4.0 Article

'Blame it on the Weeds' : Politics, Poverty, and Ecology in the New South Africa

Journal

JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN AFRICAN STUDIES
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 869-887

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03057070.2010.527642

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In January of 2000, spectacular fires burned in the natural veld of Cape Town, South Africa. As the fire-fighting effort finished, a theory emerged: invasive alien species, trees from other countries, such as Australia and the United States, were to blame for the fires. While the invasive alien hypothesis captured the attention of media and policy makers alike, there was little ecological evidence to support it. This article places the fires of 2000 in a longer history of post-apartheid policy and science surrounding invasive alien floral species, arguing that the fires allowed for a synergy between concerns over poverty relief, nature conservation, and scientific research. The most visible example of this synergy was an increased commitment to the Working for Water programme on the Cape Peninsula, a large-scale employment programme utilising unskilled labour to clear invasive alien species in order to conserve South African water resources. In addition to providing employment for South Africa's poorest citizens, Working for Water provided funding for ecological research about invasive alien species. The studies that resulted from this funding focused on gathering information to make practical suggestions for invasive species control. Although the focus of these studies was on management, the science used was itself as rigorous as it had ever been. In the post-apartheid era, as poverty relief and nature conservation came together, scientists ensured that they would continue to play a role in nature conservation by making their research relevant to both invasive species control and to poverty relief.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available