Report: SANParks Global Environmental Change Project Resource use summary report

Background: Overharvesting of resources has been identified as a global driver of environmental change,
which along with several other drivers is resulting in large-scale biodiversity loss. The primary international
approach attempting to slow this loss and maintain fully functional ecosystems is the designation of
“protected areas” that restrict certain human activities. Like other areas globally, protected areas in South
Africa are also undergoing expansion. However, this expansion is happening against the backdrop of high
unemployment and poverty and in certain instances disputed or changing land rights and ownership. South
Africa has a population of approximately 50 million people of which 32 million are eligible to work, yet only 13
million are currently formally employed. Many South African’s rely directly on natural resources for
subsistence and to generate an income. The socio-economic context of protected areas is therefore very
complex with the conservation ideal of preserving South Africa’s impressive biodiversity (ca 23 000 plants, 3
700 vertebrates and 70 000 invertebrates and two of the world’s 25 ‘hotspots’) being traded-off against
people-based conservation outcomes (tourism, income generation, benefit sharing and sustainable
livelihoods). The potential conflict between these outcomes increases as protected areas expand to cover
the majority of unconverted / undegraded land. Given this delicate situation, baseline data to better
understand the dynamics of what is currently protected, what it is that people desire and the costs and
benefits of granting these desires is essential to the development of management plans and maintaining
support for protected areas.
Methods: Data was collected by means of a questionnaire that was sent to all national parks for completion
by section rangers and park management. Questionnaire completion was assisted by scientists and
emphasis was placed on all resource use – authorized and unauthorized – as we sought to describe all
resources that are currently of interest to people or might be threatened by harvest. Summary statistics on
the number of resources used in each park, the quantities used (or knowledge of quantities used), purposes
for which resources were used and the level of authorization of use were compiled and where possible these
were compared with existing estimates of resource use from the literature to assess the likelihood that lists of
harvested species were complete for each park. The conservation status of all harvested species was
researched as one measure of assessing the likely sustainability of harvest. No social impact assessments
were carried out during this project.
Major findings: A large number of resources (383) are harvested from national parks. The biological
resources harvested from parks belong to over 150 families and are used to meet a wide variety of human
needs. This indicates that there is a relatively high demand for natural resources. Most of these resources
are used to meet the basic human requirements of food (36%) and health (34%). A large proportion of
resource use (42% of all used resources), takes place without park authorization. An even larger proportion
(69%) of resources have no IUCN Red-List status and while there are more resources that have been
assigned a national conservation status, 81% of marine resources have no IUCN Red-List or national
conservation status. In addition, very little information emerged on the harvest quantities of each resource.
Using the data and species knowledge currently available, it is not possible to determine whether resource
use in national parks is sustainable. The high demand for resources is also unlikely to decrease given a
growing human population, making future sustainability even more uncertain. Although the resource list
documented here represents a valuable first step in documenting resource use across national parks, it is
likely to be incomplete. For example, other studies have reported many additional species harvested in
protected areas or sold along their boundaries. An additional concern is that there is currently no ownership
of the challenges associated with resource use.
Monitoring, management and policy implications: The Biodiversity Monitoring System: Resource Use
programme covers all the relevant theory behind monitoring resources as well as social needs and benefits.
Although the programme provides guidelines for the monitoring of resources (in terms of the ecological
dimension of sustainability), monitoring is species/product specific and the details in terms of methods have
to be developed for each species which will require applied research as well as staff capacity. Research is
also needed to prioritize species and areas for monitoring and to contribute additional essential baseline
information to inform sustainable yields. The database generated in this report is a start, but is not complete.
The current lack of baseline data places SANParks in a difficult position, potentially jeopardising existing
projects as well as relationships with communities and simultaneously potentially putting species and
ultimately ecosystem function at risk. Putting on the ground monitoring strategies in place is therefore of
primary importance to ground-truth and add to data collected during this survey. A digital system for
capturing and tracking data also needs to be developed. In the absence of “on-the-ground” monitoring it is
recommended that parks annually submit a register of resources known to be harvested in the park with and
without park consent. While monitoring is essential, management strategies to stop unsustainable harvesting
are equally necessary. The long-term solution required for the implementation of sustainable harvest
systems as well as a reduction of uncontrolled harvest requires that the socio-economic circumstances of
especially rural people around protected areas are improved. Much of the change required cannot be
realized through protected area management action alone.