Send message to Author

Presentation short abstract

Based on interviews with Himba pastoralists in Namibia, this paper introduces the concept of indirect enclosure. It shows how regulatory, biological, and epistemic processes constrain pastoral livelihoods without changing communal land ownership.

Presentation long abstract

Contemporary debates on enclosure in pastoral areas have largely focused on the appropriation or privatization of land through conservation, carbon markets, and green transition initiatives. However, pastoral livelihoods may become increasingly constrained even where communal tenure remains intact. This paper introduces the concept of indirect enclosure to examine how the conditions under which pastoralism can be practiced are progressively reshaped without the loss of land.

Drawing on 40 qualitative interviews with Himba pastoralists in northern Kunene, Namibia, the study examines how regulatory, biological, and epistemic processes influence pastoral viability. First, the Veterinary Cordon Fence continues to restrict access to livestock markets, reinforcing long-standing spatial inequalities despite communal access to grazing land. Second, state-led livestock improvement programmes promote crossbreeding and commercial production goals that privilege market-oriented notions of productivity while devaluing locally adapted indigenous breeds and breeding strategies. Third, dominant scientific and policy narratives marginalize pastoral knowledge by favouring standardized production models, carrying-capacity approaches, and conservation strategies that overlook the ecological logic of mobile pastoralism.

The findings demonstrate that enclosure does not necessarily occur through the loss of land itself, but through institutional processes that reshape access to markets, biological resources, and legitimate forms of knowledge. These indirect enclosures progressively narrow pastoral autonomy and adaptive capacity while leaving communal property institutions unchanged. Recognizing these processes broadens prevailing understandings of enclosure and highlights the need for green transition policies that safeguard not only communal land rights but also the institutional, biological, and epistemic conditions that sustain pastoral livelihoods.