Managing Manubi: A Research Study on the Creation
of the Manubi Forest Conservation Area
Abby Johnson
Alison Muscato
Siobhan Brady
Pennsylvania State University
contents
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Methods
Social Methods
3.1 Key Informants
3.2 Ranger Interviews
3.3 Participatory Forest Management Committee Meeting
3.4 Community Mapping
3.5 Chief Meeting and Excursion
Ecological Methods
3.6 Bucket Traps
3.7 Active Searching
3.8 Bird Transect
3.9 Mammal Camera Traps
4. Findings
Social Findings
4.1 Key Informants: James Cary and Vanessa Masterson
4.2 Key Informant: James Cary
4.3 Key Informant: Peter Tyldesley
4.4 Key Informants: Translators
4.5 Historical Records Analysis
4.6 PFMC Meeting
4.7 Ranger Interviews
Ecological Findings
4.8 Traps and Active Searching
4.9 Bird Data
Figure 1: Bird Species and Sightings
1
4.10 Mammal Camera Traps
Figure 2: Mammal Species Sighted in Manubi Forest
5
Discussion
5.1 Data Analysis and Importance
5.2 Stakeholders
Figure 3: Conceptual Diagram of Stakeholder Relationships
5.3 Ecological
Figure 4: Conceptual Diagram of Ecological Processes of Manubi Forest
5.4 Socio-Ecological System
Figure 5: Conceptual Diagram of the Socio-Ecological System of the Manubi
Forest
5.5 Projected Socio-Ecological System
6
Conclusion
7
References
1. Abstract
In an effort to increase the amount of land formally conserved along the Wild Coast – the
coastline between the Kei and Umtanvuma Rivers – Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency
(ECPTA) is in the process of converting Manubi Forest, 3227 ha (199 ha of woodlots), the
connecting patch of coastal forest and some surrounding community land into a fenced
conservation area (Ham, 2000). Our team of Penn State faculty and students followed an
integrated biodiversity and livelihoods framework in an attempt to assess the value of the
conservation area and the impact its creation will have on local livelihoods. We argue that the
conservation area will have complex positive and negative effects on the livelihoods of the local
people. Further research should be done to determine the magnitude of these effects and the
economic value to the average household of each species harvested from the forest.
2
2.
Introduction
The bountiful resources and cultural significance that forests supply continue to sustain
human livelihoods in rural South Africa. Located on the Wild Coast, Manubi Forest is
recognized as a State Forest and lies under the control of the Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). An agreement exists between the ECPTA and DAFF to turn the
forest, the nearby coastal forest and the surrounding community lands into a conservation area.
Known as part of the Wild Coast Project, this area would be co-owned by the community and
ECPTA while managed by ECPTA. The area will be fenced so that Cape buffalo may be
reintroduced in order to provide economic benefits to the communities. The fences also intend to
deter people from illegal harvesting. ECPTA desires to continue allowing community access to
the forest, however this is contingent upon the results of our research project and other ongoing
projects in the area.
Our main research team included 11 Penn State Undergraduate students, program director
Neil Brown, research associate Danielle Andrews, PhD candidate Katie Tavenner and cocurricular programs coordinator Tauheedah Alexander. Our group traveled together from Cape
Town to Mazeppa Bay, along the way studying issues of conservation and poverty. We
interacted with many South African researchers, lecturers and employees involved in
conservation work throughout the Western and Eastern Capes. Jan Venter, Specialist Ecologist
of the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency, worked with our group for several weeks, and
was integral to our work in Mazeppa Bay. Other specialists involved in our research include
herpetologist Werner Conradie, field biologist Juan Greef, associate professor of Landscape
Architecture Larry Gorenflo, graduate student Morgan Pfeiffer and conservation ecologist
Wayne Vos. Our core team, with the help of many others, refined our research questions and
3
prepared our methodology before entering the Mazeppa Bay area for two weeks to conduct our
research.
The overall question guiding our research is, “How will the creation of the Manubi Forest
Conservation Area affect the surrounding communities?” We divided this question into three
smaller sub-questions focusing on the effects of this project on the area’s biodiversity and
livelihoods. The first question is, “What is the ecological value of the conservation area?” The
second question is, “What are the livelihood strategies utilized by the communities surrounding
the conservation area?” Thirdly, “How will the livelihoods of the surrounding communities be
impacted by the creation of a conservation area that includes the Manubi Forest, the coastal
forest and some community land?” Guided by these three sub-questions, we employed a variety
of methods including both ecological and social survey techniques. Our study area was
comprised of three villages, Gcina, Novuswana and Gqunqe, and the proposed land for the
conservation area including the Manubi Forest. The results of our research may be useful to
ECPTA for decision-making related to the conservation area’s policies and regulations.
3. Methods
3.1 Key Informants
When formulating our livelihoods survey methods, we recognized the value in gaining a
variety of perspectives. People come from diverse backgrounds, possess different opinions and
worldviews and have distinctive stories to share. No single person possesses all the answers or
sees every side of every issue. So in answering a question like ours, a question that relates to a
large number of people, it is crucial to gather as many diverse perspectives as possible. The
conservation area will impact a large number of stakeholders, each with a unique connection to
4
the forest. In order to get a complete and representative picture, we utilized a wide array of key
informants and survey respondents, varying in age, sex, education level and connection to the
forest.
