Winning Isn’t Everything:

What the Makuleke Lost in the Process of Land Restitution

By Julia Friedman

May 20, 2005

B.A. Thesis, Environmental Studies

Hylton White, Advisor

2

Introduction: A Real ‘Win-Win’ Situation?

May 30, 1998 was a day of celebration in Ntlaveni, a small region 60 km southwest of South Africa’s

Kruger National Park. News reports describe government officials, conservation societies, and the

Makuleke community all celebrating the signing of the Makuleke Land Claim. The signing ceremony

capped a nearly two-year-long land restitution process that gave the Makuleke community legal

ownership of the land from which they had been forcibly removed under apartheid policies in 1969. The

land that they reclaimed is the Pafuri Triangle (referred to hereafter only as the Pafuri), a region of land at

the northernmost corner of South Africa bordering Zimbabwe and Mozambique, which is currently under

conservation status as part of the Kruger National Park (KNP).

The Pafuri is home for the Makuleke, but it is also considered the crown jewel of the KNP for its high

levels of biodiversity and fragile ecosystems. These two different ways of valuing the land were

supposedly balanced in the final settlement of the Makuleke land claim, which resulted in the transfer of

the land title to the community while also retaining the Pafuri as part of the KNP through the joint

management of the land by the Makuleke community and the South African National Parks. The

settlement was the first of its kind; joint management of national park land had never been done before.

Newspapers reported this negotiation as a huge success. Headlines read, “The Makuleke land claim

signing ceremony: Harmonising social justice and conservation,” and “A Real ‘Win-Win’ Situation – The

community and conservation are both winners in an historic agreement” (Steenkamp, 1998; Cooper,

1998).

On the surface, then, the Makuleke land settlement appears to have been a complete success: it

was reported as such, and the community did indeed regain ownership of its land. Success of a land

settlement is a unique story in Africa. All across the continent – from the Maasai in Kenya to the

Communal Areas Management Programme For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe –

3

governments instituted plans for land restitution and development. But nearly all of them have

failed. Some have even led to bloodshed.1 The Makuleke’s settlement, viewed in the positive light

in which it has been reported, seems to present a blueprint for the future. However, if one takes a

closer look, it becomes clear that this land settlement has also failed in large measure. In this paper I

argue that if one looks beyond the headlines and carefully examines the life of the Makuleke in the

Pafuri prior to 1969, it is clear that this former lifestyle has been lost. The relationship that existed

between the Makuleke and their land was forever changed with the forced removal in 1969, and the

land claim settlement does not address this fundamentally important loss.

A careful analysis of the Makuleke lifestyle and values before forced removal, after removal, and

with restitution, highlights that the 1996 land claim did not restore all that was lost in removal. This is

because prior to 1969, virtually every aspect of the Makuleke lifestyle was based on the physical land of

the Pafuri – in particular, its geographical features and border zone location. Through the land claim, the

Makuleke legally lost their traditional methods of subsistence, family organization, political structures,

economic self-sufficiency, and concept of home. The land claim now forces the Makuleke to adopt a new

relationship with their land in the Pafuri – one that is based on the potential economic profits that the land

will yield through community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and ecotourism, as opposed

to this traditional relationship – but one that, due to the problems of CBNRM and ecotourism, it is a

relationship that may not allow the Makuleke to benefit from the land at all.

To illustrate that what was lost in removal was not reclaimed in the land settlement, I will first

explain the life that the Makuleke had in the Pafuri prior to removal in 1969 by the apartheid government.

This former life was based on the Pafuri’s geographic location. The geography of the land and its border

zone location determined the Makuleke’s methods of livelihood, family organization, power structures,

economic opportunities, ancestral ties, and sense of freedom and independence. I argue that the 1 See Hasler, 1996; Twyman, 1998;Twyman, 2000; Hughes, 2001; Alexander and McGergor, 2000.

4

Makuleke’s intimate relationship with their land was so location-dependent that it could not be

reproduced anywhere else.

In the second section I examine the lives of the Makuleke and the hardships they endured after their

removal to Ntlaveni. Contrasting life in Ntlaveni to their former life in the Pafuri further demonstrates

how the Makuleke valued their land in the Pafuri and the lifestyle that they led before their removal.

Through this examination I show that removal obliterated their traditional way of living. Their traditional

lifestyle and relationship with the land was impossible in Ntlaveni because Ntlaveni lacked the natural

resources, border zone location, and space that the Pafuri had. Songs that the Makuleke sang in Ntlaveni

express their longing for their land in the Pafuri and strengthen their notion of the Pafuri as their ancestral

home.

In the third section I explain the model of CBNRM used to structure the Makuleke land claim

agreement.2 After a discussion of the history of how CBNRM evolved and the current definitions of

CBNRM, I discuss the problems of this model of natural resource management. I specifically address

ecotourism, a type of CBNRM and one of the major components of the land claim agreement.

Ecotourism presents its own distinct set of problems stemming from industry-wide problems as well as

problems specific to the KNP.

The fourth section closely examines the actual land claim agreement. I discuss the restrictions that

apply to land use in the Pafuri as well as the new bodies of government under which the Makuleke must

operate. In this section I also show how the Makuleke have begun to value their land for the money they

can make through ecotourism as opposed to the traditional, non-monetary ways of valuing their land.

This section shows that the Makuleke were not able to reclaim their previous relationship with the land

and instead must now adopt new relationship to the land.

2 I discuss the Makuleke land claim in terms of a CBNRM model since this is the context in which the Makuleke case is discussed by several of the authors cited in this paper (Turner, 2004; Reid, 2001; de Villiers, 1999; Mail & Guardian, 2004).

5

Finally, in the conclusion I look at the broader picture presented by this study, drawing in part from

my own travels and observations in the Pafuri and Malamulele regions in March of 2005. I speculate as

to why the Makuleke’s land claim is popularly perceived as a resounding success despite the many

problems highlighted in this paper and I go on to raise questions for further research.

Section I: Life in the Pafuri

History of the Pafuri

In order to understand the life of the Makuleke and the value ascribed to their ancestral land in the

Pafuri, it is important to understand the history of this geographic area. Its tropical location, its span over

international borders, and its distance from urban centers were all factors that shaped the lives of

communities living within the region.

Figure 1. Map of the Region of Interest. Source: Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999

The Pafuri is a tropical region covering 20,000- 25,000 hectares and spanning the borders of northern

South Africa, southern Zimbabwe, and western Mozambique (Mahony and van Zyl, 2002; de Villiers,

1999). The natural habitat is largely defined by the Limpopo and Luvuvhu3 rivers and their floodplains.

The rivers sustain extremely high levels of biodiversity,4 are a part of the migration routes of many

3Other spellings of this river include Levubu and Levhubu 4 There are over 450 species of birds in the Pafuri, more than in any other area of KNP.

6

animals, and are inhabited by animals such as the samango monkey that cannot be found anywhere else

on the planet (de Villiers, 1999). It is easy to see why both conservationists and indigenous people such

as the Makuleke value the Pafuri and want to stake a claim in its ownership.5

While the Pafuri has a human history dating back to the early Stone Age6, the history of the area that

I am concerned with, Makuleke as well as European history in the area , has its beginnings only a couple

of centuries ago.7 The Makuleke are a branch of the larger Tsonga-speaking Maluleke clan (Harries,

1987).8,9 They define themselves as having a common ancestor whose direct male descendent they

consider their chief (Harries, 1987). Currently, the Makuleke are comprised of displaced residents in

South Africa and relatives in Mozambique and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), but I will focus on those

living in South Africa (Connor, undated). In the early 1800’s the Makuleke lived in an area where the

Limpopo and Olifants River meet in present-day Mozambique (Harries, 1987; Ramutsindela, 2002).

Their history of removal begins in this area in the 1820’s and 1830’s when a Zulu army forced them out

of this area.10 They fled westward along the Olifants River heading west into the northern corner of the

Transvaal in South Africa (Harries, 1987; Ramutsindela, 2002). Under the leadership of Nkuri, they

spread further into present-day Kruger National Park to gain control over the ivory trade that was growing

5 See Appendix A pp. 56-57 for pictures of the landscape in the Pafuri. 6 See de Villiers, 1999 pp. 54. 7 The Makuleke lived in the Pafuri for approximately 150 years. Some may argue that this is not a long enough time to be considered ancestral land. It could also be argued that in a few generations the Makuleke could develop “ancestral” ties to Ntlaveni, the area of relocation. However, the literature indicates that the Makuleke do perceive the Pafuri to be their ancestral land, and I have written this paper within the context of the Makuleke’s perceptions. 8 The Tsonga ethic classification is an ethnic identity that was created by Swiss missionaries in the late 1800s in the region. The Tsonga language was a combination of local dialects that the missionaries in the region used to spread the Gospel. Later, Tsonga became an ethnic grouping used by missionaries as well as the South African Department of Bantu Affairs during apartheid. Tsonga people are not a single tribe, but are a group of people from the same general geographic area in Southern Mozambique (Connor, undated; Harries, 1989). For more information on the creation of the Tsonga identity see Connor, undated; Harries, 1989; and Junod, 1927. 9 Connor mentions that Maluleke refers to the people and Makuleke refers to the geographic place of the Maluleke (44). Most articles, however, do no make this differentiation so I will refer to the Maluleke and Makuleke as groups of people. 10 The Zulu army was led by Shoshangane. The Zulu presence in the Pafuri resulted from the 1820s northern expansion of the Zulu in Natal. This expansion is known as the Mfecane (Nguni) or Difaqane (Sotho) (Worden 15-17; Ramutsindela 16)

7

in the area. Nkuri sent his son, Makuleke, northward along the Luvuvhu River to settle at its confluence

with the Limpopo (Harries, 1987). 11 This confluence is at the heart of the Pafuri. From then onward the

Pafuri was home to the Makuleke.

In 1834, the Makuleke successfully defended their land against northern migrating Voortrekkers.12

Despite the Makuleke’s successful defense against invading Voortrekkers, the Pafuri still experienced

significant European influence. Swiss missionaries, arriving in the area in 1873, were very influential in

the creation of Tsonga as a language and ethnic group (Harries, 1989). The missionaries were soon joined

by European labor recruiters. Gold was discovered in the Witwatersrand in the 1880’s, which set off a

huge wave of illegal labor recruitment in remote areas to support the booming mining industry

(Ramutsindela, 2002; Harries, 1987). In the Pafuri, labor was recruited from all sides of the border to

work in Johannesburg. Recruiters took advantage of the fact that the area was relatively unregulated and

rarely policed due to its distance from both Mozambican and South African urban centers. Due to illegal

labor recruiting, illegal slave trade, and poaching practices in the area, the Pafuri became known as

Crooks’ Corner (Connor, undated). During its developmental years, the Pafuri was inhabited by the

Makuleke as well as European bandits, hunters, and illegal traders.

Life in the Pafuri – Natural Resources

By the end of the 1800’s, 1,000 people lived under Chief Makuleke at the confluence of the Limpopo

and Luvuvhu rivers (Harries, 1987). Even in severe climatic conditions, the Makuleke lived off of the

land in the Pafuri through fishing, hunting and agriculture.13 For the Makuleke, fish have always been an

11 This is the only time when I do not refer to the Makuleke as the entire clan 12 Afrikaner eastern Cape settlers who left the Cape in the 1830s as part of what is known as the Great Trek. For more information see Worden, 2000; 13-15. 13 Sources do state that the Pafuri area was highly malarial and had low and irregular rainfall (Harries, 1987). The ecosystem relied on nine year cycles of regular seasonal rain followed by a nine year cycled of drought (Connor, undated).

8

important source of food, especially as a source of protein during the agricultural off-season (Harries,

1987). Natural dams surrounding the rivers can hold water and stocks of fish from summer flooding for

up to three years. In the winter, the Makuleke villages organized fishing parties, and when the water

levels in these dams drops, they had places to fish without the threat of crocodiles (Harries, 1987). In

addition to being a source of food, fish were paid as tribute to the chief (Harries, 1987). Fishing

illustrates one way in which the Makuleke heavily relied on the natural resources of the Pafuri for

subsistence. It also illustrates how the natural landscape of the area shaped the cultural practices

surrounding chiefly authority and their dependence on “the community as a production unit” (Harries,

1987).

