roamed widely in Southern 

Africa, as evidenced by their rock art in caves across the region, but were slowly forced to 

retreat into the Kalahari through persecution by the Bantu settlers in the North and European 

settlers in the South. The establishment of the KTP meant further displacement of the San into 

marginal areas. Few other groups had the tenacity and knowledge to survive in this desert. 

Today the San, through repeated marginalisation, are among one of the poorest communities 

not only in the subcontinent of Southern Africa, but also in South Africa. The modern-day 

South African San are not one society but a collection of different people with different 

languages and cultural practices united by their experience of being hunters and gatherers 

(Chennells, 2001; 2009). 

The San people had a simple way of life and lived in small family groups with no leader or 

chief. The older members of the tribe gave advice and taught the children anything they 

needed to know. Though many authors contend that the San had a nomadic lifestyle, 

Hitchcock (1987) argues that it is a popular and persistent misconception that the San ‘owned 

no land’ or were nomadic. As a matter of fact, different degrees of ownership over game, land 

and veldfoods existed among different San groups. For example, amongst the !Kung San of 

Northern Botswana and Namibia, clearly identified areas of land-rights known as n!oresi 

62

(plural), ensured enough veldfoods, water and game to support the family group or band for a 

year (Heinz, 1972;1979; Lee, 1979). Permission had to be sought for use of water resources in 

a n!ore, but was never refused and the stealing of natural resources could lead to severe 

punishment (Thoma, 1996). Hupston (2009) postulates that the San believed they would be 

punished by God if they misused the environment. Indeed, in their long history, there is no 

evidence that they have ever needlessly exploited nature and some commentators describe the 

San as the world’s greatest conservationists (e.g. Heinz, 1972; Lee, 2006; Hupston, 2009). 

Their most compelling feature that set them apart is their sense of place, sense of belonging 

and sharing and a sense of rootedness in place (Lee and Hitchcock, 2001; Lee, 2006; Chapter 

6). Therefore, the hallmark of their social attitudes was their utter belief in co-operation 

within the family, between clans and within nature itself. Elements of this philosophy persist 

up to this day. 

However, the San across Southern Africa were decimated to about 100 000 people and by 

1998 only 10 % of the San were still living on their ancestral lands (Arnold and Gaeses, 

1998). In South Africa, Holden (2007) and Chennells (2009) note that the San were reduced 

to near extinction and today only some 1 500 people remain spread across the Northern Cape 

Province. A drastic change occurred when Bantu groups and European settlers invaded San 

territories with their livestock during the 17 th century forcibly relocating indigenous people 

into smaller tracts of communal land (Tanaka, 1980; Thomas, 2006). “The corresponding and 

widespread colonial belief prevailing in the 18 th and 19 th centuries, that land inhabited by 

indigenous people was ‘terra nullius’, or ‘unoccupied land’, underpinned the vast array of 

dispossessions in all colonised countries, including Australasia and the Americas, and caused 

incalculable damage to ancient cultures and knowledge systems that were intrinsically related 

to their environments” (Chennells, 2001:274). 

According to Chennells, in every country where the San once roamed, their evictions from 

traditional lands had been effected in such a way as to appear ‘legal’. The removal of resident 

San to make way for nature reserves (the proclamation of the Kalahari Gemsbok National 

Park (now KTP) in South Africa in 1931) in order to provide pristine areas of ‘wilderness’ for 

tourism and recreation of the upper classes is one example (Chennells, 2001; Hitchcock, 

2002; Maruyana, 2003). The conservation paradigm of the government of the time, in keeping 

with that of others in the Western World, was simply ‘separatist’ (Gall, 2001). 

63

The emergence of the race classification legislation (the Group Areas Development Act) in 

1955 designed by the apartheid government that came to power in 1948 further marginalised 

the San. In terms of this legislation, the San were classified as coloured (mixed race). Robins 

(2001) maintains that many people with San ancestry opted to identify with the new coloured 

identity due to the negative connotations associated with the term ‘Bushmen’ under apartheid. 

Consequently, unlike the coloureds and black Africans, the San people were not given their 

own ‘reserves’ as it was assumed that they were thoroughly assimilated into the coloured 

population. This contributed to the particularly marginalised identity of the San, as 

demonstrated today by the small number of San native language speakers (Robins, 2001), and 

led to the erosion of their culture and way of life resulting in their transition from a highly 

independent, resilient group of people to one with high dependency on the state and problems 

with substance abuse, poverty and low self-esteem. 

During apartheid it could be said that the most prominent characteristics of San identity were 

their shared experiences of dispossession, mistreatment, exploitation and neglect by those 

more economically and politically powerful than themselves (Hitchcock, 2002). Their hunter- 

gatherer lifestyle was effectively destroyed. Arnold and Gaeses (1998) note that it is ironic 

that the then San’s habit of sharing resources that provided assistance to the new settlers in 

finding good pasture and water was the beginning of their almost entire dispossession. The 

San’s culture of sharing resources developed into a system of sharing poverty and oppression 

(Thoma, 1996). They were forced to live on their ancestral land as servants (Ross, 1983; 

Worden, 1985) working as labourers on farms with remuneration being paid in kind or 

alcohol (Useb, 2000; Chennells, 2001; Bosch and Hirschfeld, 2002). 

In terms of contemporary livelihood strategies, the San combine Government poverty relief 

projects, social welfare grants, craft making, filming appearances, livestock rearing and 

collection of veld products among others to make their living (see Chapter 5, Section 5.1; 

Table 5.3). The living conditions of the San however vary widely. Some continue to hunt and 

gather on traditional land (awarded through the land restitution), while others eke out humble 

lives in rural poverty, working for low wages on neighbouring farms (Chennells, 2009). All 

the San land (resettlement farms and Contract Park) is communally owned and no-one has 

individual private access and use rights. Most members San who were part of the restitution 

claim live in surrounding farms (e.g. Witdraai, Erin, Andriesvale, Miershoop Pan, Ashkam, 

64

Uitkoms and Sonderwater) and small locations such as Askham, Welkom and Rietfontein 

(Figure 4.1). A smaller number of the San live in and around relatively large cities such as 

Upington and Kimberley. 

Since the San land restitution, several organisations/institutions and their actors linked to 

conservation and development interventions in the communal-owned resettlement farms have 

emerged. They address conservation from a diversity of angles, such as law, policy, wildlife 

management and ecosystems, local livelihoods (livestock) and individual basis. These include 

government and government agencies, NGO’s, corporations, local community members and 

committees and individual stakeholders. The Communal Property Association (CPA), the 

Bushmen committee (Boesmanraad), Department of Land Affairs, South African San Institute 

(SASI), San Technical advisors, Mier Municipality and the Bushmen Farming Association 

(Boesman Boere Vereniging) are some of the predominant organisations. Conflicts related to 

competing meanings and uses of land and natural resources for subsistence purposes, cultural 

needs, livestock production and commercial purposes among different groups of San people 

have been reported (Ellis et al., 2010; Thondhlana et al., 2011). 

4.2.3.2 The Mier: Their lifestyle, dispossession from land and current socio-economic status 

The coloured Mier community of the Kalahari mainly originated from the people of Captain 

Vilander who fled British rule in the Cape Colony in 1865 (van Rooyen, 1998). The Mier are 

believed to have settled themselves more than 150 years ago across an extended area that 

reached from Rietfontein as the central point to the Orange River and into present day 

Namibia and Botswana, displacing many of the San in the process. It is reported that since the 

1860's, the Mier also suffered at the hands of land-hungry settlers and the apartheid 

government. In 1891 the British Crown annexed the land the Mier occupied and incorporated 

it into British Bechuanaland, which became part of the Cape Colony in 1895. 

Many of the original occupiers lost their land rights at the beginning of 20 th century, allegedly 

by stealth and treachery (van Rooyen, 1998) when the then Kalahari Gemsbok Park was 

established. It is argued that the Mier, predominantly sheep, goats and cattle farmers, were 

unfairly pushed into the unproductive hardveld south of the Park and Kalahari dunes where 

they faced water shortage problems for their livestock. A hardveld is a hard-surfaced grazing 

area formed by igneous and metamorphic rocks, overlaid by loamy soils and characterised by 

65

active erosion. It is subject to frequent climate extremes such as drought and therefore very 

marginal for livestock farming. 

In 1930, the Coloured Persons Settlement Areas (Cape) Act was implemented. It provided for 

the declaration of crown land reserved for the settlement of coloured persons. Their fate was 

also further worsened by the race classification legislation of 1955, which marginalised the 

Mier on the basis of their colour. The national Coloured Areas Act No 3 of 1961 similarly 

provided for the reservation by proclamation of land for occupation and ownership by 

coloured people. 

Most Mier people (who settled in these reserves) were predominantly farmers, with cattle, 

sheep and goats husbandry forming the main source of livelihoods for many households. The 

once independent community was reduced to living on small pieces of land designated as 

coloured reserves where they struggled to make a living. Land was of life importance and is 

still justifiably a very valuable and scarce resource in this region. The Mier community is still 

generally perceived as an agricultural community due to their strong agricultural history, 

though other sources of livelihoods are increasingly becoming important (e.g. wage labour 

and social grants) (Koster, 2000; Chapter 5, Section 5.1; Table 5.3). The Land Restitution 

Programme after 1994 recognised their efforts to survive as farmers. The present Mier area 

comprises approximately 400 000 ha of land and accommodates more than 6 000 residents. 

Most people stay in Rietfontein which is the main settlement, and amongst smaller 

settlements such as Welkom, Askham, Groot Mier, Klein Mier, Philandersbron, Klipkolk. 

The local Mier game farms and the Contract Park are communal property, but legally Mier 

Municipality property. Thus, the Mier land (leased and communal resettlement farms) 

management is largely the responsibility of the Mier Municipality, though certain communal 

and town representatives are reported to be there for easier communication between 

individual communities and the Municipality. Evidence of conflicts over meaning of and 

access to land for direct natural resource use and livestock production within the Mier 

community has been documented (Kepe et al., 2005; Ellis et al., 2010). 

66

4.3 CONCLUSION 

Generally, though the two communities are beneficiaries of the 1999 land restitution and have 

traditionally depended on land-based livelihoods, they differ in their forms of natural resource 

use. On the one hand, the San are historically considered to be interested in the extractive use 

of natural resources for meeting their daily livelihood needs. On the other hand, the Mier 

predominantly use their land for livestock production among other livelihood activities. Given 

the different cultural backgrounds of the two communities, the different land parcels and the 

multiple actors involved in management, contestations over natural resource use and 

management within and between the San and Mier are common. These are linked to their 

history and take many forms such as conflicts over meaning, access and use of resources. 

67

CHAPTER 5 

WILD NATURAL RESOURCE USE, INCOME AND DEPENDENCE AMONG THE 

SAN AND MIER COMMUNITIES 


Since the seminal works of Peters et al. (1989) and Godoy et al. (1995) in tropical forests and 

Cavendish’s (2000) research in the woodlands of Zimbabwe, there has been a steady 

proliferation of literature on the contribution of biodiversity or ‘natural resources’ to rural 

livelihoods. Several authors have reviewed why natural resources continually attract attention 

in conservation and livelihood debates (e.g. Alpert, 1996; Garnet et al., 2007; Sunderland et 

al., 2008; Chapter 1, Section 1.1; Chapter 2). Firstly, they contribute to the livelihoods of local 

people. It is widely accepted that the majority of rural households in developing countries 

depend heavily on goods and services freely provided by the environment (e.g. Cavendish and 

Campbell, 2002; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2000; 2004b). Secondly, increasing extraction of 

these resources indicates their economic importance and thus could provide an incentive to 

look after them, ultimately leading to more sustainable natural resource management (e.g. 

Pretty, 2006). Many studies have attempted to document these relationships (e.g. Ambrosi- 

Oji, 2003; Dovie et al., 2006; Mamo et al., 2007; Vedeld et al., 2004; 2007; Kamanga et al., 

2009). 

These studies have made use of household economic approaches, Sen’s entitlement/capability 

approach (Sen, 2003) or the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Carney, 1999; Farrington et 

al., 1999; Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3) to show how groups of poor people try to improve their 

living standards based on the assets available to them. In particular, valuation studies and 

natural resource income accounting have been used to estimate the economic value of 

particular natural resources or suites of resources to the livelihoods of local people (Table 

5.1). These studies (Table 5.1) have identified some interesting issues; first, natural resources 

make a significant contribution to average rural household income. In a meta-study of 54 case 

studies world-wide, Vedeld et al. (2004; 2007) showed that the average total income share 

derived from forest resources was 22 %. Second, poorer households tend to depend more on 

these resources, with these often contributing on average up to 40 % of their household 

income (see Shackleton and Shackleton, 2006; Mamo et al., 2007; Shackleton et al., 2008). 

68

Table 5.1: Direct-use value (USD/household/year) and income share (%) of natural resources 

to aggregated household income from selected studies (Adapted from Shackleton et al., 2011) 

Place/Region Description of natural 

resource and activities 

Value/year 

(USD) 

Chiradzulu, 

Malawi 

Forest resources 76 15 Kamanga et al., 2009 

Okavango Delta, Wetlands, multiple 1434 >50 Mmopelwa et al., 2009 

Botswana activities 

The lack of consistence in the study methods used and types of resources considered in different valuation 

studies may limit generalisations of findings to different study contexts though key trends could be drawn. 

*Means values in the table obtained through conversion of local currency to US dollar using the average 

prevailing exchange rate during the year of field work. 

Third, in absolute terms, wealthier households may generate higher total natural resource 

income than poorer households (Cavendish, 2000). Lastly, there is considerable 

differentiation in the type of natural resource goods used and the income generated from this 

use across different households and communities, depending on local ecological and 

economic conditions, and the profile and asset base of individual households (Cavendish and 

Campbell, 2002; Kamanga et al., 2009). Furthermore, a number of studies, mainly on 

69 

Share (%) 

of total 

household 

income 

Source 

India Semi-arid common 

pool resources 

33-46* 14-23 Jodha, 1995 

Chivi, 

Zimbabwe 

Semi-arid woodlands 578 15 Campbell et al., 1997 

Shindi Ward, Semi-arid, woodlands, 545 35 Cavendish, 2000 

Zimbabwe multiple resources 

Bolivian Rain forest - 39 Godoy et al., 2002 

lowlands and 

eastern 

Honduras 

(median) 

Limpopo, South Semi-arid Savanna, 367-941 - Shackleton et al., 2002 

Africa 

plant products 

South West 

Cameroon 

Forest, multiple use 60-300 6 -15 Ambrosi-Oji, 2003 

Mametja, 

Limpopo, South 

Africa 

Semi-arid Savanna 620 - Twine et al., 2003 

Southern Malawi Forest resources 90* 30 Fisher, 2004 

Limpopo, South Savanna area, wild 167 - Dovie et al., 2006 

Africa 

edible herbs 

Ethiopia Forests, multiple 

activities 

832 39 Mamo et al., 2007 

Case studies Wet, semi wet and dry 678 22 Vedeld et al., 2004; 

(Africa, Asia, 

Latin America) 

forest resources 

2007

community-based natural resource management, and co-management have indicated how 

cultural and institutional dynamics influence access to and, consequently, the use of resources 

and the value of these to households in a given context (Table 5.2; Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4; 

Chapter 3, Section 3.4; Chapter 6; Chapter 7; Chapter 8). 

Table 5.2: Selected studies demonstrating the influence of culture and institutions on natural 

resource use 

Place/Region Description of natural resource 

management arrangement 

Source 

Various African cases Conservation sites in Africa Byers, 1996 

Zimbabwe Co-management of resources in 

communal areas 

Mandondo, 1997 

Zimbabwe Community-based natural resources 

management 

Kepe, 2008a 

Various African cases 

including South Africa and 

Zimbabwe 

Co-management in forest reserves Matose, 2008 

Sub-Saharan Africa Community-based natural resources Nelson and Agrawal, 

management 

2008 

Several cases world wide Natural resource use under different 

management regimes 

Claus et al., 2010 

Andra Pradesh India Joint forest management Saito-Jenson et al., 

2010 

Kalahari area, South Africa Co-management and community- Thondhlana et al., 

based management 

2011 

A clear understanding of such relationships and the factors influencing these is required to 

design policies and models for sustainable natural resource use systems in communal areas 

and parks, as is required for the unique Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) and surrounding 

farms set-up following the landmark land restitution process in 1999 (details in Chapter 4). 

Cultural and institutional factors are paid attention to in Chapters 6 and 7 respectively. While 

there is a steadily growing literature that quantifies the contribution of natural resources, 

mainly forest resources (e.g. CIFOR PEN Project 1 ), to the household livelihood portfolio and 

the factors affecting this, there has been less work in arid regions such as the Kalahari. This is 

despite the fact that drylands are home to millions of people world-wide, some of whom are 

marginalised and food-insecure. There is now growing evidence to indicate that drylands 

resources are vital to the livelihoods of many communities globally (Twyman 2000; 2001; 

Chapter 1, Sections 1.2 and 1.3; Chapter 2, Section 2.3). 

70

However, where attempts have been made (e.g. Barrow and Mogaka, 2007; Madzwamuse et 

al., 2007), these studies have not looked closely at issues like how social differentiation and 

diversification amongst different groups of households may shape natural resource use and 

income. This is particularly so for the Kalahari region. In order to bridge this gap in 

understanding, this Chapter estimates the contribution of natural resources to the southern 

Kalahari San and Meir communities’ broader livelihood context by specifically looking at the 

relationships between assets, natural resource use, income and livelihoods. 

The specific objectives of this Chapter are to: 

estimate the contribution of natural resource income to the total household income 

portfolios of the San and Mier; 

find out the total value and percentage share of natural resource income amongst 

different San and Mier wealth groups and between the two community groups; 

demonstrate how different natural resources are significant to different household 

groups and between the San and Mier communities; and 

show the relationship between various household characteristics and natural resource 

use. 

These two communities traditionally belong to different cultural orientations with quite 

different modes of production, being traditional hunter-gatherers and livestock farmers 

respectively (Table 5.3; Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3). However, contemporary livelihood 

strategies and activities show different and similar livelihood sources including natural 

resource use, government grants, remittances and wage labour among others (Chapter 4, 

Section 4.2.3). 

1 The Poverty and Environment Network (PEN), an international network and research project on poverty, 

livelihoods and forest resources under the Centre for International Forest Research (CIFOR), represents one of 

the few initiatives to systematically consider the full scale of livelihood benefits offered by natural resources, 

though the scope here is limited to only 30 cases primarily in forest rich areas (www.cifor.cgiar.org/pen). 

71

Table 5.3: Selected attributes of the San and Mier communities 

Attribute Community 

San Mier 

Traditional livelihood strategy Hunting and gathering Livestock production 

Contemporary livelihood 

strategies 

Government grants, wage 

labour, natural resource use, 

crafts, picture appearances, 

livestock farming, etc. 

Cultural values Largely relate to plant and 

animal use. 

Institutional arrangements Communal and comanagement 

in farms and 

Contract Park respectively 

(with many actors involved). 

72 

Wage labour, government 

grants, natural resource 

use, livestock farming, 

remittances, etc. 

Relate to livestock 

production. 

Municipality is the key 

institution for resource 

management in the farms 

and Contract Park. 

The combination of relatively marginalised communities and limited options and choices in 

the Kalahari drylands means that natural resources may play a pivotal role in contributing to 

livelihood needs and providing safety nets during times of stress and crisis for both groups 

(see Shackleton et al., 1999). Further, by comparing two distinct communities, a broader 

platform for understanding the contribution of natural resources to the livelihoods of different 

people given varying cultural and institutional arrangements is provided. The bulk of natural 

resources in the southern Kalahari area are derived from rangelands in the form of direct 

household provisioning, cash income generation and livestock graze and browse. 

Consequently, this study is not only concerned with natural resource income as the sum of 

subsistence and cash incomes from wild resources (see Sjaastad et al., 2005), but also with 

livestock income (from livestock products and services) to show the importance of browsing 

and grazing in the region (see Cavendish, 2002). 

This distinction between the value derived from households’ direct use of wild resources 

versus livestock grazing and browsing is maintained throughout the Chapter to illustrate 

different forms of natural resource dependence. Direct natural resource income measured in 

this study refers to what comes only from wild or ‘renewable’ natural resources and includes 

fuelwood, medicinal plants, bush meat and wild food plants among others. Livestock income 

refers to the flows of goods and services from livestock such as cattle, sheep and goats to 

indicate the importance of natural resources for grazing in the area. The cash and non-cash 

(‘in kind’ benefits, see Mmopelwa et al., 2009) components of natural resource income are

presented separately, in order to provide a clear representation of the market and subsistence 

values of local natural resources. 

Local livelihoods are analysed in relation to diversification, dependence and distribution 

(between different income groups) for the San and Mier communities. Diversification in this 

context essentially refers to the different types and numbers of economic activities that 

households engage in, including particular cash and subsistence strategies. Dependence 

relates to the share of income derived from natural resources relative to other income sources, 

and hence the reliance on natural resources as an income source. Distribution refers to how 

the above two characteristics (diversification and dependence) vary across different household 

‘wealth’ or socio-economically differentiated groupings. Social differentiation describes 

social hierarchies that maintain asymmetries in the way different people relate to each other 

and in the way they access and benefit from natural resources and other economic sources 

(Ellis, 1993). The relationship between asset access and total natural resource income for the 

two community groups is also considered. 

5.2 RESEARCH METHODS 

5.2.1 Data collection 

Data were collected during 2009 and 2010 using structured household surveys (Appendix 5) 

to generate income accounts for the San and Mier households. The communities generally 

perceived 2009 and 2010 to be characterised by drier spells relative to preceding years. The 

study focussed on resource use in the resettlement farms (adjacent to the Park) where almost 

all natural resources are harvested. In both communities, households were purposely selected 

for interviews on the basis of being part of San or Mier community group that benefitted from 

the 1999 land claim and whether they resided in and or used resources from the resettlement 

farms. In case of the San, almost all households who resided on the farms (during the research 

period) were targeted. A few households (known to be part of the #Khomani San) but who 

resided in small settlements away from the farms, such as Welkom, Ashkam and Rietfontein 

were difficult to locate, hence a snowball sampling approach of referral was used (see Chapter 

3, Section 3.5). This totalled 100 households out of an estimated total San population of at 

least 1000 people. A similar number of households (100) were selected for interviews from 

the Mier community, again through a referral process (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5; Bryman, 

2008). 

73

The household survey targeted household heads for interviews. In the case of short and 

extended absence of household heads, household members with knowledge of the household 

head (usually the eldest person) for the former and members who were responsible for making 

decisions in the household for the latter were interviewed. The first part of the questionnaire 

captured the socio-economic characteristics of the households (Chapter 3, Section 3.5). The 

natural resource use section collected information on all the types of natural resources 

harvested, volumes of harvest, harvesting frequency, harvesting location, the use of resources, 

whether or not the harvest was for the market, and the associated price if marketed (see 

Blignaut and Moolman, 2006). Some of the resources (such as medicinal plants and 

fuelwood) were physically measured in the field to estimate the quantities harvested. In the 

case of fuelwood, 30 % of measured quantities was added to capture increased usage in winter 

months after deliberations around this with local people (see Mmopelwa et al., 2009). 

Information on the type and size of livestock herd, sales per month and subsistence use of 

livestock products (milk, skin and meat value) were obtained. Local market prices were used 

to estimate the annual value of livestock goods and services. While extraction and production 

costs were generally not included for wild resources since few were processed, the costs of 

livestock production were included, and were especially relevant for the Mier whose costs 

(buying extra food, medicines, hiring herd boys, fence maintenance, etc.) were considerably 

higher. The opportunity costs of labour associated with the collection of resources for own 

use or farming livestock were not determined due to difficulties associated with getting 

accurate measures of rural households’ labour costs (see Cavendish, 2002). Some of the 

difficulties relate to obtaining the proportion of time spent on different natural resource- 

related tasks or activities since communities do certain activities at the same time. For 

example, while people are collecting fuelwood, they may opportunistically harvest wild foods 

or medicinal plants. Given these difficulties (and many others, see Cavendish, 2002) it is often 

argued that researchers may decide not to adjust household accounts for labour input costs, 

especially considering that this is seldom done in other economic studies of rural households. 

Total natural resource income was based on the sum of direct natural resource consumption 

(in-kind value), sales (e.g. fuelwood, wild meat, medicinal plants and wild foods) and on 

livestock income values explained in Section 5.1. Non-natural resource income sources for 

households were also captured in order to determine the average share of natural resource 

74

income per year. All the reported income values in this study are estimated at a gross income 

basis and all values are reported in South African Rands. The exchange rate between the 

South African Rand (ZAR) and the U.S. Dollar was roughly U.S. $1.00 = ZAR7.00 during 

2009. 

5.2.2 Data analyses 

Descriptive statistics and income quintiles (categorised as poorest, poorer, poor, less-poor and 

well-off households) for the San and Mier households were used to illustrate different sources 

of income and financial values, income shares and distribution of natural resource income 

across different socioeconomic groups. Since analysis of wealth by income quintile does not 

take into account the value of other household assets (e.g. land, livestock value) from previous 

incomes or potential for future income, it is a more transitory measure of household poverty 

than the one that takes into account permanent measures of wealth such as land holding, 

livestock and other assets (see Kabubo-Mariara, 2008). T-tests (since data were normally 

distributed after checking with Kolmogorov-Sminov and Lilliefors tests for normality) were 

undertaken to compare means (wage income, remittances, social grants, livestock income and 

natural resource income) between the San and Mier communities. For the purposes of 

comparing means of different income sources between different socio-economic groups, 

households were categorised into three groups, namely poorest households (a combination of 

poorest and poorer income quintiles consisting of 40 households), middle income households 

(poor income quintile consisting of 20 households) and wealthy households (a combination of 

less-poor and well-off income quintiles consisting of 40 households). One way Analysis of 

Variance (ANOVA) and Post Hoc Tests were undertaken to determine if means were 

significantly different for different income groups within the two communities using the 

statistical analysis programme STATISTICA. Multiple regression analyses also were run to 

investigate if and how households’ socio-economic explanatory variables (such as age, 

education, gender, etc.) were related to natural resource use/income. The functional forms 

were assumed linear in the presented regression models, consistent with the literature (e.g. 

Mamo et al., 2007; Vedeld et al., 2007; Kamanga et al., 2009). Running several tests using 

different functional forms, did not show significant differences in the results or improved 

model fits (see Gujarati and Porter, 2009). 

75

In addition to the household survey, information was obtained using key informant interviews 

and observations. Interviews were conducted with key informants (herbalists, crafters, 

livestock owners and elders) on particular common natural resources, their seasonal 

availability, who collects, and perceptions on resource availability and cultural importance. 

These interviews provided much of the qualitative information used to interpret how different 

household characteristics influenced resource use among different wealth groups and between 

the San and Mier communities. 

5.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

5.3.1 Characteristics of the San and Mier respondents and households 

In terms of the average age, number of years spent in school and household size, there were 

little differences between the San and Mier respondents and households (Table 5.4). Out of 

100 households targeted in each community (San and Mier), 62 % and 68 % were male- 

headed and 38 % and 28 % were female-headed respectively. 

Table 5.4: Characteristics of the San and Mier respondents and households (SE = standard 

error of the mean) 

Characteristic San (n=100) Mier(n=100) 

Average age ± SE 49.9±1.68 49.7±1.35 

Years spent in school ± SE 4.03±0.41 4.66±0.45 

Household size ± SE 4.96±0.41 5.47±0.46 

Male-headed household 62 % 68% 

Female-headed households 38 % 28 % 

The total percentage of Mier households does not add up to 100 % because some of the respondents 

were not household heads. 

Most households were poor, living on less than USD 3 per day or less than USD 1 per day per 

capita, which suggests the role that natural resources play in people’s livelihood could 

potentially be quite significant. 

5.3.2 Household livelihood diversification, dependence, incomes and values from 

different livelihood activities and sources of income 

Tables 5.5 and 5.6 present earnings and income shares by source for the San and Mier 

households respectively, stratified by income quintiles. Income quintiles show that for the 

San, wage income contributed proportionally more to poorer and less-poor households’ 

livelihoods (26 – 27 %) than to the poorest (17 %) and most well-off households (19 %) 

76

(Table 5.5). However, the actual monetary value of wage income decreased from ZAR14076 

± 6599 for well-off households to ZAR1510 ± 678 for poorest households (Table 5.5). 

Dependence on social grants was highest for the poorest households (42 %) and decreased to 

20 % for well-off households. Remittances contributed the least to total mean income per year 

(1 – 6 %). In line with other studies (e.g. Adhikari et al., 2004), livestock income share was 

higher for well-off households (ZAR17866 ± 5888) and decreased to (ZAR457 ± 450) for the 

poorest households (Table 5.5). Direct natural resource consumption contributed at least 30 % 

of total annual income for all income quintiles except for the poorer San households, although 

the value derived from natural resources increased from poorest (ZAR3211 ± 812) to well-off 

households (ZAR22627 ± 4524) (Table 5.5). 

Table 5.5: Mean annual income ± SE (in ZAR) and percentage (%) of total income (in 

parentheses) from different livelihood sources stratified by income quintile for sampled San 

households 

Income source Income quintiles All 

Poorest 

(n=20) 

Poorer 

(n=20) 

Poor 

(n=20) 

Less-poor 

(n=20) 

Well-off 

(n=20) 

households 

(n=100) 

Wage Income 1510±678 

(17) 

4320±1330 

(27) 

7342±2066 

(27) 

Analysis of Variance showed significant differences between different San household groups 

(poorest, middle income and wealthy, see Section 5.2) in terms of wage income (F = 3.59; p < 

0.05), remittances (F = 7.06; p < 0.05), social grants (F = 7.34; p < 0.01), livestock income (F 

= 5.65; p < 0.01) and direct natural resource income (F = 18.51; p < 0.01). Post hoc analysis 

for paired comparisons showed that wage income for richest households was significantly 

higher than that of the poorest households (p = 0.008) but not from middle income 

households. Similarly, remittances showed significant differences between poorest and 

77 

10065±2860 

(26) 

14076±6599 

(19) 

7463±1567 

(23) 

Remittances 50±50 990±503 240±239 1674±771 3480±1899 1287±437 

(1) (6) (1) (4) 

(5) 

(4) 

Social grants 3804±90 6516±1508 9948±2030 10008±1976 14748±2498 9005±904 

(42) (41) (37) (26) (20) (28) 

Livestock 457±450 1294±689 1184±736 2050±880 17866±5888 4570±1369 

income 

(5) (8) (4) (5) 

(25) (14) 

Direct natural 3211±812 2804±862 8076±1986 14949±2728 22627±4524 10333±1367 

resource 

consumption 

(36) (18) (30) (39) (31) (32) 

Mean total 

income per 

household per 

annum 

9032 15924 26790 38746 72797 32658

wealthy households (p = 0.034) and between middle income and wealthy households (p = 

0.049). Social grants for wealthy households were significantly higher than that of the poorest 

(p = 0.000) and middle income households (p = 0.043). Likewise, livestock income and direct 

natural resource income for wealthy households was significantly higher than that of poorest 

households (p = 0.003 and p = 0.000) and middle income (p = 0.016 and p = 0.001) 

respectively. 

With regards to the Mier, well-off households derived as much as 69 % of their total annual 

income from wages but the dependence dropped to 15 % for the poorest households (Table 

5.6). Mean wage income value decreased from ZAR71760 ± 25774 for well-off households 

to ZAR1050 ± 618 for the poorest households. Social grants were the main source of income 

for the poorest (41 %) to less-poor households (51 %). Livestock income constituted at least 

14 % of total annual income for all income quintiles except for the poorest (8 %). Consistent 

with the pattern amongst the San (in Table 5.5), total livestock income for Mier increased 

from ZAR601 ± 961 per annum for the poorest group to ZAR14758 ± 6402 per annum for 

well-off households (Table 5.6). 

Table 5.6: Mean annual income ± SE (in ZAR) and percentage (%) of total income (in 

parentheses) of different livelihood sources stratified by income quintile for sampled Mier 

households 

Income source Income quintiles All 

Poorest 

(n=20) 

Poorer 

(n=20) 

Poor 

(n=20) 

Less-poor 

(n=20) 

Well-off 

(n=20) 

households 

(n=100) 

Wage Income 1050±618 

(15) 

2820±1165 

(16) 

6660±1904 

(25) 

78 

7720±2591 

(20) 

71760±2577 

4 

(69) 

780±613 

(1) 

7758±2226 

(7) 

14758±6402 

(14) 

9257±3504 

(9) 

18002±5800 

(47) 

Remittances 850±613 1260±731 480±318 2370±1180 

1148±335 

(12) (7) (2) 

(6) 

(3) 

Social grants 2880±719 8766±1612 13212±2039 19152±2231 

10354±987 

(41) (50) (50) (51) 

(27) 

Livestock 601±961 2484±1141 3877±1481 5958±1819 

5536±1463 

income (8) (14) (15) (16) 

(14) 

Direct natural 1694±336 2207±371 2043±474 2629±533 

3566±3504 

resource 

consumption 

(24) (13) (8) 

(7) 

(9) 

Mean total 

income per 

household per 

annum 

7075 17537 26272 37829 104313 38606

Dependence on direct natural resource consumption declined from 24 % for the poorest to 9 

% for well-off households, though well-off households derived higher income (ZAR9257 ± 

3504) from this source than all the other households (less-poor, poor; poorer and poorest 

income groups) because well-off households owned more livestock (see Section 5.3.5). 

Overall, there were significant differences in mean wage income (F = 05.12; p < 0.01), social 

grants (F = 8.03; p < 0.01), livestock income (F= 4.03; p < 0.05) and direct natural resource 

consumption (F = 6.39; p < 0.01) between different Mier income groups (poorest, middle 

income and wealthy households). Post hoc tests showed significant differences in wage 

income between wealthy and poorest households (p = 0.003) and between wealthy and middle 

income households (p = 0.032). Remittances were not significantly different perhaps due to a 

very few households who depended on remittances as a source of income. Social grants were 

significantly different between wealthy and poorest households (p = 0.000) and between 

middle income and poorest households (p = 0.004). Social grants (2009/2010 rate) consisted 

mainly of child support grants (ZAR240/month) and old-age grants (ZAR1010/month) and a 

few foster child grants (ZAR680/month) and disability grants (ZAR1010/year). Households 

with more members under the age of 15 years and members who were 60 years or older had 

more income from child support grants and old-age grants. Like the San, there were 

significant differences in livestock and direct natural resources income between wealthy and 

poorest households (p = 0.006 and p = 0.000) and between wealthy and middle income 

households (p = 0.098 and p = 0.009) respectively. 

Tables 5.5 and 5.6 clearly show that the mean value of total natural resource income (direct 

natural resource consumption and livestock income) was generally higher for better-off 

households than the poorest ones. This parallels studies elsewhere (e.g. Cavendish, 2000; 

Fisher, 2004). However, the dependence pattern was somewhat uneven – while the poorest 

households tended to depend more on direct natural resource consumption than well-off 

households, well-off households depended more on livestock income than poorest 

households. However, taken together, direct natural resource consumption and livestock 

income generally played an important role for both communities despite considerable 

differential income values and income shares. The income shares and monetary values 

(Tables 5.5 and 5.6) derived from direct natural resource consumption and livestock income 

79

for the San and Mier respectively are generally comparable to findings elsewhere including in 

less arid environments (Table 5.1; see also Section 5.3.5 for findings on livestock income). 

On the whole, the findings show that direct natural resource consumption (32 %) contributed 

the most to mean aggregate San income per year followed by social grants (28 %), wage 

income (23 %), livestock income (14 %) and remittances (Figure 5.1, see also Table 5.5). 

Conversely, the main income source for all Mier households was wage income (47 %), 

followed by government social grants (27 %), livestock income (14 %), direct natural 

resource consumption (9 %) and lastly remittances (see also Table 5.6). A high dependence 

on social grants in the two communities is a clear indication that many people are generally 

poor, and is confirmed by the fact that most individuals lived on less than USD 1 per day. On 

average the Mier showed significantly higher non-farm incomes (a combination of wage 

income, remittances and social grants) than the San per annum (t = -2.01; p < 0.05), while the 

San had significantly higher income from direct natural resource use (t = 4.32; p < 0.01). 

There were no significant differences in livestock income between the two communities. The 

San on average derived 46 % of their total income from a combination of direct natural 

resource consumption and livestock income compared to the Mier’s 23 %, displaying a 

stronger and substantially higher dependence on natural capital. 

Figure 5.1: Dependence on the main income sources for San and Mier 

80

5.3.3 Household dependence on incomes from and value of different direct natural 

resource-based livelihood activities (excluding livestock) 

The proportion of San and Mier respondents that harvested and used different wild natural 

resources is shown in Table 5.7. A wide variety of natural resources were used mainly for 

subsistence purposes (provisional services or direct-use, see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2). 

Fuelwood and medicinal plants were the only products that were used for cash income 

generation. More than 80 % of the San and Mier households harvested fuelwood, emphasising 

the importance of this natural resource product especially for households who either did not 

have electricity in their homes, or could not afford the cost of electricity. Fuelwood use was 

followed by medicinal plants as these were used by at least 80 % and 30 % of the San and 

Mier households respectively. Only San respondents were involved in craft-making. The 

percentage of San households who harvested natural resources was more than the Mier 

indicating that these results parallel those in the previous section with the San depending more 

on direct-natural resource income than the latter (Table 5.7). 

Table 5.7: Percentage of San (S) and Mier (M) households that used, harvested, received (as 

gifts), bought and sold selected natural resources 

Natural resource 

or resource-based 

activity 

Subsistence 

use 

Harvesting Gifts Buying Selling 

S M S M S M S M S M 

Fuelwood 88 83 88 81 - 2 - - 7 4 

Wild food plants 38 8 38 8 - - - - - - 

Wild plants for crafts 33 - 33 - - - - - 33 - 

Bush meat 89 51 23 16 56 35 10 - - - 

Medicinal plants 83 36 65 27 5 - 13 9 5 - 

Numbers do not add up to 100 % because not all sampled households used certain natural resources. Further, 

some people used natural resources but did not necessarily harvest them, while others used resources but did not 

commercialise them. 

It can also be seen that the percentage of respondents who reported harvesting medicinal 

plants and hunting bush meat was relatively lower than the percentage of the respondents who 

actually used these resources, obtained through purchases or gifts. The percentage of 

respondents who declared that they sold fuelwood for a living was also considerably low. This 

may be due to the fact that fuelwood harvesting for commercial purposes and bush meat 

hunting are illegal activities (see Chapter 7). Natural resources such as thatching grass and 

wood for construction were used more by the San than the Mier. Many livestock owners 

81

collected camel thorn seed pods for fodder provision while a few households collected these 

for cash income generation. 

The estimated mean direct-use values and proportion of income generated from different 

natural resources (per household per year) by different San and Mier income groups are 

presented in Tables 5.8 and 5.9 respectively. There were some striking differences regarding 

dependence on different sources of natural resource income. As expected, the San showed a 

significantly higher dependence on direct natural resource income than the Mier (Section 

5.3.2). For the San, it was mainly fuelwood (53 %), livestock income derived from browsing 

and grazing (34 %) and to a lesser extent crafts (13 %) and bush meat (3 %) that constituted 

the main sources of income for all households (Table 5.8). The average income from crafts 

was ZAR1776 ± 413 per year. However, in line with other studies in Southern Africa (e.g. 

Fisher, 2004), income from crafts-making (considered a low return livelihood activity in this 

context) was most important for the poorest, poorer and poor households, constituting at least 

29 % of their annual mean total natural resource income though the poorest sometimes 

derived less total income (Table 5.8). 

Table 5.8: Mean annual income of different natural resources and activities ± SE (in ZAR) 

and percentage (%) (in parentheses) of total natural resource-based income stratified by 

income quintile for sampled San households 

Natural resource or 

resource-based 

activity 

Poorest 

(n=20) 

Poorer 

(n=20) 

Income quintile All 

Poor 

(n=20) 

82 

Less-poor 

(n=20) 

Well-off 

(n=20) 

households 

(n=100) 

Crafts 1711±808 1170±753 3374±1437 2173±887 454±255 1776±413 

(47) (29) (36) (13) (1) (13) 

Fuelwood 1494±299 1503±357 4206±1405 11334±2667 21125±6122 7232±1658 

(41) (37) (45) (67) (43) (53) 

Wild food plants 5±3 10±5 0 

8±4 8±3 6±2 

(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) 

Medicinal plants 1±0 0 

361±358 619±595 25±23 201±139 

(0) (0) (4) (4) (0) (1) 

Bush meat 0 

120±119 135±119 815±339 10015±393 417±115 

(0) (3) (1) (5) 

(20) (3) 

Livestock income 457±450 1294±689 1184±736 2050±880 17866±5888 4570±1369 

(12) (32) (13) (12) (36) (34) 

Mean natural 3668 4097 9260 16999 49493 14202±2125 

resource income per 

annum 

Total household 9032 15924 26790 38746 72797 32658 

income per annum 

The above calculations are based on income from natural resource and natural resource-related activities only.

