Download - NCC Environmental Services

Legalameetse Nature ReserveReserve Management Plan5-year Strategic PlanAnnexure 1: Public ParticipationReportNovember 2012 - February 2013PREPARED FOR:The Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment &TourismPrivate Bag X9486Polokwane0700PREPARED BY:NCC Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd.26 Bell CloseWestlake Business ParkWestlakeCape Town80001

TABLE OF CONTENTS1 BROADER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 31.1 The context of the Broader Stakeholder Engagement Process 31.2 Approach and objectives of the Broader Stakeholder Engagement Process 31.3 Consultation Process 41.3.1 Reserve Planning Teams 41.3.2 Stakeholder Identification and Database 41.3.3 Public Participation Workshop 52 KEY FINDINGS OF THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 72.1 Key Stakeholder Concerns and Issues 82.1.1 Ecological Issues 82.1.2 Reserve Management Issues and Neighbour Relations 82.1.3 Tourism and Visitor Use 82.1.4 Key Strengths and Management Opportunities 93 CONCLUSION 9ANNEXURE 1– LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVE STAKEHOLDER DATABASE 10ANNEXURE 2– EXAMPLE OF LETTER OF INVITATION 12ANNEXURE 3 – LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT 13ANNEXURE 4 - ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC REVIEWPERIOD OF THE DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN 14ANNEXURE5–LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVE WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE REGISTER 20ANNEXURE 6– LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVE WORKSHOP MINUTES 21ANNEXURE 7 – LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVE COMMENTS & RESPONSES 242

1 BROADER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESSThe National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (NEMPAA)requires that the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism(LEDET) compile and implement protected area management plans for all of the protected areasunder its jurisdiction. It is important that participatory processes involving local communities andother stakeholders are implemented as part of the preparation of these plans in an effort to ensurethat all key issues are considered and incorporated into the plans. This Public Participation Report(PP Report) details the participatory process followed in the development of the Strategic Plan (SP)for the Legalameetse Nature Reserve (LNR). It reflects the inputs and involvement of stakeholdersduring the development of the plan and highlights the key issues that emerged from this process.This document acts as a supporting document to the SP and provides some of the details andcontext of how the Reserve Management Plan (RMP) was formulated.1.1 The context of the Broader Stakeholder Engagement ProcessIn terms of Section 39(3) of NEMPAA, consultation is required with municipalities, organs of state,local communities and other affected parties that have an interest in a specific protected area whencompiling a management plan for that area. Furthermore, the input and support of key stakeholdersis considered vitally important in the management of a protected area and in the implementation ofmany of the actions set out in its management plan. For this reason a comprehensive publicparticipation process was undertaken as part of the preparation of the RMP of the LNR.1.2 Approach and objectives of the Broader StakeholderEngagement ProcessThe approach to public participation as part of the preparation of the SP for the LNR involvedtargeting communities surrounding the reserve, as well as municipalities, relevant governmentauthorities and other key stakeholders. The process was aimed at key representatives ofstakeholder groups in an effort to enable meaningful input into the development of the SP.The objectives of the Broader Stakeholder Engagement Process were to:• Provide a structured framework and process that would enable broader stakeholders toparticipate meaningfully towards strategic planning in the context of each of the 28 LEDETProtected Area (PA) SPs;• Foster an increased sense of ownership for each PA managed by LEDET in each one of thebroader stakeholders; hence encouraging greater support for the various PAs;• Link planning for conservation to planning for development; and• Make provision for a suitable communication mechanism between broader stakeholdersand the management authorities.3