We relied on several key informants to provide us with knowledge about the local Xhosa
culture and help us connect with additional informants. The benefit of multiple perspectives can
be seen in our choice of key informants as they range in employment, gender, age, income,
education level and connection to the Manubi Forest. To establish initial contact with our key
informants and gain background information on the area, we interviewed James Cary,
Conservation Manager for the Manubi Forest, and Vanessa Masterson, a PhD candidate in Rural
Sociology at Stockholm University. James provided details regarding the history, methods,
current findings and proposed plan for the conservation area. Vanessa informed us about the
Xhosa culture she has experienced and introduced us to four local interpreters who in turn
became valuable informants. One of these interpreters, Faith, a local retired English teacher and
Vanessa’s main interpreter, also provided further insight into the practices and traditions of the
communities. These keys informants played a significant role in our methodologies, which
included interviews with forest rangers and key informants, attendance of the Participatory
Forest Management Committee (PFMC) meeting, analysis of historical records, and community
mapping.
3.2 Ranger Interviews
Interviews with forest rangers consisted of a series of questions focused on determining
the resources used, level of exploitation and perceptions of conservation. The rangers were
selected as our interview group because of their professional interactions with the forest.
5
Rangers were interviewed individually, in the presence of an interpreter, one Penn State student
and staff member. We explained the purpose of our research and their role in it before the
interview took place. The survey contained 22 questions and was separated into sections about
natural resource harvesting, personal knowledge and beliefs about conservation, community use
of the forest and opinions regarding the projected conservation area. The information we
gathered from these interviews was transcribed into a Word document to provide a centralized
database.
Another method we employed was analyzing historical records from the DAFF office
located on the northern border of Manubi Forest. Our goal was to discern what type and amount
of resources were consumed from the forest since the late 1970s. The office contained books that
recorded the receipts and others that reported incidents in the forest. We studied permit receipts
in order to observe general trends in price and quantity of materials taken from the forest. Also,
we wanted to know how successful the permit system has been in deterring illegal harvesting of
wood. Over the course of 3 days, students recorded information about material purchased,
quantity, date and total amount paid into an excel spreadsheet.
3.3 Participatory Forest Management Committee Meeting
The PFMC of Manubi Forest consists of 27 community members, selected by the
community. This committee links the Wild Coast Project and the three communities surrounding
the forest. They relay pertinent information to and from the meetings and provide a platform for
presenting and discussing community issues relevant to the creation of the conservation area.
The meetings take place typically once a month and follow an agenda laid out by the ECPTA
project coordinators. This agenda generally includes prayer, revision of the previous meeting’s
6
minutes and further discussion of relevant topics and issues regarding the conservation area. We
attended the February 25th PFMC meeting in the Mazeppa Bay Hotel Conference Room to
observe the proceedings and learn more about the dynamic between the Wild Coast Project and
the communities. To avoid intrusion, our group sat along the edge of the room, took notes and
allowed the meeting to proceed as if we were not in attendance.
3.4 Community Mapping
Community mapping provided yet another livelihoods survey method. Dr. Larry
Gorenflo joined our team and brought aerial maps of Gcina so that we could engage in
community mapping. We split in 4 groups, each with a local translator who was able to provide
us with first-hand knowledge of local practices and share their personal stories about the forest
and community. Using the aerial imagery, we walked around the village to identify structures
such as houses, kraals, fields, latrines, kitchens, water tanks, etc. and marked each structure on
the map. In some cases, we noted changes over time since the photos were taken from a satellite
in 2012. Some changes included abandoned houses, demolished houses, newly constructed
kraals and fallowed fields. This method was useful because it provided us with the opportunity to
walk around and engage with the local community on a personal level. This furthered our
understanding of local people’s activities, culture, land-use as well as resource needs.
3.5 Chief Meeting and Excursion
Chief Kona, leader of the three villages, served as a valuable informant for our research
team, providing us with information about the community, forest, enforcement of policies and
local culture. Our entire team met with the chief, the headman of Gqunqe and two elders at the
7
chief’s home in Gqunqe. This interview addressed our remaining questions and reiterated
previously gained knowledge regarding the creation of the conservation area that we learned
from other informants. Additionally, this interview led to an unexpected opportunity to explore
the forest with the chief, two elders, a translator and a local plant aficionado. We had Ntsiki,
community member of Gqunqe, act as our interpreter for this interview as well as our excursion.
This fairly informal activity enabled us to learn about plants and sea animals used in everyday
village life.
3.6 Bucket Traps
In an effort to collect more information on species diversity and abundance in the Manubi
Forest, we utilized 4 different methodologies, focusing on a broad range on species. With the
assistance of Werner Conradie, Jan Venter and Juan Greef, we created y-shaped bucket traps and
installed 6 snake traps to sample the reptile and amphibian populations in each different biome of
the potential conservation area. Each trap consisted of four plastic buckets and three arms of
plastic tarp supported with short wooden poles, creating walls to funnel the animals into the
center bucket. Along the plastic walls, we placed six prefabricated snake traps. We placed two
traps in coastal forests, one trap in the grasslands and three traps in the forest. One of the traps in
the forest was located in a wetland area. We placed traps in different biomes in order to sample
every habitat type and the different species in each. Trap arms were arranged to span different
areas of moisture content, shade and groundcover, ensuring we would capture a representative
sample of species. These traps were checked twice a day, to ensure the animals were found alive.
After each trap check, we recorded the scientific name, common name, date, time, coordinates,
location description and habitat of each animal found in paper data books provided by ECPTA.
8
3.7 Active Searching
The second method that we used was active searching, again assisted by Venter,
Conradie and Greef. This included dragon fly catching, turning over logs for snakes, fishing for
tadpoles and frogs in wetland areas, and catching lizards on rocks. We used large dragonfly nets
and searched primarily in wetland and grassland areas for different dragonfly species. Emphasis
was placed on catching dragonflies because they are an indicator species of ecosystem health. In
addition to searching for dragonflies, we explored the different biomes and turned over logs and
rocks in order to find snakes and frogs. Venter, Conradie and Greef were integral in this process
because of their experience handling dangerous snakes. To catch tadpoles and grown frogs –
another indicator species – we used smaller, sturdier nets and searched in and around small
bodies of water. Finally we utilized a metal pole with wire loop to catch rock-dwelling lizard
species.
