assessment of management
TRANSCRIPT
1
MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS
Department of Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies
Topic
An assessment of the effectiveness of management approaches at World Heritage Sites
in Zimbabwe with special reference to the Matobo Hills World Heritage Site
By
LINCOLN SABUDU
R102026P
A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and
Museum Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a Bachelor of Arts
Honours Degree in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies.
SUPERVISOR: DAVISON CHIWARA (MA, PHD)
2
NOVEMBER 2013
MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY
APPROVAL FORM
This serves to confirm that the undersigned read and recommended to the department of
Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies at Midlands State University for
acceptance of a dissertation by Lincoln Sabudu.
Supervisor..............................................
............................................... ...............................
Signature Date
Department Chairman..................................................
.......................................... ............................
Signature Date
3
MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY
RELEASE FORM
Name of Student: Lincoln Sabudu
Reg Number: R102026P
Title of Dissertation: An assessment of the effectiveness of management approaches at
World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe with special reference to the
Matobo Hills World Heritage Site.
Department: Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies
Programme: B. A Honours in Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies
Permission is hereby granted to the Midlands State University to produce single copies of
this dissertation to lend such copies for private, scholarly or research purposes only.
Address 25 BURROWS CLOSE, OLD MARLBOROUGH, HARARE
Cell 0733932522
Signed.....................................................................
Date.............................................................................
4
DECLARATION
I, Lincoln Sabudu declare that this dissertation is original work that has not been previously
submitted to any other university.
Signed by....................................................................................
Lincoln Sabudu (R102026P)
Date……………………………………………………………….
5
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to Damson “ dhama” Kasvosve and Christopher "gaza" Kasvosve,
Two men who played a big role in my life as mentors and friends. May their souls rest in
peace.
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My gratitude is extended to all the people I worked with at NMMZ and at the Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Management for their invaluable help. I also thank Mr Chiwara,
my supervisor, for his guidance and effort. Thank you for being patient and having given so
much of your time to help me.
Special gratitude goes to my family members, William, Theresa, Maximina, Richard, Chris
and Shami, Wilfred, all the others and most of all Tafadzwa Oliver Magaya for their support
and prayers during “trying times”..
7
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the research was to assess the effectiveness of management approaches at
World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe with special reference to the Matobo Hills World Heritage
Site. The assessment was so as to enhance management of the world heritage cultural
landscape by establishing those aspects of management that are not working and to remedy
them, and to also reinforce where management has been effective. The research was inspired
by the realisation, in recent years, by many heritage managers and the public that many world
heritage places and sites are not achieving their management objectives and at times are
losing the values that were the reason for their establishment (Hockings et al 2008:8). Many
assessment tools have been produced for assessing management effectiveness at world
heritage sites. The research used one such tool, the enhancing our heritage toolkit to carry
out the assessment. The assessment was conducted within a theoretical framework provided
by the 1972 world heritage convention, through the use of the enhancing our heritage
management effectiveness assessment toolkit, and the 2003 convention for the safeguarding
of the intangible heritage. The research established the current status and context of
management at the site and also assessed how appropriate the management planning systems
used at the site are. An evaluation of the economy of management at the world heritage site
was also carried out together with an examination of the efficiency of management processes
at the site. The research employed a descriptive research design and used questionnaires and
interviews, complimented by desktop survey to gather data. The research established that the
management planning systems at the site are generally adequate for the effective management
of the world heritage area. However shortcomings were established in the management and
implementation processes used at the site, and in the policy environment within which the
site is managed. The shortcomings were notably in relation to the stakeholder engagement
and relationships, management plan implementation and resourcing of management at the
site. The research therefore recommends review and improvements in the nature and level of
stakeholder engagement at the site, in the policy environment within which the site is
managed, in the management implementation systems and in the resourcing of site
management. The study ultimately recommends that management effectiveness assessment
tools such as the enhancing our heritage toolkit be formally adopted and used in the
management of the Matobo Hills World Heritage Cultural landscape.
Key terms: Management effectiveness assessment,
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOVEMBER 2013 .................................................................................................................... ii
APPROVAL FORM .................................................................................................................. ii
RELEASE FORM .................................................................................................................... iii
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................................... iv
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES........................................................................................ xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the study .................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Statement of the problem ................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Aim ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.1 Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Research questions .................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Area of study .................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Description of the area ............................................................................................... 6
1.5 Significance of the study .................................................................................................. 8
1.6 Scope of the study ............................................................................................................ 9
1.7 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 9
1.8 Organisation of the remainder of the study ...................................................................... 9
1.9 Definition of terms ......................................................................................................... 10
Chapter summary ................................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 11
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 11
2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Theoretical framework ................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 The 1972 World Heritage Convention .................................................................... 11
2.1.2 The 2003 Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible heritage .................... 14
2.2 Management effectiveness assessment .......................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Development of management effectiveness evaluation .......................................... 17
2.3 Enhancing our Heritage management effectiveness assessment system ....................... 18
9
2.4 Context ........................................................................................................................... 18
2.4.1 Site values and management objectives .................................................................. 19
2.4.2 Relationship with stakeholders ................................................................................ 20
2.4.3 Identifying threats .................................................................................................... 23
2.4.4 National context ....................................................................................................... 24
2.5 Management planning systems ...................................................................................... 24
2.6 Management needs and inputs ....................................................................................... 25
2.7 Management processes ................................................................................................... 25
Chapter summary ................................................................................................................. 26
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 27
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 27
3.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Research design .............................................................................................................. 27
3.2 Target population ........................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Sampling......................................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Ethical considerations .................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Research instruments...................................................................................................... 29
3.5.1 Questionnaires ......................................................................................................... 29
3.5.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 29
3.5.3 Desktop survey ........................................................................................................ 30
3.6 validity and reliability .................................................................................................... 30
Chapter summary ................................................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................................ 31
4.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Response rates ................................................................................................................ 31
4.1.1 Questionnaires ......................................................................................................... 31
4.1.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 31
4.2 Current management context and status of the site ........................................................ 31
4.2.1 Site values and management objectives ...................................................................... 32
4.2.1.1 Site values ............................................................................................................. 32
Economic values .................................................................................................................. 35
Bio-diversity values.............................................................................................................. 35
10
Scientific value .........................................................................................................................
4.2.1.2 Management objectives ............................................................................................ 36
4.2.1.3 Threats to the world heritage area‘s values .............................................................. 36
4.2.1.4 Relationship with stakeholders................................................................................. 39
4.2.1.5 The national context within which the world heritage area is managed .................. 41
4.3 Appropriateness of planning systems at the world heritage area ................................... 42
4.3.1 Adequacy of primary planning document/management plan ..................................... 42
Decision making framework ............................................................................................ 42
Planning context ............................................................................................................... 43
Plan content ...................................................................................................................... 43
4.3.2 Site design ................................................................................................................... 45
Buffer zone and boundaries .............................................................................................. 45
National park .................................................................................................................... 45
National monuments ......................................................................................................... 45
Multiple jurisdictions and stakeholders ............................................................................ 46
4.4 Management needs and inputs ....................................................................................... 47
4.4.1 Personnel ................................................................................................................. 47
4.4.2 Budgets and funding ................................................................................................ 48
4.5 Efficiency of management processes ............................................................................. 49
4.5.1 Management processes ............................................................................................ 49
Management structures ..................................................................................................... 49
Resource management ...................................................................................................... 50
Management plan implementation ....................................................................................... 51
Conservation and management ......................................................................................... 51
Research and documentation ............................................................................................ 52
Community participation .................................................................................................. 53
Chapter summary ................................................................................................................. 53
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 54
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 54
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 54
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 55
Current management context and status of the site .............................................................. 55
Values and management objectives .................................................................................. 55
11
Threats .............................................................................................................................. 55
Stakeholder engagement ................................................................................................... 55
National context within which site is managed ................................................................ 55
Appropriateness of planning systems ................................................................................... 56
Adequacy of the management plan .................................................................................. 56
Site design......................................................................................................................... 56
Management needs and inputs ............................................................................................. 57
Personnel .......................................................................................................................... 57
Budgets and funding ......................................................................................................... 57
Efficiency of management processes at the site ................................................................... 57
Management plan implementation ....................................................................................... 58
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 58
Threats .............................................................................................................................. 58
List of references...................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX II ...................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix III ......................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix IV ......................................................................................................................... 70
12
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table1Aspects of management assessed by the Enhancing our Heritage toolkit, and the tools
used……………………………………………………………………………………........ ..2
Table 2Threats facing the Matobo hills and management Reponses……………………………….. 38
Table 3NMMZ and DNPWM personnel required and available at the Matobo hills…….….. 48
Figure 1The 6 management cycle elements according to the IUCN-WCPA framework
......................................………………………………………………………………………………………………...… 16
Figure 2A painted panel in the Matobo hills...........................................................................32
Figure 3 Relics of granaries in the Matobo hills .......................................………………………....34
13
LIST OF ACRONYMS
NMMZ - National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe
DNPWM - Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management
14
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In recent years heritage managers and the public have been increasingly concerned that
protected areas, including World Heritage Sites, are failing to achieve their management
objectives and at times losing their values. This has made improving the management
effectiveness of these protected heritage areas a priority throughout the conservation
community (Hockings et al 2006:1). Assessment of management effectiveness at sites has
been one important step in the process of improving management at these sites. Such
assessment involves assessing the status of current management at a site or protected area, to
get a better understanding of what is working and what is not working, so as to plan and put
in place necessary changes as efficiently as possible. Various management effectiveness
assessment tools have been produced and the concept of management effectiveness, despite
its being a new concept has continued to develop on the international scene.
The Enhancing Our Heritage Assessment System is one such tool that has been produced for
the purpose of assessing management effectiveness at sites. It was originally developed for
assessing the effectiveness of management at natural world heritage sites and other lesser
protected areas. However it has been developed to apply to any heritage site (including
cultural sites) and is adaptable to local contexts. The toolkit for the assessment system was
produced by UNESCO, through the World Heritage Centre, in conjunction with the IUCN
(International Nature Conservation Union). The assessment system is based on the WCPA
(World Commission on Protected Areas) management effectiveness framework. It is the
product of a seven year long site based ―learn by doing‖ effort by a team of specialists with
the participation of World Heritage Site managers from nine properties located around the
world (Hockings et al 2006). This ensured that the toolkit is rooted in practical realities and
the requirements of its end users.
The assessment system consists of twelve tools that assess the various components of the
management of heritage sites so as to build a picture of how well the site is being managed
and how well management goals are being achieved. It assesses the current management
status and context of the site, the appropriateness of management planning systems, the
adequacy of resourcing of the site (economy of management), efficiency of management
15
processes, and management effectiveness based on the outputs and outcomes of management
at the site. The aspects of management assessed by the toolkit and the 12 tools in the toolkit
that are used in the assessment of management effectiveness are outlined in the table 1
below:-
Aspect of management
assessed
Tool used
1 - Current management
status/context.
Tool 1: identification of site values and management
objectives.
Tool 2: identification of threats.
Tool 3: assessment of relationship with stakeholders.
Tool 4: review of the national context within which
site is managed.
2 - Appropriateness of
planning systems.
Tool 5: assessment of management planning systems.
Tool 6: site design assessment.
3 - Economy of
management.
Tool 7: assessment of management needs and inputs
and adequacy of resources available.
4 - Efficiency of
management processes.
Tool 8: assessment of management processes.
Tool 9: assessment of management plan
implementation.
Management effectiveness
based on :-
5 - outputs of
management and,
6 - outcomes of
management.
Tool 10: assessment work/site output indicators.
Tool 11: assessment of outcome of management.
Tool 12: review of management effectiveness
assessment of results.
Table1: the aspects of management assessed by the Enhancing our Heritage toolkit and
the tools used.
However, in Zimbabwe very limited management effectiveness studies have been done at the
World Heritage Sites in the country and very few, if not none, of the various tools that have
been produced for assessing management effectiveness have been used. This research
therefore applies one such tool, which is the ―enhancing our heritage‖ management
16
effectiveness assessment toolkit to assess management effectiveness at the Matobo hills
world heritage site. The research however uses tools 1 to 9 of the toolkit due to limitations in
time available. The assessment is conducted within a theoretical framework provided by the
1972 world heritage convention, through the use of the enhancing our heritage management
effectiveness assessment toolkit, and the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the
intangible heritage.
1.1 Background of the study
It has been noted worldwide that declaration of protected areas and world heritage areas does
not always result in adequate protection. This realisation has led to the need to evaluate the
effectiveness of management at these heritage areas be recognised increasingly in both the
developed and developing countries (Hockings and Philips 1999; Hockings et al2006; Ervin
2003a). This has resulted in work on management effectiveness increasingly becoming an
important component of management at world heritage sites and other protected areas
worldwide. Assessments of management effectiveness have been carried out in thousands of
areas with many international institutions such as the World Bank, the Global Environment
Facility, ICOMOS, World Heritage Centre and the IUCN in the lead in promoting
management effectiveness as an issue and providing technical development and support
(Hockings et al 2008:8). Hockings et al (2006) says that management effectiveness
assessment helps promote adaptive management, improve planning and to promote
accountability.
Management Effectiveness assessment has grown to become an important component of
systematic preservation planning that is key in linking plan implementation and subsequent
planning and budgeting (Satersonet al 2004; Brooks et al 2006; Margules and Pressey 2000).
However, achieving effective management has been said to be a challenging task with
Hockings (2006:1) saying that it requires adopting appropriate management objectives and
governaning systems, adequate and appropriate resourcing and the timely implementation of
appropriate management strategies and processes. Thus, it is unlikely to be fully achieved
without an inquisitive and reflective management approach that seeks to understand the
effectiveness of current management and how it can be improved. There has to be an
understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, threats and impact of all management activities
(Margolis and Salafsky 1998; Nolte et al 2010). Thus, to achieve this, various assessment
17
tools have been produced for the purpose of assessing management effectiveness at protected
areas such as world heritage sites (Stem et al 2005).
The enhancing our heritage toolkit is one such tool that has been produced for management
effectiveness assessment. Many conservation specialists and organisations have noted that
there is need to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of heritage and protected area
managers by providing guidance, tools and information. The enhancing our heritage toolkit
has been said to help the achievement of this objective as it focuses on the need for adequate
information and an adaptive approach to management which have been said to be ― key
ingredients for successful world heritage site management‖ ( Hockings et al 2008:4). The
toolkit has also, according to Hockings et al (2008), been built around the application of the
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas framework for assessing management
effectiveness at protected areas and so presents an international standard for best practise.
