Brookes, PA, Tree Resource Harvesting in Land

Modelling tree resource harvesting on communal land in the
Maputaland Centre of Endemism.
By P.A. Brookes
Submitted as part of the requirements for the award of the M.Sc. degree in
Conservation Biology at the University of Kent at Canterbury
Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology

University of Kent at Canterbury
September 2004
1
Contents
Contents................................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 5
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Systematic conservation planning and design of conservation land-scapes............................... 7
1.3 Setting priorities for identifying plant resource use ................................................................... 9
1.3.1 Resource value and priority plant species.......................................................................... 9
1.3.2 A hierarchical approach to understanding biodiversity and establishing priorities ........... 9
1.3.3 The use of ‘short cuts’ and conceptual filters ...................................................................10
1.3.4 Priority setting related to social, cultural and economic driving forces ...........................11
1.4 South African biodiversity and conservation policies...............................................................12
1.5 Harvesting of plant resources in The Maputaland Centre of Endemism...................................13
1.5.1 Biodiversity and conservation in Maputaland ..................................................................13
1.5.2 Conservation planning and management of biodiversity in Maputaland .........................16
1.5.3 The value of the natural resource base to rural populations in Maputaland .....................18
1.5.4 The fuelwood natural resource base .................................................................................18
1.5.5 The medicinal plants natural resource base ......................................................................19
1.6 Study aims and objectives .........................................................................................................20
2 Study area and methods .................................................................................................................22
2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................22
2.2 The Maputaland study area .......................................................................................................22
2.3 Description of study areas .........................................................................................................26
2.3.1 Study area 1 – conservation issues and disturbance threats..............................................26
2.3.2 Study area 2 – conservation issues and disturbance threats..............................................27
2.4 Quantitative resource inventories ..............................................................................................30
2.5 Pre-site evaluation of study areas and determination of priority species ..................................30
2.6 Sampling design and inventory methodology for assessing harvesting impact ........................32
2.7 Modelling ..................................................................................................................................33
3 Results ...........................................................................................................................................39
3.1 Resource harvest inventory, species prioritisation and resource use.........................................39
3.2 Relative resource value, tree abundance and user groups .........................................................41
3.3 Relative resource value, individual tree harvest intensity, harvest impact and resilience.........43
3.4 Harvesting population and landscape level effects and potential for sustainable use ...............48
3.5 Socio-economic results of resource use from the ‘cross-checking’ methods............................48
3.6 Logistic regression modelling of resource use and prediction of harvest impact......................48
3.7 GIS map and graphical representation of resource harvesting risk ...........................................49
4 Discussion......................................................................................................................................55
4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................55
4.2 Harvesting and resource value to rural communities of Maputaland ........................................55
4.3 Resource use impact and recommendations..............................................................................58
4.4 Modelling tree resource use in the Maputaland Centre of Endemism.......................................59
5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................62
6 References......................................................................................................................................63
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................68
2
List of Figures
Figure 1 Maputaland Centre of Endemism 14

