South Africa Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology South Africa
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
South Africa Management Effectiveness Assessment
of Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal using WWF’s RAPPAM MethodologySout
h A
fric
a
Figure 3. The geology of KwaZulu-Natal.
Figure 1. Management regions and protectedareas in KwaZulu-Natal Province. uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park and the Greater St LuciaWetland Park are World Heritage Sites.
Figure 2. The topography of KwaZulu-Natalshowing the broad tropical coastal plain in thenortheast, rising steeply to the Drakensbergescarpment at 3,400 metres in the west.
Goodman, P. S.2003South Africa: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal using WWF’sRAPPAM MethodologyWWFGland, Switzerland
Front cover photograph: wildebeest at sunset – Ithala Game Reserve© KZN Wildlife
km 1000
SOUTH AFRICA
Management Effectiveness Assessment ofProtected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal using
WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology
P. S. Goodman
KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3
IMPLEMENTING THE METHODOLOGY 6
FINDINGS AND ANALYSES 10
RECOMMENDATIONS 25
FOLLOW-UP ACTION 28
REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONTENTS
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
2
K waZulu-Natal Wildlife (KZN Wildlife) is aparastatal conservation body responsiblefor the conservation of biodiversity in the
province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Theprovince is situated on the east coast of SouthAfrica in the biologically rich transition zonebetween the tropical biota found to the north andsub-tropical biota to the south (Figure 1, see insidefront cover). In addition, rich ecosystems andhabitats found within the province are also theresult of the altitudinal range. This stretches fromsea level in the east to the top of the Drakensberg(3,450 metres) in the west (Figure 2, see insidefront cover). Furthermore, the diverse geology(Figure 3, see inside front cover) is another factorexplaining the rich natural environment.
Major ecosystems include marine coral and rockyreefs, beaches, numerous estuaries and coastallakes, moist lowland and upland grasslands, dryforest and a variety of moist forests dependent onaltitude, and, finally, semi-arid savannah systemswhich contain the megafauna typical of thesehabitats in Africa. As a result, KwaZulu-Natal is animportant area internationally from a biodiversityconservation perspective. This importance hasbeen recognized by the World Heritage authority(UNESCO), which has granted World Heritagestatus to the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park andthe uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park (Figure 1).
KZN Wildlife is a recently formed entity, arising outof the amalgamation of the former Natal ParksBoard and the KwaZulu Department of NatureConservation, following South Africa’s democraticelections. The newly formed organizationimmediately became responsible for themanagement of 110 protected areas in two regions and 6 sub-regions proclaimed under state
or provincial law. These protected areas, alleffectively under state control, covered a total areaof 7,128 square kilometres or 7.72 per cent of theland area of the province. Shortly afteramalgamation, the new organization found itselfcritically short of the resources required toeffectively manage many of its protected areas.The nature of this resource shortage was complex,but in essence the amalgamation had caused animbalance in the ratio between the salary andoperational components of the budget – too manystaff with too few resources to operate effectively.This precipitated a restructuring and down sizing ofthe staff of the organization, thus creating theopportunity to re-align resource allocation tovarious operational sectors of the organization. This, and the perceived general shortage of fundsfor conservation management, emphasized theneed for a means of resource re-allocation whichwas transparent, participatory but at the same timewas best for the conservation of the province’sbiodiversity.
INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND
3
Kosi Bay estuary, north eastern Zululand (Greater St LuciaWetland Park)
Phot
o: ©
KZN
Wild
life
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N A
ND
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
Two home grown attempts to prioritize resourceallocation ensued. One emphasized the biologicalvalues of protected areas while the other focusedon prioritizing management interventions in each ofthe 110 terrestrial protected areas now under thecontrol of the new organization. For variousreasons (both political and logistical) neitherattempt resulted in improved resource allocation tocritical management programmes.
At this time the organization adopted a moreperformance-related philosophy to themanagement of protected areas, and wanted toknow the current state of protected areamanagement in addition to the most critical areasof resource and skills shortage. Naturally, theresults and recommendations were required assoon as possible and were to be generated in anopen participatory manner. Fortuitously, the WWFForests for Life Programme was in the process ofdeveloping and piloting the Rapid Assessment andPrioritization of Protected Area Management(RAPPAM) Methodology, which was chosen overother methodologies because of its rapid andbroad comparative approach. Overall the objectivesof the assessment were to:
� Assess the current management effectiveness offormally protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal.
� Identify priorities for management action andresource allocation.
At the same time, a provincial scale systematicconservation planning project based on theapproach of Margules and Pressey (2000) wascommenced to evaluate conservation effectivenessand priorities at this broader scale. From anoperational perspective it is important to stress thatthese two projects are seen to be inextricablylinked (Figure 4).
Management effectiveness assessment plays amajor role in evaluating site specific conservationgoals determined at a broader system-wide scale,evaluating site specific pressures and threats,evaluating the effectiveness of the selectedmanagement model and strategy, and evaluatingand prioritizing resource allocation (Figure 4).
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
4
Summit of the Drakensberg escarpment (uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park)
Phot
o: ©
KZN
Wild
life
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N A
ND
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
5
Figure 4. Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessment Seen in the Broader Contextof Conservation Planning and Implementation
KZN Wildlife mission andmandate
Explicit conservation targets for biodiversity features and
processes determined
Assess threat,current conditions,
and prioritize
Biodiversity assetsidentified and potentialcontribution to targets
determined
Review and adopt site specificbiodiversity and conservation goals
Resource and implement prioritymanagement
Adopt appropriate management model and strategy
Identify GapsEvaluate degree to which existing protected areas
achieve representation andprocess targets
Address GapsIdentify areas requiring
protection in order to meetconservation targets
Assess ManagementEffectiveness
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
IMPLEMENTINGTHE METHODOLOGY
Since the purpose of the evaluation was to give abroad perspective and guidance to theorganization as to where priorities and problemswere with respect to protected area management,it was decided at the outset that all 110 proclaimedprotected areas under the control of KZN Wildlifeshould be evaluated. These protected areas, whichvaried in size from the smallest of 5 hectares to thelargest proclaimed unit of 53,020 hectares,provided an ‘organizational unit’ which, formanagement accounting purposes, enabledresources such as staffing and budget to beallocated. From a functional biological perspective,
several of these independently proclaimedprotected areas are grouped into larger units,examples being the uKhahlamba-DrakensbergPark, the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park and theHluhluwe-Umfolozi Park.
Non-state managed protected areas such asprivate game farms and nature reserves,conservancies, municipal parks and reserves,national monuments, and historical reserves werenot chosen to be evaluated since the objectives ofthe management of these areas are mostly notassociated with the conservation of biodiversity.
SELECTION OF PROTECTED AREAS
The questionnaire, which formed the foundation ofthe data collection phase, was applied at a seriesof six interactive workshops scheduled fromFebruary to July 2001. The workshops wereorganized in such a way that all the relevant stafffrom a particular sub-region participated (Figure 6).
This included the regional head, the sub-regionhead or chief conservator, protected areamanagers (conservators and wardens) and thedistrict and community conservation officers (Figure 6). The latter staff are largely responsible for interacting with the community on conservation
DATA COLLECTION
Prior to the implementation of the questionnaire ata series of workshops, participants were requestedto gather all appropriate biological andmanagement information and have it available forthe workshop. This included existing and draftmanagement plans where available, zonation plans,general situation and annual management data. Inaddition, a geographical information system (GIS)and associated database was available centrally,which held basic information such as the area,IUCN classification of the protected area andcontact details of the manager (Figure 5).
REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA
Figure 5. Broad Structure of the KwaZulu-NatalWildlife Protected Areas Database
6
GIS layer ofprotected area
boundaries
■ Proclamation■ Classification■ Contact detail
■ Assets tables■ Assessment
Data capture
Data summary and analysiscomponent
7
IMP
LEM
EN
TIN
G T
HE
ME
THO
DO
LOG
Y
matters outside of protected areas. There were atotal of 15 to 20 participants at each workshoprepresenting each management sub-region.
Each workshop started with a broad introduction,which included an overview of the aims andobjectives of the evaluation, followed by anintroduction to the methodology itself and theprocedures that were to be followed in completingthe questionnaire. Initially, participants were thendivided into small groups of three to five peoplegrouped on the basis of similar or closely relatedprotected areas, given the questionnaire withresource material and definitions and requested towork their way through the document.Coordinators were on hand to assist with theinterpretation of questions and definitions. As theindividual questionnaire sheets were completedthese were collected from participants and thescores captured into a database. After sections 3,5, 7, 12, and 15 were completed, plenary sessionswere held to evaluate and standardize the scoringacross all reserves under consideration. This wasdone by projecting the scores for each question foreach reserve (now captured into the database)onto a screen and on the basis of the ensuingdiscussion and debate between managers andsupervisors, scores were amended accordingly.During the first and second workshop, these reviewsessions were found to be extremely valuable and
were employed throughout all six workshops; theyrevealed that despite the written and verbalguidance available to participants, there was still ahigh degree of variability in the interpretation ofsome of the questions. To address this, the mannerin which the workshops were managed changedslightly for the last three workshops. Here eachquestion was projected onto an overhead screen,and the question, along with any definitionsinterpreted and explained simultaneously to allparticipants. Only once all participants achieved acomplete understanding was the question scoredand the next question attempted. Apart from amuch more uniform interpretation, this had the
Figure 6. Typical Regional and Sub-regional Staff Structures
Participants at the management effectiveness workshopfor the South Zululand sub-region
Phot
o: ©
J. Er
vin
Chief ConservatorZululand
ConservatorHluhuwe
ConservatorUmfolozi
Wardens of smaller PAs
DCOs and CCOs
Chief ConservatorMaputaland
ConservatorMkhuze
Conservator Ndumu
Conservator TembeElephant Park
DCOs and CCOs
Chief ConservatorCoast
Conservator North Coast
Conservator South Coast
Wardens of smaller PAs
DCOs and CCOs
Regional Head East
8
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
advantage that the pace with which thequestionnaire was completed could be betterregulated.
To facilitate and control the answering of thepressures and threats sections, at the firstworkshop a comprehensive set of pressures andthreats was developed by all workshopparticipants, and the protected areas for that sub-region were then rated for all pressures andthreats. At subsequent workshops the list ofpressures and threats was added to wherejustified, resulting in the overall list of pressures andthreats used for the evaluation (Figure 7). This ledto a situation where pressures and threats whichwere added at later workshops, were not evaluatedby participants and hence regions which were
evaluated earlier. Earlier workshops had to bereconvened to evaluate pressures and threats thatwere added by consultations at later workshops.This was not ideal but seemed to be the onlypractical way in which the development of acomprehensive list of perceived pressures andthreats could be developed.
Questions pertaining to system-wide analyses(questions 17–19) were not evaluated at the sub-region workshops. Instead, a separate and muchsmaller group of senior personnel comprising thehead of conservation, the head of planning and thehead of biodiversity research were assembled toevaluate these questions for the whole province.This ensured that those personnel most familiarwith these broader issues were consulted.
All data collected at the workshops were capturedinto the protected areas database which wasspecifically enhanced to capture, store, andanalyse these data (Figure 5). Standard analyses,recommended by Ervin (2001), were built into thedatabase to facilitate rapid analysis of the data.Additional means of viewing and comparing the
data were also built into the database so as tofacilitate discussion at meetings with managementstaff and ultimately to ensure that the data andinformation they contain are in a form that makes it accessible to scientific, advisory, and managerialusers.
DATA ANALYSIS
After the first round of workshops had taken placeand preliminary analysis of the data undertaken, afurther set of meetings with senior staff from eachregion took place (due to the restructuring takingplace in the organization, regions, now three, hadbeen realigned and many staff changes had takenplace). These meetings were aimed at givingdecision-making staff initial exposure to the resultsof the evaluation, and at gauging the usefulness ofthe outcomes in terms of the likely impact on
decision making. In addition, the need andfrequency of re-evaluation and future databasemaintenance were discussed, as were themechanisms for implementing the results of theevaluation. After the data were fully analysed andpreliminary recommendations developed, thesewere presented to the organization’s BiodiversityForum (senior conservation management andscientific staff) for discussion and adoption.
FOLLOW-UP STEPS
IMP
LEM
EN
TIN
G T
HE
ME
THO
DO
LOG
Y
9
Pressure/Threat Source
Alien AnimalsAlien Plant Invasion
Arson/Uncontrolled Fires
Bush EncroachmentDam Building
Destruction of ArchaeologicalAssets
Disease – ExoticDisease – IndigenousErosion (Human-induced)
Land InvasionLand Use ChangeManagement Solid Waste
MiningPA IsolationPoaching
Pollution
Purposeful Species Eradication
Resource UtilizationSiltation
Tourism
Pressure/Threat Description
Includes feral cats, dogs, donkeys, cattle, rodents, reptiles, birds and fish.Non-indigenous plants which establish and advance aggressively and out-compete naturalindigenous vegetation, resulting in dense infestations.
Refers to fires started as a result of human action, but does not include planned burning. Could bedeliberate or accidental, uncontrolled, external fires which enter the PA, or runaway, internal fires.
Increase in the density of woody plants to the detriment of grassland-dependent species.Flooding of a river basin within the PA or building of a dam upstream which changes the flow ofwater in a river/stream within the PA.
Wanton destruction of assets and/or collection of artefacts; poor management practices resulting ininadequate protection of assets.
Tuberculosis, anthrax, rinderpest, foot-and-mouth.Corridor disease, nagana, foot-and-mouth, rabies.As a result of cattle, management tracks, etc. (Erosion as a result of tourist activities must bescored under Tourism Pressure/Threat.)
Unlawful occupation of the land, e.g. "squatting" and/or illegal grazing.Change to the form of land use to something other than biodiversity conservation.This refers to waste generated by management activities (not tourism), e.g. old buildings, rubble,fencing materials, scrap metal, implements, etc.
This includes mining of minerals, quarrying, and sand winning.Isolation of PA as a result of incompatible, external land use change.Illegal destruction, or removal of indigenous organisms, e.g. poaching of plants or animals,poisoning of birds of prey/predators, cranes, guineafowl.
Airborne, river-borne, groundwater. Agro-chemicals and pesticides, insect control (internal andexternal), sewerage spills, seepage from mine dumps, etc. Does not refer to global pollution.
This refers to the deliberate attempt to eradicate an indigenous species, e.g. tsetse fly, mosquito,and jackal.
Legal utilization – includes thatch, fodder, wood, medicinal plants, bark, tapping of sap, fishing etc.This refers to the siltation of natural water bodies, such as rivers and estuaries, and not to man-made impoundments.
