Frozen In Time
– conservation, conflicts and constructs of
’nature’ and ’culture’ in the eMakhosini-Ophathe
Heritage Park.
Södertörn University College | Department of Life Sciences
Master’s Thesis 30 hp | Environmental Science | October 2008
Author: Jenny Josefsson
Supervisor: Ass. Professor Vesa-Matti Loiske
II
Abstract
Frozen in time – A study of how constructs of nature and culture are transformed into
practice and how a protected area cannot be decoupled from its contexts.
Author: Jenny Josefsson
Game reserves and other forms of protected areas are growing in South Africa and
particularly in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. There is an experienced increase in the
demand of wildlife production and nature tourism and game reserves are thought to be
profitable and ideal for combining biodiversity conservation and tourism. People living in or
adjacent to these areas however often contest the establishment of such, and reconciliation
sometimes seems unattainable. This study investigates a current case in KwaZulu-Natal where
local people dispute the development of the eMakhosini-Ophathe Heritage Park and as a
result the completion of the park is delayed. The objectives of this study were to place the
park in contexts relevant to the current conflicts, to identify the stakeholders and their
perceptions and further to explain these. The underlying vision of the park was also
investigated and this was co-analysed with the stakeholder analysis. The results showed a
general negative view on park management but differing views on the park itself. This is
explained with the notable difference on how stakeholders are affected by the park: some will
benefit economically and some are supposed to relocate. Negative views on park management
stem essentially from lack of trust and transparency and there are doubts in management’s
capacity to develop and run the park. The vision of the park embodies a very static view of
nature, culture and people; and when transformed into practice conflicts arise.
Keywords: conservation, eMakhosini Valley, constructs of nature and culture, stakeholder
perceptions.
III
Acknowledgements
The fieldwork for this study is largely based on a so called Minor Field Study for which the
author was granted a scholarship from the Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency (SIDA). The scholarship enables Swedish students to acquire knowledge about
international development and to connect with institutions and organizations in foreign
countries. SIDA has however no further involvement in the study.
Dr. Shirley Brooks at University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) suggested the topic for the study
which falls broadly under a research project for which Dr. Brooks is in charge (see SANPAD
in Appendix I). The SANPAD project investigates the conversion of commercial farmland
into wildlife-based forms of land-use and the consequences on farm workers’ livelihoods. Dr.
Brooks also served as the field supervisor during the fieldwork in South Africa.
The thesis is however an individual academic study and has been overseen by its appointed
supervisor at Södertörn University College (Sh).
The author would like to express her thanks to Dr. Brooks (UKZN), Ass. Prof. Loiske (Sh),
Prof. Guy (UKZN) as well as to the SANPAD project and those organizations, communities
and individuals who shared with me their time and voices.
IV
List of acronyms
AFRA Association for rural advancement
Amafa Amafa aKwaZulu-Natali
ANC African National Congress
CLP Church Land program
DA Discourse Analysis
DLA Department of Land Affairs
DRC Dutch Reformed Church
EOHP eMakhosini-Ophathe Heritage Park
EKZNW Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
ESTA Extension of Security of Tenure Act
EU European Union
HUP Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Game Reserve
IFP Inkatha Freedom Party
KZN KwaZulu-Natal
LPM Landless People’s Movement
LT Labour tenant
LTA Land Redistribution (Labour Tenant) Act
NGO Non-governmental organization
NP Nationalist Party
PACSA Pietermaritzburg Society for Christian Social Awareness
QQC The Qangqatho Community
SANPAD South Africa – Netherlands Research Programme on Alternatives in
Development
Sh Södertörn University College
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
UKZN University of KwaZulu-Natal
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WCT Wildlands Conservation Trust
WTO World Tourism Organization
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
ZDM Zululand District Municipality
V
Table of contents
Abstract__________________________________________________________________ II
Acknowledgements _________________________________________________________III
List of acronyms ___________________________________________________________ IV
Table of contents ___________________________________________________________V
Photos_______________________________________________________________________VII
Figures ______________________________________________________________________VII
Tables _______________________________________________________________________VII
1 Beneficial outcomes or incompatible issues?____________________________________ 1
2 Research problem _________________________________________________________ 3
2.1 Aim and main objectives ______________________________________________________3
2.2 Previous Research____________________________________________________________4
2.3 Assumptions and research questions_____________________________________________6
2.4 Summary of aims, objectives and research questions _______________________________7
3 Methodological framework and methods of research _____________________________ 8
3.1 Knowledge and the knower ____________________________________________________9
3.1.1 Conditions for constructed contexts___________________________________________________ 10
3.1.2 A critique of reflexive methodology __________________________________________________ 11
3.2 Research methods ___________________________________________________________12
3.2.1 The case study____________________________________________________________________ 12
3.2.2 The research interview _____________________________________________________________ 13
3.2.3 Identifying stakeholders ____________________________________________________________ 13
3.2.4 Methods of analysis _______________________________________________________________ 14
3.2.5 Data and sources of data____________________________________________________________ 15
3.2.6 A critique of the data ______________________________________________________________ 15
3.3 Delimitations _______________________________________________________________16
3.4 Terminology________________________________________________________________17
4 An integrated conceptual framework _________________________________________ 20
4.1 Visualizing the framework ____________________________________________________21
VI
4.1.1 The Contextual Framework _________________________________________________________ 22
4.1.2 Theoretical framework _____________________________________________________________ 23
4.1.3 Discourse Analysis ________________________________________________________________ 25
5 Background and contexts __________________________________________________ 27
5.1 Invasion, division and dispossessions. ___________________________________________27
5.2 Where, how and why ________________________________________________________29
5.2.1 Nature, culture, history and heritage __________________________________________________ 30
5.2.2 Sources of funding ________________________________________________________________ 33
6 Stakeholders and conflicts _________________________________________________ 35
6.1 Summary of chapter 6 _______________________________________________________49
7 Analysis ________________________________________________________________ 51
7.1 The EOHP _________________________________________________________________51
7.2 EOHP management _________________________________________________________52
7.3 Stakeholders _______________________________________________________________54
7.4 Envisioning the EOHP _______________________________________________________56
7.5 Parallel analyses ____________________________________________________________60
8 Concluding discussion ____________________________________________________ 62
9 Research proposals _______________________________________________________ 65
List of references __________________________________________________________ 66
Primary Sources _______________________________________________________________66
List of Interviews ______________________________________________________________________ 66
Secondary sources______________________________________________________________67
Appendix I. The SANPAD Research Project _____________________________________ i
Appendix II_______________________________________________________________ iv
I.I Overview of the interviews ____________________________________________________ iv
I.II Interview structure__________________________________________________________ iv
Appendix III. Maps over the eMakhosini – Ophathe Heritage Park__________________ vi
VII
Photos
Photo 1: Nguni cattle from Amafa’s herd in the eMakhosini valley 05/11/07. Page 29
Photo 2: Dingane’s restored homestead near uMgungundlovu 05/11/07. Page 29
Photo 3: The Spirit of the eMakhosini 05/11/07. Page 31
Photo 4: The monument over Piet Retief and his followers 05/11/07. Page 32
Photo 5: DRC’s mission station in the eMakhosini valley 05/11/07. Page 36
Photo 6: A private farm in the eMakhosini valley 05/11/07. Page 39
Photo 7: A cut up fence in the eMakhosini valley 05/11/07. Page 41
All photos by the author.
Figures
Figure 1: Summary of aims, objectives and research questions Page 6
Figure 2: The integrated conceptual framework Page 20
Figure 3: Attitudes towards the EOHP Page 51
Figure 4: Attitudes towards park management Page 53
Figure 5: Stakeholder and actor relationships Page 55
All figures compiled and designed by the author.
Tables
Table 1: Stakeholders, conflicts and factors of relevance to the EOHP. Page 49
Table designed and compiled by the author.
1
1 Beneficial outcomes or incompatible issues?
Postcolonial and post-apartheid South Africa has undergone many and sometimes rapid
changes in the aspiration for economic and social development, and some may argue that the
national development politics is dominated by market liberal economic solutions1.
‘Development through tourism’ is one of the catchphrases of this politic that has had a
significant impact on development politics in South Africa. Tourism is viewed as the ‘new
gold’ of the economy and potentially the biggest generator of jobs in the country. This
equation, to which many put their hopes and investments, seems fairly simple and is
sometimes argued to deliver a win-win situation outcome2. The increasing global demand for
environmental conservation and nature tourism is hoped to provide a necessary economic
input in South African nature conservation/tourism, but how does South Africa balance the
national and local demand for development with the global demand for unspoiled natural
areas? Rather often these demands house a discrepancy that can bring slumbering conflicts to
the surface. New approaches to deal with this discrepancy are community-based strategies,
participatory elements in policies and project implementation and inclusion rather than
exclusion of local people. This study investigates a conservation project said to meet the
needs for development and economic upliftment by partnerships and long-term sustainable
solutions. The study attempts to present a multi-faceted story of how a local yet large scale
conservation project affects and is affected by contextual factors such as history, land issues
and politics and how the visioning behind this project bear traces of conservation ideologies
of the past, which are perhaps incompatible with the new approaches to conservation and
development.
The project studied here is the eMakhosini-Ophathe Heritage Park (EOHP) that was
established in 1999 and is located near the town of Ulundi in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), South
Africa. The park is planned to be a combined heritage park and game reserve - “the only one
of its kind in Africa”- and will cover an area of nearly 30 000 hectares when finished3. The
park will consist of an amalgamation of two areas of which the largest is the eMakhosini
Valley; sometimes also referred to as ‘the birthplace of the Zulu nation’ as the ancestors of the
1 Cliffe, 2000:273. 2 Wensing, 2005:11. 3 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:iii and Wensing, 2005:6.
2
Zulu people are said to have lived there4. The Ophathe Game Reserve forms the second part
of the park and has been a protected area since 1991, and among other species of wildlife it is
hosting the endangered Black rhino5. The areas are to be joined as it is believed that a park
combining both heritage and game viewing will create a major draw card for tourism and
incite economic development in this part of KZN. Local job opportunities, unique possibilities
for conservation and a multitude of spin-offs are some examples of the expected outcome.
There seem to be many beneficiaries if the park is successful: local tourism entrepreneurs,
conservationists, biodiversity itself, the region as a political and administrative entity and the
people living in the area6.
Nevertheless there are a number of issues standing in the way of the park’s completion, and
there are doubts among the local people and in academic research concerning the park’s
potential and if the EOHP will live up to its anticipated success. Conflicts and disagreements
on how the park should be run (or even exist) permeate all levels and groups of stakeholders
to an extent that when this study was conducted the development of the EOHP was more or
less frozen7. Visions of what and how the EOHP should or could be seem incompatible with
what is there now and what stakeholders outside management want, and this discrepancy
appears to almost entirely dominate any further progress of the park. One major obstacle is
that not all land required for the park has been acquired and this is due to disputes over land
prices and land ownership. Some of those now in ownership of land that according to plans
should be included in the park want partnerships instead of being bought out, and there are
activities on private land in the valley that are difficult to relocate elsewhere8. Further there
are people living in the eMakhosini Valley that according to park management must relocate
but these people refuse to leave as they believe the land they are residing on to be rightfully
theirs. To achieve official and legal recognition of their rights they have applied for Labour
Tenant Status and submitted a Land Claim; both legal procedures that if not resolved by the
parties themselves will go to court9.
4 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:1-4 and Bryant, 1929:21-23. 5 EKZNW 6 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:7-9, Wensing , 2005 and EOHP information folder. 7 Respondent E2. 8 Respondent A1, B and C. 9 Respondent H, G and J2.
3
2 Research problem
“Nothing means anything on its own. Meaning comes not from seeing or even observing
alone, for there is no ‘alone’ of this sort.” 10
The park is by its management treated as an entity separated from its surroundings, and issues
and obstacles regarding the park as individual phenomena. The almost implacable guidelines
set out for investors and partners reflect an underlying vision insensitive to social and cultural
dynamics. This study attempts to show the importance of recognizing these dynamics and the
contexts connected to the EOHP. It is argued that current approaches and development
strategies are too one-tracked and that the preparatory work for the EOHP has failed to
address a number of important complexities.
2.1 Aim and main objectives
The EOHP with its complex web of multi-level issues can be placed in a variety of contexts.
From the global level of capital networks down to the individual’s daily survival there seem to
be endless aspects worthy of investigation in the EOHP case. The overall aim of this study is
to shed light on this complexity and hereby contribute to an understanding of how global
driving forces, such as biodiversity conservation and tourism, are linked to the everyday lives
of people and that these phenomena cannot be decoupled. A holistic (see chapter 3) view on
the EOHP that attempts to highlight patterns and links instead of isolated phenomena could be
proven useful for the future of the park as well as the stakeholders. Identifying the
stakeholders is furthermore of importance for this study. The EOHP initiators did so during
the initial planning of the park but this has proved to be unsatisfactory11. Besides a gap in
stakeholder identification (or rather recognition) there is no documentation of the
stakeholders’ internal relations or how they experience and perceive the park. This study aims
at mapping these non-surveyed areas and to show the importance of this knowledge in
projects such as the EOHP.
In order to link the more descriptive approaches outlined above, a stakeholder analysis will
be conducted focusing on the relationship between the stakeholder’s actions and standpoints
and the conflicts surrounding the park. A discourse analysis (DA) of the stakeholder’s
perceptions and the vision behind the park is designed to reveal where the vision stem from. 10 Steedman, 1991:54 in Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:246. 11 Respondent J1 and B.
4
Finally the results of the stakeholder analysis will be placed in the context of the EOHP vision
to investigate the relationships between the philosophy of the park and stakeholder
perceptions.
To clarify, the objectives are both descriptive and analytical (see chapter 3.2.4) and can be
categorized as such:
1. To place the EOHP in an inclusive context spanning over space and time.
2. To identify stakeholders and to analyze their perceptions and standpoints in relation to
the current conflicts.
3. To investigate whether there are links between the vision of the EOHP, current
conflicts and stakeholder perceptions.
2.2 Previous Research
The academic literature related to the EOHP is nothing but abundant. Consequences of global
tourism, the reoccurring incompatibility between environmental preservation and
development, the importance of participation, representation and power-relations in
development projects, the list can be made long. There is however somewhat of a gap in
broader research covering ‘the big picture’ which can perhaps be explained with the need of
depth and a narrow focus in conventional academic studies. Analyzing and interpreting
systems in a holistic manner rather than focusing on single units is a fairly new research
approach but it is gaining increased influence the field of environmental science12.
In South Africa as well as in the international scholarly community, there is much research
conducted concerning conservation politics and new strategies for combining conservation
and development and making it profitable13. It is also widely recognized that a development
of the tourism industry in the South can have a positive effect on development and economic
growth. The advocates of this strategy, together with conservationists, claim that conservation
can be made profitable as there is a demand among tourists to experience ‘nature’ and ‘the
wild’ in its ‘unspoiled’ state14. Dreams of trans-boundary protected areas with wildlife
roaming freely under the gaze of the paying tourist have long been justified with the need for
nature conservation and more recently, biodiversity and economic development15. This so
called ‘nature tourism’ (sometimes misleadingly confused with ecotourism) has increasingly
12 Holling et al., 1998:344-347. 13 Hulme & Murphree, 1999:277-279. 14 WTO, 1999, 2003 and 2004. 15 See for example Brooks, 2005 and McDermott-Hughes, 2005.
5
been supplemented with ‘cultural tourism’ where the tourist can combine experiences of both
‘nature’ and ‘culture’. Due to this impacts on local and perhaps marginalized people have
increased as a certain perceived cultural stereotype, far from unproblematic, is demanded by
the tourism industry as well as the individual tourist. For example Draper and Neumann
provide us with views differing from the otherwise positive connotations of conservation and
tourism and how consumption of local culture can have negative impacts on local people16.
Land is a complex and current topic in South African media where it is frequently given
attention and often is referred to as a ‘hot topic’ or even an irreconcilable problem17. Post-
colonial and post-apartheid land research often focus on how to make justice for previously
disadvantaged people and consequently on the outcomes of these attempts. In 1994 the South
African legal system was reviewed and new democratic laws were instituted. The outcome of
this review is the so called Land Reform which is an attempt to address injustices that mainly
have their roots in the apartheid- and/or colonial system. As this is an ongoing process the
research evaluating the results of these strategies are yet to come, but it has been shown that
the legal system is not adequate for dealing with the complexity associated with land, and
especially not in rural areas18.
The SANPAD Research Project addresses land issues in KZN and more specifically focuses
on current large-scale changes in the agricultural sector in the province. There is an ongoing
conversion of land used for conventional farming into wildlife-based forms of production - a
sector believed to be more profitable. For farm workers and especially farm dwellers it has
been shown that this has consequences in terms of loss of job opportunities and relocation or
eviction from their homes. Wildlife production and game parks are less labour-intense and
also require skilled labour, and as a consequence un-skilled labourers are systematically
excluded19. There are also doubts whether wildlife production is indeed more profitable and
more sustainable, and the possible consequences this conversion will have on South African
food production have recently been subject to discussion20.
