Chao, N, Usuthu Gorge

LOCAL COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA IN USUTHU GORGE, SOUTH AFRICA

Dissertation submitted for the degree of M.Sc in Conservation Biology Durrell Institute of Conservation & Ecology University of Kent, UK

NERISSA CHAO September 2004

CONTENTS Contents

i

List of Figures

iii

List of Tables

iv

Acknowledgements

v

Abstract

vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Historical Conservation Policy in Africa

1

1.2. Conservation in South Africa

2

1.3. Community-Based Conservation

3

1.4. Attitudes and Perceptions of Local People to Wildlife and Conservation

6

1.5. Background of Study

8

1.6. Aims and Objectives of the Study

11

Chapter 2: Study Area and Methods 2.1. Study Area

12

2.2. Scope and Limitations

14

2.3. Questionnaire Design

14

2.4. Data Collection

15

2.4.1. Questionnaires

15

2.4.2. Natural resource use workshops

17

2.4.3. Mapping

18

2.5. Data Analysis

18

Chapter 3: Results 3.1. Respondents Background

21

3.2. Area

22

3.3. Knowledge of UG CCA

23

3.3.1. Perceived reason for the establishment of UG CCA

23

3.3.2. Association with UG CCA

24

3.4. Support for UG CCA

24

3.4.1. Reason for support of UG CCA

25

3.4.2. Reason for not supporting UG CCA

26

3.5. Perceived Benefits from Establishing UG CCA

26

3.5.1. Perceived benefits to the individual from UG CCA

26

3.5.2. Perceived benefits to the community from UG CCA

27

3.6. Perceived Problems from Establishing UG CCA

28

3.7. Perceived Community Changes from UG CCA

29

i

3.8. Introduction of Wildlife to UG CCA

30

3.8.1. Support for the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA

30

3.8.2. Reasons for and against the introduction of wildlife

30

3.8.3. Perceived benefits from wildlife in UG CCA

31

3.8.4. Perceived types of benefit from wildlife

32

3.8.5. Perceived problems from wildlife in UG CCA

33

3.8.6. Perceived types of problems from wildlife

33

3.9. Natural Resource Use

34

3.9.1. Questionnaire results

34

3.9.2. Workshop results

35

Chapter 4: Discussion 4.1. Knowledge of the CCA

44

4.2. Support for the CCA

45

4.3. Perceived Benefits and Problems from the CCA

47

4.4. Support for the Introduction of Wildlife

48

4.5. Perceived Benefits and Problems from Introducing Wildlife

49

4.6. Natural Resource Use

50

4.7. Further Research

52

4.8. Conclusions and Recommendations

53

References

55

Appendices Appendix 1: English Questionnaire

61

Appendix 2: Zulu Questionnaire

63

Appendix 3: Pre-Questionnaire Statement

65

Appendix 4: Natural Resource Use Workshop Map

66

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1:

Photograph of UG CCA fence line

Figure 1.2:

Map of the area under the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority

10

Figure 1.3:

Photograph of distribution of homesteads in eKuhlehleni

10

Figure 2.1:

Map of South Africa showing KwaZulu-Natal and Maputaland

12

Figure 2.2:

Map of sub-places under Electoral Ward 15

13

Figure 2.3:

Photograph of traditional kraal in eKuhlehleni

16

Figure 2.4:

Photograph of questionnaire administration in eKuhlehleni

16

Figure 2.5:

Photograph of female participants in natural resource workshop 17

Figure 2.6:

Photograph of participants in Nkonjane workshop

17

Figure 2.7:

Photograph of natural resource workshop in Nkonjane

17

Figure 3.1:

Graph showing percentage of male and female respondents

21

Figure 3.2:

Graph showing percentage age distribution of respondents

21

Figure 3.3:

Graph showing percentage employment of respondents

22

Figure 3.4:

Graph showing percentage wealth distribution of respondents

22

Figure 3.5:

Graph showing percentage distribution of young dependents

22

Figure 3.6:

Graph showing percentage education levels of respondents

22

Figure 3.7:

Graph showing education levels in each area

22

Figure 3.8:

Graph showing wealth distribution in each area

22

Figure 3.9:

Graph showing percentage knowledge of UG CCA in each area

23

Figure 3.10: Graph showing percentage support for UG CCA in each area

9

24

Figure 3.11: Graph showing levels of support of respondents with prior knowledge of the CCA and those without

24

Figure 3.12: Graph showing levels of support to the introduction of wildlife in each area

30

Figure 3.13: Graph showing perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA in each area

31

Figure 3.14: Graph showing perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA at each education level

31

Figure 3.15: Graph showing perceived problems from introducing wildlife to UG CCA in each area

33

Figure 3.16: Map of resource collection from Nkonjane group 1

37

Figure 3.17: Map of resource collection from Nkonjane group 2

37

Figure 3.18: Map of resource collection from Nkonjane group 3

38

Figure 3.19: Map of resource collection from Mabona group

38

Figure 3.20: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni female group 1

39

Figure 3.21: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni female group 2

39

Figure 3.22: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni male group 1

40

Figure 3.23: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni male group 2

40

Figure 3.24: Map showing level of resource use in each sub-place

41

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1:

Respondents perceived reasons for the establishment of UG CCA in each area

23

Table 3.2:

Respondents and family associated with UG CCA in each area

24

Table 3.3:

Reasons for support of the UG CCA

25

Table 3.4:

Reasons for not supporting the UG CCA

26

Table 3.5:

Perceived benefits to the individual from the UG CCA

26

Table 3.6:

Perceived community benefits from the UG CCA

27

Table 3.7:

Perceived problems from establishing the UG CCA

28

Table 3.8:

Perceived changes to the community from the UG CCA

29

Table 3.9:

Reasons for supporting the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA

30

Table 3.10:

Perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA

32

Table 3.11:

Perceived problems from introducing wildlife to UG CCA

33

Table 3.12:

Most important natural resources in each area

34

Table 3.13:

Natural resource priority list from Nkonjane workshop

35

Table 3.14:

Natural resource priority list from eKuhlehleni workshop

35

Table 3.15:

Natural resources and areas of collection from Nkonjane workshop

Table 3.16:

42

Natural resources and collection areas from eKuhlehleni Workshop

43

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank all the many people that have contributed to this project and made it possible and apologies for not being able to thank everyone individually. I would first like to thank all the residents of eKuhlehleni, Mabona and Nkonjane who gave up their time and answered the questionnaire so willingly. I would like to thank the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority and UG CCA Steering Committee for giving me permission to carry out this research and I greatly appreciate the support that I received from them. I would also like to thank all the Induna’s of the area, in particular the Chief Induna, Mr Mathenjwa, for their help and support. A special thank you goes to my four research assistants; Smangele Khumalo, Samual Mdlalose, Gloria Mngomezulu and Nsikayezwe Zondo, who were invaluable to the project and a pleasure to work with. Thank you to Ndoda Tembe for helping me organise and run the workshops and to Sue McClintock from The Wildlands Trust. My gratitude to EKZN Wildlife, in particular Katherine Hanekom, Wayne Matthews, Vusi Gumbe, Mandla Tembe and all the staff at the Education Centre. I would like to thank Dr Bob Smith for agreeing to supervise me, for giving me the opportunity to carry out this project and being available for help and advise in South Africa and Canterbury. Thank you to Paul Brookes who was a great companion in South Africa and both of whom I will always remember for their culinary skills. Thank you to Julia Baker for going through the statistics with me and all my fellow DICE classmates who have made this past year so memorable and rewarding. Thank you to Shelley and Nicola for all their assistance over the year. Thank you especially to Julian Easton for patiently putting up with all my stress, for being a calming influence and for always being there. Finally I would like to thank my parents for supporting me through yet another year of education, of which I am extremely grateful. Thank you to DICE and the Darwin Initiative for helping to fund this project.

v

ABSTRACT The concept of Community-Based Conservation (CBC) was developed to address the exclusionary policies of the Colonial era and to involve local communities in conservation initiatives. It has been recognised that local community support plays an important role in determining the success of conservation initiatives and it is hoped that providing incentives for conservation will result in a positive change in attitudes and behaviour towards conservation. Since the end of apartheid in South Africa, Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) have been actively supporting CBC initiatives. As a means of improving livelihoods and conserving biodiversity the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority in KwaZulu-Natal have been working closely with EKZNW and The Wildlands Trust, a South African NGO, to create a Community Conservation Area (CCA) within their communal lands. This study examined the perceptions of local community members to the development of this conservation initiative and examined natural resource use in the area. Few studies have been carried out to evaluate perceptions of local communities at the start of CBC programmes yet understanding their attitudes and perceptions are essential for their success. This study aimed to provide valuable information for management and conservation strategies within the CCA. A questionnaire survey was carried out in three areas bordering the conservation area; eKuhlehleni, Nkonjane and Mabona. Two additional workshops were organised to examine natural resource use in these areas. Results showed that very few respondents knew about the development of the CCA although for the most part, support was high. There was particular variation in responses between eKuhlehleni and the other two areas. Respondents from eKuhlehleni were much more negative and sceptical to the initiative whereas respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were generally very positive and had high expectations, especially of employment opportunities and development benefits. Support for the introduction of wildlife was high although concern was expressed especially of potential human-wildlife conflict. The workshops illustrated reliance on natural resources and that the CCA may contain important areas for natural resource use. The results show that more effective information dissemination is needed to occur and effort taken to ensure that expectations can be fulfilled. Protocol should be developed to deal with potential conflict between the CCA and local people e.g. human-wildlife conflict and access to resources. Where the CCA may affect livelihoods especially in terms of resource use, policies involving controlled access need to be developed or alternatives provided.

KEYWORDS: Community-Based Conservation, Attitudes, Perceptions, Natural Resource Use, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Competing land use options and a growing human population have had significant impacts on biodiversity. Conservation goals often cannot be achieved purely within the boundaries of protected areas and initiatives now include local communities in conservation objectives, challenging top-down approaches characterised by state ownership and control of wildlife and resources. This chapter looks at conservation policy in Africa starting with pre-independence conservation policy and followed by conservation policy in South Africa. The following section describes community-based conservation and evaluates its potential for success. The attitudes and perceptions of local people to conservation are examined with particular reference to communitybased conservation initiatives. A background to the study is presented and the final section sets out the aims and objectives.

1.1. HISTORICAL CONSERVATION POLICY IN AFRICA A low human population density combined with traditional customs limited the degree of exploitation of wildlife and resources in pre-colonial Africa. Chiefs had control over rights to fish, farm, hunt and exploit other natural resources (Simbotwe, 1993). Traditional beliefs offered protection to some rare or endangered species and hunting in certain areas e.g. sacrificial graveyards was strictly prohibited (Nsanjama, 1993). However, a growing human population and the arrival of new ethnic groups often degraded customary or traditional practices. The arrival of the ‘Nguni pastoralists during the 1600s displaced the resident low population hunter-gatherer San people in KwaZulu-Natal. This marked the initial and ongoing decline of wildlife, particularly large mammals and threatened the survival of some rare species (Hughes, 2002). The first Europeans in Africa hunted species regardless of biology, ecology or rarity and disrupted many of the traditional practices held by the indigenous people (Nsanjama, 1993). White settler farmers owned the wildlife on their property and species incompatible with their farming practices were eradicated whilst those suitable for sport hunting were protected (Owen-Smith, 1993). In response to the dramatic decline in wildlife numbers, governments in Colonial Africa established the first game reserves (Cumming, 1993) developing conservation policy based on practices designed and implemented in North America and Europe (Nepal & Weber, 1995; Nsanjama, 1993). Generally these game reserves were established in remote areas, often infested with tsetse fly or malaria (Cumming, 1993). Although the conversion of mostly uninhabited

-1-

marginal lands meant relatively few indigenous people significantly suffered loss from the denied use of natural resources (Attwell & Cotterill, 2000), the methods of establishment left local communities bitter and resentful. Some areas were part of their hunting “common” and local Africans living within them were evicted with no compensation. With the decline of large mammals threatening colonial sport hunting, government regulation was introduced restricting indigenous people’s use of wildlife, and control given to white government agencies (Owen-Smith, 1993). The single-use system of agriculture and ranching brought to Africa by the Europeans was also a major contributing factor for the general decline in large mammal populations across sub-Saharan Africa during the colonial period. The introduced domestic plants and animals and the mass game-annihilation campaign that accompanied European agriculture and ranching became the single greatest cause of demise of the big game herds. This led to deep seated resentment among black Africans who heard about government sponsored slaughters of wild animals to eradicate and contain diseases and open up land for crop farming yet were prohibited themselves from hunting for subsistence needs. By the end of the colonial era, poaching was a growing problem and seen as an honourable occupation among black subsistence farmers (Owen-Smith, 1993).

1.2 CONSERVATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Past colonial policies have had a major impact on shaping the protected area network today, with protected area boundaries reinforcing the exclusion of Africans from wildlife protection. The apartheid government in South Africa continued to follow a strict preservationist approach and for the black South African the experience of conservation was persecution for poaching, forced removal from traditional land and denied access to resources and cultural sites (Wells, 1996). Consequently, wildlife became viewed as exclusively for whites for sport hunting or game viewing, Africans being barred both racially and economically (Owen-Smith, 1993). Little had changed in the attitude of rural Africans toward wildlife and conservation by the end of colonial rule (Owen-Smith, 1993). Protected areas had little support amongst poor rural people and were virtually unknown to poor urban people (Wells, 1996) with few rural Africans in an economic position to visit national parks and game reserves (Owen-Smith, 1993). By the end of apartheid most protected areas in South Africa were still firmly associated with the former regime (Wells, 1996). The vast majority still saw wildlife as belonging to the government or wealthy elite (Wells, 1996; Owen-Smith, 1993) and protected areas continued to put a militaristic emphasis on wildlife preservation (Anderson & Grove, 1987).

-2-

Since the end of apartheid in South Africa, there have been high expectations amongst the black population for a more equitable distribution of resources. Improving relations between parks and surrounding communities is a high priority for South African conservation agencies (Wells, 1996). The strictly preservationist approach to conservation has been replaced by the recognition that conservation will not succeed in the long-term unless it has the support of the local people (Boonzaier, 1996; Wells, 1996).