Includes facility footprint, roads, paths, trampling, solid-waste, and refuse, sewerage, petro-chemicalpollution (from outboard motors in lakes and estuaries), etc.
Figure 7. List of Pressures and Threats used in the Evaluation of Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal
10
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
FINDINGS AND ANALYSES
Coast Region
100
80
40
20
60
120
160
140
Amat
ikul
u Na
ture
Res
erve
Sum
of
Sco
res
Beac
hwoo
d M
angr
oves
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Bluf
f Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Cape
Vid
al S
tate
For
est
Coas
tal F
ores
t Res
erve
East
ern
Shor
es S
tate
For
est
Ense
leni
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Fals
e Ba
y Pa
rk
Haro
ld J
ohns
on N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Kenn
eth
Stai
nban
k Na
ture
Res
erve
Kran
tzkl
oof N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Mak
asa
Natu
re R
eser
ve
Man
guzi
For
est R
eser
ve
Map
elan
e Fo
rest
Res
erve
Mbu
mba
zi
Mhl
atuz
e Es
tuar
y Na
ture
Res
erve
Mku
zi G
ame
Rese
rve
Mpe
njat
i Nat
ure
Rese
rve
North
Par
k Na
ture
Res
erve
Orbi
bi G
orge
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Skyl
ine
Natu
re R
eser
ve
Soad
a Fo
rest
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Sodw
ana
Stat
e Fo
rest
St L
ucia
Gam
e Re
serv
e
St L
ucia
Par
k
Umhl
anga
Lag
oon
Umla
lazi
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Umta
mvu
na N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Vern
on C
rook
es N
atur
e Re
serv
e
0
uKhahlamba Region
100
80
40
20
60
120
160
140
Blln
kwat
er N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Sum
of
Sco
res
Bush
Res
erve
Nos
1 &
2
Cath
edra
l Pea
k St
ate
Fore
st
Chel
msf
ord
Natu
re R
eser
ve
Cobh
am S
tate
For
est
Cole
ford
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Dore
en C
lark
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Fort
Notti
ngha
m
Gard
en C
astle
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Gian
ts C
astle
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Gxal
inge
nwa
Natu
re R
eser
ve
High
moo
r Sta
te F
ores
t
Him
evill
e Na
ture
Res
erve
Impe
ndle
Indh
love
ni N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Kam
berg
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Kark
loof
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
KwaY
ili S
tate
For
est
Lote
ni N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Mar
utsw
a
Mar
waq
a
Mid
mar
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Mkh
omaz
i Sta
te F
ores
t
Mon
ks C
owl S
tate
For
est
Mou
nt C
urrie
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Ncan
du
Nkel
anba
ntw
ana
Ntab
amhl
ope
Stat
e Fo
rest
Pocc
olan
e
Quee
n El
izab
eth
Park
Robi
nson
s Bu
sh
Roya
l Nat
al N
atio
nal P
ark
Rugg
ed G
len
Natu
re R
eser
ve
Spio
nkop
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
The
Swam
p Na
ture
Res
erve
Umge
ni V
lie N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Umvo
ti Vl
ie N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Verg
eleg
en N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Wag
endr
ift N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Wee
nen
Natu
re R
eser
ve
Xots
heya
ke
0
When considering management effectivenessacross all reserves in each of the threemanagement regions, all regions showed similarlevels and ranges of management effectiveness,
with the sum of scores for planning, inputs, andpractices varying from a minimum of 18 to amaximum of 150 (Figure 8).
MANAGEMENT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Figure 8. Overall Management Effectiveness of all Protected Areas in Each of the CurrentManagement Regions of KwaZulu-Natal
Planning Inputs Practices
Planning Inputs Practices
Six protected areas scored less than 75 of apotential score of 225, the worst of which sufferedfrom an almost complete lack of inputs across alleffectiveness areas. In general however, there wasno consistent explanation of why these reservesscored low. Occurring frequently was the lack ofclearly defined objectives, boundary demarcation,adequate staff, and funding. In the case of tworeserves, there was no long-term legal bindingprotection for the reserve, and in some instancesthere was perceived to be a lack of local support.
Noticeable is the high degree of variation in scoreswithin the uKhahlamba and Zululand regions. Thisis largely because these regions contain protectedareas which have historically been managed forbiodiversity objectives (by dedicated natureconservation organizations) and have also recentlybeen inherited from the previous Department ofForestry where the management inputs were verylow, and not necessarily focused on biodiversityconservation.
PLANNINGWith respect to planning, and more specificallyobjectives, most protected areas had objectivesthat were aimed to protect biodiversity and werestated in a specific plan for the reserve (orconglomerate of reserves). Management policieswere largely consistent with these objectives. The
response to these three questions was relativelyconsistent across all regions and the typicalresponse pattern is summarized in Figure 9. Whilethis evaluation is positive, on examination many ofthe objectives in the management plans werefound to be rather general and did not providespecific enough direction for management.
Quite disturbing were the responses to the questionregarding the employee and administration’sunderstanding of the objectives, practices, andpolicies of the protected area. The responses tothis question were fairly uniform across all regionswith the weight of opinion indicating that there wasnot a clear understanding of protected areaobjectives by employees (Figure 10).
11
Zululand Region
100
80
40
20
60
120
160
140Dl
inza
For
est N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Sum
of
Sco
res
Entu
men
i Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Fund
imve
lo N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Hlat
ikul
u Fo
rest
Hluh
luw
e Ga
me
Rese
rve
Itala
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Mat
shen
ezim
pisi
CCA
Mat
shits
holo
CCA
Mpe
mbe
ni C
CR
Ndum
u Ga
me
Rese
rve
Ngoy
e Fo
rest
Res
erve
Nkan
dla
Fore
st R
eser
ve
Ntin
ini T
rain
ing
Cent
re
Opha
the
Gam
e Re
serv
e
Pong
ola
Bush
Nat
ure
Rese
rve
Pong
ola
Natu
re R
eser
ve
Qude
ni F
ores
t Res
erve
Sile
za N
atur
e Re
serv
e
Tem
be E
leph
ant P
ark
Ubom
bo M
ount
ain
Natu
re R
eser
ve
Umfo
lozi
Gam
e Re
serv
e
Umhl
atuz
e CC
R
Vryh
eid
Mou
ntai
n Na
ture
Res
erve
0
Figure 9. Combined Provincial Responses tothe First Three Questions Regarding ProtectedArea Objectives
40
30
20
10
70
60
50
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
FIN
DIN
GS
AN
D A
NA
LYS
ES
Response
Planning Inputs Practices
The recorded response is in keeping with thewidely held opinion that the less educatedmembers of staff have difficulty in grasping what isa fairly complex concept, namely that ofbiodiversity conservation. Nevertheless, it must rateas one of the most important weaknesses in theorganization and one that must be addressed as amatter of urgency. With this in mind, it wassurprising to find that most respondents felt thatthere was overall support by local communities forthe objectives of the protected areas, althoughthere was a strong opinion that this questionshould be addressed by an independent survey asthe answers given by staff were likely to be subjectto bias.
With respect to the questions on legal status andsecurity, nearly 90 per cent of protected areas wereperceived to have long-term binding protection.
