Wilderness, Wilderness Quality Management, and Recreational Opportunities Zoning Within Kruger National Park, South Africa

Transcription

1 Wilderness, Wilderness Quality Management, and Recreational Opportunities Zoning Within Kruger National Park, South Africa Stefanie Freitag-Ronaldson Ralf H. Kalwa Jaco C. Badenhorst Jan P. Erasmus Freek J. Venter Flip J. Nel Abstract Kruger National Park (KNP) embodies a range of intrinsic wilderness qualities, varying from wilderness areas to developed rest camps. In 1997, the Recreational Opportunities Zoning (ROZ) Plan was developed to meet the needs and expectations of widely different levels of visitors, by presenting as broad a range of wilderness qualities as possible, based on the premise that no facets of biodiversity conservation are significantly affected by existing ecotourism activities within KNP. As pressure to generate revenue mounts, there is an increasing squeeze on wilderness areas and the sense of place within KNP. The boundaries and development limitations of the ROZ Plan, the very policy that was designed to allow a graded range of wilderness experiences, is being challenged. The KNP zoning policy and philosophy is presented, as well as a nonquantified assessment of the environmental impacts of ecotourism within the Park, to challenge the premise that biodiversity conservation is not affected by tourism developments. A simple investigation into the ecological basis for zoning within KNP has been included, as well as a list of shortcomings that should be addressed in the upcoming revision of this policy. Introduction One of the fundamental drawing cards for visitors to Kruger National Park (KNP) is its wide range of intrinsic and often intangible wilderness qualities. These vary in Stefanie Freitag-Ronaldson is Specialist Scientist, Environmental Management, and Freek J. Venter is Specialist Scientist, Riparian Systems, Kruger National Park, Private Bag X402, Skukuza 1350, South Africa, FAX: , s: stefanief@parks-sa.co.za, freekv@parks-sa.co.za. Ralf H. Kalwa was for many years Ranger and then Manager, Integrated Environmental Management in Kruger National Park, and is now in private practice with Rhengu Environmental Services, P.O. Box 1046, Malelane, South Africa, FAX: , rhengu@mweb.co.za. Jaco C. Badenhorst and Jan P. Erasmus are Wilderness Trails Rangers in Kruger National Park, Private Bag X402, Skukuza 1350, South Africa, FAX: , s: jobadies@mweb.co.za, jan.erasmus@mweb.co.za. Flip J. Nel was Ranger and Regional Ranger in Kruger National Park for 30 years and is now based in Nelspruit, Telephone: In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Seventh World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2001 November 2 8; Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Proc. RMRS-P-27. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. degree from pristine wilderness trails and areas to large, well-developed, and modernized rest camps. The attributes, which are perceived, sought, and experienced, include remoteness, serenity, peace, wildness, solitude, harmony, reflection opportunities, and inspiration. The intensity with which the environment is experienced is a direct function of the ambience and spirit of a place that combines both physical characteristics and atmosphere, also termed the sense of place (fig. 1). History of Zoning in Kruger National Park Zoning in KNP has been a source of debate for many years and is an ongoing challenge in terms of the geographic extent and size of different zones, their desired quality of pristineness, and the development and management thereof. Generally, criticisms and conflicts arise over the varying range of perception, expectation, and interpretation of what wilderness is and how it should be treated. The KNP 1975 Masterplan (Joubert 1975) resulted in 32 zones being identified within five main categories: (1) botanic priority areas, (2) wilderness areas of minimal human influence, (3) rare antelope priority areas, (4) elephant priority areas, and (5) general wildlife areas. These were delimited primarily on the basis of vegetation and animal communities, with no attempt made to categorize the intensity of tourism development. The subsequent delineation of 35 landscape types, based on extensive phytosociological surveys, geomorphological features, soil types and vegetation composition and structure (Coetzee 1983; Gertenbach 1978, 1983; Van Rooyen 1978) and their associated faunal communities were considered more appropriate units for the zoning of KNP. The reasoning was based on the fact that composition of landscapes reflects the natural diversity of species and structure of the area and thus represents the primary priorities for the Park s management. Thus, in 1986, the KNP Masterplan included a zonation plan based entirely on the 35 landscapes, with all landscapes including wilderness zones, natural zones, and development/general tourism zones (Joubert 1986). This formed the basis of the revised zonation policy developed from the 1997 review of the KNP Master Plan. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

