Land and Conflict in the Madimbo Corridor. Seminar presented to the Transboundary Protected Areas Research Initiative, 30 th September 2004 . Madimbo Corridor. 29 000 hectare strip of land alongside the Limpopo The Corridor semi-arid, limited water resources, poor soils
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Land and Conflict in the Madimbo Corridor
Seminar presented to the Transboundary Protected Areas Research Initiative, 30th September 2004
3 Communities were forcibly removed from the Corridor and surrounding areas
The Makuleke settle land claim in 1998
The Gumbu and Mutele merge land claim in the same year
Corridor is officially restituted in August 2004. No Settlement Agreement to date.
Illegally use resources in the Corridor.
Protest, symbolically ‘invade’ the Corridor.
Invite international NGO to campaign on their behalf.
Department of Defence
Initially refuse to negotiate
Offer a progression of comprises in order to retain use of the land
Most land use plans envisage a mixture of options
Has support of Community Property Association
Interest in diamonds, nickel and graphite
Indications that even if suitable mineral deposits do exist that mining is neither sustainable nor economically viable.
Mining practices could damage environment in the Corridor and the Makuleke region
Community determined to get access to grazing in the Corridor
Corridor is vulnerable to over-grazing
Relocation of electric fence to the Limpopo may interfere with wildlife migration.
Livestock within the Corridor may increase conflict between Community and wildlife
Viability of agriculture uncertain, mostly poor soil
Use of herbicides by the SANDF might prevent commercial agriculture
Irrigation schemes from the Limpopo could affect wetlands and pans in the GLTP
Agriculture in the Corridor likely to heighten existing conflict with wildlife
Largely opposed by the Community
Identified as the most sustainable land use option
Could be integrated with other land use options
The future of the Corridor depends on the Settlement Agreement currently being negotiated by the Land Claims Commission and the Department of Defence AND whether it will be accepted by the Claimants
Lack of transparency in current negotiations excludes interested parties
Integrated land-use planning may permit the Corridor to remain part of wider conservation development plans.