However, nearly 25 per cent of protected areashad unsettled disputes regarding land tenure oruse rights. The majority of protected areas (72 per cent) had adequate boundary demarcation,while only 60 per cent of managers felt that therewas effective enforcement of the law in protectedareas under their control. Despite the fact that KZNWildlife is one of the better if not the best fundedstate conservation organization in Africa, the vastmajority of managers expressed the opinion thatthere was inadequate funding to conduct all criticalmanagement activities (Figure 11).
While the inadequacy of funding does not come asmuch of a surprise, since during the evaluation theorganization was undergoing a restructuring exercisespecifically to address resource shortages, disturbingis the apparent complete lack of resources allocatedto some important protected areas.
The evaluation of protected area design andplanning indicated this to be a serious weakness inthe current protected area system in KwaZulu-Natal. The layout and configuration of over half theprotected areas did not optimize biodiversityconservation, nor did the land use in thesurrounding landscape enable effective protectedarea management (Figure 12).
On the positive side, the placing of the protectedareas was seen to be largely consistent withobjectives of the protected area. However, in mostinstances existing protected areas were seen to betoo small to meet the objectives (i.e. viable
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
12
Figure 10. Combined provincial responsesreflecting KZN Wildlife employee understanding ofprotected area management objectives
40
30
20
10
50
Unknown
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
No MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 11. Combined Response of Managers tothe Adequacy (‘Yes’ Response) of Funding forCritical Management Activities. Note, there were no‘Yes’ Responses.
40
30
20
10
60
50
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Figure 12. Combined Response to QuestionsRegarding the Layout, Configuration, and Effect ofSurrounding Land Use on Biodiversity Conservationand Protected Area Management
25
15105
4540
30
20
35
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Response
populations of umbrella species) and in over half ofall protected areas, there were no links to otherprotected areas or areas of protected land (Figure13). In this context, the definition of protected landsincluded game ranches and private naturereserves, which were largely sustainable useorientated and did form buffers to unconservedland and linkages to other formally conservedareas. Since there are very few formal linkagesbetween protected areas, the number of yes andmostly yes answers, received does highlight theimportant role that private, conservation-friendlyland use can play in this respect (Figure 13).
The placement and size of the existing set ofprotected areas in KwaZulu-Natal is largely theresult of historical opportunism. The planning ofprotected areas has not in many instancesextended to the development of buffers around,and linkages to other protected areas. This mustbe construed as a huge weakness in the protected area system in the province.
INPUTSManagement inputs comprised questionsconcerning staff, communication and information,transport, and facilities. With respect to staff,approximately half of the respondents were of theopinion that there was sufficient staff to effectivelymanage their protected areas, while the other halfthought not (Figure 14). Managers frequentlyexpressed the opinion that it was not the numberof staff that was frequently the issue, but where
they were located, and the skills and responsibilitylevel of the staff. This was particularly significant inthe light of the restructuring exercise in progress.
However, respondents were in broad agreementthat staff had adequate skills to conductmanagement activities, and that there was a clearinternal organization to manage staff andmanagement tasks. In no instance was staffsupport thought to be completely appropriate toneeds, and 50 per cent of responses indicated that staff support was inadequate.
With respect to employment conditions (Figure 15),there was an almost even split between thenegative response and the largely positiveresponse. This is explained by the expressedopinion that employment conditions for lower level
FIN
DIN
GS
AN
D A
NA
LYS
ES
Figure 13. Combined Responses to the Questionof Whether Existing Protected Areas were Linked inany way to Other Areas of Conserved Land
20
15
10
5
35
30
25
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 14. Combined Response to the QuestionRegarding the Numbers of Staff Available forEffective Protected Area Management
20
15
10
5
40
35
25
30
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 15. Combined Response to the Question asto Whether Staff Employment Conditions wereSufficient to Retain Staff. Note there were No ‘Yes’Responses.
20
10
50
40
30
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
13
positions were good and it was relatively easy toretain staff. On the other hand, employmentconditions for positions with higher skillrequirements and responsibility levels were notgood enough to retain staff. The bulk of opinionwas that this led to a high turnover in the moreskilled staff that were likely to take on leadershiproles in the future. This tendency to lose highlyskilled and experienced staff from the organizationshould be recognized as a critical weakness andneeds to be addressed by improving employmentconditions within the organization.
The means and effectiveness of communicationbetween staff in the field, and staff in the field andadministrative staff appeared in the majority ofinstances, to be of an acceptable standard (Figure16). In addition, 67 per cent of respondents feltthat there were adequate systems for processinginformation and data associated with management.
Just over half (52 per cent) of the respondents feltthat the data about the protected areas wereavailable and up to date. However, the fact that justunder half expressed opinions to the contrary is animportant weakness that requires addressing. In asimilar vein, nearly half of the respondents were ofthe opinion that there was not effectivecommunication with local communities regardingprotected area management (Figure 17).
Again, this should be recognized as an importantweakness in management effectiveness sinceimproved communication with local communities islikely to lead to a much better understanding of thevalue of the protected area, a greater degree ofparticipatory management and acceptance of theprotected area, and hence to improvedmanagement effectiveness. This will require urgentattention in the future.
When considering transportation and facilities,most respondents felt that the means of transportwere adequate for management and monitoringpurposes, but on the other hand most (over 60 percent) felt that the equipment for field level datacollection was not (Figure 18).
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
14
Figure 16. Combined Response to the QuestionsRegarding the Means and Effectiveness ofCommunication
20
10
50
40
30
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 17. Combined Response to the QuestionRegarding the Effectiveness of Communication withLocal Communities
20
10
50
40
30
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 18. Combined Response to the QuestionRegarding the Adequacy of Field Level Equipmentfor Data Collection
40
30
20
10
70
60
50
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
This response is significant in that withoutadequate equipment for field data collection,many management activities cannot be properlymonitored and evaluated, and as a result, theeffective use of the small amount of resources currently available for management activities cannotbe properly monitored.
The majority (56 per cent) of respondents felt thatstaff facilities were adequate, but this hides adichotomy often expressed in the organization,where the high profile protected areas are very wellequipped and housed, while those protected areaswith a lower profile do not meet similar standards.
A critical weakness identified is that concerning themaintenance and care of equipment, which themajority of respondents regarded inadequate toensure long-term use (Figure 19). This assessmentwas reinforced by the opinion frequently expressedthat not only equipment but structures such asbuildings, roads and tourist infrastructure weresuffering due to a lack of funding for maintenance.
With respect to the adequacy of visitor facilities,again a strong dichotomy was detected with half of the respondents giving a generally negativeresponse, and the other half a positive response.Clearly those areas that have high visitation rateswhich have inadequate visitor facilities will needurgent management attention.
PRACTICESPractices comprise questions on managementplanning, management practices, and research,monitoring, and evaluation. At the heart ofprotected area management effectiveness is acomprehensive and up-to-date management plan.Despite the long tradition (30 years) of protectedarea management planning in the organization, the majority of protected areas (54 per cent) didnot have current management plans and for only15 per cent of protected areas were current andcomplete management plans available (Figure 20).
Clearly this is a critical weakness with respect tomanagement effectiveness and requires urgentattention.
Although most respondents felt that there were up-to-date natural resource inventories in place,almost 40 per cent felt that these were inadequatefor their protected areas. In this regard, important(threatened, rare, endemic) species inventorieswere felt to be incomplete, and in many instancesmedium scale (1:50,000) soil and vegetationclassifications and maps not available. Clearlymore effort is required to address this need.
