In order to frame what was happening during the period of 1940 - 1966, a discourse analysis necessitates a broad understanding of the societal thinking of the time.
Accordingly, this section commences with an analysis of the ‘epistemic notions’.
Hajer (2003: 8) defines these as “a regularity in the thinking of a particular period, structuring the understanding of reality without actors necessarily aware of it” (see Chapter Two).
Societal thinking during this period was dominated by the capitalist ethos that drove economic growth. Industrialisation commenced in South Africa’s urban areas and was spreading to the country in the form of commercial agriculture. Whilst the 1940s were initially characterised by an economic slump during the post-World War II depression, this was soon followed by renewed post-war economic growth (Feinstein, 2005). This was evident in the South African market and particularly in agriculture.
Further development of the Umfolozi valley was stimulated through the government policy of providing serviceman returning from duty in World War II with land to settle and cultivate (Anon, 1965; Heaton-Nicholls, 1961). Thus, the growth of the economy was stimulated and the area of St Lucia was subject to these changes. This
84 change was influenced particularly by the ‘frontier’ outlook that many sugar farmers exhibited (Bunn, 1996). Dryzek (1997) refers to this environmental discourse as the part of the Promethean discourse. Advocates of this discourse believe that there are no limits to economic growth and thus that the environment is there to be subjugated and tamed to ensure that economic growth increases (Dryzek, 1997). Thus the rural Zululand area was seen as a wild, useless landscape that required taming.
The majority of this second wave of settlers coming to northern Natal (the first group of returning servicemen coming after the First World War from 1918 onwards) settled into sugar farming on their plots. This meant that most of the settlers were concentrated in the Umfolozi Flats area, on the fertile land along the Umfolozi River (Lincoln, 1995; Heaton Nicholls, 1961).
Their ‘frontier’ thinking soon changed to some extent, with the realisation that whilst cultivation of the rural land in the Zululand area and particularly the Umfolozi Flats was positive for economic growth in the area, it could be compromising the tourism potential of Lake St Lucia. Thus in the 1960s the protection of St Lucia’s natural assets became a priority for the national government in recognition of the area’s potential for the tourist economy. This realisation was evident in the Kriel Commission in 1966. In 1963 the national Government commissioned an investigation into the state of Lake St Lucia. The Government appointed a panel of experts that comprised academics, engineers and well known figures that had already been involved in environmental issues in the St Lucia area. The panel was led by Prof.
J. P. Kriel who was Assistant Chief Engineer in the Department of Water Affairs at the time (Kriel Commission, 1966: 2)11. Their brief was to investigate the alleged human-induced threats to the St Lucia estuary and mouth and provide recommendations in order for the authorities to move forward and act on any identified threats (Kriel Commission, 1966: 2). Thus the Kriel Commission report provides a valuable source of data regarding the discourses presented by government and scientists of the time and an important turning point in the management of the
11 The other commissioners were Emil Adler (Chief of the Natal Region, Department of Agricultural Technical Services), Prof. Adolf Bayer (Professor of Botany, University of Natal), Andrew Brynard (Nature Conservator, Kruger National Park), David Davies (Oceanographic Research Institute), Prof.
John Day (Professor of Zoology, University of Cape Town), Allen McKay (Chief Agricultural Officer of Natal, Department of Bantu Administration and Development and Peter Stewart (Research Officer, Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board).
85 mouth. Important to note is that prior to this point when the ‘problem’ was identified, there were studies that were used to inform the management of the St Lucia estuary and mouth. Important preceding studies include two reports submitted to the then newly formed, Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board in 1948. They were a preliminary report by a Professor Day12 on an ecological survey of the St Lucia area during July 1948 and a report by Col. D. E. Paterson, South African Harbour Engineer, on the silting problem at St Lucia (Kriel Commission, 1966). Despite the increase of information sources and commentary in newspapers, the chief documentary source of information about this period was the Kriel Commission report, published in 1966, as it reflects on the earlier period of concern.
In the Kriel Commission it was stated that “[the] preservation and proper utilisation of St Lucia Lake and its surroundings would give it a great economic potential” (Kriel Commission, 1966: 206). It must be noted, however, that the economic value of tourism at St Lucia was not intended as an alternative to the agricultural production taking place in the surrounding areas and in the Umfolozi Valley but rather as a supplementary stimulus to the economy. As a result, conversion of the Umfolozi floodplain to sugar cultivation continued unabated (Kriel Commission, 1966). The notion of economic growth and progress constructed a dominant societal theme during this period. Thus the ‘promethean’ discourse in the 1940 – 1966 period was a hegemonic discourse that framed environmental problems and their solutions. A hegemonic discourse is “a prevailing commonsense formed in culture [...] that informs values, customs and spiritual ideals to induce 'spontaneous' consent to the status quo” (Peet, 2001: 4). The rise of feelings of nationalism during the 1940 – 1966 period and earlier provided a vehicle for protectionist policies to ensure areas of natural beauty in South Africa were afforded the necessary safeguarding (Kriel Commission, 1966). This coincided with concerns about the protection of natural resources which were gaining prominence in government debates. National pride of noteworthy natural assets became a national focus point frequently during the rise to power of the Nationalist Party (Carruthers, 1989, 1995, 1997). Although this was advantageous for the preservation of the unique St Lucia area, in political discussions and debates Lake St Lucia and its environs took second place to the Kruger National
12 Later to be nominated as a commissioner on the Kriel Commission
86 Park, which was the natural asset that most embodied the government ideals of the time of establishing a national park (Carruthers, 1995). However, the St Lucia Lake was an area of concern, as shown by the establishment of the Kriel Commission of 1966. It was in response to the threats from human intervention to St Lucia, that the importance of protecting St Lucia was emphasised by the Kriel Commission. The protection of this national asset would be “…in the best interests of the region and of the country as a whole…” (Kriel Commission, 1966: 2-4).
Whilst this protection was positive for white people who were able to experience the natural environment of the St Lucia and greater Zululand area, the black residents of the area were not allowed to enjoy the beauty and natural assets of St Lucia. The conservation of natural resources was viewed by the state as a method of reinforcing separation of the races (Carruthers, 1995). This was in line with national government policies that promoted, and later enforced, the separate development of the races in South Africa. As a result this period was characterised by spatial maneuvering on the part of the national government in order to restrict the movement of black people and reserve certain favourable areas for whites (Carruthers, 1995). Thus the Kriel Commission (1966: 200) also contained frequent references that exhibited this ideology:
“The Umfolozi and Hluhluwe Game Reserves are completely surrounded by large Bantu Reserves, and may be used by Bantu in future. Hence the desirability of having St Lucia as a large nature conservation area and game reserve situated within an area occupied by Whites, is evident.”
The 1940 – 1966 period was characterised by three epistemic notions. Firstly, the dominant discourse of economic growth and progress was evident throughout the time period, particularly in government policy. Secondly, the notion of conserving natural resources through their protection within parks was becoming evident. And lastly, the notion of separate development of the races, which informed much of the thinking of the Government and decision-making authorities.
87