Protected Area

Management Effectiveness

Assessment:

Thanda Private Game Reserve &

Mduna Royal Reserve

June 2012

2

Map 1. Location of Thanda Private Game Reserve and Mduna Royal Reserve.

3

Protected Area Management Effectiveness

Assessment: Thanda Private Game Reserve and

Mduna Royal Reserve

Assessment Date: 29th

February 2012

Background and Introduction

Protected areas are amongst the most efficient and cost-effective ways of conserving

biodiversity (Balmford, Leader-Williams & Green 1995) and are therefore central to

most conservation strategies (Hockings 2003). The global protected area estate has

increased significantly over the past decade, numbering c. 114,000 and covering

some 12% of the Earth’s surface (or almost 20 million km2), making protected areas

the world’s largest planned form of land use (The Nature Conservancy 2008; CBD

2010; Dudley et al. 2010). Despite this major conservation success story, the current

system of protected areas is not representative of all biomes and species requiring

protection. Furthermore, protected areas are facing a barrage of increasing

pressures and threats such as habitat loss, fragmentation, isolation, poverty,

unsustainable exploitation, invasive species, lack of capacity, inappropriate policies

and incentives, the inequitable distribution of costs and benefits, globalization,

security and global change. This suite of external and internal pressures is impacting

significantly on the conservation community’s ability to effectively manage their

conservation estate thereby undermining its overall contribution to biodiversity

conservation (CBD 2010).

Management effectiveness is defined by the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected

Areas (WCPAs) as the assessment of how well a protected area is being managed -

primarily the extent to which it is protecting values and achieving goals and

objectives (Hockings, Stolton & Dudley 2000; Hockings et al. 2006). Such assessments

have generally looked at four areas: protected area design (both individual sites and

systems), appropriateness of management systems and processes, delivery of

objectives (Ervin 2003a; Hockings 2003) and ecological integrity (Ervin 2003b;

Parrish, Braun & Unnasch 2003). If applied broadly across an entire organization,

protected area management effectiveness assessments can enable policymakers to

refine their conservation strategies, re-allocate budget expenditures, and develop

strategic, system-wide responses to the most pervasive threats and management

4

weaknesses (Ervin 2003b). Protected area management effectiveness assessments

are therefore not performance assessments of an individual; rather they serve to

reflect a conservation authority’s proficiency for protected area management as a

whole (Carbutt & Goodman 2010).

Aims

The management team of the privately owned Thanda Private Game Reserve (TPGR)

and Mduna Royal Reserve (MRR) requested that TPGR and MRR be assessed for its

management effectiveness, which is a diagnostic assessment that will highlight areas

relating to PA management that require improving.

• To ensure that TPGR and MRR are effectively managed.

Management of the Thanda Group (Pty) Ltd may wish to compare their effectiveness

score against a minimum standard of management effectiveness; the provincial

(State-adopted) minimum standard score is 72% effectiveness, whilst alternatively

the national (State-adopted) minimum standard score is 68% effectiveness set

thought the Outcomes 10 strategic reporting framework.

Methods

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

The assessment tool used was essentially a refinement (for the KZN context) of the

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) developed by WWF and the World

Bank in 2007 (see Hockings et al. 2000; Hockings et al. 2006). The METT is a rapid,

site-level, qualitative assessment tool based on an expert scoring approach (Hockings

et al. 2006) that assesses all six elements of PA management identified in the WCPA

framework (see Hockings et al. 2000; Hockings 2003), namely establishing the

context of existing values and threats, followed by adequate planning and the

allocation of adequate resources (inputs), and as a result of management actions

(processes), eventually produces products (outputs) that result in impacts that can

be measured against set objectives (outcomes).

The assessment was carried out as a mini-workshop on the 29th

February 2012. The

assessment was interactive and was subject to peer review and moderation. The

workshop commenced with a briefing (broad introduction, overview of aims and

methodologies) and ended with a debriefing on the way forward. The workshop

comprised three components: (1) a cover sheet which captured details of the PA

5

such as size (area), number of staff, annual operational budget, primary

management objectives, PA values etc.; (2) the assessment form proper; and (3) an

analysis of pressures and threats.

