The fractured state in the governance of private game farming: the case of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa

Abstract

Conversion from livestock and/or crop farming to game farming has been a notable trend on privately owned land in South Africa over the last decades. The rapid growth of wildlife ranching is associated with an annual increase in the areas enclosed by game fences and high demand for wildlife which is being traded privately and at wildlife auctions. Key environmental, agricultural and land reform legislation has been passed since 1994 that impacts this sector, but this legislation does not provide a clear regulatory framework for the game farming industry. This article seeks to understand why game farming is thriving in a regulatory environment plagued with uncertainty. The focus is on one province, KwaZulu-Natal. It is clear that the state is not a homogeneous and monolithic entity applying itself to the regulation of the sector. There is no clear direction on the position of private game farming at the interface of environmental and agricultural regulations. The argument put forward is that the fractured state, in fact, provides space within which the game farmers are able to effectively manoeuvre and to maximise their advantages as private landowners. While game farmers may complain about strict wildlife regulation in the province, the benefits they gain from the combination of a divided state and the presence in this province of a strong, autonomous conservation body are considerable.

Keywords:

• environmental governance
• private game farming
• biodiversity conservation
• fractured state
• KwaZulu-Natal

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges funding for this study which was a constituent part of a research programme entitled: Farm Dwellers – The Forgotten People? Consequences of Conversions to Private Wildlife Production in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. I would like to acknowledge the help of project leaders Professor Marja Spierenburg of the VU University, Amsterdam and Professor Shirley Brooks of the University of the Western Cape, Cape Town. I also appreciate the input of Professor Eric Lichtfouse who is Chief Editor of Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Agricultural Reviews, Environmental Chemistry Letters, Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable World and Lecturer on Scientific Writing and Communication at the Agroecology Unit, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France.

Funding

The research project was funded by Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [NWO-WOTRO; grant number W01.65.306.00] and the South Africa Netherlands Research Programme on Alternatives in Development (SANPAD).

Notes on Contributor

Tariro Kamuti is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geography at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa and the Department of Organization Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is also a Consultant at Consultancy Africa Intelligence. His research interests include governance issues surrounding sustainable utilisation of natural resources and the social dimensions of biodiversity conservation.

Notes

1. Game farming or wildlife ranching refers to wildlife-based land use. This includes private nature reserves where ecotourism is the main focus and commercial game reserves where there is breeding and/or hunting of game. Both forms of wildlife-based land use are referred to in this article as game farms, since their challenges are related. The terms game farming, game ranching, wildlife ranching are used interchangeably to mean the same phenomenon.

2. The primary data collection technique was the in-depth interview. I also collected data through participant observation including visits to game farms, wildlife reserves and attending game auctions. I gathered notes of ‘impressions of events, processes or people encounter[ed]’ (Remenyi 2012, 49) during fieldwork that I conducted between March 2011 and March 2013. I also made use of documentary evidence from the libraries of the AFRA, the KwaZulu-Natal legislature and EKZNW. These data include organisational publications such as reports, magazines, newsletters, minutes of meetings and environmental plans.

3. Case studies at the local level were selected mainly from the Uthukela District Municipality in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands (that is, the area between the urban centres of Pietermaritzburg and Ladysmith). Emnambithi Local Municipality and Umtshezi Local Municipality were the focus of attention within Uthukela District Municipality, whose offices are located in Ladysmith.

4. Additional information about the Natal Parks Board is found in organisational documents obtained from the library of the EKZNW such as: ‘South African Nature Conservation and the Natal Parks Board’ dated 1 July 1986; and The Natal Parks Board – A Summary of Several Key Performance Areas (date not specified).

5. Ezemvelo is a word in isiZulu that refers to nature or natural resources. EKZNW was initially called the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Services, but the name was later changed. This agency directly manages around 8% of the province's land area through 110 protected areas adding up to 7127.9 km² (Foggin and Münster 2000; Goodman 2003). EKZNW is a semi-autonomous parastatal entity financially supported by the province; currently it is located under the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs (KZNDAEA).

6. The KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Board is the management board of the EKZNW and is accountable to the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs.

7. As reported in the Minutes of Meeting of the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Board No.75/No.1 of 2007 27 June 2007.

8. KwaZulu-Natal province is the only one of South Africa's nine provinces that does not have a statutory protected area that is controlled by the South African National Parks Board (SANPARKS) – EKZNW does that job in the province (see Brooks 2004). Therefore, EKZNW has the overarching responsibility of biodiversity conservation in both provincial statutory reserves and on private land.

9. The research team on the project entitled: ‘Farm Dwellers the Forgotten People? Consequences of Conversions to Private Wildlife Production in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape’ organised workshops in the two provinces. The workshops served to give feedback to research respondents and to create dialogue amongst wildlife industry stakeholders and players. One such workshop organised in Pietermaritzburg on the 12 April 2014 attracted officials from Departments such as Rural Development and Land Reform, EKZNW, the KwaZulu-Natal DEA and Agriculture, representatives of land claimants and non-governmental organisations.

10. The proposed Bill will substitute for the Development Facilitation Act No 67 of 1995, Removal of Restrictions Act No of 84 of 1967, the Physical Planning Act No 88 of 1967 and will affect all national, provincial and pre-1994 laws linked to land use management and land development.

11. According to the AFRA, Community Status Report (2011) Gongolo is an area located between Estcourt, Mooi River and Weenen covering over 40,000 ha of farms previously owned by 16 landowners. The name is locally used and is derived from one of the rivers that runs through the area.

12. The prospect of having to offer post-settlement support to the land claimants may also have played a role. Failure to provide such support has been reported as causing failure of land redistribution projects elsewhere in the country (see Aliber and Cousins 2013).

Additional information

Funding

Funding: The research project was funded by Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [NWO-WOTRO; grant number W01.65.306.00] and the South Africa Netherlands Research Programme on Alternatives in Development (SANPAD).