Using three case studies, Angela Conway* argues that environmental protection can be manipulated to exclude and reduce the rights of the poor thus maintaining the status quo and social injustice.
As movements and civil society organisations prepare to engage with COP 17 and demand climate justice we need to be mindful of the threat which conservation can pose to social justice and secure tenure and equitable access to resources. Environmental protection can be manipulated to exclude and reduce the rights of the poor and disregard issues of dispossession and injustice. Any efforts to conserve and protect natural resources must be within the framework of a more equitable access to, and control over, natural resources.
The right, as enshrined in the South African Constitution, that the environment should be protected for future generations needs to be balanced with social rights to practise culture, to enjoy a life of well being and to challenge unfair discrimination and dispossession. Corporate greed and exclusive use of resources must be challenged. A locked-down conservation agenda aggravates patterns of accumulation and dispossession. This is compounded by a growing trend to convert agricultural land and coastlines into conservation areas that often displace farm dwellers and fisherfolk. This also removes potential resources to produce food and places further constraints on land redistribution and agrarian transformation. To illustrate this three community case studies affected by conservation are discussed below.
The fishers of Tsitsikamma
Covie, a former woodcutters’ settlement, is populated by descendants of the Khoisan people. Covie is situated in the heart of the Garden Route, an area of extreme natural beauty and wealthy investment. The Covie community were dispossessed of their land rights and have lodged a restitution claim.
Covie, and the surrounding local communities, have a culture and tradition of fishing, to supplement the pot and to supplement meagre salaries or combat the affects of unemployment. In the 1970s the Tsitsikamma National Park was initiated cutting off access to the coast and incorporating 150 hectares of Covie land into the national parks, under the management of SANParks. The Park is reserved for those who can afford the entrance fee or to stay in its expensive accommodation. (There is a national trend whereby 21% of the coastline is proclaimed “no-go” areas).
Local fishers, passionate about their rights to access traditional fishing grounds for subsistence, in protection of cultural practises and as a form of protest, formed themselves into the Tsitsikamma Angling Union. In 2006 the Union launched a campaign to open up 10km of coastline for controlled fishing, consistent with the principles of customary law. In 2007, after extreme pressure from environmental scientists, the Dept of Environmental Affairs and Tourism declined this request. This refusal highlights the government’s disrespect for people’s rights and community-based conservation. The Minister argued that “allowing a few people access for recreational purposes would negate benefits accrued to all”. The government reduced the rights of the fishers to “recreational” and disregarded the imperative to address past and/or present injustices, or to give preference to marginalised people with historical rights.
The Covie restoriation claim has also been compromised. Under pressure from state departments, the newly elected Covie Communal Property Association led by business, opted for cash compensation forfeiting the claim to rights of access to the coast. This decision was taken without consultation with the broader claimant body and reduced cultural and livelihood rights, and secured the Park as a restricted conservation area. While SANParks, the Parks managers have a guiding principle that people must benefit from the asset, this does not transform patterns of accumulation and ownership or compensate for rights lost. Hence, the right of access to the coast and fishing remains withheld. The Tsitsikamma Angling Union and the Covie CPA have not pro-actively joined with other movements or organisations to demand access to the coast. The Covie claimants are divided by promises of ‘development’ and cash; and the fishermen, fiercely independent, are driving their own campaign.
The Coleske community
The former Coleske farm is situated within the Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve, a conservation heritage site in the Eastern Cape. Coleske together with other farms were purchased by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism for incorporation into the Mega Reserve. Twenty-three families – the “first people” – have lived in Coleske. for generations. This community has strong cultural ties and indigenous knowledge of the area, the vegetation and the animals. People can point out which plant assists with the symptoms of menopause, where the best herbs can be found and where family members lie buried. They are passionate about the environment, their peaceful lifestyles and their history in the Kloof. The community attend the same church, celebrate together and know each other’s families and histories.
SANParks, the managers of the Mega Reserve, have consistently pressured the Coleske families to relocate as the land is earmarked for an up-market tourist lodge. Despite the principles of the Mega Reserve (funded by the World Bank) which support equal partnerships, benefit-sharing, sustainable resource harvesting and the promotion of social and environmental responsibility, the Coleske community have been pressured to move and their resistance divided. These range from promises of employment, intimidation by wild animals (letting a rhino loose in the area), cutting off transport, restricting the rights to collect wood and herbs and harassing people that “it will be better for you in town”. However, the community are firm in their conviction to remain on the land, and to co-exist with and contribute to the objectives of the Mega Reserve which they share – to protect the environment on which all life and spirits depend.
