Africa Wild

Fri Sep 23, 2011

Richprins wrote:Coincidentally spoke to a parent in Department of Land Affairs, and she says one should be cautious of believing statements that 60% of Kruger is under Land Claims.

For a start, the Southern Section was proclaimed in 1900, long before Apartheid, and there are actually no claims there relevant to the 2004 cutoff date whereby said claims had to be submitted.

The "Tribal land" issues re Nkambeni and Mdjedjane actually fall outside the original Park.

Furthermore, there are very strong directives from the government of the present regarding "rezoning" of Sanparks land re. remaining as conservation land, regardless of new ownership...a long list of priorities and "conservation status", of which Kruger Land obviously ranks at the top!

She doubts very much whether the figure of 60% is valid, as is proclaimed currently by Sanparks as a reason for appeasing local communities rgarding commercialisation!


Once again, areas further North which are under "claim", have passed their "sell by date" many years ago, according to law, and should be defunct.

Makuleke was the only one actually sealed and delivered with due process.

She actually said it was a smokescreen, these alleged "new" land claims. And stem from "success" in provincial Parks such as Songimvelo...

Lisbeth wrote:Interesting is not the word I would choose, worrying is what comes to my mind :? An excuse for favouring the communities? They do not really need an excuse for that if they have the ...."We are empowering our communities by ensuring that they take equity of between 20-30% of these hotels as part of our corporate social investment programme and a commitment to sharing benefits beyond boundaries. "

Is this "The main reason to celebrate National Parks Week is steeped in acknowledging such and many other successes of our parks. It is a painful reality that the process of establishing parks before the advent of democracy in South Africa was characterized by the alienation of black people from their land and property.

The conservation strategies of the past failed to consider the interests of local people and disrupted existing indigenous management systems.

Therefore, the National Parks week is one of the strategies which represent a fundamental shift from the colonial approach and the government is ensuring that, through the programmes such as People and Parks, Kids in Parks and Kudu Awards which allows our people to visit these parks in order to connect to the very core of our nature." a smoke screen for something else??

Mel wrote:Okay, I read RP's post three times by now and I think I might have an idea
what this is about. Please, correct me if I'm wrong:

Sanparks claims that 60% of Kruger is under land claim by people
who lost that land some time ago and who would actually be the legal owner.
In order to keep Kruger Kruger and not have to cut off land for the legal
owners, Sanparks has to raise funds to be able to compensate those
lawful owners finanically? And implicitely, the planned hotels are one way
to earn that money?

Sorry, for being such a stupido, but I swore to myself that I'll never make the
same mistake again as I did with the hotel development - not asking
for clarification of what I didn't understand.

Richprins wrote:You're not a stupido!

The land claims in Kruger have/should have been settled/rejected by another government department, land affairs, a decade ago, and has never been a massive issue until this year! Now Sanparks is "suddenly" stating it to be a "Major threat" to Parks, while it is actually not their problem at all!!!!!!

The relevant department deals with that aspect, and is very strict, otherwise Kruger would have half disappeared years ago!!!

Sanparks now feel the urge to use this as another smokescreen, as the opposition to commercialisation is increasing, and the race card and EIA have blown up in their faces, IMO!

Suddenly it is "community" this and "community" that, while they were for damned sure not consulted or informed when the hotels were approved in 2008!!!!

How can a "cash-strapped" Parastatal suddenly be expected to support a strictly political process financially!?

Kruger already provides an indirect R2 billion plus to the local economy annually...that is a recognised fact, and the piddling little amounts mentioned are purely promises made before the local elections, IMO!

Some provincial parks such as Somgimvelo were granted access by local tribes through due process years ago, while still meant to remain primarily conservation land, but have turned into an absolute disaster, mostly through mismanagement of funds, and actually represent a huge financial loss.

This was even on Carte Blanche recently.

However, the neighbouring cattle farmers made a short term gain, and that is all they care about!

Lisbeth wrote:The picture is getting darker and more ominous with every day that passes and also more confusing, but that is maybe what they want. There are too many fronts, too many details, too many interests and too little real information and thus the speculations start........I am getting lost, the picture is fading

Richprins wrote:Don't get so depressed! :lol:

It shows they are getting desperate!