2 PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES Setting, topography, form, scale, colours, textures, aesthetics, vegetation, weather, climate, remoteness, roughness, wildness, desolateness, locality, salutary, tranquilty, aura grandness, uniqueness Backpack, hike, walk, camp, swim, game viewing, botanizing, birding, animal identification, listen, look, feel, smell, taste, socialize, cook, drink, eat, photography, watch, wait, plan, sleep, rest, relax, take a nap, doze off, wash, sanitize The AMBIENCE (ATMOSPHERE) and SPIRIT of a place Happiness, joy, peace, contentment, excitement, awe, challenge, camaraderie, stimulus, curiosity, concern, cheerfulness, fear, disappointment, respect, weariness, fatigue, thirst, hunger, heat, cold, pain, grief, adventure, interest, pleasantness ACTIVITIES EXPERIENCES The AMBIENCE of a place is an experience created by a combination of the physical characteristics of the place and those characteristics of the person himself (interests, intentions, etc.) which bring him to the place The intensity with which the environment is experienced is related to the AMBIENCE and SPIRIT of a specific place, the sense of place The SPIRIT of a place is a combination of characteristics which give a place its special atmosphere Figure 1 Graphic representation of the relationship between people and conservation areas and determination of sense of place (Venter and others 1997). 40 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

3 Wilderness Within the Kruger National Park Management Framework As part of the 1997 Master Plan review and contribution to the management of KNP, an objectives hierarchy (Volume VII) (Braack 1997a) and revised policy recommendations (Volume VIII) (Braack 1997b) were developed as supplements to the 1986 Master Plan. This places the wilderness theme, as one of the four cornerstone objectives under the KNP Mission Statement, into context within the overall KNP management framework (fig. 2). The zonation subobjective has received the most attention and resulted in the development of the Recreational Opportunities Zoning policy in 1997 (Venter and others 1997). Recreational Opportunity Zoning Plan for Kruger National Park Zonation in the 1997 revision of the Master Plan for the management of KNP aims to meet the needs and expectations of widely different levels of wilderness visitors and, therefore, presents as broad a range of wilderness qualities as possible. This zonation exercise was termed the Recreational Opportunities Zoning Plan (ROZ, figure 3, table 1; Venter and others 1997) and has been a useful guide to the further infrastructure and ecotourism developments in the Park. It was argued at the time of formulation of the ROZ policy, that the conservation of wilderness for its own sake was not a driving issue. This premise was based on the fact that the conservation of all facets of biodiversity, namely structure, function, and composition, were not significantly affected by existing ecotourism activities anywhere within KNP. The proper management of ecotourism use was considered to pose no threat to the Park s primary conservation objective, namely ecosystem maintenance. Biodiversity maintenance was thus no longer the driving principle behind the zoning of KNP, but it was recognized that visitors to conservation areas seek intangible attributes of wilderness qualities such as solitude, remoteness, and peace, in addition to simply viewing wildlife. This led to a philosophy of maximizing wilderness experience and opportunities for visitors in the ROZ Plan. KNP MISSION STATEMENT To maintain biodiversity in all its natural facets and fluxes, and to provide human benefits in keeping with the mission of the South African National Parks in a manner which detracts as little as possible from the wilderness qualities of the KNP BIODIVERSITY OBJECTIVE HUMAN BENEFITS OBJECTIVE WILDERNESS QUALITIES OBJECTIVE BALANCING OBJECTIVE TO MAINTAIN WITHIN ALL AREAS OF THE KNP THOSE SPIRITUAL AND EXPERIENTIAL QUALITIES 1 ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONCEPT OF WILDERNESS 2, ACHIEVED THROUGH DEFINED MANAGEMENT OF ZONES AIMED AT PRESERVING DIFFERING DEGREES OF WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE. ( 1 By spiritual and experiential qualities is meant, amongst others, solitude, remoteness, wildness, serenity, harmony