By contrast, livestock income (61 %) and fuelwood (33 %) were the main sources of total 

natural resource income for all Mier households (Table 5.9). Game farming was only 

practiced by and important for well-off Mier households. With regards to livestock income, 

well-off San and Mier households derived a high proportion of their total income (more than 

poor to poorest households) from livestock (ZAR17866 ± 5888 and ZAR14758 ± 6402), with 

this constituting roughly 36 % and 62 % of mean annual natural resource income (Tables 5.8 

and 5.9). Though households in the less-poor to poorer categories had higher dependencies on 

livestock income, the actual value derived was substantially lower than that of well-off 

households. Livestock income was comparatively more important for the Mier than the San, 

as illustrated by high dependence across all quintiles and the total income generated (Table 

5.9). The contribution of wild food plants and medicinal plants was generally low and only to 

the San, while bush meat also contributed less but to both communities (and especially for the 

Mier), though some income quintiles relatively depended more on these resources than others 

(Tables 5.8 and 5.9). 

Table 5.9: Mean annual income of different natural resources and activities ± SE (in ZAR) 

and percentage (%) (in parentheses) of total natural resource-based income stratified by 

income quintile for sampled Mier households 

Income quintile and mean income bracket All 

Natural resource or 

resource-based activity 

Poorest 

(n=20) 

Poorer 

(n=20) 

Poor 

(n=20) 

Less-poor 

(n=20) 

Well-off 

(n=20) 

households 

(n=100) 

Game farming 0 0 

0 

0 

2405±1495 481±310 

(0) (0) (0) (0) (10) 

(5) 

Fuelwood 1692±491 2166±371 1743±495 2508±510 6831±4458 2988±928 

(74) (46) (29) (29) (29) 

(33) 

Wild food plants 2±1 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) 

(0) 

Medicinal plants 0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) 

(0) 

Bush meat 0 40±27 300±258 120±119 20±20 96±57 

(0) (1) (5) (1) (0) 

(1) 

Livestock income 601±961 2484±1142 3877±1481 5958±1819 14758 ±6402 5536±1462 

(26) (53) (65) (69) (62) 

(61) 

Mean natural resource 

income per annum 

2295 4690 5920 8586 24014 9101±1684 

Total household 

income per year 

7075 17537 26272 37829 104313 38606 

The above calculations are based on income from natural resource and natural resource- related activities only. 

83

Consistent with the emerging trends in the preceding sections, Tables 5.8 and 5.9 show that 

well-off households derived more total income from fuelwood and livestock than poor to 

poorest households though poor households depended more on such income. For example, 

San and Mier well-off households made up 53 % and 46 % of all the income generated from 

fuelwood consumption respectively. Thus while, fuelwood was generally of high importance 

across all income quintiles in both communities as demonstrated by high dependence levels, 

well-off households tended to accumulate more total value from its use and sale. Well-off 

households were in this case interested in fuelwood harvesting because it offers good cash 

income opportunities (it has an attractive local market amongst tourists who visit the Park) as 

well as being a source of energy for home use, while the poor to poorest largely used it for 

subsistence purposes. Both communities obviously depended on fuelwood, though the Mier to 

a higher degree used fuelwood in cash generating strategies and to minimise electricity costs. 

Fuelwood was the primary source of energy (for cooking, heating and at times lighting) for 

more than 80 % of San households as they did not have access to electricity and for the 

poorest Mier households who could not afford other energy sources. Also of importance is the 

fact that fuelwood is the only wild resource that can be harvested in abundance considering 

the arid nature of the Kalahari region. 

With regards to quantities of fuelwood used, the average weight of a bundle of fuelwood 

needed for daily needs was about 10.25±7.55 kg for both the San and the Mier. The mean 

annual consumption of fuelwood for a rounded mean household size of six was estimated at 

3741 kg during non-winter months. Assuming an increased usage of 30 % of fuelwood in 

winter months (May to August), annual usage per user household added up to 4115 kg (or 686 

kg per capita per year). This mean is not far from 687 kg per person per year found by 

Shackleton (1993) and Williams and Shackleton (2002). 

5.3.4 Households dependence on value of and incomes from livestock 

The range of benefits derived through livestock ownership is well documented from several 

countries in Southern Africa, but seldom within a livelihood framework, or a complete 

valuation of all goods and services provided (Shackleton et al., 2000b). Shackleton et al. 

2000b argue that the contributions of livestock goods and services to rural households have 

been consistently underestimated in economic and livelihood security terms for several 

reasons including a focus on productivity, limited consideration of non-monetised products or 

84

services and a neglect of small stock, such as goats, sheep or poultry. This study considers 

livestock (including small stock) as an important source of livelihood (supported by wild 

natural resources) in terms of both direct household subsistence use or cash savings (meat, 

milk, draught power) and trade for cash income. 

The results illustrate a high degree of variation in livestock ownership and diversity, and the 

value attached to livestock among households both within and between the two communities. 

More than half (55 %) of the interviewed San households were livestock owners. However, if 

poultry, donkeys, mules and horses are excluded, only 38 % of households were livestock 

owners. Out of these, only 18 % owned cattle, while the rest kept small stock (sheep and 

goats). The number of cattle, sheep, goats and poultry per household ranged from 2-14, 3-180, 

4-150 and 1-50 respectively. By contrast, relatively more Mier households owned livestock 

(59 %) or about 52 % excluding poultry, donkeys, mules and horses. Out of the 52 %, 

approximately 37 % households owned cattle. 

Table 5.10: Number of livestock and direct use-values (in ZAR) of livestock (excluding 

poultry) for San and Mier households in 2009 

Category San Mier 

Cattle sheep Goats Cattle Sheep Goats 

Total number of stock per stock type for 

all households (n=100) 

160 1354 699 371 8461 2825 

Mean ± SD for all households 3 ±14 25±46 13±24 6 ±15 143±236 49±66 

Total value per livestock category 400,000 609,300 314,550 927,500 3,807,450 1,271,250 

Total value of livestock herd by 

community 

1,323,850 6,006,200 

Mean subsistence value (e.g. milk, meat) 

per household for all households 

2059 2965 

Mean cash income value per household 

per year for all households 

2511 2571 

Mean livestock value per household 

per year across all households 

4570 5536 

% of livestock-owning households 38 52 

Mean livestock value per household 8213 9383 

per year for livestock owning 

households 

Mean livestock value per household for all households are derived from Tables 5.5 and 5.6. Cash value refers to 

value from commercialisation of livestock and livestock products and services such selling of beasts, skins, and 

hiring. 

85

The number of cattle, sheep, goats and poultry per household varied from 1-84, 10-1400, 2- 

200 and 1-30 respectively. In both San and Mier communities, livestock-owning households 

generally had more sheep than cattle and goats (Table 5.10). In case of the Mier, farmers with 

access to larger pieces of land generally showed high total livestock income and dependence. 

For example, about 46 % of interviewed livestock owners had large pieces of land (at least 

1900 ha) either privately owned or rented from the Mier Municipality. These farmers 

accounted for approximately 75 % of all livestock (out of a total of 11286 excluding donkeys, 

mules, poultry and horses). Small stock production was a common activity among many 

households as illustrated by not only a high number of owning households but also higher 

number of sheep and goats than cattle (Table 5.10). 

Mean livestock income for the year was around ZAR4570 and ZAR5536 for all San and Mier 

households, but these figures respectively increased to ZAR8213 and ZAR9383 if only 

livestock-owning households were considered (Table 5.10). There were costs related to 

livestock production for the Mier averaging about ZAR2316 for all households or ZAR3926 

per year for livestock-owning households. These costs included among other things, 

purchasing of additional feed (during dry spells), fence maintenance, purchasing medicines 

and paying for herd boys. The overall mean direct-use value of livestock per year to all 

households and disaggregated by livestock-owning households (Table 5.10) is within the 

range of findings from similar studies elsewhere summarised in Table 5.11. 

All the San and Mier cattle-owning households interviewed said that cattle were the best form 

of savings due to their large size, minimal care needed for the calves, the ability to produce 

more milk and meat than small stock and the high price fetched on the market. Sheep rearing 

was regarded as the second best form of savings by cattle owning households and the best 

form of savings by non-cattle owners followed by goats. The main reasons highlighted 

included that sheep grew faster and therefore reproduced earlier and that less attention was 

needed once the lambs could walk. The delicious taste of mutton and lamb was frequently 

mentioned by many respondents. This is supported by the high average numbers of sheep 

across all households as shown in Table 5.10. As highlighted earlier, there was no significant 

difference between the San and Mier mean livestock income (income from the flow sale of 

livestock products and services). However, as expected, the mean value of the livestock herd 

86

(total number of stock) for Mier was significantly higher than that of the San (t = -3.88; p < 

0.01), showing that the Mier had larger livestock herds (Table 5.10). 

Table 5.11: Estimated direct use-values (USD) and income share (%) of livestock from 

selected studies 

Place/Region Description of 

region 

Sand River 

Catchment, 


Africa 

Thorndale, 


Africa 

Chivi, 

Zimbabwe 

Makana 

Municipality 

commonages, 

Eastern Cape, 

South Africa 

Wet and semiarid 

Value of 

livestock goods 

and services per 

annum 

1180 for owning 

households or 

260 for all 

households 

87 

% contribution 

to total 

household 

income 

Source 

- Shackleton et 

al., 2005 

Semi-arid 656 23 Dovie et al., 

2006 

Semi-arid 144 - Campbell et al., 

2002 

Semi-arid 148 4 Davenport, 2008 

Overall, livestock production was a key economic activity, though its mean value and 

proportion of total livelihood income was variable across households as has been noted in 

preceding sections. All the interviewed livestock-owning households considered livestock 

production as a form of savings. As expected, all San and a high proportion (73 %) of the 

Mier livestock owning households interviewed had no other form of savings. These 

households also had no other jobs, so livestock income was their only source of income 

(subsistence and cash income). 

Some of the respondents interviewed highlighted the cultural importance of livestock (and its 

fostering of social ties) as their motivation for livestock production (see also Chapter 6, 

Section 6.4.4.2). Many respondents said they often used their livestock for socially-important 

ceremonies such as weddings, birthdays and funerals instead of buying meat or hunting which 

is very expensive and time consuming respectively. Well-off households valued livestock as a 

source of extra cash income. Some of the heads of these (Mier) households were professionals 

such as teachers, nurses and social workers among others.

The main value of donkeys, horses and mules was provision of transport. All households who 

owned either a donkey or mule or horse, used them for transportation purposes to carry 

fuelwood, construction material, fetch water, get to their farms/fields, shops and clinic and 

other day to day needs. Only two out of all the livestock owning San households hired out 

their livestock to generate income and this amounted to ZAR2840 per year. Sometimes non 

livestock-owning households were offered livestock transport services ‘free of charge’ by 

livestock-owning households and in return they brought back the cart with fuelwood as a 

token of appreciation. Though the value of saving on transport (due to the availability of 

draught power) was not calculated, many households used livestock for transport services. 

This is especially important in this arguably remote area, where public transport is either 

scarce or beyond the reach of many. Therefore the economic value of livestock, in terms of 

household saving on public transport (and provision of daily transport needs), is potentially 

high and should ideally be recognised. 

Overall, the findings demonstrate the importance of livestock income (and the importance of 

grazing and browsing resources for livestock production in the region) as a key important 

source of livelihood for many households. The Kalahari communal livestock farming sector 

has multiple production outcomes, such as milk and meat for home consumption and is 

important for food security, financial capital storage, insurance, and cash income while 

donkeys, mules and horses provide transport services around the scattered small settlements. 

Benjaminsen et al. (2008) findings in Namaqualand are pertinent to this study’s findings. 

They illustrate that for most households, livestock keeping is but one of several livelihood 

sources, which often include other sources of income such as wage labour, remittances, 

pensions, and social security grants. In a relatively recent study of livelihoods in the drylands 

of Botswana and Kenya, Madzwamuse et al. (2007) and Burrow and Mogaka (2007) 

respectively, concluded that livestock production provided a substantial source of income for 

many rural households. Livestock was an indicator of social status, source of food and means 

of establishing social ties within such communities. This is especially important for people in 

drylands where generally chances and choices are limited (Anderson et al. 2004) and in 

particular crop production is often non-existent (as in this case study). As demonstrated 

above, there is no single reason behind livestock production – the reasons are not only 

economic but also social. Therefore, it may also be problematic to separate one value from the 

88

other as many households generally consider all the above-mentioned reasons equally 

important. The Grasslands Carbon Working Group (GCWG) (2011) aptly affirms that 

livestock production, which greatly depends on rangelands for its growth, is socially, 

culturally and economically critical to rural livelihoods. 

5.3.5 Natural resource income (direct natural resource and livestock and livestock 

products sales) for cash generation 

Table 5.12 illustrates the mean cash income derived from the sale of natural resources (wild 

natural resources and livestock) as a percentage of total natural resource-based income (cash 

and subsistence value) across different income quintiles for San and Mier per year. Yearly 

mean cash income derived from natural resources for all San households was ZAR7885 per 

household per year compared to a total natural resource income of ZAR14202 (Table 5.12) 

which means that roughly 56 % of all natural resource income was in the form of cash. The 

mean natural resource cash income per Mier household was ZAR4977 compared to a total 

natural resource income of ZAR9101 which means that some 55 % of total natural resource 

income was converted into cash income. Overall, the cash income component of natural 

resources constituted slightly more than half of total natural resource income which is 

consistent with other studies (e.g. Vedeld et al., 2004). 

Table 5.12: Mean natural resource-cash income (in ZAR) and percentage (%) of total natural 

resource (NR) income stratified by income quintile for San and Mier samples 

Community Income quintile 

San: Total NR income 

Cash income 

% of total income 

Mier: Total NR income 

Cash income 

% of total income 

Poorest 

(n = 20) 

3668 

1712 

(47) 

2295 

1337 

(58) 

Poorer 

(n = 20) 

4097 

1985 

(48) 

4690 

705 

(15) 

Poor 

(n = 20) 

9260 

5562 

(60) 

5920 

2812 

(48) 

89 

Lesspoor 

(n = 20) 

16999 

4979 

(29) 

8586 

8110 

(94) 

Well-off 

(n = 20) 

49493 

25186 

(51) 

24014 

11920 

(50) 

All 

households 

(n = 100) 

14202 

7885 

(56) 

9101 

4977 

(55) 

Total natural resource income figures (including livestock) for San and Mier are derived from Tables 5.8 and 5.9 

respectively.

However, the results should be interpreted with caution since only well-off households 

showed high levels of cash income derived from natural resources. Further analysis revealed 

that well-off households generated the highest total cash income from natural resources while 

the poorer income groups largely used these incomes for subsistence needs. However, given 

that only a few households (see Table 5.7) in both communities openly declared that they sold 

fuelwood as a livelihood strategy; statistical comparison of incomes earned by well-off and 

poorer households could not be made. 

Natural resource-based cash income was predominantly generated from fuelwood and 

livestock commercialisation. With regards to dependence on natural resource cash income, 

analysis by income quintiles revealed mixed outcomes. Poor households (middle income) 

showed the highest dependence (60 %) on cash income derived from the sale of natural 

resources, while less poor Mier households showed a very high dependence (94 %). However, 

in both communities well-off households still derived more total cash income than poor to 

poorest households – consistent with trends and patterns in the preceding sections. It is 

important to note that natural resource income could vary dramatically due to several reasons 

from year to year. For example, in good years (with good rainfalls) total natural resource 

income may be lower than during periods of drought because during droughts cash need is 

high and households are likely to sell more livestock to recover from drought stresses and 

shocks. Furthermore, natural resource income may be higher in years with big celebrations 

such as weddings, or during funerals of loved ones (livestock such as goats and sheep are 

usually slaughtered for these family events). 

The preceding findings generally concur with findings elsewhere that also demonstrate that 

wealthier households derive more income (both subsistence and cash) from natural resources 

and natural resource-based activities (such as livestock production) than the poorest 

households, though poorer households sometimes show a higher dependence (e.g. Cavendish, 

2000; Fisher, 2004; Vedeld et al., 2007). For example, well-off households benefitted more 

from activities such livestock production, fuelwood sales and game farming. This is perhaps 

due to the initial capital required (to buy stock and wild animals) in the case of livestock and 

game farming, which the poor cannot afford. Fisher (2004) found out that dependence on low 

return activities decreased with wealth, while high return activities increased with wealth in 

Malawi. Similarly, Kamanga et al. (2009) found that poor households had the lowest forest 

90

income and concluded that poor people are almost destitute and not able to participate in 

resource collection activities because they often lack labour, time and good health among 

other constraints. 

This study also shows that well-off households were attracted to certain resources such as 

fuelwood rather than medicinal and food plants among others. This is probably due to the fact 

that the latter were on the one hand less attractive due to the high opportunity costs (scarcity), 

and on the other hand they did not have substantial markets and were therefore not attractive 

in terms of cash income generation. Further, well-off households normally owned or had 

access to transport that could facilitate more resource harvesting. For example, donkey carts 

owning households could harvest more resources such as fuelwood (at least 300 kg per load) 

than households who had to carry the fuelwood (at least 10 kg per bundle). In case of bush 

meat, the illegal nature of hunting activities probably meant that respondents deliberately 

underreported benefits from bush meat, hence the low value. 

Furthermore, key informant interviews revealed that wealthier households had more political 

connections at local levels, and were able to influence both access and use of resources and 

even prices could vary which may be responsible for the differences in the value derived from 

natural resources. For example, poor people said they are often marginalised in terms of 

access and use of resources and community assets and often they do not access benefits such 

as income from eco-tourism enterprises, water for their livestock and transport (there is only 

one community vehicle) to access the Park (see Chapter 7, Section 7.4.5.2). It was also 

reported that development agencies often look for influential locals (who are likely to be well- 

off households, well known and powerful) to get rapport into the society. In the process, such 

households have more say in and benefits from resource access as illustrated in this study (see 

also Ambrosi-Oji, 2003). 

5.3.6 The safety net function of natural resources (wild natural resources and livestock) 

Roughly 60 % of all the San and Mier respondents interviewed reported that they turned to 

natural resources to raise cash in times of hardships. About 28 % of San and 80 % of Mier 

livestock owning households said that livestock income (through sales) provided much 

needed cash income in times of stress. In particular, owners of just a few animals regarded 

livestock as a safety net against misfortune, a store of wealth to be used during times 

91

hardships such as funerals and illnesses, to pay for school fees, repay debts and for prolonged 

dry seasons (see Shackleton et al., 2000b). Shackleton et al. (2000b) highlight that in some 

cases families that lose a breadwinner can meet their annual cash needs for several years by 

selling a few livestock each year. Benjaminsen et al., (2006; 2008) confirm that livestock 

keeping represents a safety net against fluctuations in other incomes as a bank account that 

people can dip into to make up for regular seasonal shortages or when other sources fail since 

some of the livelihood sources are insecure (see also Cavendish, 2000). 

Related to the safety function is the non-cash income role played by natural resources in rural 

livelihoods, especially in relatively subsistence, remote and marginalised economies such as 

in this case study. The cash income component of natural resources was slightly more than 

half of the total natural resource-based income for all San (56 %) and Mier (55 %) 

households, illustrating that almost half of the income from natural resources was in the form 

of ‘in-kind’ values (see Table 5.12). Income quintiles show that less-poor San households (29 

%) and poorer Mier households (15 %) had the least share of cash income from natural 

resources – displaying considerable ‘in kind’ values of natural resources to the income groups 

(Table 5.12). For instance, a majority (88 %) of San respondents revealed, during surveys, 

that they used fuelwood as the only and primary source of energy, since they neither had 

electricity nor could afford the costs of buying substitutes such as candles (for lighting), 

paraffin and gas for cooking and generating warmth during winter. In addition, a substantial 

proportion of Mier respondents with access to electricity indicated they still used fuelwood. 

When asked why they used fuelwood even though they had electricity in their households, a 

majority (94 %) of respondents said that they wanted to reduce the costs of electricity. They 

further said that electricity was mainly used for lighting and other low-power consuming 

appliances such as fridges, fans, televisions and radios among others, while fuelwood was 

used for heating and cooking. In fact the per capita fuelwood use per households was almost 

equal between the sampled San and Mier households (see Section 5.3.3). Most of the 

surveyed San and Mier households also said consumption of bush meat reduced the costs of 

buying meat in local butcheries. 

Thus, though the proportion of cash income from natural resources varies between income 

quintiles, overall the findings parallel findings elsewhere that own or in kind use of ‘free’ 

resources result in considerable reductions in cash expenditure, a crucial livelihood strategy 

92

for poorer households (e.g. Shackleton et al. 2000b; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Sen, 2003; 

Kamanga et al., 2009; Mmopelwa et al., 2009). As such, one can conclude that natural 

resources potentially act both as safety nets for the poorest group of households and 

sometimes as ‘pathways out of poverty’ for less-poor and well-off households, while the use 

of natural resources serves to reduce costs associated with use of conventional services and 

products for poor and wealthy groups of households alike.. 

5.3.7 Links between household characteristics and natural resource use 

Total natural resource income was regressed against a set of household and respondent related 

variables since it is often expected that households with different characteristics and access to 

assets may have different levels of natural resource income (Mamo et al., 2007; Kamanga et 

al., 2009). Household characteristics (conventional variables) such as non-farm income (i.e. 

wage employment, self-employment, remittances etc.), age, education, gender and household 

size among others are often related to natural resource income for reasons linked to both 

production and consumption decisions of different households (Vedeld et al., 2007). Tables 

5.13 and 5.14 present the results of the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple regression 

analyses. 

For San, age of respondents (0.026*) was negatively related to natural resource use, indicating 

that as age increases, there is generally a decrease in natural resource use (Table 5.13). It is 

often argued that the age of the household head may be positively related to natural resource 

consumption until a climax of physical strength is reached, where natural resource utilisation 

will decrease with age (see Mamo et al., 2007). Indeed, natural resource harvesting is an 

arduous activity considering the arid nature of the Kalahari area. People have to walk for long 

distances to collect important livelihood resources such fuelwood and this could only be done 

by the physically fit. In most cases households with older members were small (consisting of 

mainly husband, wife and sometimes a grandchild) and these relied more on government old- 

age grants than natural resources. 

93

Table 5.13: OLS regression of natural resource income against socio-economic variables for 

San sample 

Expected 

sign 

Coefficient Std Error t-value p-value 

(Constant) - - 2.093 0.039 

Non-farm income - -0.123 0.096 -1.283 0.203 

Age of HH + -0.271 0.120 -2.263 0.026* 

Education - -0.133 0.120 -1.103 0.273 

Gender + 0.231 0.094 2.446 0.016* 

HH size + 0.215 0.098 2.203 0.030* 

Membership in organisations + 0.057 0.094 0.604 0.547 

Livestock (herd) value + 0.270 0.095 2.835 0.006** 

N = 99; R 2 = 0.2122; R 2 adjusted = 0.1516; F = 3.502; p < 0.002 

*Represents statistically significant values 

Gender (0.016*), household size (0.026*) and the value of livestock herd (0.005**) were all 

positively related to natural resource income (Table 5.13). However, the correlation 

coefficients were very low, illustrating weak relationships between the chosen variables and 

natural resource income. With regards to gender, there were no significant differences in the 

mean natural resource income between male and female-headed households (t = 1.06; p > 

0.05). This is perhaps because some female-headed households had male members (such as 

older sons and relatives) who could harvest resources such as fuelwood. Further, in the 

absence of mature male members, all members in female-headed households were sometimes 

engaged in natural resource collection activities. Indeed, only a few households and in most 

cases female-headed ones reported that all household members had fuelwood collecting roles. 

Field observations in the study area generally showed that men were the predominant 

harvesters fuelwood for the majority of both San and Mier households, followed by women 

and children, in contrast to findings in many other places where women harvest for household 

use while men may still be the primary harvesters of fuelwood for sale (e.g. Shackleton et al., 

1999; Masekoameng et al., 2005). This difference may be partly cultural, but could also be 

because there is more hard work in dry areas as trees are more dispersed, and the fact that 

people use donkey-drawn carts (often operated by men) to carry the fuelwood (see also 

Chapter 6, Section 6.4.5). 

94

Hunting was an entirely male activity, while collection of wild food and medicinal plants was 

the responsibility of both adult men and women for both the San and Mier. Children were in 

many cases not involved in wild plant, food and medicinal plant harvesting as they often 

could not distinguish between edible and non-edible plants. In addition, since the collection of 

wild food plants was largely opportunistic for many users, the main fuelwood and livestock 

herders were normally the main wild food and medicinal plants collectors. Planned wild food 

and medicinal plants harvesting were seldom reported. However, joint natural resource 

activities existed for the San. A typical example is the craft business that comprises essentially 

all family members. The whole family usually spends the entire day along the road leading to 

the Park, sharing duties, from collecting natural resource products (inputs), curing, shaping 

and designing them up to the final product ready for sale to tourists. 

With regards to household size, households with many members were sometimes seen to use 

more natural resources than households with fewer members. This is obviously because the 

more members a household has, the more the natural resource harvesting capacity and 

demand. However, in both positive and negative relationships, it is often the overall 

composition of individual households that influence resource use. For example, detailed 

examination of natural resource use by individual households revealed that in most instances, 

households with more males and healthy adult members utilised more natural resources than 

households who were female-dominated or with very old, young and sick members. 

For Mier, only the value of livestock herd (0.000***) had a significant positive association 

with natural resource income while non-farm income, age, education, gender of household 

head, household size nor membership in organisation were not related to natural resource 

income (Table 5.14). This perhaps confirms the fact that the Mier’s overall natural resource 

income is largely derived from livestock income rather than from direct natural resources 

consumption. Analysis of livestock-owned households illustrated a systematic relationship 

between access to land, size of livestock herd and the value and level of dependence on 

livestock income among the Mier. Farmers on private land showed significantly higher mean 

livestock income ZAR13899 ± 2392 than farmers on communal areas ZAR4568 ± 655 (t = 

2.05; p < 0.05). Livestock obviously need fodder and therefore Mier households with more 

land (rented and private land) often had larger livestock herds thus depending more on 

95

grazing, reflected in higher such natural resource income (see also Ambrosi-Oji, 2003; 

Adhikari, 2004). 

Table 5.14: OLS regression of natural resource income against socio-economic variables for 

the Mier sample 

Variable 

Constant 

N = 95; R 2 = 0.2533; R 2 Livestock (herd) value + 0.473 0.096 4.932 0.000*** 

adjusted = 0.1939; F = 4.2638; p < 0.000 

*Represents statistically significant values 

Non-farm incomes, level of education of household head and membership in organisations all 

had no relationship with natural resource income in both communities. However, an analysis 

of individual households showed that better asset endowment allowed households the capacity 

to exploit more resources, though this cannot be generalised for all well-off households (see 

Mamo et al., 2007). 

With regards to education of household head, the absolute value derived from natural 

resources among some educated San and Mier households heads generally increased with 

improved opportunities that came with a higher education level. Households with higher 

education tapped more into income flows from natural resources. This is because they were in 

a better position to benefit from natural resources due to financial capital needed to invest in 

livestock production and game farming and assets such as cars and donkey carts for resource 

harvesting (see Section 5.5). A higher level of education normally improves opportunities for 

getting a better paid job which decreases dependence on resource income though the total 

value derived from natural resource income could be higher (see Cavendish, 2000, Adhikari, 

2004). 

Expected 

sign 

Coefficient Std error t-value p-value 

96 

0.460 0.647 

Non-farm income - 0.017 0.112 0.153 0.879 

Age of HH + -0.018 0.125 -0.142 0.887 

Education - 0.003 0.119 0.028 0.978 

Gender + 0.069 0.097 0.716 0.476 

Household size + -0.007 0.098 -0.069 0.945 

Membership in organisations + 0.066 0.098 0.671 0.504

With regards to membership in organisations, while some members benefit by being a 

member of an organisation, other households interviewed said being a member actually 

constrained them from using natural resources such that it is strategic and beneficial not to 

either become members or to participate in certain community meetings. 

Results in Tables 5.13 and 5.14 show R 2 adjusted values of 0.1516 and 0.1939, implying that 

approximately 15 % and 19 % of variation of mean natural resource income (consumption) is 

explained by some explanatory variables for San and Mier respectively. The results indicate a 

significant relationship between households’ socio-economic explanatory variables and 

natural resource use (F = 3.50; p < 0.01 for San and F = 4.26; p < 0.01 for Mier). Consistent 

with the general findings emerging from this study, it can therefore be concluded that at least 

one of the considered explanatory variables (predictors) is useful in predicting natural 

resource use – which is important in natural resource use programmes and conservation 

planning in the Park and surrounding farms. However, the relatively low R 2 values for San 

and Mier suggests that there are many other factors that affect variation in natural resource 

use. 

Thus, as generally expected, household socio-economic characteristics were related to natural 

resource use in complex ways. It is also important to note that, in reality different factors may 

influence resource use jointly and may be household-specific. Therefore, while the OLS tests 

have given an idea of the influence of several explanatory variables on natural resource 

consumption, the results should be used with caution since many other elements could explain 

resource consumption by the rural poor in the Kalahari. In other words, the results show that 

while the San and Mier natural resource use strategies fundamentally revolve around their 

respective assets (such as age, gender, education, livestock, household size, other sources of 

income, land etc.), natural resource use cannot be disconnected from the issues and problems 

of access associated with socio-cultural and institutional circumstances (see e.g. Wallman, 

1984; Kamanga et al., 2009). Therefore, variations in resource use and overall livelihood 

strategies within and between households could also be partly explained by the existing 

cultural factors (Chapter 6) and social institutional dynamics (Chapter 7) that often are beyond 

the control of individual households. 

97


In conclusion, the findings show that natural resources represent an important livelihood 

source for both San and Mier communities of the Kalahari, among other livelihood sources 

such as wage income, remittances and government social grants. Despite little variation in the 

socio-economic characteristics of the San and Mier, there are still substantial differences in 

livelihood strategies, both in total household income and in composition of the livelihood 

portfolio. On the one hand, the San show a significantly higher dependence on direct natural 

resource consumption than the Mier, and on the other hand, the Mier show a significantly 

higher livelihood interest in livestock production as demonstrated by the high asset values of 

livestock. This clearly demonstrates that, the extent and forms of natural resource use and the 

overall significance of natural resources for local people’s livelihood vary between and within 

different San and Mier household groups. 

The overall picture that emerges from the Kalahari region is one where natural resources are 

utilised not only as a safety net, but as an important perennial source of livelihood for both 

poor and well-off San and Mier households. Considering that wealthier San and Mier 

households derive more income from natural resources than the poorest, the study argues for a 

pro-poor approach where special attention should be paid to those poor groups most 

dependent on natural resources, yet often also with the most limited access. These are 

extremely vulnerable households that conservation initiatives should support to improve their 

livelihoods. A failure to recognise such variations in natural resource use may result in 

designing inappropriate conservation policies that do not embrace local livelihood needs, are 

inequitable and fail to contribute to reducing vulnerability and poverty. 

98

CHAPTER 6 

CULTURE, CULTURAL VALUES OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE 

CONSERVATION LINK 


Criticism has been levelled against work on natural resources and livelihoods because of its 

failure to consider culture, which is considered essential in order to fully account for the 

various ways in which different groups of people make use of and find value in biodiversity 

(e.g. Cocks and Dold, 2004). There is now recognition that the environment is often a site of 

conflict between competing notions of cultural values of natural resources and interests of 

different people (Byers, 2006). Literature demonstrating not only the cultural values of wild 

natural resources but also how cultural values shape resource use spatially and temporally is 

gradually growing (Mandondo, 1997; Byers et al., 2001; Harmon and Putney, 2003; MA, 

2003; Hamilton 2004; Cocks, 2006; Kanowski and Williams, 2009; Crane, 2010; Chapter 3, 

Table 3.1). Indigenous and local people use natural resources to sustain their cultural identity 

and therefore may have systems (such as indigenous knowledge) in place that ensure these 

resources are conserved (e.g. scared forests) or sustainably managed. Some of the literature 

shows that many areas of highest biological diversity are inhabited by indigenous people, 

providing an ‘inextricable link’ between biological and cultural diversity (e.g. Posey, 1999 

cited in Cocks et al., 2006). 

However, the cultural meaning of nature and natural resources (in terms of both direct-use and 

non-use values) (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2; Figure 3.1) in South Africa is still poorly 

explored and often misunderstood (Cocks and Dold, 2004; 2006). This means that 

conservation and development decisions normally based on economic calculations alone – 

comparisons of the costs and the benefits of any planned initiatives on natural resource use for 

livelihoods – often omit or glance over cultural dynamics of natural resource use. Yet, 

incorporating local cultural values into projects can help ensure that conservation initiatives 

are compatible with local concerns and build respect and trust between local communities and 

project managers (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 2001). Harmony and Putney (2003) assert that 

traditionally and community-managed areas of wild natural resources can contribute 

meaningfully both to the conservation of biological diversity and to the maintenance of 

cultural identity if they are properly managed. 

99

It is therefore important to better understand not only the daily use of natural resources for 

livelihood and economic purposes (Chapter 5), but also the cultural significance associated 

with or underlying such uses. An understanding of the complex and often diverse cultural 

meanings of nature in everyday life and how this influences access to and management 

decisions may improve perspectives on the contribution of natural resources to rural 

livelihoods (Crane, 2010). 

There is no question that the economic (utility) aspects of natural resource use are key 

components of rural livelihood systems. However, the cultural dimensions of natural 

resources (that include the cultural values attached to direct use of plants and animals, 

traditional knowledge, non-use values such as bequest and existence values and sacred sites) 

are similarly important for livelihoods for a number of reasons. First, there are cultural uses 

and values attached to medicinal plants, wild foods and wild animal species that ultimately 

influence the way such resources are used for some communities and social groups (Cocks et 

al., 2006; Pretty, 2006). Second, indigenous knowledge of natural resource use and 

management, accumulated over thousands of years, often becomes encoded in everyday 

cultural practices (Berkes et al., 2000). Third, bequest values (value of leaving use and non- 

use values to offspring) and existence values (value from knowledge of continued existence or 

preservation of certain plant and animal species) (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3; Figure 3.1) are 

important elements of culture that ensure natural resources are conserved for future 

generations. Last, sacred sites are often closely related to indigenous knowledge where 

elements such as taboos and myths ensure the sustainable use and management of natural 

resources. 

These various aspects of culture represent the cultural services of ecosystems (MA, 2003; 

Chapter 3, Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4; Table 3.1). Crane (2010) identifies crucial reasons why 

cultural factors are fundamental in understanding the importance of natural resources to 

different people. First, the concept of biocultural diversity, which includes language, norms, 

taboos, myths and belief systems, is valuable because it represents the range and richness of 

biodiversity and human cultures (see Cocks, 2006). Secondly and perhaps most importantly, 

culturally constructed meanings create the frameworks through which the varied importance 

of natural resources is analysed, evaluated, and prioritised. 

100

In light of the above, the overarching goal of this Chapter is to deepen understanding of the 

relationship between culture and natural resource use in the San and Mier communities, by 

specifically exploring the cultural values of natural resources (often undervalued) and the 

linkages between culture and resource use and conservation. The specific objectives are to: 

establish the levels of general knowledge of culturally important natural resources 

(plants and animals) and explore the cultural dimensions of natural resources used by 

the San and Mier and how this varies between them; 

assess the cultural values associated with the presence of sacred sites, species of plants 

and animals and landscapes for the two community groups; 

determine whether indigenous knowledge related to natural resource use and 

conservation still exists and how this is transmitted from generation to generation and; 

illustrate the important link between natural resource use and culture with a view to 

improving the understanding and possibility for integrating people’s cultural values 

into conservation and development policies and approaches. 

Overall, this Chapter aims to contribute to the design of innovative conceptual frameworks for 

the inclusive assessment of local cultural values in natural resource conservation and 

livelihood issues. A broader understanding of the linkages between natural resource use and 

culture could better inform conservation policies by integrating cultural values into 

conservation and livelihoods initiatives (see Mandondo, 1997; Putney, 1999; Cocks et al., 

2006). 

6.2 CONCEPTUALISING CULTURE AND CULTURAL VALUES 

6.2.1 Culture 

Culture is a complex and difficult concept to explain. It is unstable and polyvalent (Williams, 

1958) and its meaning is shaped and bound up with the problems it is being used to explain or 

discuss. In other words it is a two way process whereby the concept of culture attempts to 

explain intricate aspects such as behaviour, practices, norms, myths, beliefs, etc., but culture 

is also shaped by these aspects in so many complex ways. Though it is often subject to many 

different shades of meanings, most authors such as Eide et al. (2002:89) agree that culture is 

“…a coherent self-contained system of values and symbols as well as a set of practices that a 

specific cultural group reproduces over time and which provides individuals with the required 

signposts and meanings for behaviour and social relationships in everyday life”. One notable 

101

feature of any identifiable culture is that it is not static but rooted in history and changes over 

time (Eide et al., 2002). As Eide et al. (2002:90) puts it: “Customs and traditions are inherent 

elements of all observable cultures, yet traditions are constantly being invented and 

reinvented, and customs, by which people carry on their daily lives, regularly change to 

conform to varying historical circumstances, even as they strive to maintain social 

continuity”. 

6.2.2 Elements of culture 

Culture consists of elements such as traditional knowledge, myths, norms, beliefs, rituals, 

taboos, customs and practices (such as the use and transformation of natural resources) and 

sacred sites. Traditional knowledge in this study context refers to long-standing traditions and 

practice of specific regions, groups or local people based on locally developed ways of natural 

resource use and management (Berkes et al., 2000; Pretty, 2006). It is sometimes referred to 

in literature as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Indigenous Knowledge Systems 

(IKS), indigenous knowledge or local knowledge but this study uses the term traditional 

knowledge. Traditional knowledge encompasses local wisdom, knowledge and teachings of 

specific ways of sustainable natural resource use (Berkes, 1999). Several natural resource 

conserving practices of indigenous and local peoples that are drawn from their traditional 

knowledge systems have been described for many parts of the world and for many different 

cultures and environments (e.g. Berkes, 1999; Hunn et al., 2003; Cocks and Dold, 2006; 

Pretty, 2006). These studies document a wide variety of conservation strategies, ranging from 

normative ways of harvesting specific plants, cultural teachings against harvesting specific 

resources or harvesting at specific times or places, to selective or limited harvesting, to 

sanctions against waste (see Berkes, 1999; Folke, 2004). Traditional knowledge and aspects 

such as myths, beliefs, norms, rituals, taboos and customs are often closely linked to natural 

resource use and management. 

Information on the definitions of myths, beliefs, norms, rituals, taboos and customs is largely 

drawn from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary by Hornby et al. (2000). Myths are 

defined as sacred narratives about natural or social phenomenon that many people believe but 

unsubstantiated by fact. The main function of myths is to justify an existing social system and 

account for traditional rites and customs (Guirand, 1987). Thus myths relate to beliefs, shape 

thoughts and interventions and determine individual interpretations about what is wrong with 

102

the world and its solutions (Horne, 1993; Section 6.4.4.1). Policies underpinned by myths are 

almost bound to succeed (Vacarro and Norman, 2007). For example, the wilderness myth is 

considered powerful because it invokes ideas of pristine purity, unspoilt origins, and a world 

not marred by people (Vacarro and Norman, 2007) and this is why it is so difficult to shift. 

Beliefs are described as strong feelings (often held for a long period of time) that something 

exists or is true. Norms relate to the ways of behaving that conform to acceptable values 

within a given society. They are shared and internalised understandings by those involved, 

about the do’s and don’ts involved in particular situations (Ostrom et al., 2002, cited in Jones 

and Boyd, 2011; Section 6.4.4.2). Closely related to norms are customs and taboos. Customs 

refer to a habitual group pattern of behaviour that is transmitted from one generation to 

another in a society. It is argued that all customs are basically temporary since societies are 

perpetually changing. Taboos are defined as certain bans that relate to any activities that are 

forbidden based on moral judgment and beliefs of a society. Often, breaking societal taboos is 

usually considered as deviant behaviour and sometimes warrants punishment. There are 

beliefs that this punishment may be imposed through supernatural means (e.g. through the 

ancestors). Rituals refer to a series of actions that are always carried in the same way and 

performed mainly for their symbolic value, as may be prescribed by community traditions 

(Section 6.4.3.2). Related to rituals is reverence. Reverence refers to a feeling or attitude of 

deep respect for something sacred such as plants (Section 6.4.2.1), animals (Section 6.4.2.3), 

and places (Section 6.4.3.1). Places where valued natural and spiritual attributes come 

together are referred to as sacred sites (Mandondo, 1997; Section 6.4.3.1). Harmony and 

Putney (2003) describe sacred sites as places of spiritual-self recovery that have a strong 

connection to nature and its sustainable management. These sites are important for the 

biodiversity and natural features that they preserve and the associated cultural belief systems 

and values. 