16 See for example Draper, 2004, Neumann, 1995 and Urry, 1990. 17 See for example City Press, 28/03/96, 18/02/97, 28/02/07 and 11/09/07. 18 Del Grande, 2006:1, Crush & Jeeves, 1993:356, De-Jongh, 2002:442-443 and Land Rights Act, 1994. 19 AFRA, 2004:23 and Brooks, 2006. 20 AFRA, 2004:27.
6
There is extensive material on the subject of planning and designing the EOHP, and a case
study has also been conducted regarding the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) Black
Rhino Expansion Project (including an analysis of the market for such a park) and the park’s
profitability. According to these reports there is unquestionably a market for tourism in this
part of KZN and linking the EOHP to WWF’s project is expected to have a successful
outcome21. However there are some concerns whether the EOHP actually can compete with
other more well-established tourist attractions in the province22.
In conclusion there is a well-founded base for performing a broad holistic study of the
EOHP; that is the pieces are there but they need to be link and analyzed in the appropriate
context.
2.3 Assumptions and research questions
The research questions are based on two assumptions: 1) Previous stakeholder identifications
are unsatisfactory and, 2) The EOHP cannot be separated from its historical, political and
social contexts if current conflicts are to be successfully addressed. The questions are as
follows:
1. Who are the stakeholders, what are their standpoints and perceptions and how can
these be explained?
2. How is the EOHP envisioned?
3. Are there parallels to be drawn between the envisioning and the conflicts surrounding
the EOHP today?
21 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:7-9, Rugege et al., 1997 and Wensing, 2005. 22 Wensing, 2005:5.
7
2.4 Summary of aims, objectives and research questions
In conclusion, the objectives of this study can be summarized as such:
Conclusions of such
parallels?
Stakeholder identification
Discourse analysis of the
vision behind the EOHP Investigate possible
parallels
Map and analyze stakeholder
perceptions and their internal
relations
Place the EOHP in relevant
spatial and temporal contexts
Identify driving forces and the
vision behind the EOHP
8
3 Methodological framework and methods of research
The philosophy behind the choice of method is classified as social science research as the
phenomenon studied and the study itself (with its political and ethical contexts) is challenging
a set of existing social conditions23. Consequently certain social interests are favoured or
disfavoured depending on the questions asked or not asked as is how ‘reality’ is interpreted
and represented. For this study reflexive methodology forms the methodological framework
as the main point is to bring out aspects such as language and interpretation throughout the
whole study process, including in the writing of the final text24. This study could further be
labelled as mainly insight-driven as the focus is on the hermeneutic process where a more
profound understanding is sought rather then ‘new’ data. Observations and impressions of
social phenomena constitute an important part of the study as well; elements that points to a
more emancipation-driven research25.
Environmental science as a cross-disciplinary academic field is suitable for holistic studies as
adapting the cross-disciplinary approach is to couple what otherwise may have been
decoupled26. ‘Holistic’ in this study refers to precisely this and also to the manner in which
the research was designed and conducted and the intention of the overall aim. The concept
embodies factors such as interdisciplinary, broad, inclusive and multi-level.
It is further used as opposed to focusing on a narrow (or reductionist) scope and observed
phenomena are viewed as components in a system rather than as single units. It is argued that
the factors presented above as well as the system itself (and the interactions between
components) are of key to answering the research objectives. The EOHP is hence researched
from this aspect, id est the data collection and the research methods were not focused on one
isolated phenomenon or on finding one explanation but to understand the big - holistic -
picture.
23 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:8 and Mottier, 2005:1. 24 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:248. 25 Ibid. 258. 26 McKinney et al. 2007:3-4.
Figure 1
9
3.1 Knowledge and the knower
Reflective, or reflexive, methodology emphasizes reflexivity as a vivid part of the research
method and the researcher’s relationship to his or hers work. Although there are many
variations of reflexivity two common denominators can be distinguished that together form
the characteristics of reflective research: careful interpretation and reflection27. Consequently
reflexivity should continuously assess ‘knowledge’ and how it is produced. The role of the
interpreter (the researcher) should be acknowledged in the light of how linguistic, social,
political and theoretical elements are interwoven with the ‘knowledge production’ as the
interpreter cannot separate her- or himself from her or his own contexts; interpretation does
not take place in a neutral, apolitical and ideology-free space28. By engaging in careful
interpretation all empirical data should be viewed as results of interpretation. The collected
data does therefore not mirror reality, nor is it separated from the researcher’s or the
references’ contexts29. The overall point of engaging in reflexive methodology can be
explained as:
“pondering a good deal more upon what the empirical material means, and why we make just
these particular interpretations, before forming any opinions of ‘reality’ as such. [Researchers]
interact with the agents researched…and create images for themselves and others: images
which selectively highlight certain claims…thus suppressing alternative interpretations.”30
It is stated that interpretation precedes data in all research and it is never a question of pure
data at any stage of the research process as empirical material always is constructed31. Further,
the objective interpretation of pure data is impossible, all scientific data is being interpreted at
the very moment it is observed. Subjectivity is therefore seen as a necessity for the research as
the social world is viewed as a set of subjective constructions and the researcher is inseparable
from the interpretive understanding of the subjective meaning of the social phenomena that
she or he is studying32.
27 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000: 4-8. 28 Ibid. 4-9. 29 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:4-8 30 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:6. 31 Ibid. 261 and Mottier, 2005:2. 32 Mottier, 2005:2-4.
10
3.1.1 Conditions for constructed contexts
Reflexive interpretation calls for contact with the empirical material, awareness of the
interpretative act, clarification of social and ideological contexts and recognizing issues of
representation and authority33. It means active thinking about the conditions for the research
and can be designed as a tool for avoiding social and linguistic reductionism34. The
construction of contexts and the research itself is at the core of reflection, for as Steedman
puts it:
“Nothing means anything on its own. Meaning comes not from seeing or even observing
alone, for there is no ‘alone’ of this sort. Neither is meaning lying around in nature waiting to
be scooped up by the senses; rather it is constructed. ‘Constructed’ in this context, means
produced in acts of interpretations.” 35
Attempting to break free from references and consistency, and approaching the research
object with a wide horizon are important approaches to the reflexive analysis. A balance
between chosen reflexive elements will together form a dynamic frame of references to
inspire and structure reflection36.
Two elements of reflection have been used for the analysis and the creation of the
framework for this study:
1) Hermeneutics: Interpretation and understanding of texts and recognizing that the part
cannot be understood when disconnected from the whole37. In accordance with
reflexive methodology, here hermeneutics has been extended and complemented by
the acknowledgement of interpretation as a political-ideological expression38.
2) Discourse analysis: Language has multiple use and multiple consequences. It is
constructed and constructive and one phenomenon can be described in different ways.
This in turn leads to variations in interpretations and there is no foolproof way of
distinguishing what is ‘accurate’ from what is ‘incorrect’. Thus, discourse analysis
means studying linguistic expressions and from that drawing contextual conclusions39.
33 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:238 and Mottier, 2005:5. 34 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:246. 35 Steedman, 1991:54 in Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:246. 36 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:247. 37 Ibid. 53. 38 Ibid. 9. 39 Ibid. 205-207.
11
3.1.2 A critique of reflexive methodology
It can be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for the researcher to recognize his or her own
contextual assumptions and how and/or if these derive from the researcher’s own contexts.
Reflexive methodology aims at conceptualizing interpretation and authorship, and further to
stimulate an awareness of how these are interwoven with the research40. Some argue that this
is impossible to achieve to its fullest and that false neutrality and academics ‘truths’ should be
avoided.
Reflexivity tries to situate knowledge in relevant contexts however practitioners report on
difficulties in doing so41. It is claimed that in most cases, perhaps all, the researcher holds a
privileged position; hence he or she is setting the research agenda. Academic power is one
major challenge for reflexivity and a researcher’s positionality (facets of the Self: institutional
privilege, social status et cetera) will inevitably affect data collection and interpretation42. It is
claimed that the power-relations between the researcher and the research object cannot be
escaped and in cases where a Western researcher enters a ‘Development setting’ this is,
except in rare cases, general rule43. According to some discussions on reflexivity, the
researcher cannot place her- or himself in the same contexts as the research objects, and
especially not in terms of power. The researcher can but observe and interpret, and if she or he
would claim a full understanding of the researched and her or his own influence on the
research process, this would be a political and ethical erratum44. There are uncertainties and
well-reasoned doubt if the Self and contexts are transparent enough to be understood and
analyzed with certainty - can the researcher really avoid distances between her- or himself and
the research object45? On the more practical level there is little doubt that a researcher’s
positionality actually affects the research however the tools to analyze how it is affected are
inadequate. Reflexive research is also under critique for contradicting one of its own
fundaments: that there are no objective ‘truths’. Meanwhile there are attempts and suggestions
how to approach a ‘truer’ research by linking oneself to the object of study when reflexivity
aims at avoiding claims of objectivity. There is much to be understood from the differences
between the researcher and the researched and the knowledge that could be produced thereof
40 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000: 6. 41 Rose, 1997:306. 42 Ibid. 307-308. 43 Ibid. 311-312 and see chapter 3.4. 44 Rose, 1997: 311-312. 45 Ibid. 318.
12
is at risk of being undiscovered as there is little room for such understanding in reflexive
research46.
3.2 Research methods
The methods used in this study are exclusively qualitative and follows the design of a case
study. Data for the case study has been collected in accordance with case study methods,
methods also compatible with reflexive philosophy. Interviews play a significant role for the
data collection and the analysis as the stakeholders’ perceptions is at the core of the study.
3.2.1 The case study
The EOHP could be a classical example of how an attempt to join goals of development and
conservation turn out to be problematic. The study however aims at covering more ground
than this and the EOHP case has the potential to contribute to an understanding of a variety of
issues. Designing the research process around a case study is therefore suitable as the results
are hoped to expand and generalize theoretical propositions and to make way for further
analysis. A case study’s strength lies in its capacity to include all types of data may it be of an
unexpected nature or not47.
When a contemporary phenomenon is investigated within its own contexts and questions of
how, why, what, where and who are crucial for the analysis a case study is preferred rather
than experimental research as a greater variety of dimensions can be investigated; a case study
is in that sense less reductionist and more inclusive48. Considering these statements, and in
accordance with the aims of this study, a case study-based approach is appropriate as a wide
variety of factors, data and events will be included and very few of them will be pre-
determined. Further, the case study as a research method agrees with the methodological
statement that the research object should be approach with an open mind for unexpected
events and references49.
46 Rose, 1997:312-313. 47 Yin, 2003:7-8. 48 Ibid. 5-8, 13-15. 49 Alvesson & Sköldberg 2000:247 and Yin, 2003:13-14.
13
3.2.2 The research interview
A research interview is conducted to obtain information and understanding of issues relevant
to the general aims and specific research questions of the study50. Four types of interviews
have been utilized of which semi-structured interviews were most frequently used and the
others, in-depth interviews, natural conversations and focus groups, were used more
sparsely51. Interviews as tools for data collection are suitable when the aim is insight and
understanding, the object is local and small-scale and everyone is a key informant; all of
which are criteria ascribed to the EOHP and the aims of this study52. An additional reason for
using interviews (and perhaps the most important) was to obtain personal answers reflecting
experiences, views, opinions and statements. Interviews also generate spin-offs in terms of
continuously developing the research as the interview situation often leads to a discovery of
‘new’ factors and raises new questions of importance of the study.
The interview not only enables the broad scope and inclusive approach where breadth rather
then depth is emphasized, it is also a flexible tool permitting the search for in-depth data
which additionally has been sought when found valuable53.
3.2.3 Identifying stakeholders
The perhaps most essential part of the research process was to identify stakeholders and key
persons. Official persons, such as EOHP management and government officials, were found
through Internet searches and public documents as was a great deal of valuable contact
information. Dr. Shirley Brooks served as a ‘door-opener’ in many cases and facilitated the
contact with Association For Rural Advancement (AFRA) that in turn provided me with
further respondents.
When interviewing the stakeholders, one of my interview questions was if they knew of
other persons of importance to the EOHP and if there were information and aspects that in
their opinion should be investigated (see Appendix I). This strategy had two reasons: 1)
including what otherwise may have been overlooked by the author and hereby strengthening
the validity of the study, and 2) revealing patterns of perceptions on who is a stakeholder
according to whom.
50 Gillham, 2000:2. 51 For a detailed description of the interviews, see Appendix I. 52 Gillham, 2000:13. 53 Gillham, 2000:16-19.
14
3.2.4 Methods of analysis
The design of the research objectives, the methods of data collection and consequently the
data itself required two different approaches for the data analysis. The first one is here
referred to as descriptive and aims to clarify spatial and temporal contexts related to the
EOHP. The data in this regard is presented as it was presented to the author. Hence the
contexts accounted for (see chapter 4.1.1) have undergone no other forms of analysis or
processing than the author’s interpretation54 making them in a sense ‘less’ investigated than
the data collected for the analytical approach. The research objectives set out to identify and
analyze stakeholders, to reveal the underlying vision of the EOHP and finally to draw
parallels between these required a deeper analysis (see chapter 4.1.2 and 4.1.3), and for this
two frameworks were created: the theoretical framework and the DA. Hence there are
differences in how the data was processed and why it has been done so.
The distinction between descriptive and analytical could also be explained as simply being a
way of highlighting to what extent the data has been interpreted by the author.
Discourse analysis
In an interview situation, both external and internal factors are likely to affect what is said and
how it is said. External factors, like for example the setting where the interview is conducted,
can be crucial in terms of creating a comfortable space for the respondent which in turn will
affect the interview’s outcome. The internal factors are more difficult to address as they are
shaped by our own subjective conceptions of the world and furthermore continuously
changing. Attempts to reveal what a person ‘really’ means should therefore be abandoned and
instead variations in his or her statements and language-use concerning the object of study
should be explored55.
A DA allows for such variations to be investigated as language is considered to engage
people in constructing the social world. Variations in statements can therefore not be
categorized in ‘truths’ or ‘lies’; they rather reflect subjective social concepts in certain spatial
and temporal contexts56. In the light of this, a DA was found suitable both for analyzing
underlying discourses and the respondents’ (stakeholders) perceptions.
54 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:6, 261 and Mottier, 2005:2. 55 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:202-203. 56 Ibid.
15
3.2.5 Data and sources of data
The sources used for this study are both primary and secondary and can be positioned in the
following categories:
1. Interviews
2. Participant observation
3. Previous research and peer-reviewed articles
4. Archival research
5. Reports, project plans, brochures and advertisements
6. Popular media: such as the internet and newspapers
7. Legal documents
Multiple sources of data have been used as this strengthens the data construction and
ensures the broad scope. Further it transforms the study’s methodological approaches into
practice by viewing the object from a wide horizon57. As data is extracted from a conceptual
space shaped by the same pre-conditions underlying our interpretations it is consequently
important for this study to avoid a neglect of the data outside such spaces and to increase the
validity of the data collected. Two tactics have been utilized in addition to the more obvious58
data collection:
Search for data caches: a number of different sources have been included such as archives,
correspondence, public speeches, press articles, journals, interviews, legislative documents,
blueprints, maps and planning documents.
Reviewing literature seemingly remote from the object of study: fictional literature and
journey accounts from various periods in South Africa’s history have served as sources of
ideas and have created a wider knowledge of the studied area59.
3.2.6 A critique of the data
Having interviews as the main tool for data collection has its weaknesses. Dishonesty,
misunderstandings, self-deception, taboos and a variety of other factors can influence the
interview situation and there is reasonable doubt whether people at all have clearly defined
conceptions which they can express. Even if that was possible and the factors above have
been eliminated, interviews are still always dependant on the subjective perceptions of the
57 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000: 247 and Yin, 2003:13-14. 58 By ’obvious’ I refer to sources clearly related to the study. 59 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:21.
16
respondent60. The stakeholders are likely to have their own truths which all are equally valid.
It is therefore important to remember that no ‘great truth’ is sought in this study but rather an
understanding of observed phenomena. One should however remember that:
“Research is about questions and not necessarily about answers.”61
The data is also biased in that sense that the researcher’s own pre-understandings inevitably
affects choices of what data is to be included and not. Completely avoiding this is according
to Alvesson & Sköldberg not possible hence there will always be elements of reductionism62.
3.3 Delimitations
Although the aim is to give a holistic understanding of the complexity of the EOHP there are
inevitably factors limiting the scope of the study and the author therefore make no claim to
have covered all of relevance to the EOHP. This section will address these factors and identify
possible weaknesses with the study. It will further highlight variables that emerged during the
research process that have not been included in the analysis.
First of all, any researcher should ask him- or herself the question whether it is possible to
cover all aspects of the studied object. The answer to this would in most cases be no and
understanding the limitations rather increase the validity of the study then weaken it63.