Lisbeth wrote:Not depressed, demoralized :( Too few are thinking far enough ahead and that goes for the public, the media and the conservation organizations

Roan wrote:Richprins, you have made a very sensible post with facts ! Well done

Just shows how far they will go to justify their current plans for more development in the park :roll:

Mel wrote:Thanks for the further explanation, RP!

This is getting more dubious by the minute, methinks.
But I agree with RP, it seems SANParks is desperately looking for
justifications for their development projects. :roll:

Just in case viewers may deem this as speculation...this from Sanparks THEMSELVES!!! (now approaching 15 years ago!!!)


By December 31, 1998 almost 40 land claims had been lodged on land within the Kruger National Park. To date, the Makuleke claim in the Pafuri area of the park and the Mdluli claim in the south of the park have been settled. The Regional Land Claims Commission (RLCC) has dismissed two claims. According to Limpopo RLCC spokesperson, Nikiwe Shibambu, negotiations are currently underway for the settlement of the Makahani claim. This covers land in the Punda Maria area.

The Makulekes and the Mdlulis were given back the rights to their original land within the park. According to Wanda Mkutshulwa, spokesperson for South African National Parks (Sanparks), “As part of the settlement agreement it was decided that this land would be used for conservation purposes in perpetuity and they have signed a contractual agreement with the Kruger National Park.” Although nothing has happened yet with the Mdluli land, the Makuleke community has introduced tourism activities in partnership with a private company.

Sanparks and the communities work together on several issues. The dismissed claims were the Mhinga claim in the Punda Maria area and the Mapindani claim which covered land from Mphongola to the Olifants River. A closer inspection by the Mpumalanga Regional Land Claims Commission (RLCC) revealed that of the 26 claims in the Mpumalanga section of the park, most of the claims were lodged by different members of the same families.

The Mpumalanga claims are now grouped into the Mahashi, Ntimane, Ndluli and Sambo, and the Nkuna claims. Shibambu says that most of the Limpopo claims cover land in the northern part of the park, and overlap to the adjacent villages in the Giyani and Malamulele areas. The Mpumalanga claims are mostly centred around Skukuza, although there are also claims that affect land next to Pretoriuskop and the Sabie Sands. Of the claims lodged in Limpopo, investigation of four of the claims is fairly advanced, as the RLCC is preparing a “rule three” report.

This will determine if the claim should be settled or dismissed. These include the Muyexe claim in the Shangoni and Tshanga area; Ndindani claim for Shongololo, Byashishi and Mnangwe; Mahlathi claim from Mphongola to the Olifants River and the Madonsi claim for Shangoni, Phugwani, Shahondo, Phonda and Maguweni. Preliminary investigations are underway for the other claims. Shibambu says that as the land being claimed is unregistered and unsurveyed state land, a land mapping process has become necessary to find out the extent of the land claimed.

As many factors are involved in settling the claims, no exact time frame can be given by the RLCC or Sanparks for the finalisation of claims. Mkutshulwa says, “Discussions between the LCC, Sanparks and DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism) are currently looking at ways of speeding up the process and developing a win-win system for claimant communities and protected areas.” Land claims are investigated using the oral history of the claimants, inspection on the ground and archival research. Claimants can have lost both occupational and customary rights to the land, and may have gravesites in the Kruger National Park.



Notice the miniscule claims south of the Olifants River, and spot the "chance takers"...

The Mdluli claim is the present-day Nkambeni area. (Also still conservation land)

LCC is the executive arm of Land Affairs, relating to land redistribution.

Now in 2009...

28 January 2009

Cabinet has approved the use of equitable redress as the only option for the settlement of outstanding land claims in the Kruger National Park (KNP). The Directors-General of the departments of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and Land Affairs (DLA) jointly informed the affected community leaders of the claimants in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces on 23 January 2009 of the cabinet decision taken on 3 December 2008.

The decision not to restore the land rights in the Kruger National Park, which is considered a national and international asset, was taken after careful consideration and is intended to strike a balance between the rights of the claimant communities and the interests of society as a whole.

Equitable redress refers to the awarding of alternative land and/or financial compensation in settlement of a valid land claim lodged against the State by an individual or a community. The State will retain title to the land within this national park.