Local norms and beliefs can bear a significant influence on land use and therefore the 

consequent value of a resource is a product of human interference with the landscape and its 

resources as shaped by taboos, traditional norms and beliefs among others (Byers, 1996; 

Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 2001; Sheil and Wunder, 2002). Since traditional knowledge, norms, 

myths, taboos and beliefs among other cultural constituents are interlinked and provide lens 

103

into understanding the value attached to different natural resources, a comprehensive natural 

resources and livelihood study should consider these aspects. However, literature shows that 

that modernisation and westernisation need and pressure maybe weakening these traditional 

belief systems and the control they assert over resources use (e.g. Pretty, 2006). 

6.2.3. Cultural values 

The above conceptualisation of culture is critical in understanding the cultural values of 

natural resources. However, there is need to understand ‘value systems’ before one can 

appreciate the meaning of value (Farber et al., 2002). According to Farber et al., 2002, a 

‘value system’ is defined as the intrapsychic (internal psychological processes of the 

individual) constellation of norms and precepts that guide human judgements and actions (see 

Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1 for different types of values). A society’s value system thus refers to 

the normative and moral frameworks (or discourses) people use to assign importance and 

necessity to their beliefs and actions (Kepe, 2002; 2008a). Literature on cultural values 

(including spiritual and heritage aspects) underlines that these can exert a strong influence on 

local preferences for natural resources (Davidson, 1990; Henning, 1998 cited in Sheil and 

Wunder, 2002; Posey, 1999 cited in Cocks and Dold, 2006; Putney, 1999). However, the 

specific value, degree and order of importance placed on biodiversity may vary from region to 

region and from people to people hence the need to study specific local scenarios. As Byers 

(1996) maintains, people make decisions about how to use the natural resources in their 

environment in the context of their cultural values. This means that each community and 

culture has its own array of values. In this study context, cultural values are understood as 

beliefs and customs that are related to the usefulness and importance of natural resources 

within a particular group (including traditional knowledge of harvesting and protecting natural 

resources and landscapes, myths, taboos, rituals, sacred sites and reverence) that form the 

foundation for habits and actions. 

The argument is that community-managed resource initiatives need to be particularly sensitive 

to the cultural values of many rural people, especially regarding the ways in which these 

influence their perception and use of certain resources and features of the landscape. Thus the 

concept of culture and its associated aspects such as practice, spirituality and rituals, myths 

and beliefs are seen as constitutive elements of conservation and development (Vacarro and 

104

Norman, 2007). South African National Parks (SANParks) to some extent has recognised the 

culture and cultural values of San people in the land claim agreement through giving access to 

the Park for cultural activities (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.2). When dealing with issues of 

land and natural resource use, it is imperative to understand the complex notion of landscape, 

which embraces a wide range of social, spiritual, political, ontological and historical meanings 

(Mandondo, 1997). As a result sustainable livelihood approaches (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3) 

are increasingly challenged to meaningfully integrate culture into conservation and 

development thinking and practice as an essential dimension. The holistic approach of a 

livelihood focus provides insights into ‘how culture matters’ in natural resources 

management. People-oriented conservation and development calls for approaches that further 

our understanding of the roles of these cultural aspects of natural resource use and sustainable 

livelihoods. 


The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods employed in two different stages of 

the study. The first stage involved a set of a structured questionnaires (Appendix 5) which had 

questions guided by different foci namely (a) culture and identity, (b) the importance and 

perception of the environment as a whole, (c) plants and animals species used and revered 

and (d) sites of cultural and spiritual significance (also myths, taboos, norms, etc.) This was 

administered to 200 households, 100 in each community (San and Mier) (see Chapter 3, 

Section 3.5). 

Structured questions allowed a documentation of a species list of all the plants and animal 

species that individual households were aware of (see Appendices 1 and 4), followed by 

ranking of the commonly used plant and animal species used for various purposes. The 

ranking was conducted in terms of importance on a scale of 5, with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 equalling 

most important, second most important, important, slightly important and not important 

respectively, for the purposes of enabling a comparison of the relative importance of species 

with cultural significance. Open-ended questions were asked to pave way for deeper 

discussions on the cultural aspects of natural resources. 

In the second stage, informal key informant interviews with community elders, certified 

herbalists, traditional healers, and traditional leaders (for triangulation purposes too) were 

105

conducted. San and Mier elders were approached to recount their life stories in such a way as 

to indicate their clan and family relationships, understanding of traditional knowledge, rituals, 

stories, myths, healing and medicinal practices, hunting and gathering practices and places, 

land marks, burial sites, sources of food and sustenance. Chennells (2001) argues that a 

concrete proof of a common cultural identity (related to myths, beliefs, norms, etc.) among 

the San became a tangible and central core around which the community began to recognise 

their interconnectedness as a cultural community. Informal interviews were also conducted 

with the youth to assess if there were differences in levels of cultural knowledge on resource 

use between the young and the old and as a way of finding out if traditional knowledge is 

passed successfully to younger generations. 

Information and insights were also drawn from various (and abundant) secondary sources of 

data that look at subsistence living conditions of the San (e.g. Hitchcock, 1987; Lee, 2001), 

including a recent complementary study by Mannetti (2010) entitled “Understanding plant 

resource use by the Khomani Bushmen of the Southern Kalahari”. The cultural characteristics 

of the San and the Mier were compared to illustrate how culture influences and shapes 

resource use and dependence. 


6.4.1 Knowledge of culturally important plants and animals 

In keeping with their cultural identity, the San depended more on direct natural resource 

utilisation in general and specifically for consumption of wild foods, medicinal plants and 

bush meat, while the Mier showed a higher dependency on livestock production (see Chapter 

5). Consequently, it was expected that the San would have a wider knowledge of the uses and 

cultural significance of wild plants and animals. Overall, a wide variety of culturally 

important plants and animals were used by the San, with a total of 63 plant and 20 animal 

species compared to the Mier’s total of 22 plant and four animal species (see Appendices 1 

and 4 for a list of the plants and animals used). The plants used (based on growth forms) 

include dwarf shrubs, shrub, grass, herbs, succulents and trees. 

The most preferred plant species (cited by 70 % and 50 % of San and Mier households 

respectively) was Acacia erioloba, because of its multiple uses. First and foremost, it is the 

only abundant hardwood of a high quality that does not burn fast and generates lasting 

106

charcoal. Its pods are used for making crafts and as fodder for both livestock and wildlife. 

Apart from providing shade, the tree’s bark, leaves and roots have many medicinal properties 

valuable to people, livestock and wildlife. Acacia erioloba therefore is considered important 

both for subsistence and cultural purposes (including making of crafts) by the San. Other 

species such as Boscia albitrunca, Acacia tortilis, Acacia erubescens, Acacia karoo, 

Parkinsonia africana, Carissa haematocarpa and Acacia mellifera have varying degrees of 

importance. 

Respondents had varying knowledge and understanding of cultural values attached to wild 

natural resources. For example, only 53 % of the San survey respondents considered natural 

resources to be culturally important. The remaining 41 % had no knowledge about cultural 

values while 6 % said there were no cultural connections at all. Out of the respondents who 

considered natural resources to be culturally important, roughly 27 % of the households cited 

medicinal plants only as culturally important. The remaining portion either attached cultural 

values to all the plants and animals they used or only mentioned specific plants and animals as 

culturally and spiritually important. However, the fact that people continue to use plants such 

as medicinal plants (83 % of sampled San households, see Chapter 5, Table 5.7) despite the 

availability of modern alternatives is often because it is part of their culture and they like to 

use these even though the main purpose is utilitarian – for treatment when they are sick. The 

Mier respondents revealed that their cultural values were more related to livestock production 

and traditional cuisines (e.g. mutton and beef dishes) rather than direct resource consumption. 

Only 36 % of sampled Mier households used medicinal plants (Chapter 5, Table 5.7). 

6.4.2 Cultural values related to direct-use (values) of plants and animals 

6.4.2.1 Medicinal plants 

With regards to medicinal plant use, a majority of the San (83 %) used medicinal plants when 

members of their households are sick in contrast to only 36 % of Mier households (see 

Chapter 5, Table 5.7). Approximately 65 % and 27 % of San and Mier households 

respectively indicated that they collected the plants from the wild, while a few households got 

medicinal plants from friends, relatives and traditional healers (Chapter 5, Table 5.7). A wider 

variety of plants were used for medicinal purposes (38 out of 63 plant species) rather than for 

other uses (Appendices 1; see also Mannetti, 2010) and on average the San used more plants 

(37 plant species) for medicines than the Mier (17 species). The San elders and the Traditional 

107

Council (see Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2.2) said, during key informant interviews, that they used 

indigenous plants as medicines as part of their cultural beliefs, norms and practices, despite 

the availability of a mobile clinic. Furthermore, some survey respondents said it was 

sometimes cheaper and more convenient, particularly if a household member fell sick at night 

and considering that the nearest local clinic is located about 20 km away from their 

settlements and they generally have no transport. 

Medicinal plants were largely harvested in the surrounding resettlement farms. Only 5 % of 

the survey respondents reported collecting medicinal plants from the Contract Park 

corresponding to a few herbalists who had limited access for medicinal plant harvesting only 

(see Appendix 3 for a list of plants that can be harvested in the Contract Park). A local small 

herbal shop (at Andriesvale) sells a number of proprietary traditional (herbal) products. The 

average annual direct-use value of medicinal plants for a user household was very low 

ZAR201 (see Chapter 5, Table 5.8). However, though the value and contribution of medicinal 

plants to local people’s lives was low in absolute quantitative and monetary terms, their 

cultural significance is important, especially for the more traditional groups of San. This very 

low value illustrates the limitations of using money as a proxy for measuring resource value. 

Access and use of traditional medicines is considered integral to San culture and identity. 

Table 6.1: Main medicinal plants used by San and Mier communities 

Plant species San Mier 

% users out of 83 total users % users out of 36 total users 

Harpagophytum procumbens 67 53 

Aptosimum albomarginatum 52 25 

Dicoma capensis 31 28 

Solanum 29 22 

Galenia sp. 19 19 

Hoodia gordinii 17 17 

Senna italic 14 25 

Some of the most frequently used medicinal plants by the San and Mier were Harpagophytum 

procumbens, Aptosimum albomarginatum, Dicoma capensis and Solanum spp among others 

(Table 6.1). The specific quantities of the harvested plants, the frequency of harvest and value 

of specific plants used varied within households and between the two communities. These top 

108

plants are said to cure most common ailments such as headaches, stomach-aches, colds and 

flu. In particular, Harpagophytum procumbens was referred to as an ‘all cure’ plant. In cases 

where households did not get plants of prime choice, other plants (substitutes) were used. 

There are unconfirmed claims that some San traditional healers know traditional cures for 

HIV/AIDS and cancer-related sicknesses. The plant species used for specific and complex 

health problems are beyond the scope of this study, though they are highly recognised. 

Medicinal plants have symbolic and spiritual significance for the Bushmen and are an 

important cultural element of their society. During early days, the San solely depended on 

traditional medicinal plants, but with the changing of the physical and socio-economic 

environment today, many people are turning to modern medicines. Despite this, many San 

still use medicinal plants for health and cultural reasons. Most ‘traditionalists’ interviewed 

argued that the farms designated for traditional resource use (see Chapter 4, Figure 4.1 and 

Section 4.2.3) were important to protect medicinal plant species since livestock grazed on 

medicinal plants (without observing biological limits to use) and could therefore deplete the 

resource stocks and flows. Goats and donkeys were highlighted as being chiefly responsible 

for destructive grazing. As one respondent interviewed said: 

“It will be difficult to reflect back (in San history) if the medicinal plants are all 

depleted by livestock”. 

Conversely, some San and Mier livestock farmers said the medicinal plants were important 

for their livestock such that they did not have to buy expensive modern veterinary medicines 

(see Section 6.7). 

6.4.2.2. Wild food plants 

Thirty-eight percent of San households sometimes utilised wild food plants in contrast to the 

Mier’s 8 % (Chapter 5, Table 5.7). The bulk of households who used wild foods said wild 

foods provided food and water for their livestock such as goats, horses and donkeys. Amongst 

the San households who did not use or harvest wild plants most indicated “they did not eat 

wild plants” while 11 % said “they were modern San and not interested” or “they did not 

know anything about wild food plants at all”. A majority of Mier non-user households 

indicated they were either “not interested” or “did not have time to harvest wild food plants”. 

109

Hoodia gordinii was the most commonly used plant species by the bulk of San households 

using wild foods (79 %) followed by Citrullus lanatus (47 %), Cucumis africanus (45 %) and 

Pergularia daemia among others. The San have chewed Hoodia gordinii (succulent) for 

thousands of years to stave off hunger and thirst during long hunting trips in their ancestral 

parched Kalahari desert. Edible plants such as Hoodia gordinii have also been known to 

contribute to the health of the San people especially in harsh Kalahari environment where 

there was no easy access to modern medicines. The contribution of local foods to reducing 

health risks has always been recognised as part of the local traditional knowledge which 

forms a greater part of the San’s complex cultural and belief system (Chennells, 2007). Like 

medicinal plants, the economic contribution of wild foods to total livelihoods was very low 

with the direct-use value estimated at a mere ZAR6 and ZAR0 per year per household for the 

San and Mier respectively (see Chapter 5, Tables 5.5 and 5.6). In a study of wild plant use by 

the San, Mannetti (2010) found out that edible plants comprised less than 20 % of all plants 

used – contrary to findings by Lee (1968) of the San’s subsistence activities in Namibia, 

where vegetative products provided roughly 60 to 80 % of the annual diet by weight (see also 

Steyn, 1984). This perhaps illustrates the modernisation of the San way of life combined with 

the general scarcity of natural resources given various land-use changes that are not consistent 

with the San traditional ways of living. For example, the creation of KTP resulted in the loss 

of San way of life and knowledge as the San were squeezed out of their traditional lands 

(Chapter 4). 

Seventy-five percent of San survey respondents who used wild plants agreed that plant 

species were increasingly becoming scarce, and that it was not profitable to invest time in 

gathering plants for food. Respondents had varied explanations for the scarcity of plant 

resources. Competition for plant resources with livestock and wild animals, overharvesting 

and that the region is getting drier were common explanations. Nonetheless, the cultural 

importance of wild food plants was still highly valued, because though only 38 % of 

households used these for subsistence purposes, almost 63 % of San respondents still 

maintained that wild food plants were important for their Bushmen identity and practice. 

Apart from a few Mier households who used wild plants for their healing properties almost all 

the households stated that wild food plants were important for their livestock. 

110

6.4.2.3 Wild animals 

While up to 44 % of the Mier households used bush meat for household consumption, only 16 

% of households actively hunted (see Chapter 5, Table 5.7). Wild animals were important to 

the Mier people for their subsistence value only. The most hunted species in descending order 

were springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis), steenbok (Raphicerus campestris) and duiker 

(Sylvicapra grimmia) – cited by 44 %, 38 % and 31 % of households respectively. By 

contrast, 89 % of San households used wild meat for home consumption though only 23 % 

admitted that they hunted (Chapter 5, Table 5.7). This perhaps is due to the illegal nature of 

hunting activities. The San regarded several wild animals important for both their direct use 

value (meat, crafts, and medicinal properties) and non-use values (cultural, spiritual). Like the 

Mier, common animal species hunted for subsistence purposes were springbok (83 %), 

steenbok (61 %), duiker (39 %) and gemsbok (Oryx gazella), (13 %). In both San and Mier 

communities, exchange of game meat as gifts from family members and neighbours working 

on neighbouring game farms was common. Fifty-six percent of all sampled San households 

(or 63 % of bush meat consumers) and 35 % of all Mier households (or 69 % of bush meat 

consumers) received bush meat as gifts (see Chapter 5, Table 5.7). Exchange of gifts is 

considered important in building social capital (networks) by creating local connections 

among individuals within communities (Pretty and Ward, 2001; Chapter 3, Sections 3.2.3 and 

3.4; Chapter 7, Sections 7.4.6 and 7.5). It is a vital cultural component that punctuates the San 

and Mier way of life. A majority of San households (74 %) indicated that wild animals were 

culturally important. Animals such as the eland (Taurotragus oryx), springbok, gemsbok and 

steenbok among others are held highly and stories related to how they sustained life in early 

days are an attribute of San folklore. 

The relationship between the San and wildlife is famously depicted in their Bushmen rock art 

(Thomas, 1989; Lewis-Williams, 1998). In particular, the eland is considered by the San as an 

important meat source and a holy animal (see McCall, 2000). It is very large (perhaps the 

largest antelope in the world), has high amounts of fat – which is important for any foraging 

community – and is tasty. There is a belief among the San that the eland behaves like a human 

being – it can shed tears if it is persecuted and listens and understands human behaviour. As 

one San member aptly said during interviews: 

111

“The secret was to stay with her in the field without interfering with her way of life. In 

that way the eland became very friendly and generous”. 

The San reported during key informant interviews that when there were persistent droughts, 

the eland, apart from providing food (meat, protein and fat) to them also offered milk to lost 

or thirsty cattle calves to the extent that some regarded it as a god. Moreover, its blood was 

mixed with other substances to make durable paint for crafts and houses. Therefore, it is 

considered the most culturally important animal among other animal species. Though some 

authors argue that the faunal component of painted rock art was not a true reflection of either 

the faunal population of the area or the diet of the hunters (e.g. Vinnicombe, 1972), the 

predominant depiction of the eland among other animals such as springboks, hartebeest, 

gemsbok and lion, could be further proof that the Bushmen consider the eland a spiritual 

animal. 

The springbok was also valued both for its subsistence use and medicinal properties. 

Knowledgeable elders interviewed maintained that its stomach had healing properties since it 

feeds on almost all plants that have healing properties. Springbok horns were said to have 

healing properties as well. Animal skin, bones and horns were also used as inputs into the 

local San craft-production business. Crafts-making (art, curios, wall hangings, ostrich-shell 

beadwork, hand-painted cards, painted ostrich-shell earrings and painted gourds) was not only 

an important livelihood source for the San community but attained cultural significance. 

According to Mhiripiri (2008) the traditional materials used to make crafts perpetuate 

perceived Bushmen traditions (of sustainable use and dependence on natural resources). 

Inputs such as ostrich egg shells, seeds, porcupine quills, skins, hooves, horns and other 

related natural materials are often used in making different types of necklaces, mobiles and 

wall-hangings sold by the roadside stalls and at the craft centres such as SîSEN crafts (see 

Chapter 7, Section 7.6.3). 

6.4.2.4 Cultural tradition related to livestock production 

Though the San reported no cultural practices associated with the management of livestock 

production (adoption of livestock farming is relatively new to this hunter-gather group), 

household surveys and key informant interviews showed that subsistence use of livestock 

products (particularly meat) for weddings, birthdays and funerals is a common cultural 

practice, perhaps substituting for wild game products. On the other side, the Mier are 

112

traditionally livestock farmers though other sources of livelihood are becoming increasingly 

important (see Chapter 5). Indeed, cattle and small stock such as goats and sheep were the 

mainstay of the livelihoods of both communal and leasehold Mier farmers in the area. Though 

less than 10 % of Mier households surveyed indicated that livestock production had cultural 

connections, the Mier derived more income from livestock browsing and grazing than the San 

(Chapter 5). Key informant interviews with older household heads provided some information 

on the cultural values of livestock production and the importance attached to grazing and 

browsing. Some of the most obvious direct livelihood values to individuals, households and 

the community were milk production, meat, draught power, blood and fat – an important 

component of their way of living. The most culturally important values of livestock relate to 

savings, investment, security and inheritance. 

First, local people reported during interviews that livestock has always been regarded as the 

best form of investment and security for the Mier and often the only savings opportunity 

available to them as there is little access to reliable banking services in the area. Secondly, 

livestock-owning households (59 %) generally reported that their stock function as insurance 

against times of adversities such as recurrent droughts, illness, debts, etc. They placed value 

on the herd’s total size and the greater the size, the greater the chance of addressing risks and 

surviving adversities. Studies in drylands indicate that households with larger herds often 

recover faster during times of adversity (IIED, 2009). Third, households with larger herds 

highlighted that the inheritance value was also important for their interests in livestock 

rearing. They said that their livestock herds had been inherited from earlier generations such 

that livestock production, important for subsistence provision and establishing family ties 

through birthdays and other family events, was part of their family tradition (see also Chapter 

5, Section 5.3.4). According to IIED (2009) inheritance value is critical for new families to 

establish and form a means of survival for families and societies through strengthening social 

networks (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3; Chapter 7, Sections 7.4.6 and 7.5). As earlier noted, 

slaughtering a cow, goat or sheep for activities such as weddings and funerals is an important 

and common cultural practice in both the San and Mier communities, which also helps to 

build social ties and relationships. This illustrates that the importance of natural resources 

should not only be understood in terms of direct-use or consumption related values, but also 

in terms of the indirect support it offers to culturally important natural resource-based 

activities such as livestock production. The close relationship between subsistence (savings, 

113

livelihood security and safety nets) and cultural values (inheritance, way of life) is clearly 

demonstrated. Livestock production as a way of life for the Mier is a feature of their culture 

(Chapter 4). 

6.4.3 Cultural values related to intangible elements in the landscape 

6.4.3.1 Sacred sites 

Only 9 % of San respondents in the survey had knowledge about the existence of sacred sites. 

Several sacred sites were identified by respondents namely the Bush Camp, the Captain tree, 

Witdraai caves (grot) in Witdraai resettlement farm and burial sites in the Park. Spiritual rain 

dances were conducted (sometimes on request by tourists) at the Bush Camp. They were 

considered the most important way in which the spirit mediums of the San could be invited to 

reconnect to the present San generation. The Captain tree is the largest Acacia erioloba 

(camel thorn) tree in the resettlement area and symbolises the important economic and 

cultural position occupied by this tree species in the lives of the San people (see Section 

6.4.1). The caves are culturally important as it is reported that the Bushmen took meat to the 

caves in the early days during hunting excursions. The caves were also used as hiding spots 

during previous wars. Burial sites both in the Park and the resettlement farms were considered 

highly sacred. They have a strong attachment to the modern-day San way of living since ‘the 

spirit of the dead continuously interacts with the present generation’. Asked where the most 

important history was, Dawid Kruiper, the traditional and spiritual leader of the San said: 

“It is in the Park, the site of our ancestors’ graves and where I grew up looking after 

the sheep and goats of settlers”. 

In recognition of this cultural importance, a field school known as ‘Imbiwe’ has been 

established in the Park for the purposes of reviving the deteriorating San culture. The San 

traditional leader and his close family members sometimes spent days in the Park, an activity 

that some San members were not interested in doing. Sacred sites were closely related to 

sense of place values – having a sense of belonging to a particular place is associated with 

recognised features of their environment, including cultural aspects of the ecosystem. 

Questions relating to whether or not a person would relocate if resources were degraded are 

commonly asked to measure people’s sense of place (see Shamai, 1991). Asked if they would 

relocate if the land was degraded, most survey respondents (> 90 %) said they would not. 

However, the reasons behind this were multi-dimensional. While some San households valued 

114

a sense of place (cultural), others cited (economic) reasons associated with day-to-day 

survival or a combination of cultural and economic motivation. Some indicated they did not 

have anywhere to go and that they had to live within their means. Therefore, the reasons for 

staying in a place may be both cultural and economic. Moreover, the act of distinguishing 

cultural and economic aspects maybe problematic, since these are often interlinked. 

6.4.3.2 Rituals and healing dances 

Closely linked to the functioning of sacred sites are rituals. There are many interesting aspects 

of San culture, but historically their connection with the natural world was mostly expressed 

through their rock art and healing/trance dances (Thomas, 1989; Lewis-Williams, 1998). 

However, only 24 % of survey respondents indicated they had knowledge about rituals such 

as traditional healing and rain dances. Out of this, a further few actually knew what kind of 

wild animals (such as springbok, eland and hartebeest) were slaughtered during the dancing 

ceremonies. Most people indicated they did not actively participate in rain dances and that the 

dances did not happen often. This is in contrast to early historical times when traditional rain 

and healing dances were done on average four times a month (see Katz, 1982). The South 

African San Institute (SASI) (see Chapter 7, Section 7.6.3) confirmed that the San sometimes 

conducted the rain and healing dance ceremonies at Andriesvale shopping centre or at 

Witdraai Bushmen camp, often upon requests by tourists. 

The healing dances were central to the Bushmen’s way of life and a lot about their Bushmen 

lives could be learnt through them. ‘Rain dance animals’ were also recorded through rock art. 

When the Bushmen did their rain dances, they would go into a trance to ‘capture’ one of these 

animals. In their trance they would kill it, and its blood and milk became the rain (Bleek, 

1933). As depicted in the rock art, the rain dance animals they ‘saw’ usually resembled an 

eland (Katz, 1982). The San healers held special powers but according to the Bushmen’s way 

of living, they were not thought of as higher or better (Katz, 1982). Healing was performed 

not to become a more prominent and powerful person but for the good of the entire 

community. Healers would also go in a trance in order to get spiritual power from the 

ancestors. The relationship between the San and wildlife in their rituals shows the spiritual 

importance placed on such resources, though the findings show that this is no longer as strong 

as it used to be in the past. 

115

6.4.4 Indigenous knowledge around biodiversity use 

6.4.4.1 Indigenous knowledge of sustainable plant and animal use 

The Mier did not have specific indigenous knowledge related to plant harvesting for 

households use (see next section). Their indigenous knowledge related to sustainable and 

traditional livestock production. With regards to the San’s use of wild plants, key informants 

(the elderly and certified herbalists) mentioned certain norms, rules and practices that were (or 

are supposed to be) followed. For example, the size of the plant determines the quantity that is 

harvested. The bigger the plant, the more material harvested. This is done to enable young 

plants to reach maturity for the benefit of all community members and users. In addition, the 

key informants said that many people harvest wild plants (especially medicinal plants) after 

the rains because the plants are green and easy to identify. Therefore, it is easier to distinguish 

between poisonous and non-poisonous, and bitter and edible plants. During this period, it is 

also possible for some plants (stem) to be planted back into the ground (the ground will be 

wet in summer) if the roots are used. This practice was not confirmed and practiced by many 

though. A few respondents with a better ecological knowledge harvest plants all year round 

since the roots and stem normally remain fresh while the upper part is dry. 

For certain plants, such as Hoodia gordinii, only smaller new shoots are harvested given that 

bigger and older parts are very bitter for consumption. Most plants are dried, grounded and 

mixed with other plants and water to be used for long periods of at least three months. For 

example, 125 g of Harpagophytum procumbens can be used for an average period of three 

months by a family of ten. This quantity is enough since household members seldom get sick 

simultaneously. This treatment and storage of the plants is a form of adaptation to the arid 

conditions where resource stocks may be inadequate at particular times of the year. 

Indigenous knowledge systems are often closely linked to local taboos, myths, habits and 

beliefs around the use of plants and animals (Section 6.2.2). Approximately half (47 %) of 

San respondents had knowledge of local taboos and myths. Only a few out of these, mostly 

elderly people, could meaningfully explain what these taboos and myths were and what they 

meant for conservation of their resources and culture. However, the San elders explained that 

the mere awareness and belief that such indigenous knowledge systems (including myths, 

taboos, norms, beliefs) existed, even without a deeper understanding of what they entail, is 

important and forms part of their traditional conservation practices. 

116

One such myth is that if soil is not spread/sprinkled over a plant that has been cut, the plant 

will not grow again, which will bring misfortune to the (offender) harvester. In fact, this is to 

prevent the sun from directly heating the fresh cut. In addition, there is a belief among the San 

that if a plant is within the home vicinity, it cannot be harvested because human shadows 

would have been cast on the plants. The common folklore is that the healing properties of that 

plant will become dysfunctional. One San respondent interviewed explained: 

“This is only to make sure that such plants are protected for future generations. They 

(future generations) will constantly get reminded about how the Bushmen survived on 

wild plants and how they sustainably conserved these plants. If these plants are not in 

close proximity to where we stay, what will our children and grandchildren say of our 

conservation principles?” 

It is also a common norm and practice that when a medicinal plant is harvested (bark, stem, 

leaves or flower), the harvester should leave something valuable (for example, a 5 cents coin) 

to show respect for the plant. This is seen as a way of avoiding destructive harvesting 

practices. As can be seen in the following testimony: 

“No-one can leave anything valuable if the plant is no longer there”. 

In other words, the use, existence and bequest values of plants are highly valued and respected 

by the San for their useful properties and just because they exist for future generations to see 

(Section 6.1; see also Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2; Figure 3.1; Barbier et al., 1997). Moreover, 

only deadwood is supposed to be harvested, according to San cultural norms. In addition, 

some plants such as Walafrida saxatilis (Moedershout, commonly known as luck stick) are 

believed to bring luck to individuals. Today, it is still common to find small pieces of ‘luck 

stick’ in a #Khomani San’s wallet or on necklaces and wrist laces. As part of the myths, it is 

believed that some misfortunes such as deaths to harvesters and their families and bad luck 

among others are consequences of not respecting community taboos such as unsustainable 

harvesting of plants and hunting of pregnant animals (Section 6.2.2). 

Many analysts say that myths, norms and taboos are responsible for the sustainable and 

traditional management of natural resources (Tanaka, 1980; Katz, 1982; Pretty, 2006). For 

example, plant and animal species that are believed to bring luck (e.g. Walafrida saxatilis 

(Moedershout) and Atherurus africanus (Aardvark) respectively) are also traditionally used 

117

for medicinal purposes and considered culturally important hence the users are likely to 

harvest then in a sustainable way – because the beliefs state that community members will be 

lucky if they harvest these sustainably while myths say misfortunes will fall upon individuals 

who do not follow community norms and practices of sustainable harvesting. Further, the 

knowledge that both plants and animals provide both utilitarian and cultural values could act 

as incentives that can promote sustainable use. 

Communication between trees and wild animals is also believed to be integral in the 

functioning and health of nature. For instance during key informant interviews one San 

respondent said: 

“If there is a hunting leopard behind a tree, a branch may fall and the prey will be 

alert. The conservation principle of the San is win-win. People depend on nature and 

nature depends on people. If you kill an animal you must eat it but these days modern 

hunters (with rifles) just shoot wild animals without tracking them”. 

The last statement was in reference to the report that trophy hunters did not have traditional 

animal tracking skills to allow them to follow wounded animals with the result that many 

animals died due to gun wounds well after the hunting days. It is now a requirement for 

trophy hunters to be accompanied by trained San trackers, though reports say this procedure is 

often bypassed. With regards to bush meat, hunting is only allowed in winter using dogs and 

bows and arrows. The reason for hunting in winter is that it makes it easier to preserve meat – 

meat goes off faster in summer due to high temperatures. In addition, most animals reproduce 

in summer, so this is a way to avoid hunting pregnant animals, or mothers feeding young 

ones. Key informants also said that bows and arrows are the recognised San traditional 

hunting methods and this legacy needs to be perpetuated. 

It can be clearly recognised that the aforesaid explanations confirm the realities and elements 

of sustainable resource use and management behind myths, beliefs, norms and practices - 

aspects that epitomise the San way of living up to today (see also Section 6.6). However, it 

should be noted that though the above-mentioned elements of San culture may provide the 

basis for sustainable use and management of natural resources, not all community members 

shared such understanding of indigenous knowledge on sustainable use practices, due to the 

different perceptions on natural resource use among different social groups (see Chapter 8). 

For example, critics warn that the so called traditional harvesting practices are not always 

118

sustainable (e.g. Massyn and Humphrey, 2010). Some destructive harvesting practices include 

the collecting of plants for their roots. For instance, approximately 40 % of all the plants used 

were harvested for their roots (see Appendix 2). Moreover, the fact that 63 % of the 

respondents reported greater scarcity especially of wild animals, wild foods and medicinal 

plants than before is perhaps testimony to unsustainable harvesting practices and increasing 

pressure on resources. However, some argue that the scarcity of wild animals is due to 

multiple factors including conflicts (and associated deviant behaviour such as overharvesting 

and poaching), poor fencing and lack of water. Some claim that most wildlife moved to 

nearby Mier Game farms where there is a reliable water supply. 

6.4.4.2 Traditional knowledge of sustainable livestock production 

The Mier indigenous knowledge related to livestock production and associated rangeland 

management. The Mier reported that they have developed their knowledge for the sustainable 

managing of livestock over the years. They have developed a rich package of traditional 

livestock management knowledge and practices, such as herd splitting to avoid stock loss 

(from droughts, diseases, poachers, wild cats). Their rich knowledge provided them with 

strategies of managing grazing resources in the harsh Kalahari drylands. The Mier highlighted 

that though they did not directly depend on natural resources for their subsistence needs (apart 

from fuelwood use), they highly valued the forage and medicinal plants grazed from the 

landscape by their livestock that substituted for expensive fodder and modern veterinary 

medicines. 

Strategies to reduce and adapt to land degradation were considered by the Mier as the 

embodiment of unique traditional knowledge (see PANRUSA, 2001) and some Mier 

members considered it as supernatural power (pers. comm.). The Mier stressed the cultural 

importance of traditionally rearing livestock in the challenging harsh climatic conditions of 

the Kalahari. They further argued that unsustainable livestock grazing management practices 

(such as overstocking) presented a threat or pressure on livestock production as a whole, and 

therefore on the integrity of their spiritual and cultural resource values. Traditional responses 

to droughts and dry periods and reduced forage included livestock rotation to avoid pressure 

on wild resources and the use of Citrullus lanatus (tsamma melons), especially after heavy 

rains (which reduced pressure on pasture and water points since tsamma melons are a source 

of both food and water). The choice of small stock (sheep and goats over cattle) was also 

119

considered as a way of adapting and managing scarce wild resources. Small stock can manage 

to browse more readily than cattle (PANRUSA, 2001). Thus, a healthy livestock system that 

supports a culturally important livestock production business for the Mier potentially acts as 

an incentive to conserve their environment. 

Overall, their indigenous knowledge of wild natural resources and livestock production 

promotes the conservation of both the environment and their cultural values. The study 

findings concur with findings elsewhere that assert that livestock is socially, culturally and 

economically significant to rural livelihoods (e.g. UNDP, 2006; IIED, 2009; GCWG, 2011). 

However, the low numbers of people with the cultural knowledge means that there is need to 

revive traditional ways of livestock management for sustainable use of resources, especially 

given that unsustainable practices that relate to livestock grazing and carrying capacity of 

Mier land have been reported. Though some relatively recent findings in similar environments 

such as Namaqualand (e.g. Benjaminsen et al., 2008), suggest that the reported levels of land 

degradation (in communal areas) from overgrazing may not be as serious as commonly 

imagined, there are reasons to believe that current practices, if unmanaged may potentially 

lead to degradation sooner than later (see Chapter 7). 

As could be discerned from the preceding sections, indigenous knowledge related to 

sustainable resource use and livestock production (grazing) have been the hallmark of San 

(Bushmen) identity (Hitchcock, 1982) and Mier cultural heritage, though it is no longer fully 

intact. Despite this, cultural knowledge (and differences in traditional knowledge) still shapes 

natural resource access, use and management particularly in the San and Mier resettlement 

farms. Therefore, there is a need for traditional knowledge not only to be revived but also to 

be meaningfully harnessed within existing conservation programmes (see next section). 

6.4.5 The transmission of cultural knowledge from generation to generation 

As noted, less than half of the San respondents indicated that they were aware of traditional 

knowledge on plants and animal use. This is also supported by the fact that a relatively higher 

percentage of both the San and Mier households used prepared plant based medicines than 

those that actually harvested (Chapter 5, Table 5.7). Interviews showed that traditional 

knowledge generally increased with age and decreased with higher levels of education (see 

Mannetti, 2010). Male headed households also tended to have more knowledge than female 

120

headed households on indigenous plants and animals. Contrary to the findings of Lee (1968, 

1979), men were the dominant gatherers of plants (for fuelwood, food and medicines). The 

situation (also highlighted in Chapter 5) is somewhat different from findings elsewhere (e.g. 

Shackleton et al., 1999; Masekoameng et al., 2005) possibly because of the ever increasing 

dryness of the environment and diminishing resources. This means longer distances have to 

be travelled, bigger trees for fuelwood have to be felled and more time should be spent in the 

field for a worthwhile gathering or hunting trip. All these activities are arduous and 

potentially risky hence naturally become designated for males (Chapter 5, Section 5.3.7). 

Therefore, their contact with plants and animals is generally more than women. 

Moreover, KTP Management (through SANParks) offered training to male trackers and park 

guides on local plants and historical Bushmen plant use which could be responsible for the 

differences between men and women in terms of knowledge of plants (Mannetti, 2010). Some 

respondents interviewed said the trends showed that things were changing and that the forces 

of modernisation could not be escaped. For example the loss of the native language was 

highlighted as partly explaining the loss or lack of understanding of traditional knowledge. 

Less than 5 % of the San respondents could speak their native language, partly resulting from 

historical factors – where the San were assimilated into the Mier community through the 

Group Areas Development Act of 1955 that classified people according to colour and almost 

lost their identity (Chapter 4). The majority of the San spoke Afrikaans, an adopted modern 

language. Pretty (2006) documents how the loss of language can lead to the extinction of 

traditional knowledge. David K Harrison, the author of “When languages die” (cited in 

Makhanya, 2011) simply puts it: “When a language is lost, centuries of human thinking about 

time, seasons, edible plants, landscapes, myths, the unknown and the everyday are all lost. 

This is the hub of the matter, the destruction of knowledge.” Indeed, as has been noted earlier, 

many of the #Khomani San people living in this Kalahari region today do not have a long- 

standing tradition and knowledge of surviving in a harsh environment as their livelihoods 

have been bolstered by government social grants for many years. 

Furthermore, not so many school-going children had time to spend in the field to acquire 

traditional knowledge related to collection of wild plants and hunting of animals. This perhaps 

shows the delicate nature of traditional knowledge against the rapid pace and forces of 

cultural erosion and acculturation in rural landscapes (Pretty, 2006). Nevertheless, it is 

121

perhaps a combination of different factors that explains the variations in the understanding of 

indigenous knowledge between different age groups and gender (including historical, 

physical, economic, and external factors). 

An overwhelming majority of plant users (> 90%) answered that they had learned about wild 

plants during their childhood, with the remaining respondents stating that they acquired this 

knowledge only once reaching adulthood. Most respondents said that their knowledge of wild 

plants and animals was acquired through field excursions with elders (especially parents and 

grandparents), highlighting the importance of family networks given the community‘s 

isolation. Some claimed they have used plants for their entire lives as a Bushmen custom. All 

responses showed that the plant users within the San community learned by doing, by 

participant observation and by sharing activities, corresponding to the results of Lozada et al., 

(2006) (cited in Mannetti, 2010). This means in spite of the San’s turbulent history of 

dispossession from their ancestral lands and subsequent isolation, transmission of traditional 

knowledge on wild plant and animals has occurred within this community, though it has been 

decreasing. The transmission of this wisdom entails learning traditional ecological knowledge 

as found in other cases (Berkes et al., 2000), in addition to the sharing of traditional 

knowledge (Ohmagari and Berkes, 1997). This is especially relevant in the case of both the 

San and Mier communities since they now own land in an area that is highly important for 

wild natural resource conservation in the Kalahari region. In light of this, a field (cultural) 

school was established in the Contract Park in an effort to transmit and preserve San 

traditional knowledge 

6.4.6 Imbiwe field school 

The motivation behind the establishment of Imbiwe cultural school was the recognition that 

the rich San culture was being lost due to different forces. The main goal of the cultural field 

school was for the transmission of traditional knowledge to the younger San generation 

through spending time in the field with senior knowledge holders. This was premised upon 

the fact that for generations, face-to-face transfer of wisdom and practical know-how, from 

animal husbandry to plant use, had sustained the livelihood and identity of rural communities 

in Africa. In the field school, the younger generation learns and observes traditional 

custodianship and respect of the land while the elders nurture an enthusiasm for cultural and 

natural resource management practice in them. The ultimate purpose was to develop an 

122

understanding of the complex traditional relationships between land and the people, providing 

a clearer understanding of traditional land and natural resource management. For example, 

dissemination of information on traditional medicines is expected to encourage the younger 

generation to use medicinal plants in health care, and to facilitate ongoing sustainable use of 

medicinal plants (Mannetti, 2010). Consequently, this would avoid the loss of the knowledge 

through diminishing use of plants as medicines. Traditional San language and wild animal 

tracking are also part of the cultural training programme. The traditional San elders praised 

their tracking skills and boasted that there is hardly evidence that any San member has lost his 

or her life to wild animals such as lions in the wild. This is because there was enough prey for 

carnivores (due to sustainable management of the resources) and the San had special ways to 

avoid confrontation with wild animals. The Bushmen often disguised themselves as animals 

so they could get close enough to grazing herds to spear them. The head of an animal was an 

important part of this disguise and was also used in dancing and miming of the actions of 

animals. 

