A stakeholder review of the Limpopo-Shashe Transfrontier...

A stakeholder review of the Limpopo-Shashe

Transfrontier Conservation Area, southern Africa,

as a tool to promote and improve

adaptive management and impact assessment

Anne Treasure

(Student ID: 2706577; Exam candidate number: 48843)

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment for a Master of Science in

Biodiversity, Conservation and Management

Oxford University Centre for the Environment

September 2006

Word count: 15,612 (Including abstract, footnotes, figure legends & table headings;

excluding acronyms, acknowledgements, table text, & reference list)

Disclaimer: Except where otherwise stated and acknowledged I certify that this Dissertation is my sole and unaided work

This research has been made possible by a small grant from the CBBIA-IAIA

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS ..........................................................................................................................................3 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................5 1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7 2. TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AND THE LS-TFCA..............................................10

2.1. THE LIMPOPO-SHASHE TFCA..............................................................................................11 3. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTEXTUALISATION: A REVIEW.....................17 4. METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................................21 5. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................25

5.1. STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ........................................................................................................25 5.2. BENEFITS AND OPPORTUNITIES: ADVANTAGES.....................................................................26 5.3. VALUES ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................................31 5.4. ISSUES AND CONCERNS: PROBLEMS......................................................................................35 5.5. SWOT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................42

6. DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................................43 6.1. BENEFITS, OPPORTUNITIES, ISSUES AND CONCERNS .............................................................43 6.2. VALUES................................................................................................................................58 6.3. THE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................61

7. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................66 8. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................69 9. APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................75

Acronyms

CAPE Cape Action for People and the Environment CBD The Convention on Biological Diversity CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism IUCN The World Conservation Union LS- TFCA Limpopo-Shashe Transfrontier Conservation Area M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoU Memorandum of Understanding NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NTGR Northern Tuli Game Reserve NOTUGRE Northern Tuli Game Reserve Landowners Association NEPAD The New Partnership for African Development PA Protected Area PPF The Peace Parks Foundation SA South African SADC The South African Development Community SAM Strategic Adaptive Management SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANParks South African National Parks S-LPRG Shashe-Limpopo Predator Research Group TBNRM Transboundary Natural Resource Management TBPA Transboundary Protected Area TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

Limpopo-Shashe TFCA September 2006

Student ID: 2706577 of 79

Abstract

The Limpopo-Shashe TFCA (LS-TFCA) is situated at the confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe Rivers,

encompassing areas in three countries - Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The LS-TFCA has the

potential to offer a diverse tourism package including wildlife and cultural heritage. It is a complex TFCA in

that it has a diverse array of stakeholders, multiple land use options that need to be incorporated, and an

environment of changing ecological, political and socio-economic conditions in all three countries in which

it is situated. Adopting an adaptive management approach would facilitate the incorporation of this variety

and change as well as help to assess impacts over time. However, without understanding the views of

stakeholders, setting objectives and targets for management would be an impossible task. In order to promote

and improve adaptive management, this study includes a stakeholder review to assess: benefits,

opportunities, values, concerns and issues. Ecological benefits, particularly the free movement of animals,

were rated as the most important benefit, with social and economic (related to tourism) benefits also being

prominent. In general, stakeholders displayed strong intrinsic and indirect use (ecological) values. The top

issue highlighted by stakeholders was poaching, a current threat that many hope the LS-TFCA can help to

reduce. Tension between stakeholders, particularly concerns surrounding elephant management, is also a

current threat to the successful development of the LS-TFCA. This information would be useful to the

stakeholders of the LS-TFCA, including those responsible for decision making and policy in order for them

to determine which interventions are more likely to succeed to achieve LS-TFCA objectives.

Keywords

Transfrontier Conservation Areas, Limpopo-Shashe TFCA, adaptive management, impact assessment,

stakeholder review, context, Transboundary Natural Resource Management, values



Acknowledgements

There are many people I need to thank for helping me during the very challenging task of putting this project

together. Thank you to Mandy Driver, Belinda Reyers and Harry Biggs for your encouragement and for

reading through endless proposals as my ideas developed and changed over the course of 6 months. Your

kind patience and advice was much appreciated!