The equitable redress option proposed by the State includes the awarding of financial compensation and or alternative land, possibly coupled with other benefits for claimant communities which may include: guaranteed access to ancestral and traditional sites and graves on agreed calendar days for traditional and ritual commemorations; acknowledgement of the history of communities when naming facilities and camps, environmental education and learning for children and youth; job opportunities; preferential procurement opportunities; introduction of a "community levy" to be levied on all visitors to be channelled into a Community Trust Fund to fund future community development projects; broad-based black economic empowerment (BEE) opportunities and equity in commercial concessions. The additional benefits will be finalised subject to further engagement with the affected claimants.

The DLA will conduct a series of meetings with the community leaders in collaboration with DEAT and South African National Parks (SANParks) to address issues regarding support and the proposed benefit packages offered as part of the settlement agreement.

The community leaders welcomed the discussion with government as well as the proposed broad beneficiation package that could be available once the claims are settled. A number of community leaders however indicated that they are not in agreement with the non restoration of title to the successful claimants.

It was agreed that further consultation will take place with all the affected communities on the implications of the Cabinet decision. The Department of Land Affairs will lead this process with attendance of all the consultations by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and SANParks.

Then July 2009 (After new "government:....heeh heeh!)


The Mail & Guardian understands senior Cabinet ministers, including Environment Minister Buyelwa Sonjica, supported the decision, which was driven by her predecessor, Marthinus van Schalkwyk.

But a hearing two weeks ago highlighted the continued unhappiness of the land claims commission over the Cabinet decision.

The Minister of Rural Development and land reform, Gugile Nkwinti, told Die Burger that a new proposal could be made to the new Cabinet to have the decision reversed. Nkwinti said the government should be more sensitive to the needs of claimants.

"We don't want another Khutsong," he said. "The previous Cabinet took a decision and we will abide by it until a different decision is made, but it is an issue that has to be resolved."

The dispute reportedly involves about 400 000ha, with 38 communities lodging 19 claims. The land claims commission told Parliament that it would need R20-billion to compensate the claimants and that it did not have the money.

David Mabunda, chief executive of South African National Parks (SANParks), did not want to comment on the parliamentary debate this week, but said the park still aligned itself with the December Cabinet decision. He said half the communities claiming land in the park were happy with the Cabinet's decision.


Notice claims down to 19, and area down to maybe 20%....

And the good doctor's statement! -O

iNdlovu wrote:So this scheme has been on the go since 2009. I see the newly implemented levies were discussed way back then as well. It is amazing how Sanparks and the government have kept this all so hush hush until recently. Another question I have is that if the Government made the deal with the claimants and as stated above the govt is responsible for compensation, why is SanParks trying to be the hero by taking care of the compensation. To me it just smacks of a type of tax, who are the main users of Kruger?....so go after the people that visit and make them pay for the compensation. Goodbye, I'm off to the parks of Bots, Namibia & KZN etc.

Richprins wrote:And this one actually worked....but now in competition with Malelane hotel!!! The bridge was not built, so guests use Malelane Gate, AS FAR AS I KNOW!

iNdlovu wrote:So this scheme has been on the go since 2009. I see the newly implemented levies were discussed way back then as well. It is amazing how Sanparks and the government have kept this all so hush hush until recently. Another question I have is that if the Government made the deal with the claimants and as stated above the govt is responsible for compensation, why is SanParks trying to be the hero by taking care of the compensation. To me it just smacks of a type of tax, who are the main users of Kruger?....so go after the people that visit and make them pay for the compensation. Goodbye, I'm off to the parks of Bots, Namibia & KZN etc.

The 23rd of June 2009 marked a historic occasion in the development of Mjejane Game Reserve and its agreement with the Kruger National Park. In its support for Mjejane Game Reserve, the Kruger National Park started re-stocking Mjejane Game Reserve by delivering giraffe, zebra and wildebeest which, on their own, delayed crossing the Crocodile River into Mjejane Game Reserve. Later, white rhino and more zebra will follow and possible impala in order to create a sustainable tourism experience. These species will attract more predators onto Mjejane Game Reserve and so offer visitors a meaningful game experience, as up until now, the dominant large species on Mjejane Game Reserve were elephant and buffalo.

The Mjejane Game Reserve started with a land claim that awarded to the Mjejane Community, situated a few kilometers east of Hectorspruit, and could be hailed as a workable model for land reform processes in the country.