3.8 Bird Transect
Thirdly, in order to sample the bird population, a small group, led by avid bird-watcher,
Morgan Pfeiffer, observed which bird species populated different biomes through the method of
bird call identification. We walked transects consisting of three listening points, each set 100
meters apart. Along with identifying the species type, we also recorded GPS coordinates in order
to complete a bird species density survey of the area. These excursions occurred twice each day
over the course of two weeks. Any species heard or seen outside of this designated time was also
noted.
9
3.9 Mammal Camera Traps
The final ecological method we used was analyzing the data collected from camera traps
installed by ECPTA employees in June of 2012. These cameras were placed in Manubi Forest
along animal paths on plants and trees that were not commonly used by people, so as to limit
theft. Out of thirty camera traps, three were stolen, two were not turned on and one was
damaged by water. The goal of these traps was to identify which mammal species are present in
the potential conservation area. When collecting data from the traps, we input the camera
number, image number, date, time, species name, common name and angle of approach into an
Excel spreadsheet.
4. Findings
4.1 Key Informants: James Cary and Vanessa Masterson
A large portion of our qualitative data resulted from a variety of methods and sources
including key informant interviews, lectures and community mapping. To begin with, we learned
a great deal of initial information about Manubi Forest and the surrounding communities through
a phone interview with James Cary and Vanessa Masterson, two of our key informants. Cary and
Masterson’s insight and background knowledge helped prepare us for our transition into the
field. For example, we learned that it takes about 45 minutes to travel between each village and
typically, the households are about 200 meters apart. We verified this information through our
community mapping experience. Overall, the population size for the 3 villages combined is
20,000 people. We also gained an understanding of some of the cultural practices, however we
learned the majority of this information from local village members once we arrived at Mazeppa
Bay.
10
4.2 Key Informant: James Cary
We had the opportunity to interview James face-to-face at the Mazeppa Bay Hotel. He
presented information regarding the creation of the conservation area and we discussed the
effects on the community. Some basic information about the forest includes the following facts;
the indigenous forest is 1,000 hectares and the gum and eucalyptus trees contribute an additional
200 hectares. He described the goals of ECPTA, and the larger Wild Coast Project, to be job
creation and increase the amount of conservation areas. Currently in Manubi Forest, 27 people
work to clear alien vegetation and 12 people serve as rangers. A plan exists to add Manubi Forest
to a hiking trail and construct a campsite which would provide a number of jobs to local
community members; James estimated this would create about 100 new jobs.
Other results of the conservation area include the construction of 33 km of fencing. The
fence is not designed to exclude people from the forest; rather the ECPTA desires controlled
access through partnership with the community. The fence’s purpose is so that around 20-25
Cape buffalo can be reintroduced into the conservation area. James said the reasoning for the
reintroduction of buffalo lies within their status as a high value species with many returns. The
buffalo would replace the cattle that used to be more pervasive in the area and attract tourists
(which in turn bring economic benefits). A direct benefit from the buffalo is that the community
would receive 50% of the profits from the buffalo. This 50% would be given to the PFMC to put
towards a project focused on conservation efforts. However, James indicated it would be about 4
years until the community saw any direct benefit. He explained the project has been funded by
the UNDP (United National Development Program) for the past 5 years. The first 4 years were
11
spent working with the community rather than focusing on land-use. James declared that nothing
happens fast in the Transkei. This funding expires July 2013.
4.3 Key Informant: Peter Tyldesleydelsley
Peter Tyldesleydesley, project manager of the Wild Coast Project gave a presentation
about the goals and progress of the WCP to our group when he was at the Mazeppa Bay Hotel to
conduct a meeting with the PFMC. He relayed a great deal of background information on the
WCP. It is funded internationally by the Global Environmental Fund and is working towards
achieving two main goals; to increase the amount of land being protected and to create jobs and
socio-economic incentives. Currently, they are working with 12 areas to establish reserves and in
each. They generally face tension between biodiversity, community growth and development,
especially in rural areas. He explained the main priorities of the project as including expansion
and consolidation of protected areas on the Wild Coast, co-management of systems and
procedures, manage and rehabilitate alien species, sustainability, education and awareness and
employment.
Regarding economics and household incomes, 60-100% of income comes from
government pension and social support programs. A consistent problem in this area is that a great
percentage of income leaks out of the community and into bigger city centers, such as
Butterworth. Peter indicated that more research needs to analyze the expenditures and income of
a household per month, but he reported the information he had. The monthly income required per
household is R 2,500 with R 1,400 from income, R 1,200 from pensions and R 200 from grants.
Other remittances received are between R 500-1,000 and vegetables usually come to around R
200. In terms of expenditures, electricity costs R 300, clothes and medical expenses cost R 500,
12
presents and rituals cost R 200 and food costs R 1,500. At the end of the month, most families
are short about R 800-1,000.
Peter spoke a lot about protected areas serving as a catalyst for change and development
of rural communities. He reiterated some of what James told us by explaining the amount of
people employed through job creation programs. New information includes 9 people working in
honey and bee-keeping. Other natural resource operations are crafts, gum plantations, tourism
related industries and housing. Local economic opportunities are sewing, knitting, fruit and
vegetable growing, furniture, road maintenance and local markets and trade centers. Indirect
benefits from the protected area include technology, training, funding, skill services, sports
equipment and environmental education competitions in the schools. The next steps include
identifying and demarcating areas with community representatives and considering attainment of
legal status for the PFMC.
