Evaluating outcomes at Madikwe and Makuleke by Peter John Massyn

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.7 Other developmentsHuntingIn the course of the land claim negotiations, the Makuleke people stated their intention touse the natural resources of the area on a sustainable basis. In terms of the settlementagreement, hunting is accordingly permitted. This is on condition that hunting issustainable and has no negative impact on the biodiversity of the region. In view of theconsiderable potential income, the CPA formally decided to proceed with planning ofhunts once the land was formally transferred to the CPA.After considerable deliberation, during which factors such as animal population densities,income per species and possible public reaction were considered, it was decided to offertwo elephant and two buffalo for the first hunt. These numbers were felt to be well withinthe limits of sustainable use.No hunting had taken place in the Makuleke Region over the past thirty years and it wasreasoned that hunters would be willing to pay a premium for the first hunt in thisinternationally famous area. Although not obliged to do so, the CPA decided to call fortenders for the first elephant and buffalo hunts primarily to ensure that the best possibleprice was obtained, and that the process of selection of an outfitter (a professional hunter)was seen to be fair and transparent.The tender was drawn up in collaboration with PHASA (Professional Hunters Associationof South Africa), the formally recognised body representing the interests of professionalhunters. Over 30 bids were received and evaluated by a Bid Evaluation Committee. Thisconsisted of CPA representatives, a PHASA official, two representatives from theprovincial nature conservation body, a member of the SANParks, and the wildlife adviserto the Makuleke.The successful bidder offered US$27 000 per elephant and US$10 000 per buffalo. Thetotal SA Rand value of the bid, including daily fees, amounted to more than R460 000.Thereafter, the CPA conducted limited hunts every year until 2004, which were successfulin generating significant revenue for development projects in the Makuleke villages. Thenumber and type of animals to be hunted in this way were agreed every year withSANParks, often only after strong debate and disagreement./24
The Wilderness dealDuring 2004, the Makuleke CPA conducted a second round of competitive bidding, whichresulted in an agreement with southern Africa’s leading game lodge operator (WildernessSafaris). Structurally and financially, the deal is similar to The Outpost, with the privatefirm acquiring the right to develop and operate game lodges on the Makuleke land inreturn for 8% of turnover. The private partner has agreed to develop a maximum of threelodges on the Makuleke land A first 40-bed development opened in June 2005.However, unlike The Outpost agreement, the new arrangement gives Wilderness exclusivecommercial rights over the Makuleke land for a period of 45 years. With the Wildernessdeal, the Makuleke have therefore foreclosed all further commercial development on theirland for a period of 45 years. This decision to grant a single firm exclusive and long-termrights has been controversial and I shall return to it below.Wilderness Safaris also considers hunting to be incompatible with photographic tourismand insisted that the CPA stop commercial trophy hunting on their land as a condition forthe deal between the two parties. The Wilderness agreement thus prohibits hunting on theMakuleke land (except for a small portion in the far north west which falls outside theformer boundaries of the Kruger National Park). This means that the CPA has effectivelyforegone future hunting revenue in favour of lodge development. Again, it remains to beseen whether the long term gains for the Makuleke from the Wilderness deal outweigh theopportunity costs associated with the closure of the hunting option.3.8 The community-level processLike at Madikwe, the community-level process at Makuleke is extremely complex. Thefollowing section provides no more than a highly abbreviated view of what is a very richtopic. 28Some important factors distinguish the structure of the current-day CPA at Makuleke fromsimilar institutions in rural communities elsewhere in South Africa:! First, the establishment of FoM provided the Makuleke with something like a'community-dedicated NGO'. In the course of the land claim negotiations it hadbecome increasingly apparent that the Makuleke needed an 'inner circle' of externalcontacts, a smaller group of supporters and technical experts that could be reliedupon to support the Makuleke cause. Importantly, this group, like in the Madikwe28 The most extensive discussion of the social and political dimensions of the Makuleke case is to befound in Steenkamp, 2001./25
Page 1 and 2: TOURISM ASSETS AND THE MARKET:EVALU
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACTTourism enterprises based o
Page 5 and 6: These programmes hold great promise
Page 7 and 8: on the expropriated land and began
Page 9 and 10: NWP&TBLandlord45-yearleaseFair rent
Page 11 and 12: isk-bearing commercial intermediari
Page 13 and 14: enefit than Buffalo Ridge to its lo
Page 15 and 16: 2.7 The community-level processFrom
Page 17 and 18: and a high degree of commitment to
Page 19 and 20: emains open to question but the par
Page 21 and 22: of the land claim, i.e. the descend
Page 23: 3.4 Capital fundingUnlike the Madik
Page 27 and 28: 3.9 ConclusionMany of the factors c
Page 29 and 30: This is certainly true in both case
Page 31: North West Parks and Tourism Board

Evaluating outcomes at Madikwe and Makuleke by Peter John Massyn

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?