Celebrating San victory too soon?

Reflections on the outcome of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve case Julie J. Taylor

Botswana/Survival/www.survival-international.org

Julie J. Taylor is a doctoral candidate and Beit Fellow in the Department of International Development, Oxford University. Her dissertation focuses on Khwe San in West Caprivi, Namibia. Her email is: [email protected]

Fig. 1. Lawyers for the San Gordon Bennett (right), John Whitehead (centre) and Chris du Plessis in court, July 2004.

I am grateful to members of the KFO in Botswana, David Turton, Jackie Solway and three anonymous AT reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. 1. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Barnard, A. and Kenrick, J. (eds) 2001. ‘Africa’s indigenous peoples: “First peoples” or “marginalized minorities”?’ Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh. Chennels, R. 2002. The #Khomani San land claim. Cultural Survival Quarterly. 26(1): 51-53. Corry, S. 2003. Bushmen – the final solution and blaming the messenger. Before Farming. 2: 1-4. Dieckmann, U. 2007. Hai||om in the Etosha Region: A history of colonial settlement, ethnicity and nature conservation. Basel: Basler Afrika Bibliographien.

The longest and most expensive court case in Botswana’s history came to a surprising end on 13 December 2006, with 189 San Bushmen winning the right to return to their ancestral land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR). The 130 days in court and the resulting 19,000 pages of transcript are part of much wider debates about the position of indigenous people in southern Africa, their identity, poverty and cultural heritage, and what is genuinely in the much-romanticized San’s best interests. In recent years the role of NGOs and international advocacy has also become central to these debates. This landmark case is only the second successful San land claim in the region, the first being the #Khomani case in South Africa in 1999 (Chennels 2002). Botswana’s High Court ruled that the applicants had been deprived of their land wrongly and forcibly during government relocations which began in Xade in 1997. The outcome of the case, however, is a qualified victory. The CKGR was created by the British colonial government in 1961. It is unique in that it was created not only as a nature reserve but also to protect the rights of around 5000 people, mostly San, living within its borders, who wanted to maintain their hunting-gathering lifestyle (Hitchcock 1999, Suzman 2002, M. Taylor 2004). Over time, state provision of infrastructure and services such as boreholes and education fostered sedentarization of both San and other groups in the area. By the mid-1980s, the CKGR’s inhabitants employed a wide variety of livelihood strategies, ranging from hunting and gathering to agriculture, pastoralism and reliance on government welfare subsidies (Solway 2007). A government commission in 1985, influenced in part by conservationists and their concerns about over-hunting and veterinary control, recommended that the park’s residents be relocated. Another key rationale was to enhance the government’s capacity to provide ‘development’ to these people. The persistence of hunting and gathering livelihoods has been seen as an embarrassment by many Batswana, a marker of poverty which undermines the nation’s aspirations towards modernity. As such, government pressure on San to move out of

the CKGR since 1986, and government-driven removals since 1997 ‘can essentially be understood as a civilizing project [directed] towards the segment of Botswana’s population considered to be the most “backward”’ (M. Taylor 2004: 154). A number of Botswana NGOs responded to relocations by forming a negotiating team which met with the Botswana government for the first time in mid-1997 and continued to do so for several years, with limited success (Hitchcock and Babchuk 2007). At the start of 2002, the government intensified its efforts to remove park residents. Water storage tanks in Xade were overturned, water points sealed, food deliveries halted, and remaining social services withdrawn. Spearheaded by the organization First People of the Kalahari, and strongly supported by a number of international organizations, the subsequent CKGR court case took place in three phases. The first case brought to court in 2002 was dismissed on technical grounds. The second phase began in mid-2004 and addressed the status of San residents’ relationship to land in CKGR, including how long they had resided in the park and its surrounding areas, and the ways in which they had used wildlife and other natural resources. Residents contested their removal from the Park, arguing that ‘they were in favour of both conservation and development and that they had shown that they could live sustainably’ inside its borders (Hitchcock and Babchuk: 3). They challenged the legality of the government’s termination of basic and essential services to residents, its refusal to issue them with Game [hunting] Licenses, and its opposition to the presence of livestock in the Park. Meanwhile, the Botswana government argued that continued San settlement and livestock-herding in CKGR was incompatible with wildlife conservation and development of the tourism potential of the reserve and that, anyway, these people had ceased to rely on hunting and gathering decades ago. In line with its ‘villagization’ strategies that have already been in operation for 30 years, the government also argued that it needed to relocate the San in order to provide them with adequate ‘modern’ serv-

ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 23 No 5, October 2007 

Garland, E. 1999. Developing Bushmen: Building civil(ized) society in the Kalahari and beyond. In: Comaroff, J.L. and Comaroff, J. (eds) Civil society and the political imagination in Africa: Critical perspectives, pp. 72-103. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Hitchcock, R.K. 1999. A chronology of major events relating to the CKGR. Botswana Notes and Records 31: 105-118. — 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. — and Babchuk, W. 2007. ‘The Central Kalahari Game Reserve legal case: A landmark decision for indigenous rights in Botswana?’ Unpublished manuscript. Kenyon, P. 2005. ‘Row over Bushmen “genocide”’. Crossing Continents, BBC Radio 4, 6 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ hi/programmes/crossing_ continents/4404816.stm; accessed 7 August 2007. Mphinyane, S.T. 2001. The ‘dirty’ social scientist: Whose advocate, the devil’s or the people’s? In: Barnard, A. and Kenrick, J. (eds) ‘Africa’s indigenous peoples: “First peoples” or “marginalized minorities”?’ pp. 173-189. Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh. Gordon, R.J. 1992. The Bushman myth: The making of a Namibian underclass. Oxford: Westview Press. Robins, S. 2001. NGOs, ‘Bushmen’, and the 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. Saugestad, S. 2001. The inconvenient indigenous: Remote area development in Botswana, donor assistance and the First People of the Kalahari. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute. — 2005. ‘Improving their lives’: State policies and San resistance in Botswana. Before Farming 4: 1-11. Solway, J. 2007. ‘Human rights and NGO “Wrongs”: Conflict diamonds, culture wars and the “Bushman question”’. Unpublished manuscript. Survival International 2007. A Survival International Report to the Human Rights Committee: Comments concerning the State Party’s Report on Botswana in relation to compliance with the



ices (Saugestad 1998, Solway 2007). As Suzman (2002: 4) has argued, however, ‘rather than liberating them to drink freely from the cup of Botswana’s prosperity, resettlement simply increased the extent to which Kalahari peoples were dependent on Government’. Indigenous rights organization Survival International controversially equated the relocations with ‘genocide’ and claimed that a strong interest in diamonds lay behind the government’s strategy (Kenyon 2005, Solway 2007). Survival emphasized that the CKGR lies between two of the world’s largest diamond mines, which have helped to make Botswana one of Africa’s fastest-growing and wealthiest nations. Survival’s allegations, and its call for a boycott of De Beers diamonds, however, were based on dubious evidence. The group has been viewed by many Batswana as a ‘misguided troublemaker’ which, among other things, has interfered with the country’s progression to modernization by questioning its policy of equal treatment – in the form of service provision etc. – for all its citizens (Mphinyane 2001). That is, some argue that there is no reason that Botswana’s ethnic minorities should be treated preferentially, or any differently, from other groups. Suzman went so far as to say that Survival’s campaign was ‘aimed at fuelling the righteous indignation of [its] membership in Europe and America’ and that it invoked ‘theories of cultural purity now largely discarded in Europe by all save the far right’ (Suzman 2002: 5). Contrary to Survival’s claims that many Bushmen have welcomed the Survival campaign (eg. Corry 2003), many development workers in Botswana argue that its campaign caused much more harm than good in terms of dividing San people in their campaign to have their rights recognized. Both sides point to the problematic issue of the many different interest groups who claim to speak for and with the San, including anthropologists, lawyers, celebrities and advocacy groups (Solway 2007). Essentialist, romanticised and paternalistic representations of San have often become central to such advocacy, including those propelled by some San themselves (Sylvain 2002, Robins 2001). Such representations have often overlooked the extent to which San groups themselves suffer from internal conflicts and leadership struggles (Hitchcock 2002). Not only has Survival provoked animosity from the Botswana government by so often challenging its integrity but, as Saugestad (2005) convincingly points out, Survival’s diamonds-and-genocide argument diverted attention from the key problem that the case has exposed. That is, an authoritarian and patronizing model for development, which has been applied for years not only to the CKGR’s residents but to San and other minority groups all over Botswana (cf. M. Taylor 2006, Solway 2007). Such models have been informed by value systems and livelihood strategies far removed from their own. In tandem with this, Botswana’s land legislation makes no special provisions for the particular needs of the San and their historical circumstances (M. Taylor 2004). Representatives from the Kuru Family of Organisations (KFO) in Shakawe, northern Botswana, note that whilst the CGKR relocations have attracted extensive international media attention, the increasingly marginalized situation of less politicized San communities in other parts of Botswana has remained largely ignored by the international community. But they too find themselves in similar situations. Squeezed out by the spread of cattle-farming and dispossessed of land and water, there are few options for communities whose cultural heritage, skills and identity have long been related largely to land-based resources. The power dynamics over land, labour and natural resources that have fostered contemporary San economic and political marginalization have been well documented (e.g. Gordon 1992, Suzman 2000, Widlok 2000, Dieckmann

