Chapter 4 Learning from experience: An overview of the evidence: Reviewing Restitution, LRAD and Commonage from a SIS perspective

3 Restitution 3.9 Project support interventions 3.9.1 Project summaries 3.9.1 Khomani San, Northern Cape

Background information In 1995, the Kruiper Family, a clan of the Kalahari San Bushmen, lodged a claim for land rights lost when they were removed from the Kalahari Gemsbok Park in 1931. In 1996, the claim was declared valid and a complex process of negotiations followed. In 1998, after DLA intervention, the original claimants agreed to the group of claimants being expanded to include other San families. The negotiations towards settlement of the claim were complicated by the fact that the neighbouring Mier community lodged a partially overlapping land claim. Negotiations took place between the San, Mier and South African National Parks (SANParks) and were concluded on 21 March 1999 with six farms totalling 40 000ha being transferred to the San. An amount of money was also allocated to the San for the acquisition of communal land at Welkom. In addition, the San were assigned rights to the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, which were to be negotiated and defined at a later stage. The entire claim was valued at R15 million, and committed the parties to a further process to negotiate the details of the second half of the claim, the rights in respect of the park. In August 2002, the !Ae!Hai Kalahari Heritage Park Agreement was signed at Twee Rivieren. There has been substantial conflict in the community since then and this eventually resulted in the DLA taking over the administration of the affairs of the community through a court order in terms of the CPA Act. Although the land was under DLA administration, no alternative management structure or system was introduced and it is only in 2007 that a person has been appointed by the community. SDC intervention and key strategic issues The community had been promised that a land or farm manager would be appointed for many years, but this only took place in 2007. SDC was asked to work with BTC to clarify the role of this manager and to work with the RLCC to facilitate the appointment of this person. SDC was part of the group which appointed the manager. Key spatial and functional integration issues There is an active project steering committee with a spread of departments, an NGO and the CPA. The municipality and the PLRO frequently do not attend. Recognising the extent of management needs on the land, the CPA, the RLCC and other parties originally agreed in 2002 to appoint a farm manager to ensure good land management – a move away from a volunteer committee. BTC made an initial amount available for this. The RLCC or DLA should be paying for this because the CPA is under administration, but it has only recently appointed a manager. There is also a heritage park agreement with SANParks and the Mier community. Agreements with other players have been entered into, but because the project is under administration and the approval of the RLCC was not obtained, the status of these agreements is unclear. Key social, capacity and institutional development issues At the time of the first agreement, the CPA had 297 registered members. In addition to electing an executive committee under the chairpersonship of Petrus Vaalbooi, the first CPA constitution also appointed Dawid Kruiper as traditional leader. 11 The term of the first CPA executive ended in April 2001. An audit initiated by the DLA found them guilty of gross mismanagement of funds. Although the audit recommended criminal charges, this option was not pursued. A new CPA executive committee under the chairpersonship of Magrieta Eiman was elected in July 2001. This committee's term of office also ended controversially during 2002 with the DLA having to step in to prevent the sale of the farm Erin to cover debts incurred by executive members. DLA lodged an application to the High Court to place the !Khomani CPA under its administration. The application was not opposed and was granted in November 2002. A new executive committee was elected in July 2003 under the chairpersonship of Gert Bock. This executive committee is under the administration of the DLA and therefore does not have the normal powers of such a body in terms of the CPA Act. The CPA's constitution clearly specifies the rights of members in respect of agriculture, residence, collecting and hunting. There is limited capacity in the CPA to take up its administration responsibilities once these are returned, and no time frame has been set for ending the period of external administration. The CPA's first constitution reserved 50% of the land for traditional activities; the new constitution divided the land up into wards administered by the CPA. There is some pressure to separate the original ‘traditional' group from the new, urbanised group, but the majority resist this, and this gives rise to some conflict. While the constitution is reasonably clear on the substantive rights that individuals may have, the practice has been that land users disregard these stipulations and the committee has been powerless to address the matter. It remains to be seen whether the introduction of the farm manager will have any effect on this regime. Lease fees are seldom paid by the farmers who are using the land. There has been no skills audit or training plan developed by or for the community. Key NRM and human settlement issues The housing settlement has been delayed as a result of the Department of Housing not allocating funds for yet another two years. Servicing the sites will be necessary before housing can be provided. Members live in various settlements scattered over the land, and there is a lack of clarity about township establishment. Part of the land is a protected area under SANParks, which is monitoring the use of the land and the sustainability of land use practices. Elsewhere, despite agreements, there is overgrazing, and the CPA's ability to intervene is limited. Water is supplied through a pumping system managed by the CPA, but the farmers refuse to pay for the electricity needed to operate the system. Key livelihood and enterprise issues A key problem is that there are a number of plans for enterprise development but these have not been consolidated into a single, integrated development plan. There are various tourism joint ventures with SANParks. Individual farmers have access to land and carry out extensive grazing. There are specifically assigned camps for grazing, and a local NGO, FarmAfrica, has developed a sheep bank through which a farmer is able to start a flock of sheep. There is also an agreement with SANParks that they will contribute a certain amount to the community on an annual basis as part of the joint ownership of the park.