The 3,825 hectare Mjejane Game Reserve eco-tourism development borders the Kruger National Park along 10 kilometres of the Crocodile River. After the land claim was settled, a solution on how best to utilise the land in line with the conservation objectives of the Kruger National Park was sought. This was in stark contrast to the initial intention of the community, being to utilise this property for housing purposes and some farming. However, the soil is relatively poor with limited water resources for agriculture, and little potential for cattle farming because of wildlife diseases such as Bovine TB, Foot and Mouth and Corridor because the property borders Kruger National Park.

When Safrican Leisure Properties became aware of the Land Claim Commissioner's intention to secure a suitable strategic partner to work with claimants on a sustainable development programme for their land, they submitted a business plan which was accepted.

The essence of Safrican's proposal was to use the restored land for conservation and tourism development, using a model that was developed and successfully implemented over many years by the company in other regions. The Mjejane land is still pristine and relatively unspoilt. Bearing in mind the Kruger National Park initiatives to increase conservation areas and create buffer zones around them, Safrican believed it was crucial that this land be used for the right kind of eco-tourism development which would benefit the community on a sustainable basis.

To this end, the Mjejane community agreed to place their housing development on the portion of their land on the southern side of the N4, and Safrican have been assisting them with this development for which they have secured financial support both from the province and the Nkomazi Local Municipal Council.

Safrican's business model for the eco-tourism development included a range of potential income earning facilities including whole ownership, fractional ownership, timeshare, a tented camp, small lodge and commercial hotel, with the development being phased and limited to specific low sensitivity development nodes, thus preserving around 3000 hectares of the land for conservation, game viewing and related activities.

This mix of products and the development process itself would provide immediate and sustainable employment for the community including building work, permanent staffing required for the whole Mjejane Game Reserve tourist facilities. In addition, the community would receive income from the sale of stands, timeshare and fractional lodges and Safrican will soon pay out the first substantial dividend to the Mjejane Trust.

Mjejane Game Reserve has now officially obtained government permission to construct a low-level bridge over the Crocodile River to link provide limited access into Kruger National Park. The Kruger National Park will be responsible for and jointly manage the conservation of Mjejane Game Reserve, including control of the entrance gate.


Notice the highlighted part!! :idea: :roll:

iNdlovu wrote:So build the bridge and put the hotel in Mjajane....no problem all kinds of issues solved

gmlsmit wrote:The following correspondence was handled this morning.

Good morning gentlemen.

There is much speculation about Land Claims against the Kruger National Park.
It will be greatly appreciated if it you could assist in obtaining clarification on this matter.
1. Are there any outstanding/unresolved land claims against the Kruger National Park?
2. If there are; for which areas are they, and also the size of the area, will the land claims be approved and if so will the areas claimed be handed to the claimants or will they be financially compensated or will other land offered?
3. Has the land claim period now reached its dead line?
4. When is it planned to have any outstanding land claims against the Kruger National Park to be finalized.
Your kind cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards
Gerhard Smit.

The reply from my parliament contact:

Dear Mr Smit

Yes, there are several land claims in the Kruger Park. I dont know the exact extent, but it is close to 50% of the park that is under claim. As far as I am aware only one claim has ever been settled. I dont know for which areas the claims are.

One cannot put in new claims. The deadline has passed and it will not be re-opened. The timetable for resolution of exisiting claims is unclear.

As you know there are literally thousands of claims in South Africa that need resolution and there is simply not enough money to do the job.

On 9 September the below parliamentary question was asked by me in parliament. It has not been answered yet.

Regards

...... to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs
1) (a) how many unresolved land claims exist in each of the parks administered by South African National Parks, (b) what is the size of each land claim in hectares, (c) the size of each claim as percentage of the total land mass of the relevant park, and (d) the current status of each of the claims;

2) Whether efforts are being made by SANParks to help resolve land claims in a way that maintains the existing integrity of the national parks, if so, what are the relevant details, if not, why not?

Richprins wrote:This from an Aikona member:

The Mjejane Land Claims Group succeeded with their claim and obtained some land that is part of the KNP between Hectorspruit and Marloth Park.

For these reasons they also formed a joined venture to develop the area adjacent to the KNP, inclusive of an hotel development outside the borders of the KNP, with access to the Park from their development known as Mjejane. An ROD is in place for this hotel, to be managed in terms of an agreement with the KNP. The access will be by a bridge, which is nearing completion and will be opened officially in October/November 2011.

