Introduction

Local communities and Indigenous peoples are – and have been for centuries – the custodians of many World Heritage sites. Thus, they should be recognized as key actors in the process of identification, management and sustainable development of a property. The importance of enhancing their engagement in the stewardship of World Heritages sites and ensuring equitable sharing of the benefits deriving from heritage is recognized as a strategic objective of the World Heritage Convention: the fifth ‘C’ (Communities).

Launched in the year 2000, the Community Management of Protected Areas Conservation (COMPACT) initiative was established as a partnership between the World Heritage Centre, the UNDP-implemented GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP), the United Nations Foundation (UNF) and UNESCO (as the institutional host of the programme) to demonstrate how community-based initiatives can substantially increase the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in globally significant protected areas while helping to improve the livelihoods of local people.Footnote 1 With an emphasis on complementing and adding value to existing conservation programmes, COMPACT uses small grants to support clusters of community-based activities that are intended to strengthen biodiversity conservation in and around protected areas (Brown and Hay-Edie, 2014).

The transboundary Maloti-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site (MDP WHS) embarked on the COMPACT approach in 2015, and this article will present the process from stakeholder consultations to small grants supporting clusters of community-based activities.

Contextualization

Study area

Covering 249,313 ha, the MDP WHS is the largest and most significant protected area within the Protected Area Network of the Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation and Development Area (Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Programme, 2008). It is comprised of two parts: the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park (UDP), a 242,813 ha park situated in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, and the 6,500 ha Sehlabathebe National Park (SNP) located in the Qacha’s Nek District of Lesotho, which shares an international boundary of around 12 km with the southern tip of the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park (Maloti-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site, 2020). The UDP is recognized worldwide due to its outstanding natural and cultural values, and as such it was listed as a mixed World Heritage Site in 2000 and a Ramsar Site in 1996 (uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, 2019). The addition of the SNP to the World Heritage site broadens the spectrum of natural and cultural heritage protected by this transboundary park, and therefore its inscription onto the World Heritage List in 2013 was appropriate.

The transboundary MDP WHS is dominated by the Maloti Drakensberg – a mountain range of unique origins, and as such has a diverse range of ecological niches resulting in a rich biodiversity and a high number of endemic species (Sylvester et al., 2020). In addition, it is home to thousands of rock art paintings, a product of the San’s long historical relationship with this mountain environment, as well as an interesting historical cultural heritage (Mazel and Watchman, 2003). Furthermore, the MDP WHS contributes significantly towards the economy of the Southern African subregion through protecting a vast portion of this mountain range, thereby securing the supply of high-quality water from its dense network of wetlands,Footnote 2 the sustainable use of natural resources and the development of appropriate forms of tourism (Chellan and Bob, 2010).

In terms of the Maloti Drakensberg’s significance to water, the region is the most important water catchment area for the people of Lesotho and South Africa.Footnote 3 Two of the largest civil engineering projects in Southern Africa, the Tugela-Vaal Scheme and the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, transfer water from the mountains to the economic powerhouse of Africa, the province of Gauteng.Footnote 4 The Upper uThukela, located within the Tugela catchment, is a strategic water source. One of the critical water provision schemes in South Africa, the Tugela/Vaal Scheme, which was commissioned to provide water to Gauteng until the Lesotho Highlands Water Project came into force, is supplied by the Thonyalana and Mnweni river tributaries located in this area. The tributaries open into Woodstock Dam – the main feeder source for the Tugela/Vaal Water Pump Storage Scheme. The Tugela/Vaal scheme is used by Eskom to generate hydroelectricity and still augments Gauteng’s water supply as and when needed. On the Lesotho side, the SNP and its buffer zone form the catchment of the Tsoelike River, which is one of the major tributaries for the Senqu River, which passes through Lesotho, South Africa and Namibia (with its catchment extending as far as Botswana) (Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture, 2017). The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority intends to commission, or is in the process of commissioning, the hydropower scheme in the Tsoelike River. The major tributaries for the Tsoelike River are the Tsoelikana River, which originates in SNP and the Leqooa River, which originates in the buffer zone of SNP. In the landscape on both sides of the international boundary, there are local populations who are dependent on the mountains for all or part of their livelihood. Therefore, this is a critical area for water provision and regulation in the region.

