Literature and news related to land reform in South Africa focuses on stark estimates, such as the 90% of land redistribution projects that were deemed to have failed according to the Ministry of Rural Development and Land Reform in 2010. Successful or innovative cases, however, are seldom reported or discussed.

Similarly, research tends to focus on the negative impact land reform can have on the environment. There is, indeed, ample international evidence to indicate that inappropriate land reform programmes (or programmes that do not provide adequate support to resettled communities) contribute to environmental destruction. These examples include deforestation in Brazil, environmental degradation in Ecuador, Peru and Tanzania,⁽²⁾ and ‘invasions’ of conservation areas in Zimbabwe.⁽³⁾

This CAI paper, however, is a brief account of a case study in which the apparent conflict between the rights and needs of land reform beneficiaries and the integrity of the environment was resolved in a mutually beneficial manner. Ultimately, the lessons from this best practice example can contribute to successful initiatives elsewhere.⁽⁴⁾

Conservation and eco-tourism

South Africa’s national protection system includes 178 protected areas, of which 18 are national parks.⁽⁵⁾ It is argued that eco-tourism has direct and indirect benefits to the economy in terms of job creation, rural development, and the emergence of secondary industries involving local communities. Eco-tourism remains the fifth largest earner of foreign exchange.⁽⁶⁾

The Makuleke community land claim

The Makuleke Community (about 1500 people) were forcibly removed by the Apartheid government in 1969 and relocated to Ntlaveni (an area near the Punda Maria entrance to the Kruger National Park). The land from which they were removed was then integrated into the Kruger National Park (KNP).

In terms of the legislation for restitution introduced in South Africa in the early 1990s, the community lodged a claim for the restitution of their land rights in 1995. Following a 1999 Land Claims Court ruling in favour of the Makuleke, 25,000 hectares were restored to the community. At the time the community consisted of approximately 10,500 persons.

The restored land included the northern part of the Kruger National Park (the Pafuri area) and a small conservation area near the Madimbo corridor (adjacent to Zimbabwe and Mozambique). This area (now known as the Makuleke Contractual Park), situated between the Luvhunu and Limpopo Rivers, contains by far the highest combination of wild plants and animals in the KNP. At least 250 bird species have been recorded in the area, and despite comprising only 1% of the total area of the KNP, the area represents 75% of the Parks animal and plant diversity.⁽⁷⁾ The area is also remarkable for its geological and natural heritage and as such is the site of rocks from the Permian age, abundant middle Stone Age tools, and rock art from the latest Stone Age.

The settlement

As a result of the forced removal, community members believed that conservation was a reflection of ‘white interests.’ Conservationists and representatives of the Kruger National Park therefore feared a decrease in the size of the National Park and the consequent loss of wildlife when the settlement took place.

However, after extensive negotiations and commitment from all the stakeholders involved, a deal was struck that not only increased the size of the National Park, but which also had sustainable social and economic benefits for the Makuleke community. In terms of the deal, the Makuleke community gained full rights to commercialise their land (and did so by entering into partnerships with private investors to build lodges), as long as such commercialisation remained consistent with the wildlife management policies of South African National Parks (SANP).

The Makuleke community agreed to establish a contractual national park in the belief that they would receive greater, more sustainable, returns from eco-tourism than from farming. In terms of the contractual-park agreement, the land would continue to be administered by the Kruger National Park for a pre-determined length of time, while a Joint Management Board (with members from the Makuleke community and the South African National Parks Board) was established with final decision-making power. The KNP itself would increase by 2,300 hectares with the addition of the small conservation area near the Madimbo corridor. The Makuleke also negotiated for exclusive research and tourism development rights, and a “sustainable use” clause made provision for “traditional” resource use, which included commercial and consumptive use of the region’s wildlife resources.⁽⁸⁾

Outcome

Thus far, two luxury lodges (the Outpost and the Wilderness Lodge) have been established and are operational, while there is opportunity (and some of these processes are in motion) for the creation of a further five eco-tourism lodges/camps.

The community has earned dividends from these enterprises. These benefits derive directly from the contractual relationships established between the Makuleke community and the private investors. For instance, the contract with the Outpost six-star lodge stipulates that the Makuleke community (though its Communal Property Association ⁽⁹⁾) should receive 14% of the turnover generated by the high-value business (2% of which must go to bursaries for community members), and 85% of the employees required during the construction phase of the lodge had to come from the Makuleke community.

The lodges and other initiatives have generated employment. Several young men from the community were trained and employed as game rangers (anti-poaching unit). 100 persons were employed during the construction of the Outpost and 18 community members were permanently employed.⁽¹⁰⁾ Sixty persons were employed during the construction of school classrooms. It is likely that more members of the community will be employed at the other planned lodges/camps.

The anti-poaching activities have continued. Anti-poaching activities in conjunction with the reintroduction of wildlife in the area resulted in a significant increase in the number of animals in the area. According to the Wilderness Trust ⁽¹¹⁾ this includes species that have been absent for many years (more than 120 years in the case of the white rhino) and is “the beginning of the restoration of the ecological integrity of the area.”

The Makuleke leadership have received and utilised (generally to the benefit of the community) income from the arrangements they have entered into with private investors. Examples of items of expenditure include training; skills development and tertiary education opportunities for members of the Makuleke community (including full bursaries at the South African Wildlife College); electrification of two residential villages (Mhinga and Makuleke); construction of four school classrooms; heritage functions; feeding schemes for the poorest families; a village tourism heritage centre; hydroponic fresh produce facility and (controversially) a 4-wheel drive vehicle for the chief.

Challenges

The community faced many challenges in the protracted process of regaining their land and developing a mutually beneficial eco-tourism business. These challenges were contextual, as well as internal.

