Communities claiming a large slice of the northern Kruger National Park (KNP) want full title to their land without any developmental restrictions. The land would remain part of the world-renowned wildlife reserve, says the Limpopo Land Claims Commission.
Negotiations over this proposed settlement of the second-largest land claim in the Kruger could set a precedent for claims by communities dispossessed during apartheid. Up to 50% of the park is reportedly under claim and the commission is under pressure to resolve the issue before the March 2008 deadline for the settlement of all outstanding land claims.
Commission spokesperson Nana Radebe said this week that it was in talks with South African National Parks (SANParks) over the settlement deal for the Makahane-Marithenga claim in the north of the park. The claim covers 89 773ha in the Punda Maria region.
‘The settlement packages negotiated include that the area on the periphery of the Kruger can be rezoned or demarcated. Claimed land falling within the demarcated area can be owned in full title without any developmental restrictions, but remains part of Kruger National Park,†Radebe said.
Wilson Makahane, spokesperson for the Makahane community, told the Mail & Guardian the community wanted a partnership with the Kruger management and a share of the park’s profits.
‘We want the title deeds to the land,†he said. Last week members of the Communal Property Association went on an ‘educational tour†to the Makuleke region of the KNP, the only area where a land restitution claim has been settled.
However, SANParks is loath to enter into another public-private profit-sharing arrangement as it did with the Makuleke community, which owns 25 000ha adjoining the Makahane-Marithenga claim.
Because the Kruger is one of two profitable national parks there are fears such arrangements might eventually bankrupt SANParks.
Wanda Mkutshulwa, SANParks spokesperson, said the organisation had rejected the Makahane-Marithenga land claim settlement proposal, which was not in line with a 2004 Cabinet directive on how to deal with land claims in protected areas.
‘SANParks felt the proposal did not take into account the realities of the financial viability of Punda Maria and ecological concerns. Punda Maria on its own is not profitable and is subsidised by camps in the south of the park,†Mkutshulwa said. ‘Private developers were misleading the community, telling them they could realise profits from Punda.â€
SANParks was not prepared to support the proposed deproclamation of Punda Maria. ‘New options are being pursued by both the Land Claims Commission and us,†she said.
Conservationists expressed concern about the damage the land claims could do to the crown jewel of the country’s tourism industry. One of their biggest concerns was that unscrupulous developers with an eye on creating luxury ecotourism or private estates could raise unrealistic hopes among poor communities.
Another concern was the potential negative effect of increased infrastructure for tourism on the ecology of the park.
A better option, they said, would be to keep the legal status of Kruger as a national park and for the government to compensate land claimants. Estimates of what compensation would cost range between less than R100-million and R40-billion, depending on whether it is pegged on similar compensation paid for agricultural land south of the park or prices charged for private tourism developments on the western borders of the Kruger.
Communities are claiming large swathes of the park, including its headquarters at Skukuza and prime tourist attractions such as Letaba and Pretoriuskop. When the M&G broke the story in February 2005 about a quarter of Kruger was under claim — this has since risen to a reported 50% of the park’s two-million hectares.
The biggest claim is the 179 069ha Ba-Phalaborwa claim, launched by four communities living around the town of Phalaborwa in 1998. They also have claims outside the park. They plan to develop tourism on restored land outside Kruger, while hammering out a profit-sharing deal with the park’s authorities for the use of their land inside the park.
Radebe said the Ba-Phalaborwa claims had been gazetted. ‘We are conducting further research on the validity of the claims. There are conflicting claims within the park, where the Makhuva community is challenging the validity of Ba-Phalaborwa claim,†she said.
The Limpopo commission was dealing with 10 land claims in Kruger. Several contested claims have been referred to the Land Claims Court and are waiting for a court date.
‘Different settlement packages are being preferred. Some claimants prefer restoration on part of the claimed land and others prefer total compensation,†Radebe said.
Claims by Mpumalanga communities are centred mostly on Skukuza, although there are also claims that affect land next to Pretoriuskop and the Sabie Sands. Mpumalanga Land Claims Commission spokesperson Trevor Silubane had not responded to questions at the time of going to press.