To the CAPE team in Cape Town - Mandy Barnett, Sam Court and Monique Damons - thank you for the

desk space and for being so kind to me while I was in Cape Town. Also, thank you to all at SANBI in

Pretoria for giving me a base to work from, particularly Mandy Driver, Tammy Smith and Tilla Raimondo.

For advice I also thank Conrad Steenkamp and Daniel Marnewick of the Transboundary Protected Area

Research Initiative (TPARI), Trevor Sandwith (CAPE), Harriet Davies Mostert of the Carnivore

Conservation Group, Endangered Wildlife Trust, and Sedia Modise of PPF Botswana. Thank you to the

people of SANParks for your kind help, particularly Harry Biggs for all your suggestions and information,

Patricia Khoza and Stefan Cilliers for helping to organise accommodation, Stephen Holness for comments

on my original proposal, and Piet Theron and Johan Verhoef for patiently replying to my many emails and

queries! Tebogo Matolong and Aruna Seepersadh from DEAT – thank you for documentation and Craig

Beech (PPF) for the maps. And to all those I interviewed, I cannot mention you one by one, but thank you

for providing me with your ideas and opinions.

To Stuart Quinn & Annelien van Schalkwyk on Kwa-Tuli Private Game Reserve, I cannot thank you enough

for your incredible hospitality and energy, and for providing two excellent nights accommodation. Thank

you also to Sarah Bishop and Martin Bornman of African Conservation Experience for helping to organise

this stay in Botswana.

This study was made possible by a small grant from the CBBIA (Capacity Building for good practice in

Biodiversity and Impact Assessment) programme of the IAIA (International Association for Impact

Assessment) through a donation from the Dutch Government. From the CBBIA-IAIA, I thank Bridget John

for all your help with the administration of the grant and to Jo Treweek, Richard Fuggle, Susie Brownlie and

Bryony Walmsley for your advice whilst in Norway.



I also thank my supervisor, Rob Whittaker, for advice and for comments on my first draft.

Thank you to Des and Francois de Lange for my comfortable bed in Pretoria; and, to Dup and all at Alldays,

thank you for the many entertaining evenings!

A special thank you goes to my family – Mom, Dad, Karen, Mouse and Dwayne – and to Almero for your

incredible support and encouragement throughout my Masters.



1. Introduction

Transfrontier or transboundary conservation is not a new concept. The idea has been in discussion since the

early 1920’s and the first transfrontier protected area, the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park between

Canada and the United States of America, was established in 1932 (Mittermeier et al., 2005). There has been

a rapid growth in the number of transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) over the last 15 years – from 59 in

1988, mainly in Europe and North America, to 169 in 2001, with examples from every continent (Zbicz,

2001).

The establishment of TFCAs in southern Africa was facilitated by post-apartheid political, socio-economic

and historical circumstances (Ramutsindela, 2004). In South Africa, the state and Non-Governmental

Organisations (NGOs) seek to establish TFCAs for a variety of popularised political reasons, such as

‘promoting peace in the region’, ‘pooling resources to improve economies of scale’, and the ecological

principles of reserve design (Magome & Murombedzi, 2003).

The Limpopo-Shashe TFCA (LS-TFCA) encompasses areas in three countries - Botswana, South Africa and

Zimbabwe. The selection of the LS-TFCA is based on the rich biodiversity of the area, its scenic beauty and

the importance of cultural heritage (Modise, 2002; De la Harpe & de la Harpe, 2004). The core area of the

LS-TFCA was officially agreed upon in June 2006; further areas demarcated for inclusion will be

incorporated at a later date (MoU, 2006). More than 70% of the total area of LS-TFCA is privately owned.

This brings about a unique blend of different stakeholders with different objectives and priorities. The

greatest challenge therefore is to find the approach that will suit the needs of all parties whilst simultaneously

ensuring the sustainable development through tourism and the conservation of biodiversity (PPF, 2006).

Although TFCAs are a popular initiative, there are many issues and criticisms regarding their development.