With the tool, management effectiveness evaluation/assessment, in broad terms, enables and
supports an adaptive approach to management, assists in effective resource allocation and
helps involve the community, build consistency and protects protected area values (Hockings
et al 2006:5). The toolkit also supports the monitoring processes established in the World
Heritage Convention by helping site managers with information on the condition and
management of sites that is needed for periodic reporting and address issues identified in state
of conservation reports (Hockings et al 2008:4). It is thus an important heritage management
tool that can greatly enhance heritage management if adopted by heritage managers.
The enhancing our heritage toolkit has been widely used in Asia and in various Latin
American protected areas. In Africa it has been successfully used as a management tool at
Bwindi impenetrable forest in Uganda, at the Serengeti national park in Tanzania, at Aldabra
atoll in Seychelles and at the Greater St Lucia park wetlands in South Africa (Hockings et al
2006:67, Stoltonet al 2006).
1.2 Statement of the problem
The concept of management effectiveness assessment is still developing globally, and very
limited management effectiveness studies have been carried out formally at the world
heritage sites in Zimbabwe. The ―enhancing our heritage‖ management effectiveness
18
assessment toolkit has not been used to assess management effectiveness at any of the world
heritage sites in Zimbabwe, and at the Matobo hills world heritage site in particular, resulting
in knowledge on the effectiveness of management at these sites being limited.
1.3 Aim
The research aims to carry out an assessment of management effectiveness for the Matobo
Hills world heritage site using the ―enhancing our heritage‖ toolkit so as to ultimately
enhance its management.
1.3.1 Specific objectives
1. To establish the current management context and status of the site.
2. To assess the appropriateness of management planning systems at the site.
3. To evaluate the economy of management at the site.
4. To examine the efficiency of management processes at the site.
1.3.2 Research questions
1. What is the current management context and status of the site?
2. What management planning systems exist and are they appropriate for the site?
3. What resources does the site require for effective management?
4. Is the site currently adequately resourced?
5. How efficient are the site’s current management processes?
1.4 Area of study
The Matobo hills world heritage area lies 36 kilometres south of the city of Bulawayo in the
Matebeleland south province of Zimbabwe. It extends from 28.00‘ to 29.00‘ E and 20.25‘ to
20.45‘ S. According to the site‘s management plan (2004-2009), the site‘s spatial extent is
2050 square km surrounded by a buffer zone that covers 1050 square km, thereby bringing
the total area of the world heritage site to 3100 square km. The site is covered on map sheets
2028AD, 2028BC, 2028CB, 2028DA, 2028DB and 2028BD of the Zimbabwe archeological
survey and surveyor general‘s office.
19
1.4.1 Description of the area
The Matobo Hills was nominated as a cultural landscape and inscribed on the World Heritage
list on 5 July 2003, under the 1972 Convention on the Protection of the World‘s Cultural and
Natural Heritage (Matobo hills world heritage list nomination dossier 2003). It was inscribed
on the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (v) and (vi) of the World Heritage Convention.
Under criterion (iii), the inscription was due to the fact that the Matobo Hills world heritage
area has southern Africa‘s highest concentrations of rock art. The area gives a vivid picture of
how foraging communities lived in the Stone Age period and how the farming communities
came to replace them through its rich archeological record and rock paintings. Criterion (v)
was due to the relationship and interaction between communities and the landscape that is
shown by the rock art and the living religious traditions still associated with the hills.
Criterion (vi) was due to the indigenous mwari religion which is centred on the Matobo hills.
This religion, which possibly dates back to the Iron Age, is the most powerful oracular
tradition in southern Africa (Matobo hills world heritage site nomination dossier 2003).
Climate
The site is in the semi-arid agro ecological zone 3 of Zimbabwe. The annual rainfall pattern
for that area is uneven and normally totalling around 600 to 625 mm. According to Tredgold
(1956), rainfall mostly falls between October and March with the period from January to
march receiving the greatest amount of about 322 mm followed by October to December
which receives around 232 mm. From April to June the area receives 30.25mm and the least
rainfall is recorded in the July to September period which receives around 3.5mm. Water is
said to be plentiful throughout the year because of the runoff from the granite hills.
According to the site‘s management plan (2004-2009) the mean daily temperatures are
comparatively high and the mean night daily range being as low as 8.6 degrees Celsius and
thus making the nights relatively cool. The highest temperatures are recorded from
September to November with October being highest with a monthly mean of 26.3 degrees
Celsius. The winter period records the lowest temperatures with occasional guti(cold cloudy
spells with drizzle). June is usually the coldest month with an average mean of 20.4 degrees
Celsius, and a mean minimum of 14.6 degrees Celsius.
20
Geology
According to the site‘s management plan (2004-2009), the cultural landscape is part of a
granite complex which extents all the way to the Zimbabwe/Botswana border in the west
whilst merging with the Mbalabala granite pluton in the east. The landscape is known for its
distinctive geological formations and landforms which have been home to flora, fauna and
human communities for more than half a millennia. The area is characterised by distinctive
inselbergs and kopjes. These landforms and geological formations have from the past till
present, according to the management plan (2004-2009), influenced the nature of interaction
between humans and nature, as evidenced by the location of prehistoric settlements, which
clearly demonstrates the landforms influence on human settlement. The granite, according to
Walker (1995), offered an ideal settlement setting and also provided raw materials for making
hunting, gathering and food processing tools.
According to Garson (1995), the 2.65 billion years old Matobo granite complex extends for
about 2050 square kilometres and covers most of the world heritage site. Other rock types
such as augen gneisses, older granites and grandiosities are also found in the area. The augen
gneisses cover most of the buffer zone. The geology of the area is characterised by variations
in rock composition, grain size and grain alignment as the rock varies from medium to coarse
grained rock with microlines as porphyroblasts or phenocrysts in the ground mass of quartz
feldspar and biotite. This variation has greatly influenced the landforms that characterise the
area (Fountain 1982; Garson 1995). The alignment in the densely porphyritic zones
suppresses the creation of joints which are very influential in the development of certain
topographies. The lack of joints is attributed as being the major reason for the development of
dwalas instead of castle kopjes (Matobo hills site management plan 2004-2009). The main
rock type in the area is medium to course grained grey and black augen gneiss. These
xenoliths range from 2 to 4 metres in length and are parallel gneissic foliation (Fountain
1981, 1982; Garson 1995).
Flora and Fauna
The Matobo hills area, according to Nyathi (2013), has had over two hundred species of trees
recorded. The area has a very high diversity of vegetation types within a comparatively small
area with soils from granite. The area, despite having a few soil types, has a great range of
vegetation. The area lies in the savannah biome under a climate generally too dry for Miombo
woodland. It has been placed in the broad Zambezianphytochorion under ―undifferentiated
21
woodland‖ by White (1978). This placement has been despite its containing some
afromontane elements. Ephemeral pools in the hills support ephemeral vegetation whilst very
drought tolerant flowering plants dominate vegetation on the rock domes (Matobo hills
management plan 2004-2009). The area is also home to a diverse range of faunal species
ranging from the reptile family to the large herbivores such as the rhinoceros species
(Dicerosbicornisand Ceratotherumsimum) (Matobo hills management plan 2004-2009).
Cultural heritage
According to Walker (1995), the rock shelters in the area go back as far as the later middle
Pleistocene (700 000 to 125 000 BP). Evidence in the form of rock art and prehistoric stone
tools from the early, middle and late Stone Age periods shows the area‘s history of human
habitation and interaction with the environment. The area also has Iron Age sites and sites
where Iron Age deposits overlay the Stone Age deposits. The cultural history of the area also
spilled into the 19th
century. According to the Matobo hills management plan (2004-2009),
the arrival of Nguni groups fleeing the mfecane is evidenced by several granaries in caves
and rock shelters in the area.
Management context
According to the management plan (2004 – 2009), the world heritage area falls under three
types of land ownership. These are (1) state protected areas such as the national park, (2)
communal lands, state land without individual tenure and (3) privately owned land with
individual tenure, also called commercial land. The three land ownership categories each
have an act of parliament demarcating boundaries and controlling activities within. However
a management committee representative of all the key stakeholders is in place so as to ensure
an integrated management approach. The management committee is a policy making body
representing the interests of all stakeholders and is accountable to the stakeholders.
1.5 Significance of the study
The research, through assessing and reviewing the effectiveness of the management at the
Matobo hills world heritage area provides a source of information necessary and a means for
the implementation of adaptive management in practise at the world heritage area. Thus it
will aid site management by providing site managers with the necessary information for
effective resource allocation, improvements and consolidation of management planning
22
systems and management processes and information about threats to the site. The assessment
also provides a means and justification by which site managers can source aid and support
from NGOs and other institutions as the research provides a reinforcement of site needs. The
research also benefits site management by providing information on the condition and
management of the Matobo hills world heritage site required by the established periodic
reporting and monitoring requirements in the world heritage convention. The research also
presents a field test of a new management evaluation tool into the Zimbabwean context which
would be very useful if adopted by management at the site. The research thus benefits all
stakeholders to the site through its enhancing management and protection of the site.
1.6 Scope of the study
The research operates according to the parameters set by the world heritage convention
through the enhancing our heritage tool kit. Thus the research is mainly concerned with
management at the site. However, it also takes into consideration other relevant national and
local regulatory frameworks, and other factors that both directly and indirectly affect
management of the site.
1.7 Limitations
The study was limited by the great extent of the cultural landscape which is 3100 square
metres. The great extent of the research area thus limited the researcher‘s field visits to
certain sampled areas of the site. Another limitation of the study is that of the numerous
stakeholders. Mostly the key stakeholders were interviewed and thus results can to a certain
extent be said to be limited in accuracy. The concept of management effectiveness
assessment is still developing world wide, and relatively new in the Zimbabwean context.
This presented one major limitation which is that of very limited literature on the subject.
1.8 Organisation of the remainder of the study
The study is organised into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 has introduced the research and the research
area. A background of the study has been given, followed by the problem statement and the
aims and objectives of the research. The research area is also described in this chapter. The
significance of the study, its scope, and limitations are also given in the chapter together with
definition of key terms used in the research. Chapter 2 of the research presents the theoretical
23
framework which guided the research and reviews literature related to the study. Chapter 3 is
a presentation of the research methodology employed in the research. The chapter presents
the research design and the tools employed and how they were used in the research. Data
collection procedures and administration are thus also presented. Chapter 4 of the research
presents data gathered, analysis of the data, its interpretation and discussion. Chapter 5 of the
research summarises the research, concludes it and offers recommendations.
1.9 Definition of terms
Assessment
It is the measurement or estimation of an aspect of management (Hockings et al 2006).
Management effectiveness assessment
It is an assessment of how well a protected area (world heritage site) is being managed. It
focuses on whether the values of the site are being protected and whether agreed goals and
objectives are being achieved (Hockings et al 2008:9).
Adaptive management
It is the incorporation of learning into management of world heritage sites, especially the
integration of design, management and monitoring to test assumption in order to adapt and
learn.
Protected area
Land especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, natural
and cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.
Chapter summary
This chapter has introduced the research and its aim and objectives. It has highlighted and
justified the need for an assessment of management effectiveness for the Matobo hills world
heritage area so as to enhance its management and the protection of its values. The chapter
also described the research area and gave an overview of its components. The chapter thus
sets precedence for the next chapter, chapter 2, which presents the theoretical framework
within which the research was conducted, and also reviews relevant literature that has been
produced on the subject of management effectiveness assessment in relation to the research
area.
24
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the theoretical framework under which the research was conducted and
reviews literature relevant to the research subject. The concept of management effectiveness
assessment and its constituent assessment concepts are explored in relation to the enhancing
our heritage management effectiveness assessment system. The chapter explores literature
that has been produced so as to bring out the need and importance for management
effectiveness assessments to be carried out at sites within the Zimbabwean such as the
Matobo hills. The research was conducted under a theoretical framework provided for by the
1972 World Heritage Convention, through the enhancing our heritage management
effectiveness assessment toolkit, and the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage. The World Heritage Convention focuses on the tangible
dimension of heritage whilst the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage complements the world heritage convention by focussing on the intangible
dimension. The theoretical framework employed thus means that the research therefore
covered both the tangible and intangible aspects of heritage which are both manifest at the
Matobo Hills World Heritage Site.
2.1 Theoretical framework
2.1.1 The 1972 World Heritage Convention
The 1972 World Heritage Convention‘s sole purpose is to ensure the identification,
protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to posterity of cultural and natural
heritage of outstanding universal value (Rossler 2002:10). The research thus uses this
convention as one of its benchmarks for measuring or establishing best practises in the
management of world heritage sites in Zimbabwe. The research also falls within a theoretical
framework guided by this convention through its using the enhancing our heritage
management effectiveness assessment toolkit. The toolkit was designed with world heritage
properties in mind, in a framework guided by the World Heritage Convention. As a result, the
toolkit measures management effectiveness at world heritage sites based on standards set by
the world heritage convention.
25
Paragraph 96 of the World Heritage Convention says that the protection and management of
world heritage properties should ensure that the outstanding universal value, the conditions of
integrity and/or authenticity at the time of inscription on the world heritage list are
maintained or enhanced in the future. This calls for the effective protection of values for
which the property was established to the greatest extent possible. Ensuring or enhancing the
effectiveness of management at the world heritage properties, is one way through which the
outstanding universal values of a property and its conditions of authenticity and integrity are
protected and preserved (Hockings et al 2008:8). Assessing the effectiveness of management
has been one way of improving and/or enhancing effective management of world heritage
sites. This is because the current status and management of a property is assessed, to
understand better what is and what is not working so as to efficiently plan any necessary
changes.
Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the World Heritage Convention state that world heritage properties
should have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional and/or traditional
protection and management to ensure their safeguarding. Paragraph 98 says that the
legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels should assure the survival of
the property and its protection against development and change that may negatively impact
the outstanding universal value, or the integrity and/or authenticity of the property. It is in
line with this requirement that the research, through the enhancing our heritage toolkit‘s tool
4, reviews the national and international context within which the Matobo hills world heritage
site is managed. The tool helps understand how national and international policies, legislation
and government actions affect the site (Hockings et al 2008:12). This assessment thus helps
determine whether national and international regulatory frameworks for site management and
protection are adequate, and also how best to go ahead where they are not adequate. It also
assesses how relevant heritage legislation/s affects site management. It then assesses the
property‘s standing within broader government policy, the nature and context of site
management in relation to international conservation conventions and treaties the government
has signed up to. The government‘s capacity to fund site management is also assessed to
determine its willingness and ability to do so.
