Under the Direction of Nonceba Lushaba, Phoenix Zululand

COMPLEXITIES AND CHALLENGES OF PARKS AND PEOPLE: A COMMUNITY IN MBAZWANA AND THE ISIMANGALISO WETLANDS PARK

Liz Wilmers

Under the Direction of Nonceba Lushaba, Phoenix Zululand

School for International Training

South Africa: Reconciliation and Development

Spring 2008

I would like to thank John Daniel for introducing me to the Manaba Case and for sparking my interest in this topic. My sincere thanks go to Nonceba Lushaba- I greatly appreciate her time, effort, and direction. I very much value the connections and information she was able to provide and I thank her for sharing her time and knowledge with me.

The interviews and conversations with the group in Mbazwana were extremely valuable not only to this project but also to my own personal growth and understanding and I sincerely thank all of them for their stories.

Thanks to Sdu Chiliza and Langa Mchunu for the long hours spent transporting me to and from meetings and interviews. Big thanks go to Vanessa Nichol-Peters for her guidance, support, and for providing me with a home (i.e. tent) during my research process.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Phoenix Zululand, and all interviewees and others who helped me to conduct this study.

Finally, I must thank my colleague Kate Ronan for her stimulating conversation topics, fireside company, and extremely mature sense of humor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Abstract3

Introduction3

Literature Review5

Methodology10

Limitations13

Relevant Actors14

Phoenix Zululand15

iSimangaliso Park Authority15

Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife15

Local community in Mbazwana16

Wildlife Environmental Society of South Africa16

Wildlands Trust16

History and Importance of iSimangaliso Wetland Park17

The Manaba Case18

Restorative Justice vs. Retributive Justice19

Involvement of Phoenix Zululand and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Manaba Case 20

Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal’s Involvement with Local Communities24

Field Trips and Coelacanth Program25

Kids in Parks25

Community Levy Project25

Electrification26

Difficulties26

The Community and its Major Concerns28

Disunity among Actors30

Conclusions32

Recommendations for Further Study33

Bibliography35

Appendix: Interview Questions38

Abstract:

Successfully righting the wrongs committed against historically disadvantaged peoples while simultaneously attempting to preserve some of the world’s most naturally beautiful spaces would be a difficult task for any nation. Through a South African lens, this project will explore the actors involved in the Manaba Case and the option of restorative justice, uncover how the creation and existence of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park has affected the lives of families within the Mbazwana community,[1] and will also examine the conservation-geared perspective of the Park. Research was conducted over a four-week period through formal interviews with a group of facilitators from Phoenix Zululand, representatives of Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, and a group of local community members in Mbazwana.Delayed and unclear communication along with the improper delegation of responsibilities is at the heart of the difficulties involving the iSimangaliso Wetland Park and the surrounding Mbazwana community. The findings of this study highlight the challenges in bringing together a variety of players to resolve an environmental and social conflict deeply rooted within the history of South Africa.

Introduction:

Finding a balance between effectively implementing environmental conservation and meeting a community’s socio-economic needs is a difficult challenge. The crossroads of these often-conflicting perspectives are highly relevant in a South African context due to the nation’s extraordinary natural biodiversity combined with the deeply entrenched legacies of the apartheid government. South Africa’s policy of apartheid and the unnatural way in which it institutionalized the separation of groups of people has had intense and lasting effects on the formation of parks and people’s relationship with the natural world.

In order to fully acknowledge and understand the legacy of apartheid in a combined social and environmental sphere, it is important to examine current conflicts between parks and surrounding communities. Much research in South and Southern Africa has been devoted to case studies involving parks and communities of people, and the challenges involved- however, the particulars of the Manaba Case have never been formally reported. This specific case is important because of the utilization of restorative justice in an environmentally rooted problem and also because the Park involved is an internationally recognized World Heritage Site. This project explores the interconnectedness of a series of actors involved in a conflict of interests involving land within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. Examining the establishment of parks and the difficulties that arise due to their existence will better help to understand the reasons for conflict where parks, communities, and outside organizations are intertwined.

The objectives of this study are: a) to look at the main role players involved and to understand their viewpoints and how they interact with one another b) uncover the importance iSimangaliso Wetland Park and how its existence as a protected area and World Heritage Site has impacted the community in Mbazwana c) explore the issue of implementing restorative justice in this particular scenario and the involvement of Phoenix Zululand d) to understand more about Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife’s involvement with local communities e) to highlight the concerns of the community and f) to discuss future challenges that may arise.