For one, insufficient studies have been done on assessing the actual socio-economic, political and ecological

benefits and impacts of TFCAs (Reyers, 2003). In order to inform policy and decision-making on TFCA

initiatives, there is a need for a strategic tool to measure the performance and contribution of TFCAs while

accommodating the specific needs of particular circumstances (Sandwith, 2003; Fourie & Fakir, 2004). In



this regard, importance has been placed on the need for an adaptive management approach, which includes

measurable targets for achieving impact based on original objectives (Agrawal, 2000; Sandwith, 2003).

Management of natural resources is often conducted under great uncertainty regarding future conditions

(Johnson, 1999). If we hope to improve management, we must learn as we go – the essence of adaptive

management (Johnson, 1999). Adaptive management is not restricted to natural resource management, but

also management issues dominated by economic and social factors (Sabine et al., 2004). The greatest

benefits from adaptive management in TFCAs occur when there are high levels of cooperation between

stakeholders (Agrawal, 2000) and many problems with the implementation of adaptive management have to

do with conflicts regarding values and management goals (Johnson, 1999).

Management is ultimately aimed at increasing the value of a resource to humans; thus, any planning and

management should consider how stakeholders value the resource, what knowledge they can contribute and

any concerns the stakeholders across national boundaries might have (Johnson, 1999; van der Linde et al.,

2001). The LS-TFCA is complex in that it is has a diverse array of stakeholders, multiple land use options

that need to be incorporated, and an environment of changing ecological, political and socio-economic

conditions in all three countries in which it is situated. Under these circumstances, adopting an adaptive

management approach would be highly beneficial. However, without knowing the views of stakeholders,

setting objectives and targets for management would be an impossible task.

Many conservation organisations have adopted an adaptive management approach for their projects (Rogers

& Bestbier, 1997; Hockings et al., 2000; Salafsky et al., 2001; Biggs & Rogers, 2003; CMP, 2004;

Baumgartner et al., 2005). The first step in these adaptive project management cycles - called visioning or

contextualisation - provides a ‘current status’ report for the conservation project and places importance on

understanding the values and concerns of stakeholders. This understanding, together with an analysis of

threats, needs and opportunities, makes it possible to determine which interventions are more likely to

succeed and what resources will be required to achieve the conservation goals (CMP, 2004). This approach

not only improves project management, but also promotes accountability (Hockings et al., 2000).



In this study, I recommend that an adaptive management approach be adopted for the LS-TFCA. In order to

promote and improve the implementation of such an approach, I aim to provide a current status report of

stakeholder values, perceived benefits, opportunities, issues, concerns, and current and potential threats

facing the LS-TFCA. Specifically, I aim to answer the following questions:

• Who are the stakeholders of the LS-TFCA?

• What do the stakeholders perceive as the main benefits and opportunities of the LS-TFCA?

• What are the stakeholder values that make the LS-TFCA significant?

• What are the concerns and issues identified by the stakeholders?

• What are the main stresses and threats facing the LS-TFCA?

• What is the current policy and management environment of the LS-TFCA?

This study on the LS-TFCA is not meant to be seen as a case study for all TFCAs; all TFCAs are different,

facing different problems. This report aims to provide information for the stakeholders and policy makers

involved with the LS-TFCA. It is important to note that it was possible to interview only a limited number of

stakeholders. It is recognised that a limiting factor in obtaining a complete overview stems from the fact that

it was not possible to include all levels of stakeholders from all three countries. This was due to both time

constraints of the project and also the extreme difficulty in communicating with, and in some cases,

obtaining cooperation from certain stakeholders.1 However, it is felt that the stakeholders interviewed

provided an excellent general outlook. I recommend that further studies are undertaken, whereby all

stakeholders of the LS-TFCA are interviewed for a full synthesis of opinions.

This report begins with a brief review of transfrontier conservation, the LS-TFCA and adaptive management,

followed by the results and discussion of the stakeholder review. The methodology for the stakeholder

review will be described before the results of that section.

1 It was particularly difficult to communicate with or get cooperation from government institutions in Botswana and Zimbabwe.

