Tankwa Karoo National Park
PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN
October 2006
AUTHORISATION
This management plan is hereby internally accepted and authorised as the legal requirement for managing Tankwa Karoo National Park as stated in the Protected Areas Act.
______Date: ______Paul Daphne Executive Director Parks, SANParks
______Date: ______Sydney Soundy Chief Operating Officer, SANParks
______Date: ______Dr David Mabunda Chief Executive, SANParks
Recommended to SANParks Board
______Date: ______Ms Cheryl Carolus Chairperson, SANParks Board
Recommended to Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
______Date: ______Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk Minister: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)
TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Situated within a global biodiversity hotspot, Tankwa Karoo National Park constitutes a prime biodiversity holding of South African National Parks. This, together with its remoteness and ambience and the need for integration into the broader socio-ecological region, require a balance between inclusive and honourable cooperative governance arrangements promoting community participation and empowerment, and conservation of the ecological and cultural heritage and sense of place.
Proclaimed in 1986, this young park is still in a stage of expansion, consolidation and development. Nevertheless, the park has now reached a size where the ecosystem is relatively intact and able to accommodate many ecological processes. The strategic park expansion framework is updated and refined based on the outcomes of the Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan and new information on plant communities, species distribution, ecosystem patterns and processes, cultural heritage assessments as well as important threats and/or opportunities. The tanqua karoo region has also been identified as an area of importance in the face of climate change as it provides a migration corridor for succulent plants from the north-western and western sections of South Africa to the east.
The desired state of Tankwa Karoo National Park is based on a jointly agreed-upon vision, vital attributes and high level objectives, developed in conjunction with stakeholders through the adaptive planning process. It is primarily set around biodiversity conservation and cultural heritage aspects, together with cooperative governance and development foci. A small but crucial suite of thresholds, defining acceptable end-points or envelopes around the biophysical desired state, is also presented for monitoring performance relative to the desired state. Several crucial supporting and enabling objectives are also included, such as research support and education opportunities, without which SANParks will not reach its goals.
Some key objectives are long-term in scope e.g. rehabilitation and restoration of certain vegetation communities and ongoing baseline inventorisation and understanding of biodiversity heterogeneity patterns, processes and functions. It is thus important, in the next five year cycle, to carry out those initial steps required to lay the foundation for this longer-term success. In the context of park consolidation and expansion, this requires ongoing multi-pronged efforts backed up by broad-scale constituency building and cooperative governance to enhance understanding and buy-in for longer-term goals. Hand-in-hand with these efforts is the real need to address socio-political threats, especially through ongoing conflict around damage-causing small carnivores affecting neighbouring small stock farmers. Additional threats requiring attention and management consideration are the effects of herbivory and global climate change on this biodiversity hotspot which SANParks is entrusted to manage.
The real uniqueness of the biodiversity and heritage system and its associated ambience and ‘sense of place’ in Tankwa should be maintained or re-instated. However, this should not be overcome by inappropriate financially-driven goals to become economically self-sustainable, or a high impact tourist destination, not least because of the imposed cost of managing these, and the difficulty they pose for focusing staff and other resources on the unique global biodiversity priorities.
The broad staff and finance costing for the five-year drive towards achieving realistic progress towards the desired state is outlined in this plan. The fact that the resources required are higher than historically allocated to Tankwa Karoo National Park is the result of this report having made explicit what is actually required to achieve that. For instance, even the cost of minimalist monitoring to evaluate the desired state, now essential to our goals, is a significant new expense not historically carried by the park.
Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2
It is anticipated that the desired state of Tankwa will take long to reach, and some difficult trade- offs will need to be made along the way. A balance must be struck between the energy needed to deal with immediate threats and crises, and the necessity of laying the all-important groundwork for longer-term strategic success. It is hoped that the guidance offered in this plan, through detailing objectives and definition of a jointly agreed-upon desired state will assist the critical decision-making in a structured way but, obviously, ongoing evaluation is imperative.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND TO AND FORMULATION OF THE PARK DESIRED STATE ...... 1 1.1 The fundamental decision-making environment...... 1 1.1.1 Vision...... 1 1.1.2 Context ...... 1 1.1.2.1 Location and Boundaries ...... 1 1.1.2.2 History ...... 2 1.1.2.3 Physical environment and land use ...... 3 1.1.2.4 Biological environment ...... 3 1.1.2.5 Social, economic and political context ...... 4 1.1.2.6 International and national context ...... 4 1.1.3 Values and Operating Principles ...... 4 1.2 Vital attributes underpinning the value proposition of the park...... 5 1.3 Setting the details of the desired state for Tankwa Karoo National Park ...... 7 1.3.1 An objectives hierarchy for Tankwa Karoo National Park ...... 7 1.3.2 Thresholds of concern and other exact conservation targets...... 9 1.3.3 Conservation Development Framework ...... 10 2. PROGRAMMES TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED STATE ...... 11 2.1 Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation ...... 12 2.1.1 Zonation Programme...... 12 2.1.2 Vegetation Diversity Programme...... 13 2.1.3 Herbivory and Predation Programme...... 13 2.1.4 Water in the Landscape ...... 15 2.1.5 Atmospheric Effects Programme...... 15 2.1.6 Fire Programme ...... 15 2.1.7 Park Expansion Programme...... 16 2.1.8 Rehabilitation Programme...... 17 2.1.9 Invasive Alien Species Programme...... 17 2.1.10 Species of Conservation Concern Programme ...... 18 2.1.11 Management of Problem- or Damage-causing Animal Programme...... 18 2.1.12 Bioregional Programme...... 19 2.1.13 Cultural Resource Programme...... 19 2.1.14 Other Programmes under Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation...... 19 2.2 Sustainable Tourism...... 19 2.2.1 Sustainable Tourism Programme...... 20 2.3 Building co-operation...... 21 2.3.1 Co-operative Governance Programme ...... 21 2.3.2 Environmental Education and Interpretation Programme...... 21 2.3.3 Stakeholder Relationship Management Programme...... 21 2.3.4 Local Socio-Economic Development Programme...... 21 2.3.5 Other programmes under Building Co-operation...... 22 2.4 Effective Park Management ...... 22 2.4.1 Environmental Management Programme...... 22 2.4.2 Infrastructure Development Programme ...... 22 2.4.3 Safety and Security Programme...... 23 2.4.4 Costing Programme ...... 23 2.4.5 Other Programmes under Effective Park Management...... 24 2.5 Corporate Support...... 24 2.5.1 Research Support Programme...... 24 2.5.2 HIV/AIDS Programme ...... 24 2.5.3 Other Programmes under Corporate Support ...... 24 3. ADAPTIVE AND INTEGRATIVE STRATEGIES TO SUSTAIN THE DESIRED STATE...... 24 3.1 Key prioritisation, integration and sequencing issues ...... 25 3.2 Steps to Operationalisation ...... 25
3.3 Key Ongoing Adaptive Management and Evaluation Interventions ...... 26 4. KEY REFERENCES ...... 28 5. LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS...... 28
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED
CDF: Conservation Development Framework DEAT: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism DWAF: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry EPWP: Expanded Public Works Programme IDP: Integrated Development Plan PAA: Protected Areas Act SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources Agency SANBI: South African National Biodiversity Institute SANParks: South African National Parks SMMEs: Small, Micro and Medium Enterprises SKEP: Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan TPC: Threshold of Potential Concern WFW: The Working for Water Programme
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Calvinia and Sutherland community analysis (taken from the annual census figures) Table 2: Summary of current (2006/2007) and projected (2007-2012) costs for ongoing park management in line with specifications of this management plan to work towards achieving the desired state for Tankwa. This includes acquisition and rehabilitation, development and operating costs. Figure 1: Location and boundaries of the Tankwa Karoo National Park Figure 2(a): Objectives Hierarchy for Tankwa Karoo National Park – vision and high level objectives Figure 2(b): Objectives Hierarchy for Tankwa Karoo National Park (cont.) – biodiversity objectives Figure 3: Practical intermediary zonation plan for Tankwa Karoo National Park Figure 4: Expansion footprint for Tankwa Karoo National Park
TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31)
1. BACKGROUND TO AND FORMULATION OF THE PARK DESIRED STATE
This section deals with the setting of a park desired state through the adaptive planning process (Rogers 2003), from the general to the specific, focusing on unique attributes of Tankwa Karoo National Park. In the case of Tankwa Karoo National Park, this was done in conjunction with stakeholders at a first stakeholder meeting held on 4 July 2006 in Calvinia. The term ‘desired state’ is now entrenched in the literature, but it is important to note that this rather refers to a ‘desired set of varying conditions’ rather than a static state. This is reinforced in the SANParks biodiversity values (SANParks 2006) which accept that change in a system is ongoing and desirable.
1.1 The fundamental decision-making environment
The three pillars of the decision-making environment are seen as the vision statement, the context, and thirdly, the values and operating principles. Although derived through a process, the vision is stated upfront, but much of the supporting material which helped form it is captured under other headings lower down in the document. As mentioned above, much of sections 1.1 and 1.2 were derived through stakeholder engagement using the adaptive planning approach, and thus reflect a shared desired state derived jointly by integrating stakeholders’ desires and SANParks’ mandate. This has resulted in a change in the vision for the park (from that historically derived by SANParks) and a suite of jointly agreed-upon high level objectives for this park. The expansion of these high level ideas were presented as part of an integrated proposal of a management plan for Tankwa Karoo at a public meeting held in terms of the Protected Areas Act on 14 August 2006.
1.1.1 Vision
Situated within a global biodiversity hotspot, we promote the wise, integrated and efficient management of the biodiversity and cultural heritage of Tankwa Karoo National Park, maintaining the typical ambience and sense of place in order to provide associated benefits to regional development. As one of the regional partners, we seek to develop and maintain inclusive and honourable cooperative governance that promotes community participation and empowerment to balance economic and social development with conservation of our ecological and cultural heritage. Biodiversity refers to the species diversity, habitat (structural) diversity and diversity of ecosystem processes. This vision takes cognisance of the global biodiversity importance of Tankwa Karoo National Park, its remoteness and ambience as well as the need to integrate this park into the regional socio- ecological system.