participation in the Broader Stakeholder Engagement Process. A database of stakeholders wasdeveloped, to which new interested and affected parties were added throughout the process. Thestakeholder database for the LNR is attached hereto as Annexure 1.1.3.3 Public Participation WorkshopOne of the primary activities of the Broader Stakeholder Engagement Process was the presentationof a public participation workshop at the LNR. This activity involved the following actions:Announcing the workshop- Letters of notification and invitation were sent to identified stakeholders. This letter ofnotification was accompanied by a Background Information Document (BID) (refer toAnnexure 2 for an example of a letter of invitation and Annexure 3 for a copy of the BID),which was prepared in English and provided stakeholders with some basic information onthe protected area and draft SP. This document was also aimed at encouraging stakeholderinvolvement in the planning process.- BIDs were distributed to local stakeholders by the Reserve Manager;- The stakeholder workshop was advertised in three newspapers, namely the Seipone Express,the Kruger2Canyon and the Polokwane Observer (Annexure 4);- A LEDET branded blog, which was hosted on NCC’s website, provided key information aboutthe workshop, as well as a downloadable BID; and- Telephone calls to stakeholders without access to e-mail facilities were made.Hosting and facilitating the workshopThe workshop offered stakeholders the opportunity to provide input into the development of theSPs. The workshop was facilitated by an NCC appointed facilitator, who was supported by an NCCappointed scribe. The facilitator presented the values and the purpose of the protected area andinvited stakeholder participation through various participatory techniques, with the scribe recordingthe outcomes thereof.The workshop was hosted at the LNR on 29 November 2012 and was attended by six stakeholders(Annexure 5). During this workshop, the following criteria from the draft SP was presented anddiscussed:• The background of the reserve;• The 5-year reserve management planning and implementation cycle;• The purpose, values and vision of the reserve;• The objectives of the reserve [which were expanded from the six Key PerformanceAreas (KPAs)];• The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of the reserve;• The aspirations of stakeholders for the reserve, with a view to informing the SP’svision and objectives;5

Addressing workshop comments and concernsThe minutes of the workshop and all comments received were reviewed by NCC, and thosecomments and concerns that required addressing and incorporation into the SP in prepartion for the30 day public review and comment period were extracted. Relevant specialists and/or LEDETdirectorates were consulted in the addressing of specific comments.30-Day public review and comment periodThe draft SP was made available to the broader public through a 30 day public review and commentperiod that commenced on 7 January 2013 and ended on 8 February 2013. The following activitieswere implemented as part of this 30-day public review and final commenting process:• Electronic copies of the draft SP (in PDF format) were made available to stakeholders on anNCC hosted, LEDET branded webpage. An electronic comment form was also made availableon this webpage, and could be submitted directly to NCC from the webpage.• Printed copies of the draft SP were made available for public review at suitable publicvenues for a period of 30 days. The following documents were made available at eachvenue in addition to one colour copy of the draft SP: An information letter to the publicvenue representative; an informative stakeholder guidance letter; and aregistration/comment sheet. All of these documents were couriered to the LNR and theoffices of the Tzaneen Local Municipality via the counter-to-door option of the SouthAfrican Post Office’s Speed Services Couriers.The availability of the draft SP for review and comment was advertised in the Kruger2Canyon andPolokwane Observer during the same week that the draft SP became available for public review(Annexure 4). An advertisement was also scheduled to appear in the Seipone Express in this regard,but this newspaper was unable to meet the deadline agreed upon and provided NCC with an officialwritten apology (Annexure 4).All registered stakeholders were contacted by NCC with the purpose of informing them of theavailability of the draft SP for review and comment.2 KEY FINDINGS OF THE STAKEHOLDERENGAGEMENT PROCESSA number of issues associated with the LNR were identified as part of the Broader StakeholderEngagement Process. The following key issues were identified and discussed in detail as part of thisprocess:7

ANNEXURE 1– LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVE STAKEHOLDER DATABASELIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE PARTICPATED IN OR HAVE BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PREPARATION OF THE PROTECTED AREAMANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVENAME ORGANISATION / POSITION E-MAIL ADDRESS POSTAL ADDRESS TELEPHONE CELLPHONEMaruleng LocalP.O. Box 627015 793 2409MunicipalityHoedspruit1380Department of Water082 908 5658AffairsDepartment of072 227 6271AgricultureEskom 083 451 6043Department of PublicWorksPrivate Bag X9576Giyani0826015 491 2887Manthata OrelManagement073 781 3840Committee, SecretaryP.T.M. Moeng LEDET Reserve, Manager MoengPTM@ledet.gov.za 082 442 6688M.M. MatholeLEDET Senior, FieldRangerMrs Mcknil Land Owner 083 631 7153A. MahlaoleLimpopo TourismAgency, Camp Manager082 806 1689Stakeholders who attended the Stakeholder Engagement Workshop:Mr Aaron MangenaBox 386ManagementLenyenyeCommittee, Chairperson0857071 636 9097T.T. BaloyiPrivate Bag 408LEDET Chief, NatureTrichardsdalConservation0890Josephine Modjaji GSO LTA 072 495 328210

Chuene Madiba LEDET madibachuene@webmail.co.za P.O. Box 172015 383 0149 082 433 0454Seshego0742O. Koopedi Reserve Manager 082 377 3749M.M. Mathole SFR 072 471 611211