The Coleske community drive their own campaign without joining with other farm dweller movements and organisations in the area; and have consistently boycotted meetings and mass actions. There is a quiet determination and respect for each other and the vision to remain on the beloved land.
The indigenous forestry settlements Scattered throughout the Southern Cape are settlements of people who live and work in the forests. With privatisation the indigenous forests have been transferred to SANParks. As with Coleske, SANParks has consistently pressured people to relocate from the settlements which seem to be earmarked for tourism.
Situated in the Knysna district, a prime destination for tourism, Farleigh adjoins the indigenous forest. There are 27 houses in Farleigh village and one is struck by its peace, prosperity and natural beauty. Healthy and happy children, dogs and chickens play in the gardens while parents tend vegetable gardens or undertake domestic chores. However all is not well in Farleigh for the 6 households headed by pensioners. Having lived and worked in the forests their entire lives, SANParks is now threatening people with eviction. This started with letters of demand for up to R10 000 rental arrears from people who receive a monthly grant of R900. Pensioners are no longer allowed to use the SANParks transport to the clinic on a Thursday. Residents’ lawns, pensioner’s yards and houses are no longer maintained. People literally have nowhere to go as Majorie Ngqele says, “My daughter and husband lie buried here. My whole life is here. My grandchildren attend the local school. Where am I to go?”. For other residents of Farleigh the writing is on the wall. When they no longer work in the forests they will have to move, but where to, and at what cost to their lifestyles and cultures?
As Oom Japie notes, “Where else will I be able to leave my keys in the bakkie overnight in my yard?” In other settlements people have succumbed to pressure, moved out and their homes converted to cater for tourism. The question residents ask is why can’t we also benefit from these opportunities? Why should our homes be suitable for tourists if they are not suitable for us? The land and the houses are owned by the state, people cannot access state land will they ever own their own land and houses? The residents of Farleigh are part of the Forestry Indaba movement, representing 16 forestry settlements. The Indaba is committed to fighting forced or constructive evictions. People seek ownership of the land and houses where they have lived their whole lives. People are convinced that there is a future for them in the conservation areas and the tourism opportunities.
Environmental justice?
“Fortress conservation” dispossesses people of tenure and livelihood rights, and is another way to shore-up profits and maintain the social and economic divide. The privatisation of the commons (be they marine or conservation areas) is imposed in a top-down manner with mere lip service played to principles of participation and benefit sharing . Policies like community-based conservation, co-management, participation and equal sharing are meaningless within the context of market based conservation. There is limited recognition and integration of indigenous and local knowledge or customary practice. Over the years there has been a shift towards exclusivity and a draconian implementation of conservation strategies which marginalise local, poor people and disregards established livelihoods and cultural practises. As movements demand protection of the environment this must include the protection of cultural and livelihood rights of the poor. Natural resources must be shared and not maintained for the elite. Bio-diversity includes people, and protecting bio-diversity must include the protection of culture, indigenous knowledge and rural livelihoods.
Movements and models for change
The small-scale fishers of South Africa have become increasingly frustrated at the undermining of pre-existing tenure rights derived from living customary law. In 2007 the mobilisation of fishers resulted in the Equality Court ordering the Minister to develop a new policy of marine governance that would accommodate the socio-economic rights of fishers. Small-scale fishers have begun to articulate a new approach to marine governance “in which the interdependency between the social, cultural, economic and ecological components and well-being of their lives is recognised” . The development of such a new policy provides some opportunities to explore concepts of inclusive governance and equitable sharing of resources. There is a growing recognition of the need to acknowledge living customary law as a dynamic and adaptive system guiding the use of, and protection of, natural resources. We need to recognise “The emancipatory potential’ of ‘living’ customary law coupled with emerging international human rights standards to secure a more democratic, legitimate and sustainable approach to governance of tenure in South Africa.” The case studies above demonstrate the lack of a strong unified movement of resistance. Challenges of geographic spread and isolation is one reason but there is also a self sufficiency and independence amongst many of the affected communities which is not conducive to building mass movements. The COP 17 engagement may provide an opportunity to build solidarity and identify common campaigns.
Environmental justice is non-negotiable. Forward to a mobilised rural sector to protect and distribute resources.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.