IMPROVED DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES FOR THE TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS OF

SOUTHERN AFRICA

by

ANNA SUSANNA MALAN

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES

(Forestry)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(Vancouver)

May 2015

© Anna Susanna Malan, 2015

ii

ABSTRACT

The focus of this research is environmental governance in Africa, explored through the lens of trans-

border conservation initiatives. I used the embedded case study approach to dissect the political, socio-

economic and ecosystem management aspects of decision making in the establishment and

management of protected areas across national boundaries, focusing on two transfrontier conservation

areas (TFCAs) in southern Africa, the Greater Limpopo and the Greater Mapungubwe transfrontier

conservation areas. This is a qualitative study using mixed methods to collect data, including 93 semi-

structured interviews with current and potential decision makers from every possible level, 16

questionnaires, ten mental model workshops, several meetings with local municipalities and other

decision-making platforms, and an in-depth scrutiny of relevant policies and treaty documents.

Interviewees provided inputs into a value system framework based on a compilation of attributes from

each of the ecosystem, socio-economic and governance literature, to produce an average score for each

of the two case study areas. The results indicated highly disjunctive approaches among countries

forming part of the TFCAs, leading to many undesirable feedback loops. The decision-making processes

of each country component of the two TFCAs were then analyzed separately, using a “governance”

capability maturity model to determine the effectiveness of current management practices. A

“collaboration” maturity model was used to identify gaps in the information sharing, decision making

and patterns of interaction among the different stakeholders of each of the two TFCAs, indicating

institutional and decision-making flaws in the current system. Some recommendations are provided to

improve these in order to overcome current failures in the three dimensions of a TFCA.

iii

PREFACE

This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, A.S. Malan. The fieldwork reported in

Chapters three to seven was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board

(Certificate number H11-02012). Anna Susanna Malan identified the research problem and

methodologies, made the field contacts, identified collaborating organizations, collected the data and

conducted the data analyses independently. Only the final field trip to Zimbabwe was organized with the

assistance of Dr. Clara Bocchino (Animal Health for the Environment and Development (AHEAD) Greater

Limpopo TFCA Coordinator); all other field trips were organized by the student.

The mental model workshops described in Chapter four were facilitated by Dr Marisa Coetzee,

Mpumalanga Parks and Tourism Association and Mr. Harry Biggs, South African National Parks, with

Malan assisting with the facilitation of five of these workshops. The outcomes of these workshops were

published as an internal report to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs, and was

officially presented on November 16th, 2012 (Coetzee M., Biggs H.C., and Malan S. Sharing the benefits

of biodiversity: a regional action plan to nurture and sustain the contribution of biodiversity and

ecosystem services to livelihoods and resilient economic development within the Kruger to Canyons

Biosphere).

The research, or parts of it, was presented at the following scientific conferences: the 10th, 11th and 12th

Annual Savannah Scientific Network Meetings in 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively; the 11th and 12th

AHEAD Working Group Meetings in 2011 and 2014; and the Europe, Middle East and Africa Chapter of

the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Conference in 2014. The latter’s conference

proceedings published the paper written jointly by Malan and Innes (Using systems thinking to inform

natural resource governance), awarding the authors with the Ad Sparrius Best Paper trophy.

In revising and editing the thesis, the supervisory committee consisting of Dr John L. Innes, Professor

and Dean of the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Dr Robert A. Kozak, Professor at the

Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, and Dr Peter Dauvergne, Professor of Political

Science, and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, made valuable

contributions that improved the quality of the thesis.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii

Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. viii

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ x

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... xi

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Research Question and Objectives ............................................................................................... 2

1.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4

1.4. Structure of the Thesis .................................................................................................................. 8

1.5. Limitations of the Research .......................................................................................................... 8

1.6. Some Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 9

2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.1. Resource Governance ................................................................................................................. 11

2.2. Conservation Influences in Africa ............................................................................................... 20

2.2.1. Conservation Paradigms ..................................................................................................... 20

2.2.2. Transfrontier Conservation ................................................................................................. 22

2.2.3. Transfrontier Conservation in Africa ................................................................................... 25

2.2.4. Learning from Transboundary Examples Worldwide: ........................................................ 27

2.3. Community-based Conservation ................................................................................................ 33

2.4. Decision Making in Complex Systems ......................................................................................... 35

3. Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 40

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 40

3.2. Geographical Location and Biophysical Information .................................................................. 41

3.3. Cultural and Historical Background ............................................................................................ 44

v

3.4. Institutional Arrangements ......................................................................................................... 47

4. Socio-economic Dimension ................................................................................................................. 49

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49

4.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 50

4.3. Results and Discussion According to Attributes ......................................................................... 56

4.3.1. Who are the Stakeholders?................................................................................................. 56

4.3.2. Some Results and Comments Following the Meta-Study of CBNRM Literature ................ 58

4.3.3. The Status of Communities in the Limpopo and Mapungubwe TFCAs ............................... 62

4.4. More General Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 81

4.4.1. Using Political Rhetoric to Get Buy-In from Stakeholders .................................................. 82

4.4.2. Peace Parks or Cradles of Conflict? ..................................................................................... 83

4.4.3. CAMPFIRE Under Threat? ................................................................................................... 83

4.4.4. A Flawed Socio-Economic Model ........................................................................................ 84

4.4.5. Traditional versus Political Authority: an African Conundrum ........................................... 85

5. Ecosystem Management ..................................................................................................................... 87

5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 87

5.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 89

5.3. Who are the Ecosystem Management Decision Makers? .......................................................... 91

5.4. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 93

5.5. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 106

6. Governance and Policies ................................................................................................................... 108

6.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 108

6.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 110

6.3. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 112

6.4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 120

6.4.1. NGOs: Walking a Tightrope or Calling the Shots? ............................................................. 120

6.4.2. The Major Governance Challenges ................................................................................... 124

7. Evaluating the Decision-Making Processes ....................................................................................... 127

vi

7.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 127

7.2. Results: How are Decisions Made, and by Whom .................................................................... 128

7.3. Combined Results ..................................................................................................................... 132

7.4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 133

7.4.1. Where There is Pressure There is Flow ............................................................................. 133

7.4.2. Moving from Governance to Implementation .................................................................. 134

7.4.3. Evaluating the Decision-making Processes and Performance of Both Case Studies ........ 137

8. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 148

8.1. Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................................. 148

8.1.1. Decision Making in the Socio-Economic Dimension ......................................................... 148

8.1.2. Decision Making in the Ecosystem Dimension ................................................................. 149

8.1.3. Decision Making in the Governance Dimension ............................................................... 149

8.2. Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 150

8.3. Possible Future Research Directions in the Field Drawing on the Research ............................ 153

References ................................................................................................................................................ 154

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 168

Socio-Economic Scores per Case Study ................................................................................................ 168

Ecosystem Scores .................................................................................................................................. 170

Appendix B: Interview Leading Questions ................................................................................................ 172

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................ 179

List of Interviews, Questionnaires, Workshops, and Other Meetings .................................................. 179

Appendix D: Detailed Maps ...................................................................................................................... 187

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Definitions for some terms found in this document ..................................................................... 10

Table 2: Expansion of the principles formulated by Dietz et al. (2003). ..................................................... 18

Table 3: Design principles illustrated by long-enduring common-pool resource institutions .................... 19

Table 4: Syndromes of cross-level, scale-dependent interplay .................................................................. 20

Table 5: Summary of the main biophysical components of the two case studies ..................................... 43

Table 6: Case study outcomes of the meta-study were noted according to seven attributes ................... 53

Table 7: Different categories of stakeholders according to tenure and ways of making a living ............... 58

Table 8 Average scores for each country within the two case studies regarding the socio-economic

attributes .................................................................................................................................................... 63

Table 9: Overview of ecological management of different land use zones within the TFCAs: .................. 92

Table 10: Average scores for each country within the two case studies regarding the ecosystem

management attributes .............................................................................................................................. 93

Table 11: A list of the main fauna species found within the greater TFCA ................................................. 96

Table 12 List of the nine governance attributes ....................................................................................... 111

Table 13: Average governance scores for each country per case study ................................................... 112

Table 14: The system developed by PPF to evaluate the progress made by the different TFCAs ........... 122

Table 15: The average scores of the three dimensions shown at country level per case study. ............. 132

Table 16: Table summarizing the key issues pertinent to the Limpopo TFCA or GLTP ............................ 138

Table 17: Spreadsheet showing the average scores per country for Mapungubwe ................................ 168

Table 18: Spreadsheet showing the average scores per country for Limpopo ........................................ 169

Table 19: Spreadsheet showing the average scores per country for both case studies .......................... 170

Table 20: Socio-economic attributes and related questions .................................................................... 172

Table 21: Ecosystem management attributes and related questions ...................................................... 174

Table 22: Governance attributes and related questions .......................................................................... 176

Table 23: List of interviews and questionnaires ....................................................................................... 179

Table 24: List of Mental Model workshops ............................................................................................... 185

Table 25: List of other meetings and workshops ...................................................................................... 186

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Diagram of research analysis ......................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Outline of the steps followed to develop a value system aimed at evaluating system

performance ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3: Map indicating the location of the two case study areas, as well as other transfrontier

conservation areas in the SADC region ......................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4: Thesis outline ................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 5: A multitier framework of Social Ecosystems (SESs) indicates the complexity embedded in the

transboundary governance systems of a transfrontier conservation area ................................................ 12

Figure 6: The pathway to a more complex transboundary governance system ........................................ 13

Figure 7: Transboundary protected areas are usually preceded by either or both of two scenarios. ....... 14

Figure 8: Key institutional linkages facilitating the activities of a transboundary protected area. ............ 16

Figure 9: Principles for robust governance ................................................................................................. 17

Figure 10: Terrestrial ecoregions of the world ........................................................................................... 23

Figure 11: Distribution of TFCAs worldwide ............................................................................................... 24

Figure 12: Location of peace parks around the globe ................................................................................ 24

Figure 13: Proposed 14 TFCAs in Southern Africa ...................................................................................... 26

Figure 14: The four types of knowledge or decision-making domains within social systems .................... 37

Figure 15: a) Walker et al.’s three-dimensional stability landscape with two basins of attraction ........... 38

Figure 16: The process of “making sense” of the complexity of a transboundary protected area. ........... 39

Figure 17: Mapungubwe map and location within Africa and southern Africa .......................................... 41

Figure 18: Limpopo map and location within Africa and southern Africa .................................................. 42

Figure 19: Diagrams showing the institutional arrangements for each of the case studies ...................... 48

Figure 20: Selection of case studies outside Africa ..................................................................................... 51

Figure 21: Distribution of African case studies ........................................................................................... 51

Figure 22: Diagram representing the complex composition of stakeholders in a typical transfrontier

conservation area – area size per level represents actual distribution ...................................................... 57

Figure 23: Linkages between the different attributes of communities involved in resource management

reported for 105 case studies wordlwide. .................................................................................................. 59

Figure 24: Proportion of case studies (%) that received funding during the project life ........................... 60

Figure 25: Map of the Greater Mapungubwe TFCA indicating the land uses............................................. 88

ix

Figure 26: Map of the Greater Limpopo Transboundary Park, indicating the various land uses. .............. 89

Figure 27: Aerial view of the intensive irrigated agriculture sectors next to the Limpopo River ............... 94

Figure 28: Map showing the major river systems within the Mapungubwe TFCA, .................................... 97

Figure 29: Satellite picture of Masingir Velo, one of seven villages within Parque Naçional do Limpopo,

.................................................................................................................................................................. 101

Figure 30: Map showing the river catchments and drainage from north-eastern South Africa into

Mozambique, ............................................................................................................................................ 103

Figure 31: Map showing the three major river catchments draining through Gonarezhou NP into

Mozambique ............................................................................................................................................. 104

Figure 32: Current organizational structure of the Limpopo TFCA ........................................................... 130

Figure 33: Organizational structure of Mapungubwe TFCA ..................................................................... 131

Figure 34: The degree of difficulty experienced in establishing a TFCA as an institutional entity ........... 132

Figure 35: Diagram to show the natural processes within either of the TFCA case studies .................... 133

Figure 36: Diagram showing the distinction between governance at the political level, and

implementation of best practices at the operational level. Both are guided by decisions of a different

kind............................................................................................................................................................ 134

Figure 37: Diagram outlining the typical policies and management practices aimed for in transboundary

protection ................................................................................................................................................. 135

Figure 38: Current decision making mostly exists from the top down, with few joint operational activities

.................................................................................................................................................................. 136

Figure 39: Diagram representing optimal joint governance and management of transboundary

conservation ............................................................................................................................................. 136

Figure 40: Description of each maturity level according to the Capability Maturity Model of

Organizational Performance ..................................................................................................................... 140

Figure 41: Diagram depicting the increased coherence with which the entities within a TFCA can

approach systems management ............................................................................................................... 141

Figure 42: The five stages of network enabled capabilities between a collective of entities and its

graphical representation ........................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 43: Detailed map of the Greater Limpopo TFCA ............................................................................ 187

Figure 44: The Greater Mapungubwe Concept Development Plan Phase 1 ............................................ 188

x

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AHEAD Animal Health for the Environment and Development

ANAC Administração Nacional das Áreas de Conservação

CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DEDET Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga

GLTFCA Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area

GMTFCA Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area

ICMA Incomati Catchment Management Agency

K2C Kruger to Canyons

KNP Kruger National Park

LEDET Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism

MTPA Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency

NR Nature Reserve

NP National Park

PNL Parque Naçional do Limpopo

PPF Peace Parks Foundation

SAEON South African Environmental Observation Network

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

Sanparks South African National Parks

SAWC South African Wildlife College

TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area

Zimparks Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study described in these pages has been an incredible journey, the enjoyment of which was made

possible because of the many people who touched my life throughout the research. My acquaintance

with the people and country of Canada has enriched my life and academic background boundlessly. I am

compelled to single out: fellow lab members Reem Hajjar and Patrick Waeber; graduate student

supervisor and assistant dean Cindy Prescott, associate dean Sue Watts, graduate student advisor Gayle

Kosh, and my supervisory committee, John Innes, Rob Kozak and Peter Dauvergne. Being awarded the

Paul Heller Fellowship galvanized my completion of the field work and I am grateful to Dr. Irene

Bettinger for enabling this, and to the Faculty of Forestry for awarding this to me. In southern Africa, I

am deeply indebted to the many people who agreed to talk to me on and off the record, and I wish to

acknowledge in particular Piet Theron, Clara Bocchino, Marisa Coetzee and Harry Biggs, who provided

valuable insights, assisted me where possible and tolerated my presence in many meetings and

workshops. My three children and my trusted companion and husband have been a tremendous

support throughout the four years, the many field trips to remote areas and recurring visits to Canada,

always urging me on, patiently waiting for me to come home. Words cannot convey my appreciation

adequately. Finally, no step would have been possible without the guidance of Him who created all of

the natural resources, and gave man the freedom to govern it. For that I am eternally grateful.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

“The human race is challenged more than ever before to demonstrate our mastery - not over nature but of ourselves.”

- Rachel Carson (1907-1964)

When the human race crossed the 7 billion mark in 2011, this served as a reminder of the rate at which

humans have increased over the past century, having doubled this figure in 42 years (Keim 2011).

Although by far not the most numerous of earth’s species, the alarming factor is that although we

represent only 0.00018 percent of earth’s non-marine biomass, roughly 83 percent of the terrestrial

biosphere is under direct human influence: our crops cover some 12 percent of the land surface and one

third of all available fresh water is diverted to human use, which means we currently use a total of 20

percent of earth’s biomass (Keim 2011).

Although the statistics paint a bleak picture, it is the way in which we use or abuse the world’s natural

resources that relates to the issue of environmental governance (literally: to govern = to rule, manage,

control, oversee [Oxford Dictionary]). The fact is that if all humans were to consume resources at the

same rate as a tiny fraction of people currently is, then we would require the resources of 4 more

earths. Undoubtedly we need serious adjustments to our current environmental policies, given the fact

that our population will grow by another billion in just over a decade.

When considering major issues such as food shortage and poverty levels worldwide, the importance of

conservation appears to be a luxury hungry people cannot afford, but when observed through the lens

of natural resource management, which directly addresses our impact on the earth’s ability to support

the needs of 7 billion people, it becomes a moral obligation. This thesis in no way attempts to address

the macro policy questions in the domain of global governance such as how to conserve biodiversity or

reduce greenhouse gases. However, it does focus on how the custodians and stakeholders of protected

ecosystems that stretch across political boundaries manage to jointly govern valuable natural species for

the benefit of both humans and ecosystems. This is found in the integration of management decisions in

transfrontier conservation areas of the southern region of the African continent.

2

1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Examples of failures in resource governance abound everywhere on this earth; many have been

described, crucial deductions regarding the drivers of these failures have been made, and yet, despite a

mountain of resource governance literature, the consequences of these disastrous actions persist and

are visible all around. It was due to this seeming unending chain of events that Hardin suggested that

sustainable resource management is a “tragedy” in the making (Hardin 1968). Fortunately the past forty

years have also produced enough evidence of sound environmental governance, with academic

disciplines evolving around the research that identify best practices and principles driving resource

management. As we live in a global, shared environment, collaboration across political boundaries will

be pivotal in the coming decades, and the difficulty of obtaining such joint decision making are most

visible in the environmental conventions, including on climate change, biodiversity, desertification,

migratory species and pollutants.

The focus of this research has been on the difficulties encountered by southern African governments to

collaborate in managing vast ecosystems across national borders, while facing the challenges of young

democracies, historical conflicts and disadvantages, rural development needs, and a resource-hungry

world. This chapter introduces the concept of transfrontier conservation in its African context, where

the governments of southern Africa has formally agreed to collaborate in conserving biodiversity, and

established the transfrontier conservation areas - also known as “peace parks” - over the last two

decades. After developing the theoretical basis derived from conservation and resource governance

literature (described in Chapter 2), I used two transfrontier case studies to assess the current status quo,

with a particular focus on the decision-making processes of each case (Chapters 3-7). I conclude by

proposing recommendations on improving the current decision-making structures and processes

(Chapter 8).

1.2. RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES

The phenomenon of a transnational conservation area that aims to protect the biodiversity of the

ecosystem and is governed by multi-states across international borders, presents a very interesting but

complex case study in global environmental governance. The question is: can a system so complex be

evaluated and/or improved? Although non-linear interactions produce unpredictability in complex

systems (Stirzaker et al. 2010), I attempted to reduce the complexity somewhat by focusing on the three

dimensions of policies or governance, socio-economics, and natural ecosystems (Figure 1). The

3

challenge has been to determine which governance and policy options are detrimental to the objectives

of the phenomenon, these being to maintain peaceful relations through joint cooperation in

conservation efforts across borders whilst stimulating economic development in remote rural areas

through ecotourism. I based the sequence of research steps on the following suppositions:

Supposition #1: through systematic literature analysis it will be possible to develop a framework of

community conservation management which represents the most important criteria in each of the

domains of governance, socio-economic and ecosystems.

Supposition #2: the comparison between the theoretical construct and the reality (which constitutes an

in-depth critical analysis of the three dimensions in two case studies found within the transfrontier

conservation area) will expose weaknesses either in the theory or real case studies.

Supposition #3: after immersion in each case study, it will be possible through deduction and analysis to

improve the theoretical framework to better reflect reality.

Supposition #4: it will be possible to evaluate the current decision-making processes within each case

study and provide recommendations to ensure a more robust management model.

Focusing on the processes of decision making in transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa, I

asked the following key questions in each of the three dimensions:

Who decides, who plans, who implements, who manages, who benefits from the transfrontier

conservation area;

What do they implement: which policies to address which outcomes, such as tourist needs,

community needs;

How are the management decisions arrived at and implemented? How can the current

management/decision-making structure be improved?

Finally, the objective is to suggest possible adaptations to the management approaches.

4

Figure 1: Diagram of research analysis

1.3. METHODOLOGY

The approach to this interdisciplinary study was qualitative in nature, and attempted to “improve

understanding of a problem, with the intent of contributing to the solution of that problem” (Bickman

and Rog 2009, p. x), thus rendering it an applied research study. I used the embedded case study

approach, and focused on two transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa. In order to build the

theoretical foundation, I synthesized the current state of knowledge (including Indigenous Knowledge

where available and accessible). Published literature on transboundary conservation, community

conservation and forestry practices, global resource governance, and ecosystem management practices

enabled me to design three metrics, one for each dimension. I selected a set of attributes based on: 1) a

meta-study of community conservation case studies worldwide; 2) recognized ecosystem and

management characteristics that describe in part the health of an ecosystem and aspects of its

management; and 3) literature of sound transboundary, conservation and natural resource governance

principles (Figure 2). Over a period of four years (2011–2014), I conducted 93 semi-structured interviews

with individual stakeholders involved in decision-making regarding the mega-parks at a number of

different levels, from the local community to the international level (SADC). I attended and helped

facilitate five mental model workshops in the buffer zone of the Limpopo TFCA, received 16 completed

questionnaires on conservation values, and attended a workshop hosted by one of the municipalities

adjacent to Limpopo TFCA. I furthermore gathered valuable information at a number of workshops,

meetings and conferences hosted in the region with the topic of TFCAs as focus. Towards the end of the

5

study, I also organized two focus group discussions with high-level decision makers to discuss the

performance of the TFCAs.

With the assistance of interviewees I scored the attributes (Figure 2) in either or all of the three

dimensions, depending on the position of the stakeholder (local community member, reserve manager,

ecologist, provincial employee or a member of the joint management board). Interviews were recorded

wherever possible, and using the NVivo software program, which helps to sort and organise transcripts

of conversations into a reduced number of researcher designated coded clusters, I analysed the

conversations relating to conservation values to identify the values and drivers of decision-making.

Figure 2: Outline of the steps followed to develop a value system aimed at evaluating system performance

Additional data collection included spatiotemporal data collated by the existing conservation areas, as

well as ecosystem management plans and reports for each of the protected areas within the study

areas. Analyses of the different types of evidence collected (site visits, surveys, interviews and document

6

analyses) led to several sets of conclusions which formed the basis of the empirical findings from the

case study. Cross-case synthesis was used to develop the case study decision-making framework.

Through analytical generalization (Yin 2009), the theory template developed prior to the collection of

field data was matched to the empirical results and framework generated during the data collection

stage. A logic model was developed that suggests improved decision-making options to the transfrontier

conservation model in general. I identified potential drivers of failures within the current governance

system and used the outcomes of the research to draw conclusions and make recommendations for

improvement. This thesis is largely descriptive in nature, as case studies very often are (Yin 1994), since I

had to explain and describe the “complex endeavor” known as a transfrontier conservation area, and

the value systems framework and NVivo analysis was used to guide and focus the research to thus

sharpen some of the vague boundaries. Countless informal discussions with stakeholders were not

recorded physically, but still contributed to inform the research and filling some of the blanks in my own

understanding. In attributing my findings anonymously, I assigned codes to the list of interviews and

questionnaires, and although I provide a list of participants in Appendix C, this is merely to legitimize the

data in terms of participation and position of participants.

Study area:

Although Chapter 3 provides greater detail regarding the two case studies, their selection, and

characteristics, herewith a brief summary. Two of the southern African transfrontier conservation areas

have been identified as good examples to serve as embedded case studies within the more

encompassing case study concept of African “peace parks”. They are the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier

Conservation Area (GLTFCA) and the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area (GMTFCA) –

the latter has been renamed since the signing of the memorandum of understanding.

7

Figure 3: Map indicating the location of the two case study areas, as well as other transfrontier conservation areas in the SADC region (Source: Ramutsindela 2007, with permission)

The key features of the two parks are:

Both parks span the borders of three countries and therefore involve three national

constitutions and governments

Both parks comprise a combination of land use plans – from communal areas in Zimbabwe and

Mozambique to IUCN category 1b (private reserves), II (National Parks), private conservancies as

well as commercial enterprises (mines and agriculture).

The two areas differ substantially in size and character:

Limpopo TFCA covers an area of 35,000 km2 and straddles the borders of Mozambique, South

Africa and Zimbabwe, with an ultimate planned size of 100,000 km2. It mainly combines existing

national parks: Kruger National Park, Banhine, Zinave, Gonarezhou and Limpopo, including

communal areas within Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

Mapungubwe TFCA currently covers an area of 300 km2 and straddles the border of South

Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, with an ultimate planned size of 5,909 km2. It comprises

communal areas, private game farms, mining and agricultural holdings, the Northern Tuli

Reserve and the Tuli Circle. The Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape was proclaimed a World

Heritage Site in July 2003.

8

1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

The thesis consists of eight chapters, with the main research discussion of data capture, results and

analysis contained in chapters four to seven. The following diagram outlines the structure of the

dissertation.

Figure 4: Thesis outline

1.5. LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

There are a number of constraints when doing qualitative research, and this study had plenty! Looking

at any case study from a landscape level across several disciplines provides certain advantages, but it

also prohibits detailed in-depth analysis of all the different components, potentially coming across as a

superficial observation. My own values and conservation biases could easily have intruded in the

interpretations of some comments by interviewees. One factor was that I am a South African, and close

to the South African components of each case study. The majority of interviewees were therefore South

African which certainly affected the research, although not necessarily negatively, as the main drivers

for the TFCAs are currently found in South Africa. The communities that I visited were mostly

determined by accessibility (some communities in Zimbabwe and Mozambique were too remote with no

9

reliable road access), and where it was deemed unsafe for me to travel I relied on input from members

of the district council or municipality to provide insight into the attributes of these remote villages.

Funding to travel to all villages was also an important limiting factor, specifically beyond Parque

Naçional do Limpopo in Mozambique. Language was never a problem, except that most interviewees

expressed themselves not in their mother tongue which might interfere with the meaning they were

trying to get across. One aspect which could be considered a limitation or bias, was the fact that I was

far more immersed in the Limpopo case study, due to the extent of my engagement through

conservation and social workshops, the mental model workshops, the annual Savannah network

conference and many acquaintances developed over the study period. However, since this TFCA is ten

times larger and more complex than the Mapungubwe case study, it was always going to require far

more time and engagement, and I therefore consider it an advantage to have had so many opportunities

for getting to know the issues better.

Regarding the limitations in methodology and data collection, the meta review posed several issues.

Finding case studies online through any web search has the specific limitations of each search engine,

such as, in the case of Google Scholar, where the search is never totally random, and the search engine

indexes self-created pages and media pages which do not have a neutrality policy. The fact that my

French fluency precludes a good grasp of francophone literature resulted in missing a considerable

amount of African case studies that could have informed the research. Basing the meta research on the

interpretations and reflections of individual authors also comes with the danger of including their

personal bias, one which I tried to avoid by including a larger amount of case studies.

1.6. SOME DEFINITIONS

There is substantial confusion in this field regarding the use of some terms. As Tress et al. aptly state,

“the lack of common understanding of integrative research concepts is a key barrier to integration in

landscape projects and to communication between researchers” (2005:15), and is one of the reasons for

the lack of integration. The following table aims to explain the meaning of some terminology as used in

this dissertation.

10

Table 1: Definitions for some terms found in this document

Term Definition

Transboundary Protected Area

An area of land and/or sea that straddles one or more boundaries between states, sub-national units, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limits of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent parts are especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed cooperatively through legal or other effective means.

Transboundary Parks Carries the same meaning as the above, more commonly used in Europe

Transfrontier Conservation Areas

Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCA) are defined as relatively large areas, straddling frontiers between two or more countries and cover large-scale natural systems encompassing one or more protected areas.

Values The context in which the term value is mostly used throughout the dissertation, refers to the internal beliefs us as humans have adopted, usually within a cultural context. When used in the context of “worth” or “cost”, this will either be stated explicitly, or be clear from the context.

Peace Parks

Also referred to as Parks for Peace, are transboundary protected areas that are formally dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources and to the promotion of peace and cooperation. Since both transboundary protected areas and Parks for Peace are subsets of protected areas, they should always conform to the IUCN definition of a protected area as well as to one or more of the IUCN protected area management categories. For Peace Parks there should be a clear biodiversity objective, a clear peace objective and cooperation between at least two countries or sub-national jurisdictions.

Success/failure I tried to steer away from using the terms failure or success when referring to conservation, tourism or community initiatives, since these are such loaded terms and very hard to validate. However, when I use it, it should be taken at face value, meaning no more or less than what the term generally indicates.

Community Another vague term loosely referring to a small, homogenous unit – it is beyond the scope of this thesis to debate the problematic confinement of the term – it mainly refers to the society living within the vicinity or within the transfrontier conservation area itself.

Protected Area

An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. The IUCN distinguishes between six management categories according to the level of intervention or access by humans (http://www.iucn.org/).

Biodiversity

Biological diversity or “biodiversity” refers to “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 2).The term should be interpreted to include conservation and management of ecosystem functions and services.

Socio-economic a term referring to the combined measure of household income, education and occupation – in the dissertation it is loosely used to distinguish between different stakeholder entities

11

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

“Change is the end result of all true learning.”

- Leo Buscaglia (1924-1998)

This chapter reviews some of the literature and theories that could guide transboundary resource

governance. The research presented a truly interdisciplinary “headache”, with several disciplines

intersecting at various points. It was impossible to focus in depth on all the fundamental branches of

learning present in such a broad topic, but I shall attempt to include reference to the major theories and

previous research that underpin the study.

2.1. RESOURCE GOVERNANCE

The protection and management of large tracts of land across national borders represent some of the

most complex forms of natural resource governance and are therefore most prone to failure or

mismanagement. As Nobel-laureate and common resource academic, Elinor Ostrom, states: “Some of

the most difficult challenges concern the management of large-scale resources that depend on

international cooperation (Ostrom et al. 1999, p.282). Africa, as a continent, hosts large areas which fall

within the “commons” concept, since in many countries private property ownership was introduced by

the European colonial powers, and is still uncommon and often unwanted (Neumann 1997). It is for this

reason that I felt it necessary to consult the earlier literature on commons theory, and to investigate

some of the principles explored by the authors of resource governance such as Ostrom, Dietz, Berkes

and Young. The literature cited are most pertinent in the governance discourse on a study of commons

usage as found in transboundary conservation. The management of vast transboundary ecosystems as

vehicles for rural development whilst doubling as ecotourism centres is the perfect example of Ostrom’s

social-ecological systems (SES’s) (Ostrom 2007). In the same breath as describing these SES’s, she also

warns against the fallacy of oversimplifying the management and governance of such areas. The danger

12

lies in presenting any simple solution to the complex set of problems that threaten to derail such

idealistic cure-all projects. As Holling et al. state:

“The answers are not simple because we have just begun to develop the concepts, technology

and methods that can address the generic nature of the problems. Characteristically, these

problems tend to be systems problems, where aspects of behaviour are complex and

unpredictable and where causes, while at times simple (when finally understood), are always

multiple. They are non-linear in nature, cross-scale in time and in space, and have an

evolutionary character. This is true for both natural and social systems. In fact, they are one

system, with critical feedbacks across temporal and spatial scales“(1998: 352).

In order to discover which combination of variables might positively influence any given set of

governance policies, it is important to understand the nested attributes of a resource system (commons)

(Ostrom 2007). Of even greater importance is the willingness to adapt management strategies as part of

the learning curve (Janssen 2002).

To present the nested attributes of the complexity involved in the governance of the Southern African

peace parks, I have adapted the structure proposed by Ostrom (2007) in an attempt to reflect the

complex, multivariable, non-linear, cross-scale, and changing character of any one of these peace parks.

Figure 5: A multitier framework of Social Ecosystems (SESs) indicates the complexity embedded in the transboundary governance systems of a transfrontier conservation area S:Social, Economic and Political Settings ECO: Related Ecosystems I: Interactions O: Outcomes RS: Resource system RU: Resource Units GS: Governance System U: User

Direct causal link Feedback (Adapted from Ostrom 2007, with permission)

13

At each tier the resource system remains the same but governance policies, user and resource units vary

and the system becomes more complex to analyze further down. The sizes of the ovals attempt to

reflect the increasing complexity of inputs and outcomes. At each level the distinct attributes can be

unpacked and further unpacked into multiple conceptual tiers. And as Ostrom clearly states:

“The task of identifying which variations are subcategories of a more general variable is not to

identify the relative importance of a variable in a particular setting. Some crucial variables used

in the design of successful governance systems are third- and fourth-tier variables that are

important in these, but not in all, SESs.” (2007: 5, footnote).

Attempts to further develop this framework by showing the increased complexity along a horizontal

timeline is shown below (Figure 6).

Figure 6: The pathway to a more complex transboundary governance system

If the sequence of the transition does not follow the proposed roadmap by starting with transformation

of relevant policies in the region at the national level, the stability of the eventual system will be

compromised. Initial negotiations (before the area is transformed) take place at the national level

between the SADC (Southern African Development Community, a Secretariat representing the national

leaders of all the countries south of the equator) and facilitated by an NGO in the form of the Peace

Parks Foundation. Once this process is in place, the national governments need to initiate the

14

consultation process with the agrarian communities living in/adjacent to the proposed geographic area.

The PPF drives this process using consultants familiar with how best to involve communities to ensure a

participatory process. It is only after these crucial steps are followed that the ultimate outcome is

realized, which is the protection of a transboundary ecosystem.

Berkes (2007) further develops the theory of the study of biodiversity conservation in a multilevel world

by proposing a pluralistic approach and warning against developing blue-print panaceas. In the case of

the African peace parks, there are multiple objectives (rural development whilst protecting ecosystems)

which require integrated responses (Brown et al. 2005). These involve networks and partnerships of

various levels of government, private sector and civil society.

The layers of governance

In order to explain the development and transition of governance as related to the peace park regions, I

have adapted Berkes’ framework which illustrates the linkages between key institutions involved in

community-based resource management.

At the outset, before establishment of the transfrontier conservation area, either of two scenarios

exists: the area is sparsely/densely populated, it is remote, and inhabitants have a simple agrarian

existence far below the poverty line; either this or the area is unpopulated and already exists as a

conservation area. This was the case of the Limpopo TFCA which was founded as an amalgamation of

five existing wildlife parks – Kruger National Park in South Africa, Gonarezhou National Park in

Zimbabwe and Limpopo, Zinave and Banhine National Parks in Mozambique (Wolmer 2003). Either

scenario has at its core a resource, whether it is an agrarian land use system or a protected ecosystem.

This would be represented as follows:

Figure 7: Transboundary protected areas are usually preceded by either or both of two scenarios.

15

The governance in these areas would be the responsibility of the respective central government, which

in most cases would simply be provision of law and order. Only 4 of the 11 countries which would

support a TFCA on their borders are stable and prosperous. The remaining 7 countries are desperately

poor and governance especially in the remote areas is either non-existent or negligible. The

transformation of these regions into an international tourism attraction would certainly affect the

governance of the whole region. Initially, the central government would have to provide some form of

infrastructure, and the PPF/politicians would start a process of negotiating with local communities to

ensure their commitment and support.

These steps suggest a large financial investment into a previously poor and often depleted resource. In

most areas, communities have to forgo indiscriminate or any use of resources such as grazing, firewood

or meat (hunting of game). In some areas, relocation of communities is necessary, although these

would probably be kept to the minimum.

Once the boundaries of the new peace park has been established and basic infrastructure has been

provided, the local communities become involved in educational workshops/training as staff or they

participate in entrepreneurial ventures such as camps/lodges in the hospitality industry or providing

ecotourism services like safaris. The original commons/resource has now been transformed into a

commodity which should become an attractive investment opportunity to the private sector. At this

stage a new level of development as well as governance is introduced into our framework. The private

sector is less concerned with conservation per se; although it might have some interest in the social

development of the area, it is mainly focused on making money. This is where the user, or tourist,

becomes involved, and where the final level of interaction is represented in the framework based on

Berkes (2007) (Figure 8).

In addition to the tourist/park user, the set of international environmental agencies is another player in

both the governance and investment arena. Not only have these provided the funding to get this

initiative off the ground, they also exert pressure on the SADC governments to govern these areas

according to international environmental laws, act as watch dogs to determine violations of

international agreements (such as poaching of elephant and rhino for ivory trade), and they provide

valuable services such as veterinary assistance with elephant contraception and research by academics.

In future these agencies, particularly the PPF, will continue to play a crucial role in monitoring the local

governance aspects of both political government structures and management of the parks themselves.

16

Funding will remain a high priority for several years to come, although the ultimate aim is to ensure the

independent functioning of all the TFCAs (Child 2004).

Figure 8: Key institutional linkages facilitating the activities of a transboundary protected area. Arrows show information and financial flows; thicker lines indicate stronger interactions

(Adapted from Berkes 2007, with permission)

Berkes also identifies partnerships and deliberative processes as important drivers of successful

community-based conservation projects (2004). All of these are represented in the peace parks model,

with NGOs being the main drivers behind the concept (PPF and WWF in alliance with political figures

and the private sector). A key consideration is to design conservation-development arrangements that

involve the local communities as partners. The crucial aspect of the TFCAs from a sustainable enterprise

point of view is that they have to provide the user, which includes both the private sector and the

tourism sector, with the necessary value for money and proposed benefits.

A TFCA is established by a transition process in the socio-political domain to consolidate an ecosystem

under a central management structure through a process mostly facilitated by the PPF. The governance

model likewise transitions from a loosely coupled two-tier structure and few stakeholders to a tightly

coupled four-tier structure (with many stakeholders). The initial steps in the transition are high level

agreements between governments (tier 3-national government and 4-SADC), which are then followed

by interaction with local communities. By applying the governance framework proposed by Dietz et al.

(2003) to the TFCA transition process it becomes clear that the principles shown on the right in Figure 9

should be applied to the higher tier governance interactions and the principles shown on the left should

17

be applied to lower tier governance aspects. This application of the Dietz et al. (2003) governance

framework is reflected in the figure below and further expanded in Table 2.

Figure 9: Principles for robust governance Governance requirements form the central column filled with governance principles. Arrows indicate the most likely connections and principles in the right-hand column are most relevant. (Adapted from Dietz T. Ostrom E. and Stern P. 2003. The struggle to govern the Commons. Science Magazine. Vol 302:1907-1912. Reprinted

with permission from AAAS.)

18

Table 2: Expansion of the principles formulated by Dietz et al. (2003). (From Dietz T. Ostrom E. and Stern P. 2003. The struggle to govern the Commons. Science Magazine. Vol 302:1907-1912. Reprinted with

permission from AAAS.)

TFCA Governance

Before TFCA (Fig 7) Transition to TFCA (Fig 8) Established TFCA (Fig 9)

Governance Model

2 tiers: National and Local

3 tiers: Regional (SADC), National and Local (with TFCA as an additional emerging tier).

4 tiers: Regional (SADC), National, TFCA governance facilitated by PPF, Local.

Governance Objectives

National political stability and economic development

Regional political stability and economic development, natural resource protection, human resource development

Regional political stability and economic development, natural resource protection, human resource development

Stakeholders Central government, local communities separate for each country

NGOs, SADC, national governments, local communities

Industry (infrastructure, trade & tourism), local communities, NGOs, SADC, central government

Drivers for Successful Governance

Apply Table 2 and Figure 9 with focus on change management aspects. With reference to Fig 9: Apply right hand 3 blocks to tier 2-4+ (priority to achieve MoU and to implement enabling mechanisms) then apply left hand blocks to tier 1-2. Focus is on links to achieve central bottom block.

Apply Table 2 and Figure 9 with focus on stability and equity. With reference to Fig 9: Apply right hand 3 blocks to tier 2-4+ (enable continued flow of benefits to stakeholders) and apply left hand blocks to tier 1-2. Focus is on all links to satisfy all requirements in central blocks (enable continued flow of benefits to stakeholders).

Delivery Low potential Potential based on governance success in achieving change management

Potential based on governance success in achieving equity – (improved infrastructure, human resource development, economic development).

Providing a bottom line

Although Garrett Hardin paints a bleak picture about the commons, Ostrom argued for decades that the

users of the commons can also find ways to organize themselves so as to create rules that specify rights

and duties of participants in order to harvest the resource units sustainably (Ostrom and Ostrom 1977).

In looking at a commons such as the peace parks, particularly the southern African parks, devising ways

to sustain these precious ecosystems and effective governance systems become a “coevolutionary race”

(Dietz et al. 2003). Some self-governed common-pool resources have survived and flourished for

centuries, while others falter and fail, and some never get organized in the first place. The peace parks

initiative would be well served by adapting some of these long-surviving, self-governing principles that

characterize robust, long-term institutions. Table 3 provides a summary of these principles (Basurto and

Ostrom 2009).

19

Table 3: Design principles illustrated by long-enduring common-pool resource institutions (Basurto and Ostrom 2009, with permission)

Principle Synopsis

Clearly Defined Boundaries Individuals or households with rights to withdraw resource units from the common-pool resource, and the boundaries of the common-pool resource itself, are clearly defined.

Congruence A. The distribution of benefits from appropriation rules is roughly proportionate to the costs imposed by provision rules. B. Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and quantity of resource units are related to local conditions.

Collective-Choice Arrangements Most individuals affected by operational rules can participate in modifying operational rules.

Monitoring Monitors, who actively audit common-pool resource conditions and user behavior, are accountable to the users or are the users themselves.

Graduated Sanctions Users who violate operational rules are likely to receive graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) from other users, from officials accountable to these users, or from both.

Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms Users and their officials have rapid access to low-cost, local arenas to resolve conflict among users or between users and officials.

Minimal Recognition of Rights to Organize

The rights of users to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

Nested Enterprises (For common-pool resources that are parts of larger systems)

Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

Oran Young (2006) also provides valuable guidelines about the cross-level, scale-dependent interplay

present in projects such as the peace parks. He warns against focusing on only one level of resource

regimes, or to assume that higher levels are macrocosms of lower-level arrangements (or vice versa –

lower-level arrangements being microcosms of higher-level arrangements). A tendency to avoid cross-

level interactions as if it is pathological is common, and the correct response is to make a concerted

effort to understand the complexities across scale and level.

