Cross-Boundary Impacts in the Crocodile
River Valley: A National Parks Perspective
Ralf H. Kalwa
Abstract—This paper illustrates threats facing Kruger National
Park in South Africa. It discusses the value of Recreational Opportunity Zoning within the boundaries of the Park, as well as the
impacts of boundary intrusions on its wilderness characteristics.
The need for an Integrated Management Approach near Park
boundaries is highlighted, and the concept of a “brick wall syndrome” is discussed in detail. Possible solutions are suggested, and
it is concluded that the answer may lie within adopting an Integrated Development Zone approach for the Park’s border areas.
Introduction ____________________
Game Rangers in Kruger National Park have the mandate to protect and manage the integrity of this unique
system. They are faced with many challenges in this regard,
and have managed the Park’s 22 sections, protecting its
components of biodiversity, for over 100 years.
Some 200 field rangers assist the section rangers in daily
counter poaching exercises and patrols. The gradual growth
of the white rhinoceros population over the past three
decades, together with an increase in elephant numbers,
bear testimony to their achievements.
This success is also reflected in the following figures: only
five elephant and 15 white rhinoceros deaths related to
poaching incidents were recorded during the past 3 years.
The size of Kruger National Park (more than 2 million ha, or
2
7,722 miles ), the diversity in topography, and the extreme
changes in climatic conditions make this an achievement of
note.
In addition to many other challenges facing the rangers in
the year 2000, the increase in alien plant infestations have
impacted on available manpower and budgetary requirements. Rangers have responded to this exotic threat, and
more than 100,000 foreign plants have been eradicated or
removed over the past 18 months in southern Kruger Park
alone. It is, however, suggested that there are other threats
to the integrity of Kruger National Park, and many may
argue that these are more significant and have a greater
impact on the future of this natural heritage.
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. E-mail: rhengu@mweb.co.za
In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2003. 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.
50
Recreational Opportunity
Zone Plan ______________________
During the late 1990s, Kruger National Park embarked
upon an ambitious exercise to reevaluate its Management
Plan. Scientists, rangers and other interested and affected
parties became party to a plethora of workshops and public
debates. Various aspects of the management plan were
scrutinized and reassessed. The Fire Policy, the Elephant
Management Plan, the Water Provision Policy, and the
Recreational Opportunity Zone (ROZ) Plan, were some of
the management tools that faced revision and that were
accepted by the South African National Parks Board
(SANParks) for implementation.
The ROZ Plan was regarded as a useful tool in the
management decisionmaking process. Although it has been
criticized for delineating Kruger National Park into zones
based on the wildlife experiences that could be expected, it
did carve the route for the establishment of Wilderness
Areas.
Many will argue that these wilderness zones are far from
perfect. This may be so; however, the challenge faced by
rangers in the year 2000 is to ensure that these areas are
conserved in all their facets and fluxes, and that rehabilitation programs are implemented with the same vigor and
enthusiasm afforded to counter poaching programs and
alien plant control.
The ROZ Plan recognized the recreational value of the
various zones and landscapes in Kruger National Park
(fig.1). Based on this approach, 49 percent of the surface
area was allocated to a wilderness land use. The challenge
faced by rangers was to manage the pristine value awarded
to these areas and to maintain the particular characteristics associated with this type of land use. Essentially, these
areas are untrammeled by man, have little or no man-made
influences or infrastructure present within their boundaries, and are open for public use for hiking and sleeping
close to nature, with its limitations and splendors.
Primitive and pristine hiking areas within Kruger National Park are also targeted for rehabilitation and corrective management programs to rectify mistakes and improve
their “wilderness” characteristics.
Southern Boundary:
A Grey Area ____________________
The Crocodile River, flowing from west to east, represents
the southern boundary of Kruger National Park. The National Parks Act, backed by the outcome of several court
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Cross Boundary Impacts in the Crocodile River Valley: A National Parks Perspective
Kalwa
Figure 1—Kruger National Park Recreational Opportunity Zones.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
51
Kalwa
cases, describes the annual, average high water mark on the
southern portion of the river (the right bank) as the southern
boundary of Kruger National Park.
A Veterinary Fence, demarcating the veterinary boundary of the Foot and Mouth line, fences off the upper bank. The
zone between the fence and the water’s edge has become a
management nightmare. Law enforcement and conservation management in this zone is particularly difficult, and
various government departments and associations are at
loggerheads as to who should carry the responsibility for this
“gray area.”
Boundary Intrusions _____________
Developers adjacent to this “no mans land” have capitalized on this confusion and are building closer and closer to the
water’s edge, infringing upon the Park’s boundary. In many
cases, these developments do not follow the Integrated Environmental Management approach, with tragic results. Crossboundary intrusions include light and visual pollution from
spotlights that are seen by our tourists during night drives-up
to 13 km (8 miles) into Kruger National Park.