Another question is how the choice to include certain variables and to exclude others affects
the ability to fulfil the study’s aims. A strategy to avoid such validity faults is to involve an
external person in the writing process and having this person evaluating the validity and
testing the empirical material64. This has accordingly been done for this study. Further, the
perhaps most crucial part of this study is its broad scope: what is gained in breadth could also
be a loss in depth as factors of space, time and costs constrain the possibilities to investigate
each and every discovered element. The choice to investigate the broad scope and emphasize
coherent patterns consequently limited any deeper analysis of the single components.
60 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:226. 61 Yin, 2003:60. 62 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:246-274. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 62 and Yin, 2003:34-38.
17
The EOHP is at the time of writing yet to be completed. The conflicts described are still
ongoing processes and the results of this study cannot be compared with any actual outcomes
of nor the park or the conflicts, hence the focus of is on the planning and initial development
stages of the park. The outcome is however a concern among the stakeholders as doubts have
been expressed concerning the EOHP’s and the region’s marketability. The role the park
could play on the South African tourism market has however already been researched and the
results have been recognized here65. In conclusion: the author does not speculate whether the
park will be a successful project or not.
The complexity of relocation processes is another aspect of interest, but due to practical
limitations these are not accounted for. If the QQC would relocate the legal and technical
procedures, not to mention the social-political aspects, for such a process would require
among other things that an Environmental Impact Assessment must be performed which is
also the case for building lodges and other tourism facilities66. Addressing long-term
sustainability and the actual consequences and processes of physical development is beyond
the scope of this study as are the ecological aspects of the EOHP. Biodiversity, nature
conservation and the Black Rhino Expansion project are variables merely included in a
descriptive manner, as there was not sufficient time or space for an analysis of these.
This is also the case with the legal matters interrelated with the park. Legislation and legal
processes directly relevant for the particular aims of this study have been addressed, however
this should not be mistaken for a full assessment of the legal proceedings affiliated with a
project such as the EOHP.
Finally, practical limitations such as time, cost and space naturally have implications
throughout the study. Additional and follow-up interviews could have been useful for
covering more aspects and deepening the analysis of the discourses. The limitations were
however chosen as to not impinge on the purpose of the study.
3.4 Terminology
Below follows an account of applied terminology and many of the concepts are subject to
debate and can be interpreted in various ways. The aim of this section is however not to create
65 See Wensing, 2005. 66 AFRA, 2004: 25 and Respondent G.
18
new or ‘better’ definitions, it is to clarify and explain how concepts and terms are used here
and to highlight discrepancies.
Big five. The name for the five African animals perceived to be the most dangerous and most
desired to hunt; lion, elephant, leopard, white rhino and buffalo.
Biodiversity. “The variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological
complexes in which they occur”67.
Community-based conservation. Development supposedly compatible with conservation.
Local, or indigenous, people are involved in conservation projects and thus benefit from it.
Property rights, local and legitimate management and participation are further central themes
in community-based conservation68.
Cultural Tourism . The tourism experience is based on the cultural environment that
corresponds to the place visited69. This phenomenon is far from unproblematic due to for
example a demand for perceived cultural Third World stereotypes70.
Development. The author is aware of the complexity associated with the concept of
development and the definition given here does not account for how respondents define it.
Rather it gives a broad definition of development in order to facilitate the reader’s
conceptualization of the problematic concerning development in the context of this study.
Development can be defined as: the use of resources to improve the living standard of people.
Factors such as fertility, life expectancy, health, education and economic growth are used to
measure development, and some mean that ability to make choices and to influence one’s own
life also indicates development; factors pointing to social aspects of development71.
Ecotourism. Low impact nature tourism which also contributes directly to environmental
conservation or indirectly to local communities by revenues sufficient for protecting their
resources as a source of income72.
Heritage. Heritage is here used as something that is passed down from preceding generations;
it could be a physical artefact, a socio-ecological landscape or a way of doing things73.
Nature Tourism. Tourism focused mainly on natural resources, for example ‘undisturbed’
parks, wetlands, wildlife reserves and other protected areas74.
67 McKinney, 2007:98. 68 Furze et al., 1996:180-181. 69 Fennell, 1999:26. 70 See Norton, 1996. 71 Oxford University Press: Answers.com1. 72 Fennel, 1999:35-36. 73 Oxford University Press: Answers.com2.
19
Nguni cattle. Cattle indigenous to South Africa, strongly associated with Zulu culture75.
Poverty. Here poverty refers to sufficiency, access and security. Sufficiency is having/not
having enough material and non-material needs. Access entails the ability to acquire these
needs. Finally, security (or rather lack of) means the vulnerability caused by not having the
capacity to deal with negative changes76.
Stakeholder. A private person, a judicial person, an organization, a company or other
individuals or groups of individuals that are affected by a project, an event or any kind of
process.
North/South, the Developing World/the Developed World et cetera. Expressions often
referring to differences in development between different parts of the world. These
dichotomies are intentionally avoided as such categorizations tend to create reductionism.
However, when respondents and other sources make use of such expressions this has not been
altered by the author as this would contradict the same standpoint.
Traditional Authorities . Chiefly authority inherited by lineage according to patriarchal
principles. Traditional authorities are acclaimed in the South African Constitution, however
their functions and power are not clearly defined77.
Zulu . Zulu is the clan name for the descendants of a man called Zulu who lived along the
White Mfolozi River about 300 years ago. During the reign of king Shaka, who established
the Zulu kingdom in the 19th-century, more clans were integrated into the Zulu concept and
before the ending of the same century Africans in this area who spoke the same language and
shared the same history called themselves Zulu. Today over 4million Africans in Southern
Africa are regarded as Zulu78.
74 Fennell, 1999:34-35. 75 South Africa.info. 76 De-Jongh, 2002:445. 77 Ntsebeza, 1999:83. 78 Guy, 1994:xvi-xvii.
20
4 An integrated conceptual framework
Due to the holistic approach and the broad scope it has been difficult to find a single already
existing theory on which the theoretical framework can be based. The solution is to compile
relevant theories and explanatory tools and subsequently by linking these construct what is
here referred to as an integrated conceptual framework. The use of such conceptual
frameworks can be found within the field of environmental sciences where theories of socio-
ecological systems and systems approach exemplify the increasing recognition of inter-
disciplinary studies79. A review of theories used as to inspire this construct will follow below,
but first the overall thinking behind this approach will be clarified. There is no clear division
between methodology and theory and as Gee puts it: “...any method always goes with a
theory. Method and theory cannot be separated... Any method of research is a way to
investigate some particular domain”80. The DA for example is linked to the reflexive approach
and simultaneously based on assumptions that language reflects more than communication id
est the DA is a combination of theory and method.
The reflexive philosophy behind choices of methods and ways of thinking consequently
affects how the integrated conceptual framework is constructed81. As previously stated, the
overall aim is to shed a light at the complexity surrounding the EOHP and place the park in an
inclusive context. Nevertheless it would be vain and academically incorrect to claim that this
study covers all of relevance to the EOHP and logically there are limitations. This applies to
the conceptual framework as well and therefore its construction is limited due to factors as
time, space and the researcher’s own pre-conditions.
The analysis of the empirical material will mainly consist of the stakeholder analysis and the
mapping of relevant contexts, but as this is not sufficient for analyzing all researched aspects
the conceptual framework also includes a compilation of relevant theoretical tools and a DA
to analyze the physical and philosophical construction of the EOHP. Parallels (if any) will
then be drawn between the analyses, and the expected outcome of this is to expand the
understanding of the EOHP as an individual park and the conceptual field of development –
conservation conflicts. This type of conceptual construct is inspired by the analytical
framework described by Berkes & Folke, saying that the use of a conceptual framework
79 Berkes & Folke, 1998:8-10, 15-16. 80 Gee, 2005:6. 81 Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:60.
21
enables reflection rather than explanation over phenomena, like a strictly theoretical
framework would. It further facilitates the revealing of patterns and seeks to highlight the
interrelation of components in these82. The framework used here consists of three main
elements, each with a set of sub-components, and is designed to help identify relevant
characteristics of the EOHP.
4.1 Visualizing the framework
82 Berkes & Folke, 1998: 15-22.
Theoretical
framework
Socio-Political
Economic
Conservation –
Development conflicts
African stereotypes
Nature – Culture
Binary
Spatial and Temporal
fixation
Contextual
framework
Discourse Analysis
Perceptions & Experiences
Internal stakeholder relations
Representations
Land
Historical
Enforced Primitivism
Third Nature
Visions of the EOHP
Descriptive
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
Figure 2. Source: own compilation
22
4.1.1 The Contextual Framework
The contextual framework forms one of the main elements to illustrate the relevance of
recognizing the multitude of factors and contexts that influence the EOHP. The sub-
components were either pre-determined or added during the research process as a results of
the findings, since merely predetermined such could have proven to be misleading and
irrelevant. As will be shown, the sub-components are of an inseparable and overlapping
nature, a quality that displays the blurred contextual borders and emphasizes the difficulty in
finding linear explanations for the observations.
Firstly, conservation in South Africa has left an imprint in the country’s history remembered
with both glory and hatred. The origins of conservation are found in the colonial period and
colonial ideologies shaped the conservation framework and its implementation. Today’s
conservation politics inevitably bears traces of this. During apartheid the majority of South
Africans were excluded from both conservation politics and decision-making as well as from
the actual conservation areas themselves; black citizens were denied access to the parks and
the spaces where conservation power was practiced83. Conservation and conservation areas
thus has differing connotations among South Africans as a results of the country’s political
history. Colonization and apartheid also significantly shaped South Africa’s land politics.
Forced removals and political trade-offs resulting in inter alia land dispossessions took place
during both eras and the consequences are still to be seen today84. Land has long been at the
core of politics and conflicts in South Africa, and people’s relationships to land have shown to
be nothing but complex and emotional85. Such issues continually emerged during the
fieldwork and this is why land has come to form its own sub-component.
The economic context should be understood as an essential driving force for all stakeholders
and for the park. This driving force is likely to shape what features the park embodies, and
sources of funding are therefore of interest as it can provide the study with insight to why the
EOHP is constructed in a certain way. Economic development is also a strong political and
social interest and the socio-political context presented here, spanning over both local and
national levels, aim at highlighting driving-forces and visions for the EOHP that cannot solely
be explained with economic factors.
83 Cock & Fig, 2002:131-133, McDermott-Hughes, 2005:173-175 and Khan, 2002:17-25. 84 Del Grande, 2006:1 and Platsky & Walker, 1985:67-68 85 Del Grande, 2006:7-8 and Platsky &Walker, 1985:65.
23
4.1.2 Theoretical framework
This part of the main framework is created by a number of closely related theories to explain
and understand the visioning, the reasoning and the practical forging of the EOHP as a
conservation area.
Nature and culture are often viewed as being separate from each other and to feature different
but much specified contents. How ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ are defined depends on who defines
them, they are concepts constructed out of contextual spaces and therefore there is no general
definition to explains them. A consequence is that the definitions can have political as well as
ecological effects and in particular when the ‘definer’ holds the power of representation. The
definer decides what ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ is and also what it is not86. For example, in nature
conservation projects the definer categorizes what is subject to conservation and recognized as
a part of the conservation area. What and who falls outside of that definition are not to be
protected or perhaps not even allowed to exist there. All life forms can be subject to this type
of discrimination: people, animals and plants, and the same reductionism also apply on
cultural conservation. Very often the definitions are static; ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ are fixed in
space and time and must not change, expand or develop87. Out of this the Nature – Culture
Binary is born, ‘culture’ cannot be part of ‘nature’ as these are separate realms hosting
different representations where humanity defines itself through the constructed otherness of
the latter. Such constructs of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ are traced back to the European
Enlightenment and are mainly represented by Western thinking. The Binary is still the
prevailing paradigm - it is simply the conditions under which it is transformed into practice
that have changed88.
The sub-component titled African stereotypes hosts a variety of concepts all linked to the
Nature – Culture Binary. The component is for analyzing and understanding how
stereotypical definitions of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ impact not only conservation politics but
also the everyday lives of people subject to the definitions.
Third Nature refers to how (white) post-colonial conservation has taken a new speculative
form of identifying with ‘nature’ instead of nations, and where dreams of optimum
transcontinental wildlife habitats have the potential to embody the ultimate conservation –
86 Soper, 1995:1-14. 87 Whatmore, 1999:4-10. 88 Soper, 1995:15 and Whatmore, 1999:4-10.
24
profit solution. This dream is however not a new phenomenon; it is rather an echo of imperial
nostalgia sprung from colonial and primitivist discourse on Africa and Africans and
reinforced by new advocates (for example international environmental non-governmental
organizations (NGOs)) with the ‘new’ goal to preserve biodiversity. Again ‘culture’ must not
interfere with such a space which means that people are excluded with the exception of the
paying tourist89. Imagining a landscape from its conservation potential sometimes result in
action and as already stated people must be separated from these conservation areas which in
many cases has lead to relocation, evictions and forced removals of individuals and whole
communities90. Fences have been raised to create a distinct divide between the two realms and
the border must not be crossed. This particular strategy is here referred to as Spatial and
Temporal Fixation, where the fence forms the boundaries and the conditions of where the two
realms are allowed to exist. As neither one nor the other are allowed to break the boundaries
there is no room for change, ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ must stay where they are and the way they
are as the definitions essentially are static and not dynamic.
There are however cases where people are allowed to exist within the ‘natural’ realm. So
called ‘natives’ were for a part of the colonial period categorized into ‘nature’ as they had not
developed in accordance with the colonial ideology. As soon as people start to ‘develop’ they
can no longer be part of ‘nature’ and the option is therefore to remain ‘undeveloped’ or to
relocate91. Draper et al. calls this enforced primitivism as it compels people to a life designed
by those who hold the power over the definitions92. Another strategy resulting in the same
discrimination is to fence culture in instead of out. A homestead or a village (culture) can
exist in the natural realm as long as it stays inside the fence. ‘Culture’ is then forced to be
spatially and temporally static as it may not transgress the fence or disturb the surrounding
‘nature’.
Conflicts between conservation and development are still very common in South Africa. The
global/national demand for conservation and the local/national demand for development are
not always compatible in practice. Again, ‘nature’ cannot be developed because that would
ruin its unspoilt and pristine state in which it should be protected93. Development is thought to
have a negative impact on ‘nature’, and for long the political strategies have been to treat
89 Draper et al., 2004:341 and McDermott-Hughes, 2005:155-156, 173-175. 90 Neumann., 1995:161-162. 91 Draper et al., 2004:343 and Neumann, 1995: 151-153. 92 Draper et al., 2004:350. 93 Neumann, 1995: 34.
25
conservation and development as separate issues. The failure to recognize that culture and
nature are in fact interdependent or even inseparable has created a situation where it can only
be one or the other: either there is development or there is conservation. This is the root of
numerous conservation – development conflicts, but recently new approaches to tackle this
have entered the political arena. Community-based conservation, where local communities are
supposed to benefit from conservation instead of being excluded from it, exemplifies such an
approach94.
4.1.3 Discourse Analysis
The DA is mainly of a linguistic character and focuses on the envisioning of the EOHP. It is
applied to illuminate and gain evidence for the theoretical framework and to contribute to the
investigated issues and research problems95. The DA is further intended to give a critical
account for language-use and representations in the investigated contexts and to show a
possible interrelation between such and the park’s discourse. Parallels, if any, between
stakeholder perceptions and the discourse will also be investigated.
Institutions as well as individuals express and represent discourses in their language-use
which gains authority through those who practice it. It is of importance to understand that who
says or does something is relevant for accrediting the discourse authority, as how it is said or
done is in part recognized dependant on who says or does it96. In short, how a discourse is
authorized matters on the context of who is expressing it.
Our language-use is not static; it is rather redesigned in every new situation of
communication and simultaneously the language-use designs the situation too. One cannot say
that the situation was created before the language-use or vice versa, as it is a reciprocal
process that shapes and develops both situations and language-use continuously through
time97. A DA is a constant movement between context and language where the context gives
us information about how the language was used and what it meant in that particular context.
The language-use then informs us how the context was interpreted by the speaker/writer and
the listener/reader98. Language is further used for recognizing identities, relationships and
94 Furze et al., 1996:180-183. 95 Gee, 1999:8. 96 Ibid.14-15. 97 Ibid.10. 98 Ibid. 13-14.
26
knowledge which accredits language-use a much more complex role than merely a
communicative one99. This would mean that one who has access to communicative means and
audiences can perform such actions to a larger extent than one who lacks this access.
The DA will be conducted in mainly one direction where the language-use of EOHP
management and EOHP documents is at the core of the analysis. The visions and the imagery
for the EOHP are sought as are the representations of and in the park, and the DA is hoped to
reveal what and who the park represents which may be of interest for the issues the park is
facing today. The DA is also designed to reveal how stakeholders are perceived and
represented in EOHP rhetoric and furthermore how the stakeholders themselves perceive the
park and experience the process.