Understanding the forces that produce different patterns of interplay can play a role in bringing about

essential changes required to take the establishment of community-based peace parks forward. The

main driving forces and the patterns of interplay they are usually connected with, as well as the

outcome mostly associated with them, are shown in Table 4. If the southern African governments are

serious about making the peace parks models of co-managed, participatory ecosystem-based

20

communities, they would aim for the outcome of co-management, and focus on limiting authority

outside the immediate participating communities through negotiated agreement.

Table 4: Syndromes of cross-level, scale-dependent interplay (Taken from Young 2006, with permission)

Driving force Pattern Type Outcome Limited authority Negotiated agreement Co-management Decentralization De facto dominance Hegemony Dueling discourses Separation Competing regimes Cognitive transition Merger Institutional synthesis Blocking coalitions System change Institutional breakdown

2.2. CONSERVATION INFLUENCES IN AFRICA

2.2.1. CONSERVATION PARADIGMS

Conservation in the western, developed world began with a focus on specific species preservation

because of the recognition that these species might become extinct when harvesting levels were

maintained. This was mainly due to the species’ utility value, whether for consumption or for

recreational purposes such as hunting during the Victorian period (Redford et al. 2003). The focus then

gradually changed to include “charismatic” animal species like tigers and pandas, which introduced a

move towards conservation of species for their intrinsic value, exemplified by the introduction of the

Red Data List of the IUCN and the US Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Redford et al. 2003). The next

shift was to include ecosystems into the conservation basket, less for their intrinsic value than for the

value of ecosystem services, such as tropical rain forests. Also included then was scenic beauty as a

conservation target (Noss and Cooperrider 1994; DiSilvestro 1993, Runte 1979, Sellars 1989), although

Shafer (1999:189) argues that “in addition to natural beauty, biological and geological factors did indeed

influence the selection of some early natural area national parks and monuments”. This period

introduced the notion of utilizing these scenic parks for recreational purposes, and in developed

countries the concept of spending relaxing periods in nature to unwind or exercise grew enormously

over the last 60 years.

The last three decades saw the dawn of the era of biodiversity protection, largely due to the release of

the Brundtland Report in 1987 (WCED, 1987). Although generally vaguely defined, the need for it

received widespread recognition in the developed world and it is advocated based both on intrinsic and

utilitarian values (Redford et al. 2003). Also during the nineties perspectives on landscape conservation

21

developed, either as targets of conservation within themselves or as mechanisms to accomplish

conservation – “stewardship of all of the species on all of the landscape with every activity we undertake

as human beings - a task without spatial and temporal boundaries” (Franklin 1993:205).

Conservation history in Africa has been tainted by hostilities and conflict between conservation

authorities and local communities. This is because conservation for more than a century was an imposed

European ideology of scenic African landscapes, forced on the citizens of occupied countries under

colonial rule. It often meant forced removal and resettlement of entire communities to make room for

preservations with restrictions on customary resource uses and reduced access to ancestral lands. From

the perspective of conservationists, the conflict represented livestock trespass, illegal hunting, wood

theft and the consequent ecological costs of species extirpation (Neumann 1997). European interest in

conserving the wildlife and habitats was often ignorant of the long-established successful ways in which

Africans have ensured their own survival and that of the soils and biota to which they owed their

existence (Worthington 1958, Darling 1960, Brokensha et al. 1980, Richards 1985). Recent years have

seen a change in these attitudes towards the development of a broader discussion linking conservation

to the process of rural development and the survival of agrarian societies in Africa. In many areas the

concept of participatory conservation or community-based resource management became the panacea

that “should” simultaneously conserve species and ensure community development, while offering a

range of ecotourism experiences to developed-world tourists from wealthier countries. Different

conservation models are currently found on the African continent. There are the typical national

reserves spread across the continent, with varying degrees of protection offered, with or without

fences, as well as an assortment of tenure arrangements. In many countries these reserves incorporate

agrarian communities and even villages. Many private game farms are found especially in the southern

African countries, and communal conservation areas are the norm in several countries, mainly as a

consequence of the introduction of community-based conservation initiatives.

Nonetheless, despite the myriad of conservation models, from formalized IUCN categorized protected

areas to informal local conservancies, biological biodiversity continues to dwindle. These models often

view the world through course filters and fail to encourage the emergence and spread of fine-grained

models adapted to local conditions, whilst often expanding their focus on where and what to conserve,

instead of fine-tuning “how to conserve” (Redford et al. 2003). Bawa et al. (2004) call for multiple,

specific conservation strategies which include further development of flexibility, multiplicity and locally

specific approaches. Inclusion of both local traditions in the adoption of conservation strategies and

22

increased integration of natural and social concerns by explicitly treating ecological and economic

systems as a single unit, should also be key. Encouragement of sustained partnerships between large,

resource-rich conservation organizations and local, knowledge-rich institutions that aim to support or

create an adequate formal and informal institutional framework, are also critical components of a

conservation strategy (Western 2003 in Redford et al. 2003)

2.2.2. TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION

The IUCN defines the term peace park as an area “formally dedicated to the protection and

maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and to the

promotion of peace and co-operation.” A Peace Park constitutes one type of transboundary protected

area (TBPA), also known as transfrontier conservation areas (TFCA). A TCFA is defined as: “An area of

land and/or sea that straddles one or more boundaries between states, sub-national units such as

provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limits of national sovereignty or

jurisdiction, whose constituent parts are especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of

biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed co-operatively

through legal or other effective means” (Chester 2008).

National borders have always been based on political boundaries, while ecological regions and social

systems do not conform to these invisible margins. Ecological entities such as watersheds, shared

resources, oceans, rain patterns or geological regions do not abruptly stop at a political borderline. This

is clearly visible when looking at maps of the ecoregions of the world and how it differs from the

geographical delineation of countries (Figure 10).

23

Figure 10: Terrestrial ecoregions of the world (Olson et al. 2001, with permission)

It is essentially the need to protect large-scale ecosystems that has been the driving force behind the

transfrontier conservation concept. The use of protected areas as a mechanism to stimulate peaceful

relations is not a new initiative, and can be dated back as far as 1780 when the King of France and the

Prince-Bishop of Basel formed a Treaty of Alliance. The treaty stated that nothing “is more proper for

maintaining good relations and peace between two bordering states” than punishing offenses related to

forests, hunting, and fishing. It aimed to establish “an equal and uniform jurisprudence” over these

issues within their shared border region. (Chester 2008). The drive towards founding international

transboundary conservation areas gained momentum after the start of the twentieth century. In Italy,

the Gran Paradiso National Park on the border with France was proclaimed in 1922 for the protection of

ibex (Capra ibex), to allow free traversing of the border since they preferred to spend the summers in

France, but migrated into Italy for protection during the winter months (Thorsell and Harrison in

Pasemko 2009). In 1924 the Krakow Protocol signed between Poland and Czechoslovakia was intended

to foster international cooperation in the management of their border parks and to resolve boundary

disputes after World War I. This treaty finally led to the establishment of peace parks in 1948 and 1967

as a combination of six individual parks into three combined parks, all of which are still managed jointly

for research and tourism initiatives (Pasemko 2009). The first official peace park was established in 1934

between Canada and the United States and is known as the Waterton-Glacier National Park. The park

24

was a combination of the Glacier National Park of Montana and the Waterton Lakes National Park of

southern Alberta (Parks Canada 2007). The objective was to promote good and peaceful relationships

between Canada and the US.

The list of transboundary parks continued to grow throughout the twentieth century and was finally

categorized by the United Nations Environmental Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre

(UNEP-WCMC) into 227 transboundary protected area complexes covering a total area of 4,626,601.85

km2, which included 3,043 individual protected areas or internationally designated sites (UNEP-WCMC

2007). The distribution worldwide is shown in Figure 11 and the location of these parks is shown in

Figure 12.

Figure 11: Distribution of TFCAs worldwide (Pasemko 2009, with permission)

Figure 12: Location of peace parks around the globe (UNEP-WCMC)

25

2.2.3. TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION IN AFRICA

Africa has been particularly prone to political division of ecosystems, where a majority of national

borders lie along some major river systems, often with conflicting management strategies of these

riparian areas on either side of the borders. Conflict in many African countries has exacerbated the

degradation of ecological borderlines. As a previous IUCN Director General put it:

“Apart from the fact that such lines tend to be a trifle insecure (the navigable channel shifts at

flood time) they are a nightmare to ecosystem managers because they split river basins and

watersheds precisely down the middle. They are also a nightmare to social scientists and

community leaders and government administrators because they tend also to split human

groups down the middle... [However], there is little prospect of redrawing such boundaries in

the foreseeable future” (McDowell 1997:1).

The southern African peace parks initiative was conceived by industrial magnate Dr. Anton Rupert when

he approached the president of Mozambique (Joaquim Chessano) in 1990 to discuss the possibilities of

amalgamating some protected areas adjoining the borders of Mozambique, Swaziland and South Africa.

Although this was a particularly vulnerable era in the South African political history, they proceeded with

the Mozambique Peace Accord in 1992 and four years later, after the election of Nelson Mandela as

South Africa’s president, these discussions were continued. By this time, the idea to market southern

Africa as a global ecotourism destination to generate much-needed economic investment was a firm

concept. In 1997 Dr. Rupert, HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and President Nelson Mandela

jointly founded the Peace Parks Foundation. This body would serve as a non-governmental organization

under the auspices of the World Wildlife Fund to explore and establish TFCAs south of the equator in

Africa (PPF Review 1997-2007)1.

The Foundation made its initial goal the cooperation of all heads of state in the region, and the South

African Development Community (SADC) drew up the Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law

Enforcement in 1999. SADC commissioned a feasibility study of potential and existing peace parks in the

region which was completed in 2002. A total of 22 existing or potential sites were identified and they

included major eco-regions which would form the basis for ecological protection and sustainable

economic development. These 22 areas have since been reduced to 14 TFCA clusters as being the most

1 Detailed information about the PPF can be found on the website: www.peaceparks.org

26

viable for development, constituting a total of 75 million hectares. Figure 13 indicates the location and

proposed names for these 14 parks. The first park, Kgalakgadi Transfrontier Area, was opened by

President Festus Mogae of Botswana and President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa on 12 May 2000. This

was followed a month later by establishment of the Lubombo TFCA, an area straddling the borders of

South Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland and incorporating 5 distinct projects. Further TFCAs

established respectively in 2000, 2001 and 2003 included the Greater Limpopo TFCA (South Africa,

Mozambique and Zimbabwe), ǀAi-ǀAis/Richtersveld Transfrontier Park (South Africa and Namibia) and

the Maloti-Drakensberg TFCA (South Africa and Lesotho) (PPF Review 1997-2007).

TREATY SIGNED

1. |Ai-|Ais/Richtersveld Transfrontier Park

(Namibia/South Africa)

2. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park

(Botswana/South Africa)

4. Greater Limpopo TFCA

(Mozambique/South Africa/Zimbabwe)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SIGNED

3. Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area

(Botswana/South Africa/Zimbabwe)

5. Lubombo TFCA

(Mozambique/South Africa/Swaziland)

6. Maloti–Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation &

Development Area (Lesotho/South Africa)

7. Iona–Skeleton Coast TFCA (Angola/Namibia)

9. Kavango–Zambezi TFCA

(Angola/Botswana/Namibia/Zambia/Zimbabwe)

11. Malawi/Zambia TFCA (Malawi/Zambia)

14. Chimanimani TFCA (Mozambique/Zimbabwe)

CONCEPTUAL PHASE

8. Liuwa Plain–Kameia TFCA (Angola/Zambia)

10. Lower Zambezi–Mana Pools TFCA (Zambia/Zimbabwe)

12. Niassa–Selous TFCA (Mozambique/Tanzania)

13. Mnazi Bay–Quirimbas Transfrontier Conservation and

Marine Area (TFCMA) (Mozambique/Tanzania)

Figure 13: Proposed 14 TFCAs in Southern Africa (PPF Review 2007, with permission)

Two of these parks have been identified by PPF as good examples to serve as embedded case studies

within the more encompassing case study concept of African peace parks. They are the Greater Limpopo

Transfrontier Park (GLTP) and the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Park (GMTP) – the latter has been

27

renamed since the signing of the memorandum of understanding. These two parks are represented by

numbers three and four on the map of the 14 proposed TFCAs (Figure 13).

2.2.4. LEARNING FROM TRANSBOUNDARY EXAMPLES WORLDWIDE:

In an effort to provide general guidelines2 towards transboundary protection of natural resources,

ecosystems and biodiversity, the IUCN suggests the necessity of building on four essential elements or

pillars, while warning that no single blueprint exists (Gasana 2010). The four pillars are:

the existence of political will at national and sub-national level; and closely related,

the political vision to address transboundary issues through policies, institutions and

management;

including Indigenous Peoples, local communities and authorities through strong stakeholder

participation mechanisms, and creating joint structures and synergies with clear mandates at

national level and supporting inter-institutional coordination; and finally

a mixture of financing mechanisms which combine support from national budgets, private, bi-

and multilateral donors, and the private sector.

The IUCN further emphasizes the need for future TBCA governance to devolve sufficiently to enable

local actors to play a greater role and own an adequate share of power in decision making (Borrini-

Feyerabend 2004). To achieve this, strengthening capacity in government institutions and among

stakeholders, is critical.

The guidelines (supported by many examples from transboundary conservation initiatives around the

world) promoted by IUCN include:

Identifying and promoting common values: Establishing joint forums to focus on identifying a common

vision for a shared resource, or a particularly scarce species, and using this shared resource as a unifying

theme has proven successful in several transboundary areas, such as:

The conservation of Indochina’s forest biomes between Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam;

The conservation of the red-crowned and white-naped cranes within the demilitarised zone

(DMZ) between South and North Korea; and

2 The synthesis is based on the Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No.7 and is grouped according to some of the guidelines proposed in the series.

28

The protection of mountain gorilla and the afro-montane forest on the borders of Rwanda,

Uganda and Congo. The latter is an example of collaboration between three countries’

protected area authorities and three non-governmental conservation organizations. A decade

after the initiative was launched, a significant increase of 10% in the population size of this

highly endangered species was reported.

It is also important to host joint events that promote these common values, such as a transboundary

work sessions or photographer/writers’ workshops, and hosting meetings for local park residents.

Obtaining and maintaining support of decision makers: A very useful approach in establishing and

maintaining transboundary initiatives has been to use information about high-level bilateral or

multilateral cooperation agreements concerning natural resource management, tourism or economic

development to develop local initiatives and influencing the relevant authorities.

In the transboundary protected areas between Costa Rica and Panama, Bi-National Technical

Commissions were established and provide a very successful framework for transboundary protected

area development initiatives based on international agreements.

It is always important to seek the endorsement of officials and authorities, such as in the case of the

Korup (Cameroon) and Oban (Nigeria) Transboundary Park where security authorities only gradually

accepted the concept of a people-free zone on the border – without this consent the Park would have

been doomed to failure.

Promoting coordinated and cooperative activities: It is crucial to incorporate the social dimension into

building friendly relations with neighbouring colleagues. Such cooperation should occur both at official

staff development and commitment level, as well as in collaboration at the ground level.

The protected area administrations of the Podyji National Park on the border between Moravia and

Austria, together with the Elbe Sandstones Protected Landscape (Czech Republic) and the Saxonian

Switzerland National Park and Protected Landscape (Germany), emphasize the unifying power of having

mutual venues, personal invitations, and hosting “evening campfires with beer and roasted pork and

jolly good songs” (Cerovský 1996).

Language barriers are addressed through language training courses within the Alpi Marittime and

Mercantour Transboundary Protected Area between Italy and France.

29

Another example of successful collaboration across federal borders is the functioning of the Australian

Alps Liaison Committee (AALC), which consists of representatives from the National Parks and Wildlife

Services of New South Wales, Environment Australian Capital Territory and Parks Victoria, with each

member having the capacity to make decisions on behalf of their agency. Working groups are supposed

to have effective communication channels and are encouraged to constantly seek input and

involvement from local staff.

An example of such unification through information exchange is in Indochina where a compatible

transboundary data management programme has been developed between Cambodia, Laos, Thailand

and Vietnam.

Examples of collaboration during regular on-the-ground operational activities as well as emergencies

are:

The Vanoise National Park and the Gran Paradiso National Park on the border between France

and Italy where the ibex population that traverses the border annually, is managed jointly;

In Manas Tiger Reserve (India) and Royal Manas (Bhutan) authorities cooperate in controlling

poaching;

Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area (USA)and Quetico Wilderness Provincial Park (Canada)

operates jointly on fire detection and suppression, and developing fire plans;

In the Big Bend National Park between the US and Mexico, wildland fire fighters from adjacent

Mexican villages supplement the park’s fire suppression forces;

In the Qomolangma Nature Preserve (China), Nepalese helicopters based at the Makalu Barun

Conservation Project in Nepal, provide rescue services here, as well as in Mount

Sagarmatha/Qomolangma Transboundary Protected Area;

Jointly-managed species reintroduction maximizes the chances of success, especially in

damaged ecosystems after armed conflict, as shown by reintroduction of bearded vultures in

the Alpi Marittime Nature Park (Italy) and Mercantour National Park (France) between Italy and

France;

Jointly-managed research activities such as in Costa Rica and Panama are supported through a

Border Cooperation Agreement, and similar joint studies have been undertaken in Tatra

National Park bordering Slovakia and Poland; and

30

Coordinated attempts to stem illegal activities have a far greater chance of success, as shown in

anti-poaching operations in the national parks bordering Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, as well as between Nimule National Park (Sudan) and Uganda, and in the

Mount Elgon National Parks between Kenya and Uganda where coordinated conservation law

enforcement has stimulated other conservation programmes between the two countries.

An important aspect of operational activities is sharing of production of materials concerning the

transboundary protected areas such as: developing common logos as in Nyika National Park between

Malawi and Zambia; and preparing a single map or visitor’s guide as in Waterton-Glacier International

Peace Park between Canada and the US, as well as the bilingual material of the Bavarian Forest National

Park (Germany) and the Šumava National Park (Czech Republic). The latter has also established a shared

visitor information centre which is far more cost-effective.

Developing cooperative agreements: All these joint operations can be formalized through treaties to

ensure long-term and accountable cooperation, as shown in the Australian Alps National Park’s

Memorandum of Understanding, the Waterton Lakes-Glacier Transboundary Park which is bound to

mutual aid in the areas of fire control, and search and rescue, and in the Alpi Maritime and Mercantour

Transboundary Protected Area between Italy and France, where a representative from each

management authority sits on the advisory committee of the other.

Working towards funding sustainability: The human and financial implications of transboundary

cooperation are crucial elements in the planning stages, and any opportunity to share financial

resources or reduce costs should be pursued. In the Australian Alps, a special budget for cooperation

receives funding from the three states involved as well as the federal government. In the Elbe

Sandstones Protected Landscape (Czech Republic) and the Saxonian Switzerland National Park and

Protected Landscape (Germany) a revenue-sharing mechanism for boat trips along the river has been

established. It has been shown to be especially important to share revenue across borders when income

accrues mainly to one partner because of better access or geographical position.

Another area with potential collaboration is development of joint proposals to leverage funding for

projects, such as in Mount Elgon National Parks (Kenya/Uganda) where IUCN funds a complementary

programme in each country. Innovative financial mechanisms such as debt-for-nature swaps, payment-

for-ecosystem services incentives, trust funds and carbon-sequestration credits can also supplement

31

transboundary protected area’s finances such as occurs with the regional trust fund of the International

Gorilla Conservation Programme for the Virunga Volcanoes Transboundary Protected Area.

Further examples of cooperation driven by shared resource management: Looking at some examples

of transboundary cooperation worldwide, a few aspects are highlighted by the following examples. Most

cases that show progress have evolved around the protection of a natural resource, mostly water, while

ecosystem or species conservation initiatives often lack the same intensity of focus, political will and

collaboration. Another important driver for transboundary cooperation appears to be national security,

where land degradation or resource pollution threatens peaceful relations regionally. Many more

examples of successful transboundary environmental governance initiatives exist in the world, and the

growing number of transboundary areas will increase the lessons and best practices over time. It is

critical that such information is captured and exchanged constantly, to ensure that management

practices can improve and failures can be avoided.

Transboundary Ground Water Management in North America

The study of ground water systems in North America has shown that successful governance of

transboundary water management depends on effective scientific, governmental and societal

processes individually, with the interface among these elements of even greater importance. Rules were

created over a century ago with the signing of the Boundary Waters Treaty (IBWC) in 1909, which led to

the creation of the International Joint Commission (IJC) that regulates administrative, arbitral and

investigative aspects of conflicts. This represents a mature government process that implies scientific

cross-border investigations and stakeholder group involvement in the IJC – however, it has been shown

that government processes are often more powerful than scientific and societal processes, and this

imbalance is the main reason for failures in governance.

Another aspect that cannot be ignored in transboundary water governance is that past issues never fully

disappear and often have to be renegotiated, and continuous adaptive management of the water resource

is required to deal with constantly emerging issues such as hydroelectric power and water quality. The

adaptability of the institutions such as the IBWC and the IJC, and their ability to resolve bilateral disputes

and promote cooperation between countries is demonstrated by the voluntary use of these institutions

and the successful ad hoc transboundary management with no predetermined process to define the roles

of government, science and society.

(Based mainly on an article by Michael Campana, Alyssa Neir and Geoffrey Klise – see References)

32

The Baltic Sea: Robust and secure institutional arrangements make the difference

The Baltic Region represents one of the most complex environmental governance systems in

the world. The countries that have shorelines along the Baltic Sea are Denmark, Estonia,

Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. Regional environmental

cooperation started forty years ago with the 1974 Helsinki Convention to limit marine

pollution from land and sea-based sources, and centres around the Baltic Marine Environmental

Protection Commission, known as the Helsinki Commission or HELCOM. HELCOM functions

around an extensive cooperative network between states and international organizations, as

well as subnational, private sector and NGO actors. The regional environmental policy

networks focus on issues addressed by HELCOM, ranging from broad cleaning-up strategies to

discussions about ports, coastal development, pollution from ships, techniques for modernizing

water and waste water treatment, and many more. The Baltic region represents a “robust

environmental cooperation regime and an unusually mature set of policy networks”

encompassing efforts to clean up and protect the Baltic Sea and its surrounding environment

(Van Deveer 2011: 37). This is largely due to the efficiency of HELCOM, which functions as a

secretariat to administer and implement the convention, with three permanent committees and

numerous working groups supporting this function. Costs are shared equally among parties,

and HELCOM issues non-binding environmental policy recommendations based on relevant

scientific, technical and legal expertise provided by the committees. It also coordinates

environmental monitoring and national pollutant discharge reporting. Some of the reasons for

HELCOM’s success include:

The broad involvement of international and domestic organizations, interest groups and the public – not just “top-down” but pressures from “all around”;

Implementation mostly takes place indirectly through secondary institutions such as

many standards that have been agreed to like MARPOL (a collection of international agreements regulating many kinds of marine pollution from shipping);

The regional environmental body has expanded beyond its scientific and technological focus, and now play a prominent role also in political, economic, and development discourses, as well as becoming a transnational regime that formulate and implement a

regional set of principles and policy norms within states around the sea; and

The principles and policy norms of HELCOM are sufficiently flexible and at times vague enough to allow for their incorporation into different foreign policies and domestic

legal and administrative systems.

(Synthesis of two articles by Stacy Van Deveer – see References)

33

2.3. COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION

The past three decades have seen a deluge of research papers on community-based natural resource

management across the world. An important driver behind this movement was Hardin’s grim

description of the tragedy of the commons (1968) in which he predicted depletion of a resource

whenever it is used by many individuals. Twenty years later however, Elinor Ostrom replied with proof

that the commons can be governed sustainably given a set of key principles (1990). This stirred great

interest among policymakers and environmentalists alike, and caused a flood of academic literature on

the topic of resource governance by communities.

Around the same time, Africa was evolving from the colonial ages of fortress conservation. In Zimbabwe

a very interesting phenomenon emerged that was linked to commons theory. Before the 1980s,

conservation in Africa was still mainly based on excluding people from conservation areas, with the

objective of preserving nature in its pristine untouched state. The Communal Areas Management

Programme For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe became a prelude to a different

conservation narrative: that of resource management controlled by the communities adjacent to, or

amidst the natural ecosystems under protection (Hulme and Murphree 2001).

The Indus Basin and Ganges River: Regional cooperation supersedes international collaboration

Despite high population growth rates, low per capita income rates and growing subsistence

needs, as well as decades of instability and unrest, the countries in the Southern Asian region

still cooperate in combating environmental problems, in particular water scarcity, through

several subregional initiatives. India and Pakistan have been sharing the Indus River System for

decades, India and Bangladesh have signed a long-term treaty to cooperate using the Ganges

River, India cooperates with Nepal and Bhutan over common water resources and India,

Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan have a subregional group to promote water projects and energy

development. This increase in bilateral and multilateral initiatives at non-governmental level

shows great promise that concern for the local environment can drive environmental policy

changes at state level. Growing interaction among the region’s environmental pressure groups

has generated several regional environmental initiatives, and suggests that environmental

scarcity does not necessarily lead to conflict, but can also engender regional cooperation, even

in remote areas and inhospitable terrain.

(Synthesis of article by Ashok Swain – see References)

34

In the international arena the interest of large development bodies such as the International Union for

the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was sparked by the

CAMPFIRE project. They had been grappling with Africa’s conservation problems since 1961 with the

launch of the African Special Project (Fitter and Scott 1978). Calls for focusing on the social impacts of

protected areas were heard at the World Parks Congress in 1982 in Bali, and were repeated in the

Brundtland Report. The latter acknowledged the importance of natural resources to human economic

welfare and the very real threat of species extinction, but urged new approaches to conservation. The

Report argued that the traditional park-centered approach should be replaced by a strategy that

combined conservation and development. Indeed, governments should consider ‘‘parks for

development” (WCED, 1987:159). The Report hailed sustainable development as a win-win concept,

thus reframing conservation as an activity essential to economic development, particularly for the poor

(Miller et al. 2011). New initiatives that approached protected area management through integrating

the needs of local people while conserving natural resources (Integrated Conservation-Development

Projects or ICDPs) were launched by the World Bank, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the U.S. Agency

for International Development (USAID), amongst others. The common objective of ICDPs was to link

biodiversity protection of protected areas with local socio-economic development (Western et al. 1994,

Alpert 1996, McShane and Wells 2004, Wells and Brandon 1992).

By the 1990s, the concept was well-established and at the Rio Convention in 1992 sustainable resource

use and biodiversity conservation became focal points on the international stage. This worldwide

movement demonstrated the new conservation paradigm towards people-centred conservation

(Fabricious and Koch 2004). The following two decades saw the emergence of hundreds of projects

focusing on the development of collaborative partnerships between governments and local

communities. The different projects included ways of sustainably harvesting timber from forests, wildlife

harvesting from protected and communal areas, fishing from aquatic environments, or collecting

firewood for household use. Other sustainable local practices such as beekeeping and ecotourism were

introduced and explored. Many of these projects were initiated or driven by large non-government

organizations (NGOs), the World Bank or in some cases by governments themselves.

At the heart of this drive lay the fear of realising Hardin’s predictions, coupled with ineffective

management of natural resources by developing world governments, a shift towards more

anthropocentric resource use, and the new awareness of the effects of climate change, as well as the

importance of the natural environment and its biodiversity. The conundrum was the need for

35

development by poor countries, but where the already developed countries “had expanded blithely

without regard for depletion of natural resources,” this rate of progress now had to be checked, and

careful planning and strategies had to be developed lest the commons be exploited beyond repair. It

seemed almost as if community-based resource management could be the solution. A more sustainable,

low impact resource use such as ecotourism, or managed resource use like hunting could double as

drivers of rural development whilst providing incentives to communities to protect their natural

environment. There have however been many publications calling the validity of these “romantic” views

in question (Goldman 2003, Igoe 2001, Ribot 1999).

2.4. DECISION MAKING IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS

Although each of the topics of decision making, complexity and resilience could each fill several

dissertations, time and space forced me to briefly address the theory behind each in this literature

review, and it mainly informed chapters 6 and 7, where governance and decision-making processes in

the transfrontier conservation areas are analysed and discussed.

The theory behind decision-making analysis was pioneered by Nobel Prize winner, Herbert Simon, one

of the first scientists to realize the need for interdisciplinary approaches (Simon 1959), and who did his

PhD on decision making through the mail during the early years of World War II. His original fields of

study included behavioral psychology, economics, political science, advanced mathematics and

mathematical statistics, and physics (Simon 1992). The field where decision making seemed most at

home for several decades turned out to be economics and business design, although the field of

engineering also produced many publications on decision making. The concept of systems dynamics

(with Lotka 1920-1956 regarded as the father of systems theory – Hurford 2010) drove the theory

behind complexity, and also contributed to research in decision making. As Hurford points out, the

oldest recorded remark on systems theory could possibly be that of Aristotle: “the whole is greater than

the sum of the parts” (2010). While many people regard complexity as a factor of the number of

components or possible states in a system, the complexity is found more in determining the best

solutions to given situations out of many possibilities (Sterman 2006).

The phenomenon of transboundary protected areas undoubtedly represents one of the most complex

systems around, since it not only consists of uncertain, complex social systems, but also involves

decision making regarding highly uncertain complex natural systems. This indeed constitutes a “wicked

problem”, as many complexity theorists refer to such social systems (Rittel 1972, Buchanan 1992).

36

Although I do not intend to delve too deeply into the theory of complexity, the Cynefin model

developed by Dave Snowden warrants mention, as it was regarded particularly useful in the domain of

decision-making processes and knowledge management, with the former being a central theme of this

dissertation. The Welsh word cynefin literally means habitat or place, but was chosen to describe the

evolutionary nature of complex systems, including their inherent uncertainty, and the name serves as a

reminder that all human interactions are strongly influenced and frequently determined by our

experiences and value systems (Snowden 2002). In his own words:

” complex adaptive systems theory is used to create a sense-making model that utilizes the self-

organizing capabilities of informal communities and identifies a natural flow model of

knowledge creation, disruption and utilization” (Snowden 2002: 100).

The framework was developed based on action research into the use of narrative and complexity theory

in organizational knowledge exchange, decision making, strategy, and policy making. Dividing systems

(or spaces of departure) into four types (Figure 14), the main difference between them is the causal

predictability of each. Of these four, only the simple system can be governed by rules or “best practices”

of which the outcomes can be predicted with certainty (Snowden and Kurz 2003). The fifth domain is

also identified by Snowden, a focal area called the domain of disorder and the space where society

mostly finds itself.

37

Figure 14: The four types of knowledge or decision-making domains within social systems (Snowden 2002, with permission from Emerald Group Publishing)

Of crucial importance for the purposes of studying decision making in a complex system such as a

transfrontier conservation area, is the following:

- Characteristics such as its non-linearity, dynamic nature, linkages to history, and self-

organization (Sterman 2001) should be expected. The fact that systems surprise us with

“unanticipated events” should rather be regarded as expected consequences due to our inability

to foresee the feedbacks to our own decisions, and the limitations of our own mental models

(Sterman 2002). Our responses to these feedbacks are too often focused on the symptoms that

we register (Sterman 2002), rather than the underlying problems, and this forces us back into

the chaotic domain or “crisis management” mode.

- Actors should expect to find themselves making decisions either in the complex domain (where

decisions should be intuitive and innovative) or in the complicated (with a great reliance on

expert advice and solid data based on a history of monitoring).

- Although tempting, actors should never aim to prescribe “best practices” or rules to simplify the

system or its operations.

- Beware of the area of complacency within the system’s areas of bureaucracy (Figure 14) – this is

often the most dangerous area, where actors have prescribed for their own benefit sets of

38

regulations to simplify the system, and yet the slightest crisis could send the whole system

crashing.

- Policy resistance in particular, arises from dynamic complexity or the “counterintuitive behavior

of complex systems that arises from the interactions of the agents over time” (Sterman 2006, on

Forrester 1971:506).

A third theme that I will focus on briefly is that of system resilience, or the ability of social (or natural)

systems to absorb shocks and external drivers, or management interventions. Holling (1973) terms

ecological resilience a measure of how far the system could be perturbed without shifting to a different

regime, while Gunderson and Pritchard (2002) focused on ecological state changes resulting from

human actions. Berkes et al. (2003) studied human adaptations to ecosystem changes across a wide

range of cultural systems, and found that these affect the resilience of the social-ecological systems in

different ways. Walker et al. (2004) emphasized that the introduction of resilience theory changed the

focus from seeking optimal states in ecology and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the

MSY paradigm), to resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance

(Walker et al. 2004). Most systems tend to alternate between stable states, where the state space

represents the three-dimensional space of all the combinations of its intrinsic variables, and where

movement through this space is seen as dynamic processes (Resilience Alliance Workbook 2007).

Walker et al. (2004) further identify the concept of “basins of attraction”, leaning towards the theory of

stability landscape dynamics in ecology (Beisner et al. 2003), where the basins of attraction represents

conditions that will drive towards the equilibrium state. Figure 15(a) and (b) shows the ability of socio-

ecological systems to move between different basins of attraction, due to exogenous (climate change)

or endogenous drivers (management practices).

a)

b)

Figure 15: a) Walker et al.’s three-dimensional stability landscape with two basins of attraction showing, in one basin, the current position of the system and three aspects of resilience, L = latitude, R = resistance, Pr = precariousness. b) Changes in the stability landscape have resulted in a contraction of the basin the system was in and an expansion of the alternate basin. Without itself changing, the system has changed basins

(Walker et al. 2004, with permission)

39

What can be summarized at this point about transboundary governance of ecosystems or protected

areas is that while these are enormously complex systems with a high degree of unpredictability, I

maintain that there is also a large degree of improvement possible when applying some of the “good

practices”, particularly to the social components of the system. Savory (1988) refers to the possibility of

finding some missing elements through careful analysis of a system, or sometimes “shifting a gear a

minute fraction” to allow major advances in the functioning of the social system, and in this dissertation

I have attempted to make sense, through the analysis of two transfrontier case studies, of the seemingly

chaotic jumble of social systems, governance and policy options, and stochastic natural events that

make up a TFCA. To aid me in the endeavor I had to consult with many publications, to produce some

recommendations and draw conclusions about some of the vital elements that are missing from the

current decision-making processes of the southern African transfrontier conservation areas (Figure 16).

Figure 16: The process of “making sense” of the complexity of a transboundary protected area.

To quote Elinor Ostrom (1999: 530):

“we need to recognize that governance is frequently an adaptive process involving multiple actors at

diverse levels. Such systems look terribly messy and are hard to understand. The scholar’s love of

tidiness must be resisted. Instead, we need to develop better theories of complex adaptive systems,

particularly those that have proved themselves able to utilize renewable natural resources

sustainably over time.”

40

3. STUDY AREA

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."

- Mark Twain (1835-1910)

3.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter will briefly provide background information regarding the two case studies selected for the

research, including the geographical location, different land components included in each TFCA,

biophysical features, brief historical and cultural context, and the institutional arrangements of each

case study. For brevity I shall refer to the case studies as Limpopo (short for Greater Limpopo

Transfrontier Conservation Area) and Mapungubwe (short for Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier

Conservation Area). The main reasons for selecting these two cases were:

Both transfrontier conservation areas are operational as TFCAs, although Mapungubwe is a

rather new addition, and still struggling with institutional teething problems.

While Limpopo consists of two longstanding national parks (Kruger NP – 1898, and Gonarezhou

NP - 1975), which is important for its history of ecosystem and species conservation,

Mapungubwe is an established United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) World Heritage Site due to its ancient archeological remains, and thus of cultural

importance to the region.

Limpopo is considered one of the largest conservation areas in the world, while Mapungubwe

covers a fraction of that area – this makes for interesting contrasts in management challenges.

While Limpopo’s Treaty was signed in 2002, and as TFCA exists more than a decade,

Mapungubwe’s Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 2006, with the signing of the

Treaty foreseen in the near future. Much information could be gathered regarding a case study

after signing of the Treaty, and one in the process of leading up to this point.

41

3.2. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND BIOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

Mapungubwe is a TFCA consisting of:

the Mapungubwe National Park in northern South Africa and the adjacent Vhembi biosphere;

the Northern Tuli Game Reserves (NOTUGRE) area in western Botswana, with some communal

land to the south of NOTUGRE;

the Tuli Circle, a combination of communal areas, and three private game ranches in southwest

Zimbabwe: Sentinel Ranch, Nottingham Estate and River Ranch (Figure 17, and a more detailed

map in Appendix D, Figure 44)

Figure 17: Mapungubwe map and location within Africa and southern Africa (Source: PPF, with permission)

Limpopo is a TFCA consisting of:

the Kruger National Park (KNP) and adjacent private game reserves in eastern South Africa;

Gonarezhou National Park and surrounding communal areas in southeastern Zimbabwe;

42

Limpopo National Park (LNP), Zinave National Park, Banhine National Park (Portuguese names:

Parque Naçional do Limpopo (PNL), Parque Naçional do Zinave, and Parque Naçional do

Banhine) and intervening communal areas in southwest Mozambique (Figure 18, and a more

detailed map in Appendix D, Figure 43)

A very important development during the study period is that the greater boundaries of neither case

study had been formalized, or received treaty status, and currently remain vaguely designated zones,

without definite boundaries. The formal areas included according to the MoU (Mapungubwe) and treaty

(Limpopo) are the core protected areas listed above, and in some cases, the communal areas (in

Zimbabwe the communal WMAs).

Figure 18: Limpopo map and location within Africa and southern Africa (Source: PPF, with permission)

Table 5 provides a brief summary of the two cases studies in terms of climatic zone, geological

substrate, major vegetation types, climate and rainfall, and elevation.

43

Table 5: Summary of the main biophysical components of the two case studies (Main sources: IDPs of both TFCAs)

Feature Mapungubwe Limpopo

Climate

Semi-arid zone, high evaporation rates, summer temperatures up to 45˚C. Extended periods of below average rainfall are common.

Varied climate from semi-arid regions to more moist; in parts sub-tropical (south) with warm wet summers and mild winters seldom experiencing frost. Temperatures often soaring to above 38 °C.

Average rainfall

350-400 mm per annum in summer only Varies greatly between drought periods and wet cycles: ±750 mm in the south and ±350 in the north

Size 5,909 km2 of which 300 km2 comprises core protected area

37 572km² of protected area. This forms the core of the second-phase TFCA, measuring almost 100,000km²

Vegetation

South: Mopani Woodland dominates, East: large area covered by Jubernardia Woodland between the Limpopo and Umzingwani Rivers. North: Guibourtia Mixed Woodland is found on the Basalt Along the river valleys: tall Riparian Woodland and Acacia/Hyphaene Shrubland

Since the area is so vast, only the major vegetation communities are identified: Mopane woodland and shrubveld: dominated by Colophospermum mopane, with minimal Combretum apiculatum, Spirostachys africana, Adansonia digitata (baobab) and Commiphora species. Mixed Bushveld: Dominated by Acacia nigrescens, Combretum paniculatum, Combretum imberbe, Sclerocarya birrea, and Dichrostachys cinerea. Sandveld: Mainly Bapphia massaiensis, Afzelia quanzensis, Strychnos spp., Terminalia sericea, Albizia spp. Riverine woodland: Tall species of Trichilia emetica, Ficus sycomorus, Xanthocercis zambesiaca, Diospyros mespiliformis, Acacia robusta, Acacia xanthophloea, Kigelia africana and the palms species Phoenix reclinata and Hyphaene natalensis found usually within 150 m of river banks.

Geology and soils

North: Igneous rocks (mainly Basalt) Middle: Sedimentary (Siliciclastic rock or Sandstone) South: Metamorphic rocks (primarily Granulites interspersed by Granite Gneiss) Siliciclastic Rock or Sandstone belt and ridges running from east to west is also the source of coal and diamonds in the region. Large areas characterized by sandy, lime-rich soils – generally low agricultural potential, high mineral content. River valleys contain rich, wet luvisols, high in organic content.

Major geological features: Aeolian and Colluvial deposits –typical of the ancient coastal plain along the east coast of Africa; igneous rocks associated with the Bushveld Igneous Complex – granites and gneiss; basalt and rhyolites associated with the Lebombo mountain range; and the unconsolidated fluvial deposits along the Limpopo (primary), Levuvhu, Elephants, Nuanetsi and Shingwedzi (secondary) rivers.

Elevation

Relatively flat area, with the lowest the Limpopo and Shashe River valleys = 389 m; highest 1,053 m above sea level to the northern boundary.

Mostly fairly flat, apart from the Lebombo Mountains. Altitude varies between 200 m and 840 m above sea level.

44

3.3. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

MAPUNGUBWE

The Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in July 2003, due to

the significant archeological remains of the Mapungubwe Kingdom (circa 900 to 1300 AD), which

archeologists believe had been the first and largest on the sub-continent (GMTFCA Integrated

Development Plan 2010). According to the criteria of UNESCO, “the remains of this famous kingdom,

when viewed against the present day fauna and flora, and the geo-morphological formations of the

Limpopo/Shashe confluence, create an impressive cultural landscape of universal significance”3. Many

artifacts have been uncovered that indicate trade relations with Arabia, Egypt, India and China3. The

most intact gold artifact under safekeeping at the Pretoria University is the small golden figurine of a

rhino.

On the South African side of the TFCA, just after the beginning of the 20th century, the recognition of the

cultural and natural significance of the area led to proclamation of nine farms as a botanical reserve. The

University of Pretoria bought the farm Greefswald in 1933 and secured an option and contract for

archeological excavation rights, as well as postponement of prospecting, mining and related activities on

the property. In 1947 the area was declared a wildlife sanctuary, only to be repealed in 1948 due to a

change in government. Renewed lobbying for park status started again in the 1960s, and the

archeological sites known as K2 and Mapungubwe Hill were declared national monuments in 1983 and

1984 respectively (SANParks Management Plan for Mapungubwe, 2013). During the years between 1975

and 1990, the area became the site of intense military surveillance due to hostilities between the South

African apartheid government and the Zimbabwean government. In 1995, the South African National

Parks (SANParks) signed an agreement with the local provincial government of the time to develop a

new national park called the Vhembi (since it was part of the Vhembi biosphere at the time)/Dongola

National Park, with the objective of including the park as major component in the recently-conceived

transfrontier park with Botswana and Zimbabwe. A Memorandum of Understanding establishing the

Shashe/Limpopo Transfrontier Park was then signed between the three governments in June 2006. The

name was changed to Greater Mapungubwe TFCA in 2009 after a proposal by the TFCA’s Trilateral

Technical Committee.

