Contested Rights: Impacts of Game Farming
on Farm Workers in the Bushmans River
Area
Kelly Luck
Zweliyanyikima Vena
Abstract—This paper discusses the effects of the change to game
farming, most notably trophy hunting, on farm workers in the
Bushmans River area of South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province.
Game farming is viewed by government and tourism stakeholders
as a much needed source of foreign investment in the impoverished
Province. What is often unrealized and unreported however, is the
effect of the transition to game farming on farm workers who still
reside on the affected land. This paper traces the tensions that exist
between white landowners and/or managers, and black farm workers. It questions the applicability of current legal statutes aimed at
providing security of tenure for farm workers. It examines potential
solutions to the impasse reached between landowners and farm
workers. It stresses the need, due to the politically sensitive issue of
land and land restitution in South Africa, for an equitable solution
that provides security of tenure for farm workers, along with access
to the various sacred sites within the game farming landscape,
while allowing a compromise to be reached that is acceptable to the
landowners.
Introduction ____________________
The goal of the ongoing research initiative from which this
paper is drawn is to investigate the impact that changes in
private farming strategies are having on farm workers in the
Bushmans River area of the Eastern Cape. Although commercial farming has decreased considerably in the area
since the early 1990s, current changes in the region revolve
primarily around the development of commercial game
farming, most notably for trophy hunting. The potential of
game farming for ecotourism and the associated benefits of
employment, capital generation, and infrastructure development have seen the creation of a large number of private
game farms between Grahamstown and Port Elizabeth.
What is often unreported and unrealized, however, is the
effect that this transition to commercial game farming is
having on former Xhosa farm workers who still reside on the
affected land.
Kelly Luck is an Anthropology masters student in the Anthropology
Department at Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South
Africa. Fax: +27 (0) 46-622-3948, E-mail: g9730887@campus.ru.ac.za.
Zweliyanyikima Vena is the User Services Librarian in the Cory Library at
Rhodes University. He is also training as an Indigenous Healer. Fax: +27 (0)
46-622-2264, E-mail: z.vena@ru.ac.za
In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2003. Science and stewardship
to protect and sustain wilderness values: Seventh World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2001 November 2–8; Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Proc.
RMRS-P-27. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
The tensions that exist between landowners and/or managers and farm workers have been identified as revolving
around a number of key issues: security of tenure and
residency rights, access to water and grazing land, stock
restrictions, housing provision, and access to grave sites and
other sites of cultural significance (chief here being certain
water pools and riparian zones considered to be inhabited by
ancestors and that are essential components in both traditional and Christian oriented family rituals).
Through a discussion of the current legal position of farm
workers in South Africa, an examination of the economic
situation of farm workers, an explanation of the security
concerns of farmers, as well as through the use of empirical
case studies, this paper analyzes the tensions that exist
between farm workers and landowners and/or managers. It
discusses attempts at tacit eviction of farm workers by
landowners. It addresses the question of the need for access
to the landscape by farm workers to ensure their social and
spiritual well being, and finally examines a possible solution
to the situation of farm workers and game farms.
Economic Concerns of Farm
Workers _______________________
The economic implications of game farming for farm
workers revolves around their inability to secure a livelihood
due to unemployment and certain residential and livestock
restrictions. Game farming demands a different kind of
labor force than that associated with crop and livestock
farming. This has resulted in a large number of retrenchments. Following this, most farm workers rely on seasonal
jobs and members of the family who draw pensions and
disability grants. Seasonal work on chicory farms yields an
average of 10 Rand (approximately $1) per day. Farm workers are therefore severely economically disadvantaged. For
those farm workers with rights to remain on the land, the
loss of income and rations makes the possession of stock a
vital necessity for survival. The keeping of stock and the
access to sacred sites within the game farm allow for continued practice of various traditional and religious rites. These
serve to ensure the spiritual and social well-being of the
affected people.
Security Concerns of Farmers _____
Farm killings are a national problem. Accounts of farm
killings in the Eastern Cape are common in the media. These
attacks on both farmers and farm workers have generated a
85
Luck and Vena
Contested Rights: Impacts of Game Farming on Farm Workers in the Bushmans River Area
feeling of apprehension amongst the Province’s farming
community. A number of farmhouses in the Bushmans River
area have been burgled in recent months. It is therefore
understandable that farmers would seek to secure themselves through restricting access to their property. The
Government has allowed farmers to erect boom gates as a
means of ensuring their safety.