4.4 Key Informants: Translators
At our first meeting with Vanessa, we also connected with 4 local community members.
Faith, Vanessa’s key interpreter as well as PFMC member, became one of our key informants
about local tradition and culture. We also met 3 other translators, Ntsiki, Aphiwe and Zintle.
Ntsiki was a trained teacher from the village Gqunqe. Aphiwe and Zintle were two young ladies
from Gcina who also helped us with community mapping the following week. They began
explaining resource use in the forest. Gender generally indicates the type of resources harvested
and by whom. Women collect firewood and materials for medicine. Men collect medicines for
cattle and poles for kraals, roofs and fences for gardens. The traditional medicine is called muti
in Xhosa and typically involves the harvesting of roots, barks and leaves. Many people still use
13
and practice muti but there is also a clinic practicing Western medicine located in the
community. Regarding rituals, Faith explained that many of them result from dreams and to
appease the ancestors. The ritual of abakweta is important to community use of the forest. It is
the ceremony of boys becoming men and involves the boys, at age 18, entering the forest, getting
circumcised and recovering in a house with other circumcised men for about one month.
Next, the translators spoke about the concerns of the community regarding the
conservation area; Faith and Ntsiki provided most of the information. One concern is that while
community land is only given to people by the chief, people believe they have ownership of the
land. The village of Gqunqe has expressed unsure feelings towards the conservation area. The
citizens have indicated they need more information and most of them have never seen an animal
as large as a Cape buffalo so the people are afraid of how dangerous they may be. Faith also
raised the concern that the buffalo would inhabit that space currently used by people’s cattle.
Another issue is that a fence could restrict community access to the clinic.
Ntsiki and Faith taught us more about the history and governance of the community, but
we also heard much of the same information later from our interview with Chief Kona. They
estimated that the community was established in 1850. The village headmen are supposed to
conduct one meeting per week with the people unless it is postponed for something special.
However, the reliability of these meetings depends on the community and headmen. Faith
provided the example that Novuswana meets twice a month and everyone is welcome to attend
the meetings. Typically, generations wait until they are married and then they begin to attend
community meetings and speak their mind on issues. Aphiwe and Zintle did not contribute much
information to this meeting, they mostly deferred to the older translators. However, we set up
14
another interview, especially to ask those two questions. They mostly informed us about the
Xhosa language and youth culture in the village.
We also learned more from Aphiwe and Zintle during the community mapping
experience, as they served as our translators while we walked around the village. They informed
us that girls are typically responsible for collecting firewood and water. Girls collect firewood
about 2 to 3 times per week and water about once per week, or as needed. We also learned that
people buy sand from trucks that have harvested it from the sand mines and use the sand to repair
or construct new houses. Also, Aphiwe told us her personal experience with education. She, and
most children in the village, walks about 40 minutes up and down hills to attend the village’s
secondary school. There is one high school for all three villages but Aphiwe chose to live with
her father in the Free Province because the school was better equipped with resources and
opportunities.
4.5 Historical Records Analysis
After reading through the books of receipts, we determined that few people actually come
to the DAFF office on Tuesdays and Thursdays to apply for permits. In fact, on the Tuesday
morning that we sat in the office awaiting the arrival of community members coming to acquire
their permits, not one person showed. What we did conclude from the book of receipts however
is that the majority of permits were attained by commercial buyers outside of the community,
who were buying large quantities of resources from the forest. Predominantly though, we found
the data to be very inconclusive. After analyzing the data and creating graphs, there were no
recognizable trends in the quantity or price of poles sold.
15
4.6 PFMC Meeting
During the PFMC meeting, the community members, Peter Tyldesleydesley and James
Cary, engaged in an organized discussion, addressing the projected conservation area. The
meeting commenced with a prayer and a review of the previous meeting’s minutes. The meeting
was in English and there was a Xhosa speaking translator. However, much of both the English
and Xhosa were not translated. As observers of the meeting, it was uncertain whether things
were not translated because James and Peter had a good grasp on the Xhosa language and the
community members understood English, or whether much of the things said were overlooked.
Peter discussed the process of finding a lawyer to help the PFMC gain legal status.
Tyldesleydesley then reported on the specific details concerning the conservation area. In an
effort to discuss the demarcation of the conservation area, James showed the community
members a map. As observers, we noticed that many of the community members had trouble
finding specific places on the map, unassisted. The discussion proceeded, touching on the topics
of community resolution, law enforcement/monitoring incident reports, progress updates on alien
vegetation clearing, research, and the estuary management plan. The community resolution was
pushed back because the communities had met amongst themselves, as instructed to do, to
discuss their specific demarcation areas, however, they could not come to an agreement. It was
evident in Peter Tyldesleydesley’s tone and demeanor that he was frustrated with the
communities slow-moving pace. Many of the items addressed at the meeting were left
unresolved because the committee members need a lot of time to complete tasks.
Another topic of interest was the progress of the job creation projects. The projected
plans would employee people for bee keeping, sewing, basket weaving, and managing gum
16
plantations. Again, there seemed to be a delay of communication on the community side,
slowing down the advancement of the project. Peter also brought up tourism and education to
emphasize their importance to the project but indicate that a lot of work still lies ahead. The
final two topics discussed were finances and infrastructure. Finally, Peter thanked everyone for
coming, asked for additional comments from the community members and closed the meeting
with a prayer.
4.7 Ranger Interviews
After 11 interviews with rangers at Manubi Forest, we learned about their professional
knowledge of conservation, the forest’s importance in community members’ daily lives and their
thoughts on the creation of the conservation area. The interviewees ranged in levels of familiarity
with natural resource harvesting in this area. Although 4 rangers had significant prior knowledge,
the majority agreed that they learned most of the information after working at their job for a year.