3 Source:UNESCO website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1099

45

In Botswana, the historical background of the Northern Tuli Game Reserve (NOTUGRE) is also unusual4.

While originally part of the hunting and grazing grounds of the Mapungubwe Kingdom, after 1600,

European explorers and missionaries used the area for hunting, trade and mission work among the local

indigenous tribes. Towards the end of the 19th century, the Bangwato (Botswana) and Matabele

(Zimbabwean) tribes of the area engaged in territorial clashes, with Chief Khama of the Bangwato

gaining control of the area in 1895. However, five years prior to this event, Cecil John Rhodes sent a

group of men known as the “Pioneer Column” to annex Matabeleland and Mashonaland (modern-day

Zimbabwe) for the British Crown. This group established Fort Tuli (situated in Zimbabwe), as part of a

plan to realize Rhodes’ vision of building a railway line between Cape Town and Cairo. When Rhodes

tried to transfer the Bechuanaland Protectorate (modern-day Botswana) to his British South African

Company, the three local Tswana chiefs travelled to England to plead their case before the British

monarch. She intervened to stop the transfer with the proviso that only the Tuli Block should be given to

the British South African Company to build their railway. Although the Tuli Block was later divided into

farms to protect the Bangwato and Botswana from the northern expanding Boers5, this area remains as

the only privately owned land in Botswana. Today the area consists of 36 freehold properties whose

owners have established NOTUGRE as a landowners’ association with the aim of conserving the natural

ecosystems and species within. Several luxury game lodges operate from the area where owners have

dropped all fences on the 712 km2 reserve.

The Tuli Circle in the Zimbabwean part of Mapungubwe is a 10 mile “circle” (Figure 17), the southern

half of which lies to the south of the Shashe River. The circle was the result of an agreement by early

pioneers with local tribesman as an exclusive grazing area for the benefit of local cattle, in order to

prevent rinderpest spreading to the oxen used for pulling wagons. Tuli village, which formed the centre

of the Tuli Circle, originally grew around the Tuli Fort, established by the “Pioneer Column” as a river

crossing point into Matabeleland. The “circle” was determined by firing cannon balls from the Tuli Fort

in a round circle6. During the 1950s it was used for controlled hunting, until 1975, when the Zimbabwe

Parks Authority proclaimed the Thuli Safari Area as part of the Thuli Parks and Wildlife Land. It now

forms the core of the conservation area that Zimbabwe contributed towards the TFCA. The remaining

TFCA areas consist mainly of communal lands where subsistence farming has been practiced for

4 Source: Botswana’s Best Kept Secret: The Northern Tuli Game Reserve. Botswana’s Tourism Board publication 5 Southern African term alluding to the Dutch farmers of South Africa 6 http://www.herald.co.zw/tuli-circle-a-living-museum/

46

decades, and have recently been assigned Wildlife Management Area-status (WMAs - Halisupi, Hwali,

Maramani, and Machuchuta). It also includes three wildlife ranches previously owned by white farmers

(Sentinel Ranch, Nottingham Estate and River Ranch), and later redistributed to war veterans of

President Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) Party.

LIMPOPO

The Greater Limpopo TFCA consists mainly of three large protected areas, several smaller wildlife

reserves, and large areas of intervening communal land. The Environmental Ministers from Zimbabwe,

South Africa and Mozambique originally signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) towards the

establishment of the TFCA on 10 November 2000. Within a year 25 elephants were translocated to the

Parque Naçional do Limpopo (PNL) from Kruger NP, which supported large elephant populations.

Subsequently some 4600 animals had been moved into PNL to ease some of the pressure on the Kruger

ecosystem and populate the newly established PNL. The treaty confirming the TFCA was signed on 9

December 2002 by Presidents Chissano, Mbeki and Mugabe.

The Gonarezhou National Park7 in Zimbabwe was established in 1975 on 5,053 km² of previous hunting

land and the tsetse fly control corridor in the southeast corner of the country. It is situated in the driest

and hottest part of the country, and is bordered to the north by the Save-Runde River Junction, south by

the Limpopo River, east by Mozambique, and west by the Malipati Safari area. Gonarezhou is an historic

wildlife complex that was inhabited prior to 1968 by the Hlengwe people, who have language and family

connections with the Tsonga people from south-west Mozambique and northern South Africa. Other

people who also inhabited the area previously are the Shona and Ndebele, and the area still supports

the three different ethnic groups. At the end of 2007, the Frankfurt Zoological Society signed a 10-year

agreement with the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority to assist with the

management of the park.

The Parque Naçional do Limpopo8 in Mozambique is an 11,233 km2 protected area that was previously a

hunting zone (coutada), and was established as a national park in November 2001 as a direct

consequence of the MoU signed between the three countries in 2000. Many preparations had to be

made to transform the area into a protected area. These included clearing all suspected land mine

7 Information available at: http://www.zimparks.org/index.php/parks-overview/national/gonarezhou 8 Information available at: http://www.limpopopn.gov.mz/

47

areas, a remnant of the South African-Mozambican war (between 1970 and 1990) and establishing a

resettlement working committee to assist with relocating seven communities living within remote areas

inside the park (this process is still underway). In order to boost the species composition, several species

were translocated from Kruger to PNL. Physical structures had to be erected, including park

headquarters, staff housing, and tourism facilities, as well as the Giriyondo Access Facility at the border

between Kruger NP and PNL in 2006. The Parque Naçional do Banhine and Parque Naçional do Zinave

are also intended as part of the Greater Limpopo TFCA, but development of this initiative is currently

still in progress.

The Kruger National Park9 in South Africa is one of the largest and oldest national parks in Africa and

covers an area of 19,633 km². The park is named after the president of the Transvaal Republic, Paul

Kruger, who proclaimed the area a protected area in 1898 under the name of the Sabie Game Reserve,

setting aside the area between the Sabie and Crocodile Rivers for restricted hunting. James Stevenson-

Hamilton was appointed the park’s first warden in 1902, and in 1926 the Sabie and Shingwedzi Game

Reserves were merged into the Kruger National Park, with the first motorists visiting the park in 1927 for

a fee of one pound. Apart from its wildlife protection history, the area also contains ample sites of

human historic value, including: 254 known cultural heritage sites; 130 recorded rock art sites; Stone

Age cultural artifacts; many historic accounts of Nguni people and European explorers and settlers in the

area; and significant archaeological ruins at Thulamela and Masorini.

3.4. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The main political difference between the Mapungubwe and Limpopo TFCAs lies in how far the process

has advanced, with Mapungubwe still in the MoU phase, and moving towards treaty status, while

Limpopo’s treaty was signed more than a decade ago. Figure 19 provides a diagram of the institutional

set-up currently in place for each of the two TFCAs. It should be noted that only the international

coordinator and perhaps one person within each country’s department of environmental affairs would

be appointed for the sole purpose of administrating the TFCA; all other people serving on committees or

working groups have full-time jobs. The international coordinators in both of the case studies are funded

by the PPF, but report to the implementing agency, which would be either Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife

Authority (Zimparks), South African National Parks Board (SANParks), or the National Administration

9 Information available at: http://www.sanparks.co.za/parks/kruger/

48

of Conservation Areas (ANAC), depending on the country or implementing agency. Decision-making

powers only reside with the tri-lateral ministerial committee (TMC) and the joint management board

(JMB) or the tri-lateral technical committee (TTC); all other working groups and committees only serve in

an advisory capacity.

Figure 19: Diagrams showing the institutional arrangements for each of the case studies

The International Treaty of Limpopo TFCA objectives are to:

a. Foster transnational collaboration and cooperation among the parties which will facilitate

effective ecosystem management in the area comprising the GLTP

b. Promote alliances in the management of biological natural resources by encouraging social,

economic, and other partnerships among the parties including private sector, local communities

and Non-government Organisations

c. Enhance ecosystem integrity and natural ecological processes by harmonising environmental

management procedures across international boundaries and striving to remove artificial

barriers impeding the natural movement of wildlife

d. Facilitate the establishment and maintenance of a sustainable sub-regional economic base

through appropriate development frameworks, strategies and work plans

e. Develop trans-border ecotourism as a means of fostering regional socio-economic development

f. Establish mechanisms to facilitate the exchange of technical, scientific and legal information for

the joint management of the ecosystem.

49

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSION

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

- Douglas Adams

In this chapter, the focus is on the social component of the transfrontier conservation areas of southern

Africa, and the impacts on the economic welfare of the stakeholders living in, and around these areas.

The chapter provides the basis of the socio-economic attributes used in the value system framework,

which was derived from a meta-study. I also present some interesting results from this meta-study. The

chapter furthermore describes the composition of the stakeholders in the case studies, and provides the

resulting scores in the value system metric. This is followed by a discussion of the score results. The

chapter concludes with a discussion of the main issues that influence the decision-making processes,

including the use of political rhetoric along the process, the potential for peace or conflict in the TFCAs,

the CAMPFIRE concept, constraints of the socio-economic model, and the role of traditional authorities

in resource governance.

4.1. INTRODUCTION

The current tendency in nature conservation to approach the environment no longer as a separate

entity apart from human systems which should be preserved in isolation, but as a matrix of different

societies and activities which need to function in harmony, displays a few important characteristics.

These include: ecosystems impacted by humans (also termed social-ecological systems or SESs) are open

and highly complex in nature (Ulanowicz 1986); understanding and management of natural ecosystems

need to be approached holistically (Savory 1988); and decisions made by humans impact these systems

at various stages of the life cycle. It also “recognizes circular causation, where a variable is both the

cause and the effect of another and recognizes the primacy of interrelationships and non-linear and

organic thinking — a way of thinking where the primacy of the whole is acknowledged” (INCOSE Systems

Engineering Handbook 2007: 21).

50

The concept of socio-ecological systems thus recognizes the explicitly inter-dependent nature of human

and natural systems, with events from either system affecting the other at multiple scales (Strickland-

Munroe et al. 2010, Folke et al. 2005). While it is already complex to grasp how such a system is defined

and functions, evaluating the “success” of what we intend the system to achieve is even more elusive.

An important component of governance and management decisions regarding conservation areas is the

conflicting values that always accompany decision making in the natural resource realm. Due to the

intangible nature of many of the values in conservation, as opposed to the monetary value of most

other land uses, conflicts often arise when making critical decisions in favour of less tangible values

(Tranel and Hall 2003). This feature formed an integral part of the decision-making study, and was

guided by developing a value systems framework composed of different attributes (refer to Chapter 1,

Figure 2). Value models are essentially used in the field of engineering to compare one design to

another, or a design situated in one environment with a design situated in another (Collopy 2009). A

value model can thus be thought of as a process for ranking things in accordance with preference. The

main role of the value system framework was to rank participants’ perceptions of some attribute. It

provided structure to studying a very complex entity, and thus enabled me to qualitatively correlate the

countries’ approaches to the TFCA initiatives, and identify some of the drivers behind decisions.

4.2. METHODOLOGY

Determining which attributes to select: In order to develop the theoretical metric (part of the value

systems framework) against which to evaluate the socio-economic status of societies found within the

greater transfrontier conservation areas of the two case studies, I did a meta-review of 105 community

conservation and community forestry case studies. The selection of case studies was determined

through an initial search of Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge, using the key phrases: participatory

conservation, community-based conservation, community-based natural resource management,

collaborative conservation, community forestry, environmental policy, environmental governance,

decentralization, ecosystem management, holistic resource management. Two levels of screening were

used: the first involved screening of abstracts and headings, and articles not suitable because of non-

specificity, poor outcome definitions or weak scientific bases were excluded. The second level involved

screening of bibliographies of articles selected during the first level to ensure inclusion of non-electronic

databases. I aimed at including all geographic regions although greater representation was given to

studies from Africa, since these might provide greater similarities to the two case studies in terms of

51

conditions and characteristics. 105 case studies were selected from 35 countries (Figure 20), and of

these 65 case studies were from 20 countries in Africa (Figure 21).

Figure 20: Selection of case studies outside Africa

Figure 21: Distribution of African case studies

52

For each case study the following was recorded: lessons learned/conclusions of the author(s); keys to

success/failure as identified by the author(s); whether the project/community received funding from its

own government, an international institution or none at all. Each case study was entered into a data

basis with its lessons/conclusions. The lessons/conclusions were narrowed down to 18 main categories.

All lessons/keys to success received a score of 1 in one of the categories and were colour-coded

accordingly. Scores in each category were added and a binary matrix was compiled to determine inter-

relations between attributes.

A total of 576 distinct lessons learned and concluding statements by authors were recorded for the 105

case studies. In many cases there were duplications and similarities. Once all these were recorded, I was

able to broadly define 7 categories that had a binary possibility (Table 6). These included that either

tenure/ownership for the community was secure (+) or non-existent (-), attitudes to conservation had

improved (+) or deteriorated (-), or the community benefited from conservation activities in their

vicinity (+) or they had suffered because of conservation costs (-), either through forced removal or loss

of access to resources like firewood.

53

Table 6: Case study outcomes of the meta-study were noted according to seven attributes – colour coding was used to ease analysis/distinction

Attribute (+) Attribute (-)

Tenure Land tenure/ ownership/ protected in constitution/ security

Communal property but insecure, not enshrined, or else state-owned

Authority Traditional/local committee authority (chiefs/spiritual), empowered

Authority from government, top-down in reality, marginalization of leaders

Ecosystem Ecosystem conservation / biodiversity protection improvement

Deterioration, depletion of resources, illegal logging/ poaching

Attitude Expectations fulfilled, improvement in attitude, relationships improved

Discontent, disappointment, attitudes deteriorated, unrealized expectations about perceived/promised benefits

Benefits Benefits: cash, infrastructure, schools, household benefits, non-tangible assets

Costs: lack of infrastructure, animal damage, loss of resource access/property, forced removal

Migration Autochthonous community, stable, no forced removal

Mainly migrated communities through own design or forced removal

External/

Internal

External factors like war/ conflict/ poverty/ corruption

Internal factors like ethnic conflict/ intra-community conflict, elite dominance

Other factors noted in each case study

Governance issues: corruption and elite take-over, benefits intercepted by government; lack of interest from government; weak/ineffective governance

Present or not present

Some principle that contributes to success according to the author(s)

Some principle that contributes to failure according to the author(s)

Funding: identify whether project/community receives funding from external NGO, government or none at all

The actual case study research methodology: The metric developed through the meta-study formed the

basis against which I evaluated the socio-economic dimensions of each of the case studies. However, I

adjusted the meta-study metric to allow for degrees of comparison to score the attributes in the actual

research of the case studies. Although Table 6 above presents the simple metric used to score the meta-

study case studies, Table 20 contained in Appendix B represents the attributes, range of values, and

leading questions used to score each attribute during the interviews.

As the unit of analysis I used the relevant district/larger community unit according to political

boundaries in the respective countries. In the case of Mozambique, these were the villages within the

park boundaries. For Zimbabwe, district councils formed the unit of analysis, while for South Africa,

these were local municipalities. Botswana, comprised of the two main components – villages within the

local district municipality, and the Northern Tuli Game Reserves Block. The differences reflected the

different demarcation terms between countries, as well as the unique landscape patterns among

54

countries. As unit of observation I combined information gleaned from individual interviews, workshops,

council meetings, and personal visits and conversations with community members and tribal leaders. I

was thus able to draw conclusions on community attributes, scoring these according to the metric

developed in the meta study, and then determining an average per analysis unit, as well as per country,

to produce a single score at country level in order to evaluate the state of the socio-economic dimension

of each case study. Other attributes which further informed the research were population density,

average household income and livelihood practices. The reason for scoring the dimensions at country-

level was mainly due to differences between the countries in terms of demarcation definition, numbers

and sizes of communities and the complexity of land uses. The communities that I visited were mostly

determined by accessibility (some communities in Zimbabwe and Mozambique were too remote with no

reliable road access), and where it was deemed unsafe for me to travel there, I relied on input from

members of the district council or municipality to provide insight into the attributes of these remote

villages. Funding to travel to all villages was also an important limiting factor specifically beyond Parque

Naçional do Limpopo in Mozambique. Scores allocated to each attribute are defined in greater detail in

Table 20, but all scores were given between 1 and 7, where 1 generally indicates none, or very little, and

7 the highest possible/best value for any given attribute.

For both case studies, a combination of methods was used to gather information on the societies living

either within the greater transfrontier conservation area, or within buffer zones adjacent to these areas.

These methods included:

a desktop study to obtain all relevant geographical data, population statistics, livelihood

strategies, land use practices, annual municipality reports and economic welfare;

reports were provided by the Peace Parks Foundation of various stakeholder meetings held in

the Mapungubwe buffer zone during the period 2004 to 2011;

A total of 93 semi-structured interviews were held with stakeholders living within the

perimeters or directly adjacent to the two case studies (see Appendix B for the core questions

asked during most interviews). Most interviews were conducted individually, although

interviews with rural councils were often with two or three stakeholders present. With the

exception of a few interviews, most were recorded electronically, and others were recorded in

notes or with voice notes afterwards (see Appendix C for a list of interviews). It should be noted

that the total amount of interviews include cross-linking interviews with government officials

55

and policy makers, which were either used for the environmental dimension or for the

governance dimension;

recording personal observations regarding general economic welfare, challenges such as access

to water and electricity, basic amenities, presence and distance of/to markets, formal and

informal businesses, agricultural practices, domestic animals, hostile attitudes towards

outsiders, and development initiatives;

in the buffer zone adjacent to Kruger National Park I was invited to observe the establishment of

a biosphere stakeholder network, and I attended and assisted with the facilitation of ten mental

model workshops (Du Toit et al. 2011). I also conducted a survey of stakeholders’ conservation

values and awareness through a written questionnaire with 16 stakeholders (see Appendix C).

I attended workshops with community leaders on two occasions, and assisted in facilitating

these workshops – the first workshop took place on 6 July 2012 in Bushbuckridge municipality,

South Africa, with 24 members from the local communities within the area, mostly councilors

and members of the management team, as well as other interested stakeholders. On 17 July

2014, a workshop was held with the leadership and community leaders of the Avulani

Community on ways to establish a community conservation project in the buffer zone of the

Kruger National Park. I furthermore gathered valuable information at a number of workshops,

meetings and conferences hosted in the region with the topic of TFCAs as focus, or as part of the

programme (see Appendix C)

Using the NVivo software program, which helps to sort and organise transcripts of conversations into a

reduced number of researcher designated coded clusters, I analysed the conversations relating to

conservation values to identify the values and drivers of decision-making. Although at the outset of the

study, my intention was to use NVivo exclusively to analyse the interviews and questionnaires, this

changed when I developed the value framework. NVivo therefore became a secondary means of

evaluating the contents of each interview, in addition to allocating scores to each attribute, which

formed part of the value systems framework development. I mainly used the functions of classifying

responses to interview questions that investigate conservation values, work relationships, decision-

making patterns, and attitudes toward TFCAs. Since it only represents a fraction of what NVivo is

capable of doing, further analysis can be undertaken in the future when time allows for it.

56

There was a natural overlap with interview data used for the evaluation of governance, since many of

the interviewees were also community leaders or government officials and thus formed part of the

governance dimension.

4.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ACCORDING TO ATTRIBUTES

4.3.1. WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS?

Each of southern Africa’s transfrontier conservation areas is made up of a mosaic of societies living

either within the boundaries, or in close vicinity of these mega parks. The distinct broad categories of

land use present in both cases are:

The core area consists of national protected areas: Kruger National Park and Mapungubwe

National Park (South Africa); Gonarezhou National Park (Zimbabwe); Parque Naçional do

Limpopo, Parque Naçional do Banhine, and Parque Naçional do Zinave (Mozambique);

Private nature reserves, conservancies, and biosphere regions

Communal land on which stakeholders generally live in villages and village clusters

Private land owners – mostly wildlife farms and some agriculture; some property owned by

mines; a few densely populated towns consisting either of privately owned land (South Africa)

or communal property (such as Massingir in Mozambique; and Giyani, Phalaborwa, Hoedspruit,

Bushbuckridge and Mbombela in South Africa; and Beitbridge and Chiredzi in Zimbabwe)

The following diagram presents the categories I identified between different types of stakeholders,

reflecting the average representation per group (Group 1 I considered to be the ”ground level”

stakeholders, mostly people living close to/within the core conservation areas; Group 2 consisted of all

park staff; Group 3 included the many NGOs and researchers involved; Group 4 consisted of local and

provincial decision makers with Group 5 reflecting national and international or SADC decision makers;

and Group 6 represented the stakeholder/public at large – the tourists visiting the parks, and the

relevant members of civil society concerned with the TFCAs) :

57

Figure 22: Diagram representing the complex composition of stakeholders in a typical transfrontier conservation area – area size per level represents actual distribution

58

Table 7: Different categories of stakeholders according to tenure and ways of making a living

Stakeholder Tenure Livelihood strategy

Local villager Communal land Subsistence farmer

Local migrant villager (works in cities elsewhere)

Communal land, often owning/renting property elsewhere

Migrant worker

Local business owner Communal land Formal/informal business within local communities

Local inhabitant Private landowner Farmer/regular/professional occupation

Local inhabitant Private landowner Wildlife business

Local business operator Tenant Runs some form of eco-tourism or hunting business

Local leader (indigenous authority)

Communal land Subsistence farmer

Local leader (political authority) Communal land Government employee

Provincial/district leader/manager

Municipal/provincial government

Government employee

Park manager National park – state-owned Government employee

Private wildlife reserve Employee of reserve board

Park staff National park – state-owned Government employee

Private wildlife reserve Employee of reserve board

National park management National government Government employee

Non-government official Non-government organization Consultant/NGO employee

Researcher Academic and other institutions Academic institution employee/independent researcher or consultant

National department of environmental affairs/tourism

National government Government employee

South African Development Council

International political forum Government employee

Tourist (national and international)

Transit Any citizen

Members in large private concerns

Owner/stakeholder Private business employee/any citizen

Civil society members Any Any citizen

Appendix C contains a list of stakeholders interviewed personally or who responded via questionnaire,

together with the category, land ownership, and occupation/connection to the TFCA case study.

4.3.2. SOME RESULTS AND COMMENTS FOLLOWING THE META-STUDY OF CBNRM LITERATURE

Apart from the development of a metric against which to evaluate the status of TFCA communities,

some principles emerged which confirm several studies in the disciplines of anthropology and resource

management. To determine the associations between the seven attributes most prominent among the

105 case studies, I compiled an NxN matrix of attribute prevalence as noted by authors. Figure 23

59

depicts the nine strongest associations between the different attributes, with lack of authority/power of

decision-making showing the strongest association in cases where external factors such as conflict,

government instability and poverty are most prevalent. Two other very strong associations were

between high conservation costs to a community and deterioration of ecosystem condition (in other

words, an increase in illegal harvesting/poaching). On the other hand, where the attitude towards

conservation improved, it was strongly related to an improvement in the condition of the

ecosystem/resource management.

Figure 23: Linkages between the different attributes of communities involved in resource management reported for 105 case studies wordlwide.

The case studies were selected from literature spanning almost two decades of implementation, from

1992 to 2010. There was a clear distinction in focus between the two decades. During the first ten years

there was far greater focus on the importance of tenure or ownership by the community, whereas

during the last eight years authors have emphasized effective management or lack thereof in their

reports. On the whole there appears to have been an increase in property rights for most communities.

Another clear distinction between many of the case studies was between an anthropocentric approach

where human needs were the explicit focus of the author(s), and a natural environmental approach

where ecosystem health was the focal point. Few authors appeared to cross the boundaries of

disciplines when exploring what is a very interdisciplinary field of study, although more recent studies

have started to focus on interdisciplinary approaches to community conservation initiatives (Timko

2008; Roe et al. 2013; Dudley and Stolton 2009).

60

Apart from investigating linkages between the attributes, the prevalence of aid in most cases was also

noteworthy. Four different categories were noted in all cases: 1) communities received funding from an

international donor such as WWF, USAID etc.; 2) the national government enabled communities through

financial and infrastructure aid; 3) international agencies such as the World Bank collaborates with the

national government to assist local communities in establishing participatory conservation efforts; or 4)

conservation communities received no funding, or a local NGO participated actively through funds or

technical assistance. The total percentage of funded communities was 82.85% (Figure 24).

Figure 24: Proportion of case studies (%) that received funding during the project life

Funding is of course a very important component, since funding for many of the cases has terminated or

declined substantially over the last five years, mainly due to economic constraints in developed

countries where the main funding agencies are based. This leaves these projects very vulnerable to

financial market trends. Another issue mentioned by several authors is an increase in donor fatigue and

impatience with the slow rate of change in community behaviour.

Whenever authors mentioned any particular aspect or action that contributed positively to a beneficial

outcome for both community and ecosystem, I recorded these as keys to success. I also recorded the

possible drivers of failure as identified by the author(s). The most important keys to success appear to

be:

During the 1990s authors regarded participation and ownership as vital – after 2000 this focus

changed to a serious commitment from governments to act equitably. This can be seen as a

direct consequence of many governments adopting the UN Millennium Declaration in 2000

which resulted in the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals, and the World

61

Summit on Sustainable Development or Rio+10 meeting in 2002 which resulted in a strong focus

on the social aspects of ecosystem management.

Extensive socio-economic surveys are pre-requisites for community conservation projects as

they provide understanding and knowledge of communities

Funding remains a very complex issue - it should be matched by input from communities

Excellent leadership/well established institutions combined with dedicated facilitators = success

Education and capacity building are the key drivers of attitude changes

Government commitment towards institutional building and organizational reform: supportive

government = success

A clear set of measurements should be established collaboratively and effectiveness should be

monitored

Health of the communities should be evaluated constantly and there should be sustained

commitment to conflict resolution and adaptive management

On the other hand, the drivers of failure, as identified by many authors, were:

Limited capacity of governments, instability and weak governance

Short-term external donor support; differences in donor policies; donor’s own agendas; aid

leads to dependency, which is unsustainable as donors run out of funds and patience or develop

new priorities

Intra-community and inter-community conflicts and distrust

Underlying assumptions that economic benefits would automatically translate into improved

wildlife management is flawed

Not all members of a community are as committed to development and entering the market

economy as those who promote such initiatives

Lack of resources to implement monitoring and complete inventories

After studying the conclusions and advice of the authors of 105 case studies, I can make a few

observations. In many of the communities where the research took place, individual people played the

key role in either driving successful ventures, or caused failures because of their personality or agenda.

These individuals were either members of the community (such as leaders) or members from a

stakeholder group such as tour operators, hunting concession operators or government officials.

62

In most of the case studies described as having achieved a level of success in terms of sustainably

managing natural resources, a facilitator from outside or inside the community was present to keep the

collaborative process moving. In some cases, where NGOs were very involved in arranging workshops or

participatory meetings, authors reported a positive change in the attitude of community members

toward the conservation project at hand. Many authors reported the positive effects of a process of

involvement, whether facilitated by an NGO or government. However, the opposite was also reported:

where NGOs or government ceased involvement, this caused a negative change in attitude towards a

conservation project. Abrupt ending of project support due to a collapse in funding was one of the most

common factors reported to cause deterioration in resource management. There was clear evidence

across the range of case studies that the evaluation of communities’ well-being should receive as much

attention as the evaluation of ecosystem health, as the two are inextricably linked.

Another important issue that requires attention is the valuation of ecosystem services, which after a few

decades of resource economics is still not captured effectively. While many of the benefits of nature

remain highly intangible, and costing these benefits remains elusive, conservation practitioners and

society in general should aim at increasing qualitative benefits to the societies who bear the costs of

conservation.

A serious limitation with any qualitative/quantitative analysis of case study descriptions is of course that

it assumes authors of published case studies are objective with no hidden agenda. One official at a

conference actually made the comment that his NGO does not encourage reports containing “negative”

outcomes. However, all the case studies reported negative as well as positive aspects of community

involvement in decision-making, and these comments formed the basis of this meta-study. The number

of case studies included in the meta study also aided in eliminating biased assertions somewhat.

4.3.3. THE STATUS OF COMMUNITIES IN THE LIMPOPO AND MAPUNGUBWE TFCAS

A table of the average scores per local municipality/district council found either within the perimeter of

the transboundary parks (Mozambique) or within the greater transfrontier conservation areas (as

currently delineated), together with each score according to the metric attributes is supplied in

Appendix A. Table 8 below presents the scores for each case study at country level.

63

Table 8 Average scores for each country within the two case studies regarding the socio-economic attributes

Country Tenure Authority Ecosystem Benefits Attitude Stability Conflict Score

Mapungubwe

SA 4.833 5.417 3.500 3.500 3.333 5.083 5.000 4.381

Zim 2.333 4.500 4.278 4.944 5.778 5.167 2.222 4.175

Bot 2.875 6.000 1.833 2.000 2.917 5.417 3.750 3.542

Limpopo

Moz 1.444 1.667 3.500 -1.929 1.222 3.500 1.900 1.615

Zim 1.714 4.341 4.771 3.760 4.357 6.125 1.821 3.841

SA 3.850 5.300 4.063 4.071 4.857 3.700 3.000 4.120

Communities within the buffer zone outside the Limpopo, Zinave and Banhine National Parks in

Mozambique were not included in the results, as there was a sudden escalation in hostilities between

the Mozambican government and Resistência Nacional Moçambicana (RENAMO), the political

conservative opposition party10. During the field visits, my safety within these areas was compromised

and I could only focus on the communities living within the Limpopo NP. Since these communities live

with the most significant impacts of the Transfrontier Park, I trust I was able to draw valid conclusions

about the socio-economic dimension of the Mozambican side of the Limpopo case study.

MAPUNGUBWE

Tenure: In Botswana, ownership of land was reported to be the biggest separator between stakeholders

living within and around the TFCA area in Botswana (most interviews in GMTFCA). Here the distinction

lies between the landowners of NOTUGRE and the inhabitants of the communal area (interview 39). This

correlates with conservation values (landowners placing a high value on conserving the ecosystems and

biodiversity (interview 40)), benefits derived from mainly ecotourism and some hunting (benefiting

mainly the NOTUGRE stakeholders (interview 71)), and general socio-economic welfare, with some of

the landowners having shares in top ecotourism lodges within South Africa (such as the Rattray family,

owners of world renowned Mala Mala Private Game Reserve). The history behind the division in tenure

is described in Chapter 3.3.

10 Hostilities resumed during the middle of 2013, and into 2014 – many references in the general press: http://portuguese-american-journal.com/crisis-frelimo-increases-military-action-against-renamo-guerrillas-mozambique/

64

In South Africa, tenure is divided between private land (mainly wildlife farmers with some commercial

farming concerns, and the De Beers mining company, which owns a rich diamond mine, the Venetia

Mine); the core protected area of Mapungubwe, which is state-owned and run as a national park; and a

few small sections of communal farming land which had been repossessed as part of the land claims

settlement policy of South Africa (interviews 80, 39). Although tenure seems secure for all stakeholders,

there is substantial unease among owners of private game ranches, who fear that their properties might

also be reclaimed by members of the communities who had lived there over a century ago (interview

67).

In Zimbabwe, similar uncertainty was reported to some extent by the operators of ecotourism ventures

on Sentinel Ranch and Nottingham Estate, two large wildlife and hunting sanctuaries bordering the

Limpopo River (interview 41). River Ranch has been redistributed to military veterans of the Zimbabwe

African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF), the ruling party in Zimbabwe since independence

(interview 39). Other stakeholders in Zimbabwe are the communities living on communal land in the

Hwali Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Machuchuta WMA and Maramani WMA. The Thuli Parks and

Wildlife Land forms the core protected area of the transfrontier conservation area on the Zimbabwean

side, and comprises the Thuli Safari Area and three small botanical reserves, the Pioneer Botanical

Reserve (0.38 km2), South Camp Botanical Reserve (0.26 km2), and the Tolo River Botanical Reserve (0.44

km2) – this area is state-owned and administered by the National Parks and Wildlife authority office on

the east bank of the Shashe River (interview 68).

Authority: In Botswana, traditional leaders play an important role in the governance of an area, unlike

many other countries in the region, where the modern democratic political structures often ridicule or

oppose traditional systems (interviews 87, 88, 91). The communal area that forms part of the study area

lies in the eastern corner of the Bobirwa sub-district, and comprises some ten villages. The Babirwa

people represent one ethnic majority in the region, with the other being the Sekoba people. Although

they are also originally Babirwa, they had been living at the confluence of Motloutse and Limpopo Rivers

until the early 1900s. The Member of Parliament, Shaw Kgathi11, is reported to be a good leader, and the

last three years have seen major infrastructural improvements in the area, with service delivery centres

built in Tsetsebjwe, Mathathane and Gobojango, although there was discontent among members from

11 Onalenna Modikwa, Staff Writer, Massive infrastructural projects underway in Bobirwa: http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=12&dir=2009/January/Friday9#sthash.5hzguJ0R.dpuf

65

Semolale because they felt that Gobojango already has service centres including police barracks, the

Mmamabaka border post and a doctor (interview 74). The tribal authority seated in Bobonong has

however been a matter of intense dispute, with the tension being traced back to the mid-nineteenth

century, when, according to community members, the Sekoba people under Kgosi12 Malema, were

removed forcibly from the Limpopo Valley to Bobonong, and their chief was appointed as deputy to the

Babirwa leader, Kgosi Modisaotsile (interview 39). Most of the major surrounding villages of Molalatau,

Mathathane, Gobojango, Semolale, Mabolwe and Tsetsejwe were ruled by Babirwa headmen who were

more or less loyal to Kgosi Malema (interviews 40, 41). It is also felt by community members that in the

appointment of the Bobonong chief, the Botswana government did not follow the tribal regulations

contained in the Bogosi Act, or Act of Chieftainship13. The current chief of Bobonong is said to be

positive towards the development of the transfrontier conservation area, with community members

saying that this would stimulate economic growth in the Bobirwa district (interview 41). The landowners

association in the Northern Tuli Game Reserves of the Tuli Block operates on the basis of a business

organization, with a board and executive officer at the helm. It has been running smoothly for several

decades after its initial start in 1964 as the Limpopo Game Protection Association, a conservation effort

spear-headed by ardent conservationist landowners of the 36 freehold properties, covering an area of

approximately 71,173 ha (interviews 39, 40).

The South African buffer zone, adjacent to Mapungubwe National Park, forms part of the Vhembi

Biosphere Region, and falls within the Blouberg and Musina Local Municipalities, a semi-arid, sparsely

populated region. Game and commercial farmers from the region reported little trust in the government

and local political leaders based in Musina (interview 34). The biosphere hosts a strong network of

conservation-minded landowners, and they played a major role in the opposition to the establishment

of the Vele Coal Mine adjacent to Mapungubwe National Park (interview 39). This was a political

embarrassment in which the South African Minister of Mineral Affairs approved the mineral license

application by the mining company Coal of Africa to operate an open cast coal mine within five

kilometers of the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site, an act against the considerations of a world

heritage site, and without consultation with the Minister of Environmental Affairs. An interesting side-

12 The term “kgosi” means tribal leader, and is enshrined in the Bogosi Act of 2000, to replace the word “chief” which was considered by minority groups as a derogatory term. 13 Abel Modimo Mmapetla, Bobonong, The Bobirwa Chieftanship: The Broken Mirror Image: http://www.sundaystandard.info/article.php/email.php?NewsID=15610 19-11-2012

66

effect was that the civil outcry following this approval culminated in the development of a strong

network among the South African and some of the Zimbabwean stakeholders living in Mapungubwe’s

buffer zone (interview 41). Many stakeholders regarded this development as a positive outcome, since

they “united” against the “threat”, and discovered previously unknown common concerns (interviews

73, 66, 40). They furthermore reported discovering the power of civil protest, and that some parts of the

private sector were quite willing to fund such environmental protests (interview 80). This boosted

morale among many interviewees in spite of their lack of trust in the decision-making processes of the

South African government. The ill-fated coal mine has since suffered several economic setbacks, and is

currently temporarily closed pending infrastructural changes that would increase the quality of the coal

production14.

In the Zimbabwean part of the transfrontier conservation area, the Chief of Makado is hailed as a very

good leader by community members and other stakeholders alike (interview 91). The Beitbridge Rural

District Council forms the administrative centre of the region, and is responsible for administrating the

proceeds from the various wildlife management units or CAMPFIRE projects within its boundaries.

Although willing, the RDC reports lack of capacity to fulfill all its obligations toward the CAMPFIRE

communities, these including monitoring the ecosystems and wildlife, determining the take-off quotas

for each hunting season, and managing the proceeds from hunting expeditions (interviews 91, 68, 8).

Ecosystem status: The Botswana part of the transfrontier conservation area is currently significantly

degraded, and is reported to have deteriorated for many decades (interviews 80, 39, 68). According to a

report from the Botswana College of Agriculture (2004), this degradation has been noted consistently

since 1970. The degradation is caused mainly by intensive agricultural activities, human population

increase and associated movement of people (interview 67). Communities also actively believes in grass

clearing against snakes and bugs (interviews 18, 23). Other factors contributing to the degradation is

overharvesting of fire wood and the culture of keeping small domestic animals (mostly goats) and

donkeys in the vicinities of human settlements (interview 74). In the NOTUGRE area, a steady increase in

elephant numbers over the past four decades have resulted in large degraded areas. This is

compounded by the CITES regulation against elephant culling, and a major driver behind the

establishment of transfrontier conservation areas which holds the promise of enlarged ecosystems to

ease the pressure of growing elephant populations (interview 80). Very little ecosystem improvement

14 http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/mining/2014/02/03/coal-plan-to-restart-vele-mine-on-track

67

due to the existence of the Limpopo corridor is currently visible, and from the communities there is little

awareness that improved ecosystem management practices could translate into a healthier

transfrontier conservation area, especially given the fact that most households exist at a very basic

subsistence farming level (interviews 72, 76, 39, 8).

On the South African side of the border, there is a substantial improvement in ecosystem condition, and

also a greater awareness of the importance of conserving biodiversity (interview 67). Since this is a semi-

arid area with annual rainfall averaging between 200 and 400 mm, the carrying capacity of large

mammals is fairly low, and most wildlife farmers in the buffer zone expressed their concern about the

constant possibility of drought, and the risks of overstocking the natural grazing areas (interviews 34,

67).

In Zimbabwe, apart from the three wildlife reserves of Sentinel Ranch, Nottingham Estate and River

Ranch, the communal wildlife management units exhibit some of the same characteristics as that of

Botswana’s communal areas, with extensive trampling around villages and degradation caused by goats

and donkeys (interview 68). Along the Shashe and Limpopo Rivers, intensively irrigated crop patches

have replaced natural vegetation, with elephant raids on these being a regular occurrence (interview

41).

Attitude: Due to considerable effort in the four years after 2000, especially from the Peace Parks

Foundation, in the form of awareness-building workshops, most stakeholders on all sides of the borders

are well aware of the existence and potential benefits of the transfrontier conservation area (interview

40). With no history of forced removal, attitudes are generally positive, although many stakeholders

expressed impatience with the slow pace of development from the South African government in

particular, since improvement and accessibility of the Pontdrift border post has been lagging due to lack

of resources and investment. Again, the opposition of the Vele Coal Mine has united particularly South

African stakeholders, and thus transformed previous negative attitudes towards the World Heritage Site

(interviews 67, 34). Stakeholders from the local government structures in Bobonong, as well as higher

governmental levels in Gaborone have expressed impatience, again with the South African

government’s “reluctance” to resolve the land dispute with the community living “inside” the core

protected area of the Mapungubwe National Park (interviews 27, 76, 77). This is land that has been

reclaimed by a previously relocated community during the 1990s, and the government has been

negotiating for some time to compensate this community and find alternative land for them to live. The

68

issue is reported to be “complicated” and a “political prickly pear”, although officials in the Musina

municipality expressed hope to resolve this in the near future (interviews 8, 68, 34). Negotiations have

been ongoing for some time. Another stakeholder with uneasy relations at times with the South African

government is the De Beers Company, owners of the Venetia diamond mine south of Mapungubwe

National Park, and an integral part of the buffer zone. Apart from the few hectares comprising the open

cast diamond mine, the remainder of the property is a wildlife reserve under ecological management,

which would potentially connect unfenced with the National Park in the future. At the heart of the

sometimes negative attitudes is again distrust in the South African government’s ability to “stick to its

promises”.

Benefits: In scoring the attribute of how the transfrontier conservation area has benefitted the

communities living within the buffer zones, interviewees were asked about direct and indirect benefits.

Direct benefits included payment of levies from park revenue to the local municipalities/councils, or

infrastructures provided by the parks, such as road improvements, clinics or schools. In Botswana, most

communities have not directly benefitted from the transfrontier conservation area per se, but NOTUGRE

does have an educational outreach programme called Children in the Wilderness - Limpopo Valley (CITW

Limpopo Valley), which aims to establish a programme to bridge the divide between the rural

communities and conservation areas in and around the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier

Conservation Area (GMTFCA) (interviews 41, 68). There is however, a fair amount of expectation that

communities should receive some form of direct benefit from any tourism revenue, although no one is

clear on how this should be achieved. Since most tourists fly into, or cross the border from South Africa

and hence do not necessarily traverse the communal areas, there is also almost no evidence to the

stakeholders of any indirect benefits from Mapungubwe (interviews 34, 67, 80). In Zimbabwe, a very

similar situation exists, although through the CAMPFIRE programme, communities have benefitted from

the Tuli Safari area, as well as in their own Wildlife Management Areas, mainly through revenue from

hunting safaris (interviews 8, 68). A main complaint however from stakeholders is the fact that the Rural

District Councils currently withhold up to 50% of the revenue (interview 8), which according to one of

the original forefathers of CAMPFIRE, is totally against the spirit of CAMPFIRE, and could directly lead to

its demise should the situation persist (Clive Stockil, personal comment). On the South African side, a

significant number of interviewees report medium to positive benefits derived through indirect revenue

from tourists visiting the area and contributing to the local economy (interviews 66, 67, 70, 39, 40).