and other attributes; 2 where the attributes of a naturally-functioning ecosystem and its associated ambience remain unimpaired by humans) AWARENESS OBJECTIVE To promote an appreciation of the intrinsic inspirational and recreational values of wilderness qualities as manifested at different levels. POLICY & LEGAL OBJECTIVE To ensure that legislation exists to adequately protect the maintenance of zones of wilderness qualities (as specified under Recreational Opportunities Zonation) and their designated borders within National Parks. ZONATION OBJECTIVE To plan, develop and implement a zonation system providing a range of differing degrees of wilderness experience in a manner which strives to maximise throughout the KNP those attributes which make up wilderness qualities. MONITORING & MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE To develop appropriate monitoring mechanisms to verify whether those qualities and experiences for which zones have been allocated are being maintained, and target attributes which may require restoration so as to achieve specifications of individual zones. COLLABORATION & NETWORK OBJECTIVE To develop, implement and maintain a collaborative network between the KNP and other conservation or wilderness-associated institutions (regional, national, international) so as to promote wilderness qualities and associated values. AUDIT OBJECTIVE To establish a regular external auditing capacity to ensure that wilderness qualities are not being eroded within the KNP. ROZ Plan To recommend upper and lower limits for the proportion and composition of areas allocated to the different wilderness quality zones Figure 2 Position of wilderness and zoning objectives within the overall Kruger National Park management framework (compiled from Volume VII of the KNP Master Plan; Braack 1997a). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

4 Nevertheless, pristine minimum impact zones were retained in substantial tracts in the ROZ Plan on the basis of (1) keeping options open for future generations, (2) providing for the increasing need of a sector of society seeking remoteness and a back-to-basics approach in truly pristine and unaffected wilderness, and (3) satisfying the ethical and moral justification for at least some such areas remaining. Many of these wilderness areas (pristine and primitive categories) are located in blocks historically unaffected by development, but often peripheral to the Park or fragmented by linear management and other infrastructure developments. The ROZ system was thus devised within the wilderness objective to maintain within all areas of KNP those spiritual and experiential qualities associated with the concept of wilderness, achieved through defined management zones aimed at preserving differing degrees of wilderness experience (figs. 2 and 3; table 1). Zone delineation took into account the following: 1. Due consideration for the distribution of existing wilderness areas and wilderness trail operations (= zonation by default). Figure 3 Recreational Opportunity Zoning Plan within Kruger National Park. 2. Designation of the most appropriate and sustainable environmental zonation for an area. 3. The extent of possible alteration by future human actions. 4. Distribution of impacts in time and space that affected existing zonation at the time of ROZ development (such as, management actions and existing infrastructure and development). 5. Cognizance of uncertainty or sensitivity to specific zone designation for an area. Challenges to the ROZ Policy One of the fundamental reasons for continuous challenges to the ROZ policy by development proposals is the perception that zone definition is not made explicit enough and that the ecological basis for setting aside these areas is not emphasized. This is coupled, to some degree, with the notion that wilderness areas do not generate comparative incomes to other developed zones. This has resulted in some bending of the rules, as the intrinsic need for and right of pristine and primitive wilderness areas and associated wilderness qualities are not viewed equally by all parties. Similarly, the impacts of tourism have not been quantitatively assessed and thus no impact value is put to these, and they are considered insignificant or absent. Ecological Basis of Zoning in Kruger National Park Assessed The zoning proposed by Joubert in 1986, and based on the 35 landscapes described by Gertenbach (1983), form the basis of the zoning policy described in the ROZ Plan. However, these ecological principles underlying zone delineation are not explicitly stated, which has led to some challenges to the underlying philosophy of ROZ in KNP. Over the years, there