Evaluating outcomes at Madikwe and Makuleke by Peter John Massyn

More documents

Recommendations

Info

case, combined a strong commercial orientation with a set of social and facilitationskills.! Second, going back as far as 1996, the tribal authority, with the support of FoM anddonors such as the Ford Foundation and GtZ Transform, started a process of slowinstitution building, commencing with the establishment of what was called the'implementation office'. The person appointed as 'implementation officer' thenresigned from the executive committee. This was an important step because itcreated a clearer distinction between the board of the CPA (the governance body)and the implementation office (the executive or implementing arm). Theimplementation office became the administrative arm of the CPA and currentlymanages the day-to-day the interaction between the CPA and external actors like theprivate sector, the state, FoM and consultants. In the course of the land claim andthe commercial development process, the CPA and its implementation office hasbuilt up significant organisational capacity.! Third, the creation of the CPA as the organisational form used by the Makuleke toregain ownership of the land automatically weakened the position of the tribal counciland the chieftaincy. Until recent amendments, the CPA legislation did not providetraditional structures, such as the Makuleke chieftaincy, with any role, but was aimedat 'democratising' development by setting in place modern procedures ofaccountability and transparency. Thus all representatives on the CPA executive areelected and regular feedback has to be given at general meetings to the entire CPAmembership. Chief Makuleke was nonetheless elected into the CPA executive andappointed by the CPA executive as their chairperson. The result is a hybridorganisation in which the CPA relies on the culturally entrenched acceptance of thechieftaincy as an institution. This combination of new and old structures provides theCPA with a degree of social sustainability that would otherwise not be possible.! Fourth, the Makuleke CPA and the civic bodies have realised that the CPA hascertain limitations when it comes to the management of commercial and economicactivities. A key task was to come up with an institution that can own and manageland and its resources in a collective way but also effectively manage complexbusinesses and interactions with the private sector. After much discussion about theappropriate legal entity to use, the CPA formed a development trust to manage thefinancial and business affairs of the CPA. This trust is made up of three members ofthe CPA executive committee, a lawyer and a representative of the Department ofLand Affairs. This represents an attempt to create a 'hard' structure on a communitylevel to engage the private sector and the state on an equal footing./26
3.9 ConclusionMany of the factors contributing to the success of the Balete and Batlokwa projects werealso present at Makuleke. Like in Madikwe, a clear rights framework, marketsustainability, appropriate role definition and responsiveness to local institutionalconditions contributed to a high level of integration between the land-owning communityand the tourism business. And, as in the case of the Balete and Batlokwa, a broadernational reform programme – market-based liberalization of protected areas in the case ofthe Balete and South Africa’s land restitution process in the case of Makuleke – createdconditions seemingly conducive to an application of the Makuleke approach at otherlocations. Many of South Africa’s prime protected areas are under claim by formerbeneficial occupants in terms of the country’s post-apartheid land restitution legislation.This opens the way for Makuleke-style settlements throughout the country’s protectedarea system with wide-ranging potential to stimulate more inclusive markets in the wildlifeindustry.However, unlike the situation at Madikwe where the Balete and Batlokwa projectsfunctioned comfortably within the ‘new’ market-based approach to public conservation, theMakuleke ‘model’ seems to have encountered considerable opposition from within thestate’s conservation establishment. This is a consequence of a tension in state policybetween the promotion of land restitution in public parks (such as Madikwe, Kruger andgreater St Lucia) and the need of state conservation agencies to appropriate rents arisingfrom the commercial development of these protected areas. If land rights and theassociated rentals are ceded to land claimants, the conservation agencies run the risk oflosing a valuable income stream. In addition, these agencies are wary of the implicationsof joint management agreements that threaten to undermine their control of keyconservation assets and to introduce costly inefficiencies by ‘balkanising’ protected areamanagement. The upshot of this tension is that, despite its early promise, the Makulekeapproach has run into resistance at various levels in the state hierarchy (including themost senior levels of SANParks) and has not spread into the mainstream of the state’srestitution approach. In this sense, the Makuleke project may have brought significantgains for a group of rural residents, but it does not seem to have opened the way for anexpansion of the model at scale.There are also indications that, while they have benefited considerably from theirownership of a valuable tract of land, the Makuleke may not have optimised theirintegration into the nature-based tourism market. For example, they did not use theirposition as landowners to raise capital on the financial markets for investment in thecapital assets on their land (as they undoubtedly could have done) thereby forgoing the/27
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 and 24: 3.4 Capital fundingUnlike the Madik
Page 25: The Wilderness dealDuring 2004, the
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?