Like fishing, hunting also illustrates the ways in which the Makuleke depended on the land for

sustenance. It also illuminates the relationship between culture and ecology. Most hunting was for

subsistence purposes, but some hunted for ivory and cat skins to sell to other communities in the region

(Harries, 1987). Again, communities organized hunting parties, demonstrating how the community

functioned as a production unit. Lion and leopard skins were used as gifts for the chiefs (Harries, 1987).

Game in the Pafuri, like fish, was valued for its nutritional and symbolic value.

The land in the Pafuri not only supported ample fishing and hunting, it also supported indigenous

agricultural practices. Connor stresses the importance of the Limpopo River for agricultural purposes:

“The most important source of survival for residents around Pafuri, therefore, continues to be the use of

the natural environment – the Limpopo river for water and irrigation of vegetable fields in lideyeni…”

(19).14 In addition to irrigation, the Makuleke also took advantage of seasonal rains for dry-land farming

(Connor, undated). Both in times of ample water for irrigation or periods of rain, the Makuleke were able

to farm in the Limpopo valley.

14 A resettled border villages in Mozambique (Connor, undated).

9

Even in times of drought the land sustained the Makuleke. Due to the ecological richness of the area

they could adjust their methods of subsistence to the climatic conditions. When crops failed, they

resorted to collecting fruits and roots (Connor, undated). The lala (or ilala) palm had an edible heart at the

top of the trunk and liquid drawn from the tree was used to make wine and other drinks (Harries, 1987).

The lala palm leaves were also used for weaving mats, bags, and baskets. Twine made from the leaves of

the tree was used to bind the roofing poles of houses. The natural resources of the Pafuri contributed to

the livelihood of the Makuleke in multiple ways – as sources for food, drink, and weaving/building

materials. Even in times of environmental stress, when normal modes of livelihood failed, the Makuleke

adapted their way of life to fit the variable climatic conditions and sustained a very rich life in the Pafuri.

Another way in which the Makuleke survived in the severe climate of the Pafuri was through

cooperation with neighboring communities. The relationship of the Tsonga-speaking agriculturalists (of

which the Makuleke are a part) and the cattle-keeping communities living above the Limpopo valley

highlights this community interdependence. The Tsonga-speakers cultivated river valleys while the

communities living above the valley kept cattle. This was, as Harries (1989) says, an “ecologically

symbiotic relationship” – one group could provide the other with agricultural products in return for meat

and dairy products (89). This method of dealing with the environmental conditions of the area shows how

communities in the Pafuri area were dependent on one another for survival.

Life in the Pafuri – Economic Activity

Although the Makuleke in the Pafuri region were largely subsistence farmers, they had other forms of

economic activity. Connor recounts the diversified employment history of one man on the Mozambican

side of the Pafuri region:

10

1956 – worked in Pafuri for a ‘coloured’ man on his farm 1960-64 – worked in Skukuza as cleanup worker

Worked in Crown mines in Johannesburg Modderfontein mine

1965 – present – came home to be a leopard skin trader cum poacher , a small dealer, a labor transporter for WNLA15, and a war informer to the South African Defense Forces (Connor, undated; 36)

This man’s employment history is fairly representative of the economic life of the region from the

time gold was discovered until they were removed. His time as an employee on another farm in the

region illustrates Connor’s point that villages on both sides of the border were dependent on one another

for employment opportunities. The man’s employment in the Johannesburg mines speaks to the fact that

the Pafuri area was a huge source for migrant labor, as mentioned before.

Although many people worked as migrant laborers, the Makuleke did not depend on mine work as a

means for survival. Some in the Makuleke community said that a man’s pride and social status would

increase if he returned from the mines with gifts to distribute to his kin, but that his survival in the Pafuri

did not rely on such gift-giving (Harries, 1987). Others said that since they had ample and varied

economic opportunities in the Pafuri, only those who wanted more material goods took part in the

migrant labor system (Harries, 1987).

The other opportunities that are referred to in the last paragraph are opportunities created by the

Pafuri’s position at the border zone. The border area was busy due to the desire of residents of

Mozambique and Zimbabwe to work in South Africa. When the Rhodesian (former Zimbabwe)

government outlawed labor recruiting by WNLA within its borders, the Makuleke managed to profit

from the new restrictions. Some of them sold their tax receipts to Rhodesians looking for work in South

Africa who needed something that would identify them as South Africans (Harries, 1987). Even when

the apartheid government introduced passbooks in the 1950’s to restrict the movement of its own non-

white citizens, some Makuleke who were not leaving the area for work sold their passbooks to others

15 The Witwatersrand Native Labour Association.

11

who desired work outside of the Pafuri region (Harries, 1987). Vendors, transporters, and other

entrepreneurs also took advantage of the border traffic and were able to create their own economic

opportunities (Connor, undated).

Life in the Pafuri – Chieftaincy

Throughout the description of fishing, hunting, agricultural, and economic aspects of the Makuleke’s

life, I have alluded to the power of the chiefs in the Makuleke community. Traditionally, the chiefs in

Tsonga communities administered a form of justice based on vernacular law, protected their armies with

war medicines, regulated production strategies, and served as a connection to the clan’s ancestors

(Harries, 1989). A Tsonga leader collected tribute and in return his followers gained protection and

leadership. In the late 1800s, they also took on the role of providing access to potential employers like

WNLA for those wanting wage labor (Connor, undated). Chiefs were also supposed to collect a hut tax

and control poaching in the area on behalf of the white national government. However, as I will discuss

later, the Pafuri was a largely unregulated area and few government requirements of chiefs were enforced

(Harries, 1989). For those who worked as migrant laborers, the chief cared for their families and fields in

times of absence until they returned from the mines (Connor, undated). Makuleke chiefs carried out

traditional duties while incorporating some of their followers into the new economy of migrant labor.

Life in the Pafuri – Family Structure

Family structure in the Pafuri, like many other aspects of their lives, was influenced by the border

zone location. A few of the Makuleke men interviewed by Connor said that they had wives on both sides

of the border. During the Mozambican civil war, this allowed men to find a safe haven with their wives

on the South African side of the Pafuri (Connor, undated). Having families on different sides of the

12

border also allowed for marriages between families in different ecological zones, a way for families to

increase their ability to adapt to and survive the harsh climate.

The Makuleke families lived in scattered, decentralized homestead communities. Each homestead

was under a sub-chief or directly under Chief Makuleke. Every family had ample space to support itself.

A typical home was a circular mud-brick rondavel (hut) with a thatched roof.16 A wealthy homestead

could house twenty people, which included a married couple, their unmarried daughters, and married sons

together with their spouses and children (Harries, 1987).

Life in the Pafuri – Spiritual Ties

The rituals and symbols of the Makuleke’s spiritual practices were specific to the region. Herbalists

used herbs that only grow in the Pafuri. Additionally, the Zoutpansberg mountains and the Limpopo river

are landmarks of special significance for the Makuleke healers (Connor, undated). As I will discuss later,

the Makuleke felt very deep ties to the graves of their ancestors in the Pafuri as well. Once again, we see

how the geography and natural resources specific to the Pafuri region were important elements that

shaped the lives of the Makuleke.

Life in the Pafuri - Independence

The final aspect of the Makuleke’s life in the Pafuri that must be addressed to understand fully what

was lost in their relocation is their sense of freedom. As I stated earlier, Crook’s Corner is a border zone

region that was far from any form of central governmental authority and therefore largely unregulated. In

1910 the Zoutpansberg range had a ratio of 100:1 blacks to whites. Only fifty policemen were dispatched

to the region to deal with a population of over 300,000 (Harries, 1989). While chiefs were utilized as tax

collectors, the monetary amount of tax that was actually collected from the region is questionable since it 16 See Appendix A pp. 58 for a picture of a rondavel.

13

was largely inaccessible to government tax collectors (Harries, 1989). The freedom from governmental

authority and largely unregulated movement was possibly the most defining characteristic of Makuleke

life. The Pafuri offered residents a place of freedom of movement that they “need to be in control of their

own lives” (Connor, undated; 17). Connor goes on to say that freedom of movement – around borders

and between villages– is a reason why the Makuleke call Pafuri their home (17).

“Makuleke’s country is very large It is a large country, it is a beautiful county From the Levubu to the Limpopo It is a large country, it is a beautiful country We live in the village overlooking the Levubu It is a large country, it is a beautiful country The waterfall of Pafuri, the mountains and the village It is a large country, it is a beautiful country Ne, neee, neeee” (Harries, 1987; 103)

The song illustrates how important the geographical features of the land were to the Makuleke

and their sentiment toward their land. The rivers sustained a lifestyle – hunting and gathering,

fishing, and agriculture – that allowed them to persevere for over 100 years in the harsh climate.

Their remote location and the border activity shaped the role that the chiefs played, the types of

economic activity in the area, and the organization of families and community relationships. Ties to

the land ran deep – even through the graves of their ancestors. The life of the Makuleke in the Pafuri

was a life that depended on the natural resources, geography, and history with the land – a life that

could not be reproduced elsewhere.

Section II: Loss in Ntlaveni

The Removal Process

Less than one hundred years after arriving in the Pafuri as a result of forced migration, the Makuleke

were again threatened by the prospects of forced removal. Removal of indigenous people from the Pafuri

region began in 1903 when the area south of the Luvuvhu river was declared the Xingwedzi Game

14

Reserve by the National Parks Board (NPB). Many indigenous people were relocated since their

occupation was said to interfere with conservation practices of the times. Then in 1926, the Xingwedzi

Game Reserve and the Sabie Game Reserve merged, creating the Kruger National Park. At this point,

the Makuleke were considered poachers and squatters on national park land. In 1931, the NPB made its

first attempt to resettle the Makuleke onto a designated reserve, but this effort failed due to inadequate

resources to physically remove them (Harries, 1987). The Makuleke occupation of the Pafuri was illegal

under the 1913 Natives Land Act and 1936 Natives Land and Trust Act.17 Because of the legislation

prohibiting their occupation of the Pafuri and previous attempts to remove them from the region, some

Makuleke saw their removal as inevitable and voluntarily moved to Rhodesia or to other chiefs’

territories, causing the Makuleke community in the Pafuri to begin to disintegrate (Harries, 1987).

Despite this, the Makuleke retained possession of their land in the Pafuri for another twenty years when

the Native/Bantu Affairs Department of the apartheid state took a more aggressive role in relocating and

segregating African communities (Harries, 1987).

Beginning in the 1950’s, the government began implementing Separate Development, a system of

racial segregation and rearrangement that tightened the apartheid government’s political and economic

control over Africans in the reserves (Worden, 2000). In 1951, the apartheid government passed the

Bantu Authorities Act. This Act created the Bantu (Native) Homeland system from the former reserves, a

way of retribalizing African communities based on their ethnic classification. Homelands for each ethnic

population were created in what were allegedly their historic areas. Every African was to reside in one of

the 10 homelands, leading to vast forced removals across the country (Worden, 2000).18 Under these

17 The 1913 Natives Land Act prohibited natives, comprising ~67% of the population, from occupying, purchasing, and leasing land outside of designated reserves that covered only 7% of the country. This Act established the basis of land segregation. The 1936 Native Trust and Land Act increased the size of the natives’ reserves to 13-14% of South Africa’s total land (Worden, 2000). 18 Between 1960-1983, under the Group Areas Act and Separate Development policies, approximately 3.5 million Africans were relocated (Worden, 2000).

15

conditions, the Native Affairs Department divided many Tsonga-speaking communities into

administrative districts that were dominated by Venda or Northern Sotho chiefs (Harries, 1989) The

Makuleke, however, remained in the Pafuri. For nearly two decades, the apartheid government refined

the homeland and Bantustan governing systems. During this time Chief Mhinga, a Tsonga chief of a tribe

related to the Makuleke,19 came to power in the northern Malamulele district of the Gazankulu homeland.

He had requested that the Makuleke be brought under his control in the early 1950’s (Harries, 1987). For

nineteen years, from 1950 – 1969, the Makuleke resisted both being brought into the homeland system

and being placed under the control of Mhinga. In 1969, their efforts could no longer stave off forced

removal.