The MDP WHS falls within the Drakensberg Mountains, characterized by significant plant and animal biodiversity, with unique habitats and high levels of endemism (Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Programme, 2008). The Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Focus Area (MDTFCA) is part of the grassland biome (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) and thus contains a diversity of grasses and associated forbs (Carbutt, 2019). Other vegetation types include isolated areas of indigenous Afromontane forest (which are located on the south-facing slopes in the region), wetlands of the region (including the characteristic tarns), alpine heathland, and Protea savanna (Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Programme, 2008). All these features, together with the various human-dominated landscapes, combine to create a wealth of ‘sense of place’ values, appreciated by many different people. This biodiversity also continues to produce ecosystem services that can be classified as supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling), provisioning (e.g. food and medicine), regulating (e.g. flood regulation), and cultural (e.g. spiritual) (Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Programme, 2008). They provide a variety of livelihood and well-being benefits to people, including security, high-quality natural materials and health (Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Programme, 2008) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
figure 1

The location and extent of the MDP in Southern Africa. Source: MDTP bioregional planning maps, used with permission from the MDP WHS Joint COMPACT Team (South Africa and Lesotho).

Note: Map produced before the change of ‘Swaziland’ to ‘Eswatini’. The names and boundaries shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Full size image

Local communities and their role in World Heritage site management

Social context

Communities located at the foothills of the Maloti Drakensberg Mountains and outside the boundary of the MDP WHS both in Lesotho and South Africa are largely poor and dependent on natural resources to sustain their livelihoods (oKhahlamba Local Municipality, 2018). This is contextualized in various municipal integrated development plans, including the oKhahlamba Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan 2018/19, which records a 43% unemployment rate in the local population within the boundary of the municipality and highlights the dependency of the local population, especially those at the foothills of the Drakensberg mountains, on natural resources. Sources of livelihood for these rural communities include, but are not limited to, bee-honey harvesting, grassland harvesting for roof thatching and other crafts, reeds from wetlands for crafts such as mats (amacansi), beer strainers, hats, and grass for livestock grazing. Some of the resources supporting local communities, such as grass for crafting hats, are accessed from the MDP WHS through the access and benefit-sharing programmes. The local community also utilizes the park space for cultural experiences and educational programmes. Furthermore, the MDP WHS is an employment hub for local communities (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2019), who are also engaged in seasonal job opportunities during the fire season (Krüger, 2020). In addition, the communities benefit from interventions supporting the development of small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) – for example, the community levy supports the empowerment of local businesses (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2019). MDP WHS, through the Ezemvelo Invasive Alien Species Programme, supports the clearing of invasive alien plants in the protected area and its buffer zone. This provides training and wage opportunities for the local community.

Thus, the support provided by the MDP WHS resources to local communities cannot be overstated. However, despite the importance of the MDP WHS and its buffer zone in the context of transformation through its aforementioned contribution of socio-economic benefits for the local community, both the natural and cultural heritage are under enormous pressure from, largely, anthropogenic activities.

Challenges

Through extensive consultations with partners during the development of the MDP WHS COMPACT Strategies from 2017 (Maloti-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site, 2018), some of the challenges of the MDP WHS and its buffer zone were identified as:

  • Inappropriate fire regimes

  • Poor grazing management by livestock affecting ecological infrastructure, such as water quality

  • Invasive alien plant infestations

  • Overharvesting of natural resources

  • Destruction of cultural resources, such as rock art

  • Wetland destruction

Consultations with partners during the development of the MDP WHS COMPACT strategies from 2017 prioritized solutions to the above challenges, both within the boundary and in the buffer zone of the MDP WHS (Maloti-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site, 2018) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
figure 2

Left to right: Depicting the negative impact of overgrazing and poor rangeland management on water resources in Enkambini, EmaSwazini, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. © Joyce Loza, Mohau Monyatsi and Motabotabo Mamasheane.

Full size image

Institutional arrangements

In terms of institutional arrangements, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture in South Africa and Lesotho, respectively, are management authorities (Maloti-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site, 2020). On the South African side, the buffer zone to the MDP WHS falls under communal land tenure and is under the management authority of traditional leadership. Challenges, such as veld fires, cannot be localized – they do not observe boundaries, and therefore a fire originating outside the boundary of the MDP WHS can spread to the MDP WHS, destroying not only the natural (O’Connor et al., 2003) and the cultural heritage, but also tourism infrastructure, devastating livelihoods (Fakude, 2016). Hence, it is critical for the MDP WHS management authorities to jointly manage the buffer zone with the community through its traditional leadership.

