In the previous section the fence featured prominently in its function of preventing the spread of FMD between red and clear zones, in this case corresponding with commercial and communal land. Although the fence was primarily erected for veterinary reasons, the construction has hardly ever been considered in that specific context by the SVC members. The fence was perceived in relation to its ultimate function, first of keeping the rhino in the conservancy by a single perimeter fence, but very soon after that, of making it possible to (re)introduce buffalo which ‘unfortunately’ required a double fence to prevent the spread of FMD in the SVC for hunting purposes. It was their wish to reintroduce buffalo and therefore they had no option but to erect the fence. At that level the SVC had mainly to negotiate with the DVS for the fence and the DNPWLM for the buffalo. So let us return again to the beginning of the SVC in 1991, the year it were formally inaugurated as a rhino conservancy. To be a rhino conservancy it (only) needed a single perimeter fence, with no heavy interference from or control by the DVS. It is interesting to note that none of the members of the SVC at that stage really had clear ideas about how to erect a fence, what materials to use and how to organise the operation. So in the first CCM there was discussion about the materials that should be used for standards and droppers. One point up for discussion, for instance, was that landowners and managers wondered if steel standards would be better for the fence than wooden ones, because the white ants would surely find them (and destroy them) and they needed constant, strict maintenance. But the Rhino Executant said that field trials in Botswana had learned that steel standards are ineffectual as they ‘did not penetrate deep enough into the moist sub-soil to significantly increase the earthing current’.93 And what droppers should you use? Wooden ones need
to be replaced fairly often. And what type of wire? Barbed or plain? And if every landowner/manager were to be responsible for building his own fence, would it be according to uniform standards or could everyone decide for himself? When they agreed on the material, the next question was where to order it.94 Prices of steel, for instance, rose steep in November 1991, with an
estimated increase of 80% to 90%. Who had old prices and what were the
93 Ibid.
delivery conditions? Would it be held in general stock in the SVC or on the different properties? In 1992 the first Conservator of the SVC resigned because he was fed up with the slow progress, first that of the fence but that of the SVC in general. Thwarted by the slow progress he could not see any future in the project and he ‘was frustrated over the enormity of the poaching problem’ especially in a context in which communication was a major problem.95 He was
succeeded by a field co-ordinator and work on the fence continued.
It was at this time that the first inklings of making it not just a rhino conser- vancy but to go beyond this and make wildlife pay for itself began to be mooted. The Chairman told the Committee that ‘he had paid a visit to the Sabi Sands Conservancy which borders onto the Kruger National Park in South Africa (...) He said the Sabi Sands area was very similar in its makeup to that of the Save Conservancy. The Sabi Sands Conservancy was founded by a group of private ranchers, who gave up their cattle because of the poor rainfall and veld conditions in the area, and turned to game. He said they were making a vast profit (...) (The Chairman) proposed that the Conservancy be turned into a total wildlife block with all the internal fences removed and to have the big game species brought back into the area’. To make the carrot even more attractive he said that he had heard that 300-500 buffalo would be culled in Gonarezhou and that he preferred them to be brought into the SVC. For that reason he had paid a visit to the DVS, in the company of Roger Whittall, and the DVS had ‘stipulated that the cattle had to be removed from the area, and a strong fence along its boundaries’.96 If all the landowners could be convinced about this
specific future for the SVC, the fencing would become a far stricter project. The final decision about the future of the SVC could be taken at the AGM in May, which was scheduled to be held, where else would be better for symbolic reasons, on Humani. At the next CCM the Chairman could tell the Committee that members both in the north and south of the SVC were supportive of the idea. The next item on the agenda was to order a feasibility study on the project, which was decided upon.97 But first it had to be officially decided at the AGM. 7
May 1992, ‘all members agreed that if the feasibility study proved that wildlife was more viable than cattle, they were prepared to go into a game-only opera- tion’. The head of DNPWLM was also present at the AGM and said that ‘he would give the Conservancy the necessary input of game’.98 In anticipation (and
expectation) of a positive outcome of the feasibility study, the process of fencing could continue, but now it had to focus on a buffalo fence, which
