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

vii

Durban

EOHP

Ophathe Game Reserve eMakhosini Valley

Ulundi

Babanango

Melmoth

Eshowe

Source: EOHP Strategic Plan, 2002

Hlhuhluwe-Umfolozi Game