However, evidence (demonstrated in preceding discussions) on the variability of indigenous 

knowledge and interest on various aspects of natural resource use may serve to illustrate that 

the old visions of the San as a hunter-gatherer society and the Mier as entirely traditional 

livestock farmers are no longer valid. The differences in knowledge may probably be enough 

evidence of diminishing or threatened indigenous knowledge. Alternatively, this perhaps 

represents a candid reflection of how poor rural people adapt to the ever-changing social, 

physical, economic conditions (market economy) by diversifying their livelihood options – 

that may mean a movement from specialising on certain type of resources. Therefore, 

successful conservation needs to incorporate information on how the value of resources is 

culturally perceived by all the different groups of social actors present in the area designated 

for conservation and development (see Hunn et al., 2003) and how this is changing. 

Notwithstanding the place occupied by traditional cultural practices in modern day 

conservation, the findings do not only challenges stereotypes associated with indigenous 

communities but also brings to the fore the importance of considering how the values 

associated with different ways of life and adapting to changing physical, social and economic 

environments affect material subsistence strategies. 

123


The Chapter has explored culture, cultural values attached to natural resources and the nexus 

of culture and resource use in the light of natural resources and livelihood studies. Local 

community groups regularly use wild plants and animals, making the use of nature 

inseparable from their cultural identity. Thus the findings are consistent with similar findings 

elsewhere that demonstrate that culture is a combination of the material and non-material 

activities and products of a given social group which separates it from other groups. The 

findings demonstrate that knowledge on culture is variable, and that the cultural values 

assigned to certain natural resources are often unpredictable and at times contradictory. For 

the San, it may be that they were dispossessed of their land and with it came the erosion of 

their culture and a dependence on government social welfare grants. Thus, their history of 

dispossession has had an impact on how they give cultural meaning to natural resources and 

places. As has been noted, culture is not static, but regularly and gradually changes to 

conform to changing circumstances. Therefore, there is a need for a careful cultural analysis 

of different communities for conservation programmes aimed at conserving both biological 

and indigenous cultural diversity. 

It has also subsequently been illustrated in line with other studies that, the value of natural 

resources for some groups (e.g. the San traditionalists) cannot be solely understood in 

monetary or quantitative terms. This is because natural resource use is culturally-inspired and 

is connected to complex cultural systems such as myths, norms, beliefs and spirits that contain 

key symbols of natural resource importance. Thus, many of the most important issues facing 

the local rural communities, their identities, perceptions and beliefs for example, cannot be 

meaningfully reduced to numbers or adequately understood without reference to the 

immediate cultural context in which they live. The study further illustrates that such 

traditional and cultural practices can have influence over natural resource management if 

given support and where possible revived, in that they can act not only as pivots around which 

communities make decisions on resources use but also as powerful constraints to the misuse 

of resources, standing-in as guardians of the land (Schoffeleers, 1978). 

In sum, culture is inextricably bound up with the use and management of natural resources, 

and aspects such as conservation and local belief systems form part of a way of living. 

Despite the fact that few San and Mier households have knowledge of, and fewer uses of 

124

traditional resource management strategies, traditional conservation practices of indigenous 

people remain an important foundation and component for future sustainable conservation 

strategies that should be revived along cultural restoration initiatives such as the Imbiwe Field 

(Cultural) School. Conservation approaches should recognise that cultural meanings and 

values of natural resources among users is diverse and people are a combination of more 

‘modernised’ and ‘traditional’ resource users that co-exist. Hence, conservation approaches 

should be flexible and adaptive by factoring in traditional conservation strategies in 

combination with modern science (see Ostrom et al., 2007). 

125

CHAPTER 7 

ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS GOVERNING NATURAL RESOURCE ACCESS 

AND MANAGEMENT IN THE DIFFERENT LAND PARCELS 


Globally, a myriad of national parks and their surrounds continue to be the traditional 

homelands of indigenous and local communities. These lands are endowed with different 

types of wild natural resources (firewood, grass, medicinal plants, bush meat, fodder, etc.) that 

support rural people’s livelihoods. In some cases, co-ownership, collective and collaborative 

management of parks and communal areas are legally recognised. Given that most poor rural 

people directly depend on natural resources for their livelihoods, more effective local 

governance of these resources through local institutions has long been considered key to 

tackling conservation challenges (Ostrom, 1990; Hulme and Murphree, 2001; Berkes, 2008a), 

as well as for improving livelihood security (Fabricius et al., 2004; Pretty, 2006). Yet despite 

an ever increasing compilation of work on issues related to institutions and sustainable natural 

resources management, the challenges of understanding the relationship between institutions, 

governance of natural resources and local livelihoods remain complex, multi-stranded and 

salient, particularly in intricate arrangements where parks have to be ideally managed in 

unison with surrounding communal lands (e.g. Ascher, 2001; Blomquist, 2009). 

While the integration of conservation and development needs of local people has occupied 

centre stage in the last decades (see Hulme and Murphrey, 2001; Adams et al., 2004; Hayes, 

2006; Sunderland, 2006; Sunderland et al., 2008; Chapter 2, Section 2.2), these strategies 

encounter problems at the local scale that relate directly to the institutional and governance 

frameworks within which they are nested (Watts, 2006; Homes-Watts and Watts, 2008). 

Furthermore, local level implications of institutional and governance arrangements on natural 

resources management and livelihoods often receive little focus (Brown and Lassoie, 2010). 

In many conservation projects worldwide, local institutions and organisations have been 

crafted to govern natural resources both in parks and communal areas (Ostrom, 1990; Young, 

2002; Vatn, 2005; Hayes, 2006; Kepe, 2008b). 

126

However, many such attempts have demonstrated limited success and even failures, and park- 

people conflicts are more the rule than the exception (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., 2001; 

Brockington, 2004; Holmes-Watts and Watts, 2008; Brown and Lassoie, 2010). As Sayer et 

al. (2000:14) puts it: “There are still very few clearly successful cases where local people’s 

development needs and aspirations have been reconciled with protected area management” 

despite the continuous establishment of conservation projects. Consequently, the governance 

of parks and adjacent communal lands has come under scrutiny and debates about appropriate 

local institutional arrangements for natural resources management have emerged (Poteete and 

Ostrom, 2002; Watts, 2006; Berkes, 2007). 

The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park represents the first ‘Peace Park’ on the African continent 

that integrates conservation and local livelihood needs and is lauded as a model for acceptable 

future conservation approaches (Chapter 4). However, local level impacts, and in particular, 

aspects related to institutions, interactions among actors, governance of natural resources and 

effect on local communities’ livelihoods have not been systematically analysed. Such an 

analysis is critical in understanding complex land tenure issues, institutional aspects, and 

natural resource governance (characterised by co-management in the Park and community- 

based management in the surrounding resettlement farms) to best inform respective 

conservation and livelihood policies. 

The delivery of these policies in practice is based on understanding several related issues. As 

earlier highlighted natural resource value is socially constructed and contested and it is 

therefore critical to focus on institutions as terrains of negotiations (Kepe, 2008a; Chapter 3, 

Section 3.4). This includes how institutions shape individual and collective behaviour, and 

how individuals and groups shape institutions and the subsequent impacts on natural resource 

governance (Vella, 2003). Poteete and Ostrom (2002) argue that effort to promote sustainable 

natural resource use through effective governance depends on the application of well- 

grounded theories about the development, evolution, interaction, and consequences of 

institutions. It is hoped that findings from this study will provide lessons for a better 

understanding of the institutional landscapes and natural resource governance in current and 

future co- and community-based management practices within and beyond the South African 

context. 

127

The specific objectives of this Chapter are to: 

identify the different institutions and actors (and their constituencies) responsible for 

governance of natural resources in the KTP (co-managed) and the surrounding 

resettlement farms (community-based management); 

analyse the interactions and power dynamics between these institutions and actors and 

local level governance of natural resources in the Park and resettlement farms; and 

provide lessons and propose core strategies for improving governance of natural 

resources important for sustainable natural resource management both within and 

outside of the Park. 

7.2 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: PARKS, PEOPLE AND RESEARCH 

FRAMEWORKS 

7.2.1 Transfrontier Parks (TFPs) and Contract Parks 

Generally, the concept of conservation with people in parks is now common currency in 

international conservation literature and debates (Chapter 2). The principal idea in such 

initiatives is to integrate ecological integrity (conservation) and local development needs. 

Subsequently, the establishment and management of Transfrontier Parks (TFPs) in Africa is 

increasingly shaped by and premised upon the current co-management principles that are at 

the heart of people-parks debates (Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2). In line with the above view, the 

idea in the KTP was to allow local San and Mier communities, access and sustainable 

resource use rights in the various zones of the Park, against a background of land 

dispossession (Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2). As earlier discussed, the advent of Contract Parks (in 

TFPs) worldwide was seen as a way of involving local people in the management of natural 

resources that they have traditionally relied upon and improving people-park relations (see 

Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2). This is undoubtedly a realisation that local community relations do 

impact parks, particularly in the diverse and complex relationships for negotiating land tenure 

and resource use arrangements as in this study. 

7.2.2. Frameworks and approach 

This study’s analyses largely draws on the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Chapter 3, 

Section 3.2.3). The study looks at the relationship between actors, institutions and institutional 

contexts and how these influence resource access and use (i.e. livelihoods). In this study, 

128

institutions are commonly conceptualised as both formal and informal constraints such as 

rules, laws, conventions, constitutions, norms, decision making procedures, and programmes 

that define social practices, and guide interactions among individuals (North 1990; Young, 

2002; Vatn, 2005), by stipulating what actions are required, permitted, or forbidden in 

particular situations (Poteete and Ostrom, 2002; Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1). Organisations and 

individuals will be considered as actors that typically emerge as players whose activities are 

guided by the rules of the game (institutions) in which they participate (Young, 2002; Chapter 

3, Section 3.4.1). 

In order to systematically identify and understand multiple institutional arrangements, nested 

actors and the complex interactions in this study, the study makes use of the IAD framework 

by Ostrom et al., (1994) (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3; Figure 3.2). To the researcher, the 

framework recognises multiple levels of decision making, while preserving the capacity to 

study a particular level. This simplifies the task of studying an institutional governing system 

without addressing all of the influences that conceptually can be linked to behaviours and 

outcomes (Richardson, 2004). The Chapter also draws on political ecology (Peet and Watts, 

2004) to analyse interactions among actors and their institutions. Political ecology is broadly 

defined as the study of power relations in land and natural resources management 

(Benjaminsen et al., 2008). At the heart of political ecology is a focus on asymmetries of 

power among actors providing valuable perspectives for understanding social dynamics 

(Robbins, 2004). Such a comprehensive approach provides a much more flexible conceptual 

platform for understanding livelihoods through analysing socially-rooted interactions, 

explicitly focusing on access to opportunities and natural resources and the workings of power 

among actors. 

In addition, the study also draws on common property resources theory (Ostrom, 1990), to 

analyse natural resource arrangement in the communally-owned San and Mier resettlement 

farms. Common property resources (CPRs) refers to natural resources to which more than one 

individual has access, but where each person’s consumption reduces availability of the 

resource to others (Ostrom, 1990). Further, while more than one individual has access under 

common property resources, the resources may be excludable. Ostrom’s design principles 

highlight how common property resources could be managed without falling prey to the 

‘tragedy of the commons’ (see Hardin, 1968). The 8 design principles are summarised in 

129

Table 7.1. First, rules should clearly define who has what right to natural resource access and 

use. Second, adequate conflict resolution mechanisms should be in place, and third, an 

individual’s duty to maintain the resource should roughly match the benefits. Fourth, 

monitoring and sanctioning should be carried out either by the resource users (local people) or 

by someone who is accountable to the users. Fifth, sanctions should be graduated, lenient for 

a first violation and stricter as violations are repeated. Sixth, governance is more successful 

when decision processes are democratic, in the sense that a majority of users are allowed to 

participate in the design and amendment of the rules and seventh the right of users to self- 

organise is clearly recognised by outside authorities. Lastly, where common property 

resources are part of larger systems, appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, 

conflict resolution and governance activities can all be organised in multiple layers of nested 

enterprises. 

Table 7.1: Summary of Ostrom’s design principles (Adapted from Ostrom, 1990:90) 

Principle Explanation 

1. Clearly defined boundaries Individuals or households with rights to withdraw 

resource units from the common pool resource and the 

boundaries of the common pool resource itself are clearly 

defined. 

2. Congruence a. The distribution of benefits from appropriation rules 

is roughly proportionate to the costs resulting from 

provisional rules. 

b. The rules governing the contribution required of 

each user must mirror local conditions 

3. Collective choice 

Participation by all affected individuals in deciding on 

arrangements 

and modifying operational rules should be possible 

4. Monitoring Either the local users themselves or persons accountable 

to the local user are responsible for monitoring 

compliance with collective decisions. 

5. Graduated sanctions Sanctions should be graduated to reflect the severity, 

frequency, and context of resource use violation. 

6. Conflict resolution Low-cost and readily available conflict-resolution 

mechanisms 

mechanisms must exist to mediate conflicts among 

resource users and between users and officials. 

7. Minimum recognition of Users must have recognition of their own rights to 

rights 

organise institutions 

8. Nested enterprises Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, 

conflict resolution and governance activities are 

organised in multiple layers of nested enterprises. 

130

In sum, Ostrom’s framework highlights the problems arising from common property resource 

use and management and identifies the complex system of variables, rules, and external 

constraints that affect the design of common property resource management regimes. This is 

consistent with the preceding frameworks and conceptualisation, in the sense that it 

recognises that conservation sites are characterised by existence of multiple actors and 

institutions, where overall conservation and livelihood outcomes are shaped by interactions 

and power dynamics within these socio-ecological systems. 

The above conceptualisation provides a framework within which to understand the San and 

Mier cases. The community-owned and managed San and Mier resettlement farms exactly 

suits the above conceptualisations. Further, the two communities are not isolated, but are 

subject to externally initiated interventions with regards to financial resources, logistical 

aspects, tourism partnerships, capacity development, livelihood issues and cultural revival 

programmes among others (see Thondhlana et al., 2011). Hence, the sustainability of natural 

resource use, particularly in the resettlement farms (common property resources) remains a 

challenge – providing raison d'être for a broader understanding of current resource 

management arrangements to better inform policy for good natural resource governance. 


The study drew on both primary (household questionnaire interviews, key informant 

interviews, observations) and secondary data sources (books, articles, journals, minutes, rules 

and regulations documents and local newspaper reports). Information was collected for both 

the Park co-management arrangements as well as governance and management processes for 

the resettlement farms. The first phase of field work involved the administration of 100 

questionnaires in each community (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5). The first set of household 

questionnaires covered local people’s general access to natural resources in and outside the 

Park and provided insights into the actors and institutional arrangements in both communities 

including aspects such as membership in organisations, participation in community meetings 

and perspectives on effectiveness of organisations such as SANParks (Kgalagadi 

Transfrontier Park Management) and other local actors (Chapter 3, Section 3.5). Some 

respondents did not give comments and answers to certain questions asked during interviews 

because they did not use any natural resource from the Park other than from getting firewood 

(and other resources) in the resettlement farms for subsistence purposes. 

131

In the second phase, 50 questionnaires (Appendix 7) were purposely administered (to 

respondents who had indicated that they had knowledge about the various actors responsible 

for natural resources management in the resettlement farms and the Contract Park) from a list 

of respondents created from the initial survey of 100 San households. The second set of 

questionnaires was specifically tailored to capture indicators of community governance 

performance (such as participation, decision making, attitudes towards leaders and 

accountability) and indicators of socioeconomic benefits provided by the Park and farms such 

as whether respondents had received benefits or whether community projects had been 

implemented as promised and points of conflicts (see Collomb et al., 2010). The Mier were 

not covered in the second phase since a majority of households (92 % out of 100) indicated 

(in the first phase) they were either not a member of any governance body or did not have any 

idea about existence of any local institution (except for the Municipality). Instead, informal 

interviews were conducted to get people’s perceptions about the performance of the 

Municipality. 

Personal interviews (see Appendix 6) with key informants such as South African National 

Parks (SANParks) (KTP management), Department of Land Affairs, eco-tourism business 

partners, Traditional San Council, Mier Municipality and local NGOs captured general 

information on the characteristics of local institutional regimes, local actors, who and what 

they represent and their values. Identified officials from the above-mentioned organisations 

provided insight into the nature and economic impacts of different institutions in the area. 

Much of the primary data related to how different land parcels are managed, conflicts arising 

from conflicting interests and what this means for future conservation efforts was largely 

obtained through personal interviews. The Contract Park Constitution (i.e. The !Ae!Hai 

Kalahari Heritage Park Bundle) was an important source of information on aspects related to 

general agreements, authority, roles and responsibilities of the principal stakeholders (i.e. Park 

Management, San and Mier communities) responsible for co-management in the Park (see 

Borsch and Hirshfeld, 2002). 


7.4.1 The actors: roles, constituencies and governance arrangements 

Several actors are involved in natural resources governance, development and livelihood 

interventions in the Park and the resettlement farms. Table 7.2 shows the different actors and 

132

institutions that are responsible for governance of natural resources in the different land 

parcels. The actors include government departments and agencies, NGOs, private operators, 

community-based operators, local community members and committees and individual 

stakeholders. 

Table 7.2: Various actors and institutions responsible for natural resources governance 

Land parcel and actors Institutions (rules) 

Contract Park and rest of Park 

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 

Management 

Joint Management Board 

Private Safari Operator 

Technical advisors 

Department of Land Affairs 

San Park committee 

San Elders (Traditional Council 

San Farms 

CPA committee 

Department of Land Affairs 

Traditional Council 

San Technical Advisors 

South African San Institute 

(SASI) 

Bushmen Farming Association 

Mier Farms 

Mier Municipality 

Mier community 

Town Forums (not active) 

Livestock farmers cooperative 

(Formal/informal) 

National Environmental Management: 

Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 

The Ae!Hai Kalahari Heritage Park 

Agreement (2002) 

Communal Property Association Act 

Protocols for sustainable resource use (2007) 

Kgalagadi National Park Management Plan 

2006 

Indigenous knowledge systems 

Communal Property Association Act 

CPA constitution 

Indigenous knowledge systems (informal 

rules) 

Indigenous knowledge systems (informal 

rules) 

Municipal by-laws e.g. in terms of renting 

land 

The predominant rules governing natural resource access and use are largely formal though 

unwritten informal indigenous knowledge systems are used in the respective resettlement 

farms (see Chapter 6, Section 6.4.4). Indigenous knowledge systems are also expected to be 

part of the rules regulating natural resource harvesting in the Park. The actors and their 

respective institutions have multiple objectives that address conservation and livelihoods from 

133

a diversity of angles, such as law, policy, wildlife management and ecosystems and local 

livelihoods. It is these actors, their institutional affiliations, constituencies and roles in natural 

resource governance that will be described and analysed in the following sections. 

7.4.2 Park and Contract Park actors and institutions 

7.4.2.1 SANParks and Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Management (KTPM) 

South African National Parks (SANParks) is the principal and leading conservation authority 

in all national parks in the country. It is an organisation supported by the government through 

the Department of Environment and Tourism and its main mission and responsibility is to 

develop and manage a system of national parks that represents the biodiversity, landscapes, 

and associated heritage assets of South Africa for the sustainable use and benefit of all (see 

SANParks, 2006). Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Management (KTPM) is responsible for 

achieving these objectives on behalf of SANParks. KTPM is made up of the Park Manager, 

Game Rangers and the ‘People and Conservation’ Officer. 

In all the co-management initiatives in the Park, the National Environmental Management: 

Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 supersedes all the formal rules regulating resource protection, 

access and use (see Act No. 10, 2004, Section 8). According to the !Ae!Hai Kalahari Heritage 

(or Contract) Park agreement (hereinafter the agreement), KTPM has the power to regulate 

natural resource access and use within the Commercial Preference Zone (V-Zone) and the San 

Symbolic and Cultural Zone (S-Zone) (see Figure 4.1; Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.2) and is 

responsible for performing all duties that the agreement enforces upon it. Though the Contract 

Park is under the management of a Joint Management Board (JMB) (see next Section), KTPM 

has unrestricted right of access to any part of the Contract Park for nature conservation-related 

responsibilities such as infrastructure maintenance, security of the Contract Park, monitoring 

and taking control measures with regards to fauna and flora, veterinary services, general 

rehabilitation of damage caused by natural causes and any activity related to conservation 

functions though ownership rights rest with the San and Mier communities (see Bosch and 

Hirshfeld, 2002). 

In addition and in line with the agreement, KTPM agree to facilitate on request by 

communities development in support of the Contract Park, training of field guides, designing 

of management plans and assistance with game management. According to KTPM, the 

134

Contract Park is so far properly managed under the JMB and meeting the primary 

conservation objectives. There is also a general willingness by KTPM to contribute their 

experience and expertise (as part of its social responsibility) in sustainably managing natural 

resources in the San farms to improve local people’s livelihoods, buoyed by nuanced 

understanding and realisation that parks cannot be managed as distinct units from their local 

ecological, social-political and economic surrounding areas. Further, there is understanding 

that natural resources will be depleted if the surrounding farms are not sustainably managed, 

and this is likely to create future pressure on Park resources. 

7.4.2.2 The Joint Management Board (JMB) 

The Contract Park Agreement requires the formation of a Joint Management Board (JMB). 

The JMB is a forum where representatives of SANParks (i.e. KTPM), San and Mier 

communities take decisions on the management of the Contract Park. KTPM and the Mier are 

each represented by three members (including the Park Manager for the former and Mayor for 

the latter). The San community is represented by a Park Committee, with the advice of 

Traditional Council and Technical Advisors (see Section 7.4.2.3). The Park Committee is a 

group of San members who represent the common interests of the San constituency or 

Communal Property Association (CPA) (see Section 7.4.3.1). The Traditional Council 

consists of a group of knowledgeable and well respected San elders who give wisdom and 

advice on sustainable natural resource practices and bring knowledge of informal institutions 

(within the indigenous knowledge system framework) both in the Park and the San farms (see 

Bosch and Hirshfeld, 2002; Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2.1). 

In general terms, the JMB is responsible for the formulation, implementation and monitoring 

of an effective framework for the management and development of the Contract Park 

(Holden, 2007; Grossman and Holden, 2009). The functions of the JMB include among other 

things informing other parties about actual or intended development in the Contract Park and 

rest of Park, to generally manage the implementation of the Contact Park agreement, promote 

integrated management between the San and Mier with the aim to achieve balanced eco- 

tourism related development, and to prevent and resolve disputes between stakeholders. 

Community representatives in the JMB are responsible for ensuring that their respective 

constituencies support the co-management agreement by disseminating key information and 

decisions relating to the Contract Park management and development (Bosch and Hirshfeld, 

135

2002). The San Park Committee (or representatives of the San constituency in the JMB), for 

example, is supposed to report back to all San members through the various Ward 

Committees of the respective farms such as Witdraai and Scotty’s Ford. Ward Committees are 

contact points within the different San farms whose main duty is to get and disseminate 

information from the JMB representatives and on various management issues in the San 

farms. The Mier Municipality is supposed to disseminate information to Town Forums 

(elected town representatives) who should later circulate this information to their respective 

constituencies. However, in both communities poor levels of accountability were evident (see 

Sections 7.4.7.1 and 7.4.7.2). In the case of the Mier, Town Forums were either non-existent 

or basically inactive. 

However, it is important to note that despite the above-mentioned JMB functions, the JMB is 

not a legal entity that can be either sued for failing to meet its contractual agreements or to be 

held responsible for its actions. For example, the JMB has the right to approve or amend 

management plans, though KTPM has the overriding right to make decisions on natural 

resource use in the Park. This means the JMB does not have power to make independent 

decisions on resource use in the Contract Park, without SANParks approval though there is 

room in the agreement for the principal parties (KTPM, San and Mier) to establish the JMB as 

a legal entity by written agreement. With regards to handling profits generated from the 

Contract Park community lodge, the Department of Land Affairs (DLA) is responsible for 

administering the profits on behalf of the San community as per a court agreement (see 

Section 7.4.3.1), while the Mier Municipality administers the Mier community profits (see 

Section 7.4.3.2). 

7.4.3 Actors and institutions in the resettlement farms 

7.4.3.1 The San Communal Property Association (CPA) 

The restitution of communal land rights procedure in South Africa involves an observance of 

the Communal Property Associations Act 28 of 1996. The Act enables communities to form 

juristic bodies, known as Communal Property Associations (CPAs), in order to acquire, hold 

and manage property on a basis agreed to by members of a community in terms of a written 

CPA constitution (SAHRC, 2004). Accordingly, members of the #Khomani San claim are 

collectively known as the San CPA and the assets of the community are supposed to be 

managed by an elected CPA executive committee. 

136

However, there is no functional CPA committee at the moment due to reasons related to 

internal conflicts, mismanagement of funds and corruption (see Robins, 2001; Ellis, 2010; 

Thondhlana et al., 2011). The term of the first CPA committee ended in April 2001 after an 

audit initiated by the Department of Land affairs (DLA) found the committee guilty of gross 

mismanagement of funds. A new CPA committee was later elected in July 2001. It is reported 

that this committee's term of office also ended controversially during 2002 with the DLA 

having to step in to prevent the sale of the farm Erin to cover debts incurred by executive 

members (Makomele, 2009, per comm.). The DLA lodged an application to the High Court to 

place the San CPA under its administration in terms of the CPA Act. The San CPA was 

subsequently placed under the DLA administration in November 2002. The DLA 

administrative offices are located in the Northern Cape provincial capital, Kimberley, more 

than 600 km away from the San community farms. It is reported that a new executive 

committee was elected in 2003 (and other committees later) but these committees were under 

the administration of the DLA and therefore did not have the normal powers of such a body in 

terms of the CPA Act. 

The DLA was expected to appoint a Farm manager to oversee day-to-day management of 

different farms (Bosch and Hirshfeld, 2002) but this is reportedly still outstanding. Further, 

the DLA has not yet introduced an alternative management structure or system to date, a 

worrisome development for most San members who thought their situation was going to 

improve. The duration of external administration is still unclear due to the absence of an 

explicitly set time-frame and conditions under which administration will become internal. 

While the constitution is reasonably clear on the substantive rights that individuals may have, 

the practice has been that land users disregard these stipulations, amid heightened internal 

conflicts and the committee has been powerless to address the matter (see Section 7.4.6). 

Informal traditional rules are used in the management of natural resources in the farms 

(sustainable plant harvesting, hunting, etc.) but not everyone understands how these rules 

operate or follow them (Chapter 6, Section 6.4.4). 

7.4.3.2 The Mier Municipality and community 

There is an absence of an active, well defined community organisation for the Mier 

community. The Mier Contract Park, game farms and farmland are de facto communal 

property but de jure Mier Municipality property. The Municipality is the legal owner and 

137

leases farms to individual farmers. The farmers have a chance to buy the leased farm in a 

given number of years after convincing the authorities that he/she can manage the land and 

run a livestock business viably. The Mier Municipality is also responsible for providing 

services such as water, sanitation and other social services to the San but do not have a natural 

resource management role in San farms. According to Grossman and Holden (2009), with 

regards to natural resource management and other livelihood initiatives within the Mier 

community, the situation is simpler than the San’s in that the Mier community is a relatively 

more cohesive one, with a functional institution (a Local Municipal Council) in place and has 

greater capacity and experience. Furthermore, the Mier have among other things successfully 

managed a relatively lucrative hunting and tourism operation on their land bordering the KTP 

for a number of years and there are a number of successful small livestock farmers (Chapter 

5) and entrepreneurs in the area. Therefore, they have arguably fewer expectations and less 

reliance on the outcome of what happens in the Park as compared to the San community. 

7.4.4 External organisations supporting institutional, development and governance 

arrangements 

Table 7.3 shows the main NGO actors who have been involved in natural resources 

management and key livelihood activities in one way or the other. Apart from the principal 

JMB parties, there are other independent NGO’s, private operators and individuals interested 

in indigenous people aspects, conservation and rural livelihoods, who have been actively 

involved in natural resource governance and management issues both in the Contract Park and 

the farms, through provision of advice and funding support to the San. 

138

Table 7.3: NGOs and independent actors and their primary areas of focus 

NGOs/other actors Focus 

SASI (for San) Cultural and linguistic issues 

Miershoop Pan Game farm management 

Witdraai Bush Camps management 

Traditional guiding and tracking 

Development of the handcraft sector (SîSEN) 

Technical Advisors (for San) Traditional plant monitoring and evaluation in the 

Park and farms 

Cultural preservation (Park and farms) 

African Safari Lodge 

Foundation (for San) 

Ecotourism (Park and farms) 

Ecotourism initiatives (Park and farms 

Farm Africa (San and Mier Land care project in the area and livestock 

production on the San and Mier farms 

Peace Parks Foundation (for 

San) 

7.4.4.1 South African San Institute (SASI) 

Cultural preservation and eco-tourism (in the Park) 

South African San Institute (SASI) is an independent NGO that operates with the various San 

groups in South Africa. SASI also works in partnerships with wider groups that represent 

minorities such as the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA), 

whose responsibility among others is to promote the rights of the San people. Some of the 

initiatives that have been used to promote the livelihoods of the San people in their ancestral 

lands include; promotion of rights, community mobilisation, fund raising, lobbying and 

networking, training and capacity building, cultural heritage and language development, 

health and social development and income generating programmes. SASI is responsible for 

the financial management (together with DLA) of the San game farms (Miershoop Pan game 

farm) and community Bush Camp in Witdraai Farm, training of guides, SîSEN crafts, health 

shop and the information centre. SîSEN craft is a San craft project where San members make 

traditional crafts that are sold at a common market. The respective members are supposed to 

get a certain percentage of the profits later after a deduction of administrative, technical and 

organisational (marketing) support costs by SASI. SASI has been playing various supportive 

and advisory roles for the San pre- and post the 1999 land claim. 

139

7.4.4.2 San Technical Advisors and Africa Safari Lodge Foundation 

The San technical advisory team consists of two individuals who have been working with the 

San community before, during and after the 1999 land claim process. African Safari Lodge 

Foundation is a non-profit organisation interested in aspects of conservation and livelihoods 

by local and indigenous communities. Both the San Technical Advisors and African Safari 

Lodge Foundation have been involved in the Imbiwe cultural school initiative (Chapter 6, 

Section 6.4.6), monitoring and evaluation of natural resource stocks in the Contract Park and 

designing of the Erin Development Plan (an eco-tourism initiative in the farms) among other 

things – related to conservation and livelihood for the San both in the Park and the farms. 

7.4.4.3 Peace Parks Foundation, Farm Africa and Private operator(s) 

Peace Parks Foundation is an NGO that is responsible for facilitating the establishment of 

Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCs) and developing human resources, thereby 

supporting sustainable economic development (that improves local livelihoods), the 

conservation of biodiversity and regional peace and stability. Farm Africa is an NGO that 

focussed on key livelihood and enterprise projects in the area, though it is no longer active in 

the area. It embarked on a livestock production project for interested livestock and ‘would be’ 

livestock farmers and developed a ‘sheep bank’ whereby a prospective farmer was able to 

start a flock of sheep. However, at the time of research neither Farm Africa nor the ‘sheep 

bank’ initiative was functional. A private operator, runs the community lodge (!Xaus) in the 

Contract Park on behalf of KTPM, San and Mier communities. The profits generated by the 

lodge are shared equally among the three principal parties of the JMB and the private 

operator. All the NGOs and the private operator mentioned do not have decision making 

responsibilities in the Park and resettlement farms, though they sometimes attend JMB and 

other meetings in advisory capacities. 

Figure 7.1 summarises the main actors that are involved in natural resource governance 

aspects in the different San and Mier land parcels. As can be seen from Figure 7.1 and the 

preceding sections, the study areas represents a complex arrangement – where nested actors 

and various institutions responsible for natural resources management in the Contract Park 

and the resettlement farms, operate at different and multiple levels (local, external, civil, 

government, horizontal and vertical) with multiple objectives. More often than not, some of 

the various actors have management responsibilities or interests both in the Park and the 

140

farms, making natural resource governance aspects interlinked, multifaceted and therefore 

essential for local livelihoods and conservation both in the different land tenure arrangements. 

In outlining the framework for this Chapter’s analyses (Section 7.2.; see also Chapter 3, 

Section 3.3.3) it was especially highlighted that typically, various and multiple levels of 

decision making by various actors exist and that everything is connected to everything else 

(see Richardson, 2004), adding to the complexity in understanding conservation and 

livelihood challenges. 

Park committee 

South African 

San Institute 

(SASI) 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

East 

40 

West 

30 

20 

10 

North 

0 

Farm 

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Representatives 

Land parcels San Resettlement Area Park & Contract Park 

San Council 

Figure 7.1: Nested actors involved in land and natural resources governance (Adapted from 

Thondhlana et al., 2011) 

7.4.5 Interactions among actors and governance of natural resources in the Park and 

resettlement farms 

Boesman Raad 

(Bushman committee) 

Bushmen Farming 

Association 

Erin & Witdraai 

Ward 

Committee 

Department of 

Land Affairs 

The governance front of natural resources in the Contract Park and farms is characterised by 

various degrees and forms of cooperation and conflict. Different actors have different natural 

resource use interests and pursue sometimes conflicting goals in line with their institutional 

141 

Technical 

advisors 

Peace Parks 

Foundation 

JMB (San community reps, 

SANParks and Mier 

Municipality) 

Mier Municipality 

Town Forums 

Mier Resettlement Area 

Private 

concessionaire

affiliations and values. This section looks at the different actors and structures described 

above, their approaches to natural resource management and how this impacts on 

conservation and livelihood issues. The main institutions (rules, constitutions, norms) that are 

used to regulate resource access and use in the different land parcels by different actors are 

highlighted as well as the challenges associated with heterogeneity, access to benefits, 

accountability and conflict resolutions among others. The main aim is to demonstrate the 

complex network of inter-linkages among actors and institutions, the performances of various 

actors and impacts on local conservation and livelihood outcomes and the possibility of 

strengthening existing natural resource governance systems or crafting news one where, the 

existing ones are failing. 

7.4.5.1 Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Management (KTPM) and resource governance in the 

Park 

Though, the KTP co-management arrangement represents a step forward towards integrating 

ecological and livelihood needs of the San and Mier (as compared to many parks worldwide), 

the situation is not without problems and challenges related to resource access and benefits. In 

all its dealings with communities, KTPM has been very unequivocal in its primary objective. 

For example, in the Protocols for Sustainable Resource Use (see #Khomani San, 2007), 

KTPM reiterates that it is important to make the distinction that resource use within the Park 

will ultimately not be towards the support of livelihoods but rather serve as a way by which 

the San (young and old, men and women) can re-connect with their cultural heritage. Natural 

resource use as a livelihood strategy will take place on the eight farms outside the Park 

(Chapter 4, Figure 4.1) because KTPM mandate is conservation and this will always come 

first. 

Suggestions about growing plant species from seeds or bulbs collected within the Park on the 

farms awarded to the San, so that access to the Park is minimised have been made. 

Furthermore, there is always suspicion that local people cannot be trusted to use resources 

sustainably. For example, KTPM stated that an underlying threat to sustainable resource use is 

that people may over-utilise resources for fear of not being ‘allowed’ to harvest them again. 

Yet the San are considered highly traditional and the Traditional Council (committee of San 

elders) is seen as key to advisory services on sustainable use in the Park, drawing on 

indigenous knowledge. This raises challenging questions of whether Park regimes have 

142

changed or plan to change the way they deal with local communities and if they can 

meaningfully support local livelihoods. 

Park institutions (including their actors) have historically held the view that human beings and 

natural resources should be separated (e.g. Oates, 1999; Terborgh, 1999; see also Wilshusen 

et al., 2002). Elements of this world view are not far from reality on the ground in the KTP. 

Some San members interviewed argued that KTP regulations (that are ironically approved by 

the Traditional Council) did not represent the interests of all community members. While the 

land restitution and the co-management attempts between KTP authorities and local 

communities attracted a high political profile, KTPM and some NGOs may have achieved 

regional and global mileage from this project that does not fully include local communities. A 

KTP management staff commented on the matter: 

“Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park is in the spotlight, with this conservation with people, 

SANParks get mileage and overseas markets are attracted”. 

Analysis of the !Ae!Hai Kalahari Heritage Park agreement showed that the conditions for 

making the rules were somewhat restrictive since they were largely in the hands of KTPM. It 

was evident that the KTPM largely used the ‘traditional’ narrative to minimise or restrict 

resource use in the Contract Park. For example, hunting in the Contract Park is not allowed 

without culture and traditional dance. Rules in the Park state that traditional rituals are 

supposed to be respected and applied, and youths will be included according to custom. 

Traditional hunting methods (bow and arrow) and materials should be used, including assegai 

and knobkerries while long bows are prohibited. Taking hunted meat out of the Park is also 

forbidden. KTPM ironically deal closely with ‘traditionalist’ proponents (Section 7.4.6) 

(respected elders) in the area. 

Some local members interviewed complained that local leaders were co-opted and seemingly 

used to champion resource preservation rather than resource conservation, in the name of 

preserving culture (see also Finer et al., 2009). The so called ‘modernists’ (Section 7.4.6) 

argued that KTPM traditional thinking was at best an effort to exclude San members from 

resource access and at worst a conscious approach to imagine that the San still lived in the 

past as hunter-gatherers, where they could assemble in the Park (as a family) for the purposes 

143

of consuming bush meat (Section 7.4.6). Moreover, the respondents were against a romantic 

hunter-gatherer world view that refers to lack of interest shown by such groups in attaining 

material wealth, which they said only served to further marginalise them. Thus a ‘hunter- 

gatherer’ world view of the San culture is seen by other San members as a strategy to either 

allow or restrict access to natural resources – demonstrating how different interpretations of 

culture by certain institutions are used to gain power to control resource access and behaviour 

of users. According to Ramutsindela (2002, 2007) and Kepe et al. (2005), landownership and 

authority over land is not just about having ownership rights but is about who uses the land or 

who dictates the rules of land use. The San and Mier communities are autonomous entities in 

the agreement but not independent hence they cannot make decisions in their own right. 

As highlighted in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.2), there is a further agreement between KTPM and 

the San community in the rest of the Park for cultural visits and symbolic purposes for 

interested members. However, normal provisions with regard to access to rest of the Park (e.g. 

normal access fees, etc.) apply to San members who may want do their ‘walk abouts’ for 

rekindling their cultural and spiritual connections to their ancestral land. This arrangement 

potentially restricts access to natural resources, since most communities may not be able to 

raise Park entry fees, considering that they also have to meet the costs of travelling from the 

farms located approximately 60 km away. There is also concern that while KTPM prohibits 

the San and Mier people from collecting dead fuel in the Park, it actually buys fuelwood (at 

ZAR0.60/kg) from the surrounding San and Mier farms for selling (at ZAR5/kg) to tourists 

who visit the Park. Field evidence and surveys showed that KTPM actually provides an 

incentive for unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood in the San farms for meagre incomes – 

which increases the likelihood of future pressure on Park resources once fuelwood, a key 

livelihood source, is depleted in the resettlement farms. 

These findings align with the widely argued opinion that conservation agencies have 

conservation objectives uppermost in their corporate goals and conscience, with their 

expertise and experience focused on biodiversity conservation (e.g. Wilshusen et al., 2002; 

Kepe et al., 2005, Berkes, 2007). This is supported by the fact that more staff are assigned to 

resource protection (wardens and guards) as compared to ‘People and Conservation’ (just one 

officer). Overall, the findings illustrate that power dictates the ability and capacity to make 

rules and without the power to make rules, decision making is compromised which is 

144

consistent with one of this study’s conceptual frameworks, political ecology – that highlights 

that asymmetrical power relations among actors shape natural resource access and 

management. During personal interviews, some San respondents said that they do not trust 

their community leaders (and to a lesser extent SANParks), since their (modernised San) 

interests (e.g. hunting in the Contract Park for subsistence uses) are considered as not being 

part of San cultural practices. Loss of trust among community members in co-management 

initiatives is a dilemma since it is argued that if people trust each other and expect others to 

cooperate, they are likely to contribute to collective action, form groups, attend and 

participate in meetings, making it easier to delegate tasks, share information or to devolve 

power to local levels (Pretty and Ward, 2001; Berkes, 2008b). Ntiamoa-Baidu et al. (2001) 

emphasise that trust particularly appears to be a determinant of success in many cases of co- 

management, as a prelude to building a working relationship that improves natural resource 

governance. However, as one can discern from the preceding discussions, the situation is far 

from the desired one. The findings imply that imposing blue-print co-management approaches 

(such as the one solely based on traditional or cultural practices in the Contract Park) that do 

not factor in the various preferences and perceptions of different people is likely to fail in the 

long run. 