Regarding community use of the forest, some rangers indicated the specific species harvested
while others described the general uses of the forest. Based on the compilation of our interview
results, we discovered the main community uses of the forest include firewood (dead wood and
dry, fallen trees), wood for poles (sneezewood/umtata and ironwood/umsimbithi) and bark (cape
chesnut/umemeze, red beech/izintlwa, cheesewood/umkwenkwe, assegai/umlahleni,
knobwood/umlungamable, cape teak/umnonono). Households use firewood for cooking; poles
for building kraals, fences and gardens; and bark for medicinal purposes.
People poach animals such as bushpig, blue duiker, vervet monkey, bushbuck and harvest
bark illegally. The animals are poached for meat, sport and sometimes, medicinal purposes.
Poached bark can be sold and the amount of money depends on the size of the bark; for example
17
an 8.5 by 11” piece of bark would sell for R 20. The rate of pole and bark harvesting is
increasing. Another observation noted was that proximity to the forest correlates to forest use;
the closer people are, the more they will use it. In terms of the conservation area, rangers all
expressed that the natural resources in the forest need to be protected.
4.8 Traps and Active Searching
Through our first two methods, ground traps and active searching, we were able to identify 20
species of reptiles and amphibians from the first three days alone. Among these were River Frog
(Rana heckscheri), Raucus Toad (Amietophrynus rangeri), Bibron Blind Snake (Typhlops
bibronii), Natal Black Snake (Macrelaps microlepidotus), Rock Agama (Agama atra), and
Common Platanna (Xenopus laevis). A particularly interesting find was the Kloof frog
(Natalobatrachus bonebergi), found in Manubi Forest on February 20, 2013 at GPS coordinates
32.44851, 28.58401. This species is listed as endangered on the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. As the Kloof frog was not previously known to inhabit
Manubi Forest, this find extended the range of this species to its southernmost distribution.
4.9 Bird Data
Our bird survey transects found 70 species, including Cape Robin-chat (Cossypha
caffra), Jackal Buzzard (Buteo rufofuscus), Olive Sunbird (Cyanomitra olivacea), Cape Whiteeye (Zosterops pallidus), Cape Gannet (Morus capensis), Brown-hooded Kingfisher (Halcyon
albiventris), and Lesser Honeyguide (Indicator minor). Figure 1 lists every species heard or seen
during the transects and the number of “sightings”. In addition to the birds heard and seen during
these transects, 32 additional species were found walking to and from each site. Among these ad-
18
hoc sightings, a noteworthy find was the Mangrove Kingfisher, Halcyon senegaloides, seen on
2/20/13 at GPS point MA01/13 in a wetland habitat, surrounded by forest. This bird typically
inhabits mangrove habitats and more coastal areas and is rarely seen so far inland.
Species (common name)
Black-collared Barbet
Olive Sunbird
Red-fronted Tinkerbird
Terrestrial Bulbul
Southern Boubou
Bar-throated Apalis
Brown Scrub-Robin
Dark-backed Weaver
Cape White-eye
Fork-Tailed Drongo
Knysna Turaco
Lemon Dove
Chorister Robin
Trumpeter Hornbill
Green-backed Camaroptera
Redbilled Wood-Hoopoe
Dark-capped Bulbul
Grey Sunbird
Lesser-stripped Swallow
Hammerkop
Sombre Greenbul
Hadeda Ibis
Brown-hooded Kingfisher
Thick-billed Weaver
Cardinal Woodpecker
Square-tailed Drongo
Lesser Honeyguide
Little Rush Warbler
Olive Thrush
Olive Woodpecker
Yellow-fronted Canary
Burchell’s Coucal
Number
of
Sightings
6
4
24
19
19
15
2
2
51
4
25
1
6
1
16
18
6
2
7
1
29
39
4
2
1
32
1
2
1
7
7
1
19
Species (common name)
Black Saw-wing
Southern Black Tit
Neddicky
Wing-snapping Cisticola
Jackal Buzzard
White-rumped Swift
Burchell’s Goucal
Cape Gannet
Fan-tailed Widowbird
Ruddy Turnstone
White-breasted Cormorant
Kelp Gull
Black-winged Lapwing
Sanderling
White-fronted Plover
Red-capped Robin-chat
Amethyst Sunbird
Cape Wagtail
White-throated Swallow
African Stonechat
European Starling
Sandwich Tern
Little Tern
Cape Rock-thrush
Red-eye Dove
Levaillant’s Cisticola
Cape Longclaw
Egyptian Goose
Red-backed Shrike
Amur Falcon
Common Fiscal
African Paradise-Flycatcher
Number
of
Sightings
3
1
2
2
2
14
2
204
20
2
8
9
30
23
8
4
3
5
3
5
2
5
1
1
8
2
3
2
1
4
1
2
Speckled Mousebird
Black-headed Oriole
2
4
Brimstone Canary
7
Cape Robin-chat
Blue-mantled Crested
Flycatcher
Black-bellied Starling
1
2
1
Figure 1: Bird Species and Sightings
4.10 Mammal Camera Traps
Finally, our camera trap survey found a total of 10 identifiable mammal species (other
than livestock, dogs and humans). The following species were identified at least once in the body
of camera trap images: bushbuck (Tragelaphus sylvaticus), blue duiker (Cephalophus
monticola), caracal (Caracal caracal), large spotted genet (Genetta tigrina), vervet monkey
(Cercopithecus pygerythrus), samango monkey (Cercopithecus albogularis), bushpig
(Potamochoerus lavatus), porcupine (Hystrix africaeaustralis), white-tailed mongoose
(Ichneumia albicauda), woodland dormouse (Graphurius murinus). Figure 2 demonstrates the
diversity and number of mammal species found. It should be noted that actual density was not
calculated and that these relative densities do not take into account multiple sightings of the same
individual. An unexpected finding through this method was evidence supporting community
claims that their cattle use the forest as shelter in inclement weather. Pictures featuring resting
cows covered in water droplets indicated that livestock do in fact use the forest as protection
from the rain.