Figure 2 Protected Area Coverage of Maputaland 15
Figure 3 Preliminary Conservation Planning Exercise for Maputaland 17
Figure 4 Ecological Zones and Major Topographical Features of Maputaland 24
Figure 5 Rivers, Lakes, Roads & Towns of Maputaland 25
Figure 6 Study Area 1 28
Figure 7 Study Area 2 29
Figure 8 Landcover Classification Map of Maputaland 31
Figure 9 Photos of Sand Forest Habitat – Study Area 1 35
Figure 10 Photos of Lebombo Woodland Habitat – Study Area 2 36
Figure 11 Photos of Stem Cutting Tree Resource Use 37
Figure 12 Photos of Bark Stripping Tree Resource Use 38
Figure 13a Stem Cutting – Harvest Intensity of Individual Trees (Study Area 1) 44
Figure 13b Stem Cutting – Harvest Intensity of Individual Trees (Study Area 2) 45
Figure 13c Bark Stripping – Harvest Intensity of Individual Trees (Study Area 1) 46
Figure 14 Factors Significant in Modelling Stem Cutting 50
Figure 15 Factors Significant in Modelling Bark Stripping 50
Figure 16 Modelling Stem Cutting Resource Use in Maputaland 51
Figure 17 Modelling Bark Stripping Resource Harvesting in Maputaland 52
Figure 18 Predicted Probability of Resource Harvesting and Distance from Subsistence 53
Figure 19 Site Specific Resource Harvesting and Distance from Subsistence Agriculture 54
3
Tables
Table 1 Priority Tree Species Inventoried Based on ‘Cross-Checking’ Methods 40
Table 2 Relative Resource Value of Priority Species 42
Table 3 Relative Resource Value of Priority Species and Different User Groups 42
Table 4 Opportunity for Sustainable Use Based on Predictors of Resilience to Harvesting 47
Table 5 Results of Multiple Logistic Regression for Stem Cutting Resource Harvesting 49
Table 6 Results of Multiple Logistic Regression for Bark Stripping Resource Harvesting 49
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr Bob Smith for supervising the project and for giving me the
opportunity to work in Maputaland, South Africa. I am grateful for the advice and support
that he has given me throughout the project.
I owe an enormous gratitude to my field assistant, Derrick T. Tembe, without his knowledge
and guidance this project would not have been possible. Go well my friend. In addition, I am
indebted to the people of the Tembe and Mathenjwa Tribal Authorities who welcomed me
into their communities and allowed me access to their land.
I would like to acknowledge the support of the many members of staff at EKZN Wildlife who
supported our work and gave advice throughout the duration of the fieldwork. In particular I
would like to thank Wayne Matthews (Tembe Elephant Park) for his co-operation in the
project.
I am grateful for the financial support provided by DICE and the support of the Darwin
Initiative.
A special thanks are deserved for Julian Eason and Nerissa Chao (MSc students) who aided
me in my fieldwork whilst in South Africa.
Finally, my family and Jacqueline deserve a special mention. Without their help and support
it would not have been possible for me to fulfill an ambition.
5
Abstract
Over-harvesting of the plant resource base by human activities is an important factor in
contributing to the loss of biodiversity. Systematic conservation planning using modelling can
help to inform the decision making process when designing conservation landscapes. The
determination of plant species resource use can provide information of biodiversity loss and
human impact that can support the planning process. More importantly, because of their
cultural and economic importance the sustainable use of plant species can contribute to rural
livelihood improvements and the conservation of habitats and ecosystems more generally.
The present study has collected inventory data and modelled resource use on communal land
in Maputaland, South Africa. Most rural populations pursue subsistence livelihoods and are
reliant to some extent on the natural resource base for direct subsistence or indirectly for
generation of income. A significant contribution of the study has been the adoption of a
robust and practical inventory that prioritises species based on their relative value from the
perspective of resource users that is predictive of resource use.
The inventory of two sites in the Tembe and Mathenjwa Tribal Authorities found that
contrary to expectations there was little evidence of over-harvesting of the resource base,
either for subsistence or commercial purposes. Trade in fuelwood and crafts currently provide
only limited entrepreneurial and employment opportunities. The majority of resource use,
including medicinal plant bark stripping was for subsistence purposes and provides an
important resource base for the rural communities. The socio-economic conditions and the
wide social acceptance and compliance with regulations are the probable reasons why large-
scale exploitation is not occurring. Distance from subsistence agriculture and other landscape
features were identified as being important predictors of resource use in the modelling and
were used for the fine-scale GIS maps. These can be of value in providing recommendations
for practical actions and effective land use planning for relevant stakeholders at the
appropriate scale.
The study would recommend that where high value plant species occur and where there is the
potential for socio-economic conditions to rapidly change, that inventories and modelling
incorporating methodologies used in the present study are implemented. They can identify
effective conservation land use strategies that can be incorporated into the Maputaland
conservation planning system.
Key words Maputaland, modelling, tree resource use, communal land
6
Introduction
1.1 Overview
The introduction provides an overview of the biodiversity crisis, the issue of over-harvesting and the
role of systematic conservation planning in the design of conservation landscapes. The introduction
describes the approaches that are used to identify priority plant species that reflect resource use that
can be used in conservation strategies that benefit both biodiversity and rural livelihoods, emphasising
the role of sustainable use. The importance of South African biodiversity and its significance to its
people are discussed. Finally, the introduction focusses on the Maputaland Centre of Endemism and
highlights key biodiversity and conservation issues with reference to the resource use of fuelwood and
medicinal plants.
Human activities that result in habitat destruction, introduction of invasive species, pollution and over-
exploitation are resulting in an increasing loss of biodiversity. The implications of this are
considerable and if continued unabated could lead to the loss of ecosystem function, loss of habitats
and could undermine rural livelihoods through the degradation of the resource base (Pimm, Jones &
Diamond 1988).
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity was framed on the basis of reconciliation of
environmental objectives and the need for social and economic development. The objectives of the
convention are the
• Conservation of biodiversity
• The sustainable use of biological resources
• The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use
1.2 Systematic conservation planning and design of conservation land-scapes

