A Wilderness in an
Urban Setting: Planning and Management of the Cape Peninsula National Park,
Cape Town, South Africa
By
Maretha Shroyer, Darryll Kilian and James Jackelman
Paper presented at 6th World Wilderness Congress, 24 - 29 October 1998, Bangalore,
Karnataka, India
The Cape Peninsula National Park (CPNP) is unique as it is situated within the Cape Floristic Kingdom, one of the six floral kingdoms of the world, as well as within a metropolitan area with over 2.8 million people. A key challenge facing Park management is the management of the urban-wilderness interface in an open access system. CPNP management has adopted a number of proactive and complementary planning and management strategies to deal with urban edge challenges. Specific initiatives have been developed and implemented to address natural hazards, development pressure, legislative shortcomings and social problems. This paper shows that the long-term sustainability of the CPNP will depend on the ability of Park management to embrace the urban context.
1 In Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg. 1999. Personal Societal, and Ecological Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedings on Research, Management, and Allocation, Volume. II, Proc. RMRS-P-000. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
2M.E.
Shroyer is Environmental Scientist, Yebo Environmental Services, 42 Belmont
Ave, Oranjezicht, Cape Town, 8001 South Africa
Darryll Kilian is Urban Geographer,
Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch,
7701 South Africa
James Jackelman
is Park Planner, Cape Peninsula National Park, Kirstenbosch Research Centre,
Cape Town South Africa The MCSA supplied Martha Shroyer, Cape Town
Section member, with an air ticket to this congress
The Cape Peninsula is situated on the south-western corner of the Africa continent (Figure 1) and covers an area of approximately 471 km2. This Peninsula is unique in that it lies at the heart of the Cape Floristic Kingdom, one of the six floral kingdoms in the world, as well as the Cape Metropolitan Area (CMA), a metropole of over 2.8 million people (Aberman, 1997).
The Cape Peninsula is part of a region that experiences a Mediterranean climate, wet in the winter months (June to August) and dry and hot in the summer months (November to February). However, the climatic conditions along the Cape Peninsula are dominated by the orographic influence of the mountainous peaks that run the length of the Peninsula. As a result, weather can change rapidly from sunny and clear to strong south-easterly winds with poor visibility.
The Cape Peninsula is recognised nationally and internationally as an area of outstanding natural beauty and unique biodiversity. More specifically, it contains the highest diversity of plant species (2 256), endemic plant species (90) and threatened species (141) of any similarly-sized area on earth, making it one of the world’s most significant conservation priorities (Cape Peninsula National Park, 1998a). It is also treasured for the unique opportunities it presents for recreation, inspiration and relaxation in an otherwise stressful urban environment (Fuggle, Siegfried and Raimondo, 1994). However, the rapid growth of the CMA in recent years has intensified threats to this area’s unique natural heritage.
In May 1998, 16 000 ha of conservation worthy public and private land was proclaimed as the Cape Peninsula National Park (CPNP). This was the first step in consolidating conservation and management of the natural areas of the Cape Peninsula under one managing authority, namely the South African National Parks (SANP). The CPNP includes vast tracts of fynbos (cf. fine bush), pristine coastline and mountainous landmarks such as Table Mountain, Lion’s Head, Devil’s Peak, the Twelve Apostles, Cape Point and Boulders Beach, the site of a mainland colony of endemic Jackass Penguin. Many cultural-historic resources such as historic buildings, military features, places of archaeological significance and religious sites, are also found within the park boundaries.
This paper will firstly provide an overview of developments that preceded the proclamation of the CPNP. Thereafter the authors will highlight some general challenges and related initiatives facing Park management, before expanding on specific issues arising from the Park’s urban context. Finally, the paper will indicate how wilderness can be conserved in an urban setting through the use of management strategies underpinned by effective communication and active partnerships.
Certain units of land in the Cape Peninsula have received some conservation status since the 17th century, however significant events leading to the establishment of the Cape Peninsula National Park (CPNP) dates back to 1978 when the Hey Commission recommended that for management purposes, Table Mountain and the South Peninsula should be proclaimed a nature reserve in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance No 19 of 1974 or by a special Act of parliament.