20
Figure 2: Mammal Species Sighted in Manubi Forest
5. Discussion
5.1 Data Analysis and Importance
Among our ecological findings, several key species indicated the conservation value of
the area. The Kloof frog is an endangered species and our findings marked the southern-most
distribution of the frog. This suggests that the frog is located in more areas that researchers
previously believed, increasing the conservation value of Manubi Forest as it contains this
endangered species. The reclusive bird, the Mangrove King Fisher, was found in the potential
conservation area. This finding is significant due to the denseness of the forest, which is
uncommon for this species. This bird attracts many bird watching enthusiasts and tourists so this
ecological finding could make the area more alluring for guests. The third key finding in the
forest was the caracal. This species was spotted on one of the camera traps and is significant
because it is the highest level carnivore found in the forest. Each of these species is important to
the forest for different reasons, yet they all increase the conservation value of Manubi Forest.
21
The livelihood survey demonstrated that this community is a mixed subsistence wage
economy. This includes livelihood strategies include subsistence farming, raising livestock, grant
money and remittances from migrant workers. It was important to understand how the
community members sustain themselves because we discovered the activities are often unstable,
which is why they combine a variety of them. The value of multiple perspectives can be shown
in our surveys and interviews of many different parts of the population. This has allowed us to
gain a holistic view of our research in this area. We learned that community members directly
use products from the forest, often illegally. Manubi Forest is not the only forest from which
people harvest resources. Often families will gather resources from smaller forests by their
homes. People primarily gather firewood, wood for poles and medicinal plants. Since people
directly rely on the forest for these resources, it was essential to understand exactly what is being
used, for which purposes and how frequently it is collected. This information is vital to assess the
impact of the conservation area. Additionally, livestock use the forest for shelter and surrounding
areas for grazing; they would be impacted by fencing and lack of land. Also, people worry about
not being able to access the clinic. These findings emphasized the importance of our research to
determine what sort of effects the conservation area would bring to the surrounding
communities.
5.2 Stakeholders
22
Figure 3: Conceptual Diagram of Stakeholder Relationships
To demonstrate the relationships between the stakeholders that use and value Manubi
Forest, we created the above conceptual diagram. The primary stakeholders include the ECPTA
and DAFF; non-local entrepreneurs (which includes any non-community members involved in
the sale and consumption of products harvested from the forest); the local communities Gcina,
Novuswana and Gqunqe; Mazeppa Bay Hotel and the nearby cottages; as well as researchers and
tourists that come to study and enjoy the forest. They relate to each other in a loop of
connections. ECPTA and DAFF, who need to conserve the forest in order to fulfill their
respective missions, create policies that affect how all of the other stakeholders may enjoy
Manubi Forest. Of these, their primary concern is the group of non-local entrepreneurs who
23
create a demand for resources illegally harvested from the forest, bark in particular. These
entrepreneurs put pressure on the local community to deliver while simultaneously denying them
most of the profits. The local community relates to the nearby hotel and cottages by providing
service-based labor. The hotel also benefits from tourists and researchers who choose to lodge
there, but the researchers and tourists also benefit from having a place to stay that is only a 15minute drive from the forest walking trail and DAFF office. The researchers and tourists, in turn
affect the decisions that ECPTA and DAFF make regarding the policies they create. For instance,
surveys indicating tourist interest in overnight camping might persuade DAFF to allow this
activity in the forest because of the revenue it may bring in to the community. And information
gathered by researchers on how the local community uses the forest might impact which
resources may be deemed legal to harvest. This is exactly how we as researchers hope to assist
ECPTA in their decision-making regarding the potential conservation area.
The smaller loops are based primarily on control or governance. ECPTA and DAFF’s
upper level leaders issue commands to their on-the-ground managers, and the managers guide the
actions of the rangers. The rangers then report incidents of illegal harvesting, which are provided
to the ECPTA and DAFF offices. Likewise, the community is connected in a governance loop,
the chief disseminating information and communicating policy-changes through the headmen,
then through the sub-headmen on to the community members.
5.3 Ecological
24
Figure 4: Conceptual Diagram of Ecological Processes of Manubi Forest
To explain the ecological processes of Manubi Forest, we created a conceptual diagram
involving the main processes and species we studied. Water, plants, animals and soil comprise
the elements of the Manubi Forest resource system. Water affects plant growth based on its
quality, availability and flow. Plant growth is extremely important to the health and success of
the forest for several reasons. The more plants that exist in an ecosystem, the cleaner the air will
be due to carbon sequestration. Also, plants are necessary to sustain animal life in this area. For
example, cattle rely on grasses for grazing. To elaborate on the type of animals present, we
explained the key species which we studied and organized them based on food levels. First, we
focused on dragonflies due to their important role as an indicator species of ecosystem health.
Overall, insects are food for amphibians and reptiles. We surveyed these species as well as birds
25
and mammals in order to discern the species diversity in the area and how that applies to the
forest’s potential status as a conservation area.