This is seen as a problem with working in developing countries where communications can sometimes be challenging.



2. Transfrontier conservation and the LS-TFCA

In the emerging literature on transfrontier conservation, much is made of the subtle differences between

Peace Parks, Transboundary Protected Areas (TBPAs), Transboundary Natural Resource Management

(TBNRM) and TFCAs (Table 1) but in essence these all refer to situations where conservation initiatives

straddle national boundaries (Wolmer, 2003). For the sake of consistency and clarity, this report adopts the

World Conservation Union (IUCN) terminology using TFCAs as the broad all-encompassing term (Bakarr,

2003; Mittermeier et al., 2005).

Table 1: Transfrontier conservation initiative definitions

Conservation

initiative Definition Reference

TBPA “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.”

Sandwith et al.

(2001)

TFCA “A TFCA is similar to a TBPA. In a TFCA, protected areas may be,

but are not necessarily, a feature of the regional landscape, but

where conservation and sustainable development goals have been

asserted within a framework of cooperative management.”

Mittermeier et al.

(2005)

Peace Parks “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

co-operation.”

Sandwith et al.

(2001)

TBNRM “Any process of collaboration across boundaries that increases the

effectiveness of attaining natural resource management or

biodiversity conservation goal(s).”

van der Linde et

al. (2001)

There has been an exponential increase in the number of TFCAs worldwide (Sandwith et al., 2001). In the

southern African sub-region the establishment of TFCAs is an extension of goodwill and equitable sharing of

the benefits derived from the conservation of natural resources (Modise, 2002). With the establishment of the



Kgalagadi TFCA between South Africa and Botswana in 1999, the notion of TFCAs increased in popularity,

government support and donor funding (Reyers, 2003). There are currently 15 TFCAs in southern Africa in

various stages of development (Duffy, 2006), the aims of which include the fostering of regional peace, the

provision of more effective biodiversity management and the promotion of socio-economic development

through ecotourism (van Amerom, 2002).

2.1. The Limpopo-Shashe TFCA

The LS-TFCA is situated at the confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe Rivers, encompassing areas in three

countries - Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Map showing the regional location of the LS-TFCA, southern Africa (adapted from A. du

Pisanie)



The selection of the LS-TFCA is based on the rich biodiversity of the area, its scenic beauty and the

importance of cultural heritage in the region (Modise, 2002; De la Harpe & de la Harpe, 2004). The area

supports populations of big game, all major predators, and offers potential for the development of a viable,

consumptive and non-consumptive tourism industry (PPF, 2006). Specifically, the objectives of the

LS-TFCA are to:

• foster trans-national collaboration and co-operation between Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe;

• promote alliances in the management of biological and cultural resources;

• enhance ecosystem integrity and natural ecological processes;

• develop frameworks and strategies whereby local communities can participate in, and benefit from, the

management and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources; and,

• promote cross-border tourism as a means of fostering regional socio-economic development.

The core area of the LS-TFCA has recently been officially agreed upon – the Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) was signed on 22 June 2006. The MoU is simply a statement of intent and cooperation

that a TFCA will be formally developed and is signed by the environment ministers for the countries

concerned. At present, there are three areas that are part of the official LS-TFCA: in Botswana: the Northern

Tuli Game Reserve Landowners Association; in South Africa: Mapungubwe National Park and core area

properties; and, in Zimbabwe: the Tuli Circle Safari Area (MoU, 2006) (Figure 2). Further areas that have

been demarcated for inclusion will be incorporated at a later date (MoU, 2006). The greater LS-TFCA, once

established, will include national parks, privately owned ranches and communal land, with a total area of

approximately 4,900 km2 of which 53% is in South Africa, 28% is in Botswana, and 19% is in Zimbabwe

(Purchase & Wilson, 2004).



Figure 2: The areas of the LS-TFCA, southern Africa (adapted from PPF, 2006)



2.1.a. Mapungubwe National Park, South Africa

Mapungubwe National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage site. The cultural resources of the Limpopo-

Shashe basin are generally associated with Iron Age settlements of around 1,200 AD (Modise, 2002). The

region has a rich archaeological history with numerous archaeological sites, San rock paintings and dinosaur

fossils (Modise, 2002).