26
Paragraphs 99 and 100 of the World Heritage Convention state that delineation of boundaries
is an essential requirement in the establishment of effective protection of nominated
properties. These boundaries should be drawn to ensure the full expression of the outstanding
universal value and the integrity and/or authenticity of the property. The boundaries should
include all areas and attributes which are direct tangible expressions of the site‘s outstanding
universal value. Paragraphs 103 and 104 then state that an adequate buffer zone should be
provided. These site design issues are also aspects covered in the research as the enhancing
our heritage toolkit‘s tool 6 assesses the design of the world heritage site to examine how its
size, location and boundaries affect its ability to safeguard and maintain its values (Hockings
et al 2008:40).
Paragraph 108 of the World Heritage Convention states that properties should have an
appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify
how the outstanding universal value of the property will be preserved. Paragraph 109 states
that the purpose of the management system is to ensure the effective protection of the
property to posterity. An effective management system, according to paragraph 110, depends
on the type, characteristics and needs of the site. It is in line with this requirement that the
research assesses the appropriateness and adequacy of management systems used at the world
heritage site. The toolkit assesses the management context of the site and so identifies the
site‘s characteristics and needs. It also assesses the adequacy and appropriateness of
management planning systems at the site, the nature of management needs and inputs at the
site, and the adequacy and appropriateness of management processes at the site (Hockings et
al 2008:18).
Paragraph 111, in recognition of the diversity that usually characterises site stakeholders,
states those common elements of an effective management system could include a thorough
shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders and the involvement of these
stakeholders and partners in management. The research thus reviews the relationship between
stakeholders and site management at the Matobo hills using tool 3 of the toolkit. The
paragraph also states that it can also include the allocation of necessary resources and
capacity building in terms of site management. The research assesses the current resourcing
of the site in relation to optimum resourcing levels for effective site management.
27
However alone, this convention has some practical flaws that have made it inadequate for the
protection of heritage, especially in sub Saharan Africa. Munjeri (2009:21) says that the
convention has been criticised for being purely materialistic and ―monumentalistic‖ in its
consideration of heritage and being exclusively focussed on the tangible heritage (Matsuura
2004). Munjeri (2004:19) has also criticised the convention for its separation of nature and
culture in its definitions. Such a situation has been said to, in the words of Mazrui (1986), to
demolish an important sociological triangle, between humanity, nature and the spiritual
realm. Munjeri (2004) says that when the convention was crafted, ‗monumentality‘ and
‗aesthetic heritage‘ where the major focus. This resulted in the non-monumental heritage,
which is what is important in sub Saharan Africa‘s communities, being overshadowed or
ignored. The research therefore also employs a theoretical framework guided by the 2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage.
2.1.2 The 2003 Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible heritage
The convention complements the World Heritage Convention and allows a holistic approach
to heritage management that fills a gap that had been created in the World Heritage
Convention‗s primary focus on tangible heritage (Matsuura 2004). Article 1 of the 2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage states that its purpose is to
safeguard the intangible cultural heritage, ensure respect for the intangible cultural heritage of
the communities or individuals concerned, raise awareness at the local, national and
international levels of the importance of the intangible cultural heritage. It thus, in the words
of Munjeri (2004:21) prevents human kind‘s intangible heritage from ‗disappearing‘. Article
2 of the convention defines ‗intangible cultural heritage‘ as ―… practises, representations,
expressions, knowledge, skills as well as instruments, artefacts, objects and cultural spaces
associated with the communities, groups and individuals that identify it as part of their
cultural heritage. According to Keitumetse (2006), the key word in the convention is
‗safeguarding‘, which is defined as the measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the
intangible cultural heritage. This includes the identification, documentation, research,
preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission as well as revitalisation of
the various aspects of such heritage. Keitumetse (2006) says that the intangible cultural
heritage referred to by the convention is that manifested as performing arts, knowledge and
practises concerning nature and the universe, social practises, rituals and festive events. The
convention is thus used in the research as a theoretical benchmark, or standard of best
28
practise in the effective management of the intangible cultural heritage at the Matobo hills
world heritage site.
Article 12 of the convention calls for the drawing up of inventories, by state parties, of the
intangible cultural heritage present in their territories as a means of ensuring identification of
this intangible cultural heritage for purposes of safeguarding it. In line with this, the research
reviews the extent to which that values (intangible values in this case) of the world heritage
property have been identified, and to what extent they are addressed and linked to
management objectives of the property.
Article 13 of the convention states that for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting
intangible cultural heritage, a general policy aimed at promoting the function of the intangible
cultural heritage within the society, and at integrating the safeguarding of such heritage into
planning programmes should be adopted by state parties. The research therefore also assesses
the adequacy and appropriateness policy environment within which values of the site,
including the intangible values, are managed at the site using tools 4 and 5. The article also
calls for the fostering of scientific, technical and artistic studies as well as research
methodologies with the aim of effectively safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage.
The convention also calls for the adoption of appropriate legal, technical, administrative and
financial measures aimed at safeguarding and transmitting this intangible cultural heritage
whilst also ensuring access to this intangible cultural heritage. This is also in line with the
research which assesses the appropriateness of legal, technical, administrative and financial
mechanisms in place at the Matobo hills world heritage site. Article 14 of the convention
calls for education of the community, awareness raising and capacity building in the
community and heritage managers aimed at promoting and safeguarding the intangible
cultural heritage. Article 15 states that communities, groups and individuals should
participate in the management.
29
2.2 Management effectiveness assessment
Management effectiveness assessment is defined as the assessment of how well protected
areas are being managed, or whether they are protecting their values and achieving site
management goals and objectives (Hockings et al 2006). It has become a more prominent
feature of protected area management over the past decade (Hockings 2003; Hockings et al
2006; Leverington et al 2008). Many assessments have been carried out using a variety of
methods, mostly based on the IUCN-WCPA protected area management effectiveness
assessment framework. The framework follows the principle that good management should
follow a cycle with 6 distinct stages (Hockings et al 2006:11; Leverington et al 2010:7). The
six elements in the framework are context, planning, inputs, process, outputs and outcome.
The six elements are shown in figure 2 below:-
Figure 1: the 6 elements of the management cycle according to the IUCN-WCPA
framework (Hockings et al 2010).
According to the framework, management begins with understanding a site‘s context, its
values, threats that it is facing and the opportunities that exist, the site‘s stakeholders and the
management and political environment. It then progresses through to planning:
establishment of vision, management goals, management objectives and the strategies to
conserve the site‘s values and reduce the threats it faces. It also involves allocation of
inputs(resources) of staff, money and equipment to work towards achievement of the
30
objectives. It also involves implementation of management actions according to accepted
management processes. The whole process eventually produces outputs that result in
impacts or outcomes. These 6 elements reflect three ‗themes‘ of management which are
design (context and planning), appropriateness/adequacy (inputs and processes) and delivery
(outputs and outcomes) (Stolton and Dudley 2004; Narkami 2006; Leverington et al 2010;
Hockings et al 2006).
Thus, to assess management effectiveness, the above mentioned six elements have to be
assessed and this gives a relatively comprehensive picture of management effectiveness.
However, as noted by Leverington et al (2010), the framework is not in itself a specific
management effectiveness assessment methodology, but provides a consistent basis for
developing assessment systems without trying to impose a standard methodology. Thus,
based on this frame work, many different assessment tools have been produced so as to
improve the monitoring of management effectiveness (Stolton and Dudley 2004). The
enhancing our heritage toolkit is one such tool.
2.2.1 Development of management effectiveness evaluation
According to Hockings et al (2006:2), individual studies on management effectiveness of
protected areas have been undertaken for more than 20 years, especially by NGOs. However
the focus was on enhancing the management of biodiversity in protected areas. With the
recognition of the critical role that management needed to play in securing biodiversity
values within protected areas, a flurry of interest in assessing management effectiveness
using more rigorous approaches was created. Much of the initial work on management
effectiveness evaluation took place in Latin America, for example in Brazil (Mackinnon and
Mackinnon 1986) and in Costa Rica (Cifuentes et al 2000) where assessment systems
focussed on the management processes and technical capacity of protected areas. Other
initiatives, as in the case of that by the country side council of Wales in the UK (Alexander
and Rowell 1999), focussed exclusively on biological conditions in the protected areas. In
these initial assessments, the initiative was focussed on biodiversity, and little if not on
cultural aspects at all, and there was little attempt at involving stakeholders or at considering
the social impacts of protected areas. The work made few efforts to look at all aspects of site
31
management, from management approaches to the final outcomes of management (Hockings
et al 2006:2).
However, according to Hockings et al (2006:6) this all changed with a resolve at the IV
Venezuela world parks congress where there were calls for more attention to be given to the
subject. A taskforce was established to look at management effectiveness. This led to the
decision that instead of developing one assessment system, an overall framework should be
developed within which a number of different approaches may fit into. This led to the
development of the six part WCPA assessment system initially published in Hockings et al
(2000).
Thus, with development in technical expertise and experience, a range of assessment systems
have emerged, mostly drawing on the WCPA framework and focus has been broadened with
some of the systems also covering other values other than biodiversity, but all the values at
sites and protected areas. These have been grouped into a number of groups. However the
research is concerned with the group with site-level assessments from which the Enhancing
our Heritage assessment system used for the research is drawn from.
2.3 Enhancing our Heritage management effectiveness assessment system
This system applies to world heritage sites and other lesser sites. It has also been designed to
be adaptable to all sites (including cultural sites) and is adaptable to local contexts (Hockings
et al 2006). The assessment system utilises 12 tools to assess a site‘s management context,
the appropriateness of planning systems, the economy of site management, the efficiency of
management processes, and the collective management effectiveness at a site based on the
outputs and outcomes of management.
2.4 Context
Assessment of context is important as it gives the relevant background information about a
site and its management, which is needed in order to effectively plan and implement
management, and to also direct and focus an assessment on the most important aspects of
management (Hockings et al 2006:13). It gives a picture of the whole management setting
32
and status of a site. Effective management has to be based on a thorough understanding of the
conditions unique to a site, be planned and implemented carefully and adequately, include
regular monitoring that leads to changes in management as required. This view is supported
by Ionita (2011:22) who calls for management of protected areas to be context oriented and
integrate the full diversity of local values and stakeholder knowledge and skills. This is one
reason why management effectiveness assessments are an important necessity at world
heritage sites. They link management effectiveness and site context and evaluated the
adequacy of this relationship.
There are four major aspects that form the foundation of context assessment. These are (1)
site values and management objectives, (2) threats to the site, (3) relationships with
stakeholders and (4) the national context within which the site is managed ( Hockings et al
2008:8; Hockings et al 2006:13).
2.4.1 Site values and management objectives
Identification of site values is the first step in assessing management effectiveness. According
to Hockings et al (2008) the protection of these values should be at the heart of site
management and should be reflected in the site‘s management objectives. This view is
echoed by Hockings et al (2006) who state that the values are the reason for the establishment
of a protected area or site. This view is reinforced by Munjeri (2002) who says that the
sustainability of heritage is hinged upon the identification of the principal values either
individually or in combination. Identification and understanding of these values helps inform
the management effectiveness assessment as these values are used to select indicators that
will provide indicators that are used to assess the extent to which site objectives are
maintained (Hockings et al 2008). It is therefore clear that it is important to identify site
values and assess the extent to which they have been linked to management objectives.
Management objectives are meant to protect the values at a site. The extent to which site
values are linked to management objectives ultimately determines the extent to which
resources will be allocated to the protection of these values. Ndoro (2006:62) reinforces this
belief as he says that an empathetic understanding of the values at a site minimises the risk of
33
management decisions that may destroy or diminish the values attached to the site. At
Aldabra atoll in Seychelles the enhancing our heritage toolkit was used to assess management
effectiveness. The assessment revealed that the cultural values of the site had been neglected.
However, for a site‘s values to be identified there is need for an all-inclusive process that
involves all stakeholders so that all the varying perspectives can be made to converge on one
correct position which is consensually arrived at in conditioning relationships (Munjeri
2002).
2.4.2 Relationship with stakeholders
According to Hockings et al (2008:28), effective management includes engaging with
stakeholders who influence the site‘s values. The view is echoed by Hockings et al (2006:18)
who says that effective management includes effective partnership and engagement with
stakeholders. Mackinnon (2001) shares the same view as he says that conservation of sites
can only be sustainable if local communities become an important part of site conservation
efforts and benefit from those efforts. This means that other parties other than site
management have to be involved in site management and management evaluation to gain
additional perspectives on the world heritage site and its management. Involvement of local
communities is very crucial in large scale lived-in landscapes that have multiple stakeholders,
include traditional systems as part of management and also involve many stakeholders and
landowners over multiple jurisdictions. This is because conservation of such cultural
landscapes, which are in the category within which the Matobo hills falls, presents challenges
that can only be answered through partnerships and flexibility in management(Buggey and
Mitchell 2002). Assessing management effectiveness is one way through which
partnership/cooperation and flexibility, through adaptive management, can be achieved.
Effective stakeholder engagement can also be a solution to the problematic competition for
legitimacy, between the community traditional legal systems of management and the modern
state management systems, which has led to the state based legal systems predominating and
marginalising community based legal systems (Mumma 2005). The NMMZ act, which is the
primary legal instrument for managing cultural heritage in Zimbabwe, was inherited from a
colonial philosophical legacy that effectively aimed at alienating the local communities from
their heritage. It was in line with this philosophy that during the colonial period, local
34
communities were alienated from sites, such as the Matobo hills, which were placed under
national parks or national museums (Chipunza 2009; Pwiti and Ndoro 1999; Ndoro and Pwiti
2001). This same legislation is still being used to day. This raises questions as to how this
legislation is being used, and with what impact, considering that the country has signed up to
the world heritage convention which calls for the inclusion and participation of local
communities in site management. This therefore makes assessment of management
effectiveness a necessity at the Matobo hills as the assessment also assesses the
appropriateness of local community engagement at the site. The need for an assessment at the
world heritage site is strengthened further by scholars such as Chipunza (2009) and Pwiti
(1996) who say that the NMMZ has applied the legislation at sites without due regard for the
―very ethno-systems involved in the production of heritage that the act claims to protect.
