Financial Aspects

The PPF has three methods to raise money: On the one hand, it charges those who want to be members of the Club 21or the Peace Parks Club, whose president was until his death Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a very high membership fee; on the other hand, it collects donations from bi- and multinational aid organisations and furthermore, support from individuals, companies, trusts and foundations. (cf. PPF 1998: 12)

To ensure a financially stable basis for the PPF, Anton Rupert, Nelson Mandela and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands established the Club 21. This club comprises 21 people and institutions to who peacekeeping through the means of conservation is a concern. High donations of the members provide the means to keep the foundation afloat. Furthermore, the Club 21 acts as advisory board to the PPF.¹⁴ The Peace Parks Club is an international donor club whose members support the objectives of the foundation and are scattered throughout the world. Pierette Schlettwein from Switzerland acts as the club’s president. Individual membership fees for a ten-year period range from $ 5 000 to $ 6 000. Corporate memberships cost between $ 50 000 and $ 60 000. To optimise the fundraising potential special tax- privileged structures were established in the USA, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany. (cf. PPF 2003 b: 12)

14 Members of the Club 21: Prinz Bernhard of the Netherlands, ABSA Bank, Cartier, Daimler Chrysler, De Beers, Deutsche Bank, Mr Paul Fentener van Vlissingen, Donald Gordon Foundation, Dr HL Hoffmann, Kumba Ressources, Novamedia, Philips, Remgro, Richemont, De Rothschild Foundation, Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation, Rupert Family Foundation, Schlettwein Family Trust, Total, Venfin, Vodafone Group. (cf. PPF 2003 b: 1)

4.4. “Peace Parks - The Global Solution?!” Perspectives and Critique

The much celebrated success of the already established Transfrontier Parks and the development of the Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) prompted the ministers of tourism of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to commission a feasibility study on potential and already existing Peace Parks in the SADC region, which was finalised in 2002. The study shows 22 potential or existing TFCAs, covering app. 46% of the already protected areas in the region. 14 of these were picked out by the PPF as potential TFCAs in the SADC region and for ten of them international agreements could already be reached. If all potential 14 TFCAs were realised, the total area of TFCAs in the SADC region would reach around 75 million hectares. This equals approximately the size of Germany, Portugal and Italy combined. An IUCN study shows that there are 188 potential TFCAs worldwide, affecting 112 countries. (cf. peaceparks 2008 i) Africa and in particular Southern Africa have become a driving force behind the “Peace Park” concept. Without any doubt it is primarily the PPF and its global network which drives the “globalisation of the idea” forward.

The “Southern Africa Initiative of German Business” – SAFRI, supports both, the Peace Park efforts and the PPF. In one of their publication, SAFRI published a map of the “Big Dream”, an area of adjacent sanctuaries from Lake Victoria to South Africa. (cf. SAFRI 2002: 5 et seq.) Maps and their effects on viewers are of essential importance in connection with TFCAs. For those people with a background in conservation or tourism, maps like the SAFRI one, are a dream that needs to be pursued. Kozette Myburgh, an anthropologist at the University of Stellenbosch/ South Africa, who has studied the |Ai-|Ais/ Richtersveld Transfrontier Park in much detail, is convinced of the positive effects of Peace Parks and believes, that “the only real product Africa can offer is wildlife and tourism“. (Conversation Myburgh 2005) The PPF plays a central and very professional role in drawing up maps needed for the establishment of TFCAs. In this context, Maano Ramutsindela from the University of Cape Town thinks that this monopoly of the PPF should be watched critically.