The area chosen by the government for their relocation, Ntlaveni, is situated along the border

between the northwest section of Gazankulu and the Kruger National Park. The area covers

approximately 6,000 hectares and is about 60 kilometers southwest of the Pafuri (de Villiers, 1999).20

Those living in Ntlaveni were both Tsonga and Venda, but the Venda were the dominating force in

Gazankulu. On September 13, 1969, bulldozers razed their homes to the ground, forcing more than 3,000

Makuleke out of the Pafuri and into Ntlaveni. There was some resistance to the removal, such as a refusal

to take down the thatched roofs of their homes; youths threw stones at the government moving trucks, but

police threats of opening fire ensured compliance (Harries, 1987). Within a week, all the sub-chiefdoms

were removed from the Pafuri.

Although their physical resistance did not last long, the Makuleke mentally refused to accept their

removal.

“Tell Makuleke to tell Moyani [the police sergeant] to come quickly with a gun to shoot us Ho, hi-ya, helela wee, Maxavela the crook

19 Historically, Chief Mhinga and Chief Makuleke were brothers. Their father, Nkuri died in the 1830’s, and both the Mhinga and Makuleke tribes recognized the then Chief Mhinga as the proper chief of the larger Maluleke clan of which both tribes belong. The Mhinga chief discussed in the text above has retained a feeling of dominance over the Makuleke. 20 See Figure 1 pp. 4.

16

Tell Makuleke to tell Moyani to come quickly with a gun to shoot us” (Harries, 1987; 108) Lines from two other songs lament and fear the move to Ntlaveni. In one of these, the people

contemplate fleeing to friends in the Nuanetsi district of Rhodesia and blame Mhinga for their removal.

“It is not me, it is my child who is crying/Let’s go to Nuanetsi, it is my child who is crying/Those who

belong to Mhinga are taking us away” (Harries, 1987; 110). Their fear of the land in Ntlaveni is apparent

when they sing, “And you, Msenge, you’ll die in the wilderness at Nyamazana/We think of Msenge who

will die at Mamazana…;” Msenge Makuleke was the heir to the chief whom they feared would die in the

Nyamazana game reserve (Harries, 1987; 109).

The Makuleke feared resettlement in Ntlaveni because nearly all that they valued – economic

opportunities, subsistence food production, community organization and neighborly relationships, and

spiritual ties to ancestors – was based on the physical land that they had occupied in the Pafuri. The

relationship to their “traditional” land was not something that could be recreated in Ntlaveni because of

changed political and social organization, access to natural resources, economic opportunities, and the

constant feelings of loss in relocation.

Loss in Ntlaveni - Chieftaincy

One reason that the Makuleke suffered in the Ntlaveni was that their social and political structures

were broken down and reorganized. In Ntlaveni, the Makuleke could no longer live in the decentralized

villages as they used to since the area of Ntlaveni was much smaller than the Pafuri region. Rather than

living in multiple village, each headed by a sub-chief under Chief Makuleke, they were divided into only

two communities: the Makuleke and Mabiligwe. Both villages were under the authority of Chief

Makuleke, but he was subordinate to Chief Mhinga in the new Ntlaveni region. The Makuleke sing of the

loss of power of Chief Makuleke and the domination of Chief Mhinga:

17

“Makuleke, they say he is not a chief They say he is not a chief They laugh in the yards and say he is not a chief… … They take us to the wilderness because they say he is not a chief And they take the one who is our uncle (Mhinga) and call him a chief…”

(Harries, 1987; 123)

Not only did Chief Makuleke lose most of his authority, but his duties as chief changed as well. In

Ntlaveni, under strict government watch, chiefs served as government tax collectors. They were

responsible for collecting levies on residential stands and agricultural plots, and fees for dipping and

grazing cattle (Harries, 1987). Nearly every aspect of Makuleke livelihood in Ntlaveni was taxed. Chiefs

retained a small sense of traditional power by having the authority to allocate land for residential sites,

agricultural plots, and schools, but, as I will show later, such duties were heavily restricted by space and

government mandates.

Loss in Ntlaveni - Overcrowding

Another reason that life in Ntlaveni was difficult for the Makuleke was the tremendous

overcrowding, which worsened over time. Family heads were given one or two tents to live in on quarter

acre plots. Recall that families living together could have upwards of twenty people. Such small parcels

of land led to immediate overcrowding and tension among families of the various wives of one man who

were now forced to live in very close proximity to one another, thus losing protection against drought that

came with having wives in different ecological zones (Harries, 1987).

The tents that the Makuleke were given upon their initial resettlement in the Ntlaveni were on loan

for one month until residents built more permanent forms of shelter. The Makuleke, however, refused to

erect permanent homes (Harries, 1987). They were slow to build any other form of housing for a few

reasons: by not building permanent homes, they resisted resettlement; local wood in the Ntlaveni was not

termite resistant; and there was a shortage of labor to build the rondavels (Harries, 1987). Traditionally,

18

men built the homes, but since men were increasingly leaving to earn wages in city centers, only women

were left in Ntlaveni (Harries, 1987). The living situation for the Makuleke worsened in October 1969

when the tents were removed from the area and very few permanent shelters had been erected (Harries,

1987). Lack of shelter left the Makuleke exposed to the harsh weather of Ntlaveni.

The extent to which overcrowding increased over time can be seen in some of the population

numbers recorded in the area. In 1970, just after the Makuleke resettlement, Ntlaveni had 3,822

inhabitants. By 1976, there were 12,062 residents; by 1984 the number had jumped to 18,428. Of these

18,428 people, 5,494 were living in the primarily Makuleke villages (Harries, 1987).21 In the early

1980’s in Gazankulu there were 76 people per square kilometer, compared to an average of 17 people per

square kilometer in “white South Africa” (Harries, 1989; 107). The demographics of Ntlaveni were also

heavily skewed. Most of the population was women, children, and old men. The majority of able bodied

men worked outside. The Makuleke expressed the impact of overcrowding through song:

“When we live so closely together We will kill each other He he Piet! (their acting chief) I have no crops with which to make porridge” (Harries, 1987; 114)

Loss in Ntlaveni – Ethnic Clashes

The hardships caused by overcrowding affected not only the lives of residents within the Makuleke

community, but they also created ethnic clashes between Venda and Tsonga. Since the Makuleke had

been consolidated into the Venda-dominated homeland, all schools, churches, clinics, irrigation works,

dams, debushed arable land, and other property built from Tsonga tribal levies were placed under Venda

chiefs’ authority. Tsonga teachers were replaced by Venda instructors, and Venda became the medium of

instruction (Harries, 1989; Harries, 1987). Tsonga communities were forced to pay taxes to minor Venda

21 The population numbers include other groups who were relocated into the Gazankulu homeland and specifically settled in Ntlaveni. These people were mostly from Venda and other Tsonga tribes.

19

chiefs (Harries, 1987). Many Venda moved into the Tsonga territories within the Gazankulu homeland,

increasing the pressures and tensions of overcrowding. The Tsonga were basically a minority in their

own homeland, and ethnic conflicts over limited resources within the homelands ensued.

Loss in Ntlaveni – Natural Resources

Conflicts over limited resources were no small matter. The area that the Makuleke occupied in

Ntlaveni was only a fraction of the size of the area they had used in the Pafuri (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu,

1999). Although agriculture in the Pafuri was sometimes difficult due to climatic conditions, agriculture

in Ntlaveni was nearly impossible due to an even harsher climate compounded by overcrowding. In the

overpopulated Malamulele district, only 1.3% of the people could make a living from agriculture (Harries,

1989). This was a drastic change for the Makuleke, a community who could live off of the land in the

Pafuri even in times of flooding or drought.

The Makuleke were acutely aware of the loss of natural resources that they were experiencing in

Ntlaveni. In song, they lamented the removal that destroyed their independence by separating them from

their old sources of food and their ancestors’ graves:

“Go into the wilderness They take us into the wild country We have left our figs and our mafura and lala beer We have left our graves behind us at this place We are being overcome at the wild place We have left our wild fruits And there is no relish in this place [relish is a sign of prosperity, not just a food] Malnutrition is destroying us “ (Harries, 1987; 114)

While the Makuleke quickly realized that they would not be able to support themselves through

farming as they had before, they did not so readily realize that they would not have easy access to meat.

For the first month of resettlement the Makuleke had good access to game, and rangers told them that they

were allowed to hunt. Rangers even sold them venison (Harries, 1987). After that first month, however,

20

their situation changed considerably. Helicopters came into the Ntlaveni area to chase game back into the

Kruger National Park. Lack of nutrition, particularly protein, became a widespread concern in Ntlaveni

(Harries, 1987). Hunting in Ntlaveni became illegal, and although rangers attempted to drive wild game

back into Kruger National Park, lions, elephants, and hyenas roamed through the tented camps that the

Makuleke inhabited. This left the Makuleke powerless to do anything but endure the fear and damage

that resulted from the presence of such animals.

The threat of damage from wild animals coming from the Kruger National Park was very real. In a

survey conducted in 1999 survey, 51.5% of respondents said that they had experienced invasions of wild

animals on their property in the past five years causing losses of entire crops, livestock, and damage to

properties like granaries (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999). They were not compensated for their losses,

nor could they legally kill the animals that were causing problems. Again, the Makuleke expressed their

discontent with the restrictions placed on their hunting activities through song. They describe the ten foot

high game reserve fence that the government erected and their starving cattle, along with the reality that

they have no alternative means of livelihood:

“…it is a victory for the whites, ten foot high is notorious It is a victory for the whites, ten foot high is notorious We have fallen under the control of the Park’s people A hi yoo! It is a victory for the whites, ten foot high is notorious…” (Harries, 1987; 115) The song also shows that the Makuleke felt a complete loss of control over their lives. The self-

determination that they had possessed in the Pafuri was lost to authority of the KNP administrators.

In addition to restricted hunting and poor agricultural conditions, there are a few other ways in which

the Makuleke suffered from a lack of resources. The palm trees that they had used for drink and fiber in

the Pafuri did not grow in Ntlaveni (Harries, 1987). The donkeys that the government had promised to

transfer from Pafuri to Ntlaveni never arrived, making plowing and transportation of food and water very

difficult (Harries, 1987). Cattle and goats were also left behind or sent to Rhodesia. Any goats that did

21

make it to Ntlaveni were killed off by lions or tick bites. Fishing, an integral part of Makuleke

“traditional” life, was not an option in Ntlaveni. Drought, which plagued the Makuleke for four out of the

first five years in relocation, also limited the number of mopane worms, which would have normally

substituted as a form of protein (Harries, 1987). Drought also left entire village blocks without water.

Families had to walk 6 kilometers to line up to receive water, a process that took an entire day (Harries,

1987). Under these conditions, the Makuleke could not keep up a proper diet, thus losing a great amount

of self-sufficiency.

Loss in Ntlaveni – Economic Opportunity

Even though they did not want to accept their removal, the Makuleke had to support themselves and

their only option was participating in the migrant labor system. There were twice as many migrant wage

earners (those working outside of Gazankulu) than there were wage earners working within the

homeland’s borders (Harries, 1989). More and more males resorted to wage labor, especially as wages

rose in the 1970’s. The lyrics from a song show the desperation of one woman fearing that her husband

has missed the train to take him to work in the mines:

“The train of Saturday and Sunday has left my husband A he ha he e he hee ha eha we are going to perish!” (Harries, 1987; 125)

Males leaving Ntlaveni to find work elsewhere left the women to take over all home production, bush

clearance, and agricultural chores – chores that were traditionally performed or at least shared by male

family members.

Other employment opportunities were scarce. The informal employment sector within Ntlaveni

consisted of brick-making and basket weaving. Employment on local Bantustan government farms

offered wages of sixty rands per month, but these jobs were taken by the followers of the more powerful

Chief Mhinga. Makuleke women were so desperate that they, too, had to find wage labor and would

22

often take two-week contract work on nearby local farms, leaving children alone for extended periods of

time:

“I am leaving Angelina the child behind because of the drought… ..Say goodbye to everyone You will get bags of mealie meal I am leaving Angelina the child behind because of the drought…” (Harries, 1987; 126) The Makuleke were not only reliant on distant employment opportunities, they were also dependent

on the distant trading stores in Mhinga communities to buy the maize that they could no longer harvest for

themselves. Wages from labor in the mines was barely enough to keep up with the rapidly increasing

price of maize.22

The Makuleke not only had problems buying food, but had immense difficulty selling any of their

own goods. They had no local markets and it was very costly to transport their goods to the markets in

Johannesburg or other economic centers (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999). Even produce needed for the

neighboring KNP’s operations was purchased from sellers in distant markets in Gauteng – as was the

custom before the Makuleke were moved to Ntlaveni – rather than from the nearby Makuleke (Tapela and

Omara-Ojunu, 1999).