99 Gee, 2005:1, 11-13.
27
5 Background and contexts
Before addressing the EOHP specifically it is necessary to give a brief account of South
Africa’s history and especially in terms of land and politics, so as to place the park as a local
phenomenon into a national context and hereby give the reader a more comprehensive view of
the park and related issues. Together with some terminology and concepts of matter, a few
events will be presented below that will clarify amongst other the background of current land
conflicts and legislation.
5.1 Invasion, division and dispossessions.
The Zulu kingdom was situated in the centre of today’s province of KZN which up until the
beginning of the 20th-century was separated into Zululand and Natal100. In 1879 the British
army supported by colonial forces invaded the Zulu kingdom, and the Zulu king (Cetshwayo)
was exiled. The resistance of the Zulu however disabled the British attempt to seize their land
but after that, and perhaps as a result of the attempted British invasion, followed a period of
socio-political changes within the Zulu society resulting in the 1887 partition where the
political authority was divided between the Transvaal and Britain. In 1897 British Zululand
was handed over to the Colony of Natal which is also when much of Zululand was used for
White settlement. The areas still occupied by Zulu people became so called Native Reserves,
such as similar areas already established in Natal 50 years earlier, and these administrative
entities were further established by the passing of the Native Land Act (see below) in 1913
and renamed homelands101. The civil war in Zululand should also be mentioned in this context
as the aftermaths still echo in KZN today and perhaps even have had an upswing with the
fairly recently strengthened Zulu nationalism102.
The Native Land Act of 1913 was the first major segregation legislation passed by the South
African Parliament and is viewed as the predecessor of the later apartheid legislation as well
as a product of British colonial rule. The Act designated certain land for different racial
groups were Black South Africans were prohibited from acquiring what was White land and
in general restricted them from living outside the homelands. This resulted in a division of
100 Note that ‘Zululand’ is still used as to refer to that part of KZN. 101 Guy, 1994:xviii-xix. 102 Ibid. 246 and Respondent T.
28
land where the White population (consisting of 20 percent of South African’s total
population) was in possession of 80% of the land103.
Apartheid is Afrikaans for ‘apartness’ or segregation, and was initially used by the
Afrikaner nationalists as a political slogan of their National Party (NP) in the 1930’s. As a
concept it promotes separate development for different racial groups constructed as Bantu
(Black), White, Coloured and Asian. When the NP came to power in 1948 apartheid was
transformed into political and legal practice by the passing of a number of laws which
enforced racial segregation on all societal levels. For example, Black ownership of land was
further restricted as was Black participation in government. The Black homelands were also
re-established as so called tribal organizations meant to be self-governed, and every Black
South African was made a citizen of such a homeland. The apartheid system fell with the first
democratic elections in 1994 and South Africa’s constitution was rewritten104.
The post-apartheid Land Reform is an umbrella term for the implementation of a three-
dimensional programme created to address the inequalities in landholding, where in 1994
more than a third of South Africa’s population where concentrated to 13% of the land area
and occupied in insecure or secondary ways. The first component, Land Redistribution, seeks
to allocate land to the landless poor, LTs, farm dwellers and emerging farmers for both
residential and productive uses, giving special attention to women. Land Restitution aims at
restoring land to those that were dispossessed of their land rights after 1913 through
discriminatory laws and practice. Finally, the Land Tenure Reform addresses issues of
insecurity of land rights deriving from previous governance systems; that is the reform deals
with the means through which land is owned. Both the Extension of Security of Tenure
(ESTA) and the Land Reform (Labour Tenant) Act (LTA) (see chapter 6: The Qangqatho
Community) are products of the Land Tenure Reform105. The full outcome of the Land
Reform is yet to be seen but it has already received much critique focusing on the market-
liberal elements with which the land reform is designed as well as the traits of colonial and
apartheid rhetoric that permeate the implemented Land Reform projects106.
103 Bland, 2007/11/19 and Morris, 1980:203-204. 104 Clark & Worger, 2004:3-10. 105 Cliffe, 2000:273-276. 106 Ibid. 280-281.
29
5.2 Where, how and why
The EOHP is located near Ulundi in Zululand and was established in 1999, though at the time
of writing the park was not yet completed or fully functioning. It is to be a combined cultural
conservancy and game reserve, supposedly the only one of its kind in Africa, where the
cultural and natural landscape of 19th- century Zululand will be re-created and cover an area of
nearly 30 000 hectares. The park consists of two parts: the Ophathe Game Reserve and the
eMakhosini Valley, at this date still separated by roads, but which are planned to be joined in
the future so as to create a single protected area with potential for further expansion. Future
plans also include introducing the big five into the park and possible linking it to Hluhluwe-
Umfolozi Game Reserve (HUP) situated about 35km away from the Ophathe side of the
park107. World Heritage Status will also be applied for in ‘due course’ and this is believed to
increase the value of the park. An UNESCO official was invited to evaluate the EOHP and
did according to park management confirm the park’s potential to achieve World Heritage
status108.
The main reason for establishing the EOHP is to create a tourist attraction that will bring
development and economic growth to the region, and the park is planned to embody the
following functions:
- Conserve sites of cultural significance in an environment natural to 19th-century
Zululand.
- Biodiversity conservation.
- Nguni cattle herding practices (see Photo 1).
- Maintain socio-political heritage in the area.
- Tourism development (marketing of tourist attractions, accommodation, infrastructure
et cetera).
- Provide sustainable ecotourism.
- Provide business opportunities and possibilities to partnerships109.
Amafa and EKZNW manage the EOHP according to a joint management structure where
representatives from both organizations form a steering committee. The two organizations
have together proclaimed the EOHP as a ‘Protected area, level 2’, the same protected status as
107 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:iii-vi, 5-6. 108 Respondent E2 109 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:7.
30
a national park110. The EOHP is “conceptualised, planned and driven” by these two
organizations which have statutory responsibilities in terms of developing the land, also
formulated as:
“The vision [of the EOHP] is to re-create the cultural an natural landscape of 19th-century
KwaZulu, as far as possible, so as to become a premier tourist attraction of world class that
operates on a sustainable basis and generates a flow of benefits for local communities.”111
EKZNW was already responsible for the Ophathe Game Reserve when the EOHP was
proclaimed, as was Amafa for the eMakhosini Valley and the two areas were initially planned
as separated units. This changed when the decision was made to link both areas and a joint
development plan was developed, however the main responsibilities for the areas are still
assigned to Amafa and EKZNW respectively112.
5.2.1 Nature, culture, history and heritage
Ophathe Game Reserve, proclaimed in 1991, covers an area of approximately 8000 hectares.
The initial purpose of the reserve was to host the endangered Black Rhino and the area is now
included in WWF’s Black Rhino Expansion Project. The WWF has further funded part of the
fencing and the EOHP is estimated to have the carrying capacity of 10-12 Black Rhinos. By
110 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:7-9. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 1.
Photo 1: Nguni cattle from Amafa’s herd in
the eMakhosini valley.
Photo 2: Dingane’s restored homestead made up
out of so called ‘beehive’ huts.
31
combining the Ophathe Game Reserve with the eMakhosini Valley the opportunities for
biodiversity conservation are estimated to reach significantly different scales than they are at
now in the Ophathe, as the EOHP not only possesses a wide variety of habitats but also has
potential to host the big five113. EKZNW has from their research in the EOHP discovered two
new species and believes that there is potential for finding more. Further research is planned
for the future which could add to the value of the park. A current problem in the Ophathe is
water scarcity and a possible solution is to purchase the land neighbouring the Ophathe to the
east, as the White Mfolozi River runs there. These plans however lie in the future as
completing the EOHP is demanding significant amounts of manpower and resources and
therefore has main priority.
The name eMakhosini translates as ‘the place of the kings’ and the valley bears this name as
seven kings114, claimed to be the ancestors of the Zulu people, are said to be buried there.
According to some sources the first Zulu king, Shaka kaSenzangakhona, founded the Zulu
kingdom in this area. Besides the royal graves there are a number of other sites in the
eMakhosini valley and surrounding areas that are already developed as tourist attractions or
planned to be so. Battlefields, public monuments, traditional burial places, military cemeteries
and archaeological sites and artefacts can be found in and in the vicinity of the EOHP, and an
essential part of developing the EOHP is to include these sites in the overall tourism concept
as a combined natural and cultural conservation is believed to raise the total attraction
value115. Many of the historical sites are located in the core area of the park (see maps in
Appendix III) and according to the Strategic Plan it is essential for the EOHP’s development
to acquire this land, either by purchase or contract arrangements with the landowners. Parts of
the core area are however subject to some of the current land conflicts which must be resolved
in order to complete the park. A herd of Nguni cattle (Photo 1) has also been introduced into
the EOHP with the intent to conserve traditional herding practices and to complete the
restoration of the 19th-century Zululand landscape. The Nguni cattle are indigenous to the area
and this particular herd is said to be of ‘true’ Nguni traits. The herd is hoped to add to the
park’s attraction value and to benefit local people as there are plans to create partnerships for
cattle management116.
113 EKZNW and Respondent N. 114 The sources differ over the number of kings buried in the valley as well as over who they were. The locations of the graves are also uncertain. See for example Bryant, 1929:21-23 and Rugege et al., 1997:10-12. 115 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:iii-vi and Wensing, 2005:8-9. 116 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:3, 7 and Respondent E2.
32
.
King Shaka’s half-brother King Dingane, who succeeded Shaka, established his homestead at
a place called uMgungundlovu right in the heart of the eMakhosini Valley. The homestead
(Photo 2) has been restored and up until very recently there was an interpretative centre
adjoined to the homestead. This centre is however undergoing reconstruction into an entrance
for an underground Multi Media Centre estimated to cost approximately R20 million. The
money was allocated according to plans but initially the project was delayed due to technical
problems. Some respondents indicated that the delays were due to issues of hiring the
contractors which in turn caused problems with the funding (consisting of government
money) however the construction had at the time of writing started117. Two monuments are of
specific value to the park, where the recently erected Spirit of the eMakhosini (a brass beer
pot) was built to recognize the Zulu people and to restore the ‘historical balance’ in the valley.
A beer pot is always present when ancestors are dealt with which is partially what the EOHP
is about118. The grave of the voortrekker119 leader Piet Retief and a monument over him and
his followers are also found in the park’s core area near uMgungundlovu. Piet Retief was
killed near KwaMatiwane (English: Hill of Execution or Afrikaans: Moordplats) in a battle
over land between the voortrekkers and the Zulu in 1838120. These events and the memorial
are of strong cultural significance for the Afrikaners community in South Africa, making
117 Respondent E2 and D2. 118 Respondent E2. 119 Voortrekker is Afrikaans for ‘pioneer’. The voortrekkers were Dutch emigrant farmers who left the Cape Colony (some say to escape British rule) in the 1830s and 1840s and moved into the interior of what is now South Africa (McClendon, 2002:11 and Britannica.com). 120 EOHP Strategic Plan 2002:3.
Photo 3: The Spirit of the
eMakhosini. A brass beer pot
resembling the ancestors and
seven signaling horns to
represent the seven Zulu
kings that are said to lie
buried in the eMakhosini
valley.
33
ownership and use of KwaMatiwane and the surrounding lands another sensitive issue for the
EOHP121.
5.2.2 Sources of funding
The financial situation of the park and the economic contexts described here does not provide
a full economic review of the project but rather displays the broad nature of the funding. The
sources of funding vary greatly, as does their scale, and especially government departments
have contributed with significant amounts. It should also be noted that the list122 below could
be insufficient as there may be other sources of funding not accounted for:
- KZN legislature (R5 million for land purchase and building/improving infrastructure)
- Zululand District Municipality
- The National Lottery (R3 million for building accommodation for researchers, school
groups and volunteers)
- WWF (funded fencing for the park as part of the Black Rhino Expansion Project)
- Mondi Forests (made 2000 hectares available for the EOHP)
- The Poverty Relief Fund (a fund from which South African government departments
can apply for financing specific programmes if they have their own budgets for
reducing poverty and promoting development123).
121 Respondent E2 122 Based on the EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:15, 30, 39, Respondent E2, M and S. 123 UNDP.
Photo 4: The monument over Piet
Retief and his followers.
34
- Wildlands Conservation Trust (sponsored the Spirit of the eMakhosini)
- Engineers Without Borders (not clear if they contribute with funding or with other
types of assistance).
- The Multi Media Centre (funded with government money: approximately R20 million)
- Department of Transport (R6 million to be invested in new bridges and roads in the
EOHP)
- Private donations (R200 000 to perform archaeological excavations).
- Tourism KZN (R600 000 given to Nobamba Traditional Authority to invest in a
lodge)
- European Union (EU) (Amafa has applied for funding to build a lodge) 124
124 It is not clear which EU institution that is referred to here and nor is the outcome of the application.
35
6 Stakeholders and conflicts
Ambiguous agendas
There is a complicated political context linked to the EOHP and according to the stakeholders
there are political interests at work both in favour of the park’s completion and vice versa.
This section gives an account of the political issues that have surfaced during the research
process and as will be shown the information is somewhat contradictory.
Two parties, the African National Congress (ANC) and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), of
which the latter have had a strong hold of Zululand up until very recently, dominate the
regions political arena. ANC is however the national ruling party and have recently gained
more ground in KZN. Generally speaking, ANC mainly represents the Xhosa and IFP the
Zulu, possibly making a project like the EOHP politically beneficial for IFP as it is designed
to conserve and promote Zulu heritage125. Some have stated that the ANC are not in favour of
the park as it may weaken their newly gained political influence in KZN as the EOHP is a
‘typical IFP project’, but some also claim the opposite: if the ANC supports the park and it
becomes successful, ANC could win more votes in an IFP dominated area where the growing
Zulu nationalism is viewed as problematic for the ANC. The EOHP could also serve as a
platform for reconciliation between the two parties and their supporters, however there is a
common belief that personal conflicts at the local level stand in the way for this and are de-
politicizing the project126. ANC and IFP conflicts are allegedly to be found within Amafa’s
own council as well which further delays the development process, but again it is believed
that these conflicts are more due to personal indifferences than party politics127. One
respondent stated that ‘there is always politics’ behind such a project, however in this case it
is not necessarily a transparent political agenda, but rather people who has access to
politicians use this in the favour of their cause128. Lack of political transparency, perceived or
experienced, adds to the negative perceptions of the park and the management’s agenda and
many stakeholders accuse the politicians, local as well all national, for neglecting their roles
in the EOHP129.
125 Respondent E2 and D1. 126 Respondent A1, C and D1. 127 Respondent C. 128 Respondent Q. 129 Respondent I, J2 P and Q.
36
People and wildlife
Poaching is a rather common problem in the EOHP but still not threatening to the wildlife
stock as it is a question of sustenance hunting and not poaching for commercial reasons.
Poaching has however increased over the last few years and this is planned to be dealt with
just as the illegal grazing of cattle, but other issues such as acquiring land and the situation
with the farm dwellers have higher priority130. Another wildlife issue is that the buffalos in
Ophathe Game Reserve are infected with Corridor disease that was transferred to the cattle of
a neighbouring landowner. Corridor disease is a tick-borne disease, usually fatal for cattle,
named after its occurrence in the corridor region in HUP131. The farmer whose cattle got
infected sued EKZNW and won, making EKZNW obliged to pay the landowner a large but
unknown amount in fine. The infected buffalos must also be removed and killed which at the
time of writing is yet to be done132.
Black rhinos have not yet been introduced into the valley, but other wildlife has; and
according to the QQC this has had a negative effect on their daily lives. Contaminated water,
lack of grazing for their cattle, fences limiting their movements and destruction of crops are
some consequences of the presence of wildlife. The QQC states that they were not informed
about the plans to introduce wildlife and that one day EKZNW appeared with their trucks and
the QQC never had a say. They did however protest against the introduction of Black rhinos
and they believe that because of this the animals are not yet introduced133.
The Dutch Reformed Church
The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) owns two title deeds still in use for the church’s
activities in the core area of the park. Incorporating this land into the EOHP is essential for the
park’s development but negotiations between Amafa and the DRC have so far not been
successful134. On this land there is a mission (Photo 5), a school and a number of buildings
with various functions for the church’s activities. The DRC currently has five community
projects running in this area, and the land in the eMakhosini Valley serves as the centre for
these hence relocation would have a major impact on the projects’ structure and future
existence. The projects including their finances are currently handled by the pastor in the
130 Respondent B, C and E2. 131 Big Five Home Page. 132 Respondent A2, E2 and D1. 133 Respondent J1 and K1. 134 Respondent E2, D1 and A2.
