Spelling suggestions: "subject:"makuleke"" "subject:"maluleke""
1 |
Tourism-led development in South Africa: a case study of the Makuleke partnership with Wilderness SafarisShehab, May 29 February 2012 (has links)
PH.D., Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, 2011 / Through
a
case
study
of
the
relationship
between
the
rural
Makuleke
community
and
the
regional
tourism
operator
Wilderness
Safaris,
this
thesis
examines
the
impact
of
tourism
partnerships
on
community
development
in
post-‐
apartheid
South
Africa.
The
study
considers
the
tourism
component
of
the
‘Makuleke
model’,
a
concept
used
frequently
in
academic
and
popular
literature
to
refer
to
the
community’s
landmark
land
restitution
case
involving
the
Kruger
National
Park
(KNP).
Thirty
years
after
experiencing
a
forced
removal
by
the
apartheid
regime,
the
Makuleke
community
in
1998
was
able
to
regain
their
lost
land
(the
Pafuri
area
of
Kruger
National
Park)
and
benefit
from
it
through
conservation
and
tourism.
The
Makuleke
have
partnered
with
three
tourism
operators,
their
main
concessionaire
being
Wilderness
Safaris.
Their
contractual
agreement
obliges
the
tourism
company
to
pay
lease
fees
to
the
Makuleke
Communal
Property
Association
(CPA)
and
to
employ
Makuleke
residents.
To
further
community
development,
Wilderness
Safaris
established
a
joint
venture
with
the
Makuleke
CPA,
and
also
runs
an
environmental
education
programme
for
children.
Evidence
for
this
thesis
was
collected
over
a
two
and
a
half
year
period
(from
May
2007
to
December
2009)
using
three
methodological
approaches:
archival
research,
participant
observation
and
semi-‐structured,
open-‐ended
interviews.
In
analysing
the
Makuleke
CPA-‐Wilderness
Safaris
partnership,
findings
reveal
that
ten
years
after
the
land
claim,
the
commended
‘Makuleke
model’
is
neither
as
conceptually
coherent
nor
as
practically
successful
as
is
commonly
supposed.
I
argue
that
although
the
model
denotes
success,
a
closer
scrutiny
of
its
foundations,
assumptions
and
context
expose
inherent
forces
and
practices
that
hinder
its
long-‐
term
effective
implementation.
Influenced
by
post-‐development
theory,
I
question
perceptions
of equality in
benefit
distribution,
critique
the
juxtaposition
of
traditional
with
modern
values,
and
examine
contestations
over
power
within
the
Makuleke
community.
I
demonstrate
how
these
features
undermine
the
potential
for
the
genuine
transformation
and
broad-‐based
social
upliftment
that
tourism-‐led
development
purposes
to
achieve
at
Makuleke.
My
research
findings
confirm
post-‐development
theoretical
propositions
that
criticise
the
contradictions
in
orthodox
development
procedures
and
call
for
a
rethinking
of
the
premises
upon
which
approaches
to community upliftment through tourism are generally founded.
|
2 |
Community Ltd. and the spirit of ethno-enterprise : exploring cultural branding and incorporation among the MakulekeVan Zyl, Izak Jakobus 03 1900 (has links)
Thesis (MA (Sociology and Social Anthropology))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In this thesis, I examine the case study of the Makuleke in Limpopo province. This community
entered the public spotlight when it regained its former homeland in the Kruger National Park. It
currently partakes in an extensive programme on ‘responsible tourism’ via commercial
expansion. This concession allows (or is supposed to allow) for increased community
development and economic growth in the Makuleke region. The community has become more
business-like in their approach to this concession. This process is encapsulated by the
formalisation of the land management structures in what I refer to as Makuleke Inc. Makuleke
Inc. has at its heart a ‘cultural business’, of which an ‘authentic Makuleke’ is presented and
traded. I detail the production of unique, bona fide culture through branding (that is, commercial
representation). This practice contributes to new or different configurations of identity and
collective belonging. “ / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In hierdie navorsingstuk behartig ek die gevallestudie van die Makuleke in Limpopo. Hierdie
gemeenskap het die publieke oog betree nadat sy tuisland in die Kruger Nasionale Wildtuin
teruggewen is. Tans is dit betrokke by ‘n omvattende program in ‘verantwoordelike toerisme’
deur middel van kommersiële ontwikkeling. Hierdie konsessie dra by (of is veronderstel om by
te dra) tot verhoogde gemeenskaps- en ekonomiese groei in die Makuleke omgewing. Die
gemeenskap se benadering tot genoemde toegewing is besigheids-georiënteerd. Hierdie proses
word gekenmerk deur die formalisering van die grond-beheerstrukture deur wat ek noem
Makuleke Inc. (ingelyf). Makuleke Inc. is as’t ware ‘n ‘kulturele onderneming’, waar ‘n ‘egte
Makuleke’ voorgestel en verhandel word. Ek beskryf die produksie van ‘n unieke, egte kultuur
deur die gebruik van handelsmerke (dit is, kommersiële voorstelling). Hierdie proses dra by tot
nuwe of ander gestaltes van identiteit en gemeenskaplikheid.