2.1.b. Northern Tuli Game Reserve (NTGR), Botswana

The NTGR consists of private landowners who have already dropped their fences and formed an association

called the Northern Tuli Game Reserve Landowners Association (NOTUGRE). NOTUGRE and the

government of Botswana have drawn up an official agreement between themselves for NOTUGRE to have

private game reserve status and to be part of the LS-TFCA.

2.1.c. Tuli Circle Safari Area, Zimbabwe

This is a hunting concession area.

2.1.d. Greater LS-TFCA region (Figure 2)

South Africa

South African National Parks (SANParks) is negotiating to include the following properties on a contractual

basis:

• Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve: owned by De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd.

• Limpopo Valley Game Reserve: a conservancy of private lands made up of 31 members; members have

not yet coordinated natural resource management or dropped fences between their properties

• Vhembe Game Reserve: privately owned

There are various private farms (including some agricultural farms) which are to be incorporated into the

LS-TFCA.



Botswana

There are various private farms (including some agricultural farms) which are to be included into the

LS-TFCA. The Lentswe-le-Moriti Community is located in the south west corner of the NTGR, although

they are not members of NOTUGRE.

Zimbabwe

The Marimani Community of about 6,000 people is to be included, as well as Sentinel Ranch and

Nottingham Estate, which are private lands.

Organisations play different roles in the TFCA process in southern Africa. The Peace Parks Foundation

(PPF) is a South African NGO which acts as the facilitator; they initiate the TFCA process by providing

donor money for initial development and for processes such as the drafting of the MoU. Once the MoU has

been signed, the process is taken over by implementing agencies in the various countries who are then

responsible for the organisation and development of the TFCA. The implementing agencies for the

LS-TFCA are: SANParks (South Africa); The Department of Wildlife and National Parks (Botswana); and,

The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (Zimbabwe).

More than 70% of the total area of the LS-TFCA is privately owned. This brings about a unique blend of

different stakeholders with different objectives and priorities. The greatest challenge therefore is to find the

approach that will suit the needs of all parties. Establishing any nature reserve nowadays is a formidable

challenge in the face of strongly competing interests for the same land (Westing, 1998).

Whereas the advocacy of TFCAs in southern Africa has been well promoted and publicised, criticism of

them is growing (Metcalfe, 2003; Wolmer, 2003). Initiatives have been dynamic but also characterised by

confusion and conflict over their objectives and precise definition (Metcalfe, 2003). Some have even argued

that TFCAs are no more than a latter day form of ‘green’ imperialism as former commons are privatised or

captured via ‘joint ventures’ and nature is progressively commoditised (Wolmer, 2003; Jones, 2004).

Furthermore, TFCAs attract huge foreign donor funding, national prestige and international recognition, all

of which are much needed in the southern Africa region. As a result, some feel that state agencies and NGOs



view TFCAs as a quick fix to lack of development, particularly in remote rural areas (Magome &

Murombedzi, 2003). Not surprisingly, TFCAs face many challenges, not the least co-operating across

borders can increase the complexity of conservation efforts and cost of management (Jackson, 2003).

The actual benefits and impacts of TFCAs have been poorly studied (Reyers, 2003; Jones, 2005). Studies

that have been conducted indicate that some benefits are not being realised. For example Jones (2005)

presents results that indicate the Mbangweni Community in KwaZulu-Natal bordering the Lubombo TFCA

(South Africa / Swaziland / Mozambique) could experience decreased access to social, natural and economic

resources as a result of the TFCA. Furthermore, creation of a TFCA does not automatically imply or

guarantee a conservation success (Bakarr, 2003).

Conservation practitioners and organisations are facing increasing pressure from donors, governments, local

stakeholders, and society as a whole to demonstrate clear and tangible results (Salafsky et al., 2001). To this

end, it is vital that transboundary conservation programmes implement frameworks that promote

accountability, assess impacts and improve project planning. Specifically, TFCA programmes need to adopt

an adaptive management approach, guided by a clear rationale for the transboundary programme, and by the

adoption of measurable targets for achieving impact in terms of that rationale (Sandwith, 2003).