Environmental problems, in protected areas and sites that is, have been said to be typically
complex, affecting multiple actors and agencies and to be multi scale and so, demand
transparent decision making that is flexible to change, and embraces a diversity of knowledge
and values. As a result the participation and engagement of stakeholders has been sought
after and its integration into planning systems has become a popular endeavour (Stringer et al
2007, in Reed 2008). Knowledge from different domains has been said to be another means
of answering some of today‘s complex problems (Stoll-Kleeman and Welp 2008, cited in
Ionita 2011:22), so as to increase the information on which management decisions are based.
The multiple stakeholders and jurisdictions that characterise the Matobo hills make its
management a complex endeavour. This calls for comprehensive identification and
knowledge of the context of the site. According to Ionita (2011:22), integration of relevant
and complete information which is owned or managed by different stakeholders can help
achieve this.
Effective stakeholder engagement in management of protected areas has also been said to
enable divergent interests and opinions to be discussed, balanced and negotiated so as to
achieve consensus. It is thus, a framework for communication, conflict detection and
resolution (Ionita 2011:24; Thomas and Middleton 2003:55). Effective stakeholder
engagement is therefore an important means of developing effective management linked to a
site‘s context and based on sound management decisions (Ionita 2011). The research
35
therefore aims to provide information as pertains to the level and nature of stakeholder
engagement at the Matobo Hills World heritage site and thereby providing a means by which
it could be improved and consolidated. This is very important considering the numerous
stakeholder conflicts that have characterised management of the site since its inscription on
the world heritage list (Makuvaza and Makuvaza 2012).
However, one should note that there are various challenges to stakeholder engagement that
may make effective management of a site problematic. Open discussion may be seen as a
threat to one‘s authority. As a result some stakeholders are unwilling to support wider
participation and thus, despite having accepted a policy of transparency and communication,
they may resist supplying all required information to interest groups. Some scholars have
even raised doubts about the applicability and viability of the concept of stakeholder
involvement. Ionita (2011) cites Reed (2008) as being of the belief that even though
arguments for participatory conservation have been supported with examples of success,
many of these pragmatic claims can be disputed since they are rarely tested. Mansuri and
Rao (2008) cited in Ionita (2011) conclude that the ‗naive‘ application of these contextual
concepts like participation and empowerment actually contributes to poor design and
implementation.
Though uncertain, the premise of participatory approaches and stakeholder engagement
however has potential benefits that outweigh the costs. Therefore, with society and
stakeholders being so diverse, and with there being challenges to stakeholder engagement for
purposes of management, these stakeholders have to be critically identified so as to level the
playing field, establish the rules of engagement and identify the relevant players (Hockings
2008; Munjeri 2002). This view is also echoed by the view that the approach for managing
intangible values is one that empowers stakeholders with direct responsibility over it, since
the survival of such values is ― contingent upon cultural traditions and contemporary needs of
stakeholders (Buggey 2000:24; Katsamudanga 2003:3; Ndoro 2003:81). Thus, identification
of stakeholders, understanding their relationship to a site and its values and a consideration of
the level of their participation should be part of context assessment as its level of
effectiveness ultimately also influences the effectiveness with which the site is managed. The
36
research therefore aims to also enhance management by assessing stakeholder engagement in
management of the World Heritage Site.
2.4.3 Identifying threats
According to Alexander (2008), conservation management specifically involves managing
risk and threats, and protected areas can only be successfully if managed effectively. Many
world heritage sites are faced by a variety of threats and there has been growing evidence of
breakdown in critical values (Fischer 2008; Butchart et al 2010; Stolton and Dudley 1999).
This has resulted in degradation and destruction of many of these protected areas (Liu et al
2001; Dudley et al 2004). Reduction and elimination of these threats is thus an important part
of effective world heritage site management. These threats have to be identified, in terms of
their type and level, at the early stages of planning so that appropriate management responses
can be implemented. Ndiweni and Nyathi (2003) have noted that poaching and vandalism
have been on the increase in the Matobo hills. They also note that the environment has been
greatly and negatively altered in the communal lands of the world heritage area. This is a
situation that has been noted all over Africa, as its heritage is faced by many threats that
range from population pressures to outright vandalism and looting (Eboreime 2009:1).
According to the management plan (2005-2009), natural processes and human activities pose
the major threats to the cultural landscape‘s values. The natural processes include erosion,
exfoliation of rock surfaces, drought and wild fires. The dominant human activities that
threaten the cultural landscape include agricultural practises, tourism and the provision of
tourism related infrastructure, accelerated or human induced deforestation human caused veld
fires and graffiti. The Matobo conservation society, in its 2012 newsletter has noted that
invasive species such as lantana camara have become a major threat in the cultural
landscape. Poaching within the national park area has also been another problem that has
existed for years now. They also noted the political environment being another aspect that has
threatened cultural heritage in the Matobo hills world heritage area. In 2012, a group of ex-
freedom fighters carried out some illegal ceremonies at the site, which the local community
saw as desecrating the values of the site. The ex-freedom fighters have also in the past
threatened to dig up Cecil John Rhodes‘ grave and send his remain s to Britain. These threats
usually have a complex cause-impact relationship which has to be understood if appropriate
37
management responses are to be implemented. Thus the threats facing the site have to be
identified if the effectiveness of management at the site is to be assessed and enhanced.
2.4.4 National context
In order to place the management of a site into context, Hockings et al (2006) believes that it
is important to know if the local and national governments are supportive of the world
heritage site and the degree to which relevant legislation and other government policy is
helping to protect values. Thus, policies have to be assessed for adequacy, whether they are
being fully implemented in practise and the relationship with institutions supporting the
management of the site has to be reviewed. Assessment of the national context also helps
overcome the problem noted by Eboreime (2009:2), whereby in most African countries the
out-dated laws and policies have failed to meet and cope with the contemporary realities of
developments and value systems at sites. He states that the laws and policies fail to address
contemporary issues such as poverty, employment, land use and rights or they are in conflict
with other stakeholder and community values and rights. The NMMZ act presents a good
illustration of this fact as fines stipulated in the act have not been reviewed and are still in the
abandoned Zimbabwe dollar currency.
The laws have also been said have originated with a focus on the physical aspects of sites,
with rules and regulations prescribed to distance people from the site (Ndoro 2001; Pwiti and
Ndoro 2005; Munjeri 2005). In order to enhance the management of such heritage as the
Matobo hills, both the tangible and intangible aspects have to be fully considered and
assessed. The research therefore assesses management effectiveness at the site within a
theoretical framework that covers both the tangible and the intangible.
2.5 Management planning systems
According to Hockings et al (2008:34), world heritage sites with established and current
management plans are likely to be more successful and effective in terms of management.
Effective management plans give direction to site management and link site values to
management objectives. Such plans also direct work activities and focus work on achieving
management objectives. Hockings (2008) further says that effective management plans also
38
involve stakeholders in site management, are linked to budgets and available resources and
have measureable and achievable targets. Effective management plans should provide a
sound decision making framework that presents picture of the site‘s desired future. The plan
should also provide a plan of how this desired future will be achieved (Leverington et al
2010). Thus it is important to assess the adequacy of planning systems at a site so as to
enhance the site‘s management by ensuring that all management planning gives an adequate
planning framework that ensures that the site‘s values are effectively protected. Management
cannot be effective if the management plan is not fully implemented. Therefore, the
implementation of management plans for sites should also be assessed. All these aspects
should be assessed, especially when one considers the situation at the Matobo Hills World
Heritage area where the management plan is out-dated. The management committee at the
site has also been alleged to have failed to implement the same out dated management plan
during its stipulated lifespan (Makuvaza and Makuvaza 2012). The research therefore aims to
assess the level and nature of implementation of the management plan in relation to the
effectiveness of the whole management regime at the site. This would therefore enable the
identification of areas where implementation has been lacking, and the impacts of this lack on
the protection of the site‘s values.
2.6 Management needs and inputs
Repeated assessments, at world heritage sites and protected areas around the world, have
shown that the level of resourcing disposable for site management often has an impact on
management effectiveness at the site (Hockings et al 2008). Estimation of needs enables the
identification of shortfalls in resources (funds, manpower, equipment...) in relation to
management objectives. Lillo et al (2004) however says that some management institutions,
even in the wealthy countries, have come to find that servicing all their sites and protected
areas to a desirable level is not economically possible. Hockings et al (2006:20) then says
that for management to be effective, which would enhance attempts to service sites to the
most desirable level possible, the adequacy of resources has to be assessed. In the assessment,
the level of resources required the extent to which resources are available and whether the
available resources are being used efficiently are issues that have to be considered. However
to estimate if resources are adequate, an assessment has to first determine what is needed for
adequate management.
39
2.7 Management processes
All world heritage sites and protected areas, including those that are well planned and
resourced, need efficient and sound management process for them to have management that
is effective (Hockings et al 2006). Assessment of management effectiveness can help
improve management processes, and hence help improve the effectiveness of the whole
management regime at a site (Hockings et al 2008).
Chapter summary
This chapter presented the theoretical framework within which the research operated. It
highlighted sections of the 1972 world heritage convention and the 2003 convention for the
safeguarding of the intangible heritage that are used by the research as benchmarks or
standards for best practise in site management. The chapter also reviewed literature that has
been produced on the concept of management effectiveness and other constituent subjects
and themes relevant to the study. The next chapter focuses on presenting the research
methodology that was employed in the research.
40
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the research design, methodology and tools that were employed in the
research and how they were applied. The chapter also presents the target population for the
research.
3.1 Research design
A research design has been defined as a work plan for a research and is used to as a guide in
in data collection and analysis. It aims at employing economy in procedure, in combination
with relevance to the research process (Truckman 1972). It ensures that the data gathered
enables the research question to be answered, and hence it deals not with a logistical problem,
but with a logical problem (Yin 1989:29). The research employed a descriptive research
design that used the case study research method. The design allows for a process or
phenomenon to be investigated using a combination of data collection tools (Hussey 1997;
Creswell, 1994:12). The design was appropriate as the research focused on the Matobo Hills
as the case study site for the assessment of the effectiveness of management approaches at
world heritage sites in Zimbabwe. This is because, as stated by Gall et al (1996:549), the case
study approach helps explain or to assess and evaluate phenomena. The hypothesis was that
the informants that were interviewed and questioned represented and gave a picture of the
whole stakeholder population at the world heritage site. The research design employed
qualitative approaches to gathering and analysing data. The research aimed at getting in depth
information and views on the management of the site that could only be delved into more
accurately through qualitative means. However, quantitative approaches were also used in the
calculation and presentation of aspects such as response rates.
3.2 Target population
Target population has been defined as the entire group from which a research aims to extract
information from( Cohen et al 1994). The target population for the research comprised of
41
staff from the Natural History Museum in Bulawayo and from the world heritage area, staff
from the national parks and wildlife authority of Zimbabwe‘s Bulawayo offices and from the
site, academics who have researched and worked on the world heritage area, visitors, local
communities and commercial tourism business operators with a stake in the world heritage
area.
3.3 Sampling
Dunne (1995) has defined sampling as the selection of a smaller group so that it represents a
larger group or population. The research targeted 2 individuals from each of the groups
identified as being the target population. That made a sample of 12 individuals. From the
organisations/entities identified as having key management function in the world heritage
area (NMMZ and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management), the research
employed purposive sampling as one informant was selected from the organisation‘s
management while the other was selected from middle level employees based at the site. This
was so that perspectives and views form all levels of management could be obtained and also
so that the information could be compared for purposes of getting better insight and ensuring
as much validity as possible. The individuals from the organisations were selected based on
the level of involvement or engagement in the management of the world heritage area. For all
the other stakeholders the research targeted two informants randomly.
3.4 Ethical considerations
All data gathering from employees of NMMZ and the Parks and Wildlife Authority was done
with the express permission of the relevant institutional authorities. The informants were
fully informed of the purpose of the study and how the information they gave would be used.
The researcher also had to follow all the rules and regulations pertaining to the site, and for
conduct at such places as the National Parks and Wildlife Authority camp at Maleme and at
the Natural History Museum in Bulawayo. The researcher also had to respect the issue of
confidentiality where informants requested anonymity.
42
3.5 Research instruments
3.5.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires adapted from the enhancing our heritage toolkit were used to gather data.
Two questionnaires were developed to assess the level of stakeholder engagement at the site.
This was so as to eliminate bias. Thus, the first questionnaire was designed for the key
management entities in the world heritage site, namely NMMZ and the national parks and
wildlife authority. This questionnaire was employed both on interview basis, and also in the
conventional ‗fill-in‘ questionnaire basis. This was meant to gather in depth information on
management of the site. The second questionnaire was designed for the other stakeholders
without key management functions in the world heritage site. To further eliminate bias, the
first questionnaire was also given to other stakeholders, without key management functions in
the world heritage area, for them to answer in relation to other stakeholders in the same
group. Two other questionnaires were also adapted from the toolkit for assessing
management planning and management process systems at the site. These questionnaires
were administered to key informants from NMMZ and from the National parks and wildlife
authority. All the questionnaires crafted had 4 possible answers for each question, in line with
the toolkit used for the research, based on performance rating. This was then complimented
with space where the respondent could further comment and explain their answer. This
ensured that the gathered data was in depth and gave more insight and answers into issues
asked. A worksheet for identification of threats to the site‘s values, adapted from the
assessment toolkit was also administered to two officials each from NMMZ and ZIPWA for
them to fill in.
3.5.2 Interviews
The research also employed interviews to gather information pertaining to the context within
which the site is managed. This was so as to get the in depth opinions and views of
informants which could not be captured by the questionnaires or by desktop survey alone. An
interview guide was crafted but in the interviews the researcher would follow up on notable
points raised by informants and requiring further explanation. Staffs from NMMZ and the
National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority were the major focus of these interviews.
However, other relevant informants such as academics, who have done research on the site,
were also targeted so as to get an even broader picture of the context within which the site is
being managed.
43
3.5.3 Desktop survey
Related literature and reports were thoroughly reviewed. The integrated management plan for
the site for the year (2005-2009) was also thoroughly reviewed. Management and other
activity reports from NMMZ and the National Parks and Wildlife Authority were also
consulted together with reports from other organisations and institutions with a stake in the
site, such as the Matobo conservation society. This was so as to get a broad picture of
management at the site with full consideration of the activities of stakeholders. Other
literature and publications related to the site that have been produced were also thoroughly
consulted and reviewed. The Midlands State university library and the Natural History
Museum‘s library proved to be invaluable sources of literature.