Loss in Ntlaveni – Infrastructure and Water

On top of inadequate food supplies and economic opportunities, the Ntlaveni region lacked even

minimal infrastructure. There were no bathrooms, and sanitation was a huge problem. Disease swept

through the region (scabies, vitamin-deficiency related diseases, diarrhea, and typhoid). A clinic was

constructed in 1970, but many Makuleke, particularly the elderly, did not go to the clinics for various

reasons such as neglect or possibly due to the fear of white medicine. A church-based charity, Help

Action for the Far Northern Transvaal (HANFT), had to remove their soup kitchens in 1971 because of

22 The price of a bag of maize increased from R5.60 in 1974 to R24.77 in 1983 (Harries, 1987).

23

the prevalence of deadly disease (Harries, 1987). Aside from the clinic there were only a few schools, a

small network of dust roads, limited electricity, and a very limited water supply (Tapela and Omara-

Ojunu, 1999).

It was the lack of water that contributed to the Makuleke’s suffering the most. In 1971, the South

African government built 31 taps throughout Ntlaveni to supply water. This translated to approximately

400 people per tap (Harries, 1987). The situation was worsened by the severe drought in the area for the

first few years after resettlement. Conditions worsened over time and any improvement for the Makuleke

depended on rainfall. When rain did finally fall in late 1972, the government took advantage of it and

moved even more people into the area, thus heightening problems of overcrowding. Even with rain, the

people in Ntlaveni still had no water for agriculture (Harries, 1987). Remember that in the Pafuri, even if

it did not rain, the Makuleke had multiple ways to survive and protect their livelihoods against drought.

The Makuleke acknowledged that they will never be able to live off the land in Ntlaveni:

“Don’t be deceived our hearts are sore because of poverty Don’t be deceived many of us are dying Even if you take us back only a few will be able to return Because the rest will be dead If you fetch water you will be arrested” (Harries, 1987; 123)

Finally, in late 1974 and into 1975, good rain began falling and continued for the next four years.

Because of the rain the Makuleke finally had crops to harvest. Permanent dried mud brick huts were also

built since the Makuleke needed shelter from the heavy rains. These homes were built solely as

protection from the rain, not as an acceptance of Ntlaveni as home (Harries, 1987). Songs still reflected

feelings of sorrow, loss, and resistance:

“…We have come here with Makuleke We want to return home Many of us have died Take the road home We have come here to be destroyed We are all finished Let us take the road home…” (Harries, 1987; 119)

24

Loss in Ntlaveni – Generational Divide

The desire to go back to the Pafuri was deeply felt by elderly members of the community. Older,

more traditional members of the Makuleke felt as though, in the new region, they had lost the protection

of their ancestors against environmental disasters, diseases, and other plight. The loss of the ancestral

connection undermined the ability and power of the elders for it was their responsibility to explain and

control events like drought through activities such as bone-throwing (Harries, 1987):23

“…Kendzani, the whites, let’s go to Kendzani [a fertile place in their old land] They have stopped us from bone-throwing in that country… …We wish for home at Makuleke where we were safe and happy” (Harries, 1987; 118)

Interestingly, those of the generation born in Ntlaveni who never knew the Pafuri, saw resettlement as

a positive event. They felt Ntlaveni’s crowds were better than the isolation of the Pafuri. Also, unlike

the Pafuri, Ntlaveni had running water, a postal service, more schools, access to a clinic, a trading area,

state-sponsored pensions and easy access to wage labor to ease the effects of drought (Harries, 1987).

Such a view, however, disregards the plentiful water from the Limpopo in the Pafuri, the trade

created from the border zone location, the role of the chief as a protector and provider for his community,

and the support from intercommunity cooperation that existed throughout the Pafuri. Older members of

the Makuleke also believe that clinics will not solve the problems of infant mortality or malnutrition that

arise from insufficient food in Ntlaveni to support a growing population. It is also important to realize

that most children in school will not matriculate. Engagement in wage labor implies that there are no

local employment opportunities to develop the area, and that traditional families have been broken apart.

New problems such as alcoholism and theft have also sprung up within the community – problems that

did not exist, or not as prominently, in the Pafuri (Harries, 1987).

23 Bone-throwing is the practice of tossing the diviner’s bones on the ground and interpreting the pattern that they landed in (Harries, 1987).

25

Loss in Ntlaveni – Longing for the Pafuri

Connor says that the idea of home is reinforced by experiences of removal (undated). She examines

the relationship of the Mozambican Makuleke, who were resettled by the Mozambican government, to

their land on the Mozambican side of the Pafuri. After the civil war in Mozambique ended, most

Makuleke residents who had been forced out of the Pafuri returned to the sites that they had lived in

before the war. Their homes in the Pafuri were covered in overgrown bush, their agricultural plots were

in shoddy condition, and landmines dotted the landscape. “Despite war, floods and failed government

efforts at communalization, the activity and freedom of movement associated with the Pafuri border zone

has drawn residents back to their ancestral land time and again” (Connor, undated; 23). Through

interviews Connor learned that “…the experience of physical displacement by residents in Pafuri has

fostered a definite perception of ‘home’ in Mozambique” (Connor, undated, 24). The situation in

Mozambique provides insight to the feelings of home that the Makuleke in South Africa have for the

Pafuri area. The actions of the Makuleke in Mozambique imply that if the Makuleke in South Africa

were allowed, they would move back to the Pafuri and resume their traditional lifestyle.

By examining the lives of the Makuleke in resettlement we can understand their ties to the land in the

Pafuri. The Pafuri was rich in resources, economic opportunities, and family and community relations.

All of these aspects of their lives were lost when they were forcibly removed from the Pafuri.

“Mother let’s go home, over the Limpopo River Yoweee a he he a yeni, let’s go home Let’s go home and rest We go there over the Limpopo River Mother – over the river From isolated self-sufficiency to complete dependence on wage labor Western education and science replacing ancestor belief Elder control undermined” (Harries, 1987; 128)

26

The Restitution Process

All that the Makuleke lost in removal would hopefully be regained during the process of land

restitution. Land restitution, one of the three methods of land reform used by the new government,

began even before the election of the first democratic government in South Africa in 1994. The

Abolition of Racially Based Land Measure Act of 1991, passed by the interim congress, repealed the

1913 and 1936 land acts. This legislation also created the Commission on Land Allocation, a body

whose task it was to consider how to use government-held land, that may or may not have been

acquired under racially discriminatory policies, for the restitution process (de Villiers, 1999).

The first piece of legislation passed after the general election of April 1994 was the Restitution

of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. Under this legislation, those people who were dispossessed of their

land and rights to land, and did not receive adequate compensation for the value of their property

post June 19, 1913 due to racially discriminatory legislation, were afforded the opportunity to file a

claim for restitution.24 Restitution can take the form of alternative land, payment of compensation,

priority access to government development programs, or a combination of these measures.

Specifically, the law was aimed at those who were forcibly removed from “black spots” in the

1960’s and 1970’s.25 Descendents of those who were forcibly removed also have the right to file a

claim for restitution (de Villiers, 1999). All restitution claims are made against the state and are

handled primarily by the Land Claims Court, the Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights and

the Department of Land Affairs (Brown et al., 1998). The life of a land claim begins when it is

submitted to a regional land claims commission, then moves on to a series of investigations on its

24 This date was chosen as a symbolic date of the formal start to legislative apartheid – the day that they 1913 Natives Land Act came into effect (de Villiers, 1999). 25 A black spot is an area where blacks lived that was outside of the black reserves created by the 1936 Natives Trust and Land Act (de Villiers, 1999).

27

legitimacy, which is followed by a process of negotiations among all involved parties, and ends

when the Land Claims Court ratifies a settlement between the state and the claimant(s).26

It is under this framework that the Makuleke negotiated and settled their land claim. On

December 20, 1995, they lodged a claim for restitution of the Pafuri area (de Villiers, 1999). They

then had to establish the validity of their claim. Validity of a claim depends on these four questions:

whether they had occupied the land for at least ten years prior to removal, whether they were

removed under discriminatory legislation and/or practices, whether they received adequate

compensation, and whether restoration of land rights is feasible – and if not, what alternative

compensation can be suggested (de Villiers, 1999). In the negotiation process they also had to

answer the questions of whether the conservation status of the land required further protection for

the public good, and if so whether the community can be convinced to jointly manage the land with

the South African National Parks (de Villiers, 1999).

No one opposed the fact that the Makuleke had occupied the area for at least 10 years and the

Makuleke argued that they were a “black spot” removed to create a security buffer between South

Africa and Mozambique (de Villiers, 1999). The Commissioner of Land Rights challenged the

Makuleke’s argument, claiming that the Makuleke were removed for the “creation and extension of

a public good, namely the Kruger National Park,” not under any policy of racial discrimination (de

Villiers, 1999; 48). Both the Department of Land Affairs and the Land Claims Commission rejected

the Commissioner of Land Rights’ argument on the grounds that the National Parks Board did not

use the proper legislation such as the National Parks Act or the Expropriation Act to obtain the

Pafuri in 1969 (de Villiers, 1999). The Land Claims Court also rejected Chief Mhinga’s argument

that the land fell under his rule and that he should be given title to the land (de Villiers, 1999).

26 For more information about the land restitution process read Brown et al., 1998.

28

As for receiving just compensation, a 1995 research report for the Commissioner of Restitution

of Land Rights (author unknown) found that the community received adequate compensation in the

6000 hectares of land they received in Ntlaveni since the Makuleke did not occupy the whole area of

the Pafuri. However, no records were found illustrating that any compensation for the removal, the

property lost in removal, or for the cost of building new houses was ever paid (de Villiers, 1999).

With this evidence, the claim of adequate compensation was rejected by the Commission and the

DLA.

Lastly, the Makuleke agreed to maintain the conservation status of the land and promised that the

only form of economic development that would take place on the land would be in the form of

ecotourism. Therefore, restoration of land rights was feasible27.

After 18 months of negotiations, a settlement was finally signed in Ntlaveni on May 30, 1998 (de

Villiers). The Pafuri was declared a contractual national park,28 remaining a part of the KNP in

accordance with the National Parks Act (Moon, 2001). The Makuleke land claim and the perception

of its success is important since it was the first settled land claim in which land was under national

park status and the community agreed to joint management (de Villiers, 1999).

Section III : The CBNRM and Ecotourism Models

History of CBNRM

The historic agreement between the Makuleke and the South African National Parks was

supposed to be equally beneficial to both parties. Both parties could supposedly by using

27 Restoration of the land was feasible only because the Makuleke agreed to remain living in Ntlaveni and solely use the Pafuri land for conservation purposes. It is unclear what would have happened had the Makuleke insisted on utilizing the land for other practices, but De Villiers, 1999 suggests that the Land Claims Court might have been asked to consider alternative forms of land restitution (de Villiers, 1999). 28 A contractual national park is one that under conservation status and within the national park system, but all commercial rights to the land belong to an outside group (in this case the Makuleke).

29

community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), which brings local communities,

development projects, and conservation strategies together into one land management practice.

However, in this section I argue that CBNRM may not be the ideal basis for The Agreement. I will

explain how CBNRM became a favored choice for land management strategies and why it is laden

with problems revolving around the state’s role in CBNRM, inappropriate assumptions about the

communities involved, implementation of CBNRM practices, external support for CBNRM projects,

distribution of benefits from CBNRM, and equal representation of community members within the

organizations involved in CBNRM. In the final pages of this section I delve further into the

problems of CBNRM and examine the problems specifically arising from ecotourism ventures that

are based on CBNRM strategies.

Historically, national parks and nature reserves in South Africa and across the world preserved

wildlife. They are considered pristine environments, untouched by human influence. If humans

inhabited areas that were placed under conservation status, past policy maintained that humans must

be cleared of the area. Human activities were seen as incompatible with wilderness preservation.

Conservation efforts reserved areas for nature, and humans had to be separated from those places

(Reid, 2001; Pimbert and Pretty, 1995; Adams and Hulme, 1998). Governments that implemented

conservation strategies considered societies that relied on forests and other natural resources to be

backward, and therefore, in need of development (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995). In Africa,

conservation practices were aimed at conserving certain areas, landscapes, and species – people,

specifically native Africans, did not have a place in the colonial vision of conservation (Adams and

Hulme, 1998).29

29 For more information on colonial conservation in South Africa, see Carruthers, 1995; Beinart, 1989; and Sas Rolfes, 1996.