69

There is also optimism of the potential for this to increase as the area becomes better known worldwide

(interviews 67, 68).

Migration: The direct consequence of years of political instability and conflict in Zimbabwe is the lack of

employment opportunities within the country, and the result is a constant stream of mostly illegal

immigrants crossing the fairly porous border of South Africa, and slightly less porous border of Botswana

(interviews 78, 79). Stakeholders from the villages along the southern Zimbabwean border speak of

most of their young men leaving school at early teen age, and crossing the Limpopo River to find work at

the commercial farms in the Limpopo province of South Africa (interviews 8, 78, 25, 64, 20). This

practice is illegal in South Africa, but it seems that the government turns a blind eye to both the illegal

crossing, as well as the illegal employment. Botswana is definitely less favourably inclined towards

illegal crossing of the border, and it is for this reason that the infrastructure of the Mmamabaka border

post in Gobojango has been improved, to strengthen immigration control between the two countries

and “address the issue of border jumping by Zimbabweans fleeing hunger and political repression in

their country” (community member from Bobirwa). The result of all this mobility is that the villages of

Zimbabwe experience very little inward flux, but substantial movement away from the area. Botswana’s

communities are fairly stable, with only Bobonong experiencing some migration into the area (interview

39). South Africa absorbs the bulk of migrants, although these do not really affect the transfrontier

buffer area significantly – the most significant impact is that of illegal immigrants using the Limpopo

River during the dry season to cross into South Africa. For this reason, many stakeholders on the South

African side have voiced concern that the establishment of Mapungubwe has increased illegal border

crossing substantially (interviews 34, 67, 66).

External/Internal instability: When ranking the three countries of the Mapungubwe TFCA, Botswana

experiences very little external instability, with a stable political system for more than a century. This is

largely due to the mainly homogenous ethnic composition, and single party system which has been in

place since independence (Sebudubudu 2010). Other external influences which would negatively impact

a transboundary initiative are weak institutional structures, and a fair amount of corruption, as reported

by several interviewees (interviews 9, 10, 12, 13, and 18 amongst others). The internal conflict in the

Babirwa sub-region’s traditional leadership is, however, an issue that does have a negative impact, with

stakeholders within the communal buffer zone at odds with one another, although tensions are

relatively subdued (interview 39). In South Africa, there is little external instability within the country,

but major governance weaknesses in terms of corruption and lack of integration among government

70

departments (illustrated by the conflicting objectives of the Vele Coal Mine and Mapungubwe UNESCO

World Heritage Site – agreed upon by two different ministers). Zimbabwe, unfortunately, receives the

lowest score on external issues, since the political instability, weak governance, and lack of direction

from government is amongst the worst in the world. Even though there is internal stability and harmony

within the communities according to interviewees, the insecure future of the country as a whole heavily

compromises any internal entrepreneurial initiatives at local community level (interviews 64, 8, 20). This

is also true of international investors, who have little inclination to invest in the country’s tourism

sector, and in 2013 the tourism industry was at its weakest point ever, with tourists visiting the country

dropping to a trickle.

LIMPOPO

Tenure: On the Zimbabwean side of the Limpopo TFCA, the situation regarding tenure is the same as in

the discussion above, with the addition of two large private wildlife sanctuaries, the Malilangwe Trust

Reserve, and the Savé Valley Conservancy. Since all areas, including commercial estates and ranches,

government farms, wildlife conservancies, and national parks, have been contested regardless of their

original tenure and assurances from officials (Scoones et al. 2012), tenure in Zimbabwe remains very

insecure (interviews 15, 67, . Both these areas have been under some form of threat regarding tenure

since independence, as these properties are mainly owned by white residents, and the government has

been under pressure from war veterans to confiscate these properties. So far, these threats have not

been realized. The communal area south of Gonarezhou NP down to the Limpopo River, the Sengwe

communal land, has been under negotiation for some time and has finally been gazetted to become the

Sengwe Wildlife Corridor (interview 68). This would link Gonarezhou NP with Kruger NP where the three

countries connect. This agreement, while an important stepping stone in establishing the transfrontier

conservation area, has been somewhat controversial since it again implied removal of some of the

Sengwe people out of the wildlife corridor (interview 71). Another area within Zimbabwe that has been

the cause of severe discontent is the dispute with the Chitsa community, who had moved into an area

within the Gonarezhou NP, claiming it to be a veterinary corridor and part of their ancestral lands

(interviews 79, 91). After a decade’s stalemate, the community was granted permission to remain on

what the park’s authority finally agreed to be a corridor and not the formal park (Mombeshora and Le

Bel 2009).

71

The South African buffer zone is divided between approximately 65% communal land with no private

tenure (and almost all of this formed part of the apartheid era’s “homeland” system, a policy envisaging

that all black people become citizens of independent homelands in areas allocated by the government),

and 45% privately-owned land, mostly some form of conservation area or game farm (interview 53). The

remainder of the TFCA on the South African side consists of the Kruger National Park, which is land

owned by the government of South Africa and managed by the parastatal agency, SANParks. An

interesting section of the Kruger NP lies in the northernmost corner adjacent to the park and border

with Zimbabwe. This is the Makuleke Contractual Park which has been the focus of many community

conservation studies (Ramutsindela 2002, Steenkamp and Uhr 2000, Fabricius et al. 2004, De Villiers

1999). The Makuleke community was forcibly removed as part of the “homelands” strategy under the

apartheid government of South Africa in 1969. During the “post-apartheid” era under the new

democracy, the community was able to reclaim their land (which in part fell inside the Kruger NP

originally), and after a long period of negotiation, the entire Makuleke land was incorporated into the

Kruger NP as a “contractual park”, to be administered by SANParks, but all benefits from tourism

activities at the lodge built on the land would revert back to the community (interview 53). In

Mozambique all areas are state-owned and allocated to different communities, except for a small parcel

of land along the South African-Mozambican border which is privately owned (interviews 82, 5). Of

particular concern is the decade-long proposed removal of the eight villages found within the Limpopo

National Park perimeter. The insecure tenure condition has led to a host of consequences, which are

discussed in detail in following sections. The decision to relocate these villagers was in part made by

politicians during the initial negotiations regarding the establishment of the transfrontier conservation

area, but finally enforced when it became clear that villagers had been playing a major part in the rhino

horn poaching of the past two years (interviews 74, 12, 77). During the second half of 2013, the process

of removal was intensified after virtually no action for many years, and mainly due to severe pressure

from South African politicians (interviews 73, 12) who came under fire from animal rights groups and

environmental organizations.

Authority: Similar to Mapungubwe, in Zimbabwe, the Rural District Councils of Beitbridge and Chiredzi

are the government offices responsible for communities living within the buffer zone of the

transfrontier conservation area, and as has been reported above, suffer from the same maladies with

appropriation of 50% of CAMPFIRE revenues by the two RDCs and lack of capacity to monitor and

manage the ecosystems as the two major challenges (interviews 8, 68, 91). Zimbabwe provides several

72

examples of communities taking action against conservation initiatives in order to retain some power

over their own existence (Gandiwa 2013). The Mahenye community started poaching elephants in

Gonarezhou NP during the 1990s when the government ignored their requests for access to resources

and land (reported by a Mahenye community member, interview 20). Another example is that of the

Chitsa communities’ persistence, and Chiefs Tsovani and Sengwe have complained directly to the

president that local people have been marginalized through the conservancy and the sugar estate

resettlement arrangements. Chief Sengwe has played a major role during negotiations of the

transfrontier conservation areas’ boundary-setting processes, and is regarded by many stakeholders as a

very charismatic leader, who plays a prominent role in the politics of the region (interviews 12, 67, 91).

South Africa, on the other hand, has suffered from many weak decisions made by both political and

traditional leaders alike, and none of the local municipalities within the Limpopo case study have

received clean audits from the auditor-general, with most accused of “material misstatements in specific

amounts, or insufficient evidence for the Auditor General to conclude that specific amounts included in

the financial statements are not materially misstated”15. This suggests weak governance at the local

level, and will be addressed in the chapter on governance and policies. Another issue that was

mentioned repeatedly by stakeholders was the conflict between traditional leaders of communal areas

and the political leaders (councilors) in power at local municipality level. Most regard traditional leaders

to be responsible for allocation of natural resources, and for allocating land (this does not imply

ownership, but occupation) within the communal areas (interviews 88, 86, 85, 71, 69, 37). These

processes are however often hi-jacked by local councilors, and very often for self-serving purposes in

what is locally known as “comrade enrichment” or nepotism (interview 88). Another issue that

characterizes the rural areas found within the transfrontier conservation areas is that traditional

leadership is devolved to fairly small physical areas. In these areas everyone knows the traditional

leader, and he, conversely, is aware of the inhabitants falling in his jurisdiction, and is often related to

them. This usually translates into more personal-level decision making, which often correlates with

greater accountability and fairness (Brian Child, personal comment). The opposite is true about the

political authority found in rural South Africa, where, due to demand for higher tax revenues, the

municipal districts have become large and fairly unwieldy, with little or no personal involvement with

the citizens within a municipal district. This is where nepotism and corruption come into play most

15 All information regarding the South African local municipalities are available from: http://www.agsa.co.za/Documents/Auditreports/

73

often, with little or no apparent accountability, since discontent with the local governance of corrupt

leaders do not necessarily translate into withdrawal of votes (interviews 37, 44). It is a strange

phenomenon that is seen throughout Africa and reported by several interviewees, that voters remain

loyal to a party, even though the leaders of a party or municipality act dishonourably (interviews 44, 71,

77, 85). The four biggest municipal districts that fall within the Limpopo TFCA suffer quite intensely

under these malpractices and insolvency, and although it is talked about a lot quite openly in interviews

and discussion groups or workshops, constituents seem quite passive about it, which confirms many

scholarly articles about the feelings of disempowerment and lack of self-organization among rural

communities (Steenkamp and Uhr 2000). In the interviews, there were however some isolated reports

of very good environmental governance by traditional leaders in areas within GLTFCA, where firewood

harvesting is strictly controlled along with careful allocation of grazing rights to cattle owners. On

average, most interviewees from the South African side had greater confidence in the ability of

traditional leaders to govern environmental resources equitably, than in politically elected officials that

form the leadership of the municipal districts (interviews 10, 81, 77, 13). One group that showed

exceptional cohesion and was able to turn politics to their advantage was the Makuleke community, and

Steenkamp and Uhr refer to their “tradition of sustained internal negotiation” which appears to have

enabled them to successfully deal with the complex politics of establishing their land claim and

contractual agreement with the government (2000:5)

In Mozambique, weak leadership was reported among the communities living within the national park

(interviews 5, 6, 82, 12), and this was one factor that contributed to the escalation of rhino poaching

activities (park warden, personal comment). Although the poaching activities are attributed to several

factors, strong leadership and engagement with the government could certainly have averted the

degree to which international wildlife crime syndicates managed to infiltrate the villages and coerce

villagers to collaborate and receive exorbitant finder fees (which still represented a miniscule portion of

the total value of rhino horn) for tracking and killing the animals within the GLTFCA. Other forms of

resource use were managed to some extent by the village headmen, but generally, the areas around the

villages were fairly depleted and heavily infested with alien invasive plant species (interviews 6, 9, own

observations). One further aspect that was reported to be evidence of weak leadership was the passive

approach taken by the headmen of the villages in the decade-long negotiations with the government on

moving to the allocated areas outside the national park (interview 82). Although some scholars argue

that the inactivity from the leaders were due to the regime of fear that reigned during the civil war years

74

(Lunstrom 2009, 2010), it can also be argued that an entire decade has passed without any threats of

terror acts during which no pressure was exerted on government to act on its promises.

Ecosystem: Similar to the larger part of southern Africa, Zimbabwe suffers from drastic fluctuations in

annual precipitation, which tend to complicate natural resource management (interview 31). During the

field trips to Zimbabwe, unusually wet rainy seasons had been experienced for a number of years, and

the vegetation in an around the GLTFCA was in excellent condition (interviews 31, 78, own

observations). The rivers were in flood, and for several months the threat of the possible collapse of the

incomplete wall of the new Tokwe-Mukorsi Dam in southern Zimbabwe had been hanging over

occupants of the villages downstream. The dam, which would become the largest in Zimbabwe at 1.8

billion cubic meters, was due for completion in December 2013, but progress has been delayed by a

number of factors, including delays in funding for relocation of affected families. The impact of the

unusually high precipitation has had a very positive effect on the vegetation within Gonarezhou Park, as

well as on vegetation in the buffer zones. Areas around the villages show signs of disturbance, mainly in

the form of alien plant infestation, and villagers report no pro-active actions to restore the ecosystems

to their natural state (interviews 8, 68). The programme officer in charge of monitoring the southern

WMAs declared that this was mainly due to lack of awareness, as well as, from the RDC, a lack of human

capacity to address this widespread problem (interview 8).

In South Africa, Kruger National Park has for decades been the poster-child for a pristine wilderness that

is only affected by natural climate patterns. All park staff report at least a decade of very good rainfall

and its positive impact on the ecosystems in general. The only serious ecosystem problems reported had

been a few years of flooding by different rivers, and pockets of alien invasive plant infestations

(interviews 27, 50). The entire buffer zone area presents a very different picture though, with severely

depleted vegetation in 80% of the area falling within the GLTFCA (interviews 37, 52, own observations).

In Mozambique, as noted earlier, the areas within the Limpopo National Park that surround villages are

heavily degraded. Although there was substantial evidence of domestic animal management in the form

of “kraals” or cattle pens built from branches, villagers reported that no effort was made to rehabilitate

degraded areas, or to avoid depletion of sensitive areas (interviews 6, 9). As will be discussed in Chapter

5 in greater detail, the national park also suffers because of over-utilization and as a result of the civil

war during the last decades of the previous century.

75

Attitude: Although the CAMPFIRE approach in Zimbabwe has enjoyed great local support for many

years (Virtanen 2003, Murphree 2001, Jones and Murphree 2001), with substantial changes in attitude

towards improved ecosystem management and conservation, the reaction against Gonarezhou park

decisions by the Chitwa and Mahenye communities indicates the fragile balance in attitudes towards

conservation, and the swift changes effected by any decisions that do not involve any form of

consultation (interviews 15, 78). Another attitude issue that was highlighted during a field trip to

Gonarezhou which directly related again to decision-making processes within the park, was the

involvement of NGOs16, and this will be analysed further in the discussion section of the chapter on

governance (6.4.2). This was also mentioned several times in the field trip to the Limpopo NP in

Mozambique, with “local” rangers resenting the “bossy” involvement of non-government organizations

who are mostly driven by conservation objectives (interviews 78, 79). On the South African side, within

the buffer zones, communities overall indicated support for the existence of the Kruger NP, and

although there was very little knowledge or understanding about the TFCA, in principle, especially

managers and owners of the private reserves were very much in favour of the initiative, and local

community members were fairly indifferent or positive (Strickland-Munroe et al. 2010). The same

cannot be said of Mozambique, where a serious deterioration in attitudes were reported and observed

during the study period (interviews 6, 12, 13, own observations). Two factors were noted by community

members: the intolerable land situation, whereby “for a decade we heard that we will be moved to a

better area”, and yet little had been done; and the escalation of violence against community members

due to wildlife crimes, which had even caused casualties and deaths amongst members of the

community (interviews 82, 6, 76). I observed a tremendous change in the attitudes over just one year

after the “war on poaching” was declared by the governments of South Africa (mainly) and

Mozambique, between 2012 and 2013. In 2013, on a field trip, even little children of four or five would

pelt the car with stones and shout abuse when I drove through the area. Although these villages are

currently being moved outside the core protected zone, time will tell what the long-term consequences

will be of the current military approach to protecting wildlife species (interviews 80, 22).

Benefits: On the Zimbabwean side of the transfrontier conservation area, the situation in terms of

benefits corresponds with that described above for Mapungubwe, with communities benefitting

through the CAMPFIRE system from sustainable off-take mainly through hunting (interview 68). The

16 http://www.zgf.de/download/1695/Gonarezhou+Conservation+Project+and+Park+fact+sheet+2012+_2_.pdf

76

biggest obstacle remains the inconclusive link between how the transfrontier conservation area has

added or increased any benefits to communities living within the buffer zone or even within the area

itself (such as the communities within the Sengwe corridor) (interviews 61, 15). Since the ecosystems

were part of natural areas and the national park even before the establishment of the TFCA, and

communities would have managed the ecosystems in such a way that sustainable harvesting was

protected, thus far no tangible increase/benefit could be attributed to the enlargement of the

ecosystem into a TFCA. The potential benefits of receiving more tourists because of having an

ecotourism area twice or three times the size it had been, have not yet translated into real assets, and

several interviewees expressed impatience with these unrealized “promises of more tourists flooding

the area now that it is a TFCA” (local villagers and RDC members - interviews 91, 15, 12, 64, 68). With

current tourism opportunities being developed, albeit extremely slowly due to transborder policies and

challenges, with particular opposition from South Africa’s immigration officers, there is real potential of

benefits to the Sengwe communities (interviews 72, 66). The process is however, fraught with complex

difficulties. Questions asked include: how would communities in Zimbabwe benefit (other than through

indirect potential and very small benefits of tourists shopping on the Zimbabwean side of the border), if

tourists are taken on a walking safari that traverses the Pafuri border from Kruger Park, assisted by a

South African operator, and with tourists traveling from Johannesburg? (interview 79). The current

agreement between Kruger National Park (South Africa) and Parque Naçional do Limpopo

(Mozambique) is that tourists traveling through the Giriyondo border post have to prove overnight

accommodation in either park, as well as having paid an entry fee to both parks, to exclude any regular

commuters using the border post for reasons other than ecotourism. The ultimate aim here is of course

to benefit the two parks, but in the case of South Africa/Zimbabwe, the area on the Zimbabwean side is

of course communal property (although the Zimbabwean government has already signed an MoU that it

will cease to be communal property and will become part of the core nature conservation area of the

Limpopo TFCA – interview 68), and it still needs to be determined how these communities will benefit

directly from any tourism activities that traverse their communal land.

In South Africa, a regulation came into effect on 1 June 2012, with SANParks implementing a 1%

Community Levy on all reservations (overnight and activity products) which is supposed to be used to

fund projects that support surrounding communities in bettering their livelihoods (such for clinics,

schools etc.) (interview 54, Q14). This represents an approximate total of $100,000 annually. During

2013, the following projects were implemented: construction of an administration block at Dumisani

77

High School; and the establishment of computer centres at Masiza High School outside Kruger National

Park and Alldays Combined School outside Mapungubwe National Park17. In several interviews,

participants were unclear as to who would determine the flow of the community levy, how much input

buffer zone communities would have into spending these levies, or even how the levies will be

distributed along the 400 km long border zone adjacent to Kruger Park (comment from a staff official 18

months after the implementation of the levies). The difficulty lies in attributing the benefits to the

institution called a TFCA when the community levy is a SANParks initiative, and only benefits South

African citizens (interview 72). Since there is no current TFCA infrastructure, apart from a contractual

obligation by three countries, there cannot be any benefits attributed solely to the existence of the TFCA

(interview 19). Therefore, even though the community levy is a great initiative, although fraught with

potential difficulties and very little participatory involvement from the communities thus far (local

municipal councilor – interviews 87, 90), it cannot be considered a benefit from the TFCA, but rather an

initiative driven by the South African National Parks agency (to provide services and infrastructure that

should be provided by the South African government in any case). Any other form of benefit derived

from the Kruger National Park and nature reserves within the core conservation area of the TFCA would

similarly be attributed to the individual conservation areas, and not to the greater transfrontier

conservation area (interviews 80, 86).

The case of the Mozambican section of the TFCA is somewhat different, since many NGOs, including the

Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) and several European NGOs, have specifically provided support in the

form of infrastructure (fencing, roads, buildings) and capacity (advisors, managers, researchers) toward

developing the TFCA (interview 6). The current removal of villages has also been supported by some of

these NGOs, with the government providing the greatest part of the resources (amounts and what form

of support is not always transparent – interview 82, Q1). The Mozambican communities within the park

are being moved to an area outside the Parque Naçional do Limpopo, potentially benefitting these

communities since it is closer to an urban centre (Massingir) with better access to roads, schools, clinics

and other services, as well as increased employment opportunities at a huge sugar concern which is

currently being established to the southeast of the park18 (interviews 13, 6). Scholars have also reported

the costs to these villagers in relocating outside the national park through leaving behind burial and

17 SANParks Annual Review 2012/2013: www.sanparks.co.za/assets/docs/general/annual-report-2013.pdf 18 See news articles: http://allafrica.com/stories/201211120298.html and http://sadcsugardigest.com/key-sugar-projects-in-southern-africa/

78

sacred sites, and therefore, even though politicians focus mostly on the immediate benefits, local

communities are quite aware that not only benefits are associated with the existence of the national

park and TFCA (Bocchino 2007, Lunstrom 2009). One further “benefit” which cannot be ignored, and

which was very visible over the past two years in the villages in the Parque Naçional do Limpopo, was

the accrual of wealth from rhino horn poaching, with a sudden display of possessions, including: new

houses built from bricks (this is totally different from the traditional huts); installation of photovoltaic

panels and solar panels to provide electricity to the houses; brand new SUVs (of which I have personally

witnessed several wreckages in the middle of the wilderness!); and children playing with radio-operated

cars and other expensive toys (interviews 6, 9, 12 and own observations). A serious issue would be how

the sudden increase in wealth would be handled when villagers are no longer able to access these large

funds (if poaching can be halted or when they are moved outside the park). This is one benefit which

would definitely not directly translate into positive attitudes towards conservation; in fact, the reverse is

true, because the protectors of wildlife are also the enemy of poachers (interviews 23, 82).

Migration: The issue of migration and its impacts on Zimbabwe and South Africa had been discussed

above under Mapungubwe, but it is definitely compounded in South Africa in the buffer zone of the

Limpopo TFCA, due to high volumes of migrants from Mozambique. While the border with Zimbabwe is

protected by a previous military zone and fence (albeit very porous), the only real physical deterrent to

migrants from Zimbabwe is the Limpopo river, which, when in flood, is certainly effective, but during the

dry seasons there are plenty of people crossing to work on the many vegetable and crop farms north of

the Soutpansberg (a mountain in the far north of the country) area. The Kruger National Park acts as the

border with Mozambique, which, apart from wild animals and land mines (remnants from the civil war

era), has not been very effective in controlling illegal crossing of migrants (interviews 34, 71). The buffer

zone of the GLTFCA within South Africa is thus heavily populated with ex-Mozambican families who have

by now spent years in South Africa. This prevalence of illegal immigrants from Mozambique has caused

many of the difficulties experienced by advocates of the TFCA concept in getting custom and

immigration clearance for anyone crossing the border between Mozambique and South Africa, be it

tourists or park officials (interviews 72, 73). It is almost incomprehensible that after a decade of the

existence of the TFCA, the park officials of the Parque Naçional do Limpopo and Kruger National Park

have still not developed a simpler system to ease collaboration and travel between the parks. I was

invited to attend a section ranger meeting between the senior park officials from Kruger and Limpopo

national parks close to Giriyondo border post, but because two of the rangers coming from Mozambique

79

did not have official passports (because of inefficient bureaucracy within Mozambique which makes it

virtually impossible to obtain a passport at Massingir, the closest urban settlement to the park), only

one representative from Mozambique was able to join the meeting. The lost opportunities for

collaborating on critical operations such as rhino and elephant poaching patrols, wild fire control and

monitoring, almost amounts to a tragedy (own observations, interviews 3, 52). Although there appears

to be political will as well as goodwill from the park management, it has yet to translate into simple

implementation on the ground.

The impact that the high numbers of Mozambican migrants have had on South Africa cannot be ignored,

with increased intolerance reported among South African citizens, given that the country is struggling

with an unemployment figure in the mid-twenties, and that migrant labour does not contribute to any

tax systems19. During the interviews, I received mixed inputs from interviewees, with many South

Africans indicating impatience with the porous borders and corrupt border officials (interviews 60, 75,

43), but also others indicating that Mozambicans have integrated into the local communities, inter-

married and are co-existing well with South African citizens (interviews 90, 34, 37). Interviews with

Mozambicans reported great difficulty for those who have moved to South Africa, and high costs to

travel between the countries (interviews 42, 88, 20). Migrant communities would typically appear

overnight on the outskirts of cities in the form of “shanty towns” or informal settlements, and be

ignored by the municipal managers, with high crime rates, enormous costs for simple services such as

medical care, and the constant dread of being discovered and sent back (reported by several migrant

interviewees). An attribute that can affect the life of communities bordering the TFCA, this has been a

major driver of several issues regarding community conservation (interviews 20, 53). These factors

include very dynamic communities, constantly in flux, and difficulty to control resource use by

traditional leaders and municipal managers alike (interviews 23, 48, 90, 87). Other complicating social

factors are the high crime rates, intolerance from non-migrant citizens, and inter-marriages or co-

habitation with offspring while supporting families in the countries of origin (interview 37). On the issues

relating to weak governance, these include corrupt border police, and abuse of tenure systems by

corrupt municipal officials who exact payment from migrants to stay in the villages (interviews 49, 81).

19 As an example of many media reports: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zuma-assigns-ministers-to-deal-with-xenophobia-attacks-20150412

80

External/Internal instability: The external instability of South Africa and Zimbabwe has been addressed

under the Mapungubwe discussion, as well as the internal issues in Zimbabwe, which has also been

discussed under the heading ‘Authority’, above. Under South Africa’s internal issues, a major factor is

the corruption and incompetence experienced in the rural municipalities, as also indicated in the

authority section, with total lack of financial competency reported in most municipalities and almost

total lack of service provision (interviews 92, 90, 88, 85). The municipality of Bushbuckridge (in the

central buffer zone of the Kruger National park) has been an area of intense social unrest for many

years, and this area is also recognized as a poverty node because of the lack of any large industries or

other forms of employment, with less than 15% of the total population employed (Stats SA, SA Public

Service Commission Report 2009). Discussions with researchers doing social research in the

Bushbuckridge and Mbombela areas revealed huge social problems associated with intense poverty.

These include the high prevalence of domestic abuse, particularly rape of young girls and resultant

teenage pregnancies, alcohol and drug dependence, very high unemployment of the young, absent

homeowners, and single or no-adult supervision families due to the large numbers of adults working in

the centres of Johannesburg and Pretoria (interviews 47, 37, 81, 54). There appears to be no immediate

solution to these challenges, although the South African government has prioritized spending revenue

on infrastructure and employment creation programmes such as the Working-For-Water20 and other

Working-For programmes, as well as the latest environmental monitoring programme.

On the external instability of Mozambique as found within government processes and country stability,

although not receiving the lowest rating, a fair amount of instability crept in during the period of the

research and field trips (2012-2014), to such an extent that from November 2013 onward it was no

longer safe to travel alone into Mozambique. The origin of the latest unrest has been a sudden increase

in RENAMO hostilities. Relations between RENAMO, founded around independence in 1975 with the

backing of white-ruled Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa, and Frelimo, the ruling, formerly Marxist

party, have become increasingly tense over the past two years. It is not yet known what caused the flare

up of conflict, although international weapons smuggling, linked to the international wildlife crime

syndicates that drive illegal rhino and elephant horn sales, have been blamed for the escalation

(Montesh 2013; personal comment, General Jooste,). In July 2014, thousands of Mozambicans

participated in marches in Maputo and other cities to protest against the threat of armed conflict and

20 An environmental programme that provides employment and training to the poor in South Africa: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/

81

kidnappings by criminal gangs, calling on the government to confront the attacks by armed guerrillas of

the RENAMO opposition movement in the centre and north21. Raids and ambushes that intensified in

2014 have killed civilians, police and soldiers, while the army is hunting fugitive Renamo leader Afonso

Dhlakama in what some say is an escalation of violence that could tip Mozambique back into civil war

(interviews 82, 6). This form of unstable governance would have a very negative impact on any form of

tourism into the country, and on ecotourism in the remote region of the TFCA in particular. An element

which has certainly impacted the internal stability within the communities living within the boundaries

of the PNL has been the “war on rhino poaching”, as most media and park staff calls it (interviews 26,

17, 43, Q14). One important element that has crept in over the past decade is the rationalization of

what is essentially a crime, even in Mozambique, and the interviewees were as polarized about the

matter within Mozambique, as they had been outside Mozambique, with many saying “that these are

criminals and should be treated thus” (interview 43, Q 11) and many others suggesting that it is a way to

get food, and has always been the way people have lived off the land. It basically relates again to the

differing value systems among people (interviews 88, 87, 90, 14, 23, 49).

4.4. MORE GENERAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The scores allocated to the different communities/stakeholder groups living in the region of the two

case studies reflect their vulnerable status as far as viable conservation stewardship is concerned. In the

Limpopo TFCA, the most pronounced difference lay in the attitudes of private land owners (where

tenure is secure) and those living on communal land (ranging from highly insecure to hopeful land

claimants), and these corresponded directly with conservation values, socio-economic status, and

benefits derived from the protected areas in the vicinity. Particularly Zimbabwean and Mozambican

local community members were most vocal in voicing disappointment regarding the TFCAs, reminding of

“promises made by government” about the benefits that these TFCAs will produce. It was clear that

even government officials had higher expectations from these areas, and the “tourists that will flock to

the region, bringing their foreign currencies.”

A significant proportion of interviewed stakeholders in Level 1 and 2 sectors were either ignorant of the

concept of transfrontier conservation, or once reminded, felt that it was a “dream without reality”.

Especially members of local communities living in the buffer zones of Kruger Park had no knowledge of

21 http://www.tvcnews.tv/?q=article/thousands-march-mozambique-demand-peace-security

82

the concept. Of the interviewees aware of its existence, a large proportion were disappointed with the

current status quo, and felt “let-down” by their respective governments. Many stakeholders at district

or provincial level felt that it was “too complex”, and that the national governments have lost interest

after the initial hype a decade ago, during the establishment process, when it “was mostly a political

process.”

4.4.1. USING POLITICAL RHETORIC TO GET BUY-IN FROM STAKEHOLDERS

It is nothing new in the African political context to promise voters unattainable outcomes in order to

push forward some ideology or development (Mistry 2000). In the field of conservation, it is thus almost

natural for politicians to highlight potential benefits at the cost of truth about the difficulty and high

price at which these benefits might come (Ramutsindela 2007). The objective would be to accelerate

gaining consensus with local stakeholders, particularly among remote rural communities. The

transfrontier conservation areas of southern Africa have been no exception. It is clear that since this is a

concept that involves communities sometimes hundreds of kilometers apart (as with the Limpopo

TFCA), the initial political process could not have been a bottom-up process, especially given that

establishing a transfrontier conservation area involves memoranda of understanding and treaties at the

highest levels of government. Another stumbling block to a bottom-up approach has been the history of

conflict between many of these neighbouring countries. Grass-roots development of a transfrontier

conservation initiative would no doubt have been the more sustainable approach, but perhaps an

unreasonable expectation given the geographic features and history. However, after the initial hype,

and mainly due to new political figures entering the stage (many stakeholders pointed that while Kader

Asmal and Valli Moosa had been the South African ministers of environmental affairs, and Nelson

Mandela president of South Africa, that everything moved forward briskly (1994-2004)), progress

slowed down noticably. A plethora of unrealized expectations have been generated, particularly in the

minds of local communities and stakeholders regarding potential tourism revenue from these new

conservation areas (confirmed in many interviews). Apart from these, very little real stakeholder

engagement followed during the next decade (Ramutsindela 2007, Jones and Murphree 2001), and one

stakeholder described it as a bus that had been pushed up a steep hill, and now the bus should run

downhill “of its own volition”. However, it is clear from recent developments in Mozambique and

Zimbabwe that the unrealized expectations have given way to disillusionment, and the lack of concrete

benefits from the protected areas within the TFCAs have eroded any belief in the potential benefits of

conservation. The only reality that the local communities within the TFCA in Mozambique is faced with,

83

is their imminent removal, lack of access to what had become a “gold mine” through illegal rhino horn

sales, risk and loss of lives within the communities, and the uncertainty of the future after relocation.

4.4.2. PEACE PARKS OR CRADLES OF CONFLICT?

The concept of peace as a driver or a result of transfrontier conservation has often been hailed by

advocates of the idea, and has received attention from scholars (Ali 2007). Examples of “peace parks”

between countries after or during periods of hostility include the Peace Accord between Peru and

Ecuador which required establishing a peace park, the conservation of the red-crowned and white-

naped cranes within the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea, and the mountain gorilla

and afro-montane forest conservation area on the borders of Rwanda, Uganda and Congo (Marton-

Lefèvre 2007). This was definitely also part of the initial rhetoric in establishing the southern African

transfrontier conservation areas (at the time mostly referred to as Peace Parks, and hence the name of

its foremost implementer, the Peace Parks Foundation). Many stakeholders, when asked whether they

think the TFCA is good for keeping peaceful relations between countries, responded positively. Whether

the Limpopo TFCA will live up to this ideal remains to be seen. Over the past two years it has become an

area of intense hostility due to the rhino poaching crisis, with some locals dubbing it the “re-

militarization of the border”, and with vocabulary like drones and “the war on rhino poachers”

introduced into the conversations of some stakeholders. As is also discussed earlier, the term “peace

park” often refers to a tenuous state, with the exception of countries with longstanding peaceful

relations. It is highly dependent on the prerequisites of open communication between country

representatives at all levels, and ensuring local communities’ participation in decision making processes,

lest the protected area staff becomes “the enemy” and thus germinate conflict instead of peace.

4.4.3. CAMPFIRE UNDER THREAT?

The literature on community-based natural resource management (and its many variants) has literally

exploded over the past decade, and a myriad of funded projects have been established all over the

world. Many different co-management models have been introduced, always with the objective of

providing local communities greater decision-making power, but also greater responsibility over

managing the natural resources within their control or territory. Countless books and papers have been

published on the best practices and lessons that could be learned from these models and projects, but

to a large extent, the truly successful models have been few and far between. One model that has been

championed by many is the CAMPFIRE Association or the Communal Areas Management Programme for

Indigenous Resources, the official programme of community-based natural resource management of the

84

Zimbabwean government (Bond 2001). However, in every interview I had with local community leaders

and stakeholders from within Zimbabwe, it always came down to the lack of real devolution of power to

the local level. The current status quo, as mentioned in the results section, is that local communities

only benefit from between 15% and 35% of revenues, all decisions regarding off-take and stocking is

made by the Zimbabwe Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management or the Rural District

Councils (who also receive the majority of revenue), and the concessions themselves are usually driven

by outside actors (although they have to demonstrate business linkages with the community). Virtanen

(2003) identified this as a problem in CAMPFIRE more than a decade ago, and it appears that the model

has still not matured beyond the stage where either the national government or intermediary actors

such as the local district councils “ladle the cream from the top” (one WMA community member).

Unless this problem is addressed at the basic fundamental level of the administration of the value chain,

and existing community institutions (traditional authorities and wildlife committees) are considered as

equal partners in planning and wildlife management (Virtanen 2003), the whole concept stands the

chance of failing. One of the initial “founders” of the initiative declared he could “hear the bell tolling”

for CAMPFIRE unless the government of Zimbabwe address these issues within the next five years.

4.4.4. A FLAWED SOCIO-ECONOMIC MODEL

Closely linked to the CAMPFIRE model is the basic premise that wildlife, through incorporating cultural

activities, eco-tourism or hunting activities, can be as valued in the same way as agriculture or

industries. There are a few flaws in the assumptions though, and several of these were voiced during the

interviews. One misconception is that of the commodification of culture and heritage in which

communities have to play into the stereotypes of their culture for economic benefit (Bruner 2001).

Another flaw is that of the “tourist gaze” or expectations of tourists based on popular images of Africa,

with local communities pandering to the unrealistic expectations of visitors from other parts of the

world (Urry 1996) and the fact that:

“indigenous peoples are placed in a dynamic where cultural "authenticity" becomes something

very tangible and necessary to achieve economic success. This “reconstruction of ethnicity”

becomes important, because locals tend to act out cultural patterns and behaviors that they

believe would satisfy tourists most” (MacCannel 1984: 379).

The basic flaw is that communities would never have thought of the idea in the first place, particularly

since there is an element of “dignity loss” which accompanies this type of commodification of culture.

Outsiders, usually the tourism operators themselves, present the communities with the idea of “making

85

money” through an eco-tourism enterprise (precisely what both the Limpopo and Mapungubwe IDPs

are proposing). Most of the community members have never traveled to foreign parts or had the

opportunity to “act the tourist” (reported by virtually all local community members). They therefore

have very limited understanding of the expectations of tourists, apart from “what sells.” This fact

renders them dependent on the hunting concessionaires or tourism operators to prescribe to them

“how they should manage what they manage”, and stripping them of a great deal of confidence and

self-respect (manager of a Community Protected Area in Bushbuckridge). Unless local communities are

“trained” or informed prior to imposing socio-economic models such as “wildlife economies” (the most

recent term coined in South Africa’s eastern lowveld) to understand the market and marketing

principles, as well as tourists (and their expectations), or the international trophy hunters, they will

remain at the “beck and call” of tourists and tourism operators (lodge owner in Mapungubwe NP). They

will thus never gain the competitive edge over their sophisticated western counterparts. A unique

constellation found in a few CAMPFIRE successful ventures (such as the Mahenye community lodge)

consisted of an operator that was born and raised as a Westerner, but was also raised within the larger

Mahenye community and could therefore speak their language and had their concerns and welfare at

heart. This combination led to one of the first CAMPFIRE associations and is still a successful enterprise.

This is probably as close to a blueprint one might find until local communities have learned about the

“business of resource management” which is in itself a flawed concept. Having a real business operator

who cares about the benefits of the communities is apparently a rare find.

4.4.5. TRADITIONAL VERSUS POLITICAL AUTHORITY: AN AFRICAN CONUNDRUM

The final aspect regarding the attribute of authority which warrants brief mention, is the current

unresolved state of affairs in many African countries regarding resource management and control over

natural resources. It is also part of the legacy of colonialism, where Western laws became entrenched

into the national governance systems, often in conflict with traditional, customary laws that still dictate

resource use and land tenure control (Singh 2001). Virtanen notes that the confusion with tenure and

restrictions of resource use often lead to abuse and an open-access regime which culminates in resource

depletion as users try to maximize gains (2003, Matose and Wily 1996). This issue was noted as a

constant source of conflict, confusion or abuse by many of the interviewees, and it is clear that the

governments of southern Africa need to find “the best of both worlds”, where traditional authority is

elevated to the legal platforms of the countries in order to ensure accountability as well as respect for

the institution. It has been clear from the meta study as well as from the two TFCA case studies that

86

traditional authorities can be a very useful centre of power that can be applied for the benefit of both

communities and the environment, but the current tenuous position of traditional leaders requires the

attention of the governments of the relevant countries.

87

5. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

"Nature doesn't acknowledge frontiers. Neither can ecology...." - Nadine Gordimer (1923-2014)

5.1. INTRODUCTION

Since the main objective behind creating the transfrontier conservation areas was to expand natural

ecosystems across unnatural man-made borders and to allow free movement of the animal species

between adjacent national parks and other protected areas, an important focus of this study has been

to investigate the status quo of these ecosystems, particularly regarding the management practices. The

current fluidity of both case studies’ boundaries has an influence on planning as well as exact

management responsibilities, especially since no ecosystem management or monitoring under the

current institutional arrangements is undertaken on areas outside the direct core conservation areas.

Figures 25 and 26 show the land uses, core protected areas and greater transfrontier conservation

areas. The term “transfrontier conservation area” has recently migrated towards a longer term vision for

both these TFCAs – and the Limpopo TFCA is underplayed markedly compared to a few years ago. The

objective of this research was to use rapid appraisal methods to assess the ecosystem health/condition

at the landscape scale. Fortunately, recent technological advances such as geographic information

systems (GIS) have contributed towards enabling far more effective ways of monitoring changes in

natural resources (Allen 1994). Similarly, ways of capturing data have also advanced substantially and

have moved away from the overly analytical, time consuming and expensive methods used in the past

(Holechek et al.1998). Detailed analyses of the ecosystems involved were not a part of this study. My

main focus was rather on management approaches, and to superficially compare ecosystem conditions

on either sides of the borders, especially where fences had been removed to allow free movement of

animal species. The expert knowledge of ecologists and monitoring reports from the protected areas

(where present) were considered an accurate measure of ecosystem health, and my own observations

88

were only used in the total absence of any form of evaluation, either in written form (Integrated

Development Plans, ecological monitoring reports, maps, and departmental analyses) or on record as

part of the interviews conducted.