”The Peace Parks Foundation is involved in mapping. You go to all the government departments and if you find maps of Peace Parks they are produced by PPF”. (Interview Ramutsindela 2005) Also Conrad Steenkamp, director of the Protected Areas Research Initiative (TPARI), a research institution in Johannesburg financed by the IUCN, reckons, that the PPF in a way conducts a “propaganda cartography” when it comes to the effect its maps

(ill. 3: TFCAs in Southern Africa. From: SAFRI 2002: 53)

This show itself on maps, where TFCAs are always depicted as dark-green areas, no matter if the TFCA contains a desert or a river, whereas the “rest of Africa” is depicted in a pale brown. This colour pattern is clearly visible on the SAFRI-map as well. This is an expression of the fact that the TFCA concept is doomed to success. (Conversation Steenkamp 2005) Corresponding to the objectives of TFCAs, the Promotion of a Culture of Peace, the Socioeconomic Development and the Conservation of Biodiversity, TFCAs clearly show positive effects in some areas. The conservation and increased protection of biodiversity as well as the necessary positive co-operation between countries needed for establishing TFCAs and the economic effects of tourism are important advantages, which Peace Parks bring about.

One basic area, often referred to in this context and used as an important aspect in different concepts to show the effects and objectives, concerns the local population. I will return to this topic in more detail (see chapter 7), nevertheless, I want to put some critical considerations in connection with TFCAs and the local community on record already now. Many argue that in the context of Peace Parks not enough is done on the level of the local population. Conrad Steenkamp criticises that the concept of Peace Parks is only discussed on a “higher level“ and the local population is not enough involved in the conventionalisation as well as implementation of TFCAs. (Conversation Steenkamp 2005) Critics interpret the Peace Park model as a benevolent concept which is an excuse for an internal redistribution and is based on an equally damaging policy of expropriation of indigenous groups and entry restrictions.

Seen from this point of view there is not much difference between the old way of land and resource management in the name of nature protection and the new methods of centralisation of resources or “trans-nationalisation” in the interest of two or more countries. Both methods tend to dispossess the local communities of the natural resources of the country they have always been indwelling and revoke their rights. (cf. Zips/ Zips-Mairitsch 2007: 40) Even in the PPF definition of Peace Parks (see p.33) the local population is not explicitly mentioned.

The already quoted excerpt of the interview with Melissa de Kock, project co-ordinator at the PPF, on the pacifying aspects of Peace Parks clearly voices, that peaceful coexistence between man and nature is more important than peace among humans.

“Because Transfrontier Conservation will stimulate peace between men and nature, nature and nature and…

ah… yes, men and nature, nature and nature and ...ah… what was it… men and men. So that´s the concept of Peace Parks.“ (Interview De Kock 2005)

Melissa de Kock also points out that it is not the task of PPF to foster Community Involvement or Community Development and that it is essential to distinguish between the concept “Peace Park” and the PPF’s field of activity.

“Bear in mind that there is a difference between the PPF and Peace Parks. TFCA is a Peace Park, is developed by a variety of people. PPF works on particular sites. The aim of transfrontier conservation is certainly to empower communities, it´s by biodiversity conservation, increasing tourism which will bring job creation.

Economic upliftment for the whole region. And then the governments deal with the community issues but PPF, we are about to assist the governments with social assessments for the area at their request. But we don´t go, we don´t go and interact with the communities. Our work is completely guided by government so we would need the government to say. The community matters are at a national thing. So we, the PPF facilitates, we don´t implement.” (Interview De Kock 2005)

The author of “African Dreams of Cohesion”, a critical survey of the PPF’s role in developing TFCAs in Southern Africa, also argues that the PPF does not care for a strengthening of the cohesion between TFCAs and local population. In fact, this cohesion is visible on the level of the elite. In this context the history of the PPF, the personal history of Anton Rupert and his Broederbond membership are crucial.¹⁵ In their comment the authors argue, that:

“Through the TFCAs the PPF manages to foster cohesion between the old - mainly white - and new political and business elites in post-Apartheid South Africa. This is done by developing a new `Super-African´ identity based on bonding with nature. Furthermore, in the new South Africa the old elites need to show concern for the formerly disadvantaged groups, and one way of doing so is through community conservation.” (Draper/

Spierenburg/ Wels 2004: 343)

15 For additional literature: Stephen Ellis: “Of Elephants and Men. Politics and Nature Conservation in South Africa.“ 1994.