30

More recently, in the past 30 years or so, ideas surrounding the role of humans in conservation

efforts have drastically changed. Conservationists are recognizing that the areas historically

considered to be untouched by humans have been inhabited and influenced by humans for thousands

of years. Ecosystems are now seen as places shaped by thousands of years of civilization,

“The concept of wilderness as the untouched or untamed land is mostly an urban perception, the view of people who are far removed from the natural environment they depend on for raw resources…The current composition of mature vegetation may well be the legacy of past civilizations, the heritage of cultivated fields and managed forests,…Until we understand and teach that the tropical forests are ‘both artifact and habitat’, we will be advocating policies for a mythical pristine environment that exists only in our imagination” (Gomez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992 in Pimbert and Pretty; 1995, 21).

More and more, conservationists are realizing that the degradation of natural resources actually

occurs when local people are excluded from natural resource management. In the case of the

Maasai in Kenya, it was only after they were expelled from the rich grassland ecosystem of the

Serengeti that the landscape transformed into scrub and woodland. Antelope populations suffered

from the loss of suitable grazing land. One can conclude that the Maasai and their cattle populations

were integral in maintaining the Serengeti grassland ecosystem (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995).

Examples like this illustrate that conservation strategies must find a way to reincorporate the role

that indigenous societies played in ecosystem management.

As defined by Adams and Hulme, 1998, two of the leading scholars of CBNRM development,

community conservation refers to “those principles and practices that argue that conservation goals

should be pursued by strategies that emphasize the role of local residents in decision-making about

natural resources” (9). To add to the definition of community conservation, Pimbert and Pretty,

1995 define what they call “vernacular conservation,” conservation based on “site-specific traditions

and economies; it refers to ways of life and resource utilization that have evolved in place and… is a

direct expression of the relationship between communities and their habitats (38).” This new form

of conservation differs from past conservation efforts in that local communities establish protected

areas for local use rather than protection from outside exploitation (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995). This

31

is a way to recognize the important role that local communities play as conservationists and redirect

past conservation efforts that lacked local community involvement. Two of the earlier programs that

paved the way for CBNRM were the World Conservation Union’s World Conservation Strategy

(1980) and the World Wildlife Fund’s Wildlife and Human Needs Programme(1985); both programs

stressed the importance of linking protected area management with economic activities of local

communities (Adams and Hulme, 1998; Koch, 1994).

By the late 1990’s CBNRM became the prominent strategy of conservation of wildlife and other

natural resources in Africa (Virtanen, 2003). This is partly because support for CBNRM projects

can be argued from a rights-based approach as well as an economic standpoint. The rights-based

camp supports CBNRM because it does not ignore the basic human needs of the community,

whereas, old, exclusionist conservation strategies neglected the needs of these marginal

communities, as seen with the Makuleke. Rights-based advocates argue that conservation goals

should not overshadow, but instead, integrate development goals to help meet the needs of these

marginalized societies as well as those of conservationists. CBNRM also differs from traditional

methods of conservation because it recognizes the economic value of natural resources. Conserved

lands, if managed in a business-like approach, can serve a means to produce revenue and

communities, by asserting their property rights, can take advantage of this economic opportunity.

CBNRM’s Problems – Conflicts Between the State and Communities

While it seems that CBNRM is a win-win situation, there are serious potential problems hidden

in this type of management. First, empowerment of local communities requires devolution of power

from the state to the local residents. In practice, it is possible that states will effectively put local

communities in control of natural resource management, but it is equally possible that CBNRM

32

facilitates an expansion of state power to marginal, rural lands. If this is the case, CBNRM can be

seen as a “rural taxation program” that extends the government’s reach outwards, down to the most

rural and local level (Virtanen, 2003; 181). Additionally, due to low levels of skill and often unclear

ownership rights, resource management is most likely not entirely in the hands of local communities

(Virtanen, 2003). From these two scenarios, one can see that the state’s motivations for creating and

supporting CBNRM may not always be as egalitarian and charitable as CBNRM projects may imply.

Just as one may question the state’s role in CBNRM, one can question the community’s desire to

be a part of such a project. CBNRM assumes that communities will want to support conservation

efforts and that indigenous people have a natural affinity for conservation (Adams and Hulme,

1998). However, when the state discusses CBNRM, ecotourism is the favored way in which

conservation and development strategies will be brought together. This means that the communities

will need to adopt a new relationship with their land – one that values the land for its economic

potential and makes local residents dependent on safari and camping operations for their livelihood,

thereby abandoning traditional modes of subsistence. This assumes that communities would prefer

to integrate themselves into the state’s chosen conservation and development efforts over resuming

or continuing their traditional lifestyles.

CBNRM’s Problems – Conflicts With External Supports

Conflicts over motivations and desires for development are not the only areas of conflict when

discussing CBNRM schemes; there are many problems with the implementation of these projects.

To begin, we can examine the heavy reliance on external support required to carry out CBNRM. In

the case of the Makuleke, external support has come from the Friends of Makuleke, Endangered

Wildlife Trust, Ford Foundation, and German Agency for Technical Cooperation. However, one

33

member of the Joint Management Board (JMB)30 expressed concern over the involvement of these

NGOs, some of them prioritize their own needs above those of the Makuleke (Reid, 2001). The

varied goals of the NGOs involved detracts from progress for either conservation or community

development

Also, CBNRM requires careful balancing between the two stated goals: conservation and

development. While it is not always the case, sometimes these two goals oppose one another and it is

important to strive to maintain a balance so that both goals are addressed with equal attention. This

balance ties into the conceptually larger task of balancing community interests and state priorities

(Adams and Hulme, 1998).

External support, in addition to technical and knowledge-based assistance, comes through

funding, which can be another area of instability. Investors may be hesitant to fund these type of

projects because they are based on the growth of international tourism, a “highly volatile” source of

revenue (Virtanen, 2003; 187). The instability of eco-tourism as a form of CBNRM will be

discussed later. Additionally, community projects tend to have high administrative costs since they

require many staff members who are well-trained in locally-specific knowledge. These costs

compounded with the fact that many CBNRM projects are slow to show profits, make these projects

unattractive not only to many mainstream, high-budget aid donors, but also to government funds

which would ideally go to projects that demonstrate rapid results (Adams and Hulme, 1998).

30 The Joint Management Board is the body that oversees that all conditions of the land claim settlement are followed and is responsible for all matters of conservation and day-to-day care of the Pafuri. The JMB is comprised of six members, three elected from the Makuleke community and three appointed by SANP. All decisions are made by consensus, but at least in the first few years of existence the SANP members have an advantage due to their technical expertise (de Villiers, 1999).

34

CBNRM’s Problems – Community Participation

Another area of concern is how CBNRM projects actually affect the local community through

community participation in these projects. CBRNM projects are expected to create jobs both

directly and indirectly related to resource management. These jobs range from acting as guides for

safari companies to selling crafts to tourists, to jobs in projects financed by revenue from CBNRM

projects such as brick-making for the construction of new clinics and schools (Virtanen, 2003).

However, the promises of economic benefits and job creation may be overstated. In the case of the

Makuleke, many jobs were expected to be created for the Makuleke within the South African

National Parks system. SANP officials actually suspect that for the Makuleke, employment

opportunities will be low.

In 2001, as Hannah Reid reports, only 5 or 6 community members are employed by SANP; this

number is expected to slowly rise to upwards of 80 employees. Some Makuleke youth have been

receiving training in jobs related to conservation management, safari guidance, and business

management. Training programs have been in place for several years, but students have been slow

to advance through the program and some have dropped out (Turner, 2004).

Job creation is slow partly due to the fact that the extent to which SANP is responsible for

training is unclear. If SANP feels as though skill transfer is not a high priority, despite it being a

responsibility spelled out in the land claim, then training and skill transfer will be a huge obstacle for

the Makuleke CBNRM project to overcome (Reid, 2001). It is also important to note that trainees

do not receive any compensation, which deters community members from applying for jobs with

SANP (Reid, 2001).

35

The jobs offered by the Makuleke ecotourism project may not be as promising as they sound

based on the Makuleke’s employment in the KNP in recent years.31 It is true that the KNP has made

an effort to employ members of neighboring communities. Although members of the Makuleke

community are employed by KNP, as of 1999, most of those employees work in lower skill level

and lower paying jobs (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999).32 The pledge by the KNP to reach out to

communities may not be as promising as it sounds.

A survey of the jobs held by the Makuleke in the KNP in 1999, indicates that while the jobs in the

KNP do enhance the employment rate of the Makuleke, the income derived from employment in the KNP

is lower than income earned from other employers. This means that the KNP is employing a large

number of Makuleke, but not paying them well (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999).

The fact that many people are employed by the KNP, but very little money is being earned from

employment in the KNP, suggests a few rather disturbing facets of the KNP’s new goals of reaching out

to surrounding communities, including the Makuleke.33 These aspects of the KNP’s efforts to aid the

local communities may lessen the degree to which the Makuleke may actually benefit from the land

claim. The first is that the preferential employment of members of neighboring communities by the park

may be done only for the park’s convenience rather than an actual commitment by the park to alleviate

problems of rural communities like the Makuleke (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999). The fact that very

little money is being earned from employment in the KNP implies that the park continues to view nearby

communities as sources of cheap labor. Additionally, employing locals in only low-level jobs can be seen

as a new form of colonial and apartheid labor reserves (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999). An indirect

31 These are employment opportunities unrelated to the land claim. 32 The situation has not changed much since the end of apartheid. Recall that an elderly Makuleke worked in the park in a low-level job as early as 1960 (see p. 9). 33 See the South African National Park’s website www.sanparks.org to better understand the efforts that they are making to reach out to local communities around the parks. Specifically, view the pages titled “Community Relations,” “Cultural Heritage,” “Planning and Development,” and “Transformation.”

36

effect of the KNP primarily employing those with low educational backgrounds and low levels of skill is

that those with higher education and skills are forced to find jobs in industrial, administrative, and

commercial centers far away from their community in Ntlaveni (Tapela and Omara-Ojunu, 1999). Tapela

and Omara-Ojunu concludes that the “locational interdependence” that exists between the KNP, as a

major center for economic activity, and the Makuleke community, as a constant source of labor,

“entrenches rather than alleviates the poverty and underdevelopment of the rural community” (Tapela and

Omara-Ojunu, 1999; 154).

The economic employment opportunities offered by the KNP are not sufficient solutions to the

problems of life in Ntlaveni. Such opportunities also do not in any way begin to replace what the

Makuleke have lost through their removal, specifically the economic independence that they had in the

Pafuri. Local participation in CBNRM has been largely rhetoric and not reality.

CBNRM’s Problems – Who is the Community in the CBNRM?

Lastly, the idea of a community-based natural resource management project is that it allows a

community to manage its natural resources, but who is included in this ‘community’? The word

‘community’ is a deceptive word that often ignores the reality that most settlements are made up of

fragmented and divided groups of people (Koch, 1994). The notion of community, as perceived by

outside parties (government officials, aid organizations, etc.), is often a foreign concept to the local

people involved. To take part in CBNRM projects, indigenous people must often form

“communities” that are entirely unnatural and ignore traditional boundaries within the local group.34

Clearly, there are many problems with the mere concept of CBNRM., however, community

conservation is widely considered to be the best approach to conservation and development (Adams

34 See Twyman, 1998 and Twyman, 2000 for more information on the problems with the concept of community as it relates to the Basarwa of Botswana.

37

and Hulme, 1998). There is discussion of the benefits of CBNRM, but little talk of its costs.

Forging, or forcing, a new relationship with the land catapults the community into a new sphere of

international economics and politics and decreases a dependency on institutions and forces beyond

their control. The costs – loss of culture and transformed landscape – cannot be reclaimed.

CBNRM programs may have fleeting benefits, if any at all, but the losses are forever.

Ecotourism as Model

Many CBNRM projects, including that of the Makuleke, strive to achieve their goals of

conservation and economic development through ecotourism. With this emphasis on ecotourism, the

Makuleke run into problems that are specific to ecotourism as well as the issues that arise from

ecotourism as a form of CBNRM.