Figure 25: Map of the Greater Mapungubwe TFCA indicating the land uses – the area currently falling under the Memorandum of Understanding only refers to the Nature Reserves (green in colour) (Source: GMTFCA IDP, 2010, with permission)

89

Figure 26: Map of the Greater Limpopo Transboundary Park, indicating the various land uses. The smaller map inserted above right shows the original scope of the TFCA, which includes wildlife reserves to the left of Kruger NP, and large tracts of communal land between the Limpopo, Banhine and Zinave NPs

(Source: GLTP IDP 2010, with permission)

5.2. METHODOLOGY

Using the same approach as with the socio-economic and governance dimensions, I conducted semi-

structured interviews with the park managers and ecologists of all the wildlife reserves that fall under

the TFCA umbrella. Additional data collection included spatiotemporal data collated by the existing

Greater Limpopo TFCA (currently undefined)

90

conservation areas, as well as ecosystem management plans and reports for each of the protected areas

within the study areas. Similar again to the other two dimensions investigated, I selected a range of

attributes that describes ecosystems, as well as the management of these, and through discussing the

condition and challenges of ecosystems under the authority of the interviewees, assigned scores to

these. Areas outside of the core TFCAs, depending on the land use and tenure, were scored by myself,

based on observations and GIS analysis. As attributes, I selected for the physical environment at the

level of the landscape:

Vegetation cover: from bare soil to 100% cover: the aim of selecting this attribute is because in

southern Africa vegetation cover is usually a good rapid appraisal method to discover superficial

changes in the ecosystem, and an easy indicator for degradation. It should be used with caution

in semi- to arid areas (such as Mapungubwe), since these areas tend to have fluctuations in

vegetation cover annually, depending on the season. For this reason, I mainly relied on

percentages provided by park ecologists where possible. The incidence of bush encroachment in

southern Africa reflects a form of mismanagement, usually as a consequence of over-grazing

(where the grass component is decimated in favour of tree species) – therefore a high score for

vegetation cover, combined with a low score for the following attribute, species composition,

would indicate bush encroachment;

Species composition (distinguishing two classes: fauna and flora): from homogeneous to

naturally heterogeneous: at the landscape scale, this is also a rapid appraisal method to

distinguish between agricultural crops, communal land and natural wilderness areas – more

heterogeneous areas invariably represents a greater degree of pristine wilderness present, but

also indicates over-abundance of a species such as elephants, and in combination with the

previous score, would indicate over-utilization of plant species or animal species;

Alien presence: from 100% - 0% presence: this score mostly referred also to management

practices or the absence of intervention to protect biodiversity – a heavy infestation always

carried cost implications to restore an ecosystem, and usually indicated in the Savannah area

that previously, an area had been overstocked with grazers;

River systems: heavily polluted to pristine: most of the core protected areas and TFCA areas

form part of the catchment area for some of the most important river systems in southern

Africa – the fact that these are now part of transboundary ecosystems, indicates a responsibility

within the TFCA to manage the pollution levels of the major rivers, since it becomes an

91

international jurisdiction problem, particularly where mining activities within the South African

border pollutes rivers and thus impact rural areas within Mozambique (as is the case of several

of the Limpopo TFCA rivers;

The attributes for the decision-making environment were:

Presence of ecosystem monitoring: absence to regular evaluation: this attribute highlights the

effectiveness and failures of the decision-making processes regarding the ecosystem dimension,

and indicates issues such as lack of capacity and financial resources, and ability to plan ahead.

Presence of interventions: absence to regular intervention: this attribute identifies the type of

management approach, and how that, in combination with the purely ecosystem attributes,

would affect the ecosystem dynamics.

Presence of policy feedback: absence to regular consultation: considered the acid test of good

environmental governance, this attribute would only receive high scores where an advanced

system of ecosystem management is in place. It also reflects the attention on research and

analyses of policies and its impacts.

5.3. WHO ARE THE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKERS?

Both case studies display a huge diversity of ecosystem management approaches, mostly because of the

diversity of management types according to each land use and protected area. The following table

provides a basic overview of ecosystem management types:

92

Table 9: Overview of ecological management of different land use zones within the TFCAs:

Country TFCA Component Description

Mapungubwe

South Africa

Mapungubwe NP Formal position – resident ecologist Park management makes decisions

Venetia Nature Reserve Private reserve on mine property – private ecologist, mine owners decide on advice from ecologist

Community land Tribal authorities decide on resource use - no formal monitoring processes

Commercial farms and other Individual owners make decisions

Zimbabwe

Nottingham Estate Currently no formal position, Beitbridge Rural District Council has one environmental monitor to advise entire RDC area

Sentinel Ranch Nothing formal

Tuli Circle Ad hoc monitoring, depending on resources available

Communal Wildlife Management Areas

Beitbridge Rural District Council CAMPFIRE environmental monitor

Botswana

NOTUGRE Several research projects, resident ecological manager, privately funded by owners

Communal areas Tribal authority and local councilors control resource allocation

Limpopo

Mozambique Parque Naçional do Limpopo No ecologist, park manager makes decisions, sometimes assisted by ANAC

Zimbabwe

Gonarezhou NP One senior ecologist for the whole park

Sengwe corridor Tribal authorities control resource allocation, CAMPFIRE monitor under the Beitbridge RDC makes decisions about hunting quotas and stocking rates

Other communal areas (Malipati, Mahenye, Chitwa communities)

Tribal authorities control resource allocation, CAMPFIRE monitor under the Beitbridge and Chiredsi RDCs makes decisions about hunting quotas and stocking rates

South Africa

Kruger NP

Two research hubs, with different experts (20 in total): alien species, big mammals, small mammals, vegetation composition, etc. 1000+ staff members to assist with monitoring, fire breaks, census, harvesting etc.. Advise the conservation manager and head rangers, who make the final decisions

Sabie GR and Associated Game Reserves

Professional resident ecologists advise, park managers make the decisions

Communal areas Tribal authorities allocate resources, based on no formal ecosystem monitoring

Agricultural farms No formal ecosystem monitoring, private owners make decisions based on agricultural cost incentives

93

5.4. RESULTS

The same system used to provide scores per case study at the country level in the socio-economic

dimension was used with the ecosystem scores. Averages of the scores between the different land use

types were combined and Table 10 presents these scores.

Table 10: Average scores for each country within the two case studies regarding the ecosystem management attributes

MAPUNGUBWE

Vegetation cover: Botswana displays a fairly dismal natural ecosystem picture, largely due to the

presence of an unchecked elephant population, which for decades continued to grow with no natural

limiting factor. The impact of high elephant numbers is compounded by an unpredictable, low rainfall,

with a long-term average of 369.4 mm per annum, and during drought periods, as little as 135.5 mm

(Selier 2007). Other negative impacts are the restriction of elephant movement due to human

settlements and fences, and regular flooding from the two major rivers that join in the centre of the

TFCA at the confluence of the Shashe and Limpopo rivers (interview 40, 80). To the south of NOTUGRE,

the communal land is also characterized by large sections of overgrazed rangeland from the many (and

also somewhat unchecked) domestic cattle and goats that wander all over the landscape (interviews 39,

41, 22, own observations). Intensive, but fairly small (compared to some large commercial farms)

sectors of agriculture under irrigation (mainly from the rivers) are interspersed with sections of natural

wilderness on the South African and Zimbabwe sides of the rivers (interview 39). The natural wilderness

within Mapungubwe NP, Nottingham Estate, River Ranch and Sentinel Ranch contain patches of good

vegetation cover, particularly during the rainy season, but generally the carrying capacity of the area is

very low, and only offset by the riparian zones of the rivers. These riparian areas have, according to the

Country Cover Species Alien

species River

systems Monitoring

Management intervention

Policy feedback

Score

Mapungubwe

SA 3.000 2.250 2.500 2.667 2.000 2.000 1.500 2.310

Zim 2.625 3.250 3.375 3.000 2.125 0.375 1.000 2.250

Bot 1.000 3.000 2.500 2.500 2.000 2.000 1.000 2.000

Limpopo

Mo 3.000 3.000 3.000 0.000 1.000 3.000 2.000 2.143

Zim 3.000 3.250 3.250 2.000 1.500 2.000 1.500 2.429

SA 2.455 2.545 2.182 0.778 1.091 1.455 1.182 1.669

94

ecologists from NOTUGRE and Mapungubwe, been declared critically endangered because of the

combined effects of elephants decimating the vegetation, and farmers clearing the floodplains to

provide land for crop production (interviews 8, 41, 68). A pristine fever tree forest (Acacia

xanthophloea) at the confluence of the two major rivers have been excluded from elephant grazing by

high fences that protect this ecosystem from further destruction. On Nottingham Estate, an open-cast

coal mine has been in operation, but not very extensively, and in South Africa, within kilometres of

Mapungubwe NP, the controversial Vele coal mine license was assigned in 2010, although operations

have currently ceased temporarily. Both these coal mines are bound to have serious deleterious impacts

on the natural environment, and most particularly on the Limpopo River, since the mines are within 5

km from the river (interview 67). The possible consequences of water pollution as a result of acid mine

drainage on the environment is well documented (DeNicola and Stapleton 2002; Naicker et al 2003). The

crop damage by elephants is a natural consequence and very common occurrence due to the loss of

natural vegetation and easy access to irrigated crops (interview 39).

Figure 27: Aerial view of the intensive irrigated agriculture sectors next to the Limpopo River

Species composition: The case study area’s vegetation, looking at a landscape level, is broadly classified

as Mopane veld (Acocks 1988), on three different geological substrates divided between the area south

of the Limpopo River, north of the Limpopo River and the area just north of the Tuli Circle. The

vegetation is fairly diverse and natural, and most interviewees with some knowledge of the vegetation

95

agreed that for the climate it is healthy (interviews 68, 66, 22). Particularly, the riverine forests along the

main rivers boast majestic Mashatu trees (Xanthocercis zambeziaca), fever trees (Acacia xanthophloea)

and Mlala palms (Hyphaene banguelensis). The rocky outcrops further from the river systems are

composed of Acacias, Terminalia, Mopane and Combretum, the typical mixed species forest found in

large areas of the southern African savannah or bushveld. The grass component consists of Panicum

maximum, Panicum meyerianum, Sporobolus consimilis, Chloris gayana, Cenchrus ciliaris and Urochloa

mocambicensis. The grass component for most parts of the TFCA is virtually absent during most months

of the year, due to overgrazing, either from elephants or domestic cattle, which also compete with

antelope species such as waterbuck (interview 41, own observations). Marshes along the riverine areas

have very few tree species due to the expanding characteristic of the clay soils and temporary

waterlogged conditions (during flood waters) which do not support most savannah tree species (Selier

2007). An important elephant habitat is the “vlei” areas, or low-lying marshy areas, which are covered

with water during the rainy season and lie along the edges of the grassy marshes. These are covered

with the Mlala palms, which often appear stunted due to constant harvesting by humans for making

palm wine (Selier 2007).

The animal species vary widely in distribution and movement, and shown in Table 11. The areas that are

reported by wildlife managers to have healthy wildlife populations, are: in Botswana, NOTUGRE, the

remainder of the Tuli Block; in South Africa, several game farms, the Venetian mine lands and

Mapungubwe NP; and in Zimbabwe, Sentinel Ranch and Nottingham Estate (interview 39). According to

a report by CESVI (2001), illegal hunting and drought eradicated the African buffalo in the Mapungubwe

area during 1970-1990. Predators are not present in large numbers in Mapungubwe (Selier 2007).

96

Table 11: A list of the main fauna species found within the greater TFCA (Source: GMTFCA IDP 2010)

Eland (Taurotragus oryx) Gemsbuck (Oryx gazelle)

Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) Bush pig (Potamochoerus larvatus)

Blue Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) Elephants (Loxodonta africana africana)

Burchell’s Zebra (Equus burchellii) Ostrich (Struthio camelus)

Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) Warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus)

Impala (Aepyceros melampus) Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)

Bushbuck (Tragelaphus Scriptus) Black rhino (Diceros bicornis)

Klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus) White rhino (Ceratotherium simum)

Baboon (Papio ursinus) Leopard (Panthera pardus)

Lion (Panthera leo) Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)

Hyena (spotted and brown) (Crocuta crocuta and

Hyaena brunnea)

Aardvark (Orycteropus afer)

Wild dog (Lycaon pictus) Buffalo (Syncerus caffer)

Red Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus caama)

Small species such as duiker, steenbok, badgers, civets, porcupine, caracal, vervet monkey

Reptiles: Pythons and Black mambas are common, crocodiles in very few spots, because the rivers

are not perennial

Alien presence: Within the wilderness areas, alien species occur infrequently, although most reserve

managers acknowledge that alien species need to be monitored, especially in the overgrazed communal

lands (interviews 50, 8, 31). In old lands, Acacia tortilis, generally considered a pioneer tree species,

have competed successfully with the grass layer (again due to overgrazing by mostly domestic stock),

and form dense stands of homogeneous vegetation, a typical sign of a history of human settlements

with no intervention to restore ecosystems (Jordaan 2010).

River systems: The Limpopo River Valley forms the central part of the TFCA, and drains into the Limpopo

River (also forms the border between South Africa, and three of its neighbours, Botswana, Zimbabwe,

and Mozambique). Other major rivers within the TFCA, are the Shahse, Tuli, Motloutse, Majale (also

known as Bojale), Pahzi and Mzingwane rivers on the Botswana and Zimbabwean side, with the Kolopi,

Mapedu, Upper Sand and Mogalakwena rivers within South Africa (Selier, 2007).

97

Figure 28: Map showing the major river systems within the Mapungubwe TFCA, with the dark gray area indicating the Botswana side of the TFCA (Source: Selier 2007, with permission)

The most interesting characteristic about the river systems of Mapungubwe, contrary to the river

systems of Limpopo TFCA (discussed in the next section), is the fact that none of these rivers have much

surface water throughout the year. The Limpopo, when flooded during the summer-rain months, carries

a vast quantity of water, and will flow for many months, but during the dry season it frequently ceases

to flow, with only water pools remaining in some areas (interview 39). The Motloutse and Shahse rivers,

for the most part of the year, are extended expanses of sand, only flowing during the days after rain

storms. The Shashe has a large body of water flowing under the surface (Ncghunga 1978) and is

considered a submerged river system because of its porous sand bed. The consequence of having such

porous river beds, is that very few pollutants are carried far downstream, and the rivers, apart from

containing lots of debris when in flood, are considered clean and safe by the ecologists of the region.

One threat to the river systems within the TFCA though, and in particular the Limpopo River, is that of

the pollution caused by the two coal mines in the close vicinity of the TFCA and the river, and the reason

for the huge public outcry following the license issuance to the Vele Coal mine by the Minster of Mining

from South Africa.

Presence of ecosystem monitoring: The main reason for including the following three attributes, is

because only scoring certain characteristics and functions of an ecosystem would merely indicate

descriptions of an area, with no indication of how effectively the human impacts, or fauna and flora

98

changes are assessed. The presence of monitoring and evaluation practices would usually indicate

whether a system is under pressure or thriving, due to changes either from the biotic component or the

human factor. Mapungubwe NP within South Africa, as well as the individual game farms and the

Venetia mine wildlife area all declare regular monitoring practices (at least once a year, many areas

more often – interviews 8, 39)). The Carnivore Conservation Group of the Endangered Wildlife Trust

(EWT) has been running a constant monitoring and surveillance research project on the small pack of

wild dogs found on the Venetia Nature Reserve (reported by John Power 2008, EWT22). On the

Botswana side, Mashatu and the other natural reserves that form a part of NOTUGRE, have a number of

research programmes running, which amongst other aspects, monitor the numbers of the elephant

populations, some predator species’ movements and numbers such as wild dog, lion, cheetah and

leopard (Snyman 2010). The remainder of the TFCA falls within the administration of the Botswana

Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) as part of Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs). Some

CHAs have a zero hunting quota when it forms part of a protected area, but other CHAs are designated

communal hunting areas. A legally recognized community trust with an approved land use plan may

lease the CHA from the Tribal Land Board and sub-lease this to hunting safari or ecotourism operators

(Abensperg-Traun 2009). Three community trusts have been developed within the TFCA in the Central

Bobonong District since 2000 (Selier et al. 2014). According to a DWNP official, these hunting quotas

have often been used to deter elephants who become problem animals within communal land, and to

compensate local communities for wildlife-related losses and thus also improving community attitudes

to elephants (interview 91). Although the managers of Nottingham Estate and Sentinel Ranch have

regular monitoring exercises, the capacity to do regular surveys as in the case of the previously

mentioned areas does not exist to the same extent (interview 68). The Tuli Safari Area is administrated

by the Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (NPWM or Zimparks), and

managed by a senior ranger. According to this ranger, the NPWM sets the hunting quotas according to

the rules set by CITES and in line with section 87-96 of the country’s national environmental plans

(interview 68). According to both the manager of the quota system and the concessionaire (the hunting

operator), the concession holder will identify only non-productive males of a species for clients to hunt

(interviews 68, 91). Quotas are set based on a trophy quality size, length of time it takes to hunt a

particular species, latest animal population trends and animal population growth rates (reported by the

manager of the quota system within NPWM – interview 91). The research into the animal population

22 Report available from: http://www.lroc.org.za/content/news/Wild%20dogs%20Venecia%20200811.pdf

99

growth trends and population growth rates is conducted by the NPWM management board’s scientific

services unit. The scientific services unit is sometimes assisted by aerial surveys conducted by the WWF,

and park rangers also sometimes assist with reporting on animal sightings (interview with a NWPM

manager – interview 24). The quota will then finally be approved by the chief ecologist of the scientific

services unit (quota system manager). One further aspect that also contributes to setting hunting quotas

is when community leaders bring reports of problem animals in a communal area, such as an elephant

trampling the community’s crops, or if there had been reports of lion-sightings close to human

settlements. These reports are then also taken into account when setting the hunting quotas (interviews

88, 38, 39). As mentioned elsewhere the Rural District Councils of Zimbabwe also have environmental

monitors who assist the local communities with setting the hunting quotas (interview 8). The Beitbridge

environmental monitor reported that she is the only person covering the entire district, which includes

many wildlife management areas (WMAs) and is far too big for only one person to cover (interview with

Beitbridge RDC members). It appeared that migrating animals from elsewhere within the TFCA are not

generally monitored by anyone (since there is no central monitoring agency or ecologist) and, therefore,

the system is only monitored within the different fragmented units of natural reserve within the larger

TFCA, but never as an entire system (interview 40, own observations).

Presence of ecosystem management interventions: Some of the areas mentioned above were scored

higher in terms of directly intervening within the ecosystem based on monitoring results. These areas

are NOTUGRE, the Venetia Nature Reserve and Mapungubwe NP. The response from the Tuli Circle

Safari Area and surrounding communal lands scored high in responding with management interventions,

but because of the lack of human capacity for regular monitoring, the communal areas’ score in the

previous attribute was lower (scored by Beitbridge RDC members, Q 5, 6). The CAMPFIRE staff agreed

that their intention would always be only to implement actions based on valid results, but that knowing

the exact wildlife population sizes would remain as the bottleneck unless their numbers can be

“fortified” (one member of the Beitbridge RDC). The biggest challenge within Mapungubwe as a TFCA

system remains the joint monitoring among the three countries of the elephant population and its

impacts on the vegetation, as well as how and which measures to implement to contain the population

numbers, and to address the issue of problem animals decimating village crops (interviews 66, 80).

Presence of policy feedback: None of the protected areas within the TFCA reported direct actions in

response to specific policies, except for the strict adherence to Botswana’s foot-and-mouth veterinary

policy, which prohibits movement of live animals or uncertified meat across the fence (interview 31).

100

The location and impacts of the different fences within the TFCA will be discussed further in the next

section. Another area of international policy-setting which is adhered to, but often debated in research

and popular natural scientific publications, is that of the CITES regulations on elephant culling. Most

interviewees feel that regulated control of elephant numbers through culling should be an option

decided at the local level, and not on the international stage (interviews 86, 39, 66, 70, 22). However, all

government officials agree that this would place a much greater responsibility on the shoulders of the

respective national governments and their environmental agencies to monitor population sizes and

movement of herds.

LIMPOPO

Vegetation cover: Mostly due to a moister climate, the Limpopo case study presents a very different

vegetation cover to that of Mapungubwe. Another factor is that the Limpopo TFCA as it currently exists

(as the GLTP, without the huge intervening communal areas), consists of two protected areas that were

established decades ago (Gonarezhou and Kruger NP), and thus the ecosystems (which cover huge

sectors of land) have long since reverted to natural processes with little (originally more in the case of

Kruger NP) human interference (interviews 27, 26). No serious droughts have been recorded in either

Gonarezhou or Kruger NPs over the past decade. In fact there has been several years of heavy rainfall

with infrastructure damage within the parks every year. Ecologists from both Gonarezhou and Kruger

therefore gave the highest scores for average vegetation cover, and most other ecological management

measures (interviews 31, 60, 52). The reason for the lower scores within the Zimbabwe and South

African sections of the TFCA again relates to the buffer zones and intervening communal lands which

have a direct impact on the national parks’ biodiversity, at least within the transition zones. Similar to

Mapungubwe, many communal areas are surrounded by bare or sparsely covered areas either due to

heavy trampling and grazing by domestic animals, including cattle, donkeys and goats, or previously

cleared areas where crops had been planted (interview 52, own observations). This is not the case

everywhere, and tends to be worse in the northern buffer zone of Kruger NP.

In Mozambique, the Limpopo NP has a different history to that of Zimbabwe or South Africa’s core

protected areas. With the seven communities that have been part of the national park since its

establishment in the 1990s, the same overgrazed, trampled areas, and cleared areas for crops, are part

of the natural ecosystem within the protected area (interviews 5, 6). The altered, degraded areas then

decrease in degrees until the natural vegetation becomes the dominant feature, the distances

101

depending on physical features, such as distance to roads, or natural features such as river gorges or

cliffs (Figure 29). Outside the park, within the buffer zone, although currently no longer part of the case

study, a similar pattern is followed, with vegetation cover increasing with distance from human

settlements (own observations).

Figure 29: Satellite picture of Masingir Velo, one of seven villages within Parque Naçional do Limpopo, showing the impact of human settlement in terms of cultivated crops and grazed areas, and footpaths.

(Google Earth)

Species composition: While the core protected areas support very healthy ecosystems, and are

therefore very diverse, supporting heterogeneous plant as well as animal species, there is again a

marked difference between the Zimbabwe and South African parks areas, as opposed to Mozambique’s

Limpopo NP. While the vegetation in parts of Limpopo NP is diverse and the species composition scores

high, there are also sections that have been altered due to the presence of human settlements, as well

as having been part of a military zone during the war years (interviews 6, 9). There are still parts of the

park where landmines are a threat, although years of actively clearing the park has paid off (LNP

warden, Bocchino 2008). Although a 50 km stretch of fencing between the heterogeneously populated

Kruger NP was removed almost a decade ago, and elephants and buffalo have physically been

translocated to the Limpopo NP, animals are still very skittish, and apart from the occasional elephant

straying into the vicinity of villages, the movement of animal species has been affected by the presence

of humans within the park, as compared to the neighbouring Kruger NP (interview 86). “Hunting” in the

national park has also been a regular occurrence over the past decade (interview 5), which has naturally

left animals wary of humans. The unfortunate impact is that the typical tourist visits protected areas to

102

see animals in their natural state, and are thus less inclined to visit the Mozambique section of the TFCA

because of smaller chances of seeing any animals. Due to the fact that the vegetation cover and species

composition of this TFCA spans almost 2 million hectares with many different vegetation types, a full

description of the vegetation and species listing is outside the scope of this thesis.

Alien presence: While none of the protected areas within the Limpopo TFCA are heavily infested with

alien plant species over large areas, Kruger NP and its buffer zone are plagued with spots of heavy

infestation of Lantana camara, Opuntia stricta, Chromolaena odorata, and three Senna species

(interview 50, Foxcroft and Richardson 2003). Heavy infestations of aquatic plant species are also

experienced in the seven major river systems that drain through the park (interview 50). Because of the

threat of invasives, the management of Kruger NP had created a special position within the scientific

services team to address the management of these species from a scientific perspective. The question

remains in comparing the large team of ecosystem experts and supporting staff employed by Kruger NP

with the one-man team and no-man team of Gonarezhou and Limpopo NPs, whether many problems

and challenges do not surface in the latter two parks because of the lack of human capacity to properly

monitor and manage such problems (interview 6). Even though the ecologist from Gonarezhou assured

me that infestation of alien species pose little threat within the park, I am not entirely convinced that

sufficient resources and human capacity are available to monitor this aspect adequately, given the size

of the park.

River systems: The most threatened parts of this TFCA’s ecosystem are the large river systems that drain

through the Gonarezhou NP, Kruger NP and eventually through Mozambique’s remote rural areas into

the Indian Ocean. These include the river systems and basins of the Runde River, Mwenezi River,

Limpopo and Levuvhu Rivers, Lilau Valley area in the LNP, Shingwedzi Basin, Olifants and Letaba river

basins throughout the entire GLTP, the Nwanetsi River Catchment and the N’waswitsontso River (GLTP

IDP 2013). The Save River forms the northernmost border of the TFCA, and the Komati River the

southernmost boundary. As these rivers drain eastward into Mozambique, but before entering the TFCA

traverse large parts of either Zimbabwe or South Africa (Figures 30 and 31), the systems come under

tremendous strain from intensive and subsistence agriculture, millions of people’s dependence, mines,

forestry and several large dams within South Africa and Zimbabwe. There is a threat of flooding every

year, and several of these rivers flooded in each of the years during which this study was undertaken.

During these floods, people had to be evacuated (in Zimbabwe thousands of people were evacuated

because of the threat of the largest dam breaking in February 2014). However, the biggest threat to the

103

ecosystem is pollution of the rivers (interview 27, Q14, 15)). In recent years, a sudden spike in Nile

crocodile deaths within the Olifants River in several places focused attention again on the poor state of

this and other east-flowing rivers. The South African portion of the Olifants River catchment is home to

8% of the South African population (Van Vuuren 2009), contains 201 water storage dams, and is

characterized by large-scale coal mining, coal-fired power generation plants, irrigated agriculture and

several towns and smaller urban centres (Ashton 2010). The TFCA thus plays a very important role in

filtering the river systems before entering Mozambique, and should therefore be the focus of joint

monitoring and management plans for the system as a whole, an aspect which is currently neglected

(interviews 52, 60, 26, 5, 6, 17).

Figure 30: Map showing the river catchments and drainage from north-eastern South Africa into Mozambique, flowing through Kruger NP into Limpopo NP. (Source: Pollard and Du Toit 2011)

The Kruger Rivers Research programme was initiated in 1990 in Kruger NP when park management

realized that the only way to mitigate the external impacts from beyond the park borders was to

interact with all agencies operating upstream (Mabunda et al. 2003).

104

Figure 31: Map showing the three major river catchments draining through Gonarezhou NP into Mozambique (Source: Mazvimavi et al. 2007)

Presence of ecosystem monitoring: The biggest difference relating to ecosystem management between

the three core protected areas that form part of the TFCA (called the Great Limpopo Transboundary

Park or GLTP) was found in the scoring of the next three attributes. The main reasons behind these

differences lay in the historical background and resources allocated to ecosystem management.

Gonarezhou NP’s management and ecologist acknowledged in discussing the aspects of monitoring and

subsequent interventions that currently monitoring and responses to inputs are mostly based on the

daily observations made by field staff (interviews 24, 25, 31)). The NGO heavily involved in the

management and planning of the Gonarezhou assisted with an annual aerial census, as well as more

frequent aerial observations (one of the NGO employees owns and flies an airplane), and this currently

suffices as monitoring, which leads to different responses. During one of my field visits, the staff

reported the death of a young elephant at a waterhole, together with several vultures and other bird

species that feed off carrion. This was becoming one of many occurrences in Zimbabwe, where

elephants (especially during the marula season) are targeted by ivory poachers who leave poisoned

watermelons under a marula tree. This incident serves as an example of the type of monitoring currently

mostly prioritized both in Limpopo and Gonarezhou NPs, where staff patrol the vulnerable parts of the

parks (closer to roads and human settlements) for signs of poaching incidences or activities. In Limpopo

105

NP, the park manager reported no systematic scientific collection of data activities, due to limited

human and financial resources (interview 5). The Kruger NP has become famous for its rigorous

monitoring and management interventions over the century that it has been in existence (Mabunda et

al. 2003). The first warden, James Stevenson-Hamilton, while not collecting systematic scientific data or

keeping species checklists, was a keen observer of nature and documented much scientific data about

Kruger’s ecosystems and species (Carruthers 2001). Mabunda et al. (2003) reports a very close link

between scientific research activities (of which regular, systematic monitoring forms a fundamental

component) and management since the 1950s. The research includes: population studies of most

mammals in the park; predator-prey relationships; browser interactions; mammal distribution; climatic

cycles; chemical game capture techniques; impact and control of disease epizootics; fire behavior;

vegetation landscape delineation and aerial game census technique development (interviews 17, 26).

Presence of ecosystem management interventions: Over the past 30 years scientific research efforts in

Kruger NP have increased massively and have become the basis for what has been coined “adaptive

ecosystem management” (Biggs and Rogers 2003). Earlier interventions were largely experimental and

based on the partial understanding of ecosystems, with typical examples being the management of fire

and water provision. Intensive manipulation of wildlife movement during the 1930s to 1980s through

using fire to attract game species to newly burnt areas, and drilling boreholes to erect artificial

waterholes, had far-reaching consequences. A direct consequence of the erection of waterholes had

been the extirpation of roan antelope from the park, and highly diminished populations of sable

antelope, due to increased densities of zebra and lion in the territories frequented by the two antelope

species (Gaylard et al. 2003). Far more dramatic interventions were the erection of the fences around

the entire perimeter of the park (mainly between 1958 and 1976) that impacted territories, migratory

routes and population growth of all species. This in turn led to the first elephant culling programme

towards the end of the 1960s – the term used at this stage was “management by intervention” (Pienaar

1983). A paradigm shift was made during the 1990s, mainly due to the acknowledgement of unintended

consequences from interventions and the limited understanding of the impacts on a complex system.

Several natural disasters strengthened the realization that humans cannot manage and control nature,

and the ecosystem management interventions changed to a far greater laissez faire approach, termed

“adaptive management”, a process that “promotes learning by doing” (Mabunda et al. 2003:17).

According to the head of programmes in Kruger, this type of management, which was further enhanced

106

and is now termed strategic adaptive management or SAM, has a strong focus on combining science,

management and monitoring in an innovative and motivating way (interview 27).

Presence of policy feedback: Gonarezhou and Limpopo NP management reported very few incidences

of direct linkages between management practices and national environmental policies, although they

were keenly aware of the developments at the national and international level regarding poaching,

wildlife crimes and CITES data lists (interviews 24, 5). Kruger Park’s conservation manager reported

regular consultations between SANparks, Kruger management, national environmental implementation

agencies and the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) (interview 26). Kruger Park

management interacted with external agencies regarding river pollution to such an extent that the

South African government established national water legislation in 1998 in accordance with the park’s

river management principles (Mabunda et al. 2003). Other examples given were the priority given to

rhino poaching research, and the active involvement of the national government in mobilizing armed

forces to assist park staff in combatting the problem (interviews 58, 60, Q14). The ministers of the

environmental departments of South Africa and Mozambique met more than once to discuss the

poaching situation and align policies within the two countries so that the legal aspects within the two

countries are more streamlined.

5.5. DISCUSSION

Three major ecosystem management challenges are presented in the Mapungubwe TFCA: the current

fragmented natural habitat, interspersed with intensive agricultural land use practices in the river

floodplains; linked to these habitat fragments are the numerous structures that prohibit natural

movement of larger mammals, including countless fences, irrigation infrastructure, tarred roads with

moving vehicles - many of these trucks; and the lack of an integrated approach towards tackling these

challenges. The current piecemeal approach in every aspect of the management process, from planning,

actual management activities, to monitoring and evaluation, and information sharing – all require an

integrated approach if existing problems are to be addressed. Each individual land owner/decision

maker within the bigger Mapungubwe TFCA is concerned with managing the ecosystem under its power,

and where no management interventions occur, there are spill-over effects into the surrounding areas,

which also need to be countered. An example is the movement of elephants and predators, both of

which theoretically have the ability to access all parts of the TFCA, but have very differentiated impacts,

some even lethal. This requires a far more harmonized strategy, with managers/owners collaborating on

107

solutions to address issues such as: human/wildlife conflicts; degradation of the vegetation by high

elephant densities; overstocking of communal animals; pollution of the river through fertilizer run-off

from agricultural plots; and infestation of alien species along the rivers.

The major ecosystem challenges in Limpopo TFCA are mostly visible in Parque Naçional do Limpopo,

where currently no ecosystem management plan can be implemented effectively since the park lacks a

resident ecologist. The park therefore suffers from a lack of certain animal species which could

potentially occur here and could provide certain ecosystem functions as browsers or grazers or even

predators, depending on the area. Another challenge is the bush encroachment in areas where a history

of overgrazing is visible, and which would require substantial financial resources and human capacity to

address. Severe alien infestation is visible in pockets in areas close to roads and human settlements,

which would again require huge effort to control. According to both the senior ecologist from Kruger NP,

and the manager of Limpopo NP, the biggest challenge lies in the currently unmonitored movement of

animal species from Kruger into Limpopo. Although this had been a major objective in forming the TFCA,

it is also currently the biggest challenge to monitor and react to, particularly regarding disease transfer,

poaching, and species dispersal.

108

6. GOVERNANCE AND POLICIES

“Systems fail when people with ability don't have authority and people with authority don't have ability.” - Amit Kalantri (1988-)

6.1. INTRODUCTION

Although there is very little disagreement about the necessity for transboundary approaches to

conservation, it is the “how” that has confounded many practitioners and governments. The two cases I

studied proved no exception, and in this chapter I will explore further the road taken to establish these

and other southern African transfrontier conservation areas, as well as the current state of governance

affairs.

That governance in Africa is in trouble is no secret, with African governments particularly struggling with

democracy’s norms of accountability, transparency and formal institutional rule (Chabal 2009).

Furthermore, where policies are the tools with which to govern or “steer” society (Peters 2000), the

challenge lies in devising the tools (or establishing policies), adapting them locally, streamlining them

according to international principles and agreements, and finally ensuring that policies attain the goals

they set out to achieve. It is precisely the latter which is proving the most difficult in the African context.

The past two decades have seen a complex adaptation from state-dominated top-down processes,

towards an array of collaborative, partnership and community arrangements globally (Lockwood 2010),

but in Africa, these forms of governance have often come about where governments seem to have

abdicated their primary responsibilities through lack of capacity or resources or proper management,

and a governance vacuum was left in its wake (Moyo 2011). This is especially true in the domain of

protected area or conservation governance, with the colonial legacy of “forced” species protection

isolated from society the norm. This practice has estranged most of the continent to the concept of

protected areas and conservation. It is also true of recent transboundary protected areas, where the

powers and responsibilities are increasingly driven or adopted by NGOs and individual landholders,

often working in partnership with each other, or with local indigenous communities (Lockwood 2010).

109

The tendency worldwide over the past decade has been to forge new governance principles for

protected areas and conservation in general, with increased pressure towards including indigenous

communities in decision-making processes. Several international conferences since the IUCN World

Parks Congress in Durban (2003) have focused on improving governance in the area of conservation

These include the IUCN World Conservation Congresses in Bangkok (2004) and Barcelona (2008), and

the Convention on Biological Diversity COP 7 in Kuala Lumpur. The principles of good resource

governance have also been included in the IUCN’s guidelines for protected area governance (Dudley

2008). Increasing international pressure has been exerted to recognize the rights of indigenous groups,

as a result of many publications reporting on displacement and disadvantage brought about through

protected area establishment (e.g., Brechin et al. 2002, Ghimire and Pimbert 1997, Phillips 2003).

Lockwood (2010), citing Hess (2001), declares the number of protected area establishments associated

with state expropriation of customary tribal lands, dismantling of villages and removal of communities

to be as high as 85% worldwide, with most of these occurring in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13

September 2007, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 11 abstentions, and interestingly, 4 votes against

(Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). This was followed again, during the Durban

Review Conference in April 2009, when 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on

an outcome document in which they

“welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has

a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all

necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with

international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, 24

April 2009, para. 73).”23

Many NGOs such as Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and World Wide Fund for

Nature have also become increasingly involved with the partnership initiatives of indigenous

communities with private sector and governments. In the two case studies under discussion there was

also abundant demonstration of that. In this chapter I describe how I derived the value attributes used

to gauge the aspect of transboundary conservation governance, and how I then calculated the

cumulative country scores in each case study. This is followed by the results and discussion section

23 Direct citation from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues web page: http://undesadspd.org/IndigenousPeoples/DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples.aspx

110

which focuses on the southern African governments’ attempts at addressing resource deficits while

managing incursions from local communities in protected areas.

6.2. METHODOLOGY

In order to develop the attributes against which to evaluate the governance aspects of the transfrontier

conservation areas in Southern Africa, and particularly the two case studies of Limpopo and

Mapungubwe TFCAs, I did a literature review of research done on governance of protected areas, and

general governance as found in Africa. I also researched the transfrontier conservation areas’ policy

documents and treaties, the SADC Treaty, and related environmental policies from the four countries

involved. This desktop research culminated in the development of a transfrontier conservation

governance framework presented in Chapter 7, Figures 36-39. As value attributes I selected and

combined the principles and guidelines developed in three major research studies (Table 12):

The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), one of six commissions and a

premier network of protected area expertise, is administrated by IUCN's Programme on

Protected Areas with over 1,400 members, spanning 140 countries. This research body

published the document: Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation (Sandwith

et al. 2001) in its series of protected areas’ best practices guidelines. The concepts and guiding

principles, which also informed this research, were developed through three meetings held in

Cape Town (1997), Bormio (1998) and Gland (2000). In addition to this document, the IUCN

WCPA also recently established the Transboundary Conservation Specialist Group under the

guidance of Maja Vasilijević, and this group developed a diagnostic tool to assist potential

transboundary initiatives in determining the readiness of a region for establishing a TBCA (Erg et

al. 2012). This document also assisted in establishing important parameters for evaluating

transboundary conservation.

In Australia, the School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania,

following research across nine regions across south-eastern Australia, and in collaboration with

the Australian government, published their Governance Principles for Regional Natural

Resource Management in 2006 (Davidson et al. 2006). This research was further developed and

published as a framework and principles by Lockwood (2010).

A study by the World Bank Development Research Group, published in the Policy Research

Working Paper Series Nr. 2196 (Kaufmann et al.1999), focused on six clusters of governance

111

which demonstrated the direct link between good governance and good development

outcomes. This study provided the final attributes that guided the governance research on the

two transboundary case studies. The typical questions used in the interviews linked to each

attribute are summarized in Appendix B. Each attribute received a score from 0 to 4, depending

on the strength or weakness considered by an interviewee. Attributes with multiple

characteristics, were dealt with according to each individual characteristic and then averaged –

interviewees considered the averaged score first, before a final score was allocated (the

averaged score was only dismissed and re-evaluated in very few incidents).

Table 12 List of the nine governance attributes

Attribute Description

Political will and vision

Political will translates into an active desire to overcome operational obstacles in transboundary management; political vision relates to the long term plans and strategic decisions, if any

Joint structures and collaboration

Degree to which parties collaborate towards the common vision, as well as what drives the collaboration

Legitimacy Refers to the popular acceptance of a regime’s authority to govern. It implies:

- accountability and transparency in decisions and actions; - appropriate regulation through relevant policies and procedures; - compliance with legislative and contractual obligations; and - principled exercise of shared and individual power

Inclusivity and equitability

Governance is inclusive when all those with a stake in governance processes can engage with them on an equal basis, and equitable in the exercise of the authority conferred on them in creating opportunities for engagement, consideration of future generations, and sharing of benefits and costs.

Connectivity and integration

Functional connectivity implies systematic coordination across different scales of government, policy sectors, and regions

Competency and effectiveness

Refers to effectiveness in improving resource condition, efficiency of resource use, and the skills and capacities available to natural resource management participants

Prevalence of corruption

Based on the perceived levels of public sector corruption, particularly regarding governmental practices of bribery for services, fraudulent public procurement practices, and nepotism.

Political stability The likelihood that the government in power will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means.

Rule of law and regulatory burden

The extent to which citizens have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and the extent to which the government is consistently able to enforce these rules. It includes:

- perceptions of the incidence of violent and non-violent crime; - the effectiveness and predictability of the judiciary; - the enforceability of contracts

112

6.3. RESULTS

The most important aspect to note regarding the scoring of the governance attributes is that all scores

were derived through questioning individual participants on their perception of a particular

characteristic of governance, whether it be focused on governance of a particular national government,

specific park management or the entire transfrontier conservation area. The question and/or its

interpretation was mostly guided by the particular lens of the interviewee, either as local municipality

councilor, park manager or policy maker within the higher ranks of government. This naturally

represents a highly qualitative and not always objective viewpoint, but since the main thrust of the

exercise is precisely to determine the “governance value” as part of the value system development

framework in each case study, the following results make no attempt to provide numerical outcomes for

each country’s average scores according to a series of indicators. Instead, it provides a useful framework

upon which to gauge the weaknesses in the governance of the case studies. The average scores for each

country according to each attribute are represented in Table 13.

Table 13: Average governance scores for each country per case study

Will +

vision Jointly Legitimacy Inclusivity

Fairness

+ Equity

Connectivity +

integration

Competency +

effectiveness

Political

stability

Law +

regulatory Score

Mapungubwe

SA 3.500 1.000 1.750 0.000 1.750 2.000 3.333 4.000 2.000 2.148

Zim 1.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.278

Bot 3.000 1.000 3.250 2.000 2.250 4.000 1.667 4.000 3.667 2.759

Limpopo

Mo 2.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 1.750 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.333 1.787

Zim 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.500 2.000 1.667 1.000 1.667 1.204

SA 3.500 1.000 2.000 0.000 1.750 2.000 3.000 4.000 2.000 2.139

Political will and vision: Most interviewees found this a very difficult attribute to measure, since the

distinction between political will and vision can be hard to determine. However, translating this into

how effectively and quickly countries act to remove obstacles to the TFCA initiative, particularly

operational challenges, usually enabled participants to see it as a more tangible attribute to score.

According mostly to local community interviewees from Botswana, there is substantial political will from

the government to ensure the success of the TFCAs, and thus far, almost no operational challenge from

the Botswana side has shown this to the contrary, since virtually nothing “operational” has been

implemented, apart from maintaining the border at Pontdrif as it has always been (interviews 42, 41, 34,

113

Q16). The reason for this is cited to be that the South African government has not implemented any of

the promises made from their side (interviews 39, 22). The most tangible sign of political will and vision,

that of signing a treaty with the Zimbabwean and South African governments, has been “imminent”

throughout the four years of the study, and yet, it seems no closer than in 2010. Several interviewees

declared that the Botswana government was the hesitant party, but many interviewees blamed the slow

process on the lack of progress made by the South African government (interviews 80, 66, 40, 34). Three

major aspects which impact the signing of the treaty are reported. One is reported to be the pockets of

commercial farming currently being operated by a few families within the Mapungubwe National Park

on the South African side of the TFCA (interview 80). Another is the unpredictable border crossing

between Botswana and South Africa, where a low-water bridge is inaccessible for long periods of the

year when the Limpopo river is too full and prohibits regular tourism activities (apart from those

organized by expensive lodges within NOTUGRE that fly their customers in or pick up their customers at

the river edge where a foot passenger pontoon is operated) (interviews 34, 40). A third major aspect is

the lack of trust in the South African government’s commitment to the TFCA after the Vele mine license

was granted by the Department of Mining (interview 67). Interviewees from Botswana were hesitant to

score their government low on this issue, since they felt it showed prudence rather than lack of political

will.