In 1989 over 60% (or 291km2) of the Cape Peninsula was awarded some protection from development in terms of the Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989. This area was called the Cape Peninsula Protected Natural Environment (CPPNE). The creation of the CPPNE was a positive step, however multiple ownership resulted in fragmented management of this biodiversity “hotspot”.
In recognition of the need for proper management of the Cape Peninsula, the then Administrator of the Cape Province commissioned a study in 1993, to set out policies for the management of the Cape Peninsula. A report entitled "Policy for the Multi-Purpose Use of the Cape Peninsula" was prepared by the Environmental Evaluation Unit of the University of Cape Town under the leadership of Professors Richard Fuggle, Roy Siegfried, and Dr John Raimondo. The Fuggle report (1994) recommended that the CPPNE be managed by the South African National Parks (SANP).
In 1994 The Kahn Working Group recommended that should a statutory managing authority be established for the management of CPPNE, that all the present responsibilities (of the existing management authorities) be re-assigned and land re-allocated to this statutory body.
A committee chaired by Professor Brian Huntley of the National Botanical Institute was appointed in 1995 by the Minister of Environmental Affairs. The Huntley Committee invited submissions from bodies interested in managing the CPPNE. After considering the submissions, the committee recommended that the SANP be appointed to take over the managerial custody of the area. In December 1995, the Provincial Government accepted this recommendation, on the condition that the SANP makes "significant progress" towards stewardship of the area by July 1996.
In January 1996 the Table Mountain Project Team was established by SANP and tasked to establish a national park using the CPPNE as the core. This was satisfactorily achieved by the SANP, however, it took several months of intensive negotiations, carefully structured compromises and agreements between the SANP, different local, provincial and national authorities and over 200 private landowners before all agreed on a common vision – the formation of the proposed National Park. Negotiations where somewhat complicated by heated debates that took place between the SANP and some non-government organisations (NGOs), mainly because of a lack of trust on both sides.
Despite these obstacles the first agreement was signed on 29 April 1998 between SANP and the City of Cape Town, Cape Metropolitan Council and the South Peninsula Municipality, effectively handing over the management of portions of land to SANP. On 29 May 1998 approximately 16 000 ha of land was officially proclaimed a National Park in the Government Gazette. Once the process of consolidation has been completed, the CPNP will ultimately cover some 30 000 ha consolidated under the management of SANP.
The CPNP is not home to lions, buffalo, elephant or any of the popular game species found in most other national parks of South Africa. Rather, the principal attraction of the CPNP is its fantastic scenic views, 2 256 indigenous plant species (Bond and Goldblatt, 1984) and associated avifauna, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and small mammals. Appropriate conservation of fynbos ecosystems is extremely important as over 90 species are endemic to the Cape Peninsula (Trinder-Smith; Cowling; and Linder, 1996), large numbers of species have become extinct and 141 plant species are currently threatened.
In addition to the challenges associated with managing this biodiversity hotspot, the task of managing the CPNP is made more complex given that it is located within the rapidly growing Cape Metropolitan Area, with open and easy access to local communities and visitors alike to undertake activities such as walking, picnicking, rock-climbing, horse riding, paragliding and mountain biking.
This section will briefly highlight some of the strategic challenges facing the CPNP and planning initiatives adopted by Park management.
Establishment of the terrestrial components of the CPNP is particularly important to ensure adequate protection of the high numbers of endemic and threatened fauna and flora. Having acquired the first portions of the CPPNE, Park management remains under pressure to incorporate further conservation-worthy portions of land. Negotiations are currently underway for the transfer of some conservation-worthy pieces of public and privately owned land into the CPNP. The process of obtaining land for inclusion into the CPNP makes use of a number of strategies. For instance, people can contract land into the CPNP voluntarily or via the use non-permanent trade-off opportunities, or contract land into the Park with enhanced permanent rights for a portion of the property and cession to the state for the rest of the property.