37
church, making them interdependent of each other and if they were moved and scattered it is
unlikely that they could continue and even if so it would be rather costly to sustain them. The
DRC therefore wants this cost covered and added on top of the market price for the land. It
has also been suggested by the DRC that they would relocate the mission and the school but
transform some of the buildings into tourist accommodation, but Amafa has so far not been
interested in any of the suggestions135. To leave the mission in its current state and to continue
to develop the park without the DRC’s land is according to Amafa not possible. The
appearance of the buildings, and especially the cross outside the mission, do not fit into the
vision of the 19th-century Zulu landscape and the mission’s location on top of a hill makes it
clearly visible from all over the core area and therefore it has to be removed136. Another
option for Amafa would be to expropriate the DRC which can be done if certain legal
requirements are met137, however currently this is not an option according to Amafa’s
representative138.
Neighbouring landowners
A group of stakeholders in key-position for land issues in the EOHP is the neighbouring
landowners of which many own land inside the envisaged borders or directly neighbouring to
135 Respondent A1 136 Respondent E2 and A2. 137 See KwaZulu- Natal Heritage Act 1997. 26:10. 138 Respondent E2.
Photo 5: The DRC Mission
near uMgungundlovu. The
size of the cross and the
mission’s location on top of a
hill in the core area of the
EOHP has made it subject to
conflicts regarding its impact
on the visual impression of
the park.
38
the park. This stakeholder group in particular has multiple interests in the park and the
attitudes towards the park are in general positive139. The majority of them however express
concerns regarding park management and the slow pace of the progress cause much
frustration. Many of them have interests directly related to the EOHP, or are involved in
tourism themselves, so a successful park is believed to generate positive outcomes in terms of
an increase in the number of tourists. Also, the whole region is foreseen to ‘get a facelift’
which in turn is expected to have a positive effect on for example land prices. The landowners
have expressed a wish to form partnerships with EOHP management and to drop fences which
would include their land into the park, but they experience unwillingness from park
management to do so. They also state that they have approached EOHP management a
number of times with various suggestions for the park but without success140. Some
landowners have joint private land and created their own private game park, and there is
debate whether this was a response to EOHP management’s unwillingness to cooperate or
not141. Disagreements over land prices between the neighbouring landowners and EOHP
management were mentioned frequently in the interviews and it was stated that since the
launching of the park land prices have gone up and many expect a continuous increase.
Initially the land price was R600 per hectare and now it has reached just over R3000142. There
is a belief that land prices have gone up since the plans to develop the park became publicly
known, and this does not only include land proposed to be incorporated into the park but
neighbouring land as well143. The first landowners that sold their land to Amafa were
according to one respondent in financial difficulties which resulted in land prices lower than
market value and Amafa seem unwilling to pay more today than they paid then. Some
landowners formed a group and approached Amafa with an offer to sell the land for R2000
per hectare, an offer Amafa is to have declined as the price was too high. The landowners on
the other hand feel that they offered to sell to a price lower than market value because they
were frustrated over the lack of progress and wanted to project up and running144. They
further state that they have not closed the door, if park management would change its
approach and show an interest in forming partnerships with them they are willing to consider
139 Respondent A1, B, C and D1. 140 Respondent A2, B and C. 141 Respondent D1. 142 Respondent A1. 143 Respondent A1, B and C. 144 Respondent A1 and A2.
39
this, but they want more than ‘just being bought out’145. One landowner also experienced that
Amafa has treated them as enemies from the start and as unsuitable partners for the EOHP146.
Expropriation is not seen as a real threat as Amafa has been “threatening with it for ten
years but nothing has happened”, and the respondents also believe that there are not enough
resources to defray the costs for expropriation147.
Tourism entrepreneurs
Tourism entrepreneurs operating in this region has an obvious interest in what happens with
the EOHP and the local business in particular. Those interviewed for this study share to a
large extent the same views on the park as the neighbouring landowners, and many of them
belong to both stakeholder groups. The tourism entrepreneurs are all positive towards the
EOHP and they see possible benefits for their own businesses but there is also concern
whether the park can compete with other parks, such as the HUP which is only 35 kilometres
away. There is also doubt whether heritage will be of interest for overseas tourists and if the
investments are placed correctly to maximize profit148. They also experience the requirements
from park management as being too difficult to fulfil when they have shown interest in
developing their business in affiliation with the park. The tourism entrepreneurs see a need for
an external business-minded expert that could negotiate with the stakeholders and attract
private investors, as current park management is believed to lack these skills. A common
perception is also that park management, and especially Amafa, is being too protective in
terms of what could generate incomes for the park, id est the rules are too strict149.
145 Respondent A1, B and C. 146 Respondent B. 147 Respondent A1, B, C and D1. 148 Respondent C and D2. 149 Respondent C, D1 and D2.
40
Traditional Authorities
There are five Traditional Authorities (TAs) to the north of the EOHP (recognized as
stakeholders by park management), namely the Nobamba, the Ngobozane, the Ximba, the
Yanguye and the Obuka Traditional Authorities150. There are plans to initiate discussions
about community involvement with these TAs as soon as the strategic plan is completed.
Nobamba TA is however already involved and has been granted R600 000 by the Department
of Tourism to invest in the proposed King Shaka’s Lodge, money which is also to be
supplemented by Amafa with another R400 000151. Not much is said about the other TAs
other that in one case there is an unsolved land dispute and that there are plans to form
partnerships with the Ngobozane TA regarding the Nguni cattle project. Otherwise there are
plans to negotiate the communal land important to the EOHP with the TAs but presently this
is not of any immediate interest152. In terms of the TAs access to the park and possibilities to
visit ancestral graves and other scared places this will continue under controlled manners
which has been explained to the TA who is said to have agreed to this. Also, tourists visiting
the park is said to not affect the TAs relationship to their sacred places153. The Nobamba TA
is according to their representatives positive towards to EOHP and there have been both
permanent and temporary job opportunities for the people. Once the park is completed there
150 EOHP Strategic plan, 2002:26. 151 Ibid. and Respondent M. 152 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:26 and the Valley of the Kings information folder (undated) p. 9. 153 Respondent S.
Photo 6: A private farm
in the eMakhosini
Valley. The location
and the appearance of
this farm disrupts the
19th century Zulu land-
scape according to
EOHP management.
41
will also be possibilities for individuals to buy shares in the park. The Nguni herd project will
also benefit the Nobamba TA as they will breed their cattle with Amafa’s herd and thereby
increase the value of their own cattle154. It should be mentioned that information from and
about the TAs have been scarce hence this stakeholder group is addressed more briefly.
The Qangqatho Community
The QQC is a stakeholder group that has not been recognized as stakeholders in any planning
documents or previous research155. Many of the QQC currently live inside the park and in the
core area; a fact making for example the introduction of wildlife problematic. According to
park management most of these people have to relocate but in some cases people can stay if
they agree to be fenced in for protection against wildlife 156. The QQC does not want to move
as they believe they have right to the land and that they are the rightful owners157.
The people of the QQC can be labelled farm dwellers meaning that they are farm-based
communities living on land they do not own. The agreements between the landowner and the
farm dwellers vary from case to case, however it is quite common that the farm dwellers work
for the landowner and/or pay a fee for residing on his or hers land158. It is of importance to
note the difference between a farm dweller and a labour tenant (LT) as the legal status differs
significantly. The rights of LTs are protected in the LTA and consequently the farm dwellers
fall outside this legislation159. The ESTA however provides farm dwellers with some legal
protection as ESTA’s purpose is to:
“regulate the conditions of residence on certain land; to regulate the conditions on and
circumstances under which the right of person to reside on land may be terminated; and to
regulate the conditions and circumstances under which persons, whose right of residence has
been terminated, may be evicted from land; and to provide for matters connected
therewith.”160
Whereas the LTA is directed to a different group of people:
154 Respondent M. 155 See the EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002, Wensing, 2005, Rugege, 1997 and EOHP Information folder. 156 Respondent E2 and N. 157 Respondent J1 and J2. 158 LTA Chapter 1:1b. 159 See LTA: introduction. 160 See ESTA: introduction.
42
“To provide for security of tenure of labour tenants and those persons occupying and using
land as a result of their association with labour tenants; to provide for the acquisition of land
and rights in land by labour tenants; and for matters connected therewith.”161
This study does not interpret legislation valid for the EOHP, but the rhetoric used in each Act
can be noted. The LTA acknowledge certain rights, like security of tenure and acquisition of
land where the ESTA deals with eviction and termination of rights (residence).
ESTA has also proven to be insufficient as often it doesn’t achieve its purpose (a common
critique of the post-apartheid land reform) and farm dwellers are (still) among the most
marginalized groups in South Africa162. The people of the QQC have applied for LT status as
they want to stay where they are and they are not willing to relocate. LT status would not only
give extended rights but it would also enable the procedure of Land Claims. Nor can a LT be
evicted under the same conditions a farm dweller can be, nevertheless there are conditions for
eviction and relocation in the LTA as well. A LT can however not be evicted while a Land
Claim is pending163. In fact, the QQC have submitted a Land Claim as they consider that the
land they reside on belongs to them and that they already are LTs164.
161 See LTA: introduction. 162 Del Grande, 2006:2 and SANPAD Research project, Appendix I. 163 Respondent J2, Respondent G and LTA Chapter 2 & 3. 164 Respondent J2.
Photo 7: A cut up fence
in the eMakhosini valley.
Cattle are then grazed
outside the fence which
according to EOHP
management is illegal.
43
The QQC is made up of 25-30 families of which some has already relocated and some is still
living in the EOHP. Those who have relocated tell different stories of how and why, but it is
due to the park in one way or another and some have stated that they want to move back.
Perceptions of the EOHP among the QQC are primarily negative and there is a general
resistance towards completing the park165. There are however statements from EOHP
management that some farm dwellers have relocated due to their own free will and that they
are happy with the compensation they received. EOHP management further claims that
negotiations with most families are going quite well and that only a few individuals among
the QQC are against completing the EOHP166.
The QQC experience exclusion from the entire development process and they feel that their
rights are not recognized. Nobody informed them that a park was being developed and that the
land they are residing on was sold to Amafa. This became know in the community through
‘talk around town’ and there was no official information meeting to which they were invited.
Some farm dwellers claim that they were threatened to leave and that park management told
them that Black Rhinos would be introduced in the valley and as a results some families left.
Others claim that they negotiated with Amafa to leave but they never received the promised
compensation, or only parts of it167. The QQC has protested with cutting fences (see Photo 7)
and chasing away park staff and other workers, and for this some community members have
been charged with various legal procedures168. When asked how they feel about the park and
what they see for the future the unanimous reply was:
“We are not going anywhere...Like everyone else we like progress, we like growth, we like
development, we like civilization. Maybe we are prepared to work with Amafa if they are
willing to change or if someone else stepped in. We like this place and we do not want to
leave, we are simply ordinary people.”169
Amafa and EKZNW
Amafa and EKZNW are the two government organizations responsible for developing and
managing the park and as stakeholders they are interested in completing the EOHP as soon as
possible and to make it profitable. Amafa and EKZNW are both provincial bodies and directly
165 Respondent B, G, H, I, J1, K1 and L. 166 Respondent E2. 167 Respondent J2 and K. 168 Respondent J2, J3, K and L. 169 Respondent J2.
44
involved in driving the process forward. Representatives for the both envisage the park to
become a successful tourist attraction and “tourism is the only way to development for this
part of Zululand”170. Heritage and biodiversity protection is furthermore good for the nation
and has potential to be commercialized and profitable with the right input and capital. It is
believed that a well-developed park, if sensitively done, will be a major draw-card for the
region. It is emphasized that the park must show the real 19th-century Zululand and park
management want traditional homesteads, real Nguni cattle and the wildlife that was present
then. Park management welcomes initiatives from local people to provide cultural experiences
for the tourists like for example dance performances, but this has to take place outside the
park as it does not fit into what the park represents171.
Both Amafa and EKZNW state that before the park can be completed there are a number of
challenges that must be solved. The farm dwellers (referred to as ‘occupiers’) and problems
with land acquisition are presently the two major obstacles for the park. According to
EKZNW the problem with the occupiers must be solved first as the park cannot operate with
them residing in the area. Land can be acquired later, once they have a ready product to
present, and then it will be easier to understand the park’s concept and to see its potential.
Right now the EOHP has very low marketability and this too must be addressed in order to
attract private investors. The unique combination of heritage and wildlife is new to most
people and must be explained properly172. Amafa has bought a farm called Vaalbank (600ha)
that is offered to the occupiers as compensation for relocation and according to Amafa some
occupiers have indicated that they are willing to move, but a problem is that this land lacks
proper water access. Amafa however states that they will provide water and possible
electricity, and if so they believe that the offer to relocate to Vaalbank will become more
attractive173. The occupiers are guilty of illegal activities according to Amafa and EKZNW,
such as having more cattle than allowed, grazing their cattle in places where they should not,
cutting fences, threatening park staff and workers and poaching: all which are reasons for
eviction but Amafa and EKZNW will not take action in that yet, they hope that negotiations
will solve the problem174. Amafa does not think that the conflict will go to court, and that a
Land Claim is not valid is this case as the occupiers have no support in any of the Acts and
170 Respondent E2 and Respondent N. 171 Respondent E2. 172 Respondent N and O. 173 Respondent E2. 174 Respondent E2 and N.
45
“they have nothing to claim against”175. Amafa is also of the opinion that the occupiers are not
united in their antagonism against the EOHP, but that it is rather a matter of a few individuals
high up in the local hierarchy pushing the other families into the conflict. These individuals
are not representative for the area and they have created an ‘artificial situation’ based on their
own personal agendas176.
The land acquisition is an ongoing process and DRC land in particular is of high importance
for the EOHP. The mission station and the cross must be removed as it disturbs the natural
and cultural landscape, and the school should be relocated outside of the park as if not there
will be “an inevitable clash between third world kids and tourists”177. Another piece of
disputed land is a small farm right in the middle of the park (Photo 6) bought by a person who
intends to settle there and have a small garden, which according to Amafa disturbs the 19th-
century Zulu landscape. Negotiations with neighbouring landowners have not progressed the
way Amafa and EKZNW hoped for, but there is still faith in negotiations from their side.
There are a number of surrounding issues that need to be addressed as well, like the visual
impression outside the park. For example: one private landowner evicted occupiers from his
land who now are residing next to one of the roads leading into Ulundi and the EOHP.
Tourists do not want to see shacks when they are about to enter the park hence development
outside the park should be carefully considered as well and the location of these shacks is very
unfortunate178.
Internal management problems were frequently mentioned in many of the interviews and
particularly in EKZNW’s case. Ophathe Game Reserve lacked a park manager for almost a
year resulting in problems with staff and practical management. A new park manager was
appointed in late 2007 but by April 2008 that person had already resigned. Unofficial
arrangements with private persons that had been going on for a number of years were during
this period addressed in order to be arranged properly according to EKZNW, but this was not
met with much enthusiasm179. The persons affected by these attempted changes could not see
why functioning agreements must be overthrown when they already were beneficial for both
parties, and the attempt to run everything exactly in accordance with regulations damaged the
relationships with stakeholders and park management. It was also stated that the joint
175 Respondent E2. 176 Respondent E2, F and Respondent S. 177 Respondent E2. 178 Respondent E2. 179 Respondent P.
46
management structure is not working well and communication between Amafa and EKZNW
is unsatisfactory180.
The Zululand District Municipality
The EOHP is located within the municipal area of Zululand District Municipality (ZDM) that
is thought to be a major beneficiary from the park. The number of tourists as well as job
opportunities is believed to increase in the district and according to the EOHP Strategic Plan
the ZDM is an important stakeholder. Ecotourism and cultural tourism are economic sectors
of high importance and the ZDM prioritize support for the park181. Both ZDM and the local
Ulundi Municipality have stated their strong support for the EOHP and they are of the same
opinion as many others of the stakeholders, namely that tourism is one of the few
opportunities for economic development for the region182.
NGOs and social movements
Besides the stakeholders described above there are two NGOs and one social movement
involved with the QQC, namely AFRA, Church Land Program (CLP) and Landless People’s
Movement (LPM). Some respondents have stated that the NGOs pursue their own agendas but
this aspect has however not been investigated here but rather the roles the NGOs have in the
conflict between park management and the QQC.
AFRA started in 1979 as a response to rural KZN communities’ need for aid in the struggle
against forced removals. These communities consisted mainly of farm dwellers and labour
tenants fighting eviction from white-owned farms and land on freehold. AFRA’s main target
group is black rural people with insecure land tenure which was also the people initially in
focus of the post-1994 government Land Reform Programmes These programmes have
according to AFRA failed, meaning that the government has failed to deliver their promises to
these people too183. With focus on advocacy and lobbyism, AFRA is trying to empower
communities to engage with land reform processes and to promote the interests of women and
the poorest and finally to network with other organizations184. In the QQC case AFRA have
had more of a supportive role as the QQC are very organized and skilled in speaking for
180 Respondent A2 and D2. 181 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:9, 30. 182 Wensing, 2005:6 and Respondent S. 183 AFRA1. 184 AFRA2.