95 Minutes CCM, 14 April 1992.
96 Ibid.
97 Minutes CCM 12 November 1991.
implied a plethora of consultation with the DVS, which would be the final institution to approve of the fence. First there were ‘smaller’ questions to be answered. Would the buffalo be held in a confined area within the SVC or would they roam freely all over the SVC? Would a single buffalo-proof perimeter fence be sufficient? They decided that one well kept and electrified perimeter fence would be sufficient for the SVC.99 The buffalo could be bought
from the DNPWLM, that is, Gonarezhou for Z$ 100,-, excluding capture and transport.100 But unfortunately in January 1993, it was reported that the DVS, in
the person of its director, was ‘not prepared to consider a standard [single] fence’ as perimeter fence for the SVC. The DVS would visit the SVC and would give recommendations ‘on a minimum standard of a fence’ which became a double fence as described above. While this was underway the CCM considered reaching out to the communities to inform them about the SVC and possible community projects.101 In the meantime the feasibility study was still
not finished,102 but nevertheless the SVC forged on. It was working on the
buffalo fence and expected it to be ready by August 1993.103 Unfortunately in
July it had to be reported to the CCM that, especially in the south of the SVC, they were not going to make the deadline of August and they asked for an alternative plan. Matter of factly it was also reported that the DNPWLM was probably going to be made a parastatal and if it succeeded, they would have ‘to manage their resources from an economic point of view’. The far-reaching consequences this would have for the relations between SVC and Parks, and the availability of buffalo, could not yet be envisioned.104 The fence was not finished
in August, five properties had still to do their bit, but the SVC still wanted the buffalo. Therefore they erected bomas to put them in for the time being. But the bomas had to be inspected by the DVS first before they could let the buffalo come in.105 At that stage no one was under any illusion that the fence would not
become a bone of contention between the landowners and the SVC. The SVC could not go ahead if all landowners did not shoulder their part of the work. In November it was stated that once the buffalo were approved a final date would be set for the completion of the fence. If landowners or their managers did not manage to keep the deadline, the SVC would do the job and would charge the
99 Minutes CCM, 22 June 1992. 100 Minutes CCM, 1 July 1992. 101 Minutes CCM, 5 January 1993. 102 Minutes CCM, 22 February 1993. 103 Minutes CCM, 8 June 1993. 104 Minutes CCM, 1 July 1993. 105 Minutes CCM, 9 September 1993.
landowner later.106 By March 1994, the buffalo fence was still not finished in
terms of electrification. In the north alone some thirty-six km of electrification had yet to be finished. The game fence was already in place. In the south the situation was not much better. Again the CCM threatened that it would do the fencing if the landowner would not take his responsibility, and bill him after- wards. A firm deadline was decided upon: the fence, both game and buffalo, had to be ready by 31 May 1994!107 However, in April a representative from the
DVS did an initial informal check on the fence and came to the conclusion that he was ‘not impressed with the fences in general and got the impression the Conservancy was not serious about getting buffalo’. The permission to be allocated buffalo was postponed (again).108 In August the CCM reports that the
bomas for the buffalo were ready for inspection by the DVS, despite the fact that the perimeter and buffalo fence were still not up to standard.109
In the minutes of October it is reported that the buffalo had arrived but with regard to the fence, things had still not changed for the better and, rather desperately, the CCM stated that ‘all members of the Conservancy who do not have their fences (both game and buffalo) complete by 31 October will be charged for all feed for the buffalo while they are kept in the bomas’.110 But
again, in November, the sad conclusion had to be drawn: new deadline of 30 November will not be met, as twelve (!) properties have still not did have the fences erected up to standard nor had all the properties discarded their cattle111
and they ended the year with the fence still incomplete.112 In 1995 the struggle
continued. Buffaloes were held in bomas but could not be released either because of an incomplete fence and because there were (even) still cattle around on different properties. The Cattle Producers Association (CPA) was following the activities of the SVC with respect to the fencing very closely and undoubt- edly heard the rumours about the difficulties with regard to the fence. At the beginning of 1995, it was announced that the DVS would inspect the fence by the end of February and that, a few weeks before that date, the Conservator will do a pre-inspection, which would give the SVC ‘time to iron out any problems’.113 The biggest problem seems to have been to obtain the minimum of
five KV on the electrics. Although the fence receives the most attention in
106 Minutes CCM, 17 November 1993. 107 Minutes CCM, 15 March 1994. 108 Minutes CCM, 11 April 1994. 109 Minutes CCM, 25 August 1994. 110 Minutes CCM, 4 October 1994. 111 Minutes CCM, 9 November 1994. 112 Minutes CCM, 13 December 1994. 113 Minutes CCM, 12 January 1995.
relation to animals, the fact that the government was looking to the SVC to check if it kept its promises with regard to helping the communities was not overlooked.114 By now tension was rising in the SVC, as the final inspection of
the DVS was approaching apace. It hired two persons who would do weekly inspections on the state of the fence in the north and in the south of the SVC. In response to the critical questions posed by the government a Liaison Officer was attracted and employed for one month (!) to pay attention to the community relations.115 He was not hired directly by the SVC, but by the Trust which the
SVC had created for this purpose. An extensive description of the development of the Trust will be given in the next chapter. Sufficient for now is to note that the creation of the function of Liaison Officer and the creation of the Trust were taking place at the same time that the fence was reaching its completion. This was partly in answer to the critical monitoring of the government, but was also a response to the fact that several communities had already protested about the location and erection of the buffalo fence. Luckily for the SVC the DVS was delayed and announced that it would only be able to come for inspection by mid-March.116 This was also the time, the DNPWLM placed a temporary ban on
the movement of buffalo, but the chairman of the SVC declared that the decision was in no way linked to conservancies, ‘but purely [had to do with] inhouse fighting at the parks head office’ and there was a ‘feeling that the issue will resolve sooner rather than later’. The fence inspection finally took place on 30 May and landowners signed agreements about the maintenance of the fence and a statement that all their cattle were off their property. With this in hand the