Throughout the report, the term LS-TFCA is used to denote the entire area of the TFCA (i.e. those areas

already included and those still to be incorporated).



3. Adaptive management and contextualisation: a review

One of the earliest calls for measuring effectiveness of PAs came from Holling and colleagues in the 1960s

(Foundations of Success et al., 2004). The group developed what they termed “adaptive environmental

assessment and management,” also known as adaptive management (Foundations of Success et al., 2004).

Management of natural resources is often conducted under great uncertainty regarding future conditions,

relationships among components, user response to management, management objectives, and even

abundance of the resource itself (Johnson, 1999). Adaptive management provides a solution to this

uncertainty and consists of the following four elements: “trial and error”; “focussed on experimentation”;

“research”; and, “learning by doing” (Walters & Holling, 1990; Salafsky et al., 2001; Meffe et al., 2002).

Adaptive management also places a strong emphasis on communication and participation and is seen as a

key tool to promote accountability.

Advancing on previous concepts, Rogers & Bestbier (1997) developed a formal process termed “Strategic

Adaptive Management” (SAM) (Figure 3). SAM differs from conventional adaptive management in having a

stronger emphasis on the forward-looking component, attempting to operate in a proactive rather than

reactive mode (Biggs & Rogers, 2003).

Hierarchical definition of desired conditions

Ecosystem outcomes and indices for measurement

Scope and contextualise the unexpected

Possible management actions to achieve goals “Predict”

consequences of possible actions

Select appropriate management action/s

Implement management action/s

Monitor using indices

Audit against desired outcomes

Research

Stakeholders

Stakeholders

Vision of future

Operating principles

System context

System drivers

Visioning

Hierarchical definition of desired conditions

Ecosystem outcomes and indices for measurement

Scope and contextualise the unexpected

Possible management actions to achieve goals “Predict”

consequences of possible actions

Select appropriate management action/s

Implement management action/s

Monitor using indices

Audit against desired outcomes

Research

Stakeholders

Stakeholders

Vision of future

Operating principles

System context

System drivers

Visioning

Figure 3: The basic steps of the Strategic Adaptive Management process (adapted from Rogers, 2005)



The process places emphasis on the formal recognition of the role played by values in decision making and

the first step of visioning includes a stakeholder review (Rogers, 2005). In this decision making environment

(Figure 4), it is important to understand, with stakeholders, the social, technological, ecological, economical

and political context (STEEP) of the system to be managed, and the principles/values that guide

management, as well as to develop a broadly acceptable vision of the future (Rogers & Bestbier, 1997;

Rogers, 2005).

Figure 4: The decision making environment for an adaptive management process

(Source: Diagram by Kevin Rogers in an unpublished record of a workshop on conceptual

frameworks for the AHEAD-GLTFCA programme, Skukuza, May 2005)

Many organisations, including the IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, the Biodiversity Support Program and

Foundations of Success have adopted an adaptive management project cycle approach (Salafsky et al.,

2001), the first step of which includes visioning and contextualisation. These organisations place vital

importance on understanding the context in which a conservation project takes place (CMP, 2004;

Baumgartner et al., 2005). By understanding the perspectives and desires of stakeholders, together with an

analysis of threats, needs and opportunities, it is possible to determine which interventions are more likely to

succeed, what resources will be required to achieve the conservation goals and targets, and how best to

assess impacts based on original objectives (CMP, 2004).



An adaptive management project cycle that is increasingly being adopted into conservation programmes is

the IUCN’s framework for assessing PA management effectiveness (Hockings et al., 2000). This framework

(Figure 5) is based upon the premise that management starts by assessing the context of existing status and

threats, before progressing to planning, allocation of resources and outcome evaluations (Mabunda, 2004;

Gilligan et al., 2005).

Figure 5: The IUCN management cycle and evaluation (Hockings et al., 2000)

To date, most visioning and contextualisation studies for adaptive management cycles have been done at the

level of PA or system of PAs within a country. Far less work has been done on TFCAs. There are various

levels of management and collaboration in TFCAs, from no cooperation to full cooperation (Zbicz, 1999).