1.3 COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION By the 1980s it was recognised that many conservation goals in Africa were not being met. Fuelled by rapid population growth and poverty (Newmark & Hough, 2000), illegal off-take was high and agriculture and grazing was encroaching on “wilderness” areas (Hulme & Murphree, 2001). The exclusionary policies eventually eroded away the value of wildlife and poachers became the sole suppliers of wildlife benefit to the local people (Nsanjama, 1993). While rural communities paid the cost of conservation they received little incentive to use wildlife and natural resources sustainably (Gibson & Marks, 1995). Although socially unjust, the preservationist approach to conservation has been extremely successful in the recovery of some vertebrate species populations’ such as elephants (Cumming, 1993) and is likely to be responsible for the wildlife resources remaining today (Attwell & Cotterill, 2000). However, the effectiveness of protected areas is strongly correlated with the level of law enforcement (Bruner et al, 2001) and generally state departments have insufficient resources to ensure effective wildlife conservation. Combined with the mounting pressure to recognise the needs and perspectives of local people (Roe et al, 2000) Community-Based Conservation (CBC) was developed. CBC aims to make rural people central to the conservation effort, focusing on those who pay the price of conservation (Hackel, 1999). By linking conservation and development

needs

through

community

involvement,

generating

revenue

and

improving quality of life through sustainable resource management, it is hoped that conservation initiatives will receive greater support from communities in conserving their natural resources (Larson et al, 1998). CBC aims to promote positive conservation behaviours and practices with local communities being an integral part of the planning and implementation of conservation programmes (Hackel, 1990). There are three main emphases:

-3-

1. Economic incentives - Rural people will not manage their natural resources sustainably and prioritise conservation unless there is a perceived greater yield of returns than from other forms of land use. 2. Devolution of authority and responsibility to community - Communities will have a stronger incentive to manage resources sustainably if they are the main beneficiaries and have a sense of ownership and control over their resources. 3. Development Communities

of will

community be

able

institutions to

control

and use,

structures distribute

for

management -

benefits

and

exploit

opportunities in the natural resource market with formal management structures (Barrow & Murphree, 2001). However, for rural people where wildlife has important economic implications, willingness to support any conservation initiative will be closely tied to maintaining or enhancing their present livelihood situation (Barrow & Murphree, 2001). CBC developed alongside ideas about combining preservation goals with consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife resources (Adams & Hulme, 2001a) and putting a value on wildlife. Typical incentives offered to local communities in order to gain their support include shared decision-making authority, employment, revenue sharing, limited harvesting of plants and animal species, or provision of community facilities (e.g. dispensaries, schools, bore holes and roads) (Newmark & Hough, 2000). There is often an underlying assumption that the implementation of a CBC initiative automatically guarantees the necessary protection of wildlife (Hackel, 1999) and that clear property rights ensures conservation practices (Sanderson & Redford, 2003). The devolution of control of national or international biodiversity heritage to local communities could result in their demise if local authorities choose to exploit the resources to meet local demands (Attwell & Cotterill, 2000). CBC is most likely to be successful when: • there are strong local systems in place which are effective in controlling and enforcing restrictions of access to resources; • there are incentives to use resources sustainably; • there is the technical capacity to monitor ecological and social conditions; • there are mechanisms to ensure the equitable flow of benefits compensating those who pay the price of conservation; and • management is flexible enough to change incentives and rules of access to adapt to changes in the condition of the resource or its users (Barrett et al, 2001). Advocates of CBC must be careful when promoting these projects and recognise the potential problems with the concept of CBC (Barrett et al, 2001). In particular, basic assumptions need to be dispelled, including the notion of a “community” to suggest a

-4-

relatively homogenous group of people with common goals (Schafer & Bell, 2002; Barrett et al, 2001). Within a community multiple interests may exist (Barrow & Murphree, 2001) and intra-community conflict can occur as different groups of people distinguished by age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status etc, compete for rights, revenue and resource availability (Jones, 2001). In addition, access to resources and benefits is often inequitable with individual members of the community holding variable degrees of power and influence (Barrow & Murphree, 2001). The way that benefit sharing occurs in most CBC initiatives rarely counteracts the negative impacts on wildlife or the environment caused by the range of economic activities that are driven by the daily needs for income, consumption goods or employment. Benefits are often in the form of social infrastructure which frequently does not provide adequate incentives for CBC. A single set of development benefits provided at the community level generally does not improve individual or household economic welfare significantly and small amounts of wildlife revenue, once shared amongst the community, is usually not of a sufficient value to enable rural communities to be in an economic position to forgo wildlife damage or costs (Emerton, 2001). Many CBC initiatives rely on eco-tourism or safari hunting as a means to generate revenue. This can be an unreliable source of income, prone to exchange rate fluctuations and political turmoil (Hackel, 1999). Moreover, success or perceived success of a project in generating revenue, providing employment and improving the quality of life for those involved in the initiative can induce migration to the area (Newmark & Hough, 2000). Several CAMPFIRE programmes in Zimbabwe, well known CBC initiatives devolving wildlife management to the community, are threatened by large scale immigration (Child, 1996). There is likely to be an upper limit to the revenue that can be generated from wildlife resources. This can be susceptible to declines in the relative size of the revenue as the numbers needing to benefit from it increase (Adams & Hulme, 2001b). This ultimately reduces the incentive for conservation at the community level (Attwell & Cotterill, 2000) and makes projects that rely on revenue sharing for support particularly vulnerable (Adams & Hulme, 2001b). Support for conservation initiatives is often enhanced by the promise of development benefits. However, an emphasis on development can lead to the de-emphasis of conservation goals and greater community empowerment can result in conservation goals being challenged in favour of economic and development objectives (Adams & Hulme, 2001a). Additionally, relying too heavily purely on economic incentives as a mechanism for generating support can be risky. CBC restricts economic choices and rural empowerment can lead to communities rejecting CBC projects and adopting alternative

land-use

options

through

-5-

democratic

means

(Hackel,

1999).

Decentralisation and enhancing community control of natural resources will not necessarily result in positive conservation action, especially where persistent economic problems and weak support for wildlife conservation exists (Hackel, 1999). Community development priorities often undermine conservation goals as illustrated by CAMPFIRE where wildlife revenues have been invested in the expansion of agriculture and animal husbandry (Murombedzi, 1999). Although achieving conservation and development objectives simultaneously may seem an attractive solution to promoting support for conservation in communities, it can be a difficult goal to accomplish without the success of one being detrimental to the other. However, CBC initiatives can avoid these pitfalls if well planned and objective. CBC can be a powerful tool to promote greater acceptance of conservation. For CBC to be successful, initiatives must measure and respond to the attitudes and perceptions of the local communities.

1.4 ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF LOCAL PEOPLE TO WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION Although attitudes are not always clearly linked to behaviour, CBC attempts to influence attitudes and perceptions to conservation in the hope that this will lead to behaviour change (Infield & Namara, 2001). Positive conservation attitudes have been shown to reflect in more conservation-orientated behaviours (Holmes, 2003). Varying levels of support for conservation areas have been demonstrated in developing countries, many of which are determined by local communities’ perceptions and attitudes to the conservation area and its management. Social, cultural, political and economic factors play a role in determining attitudes (Ite, 1996). In particular level of education and standard of living often seem to be important determinants of a positive attitude to conservation by rural people living with wildlife (Nepal & Weber, 1995). These factors are influenced by perceived costs and benefits of the conservation area to the community (Ite, 1996). Local support for conservation remains weak in many countries. Rural African people often view conservation as misguided with virtual exclusive preference to wildlife protection and a disregard to their basic day-day needs, interests and values (Hackel, 1999; Nepal & Weber, 1995). This has led to hostile attitudes towards wildlife conservation creating conflict between local communities and conservation authorities (Nepal & Weber, 1995). The involvement of local communities in management and decision-making processes and the provision of benefits to offset opportunity costs are expected to result in a more positive attitude to conservation (Nepal & Weber, 1995). The costs of living close

-6-

to a conservation area, including crop raiding, livestock predation and the loss of access to resources, often result in negative local attitudes (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Parry & Campbell, 1992). The provision of tangible benefits from wildlife conservation (e.g. game meat) can foster positive attitudes to conservation initiatives (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001) and can be used as a mechanism to reduce conflict (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Nepal & Weber, 1995). It has been largely confirmed that factors besides income generation influence attitudes and behaviour towards conservation (Stem et al, 2003). Local demise of wildlife is usually regretted for educational, ethical and aesthetic reasons, although due to economic pressures this may not seem apparent. In virtually all rural African communities wildlife is strongly represented in their traditional knowledge and value systems (Owen-Smith, 1993). As many rural livelihoods are not solely reliant on wage employment, other factors such as access to resources can play an important role in influencing attitudes. To accomplish the goals of CBC, the opinions and attitudes of rural communities need to be evaluated (Hackel, 1990) and their perceived needs and aspirations taken into account (Infield, 1988). The acceptance and support of the local community is important for the long term security of a conservation initiative and therefore an understanding of factors leading to public support and the relationship between local people and the conservation area is needed (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Newmark et al, 1994). In order to improve attitudes of local people it is essential that costs are minimised and benefits are distributed equitably and not perceived small in relation to losses (Parry & Campbell, 1992). Additionally the expectations of local communities should be realistic and the size of benefits not over-estimated. The future success of conservation in Africa is largely dependent on the attitudes and activities of rural populations which need to view wildlife and conservation as a tangible asset (OwenSmith, 1993). An understanding of conservation attitudes of local communities are important

for

guiding

policy

and

management

decisions

involved

implementation and evaluation of CBC initiatives (Gillingham & Lee, 1999).

-7-

in

design,

1.5. BACKGROUND OF STUDY The Mathenjwa Traditional Authority covers an area of approximately 547km2 in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Poverty is widespread in this region and there is little economic development. Consequently employment opportunities are low and in an attempt to improve their situation, create jobs and generate revenue, the Mathenjwa community have spent several years working to establish a Community Conservation Area (CCA) setting aside approximately 60km2 of communal land in Usuthu Gorge. Usuthu Gorge lies between the Lebombo Mountain range to the West, dividing South Africa from Swaziland, and the Usuthu River to the North, separating South Africa from Mozambique. From a conservation perspective the Lebombo Mountains are known to be important for a number of endemic plants, especially cycad species (van Wyk & Smith, 2001). New initiatives attempting to adjoin existing protected areas make the Usuthu Gorge CCA (UG CCA) a critical component of the proposed Lebombo Trans-Frontier Conservation Area initiative between South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique. This aims to incorporate present protected areas into a larger conservation area including Ndumu Game Reserve and Tembe Elephant Park in South Africa. The key stakeholders in this CBC initiative are the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority, KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority, The Wildlands Conservation Trust and Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW). A steering committee has been established consisting of members nominated from the Mathenjwa community, the local Indunas and representatives from The Wildlands Trust and EKZNW. The traditional authority and Indunas are well respected within the community and their influence remains strong. They have shown commitment and cooperation to the initiative and play an important role in disseminating information and generating local support for the programme. Presently approximately 10km of fencing has been constructed on the east side of the CCA including a corridor which will eventually adjoin the nearby Ndumu Game Reserve (fig. 1.1). A basic road network, two water points and the initial introduction of a small number of game species; impala (Aepyceros melampus), nyala (Tragelaphus angasii) and wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), has taken place. More animals will be introduced on the completion of the fence line including kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) and white rhino (Ceratotherium simum) with the long term vision to develop a good quality tourism product of both hunting and nature viewing, generating jobs and revenue for the community (UG Business Plan Workshop, 2004).

-8-

Fig. 1.1: Fence line of the corridor which crosses Nkonjane and will eventually adjoin UG CCA to Ndumu Game Reserve and showing the access point to UG CCA and Usuthu River from Nkonjane.

The economic value of wildlife has been recognised in South Africa since the 1960s when hunters began to pay for the game that they killed (Scriven & Eloff, 2003). This has led to the development of private game ranching as a profitable form of land use generating revenue from the sale of hunts and venison, selling live animals at auction, processing animal products and from game lodges and other related services (ABSA, 2002). Communities could develop game ranching on communal lands, a potentially profitable enterprise as demonstrated by the sale of a white rhino (Certotherium simium) by a Community Trust at the EKZNW auction raising 140 000 SA Rand (approximately £12 389) (Easton, 2004). Since the end of apartheid in 1994, conservation organisations within South Africa have undergone reconstruction with the support and promotion of community conservation initiatives. Within this context, the UG CCA has received the support and technical input from EKZNW, including the donation of game species. The well developed institutions and conservation success in South Africa, alongside the support from The Wildlands Conservation Trust and EKZNW puts the UG CCA in a good position for success. This study focuses on three sites, Nkonjane, Mabona and eKuhlehleni which are under the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority and lie adjacent to and within the Southern border of the CCA (fig. 1.2). Homesteads within these areas are informally scattered across the landscape with the majority of people living several hundred metres from their neighbour (fig. 1.3). Basic infrastructure and amenities are available and a few clinics have been opened. Transport is basic; gravel, dirt or sand roads exist but can become impassable in the rainy season. Telephones and electricity are scarce and although water points have been established throughout the area, many people still collect water from the river to avoid paying for the use of the water pumps.

-9-

Mathenjwa Traditional Authority Ndumu Game Reserve Inhabited areas Nkonjane eKuhlehleni Mabona 0

4

8

12

16

20 km

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line

Fig. 1.2: Map of Mathenjwa Traditional Authority showing the UG CCA boundaries and the three study areas, Nkonjane, Mabona and eKuhlehleni.

Fig. 1.3: Scattered distribution of homesteads in eKuhlehleni.

The population survives through migrant labour, subsistence farming, livestock and government grants and are largely dependent on natural resource use. The extended family structure is still very coherent and polygamy is still practiced. Many men may work away from their homes for 11 months of the year and hence there are more women and children in the region. The AIDS epidemic is having an increasingly negative impact on society with a high rate of hospital deaths from AIDS in the 20-40 year age group. This has also led to a large number of orphans in the area (Barnard, 2001).

- 10 -

1.6. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This study examines the perceptions of local people in three villages under the Mathenjwa

Traditional

Authority;

eKuhlehleni,

Nkonjane

and

Mabona,

whose

communal land is being donated to establish a Community Conservation Area (CCA). Very few studies have been carried out assessing opinions and perceptions of local people who will be affected by the conservation initiative at the initial stages of its establishment. It is crucial to evaluate and understand these in order to ensure its success and minimise any potential conflicts. Assessing perceptions at the start of a project is essential in making appropriate management decisions and designing conservation strategy. It also provides a means of assessing the impact and success of the CBC initiative. This study is a preliminary look at perceptions and opinions of the local population of the establishment of the UG CCA. The objective of this project is to provide information which can be used to guide management and conservation strategy and resource use within the protected area in relation to the local populations living around it. This will be fulfilled by answering the following questions: 1. How aware are community members of what is being established in Usuthu Gorge? 2. How supportive are community members of the CCA? 3. What are the perceived benefits and problems from establishing the CCA? 4. How supportive are community members of introducing wild animals to the CCA? 5. What are the perceived benefits and problems from introducing wild animals to the CCA? 6. What natural resources are most important for community members? 7. Where are these natural resources harvested in relation to the proposed CCA boundary?