At the initial focus meeting of the consultant in Nkomazi we asked if the land claimants were involved as interested and affected parties and the answer was “no, the proposed hotel development has nothing to do and is separate from Land Claimants issues, and therefor they were not involved”



Why don’t they use the Mjejane Hotel for this proposed development? Why now refer to the land claimants whilst denying the relevance and input of the claimants during the scoping report?



There are clear discrepancies in the approach towards the land claimants, also regarding job creation opportunities.

gmlsmit wrote:Agreed with the the latest RP post.

V&L will be investigating the original 5 identified sites within the borders of the KNP.

The Mjejane Trust land is specifically excluded.

Richprins wrote:As I understand it, there is ALREADY a lodge on the Mjejane land, hence the bridge!

Those lodge operators lodged complaints against the Kruger hotel plan.

gmlsmit wrote:RP is correct.
However there is also so an approved hotel site with an agreement of understanding.

Here is info from their website:

Mjejane River Lodge is perched on the banks of one of the Kruger National Park's greatest rivers - the Crocodile River - and is surrounded by tens of thousands of hectares of raw African wilderness. It is here that places of water are places of life. It is here that all forms of wildlife are drawn to the riverine habitat to feed and to quench their thirst. It is here that the paths of predators and prey cross. It is here that life and death are close companions. It is here that you are assured of a breathtaking wildlife experience.

Africa has an age-old rhythm that is experienced through the hospitality of its people. From the first friendly welcome... to your journey of discovery through the African bush with an experienced game ranger on your side... to a starlit dinner around a dancing fire in the sociable boma... to the comfortable individually decorated air-conditioned bedrooms... to the sad farewells that arrive all too soon. And when you take leave of our special corner of Africa you will understand the meaning of true hospitality... and yearn to return.

You will observe raw Africa in all its magnificence and its many moods. Mjejane River Lodge is Big 5 territory at its best. Finally, as the sun sets over the Kruger National Park at the end of another remarkable day the river will carry your cares away and Africa will be in your blood... forever.

gmlsmit wrote:Here below is the answer given by the Minister about Land Claims;


QUESTION NO. 2628
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 28 NW3079E
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09 September 2011

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) (a) How many unresolved land claims exist in each of the parks administered by the South African National Parks (SANParks) and (b) what is the (i)(aa) size of each land claim in hectares and (bb) size of each land claim as a percentage of the total land mass of the relevant park and (ii) current status of each of the claims;
(2) whether any efforts are being made by SANParks to help resolve land claims in a way that maintains the existing integrity of the national parks; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Mr G R Morgan (DA)
SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT
HANSARD
PAPERS OFFICE
PRESS

2628. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

(1) (a) According to our records, there are 7 National Parks affected by land claims. However, the responsibility for administration verification of the land claims rest with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. The Department of Environmental Affairs is therefore not in a position to confirm the sizes and percentage of land mass under claim.

(2) Yes, co-operation between SANParks and the Restitution Commission in the settlement of land claims in National Parks ensures a very delicate balance between interests of the claimants and government’s other objectives in preserving these uniquely valuable sensitive areas in perpetuity. This approach is articulated in the “policy on settlement of Restitution claims on protected areas, world heritage sites and state forests under national government.

Unfortunately very little detail is given - as expected.

A follow up question was asked from the Minister of Rural Development.

Modestus wrote:I fail to understand why SANparks can't give figures about the claims. As far as I know, every person or institution affected by a claim must be given notice of a pending land claim. Why would someone develop an area which is subject to a claim? Perhaps it is one of those vague and opportunistic claims like the people who claimed land in the Vredefort dome. They alleged that the land was taken from the by Pres Paul Kruger and General Vredefort. LOL( roughly translated, the Fort of Peace )

Lisbeth wrote:I did read somewhere something about those claims, that lots had been faked ( 10 persons of the same family e.g.) Some are dubious because there is no written proof etc. It must be quite a messy situation.

I also seem to remember that the department had finally worked out all the rightful claims, but don't ask me where I have read it, with all the documents that have passed on my screen lately

Richprins wrote:Found out a couple of days ago that Kruger was not surveyed as "farms", in the sense that Land claims are investigated/administered these days, which makes decisions difficult and subjective according to the post-Apartheid system.