Around 55 per cent of respondents felt that therehad been an analysis of, and a strategy foraddressing, threats and pressures. Few, if any, ofthese were formally documented however, andmanagers expressed frustration at the shortage ofresources for implementing these strategies.
FIN
DIN
GS
AN
D A
NA
LYS
ES
Figure 19. Combined Response to the QuestionRegarding the Adequacy of EquipmentMaintenance and Care
20
15
10
5
40
35
25
30
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 20. Combined Response to the QuestionRegarding the Availability of a Relatively up-to-dateWritten Management Plan
20
10
50
40
30
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
15
Particular strengths identified in the currentmanagement system is the adoption of specifictargets and goals for achieving managementobjectives (90 per cent of respondents) and thecontinuous adoption of new learning intomanagement (88 per cent of respondents).
With respect to management practices, 70 percent of managers felt that management goals and targets were completed within a reasonabletimeframe. Again, the lack of resources was oftenblamed for non delivery on goals. On the otherhand, a high proportion of respondents (55 percent and 40 per cent respectively) felt thatrestoration and prevention programmes were notconsistent with the degrees of pressures andthreats experienced by protected areas. Thesesentiments were echoed when asked about thelevel of outreach and education programmes where68 per cent of respondents felt that these were notconsistent with the need in the area (Figure 21).
The response to the question on financialmanagement practices was split 50 per cent eitherway. Those managers that felt that the currentpractices did not enable efficient and effectivemanagement expressed frustration with the level ofbureaucracy and inefficiency inherent in thecentrally controlled financial system.
While few respondents were unequivocal regardingthe recording and monitoring of legal and illegaluses of protected areas, most (75 per cent) wereconfident that this was undertaken to a large
degree. On the other hand, at least half of therespondents felt that research needs had not beenclearly identified and prioritized (Figure 22).
Staff performance with respect to goal and targetachievement is routinely monitored, so it was notsurprising to find a largely positive (75 per cent)response to this question. This was also the casefor the incorporation of research results intomanagement planning. However, most managersfelt that actual research on key ecological andsocial issues was not in keeping with the degree ofpressure and threat (Figure 23).
In this respect, it was clear that the largerprotected areas with the more attractive fauna andflora, and interesting interactions between the two,
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
16
Figure 21. Combined Response to the QuestionRegarding the Adequacy of Education andOutreach Programmes Adjacent to Protected Areas
25
15105
4540
30
20
35
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 22. Combined Response to the Question onthe Identification and Prioritization of Research
40
30
20
10
60
50
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
Figure 23. Response to the Question Regardingthe Consistency of Research and the Degree ofPressure and Threat Experienced
40
30
20
10
60
50
No
Freq
uenc
y
MostlyNo
MostlyYes
Yes0
Response
were well serviced with research infrastructure sinceit was easier for universities and other institutions tojustify the development of an on going research
programme. There is little doubt that the smallerprotected areas that are in the vast majority in theprovince lack adequate research inputs.
17
FIN
DIN
GS
AN
D A
NA
LYS
ES
The perceived importance of the major pressureson and threats to protected areas identified for theprovince varied between management regions. Thisis not unexpected due to the spatial variation inbiological potential in the province, and uneven
human population distribution. Individually the threemost important pressures from each regionaccount for almost twice the impact when com-pared with the remaining pressures (Figure 24).
PRESSURES AND THREATS
Figure 24. An Assessment of the Most Important Past Pressures Experienced byProtected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal
6
4
2
8
10
12
Alie
n Pl
ant I
nvas
ion
Deg
ree
of
Pre
ssur
e
PA Is
olat
ion
Poac
hing
Tour
ism
Pollu
tion
Bush
Enc
roac
hmen
t
Silta
tion
Reso
urce
Util
izat
ion
Eros
ion
(man
-indu
ced)
Alie
n An
imal
s
Arso
n/Un
cont
rolle
d Fi
res
Land
Use
Cha
nge
Dam
Bui
ldin
g
Man
agem
ent S
olid
Was
te
Land
Inva
sion
Purp
osef
ul S
peci
es E
radi
catio
n
Arch
aeol
ogic
al D
estru
ctio
n
Dise
ase
- In
dige
nous
Min
ing
Dise
ase
- Ex
otic
0
Coast Region
uKhahlamba Region
12
8
4
2
6
16
14
10
Alie
n Pl
ant I
nvas
ion
PA Is
olat
ion
Bush
Enc
roac
hmen
t
Dise
ase
- In
dige
nous
Eros
ion
(man
-indu
ced)
Silta
tion
Alie
n An
imal
s
Reso
urce
Util
izat
ion
Man
agem
ent S
olid
Was
te
Arso
n/Un
cont
rolle
d Fi
res
Poac
hing
Pollu
tion
Dise
ase
- Ex
otic
Tour
ism
Dam
Bui
ldin
g
Land
Inva
sion
Min
ing
Arch
aeol
ogic
al D
estru
ctio
n
Land
Use
Cha
nge
Purp
osef
ul S
peci
es E
radi
catio
n
0
Deg
ree
of
Pre
ssur
e
Figure 25. The Pressure and Threat of Alien Plants to Biodiversity in KwaZulu-Natal
Alien plant invasion poses a major threat to biodiversity throughout KwaZulu-Natal. Protected areas, which are setaside specifically to conserve biodiversity, have suffered severe infestation. This has been recognized for some timeand while there is a list of 73 invader alien plants for the province, three stand out as posing the greatest threat,namely: triffid weed (Chromolaena odorata), lantana (Lantana camara), and the black and silver wattles (Acaciamearnsii and Acacia dealbata).
18
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
Potential distribution of Chromolaena odorata
in KwaZulu-Natal
Potential distribution of Lantana camarain KwaZulu-Natal
Potential distribution of Acacia dealbata and Acacia mearnsii
in KwaZulu-Natal
Chromolaena odorata is ascrambling shrub native to Mexico,the West Indies and tropical SouthAmerica. It grows up to 4 metres orhigher and forms dense thickets inand on the margins of forest andclosed woodlands and watercourses. Its seed is largely wind,water, and human (via vehicles)dispersed. It prefers warm moistenvironments and has the potentialto invade a large portion of thecoastal lowlands of KwaZulu-Natal.
Lantana camara is a compact,scrambling shrub from Central andSouth America, which grows to 3metres in height forming densethickets. It invades forest margins,savannah, water courses anddegraded land. The seed isdispersed by birds and down rivercourses by water. It prefers thewarmer regions, but has thepotential to be a threat throughoutthe province.
Acacia dealbata and Acaciamearnsii are evergreen treesintroduced from Australia. Theygrow to 5–15 metres high. Theyinvade grasslands, forest fringes,and water courses. The seeds arelargely dispersed by animals andwater. Both species prefer thecooler regions of the province.
Zululand Region
6
4
21
3
8
109
7
5
Alie
n Pl
ant I
nvas
ion
PA Is
olat
ion
Arso
n/Un
cont
rolle
d Fi
res
Eros
ion
(man
-indu
ced)
Tour
ism
Poac
hing
Alie
n An
imal
s
Reso
urce
Util
izat
ion
Arch
aeol
ogic
al D
estru
ctio
n
Land
Inva
sion
Man
agem
ent S
olid
Was
te
Dam
Bui
ldin
g
Pollu
tion
Purp
osef
ul S
peci
es E
radi
catio
n
Bush
Enc
roac
hmen
t
Land
Use
Cha
nge
Silta
tion
Dise
ase
- Ex
otic
Min
ing
Dise
ase
- In
dige
nous
0
Deg
ree
of
Pre
ssur
e
In all three regions, alien plant invasion ranks as themost important (see Figure 25 on alien plants inKwaZulu-Natal). Alien invader plants are non-indigenous plants which establish and advanceaggressively, out-competing indigenous vegetation,causing losses in biodiversity and productivity.