3.6Ethical considerations
All data gathering from employees of NMMZ and the Parks and Wildlife Authority was done
with the express permission of the relevant institutional authorities as called for by Sales and
Falkman (2000). The informants were fully informed of the purpose of the study and how the
information they gave would be used. The researcher also had to follow all the rules and
regulations pertaining to the site, and for conduct at such places as the National Parks and
Wildlife Authority camp at Maleme and at the Natural History Museum in Bulawayo. The
researcher also had to respect the issue of confidentiality where informants requested
anonymity as called for by Smith (2003).
Chapter summary
This chapter presented the research methodology that was used in the research. It also
presented other aspects related to methodology employed. With that, the chapter provides the
setting for the next chapter, chapter 4, which presents the data gathered and its analysis.
44
CHAPTER 4
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the data that was gathered using the methods given in the previous
chapter 3. The response rate is also presented and explained. The chapter also analyses the
gathered data and discusses it. The data is interpreted both quantitatively and qualitatively so
as to give it meaning.
4.1 Response rates
4.1.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires were successfully administered to NMMZ‘s heritage manager (natural history
museum), a tour guide from NMMZ, two national parks and wildlife officers, two academics,
two tourism operators and to two members of the local communities met at Maleme rest
camp. Of the targeted ten informants, 8 questionnaires were successfully answered and
returned. This gave an 80% response rate on the questionnaire survey.
4.1.2 Interviews
Interviews were successfully carried out with employees from NMMZ, officers from the
National Parks and Wildlife Authority, and with academics who have worked on the site. Of
the targeted 6 officials, 5 were successfully interviewed, giving an 83% response rate for the
interviews.
4.2 Current management context and status of the site
Hockings (2006:12) has explained management context as being where management is in
terms of managing a site. It focuses on establishing the values, significance and management
objectives of the site, threats it faces nature and levels of stakeholder engagement and the
national policy environment within which the site is managed.
45
4.2.1 Site values and management objectives
4.2.1.1 Site values
Aesthetic value
The two officials from NMMZ concurred in their belief that the cultural landscape, especially
the hills, presents a breath taking view which many have referred to as being ―beautiful‖. The
landscape has many rock art sites with art executed with varying styles and themes that all
contribute to the aesthetics of the world heritage area. The world‘s view area presents one
place where the aesthetic value of the world heritage area is emphasised, especially when one
views the sunset. An official from the national parks who was interviewed said that the
vegetation and wildlife complimented the beautiful landscape and should be preserved.
Figure 2: A painted panel in the Matobo hills (adapted from Hubbard 2006)
46
Cultural and historic values
All the officials interviewed from NMMZ and DNPWM said that the area was of significant
cultural and historic value. The view was supported by an academic interviewed who has
worked in the area and published literature about the world heritage area. The academic said
that the area had more than 3500 recorded rock art sites. This was further, supported by
officials from NMMZ who said that individually the rock art has been projected to reach
millions. The official said that the art is attributed to both the hunter gatherers of the late
stone and the farming communities. Hubbard (2006) has referred to the rock art as being as
being a depiction or manifestation of the complex religion of late Stone Age hunter gatherers
and hence loaded with meaning and emotion that goes beyond simple aesthetics.
Stone Age sites
According to two NMMZ officials and an academic that were interviewed, the area has an
abundance of sites from the Stone Age period that are mostly found within rock shelters. The
informants said that the sites are an invaluable source of information about the stone
inhabitants of the region and the development of human culture that has proved important to
archeologists and historians.
Iron Age sites
Two NMMZ officials that were interviewed said that the world heritage area also has a lot of
evidence of occupation and interaction with people from the Iron Age period. The officials
said that Zimbabwe tradition dry stone walling and remains of iron smelters are also found in
the area.
Historical value
The world heritage area has been said to be a repository of our history as Zimbabweans, and a
portal to our past Chikwiramakomo (2013 pers. comm). In the 1830s Shona ethnic groups
that were displaced by Nguni groups fleeing the mfecane took refuge in the hills. The hills
also provided refuge during the first Chimurenga. The interaction between humans and the
hills that resulted due to these conflicts left behind relics that can now be seen today in many
different forms such as the iron smelting furnaces and numerous granaries found in the hills.
47
Figure 3: Relics of granaries in the Matobo hills (adapted from the Matobo hills
management plan for 2004-2009)
The area also has a strong history as a platform and means through which black
Zimbabweans resisted colonisation and oppression during the colonial period (Ranger 2000).
The world heritage area contains burial sites of important figures that played an important
part in the country‘s history. These include king Mzilikazi‘s, Cecil John Rhodes‘ and Allan
Wilson‘s graves. The area has historically commemorated places and spaces such as the
Rhodes indaba site where the rebelling Ndebele chiefs and Rhodes negotiated peace during
the first liberation war.
Intangible heritage and living traditions
The area is home to sacred traditional shrines. These shrines include Njelele, Dula, Zhilo,
Ntunjambila, Wirirai and Manyanga. These shrines, according to the African traditional
religion indigenous to the area, represent the authority of God (Mwari/Mwali) (Hyland and
Umenne 2006:4: Nyathi and Ndiweni 2005). NMMZ officials that were interviewed said both
local people and others from various areas around the country converge on these shrines to
48
pray for rain and to ask for protection and good health. The Njelele has areas that are
considered to be sacred and hence not to be tempered with in any way. One example is that
of the swampy areas which were used to determine whether rains would fall or not (Ranger,
1999). These sacred areas have taboos that are associated with them which control access and
restrict certain behaviours from visitors and set guidelines for conduct. Red clothes and
paraphernalia and metal gadgets are not allowed at some of the shrines (Primrose Ngulube
2013 pers. comm).
Economic values
According to the interviews carried out with officials from NMMZ and DPWM the world
heritage area contributes to the economy locally and nationally. Locally, the local community
benefit from sale of curios to tourists who visit the world heritage area. They also benefit
through the sale of thatching grass harvested from the national park core area. The world
heritage area is also a source of employment to locals as some of them are employed by the
various stakeholders and business entities operating in the area. Most of the security and tour
guiding personnel employed by NMMZ are members of the local community. The Parks and
Wildlife Authority also employ local community members. The world heritage area also
contributes to the national economy through tourism as it attracts a diverse range of visitors,
both local and international. Members of the local community however said that they did not
benefit in any substantial way from the site, especially from NMMZ activities at the site.
They said that the employment being provided by NMMZ did not benefit the whole
community but o0nly the few who got jobs and their families (Primrose Ngulube 2013 pers.
comm).
Bio-diversity values
The Matobo hills area has had over two hundred species of trees recorded which is a very
high diversity of vegetation types within a comparatively small area (Nyathi, 2013). The
world area is also home to a diverse population of wildlife which survives or flourishes due to
the World Heritage area‘s protected area status. According to a DNPWM ecologist resident at
Rhodes Matopo national park, the area is very valuable as a means of preserving biodiversity.
The ecologist said that the area contains critical ecosystems and species, some of which are
endangered. DNPWM officials interviewed said that the World Heritage Area is home to a
diverse range of fauna. They said that the numerous caves and the vegetation (especially in
49
the national park area) offer a diverse source of habitats for the animals. Faunal species range
from the large herbivores such as the rhinoceros species (Dicerosbicornisand
Ceratotherumsimum), to predators such as the leopard and raptors such as the black eagle to
small invertebrates such as the rock scorpion (Hadogenes troglodytes)(Matobo hills
management plan 2004-2009). According to Nyathi (2013) the world heritage area has 88
mammal, 175 bird, 39 snake and 15 fish species. Giraffe, zebra, sable and wildebeest are also
found in the Matobo hills world heritage site.
4.2.1.2 Management objectives
The long term goal of site management plans and activities at the world heritage area is to
ensure a sustainable future for the cultural landscape. In order to reach this goal the world
heritage site has management objectives that have been established in its management plan.
All the informants that were interviewed concurred that the management objectives for the
site were appropriate. One official from DNPWM said that the management objectives in the
plan are grouped into five headings. These headings are conservation and management,
research and documentation, tourism awareness, promotion and visitor management, and
community co-operation and participation. He said that this fragmentation of task and
function helped in the focussing of management efforts. All informants that were interviewed
and who answered questionnaires in relation to management objectives, believed, and thus
showed that the management objectives are clearly and effectively linked to the long term
vision of management and if effectively implemented, would ensure the effective
management and protection of the site‘s values to posterity. Management is thus effective in
this respect, and this reflects the view by Hockings et al (2008) that the management
objectives of a site should reflect the site‘s values. Management at the site has thus been
effective in linking the world heritage area‘s values to the site‘s management plan. This
greatly increases the chances of the site‘s values being effectively protected.
4.2.1.3 Threats to the world heritage area’s values
Interviews conducted pointed to human activities, followed by natural processes as presenting
the biggest threat to the values of the site. These threats endanger the sustenance of the
integrity and authenticity of the values attached to the site. Table 3 below shows the threats
50
that are threatening the site, the values threatened, major causes of the threat, and impacts of
the threats and management responses that have been made by site management.
Threats Values threatened Current
or
potential
threat
(C or P)
Major causes
of threat
management
response
1.Human
induced
deforestation
(in the
communal
lands).
Aesthetic value C
Clearing land
for settlement
Cutting down of
trees for curio
carving
Need for
building
materials and
fence posts
Biodiversity (the
diverse plant life in
the cultural
landscape).
C
Scientific value
(medicinal plants).
C
Critical animal
habitats.
C
2.Graffiti Cultural heritage
(rock art).
C Visitors/tourists
Lack of
sufficient visitor
management
mechanisms
Limiting number
of rock art sites
open to the public
to a few select
monitored sites.
(NMMZ)
Erection of
barriers in some
of these sites.
(NMMZ)
Employment of
site custodians
and tour guides.
(NMMZ)
Routine
inspections and
removal of
graffiti. (NMMZ)
Aesthetic value
(rock art).
P
51
Table continued
3.Fire Cultural heritage
(rock art).
P Natural
phenomena
Human
induced fires
Aesthetic value
(rock art, scenery
provided by the
flora).
P
Fauna P
Animal habitats
P
Scientific value
(medicinal plants,
educational value
of the cultural
resources i9n the
landscape…).
P
4.Poaching Fauna (especially
the rhinoceros
species for their
horns, and other
species for food).
C Absence of
reliable
boundary fence
for the national
park core area
Socio-
economic
challenges
Patrols in the
national park core
area (PWMA)
Erection and
maintenance of
fences (for
example the
ongoing whovi
wilderness fencing
project). (PWMA)
Aesthetic values
(trees)
C
5.Soil erosion Aesthetic value C Agricultural
practises
Human
induced
deforestation
CAMPFIRE
projects (Matobo
and Umzingawne
rural district
councils)
District
environmental
action plans
(Umzingwane rural
district council)
Biodiversity C
6.Encroach-ment
of Invasive alien
species
(lantanacamarra,
eucalyptusa)
Authenticity of
cultural areas and
the whole world
heritage area
C Animal
movements
leading to
spread of
seeds.
Natural
dispersion of
seeds.
Elimination of the
alien species where
possible (resource
wise) through use
of chemicals and
manual methods
(DNPWM).
Hydrological
ecosystems and
critical habitat
systems
C
52
and others).
Biological
integrity
(displacement of
indigenous tree
and grass
species).
P
Planting of
indigenous tree
species in critical
condition areas
(DNPWM).
Table 2: The threats facing the Matobo hills and management Reponses.
The table 3 shows that there is a tendency by site management to concentrate more on current
threats that are threatening the site and note the potential threats. This perpetuates the cycle of
threats as the managers of the site constantly have threats to deal with. The situation is
worsened by the absence of an integrated disaster management plan linked to the
management plan. However, the site managers from NMMZ and DNPWM insisted that they
did carry out preventive conservation in their conservation activities. DNPWM officials
especially pointed out fire guard management as being one of their conservation activities
whilst NMMZ pointed out condition surveys and inspection.
4.2.1.4 Relationship with stakeholders
The management committee for the world heritage site comprises of key stakeholders of the
cultural landscape. These are NMMZ, DNPWM, Zimbabwe tourism authority, Mafela trust,
Matobo and Umzingwane rural district councils and representatives of local chiefs. The
management committee is meant to be a policy making body representing the interests of all
the stakeholders. From interviews conducted, the committee is meant to ensure synergy
between stakeholders in the management of the world heritage area. However, the situation is
different on the ground. According to the heritage manager from NMMZ there are no
mechanisms in place specifically designed to find solutions and resolve conflict if it were to
arise between stakeholders and site management. The management committee has been said
to have failed to work together in aligning the interests and needs of the different
stakeholders. Thus the operational basis of the relationship between stakeholders at the world
heritage can be said to be dysfunctional.
53
The relationship is antagonistic especially between the local communities and those
stakeholders with a legally based operational stake in the world heritage area such as the
Zimbabwe Tourism Authority, DNPWM and NMMZ. Officials from DNPWM interviewed
also said that despite there being a need for a functional relationship between stakeholders,
the local communities generally distrusted management institutions in the world heritage area
especially the above mentioned three who tax the local communities for the resources that
they benefit from the world heritage area. According to these officials, the local communities
have especially complained over the operating fees they are charged by the Zimbabwe
Tourism Authority for them to be able to sell curios.
The local community has also accused NMMZ of failing to do their moral obligation of
repairing local roads leading to the sites under their management. A local community
member interviewed said that there was a general belief among the local community that
revenue generated from entry fees by NMMZ was being ―diverted to other uses‖ or that
―abafanabemuseumbayaginyaimali” (Ndebele for ― the guys from the museum are stealing
money‖, the implication being that revenue was being embezzled. Upon being asked to
explain the reasons for the suspicions, the local community member said that if that was not
the case then why was NMMZ ―not doing any visible things in the area that could give
testimony to their using revenue generated the right way‖. The local community member also
said that they would only be convinced otherwise if they were involved in the financial
management of revenue generated by NMMZ at the cultural sites. The local community also
feel that some of the stringent laws governing the way they harvest resources from the world
heritage area, such as thatching grass and wood for curios, should be relaxed. On the other
hand officials from NMMZ and DNPWM said that, in the best interests of the site, they could
not afford to relax any laws, especially with the current increase in poaching in the country.
Officers from DNPWM suspect that some of the fires that at times threaten the world heritage
area are caused by other stakeholders involved in poaching of wildlife. The suspicions are
further given weight by recent newspaper stories in the local media. A local newspaper,
TheZimbabwean of October 19 2013, carried a story headlined ―Poachers‘ fire devastates
Matopos‖ in which local resettled farmers are alleged to have killed hundreds of wild animals
and a lot of vegetation while poaching wild game.