- 11 -

CHAPTER 2: STUDY AREA AND METHODS Questionnaire surveys are a useful method of collecting information on community perceptions in a relatively short period of time and have been used widely in studies examining local attitudes and perceptions to conservation initiatives. This chapter describes the study area and methods used in data collection and analysis starting with a description of the location of the study area and its main characteristics. The next section examines the limitations to data collection and is followed by the design of the questionnaire. The following section explains how the questionnaires were administered, the layout of the natural resource workshops and details the GIS mapping. Finally the analysis for the results from the questionnaires and workshops are described.

2.1. STUDY AREA This study was carried out in Maputaland in the South African province of KwaZuluNatal. The Mathenjwa Traditional Authority falls under this area (fig. 2.1.) which is known for its high biodiversity and conservation importance. The Lebombo Mountain Range rises to an even crest between 600-700m altitude and contains four large inland rivers which flow to the Indian Ocean creating impressive gorges of which the Usuthu River is one. Six major plant communities occur in this region: aquatic, grassland, rockface communities, tree savanna, thicket and forest (Smith, 2001).

Botswana Mozambique Swaziland Namibia

KwaZulu-Natal Other Provinces 0

200

400

600

Mathenjwa Traditional Authority Maputaland KwaZulu-Natal

800 km

Fig. 2.1: Map of South Africa and its provinces showing KwaZulu-Natal, Maputaland and the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority.

- 12 -

Typical wildlife in the Usuthu Gorge includes klipspringer, mountain reedbuck and red rock hare, other small mammals, birds, reptiles and freshwater fish of rocky waters also exist (Tinley & van Riet, 1981). Large mammals and big game populations were extirpated outside of protected areas by hunting and game elimination programmes to control the tsetse fly (Bruton, 1980). Hunting using dogs and snares still occurs but is mainly confined to small mammals and diminishing numbers of these have been reported (Nkonjane Workshop, 2004). In a conservation and development effort, the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority is establishing the UG CCA with the hope to generate revenue through consumptive and non-consumptive tourism. The traditional authority falls under the Ingwavuma District which is sub-divided into electoral wards. The study site is within Electoral Ward 15 covering an area of 263km2. Official figures for this Ward show the population at 12 846 (54% female, 46% male) with 6093 under the age of 15 (Municipal Demarcation Board, 2004). 14 sub-places (official name for villages within tribal areas) fall under this Ward (fig 2.2).

Ndumu Game Reserve Electoral Ward 15 Study area sub-places Other sub-places Nkonjane eKuhlehleni Mabona UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line

0

5

10 kilometres

Fig. 2.2: Map showing the sub-places within Electoral Ward 15 and the three study areas and the UG CCA boundary.

Questionnaires were administered in three areas; Nkonjane, Mabona and eKuhlehleni. Nkonjane falls under the sub-place of Mpolimpoli covering approximately 42km2 and is the eastern most area situated closest to Ndumu Game Reserve and adjacent to the initial construction of the fence line (fig. 2.2). The fenced corridor bisects a dirt road which acts as a main access route to the Usuthu River and to Mozambique. Access through the corridor is still permitted. Mabona lies west of Nkonjane covering an area of approximately 21km2 and is the least populated study area. eKuhlehleni is the furthest west of the three areas and is covers two official sub-places (eKuhlehleni and Dubulwayo) covering approximately 22km2 and is the most densely populated area.

- 13 -

2.2.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The study set out to assess community perceptions of the CCA in the areas in closest proximity to it and hence who are likely to be most affected by its establishment. Due to a lack of information of the official boundaries between sub-places at the start of the study, focal areas were identified through key local informants. The study areas were based on local knowledge and population concentrations and are not consistent with official sub-place boundaries. The area identified as Nkonjane falls under the subplace of Mpolimpoli and eKuhlehleni covers two official sub-places but at a local level were both classified as eKuhlehleni. The number of households and demographics within these areas were also not available. The households were extremely dispersed and hence the questionnaire was conducted at as many households permitted by time to give a broad assessment of community perceptions. Logistical and time constraints limited the total number of households visited and combined with the lack of information regarding number of households and population size prevented a more stratified sampling method. The three areas differ in population size reflected by the different sampling effort carried out between the areas. A language barrier between researcher and respondents along with the large area to cover meant that questionnaires were carried out through trained research assistants. This led to several limitations to the methodology in terms of different individuals carrying out questionnaires, back-translation and cultural language discrepancies, and these are described in the next section.

2.3. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN A comprehensive questionnaire was designed aiming to avoid ambiguity and interviewer bias as the questionnaire would be administered by four different interviewers. The questionnaire included a mixture of open and fixed response questions covering personal details of the respondent (age, sex, ethnic origin, income levels, education levels, occupation), household size and composition; knowledge and support for UG CCA; perceived benefits, problems and changes from UG CCA; support for the introduction of wildlife and their perceived benefits and problems; perceptions to conservation and wildlife; and natural resource use in the area (Appendix 1). Dichotomous (yes/no) questions were asked regarding knowledge of the CCA; association with the CCA; support for the CCA; support for the introduction of wildlife; and perceived benefits and costs to having wildlife. Open questions provided details of

- 14 -

individual perceptions ensuring respondents were not limited in their responses from categorical answers and avoided bias by influencing responses. Response categories were constructed from the replies to the open questions at the end of data collection to allow for data analysis. Attitude statements were constructed to assess perceptions to conservation and wildlife using opposite statement pairs to cross check responses following Infield (1988). The questionnaire was translated into Zulu by two of the research assistants. This was back-translated to English by the other two research assistants and compared to the original version to ensure the context of the questionnaire had not been “lost in translation” and any discrepancies modified (Glewwe, 2003) (Appendix 2). A pilot survey was carried out in a community outside the study area to test the suitability of the questions and its structure. All researchers were accompanied on pilot interviews to ensure the same standard methodology was being applied (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Any necessary modifications to questions were made before data collection commenced.

2.4. DATA COLLECTION 2.4.1. QUESTIONNAIRES Questionnaires were administered by 4 research assistants for 5 weeks in May and June 2004. A pre-written standard statement regarding the project and questionnaire was read out to ensure that the information given was systematic (Appendix 3). All questionnaires and answers were written in Zulu and translated into English at the end of data collection. As information was not available on population lists of adults in the three study sites and due to logistical and time limitations, the sampling strategy used was to visit as many households as possible in the three areas being sampled and interview one adult (age over 20 years) at each household visited. Households were defined as “all people normally resident within or making economic contributions to a kraal, a group of huts traditionally fenced” (Infield, 1988) (fig. 2.3). If respondents stated they were aware of what was being developed at Usuthu Gorge (question 1), they were asked to explain what they knew. These responses were not used in the analysis but as a means to ensure the accuracy of those responding “yes”. If respondents did not know, a standard non-bias statement explaining the UG CCA was read out to them and the questionnaire continued from question 5.

- 15 -

Fig. 2.3: Typical traditional kraal in eKuhlehleni, with a modern house constructed behind.

A larger sampling effort occurred in eKuhlehleni with two research assistants based there during the data collection period due to the larger population density (fig. 2.4). Two other research assistants collected data in Nkonjane and Mabona with the aim to have approximately equal proportions of the population at each area sampled. Samesex interviews were carried out if possible as respondents tended to be more comfortable and open with interviewers of the same sex.

Fig. 2.4: Questionnaire being conducted in eKuhlehleni by female research assistant at respondents household.

- 16 -

2.4.2. NATURAL RESOURCE USE WORKSHOPS Workshops were organised as an exercise in community participatory mapping as the questionnaire surveys were limited in gaining an understanding on which resources are used and where they are collected. Two workshops were carried out; one at the primary school at Nkonjane and the second at the community hall in eKuhlehleni for both residents from eKuhlehleni and Mabona. Both workshops were carried out on a Saturday when residents were least likely to have other commitments. Community members were invited via the Induna of their area and everyone was welcome.

Fig. 2.5: A female group of participants at the natural resource workshop in eKuhlehleni.

Workshop participants were divided into groups of between 5 and 10 individuals and when possible, divided into groups of men and women, which was only possible with residents from eKuhlehleni (fig. 2.5). Each group made a list of natural resources that they presently used (fig. 2.6) and then were asked to prioritise the top 10. A map of the area (Appendix 4) was given to each group and areas where these resources were collected were marked on the map (fig. 2.7).

Fig. 2.6: The three groups at the natural resource workshop in Nkonjane.

- 17 -

Fig. 2.7: Participants at the natural resource workshop in Nkonjane marking the 10 priority resources onto a map.

2.4.3. MAPPING All mapping was carried out using ArcView GIS 3.2 software. A map was created for the natural resource use workshop so that participants could mark where they collect their resources from. A high resolution ASTER image was digitised at 1:25 000 to show subsistence and inhabited areas and prominent features including roads and rivers. GPS points of key reference sites e.g. schools, clinics, shops, were taken in eKuhlehleni, Nkonjane and Mabona using a hand held GPS (Garmin 12) which were overlaid onto the map (Appendix 4).

2.5. DATA ANALYSIS All data were analysed using SPSS for Windows Vers. 11.5. Data from the questionnaire were analysed using logistic regression to identify demographic factors (area, age, gender, education level, occupation, wealth and number of young dependence) which were significant in predicting the responses of the dichotomous questions and chi-square to demonstrate associations between demographic factors and perceptions towards the UG CCA and introduction of wildlife. Responses from the questionnaire were not analysed for each area separately due to the small sample sizes especially for Mabona, and area was factored into the analysis as an independent variable. However, area was found to be a statistically significant factor in all but two of the tests and hence chi-square analysis was carried out between area and the other independent variables to test for any significant differences in demographic data between the areas. Data which was not analysed statistically were also examined with respect to the area respondents were from. Many of the original categories for the independent variables used on the questionnaire sheet were modified for analysis and other categories grouped after data collection. In some cases, the number of samples varied considerably between categories and they were grouped such that sample size in each category was approximately equal. Although this led to some uneven category scales, the more equal numbers of responses in the categories made the data easier to interpret. • Area was divided into the three areas being surveyed (eKuhlehleni, Nkonjane and Mabona). • Age was divided into four groups (20-29, 30-39, 40-49 and 50+). Wider age categories were used for analysis so that categories were of similar sample sizes and to account for variation between estimated age (a large proportion of respondents did not know their exact age) and actual age.

- 18 -

• Education level was divided into four categories: those with no schooling, primary schooling, secondary schooling and higher education. Secondary education was combined with higher education later (secondary +) due to the very small number of respondents who had higher education. • Occupation

was

divided

into

two

categories

(employed

or

unemployed).

Respondents who were classed as employed were in a formal occupation. Most respondents who are classed as unemployed had some level of subsistence agriculture and livestock ownership. • Wealth was divided into four categories (0-199, 200-599, 600-999, 1000+ SA Rand per month). This accounted for all monetary monthly income coming into the household and therefore includes salaries, grants etc of other members of the household and money received from outside. • Due to the custom of looking after children of other family members, it was more suitable to look at number of young dependents in the household as opposed to number of children of the respondent. These were classified as children (under 20 years of age) or young adults (under 25 years old) who were still in full time education and hence reliant on the household. These were grouped into 5 categories: no young dependents, 1-3, 4-5, 6-8 or more than 9. Open-ended questions were grouped into categories established from the responses. In some situations where responses to one question more appropriately answered another question, responses were shifted to the more appropriate question (Bossen, 1997). All responses were coded to run SPSS and descriptive statistics carried out to calculate frequencies and allow cross-tabulations. A forward wald binary logistic regression model was used to analyse data where the dependent variable was a dichotomy (yes or no) in response to: knowledge of the establishment of the CCA; support for the CCA; support for the introduction of wildlife to the CCA; and potential wildlife benefits and problems from their introduction, to assess which independent variables influenced the responses. When a third response “don’t know” was possible, these were excluded from analysis. Due to the high variation of responses to “yes” or “no” in all the questions except the potential problems from the introduction of wildlife, the larger sample was reduced to ensure equal numbers of respondents in each category was being tested. Although this led to some information being lost, this was essential to ensure a more accurate regression model as the large variation resulted in large discrepancies in the percentage of correctly classified cases. This was carried out by using SPSS to randomly select a fixed number of respondents from the full larger sample. Chi-square tests were used on categorical data to determine the association between the independent variables and reasons for supporting or not supporting the CCA;

- 19 -

perceived benefits from the CCA; perceived potential problems from the CCA; changes to the community that the CCA may bring; reasons for the support or non-support for the introduction of wildlife to the CCA; and potential benefits and problems from introducing wildlife to the CCA. Some of the original categories established for the responses had to be combined for the chi-square analysis to ensure that less than 25% of the expected cells contained counts less than 5. No statistical analysis was carried out on respondents’ perceived reasons for the establishment of the CCA or the natural resources used. Multiple responses were possible for these questions and data was presented as percentage of respondents giving each response and hence may sum to more than 100% (Gillingham & Lee, 1999). Responses to question 9 (position of fence line) was not used in the analysis as there was no means of verifying responses and there were indications that these were not always accurate. The attitude statements at the end of the questionnaire (question 15) were not used for analysis as cross-checking of responses showed a large degree of inconsistency with many individuals responding “agree” to both statement pairs. This is likely to be caused by respondents wishing to agree with the interviewer, or thinking this was the “right” answer. Additionally the statements may not have been phrased in a suitably understandable way to fit both their culture and language. The use of open ended questions in the rest of the questionnaire avoided these issues. A preliminary look at natural resource use in the area was examined through the questionnaire and workshops. The results on resource use from the questionnaire can be regarded as an initial investigation into resource use. It does not provide an exhaustive list nor an accurate representation of what resources are used in each area. No statistical analysis was carried out and the results from the questionnaire were combined with that of the workshops to form an understanding on which resources are most relied on and where they are collected from in relation to the proposed CCA boundary. From the mapping exercise at the workshop the areas for collection were categorised using the official sub-places. These were subsequently divided where appropriate into northern sections which fall into the proposed CCA boundary in order to determine areas of use within the CCA. Level of resource use in each sub-place was calculated by the number of resources collected in the area multiplied by the number of workshop groups stating the area for resource collection.

- 20 -

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS The results from the data analysis are examined in this chapter. Firstly a more detailed account of the respondents is examined to get an understanding of the demographic and socio-economic factors of the study sample. The demographic and socio-economic factors between the three study areas are also examined in closer detail. This is followed by the results from the main questionnaire. Level of knowledge and support of the CCA and the reasons for this support are presented. The next section presents the perceived benefits and problems from establishing the CCA followed by the support of the introduction of wildlife and the perceptions to this. Finally the results from the natural resource workshops are presented.