There is a limit to the availability of land and resources for biodiversity conservation, but the threat to
biodiversity are not uniformly distributed. Threatened areas tend to have high economic value, are
transformed into agriculture and urban landscapes or have high human population density and poverty
levels that lead to unsustainable resource use (Pressey et al. 1993).
Systematic conservation planning is a process that can help to inform the decision making process
when designing conservation landscapes. It generally involves mapping the distribution of different
conservation features and existing Protected Areas, setting representation targets for each feature,
measuring the effectiveness of the present Protected Area system in meeting these targets and using
computer-based selection algorithms to identify additional sites (Margules & Pressey 2000). A
7
characteristic of such an approach is that conservation is efficient and designed to achieve targets at
minimum costs that maximise the chances of achieving conservation goals. Importantly the process
includes steps for the identification of targets and different land-use options through participation of
relevant stakeholders, thereby increasing the transparency and support (Margules & Pressey 2000).
Developing conservation landscape plans requires fine-scale biodiversity distribution data to delineate
boundaries of proposed Protected Areas and other conservation areas. Unfortunately, very little
species or population data are available at this scale, even for developed countries. However, it is not
necessary to have data on all these biodiversity elements for establishing an effective network of
conservation areas. Successful planning exercises have instead used habitat or landscape level
conservation features that are known to reflect the distribution of other biodiversity elements and are
identified through remote sensing. These data can then be supplemented with information on land
ownership, land use, degree of threat and other factors to identify priority areas for conservation
(Margules & Pressey 2000).
However, remote sensing cannot identify where harvesting of vulnerable species might be occurring.
Vegetation cover may not change at all and yet populations of high value, vulnerable species can be
disappearing from over-exploitation. High profile examples of this include ‘the silent forests’ that have
been affected by the bush meat trade (Cuaron 2000). But present harvesting of many plant species is
also considered to be indiscriminate, destructive and unsustainable and is recognised as a serious
threat to biodiversity (Cunningham 1988; Dold & Cocks 2002; Geldenhuys 2004). There is a need,
therefore to combine large spatial scale analysis with monitoring species at the individual and
population level to provide a comprehensive picture when carrying out conservation planning
exercises.
Modelling the harvesting impact on plant species can provide information on biodiversity loss and
human impact. More importantly, modelling plant species resource use can also provide
recommendations for strategies that can contribute to both rural livelihood improvements and
conservation of biodiversity. The significance of plants, both culturally and economically, can be
sufficiently great that sustainable use strategies can lay the foundation for conservation of not only
vulnerable species, but of habitats and ecosystems more generally (Plotkin & Famolare 1992; Ticktin
2004).
Modelling requires that plant species are chosen that reflect the patterns of resource use and that data
collection is robust (Cunningham 2001b). Plant species that assume the highest relative value should
be chosen as priority species as they are more likely to reflect harvesting practices. In addition, plant
8
species with the highest relative value are more appropriate for adoption in sustainable use
conservation strategies (Cunningham 2001b).
1.3 Setting priorities for identifying plant resource use
1.3.1 Resource value and priority plant species

Quantitative data collected through inventories is an essential component for modelling resource use.
Inventories ideally should be low cost, robust and incentive-driven (Cunningham 2001a; Mattos,
Nepstad, & Viera 1992). Two key considerations need to be addressed in the data collection if it is to
be of value for predicting resource use. Firstly, resource value and priority species should be
considered from the perspective of local livelihoods and resource users. Secondly, quantitative studies
that can be used as a basis for resource management and conservation require long-term studies on
marked populations, which are expensive, time consuming and not possible for the hundreds of
species that are harvested. Resource management and conservation strategies are often urgently
required. This necessitates the use of ‘short cuts’ and ‘conceptual filters’ for choosing priority species
that is objective and consistent (Cunningham 2001a).
The inventories are designed to measure resource value and how human impact threatens that value
(Chapman 1987; Cunningham 1990; Cunningham 2001b). Defining the resource priorities is achieved
by following a sequential logical approach to activities (Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. 1999; Geldenhuys
2004; Tuxill & Nabhan 2001). The approach includes the pre-site collection of relevant information to
include wider contexts of conservation, development and economic policy. Importantly it involves the
identification of priority local resource issues and stakeholders.
The activities involved are aimed at providing recommendations for practical actions in favour of
conservation. One appropriate conservation strategy is to adopt the ‘sustainable use’ of plant resources
that can benefit both biodiversity and improve rural livelihoods. Therefore species prioritisation
should also reflect their potential for sustainable use in management programmes. This requires setting
priorities on the basis of ecological principles, in addition to social, cultural and economic driving
forces (Cunningham 2001b).
1.3.2 A hierarchical approach to understanding biodiversity and establishing priorities

It is appropriate to adopt a hierarchical approach and nested progression to understanding biodiversity
and for identifying priority species (Noss 1990). Inventories often necessitate that human impacts are
determined on individual plants first and then considered in terms of plant population dynamics and
disturbance to determine community and land scape factors that provide the crucial context of resource
use and value (MacNally & Quinn 1998).
9
The association between climate, soils, vegetation and landform use makes landscape classification
linked with population density a useful tool in setting priorities. These relationships are evident even at
a continent wide scale, with moist fertile soils associated with crop growing, dry fertile soils
associated with pastoralists and moist less fertile soils associated with cultivation (Bell & McShane
1984). Changes in vegetation occurrence over large areas and long-time scales are possible with aerial
photography and use of satellite imagery. They can be useful in understanding land-use patterns and as
a planning and predictive tool for conservation programmes as demonstrated in the loss of woodland
cover in N Namibia (Marsh & Seely 1992) and rate of forest clearance outside the Bwindi-
Impenetrable National Park (Scott 1995).
It is important to link different methods, a process that has been referred to as ‘cross-checking’, as
they provide an improved explanation and better prediction of resource use (Cunningham 2001b). For
example, participatory mapping techniques have been successfully developed for many rural
communities (Poffenberger et al. 1992). They can illustrate the spatial distribution of vegetation types,
resources and resource flows of significance and can be translated into topographical maps that give
insights into how or why resources are valued (Baker & Mutitjulu Community 1992; Rundstrom 1990;
Walsh 1990; Walsh 1993).
1.3.3 The use of ‘short cuts’ and conceptual filters