The isolation of protected areas is the second mostimportant pressure in the Coast and Zululandregions. Isolation of protected areas takes place asa result of land transformation, and the land usesat the heart of land transformation in KZN areagriculture (sugar, maize, and potatoes), plantationforestry, and urban and industrial development. Thecoast and Zululand are the most productive areasof the province from an agricultural and plantationforestry perspective, while the coast is also heavilytransformed by urban and industrial developments.More recently the midlands area of the provincehas become greatly transformed by tree plantationdevelopment.
The second most important pressure in theuKhahlamba Region is arson fire. The uKhahlambaRegion primarily comprises wetlands and moistgrassland areas interspersed with small patches offorest. During the dry season the grass dries outand becomes highly flammable and for this reasonan important management activity involves theburning of fire breaks. Any fires that do burn causea green flush of grass which is sought after bydomestic stock and wildlife. Neighbouringcommunities purposely burn grass both to improvethe quality of grazing and to attract wildlife forhunting. These arson fires are, due to the nature of
the terrain, almost uncontrollable. Under adverseconditions they can cause extensive damage toforests and forest margins.
Poaching is the third most important pressure inthe Coast Region and has also been an importantpressure in the other two regions. Poaching notonly refers to the illegal hunting of large mammals,but also the illegal collection and harvesting of plantmaterials, including medicinal plants. The actionsnormally profiled with respect to poaching in Africaare the illegal hunting of rhino and elephant forhorn and ivory by sophisticated and organizedpoaching gangs. This has to a large extent beencontained in South Africa and in KwaZulu-Natal inparticular. More extensive, is the illegal hunting ofantelope in protected areas for meat. This isundertaken using wire and cable snares and islargely indiscriminate in terms of the species beingentrapped, maimed, or killed. The level of impactvaries largely with the season (peaking in the dry)and the level of food shortage in the communitiessurrounding protected areas. Currently the impact
Large-scale land transformation adjacent to protected areas
Phot
o: ©
J. Er
vin
Burning fire breaks in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park
Phot
o: ©
KZN
Wild
life
A killed and dehorned white rhino – a rare reminder ofthe pressure posed by poaching
Phot
o: ©
KZN
Wild
life
19
FIN
DIN
GS
AN
D A
NA
LYS
ES
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
Figure 26. An Assessment of the Most Important Future Threats Anticipated byProtected Area Managers in KwaZulu-Natal
20
although costly from an economic perspective, hasbeen limited to depressing the populations ofspecies below carrying capacity. However,uncontrolled harvesting of plants in particular hasbeen responsible for the local extinction of manyimportant medicinal plants such as the pepper tree(Warburgia salutaris) and isiPhephetho(Siphonochilus aethiopicus).
The most important threats to protected areas arelargely consistent with the past pressures and havea great degree of congruence between regions(Figure 26). Alien plant invasion is seen as thegreatest threat to the integrity of protected areas inthe Coast and Zululand regions and the secondhighest in the uKhahlamba Region. The magnitudeof this threat is perceived to be greatest inZululand, followed by the Coast Region (Figure 26).
Coast Region
8
4
2
6
12
10
14
18
16
Alie
n Pl
ant I
nvas
ion
Poac
hing
Land
Use
Cha
nge
PA Is
olat
ion
Pollu
tion
Tour
ism
Reso
urce
Util
izat
ion
Bush
Enc
roac
hmen
t
Dise
ase
- In
dige
nous
Dise
ase
- Ex
otic
Land
Inva
sion
Silta
tion
Eros
ion
(man
-indu
ced)
Arso
n/Un
cont
rolle
d Fi
res
Alie
n An
imal
s
Min
ing
Purp
osef
ul S
peci
es E
radi
catio
n
Man
agem
ent S
olid
Was
te
Dam
Bui
ldin
g
Arch
aeol
ogic
al D
estru
ctio
n
0
uKhahlamba Region
15
5
10
25
20
Alie
n Pl
ant I
nvas
ion
PA Is
olat
ion
Land
Use
Cha
nge
Dise
ase
- Ex
otic
Dise
ase
- In
dige
nous
Bush
Enc
roac
hmen
t
Reso
urce
Util
izat
ion
Eros
ion
(man
-indu
ced)
Alie
n An
imal
s
Arso
n/Un
cont
rolle
d Fi
res
Poac
hing
Silta
tion
Pollu
tion
Tour
ism
Land
Inva
sion
Purp
osef
ul S
peci
es E
radi
catio
n
Min
ing
Dam
Bui
ldin
g
Man
agem
ent S
olid
Was
te
Arch
aeol
ogic
al D
estru
ctio
n
0
Deg
ree
of
Thr
eat
Deg
ree
of
Thr
eat
FIN
DIN
GS
AN
D A
NA
LYS
ES
21
The process currently perceived to be the greatestthreat to protected area integrity in the uKhahlambaRegion is the isolation of protected areas throughland transformation. Transformation of the landcover from a largely natural state under stockranching (which is largely compatible with natureconservation) to more intensive forms of cropagriculture such as plantation forestry, sugarcane,maize and potato is taking place at an increasingrate, severing connections between protectedareas and fragmenting the natural landscape.
Land use change ranks as the second highestthreat in the Coast Region, the third highest inZululand and the fifth highest in uKhahlamba(Figure 26). This reflects the concerns managershave regarding legal claims for ancestral land thathave been made for protected areas since theadvent of democratic government in South Africa.To date however, no protected area has beendegazetted in favour of another land use. Instead,partnerships between traditional and conservationauthorities have been mandated, ensuring that thebenefits emanating from conservation are equitablyshared by the original occupants of the land.
The threat associated with poaching ranks third inthe Coast Region and much lower in other regions.With respect to this, one would have expected atleast for the Coast and Zululand regions to havescored this threat similarly due to their closeproximity and similarities in at least the largemammal assets of the protected areas in theregions. However, this situation is currently bettercontrolled in the Zululand Region and given currentresourcing levels, managers do not perceive this tobe a major threat in the future.
Tourism developments and impact rank as thefourth highest threat in the uKhahlamba Regionand sixth in the Coastal Region. This reflects theanxiety managers have with respect to the impactsof tourism in the two more sensitive areas todevelopment. Of particular concern are the impactof footpaths, tracks and roads in the mountainousregions of the Drakensberg and in the soft duneand beach environment of the coast.