3.1 RESPONDENTS’ BACKGROUND A total of 340 questionnaires were carried out, 213 in eKuhlehleni (KL), 84 in Nkonjane (NJ) and 43 in Mabona (MB). 98% of respondents were Zulu and 83% had been born in the same area. The majority of the respondents were female (66%) (fig. 3.1) and within the 30-39 year age group (30%) (fig. 3.2).

Percentage of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

40

N=225

70 60 50 40

N=115

30 20 10 0 Male

Gender

30

N=59 N=55

20

10

0 20-29

Female

N=47 N=46

30-39

40-49

50+

Age (years)

Fig. 3.1: Percentage of male and female respondents.

Fig. 3.2: Percentage age distribution of respondents

Most respondents were unemployed (89%), relying on welfare grants from the government, subsistence agriculture and livestock (fig. 3.3) with 36% receiving a monthly monetary income between 0 and 199 SA Rand (approximately £17.60) (fig. 3.4). Most respondents interviewed (32%) had between 4 and 5 young dependents living in their household which were defined as children or young adults (under 25) in full-time education (fig. 3.5). Most respondents had no formal education (35%) and less than 1% had received further education beyond completing high school (fig. 3.6).

- 21 -

100

Percentage of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

N=303

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

N=37

10 0

Employed

40

N=121

30

N=93 N=79

20

N=47

10

0 0-199

Unemployed

Employment

Percentage of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

40

N=104 N=109 30

N=80 20

N=28 N=19

4-5

6-8

N=151 N=137

30

20

N=48 10

N=4

0

0 1-3

1000+

Fig. 3.4: Percentage wealth distribution of respondents.

40

0

600-999

Income / month

Fig. 3.3: Percentage of employed and unemployed respondents.

10

200-599

None

9+

No of young dependents

Primary

Secondary

Education level

Fig. 3.5: Percentage distribution of number of young dependents in respondents’ households.

Higher Education

Fig. 3.6: Percentage distribution of education levels of respondents.

3.2 AREA A significant difference was found in education levels between areas (χ2 = 47.302; df = 4; p<0.001) and the level of wealth between areas (χ2 = 18.312; df = 6; p=0.005). Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona had much lower education levels than eKuhlehleni with more respondents not having attended school (fig. 3.7). Respondents from Mabona were more likely to be in the lowest wealth bracket (fig. 3.8). No significant difference was found between area and other demographic factors (p>0.05).

60

None Primary

80

Percentage of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

100

Secondary + 60

40

20

0

0-199 200-599

50

600-999 40

1000+

30 20 10 0

KL

NJ

MB

KL

NJ

MB

Area

Area

Fig. 3.7: Level of education of respondents in each area.

- 22 -

Fig. 3.8: Level of wealth of respondents in each area.

3.3 KNOWLEDGE OF UG CCA Only 26% of all respondents were aware of the CCA being developed at Usuthu Gorge. Using logistic regression analysis, the final model correctly classified 78.3% of the respondents knowledge of the CCA (χ2 = 66.931; df = 3; p<0.001). A good model is considered if the Area under the Relative Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) is greater than 0.7. Values less than this suggest that other factors not measured in the analysis play a role in explaining the results. Area was found to be the only significant factor in respondents prior knowledge of the establishment of the CCA (Wald = 48.797; df = 2; p<0.001) although this model did not explain most of the variation (AUC = 0.183) so other unmeasured factors were likely to play a role. Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to know about the CCA (51% and 60%) whereas most respondents in eKuhlehleni had no prior knowledge of it (90%) (fig. 3.9).

Percentage of Respondents

100

80

No 60

Yes

40

20

0 KL

NJ

MB

Area

Fig. 3.9: Percentage knowledge of respondents to UG CCA in each area.

3.3.1. PERCEIVED REASON FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UG CCA

Area

KL (n=21) NJ (n=43) MB (n=26)

Employment (%)

Community Development (%)

Animal Conservation (%)

Don’t Know (%)

29 51 46

10 49 62

29 16 8

43 0 0

Table 3.1: Percentage of respondents perceived reasons for the establishment for UG CCA in each area. Data is presented as percentage of respondents giving each response and may sum greater than 100%.

The majority of respondents from eKuhlehleni who knew about the establishment of the CCA did not know why it was being developed (table 3.1). Compared to Nkonjane and Mabona a much larger percentage of respondents thought the development of the CCA was for animal conservation reasons whereas in Nkonjane and Mabona large proportions stated employment and community development purposes.

- 23 -

3.3.2. ASSOCIATION WITH UG CCA Area

No. Respondents

Proportion Respondents

No. Family Members

Proportion with Family Members

KL (n=213) NJ (n=84) MB (n=43)

1 4 2

0.5% 5% 5%

1 2 1

0.5% 2% 2%

Table 3.2: Number and proportion of respondents or their family members associated with UG CCA in each area.

Very few respondents or their family were associated with the UG CCA. Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona are 10 times more likely to be associated with the CCA than eKuhlehleni and are more likely to have family members associated with the CCA (table 3.2).

3.4. SUPPORT FOR UG CCA A large percentage of all respondents supported the establishment of the CCA (71%) compared to 15% who did not. Logistic regression analysis showed that area was highly significant in determining the level of support (Wald = 13.331; df = 2; p=0.001) and the final regression model correctly classified 67.6% of the respondents support for the CCA (χ2 = 18.026; df = 2; p<0.001) (AUC= 0.315). A much higher proportion of non-support was apparent in eKuhlehleni (21%) compared to only 5% in Nkonjane and 7% in Mabona (fig. 3.10). However, respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona who had a prior knowledge of the CCA showed 100% support compared to 93% and 77% for those without (fig. 12), support in eKuhlehleni remaining constant in both groups.

Percentage of Respondents

Don't know Don't Support Support

80 60 40 20

Percentage of Respondents

100

100

Don't Support

KL

NJ

MB

Support

60 40 20 0

0

Don't Know

80

KL Prior Knowledge

Fig. 3.10: Percentage support of respondents for UG CCA in each area.

KL

NJ Prior Knowledge

NJ

MB Prior Knowledge

MB

Area

Area

Fig. 3.11: Percentage support of respondents for UG CCA in each area showing the difference in support between respondents with prior knowledge of the CCA compared to those without.

- 24 -

3.4.1.

REASON FOR SUPPORT OF UG CCA

Employment (%)

Overall

Community Consumptive Development Empowerment Use of Area /Personal Dev (%) (%) (%)

NonConsumptive Use (%)

NatureConservation Benefits (%)

57

11

18

2

3

9

50 71 55

6 14 24

21 12 17

4 0 0

6 0 0

13 3 3

56 64 50 55

6 10 13 17

11 19 22 21

0 0 4 5

11 0 2 0

16 7 9 2

56 59 57

16 9 5

23 12 19

1 1 5

0 4 8

4 15 6

Area KL NJ MB Age 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+ Education None Primary Secondary +

Table 3.3: Reasons for support of the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factors area, age and education level.

The majority of all respondents who supported the CCA stated the future employment opportunities as their reason for support (table 3.3), followed by community empowerment and personal development opportunities. There was a highly significant association between area and the reasons for support (χ2 = 26.837; df = 6; p<0.001) and a significant association found for age (χ2 = 17.561; df = 9; p=0.041) and education levels (χ2 = 14.082; df = 6; p=0.029). Employment was the most important reason for support of the CCA in each category of area, age and education level. This was stated most frequently by respondents in Nkonjane. Development of the area was the second most stated reason for support in Nkonjane and Mabona and more frequently stated by the three older age categories and respondents with no education. In eKuhlehleni, respondents in age groups 30-39, 40-49 and 50+, and those with no education and secondary education and above, community empowerment and personal development was a strong motivator for support. eKuhlehleni respondents, those in the 20-29 year age group and respondents with primary education were more likely to state conservation reasons for their support; bequest and existence values (nature-conservation benefits) and nonconsumptive use.

- 25 -

3.4.2. REASON FOR NOT SUPPORTING UG CCA Uninformed of CCA (%)

No Personal perceived benefit (%)

Reduced Grazing Land (%)

CommunityCCA Conflict (%)

Don’t know (%)

22

12

29

16

21

25 0 0

13 0 0

33 0 0

18 0 0

11 100 100

Overall Area KL NJ MB

Table 3.4: Reasons why respondents do not support the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of area.

Overall, reduced available grazing land was the most frequently stated reason for not supporting the CCA (table 3.4). The second most frequently stated responses for not supporting the CCA was that they were uninformed about the CCA and what was being developed. No significant associations were found using chi-square analysis. However, due to the high number of cells with counts less than 5 a chi-square test was not able to be carried out against area. Respondents from Mabona and Nkonjane who said they did not support the CCA could not give reasons for their view stating don’t know. A third of respondents from eKuhlehleni who did not support the CCA said it was due to reduced grazing land and a quarter that they had not been informed about it.

3.5. PERCEIVED BENEFITS FROM ESTABLISHING UG CCA 3.5.1. PERCEIVED BENEFITS TO THE INDIVIDUAL FROM UG CCA Employment (%)

Overall

Community NonConsumptive Development Don’t Empowerment Consumptive Nothing know of Area Use /Personal Dev Use (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

60

2

1

3

3

11

20

45 85 86

1 2 9

0 5 0

5 0 0

4 1 0

17 2 0

28 5 5

58 64

1 6

1 2

3 3

4 1

12 10

21 14

Area KL NJ MB Gender Female Male

Table 3.5: Perceived benefits to the individual from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factors area and gender.

The large majority of respondents overall perceived employment as the most important individual benefit from establishing the CCA (table 3.5). Other potential benefits were each only stated by less than 3% of respondents. Although no perceived individual benefits deriving from the CCA was stated more frequently. A highly

- 26 -

significant association was found between area and perceived individual benefits from the establishment of the CCA (χ2 = 80.8; df = 8; p<0.001) and a significant association with gender (χ2 = 14.067; df = 4; p=0.007). Employment was stated most frequently as a perceived benefit in each category of area and gender. However, this was considerably higher for respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona than eKuhlehleni and higher in males than females. A higher percentage of respondents in eKuhlehleni did not perceive any individual benefits from establishing the CCA compared to none in Mabona.

3.5.2. PERCEIVED BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY FROM UG CCA Community NonConsumpDevelop- Tourist empowerment EmployNothing tive Use Consumptive ment of Revenue /Personal dev ment (%) (%) (%) Area (%) (%) Use (%) (%)

Overall

Don’t know (%)

42

15

3

2

3

1

6

28

30 61 67

13 17 19

3 5 0

3 0 0

4 1 0

1 0 0

9 1 0

37 15 14

50 30 50

12 19 12

2 5 0

1 3 2

1 5 4

0 2 0

7 5 8

27 31 24

35 43

30 13

3 3

8 1

5 3

0 1

5 7

14 29

Area KL NJ MB Education None Primary Secondary + Occupation Employed Unemployed

Table 3.6: Perceived community benefits from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factors area, education and occupation.

Most respondents perceived employment opportunities (42%) as the primary community benefit from establishing the CCA. A highly significant association with perceived community benefits from the CCA was found with area (χ2 = 50.568; df = 8; p<0.001), and a significant association with education level (χ2 = 22.959; df = 8; p=0.003) and employment (χ2 = 13.848; df = 4; p=0.008). Employment was stated the most frequently by respondents in each category of area, education and occupation as a perceived community benefit. However this was stated over twice as frequently in Nkonjane and Mabona than in eKuhlehleni. Respondents who had no education or secondary education and above and unemployed respondents were more likely to state employment. Respondents from Mabona, respondents with primary education and employed respondents were more likely to state development of the area as a benefit. Respondents in eKuhlehleni were more likely to perceive no community benefits.

- 27 -

3.6. PERCEIVED PROBLEMS FROM ESTABLISHING UG CCA

Overall

Forced Removal (%)

Expectations Unfulfilled (%)

Wildlife Law Enforcement Conflict (%)

None (%)

Don’t know (%)

7

6

5

1

20

12

30 0 0

5 17 0

10 0 0

3 8 12

2 0 0

12 25 49

16 5 2

29 27 40

11 28 15

5 9 10

6 7 6

7 4 2

1 1 6

27 14 13

14 10 8

22 31

22 18

8 7

3 7

16 4

3 1

11 21

15 11

HumanWildlife Conflict (%)

Reduced Grazing Land (%)

30

19

22 45 37

Access Denied (%)

Area KL NJ MB Education None Primary Secondary + Occupation Employed Unemployed

Table 3.7: Perceived problems from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factors area, education and occupation.

Most respondents perceived human-wildlife conflict issues as the primary potential problem from establishing the CCA (table 3.7). A fifth of respondents perceived no potential problem from establishing the CCA. A highly significant association was found between perceived problems from establishing the CCA and area (χ2 = 99.303; df = 10; p<0.001) and education level (χ2 = 28.730; df = 10; p=0.001). Occupation was found to be significantly associated with perceived problems (χ2 = 13.925; df = 5; p=0.016). Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona, respondents with secondary education and above and respondents who were unemployed were more likely to state humanwildlife conflict as a potential problem from establishing the CCA. Respondents from eKuhlehleni were the only ones to state reduced grazing land, forced removal and wildlife law enforcement conflict as a problem. They were most likely to state reduced grazing land which was also stated most frequently by respondents with primary education and those with employment. Respondents from Mabona and respondents with no education are more likely to perceive unfulfilled expectations as a problem and respondents from Nkonjane saw denied access to resources as a potential problem. Nearly half of respondents from Mabona perceive no problems from the CCA, four times higher than those from eKuhlehleni. Those with no education and those unemployed were also more likely not to perceive any problems.

- 28 -

3.7. PERCEIVED COMMUNITY CHANGES FROM UG CCA Employment (%)

Overall

NatureDevelopment Poverty Alleviation Conservation of Area Benefit (%) (%) (%)

Access Denied (%)

None (%)

Don’t know (%)

16

31

7

4

5

11

26

17 15 12

13 60 68

8 5 2

6 2 0

9 0 0

9 11 16

38 7 2

17 14 21

38 27 21

1 11 10

1 7 10

3 5 12

14 8 10

26 28 17

Area KL NJ MB Education None Primary Secondary +

Table 3.8: Perceived changes to the community from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factors area and education.

Overall, development of the area was the most frequently perceived change to the community from establishing the CCA followed by employment opportunities (table 3.8). Most responses could be classified into positive changes (employment, development of the area, alleviation of poverty, nature-conservation benefits). A highly significant association was found between perceived changes to the community from establishing the CCA and area (χ2 = 93.057; df = 10; p<0.001) and a significant association found with education level (χ2 = 20.714; df = 10; p=0.023).