Coarse conceptual filters are used as ‘short-cuts’ to define ecological groups of plants and for the
identification of species that are likely to be more resilient or vulnerable to harvest. Plant growth
forms, which represent a sequence from trees through to shrubs and annual herbs, provide a first
approximation of vulnerability and therefore value (Raunkiaer 1934). The plant parts that are
harvested and the frequency and intensity of harvesting, allied to regeneration characteristics and
growth rates are also important predictors of species vulnerability and resilience (van Wyk et al.
1996).
The destructive harvest of an individual can seem extreme, but harvesting has to be seen in the
perspective of plant populations which in turn need to be viewed in terms of their abundance (Peters
1994). A seemingly low impact at the individual level such as fruit harvesting can have long-term
impacts on population of species as it can reduce seed recruitment. In contrast even harvesting of bark
and roots that can lead to the destruction of individual trees may have little impact on populations of
fast growing, fast reproducing species. Harvesting of Acacia karoo for rope making often kills the
trees but at the population level, requirements are easily met by recruitment from the soil seed bank
and in addition, human disturbance through agriculture and livestock activities favours Acacia
populations (Cunningham 2001a).
10
The use of size-class distributions that measure tree diameter at breast height (DBH) is a practical field
method for recording assessment of harvesting impacts, for developing survivor-ship curves and for
illustrating the response of plant populations to harvesting. The use of survivor-ship curves has two
main weaknesses. First is the assumption that DBH reflects plant age (Tietema 1993; Harper 1977).
The second assumption is that the survivorship curve reflects harvesting impact alone, rather than the
combination of vegetation disturbance dynamics. Despite these weaknesses, size-class distributions
are considered useful predictive tools (Geldenhuys 1992; Cunningham 2001b).
Geographic distribution is important in prioritisation of species from a conservation perspective. The

highest conservation priority should be given to species with a narrow geographical distribution,
restricted habitat and small population size (Cunningham 1991; Pitman et al. 1999; Rabinowitz,
Cairns, & Dillon 1986). The extent of decline of a population of restricted range species is used to
assign species to the IUCN Red List, and provides a globally accepted setting for priorities.
Conservation priorities for many species are currently established in the face of information gaps,
through Conservation Assessment and Management Plan workshops (Molur & Walker 1996) as
demonstrated in a recent exercise for South African trees (Goldring 2002). It is crucial, however, that
local resource values are not overshadowed by national and international conservation priorities
(Cunningham 2001a).
1.3.4 Priority setting related to social, cultural and economic driving forces
Identification of priorities that are the focus for conservation is the initial step. An effective
conservation policy should identify the stresses to determine how the priorities are threatened, where
the sources of these stresses originate and develop practical solutions to reduce or eliminate the
threats. Such an approach is more effective in circumstances where natural resource use assumes high
importance, where local communities interests can be identified, if strategies are inclusive of diverse
uses and there is wide social acceptance of management plans and regulations. Success is more likely
where there is an existing integrated conservation and development project with the potential for
support. Perhaps the greatest barrier to conservation strategies falls in the domains of social, economic
and political considerations (Schopp-Guth & Fremuth 2001). The realisation of this potential is
dependent greatly on a number of factors including, not least assured property and access rights for
local resource users. Community-based conservation should be considered the most effective
management strategy and success should be viewed as the long-term abatement of critical threats and
the sustained or enhancement of biodiversity (IIED 1994).
11
1.4 South African biodiversity and conservation policies
South Africa contains an exceptionally rich and diverse array of life forms and ranks as the 3rd most
biologically diverse country in the world. This is attributable to its richness of vascular plants (18,000
recorded species), of which 80% are found no where else (Hilton-Taylor 1996).
Human activity has been responsible for changing and sculpturing the South African landscape for
thousands of years, however, the pace and extent of change has increased rapidly with agricultural and
industrial development, a growing human population and unsustainable rates of resource consumption.
A comparison between the number of species listed in the Red Data Books between 1980 and 1995
shows an increase of 80%. South Africa has the dubious distinction of containing the highest known
concentration of threatened plant and highest extinction estimates for any area in the world (15% of
recorded species) (DEAT 1997; Hilton-Taylor 1996).
Present day Protected Areas cover 72,000km2 (5.9%) and continue to play a central part in
conservation policy. The National Parks have been managed according to the ‘The Yellowstone
Model’ where settlement in the parks are prohibited and the use of resources for subsistence and
commercial use banned (Muir 1916; Leopold 1949; Stevens 1997). South Africa’s Protected Areas
while globally renowned for the contribution they have played in conservation of the national heritage
and threatened species are likely to be too small and fragmented to maintain viable populations
without costly and intensive management programmes (Goodman 2002). Many now argue that they do
not form a holistic land use policy or are contributing to achieving satisfactory conservation outside of
Protected Areas. An additional concern is that the Protected Area network has often been accompanied
by forced removals and resource dispossession of local communities.
The 1997 White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological
Diversity is orientated towards achieving goals of poverty alleviation and rural development, through
activities that can act as incentive-driven conservation programmes. Conservation is increasingly
expected to contribute to local community’s livelihoods (DEAT 1997). Indigenous forests and
woodland resources are generally undervalued in South Africa despite the fact that millions of people
rely on them for their livelihood support (Shackleton & Shackleton 2000). Harvesting of natural
resources and their sustainable use can contribute to achieving these goals. The Policy for Sustainable
Forest Development (DWAF 1996) and the 1998 Forest Act have guide policies that their
management should include ‘comprehensive use’ and should contribute to sustainable development
(DWAF 1997).
12
1.5 Harvesting of plant resources in The Maputaland Centre of Endemism
1.5.1 Biodiversity and conservation in Maputaland