have been a number of different ecological systems of land classification used in KNP (for a comparative summary see Solomon and others 1999). Here, we use (1) the Venter-based land classification hierarchy (Venter 1990), which is mainly focussed on the decisive role of soil characteristics in shaping plant communities of the Lowveld region, and (2) the Gertenbach landscape classification (Gertenbach 1983), based on geomorphology, climate, soil, vegetation pattern, and associated fauna. A simple Geographical Information System (GIS) based analysis of geographical overlays of ROZ zones and Gertenbach s landscapes (n = 35), as well as Venter s land systems (n = 11) and land types (n = 56), was used to evaluate the ecological basis for zoning within KNP. The results are provided in figures 4 and 5, where bar graphs indicate the extent of coverage by ROZ zones, as well as wilderness zones only (categories A and B) afforded each land unit (be it land system, landscape, or land type). Figure 4a graphically illustrates the spread of land units across ROZ zones in KNP, indicating complete representation of all three land classification units in the pristine and primitive wilderness zones (zones A and B). The majority of land units are also represented by more than 40 percent of their areas in wilderness zones (fig. 4b). If Venter s land type is used as the mesoscale most desirable and adequately detailed unit of land definition, eight land types stand out as being potentially underrepresented (<35 percent of their areas) in the wilderness zones of KNP as currently defined geographically: Lwakahle, Marithenga, 42 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

5 Table 1 Recreational Opportunity Zoning Plan for Kruger National park zone definitions and limits of sophistication. A B C D E F High-density Zone Pristine Primitive Semiprimitive Limited motorized Motorized development Definition Unmodified natural environment Purest form of wilderness possible in KNP No evidence of modern man having manipulated the ecosystem in any way, past or present No sight as far as the eye can see, or sound of modern man own noise only No roads or other infrastructure in or peripheral to the area Essentially unmodified natural environment No evidence of modern man having manipulated the ecosystem in recent past Views of outside development or Park infrastructure may be visible in the distance from certain vantage points. Sounds of vehicles and trains sometimes audible in the distance No roads or other infrastructure. Area buffered from roads by Zone C Potential for rehabilitation to Zone A Slightly modified natural environment Limited evidence of modern man having manipulated the ecosystem Views of outside development or Park infrastructure possible but infrequent Roads (mainly ungraveled) or other infrastructure present but limited to the minimum required for management and tourism activities Slightly or moderately modified natural environment Limited evidence of modern man having manipulated the ecosystem Views of outside development or Park infrastructure possible but infrequent Gravelled roads or other infrastructure present but limited to minimum required for management and tourism activities Traditional game viewing routes with associated road infrastructure such as picnic sites, viewpoints, bridges, selfguided trails Occur as corridors in Zones A to D Moderately modified natural environment Evidence of modern man having manipulated the ecosystem Highly modified natural environment (such as rest camps, staff villages, administration buildings, rangers posts) developed for visitors and administration Modern amenities very much in evidence Facilities to spend money and to buy goods are available Many other nongame reserve-dependant facilities are provided Recreational opportunity Levels of sophistication provided Hiking Backpacking Walking None Hiking Backpacking Walking Canoeing None Hiking Backpacking Walking Canoeing Limited motorized Camping Low Hiking Backpacking Walking Canoeing Limited motorized Moderate Motorized activities Moderate to high Motorized Variety of recreational opportunities, often associated with infrastructure High Interaction with other users Nonexistent Very low to minimal Low Moderate Moderate, sometimes high High Evidence of other users Minimal or absent Minimal Often Generally visible Generally visible Highly visible Access On foot only Guided Restricted access Portable tents or open near edge of zone No-trace camping ethic On foot or canoe Guided Restricted access Access to perimeter mainly on ungraveled dirt roads Portable tents or in open Only 4x4 or other suitable vehicles (official or private) allowed Guided or unguided Restricted access Access mainly on ungraveled dirt roads Sedan cars and other suitable vehicles (official or private) allowed Guided or unguided Restricted access only on official roads Sedan cars and other suitable vehicles (including buses and approved open vehicles) Mainly unguided, but guided possible Sedan cars and other suitable vehicles (including buses and approved open vehicles) Mainly unguided, but guided possible (con.) USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