114 Minutes CCM, 8 February 1995.
115 The Community Liaison Officer was financed with money from the Beit Trust (pp.
10, Du Toit, R. (1998), Case study of policies that support sustainable development in Africa: the Savé valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe, Paper presented at the Scandi-
navian seminar college workshop on An African Perspective of Policies which
Support Sustainable Development, Harare, 28-30 September). Later, August 1995, he would be financed with the same money, but this time it went through the Trust, especially created by the SVC to relate to the communities. It is symbolically meaningful to note that the same Beit Trust which helped to separate the SVC from its communities through financing the fence, also financed ‘the bridge’, that is, Liaison Officer, (also no coincidence, as it also financed Birchenough Bridge!) between the two. Another meaningful observation is that as soon as the Trust was created in August of that same year, the Liaison Officer was attached to the trust and to the SVC. So in fact he is working for the communities, within the context of the SVC. The contrast between two fence patrol officers for 345 km of fences and one Liaison Officer for one month for 119,000 people in the five surrounding districts is a striking one to note in terms of priorities!
director of the DVS could sign and issue the release for the buffalo.117 This took
another two months to complete and only in August 1995 could the DVS say that they had ‘received the fax containing signatures from all landowners saying that all cattle had been removed from the conservancy’. There was a fly in the ointment as by this time the DVS was already expressing its concerns that ‘the agreement entered into by the landowners and the veterinary department would not be adhered to and fences will not be maintained as specified’. It took some quite convincing rhetoric on the part of the chairman to convince the DVS that the fence would be properly maintained. Still the DVS wanted quarterly reports and periodic blood testing to keep records of the developments with regard to FMD. With these assurances ‘the chairman was very pleased to present the official release permit for the buffalo. ALL BUFFALO CAN BE RELEASED AS OF 2nd AUGUST 1995’.118 He did not say that the fence was approved, but
implied that by this specific formulation. The fence was seen purely in the light of a function to make the buffalo possible in the SVC. Priorities in this respect are very clear.
Building a fence is one thing, but maintaining it presented the SVC with its own particular problems. It seems that the maintenance remained a struggle, if we are to believe the words of the Conservator that the fence is ‘the bane of my [his] life’.119 No wonder that I was not allowed to see the fence reports. The
main problems seem to be the grass growing under and between the fences, areas which should be kept clear according to the regulations, and the voltage. As early as 25 February 1995, a special Fence Meeting was held on Humani to try and sort out the difficulties with the fence and to explain once more the idea of a fence levy introduced at the AGM in 1995. The basic idea was that every property was responsible for its own fence maintenance, but also paid an annual fence levy of Z$ 0.90 per acre. This levy then created a fund with which the SVC could maintain the fence in case the property not be keeping its fence up to the required veterinary standards. If a landowner maintained his fence properly would be reimbursed at the end of the year per kilometre of fence for which he was responsible. The owners who did not do a proper job on the fence would receive a reimbursement minus the costs of the job done by the SVC. He also informed the members that a ‘risk assessment team’ would visit the SVC, the DVS was obviously still not sure about the fulsome promises of the SVC to ‘access the cost benefits of buffalo in situations such as ours and the possibili- ties and risks of the spread of Foot and Mouth Disease’. The DVS had warned the SVC about the serious consequences of the team’s findings in the sense that
117 Minutes CCM, 28 June 1995.
118 Minutes CCM, 2 August 1995. Emphasis in original.
íf there were problems with the fence, the outcome of the assessment could mean that there never would be any further problems, as, ‘with no buffalo, there will be no need for the buffalo fence’. This special meeting ended with a full report on all the fences.120 The risk assessment team came in at the beginning of
1997 and in June the results were received by the CCM, which were ‘better than expected, [but] there was still some concern on the maintenance, monitoring and action thereof’. Rather prophetically there was the observation of the team that maybe impala jumping out of the SVC were a greater risk for spreading
FMD than were buffalo.121 At the same meeting the fence maintenance was
discussed once more but ‘this matter was not resolved’.122
In 1998 the fence maintenance costs are estimated on figures from 1996- 1997. The figures are based on responses from ranches, asked to give financial