Pressures and threats assessment

Given that the METT is weak in its assessment of pressures and threats, use was

made of the WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of PA Management

(RAPPAM) tool’s pressure and threats assessment (Ervin 2003c), which effectively

quantifies the total pressures and threats faced by the PA under assessment.

Pressures are extrinsic forces, activities, or events that have already had a detrimental

impact on the integrity of the management or protected area over the past five years

(i.e. that have diminished biological diversity, inhibited regenerative capacity, and/or

impoverished the area’s natural resources). Pressures include both legal and illegal

activities, and may result from direct and indirect impacts of an activity. Threats are

potential or impending extrinsic pressures in which a detrimental impact is likely to

occur or continue to occur in the future, over the next five years (Ervin 2003c). Both

pressures and threats were quantified for TPGR and MRR. This entailed a qualitative

assessment of up to a maximum of 22 pre-identified (‘generic’) pressures and threats.

To quantify each relevant pressure and threat, Thanda management had to assign a

value ranging from 4 (highest) to 1 (lowest) that best reflects the extent, impact and

permanence of each identified pressure and threat. The degree of pressure and threat

was determined by calculating extent x impact x permanence; the maximum degree of

pressure/threat for each identified pressure/threat is therefore 64 (i.e. 4 x 4 x 4), which

is rated as being ‘severe’ whilst the minimum degree of pressure/threat is one, which is

rated as being ‘mild’. The total degree of pressure and the total degree of threat was

determined by summing all individual pressure and threat scores respectively. The

maximum potential score is this regard is 1408 (i.e. 22 pressures/threats x 64), whilst

the minimum score is zero. It is important to note that any pressures and threats

assessment is perception-based.

Results and Discussion

The effectiveness score for TPGR and MRR determined through this assessment cycle

is 66% effectiveness, which is some 6% short of the provincial minimum standard

and some 2% short of the national minimum standard (Figure 1).

6

It appears that only one previous assessment was undertaken for TPGR (in 2011),

with the result being 71% effectiveness (Figure 1). Possible reasons for the disparity

in scores include: the assessment tools are not completely aligned (the METT used in

this assessment is more comprehensive and detailed, offering a far wider range of

questions than the previous assessment employed); and the peer review dynamic

was applied with greater effectiveness in this assessment.

The score for TPGR and MRR (66% effectiveness) is greater than the mean score

(53% effectiveness) for 66 state-managed terrestrial PAs in KZN assessed in 2009

(Carbutt & Goodman 2010) as well as greater than the mean score of 53%

effectiveness for the 2384 PAs assessed in a global study by Leverington et al. (2008).

However, Leverington et al. (2008) regard ‘sound protected area management’ when

PAs score 68% or more effectiveness. Anything less is regarded as ‘basic

management with significant deficiencies’.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2011 2012

Eff

ecti

ven

ess S

co

re (

%)

Previous Assessment

Current Assessment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2011 2012

Eff

ecti

ven

ess S

co

re (

%)

Previous Assessment

Current Assessment

Figure 1. Management effectiveness scores for TPGR and MRR for the current (2012)

and previous (2011) management effectiveness assessments. The solid black denotes

the provincial minimum standard of 72% and the dotted black line denotes the

national standard of 68% effectiveness.

TPGR and MRR are well resourced; the PAME score is not linked to budget

constraints. In terms of this assessment, the ‘context’ aspects of protected area

7

management (legal status; boundary demarcation; biodiversity and cultural heritage

knowledge and understanding) scored poorly (Figure 2). However, the lowest scoring

aspect of protected area management in this assessment was ‘planning’ (Figure 2).

The planning component incorporates protected area design (size and shape),

buffers, management and education plans, and land- and water-use planning in

collaboration with the relevant authorities, municipalities and stakeholders.