What must ultimately be understood is that it is often not
the farm workers on the property who are responsible for the
growing number of farm attacks. It is usually other people in
the area, or those from further afield. It is therefore in the
interests of landowners to ensure that they are on good
terms with the farm workers on their land. These people will
then have a vested interest in protecting the land and
ensuring that it is free from outside interference.
Existing Legal Protection for Farm
Workers _______________________
Farm workers in the Eastern Cape have a long documented history of inconsistent working conditions and a lack
of adequately protected legal rights. Influx control and the
absence of trade union organization has resulted in low
wages and limited means of legal protection from human
rights violations and work related abuses (Antrobus 1984;
Cocks and Kingwell 1998; Manona 1988). The current government has attempted to improve the situation of farm
workers through the implementation of the Extension of
Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). ESTA provides for
stringent procedures when a landowner, or person in charge
of the land, intends to evict residents. The would-be evictor
has to make an application in writing to a magistrate stating
his reason for eviction. While a farm worker’s right of
residence may be terminated on any lawful ground, the
process must be equitable, fair, and in accordance with the
various provisions, as laid out in the Act. Furthermore, the
Act extends additional protection to those “long-term occupiers” who have resided on the land for a period of 10 years
and have reached the age of 60. Despite this, the National
Land Committee (NLC) acknowledges
…that although offering limited rights, [ESTA] has been
demonstrated to be woefully inadequate in securing real
tenure rights for farm dwellers (NLC Annual Report 19992000:23).
The ineffectiveness of the Act results from its inability to
protect the tenancy rights of the dependents of household
heads once they die (dependents may be legally evicted 12
months after the death of the household head), as well as its
inability to ensure the residential security of short-term
occupiers.
Beyond the above, farm workers are often uninformed
about the existence of the Act, something which has led to
attempts at tacit eviction because once people leave the land
they lose all associated rights to it. Such evictions and
retrenchments have reached alarming proportions in recent
years. Downsizing in existing farming operations, and game
farming, has led to landlessness, unemployment, growing
shack settlements in neighboring towns, and livestock overpopulation on urban commonages.
86
Legal protection as it currently stands extends to securing
residency rights for long-term occupiers, but does not provide for the protection of those aspects of the landscape that
are identified by farm workers as sacred and therefore
essential for the continued practice of religious rites. Although there is a strong international call through organizations such as the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD-UNCED),
the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), and the Working Group on Traditional Resource Rights (WGTRR), for the recognition of indigenous
knowledge and the need for its preservation and protection
(Gray 1997), the preservation of and access to sacred sites is
not something that is legally enforceable in South Africa.
Farm workers have a strong affiliation with the surrounding
landscape, due in many cases to long-term residency and the
existence of family graves. There is also a strong identification with various sacred sites within the landscape and the
articulation of a need for their protection.
The two case studies discussed in this paper are taken
from one research site along the Bushmans River. Mr.
Engelbrecht (names of individual farmers, landowners, and
farm workers have been changed) is the South African
director and a 20-percent shareholder of a newly established
game farm. Mr. Engelbrecht is in partnership with a number
of Americans with a long established history of game farming and trophy hunting in America. The partnership has
bought six adjacent farms along the river, which are being
consolidated to form a game farm. There are 19 farm worker
families in residence on three of the purchased farms
Case 1: Attempts at Tacit Eviction
Tacit evictions, through such measures as the imposition
of severe water restrictions, lack of access to farms for farm
workers, and stock restrictions, are a common reality as
certain landowners attempt to force their workers to leave
voluntarily, thereby rendering null and void their responsibilities as laid out in ESTA. These responsibilities include
the stipulation that if farm workers are evicted or retrenched, a settlement offer must be secured that will allow
for the construction of housing in a new locality that is of
equal standard to that occupied in the place of former
employment. In many cases, the advent of game farming and
trophy hunting, which heightens the danger for resident
farm workers, has served as justification by certain landowners to limit farm worker access to the landscape.
Mr. Stewart bought his farm from the Landbank in 1999
after the previous farmer had gone bankrupt. The farm was
later purchased in November 2000, along with five other
properties in the area, by an American investment group for
the purpose of establishing a game farm for trophy hunting.
Mr. Stewart negotiated a usufruct right, which allowed him
to remain in residence and run his cattle in a specified area
of the farm.