1.1.2 Context
The range of values as well as social, technological ecological, economic, legal and political facts, conditions, causes and surroundings that define the circumstances relevant to Tankwa Karoo National Park provide the ‘context’ for decisions and are therefore important elements of this decision-making environment. These contextual issues are broadly outlined below.
1.1.2.1 Location and Boundaries
The Tankwa Karoo National Park is situated in the northern section of the tanqua karoo some 140 km north of Ceres and 100 km south of Calvinia, and is bounded by the Cedarberg Mountains in the west, the Roggeveld escarpment to the east and the Klein Roggeveld Mountains to the southeast (Figure 1). Two public roads leading from Ceres to Calvinia and Middelpos (the R355
Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 1 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) and P2250) cut through the park. Most of the park is situated between these two roads, except for 7000 ha stretching to the east from the P2250 on the Roggeveld Mountain side.
Figure 1: Regional location of the Tankwa Karoo National Park.
1.1.2.2 History
San hunter-gatherers who inhabited the region prior to pastoral occupation have left numerous rock paintings spread throughout the escarpment areas surrounding the park. Nomadic pastoralism first brought sheep into the succulent Karoo about 2 000 years ago, and cattle some 1 500 years later. The European pastoralists (trekboere) who moved northwards from the Cape Peninsula in the 18th century were nomadic, moving with their flocks to suitable grazing. In the 19th century the succulent Karoo became the first biome used for settled European pastoralism. Several historical clay homesteads in various stages of decay are found throughout the park. Old cultivated fields are found scattered all along the floodplains that drain into the Renoster River, with canals and dam walls constructed in order to assist with flood irrigation. Proclaimed in 1986, the 92 000 hectare Tankwa Karoo National Park is still in a stage of expansion, consolidation and development. A broad land consolidation plan for the park has been formulated, providing a strategic framework for the expansion of the park, but this will need to be constantly updated and refined based on the outcomes of the Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan (SKEP) and new information on plant communities, species distribution, ecosystem patterns and processes (riverine corridors, edaphic interfaces, upland-lowland gradients and macroclimatic gradients) as well as important threats and/or opportunities.
Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 2 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31)
1.1.2.3 Physical environment and land use
The park varies in altitude from 378 to 1274m although most of the park lies within the 450-650m range. The lowest area consists of the alluvial floor that almost surrounds Leeuberg while the highest section occurs in the most eastern corner reaching to the top of the escarpment of the Roggeveld mountain range in the east. The dominant landforms consist of plains (Sterretjiesberg and Elandsberg; predominantly a large flat dolerite plateau), large floodplain areas and the Renoster River which is the dominant hydrological feature. The tanqua karoo is one of the most arid sections of the Karoo. Isohyets of mean annual rainfall for the Karoo indicate that the Tankwa Karoo National Park falls into the 0-300mm range, with 25% of the mean annual precipitation falling in summer. The mean July minimum temperature is 5,7°C, and the mean January maximum temperature is 38,9°C. The highest average maximum temperatures occur from November to March while the highest average wind speeds are recorded between October and March. Land-use in this area has predominantly focussed on small livestock grazing, although there is evidence of limited historical cultivation efforts.
1.1.2.4 Biological environment
The park falls into the Succulent Karoo Biome and comprises the lowland (tanqua karoo) and upland (western mountain karoo) succulent karoo vegetation types. The remarkable endemism and diversity of the Succulent Karoo flora, generally at its most spectacular from August to October, is the park’s most renowned aspect. The lowland succulent karoo is described as very sparse shrubland and dwarf shrubland (<0.3m), with succulents on shallow soils, and grass and ephernerals on sandy alluvium. The dominant taxa in these areas are Augea, Cephalophyllum, Grassula, Pleiospilos, Psilocaulon, Hereroa, Ruschia, Sphalmanthus, Sceletium, Tetragonia, Rhinephyllum, and non-succulents Acacia karroo, Galenia, Hermannia, Lycium, Osteospermum, Pteronia, Salsola, Stipagrostis, Samari and Zygophyllum. The upland succulent karoo which includes the Roggeveld and Elandsberg mountains is described as generally consisting of Ruschia spp. and Eberlanzia ferox veld. Although more comprehensive species lists are constantly in the process of being compiled, some 29 mammal species and 76 bird species have been documented in the park to date. The park is renowned for fine Karoo birding and, perhaps most notably for avid birders, an above-average chance of finding the enigmatic Burchell’s courser. The succulent karoo has been globally identified as one of 25 biodiversity hotspots of the world. In line with this stature, the Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan (SKEP) is combining vegetation mapping, research and structured conservation planning tools to determine priority areas for meeting conservation goals in the light of this internationally significant biodiversity. The tanqua karoo region has also been identified as an area of importance in the face of climate change as it provides a migration corridor for succulent plants from the northwestern and western section of South Africa to the east as far as the Drakensberg mountains. In addition, the floral hotspots of endemism in the Bokkeveld–Hantam-Roggeveld SKEP-defined geographic priority area will require attention. It is postulated that high biodiversity areas have a better buffering capacity to climate change than degraded or low diversity areas and thus greater numbers of species are expected to adapt to changing climates and thus endure. The park has reached a size where the park ecosystem is now relatively intact and able to accommodate many ecological processes. In arid areas such as this, groundwater is the most available and exploited resource. Boreholes are often overutilised and either run dry or become saline, thus the recharge areas and recharge periods, which are often short-lived, are of critical importance. Attention to these and other hydrological features and their significance in the landscape must be taken into account. Fortunately invasive alien infestations are relatively limited at this stage.
Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 3 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31)
1.1.2.5 Social, economic and political context
The regional economy is focussed primarily on livestock farming and the growing tourism opportunities. While small livestock farming results in some incompatibility in adjacent land use with a relatively high potential for conflict around predator impacts to livestock farmers, which is exacerbated by a porous fence, there are an exciting range of opportunities for marketing and ecotourism development which are supported by a diversity of positive regional stakeholders. The park and region are considered by stakeholders to present wilderness potential (attraction of the ‘kaaltes’; wide open space, etc.) within easy reach of a major market, the Cape metropole. Although the park is still relatively young, undeveloped and in an expansion phase, it poses many opportunities for various forms of agreements between parties. The nearest urban communities to Tankwa are in Calvinia and Sutherland, with high levels of unemployment (Table 1), however both these communities are far from the park. The closest stakeholders to the park are the farming community adjoining the park, and most people on these farms have permanent employment. Currently no Community Liaison Forum is in place, but the park is in the process of establishing a Park Forum. Representation on the Forum will include the Hantam Municipality, Calvinia Farmers Union, Unemployment Forum, Northern Cape Nature Conservation, SKEP and neighbouring farmers.
Table 1: Calvinia and Sutherland community analysis (taken from the annual census figures) Community Population No of % households % female-headed % unemployed households with income households with persons over the Calvinia 8 459 1 960 37% 17% 31,8% Sutherland 1 983 504 43% 25,4% 29,8% 1.1.2.6 International and national context As in all parks, a wide range of national legislation is relevant to Tankwa Karoo National Park. The range of relevant biodiversity legislation (e.g. National Environmental Management Act, Protected Areas Act, Biodiversity Act, Water Act, etc.) will predominantly guide decisions, although other legislation also impacts on decision-making. In particular, the agricultural problem animal regulations will have a bearing on the park. 1.1.3 Values and Operating Principles In conjunction with stakeholders, the following key values were articulated to govern the broad relationships and management of this park: • We have mutual respect for cultural, economic, land use and environmental differences across the range of stakeholders. • We recognise that ecosystems and biodiversity are complex, and that we will seldom have all the information we want to make decisions, thus we adopt a ‘learning by doing’ approach to their management. • We strive for a culture of honesty, cooperative sharing of expertise, and of empowerment and advancement of all parties. • We believe that clear definition of each stakeholder group’s expectations, and how we balance the distribution of costs and benefits, will help us to avoid irreconcilable conflict in future. • We seek transparency and openness from all partners and stakeholders within and around Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 4 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Tankwa. • We will manage the national park and its assets to its full potential, but within biodiversity and aesthetic constraints. These should be read in conjunction with the SANParks’ overarching conservation values, namely that we: • Respect the complexity, as well as the richness and diversity of the socio-ecological systems making up each national park and the wider landscape and context; respect the interdependency of the formative elements, the associated biotic and landscape diversity, and the aesthetic, cultural, educational and spiritual attributes and leverage all these for creative and useful learning. • Strive to maintain natural processes in ecosystems, along with the uniqueness, authenticity and worth of cultural heritage, so that these systems and their elements can be resilient and hence persist. • Manage with humility the systems under our custodianship, recognising and influencing the wider socio-ecological context in which we are embedded. • Strive to maintain a healthy flow of ecosystem and cultural goods and services (specifically preserving cultural artefacts), and to make these available, also through access to national parks, thereby promoting enjoyment, appreciation and other benefits for people. • When necessary, intervene in a responsible and sustainable manner, complementing natural processes as far as possible, using only the level of interference needed to achieve our mandate. • Do all the above in such a way as to preserve all options for future generations, while also recognizing that systems change over time. • Acknowledge that conversion of some natural and cultural capital has to take place for the purpose of sustaining our mandate, but that this should never erode the core values above. More detail about the above and listings of other more generic corporate SANParks values and operating principles, as well as a list of generic policies, are available (SANParks 2006). 1.2 Vital attributes underpinning the value proposition of the park The following vital attributes (i.e. the few most important characteristics/properties of the system to be managed; these may be social, technical, ecological, economic and/or political) have been identified, together with stakeholders, as making this park unique, or at least very special. Important determinants and threats have also been identified. Determinants are those factors or processes that determine, strengthen or ensure persistence while threats are those factors or processes that threaten, erode or inhibit these attributes or their determinants. Threats can also be factors within, or outside, a partnership that undermine its values and inhibit the pursuit of the vision or future desired state. This information helps focus the exact formulation of park objectives, which must strengthen positive determinants and weaken or remove threats, so that objectives are appropriate to the uniqueness and special nature of this national park. In this way the management plan is customised in its fullest local extent, without detracting from some of its more generic functions. These vital attributes help to develop the real value proposition of the park. Vital attributes of Tankwa Karoo National Park: • The succulent karoo is considered one of 25 biodiversity hotspots in the world, with the Roggeveld a recognised centre of endemism. There is an extreme range of biodiversity contrasts over a small area (going from the Cape / Boland / Cederberg area to the tankwa flats and Roggeveld mountains), endemic birds and rare plant and animal species. In Tankwa the emphasis is on nature (rather than game). • This is a semi desert environment with a rainfall gradient (an unusual combination), clean water and large temperature variations. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 5 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) • Tankwa has a unique ambience and sense of place, with a feeling of wide open space, the attraction of the ‘kaaltes’ and a unique landscape (“have you been on the moon yet?”). It is under-developed and provides wilderness qualities with a great variety of landscape attributes (i.e. not only the flowers are an attractant; they don’t always flower successfully). • Historical sites in Tankwa (e.g. San paintings, ‘klei huisies’) enhance the park’s cultural aesthetic value. • The region harbours unique people with a unique culture and way of life. This also provides a large range of activities and experiences in the region – farms, guest houses, rock art, Sutherland observatory, etc. Eco-tourism provides a long term economic option in the region. • The area is located relatively close to the Cape metropolitan market and high tourist volumes. • The park presents many research opportunities as well as opportunities for partnerships between the park and local stakeholders. Key determinants of these vital attributes: • A local topography that presents a spectacular variation from tankwa flats to the relatively undeveloped Roggeveld range. • Good ecological integrity of the diverse landscapes and vegetation types. • The core conservation area is a declared National Park and is within a globally recognised biodiversity hotspot. • A regional land use planning and biodiversity inventorisation effort (SKEP). • Relative remoteness from large urban centres and impacts of mass tourism. Key threats to the attributes in this park: • Access routes to the park (especially from Calvinia) are bad and the area is very remote with limited cell phone coverage and this has the potential to impact on visitor safety and security. • The possible over-development of the park and the region, particularly in the light of new tourism opportunities, will lead to a degradation of the unexplored, open space character of the region. It is particularly important to influence and interact with the IDPs of the region to ensure subtle and appropriate development. • The region has limited water resources (mostly extracted from ground water aquifers) and drought and development can lead to water shortages. • There are currently ineffective community partnerships and relationships. • Insufficient and ineffective communication and the lack of a joint marketing strategy result in poor exposure of the park and region. • As the park is surrounded by small stock farmers, there is great potential for conflict, especially around the impacts of predators (‘ongediertes’). There is no clear understanding of the nature or impact of the problem which makes it difficult to (1) provide the basis for effective carnivore management (including management of the fence, predator and prey populations), and (2) define cost/benefit relationships of potential management options amongst partners. • Greater exposure of the region to tourism will result in increased poaching (especially rare plants) and an increase in the black market trade of natural resources (e.g. vygies, scorpions, etc). Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 6 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) 1.3 Setting the details of the desired state for Tankwa Karoo National Park Using the Tankwa vision, context and values, and bearing in mind particularly the vital attributes above, the following set of park objectives has been determined. Objectives are aimed at overcoming threats to ensure the persistence of vital attributes and/or their determinants for this national park. 1.3.1 An objectives hierarchy for Tankwa Karoo National Park The key objectives for Tankwa Karoo National Park reaching its desired state include biodiversity, cultural heritage, partnership-building, sustainable and appropriate development and research and education objectives (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)). These high-level objectives are outlined below, with full details provided in Supporting Document 1. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 7 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Tankwa Karoo National Park Vision Situated within a global biodiversity hotspot, we promote the wise, integrated and efficient management of the biodiversity* and cultural heritage of Tankwa Karoo National Park, maintaining the typical ambience and sense of place in order to provide associated benefits to regional development. As one of the regional partners, we seek to develop and maintain inclusive and honourable cooperative governance that promotes community participation and empowerment to balance economic and social development with conservation of our ecological and cultural heritage. *Biodiversity refers to the species diversity, habitat (structural) diversity and diversity of ecosystem processes. Biodiversity objective Cultural heritage Partnership objective Development objective Research and objective education To where needed To promote and To promote sustainable and objective consolidate, restore and To appropriately conserve strengthen the two-way appropriate development and use manage the unique and provide access to park-community of this national protected area To promote ecosystem and Tankwa Karoo’s cultural partnerships and within the opportunities and appropriate biodiversity patterns and heritage resources relationships through constraints of, and compliant with research and processes of the Tankwa inclusive and honourable it’s unique ambience and education Karoo National Park as Inventorisation - To further cooperative governance biodiversity characteristics opportunities part a globally identified develop and continuously which promotes within and update an inventory of biodiversity hotspot to cultural resources in Tankwa community participation Transaction costs servicing “non- around the park deliver ecosystem goods Karoo National Park and empowerment to core goals” – when actions or and services to our balance economic and interventions are suggested, whose constituency Implementation - To formulate social development with immediate and primary effects do and implement Cultural conservation of our not contravene biodiversity Heritage Site Management ecological and cultural principles, SANParks may discount Plans for important heritage heritage these based on significant sites that have been identified transaction or maintenance costs, for educational, research and which in practice tie up SANParks tourism purposes To build trust and promote staff and other resources and equitable empowerment hence detract from achievement of Balancing - To maintain an appropriate balance between our primary goals natural and cultural heritage in To catalyse explicit all aspects of park understanding and decisions management on the distribution of costs and benefits of resource sharing among partners Aesthetics - To maintain the under different management sense of place at heritage (especially boundary) sites and within the park in scenarios general Figure 2(a): Objectives Hierarchy for Tankwa Karoo National Park – vision and high level objectives Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 8 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Biodiversity objective To where needed consolidate, restore and manage the unique ecosystem and biodiversity patterns and processes of the Tankwa Karoo National Park as part a globally identified biodiversity hotspot to deliver ecosystem goods and services to our constituency Ecosystem Composition, Biodiversity-driven park Species of special Rehabilitation Invasive alien processes Structure and expansion objective concern objective objective biota objective objective Pattern To determine sufficient Recognising the To identify and To appreciate To adequately To restore and necessary scales for overriding ecosystem rehabilitate the role of inventorise the ensure / protect ecosystem processes and approach of areas in a current and Tankwa ecosystem, natural ecosystem target expansion of the SANParks, to structured, anticipated understand the function which “greater Tankwa” to achieve nevertheless identify prioritised invasions of ecology of important supports the this wider functionality, and and manage species of manner to alien biota elements and biodiversity needs of if feasible and societally special concern (e.g. support (plants, fish, unnatural threats this succulent karoo acceptable, this expansion Hoodia, Cape biodiversity and birds, disease, leading to global hotspot and may be by bridges and mountain zebra) wilderness- etc) and to compositional or Bokkeveld-Hantam- corridors related goals formulate structural changes Roggeveld priority strategies to deemed beyond To utilise the SANParks conservation area To consolidate an ecologically framework to identify prevent, acceptable flux [herbivory and viable park encapsulating the those species of eradicate or hold limits, and respond concern for Tankwa predation, water in altitudinal variation from the in abeyance the appropriately Roggeveld Mountains to the which require TPCs and the landscape Tankwa River valley in the monitoring negative effects (including aquatic Evolutionary and face of expected climatic on biodiversity ecosystems, the landscape legacy change, and the varied patterns and vegetation types of the area river-riparian To understand the processes interface, role of drivers such as topography and To protect an ecologically groundwater representative sample of the systems and artificial climate gradients in the formation of the Bokkeveld-Hantam-Roggeveld water provision), vegetation mosaic priority conservation area atmospheric effects and ecotones including climate To including almost the entire change scenarios, Renoster River catchment system within the protected fire] area Figure 2(b): Objectives Hierarchy for Tankwa Karoo National Park (cont.) – biodiversity objectives 1.3.2 Thresholds of concern and other exact conservation targets In the adaptive management of ongoing change in ecological systems, thresholds of concern (TPCs) are the upper and/or lower limits of flux allowed, literally specifying the boundaries of the desired state. If monitoring (or better still monitoring in combination with predictive modeling) indicates certain or very likely exceedances beyond these limits, then mandatory management options of the adaptive cycle are prompted for evaluation and consideration. Considering the biophysical objectives stated in Supporting Document 1, the following TPCs are provisionally tabled for Tankwa Karoo National Park: (a) Plant cover TPC – used since rainfall is one of the most important drivers of the system and expected plant cover can be predicted from average annual rainfall. Thresholds are specified as follows: in low lying areas, there should always be a minimum expected perennial plant cover of 15%, while in escarpment areas this should not drop below 30%. (b) Plant composition - used as expected grass:forb ratio changes with rainfall and soil type, this TPC will indicate unacceptably high levels by herbivory by grazers by decreasing the grass:forb ratio. Broad changes from expected grass:forb ratios for given soil types and annual rainfall will trigger a TPC. (c) Decrease in very palatable species - an important TPC for herbivory as it tracks changes in utilisation by grazers and browsers. Research projects should clarify the choice of species for this Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 9 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) TPC. This TPC should be replaced in 5 years time by TPCs looking at changes in plant communities detecting changes in dominant and subdominant species or in species that occur in small numbers. (d) Indicator species - these are specifically favoured and would be good indicators of utilisation by herbivores. A decline of these species will trigger a TPC (provisional species list form Esler et.al. 2006). We suggest that this approach should be followed for the next 5 years and with re- evaluation a better approach should be investigated. A TPC will be exceeded if there is a decrease of 30% in the abundance of any one of these species in any vegetation type where the species occur or of 20% of any specific species across the park, over any three years. (e) Increase in unpalatable, resilient species - These species indicate homogenisation due to overutilisation of palatable species. Research projects should clarify the choice of species for this TPC. We suggest that this approach should be followed for the next 5 years and with the re- evaluation a better approach to complementarity, or the loss thereof, should be investigated as the future TPC. A TPC will be exceeded if there is an increase of 40% in the abundance of any one of the species listed in the vegetation types where it occurs or an increase of 20% of any one species over the entire conservation area; or there is an increase of 50% in the abundance of the group of species listed in the vegetation types where they occur or a 30% increase in the abundance of the group of species over the entire conservation area over any three years. (f) Distribution and cover of nutrient hotspots – as these are utilised very intensely, a loss of herbaceous cover in these areas will be a good indicator of over-utilisation by grazers. This is a novel approach and will need some development although it will be very important to detect trends toward homogenisation and the associated overall loss of biodiversity. A TPC will be exceeded if there is a decrease of 30% or more of area covered by these patches in any vegetation type or over the entire park; or if 50% or more of the herbaceous cover is lost from 30% of these hot spots during any average or above average rainfall year in any of the vegetation types where these hot spots are found, or over the entire park. 1.3.3 Conservation Development Framework A full Conservation Development Framework (CDF) has not yet been set for Tankwa Karoo National Park. However a sensitivity value map has been produced (Supporting Document 2) and a practical intermediary zonation (Figure 3) is available and in use to guide development. There will be a full CDF available at the first iteration of this plan in 5 years time. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 10 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Figure 3: Practical intermediary zonation plan for Tankwa Karoo National Park 2. PROGRAMMES TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED STATE This section deals with all the discrete, but often interlinked, programmes which make up the approaches to issues, and lead to the actions on the ground. Together they are the park’s best attempt to achieve the desired state specified in Part 1 above. Each subsection in this management plan is a summary of the particular programme, invariably supported by details in what are called lower-level plans, referred to as Supporting Documents but not included here. The various programmes are classified into the five “real-world” activity groupings as reflected in the SANParks biodiversity custodianship framework (Rogers 2003), namely Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation, Sustainable Tourism, Building Co-operation, Effective Park Management, and Corporate Support. Corporate SANParks policies provide the guiding principles for most of the subsections, and will not be repeated here, except as references and occasionally key extracts. Within each of these groups, the last section entitled ‘Other Programmes’ deals under one heading briefly with programmes which still have some relevance to Tankwa Karoo National Park, but which have been deemed sufficiently small as to not require their own subsection and reference to a fully-fledged lower-level plan. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 11 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) 2.1 Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation 2.1.1 Zonation Programme The primary objective of a park zoning plan is to establish a coherent spatial framework in and around a park to guide and co-ordinate conservation, tourism and visitor experience initiatives. The rationale for and standard zonation criteria are contained in the SANParks zonation policy (SANParks 2006). A zoning plan plays an important role in minimising conflicts between different users of a park by separating potentially conflicting activities whilst ensuring that activities which do not conflict with the park’s values and objectives (especially the conservation of natural systems and biodiversity) can continue in appropriate areas. Ideally the zonation should be based on a full Conservation Development Framework, but this is not yet available for Tankwa Karoo National Park. In the meantime, the zoning of Tankwa was based on an analysis and mapping of the sensitivity and value of a park’s biophysical, heritage and scenic resources; an assessment of the regional context; an assessment of the park’s current and planned infrastructure and tourist products; and an assessment of the expansion plan for the park and its implication for use zoning; all interpreted in the context of corporate values and park objectives. The use zoning plan for Tankwa Karoo National Park is shown in Figure 2 above. Full details of the use zone definitions, the zoning process, the park interface zones (detailing park interaction with adjacent areas) and the underlying landscape analyses are included in Supporting Document 2. In Tankwa, the main focus is on remote, primitive and low intensity leisure zones in line with the vital attributes and objectives of this park. Remote Zone: This is an area retaining an intrinsically wild appearance and character, or capable of being restored to such, and which is undeveloped and roadless without permanent improvements or human habitation. It provides outstanding opportunities for solitude with awe inspiring natural characteristics and access is strictly controlled and on foot. In Tankwa Karoo National Park, remote areas were designated in the mountain areas in the east of the park and in the northern sections of the Elandsberg, as these areas have high environmental sensitivity and value as well as wilderness characteristics. Primitive Zone: The prime characteristic of this zone is the experience of wilderness qualities through controlled access, in terms of numbers, frequency and size of groups. The zone shares some wilderness qualities with the remote zone, but has limited access roads (mostly 4x4) and the potential for basic small-scale self-catering accommodation facilities such as bushcamps. In Tankwa, primitive areas were designated to buffer remote areas and to protect most of the remaining sensitive areas (such as the low hills and special vegetation types) from high levels of tourism activity. Most of the plains were included in this zone to minimise potential for visual and aesthetic disturbance, even though overall they had lower environmental sensitivity and value. Primitive areas were also designated in the Langkloof valley to allow access into the remote mountain areas. In areas where remote zones border on the park boundary, a 100m wide primitive zone was designated to allow park management access to fences. Low Intensity Leisure Zone: The underlying characteristic of this zone is motorised self- drive access with self-catering accommodation units in small basic camps without facilities such as shops and restaurants. In Tankwa, low intensity leisure areas were designated along selected current access routes in the plains areas and up the pass to the east. The low intensity leisure areas in the plains were designated to allow the completion of two planned tourist game/viewing loops. Current and planned tourism accommodation and management infrastructure is included in this zone as its scale and extent are not sufficient to require a more intensive tourism use zone. Low intensity leisure zones almost entirely avoid areas with high landscape sensitivity and value. The current zonation is based on the same biodiversity, cultural heritage and landscape analyses undertaken for a CDF, however certain elements underlying a CDF such as a full tourism market analysis and detailed investigation of development nodes are not fully incorporated into this park use zonation. A CDF will be developed for Tankwa once the park approaches its planned final extent. In the interim, as the park is rapidly expanding, it is anticipated that the zoning will need to be updated regularly. Remote areas will be investigated for possible formal declaration as Wilderness Areas in terms of Section 22 of the PAA. Special management overlays Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 12 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) which designate specific areas of the park that require special management interventions (e.g. areas requiring rehabilitation) will also be identified. This zonation is believed to support as best as possible the values and objectives in the desired state for this park. Once all components of a CDF are available, the zonation map will be re-derived and amended and should support Tankwa Karoo’s desired state in an even more refined and effective way. 2.1.2 Vegetation Diversity Programme Much of the park, and in particular the lowland succulent karoo, is in a veld recovery phase and it will be some time before the original vegetation re-establishes itself. As the park is consolidated, park activities will focus on restoring natural ecosystem functioning through a number of management interventions such as restoration and rehabilitation of transformed habitats and restoration of ecosystem processes. Certain characteristic habitats and selected associated species in Tankwa are potentially threatened by a number of identified factors, chiefly injudicious herbivory, illegal plant collection and climate change. At this stage one important action needed is an inventory and monitoring baseline to test whether the scale and magnitude of current habitat changes are acceptable or not. The TPCs used to assess this will primarily involve those established for vegetation-herbivory interactions and outlined in Section 1.3.2 above. As no vegetation TPCs have been developed for Tankwa before, little vegetation data is available for the entire park (as benchmarks for TPCs) and the park is in a recovery phase moving towards re- establishing natural systems and processes rather than maintaining the existing ones, interim rough TPCs have been set. TPCs in the next 5 year revision should be adjusted to take progress in veld improvement and increased availability of data into account. A low-level plan is available (Supporting Document 3) detailing these and a proposed monitoring programme. Unacceptable vegetation change will be the most important indicator of too high herbivore numbers, these changes will be tracked using indicator species as well as changes in composition in the representative landscapes. We can attempt to reproduce some of the variability that such a wide range in herbivore numbers would have created by setting very liberal vegetation TPCs, and then decreasing animal numbers to the smallest possible population when the TPCs are exceeded. To be able to do this efficiently, a monitoring programme will be needed that will detect such an exceedance of vegetation TPCs in all the important landscapes and habitats and we will work towards implementation of this in the next 5-year cycle. 2.1.3 Herbivory and Predation Programme This follows the general guidance of SANParks’ corporate herbivory policy as well as that related to the provision of artificial water for herbivores. Likewise, introduction of herbivores and predators is governed by central policy. The details of this programme are provided in Supporting Document 4. A reasonable suite of herbivore re-introductions has taken place in Tankwa although historical use of the region was episodic in response to seasonal variability in forage production and by availability of water, particularly along perennial rivers which prompted seasonal migrations of species such as springbok, gemsbok, and possibly eland. There is little chance of re- establishing such large scale movement given the fragmentation of the landscape but it may be possible to recreate smaller scale local migrations once Tankwa has expanded towards the east. The introduction of any further species, or augmentation of numbers of existing species, must be critically evaluated against the desired state for Tankwa, which focuses predominantly on unique vegetation heterogeneity. Nevertheless, the importance of larger mammalian herbivores in the succulent karoo has previously been suggested in the maintenance of plant community structure and function and management should seek to replicate these disturbance patterns (herbivory, trampling, nutrient cycling) at various spatio-temporal scales across the landscape. Temporal variability in herbivore herd numbers determines the sustainability of the succulent karoo ecosystem, and therefore maintaining herbivore numbers at constant levels should be avoided and is likely to result in degradation of the vegetation communities. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 13 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Due to its young and expanding nature, Tankwa presents an opportunity to establish a series of broad ecological thresholds to monitor the impacts of larger mammals on vegetation communities within the park, although setting thresholds is a challenge given that there has been little research undertaken on the impacts of indigenous herbivores on the succulent karoo ecosystem. Herbivory TPCs should be viewed in conjunction with a series of vegetation TPCs where monitoring programmes are coordinated to maximise the compilation of baseline trends across the landscape. Possible mammal thresholds to maintain a complete representation of biodiversity while promoting ecosystem resilience within Tankwa include; 1) Herbivore Growth Rates – Population growth rates can forecast future trends in populations and provide some indication of environmental stress and will provide a useful interim indicator for management. Growth rates can be determined from annual ecological aerial surveys although the low numbers introduced into the park initially may be more appropriately monitored from the ground. 2) Foraging Guild Representation - The proportional representation of the broad herbivore foraging guilds (bulk grazer, concentrate grazer, mixed feeder and browser) are correlated with the gross representation of vegetation communities. Maintaining wildlife populations with a range of body sizes is likely to enhance the range of ecosystem interactions and promote a heterogeneous use of the various habitats. Here comparative assessment of herbivore biomass in relation to vegetation biomass (available grazing and available browse from representative communities) needs to be developed. 3) Trends in Primary Productivity – Monitoring of biomass and productivity parameters and assessing their relationships within the park is suggested. In the light of operational constraints, the use of remote data such as satellite imagery to determine normalised differential vegetation indices (NDVI) linked to essential ground-truthing could be investigated to assess annual net primary productivity. 