ANNEXURE 2– EXAMPLE OF LETTER OF INVITATION12

ANNEXURE 3 – LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVEBACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT13

ANNEXURE 4 - ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THESTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WORKSHOP ANDPUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD OF THE DRAFT STRATEGICPLAN14

LETTER OF APOLOGY: SEIPONE EXPRESS17

ANNEXURE5–LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVEWORKSHOP ATTENDANCE REGISTER20

ANNEXURE 6– LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVEWORKSHOP MINUTESMeeting informationWorkshopProtected AreaManagement PlanBroader StakeholderEngagementWorkshopPlace Legalameetse NR Date 29.11.2012 Time 10:04AttendeesName Organisation & Position Email, Telephone, Cell PhoneMr Aaron MangenaManagement Committee071 636 9097ChairpersonT.T. BaloyiLEDET Chief Nature ConservatorChuene Madiba LEDET 015 383 0149, 082 433 0454Josephine Modjaji 072 495 3282O. Koopedi Reserve Manager 082 377 3749M.M. Mathole SFR 072 471 61121 WelcomeB. Havemann welcomed all those attending the stakeholder workshop. He gave a brief background ofhimself, NCC and the relationship between NCC and LEDET. He also encouraged all stakeholders to activelyparticipate in the workshop by giving input and raising any questions, issues and concerns by stating theirfull name and the organization/affiliation to which they belong.2 Purpose of the Stakeholder Workshop & AgendaB. Havemann discussed the purpose of the workshop and made it clear that all feedback was welcome andessential.B. Havemann continued to explained that the purpose of the workshop was to:• Discuss and agree on the values of the Legalameetse Nature Reserve in order to reach a commonunderstanding of the why the reserve should be protected;• Discuss and agree on the principles included in the vision of the reserve;• Discuss and agree on the objectives of the reserve; and• Identify and discuss stakeholders’ issues, concerns and aspirations for the protected area anddetermine how it should be addressed in the management plan.3 Background & Process3.1 Discussion about the background of the protected areaB. Havemann gave a brief presentation on the background of the reserve. He also stated that if there wereany corrections that needed to be made, or any points that were omitted, it could still be added.3.2 Discussion about the Strategic Planning processB. Havemann explained that NCC was in the process of compiling a five-year Strategic Plan for the LNR, asis required by law for protected areas. The strategic plan will be coupled with an Annual Plan ofOperations (APO), which will divide the SP into yearly management tasks.B. Havemann explained the strategic planning process as it is detailed in the guideline document:1. Research and fieldwork.2. Reserve values.3. SWOT analysis.4. Desired state of the reserve.5. Action plan.6. Draft Strategic Plan.7. Consultation.8. Revision and adaptation of Strategic Plan.9. APO.21

10. Implementation.11. Monitoring, review and update.4 Values of the Protected Area4.1 Discussion of the values of the protected areaB. Havemann asked the attendees to write down what they felt the values of the reserve were on the cardsprovided. He then shared what the reserve planning specialist and RPT recorded as reserve values. Hedefined the values of a place as those remarkable attributes that exemplify it and added that values arelargely the reason for a specific area being proclaimed as a protected area. He further mentioned thatvalues are important in planning and management, as it represents the aspects of the area that must beprotected.5. Vision & Objectives5.1 Discussion about the vision for the protected areaB. Havemann explained what a ‘vision’ is: The vision describes the overall long-term goal for the operation,protection and development of the nature reserve, which in turn refers to the desired state of the reserve.B. Havemann continued to explain what the preliminary vision of the reserve was: “We see a collaborativepartnership between the State and the Legalameetse community and private land owners in the ongoingconservation and sustainable use of the Legalameetse Nature Reserve”.• A. Mangena asked why the local municipality wasn’t participating in the workshop. He also askedwhy the reserve isn’t mentioned in the IDP of the greater municipality.5.2 Discussion about the objectives for the protected areaB. Havemann listed all the objectives included in the draft Strategic Plan. He explained that the objectivesshould underpin and articulate the different aspects of the vision for the reserve and that it should alsogive clarity about what is anticipated to be achieved through the vision. Wherever appropriate, theobjectives should also be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound). Objectivesare furthermore grouped under specific themes (Key Performance Areas) that collectively make up thevision for the reserve in the SP.6. Management Issues (Weaknesses & Threats) and Solutions: Group Discussion6.1 Ecological issuesO. Koopedi indicated that zoning needs to be done correctly and that the number of environmentalimpacts should be limited.6.2 Neighbour relations6.3 Tourism and visitor use.1. A. Mangena stated that the LTA’s main focus is collecting money.2. A. Mangena also mentioned that the tourism infrastructure on the reserve is not being protected – itwas being vandalised and broken into.3. J. Modjaji stated that more activities and infrastructure are needed to attract tourists and the youthfrom the surrounding communities, e.g. a swimming pool, conference facility and museum. She addedthat the management committee had appointed a consultant who was busy compiling a business planaimed at building tourism infrastructure in order to attract more tourists.6.4 Environmental Education1. A. Mangena mentioned that EE was done at the reserve some years back, but that it has been recentlysuspended. He emphasized that the youth needs to grow with conservation values, or else they willalso vandalise and poach.2. O. Koopedi replied that there was a directorate dealing with EE within LEDET and suggested that a staffmember be appointed at the reserve to deal with EE.7. Key Strengths & Management Opportunities7.1 Opportunities identifiedA. Mangena mentioned that the reserve is rich in heritage resources and explained that Italian soldierswere captured during World War 2 and brought to the area to be builders. He added that these homescould potentially become museums, and there are people who can tell these stories.8. Structure of the management plan, addressing outcomes from the workshop & the 30 day public reviewperiodB. Havemann provided a breakdown of the sections within the SP. He further described the process foraddressing the outcomes of the stakeholder engagement workshop. He added that the draft SP was to be22