7.4.5.2 NGOs, interactions with community groups and natural resources governance 

In many communities worldwide, NGOs have active and leading roles in aspects related to 

conservation, particularly in co-management, community-based natural resource governance 

arrangements and rural livelihoods. Of the NGOs in the Kalahari area (Table 7.3), all have 

traditionally focused on cultural preservation aspects and eco-tourism opportunities for the 

San, whilst Farm Africa has played a smaller role, predominantly focusing on a Land Care 

project in the area and livestock on the farms owned by the San and Mier (Grossman and 

Holden, 2009). Kepe et al. (2005) mention that the Mier have been overlooked largely due to 

the much-publicised discourses on indigenous peoples and campaigns internationally for 

recognising aboriginal rights, such that the San claim was highly publicised and held a high 

political profile. Indeed, from being one of the most powerless and marginalised groups in the 

region, the San now have significant national and international support through organisations 

such as SASI, Government (Department of Land Affairs), Technical advisors and other 

interested actors. 

145

Literature shows that NGOs’ can easily get funding both locally and globally if they work 

along traditional and cultural land rights issues (Finer et al., 2009). The findings illustrate that 

traditionalists receive much administrative and financial support from NGOs, SANParks and 

other like-minded agencies. For instance, the National Lottery Trust Distribution Fund 

donated ZAR4.8 million (US$685,714) in support of the communities to pursue their 

livelihood opportunities and cultural regeneration through sustainable use of resources in their 

Contract Park (see also Section 7.5). The money was administered by the Peace Parks 

Foundation and locally through the San Technical Advisors. However, many local 

communities argued that this and other donor money was not really benefiting the 

communities. Instead, it only benefited certain individuals who were known to be strong 

traditionalists while little attention was, paid in understanding what livelihoods mean for other 

social groups. 

Indeed, most actors such as the Park Committee, Traditional Council and to a certain extent 

NGOs such as SASI, Technical Advisors among others identify strongly with the San culture, 

identity and (traditional) subsistence use of resources. Their predominant aim is to establish 

conditions that restore and protect their traditional values. Therefore, there are concerns raised 

that the CPA Traditional leaders and other subsidiary committees arbitrarily decide on issues 

of land administration, allocation and applicable land use rights that only benefit 

‘traditionalists’ (see next Section). Though these NGO actors sometimes have common 

values, each of them had distinct goals and ways of achieving them and sometimes the actors’ 

goals and the performances were not consistent with the expectations of various groups of the 

San community. For example, a significant proportion of San respondents (60 %) generally 

complained about how community money was spent by SASI. Though SASI reported that 

profits raised from hunting quotas in 2010 were used to pay for community members’ debts at 

local shops, many people claimed that they did not benefit from the scheme and further 

questioned the criteria that was used to select members in need. Some community members 

interviewed claimed that the money benefitted well-off households (due to their influence in 

the community) rather than the needy (see Chapter 5, Section 5.3.5). A further 24 % had no 

idea at all about any decisions made or profits raised since they were ‘minding their own 

business’. Some San members were not happy about the criteria by which hunting quotas 

were allocated or the high hunting fees that were gazetted without their consent. 

146

Moreover, during field work it became apparent that the local health centre (that is operated 

by SASI and sells traditional medicines) was open albeit intermittently and the training of 

local San guides had apparently stopped or was not in full throttle as before. In addition, a 

field visit to the community Bush Camp in Witdraai showed the facility was in a state of 

disrepair with a serious need for a substantial face-lift. In addition, many crafters preferred to 

sell their crafts directly along the road to the Park than to SîSEN crafts, since they did not get 

their profits as per agreement with SASI. Such issues serve to confirm the concerns 

highlighted by respondents and therefore do not only question the effectiveness and 

accountability of SASI in particular but also other actors such as DLA and NGOs, who work 

closely with the San community. 

Field evidence supports Robins’s (2001) argument that community divisions could have been 

deepened by contradictory NGOs and donors’ single-sided objectives to provide support for 

traditional leadership, San language and cultural survival and to inculcate modern ideas such 

as livestock farming. Finer et al. (2009) assert that even such seemingly benign entities such 

as NGOs contribute to a vicious cycle that undermines the development of effective local 

community bodies and institutions, since they tend to work with specific individuals or groups 

of individuals. They further argue that local communities are often antagonistic to each other, 

and in their dealings with outsiders they can be disorganised, unruly, easily co-opted, and 

unpredictable. This perhaps highlights the challenges of multiple NGO actors and pitfalls of 

externally initiated interventions. 

7.4.6 Conflicting interests and heterogeneity within communities 

Homogeneity may have a bearing on collective action. For example, sharing important social, 

cultural, or economic characteristics may increase the desire to co-operate (Ostrom, 1990; 

Cleaver, 1999). The challenge is that heterogeneity can exist along multiple dimensions as 

will be illustrated. As noted in Chapter 4, the present day #Khomani San people, due in a 

large part to their history of forced removals and separation, are not a homogeneous society 

but a collection of different people brought together to make up the required number for the 

land claim. They are united only by their ancestors’ experience of being hunters and gatherers 

in the Kalahari region and by their dispossession and marginalisation (Chennells, 2001; 

2009). 

147

Key informant interviews with SANParks officials, San traditional leaders and Technical 

Advisors revealed that while prior to the land claim community solidarity, social cohesion and 

cultural continuity were somewhat evident, leading to a successful land claim, the post 

settlement period was and continues to be characterised by social fragmentation and intra- 

community conflicts between so-called ‘traditionalists’ and ‘modern Bushmen’. Interviews 

with traditionalists (groups of people who follow customary practices) showed that on the one 

hand, traditionalists want land to be reserved for traditional purposes such as hunting, 

gathering of medicinal and food plants and cultural connection to land such as walks and 

rituals. The traditionalist group wishes the original agreement (where San resettlement land 

was designated for specific purposes such as livestock production, traditional use and wildlife 

farming) to stand. Their argument is that specific pieces of land should be protected to 

preserve and revive San cultural heritage. Livestock destroy culturally important plant species 

such as medicinal plants. The traditionalists group further argues that, though they may not 

use the medicinal plants as before due to the availability of modern health facilities such as 

mobile clinics, protecting their heritage is of paramount importance for the benefit of future 

generations. Their argument is supported by emerging evidence that wild game is 

disappearing due to uncontrolled and unsustainable hunting practices in the community- 

owned San resettlement farms (Erin and Miershoop pan) (SANParks, 2009, pers. comm.; 

Massyn and Humphrey, 2010). Given this, they strongly argue that there is need for some 

form of protection; for instance game farms that could protect culturally important species 

such as springbok, gemsbok and eland that will not only preserve cultural practices and 

heritage values but also bring income to the community through eco-tourism activities. 

On the other hand, personal interviews with the modernists (loosely described as modernised 

San including those interested in livestock farming) revealed that this group of people wanted 

more land for livestock production and housing. The livestock and housing proponents, on the 

other hand argue that their land has so far been unproductive and therefore, a ‘white elephant’. 

They said that more land, including that earmarked for cultural purposes, should be made 

available for livestock production, income generation and housing development. This group 

believes that things have changed and that the bush can no longer sustain the old Bushmen 

lifestyle. Rather the resettlement land should be used in line with their changed lifestyles. 

These internal differences within the San have led to, for example, about ZAR15 million 

(US$2.14 million) housing project funds (for the San) lying idle in government coffers 

148

ecause they cannot agree on where to build the houses (Makomele, 2009, per comm.). They 

further argued that traditional conservation only benefited the traditionalists. For example, 

many local members complained that some traditionalists hunted illegally since they did not 

apply for hunting licenses as per the rules and hunt outside the hunting season (between May 

and August). Most respondents (within the modernist group) claimed that a large number of 

springboks have been unlawfully and unsustainably harvested in the name of ‘traditional 

hunting’ that excludes some CPA members, often labeled modernists. Subsequently, these 

contestations have initiated a debate about who has the right to manage and make decisions 

about the game and other resources on the San resettlement farms. 

Further, some San members said during interviews that conflicts between San social groups 

are as a result of opportunities that come up with external players. A case in point relates to 

the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) who together with an 

American pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, wanted to develop an indigenous plant called 

Hoodia gordinii into an appetite suppressant drug (see Chennells, 2007; Chapter 3, Section 

3.6; Chapter 8, Section 8.4). Though the conflict involving the developing a drug was finally 

resolved (CSIR had conducted research on and patented Hoodia without prior informed 

consent by the traditional owners, the San, who had used the plant for many years), claims of 

deepened conflicts resulting from CISR one-sided approach of working with the San 

Traditional Council only were reported. Robins (2001) argues that the traditionalist versus 

modern Bushmen dichotomy is itself at the heart of donor and NGO development agendas, 

and ultimately widens the differences already present in the community. The internal conflicts 

and divergent meanings at the heart of this struggle are well reflected in the following 

statement by one San member interested in livestock production: 

“. . .but things have changed; there is no more food in the veld to eat. The truth is the 

Bushmen cannot go back to the bush to live like their forefathers. Today the Bushmen 

buy coffee from the shop but used to make coffee in the bush (from the witgatboom 

roots). They also buy meat from the shop rather than relying on bush meat. The 

important thing is to know where you come from. I am a real Bushman in my thinking 

and in my blood. In the past, the Bushmen did not drink alcohol like what is happening 

today. Money is also important now and you can never go anywhere in the world 

without money. Today being San is determined by traditional regalia not by their 

values. There is nothing like traditional and modern San”. 

149

However, some argue that this is also partly due to the Department of Land Affairs (DLA) 

and Mier Municipality neglect and tardiness and a general lack of any post-settlement support 

(SAHRC, 2004; see also Andrew et al., 2003). For example, under the agreement, the Mier 

Municipality should provide services such as houses, water, sanitation and electricity, as well 

as develop hunting and tourism infrastructure and ‘Arts and Culture Centres’ (SAHRC, 2004). 

Nonetheless, it is unclear whether and when these projects will begin. The conflicts have 

manifested themselves in different forms, from absconding meetings, general lack of interest 

and selective cooperation to violent actions. For example, it is reported that a former 

commercial farmer was allegedly hit by a shovel by a local San member. Such struggles and 

subsequent erosion of vision and trust impact on the higher level management structures 

required for natural resource management. These tensions highlight the fact that natural 

resource governance is characterised by contestations over meanings, inherent power play and 

general disagreement regarding land and resource use strategies. 

From a political ecology perspective discussed in this Chapter’s conceptual framework 

(Section 7.2.2), there is a deepening conflict and power struggle between different San social 

groups regarding how land is used and controlled. These findings show that the San 

community-owned and managed landscapes are complex, conflict-ridden and far from being 

homogeneous cultural constructions contrary to common beliefs and expectations. These 

contestations are in line with the IAD framework (Section 7.2.2) that demonstrates that the 

attributes of the community within which actors are embedded (e.g. common understanding, 

homogeneity or heterogeneity of resource use preferences and distribution of resources among 

members), shape actor’s choices, interactions, governance of resources and the overall 

conservation and livelihood outcomes. 

Interviews with selected San and Mier respondents revealed that the two community groups 

have sharply contrasting, but also converging, views on what the Contract Park can offer them 

– partly an illustration of the intercultural differentiation between them. For example, the 

Mier, in keeping with their history, are generally more interested in livestock farming than 

gathering of plants and hunting of wild animals. While the San traditionalist group feel that 

the main importance of the land is in terms of heritage conservation and preservation of their 

culture, the Mier community, like the ‘modern San’, is more concerned with the economic 

benefits (e.g. livestock production, job creation) their land can bring. This is partly the reason 

150

why the Mier have often been excluded from donor and other poverty alleviation and 

conservation initiatives and have thus come to feel neglected in favour of the San (Kepe et al., 

2005). This creates problems for the Mier as they feel they are not obtaining the same support 

and recognition, and leaves them relatively powerless on the JMB and in other structures. At 

the same time, it became clear from surveys, that there is also a growing mistrust of the Mier 

by the #Khomani San with reports that the Mier are poaching firewood and wild animals in 

nearby San resettlement farms. 

Within the Mier, heterogeneity is embedded in land tenure issues and status and power of 

individuals. Most interviewed Mier respondents who had their livestock on communal land 

lamented that the land was not large enough for their livestock and indicated they would want 

to have their own private land. They argued that well-off people (farmers) had more influence 

in the Municipality hence easily got private land and were overall doing better than communal 

farmers (see Chapter 5). There is also growing antagonism between farmers with livestock on 

communal farms and those without farmland at all, due to the questionable ways and 

procedures through which land is given. It should also be emphasised that interviews with 

different respondents (youths, men and women) within the San and Mier communities, 

showed that some San and Mier members are were not at all interested in potential land-based 

livelihood activities in the Contract Park and the resettlement farms as they wanted to pursue 

other livelihood strategies such as paid employment. As can be discerned from the preceding 

discussion, there is substantial heterogeneity between and within the San and Mier 

communities and access to land is contested. Who gets what land is a clear demonstration of 

the embedded power relations in land and resource allocation (see Scoones, 1998), with 

particular groups of people being perceived to be favoured to the disadvantage of others (e.g. 

the enrichment of a few influential rich Mier livestock farmers, see also Chapter 5). 

Unfortunately decreasing collective action, as illustrated in this study, results in individualistic 

behaviour that undermines governance arrangements and results in unsustainable resource use 

on the resettlement farms with potential long term negative impacts on livelihoods. While it is 

profitable in the short-term for individuals to harvest resources, long-term impacts are 

depressing. For example, though a few households (just 7 % and 4 % of sampled San and 

Mier households respectively) reported fuelwood sales, key informant interviews and 

observations showed that illegal fuelwood (especially camel thorn) harvesting for commercial 

151

purposes was taking place on both San and Mier farms. Camel thorn is a nationally protected 

species in South Africa. As noted earlier, uncontrolled and unsustainable hunting practices 

have also been reported on San resettlement farms (Massyn and Humphrey, 2010). This 

means there is compelling need for local communities (despite their seemingly wide 

differences) to unite towards the common good of improving livelihoods through good natural 

resource governance. As one San member echoed: 

“People need to work together, understand each other and respect and trust the 

opinions of others. At the moment the community is very much divided”. 

Given these inter and intra-community differences, it can perhaps be argued that the problems 

of natural resource governance in the San and Mier resettlement farms arise from the 

decisions based on (false) perceptions that the preferences and perceptions of the different San 

and Mier users are the same. As Ostrom et al. (2007) reflect, community-managed areas such 

as the San and Mier resettlement farms and collaborative approaches such as the joint 

management of the Contract Park are frequently “portrayed as cure-all”. But, the findings of 

this study illustrate that individuals facing the same situation (related to resource use) vary in 

their needs, behaviour and reactions. 

Thus, in keeping with the Sustainable Livelihoods and the Institutional Analysis and 

Development Frameworks, the findings illustrate that the different nature of communities in 

which different actors operate, transforming structures, relationships and institutions shape 

access to opportunities, and produce multifarious forms of social, economic and 

environmental outcomes. The present study shows that social systems for conservation and 

livelihoods are complex, involving multiple actors and institutions, with different and 

sometimes overlapping set of goals that results in resource use-related conflicts. 

7.4.7 Accountability and benefit perceptions 

This section is based on the surveys administered among the San and Mier communities to 

measure aspects related to accountability and perceptions of benefits among others. Empirical 

evidence based on proxies used to measure good governance such as accountability, 

participation and benefits perceptions (Section 7.3) are discussed in detail. According to 

Collomb et al. (2010) accountability and benefits perception are indicators of good 

152

governance and socio-economic benefits because they identify observable signs that particular 

elements of sustainable natural resource management are being met by the available actors 

and institutions. 

7.4.7.1 Accountability aspects within the San community 

According to Collomb et al. (2010), indicators of good governance and socio-economic 

benefits (such as horizontal accountability and benefits perception respectively) identify 

observable signs that particular elements of sustainable resource management are being met 

(by institutions). Most San respondents interviewed (60 %) said the CPA leaders generally 

made decisions without telling them, and they were only told what was happening. Out of 

this, only 12 % said the decisions were good, while 64 % felt that the decisions made were 

bad and selfish. According to the CPA constitution, CPA members have certain rights and 

responsibilities related to drafting and understanding of the constitution, use of their land (for 

residence, agriculture, and natural resource use such as using wild plants and hunting), 

choosing of committee members, standing in elections and information feedback (on general 

progress of community activities, assets, finances and management issues) through the CPA 

executive committee but they have not been able to exercise these rights since the CPA 

committee was disbanded (see Section 7.4.3.1). 

However, slightly more than half of San respondents (52 %) indicated they were consulted 

during the constitution building process, while only 44 % said the constitution had been 

explained to them earlier or in the past 12 months. This is perhaps understandable because 

since the land restitution in 1999, new members have gradually settled in the area. As a matter 

of fact ever since the commencement of this project in 2009, newly resettled San members 

have been continuously encountered. Predictably, a majority of the respondents (72 %) 

generally perceived that the constitution did not organise the community well. Out of this, 50 

% said the constitution was either bad or very bad, 14 % (reasonably well) or 16 % (neutral). 

Seventy-eight percent said that most people did not follow the constitution as demonstrated by 

reported cases of corruption, poaching, heightened intra-community conflicts among other 

issues. Twenty-percent had no knowledge of the constitution at all, perhaps representing the 

newly resettled members. 

153

Respondents were asked if they had knowledge of their rights related to standing in an 

election, making decisions on the use of wildlife or CPA money, remove incompetent/corrupt 

officers, or choosing leaders among others in accordance with the local constitution. Table 7.4 

shows the proportion of respondents who had knowledge of such rights. As can be clearly 

observed from Table 7.4, knowledge of certain rights such as the right to stand in an election, 

vote for CPA leaders and remove corrupt leaders or employees is generally high. However, 

less than half of the respondents had knowledge about rights related to checking financial 

accountability, amending the constitution, demand for a meeting and choosing local safari 

operators or tourism partners. While some of the rights are not explicit, they are implicit in the 

CPA constitution. 

Table 7.4: Knowledge of local constitutional rights among San respondents 

Right Proportion (%) of respondents 

Stand in an election definite 100 

Vote / choose CPA leaders 98 

Remove incompetent/corrupt employees 66 

Amend the constitution 44 

Make decisions on the use of wildlife/CPA money 42 

Check how CPA money was spent 30 

Demand for a meeting (e.g. for explanation of committee 

26 

performance) 

Set animal quotas for hunting 22 

Choose your tourism partners (Joint Venture) 18 

Choose your hunting safari operator 16 

Ninety percent of San respondents did not have any knowledge of financial reports. Most 

respondents (86 %) perceived that CPA finances were badly accounted for (since there was no 

annual budget and expenditure showing sources and amount of income generated). Among 

other things, about half of both the San and Mier respondents interviewed did not know how 

and how much money was spent, progress of projects, hunting quotas, how many animals 

were shot in the previous year, the price of animals sold to the hunters, the income generated 

from community campsites and the generated income from the Contract Park community 

lodge. 

154

Responses on questions related to local community meetings, attendance, agendas and 

outcomes, overall revealed that most people felt this was unsatisfactory. Only 22 % of the San 

respondents indicated they had attended both the monthly and annual general meeting, while 

the rest of the respondents either did not know there was a meeting or did not feel like 

attending. Out of those who attended, a majority (64 %) felt the meetings were generally 

neutral to less than satisfactory. Many respondents claimed that there were so many 

uncoordinated meetings such that most people had no time to attend, especially considering 

that the outcomes of the meetings did not directly benefit their households. It is the nature of 

human behaviour to abscond activities that do not benefit them. Asked if they knew the CPA 

chairman or leader and financial manager, several names were mentioned (in the Department 

of Land Affairs, SASI, Traditional Council, Technical Advisory Team among others). This 

confirms and illustrates the effects of the existence of many actors and their divergent 

interests and the consequent cumbersome and uncoordinated meetings, as this testimony by 

one San respondent illustrates: 

“Leaders change after every meeting, people are confused”. 

Twenty percent of respondents (who attended meetings) said conflicts masked and derailed 

the purpose of most meetings. Respondents cited information dissemination (78 %), 

corruption (44 %), lack of jobs and nepotism issues (12 %), no benefits and empty promises 

(40 %) as the predominant reasons behind conflicts and general lack of interest in CPA 

meetings and activities. Aspects related to culture, in particular ethnic identity and the 

associated traditionalist – modernist debate (see Section 7.4.6) were also said to be at the heart 

of community conflicts. Referring to the lack of access to information on the Contract Park by 

ordinary community members, one San respondent commented: 

“I need a permit before going to the Park, but I don’t know the procedures of how to 

get it”. 

Indeed, many respondents were not aware of how the Park and Contract Park functions and 

how they could get permits for visiting it. Some of the respondents said they did not get 

feedback because administrators perceived that they could not understand financial issues. 

155

This stereotyping is clearly illustrated in one member’s (Traditional leader’s son) comments 

on the matter: 

“We are the true Bushmen. We do not get feedback on monetary issues because they 

think we are the true Bushmen and we do not understand figures but we need those 

figures. Only the Mier people take high positions (referring to the local SASI financial 

administrator).” 

However, the lack of easy access to information is perhaps and partly due to geographic 

location. For example, people in Rietfontein and Welkom are far from Andriesvale (the main 

San location where administrative offices are located) and hence do not get informed in time. 

Nonetheless, those people claimed that they only got informed when the authorities needed 

them most. 

7.4.7.2 Accountability aspects within the Mier community 

Very few respondents (ranging from 0 - 29 %) knew about the existence of a community 

Contract Park and game farms and how these land parcels were governed (Table 7.5). A few 

households who knew about their existence had visited them. However, they did not know 

how much conservation-related income was generated from the game farms and Contract 

Park for the Municipality annually. 

Table 7.5: Proportion of Mier respondents with knowledge on different land parcels and their 

management 

Respondents Land parcel 

Contract Park Game Farm 

% respondents with knowledge of the existence 

of community land parcels 

29 25 

% respondents with knowledge land parcel 

management responsibility 

10 11 

% respondents who attended or have knowledge 

of feedback meetings 

0 0 

% respondents with knowledge of income raised 

annually from Contract Park and game farms 

0 0 

Though differences within the Mier community are not as conspicuous as their San 

counterparts, they have their own unique problems. For example, the preconditions under 

which one is awarded land by the Municipality has lately come under scrutiny as many 

156

landless members believed it only benefitted the rich, senior municipal workers and their 

relatives (see Section 7.4.6). All Mier households (54 % of livestock owners) who grazed 

their livestock in communal farms perceived that communal farms were too small to 

accommodate the number of livestock they had or wished to have. In addition, cultural 

differences were noted between the older and younger Mier generations. Though historically, 

the older generation almost entirely depended on livestock production, a significant 

proportion of the youth was not at all interested in livestock farming (see also Koster, 2000). 

The youth are getting more educated and their wishes for a ‘good life’ transcend livestock 

production as a livelihood activity. They want to see development projects that generate job 

opportunities. 

With regards to benefits perception, most Mier members interviewed mentioned that they did 

not get any meaningful benefits promised from the resettlement farms and Contract Park. In 

actual fact, they said they did not know they were supposed to benefit (in some way) from the 

Contract Park and game farms. Households interviewed generally felt that game hunting fees 

were too high for them, though local members paid less than external hunters. They further 

argued that the hunting fees were unaffordable and only benefitted well-off households. The 

Mier Municipality said it used these hunting fees and other proceeds from the Contract Park 

to develop the area under its jurisdiction and help lower taxes paid by community members. 

Nevertheless, all households did not know how much money was generated by several game 

farms and the Contract Park per year, or what they would have paid in taxes if the game 

ranches did not exist (Koster, 2000). An analysis of membership in organisations revealed that 

only a few Mier respondents (8 %) were members of an organisation. Most respondents said 

that they were not interested in joining organisations or attending meetings because only 

community (political) leaders benefited from participation in such meetings. 

As can be learnt, the communities are characterised by heterogeneity, differential or zero- 

access to critical information and a general lack of knowledge about how their resources are 

governed. However, without accountability, transparency and access to information can be 

compromised and therefore the influence that communities may potentially have on decision 

making. When people lack information, coordination becomes difficult despite common goals 

(Collomb et al., 2010). 

157

7.4.7.3 San and Mier perceptions of benefits 

San households were asked if they perceived to have had benefitted from the land restitution 

programme (Contract Park and farms). The respondents gave mixed responses, though many 

people felt the benefits were relatively worthwhile in the farms but either non-existent or 

curtailed in the Contract Park. Table 7.6 shows the respondents’ overall perceptions of 

benefit. Forty-one percent of the San respondents (Table 7.6) did not give comments because 

they either did not use any resource from the Park or did not know what form of benefits were 

supposed to be derived from the land parcels apart from getting fuelwood (in the farms) for 

subsistence use (Section 7.3). Thirty-one percent perceived that they had not benefitted from 

the land restitution. This group of respondents said that things were not so different from 

before they got land. They cited lack of basic services including perennial water shortages, 

lack of toilets, houses and electricity as indicators that their situation has not yet improved. 

Some members highlighted that they had become poorer than before and that this was leading 

them to unsustainable resource use practices such as commercialising camel thorn and 

allowing outsiders to graze their livestock in communal property for a small fee. 

Table 7.6: San respondents’ general benefit perception from the Park and farms 

Benefit perception % respondents (n=100) 

No comments, do not know if we are supposed to benefit in 

any way 

41 

Empty promises, nothing has changed, no benefits at all 31 

Benefitted but not satisfied, still need improvement 16 

Land restitution improved lives (has access to land and 

livestock) 

4 

Only benefitted a few individuals 4 

Benefitted but conflicts are drawing us back 3 

No money is getting to the community 1 

Indeed, reports and surveys showed that while rules that prevent members of the San 

community trading their rights to utilise benefits on the communal farms exist, some members 

reportedly did so. Apart from selling the natural resource products they individually produced 

from utilising natural resource rights, some members allowed non-members to, for example, 

bring livestock onto San community farms for the purposes of generating extra cash income. 

In the process some poor San members have become labourers in their resettlement farms – 

158

looking after third party livestock. The following comment illustrates that some community 

members have become herders of outsiders’ livestock in their own community farms: 

“We have become servants in our own father’s house.” 

Other San members interviewed believed they were used in the land claim to make the 

required numbers and have since become increasingly neglected and marginalised by their 

leaders. They further alleged that job opportunities in the Park and within the surrounding 

resettlement farms primarily benefitted people from Andriesvale, in particular those who are 

politically powerful (such as the community leaders and traditionalists). One case in point 

relates to the Imbiwe field school (Chapter 6, Section 6.4.6) where it is claimed that most 

beneficiaries originate from Andriesvale. 

Further, at the moment, Tourism Development Plans for the San community are being drafted 

for the other sections of the Park and resettlement farms. However, many people either did not 

know about this arrangement or believed that it was going to be a replica of the Contract Park 

where no cash benefits really trickled down to local communities. Such benefits are supposed 

to be in the form of infrastructural development but almost all households said there were no 

development projects in the communities arising from the Contract Park’s profits. Both the 

San and Mier perceived that apart from seasonal employment opportunities and selling of 

crafts, the cash benefits from the Contract Park did not necessarily benefit them. Some 16 % 

of the respondents said they had benefitted but there was need for improvement, while a few 

were completely satisfied. A community member expressed the following on the matter: 

“The land restitution improved our lives because some people are working for SASI, 

SANParks and local lodges (as guides).” 

Lack of land management capacity by local communities (especially those interested in 

livestock production) was highlighted as a critical hindrance to successful livestock 

production. The following comment was said by one of many community members interested 

in livestock farming: 

“There are empty promises. The government just gave us land without skills, capacity 

and animals (referring to cattle, sheep and goats) for livestock production for a 

living”. 

159

The above testimony was also a reaction to the fact that the government, through the 

Department of Land Affairs has not yet appointed a Farm Manager as promised since the land 

claim and has not allowed a local committee to be appointed since it was disbanded in 2002. 

In an SABC 2 News Interview (dated 22 February 2010), the Premier of the Northern Cape, 

Hazel Jenkins indirectly noted the lack of skills and capacity issues when she said that 

Municipalities were financially strapped in order to support land reform through skills 

development, training and farming support for resettled households. Institution and capacity 

building and knowledge sharing among local members and other actors could help in 

improving the lives of local communities and towards achieving the goal of self-sufficiency. 

However, taking into account positives and negatives the San and Mier overall perception 

towards wildlife and how it could improve their lives was strongly positive for all the 

respondents. Surprisingly, when asked if SANParks (KTPM) respected community views (in 

light of limited access and expected benefits from the Contract Park), a significant proportion 

(47 %) said “yes”, while, 26 % and 27 % said “no” and “don’t know” respectively. Those 

who said yes perceived that KTPM should be hailed for allowing resource use by the local 

people in the first place, and that KTPM was more organised than their local leaders, 

generally provided feedback though their local leaders who did not disseminate the 

information, created job opportunities and markets (for crafts) and showed effort to involve 

them. Some of the respondents further said that they could not go to the Park due to the long 

distance (at least 65 km from areas around Andriesvale). 

As could be learnt from the above sections, resource benefits are either curtailed or non- 

existent for both San and Mier, which has overall resulted in lack of cooperation in 

community-based related projects. Cleaver (1999) asserts that where communities do not 

benefit from community-based initiatives, non-participation in collective activities is rational 

and beneficial since it reduces costs and other structural constraints of resource use. Ostrom 

(1990) design principles (Section 7.2.3) also stress that among other things, the distribution of 

benefits should be roughly match the costs of one’s commitment and that collective choice 

arrangements are dependent on and should enable participation of all affected individual in 

resource management activities. Ostrom further adds that institutional change is incremental 

and sequential, enabling users to realise the benefits of change before moving on to new and 

desirable institutional arrangements. Therefore, unfulfilled expectations, combined with 

suspicion of committee leaders and coordination problems, discourage cooperative norms and 

160

thus capacities for collective action for governance of common property resources, as 

illustrated in this study. Hence, individual members find it profitable to override and illegally 

harvest (sometimes unsustainably) natural resources. This raises questions such as; do the 

institutions and their actors meaningfully represent the interests of all the community 

members? 

7.5 CORE STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING NATURAL RESOURCE 

GOVERNANCE IN THE PARK AND RESETTLEMENT FARMS 

Is co-management successfully being achieved in the Contract Park? Is community-based 

management working as expected in the farms? These are some of the questions arising from 

the various discussions in the preceding sections. The answer has to be partly no because of 

the conflicts and challenges discussed and a cautious yes given the emerging opportunities 

and promising advances from the different land parcels. 

Recent events inside the Contract Park provide good opportunities for strengthening co- 

management. The government’s decision to build a community lodge (!Xaus Lodge) in the 

Park shows the positive and encouraging efforts towards the welfare of the community 

through ecotourism and therefore the creation of jobs and income generating opportunities 

such as craft sales. The lodge is seen as a means of earning rent from the concessionaire, 

providing jobs to community members and teaching traditional skills to both San youths and 

tourists. At present, a private operator is running the lodge on behalf of the two communities. 

The concession fee is divided between the three parties (SANParks, San and Mier) and the 

private operator and must be used for the development and maintenance of Park and Mier area 

infrastructure. 

Furthermore, the National Lottery Trust Distribution Fund made available ZAR4.8 million 

(US$686 000) for the Contract Park in support of the communities to pursue their livelihood 

opportunities and cultural regeneration through sustainable use of their ancestral land (Section 

7.4.5.2). Sustainable resource use protocols for the Contract Park have been developed and 

the development of a monitoring and evaluation system (using cyber trackers) for sustainable 

resource use is being undertaken by the San Technical Advisors (see #Khomani San, 2007). 

This will help show what resources are where and when. Cultural protection and enhancement 

programmes such as the Imbiwe, Bobbenjanskop and Tierwyfie field schools in the Park and 

161

the Bushmen camp in Witdraai farm are further positive enterprises, but need immediate 

monitoring and further expansion if they are to meaningfully benefit the #Khomani San. Also 

encouraging is the completion of a Development and Management Plan for farm Erin, a 5000 

ha farm outside the Park, to manage it as a fenced game farm. This is intended to benefit the 

#Khomani San community through employment and reconnection to the ‘wild’ as 

experienced Bushmen trackers and hunting guides will provide a unique hunting experience 

for visitors (EMDP, 2009). 

However, while the Contract Park provides a window of opportunity for the local 

communities, ecotourism initiatives have been criticised for not improving livelihood 

security, in particular the tendency to create temporary employment and largely benefitting 

external players instead of local communities (see Laudati, 2010). Further, whilst the 

conservation objectives of the Contract Park are less directly compromised than in the farms, 

in the medium to longer term they may be compromised if anticipated social and economic 

benefits do not accrue to the community and if areas of conflict are not adequately addressed 

(see Grossman and Holden, 2009). Given the presence of many actors with multiple and 

conflicting objectives, divided communities, uncoordinated conservation and livelihood goals 

and unsustainable natural resource use practices, some strategies that may improve the 

governance of natural resources are suggested (see also Chapter 8, Section 8.3). 

First, the rights of community members and responsibilities of actors should be revisited 

where the agreements in the Contract Park and farms clearly define community members’ 

rights and the responsibilities of actors. Second, the various actors need to become entirely 

capacitated to address, become aware and respectful of the access and rights held by local 

San and Mier people. Actors need to recognise the different power dynamics, needs and 

aspirations embedded in the broader societal relationships. Adaptive actors and institutions 

are necessary in the context of this case study, where changes in the economic, social, 

political processes and structures of the San and Mier people may substantially alter the ways 

in which access to wild resource use is dealt with (see Folke et al., 2005). 

Third, with regard to natural resource management in the farms, farm-specific rules need to 

be written down by the San and their representatives through a negotiated process to define 

and get a buy in into these rules, especially given the composition of the communities (a mix 

162

of traditionalists and modernists). Though rules and regulations give a narrow understanding 

of what happens on the ground, they guide actions and form a framework for monitoring use. 

Fourth, given that the San CPA is still under DLA administration, there is need for the 

government to take an active role (not necessarily a leading one), in order to spearhead the 

need for conservation and meaningfully contribute to local livelihoods in both the Park and 

the resettlement farms (e.g. appointing a Farm Manager and electing a CPA Executive 

Committee). A willingness to gradually devolve authority and the embracing of the principle 

and ethic of community-based and co-management in the farms and Park respectively is the 

key to potentially unlock all the benefits that may arise from cooperation among all the actors 

involved, in particular for the San and Mier communities. 

The fifth issue relates to coordination and collective action. Apart from providing information 

(on finances, resource stocks, quotas, etc.), actors must overcome coordination problems, 

distributional struggles and the incentive problems associated with access to resources. 

Constructing effective co- and community-based management arrangements is not only a 

matter of building actors and institutions, it is also a matter of building social capital in 

general (Pretty and Ward, 2001; Section 7.4.6; Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3; Chapter 6, Section 

6.4.2.3) and in particular trust between the parties (see Berkes, 2008b). Lastly and perhaps 

most importantly, the above suggestions come with high transaction costs for both 

communities and actors. Therefore, the San and Mier communities should cultivate a high 

degree of tolerance and commitment while at the same time there is need for urgent provision 

of the necessary resources for capacity building and skills transfer and the willingness to do 

so by the responsible actors. 


Given multiple actors, with multiple and sometimes conflicting objectives, effort towards the 

establishment of appropriate local institutions and improvement of relationships among actors 

should consider that natural resources can only be managed at multiple levels, with vertical 

and horizontal interplay and accountability among actors (see Berkes, 2007). Good natural 

resources governance should be measured against meaningful involvement of the San and 

Mier members making sure that effective user participation, bridging of organisations, 

partnerships and local leadership are integral to the process. However, in light of the 

differences that often characterise communities (as illustrated in this Chapter), ‘situation- 

163

specific’ and ‘tailor- made’ rather than ‘rigid’ and ‘blueprint’ approaches are likely to be more 

successful in future natural resource governance arrangements involving local communities. 

In other words, co-management and community-based natural resource governance 

arrangements should be based on a broader understanding of the diverse interests of different 

actors in order to strike a balance between ecological integrity and local livelihood needs. 

164

PART III: INTEGRATION, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 

CHAPTER 8 

NATURAL RESOURCES, LIVELIHOODS, GOVERNANCE AND COMPLEXITY IN 

THE KALAHARI: A SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS 


How significant are dryland system natural resources from the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 

and the surrounding resettlement farms to the San and Mier communities? What are the 

cultural values and the culturally-inspired uses of natural resources to the two community 

groups? What institutions govern natural resource access and use in the different land parcels 

and how effective are they? These are some questions that have been addressed in Chapters 5, 

6 and 7. This Chapter attempts to analyse the meaning of the findings in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 

for conservation, sustainable natural resource governance and livelihood outcomes for the 

#Khomani San and Meir within the KTP and surrounds. It further suggests issues and 

questions that need to be considered for an improved understanding of these complex issues 

in future research. 

To do this, first, the Chapter develops a framework (Figure 8.1) to enable an integrated 

analysis of how one set of results from the empirical chapters informs another, thereby 

drawing together the different findings of this research. Second, and in light of the findings, 

specific practical and local level recommendations for sustainable natural resource 

management in the Contract Park, the rest of Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and the 

resettlement farms are suggested. Third, a framework (Figure 8.2) for conceptualising natural 

resource use-related conflicts highlighted in this study is presented and discussed. Fourth, a 

broader integrated framework and ideas (Table 8.1) that provide a holistic way of 

conceptualising the role of natural resources in conservation and livelihood research, are 

presented. The last section presents concluding remarks. 

165

8.2 UNDERSTANING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO 

RURAL LIVELIHOODS IN THE KALAHARI 

8.2.1 Introduction 

The following propositions related to natural resource use (see Chapter 1, Section 1.5) by the 

San and Mier people have been addressed in the foregoing Chapters: 

Natural resources play an important role in the livelihoods of rural dwellers in the 

Kalahari area and make a significant contribution to the broader livelihood portfolio of 

local San and Mier households (Chapters 5). 

Cultural values shape the importance attached to and the uses of natural resources and 

therefore cultural values represent a framework in which the value of natural resources 

is negotiated, contested and interpreted (Chapter 6). 

The interactions, different interests and unequal power relations among different 

actors (groups, individuals and organisations) generally shape the institutional 

landscape and governance of natural resources, particularly resource access for 

livelihood use by different San and Mier users (Chapter 7). 

Particularly, the last two key points, otherwise referred to as social (conditional) factors, have 

a critical influence on how resources are used and hence on the overall significance of natural 

resources to livelihoods. Therefore, a better understanding of how these factors interact and 

influence the contribution of natural resources to rural livelihoods is critical in conservation 

planning. 

8.2.2 The relationship between cultural values, institutional arrangements and the 

contribution of wild natural resources to rural livelihoods 

The findings suggest that the role that wild natural resources play in local San and Mier 

livelihood portfolios is important, as shown by high levels of natural resource use and the 

diversity of natural resources used. However, the use and contribution of natural resource to 

the livelihoods of the San and Mier communities is not uniform and simple, rather it is varied 

and complex between and within the two communities, partly resulting from multiple 

perceptions, preferences and interpretations of what these resources can offer. 

166

This study has shown that the contribution (direct-use value) of natural resources (A, Figure 

8.1) to the San and Mier communities is not only shaped by conventional household-related 

attributes (B) such as access to land, cash income and demographics (age, household size, 

level of education, gender) but is more importantly conditioned by cultural dynamics (C) and 

institutional arrangements and actors (D). 