6 Table 1 Con. A B C D E F High-density Zone Pristine Primitive Semiprimitive Limited motorized Motorized development Unrestricted access but limited to official roads Access on tarred and graveled roads Permanent (highdensity) camps with modern amenities Permanent rustic camps Camping with own tent or caravan possible Unrestricted access but limited to official roads Access mainly on tarred and graveled roads Access mainly on graveled roads Permanent luxury (low density) camps Permanent rustic camps Camping with own tent or caravan Permanent rustic camps allowed within 1 km (0.6 miles) of boundary Accommodation tent or rustic hut Camping with own tent Access (con.) No-trace camping ethic Semipermanent rustic camps allowed on edge of zone (a) (b) Number represented Number of land units A 11 Figure 4 Extent of representation of different land type classifications (land systems, landscapes, land types) in ROZ zones in Kruger National Park: (a) number of land units per classification type within zones A to D; (b) percent of land units represented within wilderness zones A and B B ROZ zone land types landscapes land systems Mavumbye, Pafuri, Phalaborwa, Rabelais, Shivhulani, and Tsotsi (fig. 5c). Interesting to note is that there are also eight land types that are almost completely located within wilderness areas (fig. 5c). At the slightly courser Gertenbach landscape scale, landscape 8 is severely underrepresented in wilderness zones (fig. 5b). This constitutes the moderately undulating granitic plains with C. mopane tree savanna, namely, the Phalaborwa sandveld. At the macroscale of land systems, the least represented land system in wilderness areas is the Bulweni system (BU, fig. 5a), a very narrow and sensitive north-south land system. Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism A nonquantified assessment of the environmental impacts of ecotourism within KNP is presented here to challenge the premise that biodiversity conservation is not affected by tourism developments within the Park (table 2). Many of these impacts have been observed by rangers and others, and have been grouped and summarized here. The conclusion can be drawn that, although only <3 percent of KNP is directly disturbed by human infrastructure, there is evidence that certain components of biodiversity (structure, function, composition) may be affected, and the overall Percent in wilderness areas (zones A and B) C D land systems land types landscapes 44 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

7 (a) 100 Percentage in wilderness areas BU KL LE MA NW PA PH SA SK SP VU Land systems (b) Percentage in wilderness areas Landscapes (c) 100 Percentage in wilderness areas Balule Bangu Baobab Hill Bububu Bulweni Dothole Gorge Houtboschrand Klipkoppies Lanner Gorge Letaba Lwakahle Madzaringwe Mahlangeni Makhuthwanini Malelane Malonga Malopeni Manyeleti Marithengo Mashikiri Masokosa Mavumbye Maaiplaas Mphongolo Muzandzeni Nalatsi Napi Nhlanguleni Nwambiya Nwanetsi Olifants Land types Orpen Pafuri Phalaborwa Pretoriuskop Pumbe Punda Rabelais Randspruit Renosterkoppies Rietpan Sabiepoort Salitje Satara Shidyanamani Shilawuri Shingwedzi Shivhulani Shukuza Stolsnek Timbavati Tsende Tsheri Tsotsi Vutome Figure 5 Percentage representation of each individual land unit for the three land classification systems in wilderness areas (zones A and B) in Kruger National Park: (a) land systems; (b) landscapes; (c) land types. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

8 Table 2 A nonquantified list of tourism impacts on wildlife and biodiversity as observed in Kruger National Park. Observed impact Disturbance of animal feeding pattern and behavior Increased collection of wildlife products from the field by visitors Increased vulnerability to competition and predators Genetic introgression and introductions Death of individuals Habitat modification Examples to support this Ground hornbills beg for food along most tarred roads. Baboons and vervet monkeys have become problems at picnic sites and rest camps, although they are still completely wild in wilderness areas and avoid trails and camps in these areas. Terrapins at water points along general tourist roads feed on tidbits thrown to them and may even beg. Bushbuck