Over half of respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona stated that the CCA would change the community through development, considerably higher than stated in eKuhlehleni. Respondents with no education were also more likely to state development as a change to the area. Respondents from eKuhlehleni and respondents with secondary education and above are more likely to perceive a loss of access to the area and resources within the CCA from its establishment but also are more likely to state nature-conservation benefits as a change to the community. A greater percentage of respondents with primary and secondary + education levels perceived the CCA would alleviate poverty in the area.

- 29 -

3.8. INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE TO UG CCA 3.8.1. SUPPORT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE TO UG CCA Overall, most respondents supported the introduction of wildlife to the UG CCA (71%). Using logistic regression analysis, the final regression model correctly classified 66.7% of the respondents support for the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 14.694; df = 2; p=0.001) (AUC = 0.326) and showed area to be the only significant variable (Wald = 13.425; df = 2; p=0.001) in determining support for the introduction of wildlife. Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to support the introduction of wildlife (90% and 86%) than respondents from eKuhlehleni (60%) (fig. 3.12). 22% of respondents from eKuhlehleni said they did not support the introduction of wildlife compared to 10% in Nkonjane and 14% in Mabona.

Percentage of Respondents

100 Don't know No Yes

80 60 40 20 0 KL

NJ

MB

Area

Fig. 3.12: Percentage support of respondents to the introduction of wildlife to the UG CCA in each area.

3.8.2. REASONS FOR AND AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE

Overall

NonNatureConsumptive Consumptive Conservation Use (%) Use (%) Benefit (%)

Develop CCA (%)

Tourist Revenue (%)

22

13

23

9

17 29 22

6 21 24

31 9 24

10 5 11

No HumanWildlife Conflict (%)

Don’t know (%)

12

18

3

15 12 3

18 21 11

3 3 5

Area KL NJ MB

Table 3.9: Reasons for supporting the introduction of wildlife to the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factor area.

Non-consumptive use benefits and development of the CCA were the most stated reasons for support of the introduction of wildlife (table 3.9). A significant association exists between area and reasons for supporting the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 32.057; df = 10; p<0.001). Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to support the introduction of wildlife as it would develop the CCA and that it

- 30 -

would increase tourism revenue to the area. Respondents from eKuhlehleni were most likely to state non-consumptive use benefits as reasons why they supported the introduction of wildlife and they were also more likely to state nature-conservation benefits. The most stated reason for not supporting the introduction of wildlife to the CCA was the potential human-wildlife conflict (32%). This was followed by nearly a quarter of respondents who said they did not support the CCA at all. A fifth of respondents stated wildlife–conservation has no value and reduced grazing land was also given as a reason for not supporting the initiative. No statistically significant associations were found. However, reduction in grazing land and wildlife - conservation holding no value were only stated by respondents from eKuhlehleni.

3.8.3. PERCEIVED BENEFITS FROM WILDLIFE IN UG CCA The majority of respondents’ perceived wildlife in the CCA would provide some benefits (75%). Using logistic regression analysis, the final regression model correctly classified 67.9% of the respondents perceived benefit from introducing wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 19.672; df = 5; p=0.001) (AUC = 0.286) and showed area (Wald = 8.165; df = 2; p<0.017) and education levels (Wald = 9.703; df = 3; p<0.021) to be significant in determining perceived benefits from wildlife. A greater proportion of respondents from Mabona and Nkonjane perceive that wildlife in the CCA will bring them benefits (88% and 85% respectively) compared to 68% in eKuhlehleni. 20% of respondents from eKuhlehleni perceive no benefits from wildlife (fig. 3.13). Respondents who had received secondary education or above were most likely to perceive benefits from having wildlife in the CCA (94%) compared to those with no education (70%) and primary education (73%) (fig. 3.14). 18% of those with no education and 20% of those with primary education perceived no benefits from wildlife. 100 Don't know

80

Percentage of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

100

No Yes

60 40 20 0

Don't know

80

No Yes

60 40 20 0

KL

NJ

MB

None

Area

Primary

Secondary +

Education Level

Fig. 3.13: Percentage perceived benefit from introducing wildlife to UG CCA by respondents in each area.

- 31 -

Fig. 3.14: Percentage perceived benefit from introducing wildlife to UG CCA by respondents at each level of education.

3.8.4. PERCEIVED TYPES OF BENEFIT FROM WILDLIFE Employment (%)

Overall

NonTourist Consumptive Consumptive Use Revenue (%) (%) Use (%)

NatureConservation Benefit (%)

None (%)

Don’t know (%)

3

20

43

5

2

17

10

3 4 2

19 24 19

36 51 65

6 6 0

3 0 0

20 9 12

13 6 2

3 2 4

19 19 29

65 47 50

0 4 6

0 1 4

12 20 4

2 8 4

1 4 1 3

29 21 11 19

48 43 56 30

4 5 6 7

4 1 1 1

10 15 15 25

4 11 10 15

Area KL NJ MB Education None Primary Secondary + Age 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+

Table 3.10: Perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factors area, education level and age.

Overall, nearly half of respondents answered that introducing wildlife into the CCA would benefit them through consumptive-use of wildlife (table 3.10), mostly stating meat from culling. Area was highly significantly associated with perceived types of benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 24.834; df = 8; p< 0.002). Significant associations were also found with education level (χ2 = 17.784; df = 8; p<0.023) and age (χ2 = 23.669; df = 12; p<0.023). Consumptive use was the most frequently stated perceived benefit from having wildlife in the CCA in each category of area, age and education level. This was highest in respondents from Mabona, respondents with no education and those in the 40-49 year age category. Nature-Conservation benefits were only stated by respondents in eKuhlehleni and this was highest in those with secondary level education or above and those in the 20-29 year age category. Respondents from eKuhlehleni, respondents with primary education and those in the 50+ age category were most likely to perceive no benefits from having wildlife. No respondents in Mabona or those with no education stated non-consumptive use of wildlife as a perceived benefit.

- 32 -

3.8.5. PERCEIVED PROBLEMS FROM WILDLIFE IN UG CCA Half of all respondents perceived problems from introducing wildlife to the CCA compared to 44% who did not. Using logistic regression analysis, the final regression model correctly classified 72.9% of the respondents perceived problems from introducing wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 70.968; df = 2; p<0.001) (AUC = 0.286) and showed area to be highly significant in determining perceived problems from wildlife (Wald = 59.587; df = 2; p<0.001). Respondents in eKuhlehleni are much more likely to perceive problems from introducing wildlife to the CCA (65%) than from Nkonjane or Mabona (29% and 16%) and Mabona the least likely to perceive any problems (84%).

Percentage of Respondents

100 Don't know

80

No Yes

60 40 20 0 KL

NJ

MB

Area

Fig. 3.15: Percentage of respondents perceived problems from introducing wildlife to UG CCA in each area.

3.8.6. PERCEIVED TYPES OF PROBLEMS FROM WILDLIFE

Overall

HumanWildlife Conflict (%)

Poaching (%)

Wildlife Law Enforcement Conflict (%)

Access Denied (%)

None (%)

Don’t Know (%)

36

4

4

4

44

8

44 27 16

7 0 0

6 0 0

6 0 0

26 69 84

11 4 0

29 44 40

2 5 8

2 5 6

1 7 4

53 35 40

13 4 2

Area KL NJ MB Education None Primary Secondary +

Table 3.11: Perceived problems from introducing wildlife to the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically significant factors area and education level.

The most frequently stated perceived problem from introducing wildlife was humanwildlife conflict (table 3.11). However, more respondents perceived no problems from having wildlife in the CCA. A highly significant association was found between perceived problems and area (χ2 = 85.251; df = 8; p<0.001) and with education level (χ2 = 31.564; df = 8; p<0.001). No perceived problem was stated most frequently by

- 33 -

respondents in all categories of area and education level except for those from eKuhlehleni

and

respondents

with

primary

education.

Both

these

groups

of

respondents stated human-wildlife conflict the most frequently. Respondents from eKuhlehleni are much more likely to perceive problems from introducing wildlife to the CCA. Human-wildlife conflict was the only perceived problem from respondents in Nkonjane and Mabona.

3.9. NATURAL RESOURCE USE 3.9.1. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS KL (%) (n=213)

NJ (%) (n=84)

MB (%) (n=43)

22

7

12

Bull Rush

1

0

0

Caterpillars

2

0

0

Fire Wood

23

0

0

Fish

16

26

44

Honey

10

5

5

Medicinal Plants

18

2

7

Poles

14

19

14

Reeds

1

24

0

Thatching Grass

49

87

79

Water

17

11

9

Wild Animals

34

2

5

Wild Fruits

47

44

58

Nothing

16

5

0

Natural Resource

Wood for building construction

Table 3.12: Natural resources relied on by respondents from each area. Data is presented as percentage of respondents giving each response and may sum greater than 100%.

Thatching grass was the most frequently listed natural resource by respondents from each area (table 3.12). This was followed by wild fruits, marula fruits (Scelerocarya birrea) being most frequently stated. A large proportion of respondents in eKuhlehleni stated wild animals as an important resource, most commonly stating common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) and bushpig (Portamochoerus porcus). Fish was also frequently mentioned especially in Mabona.

- 34 -

3.9.2. WORKSHOP RESULTS NJ1 (n=5) 4 males 1 female

NJ2 (n=5) 4 males 1 female

NJ3 (n=5) All males

Water

Water

Water

Sand

Thatching grass

Clay Soil

3

Cultivation Land

Poles

Thatching Grass

4

Building Stones

Building Stones

Medicinal Plants

5

Thatching Grass

Cultivation Land

Wild Fruits

Poles

Grazing

Grazing

Reeds

Sand

Fire Wood

Medicinal Plants

Firewood

Building Wood

Grazing

Reeds

Cultivation Land

Wild Animals

Wild Animals

Poles

Priority 1 2

6 7 8 9 10

Table 3.13: Priority list of the ten most important resources selected by groups in Workshop 1. 1 is most important.

Priority

KLF1 (n=8) All females

KLF2 (n=8) All females

KLM1 (n=9) All males

KLM2 (n=10) All males

MB (n=5) 4 males 1 female

1

Water

Water

Water

Reeds

Water

2

Cultivation Land

Fire Wood

Fire Wood

Thatching Grass

Thatching grass

3

Fire Wood

Thatching Grass

Poles

Grazing

Poles

4

Thatching Grass

Cultivation Land

Sand

Medicinal Plants

Fire Wood

5

Medicinal Plants

Bull Rush

Thatching Grass

Cultural Sites

Wild Fruits

6

Wild Fruits

Poles

Building Stones

Fire Wood

Reeds

7

Bull Rush

Medicinal Plants

Bull Rush

Poles

Sand

8

Clay soil

Starflower

Medicinal Plants

Fish

Cultural Sites

9

Grazing

Wild Fruits

Fish

Sand

Medicinal Plants

10

Reeds

Sand

Wild Fruits

Water

Fish

Table 3.14: Priority list of the ten most important resources selected by groups in Workshop 2. 1 is most important.

- 35 -

Seven out of the eight groups put water as the most important natural resource that they rely on and thatching grass and water were the only natural resources listed by each group (table 3.13, table 3.14). Fire wood, medicinal plants and poles were listed by all groups except one. Maps (fig. 3.16 to fig. 3.23) show where each group collects their priority resources. The two female groups from eKuhlehleni (KLF1, KLF2) use the area surrounding eKuhlehleni to collect resources (fig. 3.20, fig. 3.21, table 3.16) more than the two male groups who were more likely to collect resources further from eKuhlehleni and within the proposed CCA boundary (fig. 3.22, fig. 3.23, table 3.16). Groups from Nkonjane use the area within the CCA boundary north of Nkonjane to collect many of the resources listed and also use areas for resource collection which requires access through the corridor (fig 3.16, fig. 3.17, fig. 3.18, table 3.15) In Nkonjane building stones, poles, reeds, sand and thatching grass were only collected in areas within the proposed boundary of the CCA or through the corridor. In eKuhlehleni fish and wild fruits were only collected in areas within the proposed boundary of the CCA and the group from Mabona (MB) collect all the resources listed within the proposed CCA boundary (fig. 3.19, table 3.16). The results show that the greatest resource use occurs within the CCA (fig. 3.24). The level of resource use by the groups from the workshop is highest within Mpolimpoli (N) (36). Mathenjwa North (N) also has a high level of use (21), both within the CCA boundary.

- 36 -

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads

Usuthu River

Inhabited areas

Building Stones

Ndumu Game Reserve

Cultivation Land Grazing Medicinal Plants Poles Reeds Sand Thatching Grass Water Wild Animals

Fig. 3.16: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Nkonjane group 1 and where they collect these resources from.

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads Inhabited areas

Usuthu River

Ndumu Game Reserve

Building Stones Cultivation Land Fire Wood Grazing Poles Reeds Sand Thatching Grass Water Wild Animals

Fig. 3.17: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Nkonjane group 2 and where they collect these resources from.

- 37 -

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads Inhabited areas

Usuthu River

Ndumu Game Reserve

Building Wood Clay Soil Cultivation Land Fire Wood Grazing Medicinal Plants Poles Thatching Grass Water Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.18: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Nkonjane group 3 and where they collect these resources from.

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads Inhabited areas

Usuthu River

Ndumu Game Reserve

Cultural Sites Fire Wood Fish Medicinal Plants Poles Reeds Sand Thatching Grass Water Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.19: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Mabona group and where they collect these resources from.

- 38 -

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads Inhabited areas

Usuthu River

Ndumu Game Reserve

Bull Rush Clay Soil Cultivation Land Fire Wood Grazing Medicinal Plants Reeds Thatching Grass Water Wild Fruit

0

3

6

9

12 Kilometres

Fig. 3.20: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni female group 1 and where they collect these resources from.

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads Inhabited areas

Usuthu River

Ndumu Game Reserve

Bull Rush Cultivation Land Fire Wood Medicinal Plants Poles Sand Starflower Thatching Grass Water Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.21: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni female group 2 and where they collect these resources from.

- 39 -

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads

Usuthu River

Inhabited areas

Ndumu Game Reserve

Building Stones Bull Rush Fire Wood Fish Medicinal Plants Poles Sand Thatching Grass Water Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.22: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni male group 1 and where they collect these resources from.

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Roads Inhabited areas

Usuthu River

Ndumu Game Reserve

Cultural Sites Fire Wood Fish Grazing Medicinal Plants Poles Reeds Sand Thatching Grass Water

Fig. 3.23: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni male group 2 and where they collect these resources from.