2007). San subjugation and the long-term erosion of independent hunting-gathering livelihoods and access to land have often emerged within the apparently benign paternalism of more powerful, livestock-owning groups. San resistance to these processes has been mixed with a significant degree of acquiescence to socio-economic integration, dependency and land appropriation in order to gain access to economic and social networks which sustain them in the face of disenfranchisement and transformation. This creates a much more complex situation than at first appears. It takes the rose-tinted edge off discourses in which San are represented as victimized, ‘traditional’ noble savages and instead reveals their agency in continually negotiating their access to resources under complex historical circumstances. As a KFO representative reported, ‘It took us a long time to understand things from the perspective of San who allowed or invited settlers [to come onto their land] because of the benefits that [the settlers] brought. Cattle are the most obvious factor. What hunter gatherers gained from these people is the reason they lost their land.’ NGOs, with their practices and advocacy, of course, are now an additional player on this stage. San groups in Botswana and elsewhere have engaged with such NGOs in a variety of ways. In some cases they have seized upon the symbolic and other resources NGOs offer in order to internationalize their struggles (Hitchcock 2002, Sylvain 2005); in others they have actively resisted the paternalism that NGOs have often displayed (Garland 1999). In northern Botswana, there are numerous stories from San Khwe people about a gradual process of land dispossession that has taken place over decades. KFO NGOs are currently working with San to try and locate available land that they can legally acquire, in an attempt to secure their rights to land and natural resources through the extremely bureaucratic Land Board system. Even then, legal title is not always enough to prevent dispossession, in situations where impoverished San families’ economic survival strategies are day-to-day and often involve dependence on wealthier patron households. Complicated and ongoing development challenges of this nature are easily overlooked in the flurry of the CKGR victory. They raise the question of whether and to what extent a poverty alleviation approach should be balanced with indigenous rights advocacy, under what circumstances, and how. Both approaches have limitations and often obscure an understanding of the factors underlying the discordant relationship between them. To return to the Botswana government, the politics of the CKGR case have done little for its reputation, particularly for its democratic image. As Suzman (2002) contends, had the government resolved the situation earlier and in different ways, they would not only have improved their record in dealing with San but also stemmed a tide of unwanted and unfavourable foreign interest in, and media depictions of, domestic affairs. Survival International has played a central role in this regard. Solway (2007: 12) notes that Survival’s agitating, combined with the government’s response, contributed to bringing out the worst in the state, leading it ‘to display some of the most illiberal and authoritarian behaviour in its history’. Taking a broader view, the CKGR case has had mixed effects on the work of local pro-San NGOs in Botswana. On the one hand, the case has cast all San as potential adversaries of the government, and unresolved land issues all over the country came to a standstill while the court case was proceeding. On the other hand, the government and some NGOs united against the discourse of Survival International, fostering solidarity where there had previously been suspicion. Moreover, NGOs in northern Botswana were able to move ahead with potentially sensitive projects to secure and improve San land rights and ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 23 No 5, October 2007