in Letaba Camp often feed on pasta, bread, and a variety of other dishes offered to them by tourists. Honey badgers, various mongooses, and spotted hyenas often raid dustbins and are fed around rest camps, particularly along fencelines. Diurnal birds, such as fork-tailed drongos, have been known to become nocturnal because of permanent spotlights at camps. Artificial lights and lighting attract insects, which attract frogs, which in turn attract snakes, which are often killed. Yellow-billed kites and other birds become problematic at picnic sites and camps where they are fed and/or become thieves in their own right. Vultures have been known to follow helicopters during culling operations. Tortoises picked up and removed from the field. Fish trapped in wire gabions during flood conditions and sometimes exploited by staff and visitors, primarily as a food source. Mutilation and theft of plants for private use or gardens. Collection of medicinal plants or plant parts. Predation efforts are disturbed, for example, along tarred roads with high volumes of traffic. Conversely, predators may capitalize on the distraction caused to prey by vehicles. Certain KNP lion prides have become experts at catching giraffe by causing them to slip on tarred roads or up road embankments. Predators may kill antelope by chasing them into camp fences. Scrub hares, kudu, and so forth, often congregate within fenced-off camp areas and attract predators, such as leopard regularly found inside Berg-en-Dal Camp fence. Numerous reports and suspected cases of cross-breeding of domestic cats and African wild cats in peripheral areas of KNP. Occurrence of exotic Nile tilapia and silver carp in KNP rivers, and the probability of hybridizing with indigenous fish species. The introduction of alien plant seeds into the KNP system, and further spread thereof on vehicle tires, and so forth, (for example, the suspected spread of red water fern (Azolla filiculoides) along the eastern boundary rivers and tributaries by vehicles on the Lebombo Overland Ecotrail). Inadvertent introductions of locally foreign animal species into areas of KNP from neighboring farms and reserves, such as gemsbok from the Timbavati area and nyala from Mthethomusha and Sabie Park Reserves. Snakes and scorpions are readily killed in rest camps, as they are viewed as undesirable. Poisons and other means are used to remove or kill ants, bees, wasps, and so forth. Monkeys and baboons are regularly killed in and around rest camps and picnic spots as problem animals. Kori bustards in the Lower Sabie area have been killed against powerlines when flushed during night drives. Powerlines can potentially kill many large birds, and there have been reports of giraffe electrocuted by sagging powerlines (when supporting poles are pushed over by elephants). Grey louries and other birds have been recorded as drowning in reservoirs. Road kills by speeding tourists and staff are ongoing and include wild dog pups, lion cub, honey badger, impala lambs, and many nocturnal and other birds. Numerous night-jar and scrub-hare road kills, especially on tarred roads at night when there is late driving. There have been reported incidents of antelope poaching from vehicles. Animals have drowned in water troughs. Reeds, bush, and riparian trees are cut for better game-viewing opportunities. Waterholes created as game-viewing points cause unnatural game concentrations and vegetation damage. In some cases, erosion also results due to bad placement on sensitive soils. Sewage systems/french drains/artificial wetlands create new unnatural habitats, sometimes in naturally dry areas. (con.) 46 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

9 Table 2 Con. Observed impact Habitat modification (con.) Disruption of group cohesion Examples to support this Tarred roads lead to increased runoff stimulating tree growth and encroachment this is particularly noticeable with mopani in the northern KNP and sickle-bush in the south. Litter degrades the natural scene and is a danger to wildlife. An extreme example is the dump sites. Weirs, dam walls, and gabions have a barrier effect to fish migrations and may lead to deaths and disturbance of migrations and spawning. Certain activities may result in introduction or spreading of alien biota (for example, the spread of Azolla on the Lebombo Ecotrail route). Floods cause damage to infrastructure that requires significant reconstruction and the use of gravel and sand from natural sources, as well as resulting in unsightly concrete and other debris being deposited in river systems. Dust from gravel roads affects plants and their palatability. Widespread harvesting and subsequent transport of thatching grass on open