Ecotourism, as defined by The International Ecotourism Society, is “responsible travel to natural

areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people” (International

Ecotourism Site). The South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has three

goals for tourism that they have published in various papers: increased ownership of tourism

businesses by previously disadvantaged individuals (PDI’s), increased effective and direct

participation by PDI’s in the management of tourism establishments, and affording PDI’s increased

business opportunities linked to the tourism industry (Mahony and van Zyl, 2002). Viewed from a

historical perspective, ecotourism serves to redress the injustices of past consumptive wildlife

policies that advanced the colonists’ desires at the expense of native populations (Dieke, 2001) . The

two key elements that make ecotourism different from standard tourism are the linked efforts to

conserve the natural environment and provide benefits to local people (Hasler, 1996).35

35 For more definitions of ecotourism see Reid, 1999 pp. 33-36.

38

Ecotourism’s Problems – Problems of the Tourism Industry

Tourism, as mentioned in previous sections, is a risky industry. The tourism industry, and

specifically the ecotourism industry, has immense potential to grow in South Africa. However, such

growth has not occurred as expected following the 1994 elections. The World Travel & Tourism

Council’s 2002 annual report says that “while government officials and industry analysts have long

been predicting that South Africa is on the verge of a tourism boom, its actual performance over the

past several years has been disappointing and has certainly not lived up to the optimistic and

aggressive targets set in 1996” (6).

The growth that is occurring in this industry is mainly in the urban centers of Gauteng and Cape

Town, which is problematic for tourism schemes like the Makuleke and other community-based

projects in rural areas (Mahony and van Zyl, 2002). The World Travel and Tourism Council’s

figures in the 2002 report show that eight out of the top ten tourist destinations are in the Western

Cape (and most of those like Robben Island, Table Mountain, and the V & A Waterfront are in Cape

Town) (2002). As for domestic tourists, most of them are going to Gauteng. Mpumalanga, where

the Makuleke are located, only captures 5.7% of the domestic tourist market with only the Northern

Cape attracting fewer domestic tourists (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2002). These statistics

do not bode well for the Makuleke and other remote tourism operations.

It is important to understand the role that tourism plays in South Africa, but one must be careful

to note that statistics about standard tourism do not necessarily translate to similar statistics for

ecotourism. Moreover, tourism even within the Kruger National Park is highly differentiated

between the northern and southern halves of the park. The average number of visitors staying over

night in the KNP in 1999 was 74.3%, but northern sections of the park, where the Makuleke are

located, had much lower occupancy rates (Mahony and van Zyl, 2002). Lower visitation is likely

39

due to unsuccessful integration of tourism in northern Kruger into tourism circuits elsewhere, poor

access roads, inferior game viewing experiences (for the Big Five at least),36 and extreme weather

conditions (Mahony and van Zyl, 2002).37, 38

On the other hand, the Pafuri is located in the heart of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park

(GLTP), which is undergoing development. The GLTP is a transnational park that spans the borders

of South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. It is to be the largest transfrontier park in the world

and the Pafuri lies directly in the heart of it (Godwin, 2001). The expansion of the GLTP puts the

Makuleke in a position to capitalize on the new tourism opportunities that will be created by the free

flow of park visitors between South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique (Mahony and van Zyl,

2002).39 There are clearly pros and cons for establishing an ecotourism project in the furthest corner

of the Kruger and hopefully the Makuleke can capture the benefits of this location while avoiding or

eliminating the detriments.

Ecotourism’s Problems – Problems of Leaking Benefits

Assuming that visitors do come to the Pafuri, we must determine who will actually benefit from

the revenue, since income from ecotourism is prone to leak out of local communities. This happens

because that income must be split among all participating industries and groups. Often, the countries

involved do not have their own major airlines, hotel chains, or tour operators and must rely on 36 The Big Five are elephant, buffalo, leopard, rhinoceros, and lion. 37 In The Agreement the parties involved recognize that tourism to Pafuri is limited by: seasonal heat, unreliable rainfall making some plant communities fragile, malaria, animal diseases such as anthrax, and seasonal flooding (de Villiers, 1999). 38 In my time in the Pafuri region temperatures reached 120o Fahrenheit while the study abroad trip the previous year experienced days of heavy rain. Also, I saw very few large animals in the region – mostly zebra and various types of antelope. 39 Upon visiting the Pafuri in March 2005, I drove past a South African border control post. Seeing the fencing around the compound and the captured refugees sitting within the fences, I wondered how much more of a presence border control will have as the GLTP develops. I imagine that South Africa might increase its border control due to increased movement of people among Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa after the opening of the GLTP. Increased border patrol, however, may disrupt the landscape of the Pafuri and make the region even less desirable for tourists to visit. See Appendix A pp. 59 for a picture of the border control.

40

foreign operations to which much of the proceeds leaks back (Koch, 1994). The World Bank

estimates that only 45% of tourist spending in developing countries returns to developed countries;

in cases where the airline, hotel, and transportation services are run by foreigners, it can be as low as

10% (Koch, 1994). While South Africa does have its own tour operators and airline, the Makuleke

must still be aware of leakage, not on an international level, but rather on a local level since they

must contract outside tour operators to develop tourism in their area.

Ecotourism’s Problems – Problems of Growth

In addition to leakage, ecotourism projects must confront what Richard Hasler calls the “Catch

Twenty-two of ecotourism:” if it is successful, more people will go on ecotourism vacations – which

leads toward mass tourism and, in turn, to environmental degradation (1996; 33). He says that it

“certainly is not possible for the ecotourism industry to become the economic engine for widespread

development without becoming a mass tourism industry” (Hasler, 1996; 33). For example, in

Zimbabwe many photographic safari camps have developed in the past few years leading to an

overcrowding in the market. This forced some operators to reduce their rates just to stay in business,

thus bringing in less profit (Hasler, 1996). Basically, ecotourism’s success will breed failure.

Ecotourism’s Problems – Problems Related to the KNP

In order to compete in the ecotourism market, then, an ecotourism destination must attract

masses of visitors. However, the number of visitors to the KNP, and therefore to the Makuleke’s site

in the Pafuri, is limited by the KNP’s strict regulations regarding the numbers of visitors allowed

within the park at any given time. Kruger National Park turns away four out of every five people

who want to visit the park because of these regulations. This limits the amount of profit that the

41

Makuleke can make since the number of potential visitors is tightly controlled. Many of the tourists

turned away by the KNP go to private nature resorts, which are not forced to limit the numbers of

visitors to adhere to conservation strategies. Private resorts have increased their revenue by 1000%

in the past few years by attracting the tourists that the KNP must turn away (Koch, 1994). However,

even with vast increases in visitors, private lodges are struggling to make a profit. For example, the

Mahenye Lodge in Zimbabwe’s Chipinge District is currently running at a loss, forcing the owners

to expand the lodging facilities from 11 beds to 40 beds to remain economically viable (Hasler,

1996). In contrast, any development in the KNP, including increasing lodging, will be strictly

monitored and limited in order to uphold conservation policies. If a private ecotourism venture with

much fewer restrictions is struggling, the Makuleke joint venture with SANP is not likely to be

profitable.

Ecotourism’s Problems – Problems with the Nature of the Projects

The Makuleke ecotourism project will also struggle because of the nature of the project. The

Makuleke’s project focuses on the development of luxury lodges40 and the creation of a tented

campsite, cultural routes, and a living museum, while limiting trophy hunting (Mahony and van Zyl,

2002). This sort of focus goes against the recommendations of ecologists and safari operators who

argue that lessons from Zimbabwe demonstrate that safari hunting is a far more ecologically friendly

and economically viable ecotourism option than are photographic or nature tourism. Safari hunting

attracts the highest paying clients but also has low set-up and maintenance costs. A safari hunting

operation requires the construction of a simple bush camp, a few four-wheel drive vehicles and a few

main roads. Other types of ecotourism require the building of lodges and hotels, extensive vehicle

40 The first of which was awarded in May 2001

42

use, and must also deal with more leakage of profits due to the larger number of contracts involved

in operating the project (Hasler, 1996).

Ecotourism’s Problems – The Bottom Line

Even if all these hurdles are surmounted by the Makuleke ecotourism project, the tourism

industry is a boom and bust industry that can change in an instant. There are many factors that can

cause instant changes within the tourism industry. First, tourism, and ecotourism in particular

because of the harsh climate of many ecotourism destinations, is affected by natural disasters or

severe weather conditions. Second, tourism is deeply influenced by the perceived threat of

terrorism. Especially in Africa, tourism is subject to the public perception of the risk of HIV,

malaria, or any other disease.41 Thirdly, South African tourism must also deal with the political

instability of neighboring countries. Tourists will not be attracted to destinations bordering on areas

of intense military activity. Lastly, tourism is highly susceptible to fads and trends which can often

be fickle.

The bottom line is that if tourists stop traveling to an ecotourism destination for any number of

reasons. In CBNRM projects in ecotourism, such as that in the Pafuri, ecotourism serves as the

community’s sole source of economic stability, having lost traditional methods of subsistence

farming. Consequently, ecotourism has the potential to bring in wealth to a community, but if a

project fails, much more than money is lost. This new relationship to the land revolving around

ecotourism and monetary profits does not leave any space for the resumption of the Makuleke’s

traditional lifestyle as described in Section I and II. The Makuleke land claim agreement replaced a

rich history of tradition with a shaky future of CBNRM in the Pafuri.

41 The threat of HIV infection for tourists is real as HIV has spread from mass tourism sites to ecotourism destinations (Kamuaro, 1996).

43

Section IV: The Agreement

The Makuleke land claim agreement restored ownership of the Pafuri region to the Makuleke

community.42 However, by examining the Main Agreement Relating to the Makuleke Land Claim

as signed on May 30, 1998 and as amended in December 199843 it can be seen that reclaiming

ownership does not translate to reclaiming the lifestyle and values that the Makuleke had prior to

1969 (de Villiers, 1999). The Agreement forces the Makuleke to adopt a new relationship to the

land in the Pafuri based on the concepts of CBNRM and the promises of monetary benefits from

ecotourism. Even in the process of restitution, the Makuleke are forced to change their livelihood

practices, community organization, and structures of authority. On top of the official loss of any

future possibility of reclaiming their former lifestyle, the Makuleke will have to deal with additional

financial, judicial, and development responsibilities stemming from their newly prescribed

relationship with their land in the Pafuri.

The Agreement – Land Use Restrictions

Ownership of the land came with many restrictions – restrictions that prohibit the resumption of

the life they led in the Pafuri. The first set of restrictions applies to the limits of land use. The four

most prominent restrictions on land use as set out in Section 11 of The Agreement are the

prohibition of mining and prospecting and any rock excavation aside from those approved by

Makuleke Communal Property Association (MCPA),44 the Joint Management Board, and the SANP;

42 The region that the Makuleke occupied in the Pafuri was officially renamed the Makuleke Region in Section 23 of the Main Agreement, but for continuity I will still refer to it as ‘the Pafuri.’ 43 From here on I will refer to it as ‘The Agreement.’ 44 The MCPA is the legal body that the Makuleke formed to file their land restitution claim and now holds the title to the Pafuri. The MCPA is chaired by the Makuleke’s traditional leader. The MCPA will be discussed further on the next page.

44

residential use except those necessary for ecotourism, conservation, and other conservation related

commercial activities; agriculture on any part of the land; and any development without a prior

environmental impact assessment approving the project (de Villiers, 1999).45 These restrictions

make the life of subsistence agriculture impossible to regain. Additionally, the prohibition of

residency on the land by the Makuleke means that they must continue to live in Ntlaveni, a place

where they have resisted constructing permanent dwellings for so long. Pafuri will never again be

home to the Makuleke except in song and spirit.

Restricting their residency to Ntlaveni means that they will forever be confined to the

overcrowded resettlement pattern that destroyed their communal labor practices and the spatial

orientation of their families. Since they are not allowed to move back to the Pafuri, they have

forever lost the relationships they had with the neighboring cattle-keeping communities and all the

diverse economic opportunities of the border location that gave them so much independence and

made them a self-sufficient community.

