On 16 June 2002, the restitution claims of seven communal localities in the Keiskammahoek district of the former Ciskei, were settled, on the basis of the Cata precedent set in October 2000. That is, the monetary value of the dispossession was calculated and then split in half; 50% was paid to the affected families as financial compensation and 50% was set aside for development purposes.

However, the development process was severely compromised by delays in transferring the monies from Pretoria to East London. When the agreement was signed in 2002, we assumed that we had secured the necessary resources to kick-start far-reaching pro-poor development in Keiskammahoek. Thus we focused at that time on facilitating the election of development committees and assisting the Amahlati Municipality to formulate terms of reference for the process. However, after an initial twelve-month delay, we changed emphasis, and attempted to negotiate a solution to the problem. By mid-2004 it was clear that this approach was failing to deliver, so we sought legal advice and subsequently took our case to the Land Claims Court. However, in February 2005, Judge Moloto ordered the parties to resume out-of-court discussions. In May of that year, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner promised a speedy solution. It took, however, a further eigtheen months before the development funds were received by Amatole District Municipality in January 2006.

In the interim period, we attempted to keep the development process alive through offering a training programme to the development committees. We undertake preparatory work required to integrate the youth into the process and conducted some of the initial research (ie situation analysis) that will be needed in the planning process.

Finally, in October 2006, ADM appointed service providers, thereby enabling commencement of the planning process that was provided for in the Settlement Agreement signed more than four years previously.

In the case of Keiskammahoek, BRC is faced with a set of challenges that are quite different from that in the case of Cata. In the latter, BRC is the appointed project manager, so we have considerable authority and carry a concomitant amount of responsibility. The up-side of this is that we can ‘make things happen’, the down-side is that it is very time-consuming and therefore not replicable at a broad scale. Once the developmental component of the betterment redress programme is rolled out, the reality is that BRC will only be able to play a monitoring and support role, not one of project management. Therefore, it is imperative that we try to pioneer successful tactics and methods in the Keiskammahoek case, which can then be used more broadly in future. The broad approach that we intend to follow is to prioritise our relationships with community structures, especially the planning and youth committees, above our relationships with government and private sector players. We also support Water for Food and forestry initiatives in Keiskammahoek.