vehicles has increased the distribution of this species along roadsides. Building materials (for example, the use and transport of river sand) spread alien seeds and plants. Artificial dams and other water surfaces increase the distribution and breeding habitats of mosquitoes and associated malaria epidemics. During summer months, tarred roads may be hot barriers to movements of snakes, reptiles, and so forth, and may be a death trap for insects, snails, millipedes, and so forth, that are killed by vehicles. Road construction has resulted in many instances of unnatural damming of water flows. Vehicle or other tourist activity disrupts animal group cohesion by separating groups of animals on either side of a road. Similarly, traffic and tourist interest may result in separation of parents from their offspring when crossing roads. impact of tourism activities on biodiversity is poorly understood. The Way Forward As pressure to develop and generate much needed revenue mounts, there is an increasing squeeze on wilderness areas, as well as the greater sense of place within KNP. This is exerted directly on the boundaries and development limitations of the existing ROZ Plan, resulting in challenges to the very policy that was designed to allow a graded range of wilderness experiences. A revision of the ROZ Plan is scheduled for the upcoming months, and a number of issues that need to be addressed during this process are listed in table 3. In addition, pressures around the borders of KNP are mounting as developments impinge on the conservation area, effectively reducing the nonimpacted core area and shrinking the distribution of pure wilderness attributes. It is accepted that a system of zoning alone will not provide a holistic approach to the protection of wilderness qualities or wilderness areas, but that an integrated environmental management approach is needed. Park managers must solidify the basis upon which to consolidate the maintenance of a graded wilderness system that combines societal values, biodiversity conservation, precautionary principles, and sustainable development into a balanced plan guiding the further development and expansion of Kruger National Park. Acknowledgments We thank Dave Woods, Don Ntsala, and Sandra MacFadyen for GIS analyses and mapmaking, and Jacques Venter for assistance with figures and tables. References Braack, L. E. O. 1997a. A revision of parts of the management plan for the Kruger National Park, Volume VII: an objectives hierarchy for the management of the Kruger National Park. Unpublished report on file at: Kruger National Park, Skukuza, South Africa. 105 p. Braack, L. E. O. 1997b. A revision of parts of the management plan for the Kruger National Park, Volume VIII: policy proposals regarding issues relating to biodiversity maintenance, maintenance of wilderness qualities and provision of human benefits. Internal report, Skukuza, Kruger National Park. 152 p. Coetzee, B. J Phytosociology, vegetation structure and landscapes of the Central District, Kruger National Park, South Africa. Dissertationes Botanicae. 456 p. Gertenbach, W. P. D Plantgemeenskappe van die Gabbrokompleks in die noordweste van die Sentrale Distrik van die Nasionale Krugerwildtuin [Plant communities of the gabbro complex in the north-western Central District of the Kruger National Park]. Potchefstroom, South Africa: Potchefstroom University. 146 p. Master s Thesis. Gertenbach, W. P. D Landscapes of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe. 26: Joubert, S. C. J Research objectives, Kruger National Park (revised 1981, 1983). Unpublished report on file at: Kruger National Park, Skukuza, South Africa: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

10 Table 3 A preliminary list of issues to be addressed during the upcoming ROZ Plan revision. Main issue Ensure ecological basis of zoning and make this explicit Rehabilitation requirements per ROZ block, especially wilderness areas Buffering of wilderness zones Classification and management plan for roads Matching zones with Trans-frontier Conservation Area developments in Mocambique Zoning of areas adjoining KNP Wilderness monitoring, auditing, and thresholds of potential concern (TPCs) Legal protection status Description of subcomponents to be further considered Description of management blocks within ROZ zones according to biodiversity status, disturbance, suitability for use. Where possible, move toward catchment-based wilderness zonation (within KNP subcatchments where possible), for example, Sweni, Mbyamiti. Compile a comprehensive list of manmade disturbances, with special reference to type, extent, and impact base of disturbance. Must be GIS linked a database and map are necessary for