When animals die and decompose, they become part of the soil. Soil is a complex and
essential actor in the sustainability of an ecosystem. Five main factors influence soil quality;
time, parent material, topography, climate and organisms. Time affects what the soil looks like in
terms of how old the biome is as well as the type of parent material. The parent material
determines the composition, color and texture of the soil. Topography influences the soil through
occurrences such as erosion and land-use change. Climate also impacts soil quality based on
rainfall, temperatures and overall weather patterns. The biome is comprised of organisms; plants,
animals and people which are all influenced by soil quality and also influence the quality of the
soil based on what nutrients plants absorb and what sort of animals live in the biome. The soil
affects water quality which is vital to sustaining the biodiversity in the forest and the overall
conservation of the biome.
5.4 Socio-Ecological System
In order to combine our ecological and livelihoods findings, we created a conceptual
diagram of the socio-ecological system. This model displays the complex interconnectivity and
interaction between the Manubi Forest conservation area and the various stakeholders involved.
26
Figure 5: Conceptual Diagram of the Socio-Ecological System of Manubi Forest
To begin the discussion of the SES diagram of Manubi Forest and surrounding
community, we first considered governance. The three villages are, in accordance with tradition,
governed altogether by one chief, and each separately by a headman or woman. The chief is
mostly consulted for large-scale issues, and during our interview with Chief Kona, she indicated
that one of her main tasks is educating her citizens about conservation. This information is
disseminated to the villages through the headmen, who often times also have sub-headmen
within the community to facilitate this process. The chief has granted permission to the ECPTA,
DAFF and WCP to operate within and around Manubi Forest in order to protect the forest and
pursue their project goals. These organizations influence the municipality by requesting their
27
police enforcement when people are found illegally harvesting resources. To complete the circle,
the municipality influences the chief and headmen through laws and enforcement. It is the chief
and headmen’s responsibility to communicate with their citizens.
All of the actors in the governance cycle influence the stakeholders in various ways
related to the Manubi Forest. We separated the stakeholders into four main categories including
tourists and researchers, ECPTA/DAFF/WCP, community members and leaders, and hotels.
Within the stakeholder circle, ECPTA, DAFF and WCP affect community members and leaders
mainly through regulation of forest resources. These organizations also provide employment
opportunities for community members and inform the chief about the importance of
conservation. Community members and leaders use the hotel for meetings, such as the PFMC,
and some provide the hotel with employees. The hotel’s owners influence and are influenced by
tourists and researchers who travel to this area to enjoy the landscape and study the forest.
Finally, the tourists and researchers impact ECPTA, DAFF and WCP in several ways.
Researchers provide the organizations with information that can be useful to making decisions
about the conservation area. Tourists bring a lot of economic benefits to the area, which can
increase job creation and socio-economic incentives; both of these are goals of the WCP.
Each stakeholder uses the forest for different reasons; these forest uses have been
categorized as direct, indirect, option and non-use. Tourists use the forest for recreation and
appreciation of natural beauty. Researchers use the forest to be able to grow the body of
knowledge on species diversity, ecosystem health, cultural traditions and other ecological or
social topics. Both tourists and researchers then use the forest for its option value. The Integrated
Wetland Assessment Toolkit says that option use is the “premium placed on possible future users
28
or applications,” such as leisure, research, etc. Similarly, the hotels use the forest as a means to
attract tourists and researchers, and in turn bring more business (Darwin, 2009 p.79).
ECPTA, DAFF and WCP could be categorized in the option value, but we determined
that they mostly use the forest for indirect purposes. Essentially, the organizations use the forest
to achieve their goals of creating conservation areas and jobs. For example, ECPTA monitors
various aspects of forest health, which are dependent on natural processes occurring in the forest.
ECPTA also employs 12 rangers from the local community. The WCP relies on the forest to
become a successful protected area, benefitting biodiversity as well as the community. Each of
these gains is indirect. The Wetland Assessment explains the indirect valuation includes
ecosystem functions and services such as water quality, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration,
etc. (p.97)
Community members and leaders use the forest for direct, indirect, option and non-use
purposes. Our findings from the livelihood survey confirmed that most people rely heavily on the
forest for direct resources such as firewood, poles, water and bark. The community indirectly
relies on the forest for the ecosystem services it provides, including water quality and flow,
nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration. Option uses of the forest range from leisure,
medicinal, water-use and other such activities. We also learned how the community values the
forest for non-use reasons, most of which revolve around the Xhosa culture. These uses include
but are not limited to cultural value, heritage value as well as bequest value. For example, many
people wish to pass on their land to their children, whether or not it is physically used for any
practices.
29
The various ways stakeholders use the forest all impact the resource system of Manubi
Forest. The resource system is comprised of water, plants, animals and soil. All the ecological
processes of the Manubi Forest have been fully explained in section 5.3 with a conceptual
diagram. However, some of the ecological factors were included in this diagram because it
focuses on the interface between social and ecological systems. Broadly, water and its
availability affects plants and their growth. Plants feed the animals in this area, directly or
indirectly. When animals die and decompose, they become part of the soil. Soil and its nutrients
in turn affect water quality. Stakeholder activities may affect this system in a variety of ways.
For example, tourists hiking through the forest may degrade habitats, or bark harvesting may
alter vegetation composition, opening the canopy for invasive species.
This SES diagram is focused on the community scale. The governance, stakeholders,
users and resource system all operate at multiple scales. However, we analyzed the complex
relationship between the Manubi Forest and surrounding villages on the community scale to
emphasize the local impacts. It is still important to address the other scales of impact in order to
see the broader picture, outside of the small community level. On a greater scale, there are other
forests and biomes in the Mazeppa Bay area that are not considered for the conservation area.