The Maputaland Centre of Endemism (Greater Maputaland) is an area of high conservation value
covering approximately 20 000km2 spanning sections of Mozambique, Swaziland and South Africa
and forms part of the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany hotspot (Figure 1) (van Wyk 1994). It is an area
of global importance for the conservation of vascular plants and forms one of southern Africa’s most
important centres of floristic diversity and endemism (van Wyk1994; World Conservation Union and
WWF-UK 1994). It contains an estimated 2500 vascular plants, of these at least 250 species /
intraspecific taxa are endemic or near endemic to the region (van Wyk, Everard.D, Midgley, &
Gordon1996). It also forms part of an Endemic Bird Area (Stattersfield et al. 1998) and has been
identified by WWF as making up one of the 200 most important ecoregions (Olson & Dinerstein
1998). The present study focuses on the South African portion (referred to subsequently as
Maputaland) which has an area of 9760km2 and lies between latitude 26.78 and 28.5 degrees South
and 31.95 and 32.9 degrees East. The region is the most southerly part of the East Africa coastal plain
and many species reach their southern most limits in Maputaland.
Maputaland is found in the NE of the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The province is an
important region for sub-tropical agriculture and plantation forestry and is the most highly populated
in South Africa, home to 8.7 million people, 83% of whom are black (Central Statistical Services
1996). Population growth rate for the region is around 2.4% per annum and is associated with
increasing rates of urbanisation, with Durban accounting for 50% of the KwaZulu-Natal population.
Conservation of biodiversity is the responsibility of Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZN

Wildlife) which is a parastatal body. Protected Area coverage in Maputaland has a combined area of
2482km2 (25.4%) of which 2010 km2 is terrestrial coverage (Figure 2) (Goodman 2002). The existing
Protected Areas were mainly established to protect the remaining large mammal populations and
recreational fishing sites (Goodman 2002). The majority of the Protected Areas are completely fenced
to reduce poaching, livestock encroachment and human wildlife conflicts (Goodman 2002). It has
been estimated that 30% of the Ingwavuma and Ubombo population were ‘forced’ to relocate with the
establishment of the Ndumu GR, the Coastal Forest Reserve and Tembe Elephant Park. Much of the
Protected Area land is subject to land claim by the dispossessed communities and is being investigated
by the Restitution of Land Claims Commission.
13
Figure 1 Maputaland Centre of Endemism (Smith 2001)
14
Figure 2 Protected Area Coverage of Maputaland (Adapted from Smith 2001).
15
In the last 30 years EKZN Wildlife has been successful in the development of a ‘wildlife’ industry
throughout KwaZulu-Natal, facilitating its wise use and granting full ownership rights and generous
incentives. This has resulted in a thriving economic sector and gains in biodiversity. Mkuze GR once
isolated and surrounded by hostile land use is now connected to large tracts of private and jointly
managed estates. This represents part of a general commitment to involve local communities in
biodiversity conservation. EKZN Wildlife has identified a range of strategies, which include the
promotion of natural resource management and development of conservation-based entrepreneurial
opportunities (Goodman 2002).
1.5.2 Conservation planning and management of biodiversity in Maputaland

The Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area under the guidance of the Peace Parks Foundation is
developing a conservation planning system for the region that centres on existing reserves and
Protected Areas and aims to reconnect wildlife migration patterns (Jones 2004). The South African
portion is supported by the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative to encourage these developments
primarily through infrastructure improvements to attract tourists and commercial interests. A
preliminary conservation land use plan for Maputaland has been developed to help inform land use
decisions (Figure 3) (Smith et al. 2004). Areas of high conservation value were identified after
performing a conservation planning exercise that identified biodiversity targets based on original land
cover, through workshops involving EKZN Wildlife staff. Land cover elements that were endemic or
were at risk of transformation were given higher conservation targets. The main exercise was to
identify areas where local communities and private sector could run economically viable and benign
conservation projects (http://www.mosaic-conservation.org/maputaland).
However, despite the conservation importance and the large amount of the region that has Protected
Area status, much of the biodiversity that remains is threatened by anthropogenic factors, related to
increasing human population, acquisition of land for subsistence agriculture and commercial
developments. Analysis of a landcover classification map that divides Maputaland into five main
ecological zones and contains 29 natural and 5 transformed land types showed that more than 3%
(0.28% per annum) of natural vegetation was cleared for subsistence agriculture between 1986 and
1998 (Matthews 2001; Smith 2001). The most important factor that determined transformation in
Maputaland was explained by the distance to existing agriculture. This acts as a surrogate for human
density and occurs at the interface between transformed and pristine areas. It is probable that socio-
economic and cultural factors and not population not per se that are important (Smith 2001).
16
Conservation value
High
Low
Protected area
Road
20 km
Moçam-
bique
Swaziland
Maputaland
South
Africa
Figure 3 Preliminary Conservation Planning Exercise for Maputaland
The map shows the results of a preliminary conservation planning exercise for the South
African section of Maputaland, based on protecting important habitat types and maintaining
connectivity between Protected Areas.
http://www.mosaic-conservation.org/maputaland RJ Smith. DICE University of Kent at Canterbury.
17
1.5.3 The value of the natural resource base to rural populations in Maputaland
The people of Maputaland have diverse origins, but those of the Tembe-Tonga predominate.
Historically the region formed part of the Tembe Kingdom that is now fragmented between South
Africa and Mozambique. The poor soils and high levels of biodiversity have heavily influenced the
human culture of Maputaland. Most rural populations pursue subsistence livelihoods and are reliant to
some extent on natural resource use for direct subsistence or indirectly for generation of income.
Plant resource harvesting has attracted an increasing amount of attention due to concerns that relate to
rising levels of commercial trade and over-exploitation and the possible benefits of sustainable use
management programmes (Cunningham 1990). There is a lack of a clear policy direction and support
despite the obvious potential for such. This is no more starkly apparent than the current use of the
natural resource base by rural populations for their energy and health requirements.
1.5.4 The fuelwood natural resource base

South Africa produces and consumes 60% of Africa’s electricity supply and yet 80-90% of rural and
peri-urban households in Maputaland continue to use fuelwood as their primary energy source (Twine
2002). The national net direct use value of fuelwood after factoring in opportunity costs of labour have
been estimated at R2 billion (Williams & Shackleton 2002). At national and regional levels the
projected sustainable supply of fuelwood is estimated at 16 million tonnes (wood production from the
savannah alone) well above the 9-10 million tonnes apparently required to meet fuelwood needs (Von
Maltitz & Scholes 1995). Many villages face increasing shortages, which is largely a function of
human population growth and clearance for agriculture (Banks et al. 1996).
Quantities used per household range from 0.6-7.7 tonnes per annum and economic values range from
no trade to R0.57 per kg (Banks et al. 1996; Gandar 1984). Fuelwood represents a source of livelihood
to many. The number of households involved in fuelwood trade is unknown but is likely to fluctuate
widely (varied between 7% and 53% in the Limpopo Province) (Shackleton & Shackleton 2000).
Determinants of price relate to local wood availability, costs of alternatives and amount of disposable
income. The absence of a local price within a rural village appears to be common in areas that are
remote or have relatively abundant fuel stocks (Williams & Shackleton2002).
Fuelwood collection is associated with a marked selection of species and preferred size classes. Local
communities can make use of several dozen species (69 species in KwaJobe in KwaZulu-Natal and 40
species in Bushbuckridge Lowveld in Limpopo Province (Shackleton et al. 1999)). Fuelwood
collection usually occurs in the immediate vicinity of the household. Generally live wood is only cut
in times of decreasing availability. In many localities demand for fuelwood exceeds supply, which
18
may be associated with decreased frequency of gathering and consumption and increased use of
alternatives (crop residues / dung / commercial fuels).
1.5.5 The medicinal plants natural resource base

An estimated 70-80% of people world-wide rely on traditional, largely medicinal plant medicines to
meet their primary health care needs (Farnsworth & Soejarto 1991; Penso 1980). In South Africa there
are an estimated 27 million users and the trade in medicinal plants forms a multi-million rand ‘hidden’
economy (estimated at R270 million per annum) (Dold & Cocks 2002; Mander 1998). The medicinal
plant trade in South Africa and neighbouring countries is centred around KwaZulu-Natal with an
estimated 6 million users (Cunningham 1988; Marshall 1998; Williams, Balkwill, & Witkowski
2000).
The trade in medicinal plants represents a complex resource management issue in South Africa (Dold
& Cocks 2002). In recent years there has been a trend towards commercialisation and shift from
subsistence use, which has led to the increased intensity and frequency of harvesting. The factors
responsible for this include:
• A rapidly growing and urbanising black population (Cunningham 1988).