Protected area planning in the context of TPGR and MRR should continue to seek

opportunities for the development of buffers around, and linkages to, other

protected areas. The interventions required to address shortcomings in such

categories are often difficult and long-term in nature, and are often out of the hands

of day-to-day management. This means that while ongoing and daily PA

management practices are being undertaken with good proficiency (see the

relatively higher scores under ‘inputs’, ‘processes’ and ‘outputs’), the context in

which these activities are taking place is not well defined.

0

20

40

60

80

PA Pla

nning

PA Conte

xt

PA Outp

uts

PA Inputs

PA Outc

omes

PA Pro

cess

Category of PA Management

Eff

ecti

ven

ess S

co

re (

%)

Figure 2. Management effectiveness scores for TPGR and MRR for the current (2012)

management effectiveness assessment broken down per PA management category.

Pressures and threats assessment

Some 22 pressures and/or threats were identified as activities or events that either

are, or may in the future, have a detrimental impact on the ecological integrity of

TPGR and MRR. The ‘top eight’ pressures in TPGR and MRR (many of which are also

the most significant threats) are climate change; dam building; natural resource use;

8

poaching; purposeful species eradication; transportation corridors; alien plants and

land-use change which collectively account for c. 91% of the total pressures

experienced (Figure 3). It is important to note that invasion of alien organisms and

climate change is inextricably linked. The total pressures faced by TPGR and MRR

amount to 238. The threats analysis is more difficult to interpret as many of the

individual threats were evaluated as ‘unknowns’. In light of this, the (low) total

threat count of 111 should be viewed with caution.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Dam

build

ing

Nat

ural r

esou

rce

use

Poa

chin

g

Spe

cies

era

dicat

ion

Transp

ortat

ion c

orrid

ors

Alie

n pla

nts

Land-u

se c

hange

Ars

on fi

res

Sol

id w

aste

Ero

sion

Alie

n anim

als

Bus

h encr

oachm

ent

Dis

ease

- ex

otic

Dis

ease

- na

tive

Land in

vasi

on

Min

ing

and

ener

gy

PA is

olatio

n

Pollu

tion

Siltat

ion

Touris

m

Vandal

ism

of c

ultura

l ass

ets

Pressure/Threat

Mean

Sco

re (

Exte

nt

x Im

pact

x P

erm

an

en

ce)

Pressure Threat

Figure 3. The pressures and threats perceived by Thanda management. The lack of a

threat score adjacent to a pressure score is due to the ‘unknown’ factor associated

with the threat.

Threats to protected areas remain numerous and serious according to the global

assessment of management effectiveness, and should receive adequate attention if

the values of the protected areas are to be conserved (Leverington et al. 2008). The

pressures and threats assessment undertaken in this study affirms the global

sentiment. The most pervasive and widespread threats identified globally are alien

plant invasion, poaching of animals and non-timber forest products, encroachment

of adjacent lands, tourism (recreational activities) and logging (Ervin 2003b;

Leverington et al. 2008).

9

Conclusion: the value of management effectiveness

assessments

Protected area management effectiveness assessments are being used with an ever

increasing frequency by conservation management in an attempt to improve the

level of protected area management effectiveness, and by so doing increase the

likelihood of conserving the biodiversity features for which the protected areas were

established and the values for which they exist (Ervin 2003b; Parrish et al. 2003;

Leverington et al. 2008). Protected area management effectiveness assessments can

also provide useful information for assessing and tracking change in both protected

areas and the wider environment, and can provide information to serve as an early

warning system for environmental challenges, to recognize and replicate

conservation successes, and to enable effective responses to this change.

Furthermore, protected area management effectiveness assessments increase the

transparency and accountability of protected area management, thus assisting in

cooperative management and enhancing community support. It can also provide a

more logical and transparent basis for planning and for allocating resources. At the

same time there is increasing interest by governments, management agencies, non-

governmental organizations and others to develop and apply systems to assess

management effectiveness in protected areas (IUCN 2004). Assessing management

effectiveness is a vital component of adaptive and cooperative management, where

managers are stakeholders work together and learn from experience (IUCN 2004).