54
A local community member interviewed said that they were happy that they were consulted
when the management plan for the site was drawn up. They were satisfied with the level to
which their concerns and interests were taken into consideration. However they were
disappointed in that some of the promises they were given were not kept. Key among their
complaints was the issue of relaxation of rules and regulations pertaining to the harvesting of
wood for curio carving as regulated by the forestry act. According to an NMMZ curator from
the Natural History Museum in Bulawayo, the local communities were effectively and
sufficiently consulted in management planning but not in the implementation of the plan and
its current review.
It is thus clear that the creation of a management committee representative of all stakeholders
and answerable to them was a good step in the direction of effectively managing the world
heritage area. The stakeholder consultations carried out in the drawing up of the integrated
management plan for the site were effective, and inclusive of most of the stakeholders‘ needs
and interests, and to the greatest extent effective and an important step in the direction of
effective management. This was in line with Paragraph 111of the World Heritage Convention
which calls for a thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders and the
involvement of these stakeholders and partners in management. However, not all
stakeholders, especially the local community, were involved in the implementation of agreed
management actions. The relationship between stakeholders and management was thus
characterised by mistrust and discontent and ultimately has proved dysfunctional. It is
therefore clear that the basis for stakeholder engagement and relationships was sound and
effective. The problem was however seen in the implementation of agreed actions and plans
as the management set up failed to function fully and united. Thus management was effective
in the planning and consultation process but failed in the implementation phases. This raises
the dangers of future lack of critical communication which may lead to failure to detect and
resolve conflict between stakeholders.
4.2.1.5 The national context within which the world heritage area is managed
According to officials from NMMZ and DNPWM, the legislations under which they operate
are generally adequate for the preservation of values. However the NMMZ act (25:11) has
flaws when it comes to the protection of intangible heritage. The legislation was born from a
55
colonialist ideology that only focused on tangible heritage. However, NMMZ has drafted a
policy on intangible heritage in order to cater for this flaw. The policy has however not been
fully formalised and is not in operation. The policy aims at protecting intangible heritage and
at remedying the shortcomings of the NMMZ act. However, none of the officials from
NMMZ that were interviewed had the policy. This implies that the policy is not at all being
used. The enforcement of these two legislations, the NMMZ act 25:11 and the Parks and
Wildlife act 25:11, complimented by various other legal frameworks has to the greatest extent
helped preserve the site‘s values.
In relation to government policies, the heritage manager from NMMZ said that there was
conscious attempt to integrate site conservation into other government policy especially when
it comes to land resettlement. The country is also a signatory to various international
conventions which aim for the protection of values found in the Matobo hills world heritage
site. Chief among these conventions is the World Heritage Convention and the Convention on
Biological Diversity. This falls in line with paragraphs 97 and 98 of the World Heritage
Convention which calls for legislative and regulatory measures at both local and national
level that assure the survival of the property‘s values, integrity and/or authenticity.
Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the World Heritage Convention also state that world heritage
properties should have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional protection and
management to ensure their safeguarding. This is reflected in the country‘s being signatories
to international conventions that aim for the protection of the site‘s values. In terms of
government funding, the Zimbabwean government provides grants for NMMZ and DNPWM
for salaries. These funds do not fund the management of the world heritage area. DNPWM
and NMMZ have only been able to fund their operations through donations and entry fees.
The government also has a national heritage committee to oversee and review heritage
matters on behalf of government. However, the 50 member committee has been said to be
powerless and thus has been ineffective.
It is thus justifiable to say that the local context within which the site is managed is to the
larger extent not effective with shortcomings in policy. This implies that the danger of the
out-dated laws and policies continued failure to meet and cope with contemporary issues such
as poverty and conflict with other stakeholder values may continue and endanger the values
56
of the site. However the international context is adequate and can be a vehicle for the
adequate and effective protection of the site‘s values if the local context were to be improved.
4.3 Appropriateness of planning systems at the world heritage area
4.3.1 Adequacy of primary planning document/management plan
Decision making framework
According to the responses obtained from interviews conducted and questionnaire surveys
carried out, the management plan for the site provides a sound decision making framework.
All the interviewees agreed that the plan explicitly articulates and establishes a clear
understanding of the desired results of management. They also agreed that the plan expresses
the desired future for the site in a way that can assist management of new management issues
and opportunities as they come along. Officials from NMMZ and DNPWM concurred that
the management plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate process for monitoring,
review and adjustment of operational plans and management actions. However, the heritage
manager from NMMZ says that there has been no monitoring of the implementation of the
management plan due to the non-functioning of the management committee.
The management plan for the site thus presents an adequate decision making framework that
greatly helps towards the attainment of effective management of the world heritage site. It
was effectively crafted so as to guide decision making and resultant management action. Site
management has only been ineffective in the monitoring of the implementation of the plan.
This presents a serious problem for the present and in the future if the monitoring and
implementation processes are not reviewed and improved.
Planning context
In terms of the policy environment for management of the site, all the informants agreed that
policies in the plan are inadequate or incomplete in many respects. According to an official
from NMMZ, there was no effort to align the various legislative instruments that are
operational in the world heritage cultural landscape. He says that there is no management
framework that defines who does what, how resources are acquired and how revenue is
57
managed among other issues. Management therefore has been ineffective in terms of the
policy environment for the management of the site. They failed to harmonise legislation
which raises the risk of there being conflicts of interest and intend between stakeholders. The
situation has also been worsened by the failure to review the plan which expired in 2009.
Plan content
Interviews carried out with officials from NMMZ and DNPWM show that there is agreement
that the information base on which the management plan is based on is adequate in depth and
scope, despite being out-dated. The surveys also showed that the plan clearly identifies site
values and links them to well defined management objectives and desired outcomes for the
site. There was also general agreement that the plan is outcome driven rather than issue
driven. The objectives and actions specified in the management plan are considered to be
adequate and appropriate to issues facing the site.
According to a curator from NMMZ and the permits officer from DNPWM Bulawayo, there
was consensus from all the stakeholders including the local community. The local community
were meaningfully and fully involved in development of the management plan and setting
direction for the management of the site. The management plan also identifies the needs and
interests of local communities and takes these into account in decision making. Due to the
participatory approach that was employed during its development, the management plan also
identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders and has taken these into consideration
in decision making. Informants from NMMZ stated that the management actions specified in
the plan can be understood clearly and also provide a useful basis for developing integrated
operational plans such as budgets and work programmes. However these could not be put
into action as the management committee failed to effectively work together.
The above aspects show that the management planning systems at the world heritage site are
generally excellent and effective. They fall in line with Paragraph 108 of the World Heritage
Convention which states that properties should have an appropriate management plan or other
documented management system which should specify how the outstanding universal value
of the property will be preserved. However, as noted by officials, the problem has been in the
58
ineffective implementation of the integrated management plan by the management
committee.
Management was therefore effective in the consultative process and crafting of the
management plan. This resulted in a plan based on agreed views and aims by all stakeholders
and excellent planning systems. As mentioned before, management has however been
ineffective in implementation of the management actions set in the management plan.
4.3.2 Site design
Buffer zone and boundaries
According to officials from NMMZ and DNPWM and a tourism lodge interviewed, the world
heritage area has established boundaries and a buffer zone. The various stakeholders all have
established activity boundaries and jurisdictions. According to officials interviewed, the
boundaries of the world heritage area and its buffer zone can be to the greatest extent be said
to adequate and ensure the greatest expression possible of the outstanding universal value of
the site. This is in line with paragraphs 99, 100, 103 and 104 of the World Heritage
Convention which require that the boundaries of world heritage sites include all areas and
attributes that are tangible expressions of the site‘s outstanding universal value, and that an
adequate buffer zone should be provided. This establishment of a buffer zone and boundaries
points to effective site management.
National park
The park makes up 20% of the world heritage area, about 54 000 hectares. The national park
has been one of the strengths of the site‘s design in terms of the management of the world
heritage area‘s values. The national park core area is protected by DNPWM which has teams
of rangers patrolling the area. The park area has fences maintained by DNPWM and these
fences are constantly improved as in the case of the Whovi fencing project. The national park
has been undergoing referencing in a bid to better protect the wildlife in the national park.
The absence of human settlements in the park and the control of access have also helped
protect the values of the world heritage area that are located in the national park, including
the cultural values (pers. comm. Mr Chibwe, DNPWM). However, the restrictions and
59
conditions placed on local community access to resources within the national park area has
been cause for discontent among local community members. This has been attributed as
being one of the causes of excessive poaching of trees and thatching grass as the local
community find it expensive to go through the proper channel.
National monuments
The world heritage area, according to the NMMZ heritage manager, has sites that have been
declared as national monuments. This means that the sites are then given legal protection
under the NMMZ act 25:11. Damaging the national monument or removal of any material
from the site becomes a punishable offence at law. The NMMZ, in line with its policies on
national monuments has maintenance and monitoring programmes all aimed at the protection
of these national monuments. Site custodians are also stationed at national monuments within
the world heritage area to ensure their preservation and interpretation to the public. However,
academics interviewed have pointed out weaknesses in this aspect of site design. They said
that the legislation under which the sites were declared national monuments is out dated,
philosophically colonial and undemocratic in nature. They all agreed that the legislation
marginalised the local community form their heritage. The legislation used in this case
therefore implies ineffective management in respect to this aspect. This situation goes against
ideas of effective management presented by Mackinnon (2001) and Hockings et al (2008)
who say that effective management involves the engagement of stakeholders sustained by
local communities becoming an important part of site conservation efforts. The legislation
therefore militates against scholarly established ideas of effective management and thus
points to ineffective management at the site.
Multiple jurisdictions and stakeholders
The world heritage site has different land ownership systems and multiple legal
administrative systems. According to the Matobo hills management plan (2004 – 2009), the
world heritage area falls under three types of land ownership which are (1) state protected
areas such as the national park, (2) communal lands, state land without individual tenure and
(3) privately owned land with individual tenure, also called commercial land. The three
categories have acts of parliament that demarcate boundaries, establish managing agencies
within the bounded areas and control activities within the areas. The world heritage area is
also characterised by multiple stakeholders who all have diverse needs and demands on the
site which are either shared or are in conflict.
60
Interviews conducted showed that to a lesser extent this situation could be considered to be a
strength in site design as it means that different legal instruments and the different skills and
knowledge from the different stakeholders can be channelled towards a single goal of
protecting site values. The informants however pointed out that the situation on the ground at
the world heritage site pointed to this aspect of site design as being a weakness. The
stakeholders have different interests and priorities which are at times in conflict. The different
legal instruments operating in the world heritage area were also not aligned. This was then
exacerbated by the failure of the management committee to work together. Thus management
is now characterised by discontent, suspicion and misunderstandings between stakeholders.
Management is therefore ineffective as evidenced by the discontent and conflict between
stakeholders and site management. It has failed to establish a common ground from which
stakeholders can play their complimentary part in management of the site‘s values.
4.4 Management needs and inputs
4.4.1 Personnel
NMMZ has a shortage in the number of trained personnel available for tour guiding in
relation to visitor levels. This affects the level and type of interpretation experienced by
visitors to the cultural sites as the available tour guides are at times under pressure.
Information pertaining to DNPWM game ranger numbers was withheld for security reasons
considering the national park‘s protected area status. However, parks officials interviewed
said game ranger numbers were generally adequate for patrols and the protection of some site
values. They said that their activities are also, when the need arises, complimented by the
police and army.
The table 4 shows the personnel needs against personnel available established through the
questionnaires administered to NMMZ and DNPWM officials. The implication of this
scenario, in the case of NMMZ, is that management has been ineffective. Even though
DNPWM may have been effective in terms of personnel, this is negated by the failure by
NMMZ when one looks at the situation from the overall site level, which is the level from
which management effectiveness of the site is assessed.
61
Institution Staff
category
Location Required
no. of
staff
Current
no. of
staff
Number
of
trained
staff
Type of
training
required
Level of
training
NMMZ Heritage
managers
Bulawayo 2 2 2 Minimum of
a degree in
archaeology
or heritage
management
Masters
degrees in
heritage
management
Tour
guides
Matobo
hills
8 4 4 In house
Tour
guiding
training
In house tour
guiding
training
Security Matobo
hills
5 3 3 Security Special
constabulary
training
DNPWM
Rangers
Matobo
hills
*
*
*
Game
ranger
training
Game
ranger
training
Principal
manager
Bulawayo 1 1 1
Area
manager
Matobo
hills
1 1 1
ecologist Matobo
hills
1 1 1
* Information withheld for security reasons
Table 3: NMMZ and DNPWM personnel required and available at the Matobo hills
62
4.4.2 Budgets and funding
According to the heritage managers and National parks officers, the funding systems for the
world heritage site have not been harmonised, despite it being one of the goals of the site‘s
integrated management plan.
NMMZ
NMMZ receives a grant from government for its operations. The grant is administered by the
head office and divided between the institution‘s 5 regions. It is from this grant that salaries
for the employees and funds for operations are taken from. The world heritage site is in the
NMMZ western region. The money is further divided and budgeted for operations for the
whole region. Interviews conducted at NMMZ revealed that there is no specific budget by
NMMZ for the world heritage area. Budgets are done for the region as a whole. All the
NMMZ officials interviewed and questionnaires pointed to the fact that the grant is never
adequate for effective management of sites and monuments in the country as a whole. Thus
the funds provided for the world heritage site are never enough and adequate. However, the
institution sometimes receives donor funds for management projects at the site. The
Pomongwe site museum was recently rethatched using funds donated by the Beit trust. This
however is not a steady source of funds on which the institution can base its budgets on.
Questionnaires also showed that the financial management system was poor and significantly
undermined the effectiveness of management of cultural values by NMMZ.
DNPWM
According to the management plan (2004-2009), the institution is funded through the
National Parks Statutory Fund which receives income through a grant from government.
Revenue from entry fees is directly used to fund the management of the site. According to the
management plan (2004-2009), DNPWM has also in the past borrowed funds from the World
Bank for conservation programmes in the world heritage area.
In terms of funding, management has generally been ineffective. This is evident by the
ineffective grants provided by government at national level. The situation is then
compounded by inadequacies at institutional level as in the case of NMMZ which has failed
to establish budgeting mechanisms that specifically deal and cater for the management of the
world heritage area.