Will try to get more clarification.

The point is the new (last year or so) excuse for commercialisation in Kruger due to now apparently 2/3rds being under claim is overstated and highly subjective!

Richprins wrote:The "Absolute" backdating allowed for land claims is 1913, according to the relevant laws.

Southern Kruger was proclaimed before that.

Also, regarding Kruger, whatever claims may be granted, they WILL ensure that the status quo is maintained regarding land use..ie nature conservation. Total end of story and verified!

So no excuse for Sanparks to use Land Claims as a "get out of jail" card!

serval wrote:Adjoining Kruger :

http://safaritalk.net/topic/8270-londol ... and-claim/

Just bumping this thread for those requiring a reminder of the true nature of the Land Claims "emergency" !

Land restitution helps conserve the Kruger

5 JUL 2013 00:00 YAZEED KAMALDIEN

Makuleke Contract Park is the winner of the Community Conservation Award.

Land restitution across South Africa has left some land claimants disgruntled, but a success story in the Kruger National Park has empowered a community and broken new ground in conservation.

June last year saw the finalisation of the Makuleke Contract Park Conservation and Development Framework, a deal for the management of land taken from the Makuleke people in 1969.

Apartheid authorities removed the community from their land to expand the Kruger National Park. They were forcibly resettled 100km away in an area called Ntlaveni, near the Punda Maria border of the park, and their livelihoods were lost when they were unsettled.

The Makuleke community regained their land in the Kruger following the success of their land restitution claim in the 1990s. Instead of moving back onto the land, they signed a groundbreaking deal to establish the Makuleke Contract Park.

Sustainability consulting firm Environmental Resources Management (ERM) worked pro bono with the Makuleke community over two years to finalise the framework setting out the parameters of the deal.

The Makuleke Community Property Association, which owns the land, agreed with South African National Parks (SANParks) and private-sector concessionaires to retain the land's valuable conservation status, says David Shandler, a partner at ERM.

The framework confirms the vision for the area, which is to establish "a partnership celebrating Africa's nature, people and visitors", he says.

It sets goals, zonation of the land for different uses, governance arrangements and a business development plan.

The framework "recognises the leading role of the Makuleke community in taking decisions for their land, but also builds in structures and processes for collaboration with the SANParks to ensure that the latter's requirements are also met".

"The 24 000ha tract of land has exceptional biodiversity, with over 400 recorded bird species and seasonally high densities of large mammals like elephant, buffalo, lion and leopard," he says.

In addition to its richness in fauna and flora, it is also culturally significant, with tribal ruins dating back some three to four centuries.

The agreed framework guides the community and its partners to "gain social, environmental and economic benefits", says Shandler.

"The community entered a joint management agreement with the national parks authority, and contractual agreements with tourism companies which operate lodges and ecotourism activities in the area."

A joint management board, made up of representatives from the Makuleke villages and SANParks, governs commercial development through the concession of ecotourism opportunities, and decides on the way that wildlife in the area is protected.

The Makuleke land is based in the north of the Kruger Park and includes the confluence of the Luvuvhu and Limpopo rivers.

These important water sources and their associated wetlands have been declared an international Ramsar site, and the Makuleke framework also deals with the future management of the wetlands.

Shandler says the project is an example of a "collaborative approach to managing conservation and development for community benefit.

It successfully balances the community's need to derive an income from its natural land asset, while at the same time setting out clear parameters for maintaining its conservation status".

The Makuleke claim, and the Malelane claim, were dealt with years ago, respectively, with good results.

This is a media bid by SP regarding future commercialisation/pandering to local communities :

It sets goals, zonation of the land for different uses, governance arrangements and a business development plan.


The other existing Land Claims regarding Kruger are nonsense, as time has told!

"Zonation" is a two year-old concept, depending on the latest version, not approved by government over that period, which is significant.

SP makes up its own development plans, not just regarding Kruger, and the timescale of lack of implementation in the short term is also significant.

Richprins wrote:
This is a media bid by SP regarding future commercialisation/pandering to local communities :

It sets goals, zonation of the land for different uses, governance arrangements and a business development plan.