When Mr. Stewart took over management of the farm in
1999, he imposed cattle restrictions of two animals per
family. Although cattle restrictions are often placed on farm
workers (Cocks and Kingwell 1998), the previous owner had
not imposed any restrictions. The lack of livestock restrictions being replaced by these new stringent restrictions
could set a precedent that could be detrimental to farm
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Luck and Vena
Contested Rights: Impacts of Game Farming on Farm Workers in the Bushmans River Area
workers. Only three of the six resident families have stock,
but of these, all have animals in excess of the limit imposed
by Mr. Stewart. The farm workers informed Mr. Stewart
that they could not abide by the restrictions, as they needed
the stock to ensure their economic well-being. Mr. Stewart
then implemented a system in which stockowners had to pay
20 Rand (approximately $2) a month per full-grown animal
for grazing, vetting, and dipping. Sometime later, he is
reported to have informed the farm workers of his intention
to personally sell all of their animals and hire a truck to
collect them. Such actions and threats can be seen as
attempts to force farm workers to leave the land and settle
elsewhere.
More seriously, Mr. Stewart imposed severe water restrictions on the farm workers living on his property. The farm
contains two dams: one for human consumption and one for
livestock use. There is also a borehole in close proximity to
the main farmhouse. He has consistently denied access to
the dam with water fit for human consumption. In July 2001,
during a public meeting between Mr. Engelbrecht, the South
African Manager of the game farm; Mr. Stewart’s son, who
acted as interpreter; Mr. Bonda, a representative of an
agricultural NGO; and the farm workers, Mr. Stewart’s son
defended the blocking off of the dam by saying it was in
response to the farm workers, who had left certain farm
gates open and let their own cattle move freely through these
gates. The situation has yet to be resolved. Meanwhile, the
farm workers approached a neighboring farmer and requested permission to draw water from his dam. The request
was granted.
The farmhouse that Mr. Stewart occupies is situated just
off the main driveway leading to his farm and one of the other
farms within the game farm. The gate leading to Mr. Stewart’s
home is also used to access the remaining driveway to the
second farm. Mr. Stewart frequently locks this gate, complaining of too much traffic through the farms. The farm
workers are not informed about the locking of the gate and
are left without a key, something that severely restricts both
their and their visitors’ access to the property. While locking
the gate is understandable, given the incidents of farm
attacks discussed earlier in the paper, Mr. Stewart should
inform the farm workers and possibly negotiate a situation
in which they keep their own key or have access to one.
The above case illustrates an active attempt on the part of
the landowner, or in this case occupier, to make life difficult
for the resident farm workers. Although many of the discussed actions took place prior to the onset of the game farm,
such attempts have escalated now that the game farm is
being constructed. Both Mr. Stewart and his son have given
assistance to Mr. Engelbrecht, and frequently oversee the
still fledgling operation while he is away with clients at other
more established hunting sites. These actions constitute an
attempt on the part of Mr. Stewart to tacitly evict those
people resident on his land, all of whom were resident before
his arrival.
Case 2: Sacred Sites Within the Game
Farming Landscape
Sacred sites refer to specific areas considered by the local
people to be places within the landscape where their ancestors reside (Hirsch 1995). The Xhosa farm workers and
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
members of the larger community identify three such localities: the water, the grassland, and the forest. Each locality
is believed to contain ancestral spirits, the most powerful
being the river people (abantu bomlambo) who reside in
certain identifiable pools (De Jager and Gitywa 1963;
Hammond-Tooke 1975; Hirst 1990, 1997; Ngubane 1977;
Soga 1931). Access to these sites is considered vital for the
continued well-being of the community. Family rituals are
often conducted at the various river and forest sites to ensure
agricultural success, health, fertility, and good fortune. Diviners and their apprentices also make use of certain pools,
revealed to them in their dreams, for training purposes.
Alongside the traditional, indigenous-oriented use of the
various sacred sites within the landscape, local African
Zionist Christian, farm-based congregations make use of the
sacred pools for full submersion baptisms. This ritual is a
definitive step for adult churchgoers, as it marks their full
entry and acceptance into the congregation. The strong
influence of indigenous African beliefs within the African
independent/indigenous churches (Maboea 1994; Oosthuizen
and others 1996), which view the healing energy of the
church as converted ancestral/traditional energy, has cultivated a respect for the landscape which parallels that felt by
traditionalists.
It is pertinent to point out at this stage that a respect for
the landscape arises out of an awareness of the need to show
the “proper” respect to the ancestors. As stressed in Bernard
(this proceedings), this involves an ecological ethos of protection and preservation of sacred sites, as environmental
degradation or disturbance of any sort will result in the
ancestors abandoning the sacred site.
