Abstract
In this contribution we discuss tensions inherent in multi-stakeholder approaches addressing
conflicts over natural resources as well as the involvement of stakeholders in research. The article
is built on knowledge generated by extensive research on the impacts of conversions of private
farms to game farms in South Africa, where significant increases in farm conversions have been
observed since the 1990s. The studies had a particular focus on the consequences for farm
dwellers, one of the most marginalised groups in the South African countryside. The research
findings challenge the dominant narrative that game farming offers a ‘win-win’ situation for
nature conservation as well as rural development. Based on data from the Eastern Cape and
KwaZulu-Natal provinces, we extended the narrow technical and economic framing of the
narrative to include the socio-political meanings of the conversions.
In this article we reflect on a series of multi-stakeholder workshops that we organized, partly as a
requirement of the funding agency. The aims of the workshops were to disseminate our research
findings amongst the stakeholder groups and explore ways to mitigate negative impacts of the
conversions. We discuss how we organized the engagement process in ways that sought to
address the power differences between game farmers, the State and farm dwellers. The main
challenge appeared to be that farm dwellers were not recognized as stakeholders. This
‘invisibility’ has multiple reasons; in particular the historical and current trajectories of land
dispossession. It is also linked to the specific institutional and personal relations in the two
provinces, resulting in different uses of the workshop spaces. By considering the complexities of
stakeholder relations in the farm conversion context, we gained a deeper understanding of the
politics of land and belonging in the still unequal post-apartheid rural landscape. Based on the
experiences from the research as well as the workshops, we take a critical stance regarding
mainstream notions of stakeholder engagement and resilience building. We argue that if we fail to
consider power relations and politics explicitly in these processes, we risk neglecting important
conflicts and reproducing the invisibility of marginalized stakeholders.