|
3 |
The impact of institutions of governance on communities’ livelihoods and sustainable conservation in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP): the study of Makuleke and Sengwe communitiesMuzeza, Darlington January 2013 (has links)
Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Technology in Environmental Health
In the Faculty of Applied Sciences
Department of Environmental and Occupational Studies
At
Cape Peninsula University of Technology, 2013 / Southern Africa region is experiencing a multiplicity of transfrontier conservation projects, which simply put in its metaphorical name ‘Peace Parks’. The rapid growth of transfrontier conservation areas present the fulfilment of a vision of a ‘boundless’ and ‘borderless’ Southern Africa, straddling geo-political boundaries of once colonially imposed cartography of sovereign statism. The ecological amalgamation of these vast conservation areas are underpinned by various social, political, ecological and economic fundamentals envisioned by governments in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region together with conservation partners to transform the life of people and enhance sustainable management of natural resources. The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP) that involves Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, was born out of this vision. Equally so, from its conceptualisation, the GLTP sought to achieve sustainable biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, promote economic growth, support rural development, be a building block for peace and regional economic integration. The planners also criticized inappropriate geo-political boundaries imposed by colonialism, which historically separated biospheres and the people of identical culture. The artificiality of boundaries, therefore, obstructed cultural links of communities and restricted wildlife migration as well. This affected natural dispersion of fugitive wildlife. Thus, the GLTP’s ambitious conservation plan address these issues. In so doing, the GLTP governance architecture as it stands today produced multi-level governance institutions whose approaches were found in this study to be at variance with local people’s livelihood expectations and conservation processes. It is in this view that this research sought to examine the impact of governance institutions on communities’ livelihoods and sustainable conservation of natural resources in the GLTP. Using various methods of empirical research such as interviews, household questionnaires, focus group discussions (including using the Schutte Scale), field observations and secondary data analysis, the researcher found that the current GLTP institutional configurations and its resource governance philosophy are at variance with local natural resource governance processes, and contradict local resource needs. Thus, there is inherent mistrust and conflict over skewed natural resource benefits. Most of them benefits accrue to government entities and the private companies that invested in tourism. Furthermore, it was found that the GLTP administrative governance architecture from the onset, presented complex competing environmental interests among conservation stakeholders against those of communities. The GLTP resource governance as it stands, is conspicuously not inclusive with the local communities playing a minimal role to leverage on the abundant natural resource for to support local livelihoods. One thing that came out clearly from the research is that they are not included to participate in conservation of the GLTP natural resources. This study therefore argues that there is potential to jeopardize prospects for the GLTP to achieve its objectives of sustainable conservation, promoting rural development and reduction of rural poverty. Empirically, it was also confirmed that the GLTP is at cross-purpose with the expectations of the communities. Local participation in sustainable conservation is consequentially subdued and weak. Perhaps, if the lofty aims of the GLTP are to be achieved, this study noted that the local people prefer the natural resources governance, conservation decision-making processes and conservation stakeholder relationships to be fair and acceptable to a cross-section of stakeholders. This includes ascertaining broad participation of the local people in conservation and environmental decision-making as crucial ingredients in guaranteeing local livelihoods and motivating communities to support conservation initiatives through use of wildlife proceeds for the development of communities. In addition, a concern was raised that powerful state agencies and conservation organisations are at the fore in defining institutional processes and resource governance systems with no regard to the local institutions. Thus, the envisaged win-win situation in conservation to transform rural communities is far from being realised. The GLTP governance structure forecloses the local people from participation. Consequently, local conservation morale and collaboration has adversely diminished, with overt preponderance of multi-level institutional processes over local processes in terms of natural resource management. This has tended to marginalise local institutions and prevent the local people from complementing conservation efforts. Manifestly, there is deep-seated livelihood insecurity, local environmental conservation marginalisation. This led the study to question the sustainability of the GLTP considering its exclusionary governance approach when dealing with communities.
Another major concern is that planning of eco-tourism projects are paternalistically government led processes and exclusively private sector driven than being community oriented. Concerns arise that the much-lauded and publicized promise of eco-tourism benefits to the communities, have not materialised in the last ten years since the GLTP establishment in 2002. This has led local communities to question the GLTP’s economic benefits and impact on their lives. Instead of working with communities as equal stakeholders, the GLTP governance architecture has isolated them from playing an effective collaborative role in conservation and reaping of benefits.
It was observed that the attendant GLTP governance trajectories reflect a narrow web of contesting conservation interests at variance with communities’ expectations. The heavy-handed administrative role of multi-level institutions and that of conservation agencies, have therefore, not fostered synergies for local residents’ participation in the management of natural resources. The elusiveness of the GLTP governance therefore puts it far from ensuring that
the local people are part of conservation processes, hence falling short of capturing local contributions and local buy-in. Such governance injunctions complicate guaranteeing equal opportunity of resource access and equity, and it is less enabling for communities to hold together, cooperate and collaborate in conservation. Perhaps, an ideal situation would be to have a resource governance system that prevents the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and at the same time preventing the ‘tragedy of the local common man’. In this regard, this research made proposal in chapter 8, suggesting a synergised governance, decision-making and an a cocktail of an amalgam economic framework that can be adopted to solve the problems identified. These frameworks enable local people’s resource rights to be realised and the fusion of local expectations for conservation sustainability. This study aimed at examining the GLTP governance process impact on Makuleke and Sengwe communities in terms of their livelihoods, local participation in natural resource conservation and participation in natural resource decision-making process in the governance of the GLTP.
|
Page generated in 0.0373 seconds