During the 1990s there has been increasing recognition of the importance of the marine and coastal areas of the Cape Peninsula (Fuggle, Siegfried and Raimondo, 1994). Currently only 4% (or 4km) of the coastline of the Cape Peninsula is afforded total protection from exploitation in marine protected areas (MPAs) (Prochazka, 1998). This is a serious state of affairs if one considers that the Cape Peninsula lies at the junction of two major southern African biogeographic provinces, the Cool Namaqua Province to the west and warmer Agulhas Province to the east, separated by Cape Point. The waters of the Agulhas Province are especially high in marine biodiversity and endemism (Brown, 1997).
The challenge is for the SANP to explore ways whereby marine resources around the Cape Peninsula can receive adequate protection and management. A small portion of the funds, received from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), are earmarked to undertake a feasibility study to investigate ways of transferring management of marine conservation worthy areas abutting the CPNP from the South African Department of Sea Fisheries to the SANP.
The expenditure of the CPNP is approximately 25 million Rand (or $ 4.2 million) per annum. Without adequate funding it will be impossible to manage the CPNP to the high standard required for such a globally important area. Both SANP and the various local and provincial authorities are facing a situation of limited financial resources and diminishing income. State subsidies also cannot be guaranteed.
Funds for the first six years have been secured from various sources. The former public landowners (City of Cape Town, South Peninsula Municipality and Cape Metropolitan Council) have promised over 10 million Rand (about $ 1.6 million), the GEF 46 million Rand (or $ 7.7 million), and a French funding agency, the FFEM, $ 1 million (or 6 million Rand). Income of approximately 12 million Rand is currently being generated from admission fees to reserves such as the Cape of Good Hope Nature Reserve, Boulders Coastal Park and Silvermine Nature Reserve. Additional income is also derived from commercial companies who lease Park land, and for charging companies to use the Park to launch new products and to undertake commercial filming.
The Western Cape Province and the Cape Peninsula in particular are experiencing a rapid growth in tourism and this trend is likely to continue (WESGRO, 1998, cited in CPNP, 1998b). It is significant that seven of the ten most visited tourist destinations in South Africa are found in the Western Cape Province, three of these in the Cape Peninsula, i.e. the Table Mountain Cableway, Cape Point and Kirstenbosch National Botanical Gardens. If tourism grows at current levels, the Western Cape Province needs to accommodate 3.4 million visitors by the year 2 000 and 9.3 million by 2010 (CPNP, 1998b). This increase in tourism as well as increasing numbers of local visitors will place/is placing added pressure on Park facilities.
The CPNP management has adopted an integrated approach, the gateway concept, to handle increasing numbers of visitors to the Park. The gateway concept aims to channel 90% of the visitors and their impacts to 2% of the Park in an attempt to meet the needs of visitors while preventing over-exploitation of the resource base of the Park. Approximately 15 gateways are envisaged (CPNP, 1998b). Each gateway will offer safe and secure parking, interpretive information and at least three well-marked circular walking routes. At some gateways infrastructure will be available ranging from public toilets, restaurants/refreshment outlets, formal and informal trading venues, environmental education centers and eventually public transportation. An added benefit of gateways is that they will provide trading opportunities to local communities. This is important, as local communities need to receive tangible benefits from the park if long-term conservation goals are to be realised.
To manage increasing numbers of recreational users a use-zone map was developed according to ecological zones (MLH, 1996). Specific strategies for each recreational user group, via working partnerships with these groups, have also been initiated. For example, management guidelines were developed by sport-climbers in consultation with Park management to mitigate sport-climbing impacts. Corrective action (as required) will be undertaken jointly by SANP and the sport-climbing community.
Of particular importance in managing a wilderness in an urban context is the establishment of trust and working partnerships with all stakeholders including local communities, NGOs, authorities, user-groups and the public. In terms of public involvement in the management of the park there are two general trends of either apathy towards park management or a high level of involvement.
The challenge facing Park management is to engender a sense of ownership amongst all inhabitants of the metropole and to establish sustainable working partnerships. The CPNP management has attempted to achieve improved communication and partnerships in a number of ways.