Interviewees were quite harsh towards the South African government regarding this attribute,

suggesting that although there is ample evidence of having political vision, several suggested that they

fail the “acid test” of removing the operational obstacles that would indicate the strength of political will

(interviews 68, 18, 22, 37, 44, among several). Interviewees also pronounced very little trust in the

Zimbabwean government’s political will or vision regarding the Mapungubwe TFCA, citing the lack of any

input or assistance provided thus far (interviews 22, 39, 73, 74, 77). Any progress made regarding

developments or infrastructure on the Zimbabwean side had been initiated and established by

international NGOs (interview 67). Local villagers referred to the fence erected by the PPF to protect

their crops from elephants during night raids, and most declared that they felt the process was never

driven by the Zimbabwean government, but instead by the PPF (interviews 41, 80). The reverse was true

about the Limpopo TFCA within Zimbabwe, with most participants indicating that the government was

very willing for the TFCA to succeed, and saw the long-term potential of the larger TFCA (interviews 15,

91, 24).

114

Joint structures and evidence of collaboration: Among the different stakeholders of Mapungubwe,

most agreed that as yet there are no signs of operational collaboration across the borders, apart from

organizing the annual five-day Tour de Tuli24 mountain bicycle event, sponsored by a South African bank.

Its main function, and the drive behind it, is to raise money for the Children in the Wilderness (CITW)

programme, a non-profit initiative to educate rural children on the importance of conservation. After a

previous event, cyclists also urged donating money to the Maramani Village School No 14, towards

additional school buildings and equipment. By exposing the cyclists to this school, many of them

expressed an interest to contribute to assist with this school’s needs. The cyclists ride a circuit route

through the TFCA area over five days, sleeping in massive temporary “tent villages” erected purely for

this event. Many stakeholders feel that this type of ecotourism activity would do much to benefit the

TFCA through media exposure, but most also agree that governments have not really thrown their

weight behind “pushing the wagon forward” (interview 69). In 2011 the Greater Mapungubwe TFCA

resource management committee was formed to deal with cross-border challenges at an operational

level (interview 40). Area managers now directly attend to cross-border or international matters like

border safety and security, veterinary concerns and other joint management matters. However, very

little collaboration has been reported by the regular staff across the borders of the countries, and the

focus of each conservation area is on managing their own territories individually (interviews 22, 41).

Over the past year, the most recent TFCA coordinator of the Limpopo TFCA has been very active in

establishing cooperation between park managers and in coordinating the meetings of the Joint

Management Boards as well as establishing the park management committees (interviews 27, 26, own

observations). For the first decade though, very little joint collaboration or erection of any physical

structure has taken place, apart from the establishment and upgrading of the Giriyondo border post,

another project funded and managed by the PPF (interview 26).

Legitimacy: On the transparency of the decision-making processes of the Mapungubwe TFCA,

interviewees scored South Africa and Zimbabwe very low, with Botswana scoring only slightly higher.

During the early years, shortly after the establishment of the TFCA, several workshops were conducted

with local villages within the Botswana section, and some with the WMAs within Zimbabwe, but since

2011, almost no consultation had been conducted (interview 39). Several stakeholders, particularly in

high-level positions ascribed the lack of consultation to the lack of resources in supporting the position

24 More information can be found on: http://www.childreninthewilderness.com/tour-de-tuli.html

115

of international coordinator (interviews 22, 20, 69, 67). This is a position that coordinates all activities

related to the TFCA, including stakeholder consultations with buffer zone communities. It is not a

permanent position, since the aim is to rotate the responsibility among the three countries. However, its

practical application is directly dependent on the resources available to whichever government over a

three-year period is responsible for the position. Apart from the challenges of traveling between three

country’s environmental department’s headquarters, and the TFCA and buffer zone itself, this position is

mostly hampered by getting the right decision makers together in a room, not to mention the challenges

of countries’ sovereignty, and getting buy-in for practical decisions from higher powers (interviews 72,

73, 77, 22). It is typically very dependent on the determination of the individual coordinator to

collaborate across borders, to travel long distances, and to battle the inertia of huge bureaucracies

without resources and capacity. Zimbabwe and Mozambique really struggle to maintain the momentum

on progress made towards collaboration and stakeholder engagement, mainly due to lack of financial

resources (interviews 22, 80). The PPF has been very instrumental in remunerating these international

coordinator positions, but it is a very tenuous position, which is always dependent on the cooperation of

the individual governmental coordinators and environmental departments (interview 80).

Regarding transparency of other decision making bodies, such as the technical tri-partite committees,

the joint management boards and the technical committees, no information is shared publicly, and no

admittance is possible into these meetings, with the reason stated being that “discussions are sensitive

in nature” (interviews 39, 71). Thus many decisions are simply “sprung” upon the staff of the core

conservation areas (interview 86) with very little prior discussion. When talking to staff of the

environmental departments, interviewees remarked that the lack of transparency is mainly due to lack

of communication within and among departments themselves, with TFCA development “not high on the

agenda” of most departments (interviews 22, 69, 58 Q9, 11).

Inclusivity and equitability: Although participants from all three countries agreed that at ground level

they could comfortably approach the staff management of Mapungubwe National Park in South Africa

(interview 40, Q10), or the RDC of Beitbridge in Zimbabwe regarding any issues directly linked to the

TFCA and its operation (interview 8, Q 6, 7), Botswana interviewees reported differently, as well as all

interviewees from the different countries regarding approaching any high-level officials (Q2, 12). Several

official visits by high-level parties had been made, particularly to “market” the TFCA, or whenever some

funding project was revealed with much media coverage. However, some staff members and the

operators of ecotourism activities reported feeling quite isolated from the national governments, with

116

little or no direction of important functions relating to the future operations and activities of the TFCAs

(interviews 78, 79, 91). Several interviewees said that the visits by high-level politicians are “tokens” of

involvement from national governments, but that they lacked “follow-up actions” (interviews 86, 89,

92).

None of the national governments can really be faulted for intending to be fair and equitable in

distributing the benefits of the TFCAs. Virtually all participants agreed that their respective governments

have the intention of distributing most gains among the people on the ground, but the implementation

of such intentions are either not constructed well, have not been planned and executed yet, or, due to

lack of capacity or resources to trace the flow of benefits, “the cream is stolen from the bucket” as one

interviewee describes the prevalence of corruption (interview 37). Thus, although all the countries

scored quite high in intending to act equitably, this is usually off-set by the score on prevalence of

corruption.

Connectivity and integration: The attribute where all countries fall most short is that of functional

connectivity and integration. The main reason for this shortcoming is the absence of any formal

structure according to which the TFCAs have to “operate.” Typically, a TFCA is not yet an institution or

an entity containing members with designated roles and responsibilities. Even the international TFCA

coordinators, together with their in-country coordinators, do not see themselves as the agents-in-place

of a particular institution (interviews 40, 71). In-country coordinators are usually appointed by the

respective departments of environment of each of the four countries involved in the two case studies,

and thus provide the “arm” of that country’s executing authority on the TFCA (interview 22). The

international coordinator’s main role is to coordinate the meeting of the different bodies that

participate in “managing” the TFCAs or making decisions pertaining to each TFCAs functioning (interview

66). However, each TFCA has several “real” institutions that have their own mandates and functions,

these being the institutions associated with the core protected areas. Where the TFCAs score so low in

connectivity and integration is where the individual protected area mandates do not directly coincide

with the functions of a TFCA. An example is the development of any infrastructure purely for the sake of

the TFCA, which does not benefit in some way the different national or private reserves, such as joint

monitoring of the entire systems’ hippo population. Each conservation area, mainly because of lack of

capacity, tends to only focus on its own species composition, and unless some crisis like rising elephant

numbers, or a crash in species’ population sizes forces collaboration, none takes place (interview 86).

117

The only exception is when an external body such as PPF is approached by any of the working groups to

address (and fund) a situation that is very often already an emergency.

Competency and effectiveness: The sheer size of the TFCAs compared to the number of people

designated to their management is astonishing (own observation). Apart from a coordinator in each

country, and the international coordinator per TFCA, no other people work entirely on behalf of one

TFCA, and there are only so many resources available as each country sees fit. According to several

interviewees, the available resources do not amount to much in terms of the functions of the TFCAs

(interviews 78, 24, 39, Q14, 15, 11). Each of the managers of the core conservation areas are highly

skilled and hand-picked, generally with a natural science/conservation background, but again, apart

from the Kruger National Park, these managers act with only one or two ecological managers, although

usually with fairly substantial numbers of field rangers and maintenance staff (interviews 5, 24, 39).

Kruger NP is the only conservation area that received high scores for the ecosystem management

competency and effectiveness attribute. However, Kruger seriously lags in terms of designated social

engagement staff, an aspect which, since the previous minority government regime, has not been

addressed adequately. Although half a million people are living just within the Bushbuckridge buffer

zone, the number of social ecologists appointed to engage with representatives from all the

communities living adjacent to the park is less than ten (interviews 54, 81, 89, Q14). The same can be

said of Gonarezhou and Limpopo National Parks, with each of these parks only having one or at best two

designated social scientists dedicated to engagement with local communities (interviews 78, 20). As a

result, although the individual positions are filled by highly competent and committed people, their

effectiveness is tremendously curtailed by the sheer numbers of people living within the TFCA buffer

zones, or even within the conservation area itself, as in the case of LNP. The major issue is that no single

person is dedicated to connecting and coordinating the stakeholders living within/adjacent to each

TFCA, the monitoring of species movement, impact or density per TFCA, or the impact, growth or

potential increase of tourism activities upon the TFCA as a whole (interview 26, own observations).

Although the different management committees, such as the tourism, safety and security, conservation

and veterinary, and the financial committees consist of highly qualified experts in their field, none are

designated only to a TFCA. Instead, they pursue their own careers and can only dedicate portions of

their time to attending meetings (interview 62). The committees do not have any decision-making

power, acting only as advisory bodies, and only meet as often as is necessary (interview 72). According

to several committee participants, the biggest frustration remains the high turnover of participants, the

118

impact of the rotation cycles on the committee composition, and the inconsistency in meeting

attendance (interviews 62, 86, 41, 73, 77, 66). Thus the limiting factor remains, for both case studies,

not the competency of individual members, but the effectiveness of these committees.

Prevalence of corruption: What one participant has termed the “disease of Africa” is the most

prominent characteristic mentioned in all interviews, also shown when using the word frequency

function of NVivo. All four countries involved in the two TFCA case studies suffer in equal measure, and

were scored very low by participants (most questionnaires and interviews). Botswana was the only

country where interviewees felt that the government is making progress in addressing the issue. I later

on introduced the question if stakeholders are aware of any anti-corruption measures, and although all

countries support awareness campaigns in the form of providing Helpline numbers, whistle-blower

incentives, and posters in most government offices, interviewees reported that there has been very little

change in the perception that corruption is widespread and unaddressed (90% of interviews and

questionnaires). In terms of impact on TFCAs, the two main areas most prone to corruption were

identified as border control and poaching (78% of participants).

South Africa scored lowest of all countries in the perception that especially Mozambican and

Zimbabwean citizens abuse the corrupt officials at the border posts. I have personally experienced

attempts to solicit bribes for “jumping the queue”, or paying police officials for “incorrect”

documentation – fortunately in the latter case, my innocence was easy to prove, since I had a lawyer in

the car! I also witnessed incidences at the Giriyondo border whereby Mozambican nationals were

allowed to cross the border without the necessary proof of overnight accommodation in either park.

This border is also the natural entry/exit point for poachers, and is therefore used extensively to

smuggle weapons, horns and elephant teeth (interviews 60, 6, 82). Although recent months have seen a

sharp increase in vigilance at the border post, it remains a concern to the park staff. The other issue is

that of corrupt park staff members/rangers who assist poachers in tracking and identifying animal

locations, or even entrance and access to weapons. The park that has suffered the most, particularly in

earlier decades, is Limpopo National Park in Mozambique (interviews 6, 71). The salaries and living

conditions of a normal park staff member or ranger can never compete with the enormous rewards

from wildlife crime syndicates, but an added complication is that the policies within the different

countries are not harmonized, and punishments for wildlife crimes differ substantially (interviews 22,

74).

119

Political stability: Although this attribute was also one of the socio-economic attributes shown in the

meta-study as a potential driver of failure in community conservation, it is also a major factor in the

governance dimension. Two of the countries are considered very stable with fairly long-term prospects

of maintaining the status quo, namely South Africa and Botswana. Mozambique and Zimbabwe both

scored lower, with Zimbabwe perceived as being fairly fragile in terms of economic and political stability.

Mozambique has seen a sudden increase in rebel activity in some parts of the country (as discussed

earlier), and mass demonstrations were held during July 2014 to pressurize the government into

containing the acts of violence and terror, with several interviewees expressing a fear of “sliding back

into civil war.”

Rule of law and regulatory burden: The perceptions of participants at all different levels of government

and decision making regarding the extent to which their respective government are able to enforce

compliance of the law, and the respect of the average citizen for abiding by laws, differed quite widely

across the four countries. The country which scored the lowest in terms of citizens’ respect for the

country’s laws was South Africa, with Zimbabwe ranking lowest for ability to enforce compliance. Many

participants felt that the Zimbabweans live in a regime of fear, not so much of a fair and just system, but

of agents that have the ability to “hijack the power” at any given point, and terrorize its people.

Mozambican participants felt their government also lacks enforcement capability, although the citizens

of the country have a “healthy respect” for the law. Botswana received the highest scores both for

ability to enforce compliance, and respect of average citizens for the law. A few Botswanan local

community members did however mention “elites grasping benefits” meant for the community as a

whole, but this did not seem to be as common as in South Africa and the other two countries (interviews

64, 67, Q16). The community size where this takes place was mentioned by community conservation

experts, with large communities more prone to elite grabbing than smaller communities (Brian Child,

personal comment). Botswana was also the only country where participants did not feel that crime was

an every-day occurrence, although participants from smaller villages in Zimbabwe and South Africa also

stated that they felt quite safe within the village (interviews 23, 14, 48, 49). It was when visiting larger

urban areas that they expressed fear of being hi-jacked, mugged or raped (interview 37). Most South

African interviewees, even high-level officials, expressed a total lack of trust in the police force, and

many referred to the current high-crime rate as a consequence of having a corrupt police force, “in

cahoots with, or running the syndicates” (high-placed government official – interviews 22, 17, 37).

120

Zimbabwe and Mozambique both appear to suffer more from lack of resources and capacity within the

police force, than from criminal elements or tendencies. Interviews 75, 82, own observations).

6.4. DISCUSSION

6.4.1. NGOS: WALKING A TIGHTROPE OR CALLING THE SHOTS?

The Peace Parks Foundation25: Since the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) owes its very existence to the

transfrontier conservation areas, and was in fact established to facilitate the generation of the TFCAs

and its management, some consideration of its operations and raison d’etre is necessary. Anton Rupert,

tobacco mogul and self-made business owner of REMGRO, is the founder of the PPF as well as the

visionary behind the “peace parks” concept of southern Africa. The idea of establishing these

transfrontier conservation areas was accepted at a Transfrontier Park Initiative meeting in the Kruger

National Park on 8 August 1996 under the joint Chairmanship of Mozambique's Minister of Transport

and Communications, Paulo Muxanga, and South Africa's Minister of Transport, Mac Maharaj. It soon

became clear that some form of vehicle or institutional setup was required to co-ordinate, facilitate and

drive the process of TFCA establishment and funding (PPF Strategic Business Plan 2010). The Peace Parks

Foundation was thus established early in 1997 with an initial grant of R1.2 million from the Rupert

Nature Foundation to facilitate the establishment of TFCAs, with southern Africa as the first area of

focus. It soon became a very powerful NGO, with high-level patronage including all the presidents and

royalty from 10 countries of the SADC, as well as founding patrons Nelson Mandela and Prince Bernhard

from the Netherlands. The initial focus of the PPF was paving the way politically for the different

countries to agree, sign memoranda of understanding, and finally treaties regarding establishment and

management of individual TFCAs.

The PPF is today running according to the strict business principles that drives the Rupert empire, and in

its Strategic Business Plan (2010) describes its function as follows:

“The role and core business of Peace Parks Foundation as a facilitator can be broadly described

as the provision of assistance to governments in the establishment and development processes

of a transfrontier conservation area where support is provided to those activities deemed

essential and without which the peace park development would not realise.”

The objectives stated in its Strategic Business Plan, are equally ambitious:

25 Information and Strategic Business Plan 2010-2014 available at: http://www.peaceparks.co.za/

121

To promote the establishment of transfrontier conservation areas and associated conservation

of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning as a viable land use option;

To provide support to organisations responsible for conservation and ecosystem management

through training, capacity and empowerment programmes;

To unlock the economic potential of transfrontier conservation areas through compatible land

use options; and

To promote regional peace and stability (2010-2014)

In essence, this is quite a different approach from most other NGOs, especially regarding the privileged

position held by PPF towards the majority of governments in the region, and the scope of its activities.

Whether any protected area, transboundary or other, can be “driven forward” by an NGO that needs to

maintain the momentum indefinitely is debatable, but there is no doubt in any of the minds I probed

that without the facilitation and resources provided by the PPF, none of the TFCAs would have existed

today. PPF has also learned a great deal about what exactly this facilitation role entails, and where the

organization had been very much in the spotlight originally, it has become a much more muted and

subtle organ, focusing mainly on its facilitation role. One aspect that was highlighted by many

stakeholders in the interviews was that the PPF, run like a business by business people, must have

“hidden agendas” or some form of additional motivation, particularly because of the privileged (at times

even powerful) position it holds. It is clear that transparency and accountability in all its functions are

crucial, particularly given the amounts of funding that are channelled through this not-for-profit

organization. In 2009, PPF, assisted by a number of TFCA practitioners, developed a performance

assessment tool that was further refined by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs in

2013. This system of evaluating the progress of the TFCAs through Key Performance Areas and

Indicators (Table 14) has great value, and is used by the people employed primarily by PPF who hold

positions within the TFCAs (such as the international coordinators and programme managers). However,

as is discussed in the final chapter, very few of these KPAs have achieved the proposed results. The PPF

also provides several other important functions, indicated in Table 14.

122

Table 14: The system developed by PPF to evaluate the progress made by the different TFCAs

Other functions Key Performance Areas (KPAs)

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Political Support – taking the idea to a formalised decision in terms of a MoU and subsequently a Treaty

Joint Planning - Feasibility study and motivation document

- IDP - Aligned PA plans - Detailed IDP roll-out

Planning – during which the integrated development of the TFCA is planned, culminating in a joint plan for the TFCA

Institutional Arrangements and Legal Status

- MoU - Treaty and operational protocol - Joint formalized structure - Legal entity

Implementation – where the various aspects aimed at aligning the specific interventions at the individual protected area is done, landscape are restored and /or sustained, joint law enforcement enhanced; joint tourism promoted; policies harmonised; sustainable financing mechanism implemented; and institutional arrangements formalised

Financial Sustainability

- Financial sustainability strategy - Implementation plan - Financial mechanism

Training wildlife managers – provide major support to the Southern African Wildlife College in the buffer zone of Limpopo TFCA

Policy Harmonisation

- Policy and legal database - Legal and policy assessment and review - Policy development and law reform - Harmonized policies

Training tourism managers – providing support to the SA College for Tourism in Graaff-Reinet, South Africa

Sustaining and Restoring Landscape Dynamics

- Landscape characteristics and encumbrance survey

- Conservation management plans and programmes

- Joint plan for sustaining and restoring landscape dynamics

- Operationalization and monitoring

Improving accessibility through physical access facilities, either at the border posts or upon entry points.

Joint Management

- Joint management decision - Joint management strategy - Joint operations structure - Joint operations

Integrated Development

- Regional development strategies and plans analysis

- Joint TFCA regional development strategy

- TFCA access products - Integrated regional development

activities

Benefit Flow Management

Benchmarking Beneficiation action plans Measures and monitoring Reporting

123

The Frankfurt Zoological Society26: This NGO has the more typical project-based approach, and has had

a history of involvement in African protected areas since the 1950s. Where the PPF focuses largely on

facilitation and intervention at the landscape and political scale, FZS is primarily geared towards support

of the ecological aspects of parks, including monitoring of certain species, or aspects of ecosystem

management. There are also several other NGOs involved in projects in all the TFCAs. The main reason

FZS is particularly mentioned here is because of the special position it has negotiated with the

government of Zimbabwe to provide management support to the Gonarezhou NP, which forms part of

the Limpopo TFCA. The FZS is mainly represented by a married couple originally from South Africa as

project leaders, both with an ecological background. It has signed a ten-year memorandum of

understanding with the Zimbabwe Ministry of Environment and Tourism in 2010. Through this

agreement FZS entered into a partnership with the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority

(ZPWMA) for the conservation and development of Gonarezhou National Park (GNP) to perform certain

key activities:

Park planning, including review of Gonarezhou Park Management Plan and Tourism Plan to

serve as roadmap for project activities and as blueprint for park infrastructure and tourism

development.

Increased law enforcement coverage and effectiveness through regular monthly supply of

ranger patrol rations, operational fuel and field equipment as well as focused and relevant

training.

Infrastructure maintenance and improvements, including: rehabilitation and extension of the

road network; renovation of key administrative structures such as vehicle workshops, staff

housing, overhaul of water provisioning equipment, and renovations of the tourism camping

facilities; erecting a 53-km electrified fence in the northwest section of the Park in order to

minimise human-wildlife conflict (this incidentally, is the contentious Chitwa community

stretch), and to halt the escalating number of cattle herds that were entering into the Park for

grazing.

Provision and maintenance of equipment crucial for effective park management such as

vehicles, tractors, earth-moving equipment, communication equipment, fire-fighting and office

equipment.

26 Information are available on: https://www.fzs.org/en/projects-2/current-projects/gonarezhou-conservation-project/

124

Increased ecological knowledge through provision of equipment, resources and/or support for

studies into elephant movements, river health monitoring, disease prevalence, large carnivore

status and vegetation mapping. Ongoing monitoring of trends in wildlife population numbers

through comprehensive aerial surveys – surveys completed in 2009 and 2013.

Discussion: The main concern raised by many stakeholders, and mostly by park staff in protected areas

within the Limpopo TFCA, had been that the PPF and FZS “act as if they own the place” (one staff

member from a protected area). I have also heard several reports of the project leaders of FZS “acting as

if they thought they are the managers” while the actual manager of Gonarezhou “acted as if they are

the boss, and not him”. One staff member complained that “they only care about the environment, not

the people”, but overall, comments were stated very carefully, and never by those who could be

affected the most. The PPF generally receives more flattering comments, but it became quite clear over

the four years of research that the role of NGOs “managing” or playing a key role in either of the TFCAs

is a precarious one, which the PPF has definitely learned to treat with great sensitivity and care. It would

certainly be in FZS’s interest to play close attention to the human needs found within the boundaries of

the TFCA, particularly the staff and communities living adjacent to Gonarezhou NP. Neither NGO can

logically support the current status quo indefinitely. The fact that the TFCAs came into existence and are

managed to a certain extent (or at least strongly guided by “outside” forces such as a German-based and

South African-based NGOs), is a sign that the regional governments have not totally committed to the

TFCAs. The southern African TFCA concept can only be regarded as indefinitely sustainable once it is

driven by the SADC region as a whole, and when governments have accepted the financial and capacity

burden along with the “glamour of the product.”

6.4.2. THE MAJOR GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES

Policy harmonization: Over the two decades during which the TFCAs were established, it rapidly

became clear that the individual countries have different legislation and policies regarding a few critical

aspects, including border and immigration management, and illegal activities relating to wildlife crime

and the legal implications such as “punishment for the crime”. Until now, no registry of the related

policies and laws regarding all the countries involved has existed (comment from a legal expert familiar

with the topic), and it would be a huge step forward to develop such a database. Currently, as problems

crop up, they are usually dealt with in a piecemeal fashion, and usually only after a lengthy period of

time. An example is the different laws regarding wildlife crimes between South Africa and Mozambique,

where killing a rhino (obviously for its horn) has not been considered a serious crime in Mozambique

125

and hardly warranted a jail sentence. It was only after severe escalation in rhino poaching incidences,

followed by a huge public outcry, that the government of South Africa put pressure on Mozambique to

address the unequal policy situation27.

On the issue of border control and immigration, there is also a need to address the different border

access requirements. While a porous border certainly creates a security issue to any country, and the

aim is not to allow lax measures, it should also be recognized that several of these borders have been

imposed on communities that had once been united, such as the Sengwe communities and the

Madimbo Corridor, or several of the communities who have been living either side of the Limpopo and

Pafuri rivers. The rigid border laws also affect any joint ventures undertaken by park staff from Kruger,

Limpopo or Gonarezhou, as well as Mapungubwe, NOTUGRE and the Zimbabwe communities. All it

requires is aligned border policies that make allowance for differentiated migration activities. The

border crossing situation has been a challenge for over a decade and the bureaucratic system is

insufficiently flexible to solve it. The challenge has also been largely exacerbated by illegal activities of

corrupt border officials, who exploit the desperation of illegal immigrants.

Poaching and corruption: While the issue of poaching (in particular rhino and elephant poaching) is

currently a crisis, and closely linked to other crime syndicates worldwide, it is also the tip of an iceberg in

Africa, merely indicating that there are much larger value and moral issues at play. Although it is not the

aim of this thesis to explore such a complex issue in depth, it came up as the term used most frequently

during interviews, together with corruption, according to the NVivo word frequency analysis. The two

issues are closely related, and in essence almost respected by certain layers of the communities. As one

stakeholder noted: “corruption is the way Africa works”, which reflects the extent of the problem. It is

particularly concerning in the protected areas context, where corrupt staff members have become part

of the wildlife crime chain, or as is more often the case, to “look the other way” when finding poaching

links into the community. There is no simple solution to the conundrum, particularly given the emotions

on both sides: those who see poaching as a means to obtain food, and those who view it as a “violation

of nature” in its unregulated form. It also remains a very delicate topic to research, given the dual nature

and the links to the law. It is clear that over the past two years, the polarization has been taken to the

global stage, and will need to be addressed by governments and civil society alike, and probably as part

27 Independent Newspapers online article: http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/environment/mozambique-puts-bite-into-poaching-laws-1.1679621#.U_2XS_m1ZcQ

126

of a process of engagement with all relevant actors. Corruption in Africa has become very much a

perverted way of using the bureaucratic flaws and bottlenecks of institutions to gain personally, but

certainly also represents weak governance and ineffective judicial systems. Although the solution will

take decades to forge, at least the incidence of poaching in the TFCAs could be decreased through

effective engagement with community leaders living within or adjacent to the areas.

127

7. EVALUATING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

“We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom.” ― Edward O. Wilson (1929-)

7.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the results and discussions from the socio-economic, ecosystem and governance and

policy dimensions are combined to provide a picture of how decisions are made in the two case study

areas. According to Moss and Lane (2012), decision making is a process that selects between different

alternative scenarios, and the alternatives are based on needs, preferences and values, either

consciously or unconsciously, rational or irrational. Effective decision making in the public realm will

allow a broad participation of stakeholders to explore value differences, perceptions and cultural

differences, to incorporate information and explore these differences to reach a common basis for

action (Moss and Lane 2012). Thus actively seeking the inputs of all affected parties in any given sphere,

such as establishing and operating a transfrontier conservation area, should be a priority at all times. In

such decision-making processes that affect large segments of society, a decision-support framework

should be developed that takes into account multiple objectives as well as vulnerabilities, risks and

uncertainties, and within this framework, through the principles of scenario planning and systems

thinking, complex decisions should be separated into manageable and consistent parts (Savory 1988,

Moss and Lane 2012).

The greatest challenge facing African environmental governance is that determining the value of

multiple environmental attributes is very complex and problematic, but not doing so is even more

problematic (Polasky and Binder 2012). Another challenge is that many of the criteria used to make

decisions cannot be easily condensed into a monetary value, partly because environmental concerns

often involve ethical and moral principles that may not be related to any economic use or value (Kiker et

al. 2005). Environmental decision making presents challenges because many of the inputs and outcomes

cannot easily be measured monetarily as they are market externalities. Most also have strong impacts

because a single one may simultaneously affect multiple environmental and social factors (Moss and

128

Lane 2012). There are always trade-offs that will not satisfy all groups or individual stakeholders, and the

conservation sector in Africa is fraught with very difficult choices between alternatives, especially when

decisions made at a global scale regarding species protection are almost impossible to implement.

Making decisions therefore creates one challenge; implementing them in the African context represents

a myriad of challenges due to resource and capacity constraints.

On the barriers to good decision making, Arvai et al. (2012) highlight that decision makers do not

necessarily maximize overall utility when making decisions, but take “short-cuts” and tend to focus on

single objectives to the detriment of other, equally important objectives. Decision makers also do not

accurately measure the goals and objectives that steer decisions and anchor too easily on certain (often

known) alternatives, without the required creativity. The trade-offs that arise due to these barriers

further complicates the outcomes and decision makers do not adequately consider previous successes

or failures, their own or others’ (Arvai et al. 2012). All these barriers and more are obvious in the

decision-making processes of the TFCAs of southern Africa, but probably the most prevalent is that

decisions are not made transparently and mainly without any broad consultation process. Decision

researchers have long demonstrated that in a variety of loosely structured situations, in response to

narrow objectives or crises, individuals and groups grapple mainly with how information is framed and

how emotions interfere with in-depth analysis (Kahneman et al. 1982, Arvai et al. 2012, Gregory et al.

2012). This leads to decisions that only partially address the range of concerns and thus fail to confront

the trade-offs when evaluating competing alternatives, such as long-term effects of coal mining within a

conservation area, or being moved out of a conservation area closer to employment opportunities.

This chapter focuses on the decision making process of establishing the TFCAs in southern Africa, and

after this, how decisions are made concerning the management of these areas. After presenting the

combined results in the value framework, the discussion focuses on three different tools used to

evaluate the performance and decision making of the two case studies, and references other typical

management aspects and principles from the world of transboundary conservation.

7.2. RESULTS: HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE, AND BY WHOM

The decision-making pattern that has emerged during the research period (2010-2014), and which has

mainly been followed over the past fifteen years, indicates two different pathways: a

governmental/political process and a management/operational process.

129

The political process: The original vision of Afrikaner billionaire Anton Rupert (founder of the

Rembrandt Group and the then President of the World Wide Fund for Nature – WWF28) to create

transfrontier conservation areas that span the borders of the southern African countries through

incorporating existing conservation areas and including any contiguous or intervening areas, was initially

shared with the presidents of South Africa (Nelson Mandela at the time) and Mozambique (Joaquim

Chissano) in the 1990s. Feasibility studies were conducted with funding from WWF, USAID and the

World Bank between 1991 and 1996 (Tinley and Van Riet 1991, USAID 2002) and by then it had become

evident that a designated body would need to be established to facilitate and “drive” the process of

TFCA establishment. Rupert, Mandela and HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands founded the Club

2129 (similar to the WWF’s Club 100130), which enabled the establishment of the Peace Parks

Foundation, the institutional mechanism that coordinated, facilitated and maintained momentum on

the establishment of most of the southern African TFCAs. The first phase of decision making of a “peace

park” was thus largely a visionary and political process (to get political buy-in according to many

interviewees), facilitated by a very wealthy and influential NGO, and further supported by large

development agencies (World Bank, the Global Environment Facility - GEF). This initial process largely

lacked participation from any stakeholders beyond political and technical actors (USAID 2002), with

decisions made by a Technical Coordinating Committee (prior to treaty signing, and Joint Management

Board after signing the Treaty). This committee then formed working groups in the following key areas:

community interests; joint management planning; legislation; wildlife diseases and conservation;

tourism; security; and customs and immigration. The composition of the working groups generally relate

to their objective, and not all TFCAs cover all these key areas, neither do all working groups function

equally well (mentioned by several interviewees and working group participants). Although throughout

its existence relatively little has been done to allow local communities any decision-making power, the

mission of the original Limpopo GLTP JMB was explicitly stated to:

“collaboratively establish and manage on a sustainable basis a viable Gaza-Kruger-Gonarezhou Transfrontier Conservation Area with full stakeholder participation, including local communities, fostering regional co-operation, biodiversity conservation, and cross-border socio-economic development” (USAID 2002) (italics added).

28 WWF South Africa was founded in 1968 by Dr Anton Rupert and was originally known as the Southern African Nature Foundation. 29 http://www.peaceparks.co.za/story.php?pid=42&mid=44 30 http://wwf.panda.org/how_you_can_help/support_wwf/prestige_membership/

130

Although this had been a lofty initial ideal, hosting participatory meetings with local communities

require a great deal of commitment and resources, an aspect that had perhaps been underestimated. As

a result, such meetings were only executed from time to time, usually to avert a threatening crisis such

as the rhino poaching or dissatisfied communities (who had committed arson to draw attention to issues

such as unemployment or damage caused by wildlife). In Mapungubwe a similar piecemeal approach to

community engagement was reported by local community members, although the Maramani

community expressed their satisfaction with the erection of the electrical fence in 2009 to protect their

crops from nightly elephant raids. During the early years of Mapungubwe, and again from 2007-2011,

several workshops were held to raise awareness about the TFCA and plans to incorporate certain areas

into the greater TFCA. However, many stakeholders during the interviews voiced skepticism that these

platforms provided any serious participation in the decision-making process, suggesting that they are

mostly aimed at placating communities rather than eliciting real participation. The pathway of each

political process culminated first in the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the

relevant governments, and this was then followed by development of an Integrated Development Plan.

Figure 32 and 33 shows the current “decision makers” and advisory bodies, although none of the

members of the different committees and working groups have designated 100% of their time to these

activities – the meetings are called and attended on an ad hoc basis only. The biggest challenge herein is

having consistency in attendance and keeping “the eye on the ball”.

Figure 32: Current organizational structure of the Limpopo TFCA (Source: Draft GLTP IDP, 2013, with permission)

131

Figure 33: Organizational structure of Mapungubwe TFCA (Source: IDP, 2010, with permission)

The implementation phase is really the current phase for both case studies, and the phase described by

PPF as the most challenging (Figure 34).

132

Figure 34: The degree of difficulty experienced in establishing a TFCA as an institutional entity (Source: PPF Strategic Business Plan, 2010, with permission)

7.3. COMBINED RESULTS

The following table provides the value system results when combined across the three dimensions of

socio-economic, ecosystem management, and governance and policy dimensions (all scores were

discussed individually according to dimension in chapters 4, 5 and 6).

Table 15: The average scores of the three dimensions shown at country level per case study.

Country Ecological score Socio-economical score Governance score Average Score

Mapungubwe

South Africa 2.310 4.381 2.148 2.946

Zimbabwe 2.250 4.175 1.278 2.568

Botswana 2.000 3.542 2.759 2.767

Limpopo

Mozambique 2.143 1.615 1.787 1.848

Zimbabwe 2.429 3.841 1.204 2.491

South Africa 1.669 4.120 2.139 2.643

Scores allocated within each dimension according to the values and perceptions of each interviewee

were added and averaged per country, and each dimension then ended up with an average score, which

was then compared between cases at country level. According to the results from each case study, and

differentiating between the three countries involved in each case study, there are significant differences

between some of the attributes’ scores per country. The socio-economic dimension displays the

greatest disparity, mainly because of the economic inequalities between the countries, as well as the

fact that these scores mainly reflect the rural parts of each country, where even greater inequalities are

133

observed across countries. The country level scores hide some outliers since the Kruger National Park

and adjacent private wildlife reserves represent some of the most pristine natural ecosystems in the

world, but these high scores are canceled out by the large tracts of communal land adjacent that receive

very low scores mainly due to overstocking of domestic animals. The governance scores tend to also

equalize somewhat between the different attributes – even though Zimbabwe is regarded by

stakeholders as very unstable politically, it has a fairly low crime rate, compared to South Africa, which is

regarded as politically stable, but with a high crime rate.

7.4. DISCUSSION

7.4.1. WHERE THERE IS PRESSURE THERE IS FLOW

As shown in the results of the three dimensions in terms of the value systems, the disparity between the

three countries in each case study is remarkable. The main consequence of such disparity is that as soon

as a system experiences pressure, there would be flow between its elements to regain equilibrium

(Figure 35). This was also the original intention behind creating larger, contiguous ecosystems: to allow

the species using current, physically smaller habitats, through removal of fences, to utilize adjoining

conservation areas as enlarged territories, particularly for larger mammal species such as elephants, or,

as in the case of highly endangered species such as roan and sable antelope, to find less competitive

territories.

Figure 35: Diagram to show the natural processes within either of the TFCA case studies

As shown above, the natural ecosystems have not been the only areas where pressure has been

experienced. The unequal socio-economic systems have also followed natural processes. Because of

borderlines, sovereignty and protected area fences, these processes have been “illegal” according to

134

human governance systems, and thus criminal activities like poaching, illegal crossing of the borders and

smuggling have become the main obstacles in the successful transformation towards countries co-

managing large tracts of transboundary protected areas. The only alternative from a natural systems

perspective would be to “equalize” at least some of the aspects of the three countries, and to “drop the

social fences” between the three countries.

7.4.2. MOVING FROM GOVERNANCE TO IMPLEMENTATION

Two reasons for the many challenges faced by the two TFCAs under scrutiny can be found in the top-

down approach followed thus far, and the absence of any “real” or physical institutional mechanism.

When studying governance and policies, there is a clear link between the government/institution, the

policies it sets, and the way these policies are implemented through governance. Figure 36 attempts to

visualize the distinction between: governance through policies guided by strategic decisions, and

management through implementing certain practices and guided by operational decisions.

Figure 36: Diagram showing the distinction between governance at the political level, and implementation of best practices at the operational level. Both are guided by decisions of a different kind.

Relating to the two TFCA case studies, this would involve joint governance between three countries’

institutions which should lead to joint management of an area. Figure 37 outlines the typical policies

required to govern a transboundary area, and the typical management practices necessary when three

countries jointly aim to manage a shared conservation area (Sandwith et al. 2001).

135

Figure 37: Diagram outlining the typical policies and management practices aimed for in transboundary protection

Throughout the four years of conducting interviews with stakeholders involved at both the political

(currently the decision-making level) and management level, it was very clear that the current focus is

solely on reaching decisions at the top political level between three countries’ ministers and the tri-

lateral technical committees. All decision-making at these two levels is based solely on consensus among

members of these committees, with the working groups only providing advice on matters pertaining to

the specific working group’s mandate. This represents a top-down approach to decision making, with

the international coordinator providing the coordination function necessary to organize meetings and

circulate/disseminate advice/information among the different groups and meetings (Figure 38).

136

Figure 38: Current decision making mostly exists from the top down, with few joint operational activities

Figure 39: Diagram representing optimal joint governance and management of transboundary conservation

137

Figure 39 attempts to provide the theoretical diagram/framework of a well-balanced decision-making

process, with the emphasis on joint and integrated activities from both the bottom and the top

decision-making levels.

7.4.3. EVALUATING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND PERFORMANCE OF BOTH CASE

STUDIES

A) USING SYSTEMS THINKING MODELS TO EVALUATE DECISION MAKING:

The difficulty in evaluating any system’s performance or effectiveness lies in determining the exact

boundaries, comparing it to some benchmark or ideal state, and identifying shortcomings in its functions

and operations. Herein the TFCAs already pose challenging characteristics. Even the GLTP IDP recognizes

the imperfect model that currently exists in describing the 32 key issues (Table 16).

138

Table 16: Table summarizing the key issues pertinent to the Limpopo TFCA or GLTP (Source: Draft GLTP IDP 2013, with permission)

THEME ISSUE

Planning 1 The various protected area plans are not aligned with a GTLP strategic plan 2 The embedding of the various plans and strategies of the GLTP within national structures and

programmes have not been achieved

Institutional and Capacity

3 Institutional arrangements not representative of the stakeholder make-up (national and international)

4 The institutional arrangements are not allowing the operational impacts to be effective 5 The lack of clarity regarding the long term TFCA coordination approach and methodology used by the

partner countries 6 The disparity regarding human and financial resources, as well as decision making levels within the

conservation implementing agencies

Scope 7 The lack of clarity regarding the exact delineation of the core area of the GLTP 8 The lack of clarity regarding the extent of the GLTFCA

Financial 9 The disparity between the financial resources of the conservation implementing agencies 10 The lack of forward and integrated planning relating to country contributions and donor support for

the GLTP

Policy and Legal Framework

11 Key operational policies are not aligned 12 Lack of utilisation pertaining to accessible legal registers and databases, such as the Peace Parks

Foundation Legal Atlas

Ecosystem Connectivity

13 Threatened connectivity due to habitat fragmentation (fences, land mines, land uses, human settlement, land tenure, and alien biota etc.)

14 The lack of clarity regarding the role and function of the Sengwe link 15 The lack of understanding of the interconnected environmental dynamics relating to e.g. climate

change and ecological gradient

Operations

16 Lack of Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) pertaining to agreed joint operations 17 Lack of functional operational structures and infrastructure in certain of the country components

pertaining to agreed joint operations 18 The GLTP brand is not well known (especially from a tourism perspective) 19 The lack of an aligned Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), reporting and data/information

management system 20 The lack of baseline assessments specifically referring to joint and issues of mutual impact and the

manner in which the GLTP structures report on these 21 The impact of national security measures on regional integration

Tourism

22 The lack of funding for GLTP tourism product development 23 The lack of physical links and empowering protocols to unlock the tourism potential 24 The potential to unlock the tourism experience and tourism product opportunities offered by the

disparities in development levels of the different GLTP components has not been explored by the GLTP structures, and currently the focus is on striving for equal development levels

Benefits

25 The lack of understanding of the competitive benefits of a wildlife-based economy within the context of regional development

26 The opportunities linked to the diversification of rural economies have not been exploited inclusive of integrated game-cattle programmes

27 The lack of an integrated approach to the human-livestock-wildlife interface 28 The perceived lack of benefits to the countries and affected communities 29 There is a lack of a clarity on the potential benefits that can be attributed to the GLTP 30 The lack of a socio-economic baseline assessment (benchmark) related to GLTP interventions, and

the manner in which are reported on 31 The lack of quantification of the impact, both positive and negative, and appropriate mitigation

measures for the negative impacts 32 The lack of recognition of use rights by affected communities.