C. Cultural values 

(History, perceptions, 

preferences, cultural 

practices) 

B. Household 

attributes 

(Income, land, livestock, 

demographics) 

D. Institutions and 

actors 

(Rules in use, users, 

incentives, practices, 

interests, interactions) 

Figure 8.1: Framework for understanding the contribution of natural resources to livelihoods 

8.2.1.1. Household attributes (B) 

A. Direct-use values 

(Subsistence use, safety net 

function; pathways out of 

poverty, reduction in 

income expenditure, only 

source of livelihoods, 

fodder) 

Different patterns of use and dependence on natural resources were observed between and 

within the San and Mier communities in relation to different (conventional) household 

attributes (B, Figure 8.1) (see Chapter 5). For example, for the poorest San and Mier 

households, natural resources were important and regarded as continuous safety nets that also 

prevented them from falling deeper into poverty – suggesting that the value of natural 

resource use is higher for those with few alternative livelihood sources (Chapter 5, Section 

5.3.6). The poorest members of the community tried to diversify their livelihood options 

through engagement in low-cost entry activities such as craft making, subsistence resource 

use, low-income temporary jobs and self-employment for livelihood security. Further, apart 

from enhancing households’ cash income, notably for well-off households, the main role of 

167 

E. Outcomes 

Unsustainable 

management 

(Overuse of resources, 

conflicts, collapse of coandcommunitymanaged 

systems, 

livelihood insecurity) 

Sustainable 

management 

(Increasing returns from 

natural resources, 

livelihood security 

stability)

natural resources was also to provide for the subsistence needs of local people, particularly of 

poor households (Chapter 5, Section 5.3.6). With regards to access to land, the study 

demonstrated a systematic pattern where less-poor Mier households with more livestock 

benefitted by more grazing access. However, the relationship between some household 

attributes (such as age, gender, household size, etc.) and natural resource use was weak 

although a high degree of resource use variability was observed. This is indicative of the fact 

that natural resource use and benefits to users were also affected and mediated by cultural 

dynamics (C) and institutional arrangements (D), factors beyond households’ immediate 

sphere of influence. 

8.2.1.2. Cultural values (C) 

The San reported a high total income and dependence on natural resources use while the Mier 

were more involved in livestock production in line with their respective cultural traditions and 

practices. Some of the natural resources were used for making crafts, an important cultural 

activity (since it perpetuates the San tradition) and a source of cash income for the poorest 

San. However, the cultural values attached to natural resources were not homogenous across 

all San and Mier members. Cultural values were characterised by conflicts over meaning and 

preferences of resource use. For example, while natural resources such as bush meat, 

medicinal plants and wild plant food constituted low proportions of total natural resource 

income (Chapter 5, Tables 5.7 and 5.8), they were still highly valued for their cultural and 

spiritual values especially by the more ‘traditionalist’ San groups, making the use of nature 

inseparable from their cultural identity. In contrast, the San ‘modernist’ group preferred that 

land and natural resources be used for generating income, livestock production and for 

housing development. This group of San people argued that there were no differences 

between cultural and natural landscapes as their use was a reflection of their past and present 

history. They further said that the continued use of resources for livelihoods was part of their 

historical cultural practices and that while some San ‘traditionalist’ viewed them as ‘non-San’ 

or ‘modernised San’, they used resources in non-traditional ways in response to present day 

needs (changing economic systems). Similarly, key informant interviews revealed that older 

Mier generations were more interested in livestock production –an important cultural practice, 

but a substantial proportion of young households were increasingly getting educated, and 

therefore, more interested in formal job opportunities. 

168

These competing interests and meaning over use of natural resources affect how resources are 

used and hence its importance (A) to different groups of people – ultimately affecting the 

overall resource management outcomes (E) (Figure 8.1). Conflicts concerning resource use 

and management constitute a threat to the availability and access, and thus to livelihood 

security. This means that livelihood strategies, and the contribution of natural resources to 

livelihoods in particular should be understood within the cultural history of the communities 

concerned, as this often shapes resource use. Cultural values (including differences over 

meaning) of resources are dynamic and provide the framework within which decisions about 

natural resource use are negotiated, contested and shaped. Cultural practices (based on strict 

subsistence use) and contemporary conservation approaches (based on principles of meeting 

all livelihood needs) form part of the communities’ way of living. 

In sum, the San and Mier culture is inextricably bound up with the both harmonious and 

conflicting views on use and management of natural resources. As noted above, divergent 

views on traditional and cultural values can exist in co- and community-managed areas, 

resulting in conflicting decisions on natural resources use and management between different 

social groups within communities. Therefore, one of the key aspects in the framework is that 

cultural values (interactions among cultural practices, preferences, perceptions and present 

day needs etc.) influence how natural resources are interpreted and hence used. Understanding 

such interactions and influence may help in understanding the contribution (direct use values) 

of natural resources (A, Figure 8.1)to livelihoods and designing natural resource management 

systems that are compatible with local people’s needs, knowledge systems and livelihood 

interests (see Mandondo, 1997; Berkes, 2007). It is equally important to also recognise that 

the traditional cultural landscape is changing (as demonstrated by the San and Mier cases) and 

the challenge is to reconcile traditional cultural values and the realities of being part of a 

changing (modernising) world. Consequently, this would help avoid, minimise or resolve 

conflicts between conservation managers and local people, in and beyond the KTP. Such an 

approach is likely to lead to better decisions on the management of co-managed parks and 

community-managed areas. 

169

8.2.1.3 Institutions and actors (D) 

Institutions and interactions and power relations among actors (D, Figure 8.1) have influence 

over access to and use of natural resources, and thus the importance and contribution of 

resources (A) to different households. For example, as demonstrated earlier in Chapter 7, 

SANParks has conservation interests as their principle objective while private operators 

prioritise tourism development and communities prefer natural resource use (in traditional and 

non-traditional ways). As noted, multiple interests arising from different perceptions and 

understanding of people’s cultural history and meaning over resources have impacts over the 

design of institutions for natural resource management. Thus, multiple interests and actors 

within resource systems such as the Contract Park and resettlement land, and how these actors 

influence decision and rules over resource access are crucial in understanding the value of 

resources to livelihoods and vice-versa. According to the co-management agreement in the 

Contract Park, natural resource use (wild plants harvesting and wild animal hunting) is 

allowed, but in practice resources use is curtailed. In fact hunting is still prohibited pending 

final negotiations. Most interviewed San members perceived that the Park management may 

never allow then to hunt in the Park for subsistence purposes since Park management say this 

will disturb the tourists’ experience in the Park. Perhaps the low contribution of wild meat to 

the San and Mier livelihoods is indicative of limited access in the Park and game farms due to 

restrictive rules and hunting fees and scarcity of wild animals. Further, in the San and Mier 

game farms, hunting of wild animals is allowed upon payment of a hunting fee, which was 

considered unaffordable by poor households. The situation in the San game farm (Miershoop 

Pan) is different and more complex in the sense that while hunting rules are in place, some 

members did not follow them and most San members perceived that wild animals are scarce 

due to overhunting and corruption by community leaders. Other members reported that poorly 

maintained fences and lack of water sources in San game farms meant that some wild animals 

moved to nearby Mier game farms. 

It can also be argued that the co-management arrangement and rules in the Contract Park are 

based on false assumptions that the San people are a united group with homogenous cultural 

values, given that cultural attachment to natural resources (and revival of their lost culture) 

was a key motivation in their land claim. Some authors argue that presentation of a traditional 

and united San people was a strategic arrangement to make the land claim bid uncomplicated 

(e.g. Robins, 2001). Therefore, an appreciation of the institutional landscape and the actors 

170

involved in natural resource management is critical in understanding the contribution or value 

(A) of natural resources to people’s livelihoods. These institutions are often shaped by and 

represent the various interests of different actors (with different backgrounds, understanding 

of cultural values and practices, preferences etc). In turn such institutions shape access to 

resources and the cultural values (C) attached to natural resources. 

8.2.1.4 Outcomes (E) 

The outcomes (E, Figure 8.1), whether positive or negative conservation and livelihood 

outcomes, it seems, is a function of how cultural values (C) and institutional arrangements (D) 

interact and condition resource access and use. Lack of understanding of differences over 

cultural meanings of resources may lead to hegemonic planning (as in the Contract Park) 

which will favour certain groups of people (for example traditionalists over modernists). 

Consequently, such approaches are likely to result in governance problems and probable 

unsustainable natural resources management (e.g. overuse of resources, heightened conflicts 

and collapse of community-based resource management), as the situation in the resettlement 

farms indicates. Considering the importance of natural resources to both the San and Mier, 

any decline in these, whether through restricted access, rules or dwindling resources, will 

have negative effects on the livelihoods of users, some of whom depend significantly on 

natural resources. 

8.2.1.5 Interactions amongst components of the model 

Overall, the study illustrates that the use of wild natural resources by the San and Mier rural 

people in the Kalahari is influenced by social factors encompassing cultural and institutional 

dynamics, apart from ecological and conventional household attributes. Conservation and 

livelihood outcomes are a result of the interaction (or lack thereof) amongst different 

institutions and actors with different interests such that conservation and livelihood 

approaches should not be hegemonic (Ostrom et al., 2007) but inclusive and pluralistic, 

consistent with the needs of managing complexity (see Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Ascher, 

2001; Berkes, 2008a). Therefore, addressing natural resource use and governance challenges 

in the co-managed Contract Park and the community-managed resettlement farms could be 

enhanced by a careful examination of how natural resource value manifest to different 

communities and households given their cultural and institutional backgrounds. 

171

The above framework (Figure 8.1) has been used to synthesise the interaction between the 

conditional factors (cultural and institutional dynamics) that either promotes or constraint 

resource use and thus can explain the value and contribution of natural resources to 

livelihoods (A). In practice these attributes (C and D) of a resource system are nested, with 

multiple interactions and feedbacks and jointly affecting how households use resources (given 

their own set of attributes, B) and result in certain conservation and livelihood outcomes (E). 

A set of institutions informed by local cultural understandings (and misunderstandings) and 

crafted by nested actors affect interactions, resource access and the contribution of natural 

resources to different households and resource management outcomes over time. Therefore, 

attempts that exclusively focus on the contribution of natural resources to livelihoods (A), run 

the risk of misunderstanding and misinterpreting this contribution, since it is interlinked with 

cultural (C) and institutional (D) factors. It is important to note that though the cultural and 

institutional factors discussed above are more important in this context and at the local level, 

in practice these small resource use systems such as the KTP and resettlement farms are 

linked with bigger economic and political systems, with multiple complex interactions and 

feedbacks (see Ostrom et al., 2007). As Berkes et al. (2003) argue, natural resource use 

systems are linked through complex webs of interdependencies. 

Thus, the important issue of how and whether it is possible to involve local communities in 

conservation and livelihood activities with positive conservation and livelihood outcomes 

depends on understanding and factoring in the above interactions. To develop diagnostic 

methods to identify combinations of variables that affect the incentives and actions of actors 

under different governance systems, there is compelling need to recognise and understand 

these complexities (see Ostrom et al., 2007). According to Ostrom et al. (2007), the concept 

of nested tiers of factors that interactively affect how other factors help or do not help to 

explain outcomes is a challenge to the way many scholars approach theory and explanation. 

8.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR ACHIEVING CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

OUTCOMES IN THE PARK AND FARMS 

Considering the demonstrated significance of wild natural resources to local San and Mier 

households, an important policy lesson from this study is that restricting local people’s access 

to natural resources in the resettlement farms and the Park may have negative effects on 

household livelihoods and welfare. Limiting the rights to use, commercialise or exchange 

172

wild resources can be a serious problem if people’s livelihood depends on these. However, 

improved access to natural resource use may imply that the poorest will become further 

marginalised or resources may become over-utilised since well-off households have greater 

capacity to extract more resources than the poor. Therefore, increasing income from natural 

resources (if not well designed) may disproportionately benefit local well-off households 

rather than the poorest. Hence, special attention should be paid to those groups most 

dependent on natural resources, yet often also with the most limited access. These are 

extremely vulnerable households that need support from the Park to improve their livelihoods. 

In light of the varied interest over the use and meaning of natural resources between and 

within the San and Mier social groupings, the following recommendations, categorised into 3 

main themes are suggested. 

8.3.1 Information dissemination 

First, integrating different interests in the area also means there is need for establishing 

networks and partnerships of various levels of government, private operators, NGOs, 

community-based organisations and the local San and Mier community. Second, there is need 

for a communication platform between the San and Mier, different groups within the two 

community groups and other local and external actors such as Department of Land Affairs, 

South African San Institute, Mier municipality, KTPM and other NGO’s to facilitate better 

information dissemination among actors in order to meaningfully link conservation objectives 

and the different livelihood needs. At local community level there is need for enabling 

resource users to engage in face-to-face communication between rounds of decision making, 

which may ultimately change the possible unsustainable outcomes such as overuse of 

resources, conflicts, and collapse of community-based management arrangements in the 

resettlement farms. Communication may enable users to understand their different resource 

use interests to enable designing of socially best possible harvesting practices and levels that 

will minimise the chances of overharvesting in the resettlement farms. In the face-to-face 

discussions users can discuss what they all should do and build norms to encourage 

conformance. Third, transparency should be an integral part of any agreements on natural 

resource use in the Contract Park, other zones in the Park and resettlement farms in terms of 

cash income generated, fair job opportunities (from eco-tourism enterprises) and access to 

benefits. This will ensure a revival of trust and cooperation of San and Mier members in co- 

173

management (in the Contract Park) and community-based management (in the resettlement 

farms). 

8.3.2 Understanding preferences 

The findings demonstrate that different individuals and groups of San and Mier people clearly 

facing the same situation vary substantially in their behaviour. Thus with regards to access to 

planning for resource access and benefits in the Contract Park, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 

Management (KTPM) should identify and designate these multiple interests (e.g. job creation, 

hunting of wild animals and harvesting of medicinal plants mainly by San traditionalists, 

hunting for subsistence use by ‘modernised San’, benefits from eco-tourism by Mier). In other 

words, more inclusive conservation and development approaches based on the integration of 

different livelihood activities and interests (of both San and Mier) and sharing of equitable 

natural resources are needed. Secondly, the benefits from the Contract Park should be clearly 

defined, including what can be harvested, when, by whom and how much. This should 

perhaps include the use of some of the wild resources (e.g. game meat, fuelwood) for 

subsistence or commercial use that are mentioned in the agreement but remain largely 

restricted in practice (Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.2). One way to do this will be to introduce 

hunting quotas for the San and Mier communities, where the hunted animals will be shared 

among households (for subsistence purposes) or commercialised, and the cash income will be 

equally shared among households. 

Third, while rushed processes and negotiations should be avoided, agreements (e.g. hunting of 

wild animals in the Contract Park, development of tourism ventures in the commercial or V- 

zone for San), should be implemented within a reasonable timeframe to avoid suspicions by 

the local San and Mier communities that biodiversity conservation leaves them worse off. 

Fourth, eco-tourism operators such as that running the Community (!Xaus) Lodge in the 

Contract Park should aim to offer more meaningful and permanent opportunities to local San 

and Mier communities, rather than seasonal jobs. Fifth, KTPM should allow some harvesting 

of dead wood in the Park and find mutually-beneficial ways of purchasing fuelwood from the 

local communities to avoid depletion of fuelwood in the resettlement farms, one of the main 

livelihood sources for most San and Mier households. 

174

8.3.3 Natural resources management in the Park and resettlement farms 

First, natural resource access and use rules should be crafted in the resettlement farms and 

such rules should be flexible and more integrative to cater for dynamism and modernity since 

the San and Mier socio-economic way of life is ever changing (a combination of 

traditionalists and modernists). Secondly, considering the diversity of actors in the Contract 

Park and farms and the related conflicts (see Chapter 7), collaborative problem solving should 

be central to the process of conflict-resolution. The situation should enable actors to transfer 

learning from one situation to another, and tackle increasingly more complex problems (see 

Olsson et al., 2004). Third, KTPM should support sustainable natural resource use 

programmes in the farms because (a) the Park and farms are interlinked ecologically; (b) 

unsustainable natural resource use in the farms may lead to future resource use pressure in the 

Park and (c) the Park has a moral responsibility to help the local San and Mier communities, 

who were previously forcible removed from their ancestral land. 

Fourth, a framework of relationships ranging from conflicts to collaborations between 

different household groups, communities and actors devoted to sustainable resource use 

(traditional, subsistence, commercial uses) and livestock production ought to be developed. 

Fifth, there is also need to build on the strengths of existing actors, craft new ones where the 

existing ones are dysfunctional and create conditions for devolving power to an elected 

Communal property Association (CPA) executive committee as per the CPA constitution. The 

Department of Land Affairs should appoint a Farm Manager, as per agreement, for a well 

coordinated management of the San resettlement farms. Sixth, as regards the Mier, there is 

need for the establishment of sound community-based institutions in the communal farms 

because none exist at the moment. One way to do that will be conducting a study to establish 

who stays where, with access to what and how much land and what size of livestock herds. 

Further, those households who are interested in livestock production but have no access to 

resettlement land should be identified so that community-based natural resource management 

decisions are based on an informed and all-inclusive foundation. Lastly, SANParks should 

consider initiating and supporting an annual community event (with a conservation and 

livelihoods theme) where local communities and other actors come up together to collectively 

share ideas, knowledge, highlight conflicts and problems and possible solutions through 

activities such as plays, songs, poems and games. Field experience (during community 

175

feedbacks) have shown that hosting community events can be an easy but powerful way of 

building relations between local communities, conservation managers and researchers. 

In summary, to overcome and avoid (in the future) natural resource-related conflicts (such as 

the traditionalist-modernist conflict) between and within the San and Mier, the Joint 

Management Board (responsible for resource management in the Contract Park) and other 

actors such as Department of Land Affairs and the San Communal Property Association 

(responsible for resource management in the resettlement farms) should understand (drawing 

lessons from scientific research) the variability of resource use interests and perceptions. 

Actors should not focus on one community (e.g. the San over the Mier) or one faction of a 

community (e.g. the San traditionalists over the modernists) so that resource use planning 

cannot be divorced from the wider context. This can help avoid a hegemonic planning 

mentality such as in the Contract Park. Overall, the findings show that the issues and 

problems of natural resource use in co- and communally-managed areas are not simple but 

complex and therefore co-management approaches in the Contract Park and community-based 

approaches in the resettlement farms should not be viewed as panaceas for solving resource 

access and use challenges. Accordingly, adopting a complex-systems approach as a 

foundation for designing approaches that improve natural resources and promote local 

development could be useful in the KTP situation and surrounds. Given multiple objectives, 

the interaction of factors at multiple levels and multiple actors, the Park and the surrounding 

resettlement farms should be understood as a system with multiple interactions and feedbacks. 

The main pillars for a promoting sustainable natural resources management are likely to be 

government support, recognition and support of community institutions and culture, including 

understanding of the variations. These are needed to achieve equitable, fair and sustainable 

natural resource management in the Contract Park and resettlement lands. 

While traditional and cultural values provide a foundation for conservation by providing the 

opportunity for meaningful and sustainable people-nature interactions, it is also equally 

important to realise that ‘natural resources’ and ‘culture’ in the Kalahari area are diverse, and 

the landscape is a mix of more and less ‘pristine’ and ‘traditional’ cultural elements. Some of 

the San and Mier members are now more integrated into a cash economy and therefore need 

viable livelihood strategies. Therefore, an understanding and integration of the economic, 

ecological and cultural needs of different actors and different members within the San and 

176

Mier communities is crucial in achieving sustainable natural resource governance and 

management both in the Park and the resettlement farms. 

8.4 IDEAS FOR ENSURING NATURAL RESOURCE AND LIVELIHOOD 

RESEARCH RELEVANT FOR CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY 

AND PRACTICE 

Overall, the findings draw attention to complexity in natural resources and livelihood research 

implying the need for rigorous approaches for understanding the contribution of wild natural 

resources to rural livelihoods. A failure to recognise culturally and institutionally-shaped 

variations in natural resource use and livelihoods may result in designing inappropriate 

policies that do not embrace local livelihood aspirations and needs. Cultural factors, 

institutional dynamics and social differentiation are therefore both valuable and necessary for 

understanding the socio-economic systems of resource-dependent communities. As has been 

demonstrated in this study, decision making around natural resource use is based on different 

viewpoints which results in natural resource use related conflicts. Given such eventualities, 

not only as illustrated in this study, but also as learnt from growing empirical evidence from 

similar projects (e.g. Twyman, 2000; 2001; Madzwamuse et al., 2007), the study suggests a 

framework (Figure 8.1) for analysis of such conflicts drawing on work by Wilson and Bryant 

(1997). 

Figure 8.2 is specifically designed to identify and better understand the different types, nature 

and forms of complex natural resource use-related conflicts (Chapter 7). The framework 

largely takes an actor-oriented approach. An actor-oriented approach is necessary to explore 

how different social actors define the problems at stake and the solutions for them (in line 

with Ostrom’s (1994) conceptualisation). According to Ostrom (1994:29) actors in natural 

resource management are “Participants in positions who must decide among diverse actions 

in light of the information they possess about how actions are linked to the potential outcomes 

and the costs and benefits assigned to actions and outcomes”. 

As apparent in this study, everything is connected to everything else. The number (A, Figure 

8.2) and type (B, Figure 8.2) of actors responsible for conservation and development in the 

Contract Park and farms, has a critical influence on the overall outcomes, since it has been 

illustrated that multiple actors, for example, come with multiple objectives and different ways 

177

of achieving such objectives. The presence of multiple actors has a tendency to result in 

contradictory perspectives on how to use the resources and to distribute the benefits from 

resources that ultimately result in natural-resource related conflicts between and within the 

San and Mier communities. By looking at the type of actors, what they say they represent and 

what they actually do, an avenue for systematically understanding the struggles over resource 

access and the different types of conflicts in the Kalahari area is provided that may in turn 

improve the performance of conservation and development projects and interventions. 

Extent/nature of 

resources, 

resource scarcity 

(E) 

Conflicts in 

conservation and 

development 

projects 

Figure 8.2: A framework for understanding natural resource-related conflicts (Adapted from 

Wilson and Bryant, 1997: 98) 

Conflicts over resource in the Kalahari region have also been proven to arise from the power 

struggles among actors (C, Figure 8.2), but power struggles among actors were a consequence 

of multiple actors with multiple objectives pulling in different directions. The number and 

types of actors, and the power distribution dynamics also influence the scale of interactions 

among these actors and the type of conflicts. For instance, the existence of local, regional and 

national actors (e.g. local community members and social groups, CPA committee, NGOs, 

SANParks and Department of Land Affairs) means that there is vertical and horizontal 

178 

Number of actors (A) 

Types of actors (B) 

Power positions of 

different actors (C) 

Scale of interaction of 

actors with the 

environment (D)

interactions at local (lower) and national (higher) levels among different actors and 

institutions, making an understanding of resource use conflicts a complex process and task. 

The conflict situations in the Contract Park and the San farms further illustrate how actors 

influence interactions and outcomes. As has been noted, there are heightened conflicts within 

the San community in the farms as compared to the situation in the Contract Park. Therefore, 

one may perhaps conclude that this is a result of relatively few actors (i.e. KTPM, San and 

Mier representatives, the three JMB principal parties) in the Contract Park, combined with 

clearly defined and binding rules (though not all members are happy with the rules). In 

contrast, the farms are characterised by the existence of many actors, with multiple and 

conflicting interests that give rise to more and deeper conflicts. 

Apart from actor-related factors (A, B, C and D, Figure 8.2), the nature and extent of 

resources also shape the nature of resource-use conflicts. For instance, for a genetic resource 

(e.g. indigenous medicinal plants), conflict may manifest in a conflict between a local 

community (owners of intellectual property rights) and external actors (e.g. the San Hoodia 

Case involving and CISR and American pharmaceutical company Pfizer) (Chapter 3, Section 

3.6; Chapter 7, Section 4.6). On the other hand, for resources such as bush meat or grazing 

land conflicts may arise between different groups and sub-groups within communities or even 

individuals (e.g. the San traditional-modernist debate in Chapter 7). However, in reality, 

conflicts involving any type of resource could be both local and external due to the 

involvement of certain local sub-groups and various externally initiated interventions through 

actors such as NGOs and interested private actors for various reasons including economic and 

social ones. 

Further, any given type, level and form of conflict results in winners and losers, who often are 

different groups or subgroups within communities and in any case, this at the very least serves 

to widen the differences and sustain conflicts rather than avoid, minimise or solve them 

completely. Such a scenario points to the dominant suggestion in this study, i.e. the need for 

establishing partnerships and collaborations among actors and institutions at multiple levels 

for a common goal of linking conservation objectives and local development needs. Thus, the 

framework (Figure 8.2) serves both as a way of improving our understanding of natural 

resource-related conflicts and as a way of demonstrating that actors, aspects, processes, etc. in 

179

conservation and development projects (socio-ecological systems) are often interlinked in 

many complex ways. For this reason research on such issues needs to be increasingly 

integrative, though opportunities exist to study specific components of the whole web of 

interactions. 

Table 8.1: A holistic way of conceptualising the role of natural resources in natural resource 

and livelihood research (Adapted from Baumann, 2004) 

Aspect Mainstream view Emerging view 

Resources Material, economic, direct use- Also as symbolic, with meanings that 

value, property 

are locally and historically 

embedded, and socially constructed 

Community Local, specific user groups, Multiple locations, diffuse, 

homogenous 

heterogeneous, diverse, 

bounded multiple social identities 

Livelihoods and Links between single and Complex and diverse livelihoods – 

resource 

multiple resource users – focus focus on livelihoods that draw on all 

management on resource sectors (e.g. 

rangelands, forests, fisheries 

systems) 

resource sectors 

Institutions Static, rules, functionalist, Social interaction and process, 

formal 

embedded in practice, struggles over 

meaning, formal and informal, 

interlinked with knowledge and 

power 

Knowledge Linear transfer, science as sole Multiple sources, plural and partial 

source of expertise 

knowledge, negotiated 

understandings 

Power and control Transaction cost focus, elites, Differentiated actors, conflict, 

community leaders 

bargaining, negotiation and power 

relations central 

Property regimes Common property resource as Practice not rule-determined, 

set of rules based on collective strategic, tactical, overlapping rights 

action outcomes, clear and responsibilities, ambiguity, 

boundaries 

inconsistency, flexibility 

Legal systems Formal legislation Law in practice, different systems coexisting 

Governance Separated levels – 

Multi-level governance approaches, 

international, national, local fuzzy/messy interactions, locally and 

globally interconnected 

In order to deal with the complexity associated with natural resource use and livelihoods, 

Table 8.1 highlights some of the aspects that should be considered by researchers of 

conservation and development drawing on work by Baumann (2004). The list by no way is 

180

supposed to be exhaustive and a blueprint, but should be taken as informative and an 

emphasis of critical factors. Aspects such as resources, communities, institutions, knowledge, 

power and control, property regimes, governance and legal systems all have an influence on 

resource management since they affect interactions of the various actors around conservation 

sites. 

Table 8.1 summarises and offers a comprehensive and more nuanced way of exploring 

society-environmental linkages illustrating the complexity and diversity of issues that should 

be addressed by conservation and development interventions.The framework helps address 

the multifaceted importance and value of natural resources in the context of social interactions 

that involve multiple actors and cultural and institutional dynamics. Perhaps most importantly, 

the different actors with multiple objectives that characterise conservation sites, the different 

ways of interaction and the institutions that shape such interactions should receive more focus 

(see Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). 


Studies looking at the contribution of natural resources to rural households and communities 

within broader livelihood portfolios and in combination with social factors (cultural and 

institutional dynamics) that shape resource access and use, particularly in dryland systems 

such as the Kalahari region are not common. Consequently, there is need for research that 

considers the link between the contribution of natural resources to livelihoods and the social 

factors mediating this. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to provide both empirical 

evidence and conceptual arguments that give conservation practitioners, managers, policy 

makers and researchers a better understanding of not only the contribution of wild resources 

to rural livelihoods but also of the social context within which this value is manifested and 

what this means for conservation and livelihood outcomes. 

Consistent with findings in the same region (e.g. Twyman 2000, 2001; Thomas and Twyman, 

2004; Sallu et al., 2010), the study shows that there is a high degree of variability in natural 

resource use among different groups of San and Mier households of the southern Kalahari 

region. Both San and Mier households are characterised by economic, cultural and social 

heterogeneity with regards to their (a) access to assets such as land, labour (household sizes), 

181

livestock and financial capital; (b) levels of poverty (as illustrated by income quintiles) and 

motivations for natural resources use; (c) the range of income generating activities they 

engage in; and (d) indigenous knowledge related to sustainable natural resource use and 

management. Thus the use of natural resources varies from being opportunistic, planned and 

seasonal to permanent utilisation for different livelihood needs, as shaped by different 

contextual factors including household attributes and more importantly cultural and 

institutional ones. 

Some of the factors that affect resource use in the area such as the physical (aridity) and 

economic climate, cultural aspects, historical and political dynamics of poverty and 

marginalisation and institutional aspects (e.g. legal rules and arrangements) are beyond the 

control of San and Mier communities and individual households. Thus, while gaining a 

livelihood or attempting to do so people may at the same time have to cope with constraints 

such as conflicts over the use and cultural meaning of natural resources and resource access 

rules, compounded by uncertainties and risks such as droughts, climate change, diminishing 

resources, pressure on the land, different and changing ways of living, HIV/AIDS among 

others. Such factors, as has been illustrated, are often restrictive and form a complex set of 

preconditions under which rural households survive and create their livelihoods, through both 

individual and communal decision-making and adaptation (see Vedeld et al., 2007; Kamanga 

et al., 2009). A combination of such uncertainties, challenges and emerging opportunities 

influence the choices that people make on resource use and subsequently how natural 

resources are governed in parks and beyond them. This implies that research on natural 

resource use and rural livelihoods ought to capture not only the broad general conditions and 

relationships but also the local social and ecological heterogeneity. As Twyman (2001:64) 

notes, “..the linkages between livelihood opportunities and resource availability are not 

simple, linear and direct. Rather they are shaped by the history of resource relationships in the 

settlement and are complex, fluid and dynamic. Issues of rights and control over resources 

have become important; clearly access to certain resources is not dictated solely by resource 

availability or abundance.” 

182

REFERENCES 

REFERENCES AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Abusabha, R. and Woelfel, M. L. 2003. Qualitative vs. quantitative methods: Two opposites 

that make a perfect match. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103 (5): 566- 

575. 

Adams, W. M. 2006. The future of sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development 

in the twenty-first century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29-31 

January 2006. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf. 

[Accessed 12 August 2011]. 

Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliot, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., 

Vera, B. and Woolmer, W. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of 

poverty. Science, 306 (5699): 1146-1149. 

Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S. and Lovett, J. C. 2004. Household characteristics and forest 

dependency: Evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological 

Economics 48 (2): 245-257. 

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. C. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of 

community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27 (4): 629-649. 

Agrawal, A. and Redford, K. 2006. Poverty, development and conservation: Shooting in the 

dark? Working Paper No. 26, Wildlife Conservation Society. 

Alpert, P. 1996. Integrated conservation and development projects. BioScience, 46 (11): 845- 

855. 

Ambrose-Oji, B. 2003. The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods of the ‘forest poor’: 

evidence from the tropical forest zone of south-west Cameroon. Forestry Review, 5 

(2):106-117. 

Anderson, J., Bryceson, D., Campbell, B., Chitundu, D., Clarke, J., Drinkwater, M., Fakir, S., 

Frost, P.G., Grundy, I., Hagmann, J., Jones, B., Wynn-Jones, G., Kowero, G., Luckert, M., 

Mortimore, M., Phiri, A., Potgieter, P., Shackleton, S. and Williams, T. 2004. Chance, 

change and choice in Africa’s drylands. A new perspective on policy priorities. CIFOR 

Policy Brief, Bogor, Indonesia. 

Andrew, M., Shackleton, C. and Ainslie, A. 2003. Land use and rural livelihoods: Have they 

been enhanced through land reform? Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, 

University of the Western Cape, Bellville. 

Angelsen, A. and Wunder, S. 2003. Exploring the forest-poverty link: Key concepts, issues 

and research implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper 40, Bogor. 

183

Arnold, J. E. M. and Ruiz Pérez, M. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropical 

forest conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics, 39: 437-447. 

Araia, M. G. 2005. Revealing the forest hidden value: The case study of Eritrea. Unpublished 

MSc thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch. 

Arnold, J. and Gaeses, E. 1998. Is there hope for the San’s land requests? Paper prepared for 

the workshop on “Land and spirituality”: World Council of Churches and Zimbabwe 

Council of Churches, Mutare, Zimbabwe, 24-29 May 1998. 

Ascher, W. 2001. Coping with complexity and organizational interests in natural resource 

management. Ecosystems, 4 (8): 742-757. 

Attfield, R. and Wilkins, B. 1992. International justice and the Third World. Routledge, 

London. 

Barbier, E. B., Acrememan, M. and Knower, D. 1997. Economic valuation of wetlands: guide 

for policy and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland. 

Barnard, A. 1992. Hunters and herders of Southern Africa: A comparative ethnography of the 

Khoisan peoples. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Barrow, E. and Mogaka, H. 2007. Kenya’s Drylands - Wasteland or an undervalued national 

economic resource. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Baumann, P. 2004. Poverty and access to natural resources: insight from a sustainable 

livelihood perspective. Livelihood Support Programme briefing notes, Number 1. 

Benjaminsen, T. A., Kepe, T. and Bråthen, S. 2008. Between global interests and local needs: 

Conservation and land reform in Namaqualand, South Africa. Africa, 78 (2): 223-244. 

Benjaminsen, T.A., Rohde, R., Sjaastad, E., Wisbourg, 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): 524-540. 

Berkes, F. 2008a.Community conserved areas: Policy issues in historic and contemporary 

context. Conservation Letters, 2: 19-24. 

Berkes, F. 2008b. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging 

organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (5): 1692- 

1702. 

Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. PNAS, 104 (39): 

15188-15193. 

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource 

management, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia. 

184

Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (Eds.) 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: 

Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge 

as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5):1251-1262. 

Bleek, D. P. 1933. Beliefs and customs of the Ixam Bushmen. Part VI: Rain making. Bantu 

Studies, 7: 375-392. 

Blignaut, J. 2004. Towards economic development ethics. In: Sustainable options: 

Developing lessons from applied environmental economics. (Eds.) Blignaut J. N. and de 

Wit, M. UCT Press, Cape Town. Pp. 408-428. 

Blignaut, J. N. and de Wit, M. P. M. 1999. Integrating the natural environment and 

macroeconomic policy: Recommendations for South Africa. Agrekon, 38 (3): 374-394. 

Blignaut, J. and Moolman, C. 2006.Quantifying the potential of restored capital to alleviate 

poverty and help conserve nature. A case study from South Africa. Journal of Nature 

Conservation, 14: 237-248. 

Blomquist, W. 2009. Multi-level governance and natural resources management: The 

challenges of complexity, diversity and uncertainty. In: Institutions and sustainability: 

political economy of agriculture and the environment - Essays in Honour of Konrad 

Hagedorn. (Eds.). Beckmann, V., Padmanabhan, M., Springer, UK. Pp. 109-126. 

Bond, I. 1994. Importance of elephant sport hunting to CAMPFIRE revenue in Zimbabwe. 

TRAFFIC Bulletin, 14 (3): 117-119. 

Boonzaier, E. 1996. Local responses to conservation in Richtersveld National Park, South 

Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5 (3): 307-314. 

Borrin-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M. T., Kothari, A. and Renard, Y. 2004. 

Sharing power: Learning-by-doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the 

world. IIED-IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M. T., Nguinguiri, J. C. and Ndangang, V. A. 2000. 

Co-management of natural resources: Organizing, negotiating and learning by doing. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland. 

Bosch, D. 2005. Land conflict management in South Africa: lessons learned from a land 

rights approach. http://www.fao.org/?DOCREP/006/J0415T/j0415t0a.htm. 

Bosch, D. and Hirschfeld, E. (Eds.). 2002. The Ae! !Hai Kalahari Heritage Park Bundle. 

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, Pretoria, South Africa. 

Bradstock, A. 2006. Land reform and livelihoods in South Africa's Northern Cape Province. 

Land Use Policy, 23 (3):247-259. 

185

Bradstock, A. 2004. Implementing land reform in South Africa’s Northern Cape Province. 

Network Paper No. 137, ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network, UK. 

Brander, L. M., Raymond, J. G. M. F. and Vermaat, J. E. 2006. The empirics of wetland 

valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental 

and Resource Economics, 33: 223-250. 

Bright, M. 2005. 1001 Natural wonders you must see before you die. Quintet Publishing 

Limited, London. 

Brinkhurst, M. 2010. Fruit sand: Complexities of Botswana's veld plant resources. Studies by 

Undergraduate Researchers at Guelph, 3 (2): 10-22. 

Brockington, D. 2004. Community conservation, inequality and injustice: Myths of power in 

protected area management. Conservation and Society, 2 (2): 411-432. 

Brockington, D., Igoe, J. and Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2006. Conservation, human rights and 

poverty reduction. Conservation Biology, 20 (1): 250-252. 

Brown, H. C. P. and Lassoie, J. P. 2010. Institutional choice and local legitimacy in 

community-based forest management: Lessons from Cameroon. Environmental 

Conservation 37 (3): 261-269. 

Bryman, A. 2008. Social Research Methods. 3 rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Büscher, B. 2010. Seeking `telos' in the `transfrontier'? Neo-liberalism and the transcending 

of community conservation in Southern Africa. Environment and Planning A, 42 (3): 

644-660. 

Byers, B.A. 1996. Understanding and influencing behaviours in conservation and natural 

resources management. Biodiversity Support Programme, Washington, D.C. 

Byers, B. A., Cunliffe, R. N. and Hudak, A. T. 2001. Linking the conservation of culture and 

nature: A case study of sacred forests in Zimbabwe. Human Ecology, 29 (2): 187-218. 

Campbell, B. M. and Luckert, M. K. (Eds.) 2002. Uncovering the hidden harvest: Valuation 

methods for woodland and forest resources. Earthscan, London, UK. 

Campbell, B., Mandondo, A. N., Sithole, B., de Jong, W., Luckert, M. and Matose, F. 2001. 

Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: Despairing voices from 

the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Development, 29 (4): 589-600. 

Campbell, B. M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M. and Zindi, C. 2002. 

Household livelihoods in semi-arid areas: Options and constraints. Centre for International 

Forestry Research, Indonesia. 

Campbell, B. M., Luckert, M. and Scoones, I. 1997. Local level valuation of savanna 

resources: A case study from Zimbabwe. Economic Botany, 51 (1): 59-77. 

186

Carney, D. 1999. Approaches to sustainable livelihoods for the rural poor. Overseas 

Development Institute, London. 

Carruthers, J. 1997. Nationhood and national parks: Comparative examples from the postimperial 

experience. In: Ecology and empire. Environmental history of settler societies. 

(Eds.) Griffiths, T. and Robin, L. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg. Pp. 125- 

139. 

Carruthers, J. 1995. The Kruger National Park: A social and political history. University of 

Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, SA. 

Cavendish, W. 2002. Quantitative methods for estimating the economic value of resource use 

to rural households. In: Uncovering the hidden harvest: Valuation methods for woodland 

and forest resources. (Eds.) Campbell, B.M. and Luckert, M.K., CIFOR, Bogor. Pp. 17- 

66. 

Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical irregularities in the poverty-environment relationships of rural 

households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 28 (11): 1979-2003. 

Cavendish, W. and Campbell, B. M. 2002. Poverty, environmental income and rural 

inequality: A case study from Zimbabwe. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 

Cernea, M. M. and Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2006. Poverty risks and national parks: Policy issues 

in conservation and resettlement. World Development, 34 (10):1808-1830. 

Chambers R. and Conway, G. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 

21st century. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. 

Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. Excerpted from the November/December 

2004 WORLDWATCH magazine, World Watch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org. 

Chennells, R. 2009. Vulnerability and indigenous communities: Are the San of South Africa a 

vulnerable people? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18 (2): 147-154. 

Chennells, R. 2007. San Hoodia Case. A Report for GenBenefit. 

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/genbenefit. [Accessed 15 August 2011]. 

Chennells, R. 2001. Case Study 9 - South Africa: The #Khomani San of South Africa. 

Unpublished report, Cape Town, South Africa. 

http://archive.forestpeoples.org/documents/africa/s_africa_eng.pdf. 

Chennells, R. 1999. ‘What have we achieved?’ Unpublished report for the South African San 

Institute. SASI, Cape Town, South Africa. 

Child, C. 1995. Wildlife and people: The Zimbabwean success. Wisdom Foundation, Harare, 

Zimbabwe. 

Chopra, K. 1993. The value for non-timber forest products: An estimation for tropical 

deciduous forests in India. Economic Botany, 47 (3): 251-257. 