Zululand Region
8
4
2
6
14
12
10
0
PA Is
olat
ion
Alie
n Pl
ant I
nvas
ion
Arso
n/Un
cont
rolle
d Fi
res
Tour
ism
Poac
hing
Eros
ion
(man
-indu
ced)
Alie
n An
imal
s
Land
Use
Cha
nge
Land
Inva
sion
Dise
ase
- Ex
otic
Reso
urce
Util
izat
ion
Pollu
tion
Dam
Bui
ldin
g
Dise
ase
- In
dige
nous
Man
agem
ent S
olid
Was
te
Bush
Enc
roac
hmen
t
Silta
tion
Min
ing
Deg
ree
of
Thr
eat
Arch
aeol
ogic
al D
estru
ctio
n
Purp
osef
ul S
peci
es E
radi
catio
n
Protected areas have been prioritized on a regionalbasis to assist managers with resource allocation.Due to the financial crisis in the organization, thisform of analysis has been of particular interest andin demand. A regional approach to this analysiswas more appropriate than a broad provincialanalysis since budgets are allocated on a regionalbasis annually, and once allocated the regionsoperate independently of one another indistributing this budget between protected areasunder their control.
Our analysis focused on biological importance,threat, and vulnerability (Figure 27). This clearlyidentified the protected areas in each region thatwere biologically the most important, the mosthighly threatened and the most vulnerable. Sincethe degree of threat was highly correlated with theurgency of threat (Figure 28), relations, inter-pretations and recommendations emanating from the analysis of any one of these variables will holdfor the other.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
Figure 27. Comparison of the Degree of Biological Importance with theDegree of Threat and Vulnerability for each Protected Area
Coast Region
22
Individual protected areas from eachmanagement region plotted in the three-dimensional space defined by the degree ofthreat, biological importance, and vulnerability.Annotations associated with each symbol arethe individual protected area abbreviations.
Degr
ee o
f Thr
eat
Biological Importance
Vulnerability
Degr
ee o
f Thr
eat
Biological Importance
Vulnerability
Degr
ee o
f Thr
eat
Biolog
ical Im
porta
nce
Vulnerability
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
uKhahlamba Region
Zululand Region
23
Of further interest is the positive relationshipbetween biological importance and socialimportance as it was measured in the survey. Thisis important from a management perspective sincein this instance, a management approach whichprioritizes resource allocation based on biologicalimportance will also be justified from a social,human benefit perspective.
From this analysis, it is quite clear that theprotected areas that deserve priority attention inthe Coast Region are; Mkhuze Game Reserve (mz),
KranzKloof Nature Reserve (kz), Coastal ForestReserve (co), Sodwana State Forest (sf), MhlatuzeEstuary (mh), and the Umhlanga Lagoon (ul).Clearly the areas in need of priority action in theuKhahlamba Region are Impendle Nature Reserve(im), Gxalingenwa Forest Reserve (gx), and KwaYiliState Forest and in the Zululand Region areUmfolozi Game Reserve (uf), Hluhluwe GameReserve (hw), Ngoye Forest (ng), Nkandla Forest(nk), Ndumu Game Reserve (nu), and QudeniForest Reserve (qu).
Figure 28. Cross Correlation Matrix between Degree of Threat, Urgency ofThreat, Vulnerability, Biological Importance, and Social Importance
Degree of Threat
Urgency of Threat
Vulnerability
Biological Importance
Social Importance
Degree ofThreat
1.000
0.878
0.391
0.084ns
0.172ns
Urgency ofThreat
1.000
0.433
0.083ns
0.205ns
Vulnerability
1.000
0.422
0.525
BiologicalImportance
1.000
0.6550
SocialImportance
1.000
FIN
DIN
GS
AN
D A
NA
LYS
ES
Note: ns Not statistically significant
Magnitude of Threat
Magnitude of Threat
Urgency of Threat
Urgency of Threat
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
Biological Importance
BiologicalImportance
Social Importance
SocialImportance
24
Figure 29. Relations between a) protected area planning and practices,and b) inputs into protected area management and practices
The management effectiveness index developed forthis analysis is reflected as the sum of the scoresfrom questions relating to protected area planning,inputs, and practices. From a strategicmanagement perspective however, it is importantto understand the relationships between thesethree variables. With regard to this, one mightexpect that with better planning of protected areasand greater inputs into protected areamanagement, that management practice wouldalso be of a higher standard. This is borne out by acomparative analysis of these elements (Figure 29).
This has an important implication for protectedarea management namely that if you do not plan,you cannot be expected to perform well. This
emphasizes the importance of managementplanning in ensuring a high level of managementpractice. Secondly, in the context of protectedareas in KwaZulu-Natal, inputs into managementwill be reflected directly in the level of managementpractice. In a situation where resources forprotected area management are limited, this isproblematic when re-allocating resources since onemust expect a drop in the level of managementpractice in a situation where resources are beingre-allocated to another protected area. Thisreinforces the need to prioritize resource allocationon the basis of trying to maximize gains forbiodiversity conservation.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
Planning
Prac
tices
Inputs
Prac
tices
D uring the follow-up regional workshops,the assessments were presented to anddiscussed with a representative group of
staff from each region. The following recommen-dations were discussed and developed at theseforums.
LEGAL STATUSCritical to the implementation of good managementpractice is the legal status and demarcation ofprotected areas. High priority must be given to thesettling of all outstanding legal land claim and useright issues. Furthermore, appropriate boundarydemarcation must be implemented and maintainedwhere this is deficient.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVESThe foundation of effective management is acurrent management plan and more especially aset of specific management objectives for eachmanagement unit. While most managersresponded positively to the questions regarding thecurrency of management plans and the existenceof management objectives, on re-examinationthese were often found to be rather general,outdated and lacking a regional context. It istherefore strongly recommended that as a matterof priority, the critically important biodiversity andcultural assets in each protected area areidentified, and based on this, specific objectivesare documented for each protected area.
ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICALASSETSPrioritization requires comparative analyses andhence a comparable level of knowledge of themost important assets of each protected area, fora valid analysis to be undertaken. This was clearlyof some concern to participants, who expressedthe opinion that the assessment of biologicalimportance was biased as a result of the lack ofcomparative data between protected areas. This isnot only a problem when it comes to assessment,but also with the determination of specific
management objectives and goals for eachprotected area and for this reason must be viewedas a critical weakness. It is therefore stronglyrecommended that the knowledge of the biologicalassets in each protected area be criticallyevaluated and addressed with appropriate surveyswhere this is found wanting.
STAFF UNDERSTANDINGIn order to address the problem of the poorunderstanding that staff have for protected areaobjectives, it is recommended that the process ofdeveloping protected area objectives should be asinclusive as is possibly practical. Subsequent to thedevelopment and adoption of a set of objectivesfor a protected area, specific attention needs to bepaid by senior management to ensure that reservestaff develop an understanding of the values of theprotected area and therefore for the stated objec-tives, policies, and practices of the protected area.
REPORTING AND APPROVAL OFMANAGEMENT PLANSPart of the reason for the retarded state ofmanagement plan development and use in theorganization, is the rather circuitous adoptionprocedures that are required to be followed, andthe widely held perception that a management planis a static management recipe to be followed untilthe next revision of the plan. To address this it isrecommended that:
� The practice of sending only complete plans tothe Board for approval is dropped. Instead,Section C (Vision and Objectives) and only thissection of all plans should be developed tocompletion and sent for Board approval.
� Protected area managers are held responsiblefor reporting achievements against theseobjectives each year.
� Procedures are adopted that allow annualrevisions of management plans based onadaptive management principles. Theserevisions should only require senior executiveapproval.
