An issue that is sweeping the world new right now is the land expropriation initiative that is sweeping through South Africa. A news article from Fin24 – a popular finance website in South Africa - provides an exhaustive summary of how the land expropriation issue came to the forefront of the country. It explains, “In late February, Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema proposed a motion in Parliament to amend a section of the Constitution to allow for expropriation of land without compensation. The motion was soundly defeated by 261 votes to 33. But that was in 2017. Almost exactly a year later, in February 2018, the EFF proposed a substantially similar motion. With some amendments by the ANC, this time an overwhelming majority of parliamentarians voted for it. The EFF and ANC said the state's current land reform programme has been slow and fraught with difficulties, with only 8% of land transferred back to black people since 1994” (Magubane, 2018). According to the same article, the Constitution currently allows for the government to expropriate land at any time, but must adequately compensate the land owner. This amendment to the Constitution would allow the government to expropriate without compensation, an issue that has many people worried. In fact, a commentator on News24, a popular South African news source, had this to say about the issue: “The EFF wants the state to be the [‘]custodian of all South African land[‘], which is ironic given its own experience of how state power has been used and abused” (Hall, 2018). This quote really addresses the real issue apart from the unfair expropriation issue and focuses on what could potentially happen – gross misusage.
Ultimately, this is how the land issue will affect recreation in the country. Most of South Africa’s game farms and safaris are held in private lands. A study conducted in 2003 really illustrated this: “In 2000, it was estimated that there were 7000 privately owned game farms in South Africa with a total surface area of 16 million [hectares]” (Van der Merwe & Saayman, 104). 
The same article states that, “[i]f one adds up the total land used for wildlife tourism[,] it is almost 20% of South Africa's total surface area” (Van der Merwe, et. al., 105). For comparison, the South African government only controls “nearly 4 million [hectares]” (Sotyu, 2010), less than half of the area of the private holdings. Van der Merwe, et. al., also cite that total revenue from private holdings in game tourism – including hunting and ecotourism – totaled “R874 million” (Van der Merwe, et. al., 111), which was worth about $97 million in 2003. This number does not take into account the amount of revenue generated in animal tags for trophy hunting, which generated “just over R1 billion in 2013” (Rademeyer, 2015). For comparison, this would amount to just over $95 million in 2013, meaning that government fees from hunting were almost the same amount made as the private income. These numbers truly show how significant of an income that can be generated from private game farms and holdings.
Unfortunately, the penchant for African governments to mismanage their assets is well-documented. The country of Zimbabwe, just across the border from South Africa, experimented with the same system of land expropriation. The results were absolutely disastrous. One reporter writes, “…the Zimbabwean experience tells us that the notion of expropriation without compensation is a bad idea. The Zimbabweans might have seized the land without compensation 18 years ago, but they collectively paid for it through eight consecutive years of economic decline that led to job losses, deindustrialisation and a loss of agricultural export revenues. In 2009, economist Eddie Cross estimated the cost of Zimbabwe’s expropriation campaign at $20bn, which included lost export revenues, food aid imports and economic growth foregone, which could have sustained Zimbabwe’s once promising economy” (Kirsten & Sihlobo, 2018). History has told us that the African governments are not good at managing land. The same article goes into detail in explaining how Zimbabwe went from one of the wealthiest world economies to the literal poorest country in the world in less than three decades – almost directly because of land expropriation.
It’s interesting in itself that the issue of land expropriation can affect the very recreation opportunities that are keeping conservation efforts alive. Though conservation is alive and well within the national parks system, most money is made from trophy hunting fees. Since trophy hunting is not permitted on national park land, hunting takes place exclusively on private lands. But I think that we can’t discount the increasing impact of ecotourism in South Africa. Van der Merwe, et. al., explain in their article that ecotourism accounted for “R106 million”, fully one eighth of the income from total game usage in 2003 (Van der Merwe, et. al., 111). 
This percentage has only gone up as ecotourism saw a huge upturn at the turn of the decade. In this sense, private business and land is more important than ever, as they are the ones who will make the push for more ecotourism over destructive activities, such as hunting. Though the national parks have adequate amenities to cater to an ecotourist audience, because it is run by the government, any changes and initiatives move at a snail’s pace; due to the nature of African governments, the money generated for such initiatives sometimes don’t always get to where it need to be, creating a financial deficit for programs that foster conservation and ecotourism. In the private realm, this does not exist. Private game farmers can more quickly change their focus to different aspects of game tourism, and can also use the money they make to focus on conservation efforts and ecotourism.
Personally, I think that the land expropriation issue going on in South Africa can only lead to incalculable issues, not the least of which will be in the field of recreation. While I know that most recreation revenue comes from hunting, I have been encouraged recently by the increase in ecotourism that has taken place. Certainly, African safaris are enjoyed by infinitely more people in non-destructive ways, even if it doesn’t bring in more money compared to hunting. I immensely enjoyed family vacations on mostly private lands, where we would drive around and look for animals for hours on end. However, the mismanagement of lands seized by the government could change all of that. Currently, South African land owners are motivated financially to foster a healthy ecosystem to keep the trophy game alive. Tourists also enjoy seeing big trophy game, further motivating the land owners. Unfortunately, the government does not have the financial motivation that comes from being economically dependent on the land, and may end up destroying the healthy ecosystems that have been nurtured for so long in private hands. As this issue is brought before Parliament, all eyes were turned to the factors that could affect a huge number of people, and to me, the outcome does not look good.
Growing up in South Africa and moving to Utah, USA as a teenager, Scott is a graduate of Utah Valley University’s Outdoor Recreation program. Scott is currently a Master’s Student at the University of Florida. His research interests include ecotourism, sustainability, and tourist affect cycles. He has worked in multiple therapy, outdoor, and retail settings, and is a published author.