Convivial fences? Property, ‘right to wildlife’ and the need for redistributive justice in South African conservation

Summary

In South Africa, fences are ubiquitous. From urban centers to rural landscapes, myriad fences divide properties, fortify estates, and protect private interests. In biodiversity conservation, likewise, fences are instrumental in legally assigning property rights over wildlife. They are furthermore deemed necessary to avoid human-wildlife conflict, save human and animal lives and, most of all, safeguard wildlife properties for the benefit of their state or private owners. This normalization of fences and private property has, in practice, meant that colonial and apartheid-era racialized spatial injustices have not only often been maintained, but also progressively hardened in the democratic era. Overcoming these injustices inevitably means confronting the question of private property and the fences that protect them. This article does so by connecting debates on fences, private property and wildlife protection to emerging discussions around convivial conservation that seek to transform the conservation sector by combining biodiversity conservation with social justice concerns. It asks: can fences ever be convivial? The answer, like fences themselves, is not straightforward. Reflecting on historical, policy and legal discussions, as well as the authors extensive research on the South African conservation sector over the past decades, the article proposes a conceptual heuristic around processes of softening and hardening of both fences and property in order to challenge continuing processes of dispossession, injustice and unsustainable forms of conservation. Based on this heuristic, the article suggests various strategies, including a ‘right to wildlife’ and a ‘wildlife restitution’ process, to support redistributive justice in South African conservation.