Firstly, extensive investigations and negotiations were required to solve the complexities resulting from over-lapping rights and chieftaincy disputes pertaining to land claimed in the Pafuri area. One consequence of this was the extensive delays in the settlement of land claims.

Second, inter-generational conflict had to be amicably solved. A compromise had to be found between the older generation’s wish to return to the land to settle and farm, and the younger generation’s focus on employment creation, community development and the provision of basic services.

Third, meaningful participation was necessary. Although many commendable attempts were made to ensure this, the extent of community participation and influence is questionable. Community representatives, for example, reported (especially during the earlier joint management stages) being disrespected, and excluded from information and decision-making processes. Some scholars have argued that as with many co-management conservation projects in Africa, “... what was passed off as local participation or community-based nature conservation was generally characterised by top-down decision making with local communities participating only in the implementation of decisions that have already been made.”⁽¹²⁾

Finally, the case for the employment creation and income generating potential of this and eco-tourism projects in general, appears to have been over estimated. Tourism is an intermittent and not always reliable source of income. Given the size of the Makuleke community (10 500 +) the income and employment opportunities generated can be argued to have only a minimal impact. The region’s high temperatures, the prevalence of diseases like malaria and anthrax and (initially) the low rate of game-spotting are factors that inhibit tourism development.⁽¹³⁾

Factors that contributed to success

The following are some of the key factors that contributed to the successes of this case, and which could be replicated in part to facilitate similar successes elsewhere.

First, the Makuleke community leadership remained generally accountable to the broader community.⁽¹⁴⁾ Regular meetings were held, minutes were kept and the community was consulted. The community itself was unusually cohesive and were able to resolve internal disagreements.

Second, the management structures established were effective and representative. The Makuleke have four management structures; the democratically elected Executive Committee, the Development Forum which reports to the Executive Committee and is responsible for the day-to-day business management on behalf of the broader community; the Joint Management Board which has representatives of the community and the SANP and which has final-decision making power with regard to the KNP area, and the Trust (community and government officials are members) which monitors how funds are used.

Third, the community had clear, short, medium, and longer-term, developmental goals. The Makuleke community’s developmental aims and goals can be divided into six broad categories. The first, shortest-term, developmental aim was to generate funds in the period immediately after claim settlement by means of hunting. The second, longer-term, developmental goal is sustainable income through eco-tourism. The plan is to develop seven lodges/camps in the Contractual Park in partnership with private investors. Third, underpinning the other goals, is employment creation. The fourth aim was long-term, reinvestment of income for the benefit/development of the community. Fifth, underpinning other goals, was improving overall levels of education and skills within the community. Sixth, in the short, medium and longer term, the aim was to increase the number of animals in the area, partly through immediate employment generating anti-poaching initiatives.

Finally, the community received extensive support from non-governmental organisations, researchers, business advisors, financial advisors, legal experts and other agencies (including the Legal Resources Centre and the Endangered Wildlife Trust which lobbied for funds). This culminated in the establishment of the Friends of the Makuleke NGO – established with the sole purpose of developing skills and building capacity within the community.

Conclusion

Given a viable economic opportunity and a strategic and phased development plan, a cohesive community with accountable leadership, effective management structures and sufficient support from relevant organisations, and a willing established eco-tourism institution, can reach a negotiated contractual agreement with sustainable beneficial outcomes for all concerned.

NOTES:

(1) Contact Marinda Weideman through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Optimistic Africa Unit (optimistic.africa@consultancyafrica.com).
(2) Banyikwa, W.F., 1991. Construction on subsistence use of natural resources in Tanzania. In: M. Suliman, ed. Alternative Strategies for Africa, Volume 2. London: IFAA, pp. 96-105.
(3) Following illegal land invasions of conservation areas in Zimbabwe in 2000 – 2002, Voiceless Victims of Zimbabwe estimated that 60% of wildlife on privately owned farm ranches and conservancies had been slaughtered by August 2002.
(4) The research for this paper derives largely from two key sources. First, an extensive fieldwork assignment conducted by the author in 2006 as part of a much larger study conducted by the Community Agency for Social Enquiry for the then Department of Land Affairs entitled “An assessment of the Status Quo of Settled Land Restitution Claims with a Developmental Component”. Second, the author’s PhD thesis in 2004 entitled Land Reform Equity and Growth: A comparative analysis, obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand.
(5) Van Zyl, J., McKenzie, C. & Kirsten, J., 1996. Natural resource management Issues in Rural South Africa. In: J. Van Zyl, J. Kirsten & H. Binswanger, eds. Agricultural Land Reform in South Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press, pp. 243 & 248.
(6) Cowling, R., 1991. Options for rural land use in Southern Africa: An ecological Perspective. In M. de Klerk, ed. A Harvest of Discontent: The Land Question in South Africa.Cape Town: Idasa, p. 18.
(7) ‘Makuleke’, Wikipedia, 27 July 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org.
(8) Steenkamp, C.I., 2001. The Makuleke Land Claim: An Environmental Conflict, PhD Thesis, draft version, University of the Witwatersrand.
(9) The Communal Property Association is the legal land holding entity.
(10) The fieldwork was conducted in 2006.
(11) ‘Makuleke transboundary elephant movements’, Wilderness Wildlife Trust, 2005, http://www.wildernesstrust.com.
(12) Steenkamp, C.I., 2001. The Makuleke Land Claim: An Environmental Conflict, PhD Thesis, draft version, University of the Witwatersrand.
(13) Ibid.
(14) With the exception of the chief, who has allegedly benefitted excessively from the income of the eco-tourism ventures.

Written by Dr M Weideman ⁽¹⁾