63
4.5 Efficiency of management processes
4.5.1 Management processes
Management structures
Interviews conducted showed that the values for the site have been agreed upon by all the
stakeholders and are fully reflected in the management objectives. According to a curator
from NMMZ, in terms of management planning, the management plan in use is out-dated and
has not been fully and adequately implemented. An academic who was informally
interviewed said that the failure by the management committee to implement the management
plan has been one of the causes of discontent and conflict among stakeholders at the site. The
above mentioned curator said that management planning systems and decision making
processes are excellent and all stakeholders were consulted in management planning, but the
problem was/is in the implementation, review and updating of the plan. To date the plan has
not been updated.
In terms of conservation, NMMZ has regular work plans for repairs and restorations at the
cultural sites. However, the heritage manager says that the work plans are at departmental
level at the museum and not necessarily in harmony with the integrated management plan. He
further said that a monitoring and evaluation system for the work and management activities
by NMMZ exists but the actual monitoring on the ground is not being done. In terms of the
reporting requirements for the world heritage site the questionnaires given to both the
DNPWM and NMMZ showed that there was no reporting on the heritage site being done to
the world heritage centre. Interviews conducted showed that despite there being a few
shortages in staff, especially for NMMZ, staff were adequately trained for their tasks and
office.
Management has thus been ineffective in this aspect. Failure by the management committee
has resulted in discontent and conflict. This possibly contributed to the prevailing situation
whereby institutions or stakeholders all have divergent work plans geared for the protection
of their individual interests. Monitoring has not been concerted and the requirements have not
been met. The lack of joint effort in monitoring is possibly the major reason for the failure to
meet the reporting requirements of the 1972 World Heritage Convention.
64
Resource management
Patrols by DNPWM within the national park and the appointment of custodians and security
personnel at cultural sites by NMMZ have helped to control and prevent inappropriate land
uses and activities that may endanger the site‘s values. According to interviews conducted,
there is enough data on the cultural values, critical habitats and species to appropriately
support and enhance management decisions and management planning. Research that has
been done and continues to be done in the world heritage area has helped site management
update the resource inventory. NMMZ keeps record of all archeological research carried out
in the area, and has in the past carried out ethnographic research on the area. Their
information on the cultural values and aspects of the area was also improved through the
consultations with the local communities that were held during the drafting of the integrated
management plan for the site. DNPWM constantly monitors the wildlife in the national park,
in conjunction with organisations such as Chipangali wildlife trust and the Dambari wildlife
trust. Their resource inventory has also been assisted and updated by the various researches
that have been carried out by different organisations operating in the area. This research and
updating of resource inventories on the Matobo hills world heritage is in line with article 11
of the World Heritage Convention and article 12 of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding
of the Intangible Heritage convention which calls for the drawing up of resource inventories
as a means of enhancing the management the site‘s values. Resource management at the site
has thus been effective. It has thus helped establish an on-going resource inventory that
assists all management decisions and actions. This has been complimented by the security
measures put in place by NMMZ and DNPWM.
Management plan implementation
Conservation and management
Informants interviewed said that the management plan has not been effectively and fully
implemented by the management committee. The dysfunctional relationship between the
stakeholders, according to a heritage manager from NMMZ, makes it next to impossible for
the current management plan, and any other management plan to be implemented in the
future under the current environment. One of the objectives of the management plan was to
finalise and make fully operational a hierarchy of management structures through formal
agreements between major stakeholders. Despite there having been agreements between
stakeholders in relation to site management, the management structures established have been
65
dysfunctional. The management plan also aimed to minimise conflict by controlling
movement of game, livestock and people between communal and protected areas. DNPWM
has implemented and invested considerable effort into achieving this objective. However,
implementation of this objective has actually been one of the main causes of conflict between
the institution and the local community who have resources they need in the protected areas.
The local communities feel the implementation has been inconsiderate of their needs and has
ignored the promises made to them during the drawing up of the management plan.
However, officials interviewed from DNPWM and NMMZ stated that to the greatest extent,
their organisations had made progress towards developing capacity by appointing new staff
where need be, training and building among existing staff so as to enhance the effective
management of the site. The DNPWM frequently holds training courses and a refresher
course for its personnel involved in the management of the site, and has an established skills
development programme. On the other hand, NMMZ, despite its claims, has shortages of
manpower at the sites under its management. There are not enough tour guides and security
personnel at the sites under its management. However, the two organisations can be
recommended for having been able to undertake regular inspections and corrective measures
where necessary. Monitoring mechanisms are in place and have been used to monitor illegal
activities that threaten biodiversity and the integrity of cultural sites. NMMZ has tried to
adequately focus on maintaining quality management of the selected cultural sites in the
world heritage area already open to the public. Shortage of resources has been the draw back
to the organisation‘s efforts.
Enforcement of the environmental impact assessment policy has been one of the major
successes of management at the site in terms of achieving management plan objectives.
According to the heritage manager from NMMZ and parks officials, the policy has been
enforced effectively and archeological impact assessments have been conducted to
complement the environmental impact assessment. Shortage of funds has greatly negated the
provision of trained personnel and capacity development. This has also negatively affected
the mechanisms that have been put in place to monitor illegal activities in the World Heritage
Area. Ultimately, despite site management having been effective in some areas of
66
conservation and management, the various shortcomings militate against and negate this
effectiveness.
Research and documentation
The various research projects that have been done in the world heritage area and those that
are currently being carried out have contributed to the scientific knowledge base for the
planning and operational activities of on-going adaptive management. NMMZ has based its
planning and operational activities on the regular condition surveys of the cultural sites it
conducts in the world heritage area. DNPWM has benefited from the research and monitoring
projects conducted by various organisations operational in the area. The organisation has
used this information to complement its own surveys and research on biodiversity in the
national park area. However, an adequate and appropriate research and documentation centre
for documentation of the results of the various researches and monitoring projects has not
been constructed. However, the absence of one centralised documentation center means that
information will always be fragmented between the various organisations. Such a scenario
greatly affects the interpretation of the World Heritage Area to the public as they access
information in bits and pieces without getting the whole picture at once.
Community participation
DNPWM has made considerable efforts to bridge the gap between the national park
management and the local community. They have made efforts to meet with the locals
whenever there is new management, or when there is need for assistance on both sides. The
national park has in the past provided transport to transport communal fertiliser and grain,
and also to carry school children visiting other schools for sport events. The community has
also been allowed to cut thatching grass for their own use on condition that they give a part of
the grass to the park. The national park has also developed a project to supply firewood from
areas with dead trees and bush encroachment to the community. However, this is not enough
considering that there is need for the world heritage site to be managed as one whole system
in which stakeholders all complement each other with shared desired goals for the site.
Sources say that the management committee has failed to hold enough consultative meetings
with local community representatives, which is one of the objectives of the management plan
currently in use. Community participation would meaningfully contribute to management of
the site if it were done as a concerted effort that involves all the players.
67
Chapter summary
The chapter presented the data that was gathered, analysed it and presented discussion on the
state of management effectiveness at the Matobo hills world heritage site. It explored in depth
the context within which the site is managed. The appropriateness of management planning
systems, the economy of management and the efficiency of management processes at the
world heritage site were explored and discussed so as to give a picture of the effectiveness of
management at the Matobo Hills World Heritage Site. The next final chapter 5 focuses on
summarising and concluding the research and ultimately, offering recommendations for
management.
68
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Chapter 1 introduced the research and presented its aims and objectives. The chapter justified
the need for research into the effectiveness of management at the Matobo Hills world heritage
area as a means to enhancing the management and protection of its values. The chapter also
gave a background to the study in which it explains the developments and scholarly ideas that
inspired the research. The research area and its components are described in this chapter
together with the scope of the research. Limitations that affected the research were also
highlighted. Terms used in the research, that would need clarification to ensure that they are
comprehended by readers are defined in the first chapter together with abbreviations. The
chapter thus sets the stage for the reader to understand what the research is about and enables
them to understand the logical precedence of subject matter and themes in the research.
The second chapter focused on the review of literature related to the research subject. The
chapter presented the theoretical framework within which the research was conducted. It
presented in detail and explored the sections of the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the
2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage that are used by the research
as a theoretical basis for assessing management effectiveness at the world heritage site. The
chapter also reviewed literature related to the subject of research and its constituent concepts.
The third chapter presented the research methodology employed in the research. It explained
the descriptive research design used and then presents the research tools and approach used to
gather and analyse data. It explored the ethical considerations that were associated with the
research. The chapter also presented the targeted population for the research and then
explained how the population was sampled.
69
Chapter 4 presented, analysed and discussed the findings of the research in relation to its aims
objectives so as to answer the research questions. The chapter highlighted response rates for
data gathering methods used in the research and explains these response rates. A narrative
approach to presenting, analysis and discussing the data complimented with tables.
Conclusions
Current management context and status of the site
Values and management objectives
The site has established values that are effectively linked to the management objectives of the
site management plan. This presents an environment conducive for effective site
management.
Threats
The site is faced by various threats which are both potential and current threats. Site
management is fully aware of these threats and has mechanisms in place to monitor these
threats. As shown in chapter 4, major management focus is placed on dealing with the current
threats, and limited focus on preventive action on the potential threats.
Stakeholder engagement
The relationship between stakeholders in relation to site management does have some
positive aspects, but is to the greater extent problematic and dysfunctional. It is characterised
by conflict and mistrust. The management committee which is supposed to coordinate and
ensure mutual understanding and cooperation between the stakeholders has been
dysfunctional and failed in its mandate. The local community has the most grievances and
feel they have not benefited from their heritage as much as they would have wanted. Thus
there is no synergy between stakeholders with the relationship at times reaching levels of
antagonism.
National context within which site is managed
The major legal frameworks within which the site is managed are not generally adequate for
effective protection of site values. The NMMZ act 25:11 falls short as it has shortcomings
70
when it comes to intangible heritage and has had to draft a policy on intangible cultural
heritage. The various legislations have also not been harmonised. The country is also a
signatory to various international conventions aimed at the protection of site values. Thus the
site is managed within a context and framework guided by these conventions. The
government has however fallen short when it comes to its funding conservation of the world
heritage area.
Appropriateness of planning systems
Adequacy of the management plan
The management plan provides an adequate decision making framework. It clearly articulates
the desired outcomes of site management in a way that assists the effective management of
the site. The management plan is based on an information base that is adequate in depth and
scope in such a way that enhances decision making. All stakeholders were comprehensively
consulted in its drafting and the plan identifies all the site‘s values and links them to
management objectives. However, the policy environment for management has shortcomings.
The policies in the management plan are incomplete and inadequate in many respects. The
various legal frameworks affecting the site were not aligned in the integration of management
planning. The management plan is also out-dated and still being reviewed.
Site design
The site‘s boundaries have been effectively delineated and a buffer zone fully established for
the protection of the world heritage area‘s values. The national park area has proved to be
effective in protective the world heritage values in the national park area. The area is fenced
and patrolled by parks rangers. The declaration of cultural sites in the world heritage area as
national monuments has also been effective in the protection of the site‘s values as the sites
become protected by force of law. However, the site‘s design has some flaws. Restrictions
and regulations placed on access into the national park area and its resources has been cause
for conflict. The legislation on which national monuments are declared also marginalises the
local community. The multiple jurisdictions and stakeholders that characterise the site have
been weaknesses in the site‘s design as the various the stakeholders and jurisdictions all have
different interests and objectives which are at times in conflict. This situation is exacerbated
by the failure to work together of the management committee.
71
Management needs and inputs
Personnel
Personnel requirements for the protection of the site‘s values have shortcomings. DNPWM
has adequate game ranger numbers who are at times complimented by police and army
details when the need arises. However, NMMZ has a shortage in manpower at the sites in the
world heritage area that are under its management. There is shortage of security personnel
and tour guides.
Budgets and funding
The funding base of the site is generally not adequate and effective to the greater extent.
NMMZ does not have a budget specific to the site. Grants provided by the governments are
not adequate for NMMZ operations. DNPWM funds its operations mainly from entry fees
into the park. Thus the park has to base its budgets on levels of visitorship and donations. The
site also receives funding from the World Heritage Fund for special projects. However they
have to submit proposals which are also weighed against other proposals from world heritage
sites around the world. Thus the funding requests do not always go through and at times take
time to be approved.
Efficiency of management processes at the site
Management processes at the site have been planned effectively in the management plan. The
plan creates an adequate environment for effective management process at the site. However,
in terms of management actions and implementation, management has not been effective.
The management committee has failed to implement the management actions and the plan
has not been updated. There is no alignment and coherence in the management processes of
the managing stakeholders as they all have their different work programmes and plans.
Resource management has however been generally effective. Management actions, in relation
to resource management, have been based on a sound working knowledge base of the
resources in the world heritage area. This has been enabled by the various researches
constantly undertaken in the site.
72
Management plan implementation
Implementation of the management plan has been unsatisfactory. Despite individual efforts to
implement some of the objectives of the plan by different stakeholders, these efforts have
been in line with their individual interests. The management committee has also failed to
coordinate and implement the objectives of the management plan through an integrated
framework, as was intended when the committee was established.
Recommendations
Threats
Site management should develop an established, tested and fully operational integrated
disaster management plan or strategy involving all the stakeholders in the site. The plan
should comprehensively cover all phases of the disaster management cycle which are the
―before‖ phase, the ―during‖ and the disaster recovery phase. That would mean that there
would be an action plan that would enable threats to be dealt with even when they are still
potential threats.
Relationship with stakeholders
There is need for the establishment of integrated conflict resolution mechanisms that involve
more interaction between site management and other stakeholders, especially the local
communities, so that both parties get a mutual understanding of the importance of their being
in synergy in relation to the sustainable management of the site. This could be done through
holding frequent consultative meetings where all parties can discuss issues affecting them and
negotiate with the other stakeholders. This would help find solutions to conflicts.
The stakeholders with key management functions in the world heritage area need to keep
their word and be true to their moral obligations. This would help prevent conflicts with the
local communities as in the case where the local communities have accused NMMZ of just
being interested in collecting entry fees and DNPWM of not keeping its promises of relaxing
regulations pertaining the harvesting of thatching grass and wood from the national park. This
would go a long way in eliminating the suspicion that local communities hold over the site
managers.
73
Institutions with management function in the world heritage area also need to be more
transparent and accountable in their use of the revenue generated from entry fees. They are
not obligated to divulge financial information, but they should at least regularly explain to the
local community what they are doing for them and what they will do for them in the future
which would go a long way in helping prevent conflicts. This is because it has not been
factually proven that these institutions are embezzling funds, thus the issue most likely lies in
their not doing anything tangible that will benefit the community. This is especially true in
the case of NMMZ.