187

Claus, C. N., Chan, K. M. A. and Satterfield, T. 2010. The roles of people in conservation. In: 

Conservation biology for all. (Eds.) Sodhi, N. S. and Ehrlich, P. R., Oxford University 

Press, Oxford. Pp. 262-283. 

Cleaver, F. 1999. Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to 

development. Journal of International Development, 11 (4): 597-612. 

Cock, J. and Fig, D. 2000. From colonial to community based conservation: Environmental 

justice and the national parks of South Africa. Society in Transition, 31 (1): 22-35. 

Cocks, M. 2006. Wild plant resources and cultural practices in rural and urban households in 

South Africa. Implications for bio-diversity conservation. Unpublished PhD thesis, 

Wageningen University, Wageningen, 

Cocks, M. L., Bangay, L., Wiersum, K. F. and Dold, A. P. 2006. Seeing the wood for the 

tress: The role of woody resource for the construction of gender specific household 

cultural artefacts in non-traditional communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. 

Environmental Development Sustainability, 8: 519-533. 

Cocks, M. L. and Dold, A. P. 2006. Conservation of bio-cultural diversity: The role of 

medicinal plants in Xhosa culture. Journal of Ethnobiology, 26 (1): 60-80. 

Cocks, M. L. and Dold, A. P. 2004. A new broom sweeps clean: The economic and cultural 

value of grass brooms in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Forests, Trees and 

Livelihoods, 13: 33-42. 

Colchester, M. 1997. Salvaging nature: Indigenous peoples and protected areas. In: 

Social change and conservation. (Eds.) Ghimire, K.B. and Pimbert, M.P., Earthscan, 

London. Pp. 97-130. 

Colfer, C. J., Peluso, N. and Chung, C. S. 1997. Beyond slash and burn. New York Botanical 

Garden, New York, USA. 

Collomb, J. G. E., Mupeta, P., Barnes, G. and Child, B. 2010. Integrating governance and 

socioeconomic indicators to assess the performance of community-based natural resources 

management in Caprivi (Namibia). Environmental Conservation, 37 (3): 303-309. 

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., 

Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. 

“The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.” Nature, 387: 253-260. 

Cousins, B. 1999. Invisible capital: The contribution of communal rangelands to rural 

livelihoods in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 16 (2): 299-318. 

Crane, T. A. 2010. Of models and meanings: Cultural resilience in social-ecological systems. 

Ecology and Society, 15 (4):19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art19/. 

Creswell, J. W. (Ed.). 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods 

approaches (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. 

188

de Groot, R. S., Matthew, A.W. and Boumans, R. M. J. 2002. A typology for the 

classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. 

Ecological Economics, 41 (3): 393-408. 

de Koning, M. 2009. Co-management and options in protected areas of South Africa. 

Africanus, 39 (2): 5-17. 

de Villiers, M. C., Pretorius, D. J., Barnard, R. O., Van Zyl, A. J. and Le Clus, C. F. 2002. 

Land degradation assessment in dryland areas: South Africa. 

Paper for Land Degradation Assessment in Dryland Project, FAO, Rome, Italy. 

DEAT. 1997. White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity. 

Department of Environment and Tourism, Pretoria. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2003. National Biodiversity Strategy and 

Action Plan. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. 

DFA (Department of Foreign Affairs). 2004. Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs): 

History and present status. http://www.dfa.gov.za/foreign/Multilateral/inter/tfcas.htm 

[Accessed 17 May 2011]. 

Dharmaratne, G. S. and Strand, I. 1999. Approach and methodology for natural resources and 

environmental valuation. Monograph Centre for Resource Management and 

Environmental Studies, University of the West Indies and Barbados Department of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, USA. 

DLA. 1997. White Paper on South African Land Policy. Department of Land Affairs, 

Pretoria. 

Dovie, B. D., Shackleton, C. M. and Witkowski, E. T. 2006. Conceptualizing the human use 

of wild edible herbs for conservation in South African communal areas. Journal of 

Environmental Management, 84 (2):146-156. 

Dovie, B. D. K. 2004. Economic valuation of secondary resources in the context of total 

livelihoods. In: Indigenous forests and woodlands in South Africa: Policy, people and 

practice (Eds.) Lawes, M. J., Eeley, H .C., Shackleton C. M. and Geach, B. S., University 

of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg. Pp. 197-199. 

Dovie, B. D. K., Shackleton, C. M. and Witkowski, E. T. F. 2006. Valuation of communal 

area livestock benefits, rural livelihoods and related policy issues. Land Use Policy, 23 

(3): 260-271. 

du Toit, J. T., Rogers, K. H. and Biggs, H. C. (Eds.) 2003. The Kruger experience: Ecology 

and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press, Washington DC. 

Eide, A., Krause, C. and Rosas, A. (Eds.) 2002. Economic, social and cultural rights: A text 

book second revised edition. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. 

189

Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University 

Press, Oxford. 

Ellis, F. 1998. Survey article: Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The 

Journal of Development Studies, 35 (1):1-38. 

Ellis, W. 2010. The #Khomani San land claim against the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park: 

Requiring and acquiring authenticity. In: Land, memory, reconstruction and justice. 

(Eds.). Walker, C., Bohlin, A., Hall R. and Kepe, T. Ohio University Press, Ohio. Pp 181- 

197. 

EMDP. 2009. Erin Management and Development Plan. Andriesvale-Ashkam, Northern 

Cape, South Africa. 

Fabricius, C. 2004. The fundamentals of community-based natural resource management. In: 

Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource 

management in Southern Africa. (Eds.) Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Magome, H. and Turner, 

S., Earthscan, London. Pp. 3-43. 

Fabricius, C. and de Wet, C. 2002. The influence of forced removals and land restitution on 

conservation in South Africa. In: Conservation and mobile indigenous peoples: 

Displacement, forced settlement and conservation. (Eds.) Chatty, D. and Colchester, M. 

Berghahn Books, New York/Oxford. Pp. 142 -157. 

Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Magome, H. and Turner, S. (Eds.) 2004. Rights, resources and rural 

development: Community-based natural resources management in Southern Africa. 

Earthscan, London. 

Fabricius, C., Scholes, R. J. and Cundill, G. 2006. Mobilising knowledge for ecosystem 

management. In: Bridging scales and knowledge systems. Concepts and applications in 

ecosystem assessment. (Eds). Reid, W.V., Berkes, F. Wilbanks, T. J. and Capistrano, D. 

Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Farber, S., Costanza, R. and Wilson, M. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing 

ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41 (3): 375-392. 

Ferraro, P. J. and Pattanayak, S. K. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation 

of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4 (4): 0482-0488. 

Finer, M., Vijay, V., Ponce, F., Jenkins, C. N. and Kahn, T. R. 2009. Ecuador’s Yasuni 

Biosphere Reserve: A brief modern history and conservation challenges. Environmental 

Research Letters, 2 (2009):1-15. 

Fisher, M. 2004. Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment 

and Development Economics, 9 (2):135-154. 

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of socialecological 

systems. Annual review of environment and resources, 30: 441-473. 

190

Forsyth, T. 2007. Multilevel, multiactor governance in REDD + Participation, integration and 

coordination.http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/fileadmin/downloads/realisingredd9.pd 

f. [Accessed 18 March 2010]. 

Francis, E. 2000. Making a living: Changing livelihoods in rural Africa. Routledge, London. 

Freitag-Ronaldson, S. and Foxcroft, L.C. 2003. Anthropogenic influences at the ecosystem 

level. In: The Kruger experience: Ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity, 

(Eds.). du Toit, J. T., Rogers, K. V. and Biggs, H. C. Washington, DC, Island Press. Pp 

391-421. 

Gall, S. 2001. The Bushmen of Southern Africa: Slaughter of the innocent. Chatto and 

Windus, London. 

Garcia-Alix, L. and Hitchcock, R. K. 2009. A report from the field: The Declaration on the 

rights of indigenous peoples - implementation and implications. Genocide Studies and 

Prevention, 4 (1): 99-109. 

Garnett, S.T., Sayer, J. and du Toit, J. 2007. Improving the effectiveness of interventions to 

balance conservation and development: A conceptual framework. Ecology and Society 12 

(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art2/. 

Gartlan, S. 1998. Every man for himself and God against all: history, social science and the 

conservation of nature. In: Resource use in the Trinational Sangha River Region of 

Equitorial Africa: Histories, knowledge, forms and institutions (Eds.) Eves, H., Hardin, 

R. and Rupp, S. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale, USA. Pp. 216- 

226. 

GCWG (The Grasslands Carbon Working Group). 2011. Rangelands and climate change: 

Mitigation, adaptation and co-benefits. 

http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/rangelands/Draft-GCWG- 

Brief-IRC-April2011__28-3-11rev2___3_1__2_.pdf. [Accessed 20 June 2011]. 

Ghimire, K. and Pimbert, M. (Eds.). 1997. Social change and conservation: Environmental 

politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. Earthscan Publications, 

London. 

Godoy, R., Brokaw, N. and Wilkie, D. 1995. The effect of income on the extraction of nontimber 

tropical forest products: Model, hypothesis, and preliminary findings from the 

Sumu Indinas of Nicaragua. Human Ecology, 2 (1): 29-52. 

Godoy, R., Overman, H., Demmer, J., Apaza, L., Byron, E., Huanca, T., Leonard, W., Perez, 

E., Reyes- Garcia, V., Vadez, V., Wilkie, D., Cubas, A., McSweeney, K. and Brokaw, N. 

2002. Local financial benefits of rain forests: comparative evidence from Amerindian 

societies in Bolivia and Honduras. Ecological Economics, 40 (3): 397-409. 

Goebel, A. 2005. Is Zimbabwe the future of South Africa? The implications for land reform in 

Southern Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 23:345-364. 

191

Gram, S. 2001. Economic valuation of special forest products: An assessment of 

methodological shortcomings. Ecological Economics, 36 (1):109-117. 

Grossman, D. and Ganda, M. V. 1989. Land transformation in South Africa’s savanna 

regions. South African Geographical Journal, 71: 38-45. 

Grossman, D. and Holden, P. 2009. Towards transformation: Contractual national parks in 

South Africa. In: Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game 

ranches to Transfrontier Conservation Areas. (Eds.) Suich, H., Child, B. and Spenceley, 

A. Earthscan, UK. Pp. 357-372. 

Guirand, F. (1987). New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology: Introduction by Robert 

Graves. Crescent Books, New York. 

Gujarati, D. N. and Porter, D. C. 2009. Basic econometrics (5 th Edition). Mcgraw-Hill, New 

York. 

Hanks, J. 2003. Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in Southern Africa: Their role in 

conserving biodiversity, socioeconomic development and promoting a culture of peace. 

Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 17 (1/2):127-148. 

Hannon, B. 2001. Ecological pricing and economic efficiency. Ecological Economics, 36 

(1):19-30. 

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (1): 243–248. 

Harmony, D. and Putney, D.A. (Eds.). 2003. The full value of parks: From economics to the 

intangible. Rowman and Littlefield publishers, USA. 

Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, nature and geography of difference. Blackwell, Oxford. 

Hayes, T. M. 2006. Parks, people and forest protection: An institutional assessment of the 

effectiveness of protected areas. World Development, 34 (12): 2064-2075. 

Heal, G. 2000. Nature and the marketplace: Capturing the value of ecosystem services. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Heinz, H. J. 1972. Territoriality among the Bushmen in general and the !Xo in particular. 

Anthropos, 67: 405-416. 

Heinz, H. J. 1979. The nexus complex among the !Xo Bushmen of Botswana. Anthropos, 

74:465-80. 

Hitchcock, R. K. 2002. We are the first people: Land, natural resources and identity in the 

Central Kalahari, Botswana. Journal of Southern African Studies, 28, (4): 797-824. 

Hitchcock, R. K. 1987. Anthropological research and remote area development among 

Botswana Basarwa. In: Research for development in Botswana. (Eds.) Hitchcock, R. 

Parsons, N. and Taylor, J. Botswana Society, Gaborone. Pp. 437-451. 

192

Hitchcock, R. K., 1996. Kalahari communities: Bushmen and the politics of the environment 

in Southern Africa. IWGIA document Number 79. 

Hoff, M. D. and McNutt, J. G. 1994. The global environmental crisis: Implications for social 

welfare and social work. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England. 

Holden, P. 2007. Conservation and human rights: The case of the Khomani San (Bushmen) 

and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, South Africa. Policy Matters, 15: 57-68. 

Holmes-Watts, T. and Watts, S. 2008. Legal frameworks for and the practice of participatory 

natural resources management in South Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 10 (7-8): 

435-443. 

Hornby, A.S., Wehmeier, S. and Ashby, M. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 

Current English (6 th Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Howarth, R. and Farber, S. 2002. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological 

Economics, 41 (3): 421-429. 

Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. 2001. African wildlife and livelihoods: The promise and 

performance of community conservation. James Currey, London. 

Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. 1999. Communities, wildlife and the “now conservation” in 

Africa. Journal of International Development, 11: 277-285. 

Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D., Russell, P. and Thornton, T. F. 2003. Huna Tlingit traditional 

environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “wilderness” park. 

Current Anthropology, 44: S79-S103. 

Hupston, F., 2009. Khoisan - Indigenous people of Southern Africa. Early inhabitants of 

Kalahari region of sub-Saharan Africa. http://culturalanthropology.suite101.com/article.cfm/khoisan_indigenous_people_of_southern_africa. 

[Accessed 18 May 2009]. 

Hutton, J. M. and Leader-Williams, N. 2003. Sustainable use and incentive-driven 

conservation: Realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx, 37: 215-226. 

ICEM. 2003. Protected areas and development: Lessons from the Lao People’s Democratic 

Republic. http://www.mekong-protected-areas.org/lao_pdr/docs/lao_lessons.pdf. 

[Accessed 30 December 2010]. 

IIED. 2009. Arid waste? Reassessing the value of dryland pastoralism. 

http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=17065IIED. [Accessed 15 August 2011]. 

IIED. 1997. Valuing the hidden harvest: Methodological approaches for local-level Economic 

analysis of wild resources. In: Sustainable Agriculture Programme Research Series 3, 

Volume 4. IIED, London. 

193

IUCN 2004. 2003 Durban World Parks Congress. The International Journal for Protected 

Area Managers, 14 (2):1-64. 

IUCN Collaborative Management Working Group (CMWG) and Theme Indigenous and 

Local Communities, Equity and Protected Areas (TILCEPA). 2004. Governance of 

natural resources - the key to a just world that values and conserves nature? CENESTA, 

Tehran, Iran. 

Jin, J., Wang, Z., Ran, S. and Yun C. 2003. Study on coastal resource evaluation theories and 

methods. Paper presented at the International Conference on Estuaries and Coasts, 

Hangzhou, China, 9-11 November 2003. 

Jodha, N. S. 1995. Common property resources and the dynamics of rural poverty in India's 

dry regions. Unasylva, 46 (180): 23-29. 

Jones, L. and Boyd, E. Exploring social barriers to adaptation: Insights from Western Nepal. 

Global Environmental Change. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.002 

Jones, S. and Carswell, G. (Eds.) 2004. The Earthscan reader in environment, development 

and rural livelihoods. Earthscan, UK. 

Kabubu-Mariara, J. 2008. Forest dependence and household welfare: empirical evidence from 

Kenya. CEEPA Discussion Paper No 41. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy 

in Africa, University of Pretoria. 

Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P. and Sjaastad, E. 2008. Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in 

Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecological Economics, 68 (3): 613-624. 

Kanowski, P. J. and Williams, K. J. H. 2009. The reality of imagination: Integrating the 

material and cultural values of old forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 258 (2009): 

341-346. 

Katz, R. 1982. Accepting ‘boiling energy’. Ethos, 10 (3): 344-368. 

Kelleher, G. and Phillips, A. (Eds.) 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. IUCN - Best 

Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series Number 3. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge. 

Kepe, T. 2008a. Beyond the numbers: Understanding the value of vegetation to rural 

livelihoods in Africa. Geoforum, 39 (2): 958-968. 

Kepe, T. 2008b. Land claims and co-management of protected areas in South Africa: 

Exploring the challenges. Environmental Management, 41: 311-321. 

Kepe, T. V. 2002. Grassland vegetation and rural livelihoods: A case study of resource value 

and social dynamics on the Wild Coast, South Africa, Unpublished PhD thesis, University 

of the Western Cape, Cape Town. 

194

Kepe, T. 2001. Waking up from the dream: The pitfalls of “fast-track”. Development on the 

Wild Coast of South Africa. Research Report Number 8, Programme for Land and 

Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, Bellville. 

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. 

Kerven, C. and Behnke, R. (Eds.) 2007. A preliminary assessment of the economic value of 

the goods and services provided by dryland ecosystems of the Aïr and Ténéré, Niger. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Keyzer, M. A., Sonneveld, B. G. J. S. and Veen, W. V. 2006. Valuation of natural resources: 

Efficiency and equity. Centre for World Food Studies of the Vrije Universiteit 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 

Khomani San. 2007. Protocols for Sustainable Resources use and Cultural Activities of 

#Khomani San in the !AE! HAI Kgalagadi Heritage Park and the Area in the Kgalagadi 

Transfrontier Park in which they have Cultural and Symbolic Rights. #Khomani San, 

Andriesvale-Kalahari. 

Kiss, A. 2004. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19 (5): 232-237. 

Koontz, T. M. 2003. An introduction to the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) 

framework for forest management research. Paper prepared for “First Nations and 

Sustainable Forestry: Institutional conditions for success,” workshop, University of 

British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, Vancouver, B.C., 23-24 October 2003. 

Koster, H. P. 2000. Livelihoods and the farming sector of the Mier community in the 

Northern Cape Province. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. 

Laudati, A. 2010. Ecotourism: the modern predator? Implications of gorilla tourism on local 

livelihoods in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. Environmental Planning D: 

Society and Space, 28 (4): 726-743. 

Lee, R. B. 2006. Twenty-first century indigenism. Anthropological Theory, 6 (4): 455-479. 

Lee, R. B. and Hitchcock, R. K. 2001. African hunter-gatherers: Survival, history and the 

politics of identity. African Study Monographs Supplement 26: 257-280. 

Lee, R. B. 1979. The! Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge and New York. 

Lee, R. B. 1968. The hunters: Scarce resources in the Kalahari. In Man the hunter, (Eds.) Lee, 

R.B. and Devore, I. Aldine, Chicago. Pp. 108-123. 

Levin, R. and Weiner, D. (Eds.) 1997. No more tears: struggles for land in Mpumalanga, 

South Africa. World Africa Press, Trenton, New Jersey. 

195

Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1998. Quanto? The issue of 'many meanings' in Southern African San 

rock art research. JSTOR-The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 53 (168): 86-97. 

Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1986. The last testament of the Southern San. JSTOR-The South African 

Archaeological Bulletin, 41 (143):10-11. 

Limburg, K., O’Neill, R., Costanza, R. and Farber, S. 2002. Complex systems and valuation. 

Ecological Economics, 41 (3): 409-420. 

Long, N. and Long, A. (Eds.) 1992. Battlefields of knowledge: The interlocking of theory and 

practice in social research and development. Routledge, London, UK. 

Low, A. B. and Rebelo, A. G. 1998. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa. 

Lynam, T., Bousquet, F., Le Page, C., d'Aquino, P., Barreteau, O., Chinembiri, F. and 

Mombeshora, B. 2002. Adapting science to adaptive managers: Spidergrams, belief 

models, and multi-agent systems modeling. Conservation Ecology, 5 (2): 24. [online] 

URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art24. 

Lynam, T., De Jong, W., Sheil, D. K. T. and Evans, K. 2007. A review of tools for 

incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in 

natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12 (1): 5. [online] URL: 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/ 

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being. A 

framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington. 

Madzwamuse, M., Schuster, B. and Nherera, B. 2007. The real jewels of the Kalahari: 

Drylands ecosystem goods and services in Kgalagadi South District, Botswana. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland. 

Makhanya, M. 2011. Will this nation allow its languages to die out - from sheer neglect? 

Sunday Times, 1 May 2011. 

Mamo, G., Sjaastad, E. and Vedeld, P. 2007. Economic dependence on forest resources: A 

case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics, 9 (8): 916-927 

Mandondo, A. 1997. Trees and spaces as emotion and norm laden components of local 

ecosystems in Nyamaropa communal land, Nyanga District, Zimbabwe. Agriculture and 

Human Values, 14: 353-372. 

Mannetti, L. 2010. Understanding plant use by the #Khomani Bushmen of the Southern 

Kalahari. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch. 

Martens, C. 2009. The governance and management of commonages in three small towns in 

the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Rhodes University, 

Grahamstown. 

196

Maruyama, J. 2003. The impact of resettlement on livelihood and social relationships among 

the Central Kalahari San. African Study Monographs, 24, (4): 223-245. 

Masekoameng, K. E., Simalenga, T. E. and Saidi, T. 2005. Household energy needs and 

utilization patterns in the Giyani rural communities of Limpopo Province, South Africa. 

Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 16 (3): 4-9. 

Massyn, J. and Humphrey, E. 2010. Tourism development plan: #Khomani San community. 

The African Safari Lodge Foundation, Parkview, South Africa. 

Matose, F. 2008. Institutional configurations around forest reserves in Zimbabwe: The 

challenge of nested institutions for resource management. Local Environment, 13 (5): 393- 

404. 

McCall, G. S. 2000. Why the eland? An analysis of the role of sexual dimorphism in San rock 

art. http://www.rupestre.net/tracce/12/eland.html. [Accessed 21 June 2011]. 

McCusker, B. 2004. Land use and cover change as an indicator of Transformation on recently 

redistributed farms in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Human Ecology, 32 (1): 49-75. 

McNeely, J. 1995. Expanding partnerships in conservation. Island Press, Washington DC. 

Mhiripiri, N. A. 2008. The Tourist viewer, the Bushmen and the Zulu: Imaging and 

(re)invention of identities through contemporary visual cultural productions. Unpublished 

PhD thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal. 

Milton, J. S. and Bond, C. 1986. Thorn trees and the quality of life in Msinga. Social 

Dynamics, 12, (2): 64-76. 

Mmopelwa, G., Blignaut, J. and Hassan, R. 2009. Direct-use values of selected vegetation 

resources in the Okavango Delta Wetland. SAJEMS NS, 12 (2): 242-255. 

Muchapondwa, E., Biggs, H., Driver, A., Matose, F., Moore, K., Mungatana, E. and 

Scheepers, K. 2009. Using economic incentives to encourage conservation in Bioregions 

in South Africa. Working Paper No 120, University of Cape Town/SANParks/SANBI/ 

University of Pretoria. 

Munasinghe, M. and Lutz, E. 1993. Environmental economics and valuation in development 

decision-making. In: Environmental economics and natural resource management in 

developing countries. (Ed.) Munasinghe, M. World Bank, Washington, DC. Pp. 17-45. 

Murphree, M. 1996. Approaches to community conservation. In: African wildlife policy 

consultation: Final report. (Ed.) O.D.A., O.D.A, London. Pp. 155-188. 

Murphree, M. W. 2000. Community-based conservation: Old ways, new myths and enduring 

challenges. Key address at the conference on 'African Wildlife Management in the New 

Millenium' Tanzania, Mweka, Tanzania: College of African Wildlife Management, 13-15 

December 2000. 

197

Nemarundwe, N. and Richards, M. 2002. Participatory methods for exploring livelihood 

values derived from forests: potential and limitations. In: Uncovering the hidden harvest: 

Valuation methods for woodland and forest resources. People and plants conservation 

series. (Eds.) Campbell, B. M. and Luckert, M. K. Earthscan, London, UK. Pp. 169-196. 

Neumann, R. P. 1998. Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation 

in Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Neumann, R. P. 1997. Primitive Ideas: Protected Area Buffer Zones and the Politics of Land 

in Africa. Development and Change, 28: 559-582. 

North, D. 1990. Institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Zéba, S. and Gamassa, D.M., and Bonnhéin, L. 2001. Principles in 

practice: Staff observations of conservation projects in Africa. Biodiversity Support 

Program, Washington DC. 

Oates, J. F. 1999. Myth and reality in the rainforest: How conservation strategies are failing in 

Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Ohmagari, K. and Berkes, F. 1997. Transmission of indigenous knowledge and bush skills 

among the Western James Bay Cree Women of Subarctic Canada. Human Ecology, 25 

(2): 197-222. 

Oldham, P. and Frank, M. A. 2008. ‘We the peoples...’ The United Nations Declaration on the 

Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Anthropology Today, 24 (2): 5-9. 

Oliver, H. K. 1995. Estimating the value of marine resources: A marine recreation case. 

Ocean and Coastal Management, 27 (1-2): 129-141. 

Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Berkes, F. 2004. Adaptive co-management for building resilience in 

social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 3: 75-90. 

Ostrom, E., 2007. “Institutional Rational Choice: An assessment of the Institutional Analysis 

and Development Framework.” In Sabatier, P., (Ed.) 2007. Theories of the policy 

process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Ostrom, E. 1999. Self-governance and forest resources. CIFOR Occasional Paper Number 20, 

Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J. 1994. Rules, games, and common pool resources. 

University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A. and Anderies, J. M. 2007. Going beyond panaceas. PNAS, 104 

(39): 15176-15178 

198

Palmer, R., Timmermans, H. and Fay, D. (Eds.) 2002. From conflict to negotiation: Naturebased 

development on the South African Wild Coast. Human Sciences Research Council, 

Pretoria. 

PANRUSA (Poverty, Policy and Natural Resource Use in Southern Africa). 2001. People, 

rangeland change and sustainability in the arid South West: 

http://www.shef.ac.uk/panrusa. [Accessed 21 June 2011]. 

Peet, R. and Watts, M. 2004. Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social 

movements (2 nd edition). Routledge, London and New York. 

Peluso, N. L. 1993. Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global 

Environmental Change, 3:199-217. 

Peters, C., Gentry, A. and Mendelsohn, R. 1989. Valuation of an Amazon rainforest. Nature 

339: 655-656. 

Pollard, S., Shackleton, C. and Carruthers, J. 2003. Beyond the fence: People and the 

Lowveld Landscape. In: The Kruger experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna 

Heterogeneity. (Eds.) du Toit, J. T., Rogers, K. H. and Biggs, H. C. Island Press, 

Washington DC. Pp 59-80. 

Posey, D. A. 1999. Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity: A complementary 

contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. In: Cultural and spiritual values of 

biodiversity. (Ed.) Posey, D. A. United Nations Environmental Programme and 

Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Pp. 1-19. 

Poteete, A. and Ostrom, E. 2002. An institutional approach to the study of forest resources. 

International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) Research Program, Indiana 

University. 

Pretty, J. (Ed.) 2006. Environment: Key issues for the Twenty-First Century (Volume 1). 

Thinking and knowing about the environment and nature. SAGE publications, London. 

Pretty, J. and Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29 (2): 

209-227. 

Ramutsindela, M. 2007. Transfrontier conservation in Africa: At the confluence of capital, 

politics and nature. CABI, Nosworthy Way and Massachusetts. 

Ramutsindela, M. 2006. State restructuring and rural development in South Africa. In: 

Globalising rural development: Competing paradigms and emerging realities. (Ed.) 

Behera, M. C. Sage, New Delhi. Pp. 78-91. 

Ramutsindela, M. 2002. The perfect way to ending a painful past? Makuleke land deal in 

South Africa. Geoforum, 33 (1): 15-24. 

Ramutsindela, M. F. 1998. Compromises and consequences: An analysis of South Africa’s 

land reform programme. The Arab World Geographer, 1 (2): 155-169. 

199

Rao, M. and Ginsberg, J. 2010. From conservation theory to practice: Crossing the divide. In: 

Conservation biology for all. (Eds.) Sodhi, N.S. and Ehrlich, P.R. Oxford University 

Press, Oxford. Pp. 284-312. 

Reid, H., Fig, D., Magome, H. and Leader-Williams, N. 2004. Co-management of Contractual 

National Parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia. Conservation and Society, 2 (2): 

337-409. 

Richardson, R. 2004. A conceptual framework for comparative studies of higher education 

policy. An AIHEPS Working Paper. New York University, New York and the Centro de 

Investigacion y Estudios Avanzados, Mexico City. 

Robbins, P. 2004. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Blackwell, Oxford. 

Robins, G. 2001. NGO's, 'Bushmen' and double vision. The Khomani San land claim and the 

cultural politics of 'Community' and 'Development' in the Kalahari. Journal of Southern 

African Studies, 27 (4): 833-853. 

Robson, C. 1993. Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitionersresearchers. 

Blackwell, Oxford. 

Ross, R. 1983. Cape of torments: Slavery and resistance in South Africa. Routledge, London. 

SAHRC (South African Human Rights Commission). 2004. Report on the inquiry of human 

rights violations in the Khomani San community. Andriesvale-Askham Area, Kalahari. 

Sallu, S. M., Twyman, C. and Thomas, D. S. G. 2010. The multidimensional nature of 

biodiversity and social dynamics and implications for contemporary rural livelihoods in 

remote Kalahari settlements, Botswana. African Journal of Ecology, 47 (Suppliment 1): 

110-118. 

Sandwith, T., Shine, C., Hamilton, L. and Sheppard, D. 2001. Transboundary Protected Area 

for Peace and Co-operation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

SANParks. 2008. Developing a system for sustainable resource use by the Khomani San in 

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and environs: Potential project themes. South African 

National Parks, Kimberley. 

SANParks. 2006. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Park Management Plan. Ref No. 

16/1/5/1/5/11/1. http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kgalagadi/. [Accessed 18 May 2009]. 

Sayer, J., Ishwaran, N., Nasution, M. and Thorsell, J. 2000. World heritage forests: The World 

Heritage Convention as a mechanism for conserving tropical forest biodiversity. CIFOR, 

Government of Indonesia, UNESCO, Bogor. 

Schoffeleers, J. M. (Ed.) 1978. Guardians of the land: Essays on Central African territorial 

cults. Mambo Press, Zambeziana Series 5, Gwelo. 

200

Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS working paper 

72. Institute of Development Studies, UK. 

Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications, CA. 

Scovronick, N. C. and Turpie, J. K. 2009. Is enhanced tourism a reasonable explanation for 

transboundary conservation? An evaluation of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. 

Environmental Conservation, 36 (2):149-156. 

Shackleton, C. M., Netshiluvhi, T. R., Shackleton, S. E., Geach, B. S., Ballance, A. and 

Fairbanks, D. F. K. 1999. Direct use values of woodland resources from three rural 

villages. CSIR Report No ENV-P-I 98210, Pretoria. 

Shackleton, C. M. and Shackleton, S. E. 2004a. The importance of non-timber forest products 

in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: Evidence from South Africa. South African 

Journal of Science, 100: 658-664. 

Shackleton, C. M. and Shackleton, S. E. 2006. Household wealth status and natural resource 

use in the Kat River Valley, South Africa. Ecological Economics, 57 (2): 306-317. 

Shackleton, C. M. and Shackleton, S. E. 2000. Direct use values of secondary resources 

harvested from communal savannas in the Bushbuckridge Lowveld, South Africa. Journal 

of Tropical Forest Product, 6: 28-47. 

Shackleton, S. and Shackleton, C. 2007. Exploring the role of wild natural resources in 

poverty alleviation with an emphasis on South Africa. Paper prepared for the SANPAD 

conference on Poverty held in June 2007, Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes 

University, Grahamstown. 

Shackleton, S. and Shackleton, C. 2004b. Everyday resources are valuable enough for 

community-based natural resource management programme support. Evidence from South 

Africa. In: Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resources 


S. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA. Pp. 135-146. 

Shackleton, S. E. 2005. The significance of local-level trade in natural resource products for 

livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Unpublished PhD thesis, Rhodes 

University, Grahamstown. 

Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Lotz-Sisitka, H. and Shackleton, C. 2008. Links between the 

local trade in natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a semi-arid region of 

South Africa. World Development, 36 (3): 505-526. 

Shackleton, S, Delang, C. O. and Angelsen, A. (2011). From subsistence to safety nets and 

cash income. Exploring the diverse values of non-timber forest products for livelihoods 

and poverty alleviation. In: Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C. and Shanley, P. (Eds). Nontimber 

forest products in the global context. Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, 

New York, Pp 55-82. 

201

Shackleton, S. E., Shackleton, C. and Cousins, B. 2000a. The economic value of land and 

natural resources to rural livelihoods: Case studies from South Africa. In: At the 

Crossroads: Land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st Century. (Ed.) 

Cousins, B. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies and NLC, Bellville and 

Johannesburg. Pp. 35-67. 

Shackleton, S. E., Shackleton, C. and Cousins, B. 2000b. Re-valuing the communal lands of 

Southern Africa: New understandings of rural livelihoods. Natural Resources 

Perspectives 62. Overseas Development Institute, London. 

Shackleton, S. E., Shackleton, C. M., Netshiluvhi, T. R., Geach, B. S., Ballance, A. and 

Fairbanks, D. F. K. 2002. Use patterns and value of Savanna resources in three rural 

villages in South Africa. Economic Botany, 56 (2): 130-146. 

Shamai, S. 1991. Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22 (3): 347-358 

Sheil, D. and Wunder, S. 2002. The value of tropical forest to communities: complications, 

caveats, and cautions. Conservation Ecology, 6 (2): 9-25. 

Steyn, H. P. 1984. Southern Kalahari San subsistence ecology: A reconstruction. The South 

African Archaeological Bulletin, 39:117-124. 

Sunderland, T. 2006. Reconciling conservation and development: Is it possible? Background 

briefing note. CIFOR, Bogor. 

Sunderland, T. C. H., Ehringhaus, C. and Campbell, B. M. 2008. Conservation and 

development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs? Environmental 

Conservation, 34 (4): 276-279. 

Suzman, J. 2001. Regional Assessment of the Status of the San in Southern Africa. An 

introduction to the regional assessment of the status of the San in Southern Africa. Report 

No 1 of 5. Legal Assistance Centre, Windhoek. 

Tanaka, J. 1980. The San: Hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari. University of Tokyo Press, 

Tokyo. 

Tapela, B. N., Maluleke, L. and Mavhunga, C. 2007. New Architecture, Old Agendas: 

Perspectives on Social Research in Rural Communities Neighbouring the Kruger 

National Park. Conservation and Society, 5 (1): 60-87. 

Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for nature. Island Press, Washington D.C. 

Thoma, A. 1996. The communal land and resource management system of the San. Paper 

presented at the Consultative Conference on Communal Land Administration, Windhoek, 

Namibia, 27 September 1996. 

Thomas, D. S. G. and Twyman, C. 2004. Good or bad rangeland? Hybrid knowledge, science, 

and local understandings of vegetation dynamics in the Kalahari. Land Degradation and 

Development. 15 (3): 215-231. 

202

Thomas, E. M. 2006. The old way: A story of the first people. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New 

York. 

Thondhlana, G., Shackleton, S. and Muchapondwa, E. 2011. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 

and its land claimants: A pre- and post-land claim conservation and development history. 

Environmental Research Letters, 6 (2):1-12. [online] URL: stacks.iop.org/ERL/6/024009. 

Timmermans, H. 1999. Power relations and their impacts at Dwesa and Cwebe Wildlife and 

Marine Reserves - South Eastern Seaboard, South Africa. Unpublished report, 

International Institute for Environment and Development, London. 

Tomaselli, K. G. (Ed.). 2007. Writing in the San/d: Auto-ethnography amongst indigenous 

Southern Africans. Altamira Press, New York. 

Turner, R. K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V. and Georgiou, S. 2003. Valuing 

nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics, 46: 493- 

510. 

Turner, S. 2004. Community-based natural resource management and rural livelihoods. In: 

Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resources 


S. Earthscan, London. Pp 44-65 

Turpie, J. K. 2003. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: How interest, 

experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to 

pay. Ecological Economics, 46 (2): 199-216. 

Turpie, J., Barnes, J., Arntzen, J., Nherera, B., Lange, G. and Buzwani, B. 2006. Economic 

value of the Okavango Delta, Botswana and implications for management. IUCN. 

Twine, W., Moshe, D., Netshiluvhi, T. and Siphugu, V. 2003. Consumption and direct-use 

values of savanna bio-resources used by rural households in Mametja, a semi-arid area of 

Limpopo province, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 99: 467-473. 

Twyman, C. 2001. Natural resource use and livelihoods in Botswana’s wildlife management 

areas. Applied Geography, 21 (1): 45-68. 

Twyman, C. 2000. Livelihood opportunity and diversity in Kalahari wildlife management 

areas, Botswana: Rethinking community resource management. Journal of Southern 

African Studies, 26 (4): 783-806. 

Uberhuaga, P. and Olsen, C. S. 2008. Can we trust the data? Methodological experiences with 

forest product valuation in lowland Bolivia. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the 

Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics Lom, Norway, 6th-9th April. Scandinavian 

Forest Economics, 42: 508-524 (ISSN 0355-032X). 

UNDP. 2006. Kenya National Human Development Report: Human security and human 

development – A Deliberate Choice. UNDP, Nairobi. 

203

UNEP. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP, Nairobi. 

United Nations. 1994. Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, 

Switzerland. 

Useb, J. 2000. A history of water resource access in the southern Kalahari: San perspectives 

on the role of modern technology in dispossession and poverty. Paper presented at the 

2nd World Water Forum and Ministerial Conference, The Hague, 21 March 2002. 

Vaccaro, I. and Norman, K. 2007. Social Sciences and landscape analysis: Opportunities for 

the improvement of conservation policy design. Environmental Management, 88 (2): 360- 

371. 

van Rooyen, A. F. 1998. Combating desertification in the southern Kalahari: connecting 

science with community action in South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments, 39: 285- 

298. 

van Rooyen, N. and Bredenkamp, G. J. 1996. Shrubby Kalahari dune bushveld. In: Vegetation 

of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: A Companion to the Vegetation Map of South 

Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. (Eds.) Low, A. B. and Rebelo, A. G., Department of 

Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Pretoria. Pp. 33-35. 

Vatn, A. 2005. Institutions and the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. 

Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Sjaastad, E. and Berg, G. K. 2004. Counting on the environment: 

Forest incomes and the rural poor. Environmental Economics Series 98. The World Bank 

Environmental Department, The World Bank, Washington D.C. 

Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A. Sjaastad, E. and Bojø, J. 2007. Forest environmental incomes and 

the rural poor. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (7): 869-879. 

Vella, K. 2003. Assessing the institutional arrangements governing Australia’s outback 

resources, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Australia. 

Vinnicombe, P. 1972. Myth, motive, and selection in Southern African rock art. Journal of 

the International African Institute, 42 (3): 192-204. 

Wallman, S. 1984. Eight London households. Tavistock, London. 

Walsh, K. 2003. Qualitative research: Advancing the science and practice of hospitality. 

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 44 (12): 66-75. 

Watts, S. 2006. Strategic developments in natural forest conservation in South Africa. Journal 

of Sustainable Forestry, 22: 77-109. 

Wells, M., Brandon, K. and Hannah, L. 1992. People and parks: Linking protected area 

management with local communities. World Bank, Washington, DC. 

204

Wells, M. P. 1996. The social role of protected areas in the new South Africa. Environmental 

Conservation, 23 (4): 322-331. 

Western, D. and Wright, M. R. (Eds.) 1994. Natural connections: Perspectives in communitybased 

conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

White, A. T. and Cruz-Trinidad, A. 1998. The values of Philippine coastal resources: Why 

protection and management are critical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu 

City. 

Williams, G. 1996. Setting the agenda: A critique of the World Bank’s rural restructuring 

programme for South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 22: 139-166. 

Wilshusen, P., Brechin, S., Fortwangler, C. and West, P. 2002. Reinventing a square wheel: 

Critique of a resurgent ‘protection paradigm’ in international biodiversity conservation. 

Society and Natural Resources, 15 (1):17-40. 

Wilson, G. A. and Bryant, R. L. 1997. Environmental management: New directions for the 

twenty-first century. UCL Press, Great Britain. 

Wollenberg, E. and Ingles, A. (Eds.) 1998. Incomes from the forest: Methods for the 

development and conservation of forest products for local communities. CIFOR, Bogor. 

Worden, N. 1985. Slavery in Dutch South Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

World Bank. 2007. Poverty and the environment: Understanding linkages at the household 

level. The World Bank, Washington DC. 

World Bank. 2004. Strategic framework for assistance to Africa IDA and the emerging 

partnership model. The World Bank, Washington DC. 

World Bank. 2002a. From action to impact: The African region’s rural strategy. The 

International Bank for reconstruction and rural development. World Bank, Washington 

DC. 

World Bank. 2002b. Linking poverty reduction and environmental management: Policy 

challenges and opportunities. The World Bank, Washington, DC. 

World Bank. 2000/2001. Attacking poverty. World Development Report, World Bank, 

Washington D.C. 

WPC (World Parks Congress). 2011. Recommendations (R 1-32). 

http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/recommendations.htm. 