47
themselves, however one thing that AFRA may assist with is legal representation for the farm
dwellers if they would need it185.
CLP is an NGO based in Pietermaritzburg originating from a joint project, the Church land
Project, between AFRA and Pietermaritzburg Society for Christian Social Awareness
(PACSA) created in 1996 to aid churches with land restoration186. When more land issues and
work than expected emerged from this project the need for an organization of its own resulted
in the creation of CLP. Today CLP aims to improve the quality of life for people involved
with land issues and church owned land by focusing specifically on marginalized groups and
promoting sustainable land use and a just land reform.
In 2004 CLP was contacted by a farm dweller on DRC land in the eMakhosini Valley
concerning a conflict that arose after the death of her husband. During the meeting with her
the conflicts between EOHP management and the QQC were pointed out to the CLP
representative who also later was asked by the QQC to assist them187. CLP’s official position
is that the QQC own the land they live on; they are neither farm dwellers nor labour tenants.
The QQC was according to CLP dispossessed from their land before the enforcement of the
Native’s Land Act, making the QQC’s case fall outside the Land Restitution Act188. It is
merely of convenience to categorize the QQC case labour tenants or farm dwellers as there is
no other legislation to apply. CLP is also very critical of Department of Land Affair’s (DLA)
contribution in the QQC case saying that how the LT applications were handled was deficient
and that the DLA is trying to escape responsibility by placing the burden of proof on the
QQC. If the issue is taken to court CLP believes that the QQC will loose, as this is often the
case in similar processes. Negotiations and partnerships should therefore be sought rather than
a court solution as the EOHP will be completed in any case due to strong interests among
powerful stakeholders189.
Landless People’s Movement (LPM) is an independent national social movement that arose in
the late 90s as the result of the union of several provincial social movements working for the
rights of landless people. Landless is defined as someone ‘residing on a patch of land that they
185 Respondent H. 186 CLP. 187 Respondent I. 188 Respondent I. 189 Ibid.
48
do not own and having to ask for permission for everything’190. LPM is striving for people’s
ability to sustain themselves, for food security and people’s rights to reside on land without
fear of evictions or removals. More specifically LPM assist with organizing aid, information
on rights and how they people can speak for themselves. When necessary the LPM also sends
their representatives to meetings to speak on behalf of landless people and they are known for
their somewhat aggressive approach. The QQC contacted LPM to aid them in the conflict
with EOHP management and LPM has consequently attended a few meetings and been in
contact with park management. LPM representatives have experienced unwillingness from
Amafa’s side to meet with them and several meetings have been cancelled191.
WWF and Wildlands Conservation Trust
Both WWF and Wildlands Conservation Trust (WCT) are sponsoring some of the important
trademarks of the park: the Spirit of the eMakhosini, the royal graves and fencing for the park
as a part of the Black Rhino Expansion Project. Wensing has listed them as ‘major’
stakeholders (as has the EOHP Strategic Plan) and further points out that the EOHP is
currently rather dependant on donors like the WWF192. WWF’s interest in the park lies in the
opportunity to place up to twelve Black Rhinos in the EOHP if it can be transformed into one
single area without internal fencing. Areas as suitable for Black Rhinos as the EOHP and of
the same scale are scarce in South Africa, and if the expansion project succeeds the
surrounding areas will benefit from the Rhino introduction as land value is expected to
increase. WWF is also providing training for local people within the project and a number of
jobs have already been created193.
Department of Land Affairs
It is not entirely clear when the DLA first was in contact with the EOHP or any of the
stakeholders, but from March 2001 up until the time of writing there are documented accounts
of correspondence between Amafa, the QQC and the DLA194. Amafa contacted DLA in 2001
for assistance with relocation of people living on land given to Amafa for EOHP purposes and
Amafa stated to the DLA that the people had negotiated to leave. In this particular case there
were problems with misinformation as the land given to Amafa, thought to be land in
190 Respondent V. 191 Respondent V and K3. 192 Wensing, 2005: 2, 6 and the EOHP Strategic Plan 2002: 30. 193 Respondent N, Wensing, 2005:2 and WWF. 194 Respondent Q.
49
communal tenure, was really owned by the DLA and could not be conferred. The process was
however already complete when this was discovered.
By then the QQC had also submitted LT applications (in March 2001) concerning other land
in the eMakhosini valley, but the DLA employee handling Amafa’s case was not aware of this
at the time. The DLA did however not attend to these applications until much later and it was
not until 2005, when the QQC contacted DLA, that DLA realized that there were people still
living in the valley. Part of the conflict is the disagreement between Amafa and the QQC
concerning the status of the QQC (LT or occupiers) and this has been going on for six years
without any progress. The DLA representative emphasized that if the QQC achieves LT status
this will not solve the land dispute; it will merely give the community more rights in terms of
relocation and create a new legal process. The DLA representative does not have much faith
in reconciliation regarding this case 195.
To relocate the QQC would also infer a new set of problems as a relocation process is
complicated and needs significant research before it can take place. Vaalbank (the 600
hectares land proposed for relocation by Amafa) does not have sufficient grazing and water
and settling there would according to the DLA, create a new township196. Also, a LT can only
be relocated if he or she is the same or better of after the relocation, making such a process
very nearly impossible as besides Amafa’s land there is not much land left in the area with the
same quality as the land the QQC are residing on now.197.
6.1 Summary of chapter 6
The information in chapter 6 partially fulfils the first aim of the study and answers the first
research question: Who are the stakeholders and what are their standpoints and perceptions?
The stakeholders have been identified and stakeholders previously not included are included
here. Relevant spatial and temporal contexts have been clarified such as the historical-political
background of the area, economic in- and outflows and the plans and ideas of the EOHP.
Alleged driving forces have also been presented of which the belief in tourism as a catalyst for
development and economic growth is perhaps the most important.
In terms of conflicts surrounding the park the respondents’ dicta may seem contradictory
and this phenomenon will be addresses in the analysis. Actors that are not directly
195 Respondent Q. 196 Mngwengwe, 2005. 197 Respondent Q and LTA 1996:3.
50
stakeholders but otherwise involved are also presented due to their influence on various levels
of the process, and certain factors of importance (for example regarding legislation and
funding) have moreover been accounted for. The table below shows the categorization used
for the analytical part of the study.
Table showing stakeholders and conflicts
Stakeholders
DRC
Neighbouring
landowners
Tourism entrepreneurs
QQC
Amafa and EKZNW
Traditional
Authorities
ZDM
WWF and WCT
Conflicts and issues
People and wildlife
Land ownership and land prices
Unwillingness to cooperate,
negotiate or form partnerships
Difficulties in obtaining
information
Political agendas
Factors of relevance
AFRA, CLP and LPM
DLA
Political agendas
Table 1. Source: Own compilation
51
7 Analysis
7.1 The EOHP
The stakeholders can be divided into positive and negative to the EOHP where some clearly
have stated their full support for the park and some are strongly against the entire project. It is
however somewhere in between these extremes that most stakeholders are found and there are
further variations within the stakeholder groups. Both Amafa and EKZNW are strongly
positive to the park, perhaps a prerequisite as they are both managing the park and driving the
development process forward198. The neighbouring landowners, the DRC and the local
tourism entrepreneurs (groups that to some extent have common stakeholders) are essentially
positive to the EOHP, or rather to the idea of the park. From the start these stakeholders were
very excited about the EOHP and found the idea ‘brilliant’ and they all want the park
completed. Some expressed concerns regarding the park’s marketability but the general belief
is that the EOHP will generate positive spin-offs for the surrounding areas199. The not-so
positive attitudes are of another character- “We all believe in it, everybody is positive about
the park. We are negative about the way it’s done”200 - and this will be addressed in chapter
7.1.2 and 7.3.
The QQC constitutes the most explicit negative stakeholder group and express negative
attitudes towards both the idea of the EOHP and the ongoing process of developing the park:
“Now there is so much legislation, so many rules, we are oppressed. Now it is time for them
[Amafa] to go, we don’t want the park anymore.”201
The word anymore tells us that the perceptions have changed and that the QQC prior had
more positive views on the park, which was also confirmed by the respondents.
As already stated, information from and about the TAs is less comprehensive in comparison
with other stakeholders but it is clear that TAs can be found on both the positive and the
negative side. The negative perceptions seem to root from land disputes but the details are
198 Respondent E2 and N. 199 Respondent A1, B, C, D1 and S. 200 Respondent C. 201 Respondent J2.
52
somewhat ambiguous202. The Nobamba TA who already incorporated in the development
process state that they have been positive about the EOHP from the start and that they see
further opportunities and benefits in the future in addition to what they have already
experienced203. The ZDM’s views are, just as their role as a stakeholder, not investigated in-
depth. One representative did nevertheless say that they have a strong belief on the EOHP204.
Neither WWF nor WCT were interviewed for this study and not included in this part of the
analysis as there is no account for their perceptions or experiences. NGOs and social
movements are involved in the EOHP have no particular views on the park itself, it is rather
how the park is constituted and the consequences thereof that are of concern to these groups.
In a sense they do not belong to either the positive or the negative side, it is however of
importance to understand that they work for the interests of the QQC.
The DLA is to have a neutral position in terms of the park’s existence and is therefore not
placed on the positive – negative scale.
7.2 EOHP management
Attitudes and experiences towards EOHP management are in general characterized by
frustration and scepticism, and there is a disbelief in the management’s capacity to develop
and run the park. For example:
“They need a skilled person to manage the project, someone who is business-minded and has
financial thinking.”205
202 EHP Strategic Plan 2002:26, Respondent U and M. 203 Respondent M. 204 Respondent S. 205 Respondent A2.
EOHP Negative Positive
QQC
Nobamba TA, DRC,
Neighbouring landowners,
Local tourism
entrepreneurs, ZDM,
WWF, WCT
Amafa &EKZNW
TAs (?) AFRA,
CLP,
LPM
Figure 3. Attitudes towards the EOHP
TA
53
It should also be noted that in most cases the stakeholders referred to Amafa specifically, and
not Amafa and EKZNW when discussing EOHP management. There is a common belief that
Amafa is in charge of the EOHP, at least in practice, and the joint management is not viewed
as an equal partnership.
“EKZNW seems to keep a low profile in this. The reason can be that they want to stay away
from the conflict [with the QQC], but EKZNW also has economic interests in looking after the
land in terms of conservation.”206
and
“The joint management between Amafa and EKZNW is not working out at all.”207
Further, there is a general disappointment among the stakeholders (Amafa and EKZNW
excluded) that the park is not yet completed and fully functioning -“We are disappointed that
the project isn’t flying already”208 - and according to many of the respondents the current
situation results from problems within and with EOHP management.
Thus the perceptions constitutes both of disbelief in the two organizations ability to manage
the EOHP (co-operation between the two) and of the perceived results (the work done so far).
Two of the respondents expressed positive views on EOHP management (The Nobamba TA
and the ZDM representative) but said nothing about how they perceive the development of the
park.
In terms of how the stakeholders perceive the relationship between themselves and EOHP
management the majority gave word to negative experiences. They experienced being
threatened, treated as antagonists, unappreciated in what they do and excluded from the
development process209. A common view is that EOHP management is unwilling to form
partnerships with those interested in such agreements and information about the park in terms
of ongoing development processes, land purchase and what the management is planning is
perceived as difficult, if not impossible, to obtain210. Only one respondent stated that they felt
included in the processes and that they had directly benefited from this211.
206 Respondent H. 207 Respondent D2. 208 Respondent A2. 209 Respondent A1, A2, B, C, D1, I, J1, K1 and L. 210 Respondent A1, A2, B, C, D1, I, J1, K1 and L. 211 Respondent M.
54
Again most respondents referred to Amafa alone as park management except for the QQC
who explicitly referred to both Amafa and EKZNW and expressed frustration over both
organizations unwillingness to negotiate and even meet with them:
“The land was bought by Amafa…but nobody told us about it. We found out because there
was talk about his in town and the word reached us here. They don’t talk to us about what they
do.”212
and
“EKZNW was invited to the meeting but they failed to show up.”213
There was little evidence of trust in EOHP management from the other stakeholders’ side and
seemingly very little communication regarding disputes and issues. Some respondents did
however state that they as individuals had a good relationship with some members in EOHP
management and that they felt it important to separate personal conflicts with persons in
EOHP management from professional interests in the EOHP214. This statement reinforces the
common claim that personal conflicts stand in the way of the park’s completion.
7.3 Stakeholders
Stakeholders (including Amafa and EKZNW) furthermore have opinions regarding each
other’s actions and standpoints and traits of scepticism and distrust can be found here as well.
Insinuations that other stakeholders primarily act in accordance with their own agendas 212 Respondent J2 and L. 213 Respondent L. 214 Respondent A2 and D1.
Management Positive
QQC
Local tourism
entrepreneurs
Neighbouring
landowners
DRC TAs (?)
AFRA
CLP
LPM
ZDM,
WWF,
WCT
DLA
Nobamba TA
Figure 4. Attitudes towards management.
Negative
55
occurred frequently during the interviews and a common belief is that personal greed stands in
the way of the park’s success. Hence suspicion and scepticism permeates these relationships
as well.
The QQC is the stakeholder group subject to most speculation and discussion and also
notably separated from the other groups in the sense that they do not share the same social
networks. The QQC are depicted by the other stakeholders as poachers, being narrow-minded
and difficult, impossible to negotiate with and as occupiers (id est not having rights on the
land they live on). They are further presented as knowing very little about what really is going
on, and if they had all the facts and understood them properly this would change their
attitudes towards the EOHP and relocating to Vaalbank215. Some individuals among the
neighbouring landowners take a more ambiguous stand in the conflict between the QQC and
EOHP management and advocate a softer approach from management side:
“From day one the community was excluded.”216
and
“They [the QQC] have been asked to leave but they have not been given a good
option…Vaalbank will not work as a solution for removing the farm dwellers.”217
The proposed solution to relocate the QQC to Vaalbank or to fence them from the park is met
with scepticism not only from stakeholders but from the DLA, the NGOs and the LPM. The
critique stems from both the perceived lack of pre-relocation research and from perceived
injustice towards the QQC– “This is about justice. People lost their land through the barrel of
a gun; it was and is oppression. This can’t be solved through a check book or court cases”218 –
where Amafa and EKZNW are the executors of this injustice.
A very clear division between the QQC (and sometimes the TAs) and the other stakeholders
can be deduced from the general manner in which the QQC is referred to in comparison with
the other stakeholders. The DRC, the neighbouring landowners and the local tourism
entrepreneurs know each other quite well and also have closer connection to EOHP
management (see figure below) than the QQC and the TAs, which could explain the frequent
use of ‘we-and-them’ rhetoric.
215 Respondent A2, E2, F, N and U. 216 Respondent C. 217 Respondent B. 218 Respondent I.
56
Figure 5: Stakeholder and actor relationships
7.4 Envisioning the EOHP
This part of the analysis is based on interviews with representatives from EOHP management,
EOHP information folders, EOHP websites and planning documents regarding the
development of the park. Referring back to the contextual framework, the DA is constructed
to reveal the envisioning of the EOHP and to investigate the creation of representations in the
park’s vision.
The frequently occurring phrase ‘the EOHP is the only of its kind in Africa’219 with the
emphasis on the park’s uniqueness220 encapsulates what is hoped to be the EOHP’s major
selling point: the combination of heritage (culture) and game viewing (nature) in one single
protected area. This combined culture-nature experience will take place in what is presented
as a 19th-century Zululand setting where the natural and cultural landscape of that time will be
re-created in the eMakhosini valley. The development of the park aims to embody attributes
that are ‘true’ for 19th-century Zululand which according to EOHP management “is already
there, not that much is to be changed”221. The development must also be done carefully to
keep it ‘natural’ and without affecting the ‘asset base’, especially with regard to any private
investors, as there is “history behind every bush” and “architecture should conform to
guidelines”222. Furthermore the development must follow the rules of what is ‘natural’ to 19th-
century Zululand or ‘natural’ in general:
219 For example EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:iii, Respondent E2, N, EOHP Information folder (undated) p. 4. 220 Ibid. 221 Respondent E2. 222 Respondent E2 and EOHP Strategic Plan 2002:17.
DLA
Local tourism
entrepreneurs
ZDM,
WWF,
WLT
Amafa &
EKZNW
QQC
DLA,
CLP,
LPM
DRC
Private
landowners
TAs
57
“Road alignment and design principles are to… follow natural (not straight) lines.”223
and
“Development should not destroy the natural, cultural or historical environments.”224
Hence the valley is perceived to (to a large extent) already be in the desired state: ‘natural’
and ‘19th-century Zululand’, and ‘development‘ is perceived as potentially threatening to the
‘nature’ and ‘culture’ displayed in the park. This explains why the Multi Media Centre is
placed underground. The notion that any development must de done ‘sensitively’ is found
throughout EOHP documents and applies not only to the landscape but also to people:
“Poor, rural communities have one major resource: their past and present culture.