139

The absence of physical boundaries and a physical institution emphasizes the institutional and capacity

key issues, including lack of sufficient stakeholder representation, ineffective operational impacts, lack

of clarity regarding transboundary coordination in the longer term, and disparity in resources and

decision-making levels within each country’s implementing agency. In order to objectively assess each of

the two case studies’ management efficiency, I initially used the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), an

assessment tool developed at the Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute during

the 1980s (Humphrey 1989). The CMM was originally aimed at assessing the ability of government

contractors' processes to perform a contracted software project, but was later adapted as a general

model, and has been used extensively worldwide in government offices, commerce, industry and

software-development organizations (Humphrey 1998). The reason the CMM suited evaluation of the

TFCA case studies as socio-ecological systems (SESs) within systems very well, lies in the following

statement:

“Organizations in … government, and commercial domains need to engineer systems of systems rather than stand-alone systems to meet challenges such as

collaboration across independently funded and managed organizations

migration to a service-oriented environment testing and compliance verification processes for systems of systems” (Software

Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University31).

Curtis cites CMM’s capacity to capture the elements of essential practices and processes and to describe

common sense, efficient, proven ways of running an organization, doing business, or managing an

administration. He further states that maturity refers to the degree of formality and optimization of

processes, from ad hoc practices, to formally defined steps, to managed result metrics, and active

optimization of the processes (2009) (Figure 40).

31 http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sos/

140

Figure 40: Description of each maturity level according to the Capability Maturity Model of Organizational Performance (Source: Curtis 2009).

During the interviews with different managers of the core protected areas within the two TFCAs, the

problem I consistently ran into was that in terms of the entire transboundary SES, different managers

did not focus on the system as a whole. Instead, each concentrated on their own protected area, where

they had the mandate to make decisions and execute processes to counter system failures. This led me

to further explore models dealing with the evaluation of a system of systems, and I discovered within

the systems theory a model that was developed by NATO, and was used to evaluate decision-making

efficiency where different entities collaborate towards a particular goal. The model is the Network

Enabled Capability (NEC) Model. While Capability Maturity Models measure the maturity of processes

within a single institution or organization, the NATO NEC model measures the overarching system’s

decision-making processes and performance where different systems or entities collaborate (and could

even eventually integrate entirely) (SAS-06532 NATO Research Task Group 2010) (Figure 41).

The NATO research group developed the NEC model using a wide range of case studies, from peace-

keeping endeavours (such as in Bosnia and Kosovo) to relief operations (including the 2004 Indian Ocean

32 SAS-065 is a NATO research task group consisting of 51 researchers worldwide, operating under the auspices of the Systems Analysis Studies Panel. It was formed in 2006 for the purpose of developing a C2 Maturity Model for network-enabled operations.

141

tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Pakistan earthquake). The reason this model was highly applicable to

the TFCA context, was because of the many similarities in character:

extreme uncertainty;

complex endeavours – from multi-agency disaster relief operations to complex coalition efforts within a political-military environment involving a large variety actors;

the ability to leverage new information technologies which has a profound effect on how institutions manage themselves and how they cooperate with partners; and

a disparate set of independent (yet inter-dependent) entities; that is, a collective that has to achieve focus and convergence (individual entities are disparate in terms of language, values, culture, resources etc.)

Figure 41: Diagram depicting the increased coherence with which the entities within a TFCA can approach systems management (Adapted from the NATO NEC model 2010)

These fundamental realities require individual and collective decision making that include acquiring,

managing, sharing and exploiting information, where a more mature management regime includes the

ability to recognize situational change, and to adopt the management approach required to meet that

change – this is termed agility. The model then evaluates a collective or ad hoc coalition, based on

variations in the allocation of decision rights to the collective, patterns of interaction and information

sharing behaviours among the entities of the collective, and the distribution of information among these

entities (Figure 42).

142

Figure 42: The five stages of network enabled capabilities between a collective of entities and its graphical representation (Adapted from the NATO NEC model 2010)

Towards the end of the field work, I organized a workshop and report-back session with high-level

decision makers of the TFCA case studies during which the model and its decision-making variations and

information-sharing patterns were discussed, and the appropriate level of operating was assigned.

Although at the outset this was merely going to act as a report-back session to top officials involved in

the TFCAs, I realized it would serve very well as a semi-structured focus group. During the five hours,

participants discussed at length the gradients of:

- the allocation of decision rights to what should essentially be a TFCA endeavour consisting of all

three countries’ stakeholders;

- the current lack of interaction and information sharing between the individual entities,

particularly the local community components;

- the absence of information distribution to all but a few high-level stakeholders.

143

Participants agreed that currently the two case studies tend to operate mainly at the level of making ad

hoc decisions with very few actual processes in place that can be repeated and monitored. They also

agreed that this is not necessarily true of all the TFCAs, and cited TFCAs such as the ǀAi-ǀAis/Richtersveld

Transfrontier Park and Kgalakgadi TFCAs, which interestingly, only involve two countries in each case.

B) USING THE PPF’S KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO EVALUATE TFCA PERFORMANCE33

Another focus group discussion which warrants mention with a similar group of decision makers, was

held as a policy think tank meeting, during which the performance of the TFCAs was evaluated against

the key performance areas (KPAs) developed by the PPF (see Table 14 in Chapter 6.4.1). The main focus

of the meeting was to gain clarity on progress in the development of the TFCAs and to determine

whether the TFCA programme is in fact contributing to regional stability and economic development.

This included an assessment of the legal framework for TFCAs, the achievements, challenges and gaps

relating to the TFCAs, and the governance arrangements for TFCAs. Although a total of five TFCAs were

assessed during the meeting34, I will refer to the joint outcomes, and include specific reference to

Mapungubwe and Limpopo TFCAs.

On the legal framework, although the SADC Protocol on Wildlife, Conservation and Law Enforcement

provides the reference framework for TFCAs at a regional level, various international and national level

legal instruments guide and influence the establishment and management of TFCAs. TFCA practitioners

recognise that the SADC Protocol on Wildlife, Conservation and Law Enforcement does not provide

sufficient direction and it has been proposed that a dedicated protocol should be developed for SADC,

following the approved TFCA Programme. TFCAs are established through various forms of agreements

signed by either Heads of State or relevant Ministers which are both political declarations and

instruments for implementation – legal mechanisms to institute specific cooperation and help achieve

agreed objectives. While the various agreements are not all identical in content, in all cases the

objectives are broad enough to cover all aspects pertinent to TFCAs and the SADC vision for TFCAs,

including cultural heritage management.

One vision mentioned during the meeting was that through the implementation of the SADC integration

protocols, TFCAs can serve as testing ground for the implementation of concepts such as free trade

zones (including tax exemption and movement of tourists) as well as provide opportunity to observe

33 This section is based on the summary report of the Think Tank Policy Meeting of 12 December 2013 34 ǀAi-ǀAis/Richtersveld, Kgalagadi, Maloti-Drakensberg, Limpopo and Mapugubwe TFCAs

144

risks emanating from these. The question remains as to whether these are sufficient to enable countries

and TFCAs to succeed in any such endeavours in the absence of dedicated national legislation on TFCAs.

For Joint Planning (KPA 1) the overall performance of the respective TFCAs is moderate to good, except

for a lack of aligned country plans in the case of Mapungubwe, and the absence of motivation

documents for Limpopo, which would provide the background to the initial impetuses for establishment.

Key challenges stem from the absence of integrated socio-ecological planning for the TFCA, which

responds to the drivers of ecosystem management and sustainable development. These include out-

dated plans, misaligned planning processes between individual country protected area plans, planning

linked to budgets and detailed roll-out of Integrated Development Plans (IDP), including project plans.

With respect to Institutional Arrangements (KPA 2), performance is moderate to good across all the

TFCAs as all formal structures are in place in terms of the respective establishment instruments (i.e.

MoUs, Agreements, Treaties). None of the TFCAs decided to establish separate legal entities, and the

importance of operational level park to park structures has been recognised. Currently all the TFCAs are

at various stages of establishing Park Management Committees. A key challenge, however, is the level of

efficacy of these structures pertaining to, amongst other:

Terms of References for structures

Representation – appointment and mandates

Resource constraints of countries

Institutional memory

Role of implementing agencies and how these are used

Responsibility for actions (institutions)

Lines of communication.

Regarding Sustainable Financing (KPA 3), performance is generally poor. None of the TFCAs have

financial sustainability strategies, plans, mechanisms, or formal Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and

reporting systems in place. Key challenges include the following:

Protected areas continue under national jurisdiction (sovereignty clause) and are separate

entities

Reliance largely on Park and government funding (revenue generated within the protected

areas)

145

Minimal accountability mechanisms

Joint projects with recurring expenses

Lack of consistent donor funding – drawbacks to always garner funding for each separate

component and for each management aspect – this causes total lack of holistic management.

For Policy Harmonisation (KPA 4), all the TFCAs performed poorly – none of the TFCAs have formal legal

registers, none have assessed and reviewed the gaps in legislation and legislative systems, and none

have harmonised policies in place. A policy harmonisation project was initiated for GLTP but the

recommendations have not been implemented. Various operational level policy harmonisation efforts

are under way in Limpopo linked to the preparation of Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) for

aspects such as controlling the movement of people, goods and services within and through the TFCA,

wildlife management and joint law enforcement. Key challenges include establishing a mind-set that

supports the move from ‘sovereignty to unity’ and clear guidelines on responsibilities for policy

harmonisation, i.e. common issues (at SADC level) vs TFCA specific local issues, as well as the recognition

that policy harmonisation is a continuous process that requires the involvement of multiple expertise.

Regarding Landscape Dynamics (KPA 5), despite the existing knowledge available for individual

protected areas within the TFCAs, there is generally poor information regarding the interconnected

nature of these protected areas, except for some joint projects being undertaken relating to the cultural

heritage in ARTP and in MDTFCA. A key challenge is the lack of comprehensive analytical documents

pertaining to ecosystems and functional natural and cultural landscapes across international boundaries,

enabling focussed operations and projects to take place within functional landscapes irrespective of

national and protected area borders.

In the case of Integrated Management (KPA 6), the TFCAs performed moderately to good. Nonetheless,

a decision was taken supporting integrated management since most of the TFCAs have joint operational

strategies, joint structures and joint operations in place. However, Mapungubwe does not have joint

operational strategies and has not yet undertaken formal joint operations. Key challenges include the

lack of agreements between countries regarding joint management of shared resources, SOPs to

empower joint initiatives, and strategies to guide joint operations.

For Integrated Development (KPA 7), a general poor performance was noted for regional and TFCA

strategies, although concepts are in place for both Mapungubwe and Limpopo. One joint product is in

place for Mapungubwe (Tour de Tuli) while some concepts are being tested in Limpopo. Key challenges

146

include true integration at the operational level and lack of clarity regarding hosting as opposed to

participation in tourism development and events, as well as product development by the respective

stakeholders. The lack of tourism development strategies and plans, and related funds for the

development of these plans, jeopardises the successful implementation of these concepts. A further

important challenge is the widespread agreement that tourism is the only indicator of Integrated

Development, which may reduce both the socio-economic and environmental sustainability of TFCAs.

Lastly, relating to Benefit Flow Management (KPA 8), there is poor performance across all the TFCAs –

no joint baselines, plans, implementation or M&E and reporting systems are in place. Implementation

largely takes place in terms of country plans. The key challenges are the identification of benefits

beyond the basic benefits associated with protected areas such as employment. Considering the

regional long-term experience in community-based natural resources management and the related

analysis of governance structure that integrate traditional authorities, conservation authorities and local

government, TFCAs should focus on stakeholder engagement and participation in defining suitable

economic activities that promote both environmental health and rural development.

The key recommendations stemming from the Think Tank Policy Meeting include lobbying for a

dedicated SADC protocol on TFCAs, and creating a legal harmonisation register for southern Africa that

focuses on the inconsistences in legislation across all spheres of each national government. Regarding

TFCA development, the focus should be to:

Review and alignment of protected areas management plans with joint plans where necessary

Lobby for institutional assessment and review, specifically relating to representation and

mandate of structures

Lobby for the preparation and implementation of joint financial sustainability strategies, plans

and mechanisms

Request preparation of a policy harmonisation position paper or guideline clarifying joint

management activities that can be undertaken within existing legal frameworks

Lobby for joint research and analytical documents pertaining to TFCA interfaces and landscape

dynamics

Strengthening of park management structures

Lobby for the preparation of a TFCA beneficiation strategy or guideline.

Regarding research and development priorities, the following should be prioritized:

147

baseline research data on all southern African TFCAs;

research priorities should be defined in the short and medium term; and

interim research should be initiated on political and legal drivers as well as on interim

experimentation of diagnostic tools for adaptation.

On governance, key recommendations include: reassessing and mainstreaming of responsibility for

TFCAs within the countries’ organisational structure of designated implementing agencies, and lobbying

for a national coordinating structure or platform for TFCAs with strong links to the SADC TFCA network

to strengthen communications regarding TFCAs. The latter recommendation is only the beginning of

developing a more formal institutional process, one which, in my view, should be prioritized in order to

address many current challenges.

148

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

“The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe, the less taste we shall have for destruction.”

― Rachel Carson (1907-1964)

8.1. CONCLUDING REMARKS

8.1.1. DECISION MAKING IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSION

On “dropping the social fence”, unless regular forms of collaboration opportunities are facilitated by the

countries involved, it is highly unlikely that any natural interaction will take place (Interview 62).

Currently the incidences of collaboration are usually driven by emergencies or crises such as fires or

poaching of rare species. The reasons are largely the lack of resources and distances between the

different social entities. A greater alignment of objectives should also occur, since only where there are

stable communities that have aligned objectives (consensus) will activities (such as illegal harvesting,

arson, and mining) that endanger the objectives or the relationship recede. “Consensus building among

stakeholders is increasingly common as a way to search for feasible strategies to deal with uncertain,

complex, and controversial planning and policy tasks” (Innes and Booher, 2007:412). One way to

increase chances for aligning objectives and building consensus is through building communities of

practice. Wenger defines communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern or a passion

for something they do and who learn how to do it better as they regularly interact (2004). He argues

that this requires a common vision, often in the form of a threat, facilitation, driven by external or

internal forces, stable, designated funding, and some form of overarching, more permanent institution

that can act as an umbrella to maintain momentum. Although forms of these exist, such as the

veterinary working group which includes veterinarians from all sides of the borders, there are far too

few of these. Other similar communities of practice could include ecosystem monitoring workshops,

ranger workshops or capacity-building meetings, photographic workshops, birding enthusiasts’

meetings, and cycling clubs. A very important type of community of practice would be for community

leaders from either side of the border and TFCAs that would learn from each other on tourism activities,

improving the ecotourism experience, wildlife economic lessons, and simply to witness activities in

transborder areas. Many of the current problems, including border crossings, meeting tourist demands,

reaching the right market, anti-poaching measures, fire protection measures, monitoring activities and

many more could be shared with counterparts on the other side of the border. This is probably the best

149

way to build consensus, and ensure greater integration and collaboration within the TFCAs. The visible

impact of decision-making control that currently resides only in the hands of park managers and higher

up (and these mostly in an advisory capacity) is a lack of trust in counterparts within conservation areas

across the border, and the “comfort zone” syndrome, where most staff from the respective

conservation areas see no need to interact regularly with staff from transborder conservation areas.

8.1.2. DECISION MAKING IN THE ECOSYSTEM DIMENSION

Many of the staff voiced their desire to collaborate with each other across the border on regular

operational activities, including poaching patrols, fire breaks, game census activities and other

monitoring activities. Currently, these activities only occur on an ad hoc basis. An ideal opportunity

exists for exchanging experiences and building capacity in ecosystem management, and staff members

from Gonarezhou NP and Parque Naçional do Limpopo (PNL) expressed the need for such initiatives.

PNL has no resident ecologist, and Gonarezhou only one, while Kruger Park has a long history of

different approaches to ecological management (from intensive management to the current model of

adaptive management) and could therefore offer almost a century of experience. Another opportunity

that exists is that of collaborating on research projects, particularly regarding the expansion of the

ecosystem, movement of animals into new territories, and sharing research findings from projects

through joint workshops. Although the annual Savannah Scientific Conference held in Kruger is held

inside the TFCA, as an example, not a single researcher was present from Zimbabwe or Mozambique in

2014, and very few delegates reported on transboundary research projects, particularly within the

disciplines of natural sciences and ecology.

8.1.3. DECISION MAKING IN THE GOVERNANCE DIMENSION

The only way to increase the individual TFCA agility, according to the NEC model, would be to increase

the allocation of decision rights to the TFCA institution, and improve patterns of interaction and

information-sharing. The current institutional arrangements are, however, very loosely defined, mainly

driven by political agendas with little buy-in or understanding at the local community level, and even the

decision-making bodies such as the Joint Management Boards are in constant flux due to the political

systems of the countries represented. To move any further will require at least some form of stable

body, such as a steering committee or Secretariat that has the mandate to make decisions, and is

dedicated to this position for a period of at least five years. Included in the terms of reference would be

greater integration of all land use stakeholders that form part of the TFCA (local municipal managers,

park managers and essential park staff), with allocation of decision rights to representatives of all

150

stakeholder groups, and a large focus on information sharing. The current system of short-term rotation

between countries has detrimental effects on operational activities and on the long-term planning of

joint ecotourism activities and ecosystem management operations. These activities will initially be

driven mainly by individuals, such as the international coordinators, or individual park staff members, as

has been reported of the ǀAi-ǀAis/Richtersveld TFCA between South Africa and Namibia. However, with

increased information sharing, improved sharing of decision-making ability, and stable funding,

collaboration efforts are bound to improve substantially towards an integrated entity between the

participating countries. Finding the right funding model to maintain such an institution would require

long-term commitment from the respective governments of southern Africa. It is clear that the

governments involved in each TFCA would need to commit to stable, regular and designated

contributions for a much longer cycle than the current short term bursts of funding. The same would be

required in terms of human resources. The current short cycle rotation model has left major gaps during

periods when some countries with few financial resources either took the lead or hosted the position of

international coordinator, with reports of “going one step forward, but taking two steps backward” with

each change of national government. A consequence of only allowing political bodies such as the Joint

Management Board and the Tri-Ministerial Committee to make decisions related to operational matters

has been the short attention span of politicians. Priorities set by national governments are driven by

voter numbers, and there has been a lack of urgency to act due to the slow bureaucratic processes

within the implementing agencies of the countries. Information-sharing capacity could be improved by

technological developments such as the dashboard system which allows for very innovative ways of

informing all actors. Such a database would typically be capable of receiving inputs from an unlimited

geographical area, and providing refined summaries and visual scenario plans upon which to base

decisions (the PPF has initiated some work, but it should be expanded substantially). The main limitation

is again human capacity in the form of trained data collectors, designated funding, advanced software,

internet connectivity and appropriate hardware to accommodate the system.

8.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

Referring back to the principles of robust governance proposed by Dietz et al (2003) (Figure 9), although

many of the tier 1-2 and 3-4 principles are present in theory as part of the treaty or MoU, it fails to

implement the principles suggested in the central column, in particular through: very little provision of

information among TFCA stakeholders; conflict is only dealt with at a very late and critical stage; and

mostly, there is a total lack of providing for physical, technical or institutional infrastructure. Regarding

151

the design principles illustrated by long-enduring common-pool resource institutions proposed by

Basurto and Ostrom (2009) (Table 3), all principles need attention, and the TFCAs in general would

benefit greatly if the individual TFCAs focus on achieving these principles more successfully. Defining

clearly the physical resource boundaries and layering the governance activities recommended as part of

nested enterprises (such as the protected areas within each TFCA) should be undertaken as a first step.

A very important principle, currently not visible, is the adoption of collective-choice arrangements that

will allow individuals affected by the operational rules of the TFCA to participate in modifying

operational rules. The opacity of the current decision-making system does not allow for such

participation at all. It would also be crucial to establish monitoring procedures across the entire TFCA

area, to increase accountability by stakeholders and resource users and graduated sanctions against

violators of the TFCAs’ operational rules should be devised jointly by TFCA stakeholders.

I am convinced that the weakest links in the current TFCA model are represented by three aspects. First

and foremost is the lack of a formal physical institution that sits somewhere within each TFCA. Three

different models are present in other transboundary initiatives. The first option is to establish a

secretariat, which does not have decision-making powers, but have the ability to facilitate execution of

decisions that were derived from among the different stakeholder groups. Although possible, it is the

very fact that a secretariat has no real decision-making power, which provides the greatest stumbling

block, and is precisely one of the current frustrations. On many meetings, participants have no power to

make decisions but have to refer back to a higher power, and this causes long delays, often detrimental

to the operational issues that need to be addressed (Interviews 72, 69, 93 and 22). Another option is

found particularly where two countries participate in transboundary initiatives and includes the

establishment of a steering or technical committee solely dedicated to the marketing, management and

running of a given transboundary park. This will address the second key failure in the current southern

African model, which is the paucity of dedicated staff represented by all countries involved. A more

practical suggestion is made below and involves setting up a permanent, physical institution or entity

that is based within a TFCA. A third failure which needs to be addressed both over the long and short

term is the absence of adequate finances. This is an aspect which presents a fairly simple solution, given

the right commitment from the governments involved, with some support from international NGOs and

the donor community. I posit that resolving some of the above issues could lead to far greater agility in

the TFCA system. The most pressing need is for each of the governments to involve themselves in a case

study that would enable them to recognize the current limitations in capacity, the need for an

152

appropriate institutional setup and resources, and which would encourage them to make long-term

commitments to prioritizing greater support from national budgets towards funding these areas.

In terms of general aspects that would lift the maturity of individual TFCA performance and increase

agility, I reiterate the following recommendations:

The choice of employees that would both exhibit leadership and facilitation skills cannot be

over-emphasized. These characteristics should also be accompanied by an optimistic “can-do”

outlook and a visionary approach to an initiative that is essentially still in its infancy.

The participating governments should prioritize outreach to the communities living within and

adjacent to the TFCAs, not merely as individual in-country efforts, but particularly jointly,

reaching into areas across each other’s borders. In addition to these, education and capacity

building among all stakeholders should be highlighted, and should form a key objective of all

TFCAs.

Clear sets of measurements should be established collaboratively and effectiveness should be

monitored jointly across the borders and existing protected areas.

Community perceptions should be evaluated regularly, with commitment to conflict resolution

and adaptive management strategies an integral part of TFCA activities.

More practical recommendations to operationalize and streamline some of the current failures include:

Establishing park management forums that consist of the senior managers of each TFCA, which

meet at least monthly to discuss common challenges and devise common solutions;

Creating more opportunities for park staff to collaborate on common issues, these including

poaching problems, fire management, joint tourism activities, or research opportunities.

Currently in the GLTFCA the wardens of Limpopo and KNP meet at most twice a year, and

several of the wardens have identified the need to increase these meetings (interviews 52, 60,

79, 88, and 2), and to convene meetings between the different task teams as well as with

Zimbabwean rangers (interviews 78, 5 and 6);

Establishing a physical unit that consists of ecologists, natural resource managers and

sociologists from each country for a particular TFCA. This unit or institution should be based

within the TFCA, be supported by the governments that signed the TFCA MoU or treaty, form a

permanent feature of the TFCA, and be represented at the highest level of the countries‘

environmental departments. The members of the unit should also participate in decision making

153

of the management of the protected areas that fall within the TFCA, and participate in meetings

of the countries’ conservation parastatals.

8.3. POSSIBLE FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS IN THE FIELD DRAWING ON THE

RESEARCH

As mentioned earlier, the focus of this research had been to determine potential flaws in the current

decision-making processes of transboundary conservation in the southern African context. I believe I

have been able to identify several flaws through the 93 interviews with key decision makers and

relevant stakeholders. However, these findings represent one interpretation of a handful of views, and

further research would certainly highlight further gaps and limitations. It would make sense to include

more TFCAs from the region in a comparative study of the different elements of decision making, and

how different approaches have different outcomes. A highly practical follow-up on this study, would be

the development of a uniform dashboard system across the different protected areas that form the core

conservation area in each TFCA. This can then be up-scaled to include all the different TFCAs in southern

Africa, to allow the managers of all the different protected areas and TFCAs to learn from each other, to

integrate planning and monitoring activities, and to produce synchronized data for further research

initiatives. A final potential avenue for research would be to use NVivo analysis to delve into the current

data set, and further explore the drivers of conservation values, and any other perspectives that might

come to light.

154

REFERENCES

Abensperg-Traun M. 2009. CITES, sustainable use of wild species and incentive-driven conservation in

developing countries, with an emphasis on southern Africa. Biological Conservation 142:948–

963.

Acocks J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa 3rd Edition. Botanical Research Institute, Pretoria.

Ali S.H. 2007. Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution. Part of the Global Environmental

Accord Series. N. Choucri (Ed). MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Allen C.D. 1994. Ecological perspective: Linking ecology, GIS, and remote sensing to ecosystem

management. In Remote sensing and GIS in ecosystem management A. V. Sample (Ed.): 144–

167. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Alpert P. 1996. Integrated conservation and development projects. BioScience 46:845–855.

Arvai J., Gregory R., Bessette D. and Campbell-Arvai V. 2012. Decision Support for Developing Energy

Strategies. Issues in Science and Technology: Summer Edition.

Ashton P.J. 2010. The demise of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) as a keystone species for

aquatic ecosystem conservation in South Africa: The case of the Olifants River. Aquatic

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20:489-493.

Basurto X. and Ostrom E. 2009. Beyond the tragedy of the Commons. Economia delle fonti energia e

dell’ambiente 52(1):35-60. Retrieved from https://scholars.duke.edu/display/pub715725 ,

February 10, 2015.

Bawa K.S., Seidler R. and Raven P.H. 2004. Reconciling conservation paradigms. Conservation Biology 18

(4):859-860

Beisner B.E., Haydon D.T. and Cuddington K. 2003. Alternative stable states in ecology. Front Ecological

Environment 1(7):376-382.

Berkes F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences USA 104:15188–15193.

Berkes F., Colding J. and Folke C. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for

complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, UK.

155

Berkes F., Seixas CS, Fernandes D, Medeiros D., Maurice S. and Shukla S. 2004. Lessons from Community

Self-Organization and Cross-Scale Linkages in Four Equator Initiative Projects. Centre for

Community-Based Resource Management, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Bickman L. and Rog D. 2009. Applied research design: A practical approach. In L. Bickman & D. Rog

(Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 3–43). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Biggs H.C. and Rogers K.H. 2003. An Adaptive System to link Science, Monitoring and Management in

Practice. In: The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savannah Heterogeneity Du

Toit, Biggs and Rogers (Eds). Island Press Washington DC, USA.

Bocchino C. 2007. Landmines and Conservation in Southern Africa: Peace Parks in the Aftermath of

Armed Conflict. African Security Review 16(2):78-93.

Bocchino C. 2008. Is Mozambique the new South African frontier? The socio-economic impact of the

Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area on the livelihood strategies of border

communities in the Pafuri administrative post. PhD Thesis, University of Bolognia.

Bond I. 2001. CAMPFIRE and the incentives for institutional change. In African wildlife & livelihoods: The

promise and performance of community conservation by D. Hulme and M. Murphree (eds.) 227–

243. Oxford: James Currey.

Brechin S.R. Wilshusen P.R. Fortwangler C.L. and West P.C. 2002. Beyond the square wheel: toward a

more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as a social and political

process. Society and Natural Resources 15:41–64.

Brokensha, D., Warren D. and Werner O. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge and Development. Washington,

University of America Press.

Brown K., Mackensen J., Rosendo S., Viswanathan K., Cimarrusti L., Fernando K., Morsello C., Muchagata

M., Siason I.M., Singh S., et al. (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Chapter 15 Policy

Responses. By K.R. Chopra (ed). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and Island Press,

Washington, DC, pp 425–465. Retrieved from

http://wdc.nbii.gov/ma/policy_responses/3.15.pdf. on November 28, 2009.

Bruner E.M. 2001. The Maasai and the Lion King: Authenticity, Nationalism, and Globalization in African

Tourism. American Ethnologist 28(4):881-908.

156

Borrini-Feyerabend G., Pimbert M., Farvar M. T., Kothari A. and Renard Y. 2004. Sharing Power. Learning

by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the

world, IIED and IUCN/ CEESP/ CMWG, Cenesta, Tehran.

Buchanan R. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues 8(2):5-21.

Campana M.E., Neir A.M. and Klise G.T. 2006. Dynamics of Transboundary Ground Water Management:

Lessons from North America. A Water Resources Program Publication, University of New

Mexico.

Carruthers J. 2001. Wildlife and Warfare: The life of James Stevenson-Hamilton. Pietermaritzburg.

Cerovský J. (Ed.) 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Ecopoint.

Prague. Czech Republic.

CESVI 2001. Concept paper for the Zimbabwe component of the Limpopo/Shashe Trans-Frontier

Conservation Area. May 2001.

Chabal P. 2009. The State of Governance in Africa. South Africa Institute for International Affairs:

Occasional Paper nr 26. Accessed online: April 2, 2014 from:

http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/handle/123456789/29713

Chester C. 2008. Transboundary protected areas. In the Encyclopedia of Earth online. Retrieved March

14th, 2010, from http://www.eoearth.org

Child, B. 2004. Parks in transition: biodiversity, rural development and the bottom line. IUCN (World

Conservation Union) South Africa.

Collopy P.D. 2009. Aerospace System Value Models: A Survey and Observations. AIAA SPACE 2009

Conference & Exposition 14 - 17 September, Pasadena, California.

Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. United Nations Doc. UNEP/Bio. Div/N7-INC.54. Retrieved May

14, 2010 from http://www.biodiv.org.

Curtis B. Hefley B. and Miller S. 2009. People Capability Maturity Model. Software Engineering Process

Management Technical Report CMU/SEI-2009-TR-003. Carnegie Mellon University.

Darling, F.F. 1960. Wildlife in an African Territory. Lusaka: Game and Tsetse Control Department,

Government of Northern Rhodesia.

157

Davidson J. Lockwood M. Curtis A. Stratford E. and Griffith R. 2006. Governance Principles for Regional

Natural Resource Management: First Report in the Project: Pathways to good practice in

regional natural resource management governance. University of Tasmania, Australia. Available

online at: http://www.geol.utas.edu.au/geography/nrmgovernance/

De Villiers B. 1999. Land Claims and National Parks – the Makuleke Experience. The Human Sciences

Research Council, South Africa.

Dietz T. Ostrom E. and Stern P. 2003. The struggle to govern the Commons. Science Magazine. Vol

302:1907-1912.

DeNicola D.M and Stapleton M.G. 2002. Impact of acid mine drainage on benthic communities in

streams: the relative roles of substratum vs. aqueous effects. Environmental Pollution.

119(3):303-315.

DiSilvestro R.L. 1993. Reclaiming the Last Wild Places: A New Agenda for Biodiversity. New York. John

Wiley and Sons.

Du Toit D.R., Biggs H. and Pollard S. 2011. The Potential Role of Mental Model Methodologies in

Multistakeholder Negotiations: Integrated Water Resources Management in South Africa.

Ecology and Society 16(3):21.

Dudley N. (Ed.) 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN. 86pp.

Dudley N. and Stolton S. 2009. The Protected Areas Benefits Assessment Tool: A Methodology. World

Wide Fund for Nature.

Gandiwa E., Ignas M.A. Heitkönig, Anne M. Lokhorst, Herbert H.T. Prins and Cees Leeuwis. 2013. Illegal

hunting and law enforcement during a period of economic decline in Zimbabwe: A case study of

northern Gonarezhou National Park and adjacent areas. Journal for Nature Conservation 21(3):

133-142

Erg B., Vasilijević M. and McKinney, M. (eds.). 2012. Initiating effective transboundary conservation: A

practitioner’s guideline based on the experience from the Dinaric Arc. Gland, Switzerland and

Belgrade, Serbia: IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe.

Fabricius C. and Koch E. 2004. Rights, resources and rural development: community-based natural

resource management in Southern Africa. Earthscan, UK and USA.

158

Fitter R. and Scott P. 1978. The penitent butchers: The Fauna Preservation Society 1903- 1978. London:

The Fauna Preservation Society.

Folke C., Hahn T., Olsson P. and Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems.

Annual Review of Environmental Systems 30:441-473.

Forrester JW. 1971. Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technology Reviews 73:53–68.

Foxcroft L.C. and Richardson M. 2003. Managing alien plant invasions in the Kruger National Park, South

Africa. In: Plant Invasions: Ecological Threats and Management Solutions: 385-403. Child, Brock,

Brundu, Prach, et al. (Eds). Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Franklin J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications

3:202-205

Greater Limpopo Transboundary Park (GLTP) Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (Draft). 2013. Peace

Parks Foundation, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Great Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area (GMTFCA) Integrated Development Plan (IDP).

2010. Peace Parks Foundation, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Gasana, J.K. 2010. Governing TBCAs. In: The Tropical Forest Update – Special Edition: Transboundary

Conservation. Vol. 20: 2.

Gaylard A., Owen-Smith N. and Redfern J. 2003. Surface water availability: Implications for

heterogeneity and ecosystem processes. In: The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of

Savannah Heterogeneity Du Toit, Biggs and Rogers (Eds). Island Press Washington DC, USA.

Ghimire K.B. and Pimbert M.P. (Eds.) 1997. Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and

Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. Earthscan, London.

Goldman M. 2003. Partitioned nature, privileged knowledge: Community-based conservation in

Tanzania. Development and Change 34(5):833-862.

Gregory R., Failing L., Harstone M., Long M., McDaniels T. and Ohlson D. 2012. Structured Decision

Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. Chichester, UK: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Gunderson L.H., and Pritchard L., (eds.) 2002. Resilience and the behavior of large-scale ecosystems.

Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

159

Hardin G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, New Series Vol. 162(3859):1243-1248.

Hess K. 2001. Parks are for people – but which people? In: Anderson, T.L., James, A. (Eds.), The Politics

and Economics of Park Management. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, pp. 159–181.

Holechek J., Pieper R. and Herbel C. 1998. Range management: Principles and practices (3rd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holling C.S., Berkes F., Folke C. 1998. Science, sustainability and resource management. In Linking Social

and Ecological Systems, Berkes F, Folke C. (eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp

342–362.

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems

4:1-23.

Hulme D. and Murphree M. (Eds) African wildlife & livelihoods: The promise and performance of

community conservation. Oxford: James Currey.

Humphrey W.S. 1989. Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley Pennsylvania.

Humphrey W.S. 1998. Three Dimensions of Process Improvement: Part I: process Maturity. CROSSTALK:

The Journal of Defence Software Engineering: Feb 1998.

Hurford A. 2010. Complexity Theories and Theories of Learning: Literature Reviews and Syntheses.

Sriraman and English (Eds) Theories of mathematics education Springer-Verlag, Berlin

Heidelberg.

Igoe J. 2001. National parks and human ecosystems: the challenge to community conservation. A case-

study from Simanjiro, Tanzania. In Conservation and Mobile Indigenous People: Displacement,

Forced Settlement, and Conservation D. Chatty and M. Colchester (eds.) pp 76-96. Oxford:

Berghan Books.

International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Systems Engineering Handbook. 2007. A Guide

for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities Version 3.1. C. Haskins (ed.).

Innes J.E. and Booher D.E. 2007. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of the

American Planning Association. 65(4):412-423.

Janssen M.A. 2002. Complexity and Ecosystem Management. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

160

Jones B. and Murphree M. 2001. The evolution of policy on community conservation in Namibia &

Zimbabwe. In African wildlife & livelihoods: The promise and perfomance of community

conservation by D. Hulme and M. Murphree (eds.), 74–87. Oxford: James Currey.

Jordaan J.J. 2010. The proposed colonisation sequence of woody species in the Sourish Mixed woodland

of the Limpopo province, South Africa. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 27(2):105-

108.

Kahneman D., Slovic P. and Tversky A. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kaufmann D., Kraay A. and Zoido-Lobatón P. 1999. Governance Matters. Policy Research Working Paper

Series No. 2196. The World Bank, Washington.

Keim B. 2011. Making sense of 7 billion people. Wired Science: 31 October 2011.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/7-billion-people/ (Accessed: 7 Nov 2011).

Kiker G.A., Bridges T.S., Varghese A., Seager T.P. and Linkov I. 2005. Application of multicriteria decision

analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and

Management. 1(2):95-108.

Lockwood M. 2010. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and

performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management. 91:754-766.

Lunstrom E. 2009. Terror, Territory, and Deterritorialization: Landscapes of Terror and the Unmaking of

State Power in the Mozambican "Civil" War. Annals of the Association of American Geographers

99(5):884-892.

http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/8021/Lunstrum-

Terror.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed 11 July 2014).

Lunstrom E. 2010. Mozambique, Neoliberal Land Reform, and the Limpopo National Park. Geographical

Review 98(3):339-355.

Mabunda D., Pienaar D.J. and Verhoef J. 2003. The Kruger National Park: a Century of Management and

Research. In: The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savannah Heterogeneity Du

Toit, Biggs and Rogers (Eds). Island Press Washington DC, USA.

MacCannel D. 1984. Reconstructed ethnicity tourism and cultural identity in third world communities.

Annals of Tourism Research 11:375-391.

161

Marton-Lefèvre J. 2007. Foreword to Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution. (Saleem Ali Ed)

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Matose F. and Wily L. 1996. Institutional arrangements governing the use and management of Miombo

woodlands. In The Miombo in transition: Woodlands and welfare in Africa. B. Campbell (ed):

195–219. Jakarta: CIFOR.

Mazvimavi D., Madamombe E. and Makurira H. 2007. Assessment of environmental flow requirements

for river basin planning in Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 32:995-1006.

McDowell D. 1997. Opening remarks by IUCN director general, David McDowell, In Sheppard, D. and

Rosabal, P. (Eds.) Parks for Peace: Background Papers, International conference on

transboundary protected areas as a vehicle for international co-operation (pp. 25), 16-18

September 1997, Somerset West, Cape Town, South Africa, Draft of 30 January 1998.

McShane T.O. and Wells M. (Eds.), 2004. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective

Conservation and Development. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 397–442.

Miller T. R., Minteer B.A. and Malan L-C. 2011. The new conservation debate: the view from practical

ethics. Biological Conservation 144(3):948-957.

Mistry P.S. 2000. Africa’s record of regional integration, cooperation and integration. African Affairs

99(397):553-573.

Mombeshora S. and Le Bel S. 2009. Parks-people conflicts: the case of Gonarezhou National Park and

the Chitsa community in south-east Zimbabwe. Biodiversity Conservation 18:2601-23.

Montesh M. 2013. Rhino poaching: a new form of organised crime. College of Law Research and

Innovation Committee of the University of South Africa.

Moss R.H. and Lane M.A. 2012. Decisionmaking, Transitions and Resilient Futures. Issues in Science and

Technology: Summer Edition.

Moyo D. 2011. Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa. Penguin, UK.

Murphree M. 2001. Community, council & client. A case study in ecotourism development from

Mahenye, Zimbabwe. In African wildlife & livelihoods: The promise and performance of

community conservation, D. Hulme and M. Murphree (eds), 177–194. Oxford: James Currey.

162

Naicker K., Cukrowska E. and McCarthy T.S. 2003. Acid mine drainage arising from gold mining activity in

Johannesburg, South Africa and environs. Environmental Pollution. 122(1):29-40.

Neumann R.P. 1997. Primitive ideas: Protected area buffer zones and the politics of land in Africa.

Development and Change. 28(3):559-582.

Noss R.F and Cooperrider A.Y. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and restoring Biodiversity.

Washington DC. Island Press.

Olson D.M., Dinerstein E., Wikramanayake E.D., Burgess N.D., Powell G.V.N., Underwood E.C., et al.

2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. BioScience 51(11):933-

938.

Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York:

Cambridge Univ. Press. 280 pp.

Ostrom E. 1999. Coping with tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science 2:493-935.

Ostrom E., Burger J., Field C.B., Norgaard R.B. and Policancsky D. 1999. Revisiting the Commons: Local

lessons, Global Challenges. Science 284:278-282.

Ostrom E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA 104 (39):15181–15187

Ostrom V. and Ostrom E. 1977. Public goods and public choices. In: E. S. Savas (ed) Alternatives for

Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Reprinted in: M. McGinnis (ed) Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the

Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1999.

Parks Canada. 2007. Waterton lakes national park of Canada: Natural wonders and cultural treasures.

Retrieved March 16th, 2010, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/Waterton/natcul/inter_e.asp

Pasemko S. 2009. The Evaluation and Design of a Formal International Designation for International

Peace Parks. MSc Thesis. University of Calgary, Alberta.

Peace Parks Foundation Review 1997 – 2007. Retrieved March 16th, 2010 from

http://www.peaceparks.org/xMedia/PDF/News/News%20Stories/10yr_review.pdf

163

Peters G. 2000. Globalization, Institutions and Governance. In: Governance in the Twenty-first Century:

Revitalizing the Public Service. G. Peters and D.J. Savoie (Eds). Canadian Centre for Management

and Development, Quebec.

Phillips A. 2003. Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for protected areas. In: Jaireth H. and

Smyth D. (Eds.) Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Protected

Areas. Ane Books New Delhi.

Pienaar U. de V. 1983. Management by intervention: the pragmatic/economic option. In: Management

of large African mammals in conservation areas. Owen-Smith (Ed): 23-36. Pretoria, Sigma Press.

Polasky S. and Binder S. 2012. Valuing the Environment for Decisionmaking. Issues in Science and

Technology: Summer Edition.