It is within this context that COMPACT strategies are critical, to strengthen collaboration with the community and other partners in co-developing innovative interventions for managing the buffer zone in congruence with the management efforts of the MDP WHS. Furthermore, this is necessary to promote the management and sustainable use of the natural and cultural heritage resources for the benefit of current and future generations. Other key partners to the MDP WHS are government authorities, civil society (non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations) and academia.

Engaging local communities in conservation and governance

From stakeholder consultations to priority actions

The initiation of the COMPACT project in the MDP WHS has been jointly funded by the UNDP Country Office in Lesotho, the Global Environmental Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF SGP) in Lesotho and South Africa, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW) in South Africa, the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture (MTEC) in Lesotho, and the Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Programme (MDTP), as well as financial support from UNESCO through its cooperation with the governments of the Netherlands and Norway.

With the MDP WHS being a transnational site shared between Lesotho and South Africa, two separate but parallel processes were undertaken to produce site strategies for the COMPACT initiative, following the established COMPACT methodology. Besides the parallel national consultation workshops, a number of joint workshops were held between the two countries to help synchronize the respective strategies. The two processes were then collated to form a single strategy with a joint results framework for the MDP WHS, which includes the Sehlabathebe National Park WHS in Lesotho and the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park WHS in South Africa. This was undertaken through an extensive stakeholder consultative process with Lesotho and South African stakeholders from 2017–2018. The 2018–2022 MDP WHS COMPACT Site Strategy and Joint Results Framework identifies priorities for implementing the COMPACT objectives across the MDP WHS in both Lesotho and South Africa.

The strategies build on the work and information gathered and captured in the preceding reports, which also form part of the strategies, i.e. the Consultation Report, Scoping Report and the Baseline Assessments, Conceptual Models and Strategy Framework Report. These three reports provide a record of the stakeholder consultation process and a preliminary indication of the issues and opportunities relevant to the COMPACT initiative. The baseline assessment delves deeper into the natural, cultural, social, economic and political dynamics of the area, providing relevant information on how these impact the integrity of the MDP WHS and its buffer zone. The baseline further informed the development of the conceptual model, where the linkages between these dynamics, their impacts, related strategies and desired outcomes are illustrated. According to the findings of the Connecting Practice initiative, the relationship between the cultural and the natural values is not self-evident; therefore, the COMPACT initiative seeks to strengthen the interconnectedness of the cultural and natural values.

An ecological goods and services (EGS) approach, which identifies diverse EGS, current status and threats, was used to broadly determine the general state of the MDP and its buffer zone. This was the first time that the COMPACT process made use of this approach to aid the discussion and identification of initiatives to achieve the desired state of the park and its buffer zone.

Implementing priority actions on the ground

Following the successful stakeholder consultation and assessment phases, which prioritized actions to be set in the 2018–2022 MDP WHS COMPACT Site Strategy and Joint Results Framework, the joint COMPACT team engaged in their implementation – this is being done through grant-making. Current community-based interventions are implemented with funding from the Government of Norway in collaboration with UNESCO. The implementation of these activities started in January 2021 and addresses the following key focus areas:

  • Effective rangeland and livestock management to prevent degradation of grazing areas and also to improve household economic activity through livestock ranching/auctions.

  • Promote participation of women and youth in local economic activities, such as livestock ranching, to contribute to addressing rural economic transformation, social and economic inclusion, and a reduction in households living below the poverty line.

  • Increase protection of the buffer zone through effective land management practices.

  • Improve fire management to further increase the protection of cultural and natural sites of the MDP WHS and the buffer zone.

  • Mainstream conservation objectives of the MDP WHS and its buffer zone into planning and implementation by other role players, including the economy and production sectors.

  • Promote ecocultural tourism initiatives.

  • Address both food security and climate change through local communities, adopt climate-resilient agricultural practices and affordable technologies.

  • Promote water security and sustainable access for local communities through implementing innovative interventions, such as spring protection.

To undertake an inclusive approach for community-based interventions, eight environmental local community monitors are currently employed in South Africa, and two in Lesotho. The provision for employment and training opportunities is one of the interventions to incentivize the community, and build and/or strengthen community capacity on the sustainable use of natural and cultural resources, with the aim of strengthening the governance of the MDP WHS.

Conclusion

The importance of joint efforts by partners, including the community, in safeguarding the natural and cultural resources of the MDP WHS cannot be overemphasized. It is within this context that COMPACT strategies are deemed necessary to (i) strengthen collaboration with the community and other partners in co-developing innovative interventions for managing the buffer zone, in congruence with the management efforts of the MDP WHS; and (ii) promote the management and sustainable use of the natural and cultural heritage resources for the benefit of current and future generations.