Development of these attractions, in partnerships with communities, government and the
private sector is thus an ideal way of uplifting and empowering people without displacing
them or disturbing their traditional way of life.”225
Besides being poor and rural these communities have a ‘traditional’ way of life that should be
preserved as other than that they have nothing. It is also quite vague who belongs to these
communities or what is meant by ‘community’. A way to interpret this vagueness is that who
these people are is not important for the EOHP, they are rather presented as part of the
imagery of the park as they are a ‘natural’ part of the (fixed) space and time that the EOHP is
envisaged to embody. The following text indicates where they are located physically and what
their lives are like:
“The inhabitants of the area adjacent to the eMakhosini live in conditions of great poverty and
severe economic depression. [The EOHP] aims to assist these communities overcome their
poverty-related problems by providing opportunities to participate in…development in the
eMakhosini.”226
The communities are in ‘severe economic depression’ and in need of help which will be
provided through partnerships in the park. As architecture, infrastructure and other
development must not interfere with the 19th-century landscape the development of these
223 EOHP Strategic plan, 2002:14. 224 Ibid. 17. 225 EOHP Strategic plan, 2002:7 and EOHP information folder (undated) p. 5, 8. 226 The Valley of the Kings information folder (undated) p. 7.
58
communities must follow the same rules; they may not develop in such ways that disturb the
landscape. If the suggested partnerships create economic upliftment it is likely that these
communities will change their ‘traditional’ way of life (due to the ‘great poverty’ they are in
now) since any change must follow the guidelines or rules set out by the partnership
agreements227.
The EOHP landscape will follow a structure where different zones will provide different
features and facilities for the visitor. Firstly the ‘largely unmodified zone’ will have a
landscape which is natural in most respects, and with certain minor structures. No access for
public vehicles and mitigation of development impacts will ensure a near-wilderness
experience. The second zone is called ‘partly modified zone’ and the landscape will be
predominately unmodified and any structures will be low key. This zone also offers nature
experience. The ‘moderate density zone’ is to contain natural areas and facilities like bush
camps, hides, picnic sites and alien plants. Outside the park lies the rural zone which is
characterized by non-conservation mixed land such as agriculture and settlement. This zone
offers the countryside experience. There will be however be development nodes inside the
park with restaurants, swimming pools, lawns et cetera with frequent human and mechanical
sounds as a consequence. In such places the visitor can enjoy comfortable and safe
experiences of nature228.
Unmodified in the first zone is hence perceived as ‘natural’ and suitable for near-wilderness
experiences but not for vehicles (culture/development). In the second zone ‘nature’ can still be
experienced as any structures would be of low key, id est not developed enough disturb
‘nature’. Bush camps, hides, picnic sites and alien plants are placed somewhere in between
‘nature’ and ‘culture’ with its natural areas and close-to-nature structures. The notion that
human and mechanical sounds belong to the developed areas tells us that humans together
with swimming pools and lawns are part of ‘culture’ and not of ‘nature’. Experiences of
‘nature’ in these areas are safe and comfortable unlike the other zones which are more
‘natural’. The rural zone outside the park hosts rural culture and is not subject for
conservation. According to EOHP management this area is suitable for cultural tourism and
the countryside experience and such activities should take place outside the park to avoid
disturbances in the EOHP landscape experience229.
227 EOHP Strategic Plan 2002:7, 17 and The Valley of the Kings information folder (undated) p. 5. 228 EOHP Strategic Plan 2002:10-12. 229 Respondent E2 and EOHP information folder (undated) p. 8.
59
The Nature – Culture Binary is an underlying fundament in the envisioning of the EOHP that
continuously shapes not only the vision but also the transformation of vision into practice.
What the eMakhosini valley is imagined to be and to become is a combination of two
opposites allowed to exist in the same area as long as they do not break their envisioned
borders. The definitions are very specific in the sense that the planning documents give very
detailed information on what belongs where and why and the perceived (almost utopian) 19th-
century Zululand ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ draws the map for what must be created in the valley.
Dilapidated homesteads with graves and kraals, Nguni cattle, monuments (the Spirit of the
eMakhosini and the grave of Piet Retief), royal graves and a restored royal homestead are
examples of ‘culture’ that the visitor can experience. It is of interest to point out that these
homestead are not from the 19th-century (nor is the Spirit of the eMakhosini) but much
younger. However their state qualifies them as part of the ‘culture’ in the valley as they are
not in use and not ‘developed’. The EOHP ‘nature’ will consist of the ecological landscape of
19th-century Zululand and the aim is to restore animals and plants that were representative for
this area then which also means that alien species must be removed. As already shown alien
plants are allowed in the so called ‘development nodes’ a fact which reinforces the division
between developed and undeveloped.
19th-century Zulu ‘culture’ is not perceived as developed and hence not disruptive to the
‘nature experience’. The Zulu people are depicted in the same manner, they have and are
culture but they are not developed. As long as they live ‘traditionally’ they can be part of the
EOHP but if they ‘develop’ they must relocate as that disturbs the landscape dedicated to
represent Zulu culture.
There is another aspect to the vision of the EOHP, namely the identity-creation taking form
alongside the creation of the physical park. The park, a platform for nation-building and
reconciliation, is presented as a symbol for the (post-apartheid and post-colonial) New South
Africa where conflicts are in the past and the future holds opportunities for growth,
development and sustainability230. South Africa’s riches in biodiversity and tourism potential
are two main ingredients in this recipe and in the EOHP case with ‘endless possibilities’ for
expansion and the financial support from WWF the reasoning remind us very much of
230 EOHP information folder (undated) p. 8.
60
McDermott-Hughes’ Third Nature231. The envisioning is transboundary (linking the EOHP to
the HUP) and WWF is one of the advocates through the Black Rhino Expansion Project and
provision of funding. The exclusion of development and the rigid representations of culture
and tradition allowed within and in the vicinity of the EOHP complete the picture of an
attempt to create an identity for the EOHP and its inhabitants fixed in space and time.
The temporal fixation of people has already been addressed and an account for spatial fixation
is just as valid in this case. The EOHP will be fenced for security and development purposes
which mean that any remaining residents will be fenced as well232. This applies not only to
occupiers but also to the person who has bought a plot of land in the core area who intends on
settling there. The immediate consequence is that their lives cannot expand outside the fences
and one may wonder what will happen if or when people wish to for example renovate their
houses or when their cattle breeds?
Taking a closer look at the strategies suggested to help the poor, rural communities a pattern
of paternalistic rhetoric is revealed where the communities are firstly in need of help,
secondly lacking resources and skills, thirdly will be uplifted from their situation through
partnerships in the EOHP and finally exclusively destined for low-skilled jobs or jobs directly
related to their ‘traditional’ way of life233.
“The increased number of tourists will provide opportunities…to produce and sell craft,
undertake tour guiding, manage dance groups, and supply produce to hotels and lodges.”234
7.5 Parallel analyses
The QQC are the strongest opponents to the EOHP but this was however not the case from the
start. Initially there was a dialogue between them and Amafa and the park was presented to
them as something they would benefit from. This has nonetheless drastically changed and the
main reasons are the unwillingness from EOHP management to recognize the QQC’s rights
(right to participate in the development process, rights to the land) and unfulfilled promises of
231 McDermott-Hughes, 2005:155-156. 232 EOHP information folder (undated) p. 11. 233 The Valley of the Kings information folder (undated) p. 7, EOHP information folder (undated) p. 9 and Respondent E1 . 234 The Valley of the Kings information folder (undated) p. 7.
61
what was to be granted them if they cooperated (for example compensation for relocating)235.
When looking at EOHP document one see that the QQC are not included as stakeholders but
depicted as ‘occupiers’ in sections addressing obstacles and urgent issues for the EOHP. It is
also stated that the ‘occupiers’ must be relocated, id est the QQC are not supposed to be
involved in the EOHP or live there236. This is not consistent with how the QQC described the
initial talks with EOHP management and the experienced change in the management’s
approach caused confusion and later on frustration and distrust among the QQC. Not being
invited to any meetings regarding the park or being informed that ‘their’ land was sold and
that wildlife was to be introduced has contributed to the gap between them, EOHP
management and the rest of stakeholders that did get this information. As already established,
the other stakeholders also experience frustration and distrust in management but they still
believe that the park could succeed and that they will benefit from that. The distinct divide in
views here between the QQC and other stakeholders could be explained with differing
experiences of inclusion/exclusion and access to information. The other stakeholders were for
example invited to the launching of the park and they all stated that they have a good insight
in the development process237.
Looking at the envisioning of the EOHP, the QQC play a different role in the park than the
other stakeholders whereas the local communities (consisting of poor Zulus) are designated to
a ‘traditional lifestyle’ and other stakeholders as potential investors and partners. This
categorization brings us back to Soper’s work on the problematic of definitions ‘nature’ and
‘culture’ where the definer, in this case EOHP management and the park’s initiators,
discriminate certain groups of people by (re)producing cultural stereotypes and attempts to
transform this into practice238. All stakeholders are however potentially threatening to the
vision of the park if they create any development that disrupts the 19th-century Zulu
landscape and the stakeholders have negative experiences from this attitude in EOHP
management. They see themselves as an asset to the park but feel unappreciated and
restricted239. The stakeholders and park management do not share the same vision of the
EOHP not do they agree on how the park should be constructed or managed.
235 Respondent J1, K1 and L. 236 EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002:26 and E2. 237 Respondent A1, B, C, D2, E2, M and S. 238 Soper, 1995:1-14. 239 Respondent A1, C, D, J1, K1, L, M and S.
62
8 Concluding discussion
This study has presented a multitude of conflicts, stakeholders and contexts which all affect
the creating and the eventual outcome of the EOHP. The land context for example comprises
issues around ownership, land prices, security of tenure, sense of belonging and
disagreements on how land should be utilized. EOHP management have acquired land and
initiated the development process without addressing possible land related conflicts, a
strategy proven to have its drawbacks. Interestingly enough the stakeholder group in focus for
these conflicts is also the group that was never recognized as a stakeholder by management.
The QQC has the most negative view on the park and park management and considering the
attitude towards them and the manner in which they are refereed to (occupiers, poachers et
cetera) it may not seem so surprising that the negotiations are on a standstill. Clearly the QQC
disagree with the envisioned role of ‘local communities’ and what they want for themselves
and the land they live on is far from what EOHP management wants. The absence of dialogue
and the exclusion from information channels is experienced as injustices towards the people
of the QQC and they have made it very clear that this is unacceptable:
“Justice is for all, we should not be threatened and intimidated by authorities.”240
The quote also highlights another important point: the distrust in authorities and the notion
that the people and their representatives are not on the same side. As also has been shown,
land conflicts have a complex and painful history and many people still remember the land
politics of apartheid. Some did compare EOHP management’s mode of action with apartheid
politics but others said it to be simply ‘old-school’.
Stakeholders that have a positive view on EOHP management and the park are also those that
are involved in the process, for example the Nobamba TA. They could present clearly defined
benefits for their community and they also felt included and well informed. Those with
positive view on the park but negative views on park management were all well informed of
plans and progress but disagreed with the line of action. Inadequate possibilities for
participating in and influencing the creation of the park was presented as the main issue for
the stakeholders and a change of attitude in management is seen as necessary if the park is to
240 Letter to Ms. Thoko Didiza, 2006:4.
63
succeed. Lack of transparency and lack of mutual trust are further matters of concern. EOHP
management however expressed concerns that the stakeholders could not work with them in
such a way that followed the vision of the EOHP and disagreements on what should be
included in the park is a major obstacle for establishing partnerships. In short, park
management and the stakeholders have differing views on conservation and development and
on what is compatible with the idea of the park and what is not.
Reflecting on the underlying ideas of the EOHP one find that representations of ‘nature’ and
‘culture’ are very rigid and the concepts are further placed in a fixed space and time in history
also said to be a ‘true’ representation of that particular period. The author argues that history,
as well as ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, is always created and by creating history one also creates
power over the historical representations. Again the definer decides what is part of 19th-
century Zululand and what is not. Humans and non-humans in and adjacent to the park that
falls outside the definition are hence discriminated in the vision and the practical forging of
the park and as a result old conflicts have resurfaced and new ones have been created.
The treatment of development as a threat to the landscape origins from stereotypes of
Africa and Africans where the pristine nature must be kept safe from modern culture and the
EOHP is no exception from this idea. Either there is 19th-century nature and culture or there is
development. There can be nothing in between. As what this entails is not subject to
discussion those that disagree with this binary feel that they are restricted and compromised in
their own needs and rights to development.
Another conclusion to be drawn from the research is that there are discrepancies on many
levels that together form a complex grid nurturing issues and conflicts. The vision of the
EOHP is far from consistent with new conservation strategies even though EOHP documents
frequently emphasizes participation, sustainable development and the such. Hence there is no
action behind the words and many stakeholders are confused by this. The gap between EOHP
management and the stakeholders is big (even though it varies), and there is little
understanding for the other side and few attempts to overcome the gap. The failure to
recognize the rights of all stakeholders and the importance of the historical past is yet another
incongruity, as only selected parts of history and certain stakeholders are acknowledged. The
park is viewed by its management as being apolitical and context-free and as a consequence
no preparations took place to address possible ‘side-effects’.
64
To clarify, what conclusion can be drawn from the vision of the EOHP and the stakeholder’s
perceptions and experiences? Firstly there is no common understanding on what the park
should entail or who it should represent and how. The typically ‘old-school’ conservationist
ideas are not sensitive to the ‘people factor’ as people were rarely given a place in parks of
the past. Cases in which they did they were very restricted to a primitive lifestyle, and with
this approach still in place it is difficult to find room for the equal participation promoted in
for example the EOHP Strategic Plan. Secondly, people feel that not much has changed in the
conservation arena; they say they are not being heard, they are not included and development
for them still comes second hand. The development of the EOHP does not account for
people’s social dynamics as there is no such factor in the underlying vision.
It is the author’s firm belief that the EOHP would benefit from dialogue and negotiations with
stakeholders and that an inclusive approach from management’s side is necessary for the
continued development of the park. Today’s conflicts could perhaps have been avoided if a
different and more open strategy had been adapted from the start however the situation is very
complex and there are many issues to solve. Maybe it is time to look at the consequences of
the general idea behind conservation areas and to reassess current conservation policies.
And finally - a quote worthy of attention:
“South Africa has dealt with all the issues of rights, but not with the right to development.”241
241 Githuku, 1998 in De-Jongh, 2002:443.
65
9 Research proposals
In the light of the current political situation in South Africa an interesting research perspective
would be that of notions around nation-building, Zulu heritage and the growing nationalism
manifested in the EOHP. McDermott-Hughes’ and Draper’s work on white post-colonial
dreaming and identifying with a new nation, the transboundary conservation area, seemingly
have interesting ties to the heritage of the common colonial past shared by the descendants of
the colonizers and the famous Zulu warriors. A more thorough investigation of the politics of
national parks and game reserves in South Africa today would add a useful dimension to the
understanding of driving forces and contexts of relevance to game parks.
Another relevant topic is that of gender perspectives of the same phenomena, perhaps a
feminist political analysis could add valuable aspects to issues of representation and
participation in the forging of projects such as the EOHP.
Land related issues investigated on a more in-depth level could provide further information of
use to the park’s stakeholders. Like previously stated the complexities around a possible
relocation have not been investigated and this, perhaps from an emotional geographies
perspective, is a particularly sensitive subject in South Africa and research is needed. Equally
important are the socio-ecological aspects of relocations and the creation of new settlements.
EIA’s provide us with a tool for assessing this but issues of environmental justice are seldom
included in these. The use and access of natural resources from a rights-based perspective
would highlight a very important issue and especially in the light of the sustainable
development movement.
66
List of references
Primary Sources
EOHP Strategic Plan. (2002). eMakhosini-Ophathe Heritage Park Strategic Plan. Document prepared by Peter Robinson & Associates, Amafa and EKZN Wildlife. EOHP information folder. (undated). eMakhosini Ophathe Heritage Park. Restoring the old Zulu Kingdom. Amafa aKwazuluNatali and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. ESTA: Extension of Security of Tenure Act. (1997). Act no. 62 of 1997. KwaZulu-Natal Heritage Act. (1997). Act. no. 10 of 1997. LTA: Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act. (1996). Act no. 3 of 1996. Land Rights Act. (1994). Act no. 22 of 1994. Letter to Ms. Thoko Didiza (2006). Land Tenure Claim – Qangqatho Community. Correspondence between the Qangqatho Community/AFRA and the Minister of Department of Land Affairs and Agriculture 01/01/2006. Mngwengwe, V. Z. (2005). Report on the rights of persons resident at Doornkop and Overvloed farms and their responses to the proposed development on the farms in question. Department of Land Affairs, Vryheid District, South Africa. The Valley of the Kings information folder. (undated). The Valley of Kings - eMakhosini. Amafa - Heritage KwaZulu-Natal.