While this section gave an overview of general challenges and initiatives facing SANP management, the next section will focus on management strategies related to the urban-wilderness interface.
Old-style conservation practices – such as putting up fences to keep wild animals in and people out – have no place in the new South Africa least of all in the CPNP. In actual fact, urban edge neighbours have an important role to play for effective park management to be achieved. Prior to the proclamation of the CPNP, wilderness areas of the Cape Peninsula (excluding the Cape of Good Hope Nature and Silvermine Nature Reserve) could be freely accessed by all. The people of the CMA are adamant that free access to the CPNP - as enjoyed for many years - should continue.
The CPNP shares a common open boundary with four State bodies, a provincial authority, a metropolitan authority, two local authorities and over two hundred private landowners. This situation presents Park management with a range of challenges namely natural hazards, i.e., fire, animals, boulders, flooding and alien vegetation, social and urban problems such as squatting and development pressure, aesthetics degradation and inadequate legislative control. The CPNP management has adopted innovative management initiatives to address these problems. Initiatives are underpinned by effective communication and working partnerships with urban neighbours.
Fire management— Fire is critically important to the regeneration of fynbos (Richardson, van Wilgen, le Maitre, Higgins and Forsyth, 1994). Frequent fires are however undesirable and vegetation on the urban fringe is especially prone to fires through accidental and other means. Fires, whether controlled or wild, could pose a threat to fauna, flora, people and property within and outside the CPNP.
To manage fire in an urban context, the CPNP management has adopted a number of management initiatives:
Problem animals--As a result of the open access between natural and urban zones, some animals move freely between the Park and the urban surroundings. Domestic cats catch birds in the Park, while mongoose, baboons and porcupines move into adjoining urban areas. For example, baboons have been known to attack both adults and children and have been encountered within peoples' homes in certain urban areas. A local metropolitan newspapers recently reported an incident where a baboon died of stress and exhaustion after a two day chase in suburban areas adjoining the CPNP (The Cape Argus, 15 October 1998).
Specific tailor-made programmes for the management of problem animals have been developed and are being implemented. Strategies to manage the baboon problem include:
Loose boulders - The Cape Peninsula mountain chain consists of many weathered rocky sandstone outcroppings and large boulders. Natural processes of weathering and erosion influence stability of soil and rock around boulders, sometimes resulting in boulders becoming mobile. Boulders can roll into neighbouring landowners’ property or public roads causing injuries to people or damage to property. Recently, a Capetonian was badly injured by a rock fall while driving along Chapman’s Peak Drive, a scenic road on the edge of the Park.
Park management has adopted a “no interference” approach to natural geomorphic processes except in instances where there has been human interference. As Park management does not accept responsibility for damage caused by rolling or falling boulders, they have initiated negotiations with insurance companies to increase premiums against damage in at risk areas.
Flooding - Inappropriate planning and development control in certain areas abutting the Park, has resulted in the construction of houses in 1:50 year flood plains. These areas are particularly at risk of flooding especially after the first rains of the winter season. Flooding is often exacerbated in instances where large tracts of land have been cleared of alien vegetation or after wild fires. Stormwater drainage systems in urban areas prone to flooding are often not designed to accommodate greater volumes of runoff.
Park management attempt to limit flooding by:
reducing the size of areas cleared of alien vegetation on the urban edge;
using a compartmentalised fire management programme; and,
negotiating with local authorities to upgrade stormwater infrastructure.
Alien vegetation - Fifty percent of the CPNP is under moderate to dense infestation by invasive alien plants, e.g. Acacia, Pinus, Eucalyptus, Sesbania, Hakea. Invasion by alien plant species has already resulted in the extinction of 26 plant species and many other plant species are currently at risk (Bond, van Wilgen and Richardson, 1992). To prevent alien vegetation from spreading into the Park, private landowners within and adjoining the CPNP are encouraged to plant indigenous vegetation. To further control the spread of undesirable invasive vegetation, SANP have in the past proclaimed certain plant species as invasive weeds.