4) Shifts in Distribution - Shifts determined by habitat selection may be indicative of increased competitive interactions in shared habitats but may also indicate declines in habitat condition forcing species into sub-optimal habitats. General herbivore distribution patterns can be determined from ecological aerial surveys but finer temporal resolution can be obtained by conducting ground-based assessments during routine monitoring by rangers. Such finer scale monitoring of distributions may highlight shifts in the use of sensitive habitats that may be prone to disturbance for example. 5) Vegetation Cover and Diversity - Setting thresholds of vegetation cover and proportional representation of structural components (e.g. grass:shrub ratios) as well as the extent of bare ground will assist in the analysis of landscape function. Vegetation thresholds can be established for individual communities and must consider changes in community diversity as well. The importance of wet/dry season refuges may be of considerable importance in Tankwa, particularly since the park may be of a sufficient size to mimic mini-migration movements of herbivores. A TPC to monitor the number, distribution and status of such refuges is recommended. This TPC may also be extended to assess the trends in grass communities dominated by Stipagrostis spp. as this has been suggested as a key species responsible for the long-term persistence of mammalian fauna across the landscape. 6) Trends in Heuweltjies – The presence, distribution and abundance of these landscape features can act as an indicator of habitat condition. Determination of the baseline vegetation community condition as well as soil nutrient status may facilitate future analysis of the trends in these landscape hotspots to determine how the grazing and browsing patterns displayed by indigenous herbivores are affected by these habitat features. In addition, the impacts of such herbivory may impact upon the persistence of these heuweltjies. In summary a combination of approaches will be required to determine the thresholds for managing multi-species wildlife communities within Tankwa Karoo National Park. Much of the required detailed baseline data does not exist and management decisions will need to be based on the best available information at present with the intention to develop more appropriate management strategies as part of the adaptive learning process. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 14 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Water provision across the landscape needs to be carefully controlled but could have the potential of being used as a management tool to control the distribution of wildlife across the landscape although this will need to be viewed in conjunction with the location and condition of winter rainfall refuges. Water provision could possibly be used to simulate historical herbivore migration patterns. Herbivory and habitat use by larger mammals within Tankwa Karoo National Park may be a threatening process to other biodiversity components, particularly threatened plants and the impacts on these species will need to be monitored. Setting thresholds of potential concern that focus on the persistence of endemic plant species will be a key tool in the management of risks to ecosystem functioning and should be determined as part of the vegetation management strategy. Habitat restoration is a key management requirement to restore the services of some heavily degraded habitats in the Tankwa Karoo National Park and careful management of the wildlife will be required so as not to reduce the capacity of these environments to recover from past land use practices that depleted biodiversity resources. Management should strive for continual improvement in restoring habitat heterogeneity and ecosystem resilience although the temporal scales at which this may be achieved may not reflect short-term (5 year) management requirements. It is unlikely that Tankwa Karoo National Park will support viable prey populations in the short-medium term that would enable the sustained offtake through predation. Although predator- prey interactions are desirable in terms of restoring natural ecosystem functioning the current park is unable to support the numerical abundance and diversity of prey items necessary to maintain these processes. Nevertheless, conflict with neighbours over impacts of small predators on stock farming livelihoods is a critical issue and is addressed in a separate programme (see section 2.1.11). 2.1.4 Water in the Landscape Guided by general SANParks principles in this regard, the key river, surface- and ground-water issues in Tankwa are • to develop a key understanding of the role of non-terrestrial ecosystems on the arid succulent karoo ecosystem and landscapes (this will require research effort), • an evaluation of the role and significance of groundwater systems in Tankwa as a driver of vegetation pattern, • efforts to ensure healthy river function, particularly for the Tankwa and Renoster systems. While one of the aims of the park expansion programme are to include the Renoster catchment within the park boundaries, the health of the Tankwa River system will require broader catchment management approaches. 2.1.5 Atmospheric Effects Programme At this stage there is no fully-fledged programme dealing with these effects and their impacts on the Tankwa ecosystems, but the potentially overriding effects of climate change on this ecosystem will mean that park management is faced with shifting targets and will need to adopt a realistic, but pragmatic approach to the very long-term desired state for this park. Changing climate realities are expected to play a significant role in future biodiversity patterns and processes of the succulent karoo, and cognisance needs to be taken of this reality. The main focus of our attention will be in understanding the role of rainfall and other climatic components in shaping the ecosystem, and explicitly considering climate change scenarios and their implications (Supporting Document 1). 2.1.6 Fire Programme The ecological role of fire in the Tankwa region is thought to be relatively small, although the mountainous regions, with naturally abundant grasses and thus higher fuel loads, burn more Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 15 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) frequently. Nevertheless, we feel that a greater understanding of this ecological role, albeit limited, in Tankwa ecosystems is required and should be dealt with through a research project or programme. It terms of fire security, SANParks’ obligations fall under the provisions of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act. The Act aims to control the spread of veld fires by imposing obligations on landowners to prepare and maintain firebreaks within the rules and regulations constituted by Fire Protection Associations (FPA). Tankwa will be a member of, and participate meaningfully in the Suid Roggeveld FPA (the fire emergency response and contingency plan is provided in the lower level plan detailed in Supporting Document 5). 2.1.7 Park Expansion Programme Park expansion is governed by SANParks biodiversity values, as well as other principles and policies and follows the SANParks land acquisition framework. The expansion of Tankwa Karoo National Park (Supporting Document 6) remains a priority for SANParks given its biodiversity and landscape diversity. Expansions of the park have been in line with recommendations from the regional Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan (SKEP) exercise (Driver et al 2005) to protect a representative sample of the identified Bokkeveld-Hantam-Roggeveld priority conservation area. The main objectives of park expansion include: • The consolidation of an ecologically viable park encapsulating the altitudinal variation from the Roggeveld Mountains to the Tankwa River valley in the face of expected climatic change, and the varied vegetation types of the area; • To protect an ecologically representative sample of the Bokkeveld-Hantam-Roggeveld priority conservation area; • To include within the park and thus protect almost the entire Renoster River catchment system; • To provide an appropriate eco-tourism opportunity as an economic engine for this region. The ultimate outcome of the full expansion programme will result in a total area of 329 236 ha under some form of protection, an additional 243 276 ha over and above the 92 000 ha within the current park (Figure 4). A number of innovative mechanisms will be used to include land into the park. Land may, amongst others, be contracted into the park, vested, donated, purchased, swapped or incorporated on a co-operative management basis. Nevertheless, strategic interventions will focus on acquisition on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis, with the park ensuring that employment and land tenure agreements associated with land incorporated into the park are honoured but that sustainable conservation benefits are optimised. While proactively pursuing the inclusion of priority land, SANParks will also need to react on an ad hoc basis, as strategic pieces of land become available. Succulent karoo and fynbos vegetation types will make up 91% and 9%, respectively, of the desired area. The current park includes six of the seven potentially available vegetation types, with the expansions including the peripheral Koedoesberge-Moordenaars succulent karoo vegetation type not included in the park thus far. The primary focus of the 2006-10 management cycle are to consolidate the lowland plains areas, river catchments and the parks’ foothold in the Roggeveld Mountains. In this regard it is planned to acquire a total of 13 640 ha. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 16 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Figure 4. Expansion footprint for Tankwa Karoo National Park. 2.1.8 Rehabilitation Programme As yet no structured evaluation has been done to identify priority rehabilitation areas within Tankwa Karoo National Park, but areas have been highlighted through day-to-day management of the park. The three main areas of concern are (1) erosion on and alongside roads, particularly those in the mountains, (2) erosion and land degradation due to historic irrigation activities, particularly alongside the Renoster River, and (3) erosion and land degradation due to historic range farming, particularly throughout the western section of the park (see Supporting Document 7). During the first two years of this plan, park management will concentrate on gathering relevant data to set objectives for priority areas and implementation will follow as soon as funds are available. This will include consideration for and appropriate rehabilitation and/or restoration of structures protected by SAHRA. 2.1.9 Invasive Alien Species Programme The principles concerning this are well-established in SANParks (SANParks 2006) and Working for Water, whose co-operation plays a critical role in the control of alien plants. The main objective of Tankwa Karoo National Park’s invasive alien species programme (detailed in Supporting Document 8) is to aid the restoration of the park’s natural ecosystem functioning which has largely been altered due to previous landuses. The eradication of invasive alien plants will greatly aid in Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 17 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) this objective, as it will result in improved water availability and the re-establishment of natural plant communities. The most notable invasive plant within Tankwa is Prosopis glandulosa which has invaded old farmlands, watercourses and the banks of the Renoster River. Argemone mexicana has also invaded the water catchment area of the Renoster River posing a threat to the system down-river. Areas already incorporated into the park have been divided into management units which are cleared by means of funding from the Working for Water Programme, which began in Tankwa in 2004. Follow-up control work is taking priority in 2006 with some initial clearing work being done in areas newly acquired. Priorities for the next 5-year period include complete mapping of all management units, identification of potential risks bordering the park, structured monitoring in the riparian area, research on the stream flow of the Renoster River, both pre- and post-clearing, development of a Standard Operating Procedure for ornamental plants in developed areas outlining rules applicable to use and control of ornamental plants within personnel gardens in the park. 2.1.10 Species of Conservation Concern Programme While current park objectives highlight the desire to conserve biodiversity patterns and processes associated with this landscape, reflecting a shift away from the single species management approaches, the assignment of species to a ‘conservation concern’ category is permissible according to the SANParks framework. It is envisaged that a number of endemic or threatened plant species will be identified through this process, although even baseline biodiversity inventories are not yet available. The need for adequate inventorisation and understanding has been highlighted in the park objectives hierarchy (Supporting Document 1) and these long-term initiatives will enable future development of this programme. A founder population of Cape mountain zebra (listed as vulnerable in SA) has recently been reintroduced into the park and an opportunity exists within Tankwa to address recent concerns over the genetic diversity of the national population through introduction of unrelated individuals from a source other than Karoo National Park or Mountain Zebra National Park. Nevertheless, management of Cape mountain zebra in Tankwa must remain cognisant of the risks of hybridisation with Hartmann’s mountain zebra, reportedly on private land in the vicinity of the park. It is difficult to set management thresholds at this early stage, but monitoring the success of the reintroduction will be critical to determine whether this population should receive additional supplementation from other source populations or should be removed until such time that the habitat is likely to support a viable population. 