One must understand that the creation of the Manubi Forest conservation area could affect
nearby biomes. Another broader scale is the Wild Coast Project; Manubi Forest is only one
conservation area among 11 other protected and considered areas. The success or failure of this
particular conservation area will alter the grand scheme of the Wild Coast Project and other
protected areas managed in the province. Considering an even broader scale, the whole of South
African conservation may be impacted because the land and biodiversity protected will attract
more tourists. The effects of more tourists would influence the country’s social, political and
30
economic processes. Additionally, information gained from research in this protected area will
contribute to the global scientific community.
5.5 Projected Socio-Ecological System
The projected socio-ecological system, post-development of the conservation area, will
significantly affect the current SES, especially the impacts on stakeholders. The stakeholders
diagram (Figure 3) can be used to understand how the conservation area may impact each
stakeholder and their interactions with each other. The primary alterations being made to the
forest are the addition of Cape buffalo and electrified border fences; here we examine how these
particular changes might benefit and/or or harm each stakeholder. Beginning with ECPTA and
DAFF, it is easy to see that these changes will benefit the agencies by adding conservation value
to the land and assisting them in keeping poachers and illegal harvester out of the area, thus
helping to fulfill their respective missions. However, on the ground level, the changes may not be
so positive for the managers and rangers, bringing increased complications for managers and
increased danger or even job loss to the rangers (many of whose contracts are set to end in July
when IUCN funding is cut off). The changes may impact how ECPTA and DAFF regulate nonlocal exploiters by either increasing or decreasing the enforcement of harvesting policies
depending on how successful the fences are in keeping illegal harvesters out.
Non-local entrepreneurs may lose money and jobs, and consumers will most likely suffer
a decrease in supply of bark, poles and other illegally harvested materials due to increased
difficulty in harvesting caused by the new perils of angry buffalo and electric fences. This may
lead to a decrease in demand for these products, but it may also lead to a shift in demand.
Reintroduction of Cape buffalo may create a new demand for poached buffalo, replacing the
demand for bark and other products. Changes in demand and changes in policies related to the
31
fences and new animals will have an effect upon what the local community may harvest and how
they do it. (And as before, information about the changes taking place and the new policies will
trickle down from the chief to the headmen to the sub-headmen and finally to the community
members.) As might be predicted, the fences will limit access to illegal harvesters, even smallscale subsistence harvesters, thus forcing them to harvest what they need through the forest
office, which might be very far from their homes, a problem intensified by poor quality roads
and limited transportation options. The fences may also limit some community members’ access
(specifically, those living in Gcina) to the local clinic in Gqunqe because the most direct route is
through the forest. Another negative impact may be less grazing area and shelter for livestock.
However, the conservation area holds potential for many community benefits as well. For
instance, any excess buffalo that are produced will be put up for auction. Half of these profits
will go directly to the community through a Communal Property Association (CPA), which will
choose community development projects to receive this money. And because Cape buffalo are a
popular big game species, they may also benefit from opportunities created by increased tourism
in the area, for example through employment at hotels like Mazeppa Bay.
This link between the hotel and local community will likely be made stronger by tourismprompted growth and the resulting need to hire more help. Mazeppa Bay should benefit from the
conservation area because of an increased number of tourists seeking kingfisher and buffalo as
well as researchers drawn by the needs of ECPTA. However, these changes could alternatively
bring more competition to the area in the form of more lodging options. The researchers and
tourists will in turn likely benefit from higher quality lodging facilities (because increased profit
may provide hotels with more disposable income to make improvements). Tourists will gain
interesting wildlife viewing opportunities, and tourists may be provided with increased study
32
opportunities created by the management needs of ECPTA. Finally, these draws for researchers
and tourists benefit ECPTA and DAFF by providing them with more information that can be
used to better conserve this forest and others as well as good public relations and reputation
boosting.
6. Conclusion
How will the creation of the Manubi Forest conservation area impact the surrounding
community? Our initial analysis provides an overview of the tangled web of negative and
positive effects for each stakeholder. Limitations in time, expertise and IRB clearance inhibited
us from drawing a more definite conclusion. A time constraint of ten days restricted the amount
of methods that could be employed and reduced accuracy that could be provided by building a
larger sample of animals and human respondents. As undergraduates specializing in areas other
than ecology and sociology, our analysis of the data is largely dependant upon expert references,
so it is cursory rather than in-depth. Finally, not receiving IRB clearance to undertake household
surveys prevented us from getting data from a valuable stakeholder group. In addition to
correcting for some of these limitations, future studies might consider choosing August or
September for their study period to determine how the forest and human systems change
seasonally. Further research should address the magnitude of each impact of the conservation
area on the individual stakeholders and resource system in terms of livelihood practices and
ecological processes. This will enable ECPTA to better assess the overall effect of the
conservation area.
We employed a variety of ecological and social survey methods – including bucket traps,
camera traps, interviews and community mapping – to help us answer our research question. The
33
data we have gathered through these methods has been analyzed by our team but still requires
further analysis so as to be most useful to the ECPTA in their decision making process regarding
the creation of the Manubi Forest conservation area. Although there is still much work to be
done, researchers, ECPTA and the community have all taken substantial steps to begin the
process. Hopefully, with continued research, the conservation area will be a true partnership,
ultimately benefitting all involved stakeholders.
7. References
Ham, C. The importance of woodlots to local communities, small scale entrepreneurs and
indigenous forest conservation- A case study. Instruments for sustainable private sector
forestry, South Africa series. International Institute for Environment and Development
CSIR-Environmentek: London and Pretoria, 2000. Print.
Natalobatrachus bonebergi. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. N.p., Feb. 2012. Web. 10
Mar. 2013.
Springate-Baginski, Oliver, David Allen and William Darwall, eds. Integrated Wetland
Assessment Toolkit: A Good Guide to Practice. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and
Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Program, 2009. Print.
34