• Development of large urban markets (Durban, Johannesburg)
• Patient ratio of 1:700-1200 for traditional healers compared to 1:17,400 for medical doctors
(Marshall1998)
• High rate of unemployment in rural areas.
• Considered a basic requirement for treating certain conditions (Marshal1998).
• Increasing official and societal recognition (Williams et al 2000)
• Influx of ‘outsiders’ seeking work
• International demand for medicinal plant products (Williams et al 2000)
Over 1032 species have been identified as being used in KwaZulu-Natal (Hutchings 1996) with 400
species traded commercially in Durban markets (Cunningham 1988). The species traded differ
significantly between study areas, attributable to differences in healing practices, ethnicity and species
availability (Dold & Cocks 2002). In South Africa trade is dominated by material with a long shelf life
(bark, roots, bulbs, whole plants), with bark accounting for 1/3 of plant products traded in KwaZulu-
Natal markets (Cunningham 1988; Grace et al. 2003; Mander 1998; Williams et al 2000). The bark of
many species are traded although a relatively small number are in high demand and intensively used
(Cunningham 1988; Williams et al 2000).
19
Harvesting of medicinal plants was formerly the domain of trained traditional herbalists, medicinal
practitioners and diviners. Strict customary practices were respected that regulated plant collection and
quantities. There is now a substantial network of commercial gatherers (mainly black women),
traditional healers and customers (Mander1998; Williams et al 2000).
Present harvesting is considered to be indiscriminate, destructive and unsustainable for many of the
popularly traded species and is recognised as a serious threat to biodiversity (Cunningham 1988; Dold
& Cocks 2002; Geldenhuys 2004). Demand generates a species-specific trade that has resulted in the
local extirpation of several species (Siphonochilus aethiopicus, Warburgia salutaris). In southern
Natal forests 51% of Ocotea bullata and 57% of Curtisia dentata had bark removed. In Maputaland all
Warburgia salutaris were completely debarked (Cunningham 1988). Communal areas closest to
Durban have been the primary focus for harvesting activities (Cooper 1979). As high value species
have been depleted commercial harvesting has occurred from more distant and remote areas
(Cunningham 1988). In the Durban markets 43% of traders travel from distant localities (200-500+
km) (Mander 1998).
There been little policy support for commercial trade in medicinal plants despite their economic and
cultural importance. Under development has a significant implication for consumer welfare, market
operation and biodiversity (Diederichs, Geldenhuys, & Mitchell 2002). The White Paper on
Sustainable Forest Development in South Africa (DWAF 1996) and the National Forestry Action
Programme (DWAF 1997) recognises fuelwood as the main energy source and that access to
sustainable and secure supplies is important for rural households (DME 1998). Despite this agenda,
actions and programmes have been based on reduction of consumption rather than investing in
sustainable use policies. A lack of clear policy direction relates directly to the inadequacy of supply
and demand data and understanding of resource strategies from which to make informed management
decisions (Diederichs, Geldenhuys, & Mitchell 2002; Williams & Shackleton 2002).
1.6 Study aims and objectives

Modelling the harvesting of plant species can provide information on the extent of biodiversity loss
and human impact on the resource base. More importantly, it can provide recommendations for
practical actions in favour of conservation or related objectives that can contribute to both rural
livelihood improvements and enhancement of biodiversity. The study’s principle aim was the
collection of field data, that is practical, has a scientific basis and at the relevant spatial scales to
determine resource use on communal land in the Maputaland ecoregion. Logistic regression modelling
and GIS mapping of the field data was incorporated with existing spatial / infrastructure data to model
harvested areas.
20
The project’s objectives are
• To develop a list of species to be used in inventories that reflect resource use.
• To perform an inventory analysis of priority species that measures and maps resource uses.
• To use logistic regression to model distribution of resource use.
• The production of ‘fine-scale’ GIS maps that model resource harvesting and can be of value in
systematic conservation planning.
21
2 Study area and methods
2.1 Overview
The methods provide a general description of Maputaland and site specific description of two study
areas chosen for inventory analysis, highlighting the conservation issues and disturbance threats. It
then describes the methodologies employed for prioritisation of the species to be included in the
inventory, the sampling design for assessing resource value and harvest impact and finally the
modelling procedures that can be used to predict resource use.
2.2 The Maputaland study area