2.1.11 Management of Problem- or Damage-causing Animal Programme ‘Problem animals’, specifically black-backed jackal and caracal, are one of the major issues surrounding Tankwa Karoo National Park as they impact on neighbouring small-stock farming community livelihoods. SANParks contend that these animals do not only originate from the park itself (which does not seem to have high numbers of these animals as evidenced by a recent fixed camera survey), but occur in high numbers throughout the district and even the country. SANParks does however acknowledge that these animals may from time to time leave the park and cause damage to small stock outside our borders. As good relations with our neighbours are essential to conserve the Tankwa/Roggeveld, we recognise the importance of investigating the scale and magnitude of the problem and evaluating alternative management solutions to mitigate the conflict. The first priority is to gather information, with effective community participation, regarding the movement of these animals to and from the park to assist in defining the scale of the problem. Such data should identify trends and high risk areas which will be discussed with a focus group of relevant stakeholders to consider and evaluate management options, benefits and costs to minimising risks to the farming community. Nevertheless, before ad hoc management options are considered, an understanding of the ecological complexity is also required and SANParks will endeavour to catalyse a research approach for the Tanqua/Roggeveld region. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 18 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) In addition, SANParks allocates a lot of operational funding to maintain a high quality fenceline and will continue doing so to building relationships with our neighbours and restrict the effects of problem-causing animals on their livestock. These relationships should be strengthened with mutual agreements that both SANParks and farm owners have a responsibility to protect their property. As SANParks funds all major upgrades and repairs, negotiations should be initiated with neighbours to carry out more routine inspections and small repairs. SANParks takes note of the fears and concerns of all affected parties surrounding the park and will address them to the best of our ability within the National Legislative Framework and SANParks Policy Framework. Effective communication lines will be established through the recently established information systems which should create a better understanding between the different stakeholders. Partnerships should be established in the form of focus groups which can be part of the Park Forum to further strengthen relationships. Details of this programme can be found in Supporting Document 9. 2.1.12 Bioregional Programme The Tankwa National Park falls within the SKEP and CAPE bioregional programmes of the SA National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). As one of the project implementers of a SKEP project as well as strong support to a second project implemented by University of Pretoria, SANParks is well represented on SKEP forums. In addition, SANParks sit on and play an integral role in the steering committee of the Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor funded by the CAPE programme and implemented by CAPE Nature. SANParks will continue supporting all bioregional initiatives within this region, and will ensure effective communication to strengthen these relationships. More effective partnerships should be built with local municipalities and other NGO’s to ensure better co-operative governance (Supporting Document 10). 2.1.13 Cultural Resource Programme This programme (Supporting Document 11) is advised by SANParks’ policy on cultural resource management (SANParks 2006). A heritage inventory initiative in 2005 resulted in the identification of 46 possible heritage sites, including historic cemeteries, farmsteads and outbuildings. Thus Tankwa Karoo National Park has some significant heritage resources within its boundaries requiring further research. Specific cultural resource objectives for the park in the next 5-10 years include further developing and continuously updating an inventory of cultural resources in the park, to develop and implement a Cultural Heritage Management Plan with appropriate Heritage Site Management Plans for those sites that have been identified for educational, research and/or tourism purposes. 2.1.14 Other Programmes under Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation Tankwa Karoo National Park do not currently allow commercial or extractive use of their natural resources, but if and when such activities may be identified, such an programme will be defined (Supporting Document 12) as the sustainable use of wild biotic and abiotic resources to improve the quality of life of people who live in the region and district, according to their needs, but subject to guidance from SANParks corporate principles. 2.2 Sustainable Tourism This heading clearly also cross-links to the Zonation Programme provided in 2.1.1. as well as to the CDF, once completed. The lower level plan is detailed in Supporting Document 13. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 19 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) 2.2.1 Sustainable Tourism Programme Tankwa Karoo National Park is only four hours drive from Cape Town and points of interest include endemic birds, Langkloof, Gannaga Pass, the View Point – Elandsberg, historical buildings and ruins, the flowering season, succulent plants and the Roggeveld Centre of Endemism. Currently the park offers two self-catering farm houses that can accommodate a total of 10 visitors. Although these units have not actively been marketed, the current occupancy rate is 10%. With the untested tourism status of Tankwa Karoo National Park, the tourism facilities will be developed cautiously through the opening of the first 5-unit camp in March 2007 in the Elandsberg. It is clear that solitude and isolation are some of the most important characteristics of all accommodation units. In addition, a guesthouse at Maansedam is in the process of being developed and construction of an 8-bed wilderness camp started in 2006. Although there currently are no camping facilities, there is big potential for a camping site. Currently main tourist activities include two 4x4 routes, self-drive tours of the park and surroundings which are well known for an above-average chance of spotting the enigmatic Burchell’s courser and flowers during the flowering season. These features have the potential to attract tourists, but are not yet optimally developed or marketed. Although accessibility to the park is currently still poor, with limited signage and 230 km of secondary roads (many of which require maintenance for 2x2 traffic), the natural/scenic beauty with unique attributes of remoteness, and an ‘undiscovered’ sense of place, cultural and historical importance, uniqueness of the succulent karoo vegetation and semi-desert landscapes, the development of new visitor and administration facilities and a commitment by SANParks to develop the park, bode well for a sustainable yet initially small tourism product. Nevertheless, major threats include the possible development of a university in the Elandsvlei region (10 km southwest of the park), the possible development of the Tankwa irrigation scheme with 12 500 new job opportunities and 6 000 ha under irrigation, lack of specialised products and marketing development focusing on niche groups as well as high petrol prices. The local IDPs have identified tourism as an important activity, and the following tourism- specific projects have been identified: development of two tourist centres (at Calvinia and Springbok) to assist in coordinating tourism programmes in the region; implementation of a coastal access control system by means of permits and overnight facilities at 12 camping sites; development of a proper website to promote the region; development of a tourism marketing plan and crafts industry for the area. Projects listed by SANParks are captured in the IDPs, confirming SANParks’ active role in the area as well as a willingness to integrate different plans. In addition, the following opportunities exist for enhancing tourism to the park: (1) The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund has funded the establishment of a tourism route from Sutherland through Tankwa Karoo National Park, Middelpos, back to Sutherland, including plans for an information centre in Nieuwoudtville; (2) the development of SALT telescope at Sutherland; (3) Tankwa is included in routes currently being developed by the Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor. The tourism vision of the park is to become a fully operational national park that provides for the needs of visitors, enhances the visitor experience and maintains a good balance between tourism and conservation. In order to achieve this, Tankwa will need to develop appropriate tourist accommodation to increase revenue; develop and maintain basic visitor and park infrastructure; develop tourist activities that enhance the tourist experience; improve staff capacity to deliver an excellent service; effectively market Tankwa to increase the number of visitors and unit occupancy to 60%. It is anticipated that with the consolidation of the park, the establishment of controlled access to the park, marketing exposure and the introduction of overnight accommodation options, the park may start to attract an increasing number of visitors and achieve this vision. It is not however envisaged that, at this stage, the park will aim for financial sustainability. The phased introduction of tourist and day-visitor services during this phase will however provide an indication of the nature-based tourism potential for the park and the feasibility of the introduction of financially and environmentally sustainable tourism developments. Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 20 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) 2.3 Building co-operation 2.3.1 Co-operative Governance Programme Co-operative, collaborative and mutually beneficial relationships with the broader park community are essential to the sustainability of Tankwa Karoo National Park and the park must maintain existing and identify and implement new opportunities for sustaining relationships between itself and both the surrounding communities and broader park users. Co-operative relationships need to be established and nurtured with all spheres of government and other stakeholders to ensure that regional initiatives and developments contribute to, but do not compromise, the attainment of the overall desired state and objectives for Tankwa. 2.3.2 Environmental Education and Interpretation Programme The objective of this programme (Supporting Document 14) is to build constituencies in support of SANParks’ conservation endeavours by playing a significant, targeted and effective role in promoting a variety of educational opportunities and initiatives, focussing attention on youth development and environmental education in order to build a conservation constituency for the future. No formal environmental education and awareness programmes, activities and initiatives currently function in Tankwa, but these will be established in conjunction with local educational institutions as well as SANParks’ People and Conservation Division to contribute to local and other educational development. It is anticipated that environmental education programmes will cater to all levels, with themes built around the significance of the succulent karoo ecosystem and linked to the national school curriculum. The programmes can be supplemented by various outdoor activities such as hikes, horse-riding or abseiling. Initial funding to start these programmes was received from Conservation International, but additional funding will be required. In addition, an environmental education centre, to accommodate groups and other resources, is planned and the appointment of appropriate staff is imperative. In the interim, assistance from professionally qualified volunteers, who join parks for a year, and nature conservation students busy with their experiential training year, will be considered. 2.3.3 Stakeholder Relationship Management Programme The aim of this programme (Supporting Document 15) is to establish and maintain meaningful and beneficial relationships with a wide range of stakeholders supporting SANParks’ core business, and Tankwa Karoo’s desired state specifically. Key stakeholder groupings include government, conservation entities, business partners, communities, employees, media and customers. Key initiatives requiring attention are formation of the Tankwa Karoo Park Forum and quarterly meetings thereafter, integration of park planning into local IDPs, bioregional planning and initiatives, and liaison with a range of stakeholder groups - national government, local government, regional structures, landowners, conservancies, NGOs and CBOs, tourism bodies, operators, concessionaires, service providers, volunteer programs, GVIs, farmers unions, chamber of commerce, tourism association, fire protection association. A key risk is the low staff compliment being unable to attend to all stakeholder needs. 