The paper begins with a literature review that provides important historical information and gives examples of a couple other cases of land disputes in South African parks. The body is made up of several sections. The first section provides brief background information on all the relevant actors in the Manaba Case. The second section outlines the history of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park followed by a section on the particulars of the Manaba Case. Next is a section on restorative versus retributive justice followed by an examination of the roles of Phoenix Zululand and Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) within the Manaba Case. This leads into a section about EKZNW’s involvement with local communities. Afterward, some of the major concerns of the Mbazwana community are addressed and finally the disunity among actors is examined.

Literature Review:

The institutionalized lack of control over the movement of individuals across South Africa before and during the apartheid era was implemented largely through forced removals and relocations of groups of people (James 2007). Between 1960 and 1985 more than an estimated 3.5 million people were uprooted and moved from one location to another (Ramphele 1991). These removals often led to intense overcrowding of areas that were unable to sustain heavy population densities. For example, in the Ciskei between 1950 and 1980, the population doubled and the land area was reduced by 45%. (Kruger 1991). The Ciskei was an independent “homeland” territory in the Eastern Cape and was the “primary dumping ground” of the region- a rather artificial construction, lacking economic and developmental infrastructure and heavily relying on outside subsidies (Kruger 1991). The need to grow crops was an essential element of survival in this area, as there were very few job opportunities (Kruger 1991). However, (not surprisingly) the land was unable to sustain the resettling of tens of thousands of people along with the overuse of land for cultivation (Kruger 1991). “The highest population densities- African population densities- are found in the most infertile rural areas and often close to natural parks… this is known as “geography of apartheid” (Van den Brink, Thomas, and Binswanger 2007).

Traditional views of conservation from a colonialist perspective promote the setting aside of land to be protected and ‘untouched’ by human impact. Parks tended to be “dominated by conservationists exclusively concerned with preserving biodiversity while neglecting human needs and social issues” (Cock and Fig 2002). South African National Parks (SANP) have begun to drastically change their conception of conservation and move away from such an authoritarian perspective (Cock and Fig 2002). Now SANP is committed to combining their concept of conservation with development issues and human needs- implying a “harmonious relationship between people and parks that builds on traditional conceptions of wilderness and wildlife in African indigenous cultures” (Cock and Fig 2002). While SANP is working hard to right the wrongs of its authoritarian and environmentally racist policies of the past, there is still a long road ahead in terms of solving land disputes and problems stemming from improper land restitution. There are many examples in South Africa where interests of parks and people collide: the first involves a community in the Dukuduku Forest and the second involves the Makuleke Community.

The Dukuduku Case deals with the degradation of the Dukuduku State Forest, located along the Elephant coast of KwaZulu-Natal, an indigenous forest that forms part iSimangaliso Wetland Park. Degradation has been occurring for years due to overcrowding; estimates number that thousands of people are squatting within the forest (Water and Forestry: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry- Republic of South Africa 2005). The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) has purchased alternative land for resettlement of the communities living in the southern section of the forest, but the matter is complicated due to the fact that a small number of forest dwellers have legitimate land claims and are legally entitled to portions of the forest and do not want to move out ( Others are illegally squatting in the forest- some of these squatters are illegal immigrants using the forest as a cover for criminal activity. The government is struggling to remove the forest dwellers, as the number of squatters is difficult to manage and also because many of those removed sneak right back into the park (Water and Forestry: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry- Republic of South Africa 2005). To complicate the situation further, political tension between traditional authorities and elected government structures has increased the strain considerably. (Water and Forestry: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry- Republic of South Africa 2005).

The South African government, post-1994, made promises to bring restitution to those victimized by apartheid, yet often little has actually been done to right the wrongs of the past. In this particular case, “the state has disregarded its own land laws and policy frameworks by negotiating with untested and traditional leaders rather than the individual occupiers who hold the legal rights… the Commission on the restitution of Land Rights has burdened and harassed legitimate restitution claimants, failed to follow its own established procedures, and dismissed the claim with so little consideration that the judge was prompted to question the commissioner’s motives” (Participatory Forest Management Case Studies in South Africa 2005). The most glaring problem with the Dukuduku Case is that it is still unclear which parties own which parts of land in the area. Until this issue is properly sorted out, the forest will continue to be degraded and the people will continue squatting, as they have not received proper restitution. The Dukuduku Case is an example of a land dispute where neither the park nor the people are “winning”; at the moment both players continue to exist without any real change on the horizon.