- 40 -

Mathenjwa West

eKuhlehleni (N)

Mathenjwa North (N)

Mathenjwa North

Mathenjwa South

Mabona (N) eKuhlehleni

Dubulwayo

UG fence line Mpolimpoli (N)

Prospective Fence line

Ndumu Game Reserve

Mabona

Level of Use 0 1-5

Nhlabezinde Mpolimpoli

6-10 11-15 16-20

Manyiseni

21-25 26-40

0

4

8

12 Kilometres

Fig. 3.24: Map showing the level of resource use in each sub-place as identified during workshops.

41

Natural Resource

NJ1 (n=5)

NJ2 (n=5)

Building Stones

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

NJ3 (n=5)

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli (N)

Building Wood

Bull Rush Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli

Clay Soil

Cultivation Land

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli (N)

Cultural Sites Fire Wood Fish Grazing

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli (N)

Medicinal Plants

Mpolimpoli (N)

Poles

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Reeds

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Sand

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Thatching Grass

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Water

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli

Wild Animals

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Starflower

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli (N)

Wild Fruits

Table 3.15: Ten most relied on natural resources as selected by each group in Workshop 1 and where they are collected from (refer to fig. 3.24 for area locations). NJ1, NJ2 & NJ3: the three groups from Nkonjane (Workshop 1). N shows number of people in each group. natural resource not selected by the group; red denotes area within proposed CCA boundary; orange denotes area is accessed via the fenced corridor.

42

Natural Resource

KLF1 (n=8)

KLF2 (n=8)

KLM1 (n=9) KLM2 (n=10)

MB (n=5)

Mathenjwa W Mathenjwa N

Building Stones Building Wood Bull Rush

Mabona Mabona (N) Dubulwayo

Clay Soil

Dubulwayo

Cultivation Land

Nhlabenzinde Mabona Dubulwayo

Dubulwayo

Dubulwayo

Mabona Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mabona Mabona (N)

Cultural Sites

Fire Wood

Dubulwayo Mabona

Dubulwayo Mabona

eKuhlehleni Dubulwayo

Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N (N)

Fish Grazing

Dubulwayo Mabona Mathenjwa N (N)

Medicinal PlantsMathenjwa N (N) Poles Reeds

eKuhlehleni (N) Mathenjwa N Mabona

Mabona

Mathenjwa N

eKuhlehleni (N)

Sand

Mathenjwa N (N)

Starflower

Mabona Dubulwayo Mabona Mabona (N)

Mabona (N)

Water

Dubulwayo eKuhlehleni Nhlabenzinde

Dubulwayo Mabona

Mabona (N)

Mabona (N)

Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

eKuhlehleni (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N) Mabona Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Mabona (N)

Thatching Grass

Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N) Mabona (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa W

Mpolimpoli (N)

Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mabona Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N) Manyiseni

Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mabona Mabona Dubulwayo eKuhlehleni (N) eKuhlehleni Mathenjwa W Mathenjwa N (N) Mabona Dubulwayo Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Mabona (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Mabona (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Wild Animals Wild Fruits

Mathenjwa N (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)

Table 3.16: Ten most relied on natural resources as selected by each group in workshop 2 and where they are collected from (refer to fig. 3.24 for area locations). KLF1 & KLF2: all female groups from eKuhlehleni (Workshop 2); KLM1 & KLM2: all male groups from eKuhlehleni (Workshop 2); MB: group from Mabona (Workshop 2). N shows number of people in each group. - natural resource not selected by the group, red denotes area within proposed CCA boundary.

43

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION Understanding local communities’ perceptions to conservation initiatives are important to ensure the continuing success of such programmes. Their expectations and concerns can have real implications if not addressed and hence should play an important part of developing conservation strategy. This section evaluates the results from the questionnaire and looks at the possible implications they could have on the development of the CCA. This is followed by a discussion on the results on natural resource use in the area. The workshop results are examined in combination with the responses from the questionnaire regarding resource use and discussed in terms of the effects the CCA may have. The next section sets out further research that needs to be carried out to expand on this study and to gain a better understanding on attitudes and perceptions of the local people. Finally the conclusions and recommendations from this study are presented.

4.1. KNOWLEDGE OF THE CCA It was found that overall very few respondents knew that the CCA was being established. Respondents at Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to be aware of the CCA suggesting there has been greater effort in informing them. Informing community members has been an ongoing process through community meetings which are facilitated by household visits and passed on through conversation. Nkonjane and Mabona are closest to the initial implementation of the fence line and the visual aspect of the fence and its construction is also likely to have aided in information dissemination within the community. Although small, a higher proportion of respondents or their family relations from Nkonjane and Mabona were directly associated with the CCA which may have contributed to an increased level of awareness about it. Although respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to know about the CCA, very few perceived animal conservation as a reason for its establishment with employment and community development being stated most frequently. This could be due to the lower level of infrastructure present; Mabona does not have a clinic or school and Nkonjane only has a primary school. The need for the construction of schools and clinics especially, were frequently stated. It is important that the local people understand the aims and objectives of the project to ensure that they do not develop mistrust towards the initiative when their expectations are not met. The lack of a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of a community based wildlife management programme in Tanzania found that many members of the community

44

believed it to be a rural development programme to provide aid resulting in increased disinterest among community members (Songorwa, 1999). The high belief that the CCA will bring development to the area could result in conservation objectives being sidelined with the attempt to keep support amongst the community. When CBC initiatives were introduced with the local community in Richtersveld National Park, South Africa, development quickly dominated the discussion with the belief that they would be better off economically with the Park. This led to unrealistically raised expectations of the economic benefits they would receive and resulted in the Park having to compete against other development initiatives including mining, marginalising conservation objectives (Boonzaier, 1996).

4.2. SUPPORT FOR THE CCA It was found that the majority of respondents supported the establishment of the CCA, although support was much higher in Nkonjane and Mabona. In these areas, all respondents

who

already

were

aware

of

the

CCA

proposal

supported

its

implementation. This clearly shows the positive aspects of informing community members about what is being developed and a need for more explicit information distribution regarding the CCA. Overall employment was stated the most as the reason for support of the CCA followed by development of the area by respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona following their perceived reasons for its establishment. Development assistance contributions from conservation initiatives can be effective ways to promote support within the communities illustrated in Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, where the most positively stated interaction with the Park was from improving schools (Hulme & Infield, 2001). However, unrealistic expectations which cannot be met are likely to lead to dissatisfaction and possible withdrawal of support (Ite, 1996). It is clear that the present employment expectations amongst community members are not going to be met. Initial employment in construction of the fence, roads and buildings of approximately 120 people will only be temporary and estimates for permanent staff is estimated at less than 25 (UG Business Plan Workshop, 2004). Additionally sufficient revenue may not initially be generated to meet all the development aspirations of the community which include construction of schools, clinics, roads and amenities such as water and electricity. This can be compared with initial support for a conservation project in Cross River National Park, Nigeria, which was based mainly on the expectations that it would provide modern development amenities,

development

infrastructure

and

45

other

associated

services

including

transport and health. Community members perceived the programme to be run by a development agency, making it unlikely that their expectations will be met (Ite, 1996). Nature-conservation benefits were more likely to be stated as reasons for supporting the CCA by respondents in eKuhlehleni, respondents in the 20-29 year old age category and respondents with primary education. Respondents in eKuhlehleni and those between 20-29, as well as respondents with secondary or above education were also more likely to state non-consumptive use as the reason for support. Respondents from eKuhlehleni have higher levels of education than in the other areas and the younger age group are also likely to have higher education levels. A correlation between education levels and a greater appreciation of conservation values and a more positive attitude towards wildlife has been found in other studies (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Mkanda & Munthali, 1994; Infield, 1988). This is supported by Parry & Campbell (1992) who found higher education levels made individuals more conservation aware and less utilitarian in their attitude to wildlife. Infield (1988) found that the concept of conserving wildlife and setting aside areas for conservation purposes was well supported in KwaZulu-Natal. However, poverty often prevented individuals who supported the basic concepts from actually supporting the practice of conservation, especially when it may affect their livelihood. Often conservation objectives are perceived as taking precedence over people’s economic needs. Although they may see the value of nature conservation, they may not want it near their community or to interfere with economic development (Hackel, 1990). Respondents from eKuhlehleni were less supportive of the CCA stating reduced grazing land the most frequently as the reason for the lack of support. It is possible that residents in eKuhlehleni are more reliant on cattle for livelihood options or they associate conservation with the loss of access to land. Care has been taken to ensure that the boundary of the CCA avoids inhabited areas and that no forced removals will occur. This needs to be re-iterated within the community and information on the plans regarding resource use and access to the area made available. Respondents in eKuhlehleni are generally less aware of the CCA illustrated by the second most stated reason for not supporting it being uninformed about the CCA. This shows the need to make sure everyone is aware of what is being developed and the need of greater involvement in the initiative. Infield (1988) showed that many people surrounding a local conservation area in KwaZulu-Natal did not know its purpose or benefits and Songorwa (1999) showed that communities involved in a CBC initiative in Tanzania were reluctant to accept the programme as they did not understand its objectives. Protected areas in South Africa

46

are surrounded by rural communities who do not understand their function. This combined with costs including human-wildlife conflict and loss of land, have resulted in a general attitude of disagreement and lack of support for the existence of parks (Wells, 1996). This could have negative implications on the success of the CCA and related conservation objectives including hostility and conflict with the surrounding communities and illustrates the need for accurate information dissemination.

4.3. PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS FROM THE CCA The majority of respondents perceive employment opportunities as a potential benefit from establishing the CCA. However, this is much more prominent in Nkonjane and Mabona whereas respondents from eKuhlehleni were more likely to state no perceived benefits. Respondents from eKuhlehleni are also much more negative in their responses to the perceived problems. A high percentage of respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona stated that they perceived no problems. It is possible that the greater negativity from respondents in eKuhlehleni is due to the lack of knowledge about the CCA and hence they perceive more problems. Human-wildlife conflict was the most stated perceived problem from the CCA’s establishment. Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona, those with employment and respondents with no education stated expectations being unfulfilled as a potential problem. Respondents from eKuhlehleni are much more sceptical about the CCA and what tangible benefits they will derive from it whereas those from Nkonjane and Mabona have much higher expectations especially in terms of personal opportunities and development. This could be a result of different information messages that have been received. In Nkonjane and Mabona, it is possible that employment and development opportunities were emphasised generating support for the project. Positive attitudes at the start of projects with high expectations of benefits and opportunities can lead to frustration when these are not met and a decrease in the level of support by communities. The high expectations of local communities around Machalilla National Park in Ecuador from promises made by the Park administration of improved and new services within their communities, resulted in suspicion and mistrust after these were largely unfulfilled 14 years later (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995). Unfulfilled promises along with other factors including the costs associated with the community based wildlife management programme in Tanzania forced those who initially supported the programme to re-evaluate their position (Songorwa, 1999). Respondents with secondary + education levels and also those who were employed, state wildlife law enforcement conflict as a perceived problem from the CCA, with the

47

largest concern that poachers would be killed by game rangers. This may be due to the very militaristic protectionist attitudes to conservation displayed by wildlife authorities in South Africa. Hackel (1990) shows that communities surrounding conservation areas in Swaziland and KwaZulu-Natal perceived visiting these areas as possibly dangerous thinking game rangers will mistakenly arrest them as poachers. Reduced grazing land, denied access and forced removals were all stated as potential problems. This could be related to previous policy in protected areas including Ndumu Game Reserve which involved the forced removal of local people and the consequent exclusion from resource use and management decisions. During the early and mid 1990’s many communities began lobbying for land reform to claim back title to this land (Roe et al, 2000) and currently Ndumu Game Reserve is in negotiation regarding a land claim filed in 1998 (Jones, 2004). Overall, respondents stated development of the area as a perceived change to the community from the CCA. However, this was extremely high from respondents in Nkonjane and Mabona compared to eKuhlehleni which is likely to be reflecting their personal aspirations for the area. Respondents in eKuhlehleni were more likely to state denied access to resources but also nature-conservation benefits. Nature-conservation benefits were stated more frequently by respondents with primary education and even higher by those with secondary education or above supporting a relationship between education levels and a greater appreciation of nature and conservation. This attitude should be fostered and conservation education programmes established to develop positive nature-conservation attitudes.

4.4. SUPPORT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE The majority of respondents supported the introduction of wildlife and this was much higher amongst respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona. Non-consumptive use benefits was the most stated reason for support of all respondents but is more pronounced in eKuhlehleni along with nature-conservation benefits, often stating the opportunity “for our children to see these animals” and “to see and get to know animals we have never seen before”. This is supported by other studies who have found strong non-utilitarian and non-consumptive use benefits as reasons for supporting wildlife and conservation. Fiallo and Jacobson (1995) found considerable support to protect the forests in Machalilla National Park for their children and in Tarangire National Park, Tanzania, the most commonly stated benefit was that they would be able to see and know different animals. Concern was expressed for the children who had not seen certain animals such as rhino. In addition, there was a high interest amongst community members in visiting the park for recreation (Kangwana &

48

Mako, 2001). Similarly the majority of those interviewed in Swaziland, expressed an interest in visiting the conservation area to see the animals (Hackel, 1990). Those who did not support the introduction of wildlife mainly stated human-wildlife conflict as the reason for the lack of support. The large majority of the population are reliant on subsistence agriculture and livestock for survival and therefore humanwildlife conflict is a real threat and concern. Human-wildlife conflict can cause very negative attitudes in rural communities towards conservation initiatives where they are carrying the costs of crop raiding, livestock predation and even loss of human life. Despite receiving some forms of benefit from a wildlife reserve in Nepal, the local people mainly disliked it because of crop damage from wildlife. Costs were often over estimated and usually included potential costs even if they were not directly affected by it at present (Heinen, 1993).

4.5. PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS FROM INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE It was found that most respondents perceived benefits from introducing wildlife with this higher in respondents from Mabona and Nkonjane and those with secondary education or above. Consumptive use benefits was most frequently stated, although respondents from eKuhlehleni, respondents with no education or primary education and respondents 50 years and older, were more likely to perceive no benefit from wildlife. The provision of meat to the community from culling was the most stated consumptive use benefit and this expectation not being met could lead to potential problems especially if human-wildlife conflict occurs. The initial proposal to generate revenue within the CCA involves venison hunting which rarely leaves meat to be distributed within the community. Additionally the opportunity for wildlife culling may not be possible especially at the onset of the programme following the introduction of small founder populations. Overall it was found that most respondents did not perceive any problems from introducing wildlife. The construction of the fence has meant that many people feel reassured that they will be protected from dangerous animals and wildlife related damage. However, respondents from eKuhlehleni, and those with primary and secondary education or above, were more likely to perceive human-wildlife conflict as a potential problem. The generally lower levels of awareness about the project in eKuhlehleni may mean that the potential problems are more prominent. However, much human-wildlife conflict will be minimised by the construction of the fence, and hence these perceptions may be unrealistic and need to be addressed.