2.3.4 Local Socio-Economic Development Programme This programme focuses on playing a significant, targeted and effective role in contributing to local economic development, economic empowerment and social development in communities and neighbouring areas adjacent to Tankwa Karoo National Park (Supporting Document 16). Tankwa currently accommodates two government poverty relief programmes in the park, contributing towards the conservation and management goals of the park, namely the Working for Water Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 21 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Project (clearing invasive alien plants) and the EPWP infrastructure development programme (constructing and later maintaining new tourism facilities). Tankwa provides job opportunities to approximately 50 workers from local communities (Sutherland and Calvinia) divided into three SMME’s. In adherence to SANParks’ procurement policy, procurement for Tankwa Karoo National Park is done locally, within the Calvinia District, focussing on Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment as far as possible. Mapping of socio-economic baselines and understanding of neighbours’ livelihood strategies needs to be understood so that conservation development related programmes can be addressed in partnership with park adjacent municipalities. 2.3.5 Other programmes under Building Co-operation A small but important programme for Tankwa is the communications programme (Supporting Document 17) which aims to ensure an adequate cross flow of information among Tankwa and other organisational personnel required for the efficient management of the park through a network of basic communication channels. 2.4 Effective Park Management Effective park management is essentially a means to an end, namely the enablement of our achieving the desired state in the three core areas above. 2.4.1 Environmental Management Programme In line with SANParks environmental management policy (SANParks 2006), developments, activities and operational issues in Tankwa Karoo National Park are governed by SANParks conservation values and discipline principles, policies and standard practices. At present the park does not have a specific environmental plan to address the overall requirements of implementing the SANParks policies. Environmental management requirements include management of developments, activities and operational issues, legal compliance, green procurement, eco-friendly infrastructure (including touch-the-earth lightly principles), energy efficiency, water balance and water saving measures, waste management, internal usage of resources, infrastructure rehabilitation and pollution management. Tankwa has however developed integrated water, solid waste and effluent management plans (see Supporting Document 18). 2.4.2 Infrastructure Development Programme In line with SANParks principles, such as ‘touch the earth lightly’, we will strive to provide a balanced range of tourism facilities and opportunities which are compatible with Tankwa Karoo National Park’s zonation plan, tourism plan and desired state. The rationale behind this programme is that the present facilities are inadequate in relation to the balance between the nature-based tourism potential of the area and needs of visitors and the local community. Optimal use of the park, particularly where use of facilities is perceived to make an economic contribution to the integrated system, should contribute to fostering a sense of ownership of the park by the local community and broader SANParks constituency. In terms of management infrastructure, the approach is to provide and maintain the minimum of facilities required for effective management in a manner compatible with the park’s desired state, goals and zone objectives. This programme (Supporting Document 19) provides for the provision of new infrastructure, rehabilitation and removal of redundant structures and the annual preparation of maintenance schedules with preference for local contractors in respect of maintenance contracts. Planned new infrastructure for the next 5-year cycle includes an 8-bed wilderness camp, waterholes for game, a shop and laundry, signage for the park, environmental education accommodation facilities, three rustic campsites with ablutions, footpaths and trails and two new entrance gates. All developments will be 'environment-friendly', unobtrusively located, with Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 22 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) judicious energy consumption and sensitive waste disposal approaches. Aesthetic considerations are of particular concern in the siting and design of any new structures. Nevertheless, implementation of the programme will be affected by funding. 2.4.3 Safety and Security Programme Due to its relatively close location to the Cape Metropole, rich species diversity, remoteness and a healthy population of Hoodia gordonii, the park is vulnerable to criminal intent aimed at the park, its staff members and also at tourists. This risk to the SANParks brand and reputation requires mitigatory risk management measures which are outlined in Supporting Document 24. The strategic intent of this safety and security plan (Supporting Document 20) is to ensure that effective visitor safety measures are in place, to ensure the safety and security of SANParks employees, and to ensure that tourist perceptions are managed in order to protect the brand and reputation of SANParks and the SA Tourism Industry at large. The plan is informed by analysis of high risk/use areas, associated crime statistics and the associated risks and criminal behaviour for each area. This information, coupled with the combined operational experience of the parties involved, enabled Tankwa to detail the needs for each area including infrastructure, operational expenditure, capital expenditure and human resources requirements. 2.4.4 Costing Programme A detailed costing programme has been developed for Tankwa and is available as Supporting Document 21, with a summary provided below in Table 2. Financial support for Tankwa is derived almost entirely from the corporate budget. As a developing park, the park cannot maintain the income base at a level of financial self-sustainability and in the medium-term will continue to be cross-subsidised by the more profitable parks. To improve financial sustainability, Tankwa will need to identify opportunities to increase revenue and improve financial management. Possible sources of increased revenue include grant funding, donations, trust funds, resource use, and revenues from overnight accommodation and other visitor services. The derived costing shows and anticipated increase in years 1, 2 and 3, followed by a decline. This is primarily due to infrastructure development and upgrade requirements in line with the set desired state. The priorities in institutional development for this young park lie in modest but essential increased staff capacity, funding for knowledge management and integration as well as necessary biodiversity and heritage monitoring abilities. The costing further outlines the overall minimum financal resources required to implement the park objectives to move towards meeting the desired future state of Tankwa Karoo. Table 2: Summary of current (2006/2007) and projected (2007-2012) costs for ongoing park management in line with specifications of this management plan to work towards achieving the desired state for Tankwa. This includes acquisition and rehabilitation, development and operating costs. FUNDING REQUIRED OVER THE 5 YEAR PERIOD TO IMPLIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES Current Budget 2006/2007 YEAR 1 (2007-08) YEAR 2 (2008-09) YEAR 3 (2009-10) YEAR 4 (2010-11) YEAR 5 (2011-12) TOTAL expenditure R 11,406,406.00 R 14,872,274.10 R 21,620,409.99 R 29,271,884.59 R 7,666,011.66 R 12,795,122.36 Total funded R 11,406,406.00 R 410,416.10 R 435,041.07 R 461,143.53 R 488,812.14 R 518,140.87 Total unfunded R 0.00 R 14,461,858.00 R 21,185,368.92 R 28,810,741.06 R 7,177,199.52 R 12,276,981.49 Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 23 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) 2.4.5 Other Programmes under Effective Park Management An essential complementary function of park effectiveness is maintaining adequate human resources to provide a conservation and visitor service. The Staff Capacity Building Programme (Supporting Document 22) is aimed at the continuous development of labour and management skills through both formal and in-service training and education to improve understanding, encourage a sense of pride in the organisation and increase levels of efficiency and self fulfillment. 2.5 Corporate Support Again, these are enabling initiatives to achieve the desired state for Tankwa as particularly outlined in 2.1 – 2.3 above. 2.5.1 Research Support Programme Given the many questions in the biodiversity (including basic inventorisation for key biological information as a baseline against which to monitor the efficacy of rehabilitation and restoration interventions) and cultural objectives, a significant research and monitoring thrust is seen as imperative for this park. This cannot be achieved without explicit commitment around the supporting environment, for instance researcher accommodation to help attract visiting researchers at reasonable project cost. The necessary databases, technical and herbarium support will be important catalysts to promote knowledge generation, which will help move this park towards the desired state. Equally, liaison with research and biodiversity partners in the region is essential to this success, in particular SKEP, Conservation International and Cape academic institutions. Research and monitoring programmes should, whenever necessary, be formulated in partnership with them. 2.5.2 HIV/AIDS Programme Although the present staff compliment at Tankwa National Park consists of only four permanent employees, HIV/AIDS requires attention as it is spreading at an alarmingly fast rate in South Africa, as well as within SANParks. As an integral component of the Employee Assistance Programme, it is accorded priority within the SANParks programming (Supporting Document 23). The programme will form the basis on which all employees working within Tankwa Karoo National Park, permanent and temporary, as well as their families, will be made aware of HIV/AIDS and assisted when infection has occurred. Temporary employees working within the governmental Expanded Public Works Programme, of which Working for Water and Poverty Relief: Infrastructure Development is currently functioning within Tankwa Karoo National Park, will also be made aware of HIV/AIDS through these projects’ training programmes. 2.5.3 Other Programmes under Corporate Support The risk management programme (Supporting Document 24) aims to ensure that strategic, business and operational objectives are met and that continued, sustained growth and biodiversity management are achieved. Risk areas for which immediate action drills have been developed for Tankwa include emergencies and injuries, serious medical conditions, fire, dangerous animals, serious road accidents, theft and robbery. 3. ADAPTIVE AND INTEGRATIVE STRATEGIES TO SUSTAIN THE DESIRED STATE Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 24 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) Section 1 has dealt with the desired state for Tankwa, and Section 2 with all the specific programmes which are believed necessary to achieve that jointly-agreed future state. However, the desired state cannot be effectively maintained without explicit attention being given to prioritisation, integration, operationalisation, and above all, reflection and adaptation according to the principles in the biodiversity custodianship framework (Rogers 2003). 3.1 Key prioritisation, integration and sequencing issues Together with stakeholders, the broadly defined desired state for Tankwa has been set in a focused way, highlighting key objectives which need attention in the next 5 year management cycle. It is recognised that some of these objectives are long-term in scope e.g. rehabilitation and restoration of certain vegetation communities and ongoing baseline inventorisation and understanding of biodiversity heterogeneity patterns, processes and functions. It is thus important, in the next 5 year cycle, to carry out those initial steps required to lay the foundation for this longer-term success. In the context of park consolidation and expansion, this requires ongoing multi-pronged efforts but these must be backed by broad-scale constituency building and cooperative governance to enhance understanding and buy-in for longer-term goals. This will be greatly facilitated by making explicit the variety of ecosystem goods and services that the park can and will deliver to stakeholders. Hand-in-hand with these efforts is the pressing need to address socio-political threats, especially through ongoing conflict around damage-causing small carnivores affecting neighbouring small stock farmers. Additional threats requiring attention and management focus, or at least consideration, are the effects of herbivory and global climate change on this biodiversity hotspot which SANParks is entrusted to manage. Poverty Relief funding, through the EPWP, like research funding, can arrive slightly out of synchrony with planned and prioritised needs, and this reality has to be dealt with as best as possible. The fact that we have clearly articulated goals, and broadly laid-out steps to achieve them, should help unify our need for such funding with the timing of the resource. We will need to balance the requirement and opportunity for implementing certain management actions against the need to have all the information at our disposal for making decisions. For example, it will be a pity if we carry out expensive but ineffective rehabilitation efforts and discover later that we had not understood the fundamental system function at the time. On the other hand, we cannot wait indefinitely before making management decisions, and initial surveys and considerations should allow us to start in the right direction, with an explicit effort to conduct confirmatory research along the way and adoption of the adaptive management learning-by-doing approach. The real uniqueness of the biodiversity and heritage system and its associated ambience and ‘sense of place’ in Tankwa should be maintained or re-instated but should not be overcome by inappropriate financially-driven goals to become economically self-sustainable or a ‘big-animal’ high-impact tourist destination, not least because of the imposed cost of managing these, and the difficulty they pose for focusing staff and other resources on the unique global biodiversity priorities. This is in line with SANParks tourism values of providing quality nature-based experiences rather than catering to consumerism on the basis of existing market popularity alone. It is anticipated that the desired state of Tankwa will take long to reach, and some difficult trade-offs will need to be made along the way. A balance must be struck between the energy needed to deal with immediate threats and crises, and the necessity of laying the all-important groundwork for longer-term strategic success. It is hoped that the guidance offered in this plan, through detailing objectives and definition of a jointly agreed-upon desired state will assist the critical decision-making in a structured way but, obviously, ongoing evaluation is imperative. 