Mr. Menzi and his brother, Mr. Sol Menzi, are both former
farm workers. Mr. Menzi is a resident of Mr. Stewarts farm,
and Mr. Sol Menzi lives on a nearby farm that has been
turned over to the people through the government purchasing the land from the previous owner.
Mr. Sol Menzi’s wife developed a rash on her arms and
back. Initially she approached the local herbalist and Zionist
priest, Mr. Zenani, for advice. Mr. Zenani prescribed a
course of treatment. When this failed to bring relief, Mr.
Zenani suggested she be taken to the local clinic. The
medication offered by the clinic did not bring any relief
either. Mr. Zenani then suggested she be taken to a healer,
Mr. Zenani’s niece, who was in the area performing a ritual
for clients. During the divination session, she revealed that
the rash was in fact caused by the ancestors, and was an
outward sign that the family needed to purify itself. The
healer advocated the performance of a river ritual. This
would involve the seclusion of the family, with the imposition of certain food taboos, and the offering of gifts, by a
chosen representative to the ancestors at a sacred pool.
It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that these rites
of passage were conducted in the past on an annual basis.
Rituals involve not only the religious ceremony itself, but the
provision of food and beer for ritual participants and guests,
and the payment of the healer for his or her services. The
significant cost of performing such rituals has resulted in a
situation where they are often neglected. It is believed that
the neglecting of such rituals may result in ancestral displeasure, as is evident by Mrs. Sol Menzi’s rash. It is also
important amongst the Xhosa that river rituals be performed
at sites associated with the family, as it is believed that the
87
Luck and Vena
Contested Rights: Impacts of Game Farming on Farm Workers in the Bushmans River Area
family ancestors reside in certain pools near where they
lived in their earthly lives. Familial association with a particular site is usually dependent on long-term occupancy in an
area. In the past, this has resulted in farm workers approaching their employers, or adjacent landowner, depending
on the location of the nearest sacred pool. Increasingly, however, it is game farm managers who need to be approached in
respect to the performance of ritual.
A detailed discussion of the ritual, and the symbolism of
rebirth and renewal involved, is beyond the scope and theme
of this paper. What is important to stress is the need for
access to these sites within the landscape to ensure both the
spiritual and social well-being of the people involved.
South Africa, unlike Australia, has no sacred site protection laws to ensure access to and use of the various water,
forest, and grassland sites. Many farmers are sensitive to
the need of the people to access the various identified sites on
their land. If timely requests are made, permission is usually granted. In some cases, farm workers report setting
aside a piece of the slaughtered animal (when ritual sacrifice
was involved) for the farmer and his family to secure good
relations between the two parties. It has been suggested by
some local African National Congress (current ruling governmental party) counselors that this system be encouraged
to establish rapport between farm workers and game farm
owners. Sharing the meat of a sacrificial animal is a strong
symbolic gesture of social affiliation and respect.
The ecological ethic of many traditional cosmologies, as
mentioned above, ensures respect for the site and thereby
preservation of the landscape. The presence of the ancestors
is in fact indicated by the presence of various animals and
birds associated with the water (otters, fish, birds), the
forest (monkeys, mongoose), and the grassland (mongoose,
hare) (Hirst 1990). By supporting these attitudes of respect
for the landscape, pollution and degradation of such sites
may be avoided. Access to such sites is vital for the spiritual
well-being of farm workers and therefore cannot be avoided.
Although landowners hold legitimate concerns of pollution
of sites, the promotion of and empathy for traditional ideologies may well prevent this.
Potential Solutions
to the Problem __________________
The Extension of Security of Tenure Act is aimed at farm
workers on farms still under production or those left fallow.
It could subsequently be argued that game farming and the
land on which it is conducted require additional legislation.
Because of the restrictive nature of game farming in relation
to stock numbers, residential security, and access to sacred
sites, current government initiatives to protect the rights of
farm workers are inadequate.
A possible solution to the problem of a restriction to
individual livelihoods, viewed as favorable by a number of
farm workers, is the allocation of land adjacent to or on the
periphery of game and hunting zones. The purchasing of this
land, if not already held by the game farm, is potentially
facilitated through settlement offers made by the landowners to the farm workers, and by ESTA grants afforded by the
Department of Land Affairs. Some landowners are exploring
this option and are seeking ways in which the farm workers
88
may benefit through their engagement in cultural and
ecotourism or agri-villages. Such endeavors should be commended and supported by all who are seeking a satisfactory
resolution of the problem and a means whereby the benefits of
game and ecotourism can be shared with affected communities.