livelihoods while the government’s attention was preoccupied and diverted by the long court case. The KFO is concerned, however, about slow progress, and the implications for such projects of the CKGR verdict remains to be seen. Apparent San success in the CKGR is dampened by the government’s narrow interpretation of the court’s verdict: it places various restrictive conditions on the 189 applicants who have secured rights to return to the park (cf. Solway 2007, Hitchcock and Babchuk 2007) and does not allow for those rights to be extended to future generations. Successful applicants have to present government identification on entry, can only bring limited amounts of water into the reserve, may not keep domestic animals, and have to apply for hunting licences. Together with recent events, these conditions have led Survival to challenge the Botswana government yet again by approaching the UN Human Rights Committee in protest (Survival International 2007). Apparent success in the CKGR has also been counterbalanced by negative developments in international policymaking on indigenous peoples elsewhere. At the end of November 2006, just two weeks before the Botswana court gave its verdict, Botswana and Namibia took a leading role in successfully mobilizing African states to postpone voting on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the 64th UN General Assembly. In doing so, following the lead of the CANZUS1 group, they rejected the notion that San should be recognized as more ‘indigenous’ than other southern African inhabitants (cf. Barnard and Kenrick 2001), and that San should have the right of self-determination. Ellen Lutz, Director of Cultural Survival, described the African postponement as a ‘crippling wound’ to the Declaration, which is the outcome of two decades’ work to create a document that was acceptable to both indigenous peoples and national governments around the world. In sum, whilst the landmark nature of the CKGR case and its positive ramifications for the land rights of some San should be acknowledged, we should be cautious about celebrating San victory too soon. What of Survival International, the role of international advocacy groups and that of anthropologists? The question remains as to how anthropologists can help those who are trying to make things better to avoid making them worse, and how advocacy can be employed most productively. The CKGR case has been a steep learning curve for actors on all sides of the debate, and will critically inform future discussions about indigenous rights. l

Botswana/Survival/www.survival-international.org

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with specific reference to the Gana and Gwi Bushmen and Bakgalakgadi of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. http://www. survival-international.org/ files/related_material/11_ 555_1006_ICCPR%20 report%20Survival.pdf; accessed 4 August 2007. Suzman, J. 2000. Things from the bush: A contemporary history of the Omaheke Bushmen. Basel: P. Schlettwein Publishing. — 2002. Kalahari conundrums: Relocation, resistance and international support in the Central Kalahari Botswana. Before Farming 3-4: 1-10. Sylvain, R. 2002. Land, water and truth: San identity and global indigenism. American Anthropologist 104(4): 1074-1085. — 2005. Disorderly development: Globalization and the idea of ‘culture’ in the Kalahari. American Ethnologist 32(3): 354-370. Taylor, M. 2004. The past and future of San land rights in Botswana. In: Hitchcock, R. and Vinding, D. (eds) Indigenous people’s rights in Southern Africa, pp. 152-165. IWGIA Document No. 110. Copenhagen. — 2006. ‘CBNRM and pastoral development in Botswana: Implications for San land rights’. Paper presented at workshop entitled ‘Environment, Identity and CBNRM: Experiences of the San in Southern Africa’, Oxford University African Studies Centre and African Environments Programme, 1 December. Widlok, T. 2000. Names that escape the state: Hai//om naming practices versus domination and isolation. In Schweitzer, P.P., Biesele, M. and Hitchcock, R.K. (eds) Hunters and gatherers in the modern world: Conflict, resistance and self-determination, pp. 361-379. New York and Oxford: Berghan Books.

Botswana/Survival/www.survival-international.org

Fig. 2 (above). Gordon Bennett, lawyer for the San, discusses the case with some of his clients at Gugamma, inside the CKGR, July 2004. Fig. 3 (below). Bushmen celebrating their historic court victory outside the High Court in Lobatse, December 2006.

Survival International replies: The Bushmen’s campaign, supported by Survival International, has been enormously empowering for them and has seen ‘native title’ recognized for the first time by an African court. Effectively challenging vested interests, however, is met with well-funded hostility. The allegations made here that Survival made things worse originate with Ditshwanelo, an organization that has represented Botswana at the UN. The author cites Suzman and Solway with approval. However, Suzman does not believe indigenous rights have a place in Africa, an idea also embraced by his former employer, De Beers. Solway does not believe the Gana and Gwi have a right to live in the reserve. The organization Kuru is cited, but not the fact that its principal funder is De Beers and its patron is minister of mines. The Bushmen want a future, and Taylor asks whether anthropologists can help. Probably, but before anthropologists trade their opinions they might well first reflect critically on how they may be influenced, albeit unwittingly, by vested interests. Stephen Corry Survival International [email protected]

ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 23 No 5, October 2007