Pollard S. and Du Toit D. 2011. Towards Adaptive Integrated Water Resources Management in Southern

Africa: The Role of Self-organisation and Multi-scale Feedbacks for Learning and Responsiveness

in the Letaba and Crocodile Catchments. Water Resource Management. 25:4019-4035.

Ramutsindela M. 2002. The perfect way to ending a painful past? Makuleke land deal in South Africa.

Geoforum 33(1):15-24.

Ramutsindela M. 2007. Transfrontier conservation in Africa: at the confluence of capital, politics and

nature. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) UK.

Redford K.H., Coppolillo P., Sanderson E.W.Da Fonseca G.A.B., Dinerstein E. Groves C. et al. 2003.

Mapping the Conservation Landscape. Conservation Biology 17(1):116-131.

Resilience Alliance web page and workbooks: an international consortium of 15 research groups: found

at http://www.resalliance.org/

Ribot J.C. 1999. Decentralization, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: Legal instruments

of political-administrative control. Africa 69(1):23-65.

Richards P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. Hutchinson, London

Rittel H.W. J. 1972. On the Planning Crises: Systems Analysis of the First and Second Generations.

Bedrifts Økonomen 8:390-396.

Roe D., Elliott J., Sandbrook C. and Walpole M. (Eds). 2013. Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty

Alleviation: Exploring the evidence for a link. John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex UK.

164

Runte A. 1979. National Parks: The American Experience. Lincoln NE. University of Nebraska Press.

Sandwith T. Shine C. Hamilton L. and Sheppard D. 2001. Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and

Co-operation. In Best Practices Protected Area Guidelines Series no. 7. A. Phillips (Ed). IUCN

World Commission on Protected Areas.

SAS-065 NATO Research Task Group. 2010. The NATO NEC C2 Maturity Model. Center for Advanced

Concepts and Technology (ACT) Series. Alberts, Huber & Moffat (eds). Department of Defense

Command and Control Research Program USA.

Savory A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management. Island Press, Washington DC.

Scoones I., Marongwe N., Mavedzenge B. Murimbarimba F., Mahenehene J. and Sukume C. 2012.

Livelihoods after land reform in Zimbabwe: Understanding processes of rural differentiation.

Journal of Agrarian Change 12(4):503-527.

Sebudubudu D. 2010. Issues and Challenges in Democratic Governance in Africa: The Case of Botswana.

Paper presented at the Conference on Governance Reform: What is the record? Perspectives

from the South and North on Governance, Policy Space and Democratic Processes. 24-28 March

2010. University of Quebec, Montreal Canada.

Selier S.J. 2007. The social structure, distribution and demographic status of the African elephant

population in the Central Limpopo River Valley of Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa. MSc

Thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Selier S.J., Page B.R., Vanak A.T. and Slotow R. 2014. Sustainability of elephant hunting across

international borders of southern Africa: a case study of the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier

Conservation Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(1):122-132.

Sellars R.W. 1989. Science or scenery? A conflict of values in the national parks. Wilderness 52

(summer):29-38.

Shafer C.L. 1999. History of selection and system planning for US natural area national parks and

monuments: beauty and biology. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:189-204.

Simon H.A. 1959. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American

Economic Review 49 (3):253-283.

165

Simon H.A. 1992. Nobel Lectures, Economics 1969-1980. Assar Lindbeck (Ed) World Scientific Publishing

Co. Singapore. Retrieved January 24th, 2014:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1978/simon-bio.html

Singh J. 2001. State-making and community-based natural resource management: Cases of the Vhimba

CAMPFIRE project (Zimbabwe) and the Chimanimani Transfrontier Conservation Area

(Mozambique). PhD dissertation, University of Washington, College of Forest Resources.

Snowden D.J. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of

Knowledge Management 6(2): 100-111.

Snowden D.J. and Kurz C.F. 2003. The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and

complicated world. IBM Systems Journal. 42(3):462-483.

Snyman A. 2010. Lion (Panthera Leo) social organization in a human affected landscape. M.Tech thesis,

Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa.

South African Public Service Commission Report. 2010. An Evaluation of Integration and Coordination in

the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme. Retrieved from www.psc.gov.za on

18 July 2013:

http://www.psc.gov.za/documents/2010/72150%20Sustainable%20Rural%20Dev.pdf

Steenkamp C. and Uhr J. 2000. The Makuleke Land Claim: power relations and community-based natural

resource management. Discussion Paper No.18 in Evaluating Eden Series, published by the

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): http://conservation-

development.net/Projekte/Nachhaltigkeit/CD1/Suedafrika/Literatur/PDF/Steenkamp2000.pdf

Sterman J.D. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston,

MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Sterman J.D. 2002. All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics

Review 18(4): 501–531.

Sterman J.D. 2001. System Dynamics Modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California

Management Review 43(4): 8-25

Sterman J.D. 2006. Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health. 96(3):

505-515.

166

Stirzaker R., Biggs H., Roux D. and Cilliers P. 2010. Requisite simplicities to help negotiate complex

problems. AMBIO 39:600-607.

Strickland-Munroe J.K., Moore S.A., and Freitag-Ronaldson S. 2010. The impacts of tourism on two

communities adjacent to the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Development Southern Africa

27 (5):663-678

Swain A. 2002. Environmental Cooperation in South Asia. In: Environmental Peacemaking. Conca and

Dabelco (Eds).

Timko J.A. 2008. Evaluating ecological integrity and social equity in national parks: case studies from

Canada and South Africa. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.

Tinley K.L. and Van Riet W.F. 1991. Conceptual Proposals for Kruger/Banhine: A Transfrontier Natural

resource Area. Report prepared for the South African Nature Foundation.

Tranel M.J. and A. Hall. 2003. Parks as battlegrounds: managing conflicting values. In The Full Value of

Parks: From Economics to the Intangible. D. Harmon and A.D. Putney, (eds). People, Places, and

Parks: Proceedings of the 2003 George Wright Society, Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford, pp. 253–

267. Accessed online: http://www.georgewright.org/0316tranel.pdf

Tress B., Tress G. and Fry G. 2005. Defining concepts and the process of knowledge production in

integrative research. In: From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration,

education and application. Tress, Tress, Fry and Opdam (Eds.). Wageningen UR Frontis Series,

Springer, The Netherlands.

Ulanowicz R.E. 1986. Growth and development: ecosystems phenomenology. Springer-Verlag, New York,

New York, USA.

UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Transboundary Protected Areas Inventory. Retrieved March 16th, 2010, from

http://www.tbpa.net/

Urry J. 1996. Tourism, culture and social inequality. In The Sociology of Tourism: Theoretical and

Empirical Investigations, Apostolopoulos, Leivadi, and Yiannakis (Eds.), pp. 115–33. New York:

Routledge

USAID Report 2002. Joint Policy and Management Guidelines for the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park.

Retrieved on 31 July 2014 from: http:pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadd330.pdf

167

Van Deveer S.D. 2002. Environmental Cooperation and Regional Peace: Baltic Politics, Programs, and

Prospects. In: Environmental Peacemaking. Conca and Dabelco (Eds).

Van Deveer S.D. 2011. Networked Baltic Environmental Cooperation. Journal of Baltic Studies. Vol

42(1):37-55.

Van Vuuren L. 2009. Experts unite to save abused river from extinction. Water Wheel 8:14-17.

Virtanen P. 2003. Local Management of Global Values: Community-Based Wildlife Management in

Zimbabwe and Zambia. Society and Nat. Resources 16:179–190.

Walker B., Holling C.S., Carpenter S.R. and Kinzig A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in

social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. [online] URL:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/

Wells M. and Brandon K. with Hannah L. 1992. People and Parks: linking protected area management

with local communities. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World

Bank, Washington DC.

Wenger E. 2004. Learning for a small planet: a research agenda. Available at

www.ewenger.com/research

Western D., Wright R.M., Strum S.C. (Eds.) 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based

Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Wolmer W. 2003. Transboundary Conservation: the politics of ecological integrity in the Great Limpopo

Transfrontier Park. Journal of African Studies. 29(1): 261-278.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford

University Press, Oxford. Commonly known as the Brundtland Report.

Worthington E.B. 1958. Science in the Development of Africa. Commission for Technical Cooperation in

Africa south of the Sahara, Paris.

Yin R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yin R.K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edition. Applied Social Research Methods

Series. Vol 5. Sage Publications Inc. USA.

Young O. 2006. Vertical Interplay among Scale-dependent Environmental and Resource Regimes.

Ecology and Society 11(1): 27

168

APPENDIX A

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SCORES PER CASE STUDY

Table 17: Spreadsheet showing the average scores per country for Mapungubwe

Country/ Municipality Unit of analysis Tenure Authority Ecosystem Benefit Attitude Stability Conflict Total score

Blouberg Farms, mostly wildlife 7 4.5 4.5 6 5 4.5 7

Musina Mapungubwe comms 3 4 1 1 2 2 4

Venetia Mine 7 7 4 3 3.5 7 3

Vele Mine 4 6 1 2 1 6 7

Game farms and lodges 4 6 7 5 5 5 2

Commercial farms 4 5 3.5 4 3.5 6 7

Averages 4.833 5.417 3.500 3.500 3.333 5.083 5.000 4.3810

River Ranch 2 1 4.5 7 3.5 2 3

Nottingham Estate 2 6 7 7 7 7 3

Sentinel Ranch 2.5 6 7 7 7 7 3

Maramani WMA 2.5 5 3 3.5 3.5 4.5 1.5

Machuchuta WMA 2.5 4.5 3 4 6 5 2

Masera WMA 2.5 4.5 3 4 6 5 2

Tuli Circle Safari Area 2 4.5 5 5 7 6 1.5

Hwali WMA 2.5 4.5 3 3.5 6 5 2

Halisupi WMA 2.5 4.5 3 3.5 6 5 2

Averages 2.333 4.500 4.278 4.944 5.778 5.167 2.222 4.175

NOTUGRE 7 7 7 7 7 6 4

Bobirwa Bobonong 2.5 6 2 3 2 3 3

Kobojango 2.5 6 1 1 3 5 4

Lentswelemoriti 2.5 7 1 3 3 6

Lepokole 2.5 5 2 1 2 5

Mabolwe 2.5 6 1 3 2 5

Mathathane 2.5 6 1 1 3 6 4

Moletemane 2.5 7 1 1 2 6

Motlhabaneng 2.5 6 2 1 3 6

Semolale 2.5 5 2 1 2 6

Tsetsebjwe 2.5 6 1 1 3 6

Tshokwe 2.5 5 1 1 3 5

Averages 2.875 6.000 1.833 2.000 2.917 5.417 3.750 3.5417

South Africa

Zimbabwe

Botswana

169

Table 18: Spreadsheet showing the average scores per country for Limpopo

Country/ Municipality Unit of analysis Tenure Authority Ecosystem Benefit Attitude Stability Conflict Total Score

Mutale Mutale 2.5 7 4 4 3.5 4 5

Thulamele Thulamele 3 7 3.5 3

Greater Giyani Greater Giyani 3 6 2

Ba-Phalaborwa Ba-Phalaborwa 4.5 5 3.5

Maruleng Maruleng 7 6 7 5 7 5 3

Bushbuckridge Bushbuckridge 3 1 1 2 3.5 3.5 1

Mbombela Mbombela 6 3 2 4.5 4.5 3.5 2

Nkomazi Nkomazi 3.5 5 5 4.5 5 3

Private reserves Private reserves 3.5 7 7 5 7 5.5 3.5

Commercial farms Commercial farms 2.5 6 3 3.5 3.5 4 3.5

Average 3.850 5.300 4.063 4.071 4.857 3.700 3.000 4.120

Chiredzi RDC Sengwe Communal Land 2 7 6 4 3.5 4.5 2.5

Maose-Xini 2 7 6 4 3.5 6 1

Chibavahlengwe HR 2 7 6 4 3.5 6 1

Malapati Safari Area 2 7 7 4.5 3.5 6 1

Chikombedzi 2 6 6 2 4 6 1

Batanai HR 2 4.5 3 6 5 1

Boli 2 3 3 5 5 1

Gweni 2 3 3 6 5 1

Twananani HR 2 6 6 2 6 6 1

Chihwedziva HR 2 6 5 2 6 5 1

Dzidzela HR 2 6 3 6 6 1

Malilangwe Trust 1 7 7 7 7 7 1

Chiredzi 3 7 5 6 1

Chitsa HR 1 2 1 1 1 7 1.5

Average 1.929 6.182 5.042 3.269 4.714 5.750 1.143

Chipinge RDC Mutandahwe HR 1 2 4 3.5 5 6 2.5

Mahenye HR 2 3 5 5 3 7 2.5

Average 1.5 2.5 4.5 4.25 4 6.5 2.5

Zim averages 1.714 4.341 4.771 3.760 4.357 6.125 1.821 3.841

Makandezulo A 1 1 2 -3 1 4.5 1.5

Makandezulo B 1 1 1 -3 1 2 1

Chimanque 1 1 5 -3 1 6 3

Machamba 1 1 4 -3 1 2

Massingir Velho 1 1 1 -3 1 7 1.5

Mavodze 1 1 1

Bingo 1 1 5 1 2

Macavene 1 2 6 1 1

Massingir 5 6 4 0.5 3 1 2.5

Average 1.444 1.667 3.500 -1.929 1.222 3.500 1.900 1.615

South Africa

Zimbabwe

Mozambique

170

ECOSYSTEM SCORES

Table 19: Spreadsheet showing the average scores per country for both case studies

Country Land use Cover Species Alien species

River systems

Monitoring Management intervention

Policy feedback

Total Score

Average Country

Mapungubwe

SA Mapungubwe NP 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 22 3.143 2.310

De Beers 4 3 4 4 4 3 22 3.667

Private commercial farms 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 10 1.429

Community land 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 7 1.000

Average 3.000 2.250 2.500 2.667 2.000 2.000 1.500 15.250 2.310

Zim Sentinel 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 19 2.714 2.250

Nottingham Estate 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 19 2.714

Tuli Circle SA 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 20 2.857

Maramani WMA 2 3 3 3 2 0 1 14 2.000

Machuchuta WMA 1 3 3 3 2 0 1 13 1.857

Masera WMA 2 2 3 3 2 0 1 13 1.857

Hwali WMA 2 3 3 3 2 0 1 14 2.000

Halisupi WMA 2 3 3 3 2 0 1 14 2.000

Average 2.625 3.250 3.375 3.000 2.125 0.375 1.000 15.750 2.250

Bot NOTUGRE 1 4 3 3 4 4 2 21 3.000 2.000

Communal areas 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 7 1.000

Average 1.000 3.000 2.500 2.500 2.000 2.000 1.000 14.000 2.000

Limpopo

Mo Limpopo NP 3 3 3 0 1 3 2 15 2.143 2.143

Zim Gonarezhou NP 3 4 4 2 2 3 2 20 2.857 2.429

Sengwe corridor 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 16 2.286

Chiredsi area 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 15 2.143

Average 3.000 3.250 3.250 2.000 1.500 2.000 1.500 16.500 2.357

SA Kruger NP 4 4 3 0 4 4 4 23 3.286 1.669

Associated Game Reserves 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 24 3.429

Sabi 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 24 3.429

Communal area Mutale 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 8 1.143

Communal area Thulamele 1 2 3 - 0 0 0 6 1.000

Communal area Ghiyani 1 1 1 - 0 0 0 3 0.500

Communal area Phalaborwa 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 8 1.143

Communal area Maruleng 3 2 2 2 0 1 1 11 1.571

Communal area Bushbuckridge 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 6 0.857

171

Country Land use Cover Species Alien species

River systems

Monitoring Management intervention

Policy feedback

Total Score

Average Country

Communal area Mbombela 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 6 0.857

Communal area Nkomazi 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 8 1.143

Average 2.455 2.545 2.182 0.778 1.091 1.455 1.182 11.545 1.669

172

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW LEADING QUESTIONS

Table 20: Socio-economic attributes and related questions

Attribute Description (1-7) Leading questions

Land tenure: Security of land ownership as perceived by interviewee: degrees of positive security range between 1 (none) and 7 (owns land with title deed);

Do you own this house/land? Who owns it? Do you own the animals? Can you sell your property to anyone? How does ownership work in this community? Can your land be taken by the government? Have you been/will you be removed because of the national park?

Authority: Leadership and power to make decisions: degrees of leadership and support varying from 1 (no leader), through very weak leader with little support, to very strong leader, usually over a longer period (7)

How much influence do you have in making decisions about the community? Can you give examples of decisions you have contributed to? Do you consider the municipal councillor/traditional leader a wise leader? How would you score him from 1 to 7? Why? How long has he been in power? What would you advise him to change if you could make the decisions?

Ecosystem: Amount of effort exerted by the community to improve/manage the health of the ecosystem: 1 = none; 2-7 = degrees of efforts towards improvement, low degrees indicating amount of degradation, and sometimes even wilful destruction (e.g. arson as a form of resistance)

Do you think the natural system is in a good shape? Do you think it can be improved by human intervention? What improvements would you like to see around here? Do you think there are too many animals kept on the land? What plan can be made to improve the situation?

Benefits: 1 = no benefits derived from conservation; 2-7 = degrees of benefits received through conservation; 1-3 generally indicate only costs to the community (e.g. damage caused by wild animals without compensation), 4-7 indicate increased benefits

Does the community benefit from the tourists or from the park itself? Maybe through gathering firewood, grass, getting meat? Do you get anything from the government if an elephant or buffalo destroys your crops?

Attitudes: Scoring from 1-7, I mostly scored these according to the community members’ attitudes towards the TFCA, with 1 indicating very negative attitudes, seeing no positives in the park, and 7 indicating very positive attitudes, both for the present and future

How do you feel about the TFCA? Do you know anything about it? Have you ever visited? Do you think it is a good thing for the community?

Stable vs migration: Refers to the fluidity of the community – are these stable, autochthonous communities or constantly in flux: 1 indicates highly fluid, recently formed communities with many migrants moving through or living there; 7 indicates very stable communities over a long period, where most people know each other

How well do you know all the people of your village/community? How long have you lived here? Would you ever move from here? Do many new people move in? How often?

173

Attribute Description (1-7) Leading questions

External or internal conflicts and major challenges:

A complex attribute to score, with 1 indicating both internal conflict and strife within a community, as well as political instability at national level, compounded by environmental challenges such as floods or droughts. A score of 7 indicated no internal or external conflict, and fairly stable weather conditions

This category was usually scored by myself, based on my observations and logic regarding what I know about a particular country and community.

Park Staff Questions: these are questions I would only ask people who work within any of the protected areas within the TFCA case studies:

1. How long have you worked in park X?

2. Are you happy here? What is it that makes you happy/unhappy?

3. What do you think about being part of a TFCA?

4. Do you think it should continue?

5. What do you consider the biggest challenges to the success of the TFCA?

6. If you had the power to change things, what would you change?

7. What are the biggest challenges in your position?

8. Is it something you can resolve?

9. Do you think it is a good idea to collaborate with people from park Y? How often do you hear about park Y? Do you think this should be

improved? How?

10. What do you know about park Z? How often do you hear about park Z? Do you think this should be improved? How?

11. In your own organization/protected area, are there good communication networks? How would you improve this?

174

Table 21: Ecosystem management attributes and related questions

Attribute Description (0 – 4) Leading questions

1. Physical environment, scored at the landscape level

Vegetation cover: Percentage cover, from bare soil to 100% cover 0 = almost no vegetation; 1 = 10 – 30%; 2 = medium cover; 3 = substantial cover, but with degraded/eroded areas; 4 = healthy natural 80 – 100% cover

How healthy would you gauge the ecosystem to be at landscape level? And do you identify problem areas? Do you have bare areas, with little vegetation cover? What percentage of the entire ecosystem is covered with bare areas? What is the origin of these bare areas? Is it due to human activities, historically or current?

Species composition Fauna: homogeneous, heavily managed by humans to naturally heterogeneous 0 = no natural vegetation, managed; 1 = small pockets of natural; 2 = medium, mix of natural and non-natural; 3 = mostly natural fauna; 4 = only natural vegetation, no altered areas

What percentage of the area is under non-native coverage? What type of land use? What percentage is completely natural, with no known history of human activities, or visible remnants?

Alien presence: Heavily infested up to 100% by invasive species to 0% alien invasive presence 0 = only invasives; 1 = small % of natural, mainly aliens; 2 = mix of alien and indigenous, but alien species have the advantage; 3 = mainly indigenous with pockets of alien species; 4 = only natural species, no alien invasives visible.

Describe the alien species invasion in the ecosystem? Where or when has it occurred? What is the extent of the invasion in %? Are there any activities planned/ongoing to address the problem? What are these? Chemical or mechanical? Cost estimates? Funding sources?

River systems: Heavily polluted river system to pristine, unpolluted river system 0 = visibly polluted, history of fish deaths or other species; 1 = visibly polluted, no history of impacts; 2 = visible signs of pollution but still potable; 3 = pockets of visibly polluted water; pristine clear water, close to source

Have you had any fish deaths in river X? How would you describe the river system from healthy to heavily polluted? Is it a constant state, or does it fluctuate annually or over decades? Any activities planned/ongoing to address pollution upstream or locally? What are these? Funding sources?

2. Decision-making environment:

Presence of ecosystem monitoring

No monitoring, very little, to regular monitoring. Determine the frequency and nature of monitoring if available. 0 = no monitoring; 1 = infrequent, ad hoc monitoring; 2 = annual monitoring; 3 = 1-2 times annually; 4 = monthly or more frequent monitoring

How often is monitoring of the ecosystem attributes done? Where does funding come from? Is it a planned, ongoing activity or ad hoc? What is done with the outputs? How much long-term monitoring takes place?

Presence of management interventions

No intervention, very little, to regular intervention – determine the frequency and nature of interventions 0 = no intervention due to lack of capacity; 1 = sporadic, project-based interventions; 2 = regular attempts to intervene; 3 = regular,

How does the management of the area function? How often would you intervene and why? Do you monitor the success of these interventions?

175

Attribute Description (0 – 4) Leading questions

planned interventions; 4 = regular, daily monitoring of management intervention, planned activities

Presence of policy feedback

Are the effects of policies within the area ever evaluated? Absence to regular consultation 0 = never; 1 = once or very seldom; 2 = a few times, based on crisis management; 3 = regular, but with lapses over time; 4 = regular, standard practice.

Do you ever evaluate the impacts of policy changes to the system? Can you think of any recent policy changes and the effects it had? How often do you evaluate such changes/how often do these changes occur?

176

Table 22: Governance attributes and related questions

Attribute Description (0 – 4) Suggested questions

Political will and vision

Political will translates into an active desire to overcome operational obstacles in transboundary management; political vision relates to the long term plans and strategic decisions, if any 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

Do you consider the government willing enough to pursue the existence of this TFCA at all costs? What could happen to stop this initiative? How has your government acted to Can you point out any long-term plan voiced by the government/SADC/municipality regarding this TFCA? What do you see as strategic decisions in the longer term for this TFCA?

Joint structures and collaboration

Degree to which parties collaborate towards the common vision, as well as what drives the collaboration 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

Is there currently any physical structure in place where TFCA issues take place or are at home? Do the core areas share any physical area/infrastructure? When do the two or three parks’ management staff meet and for what purpose? How often? What about other staff meetings across the border?

Legitimacy Refers to the popular acceptance of a regime’s authority to govern. It implies:

- accountability and transparency in decisions and actions; - appropriate regulation through relevant policies and

procedures; - compliance with legislative and contractual obligations;

and - principled exercise of shared and individual power

For each of the above: 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

Are you aware of the government’s plans for this TFCA? Were you ever aware of the TFCA plans? Do you think it is important for the government to make their plans public re this TFCA? Are you aware of conflicting policies re TFCA management or governance? What about the treaty/MoU objectives – do they conflict with any national policies? As park management, are you aware of the obligations of the treaty objectives? How would you change the treaty or policies to strengthen each other? As traditional leader of your village, are you invited to staff management meetings re the TFCA? Do you ever discuss this issue with the ward councillors? How would you improve this issue?

Inclusivity Governance is inclusive when all those with a stake in governance processes can engage with them on an equal basis: 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

Have you ever met the park manager of this park? What about any of the other park managers in the TFCA? How should these discussions take place, and how often? What should the discussions be about? Do you receive the monthly newsletter from the park? Would you like to know what is being planned for the TFCA?

177

Attribute Description (0 – 4) Suggested questions

Fairness and equity Actors and institutions are expected to be fair and equitable in the exercise of the authority conferred on them:

- in the distribution of power, - creation of opportunities for engagement, treatment of

participants, - recognition of diverse values, consideration of current and

future generations, - sharing of costs, benefits and responsibilities of decision-

making and action. For all of the above: 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

What do you see as the biggest issue in your government’s ability to govern? Has the government reached out via any forum to determine your opinion/advice re the TFCA management or expansion? Do you think the government is aware of all opinions and values on this issue? How can the government incorporate more inputs from stakeholders? What do you consider the greatest cost in the establishment of this TFCA/park? Do you think the government is aware of this cost? How should the government address this cost? Are you aware of any tangible benefits from this TFCA/park? Are these benefits distributed equitably? What more could be done and by whom to gain more benefits and distribute them? Who should be responsible for making decisions re this TFCA/park? What do you think should the decision-making path look like? How can the current decision-making structures be improved? If you were in charge of this process, which issues would you address first?

Connectivity and integration

Functional connectivity implies systematic coordination across different scales of government, policy sectors, and regions: 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

How often do the Department of Environmental Affairs coordinate with your agency re the TFCA? Who decides on the policies re the TFCAs? Is there a process of engaging within the national departments re the TFCAs? As provincial employee, do you ever communicate TFCA matters to national government? How does this process work? How can you improve the tasks related to TFCAs within your own department?

Competency and effectiveness

- Refers to effectiveness in improving resource condition, - efficiency of resource use, and - the skills and capacities available to natural resource

management participants

Mostly informed by questions on ecosystem management – see table 2 above

Political stability The likelihood that the government in power will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means. 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

Do you consider your government at risk of a coup d’état? Do you see any reason to fear a civil war? Who are the enemies of your state and stability? How active are they, and why?

Rule of law and regulatory burden

The extent to which citizens have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and the extent to which the government is consistently able to enforce these rules.

This attribute was mostly informed by a discussion on general incidents of crime in the immediate area, in the country, faith in the police’s ability to contain the crime, especially wildlife crimes,

178

Attribute Description (0 – 4) Suggested questions

It includes: - perceptions of the incidence of violent and non-violent

crime; - the effectiveness and predictability of the judiciary; - the enforceability of contracts.

For all of the above: 0 = none visible; 1 = very little tangible evidence; 2 = infrequent evidence of; 3 = evidence of but many hurdles; 4 = substantial evidence and problem-solving attitude.

faith in the judicial system, what happens when you break a contract with your employer, do you consider the treaty valid, do you think the judicial system is fair or do criminals normally get away with little or no justice? How should wildlife crime be regarded by your government? Which problems do you identify in the current justice system?

179

APPENDIX C

LIST OF INTERVIEWS, QUESTIONNAIRES, WORKSHOPS, AND OTHER MEETINGS

Table 23: List of interviews and questionnaires

Nr Date Interviewee Data source Organization Position Category

1 11/5/2010 Willem van Riet Notes PPF Chief Executive Officer NGO

2 11/3/2011 Richard Burroughs Notes AHEAD Network Chair Research

3 16/3/2011 Craig Beech Notes PPF GPS specialist NGO

4 28/3/2011 Richard Burroughs Notes AHEAD Network Chair Research

5 5/5/2011 PPF management team

Powerpoint and notes

PPF NGO

6 9/5/2011 Bartolomeu Soto Notes ANAC; SADC

Director, TFCA Unit; TFCA Senior Manager

High-level governance

7 2/8/2011 Johan Verhoef Audio PPF/Sanparks GMTFCA International Coordinator

High-level policy maker

8 8/8/2011 Paul Hatty Audio Mopani Lodge Mapungubwe Buffer Zone

Owner; previous minister of Environment, Zimbabwe

Ecotourism; Key informant

9 16/8/2011 Clara Bocchino Audio North West University Consultant Research

10 24/8/2011 Erik Schipper Audio Private business Ecotourism operator Ecotourism

11 24/8/2011 Esta Audio Employee, key informant Ecotourism establishment Ecotourism

12 24/8/2011 Clementine Audio Employee, key informant Ecotourism establishment Ecotourism

13 25/8/2011 Munya Chitakira Audio Key informant Masvingo Local District Local government

14 26/8/2011 Kagiso Moletsane Audio Business man South Africa Ecotourism

15 26/8/2011 Deon Buitendach Audio and notes

Recreational hunter Ecotourism operator Ecotourism

16 3/9/2011 Harry Biggs Audio KNP Scientific Services Head of Programmes

Parastatal

17 2/4/2012 Marisa Coetzee Notes MTPA Scientific Services Ecology Director

Provincial government

180

Nr Date Interviewee Data source Organization Position Category

18 11/5/2012 Wayne Twine Audio Witwatersrand University Rural Facility

Director of Facility Bushbuckridge

Research; Local key informant

19 16/5/2012 Harry Biggs and Marisa Coetzee

Notes KNP and MTPA Scientific Services Head of Programmes; Scientific Services Ecology Director

Parastatal; Provincial government

20 23/5/2012 Louise Swemmer Notes KNP Head Social Ecologist Park employee

21 29/5/2012 Marie-Tinka Uys Audio K2C biosphere Board member; Manager, Environmental Monitors

Buffer zone reserve; National government

22 30/5/2012 Marie-Tinka Uys Notes K2C biosphere Board member; Manager, Environmental Monitors

Buffer zone reserve; National government

23 30/5/2012 Richard Green Audio DAFF Temporary Director of Forestry

National government

24 31/5/2012 Solly Temba Audio KNP Section manager of People in Parks Programme

Park employee

25 5/6/2012 Joshua Ngomane Audio MTPA PAM district manager Provincial government

26 6/6/2012 Jimmy Thanyani Audio Manyeleti CPA Manager Provincial government

27 6/6/2012 Simon Manyike Audio Andover CPA Manager Provincial government

28 8/6/2012 Piet Theron Notes Independent Consultant Previous GLTFCA International Coordinator

Private sector; Key informant

29 5/7/2012 Marisa Coetzee Notes MTPA Scientific Services Ecology Director

Provincial government

30 5/7/2012 Harry van der Linde Audio African Wildlife Foundation Regional head NGO

31 17/7/2012 Antionet van Wyk Audio Sanparks Operational programme head: Working For programmes

Parastatal

32 17/7/2012 Olga Jacobs Audio Sanparks Regional Programme manager; Working For programmes

Parastatal

33 24/7/2012 Harry van der Linde Audio African Wildlife Foundation Regional head NGO

34 25/7/2012 Alan Gardiner Notes SAWC Senior lecturer Research

181

Nr Date Interviewee Data source Organization Position Category

35 25/7/2012 Andrew Parker Audio Sabi Sand Private Game Reserve

Manager Private nature reserve in buffer zone

36 25/7/2012 Loma Powry Audio Sabi Sand Private Game Reserve

Financial manager Private nature reserve in buffer zone

37 26/7/2012 Bjorn Reyninghaus Audio SA government State Vet National government

38 26/7/2012 Mike Peel Audio ARC Rangelands Research head Research

39 31/7/2012 Jan Vermeulen Audio Bushbuckridge KNP buffer zone key informant

Buffer zone community member

Local community member

40 31/7/2012 Karen Steenkamp Audio LEDET Programme manager Provincial government

41 3/8/2012 Piet Theron Audio Independent Consultant Previous GLTFCA International Coordinator

Private sector; Key informant

42 6/8/2012 Bonny Bridgeford Audio Sanparks Regional manager Parastatal

43 6/8/2012 Llewellyn Foxcroft Audio KNP Scientific Services Park employee

44 16/8/2012 Rebecca Mabaso Audio DEDET Social Science Coordinator Provincial government

45 16/8/2012 Lena Notes Islington village, key informant

Teacher Local community member

46 21/8/2012 Jacques Brits Audio Timbavati Private Reserve Manager Private nature reserve buffer zone

47 22/8/2012 Juan de Beer Audio MTPA Wildlife protection Provincial government

48 22/8/2012 Marinda Marais Notes MTPA Social Science Head Provincial government

49 30/8/2012 Solomon Nyembe Audio Bushbuckridge District Council

Manager Local Economic Development

Local community government

50 30/8/2012 Silas Bulunga Audio Bushbuckridge District Council

Ward Councillor Local community government

51 6/9/2012 Sam Ferreira Audio Sanparks Limpopo TFCA Technical Working Group Vet; Large mammal specialist

Parastatal; TFCA

52 6/9/2012 Freek Venter Audio KNP Conservation Manager Parastatal

53 6/9/2012 Danie Pienaar Audio KNP Head Scientific Services Parastatal

54 11/9/2012 Kevin Balkwell Audio University of Witwatersrand Director of Zoological Sciences and Wits Rural Facility

Research, Local community key informant

182

Nr Date Interviewee Data source Organization Position Category

55 17/10/2012 Markus Hofmeyr Audio KNP Head of Vet Services; Chair of Limpopo TFCA Technical Working Group Vets

Parastatal; TFCA

56 4/2/2013 Lena Voice notes Islington village, key informant

Teacher Local community member

57 5/3/2013 Piet Theron and Clara Bocchino

Notes PPF/ Sanparks/DEA

GLTFCA International Coordinator; AHEAD-GLTFCA Network Coordinator

High-level policy makers

58 19/4/2013 Piet Theron Audio PPF/ Sanparks/DEA

GLTFCA International Coordinator

High-level policy maker

59 19/4/2013 Paul Bewsher Audio PPF Program manager High-level policy maker

60 23/4/2013 Johan Verhoef2 Audio PPF GMTFCA International Coordinator

High-level policy maker

61 19/6/2013 Ernest Mokganedi Audio DEA Director, TFCA unit High-level governance

62 19/6/2013 Johan Verhoef 3 Notes PPF/ Sanparks

GMTFCA International Coordinator

High-level policy maker

63 26/6/2013 Piet Theron Notes PPF/ Sanparks/DEA

GLTFCA International Coordinator

High-level policy maker

64 27/6/2013 Piet Theron and Clara Bocchino

Notes PPF/ Sanparks/DEA

GLTFCA International Coordinator; AHEAD-GLTFCA Network Coordinator

High-level policy makers

65 2/7/2013 Karen Steenkamp Notes LEDET Programme Manager Provincial government

66 2/7/2013 Louis Olivier Audio and notes

KNP Head ranger Park employee

67 11/7/2013 James Blignaut Notes Independent/ University of Pretoria

Resource Economic Consultant

Research

68 1/8/2013 Louise Swemmer Notes KNP Head Social Ecologist Park employee

69 3/8/2013 Antonio Abacar Audio PNL Park Manager Park employee

70 20/8/2013 Jabu Linden Audio Vhembi Biosphere Administrative manager, Board member

Buffer zone reserve

71 26/8/2013 Antony Alexander Audio PNL/PPF Advisor to PNL management NGO/Park employee

72 26/8/2013 Billy Swanepoel Notes PNL/PPF Operational manager NGO/Park employee

183

Nr Date Interviewee Data source Organization Position Category

73 26/8/2013 Ricardina Matusse Notes ANAC Community Development Coordinator

National Government

74 27/8/2013 Albert Machaba Audio KNP Northern KNP Regional Ranger

Parastatal

75 27/8/2013 Marius Renke Notes KNP Northern KNP Section ranger Parastatal

76 9/9/2013 Clara Bocchino Notes University of Pretoria/ Sanparks/PPF

AHEAD-GLTFCA Network Coordinator

Research; TFCA

77 30/10/2013 Piet Theron Notes PPF/ Sanparks/DEA

GLTFCA International Coordinator

High-level policy maker

78 7/11/2013 Piet Theron Notes PPF/ Sanparks/DEA

GLTFCA International Coordinator

High-level Policy maker

79 10/2/2014 Peter Ncube Audio Beitbridge Rural District Council

Acting Head of CAMPFIRE Local government

80 10/2/2014 Beatrice Ponela Audio Beitbridge Rural District Council

CAMPFIRE Assistant Officer Local government

81 10/2/2014 Power Mupunga Audio Gonarezhou NP Park manager, South section National government

82 11/2/2014 Power Mupunga Audio and notes

Gonarezhou NP Park manager, South section National government

83 11/2/2014 Thomas Choka Audio Chiredzi Rural District Council

Acting Executive Officer Natural Resources and Tourism

Local government

84 11/2/2014 Isaac Matsilele Audio Chiredzi Rural District Council

CAMPFIRE Coordinator Local government

85 11/2/2014 Evious Mpofu Audio Zimparks, Gonarezhou NP Park manager, north section National government

86 12/2/2014 Evious Mpofu Audio Zimparks, Gonarezhou NP Park manager, north section National government

87 12/2/2014 Henry Ndaimani Audio Gonarezhou NP Senior park ecologist National government

88 12/2/2014 Elias Libombo Audio Gonarezhou NP Community Liaison Officer National government

89 12/2/2014 Clive Stockil Audio and notes

Chilo Gorge Community Lodge

Chief Executive Officer Local community key informant; CAMPFIRE key informant

90 13/2/2014 Mark Saunders Audio Malilangwe Trust Manager Private nature reserve

91 5/3/2014 Peter Novellie Audio Sanparks Governance Governance specialist High-level policy maker

92 2/4/2014 Hilda Mthimunye Audio Sanparks Head of TFCA Unit High-level governance

184

Nr Date Interviewee Data source Organization Position Category

93 18/11/2014 Dr. Bartolomeu Soto Notes SADC Head of TFCA unit High-level policy maker

Nr Date Name Data Source Organization Position Category

1 Aug 2012 Andre Beetge Questionnaire SANBI Working for Water Manager National government

2 Aug 2012 Alan Gardiner Questionnaire SAWC Senior lecturer Research

3 Aug 2012 Brian Jackson Questionnaire ICMA Programme manager NGO

4 Aug 2012 Brian Morris Questionnaire MTPA Protected Areas Expansion Manager

Provincial government

5 Aug 2012 Colin Rowles Questionnaire Klaserie NR Manager Private nature reserve buffer zone

6 Aug 2012 Craig Ferguson Questionnaire Balule NR Manager Private nature reserve buffer zone

7 Aug 2012 Danny Govender Questionnaire KNP Wildlife Veterinarian Park employee

8 Aug 2012 Kathleen Saunders Questionnaire DEA Working for Water regional manager

National Government

9 Aug 2012 Tony Swemmer Questionnaire SAEON Director Research, environmental monitoring

10 Aug 2012 Hannes Marais Questionnaire MTPA Wetlands Porgramme Manager

Provincial government

11 Aug 2012 Jan Muller Questionnaire MTPA Wildlife Protection Services Provincial government

12 Aug 2012 Dries Pienaar Questionnaire MTPA Wildlife Protection Services Provincial government

13 Aug 2012 Johan Eksteen Questionnaire MTPA Acting head, Scientific Services

Provincial government

14 Aug 2012 Phillip Oosthuizen Questionnaire Hoedspruit Air Force Base NR

Manager State-owned nature reserve

15 Aug 2012 Rina Grant Questionnaire KNP Scientific Services Research Coordinator

Park employee

16 Aug 2012 Winners Masego Questionnaire DAFF Mariepskop NR Manager State-owned nature reserve

185

Table 24: List of Mental Model workshops

Date Mental Model Workshops Documentation Venue

1 Natural Resource Management Group Captured in:

Coetzee, M., Biggs H.C., and Malan, S. (2012) Sharing the benefits of biodiversity: a regional action plan to nurture and sustain the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services to livelihoods and resilient economic development within the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere. Report first officially presented on 16th November 2012 in Nelspruit.

2 31/8/2012 Protected Areas and Park Expansion

SAWC

3 17/8/2012 Wildlife Protection Service Hoedspruit

4 28/8/2012 Production sector – Forestry Nelspruit

5 7/9/2012 Production Sector- Water Nelspruit

6 Biodiversity / Research

7 Capacity Building and Social Ecology

8 Veterinary Services

9 6/7/2012 Local Government Bushbuckridge

10 Tourism

186

Table 25: List of other meetings and workshops

Date Workshop/Conference/ Meeting

Document Venue

1-4/3/2011 AHEAD Mopani Workshop report Mopani

17/3/2011 TB socio Stellenbosch Workshop report Stellenbosch

22-23/3/2011 Hans Hoheisen Open Day Audio Hans Hoheisen Research Station

5-9/3/2012 10th Network meeting Workshop report Skukuza

7/6/2012 Payment for Ecosystems Workshop report MTPA Nelspruit

7/3/2012 First K2C Network meeting Meeting minutes Skukuza

6/7/2012 Bushbuckridge Local Municipality meeting

Meeting minutes Bushbuckridge

9/8/2012 K2C meeting Meeting minutes Hoedspruit

5/9/2012 Sabi Sand NGO meeting Meeting notes Sabi Sand Wildtuin

16/11/2012 DEA meeting Meeting minutes Nelspruit

13/2/2013 K2C Technical Committee Meeting report Hoedspruit

4-9/3/2013 11th Savannah Network Workshop report Skukuza KNP

23-25/7/2013 AHEAD TFCA Socio-economic research workshop

Workshop report SAWC

26/7/2013 AHEAD Interim Meeting Meeting minutes SAWC

1/8/2013 SAWC Open Day Workshop report SAWC

5/8/2013 GLTFCA Inst. Reform Workshop for JMB

Workshop report Skukuza, KNP

6/8/2013 Lowveld PAs meeting Meeting minutes Skukuza, KNP

2/8/2013 Bilateral section ranger meeting

Meeting minutes KNP Makhadzi picnic site on border

10/12/2013 Sanparks Policy Think Tank Report Sanparks Headquarters, Pretoria

22/4/2014 Policy Feedback meeting Report Pretoria, City Lodge Boardroom

187

APPENDIX D: DETAILED MAPS

Figure 43: Detailed map of the Greater Limpopo TFCA (Source: SANParks brochure www.sanparks.org)

188

Figure 44: The Greater Mapungubwe Concept Development Plan Phase 1 (Source: GMTFCA IDP 2010)