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