49

Even though many people mentioned nature-conservation or non-consumptive use values as reasons for their support of introducing wildlife, very few people stated these as benefits. A study in Botswana by Parry & Campbell (1992) found that wildlife benefits were often undervalued, with high proportions stating they had no value and stated benefits were mainly based on utilitarian aspects. Consumptive use benefits from wildlife can be important in fostering positive attitudes in communities. Wildlife culling was rated as the best form of wildlife utilisation in the Upper Lupande Game Management Area in Zambia. Although safari hunting provided larger revenues, negative attitudes were associated with it as it was perceived to be to the benefit of outsiders (Balakrishnan & Ndhlovu, 1992). Songorwa (1999) found that communities in Tanzania were more interested in being involved in community wildlife management programmes to have legal access to game meat, natural resources and revenue from wildlife and not for conservation purposes as believed.

4.6. NATURAL RESOURCE USE The results from the questionnaire give a good list of resources used within the communities although it does not give an accurate representation of levels of use. Respondents are likely to have listed the resources that they could think of at that time without real consideration to the ones which are most important to them as illustrated by the low percentage of respondents listing water compared to the workshops. The workshops were much more structured and provide a more comprehensive list of priority resources combined with the areas of use. Water was found to be the most prioritised natural resource by the majority of the groups from the workshops. Even though some water points have been established within the communities, members still rely heavily on natural water supplies. Many of the resources mentioned are collected in the proposed CCA boundary. The Usuthu River, making up the northern boundary is also an important area for natural resource use. The local population is still reliant on a very traditional lifestyle illustrated by the priority lists of resources from the workshops. The majority of the resources on the lists are not for food but for essential material purposes; construction of their houses and sleeping mats (building stones, building wood, bull rush, poles, reeds, thatching grass, sand) and also fire wood. Restricting access to the customary right to use these resources can cause conflict and resentment as well as raising the question of humanity and survival (Nepal & Weber, 1995). Grazing land was also frequently mentioned as a priority resource. Cattle are a significant part of the Zulu culture and a critical part of many people’s livelihoods as well as being used as a measure of wealth. Therefore the availability of grazing areas

50

is critical to many people and clear policy needs to be developed regarding this. Alternative access to resources or provision of substitutes does not always respond to the cultural aspects of resource use. Cultural sites including ancestral graves were mentioned in the workshops which are situated within the CCA boundary. Water was listed by all groups in the questionnaire and although some water points are available, the workshop illustrated that natural water points are still heavily relied upon. The collection of water by the river can have traditional significance especially for women where it was a regular meeting point. Hunting was mentioned within the workshops and through the questionnaires and much of this was shown to occur within the boundary of the CCA. Potential negative implications exist especially as wildlife is beginning to be introduced. The use of unselective methods of hunting including the present use of snares could result in unintended poaching of the newly introduced species. Poaching within the CCA could result in negative attitudes within the community and the inability of the community to control poaching could mean withdrawal of support from EKZNW, especially in reference to donating wildlife. The results from the workshop show there is a high level of resource use within some areas of the CCA, higher than outside. This shows that this area is an important part of resource use for the local population. Resources are used outside the CCA as well, although some were only collected within its boundaries. On completion of the whole fence line prohibition of access or use within the CCA could cause potential conflict and animosity within the community as well as reduction in support to the initiative. Resource use in the CCA needs to be dealt within formal management policy which is explained to the population addressing their needs sensitively. An increasing human population and the growing pressure to expand agricultural lands and livestock has been a contributing factor to the loss of biodiversity. Wildlife and people are sharing the same land to a greater extent and existing in ever-closer proximity (Hackel, 1999). Access to land is a central issue to rural Africans and conservation initiatives can represent lost opportunities (Holmes, 2003) and costs in terms of crop damage, prohibited resource access and personal safety (Balakrishnan & Ndhlovu, 1992). Much of the populations from these communities are dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods; cultivation land, grazing land, wood for their homesteads, fire wood etc. Any restriction on people’s natural resource use and economic activity within the CCA boundary is likely to influence community perceptions to the conservation area (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995).

51

4.7. FURTHER RESEARCH This study provides the CCA Steering Committee with a preliminary analysis of community perceptions to the UG CCA and natural resource use. For a more thorough understanding of these issues, additional research is necessary. • The findings showed that other variables not tested in the analysis play a role in effecting the results. Further work should include more in depth analysis of demographic factors such as wealth and occupation. The level of livestock ownership and reliance on subsistence agriculture and natural resources will determine the impact of the CCA on individuals and could significantly influence support and perceptions towards the UG CCA. Sensitive issues such as prevalence of AIDS were not examined and these may be important explanatory variables that could be investigated further if done with sufficient care. • A more in depth analysis needs to take place looking at different resource user groups and in particular the role of migrant workers in affecting the decisionmaking process on their annual return. • With more time available it would be possible to map out households in the areas and collect questionnaire data using a more stratified sampling method. This information would also make it possible to analyse responses in relation to household positions from the proposed fence line. • A closer examination of attitudes to the CCA should be undertaken. This should also be carried out after full implementation of the initiative to assess any change in attitudes and perceptions of community members. This will provide important information on whether effective information dissemination has occurred and if expectations are realistic. It will also illustrate any change in support and issues which could cause conflict. • More detailed work needs to be carried out on natural resource use in the area to obtain a more in depth understanding of resource use and community needs. A combination of a series of workshops and key informants within the communities can be used to map out natural resource use more accurately. A distribution resource map needs to be produced incorporating the degree of use to assess resource use more precisely within the CCA.

52

4.8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This work has examined the perceptions of local communities to the UG CCA and the type of resource use in this area. The results show that, although in general respondents are very positive and supportive, there is large variation in response between different groups within the community. This is especially apparent in the three areas. Community members from eKuhlehleni are much more negative and less supportive towards the initiative than those from Mabona and Nkonjane who have higher expectations, especially from an economic and development perspective reflecting their need for infrastructure development. Expectations are often high at the start of CBC programmes accompanied by a positive attitude towards the initiative. Additionally, donor aid may artificially boost economic returns at the beginning by covering certain costs. If these expectations are not met, attitudes can become less favourable (Bergin, 2001). Opportunity costs are often excluded from any cost analysis and costs often fall disproportionately amongst the community (Roe et al, 2000). The nature of benefits over time is one of the most critical factors determining the long term success of CBC ensuring the continued incentive for wildlife management and the long term change in behaviour towards the resource base: • The real costs and benefits to CBC must be transparent, material benefits are often overestimated and unrealistic expectations need to be addressed. • A focus on non-financial benefits as well as financial can be beneficial emphasising the cultural significance of wildlife. • A clear and tangible link is needed between benefits and conservation outcomes (Roe et al, 2000). Strong positive conservation values were prevalent among community members. Nonconsumptive use benefit and nature-conservation benefits were apparent and should be emphasised and built upon. Environmental education and raising awareness has been considered as an effective tool in achieving conservation goals and improving people’s attitudes to wildlife (Stem et al, 2003). Whereas economic profits can easily decline or cease altogether, ethical reasons for conservation are more likely to last (Harcourt et al, 1986). Very few respondents were actually aware of the UG CCA. The results illustrate the importance of informing the community about what is being developed demonstrated by the greater support for the initiative by those who knew about it. More effort is needed in informing the population about the CCA, its objectives and how the community can benefit. The role of traditional leaders in information dissemination

53

within the Mathenjwa people is still strong. The present support and involvement of the Indunas and especially the Chief Induna, has been vital for the CCA to reach its present stage and their continued support needed to reduce conflict and ensure community cohesion. The success of communal enterprises largely depends on a sense of collective communal interest and the containment of internal differences that exist within the community (Murphree, 2001). The equitable distribution of benefits is particularly important to avoid intra-community conflict (Jones, 2001) and these should represent the varying levels of costs incurred by individuals (IIED, 1994). CBC has the ability to reinforce a sense of cohesion amongst the community creating solidarity but also has the potential to introduce internal conflict and power struggles between traditional authority figures and individuals who have increased their relative power due to the initiative. In addition, care is needed to avoid conflict developing over the distribution of benefits. The perceived benefits and problems from establishing the CCA should be taken into account and effort made to reduce any negative impact the CCA might have on livelihoods. This study showed that potential human-wildlife conflict in particular, was a concern amongst many respondents. The construction of the fence will prevent much of this but their perceptions need to be addressed. A compensation scheme or methods to deal with human-wildlife conflict need to be evaluated and implemented to provide reassurance to the community. Provision of alternatives or the replacement of lost access to resources is needed taking into account cultural aspects of resource use. Including local people in decision making regarding the ownership of resources and aspects of planning and management can often dispel negative attitudes (Nepal & Weber, 1995) and result in greater acceptance of conservation areas by poor rural communities (Mkanda & Munthali, 1994). Local people should benefit from nature conservation through their active participation in meeting its objectives. A balance needs to be met between the protection of the conservation area and the livelihood needs of the local communities above the poverty line (Nepal & Weber, 1995). This work provides base line data at the initial stages of the CCA development which the Steering Committee can use to guide strategy and improve support and information dissemination within the community. It provides information regarding the concerns and expectations of the community which need to be addressed. The management of the CCA must be flexible and considerate to local people needs and attitudes to ensure the longevity of the venture.

54

REFERENCES ABSA. (2002). Game Ranch Profitability in Southern Africa, The SA Financial Sector Forum, Rivonia. Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001a). Conservation and Communities: Changing Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001b). If Community Conservation is the Answer in Africa, What is the Question? Oryx, 35, 193-200. Anderson, D. & Grove, R. (Eds). (1987). Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Attwell, C.A.M. & Cotterill, F.P.D. (2000). Postmodernism and African Conservation Science, Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 559-577. Balakrishnan, M. & Ndhlovu, D.E. (1992). Wildlife Utilisation and Local People: A Case Study in Upper Lupande Game Management Area, Zambia, Environmental Conservation, 19, 135-144. Barnard, A. (2001). Ingwavuma Health District: Situational Analysis. Unpublished Report, Ingwavuma Orphan Care. Barrett, C.B., Brandon, K., Gibson, C. & Gjertsen, H. (2001). Conserving Tropical Biodiversity amid Weak Institutions, Bioscience, 51, 497-502. Barrow, E. & Murphree, M. (2001). Community Conservation: From Concept to Practice. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. Bergin, P. (2001). Accommodating New Narratives in a Conservation Bureaucracy – TANAPA and Community Conservation. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

55

Boonzaier, E. (1996). Local Responses to Conservation in the Richterveld National Park, South Africa, Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 307-314. Bossen, B. (1997). Local People and Large Predators: A survey of perceived conflict and attitude in the local community bordering Ruana National Park, Tanzania. Unpublished MSc. thesis, DICE. Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. & da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001). Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity, Science, 291, 125-128. Bruton, M.N. (1980). Conservation and Development in Maputaland. In: Bruton, M.N. & Cooper, K.H. (Eds). Studies on the Ecology of Maputaland, Rhodes University Press & the Wildlife Society of Southern Africa. Child, B. (1996). The Practice and Principles of Community Based Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe:The CAMPFIRE Programme, Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 369-398. Cumming, D.H.M. (1993). Conservation Issues and Problems in Africa. In: Lewis, D. & Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, WWF, Washington D.C. Easton, J. (2004). Hunting for Conservation Targets: Designing a Community Conservation Area Network for Maputaland, South Africa. Unpublished MSc. Thesis, DICE. Emerton, L. (2001). The Nature of Benefits and the Benefit of Nature: Why Wildlife Conservation has not Economically Benefited Communities in Africa. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. Fiallo, E.A. & Jacobson, S.K. (1995). Local Communities and Protected Areas: Attitudes of Rural Residents towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador, Environmental Conservation, 22, 241-249. Gibson, C.C. & Marks, S.A. (1995). Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: An Assessment of Community-Based Wildlife Management Programmes in Africa, World Development, 23, 941-957.

56

Gillingham, S. & Lee, P.C. (1999). The Impact of Wildlife-related Benefit on the Conservation Attitude of Local People around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania, Environmental Conservation, 26, 218-228. Glewwe, P. (2003). An overview of questionnaire design for household surveys in developing countries. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/HHsurveys.pdf. Hackel, J.D. (1999). Community Conservation and the Future of Africa’s Wildlife, Conservation Biology, 13, 726-734. Hackel, J.D. (1990). Conservation Attitudes in Southern Africa: A Comparison between KwaZulu and Swaziland, Human Ecology, 18, 203-209. Harcourt, A.H., Pennington, H. & Weber, A.W. (1986). Public Attitudes to Wildlife and Conservation in the Third World, Oryx, 20, 152-154. Heinen, J.T. (1993). Park-People Relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: A Socio-Economic Analysis, Environmental Conservation, 20, 25-34. Holmes, C.M. (2003). The Influence of Protected Area Outreach on the Conservation Attitudes and Resource Use Patterns: A Case Study from Western Tanzania, Oryx, 37, 305-315. Hughes, G.R. (2002). Democratisation: Biodiversity Conservation for all People – A Case Study from KwaZulu-Natal. In: Pierce, S.M., Cowling, R.M., Sandwich, T. & MacKinnon, K. (Eds). Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: Case Studies from South Africa, The World Bank, Washington D.C. Hulme, D. & Infield, M. (2001). Community Conservation, Reciprocity and Park-People Relationships: Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (2001). Introduction. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. IIED, (1994). Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management, IIED, London.

57

Infield, M. & Namara, A. (2001). Community Attitudes and Behaviour towards Conservation: An Assessment of a Community Conservation Programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, Oryx, 35, 48-60. Infield, M. (1988). Attitudes of a Rural Community towards Conservation and a Local Conservation Area in Natal, South Africa, Biological Conservation, 45, 21-46. Ite, U.E. (1996). Community Perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria, Environmental Conservation, 23, 351-357. Jones, J.L. (2004). Transboundary Conservation in Southern Africa: Exploring Conflict between Local Resource Access and Conservation. www.iapad.org.publications.ppgis/jones.jennifer. Jones, B. (2001). The Evolution of a Community-Based Approach to Wildlife Management at Kunene, Namibia. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife

and

Livelihoods: The Promise

and

Performance

of

Community

Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. Kangwana, K. & Mako, R.O. (2001). Conservation, Livelihoods and the Intrinsic Value of Wildlife: Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. Larson,

P.,

Freudenberger,

M.

&

Wyckoff-Baird,

B.

