This is a long but recent report, the following is pertinent to Kruger, and once again refutes Dr M's scaremongering that Kruger can be laid waste by land claims at any moment...
The settlement framework for claims in the Kruger National Park was also elaborated upon. In December 2008 SANParks and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism informed Cabinet that communities were unhappy with their restricted titles in the Kruger National Park. Cabinet approved that only equitable redress would be the only means of settling land claims within the Kruger National Park. One of the principles guiding the settlement of claims in the Kruger National Park was that a beneficiation scheme had to form part of the equitable redress model in order to ensure fair and equitable compensation for the claimants. The beneficiation should be tangible, realistic and optimal. The Department of Environmental Affairs had conducted a scoping exercise to inform a beneficiation scheme that could be implemented in the Kruger National Park. Challenges attached to claims in the Kruger National Park were that some communities had engaged legal representatives to represent them in their claim for restoration of ownership rights even if there would be restrictions. When cabinet had approved that only equitable redress would be available to settle claims in the Kruger National Park it noted that the Commission was required by section 29(4) of the Restitution Land Rights Act to provide legal representation at its expense to assist claimant communities to refer their claims to court. The way forward for claims in the Kruger National Park was that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, the Department of Environmental Affairs and SANParks were developing a framework for the settlement of each claim to be discussed with claimant communities. Outstanding restitution processes were also being finalised and a task team had been set up to finalise claims in the Kruger National Park.
In conclusion the issue of land claims with tourism potential was touched on. The National Department of Tourism had requested of the Land Claims Commission to forward to them land claims that had tourism potential. It was a difficult task for the Commission as there were over 6000 land claims. The Commission did take into consideration strategies that the National Department of Tourism had developed on domestic tourism. A task team comprising of relevant departments had been established in order to share information and to assist one another. The Commission had information regarding property descriptions and land uses. On claims that had been settled a long while ago, unfortunately not all information had been captured. Unless one physically went to a property to check it was difficult to verify what was there. The Commission intended to do a land audit. The audit would take about six months to complete and thereafter the Commission would be in a better position to know if land had tourism potential. Land claims had been made at tourist attractions like Sun City and the Fish River Sun.
Having just returned from oversight visits to the Free State and KwaZulu-Natal the Members felt that the Land Claims Commission needed to model co-management agreements where they worked well. It was felt that even though communities at Kruger National Park who had land claims were given a portion of the gate takings it did not necessarily mean that other communities at other national parks would be satisfied with the shares that they would receive since all parks were not as popular tourist attractions as the Kruger National Park. The Commission was asked whether it was aware that SANParks chose not to pay the Tourism Marketing South Africa (TOMSA) levy and had said that it would rather invest the funds in communities. The Committee raised the issue that land claimants felt that the Land Claims Commission took long to process land claims applications.
The underlined part is NOT common knowledge!