An initiative, which involves the farm workers from the
first two case studies, is far from finalized. Mr. Engelbrecht,
the Director of the game farm under discussion, has identified a potential site outside of the game farm. The process is,
however, hampered by a number of factors, including the
fact that the transfer of ownership from the previous farmer
to Mr. Engelbrecht has yet to be successfully finalized.
Although access to the various sacred water and forest sites
within the game farm and burial rights have been successfully secured, the size of the allocated land is still under
discussion. Mr. Engelbrecht has agreed to give ownership of
the land to the farm workers by giving individual title deeds
to household heads for their residential plot and establishing communal grazing land for the stock. This will provide
residential security for farm workers and their dependents,
as well as a certain amount of security for Mr. Engelbrecht,
as it ensures the proximity of people with a vested interest
in the protection of his land. A number of the farm workers
have expressed their desire to leave the confines of the game
farm due to the restrictions and dangers (the eventual
introduction of predators and hunting) it imposes. Still
others have articulated their plans for the land in question
(grazing land for stock, as well as arable land for potato and
mealie [corn] production). What remains to be investigated
and finalized is the role of the government in terms of
housing and agricultural assistance.
Conclusions ____________________
The situation faced by farm workers resident on land set
aside for game farming and trophy hunting is complex.
Attempted farm worker evictions and the need for the
performance of ritual, as well as the economic implications
of the move to game farming for farm workers, have shown
the need for reconciliation between farm workers and landowners, not least because of the security this would provide
landowners, considering the potentially volatile nature of
land restitution issues in Southern Africa.
Values attached to the landscape by farm workers are due
in part to their long residence in the area, as well as their
cosmological orientation that promotes ecologically sound
practices. The ineffectiveness of current legislation governing farm workers in South Africa demonstrates the need for
additional legislation as well as the need for landowners to
act in such a way as to secure the tenure of farm workers and
to assist in providing generally poor, uneducated, and unemployed people with sustainable livelihoods.
References _____________________
Antrobus, G. G. 1984. South African farm wages and working conditions with special reference to the Albany District 1957–1977.
Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University. 320 p. Dissertation.
Cocks, M.; Kingwell, R. A. 1998. Land and agrarian reform: transition and continuity on former white-owned farmland in an Eastern
Cape locality. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University,
Institute for Social and Economic Research Archives: 61–73.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Luck and Vena
Contested Rights: Impacts of Game Farming on Farm Workers in the Bushmans River Area
De Jager, E. J.; Gitywa, V. Z. 1963. A Xhosa Umhly‹yelelo ceremony
in the Ciskei. Journal of African Studies. 22: 109–116.
Gray, A. 1997. Indigenous rights and development: self-determination
in an Amazonian community. Providence: Berghahn Books. 343 p.
Hammond-Tooke, W. A. 1975. The structure of Cape Nguni cosmology. In: Whisson, M.G.; West, M., eds. Religion and social change
in Southern Africa. Cape Town/London: David Philip/Rex Collings:
15–33.
Hirsch, E. 1995. Introduction. In: Hirsch, E.; O’Hanlon, M., eds. The
anthropology of landscape: perspectives on place and space.
Oxford: Claredon Press: 1–30.
Hirst, M. 1990. The Healers art: Cape Nguni diviners in the
Townships of Grahamstown. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes
University. 455 p. Dissertation.
Hirst, M. 1997. A river of metaphors. Interpreting the Xhosa
diviners myth. In: McAllister, P., ed. Culture and the commonplace:
anthropological essays in honour of David Hammond-Tooke.
Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press: 217–250.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Maboea, S. I. 1994. Causes for the proliferation of the African
independent churches. In: Oosthuizen, G.; Kitshoff, M.; Dube, S.,
eds. Afro-Christianity at the grassroots: its dynamica and strategies. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 121–136.
Manona, C. W. 1988. The drift from farms to town: a case study of
migration from white owned farms in the Eastern Cape to
Grahamstown. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.
Dissertation.
National Land Committee (NLC) Annual Report. 1999–2000.
Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Land Affairs. 40 p.
Ngubane, H. 1977. Body and mind in Zulu Medicine. London:
Academic Press. 184 p.
Oosthuizen, G. 1996. African independent/indigenous churches in
the social environment: an empirical analysis.Africa Insight.
26(4): 308–324.
Soga, J. H. 1931. The Ama-Xhosa: life and customs. Lovedale, South
Africa: Lovedale Press. 431 p.
89