5.4 Stakeholder Management
5.4.2 Contextualising changes in natural resource abundance
5.4.2.2 Invasive Alien Species
but one should cut one or two roots, and then cover it with soil so that the tree can grow again. This will keep the tree to grow and you will be able to find the tree when you come to harvest again.
(Traditional healer 5)
The Tshelimnyama traditional healers indicated that they practice the traditional knowledge they have about harvesting natural resources. This shows that traditional healers are concerned about sustainability of the wildlands that provide them with the medicinal products. Unlike in the GGEP project, studies such as Bohensky and Maru (2011) and Hill et al. (2012) highlight that sustainable environmental management is moving towards integrating indigenous ecological knowledge with western science. Schlosberg (2013) demonstrates the move towards sustainable relationships between humans and the environment. This has implications for the GGEP project and biodiversity conservation in South Africa.
ring-barking are used. Small invasive alien plants are cleared through hand pulling as much as possible while large plants that cannot be hand-pulled are de-barked by stripping the trunk to expose the sapwood.
The major concern with this method is that cutting down big trees on slopes or cliffs can potentially cause soil erosion if not properly managed.
Figure 5.18: GGEP management team slashing invasive alien species (Source: GGEP Management activity records)
Considering the size of the GGEP, extent of alien species invasion and the size of the management team, hand pulling is not an effective or sustainable way of managing invasive alien species. This is because, to eradicate invasive alien species, there is need to conduct repeated follow-up activities which would demand a bigger workforce to be done on a large scale. However, a team of nine working on about 227.6 hectares of land mainly invaded by alien species would not manage to cover a considerable area successfully. This is consistent with Moran and Hoffmann (2012) and Van Wilgen and Richardson (2014) who assert that mechanical control is labour intensive and costly, especially when invasion is extensive and the area in question is large. This then demands a more intensive method of clearing invasive alien species and for the GGEP, chemical control is used.
According to the findings from a key informant interview with eThekwini Municipality personnel, the management team uses chemical control through the use of herbicides that target specific plant species.
This method is used as a measure of last resort considering how harmful the herbicides can be on the
environment in case of an accident or rain after application. In a conservation zone such as the GGEP, use of herbicides has to be done with the strictest care as it can defeat the purpose of conservation if handling of herbicides and equipment is not properly done. For instance, the GGEP manager and one of the property owners in the management team indicated that prior to the formation of the GGEP, a team that was working on clearing invasive alien species spilt herbicides in the GGEP open space and as the herbicides ran downhill, they destroyed all the plants in their path. To date, the impact of that spillage is still visible as there is little vegetation when compared to the surrounding vegetation. Thus the use of herbicides should be a short-term control method to be implemented by highly skilled people due to high risk on the environment and human health, rendering chemical control unsustainable (Van Wilgen, 2001;
Van Wilgen and Richardson, 2014). Figure 5.19 shows an example of chemical control method used on tree stumps in the GGEP.
Figure 5.19: Alien clearing using herbicides on cut stumps (Source: GGEP management activity records)
An integrated approach to clearing invasive alien species (where mechanical control is complemented by the used of biological and/ or chemical control) is especially suited to the GGEP. This is because the invasive alien species have reached the exponential stage of invasion and mechanical control cannot achieve containment alone (Van Wilgen et al., 2001; Van Wilgen and Richardson, 2014). The use of mechanical and chemical control on invasive alien species that have reached an advanced stage of growth and occupying large areas can be unsustainable (Moran and Hoffmann, 2012; Van Wilgen and
Richardson, 2014). The famous quote by Benjamin Franklin (1735, cited in Kiel, 2011: 791), “prevention is better than cure” can be applied to invasive alien species management. That is, it is imperative to prevent alien species invasions through legislations that limit movement of exotic species. However, in cases where invasions occur, sustainable methods should be used to eradicate the species. Ficetola et al.
(2007) support this by stating that the CBD and the Global Strategy of the Global Invasive Species Programme recommend developing strategies for preventing alien species invasions and managing invaded ecosystems. However, strategies for preventing and managing invasive alien species need not exacerbate the impact of invasive alien species by damaging desired species. As such, a sustainable and more cost-effective method of invasive alien species control is ‘biological control’, which utilises organisms that are natural predators to control the invasive alien species (Klein, 2011; Moran and Hoffmann, 2012; Van Wilgen and Richardson, 2014). However, interviews with the GGEP management team did not reveal any use of this method in the GGEP open space. These findings have implications for the GGEP project in the future.
Further, findings from key informant interviews with the GGEP project manager and eThekwini Municipality personnel reveal that clearing invasive alien species yields lots of wood which has to be ferried and disposed off from the GGEP open space. The alien species that are cleared are usually cut into smaller logs which are ferried to a designated area (see Figure 5.20) where GGEP residents can collect for their use.
Figure 5.20: GGEP designated area for logs (Source: Field photographs)
In addition, findings from a key informant interview with the eThekwini Municipality personnel reveal that a Tshelimnyama community member started a business using the wood from invasive alien species clearing. The Tshelimnyama community member chops and collects wood from the GGEP open space which he supplies to garages. The eThekwini Municipality personnel highlighted this by stating:
A Tshelimnyama community member started a small business…he approached us if he could take some of the wood we are cutting and actually he helps us because to move big pieces of wood is a mission…he does not have transport most of the time but he has a small team of three to four people and they have chain-saws...so they chop off the firewood and they sell it to the garages…it is good that we can help him because he also helps us.
(eThekwini Municipality personnel)
Trading in wood, an opportunity that arose from clearing invasive alien species from the GGEP is an activity which has produced temporal economic benefits to a few Tshelimnyama community members.
However, this business is not sustainable as it is reliant on alien species clearing which implies that at one
point there will not be enough wood to sustain the business. Van Wigen and Richardson (2014) caution against the use of alien species products as it can create a dependence on the species.
Several studies recommend providing social and economic incentives as alternative livelihoods to poor communities dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods (Egoh et al., 2010; Thondhlana et al., 2012). This is in view of the fact that natural resources are a primary source of livelihood and in order to promote conservation of natural resources for healthy ecosystems, there should be strategies that incorporate conservation and sustenance of livelihoods. However, in the case of the Tshelimnyama community, the GGEP project through the eThekwini Municipality has not designed deliberate strategies to create alternative livelihoods such as job creation for the adjacent community. Rather, the field workers are employed by the eThekwini Municipality and the Working on Fire programme regardless of whether they are Tshelimnyama community members or not. Besides, the main focus of the GGEP project is restoration of the GGEP open space as an indigenous open space as enshrined in the management plan.
Thus the management plan does not explicitly provide for alternative livelihoods, job creation for the adjacent poor community or any other economic benefits. The management plan, however, provides for social benefits for any persons interested in non-extractive, educational or recreational natural resource use. The findings discussed highlight the lack of Tshelimnyama community involvement in the GGEP project which has implications in relation to the management of the GGEP open space ecosystems. A further discussion on Tshelimnyama community involvement in the GGEP project is undertaken in section 5.4.4 on stakeholder perceptions.