IMPROVED DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES FOR THE TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA by ANNA SUSANNA MALAN A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Forestry) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2015 © Anna Susanna Malan, 2015 ABSTRACT The focus of this research is environmental governance in Africa, explored through the lens of trans- border conservation initiatives. I used the embedded case study approach to dissect the political, socio- economic and ecosystem management aspects of decision making in the establishment and management of protected areas across national boundaries, focusing on two transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) in southern Africa, the Greater Limpopo and the Greater Mapungubwe transfrontier conservation areas. This is a qualitative study using mixed methods to collect data, including 93 semi- structured interviews with current and potential decision makers from every possible level, 16 questionnaires, ten mental model workshops, several meetings with local municipalities and other decision-making platforms, and an in-depth scrutiny of relevant policies and treaty documents. Interviewees provided inputs into a value system framework based on a compilation of attributes from each of the ecosystem, socio-economic and governance literature, to produce an average score for each of the two case study areas. The results indicated highly disjunctive approaches among countries forming part of the TFCAs, leading to many undesirable feedback loops. The decision-making processes of each country component of the two TFCAs were then analyzed separately, using a “governance” capability maturity model to determine the effectiveness of current management practices. A “collaboration” maturity model was used to identify gaps in the information sharing, decision making and patterns of interaction among the different stakeholders of each of the two TFCAs, indicating institutional and decision-making flaws in the current system. Some recommendations are provided to improve these in order to overcome current failures in the three dimensions of a TFCA. ii PREFACE This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, A.S. Malan. The fieldwork reported in Chapters three to seven was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board (Certificate number H11-02012). Anna Susanna Malan identified the research problem and methodologies, made the field contacts, identified collaborating organizations, collected the data and conducted the data analyses independently. Only the final field trip to Zimbabwe was organized with the assistance of Dr. Clara Bocchino (Animal Health for the Environment and Development (AHEAD) Greater Limpopo TFCA Coordinator); all other field trips were organized by the student. The mental model workshops described in Chapter four were facilitated by Dr Marisa Coetzee, Mpumalanga Parks and Tourism Association and Mr. Harry Biggs, South African National Parks, with Malan assisting with the facilitation of five of these workshops. The outcomes of these workshops were published as an internal report to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs, and was officially presented on November 16th, 2012 (Coetzee M., Biggs H.C., and Malan S. Sharing the benefits of biodiversity: a regional action plan to nurture and sustain the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services to livelihoods and resilient economic development within the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere). The research, or parts of it, was presented at the following scientific conferences: the 10th, 11th and 12th Annual Savannah Scientific Network Meetings in 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively; the 11th and 12th AHEAD Working Group Meetings in 2011 and 2014; and the Europe, Middle East and Africa Chapter of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Conference in 2014. The latter’s conference proceedings published the paper written jointly by Malan and Innes (Using systems thinking to inform natural resource governance), awarding the authors with the Ad Sparrius Best Paper trophy. In revising and editing the thesis, the supervisory committee consisting of Dr John L. Innes, Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Dr Robert A. Kozak, Professor at the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, and Dr Peter Dauvergne, Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, made valuable contributions that improved the quality of the thesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. viii List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... xi 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Research Question and Objectives ............................................................................................... 2 1.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4. Structure of the Thesis .................................................................................................................. 8 1.5. Limitations of the Research .......................................................................................................... 8 1.6. Some Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 9 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 11 2.1. Resource Governance ................................................................................................................. 11 2.2. Conservation Influences in Africa ............................................................................................... 20 2.2.1. Conservation Paradigms ..................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2. Transfrontier Conservation ................................................................................................. 22 2.2.3. Transfrontier Conservation in Africa ................................................................................... 25 2.2.4. Learning from Transboundary Examples Worldwide: ........................................................ 27 2.3. Community-based Conservation ................................................................................................ 33 2.4. Decision Making in Complex Systems ......................................................................................... 35 3. Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 40 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 40 3.2. Geographical Location and Biophysical Information .................................................................. 41 3.3. Cultural and Historical Background ............................................................................................ 44 iv 3.4. Institutional Arrangements ......................................................................................................... 47 4. Socio-economic Dimension ................................................................................................................. 49 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49 4.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 50 4.3. Results and Discussion According to Attributes ......................................................................... 56 4.3.1. Who are the Stakeholders?................................................................................................. 56 4.3.2. Some Results and Comments Following the Meta-Study of CBNRM Literature ................ 58 4.3.3.