the greater kruger co-operative conservation...
TRANSCRIPT
THE GREATER KRUGER CO-OPERATIVE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
February 2019
The Parliament of South Africa
South Africa’s international commitments
• South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity
• SA committed to Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including Target 11
• 17% of terrestrial area and inland waters protected
• 10% of coastal areas and marine areas protected
• New National Protected Area Expansion calls for target
setting based on ecosystem types, prioritizing
vulnerable ecosystem types
Conservation
of biological
diversity
Sustainable
use of its
components
Fair and
equitable
sharing of the
benefits
South Africa has 509 state owned
terrestrial protected areas and
25 marine protected areas, managed
by 13 different states authorities.
South Africa’s protected area estate
SANParks manages 19 National Parks ~ 4 million ha
67% of state owned terrestrial protected areas
The Kruger National Park
• 2 Million hectares
• 1078 km boundary
• 333 km of veterinary fence on western
boundary
• 7 Community forums
• 39 Traditional authorities
• 3 District Municipalities
• 9 Local municipalities
• 2 Biospheres (K2C and Vhembe)
• Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area
Why is expansion of the Kruger National Park important? Ecological considerations
Expansion and collaboration through a phased approach
The GLTPA Treaty 2002 states that “the area adjacent to the Transfrontier Park, comprising compatible conservation areas but not lending itself to formal integration with the Transfrontier Park, shall be managed as a Transfrontier Conservation Area”
• In the early nineties and early 2000,
fences were dropped in support of
improved ecological services
• Need to promote compatible land use
development and to advance the
expansion of the conservation estate,
including the associated socio-economic
outcomes.
• BUT, fences were dropped without the
establishment of an overarching Greater
Kruger Strategic Management Framework
and consistent “best practice guidelines”
The Old Agreement
The dropping of fences was silent on:
• Community participation and sharing of benefits arising from conservation
• Tribal lands were not included and as a result the royal households and their communities did not benefit from regional economic development
• Compliance issues because there was no binding agreement
• There was no framework dealing with matters such as procurement, joint marketing and beneficiation
• Minorities benefited directly from the Kruger NP at the expenses of royal houses and the broader community
• In the interim, SANParks had to
intervene on ad hoc on a number
of issues including dealing with
concerns of claimant
communities and benefits that
excluded communities.
• Examples include closing of the
access bridge to Kruger from
Mjejane
THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
• Address participation of local communities and tribal authorities
• Address risks associated with a variety of entities, with different legal statuses, business models and management approaches
• Facilitate cooperation and collaboration in areas of common interest that include ecological management, socio-economic development and safety and security
• Capitalize on collective opportunities such as joint destination marketing of the Greater Kruger area as premier destination
9
Entities included in the GLTFCA Cooperative Agreement
• Agreement signed with 15 signatories
on 05 December 2018
• Partnership agreement with communal
areas, state and private reserves within
the Greater Kruger area, western
boundary
• Enables consistent management and
integration of an additional 360 000 ha
• Community areas will be included through
a consultative approach, providing
meaningful beneficiation opportunities.
A. Workshops:• 10 in Local buffer
• 5 Metros
• 38 Traditional authorities
B. Focus groups:• Conservation areas
• Wildlife economy
• Tourism groups
• Visitor management
• Technical Services
• Security Clusters
• Water forums
• Scientific & Research fora
• Biospheres
• GLTFCA partners
C. Written inputs
E. Media
PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS
TIME – LINE OF CONSULTATION SINCE 2015
Regularisation of western boundary
initiatedFeb 2015
KNP Management Plan desired state meetings
2017
GLTFCA Cooperative Agreement signed
Dec 2018
Greater Kruger Strategic
Development Framework
2019
PlanApproved Nov 2018
DEAMTPALEDETSANBIPrivate, community and state owned areasNGOsGEF
Broad society State, community, private areas
KNP Management Plan meetings 2018
Broad society Broad society
Park Management Plan
Consultations 2017-2018
• 54 Stakeholder workshops
• 5762 participants
• 483 written comments
Signatories to the Agreement
1. Makuleke Contractual Park
2. LEDET & Makuya Nature Reserve
3. LEDET & Letaba Ranch
4. Gidjana Conservation Area
5. Balule Nature Reserve & Maseke
6. Umbabat Nature Reserve
7. Klaserie Nature Reserve
8. Thornybush Nature Reserves
9. Kempiana (WWF and SANPF)
10. Timbavati Nature Reserve
11. MTPA and Manyeleti
12. Mala Mala
13. Sabi Sand Wildtuin
14. Mjejane Game Reserve
15. Kruger National Park
Future: areas bordering KNP, e.g. north of Letaba Ranch
Greater Kruger Area reserves
% Greater Kruger reserve footprints
SSW Klaserie UmbabatThornybush Timbavati BaluleBalule -Maseke Mjejane Mala MalaManyeleti Letaba Ranch complex MakuyaMakuleke Gidjana KNP
KNP 84%
235,301.56 119,045.00
2,023,927.00
Land ownership: Hectares
Private Community owned State managed
Large potential to expand the community wildlife economic land
• Consistency in ecological management and
wildlife security
• Strong focus on community participation
and beneficiation
• Appropriate governance and institutional
arrangements in place
• Monitoring of compliance possible and bad
conduct will result in sanction for partners
• Focus on compatible land use and
ecological processes
• Access to economic opportunities for a
small number of minority beneficiaries
• No overarching agreement and consistent
“best practice guidelines”
• Difficult to monitor compliance and address
conduct that is not consistent with the spirit
of park priorities
Old Agreement New Agreement
Socio-economic development considerations
• Poverty and unemployment levels are very high
• Declared Poverty Nodes
• Access to services and service delivery very low/poor
• This leads to frequent protests, most of them related to service delivery
GKNP visitor spending, total economic impact (2016/2017)
A. Chidakel PhD Dissertation (2018)
AREA = 360,000 ha AREA = 2,000,000 ha
THE VALUE OF THE NEW COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
• An integrated conservation management and developmentapproach that establishes cooperative partnerships amongst theParties
• A collective approach in pursuit of inclusive socio economicdevelopment of local communities, unlocking sustainablesocio-economic benefits for communities adjacent to Kruger
• A uniform framework for the management and socio-economic beneficiation of the open Kruger system
• Enhanced management of landscape-level ecological issues topromote compatible land use practices
The way forward
• The outstanding partners must sign the New Cooperative Agreement
• A roll out plan and implementation plan needs to be developed by parties
• Active facilitation of community participation and beneficiation is critical (needs all relevant departments)
• Political buy in from Provincial Authorities is also critical (as per invitation from SANParks and the Minister)
Thank you
Rea Leboha