It is important to note that contractual parks do allow hunting, plant collection, fishing and other

utilization by private parties (de Villiers, 1999). However, the JMB will determine what kind of

access the community has to use the region for these purposes. While the Makuleke may be able to

hunt, gather plants, and fish it is unlikely that they will do so: Firstly, transporting any wildlife from

the Pafuri to Ntlaveni will be difficult due to the distance between them, and the lack of

transportation.46 Second, the JMB is composed of members from SANP who would most likely be

against hunting in any region that is a part of the Kruger National Park. The Makuleke are allowed

to sell their hunting concessions to outside safari operators, but in 1999 plans to kill two elephants

45 Conservation efforts include those aimed at wild animals, flora, fauna as well as objects of geological, archaeological, historical, and ethnological interests. This will ensure that the land will remain in its natural state as long as that state is “practical and beneficial to the community and the visitors” (de Villiers, 1999; 156). 46 From my experience in haMakuya village in Malamulele, I found that most people relied on walking and very few cars were used.

45

were ardently opposed by SANP (Ramutsindela, 2003). Third, on top of SANP’s objections to

hunting, the conservation community would most likely be outraged if animals were hunted on

national park land.

Additionally, under the agreement, community members will have free entry to the park for

cultural and religious occasions, but even these will be supervised by the JMB. This means that the

Makuleke can visit the graves of the ancestors who are central to the Makuleke’s spiritual practices.

However, it was the physical proximity of everyday life in the Pafuri to the graves that gave them

the feeling of being protected by and connected to their ancestors. The land use restrictions have

legally divorced the Makuleke from their former ways of valuing the land and their traditional

lifestyle, even after ownership of the Pafuri was supposedly restored to them.

The Agreement – New Ways of Governing

When the Makuleke were moved to Ntlaveni, Chief Makuleke and the sub-chiefs took on new

roles that were incorporated into the apartheid government’s discriminatory policies. With the land

claim traditional leaders are again taking on new roles, this time in the government’s land reform

system. In order to file the land claim, the Makuleke had to form a Communal Property

Associations (CPA), the legal body to which the title deed of the land would be transferred (Reid,

2001).47 CPAs are to uphold these five principles: fair and inclusive decision making, equality of

membership, democratic practices, fair access to the association’s property, and accountability and

transparency (Cousins and Hornby, 2002). It is the second of these five principles with which the

Makuleke communal property association (MCPA) may struggle.

47 The Communal Property Associations Act 28 of 1996 was one of the early pieces of legislation developed as part of tenure reform in South Africa. It allowed for creation of CPAs as a way for people to organize themselves to “acquire, hold and manage property on a basis agreed to by members of a community in terms of a written constitution (DLA 1996, 1 in Cousins and Hornby, 2002; 3).”

46

Potential members of the MCPA are divided into two lists – List A and List B. List A includes

those who were evicted from the Pafuri region in 1969 and now live in the Makuleke community or

in the nearby Mhinga village. Those on List B never actually lived in the Pafuri region but now live

with the Makuleke community and share their way of life. Between the two lists more than 5,000

people are members of the MCPA. Here it is important to note that some people on List B have

declined membership to the MCPA since they feel as though they will be secondary beneficiaries.

Although no one who applied to be a member of the MCPA has been refused, it is clear that

members of the Makuleke are dividing themselves according to their status within the MCPA (Reid,

2001). Also, 5-10% of the members of the MCPA live in Mhinga village (see Map, p. 4). These

members of the MCPA will not benefit from the CBNRM project as much as those who live in

Ntlaveni since most development projects and income will go to the Makuleke village (Reid, 1999).

Exclusion of such a group may turn into a major grievance over time. The new divisions in the

community, resulting from the new methods of governance, may marginalize some sectors of the

Makuleke even more than they already are.

The MCPA takes on many of the duties that used to be carried out by the Makuleke’s chief.

Traditionally, recall, the chief was responsible for allocating land for various purposes, overseeing

any construction, and providing economic opportunities or his followers. These duties, as they

would have applied to the Pafuri region, are now the responsibility of the MCPA. More specifically,

the MCPA is responsible for constructing roads, bridges, buildings and other infrastructure as well as

reserving areas for animals or nurseries for plants and carrying out all business relating to

commercial activity in the area (de Villiers, 1999).

47

The Agreement – Conservation and Commercial Activities

As set out in The Agreement, the main task of the MCPA is to manage the commercial activities

surrounding conservation in the Pafuri, but not any actual conservation. Prior to 1969, the Makuleke

community controlled both the economic opportunities and the management of their natural

resources in the Pafuri. With the land claim, they were only able to regain control over the economic

opportunities, which is limited in its own way since the land can only be used for economic

opportunities revolving around conservation. The MCPA does share some responsibility for

protecting the Pafuri from environmental damage, but on a day-to-day basis, as stated in Section 27

of The Agreement, the SANP is responsible for conservation and natural resource management as

directed by the JMB (de Villiers, 1999). While the JMB consists of equal representation from the

MCPA and SANP, it is SANP – due to their expertise and technical skill – who holds a significant

amount of power and influence in the decision-making process of the JMB.

However, over time the goal is to have SANP train Makuleke community members to handle

conservation duties and the everyday business of land management. Every year, the JMB will

review the extent to which management skills have been transferred to members of the CPA (de

Villiers, 1999). Unfortunately, training takes time and the process will be slow. Additionally, since

work outside the community was historically delegated to males, it is likely that the first group of

people to benefit from the training will be young men.

Despite these potential problems, the community still sees ecotourism as a huge employment

opportunity. The MCPA will take full responsibility for ecotourism development projects in

accordance with the National Parks Act and in the community is the final authority on all

commercial matters (de Villiers, 1999). In addition to the luxury lodges being constructed, the

community is entertaining the idea of introducing a cultural route that will highlight the Thulamela

48

ruins, Crooks Corner, and the Makuleke traditional kraal48 to attract visitors to the area (de Villiers,

1999).49,50 Additionally, a museum dedicated to the Makuleke’s history and culture will be built.

All income from these developments will go to the community (de Villiers, 1999). All of these

possible economic benefits and community control must be viewed in light of the potential problems

discussed in Section III.

The Agreement-The Irony of it All

The irony of The Agreement is that although the settlement clearly indicates that the Makuleke’s

life in the Pafuri will never be what it once was, their life in Ntlaveni will be forever preserved. In

Section 19 of The Agreement, the State waives any rights that it may have for the return of Ntlaveni

to its ownership, thereby securing tenure for the Makuleke to the land in Ntlaveni. The State agrees

not to deprive the Makuleke community of any formal or informal rights that they have acquired

since beginning their occupation of Ntlaveni in 1969 (de Villiers, 1999). This condition gives the

Makuleke, on an individual and communal basis, security of tenure to the Ntlaveni region.

Life in Ntlaveni in 2004, as reported by the Mail & Guardian, is dismal.51 For example, the

village has one bar where girls will prostitute themselves for less than US$2. Conditions in Ntlaveni

should be improving for the Makuleke since they signed a 45 million rand ecotourism contract with

Wilderness Safaris to develop their land in the Pafuri. While Wilderness Safaris has plans to train

approximately 80 Makuleke community members, until the safari company sufficiently trains these

people to manage the lodges and take over the business, the Makuleke will earn 8% of the profits

from the lodges (Mail & Guardian, 2003). Additionally, as of December 2004, visitors to the Pafuri

48 The area where the cattle are kept. 49 For pictures of Crook’s Corner and Thulamela see the Appendix. 50 See Appendix A pp. 59 for pictures of sites on this proposed cultural route. 51 See Appendix A pp. 58 for pictures of the Malamulele District.

49

have been few and far between (Mail & Guardian). This situation validates all the reasons stated in

Section III as to why ecotourism development in the Pafuri will not be profitable.

Although profits from the ecotourism ventures have not immediately materialized, money from

the government as part of the land claim settlement and other grants has enabled the community to

electrify both the homes and the streets in the village. One community member, Humphrey

Makuleke, says the electricity will allow students to stay up later to study and therefore perform

better in school. Government grants have also been used to build a multipurpose community center.

It was built in the center of the community for tourists wanting to experience the Makuleke’s way of

life (Koro, 2005). However, due to the few tourists coming into the region, the community center is

largely unused.

Moreover, the Makuleke are experiencing the problems of improper distribution of benefits and

accountability of new government structures. Nearly 1 million rand from money received from

development projects has been used to build the chief a mansion and buy him a car. Lamson

Maluleke, an affiliate of the JMB, says that they community decided to use the money in this way to

honor their chief, and the chief did not refuse (Mail & Guardian, 2004). Although the community

seems to have unanimously decided to honor their chief in this way, other matters on how the money

coming into the community should be used have been disputed. There have been proposals to open

a library and books have been donated, but those proposing this project say that their ideas have not

been discussed by the MCPA, and that they consider the decision-making procedures of the

community to be rather undemocratic. The current chief claims that he has never heard of a request

for a library and says, “I am the CPA, so therefore I know” (Mail & Guardian, 2004).

From such a description of the current conditions in Ntlaveni, post-land claim, it is clear that

many of the problems of CBNRM do exist within the Makuleke community. On top of these

50

problems, the Makuleke must also deal with the fact that the life that they have regained through The

Agreement is one that is highly restrictive. Further restrictions may apply if the area is declared a

Ramsar site (de Villiers, 1999).52 Also, much of what the Makuleke have regained is dependent on

outside investors and tourism, two things over which they have little control.

The Makuleke had a very specific lifestyle that allowed them to live in an area that has extreme

summer heat, seasonal flooding, malaria, and animal diseases such as anthrax. However, the

Makuleke did not regain their former lifestyle and these environmental constraints prohibit them

from being able to prosper from their new relationship with the land. This new relationship as set

out in The Agreement has forced them to value the land only for the money that may come from it.

Ancestral connections, methods of community organization, and traditional economic independence

are forever lost. Josephine Maluleke, a member of the Makuleke, says, “I miss the mahogany trees,

the fish and figs and the elephant meat” (Mail & Guardian, 2004). The Pafuri may officially be

called the Makuleke Region, but is officially no longer home for the Makuleke.

Section V: Conclusion – “Munhu langa dya hloko ya mhangela”

This Tsonga proverb translates to “those who eat guineafowl heads move every now and again”

(Connor, undated; 16). This one phrase captures the history of the Makuleke since they have endured

two forced removals in less than 150 years. Interestingly, the first removal led the Makuleke to the

Pafuri, a place that became their home. The second removal led to a loss of the Makuleke’s

traditional lifestyle and relationship to their land. The 1996 land claim that was reported as a “win-

win” settlement for both the community and the parks was actually a huge loss for the Makuleke.

52 A Ramsar site is a wetland that has been declared internationally important according to the criteria of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is an “intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources” (Wetlands International; www.wetlands.org; The RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands, www.ramsar.org).

51

Through removal the Makuleke lost their traditional methods of subsistence, family organization,

political structures, economic self-sufficiency, and concept of home. Since all of these aspects of the

Makuleke’s lives were based on the geography of the Pafuri and their occupancy of that region, the

land claim did little to restore any of these losses. Additionally, the Makuleke’s future is based on

the adoption of a new relationship to, and way of valuing, the land that does not hold much promise

for the Makuleke due to the problems that arise from community-based natural resource

management projects and the unstable nature of ecotourism.

This paper has shown that what was lost in removal has not been regained in restitution by

comparing the former lifestyle of the Makuleke in the Pafuri to their life in Ntlaveni and the

restrictions of the land claim agreement. This paper also suggests why, even if the Makuleke

welcome and adopt a new relationship to the Pafuri based on its commercial value, there is no

guarantee that anything will actually be gained. The conditions and situations presented in this paper

serve to remind those looking at the Makuleke land restitution case that even in a settlement that was

hailed as a success, there are significant cultural and ecological losses that have been endured and

made permanent through the restitution process. This is important to recognize since the Makuleke

case may set a precedent for many cases involving national park land that have yet to be settled

through land restitution. Specifically, as of February, 2005 there were 37 claims involving one

quarter of the land in the Kruger National Park (Mail & Guardian, 2005). The outcome of the

Makuleke case will have a huge impact on both the status of the land within the KNP, the future of

conservation in South Africa, and the preservation of the traditional cultures of tribal communities.

In addition to explaining the reasons why the Makuleke settlement was not a success, it is

important to understand why this case was reported as one. I suggest that one reason why the

Makuleke land restitution case was reported as a success was because the new democratic

52

government needed a success story. The new government implemented many new policies and

reforms, but tangible benefits from these new programs were slow to be realized. The fact that the

Makuleke and SANP did come to an agreement was a huge accomplishment for the land restitution

process and sent positive signals to those watching the development of the new South Africa.

