Since 1998 five communities, Madonsi, Mhlanganisweni, Mahashi, Ngirivane Mathebula and Muyexe, have been struggling to resolve a restitution claim over the Kruger National Park (KNP).
The national park is managed by the South African National Parks (SANParks) which reports to the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF).
As one of the affected communities, the Madonsi community is made up of 126 land claimant families, from Ponda, Mashangu Phalala, Zuzwini, Mandwali, Maguweni, Ribyi ra Gudlani, Vumanyundu, Malahla phanga and Shangoni areas in Kruger National Park. They fall under the Chief Madonsi. The community made a claim for 115 000 hectares of the Kruger National Park, however only 79 702 hectares has been used to calculate financial compensation that is due to the community for lost land rights. The Commission for the Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) determined to compensate the communities’ loss of land at a value of R610 per ha, which is way below the market value. One would have expected that the SANParks model of shared benefits with claimant communities would raise this level of compensation to a fair, if not market related value overall.
Speaking on behalf of the Mandosi community, Richard Miyambu, Trustee of Madonsi KNP Trust explains, “There have been a number of challenges with the claim, including a breakdown in communications between SANParks, other government officials and the community.”
“SANParks has been the biggest stumbling block to resolving the claim, as the officials have been resistant to implementing equitable redress,” he said. A big part of the problem is there is clear favourism towards other communities with claims on the Kruger National Park, because of personal relationships with SANParks officials. In essence, SANParks officials have become an agent for community division, causing tensions between communities for failure to follow fair redress processes on land claims against the Kruger National Park.
“Because of the ageing community population, the biggest challenge has been that some people died while the process was ongoing and have not been able to reap the benefits of the economic opportunities of the land of their forefathers.”
Miyambu reiterated that a lack of government monitoring systems in restitution processes has been a huge challenge, as there hasn’t been a tracking process since 1998. When there are changes in leadership within SANParks, the process is further impacted.
Since 2016, the Vumelana Advisory Fund, a non-profit organisation that supports beneficiaries of the land reform programme in making their land profitable, has been working with some of the communities who have laid claims to the Kruger National Park, including Madonsi.
According to Mazwi Mkhulisi, Programmes Manager at the Vumelana Advisory Fund, “Land claims against one of South Africa’s iconic natural heritage sites should be demonstrating how environmental and land rights could coexist. Admittedly, this has to be one of the most challenging balances to strike, but it does not have to get to an extent where communities feel robbed of their rights to dignity and economic benefits.
“Perhaps it would be understandable if the delays between 2016 and now boil down to disagreement on working terms between claimant communities and SANParks. Sadly, the delay is primarily because the authorities cannot set out a negotiation process for SANParks and claimant communities.” he said.
It cannot be disputed that the Kruger National Park is the country’s most valuable conservation and tourism asset. While there is a need to retain the land for such purposes, the state has an obligation to bring justice to the communities that are longing to reconnect with their roots. This calls for balanced planning, management and equitable processes to be followed to maintain the two rights – for national conservation goals and communities’ rights in land.
Independent Transaction Advisor Geoff De Beer notes that, “There are a significant number of verified land claims in the Kruger National Park. However, the settlement agreements have still not been finalised, and claimants have been waiting many years for the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights to honour this.
De Beer explains that the Beneficiation Scheme was supposed to have been designed and jointly approved within 18 months from 21 May 2016, but to date no agreement is in place and discussions between the parties have ground to a complete halt.
Having argued for an independently facilitated process since the beginning of 2019, in November 2019 the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Barbara Creecy, and the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights agreed with advisors that the services of a mediator should be secured to break the logjam in the negotiations. It took a year before a mediator was subsequently selected and appointed to start in January 2021. However, by mid-2021, the mediator – who had not been able to commence with his work at the time – indicated that he was no longer available, and the process is in limbo, again.
De Beer highlights that the lack of commitment by political leaders and relevant state institutions responsible for the Kruger National Park to genuinely engage with the claimant communities to design and implement an equitable solution between the parties has been the biggest constraint in resolving the delays in the finalisation of the Kruger National Park claim.
“The settlement of the Kruger National Park land claims had the potential to generate a number of positive outcomes. The settlement of the land claims could have mobilized considerable new private sector investment in physical infrastructure and facilities in the Kruger National Park, based on partnerships between the land claimants and SANParks,” De Beer said.
“It could also create much needed additional employment opportunities. Furthermore, there are opportunities for identification and utilisation of small and micro enterprise development, mainly related to the rehabilitation of existing and construction of new infrastructure and facilities. Added to that could be training and human resources development opportunities, including tourism and conservation-related opportunities associated with the nature-based tourism development process,” concludes De Beer.