Increasingly, the results of such assessments are being used as lobbying and

advocacy tools to increase government funding and public support for protected

areas (Lemos de Sá, Bensusan & Ferreira 2000), revise budget allocations and

spending priorities (Goodman 2003a; Goodman 2003b), and promote governmental

transparency and accountability (Tsering 2003). Such steps may ultimately be as

important for the long-term success of protected areas as improving management

practices on the ground (Ervin 2003b).

Recommendations

The main interventions required to improve management effectiveness lie in the

categories of PA context and planning:

• Proclamation of TPGR and MRR as a nature reserve (such security under the

Protected Areas Act may help mitigate threats such as mining);

10

• Gathering more critical information on priority biodiversity elements;

• Updating the outdated management plan to include biodiversity targets,

action projects, zonation plan, staff establishment, annual work plan and goal

setting exercise; a schedule for the periodic review of the management plan;

improving the maintenance of ecological processes; and documenting all

cultural heritage assets;

• External (beyond the PA boundary) engagements with the authorities

responsible for land- and water-use planning (e.g. Department of Water

Affairs; Local and District Municipalities);

• The main aim of protected area management effectiveness (PAME) is to re-

assess management effectiveness on an annual basis to try and achieve a

steady improvement (upward trajectory) in PAME. This assessment should

therefore become the baseline against which all other assessments should be

compared using the current assessment tool as the standard reference.

These should become ‘action projects’ which should be captured in the (pending)

management plan for further attention.

References

Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N. & Green, J.B. 1995. Parks or arks: where to

conserve large threatened mammals. Biodiversity and Conservation, 4, 595-

607.

Carbutt, C. & Goodman, P.S. 2010. Assessing the Management Effectiveness of

State-owned, Land-based Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal. Ezemvelo KZN

Wildlife unpublished report, Pietermaritzburg.

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Programme of Work on Protected Areas.

Accessed on the 13th

January 2010 at http:www.cbd.int/protected/pow/.

Dudley, N., Parrish, J.D., Redford, K.H. & Stolton, S. 2010. The revised IUCN

protected area management categories: the debate and ways forward. Oryx,

44(4), 485-490.

Ervin, J. 2003a. Protected area assessments in perspective. BioScience, 53(9), 819-

822.

Ervin, J. 2003b. Rapid assessment of Protected Area management effectiveness in

four countries. BioScience, 53(9), 833-841.

Ervin, J. 2003c. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area

Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF Forests for Life Programme,

Gland, Switzerland.

11

Goodman, P.S. 2003a. South Africa: Management effectiveness assessment of

Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology.

WWF International, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 1-29.

Goodman, P.S. 2003b. Assessing management effectiveness and setting priorities in

protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal. BioScience, 53(9), 843-850.

Hockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in

protected areas. BioScience, 53(9), 823-832.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating effectiveness: a framework

for assessing the management of Protected Areas. WCPA Best Practice

Protected Area Guideline Series No. 6. IUCN, Gland Switzerland, pp. 1-121.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. & Courrau, J. 2006. Assessing

effectiveness – a framework for assessing management effectiveness of

protected areas (2nd

edition), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN. 2004. IUCN 5th

World Parks Congress. Accessed on the 13th

January 2010 at

http:www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_event/wcpa/wpc/.

Lemos de Sá, R., Bensusan, N. & Ferreira, L. 2000. NGOs and PA management

agencies working together to assess Protected Area effectiveness. Successes,

problems and prospects - the experience of Brazil. WWF International, Gland,

Switzerland.

Leverington, F., Hockings, M. & Costa, K.L. 2008. Management effectiveness

evaluation in protected areas - a global study. Report for the project ‘Global

study into management effectiveness evaluation of protected areas’. The

University of Queensland, Gatton, IUCN, WCPA, TNC and WWF, Australia,

pp. 1-70.

Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P. & Unnasch, R.S. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we

are? Measuring ecological integrity within Protected Areas. BioScience, 53(9),

851-860.

The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Assessing Protected Area management effectiveness:

a quick guide for protected area practitioners.

Tsering, K. 2003. Bhutan case study - evaluation of management effectiveness in four

Protected Areas. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

WWF and the World Bank. 2007. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool:

reporting progress at protected area sites (2nd

edition).