RE
CO
MM
EN
DAT
ION
S
25
RECOMMENDATIONS
26
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
ANNUAL THREAT ANALYSISThe identification and analysis of pressures andthreats is currently undertaken within theframework of the existing management plans, andalthough most managers felt that this wasadequate for their protected area, the strategy toaddress these was clearly deficient since managersexpressed frustration at not being able toimplement these plans. This was also reflected inthe large number of respondents who felt thatrestoration and prevention programmes were notconsistent with the degrees of pressure and threat.Apart from the vision, objectives, and specific goalsof a protected area, the identification and mitigationof the major threats to the integrity of a protectedarea is probably the most important managementactivity undertaken. Since the relative importance ofthreats can change over a short period of time, it isrecommended that a formal threat analysis foreach protected area is undertaken each year andincluded/updated in the management plan.Furthermore, this should then become thefoundation of work planning and resourceallocation in the following financial year.
STRATEGIC RESEARCH ANDMONITORINGThe identification and prioritization of key researchquestions that need to be addressed and theundertaking of strategic research programmes ineach protected area was highlighted as an area ofconcern. While each protected area’s managementplan requires the identification and prioritization ofresearch and monitoring programmes, this has inmany instances not been completed norincorporated into the draft plans. Following thethreat analysis and during the development ofmanagement prescriptions to address thesethreats, it is recommended that a list of keyquestions revolving around critical information gapsis developed and then collated into a strategicresearch and monitoring programme which can beupdated each year.
SITE DESIGN AND PLANNINGThe important components of protected areadesign and planning including layout and
configuration, buffer zones, and linkages to otherprotected areas, have been highlighted as a glaringweakness in the protected area system of theprovince. With the ever increasing rate of landtransformation, the opportunity to address theseshortfalls is diminishing rapidly. Consequently, it isrecommended that this be addressed at leastpartially by the conservation planning projectcurrently under way in the province, and also at ahigher regional (in this case municipal) planninglevel. The planning and implementation of formalbuffers around protected areas and appropriatemovement corridors between protected areas isimperative if the current set of protected areas is tofulfil their role in the future.
EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTUREMAINTENANCEWith the exception of the newer protected areasand those inherited recently from state bodies suchas the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry aspart of a national restructuring, protected areas inKwaZulu-Natal are relatively well-endowed withappropriate infrastructure and field equipment.However, there is widely expressed opinion that themaintenance and care of equipment andinfrastructure is substandard, thus posing as aserious threat to the sustainability of current levelsof management inputs by the organization.Consequently, it is recommended thatcomprehensive equipment and infrastructure statusand maintenance schedules are developed andprioritized for critical components in each protectedarea, and that future maintenance is strategicallyresourced based on these schedules.
PRIORITIZATIONCurrently resource allocation to protected areas isbased very much on increments to previouslyallocated budgets. It is recommended that mediumterm and annual budgets be allocated based on aprioritization which reflects biological and socialimportance as well as threat to the protected areasystem. Immediate priorities for consideration ineach region are highlighted in the section onconservation priorities (page 22).
LOCAL COMMUNITY SUPPORTThe degree to which local communities understandand support the objectives of protected areas hasbeen rated largely from a park managerperspective, and it is critical to obtain an unbiasedopinion and understanding of this. It isrecommended that this is addressed through anindependent survey of a broad sample of protectedareas in the province. This could be seen as thestarting point for increased dialogue and moreeffective communication between parkmanagement and neighbouring communities,which was also found to be a critical weaknessrequiring urgent attention.
INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT THREATThe most important threat by far in all three regionsis perceived to be alien plants. The ‘Working forWater Programme’ is an innovative and uniquelySouth African programme run under the auspicesof the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry tocombat the hydrological, biodiversity, andeconomic impacts of alien plant invasion and toaddress the social issues of poverty andunderdevelopment in priority areas in the country. It is strongly recommended that KZN Wildlife as anorganization engages fully with this programme atall levels, in order to maximize the benefits forbiodiversity and protected area management.
RE
CO
MM
EN
DAT
ION
S
27
28
WW
FS
OU
TH A
FRIC
A C
AS
E S
TUD
Y
T he nub of the analysis revolved aroundbiological importance, threat, andvulnerability. While assessment teams were
reasonably happy that threat and vulnerability couldbe fairly judged across all protected areas, this wasnot the case for biological importance. Largelythrough circumstance, protected areas in differentareas of the province had not had the sameamount of attention paid to them from an inventoryand research perspective and consequentlyknowledge of the important biological attributes ofprotected areas was uneven. Thus it was felt thatthe analyses may have led to an unfair ‘downweighting’ of those protected areas with poorknowledge of biological attributes. To address this,KZN Wildlife biodiversity research and ecologicaladvice staff must continue to coordinate theinventory of important biodiversity assets inprotected areas under its jurisdiction in a structuredway. The data need to be captured into theprotected areas database which is held centrally,and distributed to regional planning and advicestaff at regular intervals to ensure its incorporationinto updated management plans.
There was clear support for the adoption of themethodology as a means of monitoring trends inmanagement effectiveness and prioritizing resourceallocation. It was decided that the methodologycould be used in two modes namely:
� Continuous assessment – where the regionalmanager and ecological advice coordinatorwould continually set priorities, managementtasks and actions and undertake local
re-evaluations re-scoring questions andupdating the database on a continuous basis. Inthis way the database would become a dynamicplanning, action and monitoring tool forregionally based managers with a timeframe andturn around of a year or less. In this respect themethodology would be refined and developed toserve as a site specific assessment andmanagement tool.
� Periodic reassessment – where anindependently managed reassessment of allprotected areas in the province is undertaken(as was done in this project) at two to threeyearly intervals, and the results reported andacted on by policy makers at a provincial levelacross all protected areas.
There is a clear need to streamline themanagement planning process and this will beundertaken with the express purpose of developinga strategic, dynamic and live document for eachprotected area that becomes the backbone ofprotected area management in the province.
The process of re-allocating resources betweenprotected areas is currently cumbersome andcontentious within the organization, with the resultthat few decisions of this nature are ever made,and the status quo remains. The adoption ofprocedures to objectively rank protected areas(based on biodiversity value and threat) andreallocate resources to priority areas will bepursued.
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
Ervin, J. 2003. WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM)Methodology. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.Macdonald, I A W and Jarman, M L. (eds). 1985. Invasive Alien Plants in the Terrestrial Ecosystems of Natal,South Africa. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 118, CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa.Margules, C R and Pressey, R L. 2000. Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature, 405: 243–253.
This study was undertaken and facilitated by financial assistance from WWF International (Forests for LifeProgramme). The Protected Areas Programme Manager Devendra Rana is thanked for his pivotal role andsupport in all phases of the project. Jamison Ervin the developer of the methodology has provided invaluableassistance in implementing the methodology, analysing, and interpreting the results, and commenting on themanuscript. Barry and Dany James further developed the KZN Wildlife protected areas database and providedgreat assistance at all of the regional workshops. Finally, colleagues from Bhutan, China, and Russia providedgood companionship and valuable comments on this manuscript at the final workshop.
REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Protected Areas Initiative
Forests for Life
WWF International
Avenue du Mont-Blanc
1196 Gland
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 364 9009
Fax: +41 22 364 0640
www.panda.org/parkassessment/
This package is printed on Context FSC paper supplied byPaperback Ltd. Chain of custody number SGS-COC-0621.Context FSC is made from 75% de-inked fibre and 25% FSCcertified pulp from well-managed forests independently certifiedin accordance with the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council.
Sout
h A
fric
a
Related Documents
