Land beneficiaries as game farmers: conservation, land reform and the invention of the ‘community game farm’ in KwaZulu-Natal

Abstract

Scholarship on post-apartheid land reform includes research on land claims made to formal protected areas, such as national parks and state game reserves. Little attention has however, been paid to the question of land restitution claims on private lands, on which a range of nominally ‘conservation-friendly’ land-uses (including commercial hunting) have taken place. This article traces the emergence of the ‘community game farm’ as a product of land reform processes affecting freehold land in the midlands of KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. Two groups of land beneficiaries who were granted title to former privately owned game farms used for leisure hunting are studied in detail. The article shows that a range of state and private actors, as well as traditional authorities, have worked to ensure the continuation of the land under conservation or game farming after transfer. The central argument is that in this process, a generic narrative is imposed which works to conflate or deny the distinct historical identities of the beneficiary groups. The article raises questions about the real efficacy of land restitution in this context, as well as the appropriateness of a community-based conservation narrative when applied in the context of small farms such as those considered here.

Keywords:

• land reform partnerships
• South Africa
• restitution
• community-based conservation
• private game farming
• biodiversity conservation
• hunting industry
• labour tenancy
• community game farm
• KwaZulu-Natal

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the University of the Free State Research Cluster, ‘New Frontiers in Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development’, as well as the personal support of the Cluster director, Doreen Atkinson. The authors also benefited from participation in two interrelated collaborative research projects: ‘Farm Dwellers, the Forgotten People? Consequences of Conversions to Private Wildlife Production in KwaZulu-Natal’, funded by the South Africa Netherlands Research Programme on Alternatives in Development; and the extended version of that project, ‘Farm Dwellers, the Forgotten People? Consequences of Conversions to Private Wildlife Production in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape’, funded by NWO-WOTRO (NWO is the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, partnered with WOTRO Science for Global Development in the NWO-WOTRO research programme). We are most grateful to all the research participants in KwaZulu-Natal. We would also like to acknowledge the input and insightful comments of several careful readers: Gillian Hart of the University of California at Berkeley, Thembela Kepe of the University of Toronto, Lindokhuhle Khumalo of the University of the Western Cape, Jenny Josefsson of the University of the Free State, Robin Palmer of Rhodes University, Robert Gordon of the University of Vermont (currently based at the University of the Free State), and Marja Spierenburg of the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Any errors of fact or interpretation are those of the authors. Thanks to Frank Sokolic for drawing the map.

Notes

1. These developments are significant in terms of land area, as well as economic turnover. For facts and figures on the game farming industry in South Africa [albeit some years old, see NAMC (2006)].

2. The research methodology involved close engagement over several months at the two field sites, as well as targeted interviews with present and past role-players in the story. An initial period of fieldwork was conducted in July 2009 and this was extended with longer periods of fieldwork at both research sites during 2010. All interviews were conducted by Mnqobi Ngubane. Interviews were conducted either in English or isiZulu, as appropriate. All translations from the Zulu are done by Mnqobi Ngubane. For a detailed discussion of the research methodology, see the Masters dissertation in which these findings were first presented (Ngubane 2012). The research was carried out at the University of the Free State under the supervision of Shirley Brooks, now based at the University of the Western Cape.

3. The authors have taken the decision not to provide a detailed citation linking each piece of research information to the unpublished Masters dissertation where they were first presented (Ngubane 2012). It was felt that this would be too cumbersome and interrupt the flow of the article. The dissertation is however available for consultation.

4. For a recent in-depth consideration of similar disputes over land trusts to whom (in this case, state) conservation areas have been transferred – albeit in other part of the country – see Fay (2013).

5. The construction of the Bhambatha Lodge went ahead against the advice of the partner organisation, the KwaZulu-Natal Hunters and Conservation Association. Its construction caused tensions within the partnership, discussed in the last section of the article.

6. Thanks to Jeff Guy for this insight into the historical figure of the kholwa chief.

7. Bill Freund put this well almost 30 years ago when apartheid-era removals were still ongoing: ‘Black spots are, as the name implies, islands of black tenure in supposedly white zones. They have in general belonged to the more prosperous strata of the African peasantry who had been able, when it was legal before the land division of 1913, to purchase freehold property, often through companies of ex-wage workers or the agency of the missions’ (Freund 1984, 51).

8. Translation from isiZulu by Mnqobi Ngubane.

9. Like the provincial conservation agency's name (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife), this name is also derived from the Zulu word for ‘nature’.