There are many management benefits from extending across boundaries, including greater efficiency of

combining efforts and the potential improvement of conditions that previously impacted on management,

such as smuggling across borders (Mittermeier et al., 2005). However, management in a TFCA context is

complex, particularly because of the added layer of complication created by the international dimension as

well as the fact that many of the tools for PA management are site-specific and do not extend much beyond

the PA boundaries (Mittermeier et al., 2005). Management in this situation therefore needs to be flexible to

change in not only the ecological conditions, but also the socio-economic and political conditions in all of



the countries involved. Furthermore, in a transboundary context, if local residents are drawn into the

management of TFCAs on the grounds of adaptive management, on-ground cooperation across the border

can proceed even in the presence of some level of tension between the relevant states (Agrawal, 2000).

The greatest benefits from adaptive management in TFCAs occur when there are high levels of stakeholder

cooperation and a lack of well-defined objectives that reflect stakeholder values seems to result in less

support for the process (Johnson, 1999; Agrawal, 2000). Many problems with the implementation of

adaptive management have been noted recently, mainly to do with conflicts regarding values and

management goals (Johnson, 1999).

Based on the reading I have done, for the LS-TFCA, which has such an array of stakeholders, I suggest that

to promote and improve adaptive management, a stakeholder review should be done to assess: benefits,

opportunities, values, concerns and issues. It is my opinion that this information would be useful to better

inform stakeholders of the LS-TFCA, including those responsible for decision making and policy.



4. Methodology

The assessment consisted of two parts: a desktop study to review literature on TFCAs, the LS-TFCA,

adaptive management and TBNRM; and, semi-structured key informant interviews with LS-TFCA

stakeholders and conservation professionals.

Desktop research and organisation was conducted in Oxford, United Kingdom, from December 2005 to June

2006. Further research and interviews were conducted in South Africa and Botswana from 26 June to 7

August 2006 in the following venues: in South Africa: Cape Town, Pretoria, Johannesburg, Musina and the

LS-TFCA area; and in Botswana: in the LS-TFCA area. In addition to interviews, information was gathered

from a public participation meeting that SANParks held in Musina (18 July 2006), the aim of which was to

discuss the Mapungubwe National Park management plan.

Initially, professionals in the fields of conservation, policy and management, monitoring and evaluation,

adaptive management and transfrontier conservation were contacted via email and telephone to collate

information on these topics in southern Africa and the LS-TFCA. In the first instance, contact details were

sourced from websites of organisations in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, including: the South

African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI); The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

(DEAT), South Africa; The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa; South

African National Parks (SANParks); Peace Parks Foundation (PPF), South Africa and Botswana; The

Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Botswana; and, The Department of National Parks and Wildlife

Management, Zimbabwe. In addition, through the literature review, international experts in the field of

transfrontier conservation were identified from publications and contacted via email for information and

advice.

The various components of the LS-TFCA were visually identified from maps obtained from the PPF,

including private farms, communal lands, national parks, and conservancy and agricultural lands. Research

into these areas was conducted and owners, employees or inhabitants of the areas identified. Further NGOs,

associations and individuals involved in the LS-TFCA were identified by research and via information from

contacts already made.



A potential stakeholder interviewee list was drawn up. This included government officials and national parks

authorities responsible for decision making and policy of the LS-TFCA; farmers, landowners and

communities in the LS-TFCA; academics and researchers who work in the area; NGOs who play any role in

the development of the LS-TFCA; and, conservation practitioners with an interest in TFCAs. The sampling

frame included not only stakeholders involved in the LS-TFCA, but also academics and professionals in the

field of conservation who were able to provide constructive input. Where possible, email addresses and

telephone numbers for these stakeholders were sourced from websites, by referral or from stakeholders

already contacted. Potential interviewees were initially contacted via email with a copy of the project

proposal attached. Where possible, emails were followed up by telephone calls in order to arrange and

confirm interview times. The list of interviewees is shown in Appendices 1 and 2.