(1998). WWF

Integrated

Conservation and Development Projects: Ten Lessons from the Field 19851996, WWF, Washington D.C. Mkanda, F.X. & Munthali, S.M. (1994). Public Attitudes and Needs around Kasungu National Park, Malawi, Biodiversity and Conservation, 3, 29-44. Municipal Demarcation Board (2004). www.saexplorer.org.za. Accessed June 2004. Murombedzi, J.C. (1999). Devolution and Stewardship in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE Programme, Journal of International Development, 11, 287-294 (quoted by Infield, M. & Namara, A. (2001). Community Attitudes and Behaviour towards Conservation: An Assessment of a Community Conservation Programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, Oryx, 35, 48-60)

58

Murphree, M. (2001). Community, Council and Client: A Case Study in Eco-tourism Development from Mahenye, Zimbabwe. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford. Nepal, S.K. & Weber, K.E. (1995). Managing Resources and Resolving Conflicts: National

Parks

and

Local

People,

International

Journal

of

Sustainable

Development and World Ecology, 2, 11-25. Newmark, W.D. & Hough, J.L. (2000). Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and Beyond, BioScience, 50, 585-592. Newmark, W. D., Manyanza, D. N., Gamassa, D. M. & Sariko, H. I. (1994). The Conflict between Wildlife and Local People Living Adjacent to Protected Areas in Tanzania: Human Density as a Predictor, Conservation Biology, 8, 249-255. Nkonjane Workshop (2004). Nkonjane Primary School, 19/06/04. Nsanjama, H. (1993). Introduction. In: Lewis, D. & Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, WWF, Washington D.C. Owen-Smith, G. (1993). Wildlife Conservation in Africa: There is Another Way. In: Lewis, D. & Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, WWF, Washington D.C. Parry, D. & Campbell, B. (1992). Attitudes of Rural Communities to Animal Wildlife and its Utilisation in Chobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana, Environmental Conservation, 19, 245-252. Roe, D., Mayers, J., Grieg-Gran, M., Kothari, A., Fabricius, C. & Hughes, R. (2000). Evaluating Eden: Exploring the Myths and Realities of Community Based Wildlife Management, IIED, London. Sanderson, S.E. & Redford, K.H. (2003). Contested Relationships between Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation, Oryx, 37,389-390. Schafer, J. & Bell, R. (2002). The State and Community Based Natural Resource Management: The Case of the Moribane Forest Reserve, Mozambique, Journal of Southern African Studies, 28, 401-420.

59

Scriven, L. & Eloff, T. (2003). Markets Derived from Nature Tourism in South Africa and KwaZulu-Natal: A Survey of the Sale of Live Game. In: Aylward, B. & Lutz. E. (Eds). Nature Tourism, Conservation, and Development in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, The World Bank, Washington D.C. Simbotwe, M.P. (1993). African Realities and Western Expectations. In: Lewis, D. & Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, WWF, Washington D.C. Smith, R.J. (2001). Designing and Integrated Protected Area Network for Maputaland, South Africa, Unpublished PhD thesis, DICE. Songorwa, A.N. (1999). Community Based Wildlife Management in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested? World Development, 27, 2061-2079. Stem, C.J., Lassoie, J.P., Lee, D.R., Deshler, D.D. & Schelhas, J.W. (2003). Community Participation in Eco-Tourism Benefits: The Link to Conservation Practices and Perspectives, Society and Natural Resources, 16, 387-414. Tinley, K.L. & van Riet, W.T. (1981). Proposals Towards an Environmental Plan for KwaZulu, Nature Conservation Division, KwaZulu Department of Agriculture & Forestry. UG Business Plan Workshop (2004). Ndumu River Lodge, 22/06/04. van Wyk, A.E. & Smith, G.F. (2001). Regions of Floristic Endemism in Southern Africa, Umdaus Press, South Africa. Walpole, M.J. & Goodwin, H.J. (2001). Local Attitudes towards Conservation and Tourism

around

Komodo

National

Park,

Indonesia,

Environmental

Conservation, 28, 160-166. Wells, M.P. (1996). The Social Role of Protected Areas in the New South Africa, Environmental Conservation, 23, 322-331.

60

APPENDIX 1 – ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE - MATHENJWA COMMUNITY USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA Area __________________________ Household No: _______ Date ____ / ____ / _______ HH Code: ______ / ___ - ___ / ___ / _____ (Area / date-month / interview no. of day / initials) Way Point _____________ GPS Co-ordinates __________________ / _________________

PERSONAL DETAILS 1.

Age:

‰ 20-24 ‰ 55-59

‰ 25-29 ‰ 60-64

‰ 30-34 ‰ 65-69

‰ 35-39 ‰ 70-74

2.

Sex:

‰ M

‰ F

3.

Where were you born? ____________________________________________________________________ Ethnic origin ______________________________________________________________________________

4.

If this is not your birthplace, when did you move here and why? _________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

5.

Were your parents born in this area?

6.

Occupation: _____________________________________________________________________________ Main source of income _____________________________________________________________________

7.

How many children do you have? _________________

8.

How many people live in your household? ________________ Composition of household members: Adults _____ Adults >60 ______

9.

What grade did you reach at school? ‰ None Grade _______________________

‰ Y

‰ 40-44 ‰ 75-79

‰ 45-49 ‰ 80+

‰ 50-54

‰ N

Children _____

USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA 1.

Do you know what is being developed in Usuthu Gorge? ‰ Yes ‰ No If yes, what is involved?_____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ [If no, explain UG CCA and go to question 5.]

2.

How have you heard about it? ______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

3.

Why do you think the UG CCA is being established? __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

4.

Are you associated with the Usuthu Gorge Community Conservation Area? ‰ Y ‰ N If yes, in what capacity? ____________________________________________________________________ Is a family member associated with UG CCA? ‰ Y ‰ N Relative: _____________________ If yes, do they live in your household? ‰ Y ‰ N If yes, in what capacity? ____________________________________________________________________

5.

Do you support the UG CCA? ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Don’t know Why ____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

61

6.

How do you think the UG CCA will benefit you? _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ How do you think the UG CCA will benefit your community? ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

7.

Can you think of any possible costs / problems? ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

8.

What changes do you think the UG CCA will bring to your community? ___________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

9.

Do you know the position of the fence line?

10.

Which natural resources do you most rely on? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ Where is your main source for obtaining these resources? _________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

‰ Y

‰ N

The UG CCA has introduced some impala, nyala, wildebeest and is planning to introduce more wild animals including white rhino and giraffe once the fence has been completed. 11.

Do you support the re-introduction of wildlife to UG CCA? ‰ Y ‰ N ‰Unaware Why? _______________________________________________________________________________

12.

How important is wildlife to you? ‰ Important ‰ Neutral

13.

Do you think wildlife in UG CCA could bring benefits to you / community? ‰ Y ‰ N If yes, in what way? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

14.

Do you think wildlife in UG CCA could bring any problems? ‰ Y ‰ N If yes, what? _____________________________________________________________________________

15.

Perceptions to conservation and wildlife: Attitude statements:

A:

It is important to protect wild animals and plants for our children. ‰ Agree ‰ Disagree The Conservation Area will provide an area of protection for wild plants and animals. ‰ Agree ‰ Disagree The Conservation Area will only benefit outsiders and those directly involved. ‰ Agree ‰ Disagree There are enough wild animals and plants, it is not necessary to provide special protection. ‰ Agree ‰ Disagree The land for the Conservation Area would be better used by people. ‰ Agree ‰ Disagree Creating the Conservation Area will improve life for me and my family. ‰ Agree ‰ Disagree

B: C: D: E: F:

‰ Not important

62

APPENDIX 2 – ZULU QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE - MATHENJWA COMMUNITY USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA Area __________________________ Household No: _______ Date ____ / ____ / _______ HH Code: ______ / ___ - ___ / ___ / _____ (Area / date-month / interview no. of day / initials) Way Point _____________ GPS Co-ordinates __________________ / _________________

PERSONAL DETAILS 1.

Ubudala: ‰ 50-54

‰ 20-24 ‰ 55-59

2.

Ubulili:

3.

Wazalelwaphi? ___________________________________________________________________________ Ubuzwe ________________________________________________________________________________

4.

Uma ungazalelwanga lapha / kulendawo, wafika nini lapha futhi kungani? _________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

5.

Kungabe abazali bakho bazalelwa lapha?

6.

Yini umsebenzi owenzayo: _________________________________________________________________ Okuyinqikithi yomnotho: ____________________________________________________________________

7.

Unabantwana abangaki? __________________________________________________________________

8.

Bangaki abantu abahlala lapha ekhaya? ______________________________ Inani: Abadala >60 _____ Abadala ______ Izingane _____

9.

Wagcina ebangeni lesingaki esikoleni? ‰ Baya/Abayanga ‰ Ibanga _______________________

‰ M

‰ 25-29 ‰ 60-64

‰ 30-34 ‰ 65-69

‰ 35-39 ‰ 40-44 ‰ 70-74 ‰ 75-79 ‰ 80+

‰ 45-49

‰ F

‰ Y

‰ N

USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA 1.

Uyazi ukuthi yini eyenziwa Osuthu Gorge? ‰ Yes ‰ No Uma kukhona, phakathi kwako yini? ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ [If no, explain UG CCA and go to question 5.]

2.

Wezwa kanjani ngalokho? _________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

3.

Ucabanga ukuthi lwakhiwelani Usuthu Gorge? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

4.

Uyambandakanyeka yini kulokhu okwenzeka osuthu gorge? ‰ Y ‰ N Uma kunjalo, qhaza lini okewalenza? __________________________________________________________ Likhona yini ilunga lomndeni wakho elisebenza khona? ‰ Y ‰ N Isihlobo: _____________________ Uma kunjalo wenza msebenzi muni? ‰ Y ‰ N Uma kunjalo bahlala lapha yini? ______________________________________________________________

5.

Uyaseseka yini sona lesi siqiwi somphakathi? ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Awazi Kungani? ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

63

6.

Ngokucabanga kwakho uzozuza ini ngoSuthu Gorge? __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ Umphathi ke wona uzohlomula kanjani ngoSuthu Gorge? __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

7.

Yiziphi izindleko noma izinkinga ezingalethwa wusuthu gorge? __________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

8.

Yiluphi ushintsho emphakathini wakho oluzolethwa wusuthu gorge ngokucabanga kwakho? _________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

9.

Uyayazi yini indawo lapho kuhambakhona ucingo lwesiqiwi?

10.

Yiziphi izinto eziyimvelo enizithola lapho? ____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ Lezi zinto nizithola kuphi nendawo? ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

‰ Y

‰ N

Izinyamazane esezifakiwe osuthu gorge yizimpala, izinyala, izinkonkoni futhi kuyahlelwa ukufakwa kwezinye izilwane zasendle ezifaka phakathi imikhombe nezindlulamihthi uma sekuphethiwe ngokubiya.

11.

Uyakweseka yini ukufakwa kwezilwane zasendle kuso lesi siqiwi somphakathi? ‰ Y ‰ N ‰ Unaware Kunjani? ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

12.

Zibaluleke ngani izilwane zasendle kulesiqiwu kuwe ? ‰ Zibalulekile ‰ Phakathi nendawo

13.

Ucabanga ukuthi izilwane zasendle zingayiletha inzuzo oSuthu Gorge? ‰ Y ‰ N Uma kunjalo,kuzokwenzeka kanjani? __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

14.

Uma ucabanga ukulondolozwa kwezilwane zasendle kungaletha izinkinga Osuthu Gorge? ‰ Y ‰ N Uma kunjalo, yiziphi? _______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

15.

Perceptions to conservation and wildlife: Attitude statements: Kubalulekile yini ukugcina izilwane zasendle nezihlahla, sikugcinela abantwana bethu. ‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika Le ndawo yezemvelo izokwenza ukuthi izilwane nezihlahla zasendle zivikeleke. ‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika Le ndawo yezemvelo izozuzisa kuphela abokuhamba kanye nalabo abathintekayo. ‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika Ziningi ngokwanele izilwane nezihlahla ngakho akudingeki nje ukuthi sezingaze zivikelwe. ‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika Le ndawo esingeyezemvelo kungancono isetshenziswe ngabantu. ‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika Ukwenza indawo yokongiwa kwemvelo kuzothuthukisa impilo yami kanye nomndeni wami. ‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika

A: B: C: D: E: F:

64

‰ Azibalulekile

APPENDIX 3 PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT (ENGLISH) A questionnaire survey is being carried out for a University research project in England. Information is being collected on what the community thinks about the Usuthu Gorge Community Conservation Area and how they feel it will affect their lives. This is not part of the UG CCA project. Please answer the questions honestly; there is no right or wrong answer. The information is confidential and your names will not be used in any report. The information collected is for University research and will not be used for management decisions. Your answer will not lead to action on our part, however the final report may be used to understand what the community thinks about this project. The report will be available on completion to any interested parties. Thank you for your help and time.

PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT (ZULU) Ngibuza imibuzo Kwimizi ngemizi malunguna nocwaningo lweyuniversity yengilandi. Ulwazi luqoqwa emphakathini owakhelene nalendawo. Sibuye siqoqe ulwazi ngemibono yomphakathi ngaso lesi siqiwi-Usuthu Gorge Community Conservation Area sibuye sithole imibono ngokuthinteka kwezimpilo zabo. Okubalulekile lokhu akuthintani kabanzi ne-project Usuthu Gorge CCA. Sicela wethembeke ekuphenduleni lemibuzo, ayikho impendulo okuzothiwa ayifanele noma ifanele malunguna nocwaningo. Ulwazi luyimfihlo futhi amagama enu awazuku setshenziswa kuyinoma yimiphi imibiko. Ucwaningo oluqoqwayo ngolweyunivesithi aluthintani nokuphathwa kanye nokuthathwa kwezinqumo zaso. Impendulo zenu azizukuholela ekwenziweni kwezinto ngalokhu, kodwa umbiko obalulekile ngalolucwaningo luyosetshenziswa ukuze kuqondakale ukuthi imiphi imibono yomphakathi okufanele kwenzeke ngayo. Imigomo yesiqiwi ayizushintshwa ngenxa yalemibuzo. Abathanda imiphumela bangayithola uma konke sekuphelile. Ngiyabonga ngosizo lwenu kanjalo nesikhathi senu.

65

MOZAMBIQUE

UG CCA fence line Prospective fence line Usuthu River Small rivers Roads Inhabited Areas

eKuhlehleni

Msumpe Pool Mathapane Pan

KL Sports Field Dubulwayo Pan

Clinics Meeting Tree

Mabona

Schools Key features

Windmill

Ichibi Lenyaka Pan

Shops Tribal Authority

Nkonjane

Water points Livestock dip

Manyiseni Ndumu

Ingwavuma

Mbadleni

APPENDIX 4 – WORKSHOP MAP 66