Whether The Agreement was more beneficial to one party over the other was seen as irrelevant.

Another reason for reports of success resulted from the timing of the land claim. During the

course of the Makuleke negotiations and settlement, the government was in the process of

implementing plans to create the GLTP. Because of the Pafuri’s location in the center of the GLTP,

it was crucial to retain the land as part of the national park system. Since the Pafuri is still a part of

the KNP, the government and conservationists surely consider the land claim a success.

Understanding these types of motives enables one to read between the headlines and discover that in

a settlement that at first glance seems to be a success for all sides, there is actually an immense

amount of loss on the part of the Makuleke that goes largely unnoticed.

I would like to take the opportunity here to insert my own observations regarding the situation of

the Makuleke based on my visit to haMakuya village in the Malamulele district, the same distract in

which the Makuleke are located. Throughout Malamulele, new rectangular brick houses are being

built by the government. I was told by Professor David Bunn that some of the elders in the

communities in Malamulele refuse to live in these new homes because traditional houses are

circular.53

During my stay in haMakuya I saw that parts of the villages now have electricity and some parts

are even solar powered. Drop toilets have also been built. These are all changes that have occurred

since 1994. However, even though there are obvious physical changes in the landscape, the people I

spoke with in haMakuya said that they have not seen any changes in the past decade. This may 53 See Appendix A pp. 58 for pictures of a traditional home and a new government-built home.

53

suggest that this sort of development is not important to them and that how much infrastructure there

is in the village is not a measure of how valuable the land is to them. The people I stayed with still

got up at dawn and went to bed at sundown, despite having solar powered lights on the inside and

outside of their homes. This signifies that the development projects that will be initiated by the

earnings from the ecotourism projects in the Makuleke village may be of little importance to the

Makuleke community, specifically the older generations.

HaMakuya village is also developing ecotourism in the area including bike trails and a museum

of the history of the Makuya people. The fact that the Makuleke and the Makuya people are

developing ecotourism ventures so close to one another at the same time supports the concern

expressed earlier that the ecotourism market is overcrowded. Clearly, there is competition among

ecotourism projects in the area, but the Makuleke may have the advantage since theirs is actually

inside Kruger, the most well-known park in South Africa.

After talking with people in the haMakuya village, I learned that they are dealing with high rates

of unemployment, teen pregnancy, and a growing population of AIDS victims. Ecotourism may

create jobs to alleviate the high levels of unemployment. However, the two other problems, as they

were explained to me, resulted from a loss of traditional values and the lifestyle lived in relocation.

These problems may be heightened as more people are brought into the village through development

projects as was suggested in Section III. My observations of haMakuya demonstrate that many of

the hypothetical problems that I argue the Makuleke will face in the future, are realities for the

Makuya people.

While I have provided a thorough picture of the lives that the Makuleke led in the Pafuri and

Ntlaveni, and the future they might have resulting from the land claim, there are many questions left

unanswered. Some of these can only be answered through interviews with the Makuleke, such as the

54

question of whether the community is content with the land claim settlement. While I have shown

why the Makuleke lost out in the land claim, I was not able to find any scholarly evidence that says

whether the Makuleke are satisfied or dissatisfied with the agreement. I would ask the Makuleke

whether or not they would move back to the Pafuri and resume their traditional lifestyle if they were

given the chance. Based on historical evidence and promises of future benefits, you could argue

either side, but I have not been able to find documentation of the Makuleke’s own answers to these

questions.

There are also some questions that cannot be answered yet because not enough time has elapsed.

For instance, in a few years I would investigate how much the Makuleke have received from their

ecotourism endeavors in tangible benefits. I would also ask them, again, if they were given the

chance, would they move back to the Pafuri and resume their old way of life? Asking these two

questions would suggest one way or the other if the land claim was perceived to be successful by the

Makuleke. If the community has gained economically, but they still want to return to the Pafuri,

then the settlement was not an appropriate compromise and should not be imitated in other land

claims. If they have benefited economically and do not want to move back, then The Agreement

may actually have “harmonis[ed] social justice and conservation” and can be considered a model for

other settlements (Steenkamp, 1998). Over time it would also be interesting to see how the GLTP

influences the Makulekes’ attitudes towards conservation and how attitudes of the Makuleke change

from generation to generation regarding the Pafuri as the Makuleke’s home.

The case of the Makuleke land restitution is not one that can be easily categorized as a success or

a failure. However, one can see that what was gained in the settlement does not replace what the

Makuleke lost in removal. The traditional way of life that was dependent on the location of

residence was lost. It was a life that could persevere through harsh climatic conditions and provide

55

the Makuleke with a sense of unregulated freedom and self-reliance. What might be gained is a way

of life that is dependent on economic earnings. It will be a life that is tightly controlled by outsiders

to the community, whether they are members of SANP or tourists from abroad who decide to visit,

or not to visit, the Makuleke region. Life for the Makuleke will never be what it used to be before

removal. It is ironic that the Makuleke never had a legal title to their land, but a title is all that they

“reclaimed” in the process of restitution.

56

Appendix A:

Pictures from the Pafuri and Malamulele District

Taken by Julia Friedman

March, 2005

57

58

59

60

61

Works Cited

Adams, W.M., and David Hulme. Conservation and communities: changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation. Community Conservation Research in Africa, Paper no. 4. United Kingdom: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, 1998. Alexander, Jocelyn, and JoAnn McGregor. “Wildlife and Politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe.” Development and Change 31 (2000): 605-627. Beinart, William. “Introduction: The Politics of Colonial Conservation.” Journal of Southern African Studies 15.2 (1989): 143-162. Brown, Marj, and Justin Rasmus, and Rosalie Kingwill, and Colin Murray, and Monty Roodt. Land Restitution in South Africa: A Long Way Home. Cape Town: Idasa, 1998. Carruthers, Jane. Kruger National Park: a social and political history.

Pietermaritzburg : University of Natal Press, 1995. Cooper, Keith. “A Real ‘Win-Win’ Situation – The community and conservation are both winners in an historic agreement.” African Wildlife. 52.4 (1998): 15 May 2005. <http://www.ref.org.za/wildlifearticles/africanwildlife/1998/julaugust_editorial.html>. Connor, Teresa. “Crooks, Commuters and Chiefs: Perceptions of Place in a Borderzone in Pafuri, Gaza Province, Mozambique.” CIBR Working Papers in Border Studies CIBR/WP02-1. Rhodes University, undated. Cousins, Tessa, and Donna Hornby. Leaping the fissures: bridging the gap between paper and real practice in setting up common property institutions in land reform in South Africa. Land Reform and agrarian change in southern Africa: an occasional paper series no. 19. Cape Town, South Africa: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government, University of the Western Cape, 2002. De Villiers, Bertus. Claims and National Parks – The Makuleke Experience. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, 1999. Dieke, P.U.C.. “Kenya and South Africa.” The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. Ed. David B. Weaver. United Kingdom: CAB International, 2001. 89-105. Godwin, Peter. “Without Borders: Uniting Africa’s Wildlife Reserves.” National Geographic 200.3 (2001): 2-29.

62

Harries, Patrick. “A Forgotten Corner of the Transvaal’: Reconstructing the History of a Relocated Community through Oral Testimony and Song.” Class, Community and Conflict. Ed. Belinda Bozzoli. Johannesburg, South Africa: Raven Press 1987. 93- 134. Harries, Patrick. “Exclusion Classification and Internal Colonialism: The Emergence of Ethnicity Among the Tsonga-Speakers of South Africa.” The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. Ed. Leroy Vail. London: James Currey, Ltd 1989. 82-117. Hasler, Richard. Ecotourism: a comparative analysis of findings from a Kenya, Zimbabwe and South Africa. CASS Occasional Paper-NRM Series. Harare: Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, 1996. Hughes, David McDermott. “Cadastral Politics: The Making of Community-Based resources Management in Zimbabwe and Mozambique.” Development and Change 32 (2001): 741 – 768. “Hunt is off in Kruger.” Mail & Guardian Online. 1 September 2003. Mail & Guardian. 3 April 2005. <www.archive.mg.ca.za>. International Ecotourism Society, The. 19 April 2005. The International Ecotourism Society. <http://www.ecotourism.org/index2.php?home>. Junod, Henri A. The Life of a South Africa tribe. London : Macmillan, 1927. Kamauro, Ole. “Ecotourism: Suicide or Development?” Voices from Africa. Number 6: Sustainable Development Part 2, 1996. United National Non- Governmental Liaison Service. 19 April 2005.

<http://www.unsystem.org/ngls/documents/publications.en/voices.africa/number6/vfa6.08.htm>.

Koch, Eddie. Reality or rhetoric?: ecotourism and rural reconstruction in South Africa. UNRISD Discussion Paper 54. Geneva, Switzerland: United Naitonal Research Institute for Social Development, 1994. Koro, Emmanuel. “New Development Model Spurs Growth in South African Rural Community.” 3 March 2005. World Resources Institute March. 17 May 2005. <http://allafrica.com/stories/200503031110.html>. “Land claims ‘could kill Kruger.” Mail & Guardian Online. 18 February 2005. Mail & Guardian. 3 April 2005. <www.archive.mg.co.za>. Mahony, Karin and van Zyl, Jurgens. “The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: three case studies in South Africa.” Development Southern Africa 19.1 (2002): 83 – 103.

63

Moon, Michael. “A turning point for national parks.” Business Day 21 June 2001: Online. 3 April 2005 <http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/TarkArticle.aspx?ID=417447>. “Paradise regained.” Mail & Guardian Online. 14 December 2004. Mail & Guardian. 3 April 2005. <www.archive.mg.co.za>. Pimbert, Michel P, and Jules N. Pretty. Parks, people and professionals: putting ‘participation’ into protected area management. UNRISD Discussion Paper 57. Geneva, Switzerland: United National Research Institute for Social Development, 1995. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. . 1996-2005 Convention on Wetlands. 16 May 2005. <www.ramsar.org>. Ramsar Sites Information Service. 9 May 2005. Wetlands International. 16 May 2005 <http://www.wetlands.org/RSDB/Default.htm>. Ramutsindela, Maano. “Land reform in South Africa’s national parks: a catalyst for the human-nature nexus.” Land Use Policy 20 (2003): 41-49. Ramutsindela, Maano. “The perfect way to ending a painful past? Makuleke land deal in South Africa.” Geoforum 33 (2002): 15 – 24. Reid, Donald G. “Defining Ecotourism.” Ecotourism Development in Eastern and Southern Africa. Ed. Donald G. Reid. Canada: Weaver Press, 1999. 29-38. Reid, Hannah. “Contractual national parks and the Makuleke community.” Human Ecology 29.2 (2001): 135 – 155. Sas-Rolfes, Michael ’t. The Kruger National Park: a heritage for all South Africans? Johannesburg, South Africa: The Africa Resources Trust, 1996. South African National Parks. May 2005. South African National Parks. 19 April 2005. <http://www.sanparks.org/>. Steenkamp, Conrad. “The Makuleke Land Claim Signing Ceremony; Harmonising Social Justice and Conservation.” African Wild Life (1998): 8-9. Tapela, B.N., and P.H. Omara-Ojunu. “Towards bridging the gap between wildlife conservation and rural development in post-apartheid South Africa: the case of the Makuleke Community and the Kruger National Park.” South African Geographical Journal 81.3 (1999): 148 – 155.

64

Turner, Robin L. “Communities, Conservation, and Tourism-based Development: Can community-based nature tourism live up to its promise?” Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 7.3-4 (2004): 161-182. Twyman, Chasca. “Rethinking community resource management: managing resources or managing people in western Botswana?” Third World Quarterly, vol. 19 no. 4, pp745 – 770, 1998. Twyman, Chasca. “Livelihood Opportunity and Diversity in Kalahari Wildlife Management Areas, Botswana: Rethinking Community Resource Management.” Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 26 no. 4. December 2000. Virtanen, Pekka. “Local Management of Global Values: Community-Based Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe and Zambia.” Society and Natural Resources 16 (2003): 179 – 190. Worden, Nigel. The Making of a Modern South Africa: conquest, segregation, and apartheid. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. World Travel & Tourism Council. “South Africa: The Impact of Travel & Tourism on Jobs and the Economy.” World Tourism & Travel Council. 18 April 2005 <http://www.wttc.org/publications/pdf/06South%20Africa.pdf>.