The interview process followed a semi-structured format. The reason for interviewing is that the focus is on

elucidating motivations or perceptions rather than testing factual hypotheses (White et al., 2005). A semi-

structured format allows each interview to run its own course, depending on the responses of the

interviewees. Questions were open-ended; the topic is controversial and the various interviewees have

conflicting ideas and opinions - the point of this study was to extract and capture these various viewpoints.

This method is often regarded as providing rich data about real life people and situations and being more

able to make sense of behaviour and to understand behaviour within its wider context (de Vaus, 2002).

Furthermore, it allows for freedom and spontaneity of the answers and gives the opportunity to identify

emerging themes (Oppenheim, 2004). The process and configuration of each interview depended on the

answers given by the interviewees. Interviewees are also in different professions, with different knowledge

and experience of TFCAs and the LS-TFCA. Therefore, in any one interview, some questions were not asked

and additional questions were included; the order of questions also varied between interviews.

Upon approval from interviewees, interviews were recorded using a desktop microphone. These recordings

were then transcribed for ease of assessment and comparison. The data collected from the interviews is

qualitative and therefore not possible to analyse using statistical methods. Information was therefore

analysed in the following way to identify key themes and insights:



Interviewees were categorised into stakeholders groups. The interviewees were questioned about their

involvement in the LS-TFCA and what they perceived to be the benefits and opportunities that the LS-TFCA

will bring. All benefits and opportunities were interpreted to be advantages and were therefore classified as

such for ease of reference. The main benefit statements were collated and assessed for themes and

similarities to identify advantage categories, into which the statements were then grouped. The advantage

categories and statements were tabulated to show the benefits and opportunities that were highlighted and by

which stakeholder groups. Each category and the statements within them were organised in descending order

of significance. All statements from all categories were then organised in descending order of significance to

assess which statements were given the most by stakeholders.

To analyse which advantage categories carried the most significance, the number of times each statement

was given was totalled to give a statement value. These statement values were then totalled within the

relevant advantage categories to give category values, which were then compared graphically as a percentage

of the sum total of category values. In cases where statements overlapped into more than one advantage

category (for example poverty alleviation can be both an economic and a social benefit) - these statements

were added to all suitable categories.

Significance of the advantage categories within each stakeholder group was calculated by totalling the

statements given by all stakeholders in the various categories and then showing graphically as a percentage

of total statements given.

In order to assess the ways in which stakeholders value the ecological systems and natural resources, a

values analysis was performed for the ecological advantage category. Benefit and opportunity statements

were listed; those that referred to similar natural resource attributes were grouped together. Each group of

statements was interpreted as belonging to particular value type categories. The number of times each

stakeholder group gave a statement belonging to the various value types was totalled. The particular value

systems of the stakeholder groups were then compared. Benefit and opportunity statements could be

interpreted as belonging to more than one value grouping. The data from this study is qualitative and



therefore freeform. This makes interpretation of statements difficult; this piece of analysis is therefore highly

assumption laden.

Stakeholders were also questioned about their concerns regarding the LS-TFCA and the issues they perceive

to be important. All issues and concerns were interpreted to be problems and were therefore classified as

such for ease of reference. Except for the values assessment, the method of analysis for problem categories

followed that of the advantage categories above. Issues and concerns highlighted were interpreted as either

current or potential threats to the development of the LS-TFCA. Current threats could also be potential

(future) threats; however, for ease of reference, current threats were only classified as such.

It is noted that some stakeholder groups consisted of more interviewees than other groups. If stakeholder

groups followed similar thinking patterns, this could result in bias towards certain advantage and problem

categories for the simple reason that more statements regarding a particular benefit or issue would lead to a

higher statement value for that particular issue. However, it was found that the spread of comments was

equal and this problem was therefore minimal.

From information gained from research, a SWOT analysis was drawn up to highlight the main strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the development of the LS-TFCA.

In addition, in order to provide an institutional context for the implementation of an adaptive management

framework, a brief review of the current policy and management environment was compiled.

A stakeholder review of the Limpopo-Shashe Transfrontier...

Documents

Transcript of A stakeholder review of the Limpopo-Shashe Transfrontier...