3.2 Steps to Operationalisation Given the desired state, and the above cross-links and sequential desirabilities and priorities, the next step is for park management themselves to use this guidance to draw up a detailed plan of action down to annual operational level and wherever necessary down to the level of tasks and Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 25 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) duties. The Park Manager must be satisfied that all this serves the desired state as contained here. A further cross-check is contained in the Balanced Scorecard system implemented by SANParks, which serves not to replace any objectives contained in this plan, but to support their effective implementation. To help meld this synergy, a cross-tabulation of the important objectives of this plan and explicit ways in which these are reinforced by key performance areas in the Balanced Scorecard needs to be constructed, with the two systems adjusted into harmony where necessary. The broad staff and finance costing for the five-year drive towards achieving the desired state, is contained in Supporting Document 21, which outlines both existing and projected budgets and costs as we should not under-estimate costs because of historical limitations. This costing includes all resources (but excludes research facilitation costs which are internalised elsewhere in the organisation) believed to be required to achieve realistic progress towards the desired state as outlined in this report. The fact that the resources required are higher than historically allocated to Tankwa Karoo National Park is the result of this report having made explicit what is actually required to achieve that. For instance, even the cost of minimalist monitoring to evaluate the desired state, now essential to our goals, is a significant new expense not historically carried by the park. In addition, even a modest increase in staff and operational capacity will assist Tankwa in moving forwards and operationalising priority objectives as outlined here. 3.3 Key Ongoing Adaptive Management and Evaluation Interventions Lack of informative and effective feedback, which should stimulate proper reflection by managers, is the commonest underlying cause of failure of adaptive management, and hence of reaching the desired outcomes we set for parks. The hallmark of adaptive management is ongoing learning, and this only results if users apply their minds to the adaptive cycle (Biggs & Rogers 2003). This section aims to detail generic procedures but in the way that they are most likely to be used specifically in Tankwa Karoo National Park, by which the integrity of these feedbacks, and hence learning, will be guaranteed. • Feedback that the management action as decided upon and specified, is carried out as such:- This responsibility lies with line-function management, and will be reported on via SANParks regional reporting structures to the Executive Director: Parks. Failure to check this feedback on management action could easily happen at Tankwa due to it’s remote location and limited staff capacity. • Feedback whenever a TPC specifying the endpoints of any biodiversity objective is violated, or is credibly predicted to be violated in the future:- This requires that a disciplined monitoring programme be put in place, that the custodian of the particular programme duly reports the exceedance to a competent, preferably formally constituted, joint science- management forum, which includes the Park Manager or his duly appointed delegate. This must lead to a documented management response, recognising that the ‘do nothing response’ may also be a specific justifiable response. The suite of vegetation-herbivore interaction TPCs in Tankwa is relatively small and monitoring for these must be commissioned as soon as possible if we are to have some idea of where we find ourselves relative to the desired state. Wide experience shows that it is far better to have roughly defined preliminary TPCs (and improve these later, which tends to happen automatically) than wait years for perfect ones to be developed. • Feedback that the predicted outcome of a management intervention, in response to the exceedance of a TPC, is achieved, or what materialised instead in its place:- This is usually directly measurable by checking whether that same TPC returned to within its acceptable limits after management action was initiated. In Tankwa, this follow-up should be formally done through (at least) a quarterly meeting of the science-management forum. The best adaptive decision will be taken in the light of this evaluation. Some obvious Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 26 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) outcomes likely to be of major learning value in this regard are differential rehabilitation strategies for degraded veld and riparian/wetland areas, and the interactive effects of herbivory on Tankwa’s succulent karoo ecosystem. • Feedback to SANParks Head Office of the overall performance of Tankwa relative to its stated objectives:- This will be done via an annual State of Biodiversity Report for Tankwa Karoo National Park as well as other incidental reporting. It is clear that Tankwa will for several themes take many years to progress towards the desired state (rehabilitation and consolidation / expansion) or will require a changing and adapting approach to management (such as in the face of overarching climate change scenarios). Nevertheless, thresholds need to be developed for these themes, although explicit interim ‘targets’ may better assist in tracking progress in these cases. • Feedback as to whether organisational or societal acceptance of the consequence of an intervention is still, as agreed on previously, acceptable:- This is a longer-term adaptive evaluation, and if expectations are roughly met, can be dealt with at the time of the 5- yearly public meeting held to review the management plan. If, however, significant unintended consequences materialise that have shorter-term impacts, it will be the responsibility of the science-management forum to sense this, reflect on it, and make an appropriate recommendation to the Park Manager. The area that this is most likely to occur are the park expansion methods and rationale and the implications of costs and benefits of damage-causing small predators, especially black-backed jackal and caracal, affecting neighbouring small-stock farming livelihoods. • Feedback as to whether the monitoring programme and list of TPCs is parsimonious and effective:- This is the responsibility of the scientific custodians involved, but overall responsibility for the programme as a whole rests with the science-management forum. It is broadly challenged during each 5-yearly management plan revision cycle. It is anticipated in Tankwa that the costs of carrying out a very basic set of vegetation and biodiversity monitoring procedures is likely to raise some eyebrows, and will need ongoing motivation, justification and determination. • Feedback as to whether overall park objectives need adjustment in the longer-term:- This is dealt with effectively at the 5-yearly review step. However, in the case of perceived ‘emergencies’ the Park Manager is constrained within the limits of agreement. It is likely that monitoring procedures for vegetation-herbivory interactions, associated habitat integrity and biodiversity patterns will be perceived as onerous and that suggestions will arise over time to scrap or downgrade these. • Feedback regarding, or at least latent preparation for, surprises:- By definition these cannot be predicted. It will, however, be an explicit obligation of the Park Manager to take responsibility to stimulate contingency and risk management assessments. From an ecosystem point of view, dealing with such surprises is best dealt with by generating scenarios and we must aim for at least one structured scenario planning session per 5 year cycle. It is suggested that scenarios significantly appropriate in the Tankwa situation revolve around changing climate scenarios, cooperative governance and constituency building successes, particularly including the approaches to dealing with damage-causing animal impacts to neighbours, and balancing the global biodiversity conservation mandate with appropriate ecotourism and accompanying economic models. Formulating and contemplating these scenarios will significantly promote survival value of this park into the future. If these adaptive feedbacks are effectively honoured, it is believed that Tankwa Karoo National Park will be practicing an acceptable if not sophisticated level of adaptive management, and in Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 27 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) accordance with our overarching values around complex systems, will have the best chance of achieving the desired state in a sustainable way. Only vibrant local environmental learning of this kind will allow SANParks to be viable in its cause. 4. KEY REFERENCES ESLER, K.J., MILTON, S.J & W.R.J. DEAN (eds). 2006. Karoo Veld. Ecology and Management. Pretoria: Briza Publications. ROGERS, K.H. 2003. Biodiversity Custodianship in SANParks. A Protected Area Management Planning Framework. SANParks, Pretoria. SANPARKS. 2006. Coordinated policy framework governing park management plans. SANParks, Pretoria. DRIVER, A., MAZE, K., ROUGET, M., LOMBARD, A.T., NEL, J., TURPIE, J.K., COWLING, R.M., DESMET, P., GOODMAN, P., HARRIS, J., JONAS, Z., REYERS, B., SINK, K. & T. STRAUSS. 2005. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment: Priorities for biodiversity in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. BIGGS, H.C. & K.H. ROGERS. 2003. An adaptive system to link science, monitoring and management in practice. Pp. 59-80. In: DU TOIT, J.T., ROGERS, K.H. & H.C. BIGGS (eds.). The Kruger Experience. Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity. Washington: Island Press. 5. LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Supporting Document 1: An Objectives Hierarchy for Tankwa Karoo National Park Supporting Document 2: Tankwa Karoo National Park Zoning Programme Supporting Document 3: Tankwa Vegetation Programme and Associated Vegetation-Herbivory Interactions Supporting Document 4: Programme for Management of Large Mammals, including Herbivory and Predation, in Tankwa Karoo National Park Supporting Document 5: Fire Management Programme Supporting Document 6: Park Expansion Programme Supporting Document 7: Rehabilitation Programme Supporting Document 8: Invasive Alien Biota Programme Supporting Document 9: Problem and Damage-causing Animal Responses Programme Supporting Document 10: Bioregional Programme Supporting Document 11: Cultural Resource Management Programme Supporting Document 12: Sustainable Natural Resource Use Programme Supporting Document 13: Sustainable Tourism Programme Supporting Document 14: Environmental Education and Interpretation Programme Supporting Document 15: Stakeholder Relationship Management Programme Supporting Document 16: Local Socio-Economic Development Programme Supporting Document 17: Communications Programme Supporting Document 18: Environmental Management Programme Supporting Document 19: Infrastructure Development Programme Supporting Document 20: Safety and Security Programme Supporting Document 21: Costing Programme Supporting Document 22: Staff Capacity Building Programme Supporting Document 23: HIV/AIDS Programme Supporting Document 24: Risk Management Programme Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 28 TKNP Park Management Plan Version 1 (2006-10-31) South African National Parks would like to thank everybody who participated and had input in the formulation of this document This plan was prepared by Stefanie Freitag-Ronaldson, Conrad Strauss and Letsie Coetsee with significant inputs and help from Stephen Holness, Mike Knight, Guy Castley, Rina Grant- Biggs Ref 16/1/5/1/5/19/2 29