sent to all stakeholders via e-mail, with a hardcopy of each draft SP sent to the reserve manager and thelocal municipal offices for public review.9. ClosureAll attendees were thanked for their attendance and inputs and the workshop was closed at 11:22 a.m.23

ANNEXURE 7 – LEGALAMEETSE NATURE RESERVE COMMENTS & RESPONSESPART ALegalameetse Nature Reserve (LNR)Broader Stakeholder EngagementComments & Response Report 2012/13Date2.1 LocationFull NameOrganisation/AffiliationStakeholder Comment NCC Response LEDET or LTA Response2. CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORKNo comments.2.2 Legal StatusNo comments.2.3 Institutional Arrangements29/11/2012 Chuene Madiba The orchards are to be phased out. According to thecurrent management plan, orchards are allowed on a smallscale. If phased out, how are the communities going to becompensated?2.4 Reserve DescriptionComment acknowledged.The Co-Management Committeeshould take this up with theLEDET: Protected AreaManagement (PAM) and StateownedNature Reserves (SONR)Directorates.29/11/2012 Aaron MangenaLegalameetseManagement CommitteeThe reserve is also rich in heritage: Italians were capturedand brought here to be torched. The buildings built bythese soldiers could potentially become museums, andComment acknowledged andaddressed in the Strategic Plan inSections 2.7, 3.2 and KPA 1,24

there are also people that can tell these stories. Objective 1.4.2.5 Local and Regional PlanningNo comments.2.6 Reserve Expansion2.7 Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and ThreatsNo comments.No comments.3. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES FRAMEWORK3.1 PurposeNo comments.3.2 Reserve ValuesNo comments.3.3 The Reserve VisionNo comments.3.4 Key Performance Areas and ObjectivesNo comments.3.5 ZonationNo comments.25

29/11/2012 Aaron MangenaLegalameetseManagement Committee29/11/2012 Aaron MangenaLegalameetseManagement Committee&Josaphine ModjajiLTA5.1 Staffing Requirements4. STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKKPA 4: The tourism infrastructure on the reserve is notbeing protected – it is being vandalised and broken into.More activities and infrastructure are required to attracttourists and the youth from the surrounding communities,e.g. a swimming pool, conference facility and museum. Themanagement committee has appointed a consultant who iscurrently busy compiling a business plan focusing ontourism infrastructure required to attract more tourists.No comments.5. RESOURCING AND GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKComment acknowledged andaddressed in the Strategic Planunder KPA 3, Objectives 3.1 and3.2.Comment acknowledged. Aformal proposal should besubmitted to the ManagementAuthority for review in thisregard.Formal Responsepending from LEDET.Refer to Annexure 7 –Part B, Point 22.29/11/2012 Orphelia KoopediLEDETWithin the Department there is a directorate dealing withEE - perhaps a staff member can be appointed on thereserve who deals with EE.Comment acknowledged.However, an EE Officer has notbeen added to the list of requiredstaff. The EES Directorate shouldbe consulted with regard to thissuggestion.Formal Responsepending from LEDET.Refer to Annexure 7 –Part B, Point 14.5.2 Funding RequirementsNo comments.5.3 Roles and ResponsibilitiesNo comments.6. BIBLIOGRAPHY26