List of Interviews
Each letter represents one respondent and as some respondents were interviewed on more than one
occasion a number (in subtext) follows the letter to show which of the interview is referred to. For
example, respondent E was interviewed on two occasions: October 25th 2007 (= E1) and November 5th
2007 (= E2) and respondent B was only interviewed on one occasion, December 5th 2007, =B.
Respondent A1: 13/12/07
Respondent A2: 14/12/07
Respondent B: 05/12/07
Respondent C: 04/12/07
Respondent D1: 04/11/07
Respondent D2: 04/12/07
Respondent E1: 25/10/07
Respondent E2: 05/11/07
Respondent F: 05/11/07
Respondent G: 29/01/08
67
Respondent H: 31/10/07
Respondent I: 26/11/07
Respondent J1: 03/11/07
Respondent J2: 26/01/08
Respondent J3: 30/04/08
Respondent K1: 03/11/07
Respondent K2: 26/01/08
Respondent K3: 30/04/08
Respondent L: 03/11/07
Respondent M: 03/12/07
Respondent N: 14/12/07
Respondent O: 13/12/07
Respondent P: 12/03/07
Respondent Q: 27/11/07
Respondent R: 03/11/07
Respondent S: 25/01/08
Respondent T: 01/11/07
Respondent U: 05/11/07
Respondent V: 20/04/08
Secondary sources
AFRA. (2004). The Investigation of the Effects of Conservation and Tourism on Land Tenure and Ownership Patterns in KwaZulu-Natal. AFRA (Association for Rural Advancement), Pietermaritzburg. AFRA1 (Association for Rural Advancement). “Background to AFRA”. <http://www.afra.co.za/default.asp?id=912> 2008-06-09. AFRA2 (Association for Rural Advancement). “About AFRA”. <http://www.afra.co.za/default.asp?id=941> 2008-06-09. Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology. New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (eds.). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Big Five Home Page. “Diseases of Buffalo in Captivity”. Big Five Veterinary Pharmaceutical Company (Pty) Ltd <http://bigfive.jl.co.za/diseases1.htm> 2008-06-04 Bland, F. (2007). Land Inequality in SA a ‘ticking time bomb’. Mail & Guardian 19/11/07.
68
Britannica.com. ”Voortrekker ” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/632827/Voortrekker> 2008-05-16. Brooks, S. (2005). Images of ‘Wild Africa’: nature tourism and the (re)creation of Hluhluwe Game Reserve, 1930-1945. Journal of Historical Geography, 31:220-240. Brooks, S. (2006). SANPAD research project. University of KwaZulu-Natal. Bryant, A.T. (1929). Olden Times in Zululand and Natal. London: Longmans, Green and Co. City Press 28/03/06. Land claimants want their cash. City Press 18/02/07. State to grab six farms. City Press 28/02/07. Land claims nearly completed. City Press 11/09/07. Sisulu threatens forced removal. Clark, N. L. & Worger, W. H. (2004). South Africa: The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. Harlow: Pearson Education. Introduction, p. 1-10. Cliffe, L. (2000). Land Reform in South Africa. Review of African Political Economy, 27 (84) 273-286. CLP. (Church Land Program). “More about CLP”. <http://www.churchland.co.za/default.asp?id=771> 2008-06-09. Cock, J & Fig, D. (2002). From Colonial to Community-Based Conservation. Environmental Jutsice and the Transformation of National Parks. In McDonald, D. A. (ed.). (2002). Environmental Justice in South Africa. Athens: Ohio University Press. Crush, J. & Jeeves, A. (1993). Transitions in the South African Countryside. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 27 (3) 352-360. De-Jongh, M. (2002). No Fixed Abode: The Poorest of the Poor and Elusive Identities in Rural South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 28 (2) 441-460. Del Grande, L. (2006). The transformation of farming in South Africa and Africa. The case of farm dwellers in South Africa. Paper presented by Lisa Del Grande, May 2006, Pietermaritzburg. Draper, M., Spierenburg, M., and Wels, H. (2004). African dreams of cohesion: elite pacting and community development in Transfrontier Conservation Areas in southern Africa. Culture and Organization, 10 (4): 341-351. EKZNW. (Ezemvelo KZNWildlife). “EMAKHOSINI OPHATHE HERITAGE PARK”. <http://www.kznwildlife.com/site/ecotourism/destinations/alldestinations/Opathe/> 2008-02-26 Fennell, D.A. (1999). Ecotourism: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Furze, B., Lacy, T., Birckhead, J. Culture, Conservation and Biodiversity: the social dimension of linking local level development and conservation through protected areas. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
69
Gee, J.P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Gillham, B. (2000). The Research Interview. London: Continuum. Guy, J. (1994). The Destruction of the Zulu Kingdom. The Civil War in Zululand, 1879 – 1884. Pietermartizburg: University of Natal Press. Holling, C.S., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1998). Science, sustainability and resource management. In Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (eds.). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp: 342-362. Hulme, D & Murphree, M. (1999). Communities, Wildlife and the ‘New Conservation’ in Africa. Journal of International Development, 11 (2): 277-285. Khan, F. (2002). The Roots of Environmental Racism and the Rise of Environmental Justice in the 1990s. In McDonald, D. A. (ed.). (2002). Environmental Justice in South Africa. Athens: Ohio University Press. McDermott-Hughes, D. (2005). Third Nature: Making Space and Time in the Great Limpopo Conservation Area. Cultural Anthropology, 20 (2): 157-184. McKinney, M. L., Schoch, R. M., Yonavjak, L. (2007). (4th ed.). Environmental Science. Systems and Solutions. Boston: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Morris, M. L. (1980). The Development of Capitalism in South African Agriculture: class struggle in the countryside, p. 205-255. In Wolpe, H. (1980). The Articulation of Modes of production. Essays from Economy and Society. London: Routledge. Mottier, V. (2005). The Interpretive Turn: History, Memory, and Storage in Qualitative Research. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6 (2):33. Neumann, R. P. (1995). Ways of seeing Africa: Colonial Recasting of African Society and Landscape in Serengeti. Ecumene, 2: 149-169. Norton, A. (1996). Experiencing Nature: The Reproduction of Environmental Discourse Through safari Tourism in Aast Africa. Geoforum, 27 (3):355-373. Ntsebeza, L. (1999). Democratization and Traditional Authorities in the New South Africa. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, XIX (1): 83- 93. Oxford University Press: Answers.com1. “Development”. <http://www.answers.com/development&r=67> 2008-05-16. Oxford University Press: Answers.com2. “Heritage”. <http://www.answers.com/heritage&r=67> 2008-05-16. Platzky, L. & Cherryl, W. (1985). The Surplus People. Forced Removals in South Africa. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21 (3): 305-320. Rugege, D. et al. (1997). Report on the eMakhosini Valley, KwaZulu-Natal, and Guidelines for its
70
Conservation and Development. Investigational Report No. 139. Institute of Natural Resources, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. Soper, K. (1995). What is Nature?: Culture, Politics and the Non-human. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. South Africa.info. “The abundant Nguni herds”. The Abundant Herds: A Celebration of the Nguni Cattle of the Zulu People (Fernwood Press). <http://www.southafrica.info/about/arts/nguni-071105.htm> 2008-09-23 UNDP (United Nations Development Program). “Overcoming Human Poverty. UNDP Poverty Report 2000. South Africa Country Assessment.” http://www.undp.org/povertyreport/countryprofiles/safrica1.html 2008-06-05 Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze. Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Wensing, D. (2005). Tourism Plan for the eMakhosini-Ophathe Heritage Park. A case study for WWF's Black Rhino Expansion Project. Utrecht University. Whatmore, S. (1999). Culture – Nature, p. 4-10. In Cloke, Paul J., Crang, Philip & Goodwin, Mark (ed.) (1999). Introducing human geographies. London: Arnold. WTO. (2004). Tourism and Poverty Alleviation. Recommendations for Action. WTO (World Tourism Organization), Madrid. WTO. (1999). Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism. Supplementary Volume on Sub-Saharan Africa. WTO (World Tourism Organization), Madrid. WTO. (2003). Sustainable Development of Ecotourism. A Compilation of Good Practices in SMEs. Introduction & Summary (pp. 9-17) and Case Study on Rocktail Bay Lodge & Ndumo Wilderness Camp (pp. 251-255). WTO (World Tourism Organization), Madrid. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). “On the ground for Black Rhinos in KwaZulu Natal”. <http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/africa/where/south_africa/wwf_south_africa_our_solutions/kwazulu/index.cfm> 2007-10-15 Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 5. London: Sage.
i
Appendix I. The SANPAD Research Project
(A selection of the full research project can be viewed below)
Farm Dwellers, the Forgotten People? Consequences of Conversions to Private Wildlife
Production in KwaZulu-Natal
RESEARCH
PROJECT
DETAILS
• Overall aim
and research
objectives
• Main research
question
• Specific
research
objectives
Overall Aim:
To investigate the impact on farm dwellers’ livelihoods of the growing trend in KwaZulu-Natal’s
commercial farming sector to move towards wildlife-based forms of production.
In many parts of South Africa, a growing trend to convert commercial farms to wildlife-based
forms of land-use is having significant but largely unexplored impacts on farm dwellers. In order
to gain a clearer understanding of this phenomenon, research will be conducted to determine the
driving forces behind the conversion of farmland to wildlife production, the scale and extent of the
trend in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, and the economics of game farming. As the main focus
of the project is on farm dwellers, researchers will engage with affected farm-based communities
in four case study areas in KZN in order to explore the social and livelihood implications for
affected farm dwellers. Farm workers’ responses are a key focus and the researchers will work
closely with AFRA (the Association for Rural Advancement), a rural advocacy NGO, to identify
conflict resolution processes and initiatives through which the interests of different stakeholders
could be reconciled and negative effects mitigated.
See specific research objectives listed below.
In probing contemporary land issues and social relationships in the South African countryside in
the context of recent shifts in land-use on commercial (privately-owned) farmland, this project asks
the following research question: What is the reasoning behind, and the impact on poor farm
dwellers of, the decision by a growing number of farmers in KZN to shift from traditional forms of
agricultural production to wildlife-based forms? How are these changes working themselves out in
relation to existing power relationships in the countryside, and what role can outside actors
(including researchers) play in helping to mitigate any negative effects?
Specific Objectives:
ii
• Background
and
Motivation for
the study
• To identify the driving forces behind the growing national trend to convert farmland into
wildlife-based forms of production.
• To document the scale and extent of the trend to wildlife-based production in KwaZulu-Natal
through mapping and spatial analysis.
• To determine the social and livelihood implications of this trend for affected farm dwellers in
KwaZulu-Natal, as well as its implications for their security of tenure.
• To investigate the responses of affected farm dwellers to these changes by studying local-level
contestations and processes in the province.
• To analyse the power relations involved at the local level in conversions to wildlife-based
production.
• To identify conflict resolution processes and initiatives through which the interests of different
stakeholders (farm dwellers, farmers, state agencies) could be reconciled and negative effects
mitigated.
• To investigate the economics and sustainability of game farming in comparison with
conventional farming, as a contribution to the decision-making process.
• To analyse the policy context and current regulatory processes governing such land-use
changes, focusing on their efficacy with regard to the mandates of the government
departments involved and the goals of social and environmental justice.
As recorded in the media and in the growing number of appeals by farm dwellers to land rights
NGOs for assistance, a trend to convert commercial farms to wildlife-based forms of land-use is
apparent in many parts of South Africa. This development is having significant but largely
unexplored impacts on an already marginalised group of people. The implications for the
livelihoods of long-term farm dwellers have not been systematically studied, although a
preliminary exploration of the effects of conservation on land tenure and ownership patterns in
KwaZulu-Natal (AFRA 2003) noted that private game farms and conservancies generally seem to
need fewer labourers - and that different skills (not “simply” farming skills) are required from the
labourers who are needed (ibid.: 15). Displaced farm workers have to be taken in by neighbouring
communities, with concomitant social impacts. It appears that the levels of polarization between
farm owners and farm dwellers in many parts of the countryside may be increasing as a direct
result of conversions to private wildlife production. The same study (AFRA 2003) arrived at the
tentative conclusion that the trend to convert commercial farms to game farms and other wildlife-
iii
based forms of land-use “…appears to have done little to promote conservation, but much more to
reduce access to livelihoods and increase tension in rural areas” (ibid.: 39). Critics have also
suggested that the trend to convert land to game farming and conservation purposes is at least
partly strategic: farmers may be hoping to safeguard their land from possible future redistribution
initiatives and perhaps to exclude troublesome tenants. This is a land issue with direct relevance to
post-apartheid land reform debates but one that has received surprisingly little attention from either
researchers or policy makers.
The province of KwaZulu-Natal is a highly appropriate geographical context in which to
investigate these developments. The trend to convert commercial land to conservation or wildlife-
based forms of production started here in the 1970s and is quite widespread in several parts of the
province (AFRA 2003; Wels 2003). Recent articles in the local media make it clear that this is a
burning issue on the ground in various parts of KZN (see List of References and Additional
Literature/Sources, for example “A Wound that Festers”; “Ghost of Apartheid Returns to
Farmlands” and similar articles). The Pietermaritzburg-based NGO AFRA has been aware for
some time of the need for research on this topic - hence the commissioned 2003 study mentioned
above. AFRA is currently working with several KZN communities affected by the growth of
private forms of wildlife conservation, often closely linked to tourism initiatives. As an
organisation, AFRA is fully supportive of this proposed collaborative research project and will be
closely involved. Several of the communities with whom AFRA already has established links will
be selected as case studies for this project. While many of these local contexts are highly
polarised, research may also reveal locations in which land-use change has not disrupted social
relationships and where farmers and farm dwellers may be working together in partnership –
bearing in mind that the power dynamics within such a partnership would still require close
scrutiny. It is proposed to investigate four contrasting case studies in detail (see Research
Methodology below).
This project brings together a group of experienced Dutch and South African researchers with an
established academic and practical interest in land issues related to private forms of wildlife
conservation in the southern African region. In linking this expertise with a focus on farm dwellers
and social relationships in the countryside – also a research interest of several of the researchers -
this project will make a meaningful contribution in a number of research fields with practical
application. These include: land issues and tenure security in post-apartheid South Africa; tourism
and development; poverty alleviation and livelihoods; issues of governance in relation to social
and environmental sustainability; and contemporary social history.
iv
Appendix II
I.I Overview of the interviews
Four types of interviews have been used for this study:
- Semi-structured
- Natural Conversations
- In-depth
- Focus Groups
The most commonly used here was the semi-structured interview which also served as a
base for forging the other interview-types. Method-wise it is impossible for the researcher
to be in complete control of the interview-situation; an insight that requires adaptive
skills and back-up plans. This proved to be the case many times during the field work for
this study and therefore an interview framework was created to suit such situations: for
example, at one point a tête-à-tête interview was scheduled that turned out to be a
meeting with more than 40 people. To a large extent the interview questions were the
same for each stakeholder or stakeholder group, there were however naturally a need for
person- or group specific questions as well as personal experiences, opinions and
standpoints were sought.
As the whole study emphasizes the importance of contexts; contextual interview
questions is a necessary ingredient. In the light of this there is no need for further
explanation why the interviews differed for each occasion.
I.II Interview structure
Below follows the more general interview questions used for this study:
Your opinions about the EOHP
- Is it a good project, do you believe in it?
- Is there a demand/market for such a park in your opinion?
- When did you first learn about the EOHP?
- How did you get that information?
v
- Do you feel like you have been properly informed about the park?
- What did you think/do then?
- What do you think now?
- Can you tell me something about the current state of the EOHP?
- What do you think are the driving forces behind the project?
- Do you have any direct or indirect involvement in the EOHP?
- If so, how and what?
- Have you been offered to participate in the EOHP in any way?
- If so how and by whom?
- What do you think the general views are on the EOHP among people in Ulundi?
- What do you think the outcome of the EOHP will be?
- Are there others you think I should speak to?
For the neighbouring landowners questions were added concerning the location of their
land in relation to the park and what type of production that currently takes place on their
land.
When I interviewed the QQC questions concerning their views on a possible relocation
were of course included and what the impacts are from that.
Interviews with management representatives and officials from EKNW and Amafa were
naturally concentrated on the ideas behind the EOHP, the plans and current processes.
NGOs, government officials and professionals were asked specific questions on the roles
they are playing, the information they could contribute with and legal and administrative
procedures.
vi
Ap
pe
nd
ix III. M
ap
s ov
er the eM
ak
ho
sini – O
ph
athe H
eritag
e Park
TAs
Mondi Forest
Private land
Private land
DRC
Spirit of the eMakhosini
Source: EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002
eMakhosini Valley
Ophathe Game Reserve