Management planning context
There is need for a review of the whole policy environment within which the site is managed.
The various legal frameworks that are operational in the world heritage area should be
reviewed in relation to the common goal of site management and in relation to the individual
interests and goals of all the other stakeholders. This would help create a more efficient and
viable policy environment for the effective management of the site. This would also improve
the chances of the management committee functioning fully and effectively. It would also
enable the review and addressing of shortcomings in the legislations operational in the
Matobo hills, such as the NMMZ act 25: 11 which is out-dated, narrowed in scope towards
the tangible heritage and it marginalises local communities. This would also improve the
extent to which site conservation can be integrated into other government programmes and
policies.
The management plan for the site is also out-dated and hence there is need for it to be
reviewed as soon as possible and a new up to date plan implemented. The whole management
plan review process should also be reviewed. They should put in place a system whereby they
review the plan and update it in an on-going process during its established life span and not
wait until it has expired.
74
Economy of management
NMMZ should recruit and train more personnel to fill in the manpower shortage at the
cultural sites under its care. There is also need for NMMZ to be more innovative and
outgoing in fund raising activities and seeking donors as done by the DNPWM. This would
strengthen their funding base and enhance their management of the cultural heritage in the
world heritage area by giving them the capacity to recruit the required manpower.
Management processes and plan implementation
There is need for improvement in the management processes and implementation of the
management plan for the world heritage area. The whole implementation process should be
reviewed and improved. Failure to implement the management plan to acceptable levels by
the management committee has shown that the current management plan implementation
process has shortcomings.
Management effectiveness assessment
There is need for site management to adopt and use, in their routine management activities,
management effectiveness assessment tools such as the enhancing our heritage toolkit. This
would go a long way in enhancing the protection of the values attached to the world heritage
site. Individual institutions should also adopt assessment tools that cater for their own
interests at, institution level. For example, NMMZ can adopt the enhancing our heritage tool
and use for assessing the effectiveness with which they are managing cultural sites. However,
there is need for an evaluation of the applicability of these toolkits before they are adopted.
This is because the researcher faced some difficulties in adapting the tool kit to the
Zimbabwean context, especially where cultural values are concerned. Adoption of
management effectiveness assessment tools would also help the site meet the reporting needs
required by the world heritage centre, which the site has been failing to meet.
75
List of references
Alexander M, Rowell T. (1999).Recent developments in management planning and
monitoring on protected sites in the United Kingdom. Parks 9:50–55.
Butchart S et al. (2010).Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science
328(5982), 1164-1168.
Brooks Jet al. (2006).Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies.
Conservation Biology 20(5):1528–1538.
Cifuentes M et al (2000).Medición de la Efectividad de manejo de áreasProtegidas. WWF,
GTZ, IUCN. Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Chipunza K T (2005).Protection of immovable cultural heritage in Zimbabwe: An evaluation.
In Legal frameworks for the protection of immovable cultural heritage in Africa, ed. W.
Ndoro and G. Pwiti, 42–45. Rome: ICCROM.
Chirikure S, Pwiti G (2008).Community Involvement in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Management: An Assessment from Case Studies in Southern Africa and Elsewhere. 49 (3):
467-485.
Dudley N (ed). (2008).Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.
IUCN, Gland
Dudley N, Hockings M, Stolton S. (2004).Options for guaranteeing the effective management
of the world‘s protected areas. Environ Policy Plan 6:131–142.
Dudley N et al (2007).Tracking progress in managing protected areas around the world.
WWF International, Gland.
EboreimeJ. (2008). Challenges of heritage management in Africa. In: Ndoro W, Mumma A,
Abungu G (eds) Cultural Heritage and the Law. Protecting Immovable Heritage in English
Speaking Countries of Southern Africa: 1-5.ICCROM Conservation Studies 8. Rome:
ICCROM.
Ervin J. (2003a).Protected area assessments in perspective. Bioscience 53:819–822.
Ervin J. (2003b).Rapid assessment of protected area management effectiveness in Four
Countries. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Gland.
76
Fountain, A. J. (1981).The geology of an area south of Bulawayo. Annals of the Zimbabwe
geological Survey 7: 1-9.
Fountain, A. J. (1982).On the geology and structure of the country around Bulawayo. Annals
of the Zimbabwe geological Survey 8: 9-20.
Garson, M. S. (1995).The geology of the Bulawayo-Greenstone Belt and the surrounding
granitic terrain. Bulletin of the Zimbabwe geological Survey 93: 83-109.
Hockings.M. (1998).Evaluating Management of Protected Areas: Integrating Planning and
Evaluation. Environmental Management 22(3):337–345.
Hockings.M. (2000).Evaluating Protected Area Management: A Review of System for
Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. School of Natural and Rural
System Management, Lawes, University of Queensland, Queensland.
Hockings.M. (2003).Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected
areas. Bioscience 53:823–832.
Hockings M, Phillips A. (1999). How well are we doing? Some thoughts on the effectiveness
of protected areas. Parks 9:5–14.
Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N. (2000).Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for
Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland.
Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N.(2002).Evaluating Effectiveness: A Summary for Park
Managers and Policy Makers. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and IUCN, Gland.
Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N. (2004).Management effectiveness: assessing management
of protected areas? Environmental Planning Policy Management 6(2):157–174.
Hockings M, Ervin J, Vincent G. (2004).Assessing the management of protected areas: the
work of the world parks congress before and after Durban. International Wildlife Law Policy
7:31–42.
Hockings M, Leverington F, James R. (2005).Evaluating management effectiveness. In:
Worboys GL, Lockwood M, De Lacy T (eds) Protected Area Management: Principles and
Practice. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp 553–573.
77
Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N, Leverington F, Courrau J.(2006).Evaluating Effectiveness:
A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas, 2nd edn. IUCN, Gland.
Hockings M, Cook C, Carter RW, James R. (2009).Accountability, reporting or management
improvement? Development of a state of the parks assessment system in New South Wales.
Environmental Management 43:1013–1025
Keitumetse S. (2006).UNESCO 2003 Convention on Intangible Heritage: practical
implications for heritage management approaches in Africa. South African Archaeological
Bulletin 61(184): 166–171.
Leverington F, Hockings M, Costa K. (2008).Management Effectiveness Evaluation in
Protected areas: a Global Study. University of Queensland, IUCN, WCPA, TNC, WWF,
Gatton.
Leverington F, Costa KL, Pavese H, Lisle A, Hockings M. (2010).A Global Analysis of
Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Environmental Management 46(5):685–698.
Liu, J et al. (2001).Ecological degradation in protected areas: the case of Wolong nature
reserve for giant pandas. Science 292:98–101
LILLO, J et al. (2004).Building capacity to manage protected areas in an era of global
change. In: Barber, C. V., Miller, K. R. &Boness, M.: Securing Protected Areas in the Face
of Global Changes Issues and Strategies [Electronic version]. - IUCN, Cambridge, UK. 137-
167.
.Margules CR, Pressey R. (2000).Systematic conservation planning. Nature 40:243–253.
Margoluis R, Salafsky N. (1998).Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and
Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Island Press, Washington DC.
Munjeri, D. (2003).Smart Partnerships: Cultural landscapes Issues in Africa. World Heritage
Centre, Cultural Landscapes: the challenges of conservation. pp. 134–143. Paris, UNESCO
World Heritage Centres.
Mahachi G, Kamuhangeri E. (2008).Administrative arrangements for heritage resources
management in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Ndoro W, Mumma A, Abungu, G (eds) Cultural
Heritage and the Law. Protecting Immovable Heritage in English Speaking Countries of
Southern Africa: 43-51.ICCROM Conservation Studies 8. Rome: ICCROM.
78
Mazrui A. (1986).The Africans: A Triple Heritage. Boston, Mass., Little, Brown & Co.
MacKinnon J. and MacKinnon K. (1986).Managing protected areas in the tropics. Gland,
Switzerland, IUCN.
MITCHELL, N. BUGGEY, S. (2000).Protected landscapes and cultural landscapes: taking
advantage of diverse approaches. The George Wright Forum, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 35–46.
Mumma A (2003).Community-Based Legal Systems and the Management of World Heritage
Sites. World Heritage Papers 13: 43-44. Paris: UNESCO.
Nyathi, P. Ndiweni, B. (2005).A living religious shrine under siege: theNjelele Shrine/ King
Mzlikazi´s grave conflicting demands on the Matopo Hills area of Zimbabwe. In:
Conservation of living religious heritage. ICCROM Conservation Studies.Rome p.58-66.
NdoroW. (2005).Your Monument, Our Shrine: The Preservation of Great Zimbabwe.
Rome;ICCROM.
Ndoro, W. Pwiti, G. (2001).Heritage management in southern Africa: Local, national, and
international discourse. Public Archaeology 2:21–34
Ndoro W, PwitiG. (2001).Heritage Management in Southern Africa: Local, National and
International Discourse. Public Archaeology 2 (1): 21-34.
Pwiti G (1996).Continuity and Change: An archaeological study of farming communities in
Northern Zimbabwe c.AD 500- 1700. Uppsala: Uppsala University. 25.
Pwiti, G. (1996).Let the ancestors rest in peace? New challenges for cultural heritage
management in Zimbabwe. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 1:151–60.
Pwiti, G; Ndoro.W(1999).The legacy of colonialism: Perceptions of the cultural heritage in
southern Africa with special reference to Zimbabwe. African Archaeological Review 16:143–
53.
Ranger T. (1999).Voices from the rocks: Nature, culture, and history in the Matopos. Harare:
Weaver Press.
Reed, S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature
review. Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417-2431.
79
Rossler, Mechtild (1998): Landscapes in the Framework of the World Heritage Convention
and other UNESCO Instruments and Programmes. In: Stephan Dompke and Michael Succow
(eds.) Cultural Landscapes and Nature Conservation in Northern Eurasia. Proceedings of the
Worlitz Symposium. Bonn, NABU, 24-32.
Saterson K et al. (2004).Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation
strategies. Conservation Biology 18:597–599.
Stem C et al. (2005).Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and
approaches. Conservation Biology 19:295–309.
Stolton S (ed) (2008).Assessment of Management Effectiveness in European Protected Areas
Sharing Experiences and Promoting Good Management. Proceedings of a Seminar Organized
by BfN and EUROPARC Federation on the Island of Vilm, Germany.
Stolton S, Dudley N (1999).A preliminary survey of management status and threats in forest
protected areas. Parks 9:27–33.
Stolton S et al. (2007).Management effectiveness tracking tool— reporting progress at
protected area sites, 2nd edn.World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland.
Thomas, L. Middleton J. (2003).Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected
Areas.IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Ix +79pp. WWF (2004).
Tredgold, R. (1956).The Matopos.Federal Department of Printing and Stationery, Salisbury.
Walker, N. (1995).Late Pleistocene and Holocene, Hunter-gatherers of the Matopos: An
Archaeological Study of change and continuity in Zimbabwe‘s societies.
ArchaeologicalUpsailiensis, Uppsala Sweden.
Walker, N. (1996).The Painted hills, Rock of the Matopos. Mambo Press, Zimbabwe.
Walker, N. (1998).King of foods Marula economics in the Matopos. South African Wildlife
43(6): 281-285.
White, F. (1978). The Afromontane Region. In: M.J.A Werger (ed). Biogeography and
Ecology of Southern Africa. W. Junk, The Hague.
80
81
Appendix 1
Interview guide for national context review
1. How adequate is the legislation under which you operate (does it provide a strong
enough framework to preserve values)?
2. To what extent is the legislation used?
3. Has enforcement of the legislation helped preserve the values?
4. How high does conservation of the site rank relative to other government policies?
5. Does other government policy relative to site undermine conservation?
6. Is there conscious attempt to integrate conservation within other areas of government
policy?
7. What conventions and treaties relevant to management of the site has the government
signed to?
8. How adequately have these conventions been implemented?
9. How willing is the government to fund management of the site?
10. Are national legislation and/or policy hampering the involvement of local
communities in site management?
11. Does legislation and policy affect the way communities access the site and its
resources?
12. Are there any legislative or policy arrangements with regards to benefit sharing?
82
APPENDIX II
Worksheet for identification of threats
Threats
(List
threats)
Values threatened Current
or
potential
threat
(C or P)
Major causes of
threat
Management
response
83
Appendix III
Engagement of stakeholders’ questionnaire
STAKEHOLDER/INSTITUTION:_____________________________________
1.List issues
affecting either
you as a
stakeholder
group or the
world heritage
area in relation
to its
management
(Main issues
associated with
you and the
site).
2.What benefits
do you derive
from the world
heritage area?
(economic,
social,
religious…etc.)
3.Does the
management
of the site
have any
negative
impacts on
your interests
and
activities?
What are
these negative
impacts?
4.Are your
activities of
positive
impact to the
management
of the site? In
what way?
5.Are the
management
activities of
site managers
beneficial to
your
activities? In
84
what way?
6.How
willing are
you to
participate or
engage in the
management
of the site‘s
values?
Under what
terms or
conditions?
7.What is
your
relationship
with the site‘s
managers?
What is the
capacity
(including
resources) for
engagement?
8.What
opportunities
do you have
to contribute
to
management
of values?
Are there
formal or
informal
management
agreements in
place between
you and site
management?
9.Briefly
describe your
actual
engagement
in
management
of values.
Briefly give
85
details of the
nature and
extent of your
engagement.
Comments/recommendations
Appendix IV
Management plan implementation questionnaire for
DNPWM and NMMZ
PLEASE TICK OR PLACE AN ‗X‘
1. Is there a fully operational hierarchy of integrated management structures based on
formal agreements between major stakeholders?
YES[ ] NO[ ]
2. Do you undertake regular inspections and take corrective action when necessary to
conserve the significance of cultural sites and natural resources?
YES[ ] NO [ ]
3. Have efforts been made to minimize conflict by controlling the movement of game,
livestock and people between communal and protected areas?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
4. Is there a disaster management plan, in line with the requirements of the World
Heritage Convention?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
5. Has a survey and documentation programme for all types of cultural sites to update
and expand existing checklists and ensure maintenance of the World Heritage values
been developed?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
6. Has a conservation and documentation center been constructed in the Matobo hills?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
7. Are regular consultative meetings held between the Management Committee and local
community representatives to develop mutual understanding and respect?
YES [ ] NO [ ]
86
8. Are there any programmers to promote awareness of the value of local traditions and
culture that contribute to the significance of the World Heritage Site, especially to
restore lost interest among the youth in traditional customs?
YES [ ] NO [ ]