[Accessed 12 August 2011]. 

Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests-what scope for synergies? World 

Development, 29 (11): 1817-1833. 

205

Wynberg, R. and Kepe, T. 1999. Land reform and conservation areas in South Africa- 

Towards a mutually beneficial approach. IUCN, Pretoria. 

Young, O. R. 2002. The institutional dimension of environmental change: Fit, interplay and 

scale. Cambridge MA: The MIT press, London. 

WEBSITES 

http://www.cifor.org/pen – Center for International Forestry Research: The Poverty and 

Environmental Network (PEN) 

http://www.sanparks.org – South African National Parks 

http://www.sasi.org – South African San Institute 

http://www.dwaf.gov.za – Department of Water Affairs (South Africa) 

http://www.peaceparks.org/ - Peace parks Foundation 

http://www.world-geography.org/africa 

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

1. Mr Peter Makomele, Department of Land Affairs, Kimberley. South Africa 

2. Dr. David Grossman, Technical Advisor. Khomani San community, Andriesvale- 

Kalahari, South Africa. 

3. Mrs Phillipa Holden, Technical Advisor. Khomani San community, Andriesvale- 

Kalahari, South Africa. 

4. Mr Nico van der Walt. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Twierevien. 

5. Miss Kelly Scheepers, former Social Science Researcher, SANParks, Cape Town. 

6. Dawid Kruiper, Traditional Leader of the #Khomani San, Andriesvale-Kalahari, South 

Africa. 

7. Mr. Pieter Retief: Manager, Contract Park Community Lodge. 

8. SANParks management. 

206

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX 1: All plants cited by the San and Mier sample respondents. 

Scientific name Common name Plant use 

Harpagophytum ghamaghoe, devil's claw, Medicine 

procumbens 

duiwelsklou, kloudoring 

Koegab! Medicine 

Aptosimum 

albomarginatum 

Solanum Jakkalsbos Medicine 

Hoodia gordonii !khoba, //choba, bitterghaap, 

wilde ghaap 

Food/medicine 

Dicoma capensis verkouebos, korsbos Medicine 

Acacia erioloba Kameeldoring Fuel wood 

Citrullus lanatus tsamma, !samma Food 

Galenia sp. Slangneus Medicine 

Acanthosicyos 

naudinianus 

Gemsbokkomkommer Food 

Stipagrostis amabilis duinriet, duinsteekriet Household 

Senna italica Swartstorm Medicine 

Rhigozum trichotomum Driedoring Art 

Aristida diffusa Besemgras Household 

Acacia mellifera gnoibos, haakdoring, swarthaak Fuel wood 

Kohautia caespitosa bitterhout, vadershout, David 

Staan 

Medicine 

Hermbstaedtia fleckii Grashout Medicine 

Selago L. sp. Moedershout Medicine 

Pergularia daemia Kgaba Food, medicine 

Catophractes alexandri ncha, gelukshout, swartdoring, 

gabbabos 

Cultural 

Boscia albitrunca witgat, shepard's tree Fuel wood 

Adenium oleifolium ouheip, bitterkambro) Medicine 

Acacia luederitzii rooihaak,nchugras, swartbas Fuel wood 

Rhynchosia 

holosericea Schinz 

cf. Leeuhout Medicine 

Mentha longifolia teebos, kruisement Food 

Cucumis africanus small wild cucumber Food 

Aloe hereroensis Alwyn Medicine 

hereroensis) 

Kohautia cynanchica wit vergeet Medicine 

Virgilia oroboides wilde keur Medicine 

Syringa sp. Syringe Fuel wood 

Sutherlandia frutescens. kalkoen, 

kankerbos 

kalkoenbos, Medicine 

Parkinsonia africana lemoendoring, n!cams bos Household, Medicine 

Grewia flava rosyntjiebos, n!oubessie, Art 

207

Elephantorrhiza 

elephantina 

bessiebos 

rooibas, elandsboontjie Medicine 

Vinca major Opklim Medicine 

Stipagrostis uniplumis Boesman gras Household 

Sarcocaulon 

salmoniflorum 

Kersbos Medicine 

Echinopsis pachanoi San Pedro Cultural, Food 

Cissampelos capensis Dawedjies Medicine 

Boophone disticha Gifbol Medicine 

Acacia karroo soetdoring, sweet thorn Fuel wood, Cultural 

Acacia haematoxylon vaal kameeldoring Fuel wood 

Sceletium tortuosum kanna, channa, kougoed Food 

Ruta graveolens wyn riet Medicine 

Rhus tenuinervis nguni boom, kuniebos Food 

Radyera urens Pampoenbossie, Wilde kalbas Medicine, Fuel wood 

Phylica sp. Bitterbessie Medicine 

Petroselinum crispum Pieterselie, Parsley Food 

Nestlera conferta Volstruisbos Medicine 

Mesembryanthemum Vygies Medicine 

Melhania burchelli Goeiemanshout, Frankhout Medicine 

Galenia africana Kraalbos Medicine 

Euryops multifidus Skaapbos Medicine 

Dicerocaryum 

eriocarpum 

Elandbos Medicine 

Berula erecta subsp. Wolbos, Tandpynbossie Medicine 

thunbergii 

Asparagus sp. Katdoring Art 

Asclepias fruticosa Tontelbos, Kapokbossie Household, Medicine 

Artemisia afra Wilde als Medicine 

Aristida meridionalis Steekgras Household 

Aptosimum elongatum Magatho, Washout Medicine 

Terfezia pfeilii Kalahari truffle Food 

Agathosma Willd. Boegoe, Buchu Medicine 

Leonotis leonurus Wilde dagga Medicine 

Tridentea marientalensis 

subsp.marientalensis 

Kopseer, chipchebie Medicine 

208

APPENDIX 2: Plant use by part used by San and Mier (Adapted from Mannetti, 2010) 

Plant species Plant part used 

Root Stem Leaf Flower Fruit Seed Bulb 

Acacia erioloba X X X X 

Acacia haematoxylon X 

Acacia karroo X X X 

Acacia luederitzii var. luederitzii X X 

Acacia mellifera. subsp. detinens X 

Acanthosicyos naudinianus X X 

Adenium oleifolium X 

Agathosma betulina X 

Aloe hereroensis var. X 

hereroensis 

Aptosimum albomarginatum X X X 

Aptosimum elongatum X X X 

Aristida diffusa subsp. burkei X X 

Aristida meridionalis X 

Artemisia afra X 

Asclepias fruticosa X X X 

Asparagus sp. X X 

Berula erecta subsp. thunbergii X X 

Boophone disticha X 

Boscia albitrunca X X X X 

Catophractes alexandri X X 

Cissampelos capensis X X 

Citrullus lanatus X X 

Cucumis africanus X 

Dicerocaryum eriocarpum X 

Dicoma capensis X X X 

Echinopsis pachanoi X 

Elephantorrhiza elephantina X X X 

Euryops multifidus X 

Galenia africana X X 

Galenia sp. X 

Grewia flava X 

Harpagophytum procumbens X 

Hermbstaedtia fleckii X 

Hoodia gordonii X 

Kohautia caespitosa subsp. X 

brachyloba 

Kohautia cynanchica X 

Leonotis leonurus X 

Melhania burchelli X 

Mentha longifolia subsp. 

X 

capensis 

Mesembryanthemum spp. X X 

Nestlera conferta X X 

209

Parkinsonia africana X 

Pergularia 

daemia 

daemia subsp. 

X X 

Petroselinum crispum X X 

Phylica sp. X 

Radyera urens X 

Rhigozum trichotomum X 

Rhus tenuinervis X 

Rhynchosia cf. holosericea X 

Ruta graveolens X X X 

Sarcocaulon salmoniflorum X 

Sceletium tortuosum X X 

Selago sp. X 

Senna italica. subsp. arachoides X 

Solanum. sp. X 

Stipagrostis amabilis X X 

Stipagrostis 

uniplumis 

uniplumis var. 

X X 

Sutherlandia frutescens X X X 

Syringa sp. X 

Terfezia pfeilii X 

Tridentea marientalensis subsp. 

marientalensis 

X 

Vinca major X 

Virgilia 

oroboides 

oroboides subsp. 

X X 

210

APPENDIX 3: Medicinal plants harvested in the Contract Park on a permit system 

Common Name 

Scientific name 

1. Witnergeet Cf kohowtia sp 

2. Botterblam Hermannia cf stricta 

3. Moedershout Cf selago dinteri (walafrida saxatilis) 

4. Jan bloed (used after pregnancies to clean Saxatilis 

the womb) 

5. Frankhout Melhania burchelli (orange blom) 

6. Leeuhout Rhynchosia cf holosericea 

7. Vadershout/Bitterhout Rubiaceae 

8. Gannabos Salsola rabiena 

9. Handepisbossie Plinthus sericeus 

10. Koegab Aptosimum albomarginatum 

11. Koorbos Hirpicum echnus cf gazanoides 

12. Gifbol Ledebaria undulate 

13. Ghoena/gifbol Lindneria clavata 

14. Gifbol Boophane disticha 

15. Goeie mans/rooihout Xenostegia (Merremia) tridentate 

16. Magatho/washout Aptosimum elangatum 

17. Duiwelsklou Harpagophytum procumbens 

18. Basterdamdjiewartel Kedrostis Africana 

19. Suring Oxygonum delagoemse 

20. Grashout Hermbstaedtia fleckii 

21. Verkouebossie Diccona capensis 

22. Ghaap Tridentea marientalensis 

211

APPENDIX 4: List of all wild animals mentioned by the San and Mier and their uses 

Common name Scientific name Uses 

Ystervark (Porcupine) Atherurus africanu Meat, medicines, cultural 

Kalahari Springbok Antidorcas marsupialis Meat, medicines, crafts 

Gemsbok Oryx gazelle Meat, crafts, household uses 

Steenbok Raphicerus campestris Meat and inputs for crafts 

Eland Taurotragus oryx Meat, cultural, input for crafts 

Common Duiker Sylvicapra grimmia Meat, crafts 

Black-backed jackal/ 

Rooijakkals 

Canis mesomelas Meat, crafts 

Ostrich/volstruis Struthio camelus Meat, crafts 

Red hartebeest/ Alcelaphus buselaphus Meat, crafts 

Rooihartbees 

Wild cat Felis silvestris lybica Meat, crafts 

Aardvark Orycteropus afer Meat, crafts, cultural 

Bat-eared fox / Bakoorvos Otocyon Megalotis Meat, crafts 

Cape fox Vulpes chama Meat, crafts 

Honey badger Mellivora capensis Meat, crafts 

Aardwolf Proteles cristata 

212 

Meat, crafts 

Blue wilderbeest Connochaetes taurinus Meat, crafts 

Spring hare Pedetes capensis Meat, crafts 

Pangolin Manis temminckii Meat, crafts, cultural 

Ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis Meat, crafts 

Yellow mongoose Cynictis penicillata Meat, crafts

APPENDIX 5: Resource valuation household survey 

Date: May 2009 to August 2011 

Place: Southern Kalahari, South Africa 

A. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND INCOME 

1. Identification and location of household. 

Household number 

Village name 

2. We would like to ask some questions regarding this household. 

1. Who is the head of this household head? 

Resident married male [ ] Married male working away [ ] Widow/widower [ ] Divorced [ 

] Single/never married [ ] Other, specify? 

2.If the head of the household is away, who makes most of the domestic decisions? 

Head [ ] Wife [ ] Son [ ] Other [ ] 

3.How long ago was this household formed? 

Years 

4.Was the household head born in this village? 

If ‘Yes’, go to 6. 

5.If ‘No’: how long has the household head lived in the village? 

Years 

6. Where did he/she come from? 

3. Who are the members of this household and what is their level of education? 

Personal 

identification 

number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 etc. 

Name/code of household 

member (see codes below) 

Codes: 1=Father; 2= Mother; 3=Son/Daughter; 4=Grandchild; 5=Son/Daughter in law; 6= 

Other family members 

4. Which people in this household have a full-time, part-time or casual job? 

Name Job type FullSelf- Local/Remittance R/month 

No 

time/partemployed 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 etc. 

time/casual (describe) 

213 

3. Year 

born 

(yyyy) 

4. Sex 

(M=male 

F=female) 

5. Education 

(number of 

years 

completed)

5. Do any of the household members earn any type of grant/income? If yes tick 

Name Tick No of 

Old-age pension 

Disability grant 

Child grant 

Posing for photos 

Any other income Specify? 

3. Assets 

1. Please indicate the type of house you have. 

1. Do you have your own house? 1) 

214 

grants 

R/month 

2. What is the type of material of (most of) the walls? 2) 

3. What is the type of material of (most of) the roof ? 3) 

4. How many m 2 approx. is the house? m 2 

2) Codes: 1=mud/soil; 2=wooden (boards, trunks); 3=iron (or other metal) sheets; 4=bricks 

or concrete; 5=reeds/straw/grass/fibers/; 6=other, specify: 

3) Codes: 1=thatch; 2=wooden (boards); 3=iron or other metal sheets; 4=tiles; 5=other, 

specify: 

2. Please indicate the number of implements and other large household items that are owned 

by the household. 

Item No. of units owned 

1. Car/truck 

2. Motorcycle 

3. Bicycle 

4. Handphone/phone 

5. TV 

6. Radio 

7. Cassette/CD/ VHS/VCD/DVD/ player 

8. Stove for cooking (gas or electric only) 

9. Refrigerator/freezer 

10. Scotch cart 

Wooden cart or wheelbarrow 

Furniture e.g. beds for everyone 

Water pump 

Solar panel 

Others 

B. LIVESTOCK 

1. Does your household own any livestock? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

2. If Y, fill out table, if N, go to section C 

Animal Number Where kept Animal Number Where kept 

Cattle Horses 

Sheep Chickens 

Goats Other; specify 

Donkeys 

Y/N

3. Where do you graze your livestock?_________________ 

4. Who looks after your livestock during the day? Self [ ] Family member [ ] Friend [ ] 

No-one [ ] Hired help [ ] Join with other friends [ ] 

5.If you hire someone, how much do you pay them (per 

month)______________________________ 

6. Do you pay for fencing, medicine (dip & dose) or grazing fees? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, how much and how often 

a. Fencing:R________________________frequency_______________________________ 

b.Medicine:R________________________frequency___________________________ 

c. Grazing fee:R______________________frequency_________________________ 

7.What benefits (uses) does your household get from the livestock? 

Resource/Activity Get/use Resource/Activity Get/use 

Meat Transport 

Milk Ceremonies/rituals/parties 

Skins Other: 

Cash (from sales) Other: 

Lobola payments Other: 

Savings 

Dung for manure 

8. Are there any problem regarding livestock production? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, fill out table 

Problems Tick Possible solution 

(a) Lack of water 

(b) Diseases/Lack of dipping 

chemicals 

(c) Theft 

(d) Lack of a reliable market 

(e) Other specify: 

B1.Milk 

1. How much milk does your household get from your (cows) and (goats) per day? If none, 

move on to next 

2. Cows: _____________________________Goats:_____________________________ 

3. What do you do with the milk? 

Tick answer 

Consume at home 

Give away/share 

Sell 

215

4.If you sell or give away (share) milk complete table below: 

Animal 

type 

Quantity 

(Sold) 

Cattle Sell 

Goat Give 

Sheep 

Quantity? 

(Given) 

How 

often 

216 

Who to Which 

months of 

the year 

Price? 

B2.Meat 

1. How often do you slaughter any of your livestock?if you don’t move to next part 

Livestock Frequency 

Quantity at a Animals slaughtered in the last 

Cattle 

Goats 

Sheep 

Other 

(e.g./week/)month/year) time 

year 

2. Do you sell or give away some of the meat from a slaughtered animal? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

Livestock Quantity 

sold 

Cattle 

Goats 

Sheep 

Other 

Quantity 

given 

Who to? Price?(per 

kg/animal) 

B3.Skins 

1. What does your household do with the skins of slaughtered animals? 

Livestock Keep Sell Throw away Crafts 

Cattle 

Goats 

Sheep 

Other 

Total 

2. If the skin is kept what do you use it 

for:_______________________________________________ 

Livestock Use(s) 

Cattle 

Goats 

Sheep 

Other; 

3. If the skins are sold: 

a) How often do you sell skins?____________________ 

b) What do you get from the skin? R________________ (other)___________________ _

B4.Dung 

1.Do you ever use your animals’ dung? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, go to Q2, if N, move to next section 

2.If Y, -what you use it for?____________________ 

-where do you collect it?_______________________ 

-how often do you collect?_______________ 

-how much do you collect each time?____________ 

3. Do you ever sell or give away dung from your animals? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

Amount? How often? Who to? Payment? 

Sell 

Give 

B5.Transport 

1. Do you ever use your livestock for transport? Yes [ ] No [ ] if N, go to 

2. For what purposes explain_________________________________________________ 

3. Approximately how far are the distances to the nearest 

services?____________________________ 

4. How much would you have paid using a 

tax/lift?_________________________________________ 

5. Do you ever hire or lend out your animals for transport? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, fill out table 

Frequency? To whom? Price? 

Hire 

Lend 

B6.Cash sales 

1. Do you ever sell your livestock for cash? Yes [ ] No [ ], If N, go to B7 

a) If Y, complete the following table 

Animal Tick Price/beast No sold/month/year 

Cattle 

Sheep 

Goats 

Donkeys 

Horse 

Other; specify 

B7. Ceremonies/Rituals 

1. Does your household ever slaughter cattle/goats for ceremonial or ritual purposes? Yes [ ] 

No [ ] 

If Y. how often? Cattle______________________Goats______________ 

For what ceremonies/rituals do you do this?______________ 

B8. Savings 

1. Does your household regard livestock as a form of savings? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

2. If Y, why__________________________________ 

3. What alternatives ways of savings are available to your household:___________ 

4. Which particular group of animals is a better form of savings than others? 

Givereasons?________________________________________________________________ 

___ 

217

C. ACCESS TO LAND 

1. Please indicate the parcel of land that you have access to. 

Category Farm Land Contractual Park: Rest of Park 

Access Miershoop Pan 

Uitkoms 

Andriesvale 

Scotty’s Fort 

Witdraai 

Erin 

Uses of land Tick 

1.Livelihood strategies 

livestock farming 

eco-tourism 

crafts 

2.Consumptive use of resources 

e.g. firewood, melons 

3.Traditional activities (rituals) 

4.Other (specify) 

D. NATURAL RESOURCE BASE AND CONSUMPTIVE USE 

D1. Firewood 

1. Does your household collect firewood? 

2. Where? [Uitkoms; Miershoop Pan; Andriesvale; Scotty’s Fort; Witdraai; 

Erin] 

3. Frequency of collection (Daily=D; Weekly=W; Monthly=M) 

4. How many trips a week/month do you do? 

5. Quantities collected (local measure e.g. full wheel burrow; scotch cart etc) 

6. Estimated value 

7. How many hours per week do the members of your household spend on 

collecting firewood for family use? 

8. Does your household now spend more or less time on getting firewood than 

you did 5 years ago? 

Codes: M=more; S=about the same; L=less 

9. How has availability of firewood changed over the past 5 years? 

Codes: D=declined; S=about the same; I=increased 

218 

Y/N 

(hours) 

10. If declined (code ‘D’ on the Response Rank 1-3 

question above), how has the 1. Increased collection time (e.g., from 

household responded to the further away from house) 

decline in the availability of 2. Buying (more) fuelwood and/or charcoal 

firewood? Please rank the most 3. Buying (more) commercial fuels (gas or 

important responses, max 3. electricity) 

4. Reduced the need for use of fuels, such as 

using improved stove 

5. More conservative use of fuelwood for 

cooking and heating 

6. Reduced number of cooked meals

11. List the name of mostly 

used/most important species. 

12.Any other source of fuels 

used. 

7. Increased use of non-wood wild products 

(e.g. twigs) 

8. Restricting access/use to own resources 

10. Conserving standing trees for future 

11.Other;specify 

Name Rank 1-5 

13.Who is involved in collection of firewood? 

14.Method of transportation_________ 

15. Are there any restrictions on fire wood use? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, explain_______________________ 

Name Quantity/day 

D2.Wild plants (food) 

1.Do you collect any wild plants? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, where ? [Uitkoms [ ] Miershoop Pan [ ] Andriesvale [ ] Scotty’s Fort [ ] Witdraai 

[ ] Erin [ ] 

2.If Yes, who is involved in collection of wild 

plants?__________________________________ 

3.How often do you go out to collect food plants? 

________/week __________month Other specify____________ 

Species mainly used Season/month 

harvested 

Bulb/Tubers; 

Leaves; 

Seeds; 

Other;e.g. wild 

melons 

Hoodia 

Used at home 

(quantity) 

219 

Sell (quantity) Price/kg

4.Name and give reasons for most important 

species___________________________________ 

5.Name and give reasons for least important species_________________________________ 

6. Are any species becoming scarcer? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, name them and give reasons____________________________________________ 

7. Does availability of the resource change over seasons? Is there shortage of plants at certain 

times of year? Yes [ ] No [ ]. If Y, 

explain,________________________________________ 

D4.Animals hunted for food 

1.Do you hunt any wild animals for food? Yes [ ] No [ ]. 


[ ] Erin [ ] 

2.Who is involved in hunting?__________________________________ 

3.How often do you go out to hunt? 


Species 

hunted 

Springbok 

Wildebeest 

Eland 

Gemsbok 

Season/month 

hunted 

Used at home 

(quantity) 

2.Name and give reasons for most important species______________________ 

3.Name and give reasons for least important species__________ 

4. Are any species becoming scarcer? Yes [ ] No [ ] If Y name them and give 

reasons_____________________________________________________________________ 

___ 

5. Does availability of the animals hunted change over seasons? Is there shortage of animals 

at certain times of year? If Y explain______________________________________ 

6. Are there any animals that are not hunted for cultural reasons? Yes [ ] No [ ] If Y name 

them and explain further_________________________________________________ 

7. What have been the trends of natural resources use and availability in the last 5-10 years 

since the park was formed? ___________________ 

D3.Medicinal plants/animals 

1.Do you collect any wild plants/animals for medicine? Yes [ ] No [ ] 


[ ] Erin [ ] 

2.Who is involved in collection of plants/animals?__________________________________ 

3.How often do you/they/he go out to collect ? 


220 

Sell (quantity) Price 

(eg 

R/kg/animal)

Species 

collected/hunted 

Season/month Used at 

home 

(Quantity) 

221 

Sell 

(quantity) 

Price 

(eg R/kg) 

3. Name and give reasons for most important species_________________________________ 

4. Name and give reasons for least important species_________________________________ 

5. Are any species becoming scarcer? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, name them and give reasons___________ 

6. Does availability of the resource change over seasons? Is there shortage of plants/animals at 

certain times of year? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, explain_______________________ 

7.Are there any species that are not harvested for cultural reasons? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, name and explain_____________________________________________ 

Wood (construction material) 

1. Do you have any fences/kraals/house made with indigenous poles or branches? Yes [ ] No 

[ ] 

If Y, how many poles/loads did you use for (a) Kraal__________________ 

(b) House_________________ 

2. When was the (a) kraal erected____________(b) House_________________ 

3. After how long do you have to replace damaged poles?______________________ 

Number/load of poles per time________________________ 

4. Do you collect or buy the poles? Buy [ ] Collect [ ] 

If you buy, at how much? R_______________________ 

Grass (construction material) 

1.Do you use grass for any construction? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, for what purposes_____________________ 

2. When was the above constructed?________________________________ 

3. How much grass did you use (local measure)?_______________________ 

4. Did you buy or collect the grass? Buy [ ] Collect [ ] 

If bought, at how much? R__________________________________________ 

5. After how long do you have to replace damaged grass?_________________ 

6. Any other uses of grass?__________________________________

F. CRAFTS FOR SALE 

1. What types of craft materials do you make? What resources do you use? How much are 

crafts sold at? 

Name of craft 

produced 

Bracelets 

Beads 

Bow and arrow 

Artifacts for 

hanging 

Other; specify 

How many 

produced 

(per/week/ 

month) 

Material and 

part used 

(plant/animal) 

222 

How many sold 

(per/week/month) 

Do you buy anything to make your crafts? Yes/ [ ]No [ ] 

If Y, what and for how much? Fill out the table. 

Material bought For what Cost 

Selling price 

(R/item) 

2. Which part of plants do you use most?_____________________ 

3. Which part of animals do you use most?_______________________ 

4. Are any species becoming scarcer? Yes/ [ ]No [ ] 

If Y, name them and give reasons_____________________________________ 

5. How much time do you spend on making these items in a 

day/week/month____________________ 

6. Which particular time of the year do you have more sales?________ 

7. Give reasons for your 

answer?__________________________________________________ 

8. Are there any problems encountered in the crafts industry? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

9. If Y, name them________________________________________________________ 

10.What can be done to ameliorate the problems__________________________________ 

E. CULTURAL VALUES OF PLANTS, ANIMALS AND SITES 

1. Are there any cultural values associated with plants and animals use? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, what plants, animals and sites are important to you culturally 

Species (local 

name) 

Cultural use (please name the uses) e.g. actual 

use in rituals, sacred species. 

Why does this have cultural importance? 

Overall ranking of 

plants, animals, sites 

(1=very important; 

2= important; 3= 

slightly important; 

4=not important)

Plants: 

Animals: 

Sites: 

2. Are there any annual special ceremonies associated with plants and animals? Yes [ ] No [ 

] 

If Y, explain? __________________________ 

3. Are there any specific plants and animals considered sacred? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Yes explain? __________________________ 

4.Are there any traditional practices/rules/taboos associated with plant and animal use? Yes [ 

] No [ ] If Y, identify and explain?________________ 

5. Is compliance with traditional laws as strong in these days as it was in the old days? Yes [ 

] No [ ] If No, why not? _____________________________________________________ 

6.Is this knowledge restricted to a certain age group or gender? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Yes which? 

Elderly 

Adults 

Children 

Females Males 

7.How do you share the knowledge______________________________________________ 

G. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND POWER RELATIONS 

1. Are you or any member of your household a member of any organisation? 

Yes [ ] No [ ] If Y tick box 

Park Committee 

Livestock Committee 

JMB 

Ward Committee 

Burial society 

Other 

2. Does someone in your household attend the meetings? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If ‘No’, go to 5. 

3. If ‘Yes’: in your household, who normally attends the meetings and participates in other 

organisation’s activities? Tick 

1. Only the wife 

2. Both, but mainly the wife 

3. Both participate about equally 

4. Both, but mainly the husband 

223

5.Only the husband 

6.Mainly sons 

7.Mainly daughters 

8.Mainly husbands & sons 

9.Mailny wife & daughters 

10.Other; specify 

4. What are your reasons for joining the named organisation? 

Please tick under each organization 

Reason 

Increased access to natural resources 

products 

Better natural resources management and 

more benefits in future 

Access to other benefits, e.g., government 

support or donor programmes 

My duty to protect the natural resources 

for the community and the future 

Better quality of natural resource product 

Higher price for natural resource product 

Makes harvest of natural resources 

products more efficient 

Know natural resource better (e.g hoodia) 

Reduce conflicts over natural resource 

use 

More secure land title 

Being respected and regarded as a 

responsible person in village 

Improved livestock management 

Social aspect (meeting people, working 

together, fear of exclusion, etc.)| 

Learn new skills/information 

Forced by SANParks/Government/local 

leaders/neighbours 

Other, specify: 

JMB Park 

Committee 

224 

Livestock 

committee 

Ward 

Committee 

5. Are there any formal rules and regulations for access to resources in the farms? Yes [ ] No 

[ ] 

If Y, explain________________________________________________________ 

6. Are these rules followed? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y, how and by whom?__________________________________________________ 

If N, Why not?__________________________________________________________ 

7.Are there any informal organizations governing access to land & natural resources? Yes [ ] 

No [ ] 

If Y, name and explain_______________________________________________ 

8.Do you participate in any? Yes [ ] No [ ]If Y, name______________________

9. If you don’t participate in any organisation, Why 

Reason Tick 

No organisation exists in the village 

I’m new in the village 

Organisation members generally belong to a particular family group (s) 

Cannot afford to contribute the time 

Cannot afford to contribute the required cash payment 

Membership will restrict my use of the resources, and I want to use the 

resources as I need 

I don’t believe organisations are very effective in managing the natural 

resources 

Lack of natural resources 

Not interested in the activities undertaken by organisations 

Corruption in previous organisations 

Interested in joining but needs more information 

Organisations exist in village, but household is unaware of their presence 

Other, specify: 

10.Do you share your knowledge and ideas of how resources should be managed? Yes [ ] No 

[ ] 

If Yes, how and why?_____________ 

If No, why_________________________ 

11. Overall, how would you say the existence of the named natural resources organisation has 

affected the benefits that the household gets from the farm and park? 

Large negative effect [ ] Small negative effect [ ] No effect [ ] Small positive [ ] 

12. Do you think your views are considered by community representatives/organisations? 

Yes [ ]No [ ] 

If Y or N explain?___________________________ 

13. Do you think the park management respects your views? Yes [ ] No [ ] 

If Y or N explain?____________________ 

14. What is your general comments/feelings/opinions about access to natural resources in the 

park and the surrounds?_____________________________ 

Thank you very much for your cooperation 

225

APPENDIX 6: Standardised qualitative questions for key informant interviews (Adopted 

from Reid et al., 2004) 

NB. The following questions will be used to guide interviews. I have answers already for some 

of the questions. 

11. Who is the land owner of the Contract Park? 

12. Is ownership clear? 

13. Who can use the natural resources in the Contract Park? 

14. Are use rights clear? 

15. Who receives the benefits from having a Contract Park on the land? 

16. In what form are the benefits for the conservation authority? 

17. In what form are the benefits for the land owners? 

18. Are the benefits for the land owners in the form of revenue from the Contract Park? (Are 

benefits directly linked to Contract Park)? 

19. Are the benefits distributed equitably among the land owners? 

20. Do the benefits outweigh the costs of the Contract Park for the conservation authority? 

21. Do the benefits outweigh the costs (outweigh the opportunity costs) of the Contract Park for 

the land owners? 

22. What are the responsibilities of SANParks in the Contract Park? 

23. What are the responsibilities of the land owners in the Contract Park? 

24. Are the responsibilities clear? 

25. Does the level of responsibilities in the contract park match with the level of benefits? 

26. Do land owners have the capacity to carry out the responsibilities in the Contract Park? 

27. Are there good relations between SANParks and the landowners? 

28. Are the conservation objectives of the Contract Park met? 

29. Is there an enabling macro-economic framework in which the contract park can become 

profitable? 

30. Is the JMB legitimated by the government in terms of legislation and devolution of power (Is 

the JMB powerful)? 

31. Is the JMB legitimate in the eyes of SANParks? 

32. Is the JMB legitimate in the eyes of landowners (for example how often are elections held and 

how effective is feedback to the communities at large)? 

33. Do landowner representatives on the JMB truly represent the needs of the land owners (San 

and Mier)? 

34. Is there government support for the process, for example, conflict resolution and sanction 

imposition?. 

35. Is there NGO and donor support for the process, foe e.g. with conflict resolution and sanction 

imposition (E.g. National Lottery donated R4.2 million? 

36. Are they good conflict resolution mechanisms within the terms of the Contract Park or the 

joint management plan? 

226

APPENDIX 7: Questionnaire on institutions and actors 

1. GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF CBO STRUCTURE & FUNCTION 

CPA Annual General Meetings 

1.1 In which year was the last AGM? ………… (Year) / Don’t Know 

1.2 Did you attend the last AGM? Yes / No / Don’t Know 

1.3 How satisfactory was the last AGM to you: 

It was very well run 

It was well run (i.e. just ok) 

Neutral 

It was unsatisfactory 

It was highly unsatisfactory 

I did not attend 

CPA General Meetings 

1.4 In what month was the last General Meeting? ……varied…………. / Don’t Know 

1.5 How many general meetings have you attended in the last 12 months? 

………….12months=12 ;==15, the 2, 3 ,4etc) 

1.6 Where was the last General meeting held? CBO Level / Don’t Know 

1.7 Approximately how many people attended the last general meeting? ………….. 

1.8 How satisfactory was the last General Meeting to you: 

It was very well run 

It was well run 

Neutral 

It was unsatisfactory 

It was highly unsatisfactory 

I did not attend 

1.9 Do you know the name of the CPA administrator? YES / NO 

1.10 Do you know the name of the CPA Financial Manager? YES / NO 

1.11 Do you know the name/s of the Escort Guides? YES (11/50)/ NO 

2. UNDERSTANDING OF CPA CONSTITUTION & RIGHTS 

2.1 Has your constitution been explained to you in the last 12 months? YES /NO 

2.2 Were you consulted during the constitution building process? YES /NO 

2.3 Do you think your constitution organises the community well? 

The constitution works very well 

The constitution works reasonably well (just ok) 

Neutral 

The constitution is bad 

The constitution is very bad 

??? Don’t know what it says 

2.4 Does your community follow the constitution? 

We always follow it 

Neutral 

We sometimes follow it, sometimes don’t 

We seldom follow it 

227

??? Don’t know (what it says / if it is followed or not) 

2.5 Do you have the following rights (tick yes or no for each)? 

Yes No 

(a) To stand in an election 

(b) To make decisions on the use of wildlife/CPA money 

(c) To check how CPA money was spent 

(d) To remove incompetent/corrupt officers (Chairperson) 

(e) To remove incompetent/corrupt employees (Finacial Manager) 

(f) To vote / choose CPA leaders 

(g) To amend the constitution 

(h) To demand for a meeting (e.g. for explanation of committee 

performance) 

(i) To set animal quotas for hunting 

(j) To choose your hunting safari operator 

(k) To choose your tourism partners (Joint Venture) 

2.6 As an ordinary person, do you have any responsibilities/duties in the CPA? 

(l) Yes / No / Don’t Know 

(m) What is it ………………………. 

2.8 How are CPA decisions generally made?: Tick one 

The committee makes decisions without telling us anything 

We are only told what is happening sometimes 

The committee makes decisions, and informs us 

The committee makes decisions, but we have the right to change them 

We make decisions, and tell the committee what to do 

ENUMERATOR: If the person says the answers is a, b, c or d in question 2.8 above, ask the 

following question. If they answer e, skip this question and go to question 2.10. 

2.9 When Elected Representatives make key decisions, which 

statement is true? 

Tick one 

(f) These decisions are good 6 

(g) These decisions are sometimes good, sometimes selfish 11 

(h) These decisions are bad and selfish 32 

(i) Don’t know 1 

2.10 Who makes the budget? Tick one 

Community members at General Meetings 0 

People we elected (Committee) 5 

CPA Employees (Financial Manager) 28 

Don’t know 17 

3. ELECTIONS OF COMMITTEE 

3.1 Did you participate in choosing the current committee? Yes / No / Don’t Know 

3.2 How was the committee chosen? 

Appointed by government 

228

Vote by hands 

Vote by secret ballot 

Don’t know 

Other means (Specify)… ………………………………………………… 

3.3 Do you think the process of choosing the committee was fair? Yes / No / Don’t 

Know 

3.4 In which year was the last election for the Board? …….……………./ Don’t Know 

3.5 In which year is the next election for the Board? ……………………/ Don’t Know 

4. CPA MANAGEMENT 

4.1 How well does the CPA committee manage your affairs? 

The CPA is very well managed 

The CPA is managed reasonably well 

Neutral 

The management of the CPA is poor 

The management of the CPA is very bad 

4.2 Did CPA give you a financial report in the last year? Yes / No / Don’t Know 

4.3 Are the CPA finances properly presented to you? 

Yes, well presented and we understand and believe these figures 

Yes, presented reasonably 

Neutral 

No, badly presented 

Not presented at all. We have no idea what is happening 

I did not go to the meeting 

4.4 Are the CPA finances properly accounted for? 

Yes, well accounted for 

Yes, reasonably accounted for 

Neutral 

No, badly accounted for 

No, very badly accounted for (and we do not trust the figures) 

4.5 Do you trust the CPA leadership to manage and account for your finances? 

Yes, I trust them a lot 

Yes, I trust them 

Neutral 

No, I don’t trust them 

No, I strongly distrust them 

5. INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY CPA COMMITTEE 

In the last year, the CPA gave me the following information (tick as applicable): 

 

 

Did you get: 

All the Some Nothing 

information information 

INFORMATION ON FINANCES AND PROJECTS 

Annual budget 4 46 

Source and amount of income 

(INCOME) 

4 45 

How money was spent 

(EXPENDITURE) 

3 47 

They explained the progress of 3 47 

229 

Don’t 

Know 

N/A

projects 

INFORMATION ON WILDLIFE VALUE AND USE 

We were given a list of our 

hunting quota 

4 44 

We were told how many animals 

were shot last year 

44 

We were told the price of animals 

that we sold to the hunters 

44 

We were told the income we got 

from our campsites 

49 

We were told the income we got 

from the community lodge and other 

e.g. Molopo 

50 

INFORMATION FROM EVENT BOOK 

We have been shown the following information: 

5.10 Trends in animal populations 

6. WILDLIFE COSTS & BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDS 

6.1 Please list the benefits you and your household got from wildlife in the last 12 months: 

Type of Benefit Do you and Amount/Describe Enumerator to 

your household 

calculate approx 

receive benefit? 

Rand Value 

Cash Yes / No 

Meat Yes / No 

Employment Yes / No 

CPA Projects Yes / No 

Education & Training Yes / No 

Non-Financial Benefits 

Specify ………….. 

Yes / No 

Other (specify) Yes / No 

6.2 Please list the costs you and your household suffered from wildlife in the last 12 

months: 

Type of Cost Yes / No Amount/Describe Enumerator to calculate 

approx Rand Value 

Livestock losses Yes / No 

Other (specify) Yes / No 

7. MANAGEMENT PLANS & LAND USE ZONES 

7.1 Does your community have a land use plan or a management plan? YES/NO/DON’T 

KNOW 

7.2 Were you consulted in developing the land use plan? YES / NO 

7.3 Has your CPA set aside a place/zone exclusively for wildlife & tourism e.g Miershoop 

pan for game and Witdaai (for bushcamp)? 

YES / NO / DON’T KNOW 

230

8. WILDLIFE & NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

8.1 We have noticed the following trends in numbers of wildlife: 

?? N/A 

Gemsbok yes 

Springboks 

Eland 

Steenbok 

Bat eared fox 

Other (specify) ………………………. 

8.2 Is there poaching in your area? 

A lot 

A little 

Never 

Don’t know 

8.3 Since you got land, what have you noticed about the trends in poaching: 

Poaching ?? 

8.4 Please explain why you came to this conclusion about poaching…..…(check x file) 

8.5 What, if anything, do you do to protect wildlife and natural resources? 

9. VALUE OF WILDLIFE & NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

9.1 Income: 

How much money did your CPA earn from wildlife last year? Rand ….... Don’t Know 

How much of this money reached your village? Rand …… Don’t Know 

How much money did your household get? Rand ….... Don’t Know 

9.2 Last year, how much did the Safari Operator pay the CPA to shoot: 

Gemsbok? Rand ……….. Don’t Know 

Springbok? Rand ……….. Don’t Know 

9.3 How many animals were harvested in your area last year? 

Gemsbok 

Springbok 

Safari Problem 

Animals 

231 

Subsistence 

Hunting 

Don’t 

Know 

9.4 Income from Tourism & Joint Venture Partners 

Name of Lodge How much did they pay to the CPA last year? 

1. Rand……….……. / Don’t Know 

2. Rand……….……. / Don’t Know 

Name of Community Campsite How much did money did it bring the CPA last year? 

1. Rand……….……. / Don’t Know

10. ATTITUDES ABOUT WILDLIFE 

10.1 Overall (taking into account positives and negatives) my attitude towards wildlife is: 

Strongly Positive 

Positive 

Neutral 

I do not support Wildlife 

I strongly dislike Wildlife 

?? Not sure 

10.2 Why do you like wildlife? For each reason, indicate how important this is for you. 

232 

Very 

Important 

Important 

Neutral 

Not Very 

important 

Not at All 

Important 

REASON FOR LIKING WILDLIFE 

Conservation for non-financial reasons 

Household benefits 

Jobs 

Development projects / Community income 

Brings development (i.e. economic growth) 

Hunting / Meat 

Helps us get better organized/empowered 

Others reasons (Specify)……………...……. 

11. CONCLUSIONS 

11.1 What are the best three things about the CPA Programme? 

1. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

2. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

3. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

11.2 What are the worst three things about the CPA Programme? 

1. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

2. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

3. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

11.3 What changes / improvements would you make to the CPA Programme? 

1. ……………………………………………………………………………………… 

2. ………………………………………………………………………………………

Text - Rhodes University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?