Ja, SANParks have pointed mantra-like to the economic and job creation opportunities

Interesting read through SANParks summary on Contractual Community Parks in the Kruger National Park meeting the wishes and needs of the communities (Link)




4.2 Contractual Community Parks in the Kruger National Park

Makuleke: The origins of the Makuleke region of the Kruger National Park, formerly known as the Pafuri triangle, can be traced to land dispossession and forced removal in the 1960s so that the land could be incorporated into the Kruger National Park. The Makuleke community regained the title to this 25 000 hectare area in 1998 after a restitution of land rights process. After the land was returned to its original owners (the Makuleke people), the community then decided to retain the land as part of the Kruger National Park to be co-managed by the Makuleke community and SANParks through a Joint Management Board (JMB) for the purpose of conservation and related economic development, in particular ecotourism. The Makuleke region has just been declared as the 18th Ramsar site (Wetland of International Importance) owned by a community.
Apart from opportunities provided by the lodge there are a number of other ways in which economic and job creation opportunities are provided in the Makulele contractual area:
• Makuleke electrification: In 2003, the Makuleke communal Property association (Makuleke CPA) electrified the three makuleke villages, viz. Makuleke, Makahlule and Maviligwe to the amount of R3.9 million.
• Upgrading of Joas Phahlela Primary school: In 2004 the Makuleke CPA built an additional administration block and three classrooms for R500 000 on the project.
• Upgrading of Makahlule Primary school: The construction of the Makahlule Primary school’s administration block in 2005 cost the Makuleke CPA R410 000.
• Fencing of N’wanati High school premises. N’wanati High school received r150 000 for its new fencing project in 2007.
It is worth mentioning that the Makuleke CPA is a pioneer in improving the livelihoods of its members through the use, control and management of the Makuleke region as a conservation and tourism hub within a protected area for the benefit of the entire community. To date, the Makuleke CPA has contributed to government’s poverty alleviation plans/goals as well as to the improvement of the living conditions of its members. This is a community of its kind, which was hailed by the world as a winner of the Equator Award 2010 (presented to the makuleke CPA in new york, US, on 24 August 2010) as a major contributor to employment creation through the use of biodiversity and conservation management. The region’s economic activities generate in excess of R1 million pa in concession lease revenues and more than R3.5 million in employment income annually. The concession revenue and other income is invested in CPA administration and community projects, and is used to improve the livelihoods of community members by providing infrastructure such as water and sanitation, clinics and health services, schools, and recreational and sport facilities.

Nkambeni: The Nkambeni community has been allocated the use of a portion of state land in terms of notice no. 1291 published in Government Gazette of 17 august 1962. This land has been fenced into the Kruger National Park. The Nkambeni community and sanParks wish to afford this land the highest possible conservation status and in the process the community should benefit. a contractual park agreement has been entered into between the Park and the nkambeni community. The Park is responsible for the management of the conservation land, while the community have also entered into an agreement with the tourism operator who runs the tourism operations with the aim of sharing the benefits. This relationship is managed by a joint management board structure consisting of members of the community, members of SANParks, and a tourism development partner. To date the community are partners in the Nkambeni tented camp which is a tourism facility. SANParks is currently assisting the community to overcome their investor difficulties.

Mjejane: The Mjejane Game Reserve (MGR) is arguably one of SANParks long-standing dreams of trying to create a ‘black Sabi Sand’ type of ecotourism on the doorstep of the Kruger National Park. The word ‘black’ is very descriptive of the long history of excluding black communities from the heart of real conservation-related activities, high-level ecotourism development projects. The 4 000 hectare MGR is a result of a successful land restoration project to the mjejane Trust. Like all land reform projects, the MGR had every promise of success, but lack of capacity and knowledge of the complexities of tourism and development soon beleaguered the community. SANParks has stepped in to help the MGR by urgently monitoring the progress of the project and assisting it to
make progress. SANParks will sign a contract park agreement with the MGR so that the community can leverage the benefits of ecotourism development. Developments thus far are as follows:
• The fence between the Kruger National Park and the MGR has been removed, allowing free movement of the Big 5 wildlife species – elephant, rhinoceros, buffalo, lion and leopard.
• The Mjejane Trust has already received over R30 million of dividends from the development.



On a side note: MGR is located about 18 km from the proposed site of the Malelane lodge development and the community is concerned about the increasing tourist load in southern Kruger and are worried how this will affect their guests and their access over the bridge into Kruger and their bookings.