No comments.7. GENERAL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS29/11/2012 Aaron MangenaLegalameetseManagement CommitteeThis workshop is very important - I think that it is because ofa communication problem that all the stakeholders didn’tcome. Especially the other members of the managementcommittee. It’s going to be hard for one person to take themessage back to all the communities. I hope we can haveanother day to address the issues with the community.Comment acknowledged and wasaddressed at the StakeholderEngagement Workshop.The Strategic Plan, KPA 5 dealswith this in more depth andManagement actions have beenset accordingly.Formal Responsepending from LEDET.Refer to Annexure 7 –Part B, Point 7.29/11/2012 Aaron MangenaLegalameetseManagement Committee29/11/2012 Aaron MangenaLegalameetseManagement CommitteeThe LTA is only focussed on collecting money.Why isn’t the local municipality participating in thisworkshop? In terms of the municipality, why isn’t thegreater municipality mentioning the reserve in its IDP?NCC invited participation from allknown stakeholders forinvolvement in the stakeholderengagement workshop.Comment acknowledged.Comment acknowledged.NCC invited participation from allknown stakeholders forinvolvement in the StakeholderEngagement Workshop andPublic Participation Process.The Strategic Plan, KPA 5,Objective 5.3 deals with this inmore depth and Managementactions have been setaccordingly.27

29/11/2012 Aaron MangenaLegalameetseManagement CommitteeEE was done some years back, but has since beensuspended - I don’t know why. The youth needs to growwith conservation values, or else they will also vandalise andpoach.Comment acknowledged.Formal Responsepending from LEDET.Refer to Annexure 7 –Part B, Point 14.29/11/2012 Chuene Madiba When drafting the management plan, the old one alsoneeds to be consulted. Did NCC do this?Comment acknowledged and wasaddressed at the StakeholderEngagement Workshop.The previous management planwas an Ecological ManagementPlan (EMP) and was found to beincomplete; and therefore not anofficial document. NCC has,however incorporated the EMPinto the Strategic Plan whereapplicable.28

PART BReserve Management Plans for Limpopo Provincial Nature ReservesStakeholder Engagement ProcessKey Stakeholder Comments & Issues (LEDET & LTA to provide Formal Responses)Note: This document is incomplete as formal responses are still to be provided by the Management Authorities.No. Stakeholder Comments LEDET/LTA Formal Response1Lack of implementation: Stakeholders are tired of constant workshops,planning, talking and not seeing any results/actions. (Some stakeholdersthreaten to expose LEDET’s/the LTA's lack of implementation to the media ifnothing gets done). Stakeholders are questioning LEDET’s/ the LTA's currentability to execute these five-year plans and stakeholders want the assurancethat these plans will be successfully implemented on the ground.2Lack of reserve funding: Stakeholders are concerned that there is lack of aconsistent, sufficient and dedicated budget per reserve for operations andmaintenance, which results in ineffective reserve management anddegradation.3De-centralized budget: Stakeholders are concerned that funds that could orare generated on reserves disappear into the LEDET & LTA centralized pot inPolokwane and don't come back to the reserves.4Staff capacity: There is a general lack of a 'chain of command/managementtiers' throughout the reserves (Senior Field Rangers, etc.). Current skilled andexperienced staff members are old and nearing retirement age and whenthey leave, their positions are generally not filled. There is a need for newskilled employees to come in and learn from older staff before they retire.There is a lack of sufficient staff throughout the reserves in relation to thedesired amount (organograms). NCC comment: It is also NCC’s perceptionthat there is a general lack of management competence and leadershipability at both reserve and regional levels).29