The millennium floods of February 2000 comfortably
pressed the reset button, and many structures were damaged and washed away. Kruger National Park and its rivers
are now inundated with broken pieces of building rubble,
decks, pump houses, entertainment lapas, and other structures that were built in and around the Park’s boundary,
below the 1:50 year flood line.
The industrial boom associated with the advent of the
Maputo Corridor has increased noise levels, which can be
heard by the hikers in the primitive wilderness zone 25
km (15.5 miles) into the Malelane Mountains. An increase
in rail and road traffic compounds this “annoyance” factor
even further.
Pump stations, loyally drawing on the water resources
from the Crocodile River to quench the ever-thirsty cane
fields, add to this constant hum in the air. This is regularly
interrupted by the aerobatics and thunderous roar of the
crop sprayer leaping from field to field in its endeavor to
boost agricultural yield.
Wilderness trail rangers have been forced to seek refuge
on the rare occasion a pilot has “transgressed” the Kruger
Park airspace and “spooked” an elephant or buffalo herd into
a short stampede. One may be excused to ask whether these
clients should continue supporting this hiking area under
these conditions. Prevailing intrusions and pollution threatening the integrity of these unique areas have become
difficult to mitigate.
“Brick Wall Syndrome” ___________
In the late 1990s, the ranger corps in this area realized
that the threats to our unique National Park had shifted
from the impacts of poaching, toward the negative, longterm impacts of indiscriminate developments and associated wilderness and habitat degradation. It soon became
evident that the Park (the ROZ Plan), its boundary, and the
neighbors on the southern bank of the Crocodile River were
interconnected, like the bricks in a wall.
52
Cross Boundary Impacts in the Crocodile River Valley: A National Parks Perspective
Removing one or two bricks at a time would not necessarily cause the wall to topple; however, at some unknown point
in the future, the removal of one brick too many may cause
the system to collapse. The future of the wall lay in Integrated Environmental Management.
Lower Crocodile River
Environmental Group:
A Fresh Initiative ________________
Discussions initiated by the local ranger and backed by
management saw the establishment of the Lower Crocodile
River Environmental Group (LCREG). More than 100 interested and affected parties workshopped towards the following vision statement:
To balance all interests in the Crocodile River Region
towards sustainability.
Participants agreed to support the following objectives:
Whilst ensuring environmental integrity the LCREG should:
•
•
•
•
optimize economic growth for the region,
optimize economic opportunities in the region,
optimize sustainable resource utilisation and management in the region, and
establish communication highways.
From this early beginning, the local ranger involved all
the role players in the area to participate in the decisionmaking process, especially pertaining to the development initiatives in the area. The LCREG initiative managed the process
based on the principles of Integrated Management, and all
developments were drawn into an Environmental Assessment process. Decisions were not based on an ad hoc assumption. A process of informed decisionmaking replaced
the old approach, and mitigation became a management tool
used by developer and neighbor alike.
The Nkomazi Toll Plaza was shifted to a new site farther
down the road, the TSB Pump Station near Malelane Gate
was given a “sound proofing” facelift, and participation on
behalf of the LCREG saved many trees in the riparian zone
from being bulldozed into oblivion.
Involvement further afield has brought the plight of our
wilderness areas to the attention of an international consortium of airport developers. Noise and flyover tests within
Kruger National Park will ensure that the new Kruger
Mpumalanga International Airport is built at the right site
and within an acceptable environmental framework. Air
traffic control (the crop sprayer?) will now be managed, and
transgressions will become a management issue. The use of
aircraft that satisfy European Standards are supported, and
the integrity of the ROZ Plan may now be guaranteed.
Integrated Development Zone:
A Pie in the Sky? ________________
Where to from here? The LCREG has been operational for
3 years. At a recent plenary, its members voted to continue
with this initiative and unanimously supported the objectives set for the group in 1996.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Cross Boundary Impacts in the Crocodile River Valley: A National Parks Perspective
Government legislation makes it possible for an area of
special significance to be declared a Limited Development
Area (LDA). This would need the support of all the role
players in the zone to ascribe to the same objectives and
limitations dictated by the declaration. Is this a possibility
for the Crocodile River Valley adjacent to Kruger National
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Kalwa
Park? The LCREG Plenary has asked its steering committee to investigate the implications of declaring the Lower
Crocodile River Area an LDA. This gives the rangers of
Kruger National Park hope—a hope based on Integrated
Environmental Management and a recognition that this
valley suffers from a bad case of the “Brick Wall Syndrome.”
53
2. Traditional and Ecological
Values of Nature
The Wilderness Summit at the Feather Market in downtown Port Elizabeth preceded
the symposium (photo by Alan Watson).
55