Land Reform, Range Ecology, and Carrying Capacities in Namaqualand, South Africa Tor A. Benjaminsen*, Rick Rohdew, Espen Sjaastad*, Poul Wisborg*, and Tom Lebertz *Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences wCentre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh zProgramme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape In South African rangeland management, there is a long history of using the notion of carrying capacity as a central planning tool for environmental conservation and agricultural modernization. Today, in the new South Africa, the ‘‘need’’ for livestock keepers to adhere to a defined carrying capacity in order to conserve rangeland resources and to achieve economic development remains an institutionalized ‘‘fact.’’ In this article, we use in- terviews, livestock and rainfall data, policy documents, and aerial photos to discuss the idea of carrying capacity as it is currently used in the implementation of land reform in Namaqualand in the Northern Cape Province. This article is a contribution at the interface of human ecology and political ecology, linking environmental issues to economic constraints, land rights, social justice, and values. Policymakers and extension services usually see carrying capacity as a purely technical issue. We argue that this is problematic because it gives privilege to environmental sustainability and to one particular perception of the ideal landscape at the expense of livelihood security and poverty alleviation. It also perpetuates the colonial myth that the private ranch system is an ideal one, independent of disparate production goals and unequal economic opportunities and constraints, and it ignores evidence going back more than half a century that the Namaqualand range is capable of sustaining livestock densities far greater than those recommended. The winners that emerge from the current policy focus on carrying capacity are the few emergent black commercial farmers as well as conservationist interests; the losers are the majority of poor stockowners in the communal areas. Key Words: carrying capacity, land reform, Nam- aqualand, political ecology, South Africa. T he notion of carrying capacity applied within rangeland management has a central place in South Africa’s history of environmental conser- vation and agricultural modernization. During the latter part of the twentieth century, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, many national agricultural policies were de- signed to promote the interests of white farmers on private land. Such policies were derived largely from South African research that used a theoretical under- pinning of equilibrium and succession, and thus led to formulations of optimal sustainable yield within a farm- ing system based on private property, fenced camps, and conservative stocking rates. Research was motivated not only by the need to modernize agricultural production, but also by the perception that extensive soil and veg- etation degradation was occurring as a result of over- grazing across the Karoo region (Beinart 2003). State infrastructure grants, stock reduction schemes, and drought relief programs promoted and supported this ‘‘commercial’’ system (Hoffman and Ashwell 2001). In communal ‘‘reserves’’ and ‘‘homelands’’ across South Africa, strategies to address land degradation were in- troduced in 1939, but only extensively implemented during the 1950s and 1960s. These often involved cal- culations of livestock carrying capacities, the fencing off of communal rangeland into camps, and the subsequent culling of livestock to conform to estimated carrying capacities (Beinart 1984, 2003; Jacobs 2003). Conservation policies in South Africa (and Africa, in general) have moved from the coercive conservation of colonial days toward community-based approaches, at least at the rhetorical level (Hulme and Murphree 2001; Dzingirai 2003); nevertheless, the ‘‘need’’ for livestock keepers to adhere to a defined carrying capacity in order to conserve rangeland resources and to achieve eco- nomic development remains an institutionalized ‘‘fact.’’ 1 This ‘‘fact,’’ which is the focus of this article, is part of a broader dominating discourse 2 in southern Africa on range management, environmental conservation, and agricultural development, which is shared by a network of actors (Hongslo and Benjaminsen 2002). Such actor- networks (Callon and Latour 1981; Keeley and Scoones 2000, 2003) tend to establish, promote, and reproduce a particular discourse through their use of language and actions. Hegemonic discourses or their associated nar- ratives have proven persistent, even in the face of ‘‘counterfacts’’ going against their storyline (Roe 1991, 1995). According to Masilela and Weiner (1996, 38), Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 2006, pp. 524–540 r 2006 by Association of American Geographers Initial submission, June 2004; revised submissions, December 2004 and August 2005; final acceptance, January 2006 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.K.