No. Stakeholder Comments LEDET/LTA Formal Response5Incompetent and/or lack of reserve management per reserve: Stakeholdersare concerned that in some cases one reserve manager is allocated to two orthree reserves (i.e. there is a diluted management effectivity), which resultsin undue stress on the Reserve Manager. Some reserve managers also do notdisplay the necessary competence to manage reserves.6Lack of mentorship: Stakeholders are concerned that there is no evidence ofa mentorship programme that is in place to transfer essential skills from oldto new reserve employees.78910Stakeholder engagement: Stakeholders are concerned that there is minimalto no stakeholder engagement, communication and participation processesin place.Co-management Agreements: Stakeholders are very concerned that there isminimal to no engagement happening between LEDET/the LTA and the comanagementagreement parties. In some cases the most recentcorrespondence between these parties took place two years ago.Communities are very upset and confused at the lack of involvement,engagement and action from LEDET/the LTA. Most reserve managers do notknow/understand the contents of these co-management agreements.NCC comment: NCC feels that all co-management agreements need to beseriously interrogated and clearly understood, including responsibilities,accountabilities and liabilities. (The co-management agreements are oftenoutdated and need to be aligned to new 2009 National Co-managementFramework).Vacant posts: Stakeholders want to know if and when vacant posts are goingto be filled. Will neighbouring communities be favoured above externalcandidates? (This promotes good neighbouring community relationships andbuy-in to reserve value).Reserve dysfunction: Stakeholders are very concerned that, in general, mostreserves are in a complete state of disarray/falling apart (examples: no roadmaintenance, no signage, lack of infrastructure maintenance, poor fences,bush encroachment, etc.).30

No. Stakeholder Comments LEDET/LTA Formal Response11Procurement: Many reserve managers do not know how to access fundsfrom LEDET’s/the LTA's central budget. The current LEDET/LTA procurementprocess is too laborious and ineffective for sustainable reserve management.This is emphasized by the lack of a petty cash system on the reserves forreserve managers to control. In addition, many local stakeholders have theexpertise to offer their services to reserves, but are unable to do so as aresult of current procurement.121314151617Marketing: Many stakeholders are concerned that most reserves do not havea dedicated and reserve specific marketing strategy in place. Currentmarketing is either absent, too broad or outdated.Legal implications: Stakeholders are concerned that most reserves are at riskfor legal contraventions and/or legal liabilities, such as wildfire risks (NVFFA),pollution (NWA), etc.Environmental education: Stakeholders are concerned that little to noenvironmental education is taking place at LEDET nature reserves.Poaching: Stakeholders are very concerned that most reserves areexperiencing a high incident rate of poaching (including possible internalpoaching) as a result of a lack of law enforcement/access control.Performance appraisal: Some stakeholders are concerned that there may notbe a performance appraisal system in place to reward hard work (and viceversa: accountability for poor performance).Limited internal support: Stakeholders are concerned that there seem to belimited internal support and/or guidance provided to reserve managers fromLEDET/the LTA, especially from PAM.18Internal department integration: Stakeholders are concerned that thereseem to be a lack of internal department integration, which leaves reservemanagers feeling disempowered and unable to manage reserves effectively.31

No. Stakeholder Comments LEDET/LTA Formal Response1920212223242526Poor internal communications: Reserve managers feel uninformed as towhat is happening within LEDET/the LTA as a result of poor communicationfrom the top down.Reserve information/inventory: Stakeholders are concerned that mostreserves do not have adequate/comprehensive information about thereserve available (e.g. ecological, historical, heritage and archaeologicalinformation, as well as information on the ecological capacity and specieslists, etc.).Culture of discipline: Stakeholders are concerned that there is an overall lackof discipline/code of conduct within most of the reserves (poor dress code,staff sitting around being unproductive, late arrivals at work, noaccountability, etc.)Vandalism: Stakeholders are concerned that most reserves experienceextensive vandalism and theft of reserve property.Research and programming: Stakeholders are concerned that there is a lackof research based biological management programming to guide effectivereserve management (e.g. fire, alien plant control, soil erosion, water, etc.)Status of land claims: The current status and progress of land claims need tobe made clear to the claimants and specifically reserve managers.Mandate: Stakeholders are unsure/unconvinced that LEDET/the LTA arecomplying with its mandate.Strategic partnerships: Stakeholders want to know what LEDET/the LTA'sstance is on developing strategic partnerships and accessing internationalfunding to help fulfil its mandates.32

No. Stakeholder Comments LEDET/LTA Formal Response27Tourism accommodation facilities: Stakeholders want to know why the LTAdoes not upgrade current tourism facilities and instead invites plans tooutsource large scale lodge developments, especially in pristine areas.(Sound tourism based feasibility studies should be conducted before anydevelopment takes place).28Zonation: Zonation needs to be done taking cognisance of each reserve’sbiodiversity and sense of place.2930Cell phone/Internet reception: Stakeholders are concerned that most of thereserves have poor cell phone reception, which makes communicationsdifficult for both reserve management and visitors.Reserve proclamation: Stakeholders are concerned that many reserves arenot legally proclaimed. (What is the current status of proclamation acrossreserves and what is the timeline for completion?)33