Latest News Archive
Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
![]()
The special task team met today (23 April 2018) to discuss the feedback received from the Free State Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (FSPHRA) regarding the task team’s submission to obtain a permit for the possible covering of the statue until the formal review process on the position of the statue in front of the Main Building on the Bloemfontein Campus has been concluded.
The special task team submitted a submission to the FSPHRA on 17 April 2018, in which the following three possible options were proposed to make the statue topical in a way that would symbolise the seriousness and urgency of the review process and stimulate engagement on the issue:
1. fencing in the statue;
2. creating an exchange of information around it; and
3. covering the statue.
Options 1 and 2 emanated from the consultation process with the university community on the possible covering of the statue.
The Permit Committee of the FSPHRA approved Option 2 during its meeting on 17 April 2018, as it cultivates opportunity for scholarly engagement. The committee indicated that the statue should still be visible, ‘uncovered’, and accessible and granted the UFS a permit on 20 April 2018 to make the MT Steyn statue topical while the review process is underway.
Permit document
The special task team welcomes the decision of the Permit Committee and supports the conditions stated in the permit, as it protects the credibility of the review process.
According to the National Heritage Resources Act No 25 of 1999, members of the university community and other stakeholders have 14 days from the date of issue of the permit (i.e. 17 April 2018) to appeal directly to the Permit Committee regarding its decision to grant the permit.
The way forward regarding the review process:
- While the decision of the Permit Committee is open for appeal, the special task team is refining the detailed feedback and alternative suggestion/view on Option 2 made by the FSPHRA to ensure the practical execution thereof. This conceptional framework of Option 2 (creating an exchange of information around it) will be shared with the university community once completed.
- The UFS has appointed a heritage consultant to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA).
- Once a preliminary report from the HIA has been submitted by the heritage consultant, it will be made public for a minimum period of 30 days for input from the university community and other stakeholders, during which a public participation process will commence in order for the university community and others to deliberate about the preliminary report. During this time, various opportunities for engagement will be created on all three campuses to afford the university community and other stakeholders an opportunity to engage with the report.
- The heritage consultant will submit a final report to the special task team after the engagement period has been completed.
The specific dates and timelines of the public participation process will be shared when finalised.
Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Corporate Communication and Marketing)
Telephone: +27 51 401 2584 | +27 83 645 2454
Email: news@ufs.ac.za | loaderl@ufs.ac.za
Fax: +27 51 444 6393
Game farming a lens to analyse challenges facing democratic SA – Dr Kamuti
2017-05-30
Dr Tariro Kamuti, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre
for Africa Studies at the University of the Free State.
Photo: Rulanzen Martin
One of the challenges facing South Africa’s developing game farming policy is the fractured state in the governance of the private game farming sector, says Dr Tariro Kamuti.
Dr Kamuti, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Africa Studies (CAS) at the University of the Free State (UFS), was presenting a seminar on Wednesday 17 May 2017 under the topic, Private Wildlife Governance in a Context of Radical Uncertainty: Challenges of South Africa’s Developing Game Farming Policy, which takes material from his PhD. He received his PhD from both the Vrije University in Amsterdam and the UFS in 2016.
His presentation explored how the private game industry positions itself in accordance with existing agricultural and environmental regulations. It also investigated the state’s response to the challenge of competing needs over land and wildlife resources which is posed by the gaming sector. “The transformation of the institutional processes mediating governance of the private game farming sector has been a long and enduring arrangement emerging organically over time,” Dr Kamuti said.
Game farming links wildlife and agricultural sectors
“I decided on this topic to highlight that game farming links the wildlife sector (associated with conservation and tourism) and the agricultural sector. Both make use of land whose resources need to be sustainably utilised to meet a broad spectrum of needs for the diverse South African population.
“The continuous skewed ownership of land post-1994 justifies questioning of the role of the state in confronting challenges of social justice and transformation within the economy.”
“Game farming can thus be viewed as a lens through which to study the broad challenges facing a democratic South Africa, and to interrogate the regulatory and policy framework in the agricultural and wildlife sectors at their interface,” Dr Kamuti said.
Challenges facing game farming policies
The state alone does not apply itself to the regulation of private gaming as a sector. “There is no clear direction on the position of private game farming at the interface of environmental and agricultural regulations, hence game farmers take advantage of loopholes in these institutional arrangements to forge ahead,” Dr Kamuti said.
He further went on to say that the state lacked a coherent plan for the South African countryside, “as shown by the outstanding land restitution and labour tenant claims on privately owned land earmarked for wildlife production”.
The South African government was confronted with a context in which the status quo of the prosperity of the middle classes under neoliberal policies was pitted against the urgent need to improve the material well-being of the majority poor. Unless such issues were addressed, this necessarily undermined democracy as a participatory social force, Dr Kamuti said.