The second case involves the Makuleke community- a group forcibly removed from their land, the Parfuri area, in the northern part of Kruger National Park. The Department of Bantu Affairs removed them in 1969 due to expansion of the Park’s borders to include the Parfuri area (De Villiers 1999). This piece of land was determined to be of high conservation value even before the apartheid era. The community filed a claim in 1995 to regain the land because they were forced from it due to discriminatory legislation. The community members never agreed to the terms under which they were removed and they did not receive adequate compensation for the land and possessions that they lost as a result (De Villiers 1999). Meetings were held between the South African National Parks (SANP), the government, and the community to discuss who should control the land. SANP insisted the squatter community needed to vacate the area, and the community insisted that the land had been theirs for generations therefore they were entitled to it (

After continual meetings and after research about the background of the Makuleke community was conducted, all parties eventually agreed “the compensation granted by the state to the Makuleke community for the land lost by virtue of the removal, as well as the consequential losses, was inadequate” (Ashley 2005). A complex agreement has been forged between SANP and the community- the Makuleke region remains a part of Kruger National Park and while “day-to-day technical natural resource management in the area remains the responsibility of SANP (Ashley 2005). The agreement anticipates that the Makuleke will gradually take over this role as community members gain the necessary training and qualifications”(Ashley 2005). Because of the formation of a Joint Management Board (JMB)- made up of three representatives each of the Makuleke Communal Property Association, and SANP- the Makuleke are successfully implementing commercial ecotourism development within Kruger (Ashley 2005). They have cultural and commercial rights to the area but any decisions made in terms of land usage and rights must fall within conservation and environmental guidelines of a Master Plan agreed upon by the JMB (Fabricus 2004). The JMB has been a successful platform for executing a joint-management program. The Makuleke Case is a success story in terms of a land restitution arrangement between a community and a protected area. This case shows that successful land restitution processes are possible if all parties involved are dedicated to finding a common ground where each can benefit.

While much literature currently exists on parks and relations with communities, I was unsuccessful in finding any literature on the particulars of the Manaba Case or on restorative justice applied to cases of environmental law. The gap in literature on this specific situation makes this project necessary and meaningful in shedding light on the topic.

Methodology

Before actual collection of data began, I attended a meeting involving representatives from Phoenix Zululand and WESSA on April 10th. This meeting was intended to discuss options for implementing a program to address the individuals arrested for cultivating within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. This meeting helped me to understand the viewpoints of these two organizations- Phoenix’s commitments to restorative justice and WESSA’s commitment to environmental conservation and education. This meeting was very beneficial in helping me discover firsthand some of the viewpoints of the organizations who were knowledgeable about the case.

Qualitative methods were utilized throughout the project. In-depth interviewing was the sole method for data collection. Most questions were open-ended and often rather unstructured. All interviews were conducted with co-researcher, Kate Ronan. The outlines and questions for each interview were discussed and decided upon by both Kate and myself prior to each interview[2].

The collection of my primary research began in Eshowe. I arrived on April 13th and conducted a group interview with three Phoenix Zululand representatives. The interview was conducted in the lobby of the George Hotel, in front of Zululand Backpackers- my accommodation, while in Eshowe. The interview was relaxed in structure and had a conversational feel. My goal was to accumulate background information on Phoenix Zululand as an organization and also to learn more about their involvement with the Manaba Case and their efforts to implement a restorative justice program. All three interviewees were involved with the Manaba Case.

On April 19th I arrived in Sodwana Bay National Park, part of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. I was interested in learning about Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) as an organization and about their involvement with local communities- particularly the Manaba Case. An interview was conducted with an employee on April 24th and then a second interview with another EKZNW employee on the morning of April 25th. The second interview with EKZNW was similar to the first but examined the parks system in a broader light, less specific to the Manaba Case and more focused on EKZNW’s involvement with local communities.

Later in the day on the 25th, I went to the Oqondweni Clinic where I met with a group of eight community members for an interview. My connection with this group was established through a Phoenix Zululand facilitator who was present at the clinic on the day of the interview. She introduced me to the group prior to the interview and briefly explained the purpose of my study, after which a member from the community served as a translator. I had been made previously aware that the subject matter was a potentially sensitive issue and this influenced my decision to let the group decide on the format of the interview; they chose to conduct the interview as a group rather than individually. There were eight people present from the community for the group interview and all participants were encouraged to chime in and answer any and all questions they felt comfortable addressing. While I had prepared a series of questions for the group, I allowed the interview to function as a conversation and it unfolded naturally. The beginning of the interview was difficult. I had trouble communicating my purpose as a researcher. Illiteracy and the issue of consent forms proved to be an obstacle in communicating with interviewees. On April 28th I left Sodwana and traveled back to Eshowe. There I conducted a final interview on April 30th with a Phoenix Zululand representative with whom I had not yet spoken.