Squatting in the Park - High levels of unemployment and poverty in the CMA have contributed to increasing numbers of squatters in the CPNP. Once a piece of land has been occupied or settled, it becomes a long and costly process to remove illegal occupants as the law favours illegal occupants. Authorities can only remove illegal occupants if they can provide alternative sites (Isaacs, 1998 pers. comm.). This is very problematic as it is impossible to effectively patrol an open access park in search of illegal “visitors” who often enter the Park at night. Cooking fires used by squatters in the Park increase the risk of wild fires (Du Plessis, 1998 pers. comm).
To discourage illegal occupation, old buildings have been locked and barred and water sources blocked to specific areas in the Park in an attempt to make it as uncomfortable as possible to live or ‘hide-out” in the CPNP. Popular living caves are regularly inspected and belongings of illegal occupants removed. The local authorities in the CMA and SANP have initiated the development of a policy on squatter control.
Informal settlements--Informal settlements neighbouring the CPNP are expanding into the Park, with a consequent increase in the exploitation of natural resources and risk of fire. CPNP has established partnerships with these communities in an attempt to empower them to improve their economic and social circumstances. This includes direct employment on a contractual basis in the Park, the provision of informal trading opportunities at gateways, environmental education programmes and skills training. To date, interaction with poor communities living on the edge of the Park in Ocean View and Masiphumelele has proven to be fairly successful.
Development pressure--The scenic beauty of the Cape Peninsula continues to attract development. Urban edge sites commanding outstanding views and vistas are especially sought after by developers. Particularly controversial has been the proposal to develop a large tract of pristine land at Oudekraal on the slopes of Table Mountain overlooking the Atlantic seaboard (The Argus, 30 September 1998). Oudekraal is symptomatic of the scale of development pressure threatening the integrity of the wilderness character of the Park in currently undeveloped areas.
To counter inappropriate formal urban development on the CPNP’s boundaries, Park planners actively participate in local and regional planning to ensure the aesthetic appeal of the Park and its surroundings are not compromised. Park management supports Integrated Environmental Management procedures (DEA, 1992) and comments on Environmental Impact Assessments undertaken for development proposals in close proximity to the Park.
To control development pressure in the long-term, the SANP aims to proclaim as much land as is possible into a Schedule 1 National Park. Negotiations with private landowners and authorities, based on contractual agreements, are currently taking place to incorporate more land into the CPNP.
The South African National Parks Act 57 of 1976 was promulgated to conserve land in national parks in rural or agricultural settings. This Act therefore provides inadequate legislative protection for national parks in urban areas (EEU, 1995). In areas outside the CPNP, administration of land use and town planning ordinances remains under the jurisdiction of provincial and local government. SANP has no regulatory control outside the boundaries of the CPNP and the National Parks Act needs to be revised to address this limitation (EEU, 1997). Legal advisors have been appointed by SANP head office to investigate ways in which the SANP can exert influence outside the CPNP.
It is evident from the above-mentioned discussion that the CPNP is faced by a myriad of strategic challenges including park establishment, funding and increasing tourism. Apart from the challenges associated with managing this biodiversity hotspot, the task of managing the CPNP is made more complex given that it is located within the rapidly growing CMA.
The CPNP management has adopted a number of proactive and complementary planning and management strategies to deal with urban edge challenges. Specific initiatives have been developed and implemented to address natural hazards, development pressure, legislative shortcomings and social problems.
The success of these management initiatives and indeed the very existence of the CPNP is dependent on effective communication and working partnership with local authorities, private landowners, communities living on the edge of the Park, volunteer groups and NGOs. Ignoring these and other metropolitan stakeholders would undermine the continued consolidation and management of the CPNP. Urban edge issues cannot be resolved without cooperation.
The protection of terrestrial and marine ecosystems in the Cape Peninsula will ultimately depend on whether or not the inhabitants of the CMA take ownership of this globally significant natural resource. The long-term sustainability of the CPNP will depend on the ability of Park management to embrace the urban context.