every block, providing GPS locations of all impacts and structures. In principle, there should be no structures in wilderness areas, with the exception of possible water points. Gravel pits, old structures, and so forth, must be rehabilitated. Rubbish, stockpiled gravel, and so forth, to be removed. Where a motorized zone directly borders a pristine wilderness zone, no cascading of zones is practical or necessary the core area can be managed as pristine. Propose a Wilderness Buffer Quality Zone this should enable a ranking of proposed activities on the edge of wilderness zones according to size, scale, and persistence of impacts (for example, a vehicle has a short-term impact while driving by, while a structure on the edge of a wilderness zone is permanent and will always lower the quality of the wilderness experience). Roads within a cluster of wilderness blocks should be downgraded and, where possible, completely rehabilitated. Impacts must be managed in all instances this should be made explicit in a management plan for all zones. Use the minimum-tool principle to maintain roads in wilderness areas where these are essential for specific management actions. Cement drifts must be maintained on the best practice principle avoid building cement drifts in wilderness areas where possible. If a drift is necessary, it must be built with the least impact and as unobtrusively as possible. An operational management and action plan for roads will be necessary and must be part of the Limits of Sophistication (LOS). The road classification document should provide guidelines in terms of maintenance, gravel pits, documentation, and so forth. Use KNP wilderness areas as a starting point. Encourage wilderness zoning according to landscapes. Motivate for 20 km (12.4 miles) of the Shingwedzi River to stay wilderness on both banks. Apply concentric zoning cascading out from pristine areas where possible. Consider research possibilities through wilderness study areas these are untouched in Mocambique versus more impacted areas in Kruger. A strategy is essential the KNP must get involved in land use planning exercises in adjacent areas. Neighbors must be influenced as far as possible. Neighbors must be made aware of KNP zones, their importance, and what they stand for. Produce a map of the adjoining areas to identify land uses and land use change to assist with the strategy to influence adjacent actions to achieve regional harmony. Interactively design a land use plan for zones next to KNP, taking into account softer issues such as noise, lights, and skyline intrusions (audio and visual impacts). Formalize the monitoring and auditing indices and end-points for KNP wilderness qualities. Integrate research and management activities. Establish acceptable noise levels for wilderness (24 decibels?). How do we monitor and evaluate visual impacts to wilderness areas (lights, masts, and so forth )? Similarly, how do we address issues of pollution, for example, litter, black snow (smoke from sugar cane burning outside the KNP), and smells? Footprints in wilderness areas when is it too much, and should there be a resting/recovery/reset phase? How do we provide formal legal protection status to KNP wilderness areas? Investigate World Heritage site status. 48 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P

11 Joubert, S. C. J Masterplan for the management of the Kruger National Park. Unpublished document comprising six volumes on file at: Kruger National Park, Skukuza, South Africa. 983 p. Solomon, M.; Zambatis, N.; Biggs, H. C.; Maré, N Comparisons of classifications commonly used as templates for management, scientific and GIS work in the Kruger National Park. Koedoe. 42(2): Van Rooyen, N n Ekologiese studie van die plantgemeenskappe van die Punda Maria, Pafuri-, Wambiyagebied in die Nasionale Krugerwildtuin [An ecological study of the plant communities of the Punda Maria, Pafuri and Wambiya areas of the Kruger National Park]. Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria. 400 p. Master s Thesis. Venter, F. J A classification of land for management planning in the Kruger National Park. Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria. 394 p. Doctorate Thesis. Venter, F. J.; Braack, L. E. O.; Nel, P. J.; Jordaan, W.; Gerber, F.; Biggs, H. C Recreational opportunity zoning within the Kruger National Park. In: A revision of parts of the management plan for the Kruger National Park, Volume VIII: policy proposals regarding issues relating to biodiversity maintenance, maintenance of wilderness qualities, and provision of human benefits. Unpublished report on file at: Kruger National Park, Skukuza, South Africa. 20 p. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P