Maputaland consists of two major topographical features, the Lebombo Mountains and the Coastal
Plain, both of which extend northwards into Mozambique where they are more extensively developed.
The mountain range marks the position of the coastline that was formed during the Jurassic period.
Since then, the sea level has risen and fallen depositing and eroding a variety of soils, silts and clays
(Figure 4).
The geology is diverse, consisting of Mesozoic, Tertiary and Quaternary sequences. The Lebombo
Mountains are composed of 180 million-year-old Jozini formation rhyolites. At their foot are a series
of Cretaceous sediments, which have both riverine and marine origins. Pleistocene sediments form a
50m covering on the Tertiary and Cretaceous rocks and gives rise to the extensive dunes of sand that
characterises most of Maputaland.
Six major rivers flow through Maputaland. A number of smaller rivers originate in either the Lebombo
Mountains or in the coastal plain. All the rivers that flow through the coastal plain are seasonal,
usually drying out by mid-winter. There are three natural lake systems, found in the East of the region
and there are a number of smaller water bodies, many of which have associated wetlands (Figure 5).
Maputaland is subtropical and rainfall is highly seasonal, 77% occurring in the hot summer months.
The striking climate feature is the variation in rainfall across the region. Rainfall varies from 1100-
1200mm on the coast, to 600mm on the coastal plain, rising to 800mm on the crest of the Lebombo
Mountains. Annual rainfall figures can vary dramatically between years.
The current ecosystem in the region is considered to be of recent derivation, many endemic plant taxa
comply with the concept of neo-endemics and have evolved to occupy the ecological niches created by
the recent formation of the coastal plain. In addition the well-defined climatic and geological
conditions have produced a series of ecological zones that contain many distinct habitat types.
22
The region has been neglected for many years and is characterised by high population growth, high
levels of poverty and poor economic development. The Ubombo region has increased from a density
of 5.2 to 21.4 people per km2 between 1936 and 1990. In 1986 the mean income of the majority of
households of Maputaland was US$21 per month and in a recent study in the Tembe Tribal Authority
the mean household income was just R493 (US$22) per month.
Most households typically have small dry land agricultural plots surrounding their homesteads, which
are usually not self sufficient due to the poor sandy soils and lack of water. Minimal cash flows into
the communities and 90% of individual household production are consumed within the family unit.
Most cash is spent on basic foodstuffs with the remainder on transport, health and school fees (Jones
2004). The primary resource is land and wood used for the construction of traditional homesteads,
fuelwood, wild food collection including bushmeat and harvesting of medicinal plants and animals
(Cunningham 1985; Jones 2004). There are few formal jobs, some income is generated selling food
and trade in natural resources, but most households are extremely reliant on remittances, pensions and
child support grants from the government.
23
Figure 4 Ecological Zones and Major Topographical Features of Maputaland
(Adapted from Smith 2001).
24
Figure 5 Rivers, Lakes, Roads & Towns of Maputaland (Adapted from Smith 2001)
25
2.3 Description of study areas
Two study areas for the performance of resource inventories were identified on the basis of their
conservation value, concerns regarding over harvesting, the relevance of the natural resources to the
rural population and the potential for the adoption of sustainable use strategies. Other factors included
the presence of an existing conservation development programme (Lubombo Transfrontier
Conservation Area) which is supported by the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative.
There has been no formal quantitative evaluation of natural resource use in the two areas. Resource
managers had identified medicinal plant (bark stripping), fuelwood and harvesting of wood for
construction and for crafts as urgent resource issues. The extent of resource use for subsistence vs
commercial purposes, local vs outsider users, market flows and the impacts on the resource base were
unknown.
2.3.1 Study area 1 – conservation issues and disturbance threats

Study area 1 is contained within the Tembe Tribal Authority and straddles the boundary of three
wards. It has a total area 1212km2, a population of 31,650 residents (99% Black African origin),
population density of 26 people / km2 and contains 4868 households (Figure 6).
Study area 1 is comprised of two distinct clearly bound habitat types, sand forest consisting of dry
deciduous and semi-deciduous elements which form dense impenetrable stands up to 25m tall and
Terminalia woodland characterised by common woody savannah species. The woodland has a well
developed understorey represented by Aristida, Pogonarthria, and Perotis grasses (Figure 9).
Sand forest forms one of the three distinct types of forest (interlocking canopies) recognised in
southern Africa and is more or less restricted to the deep sands of Maputaland and the Maputaland
portion of Mozambique (where it is referred to as Licuati Forest) (Low 1996). Sand forest is
considered to be relics of coastal dune forests that remained as the coastal plain developed eastwards.
Sand forest vegetation harbours the highest plant biodiversity and the highest proportion of endemic
species of all habitat types within the Maputaland Centre of Endemism. Of 225 Maputaland Centre
endemics, 30 are associated with sand forest and 20 species restricted to it (Matthews et al. 2001).
Most of the endemic vertebrate species are likewise restricted to this habitat type (van Rensburg et al.
1999; van Rensburg et al. 2000). Species composition and species diversity declines southwards as
tropical elements decrease with changes in climate.
Sand forest is a unique and important endemic habitat, 45% of which has already been transformed
due to disturbance related to increasing land use for grazing activities, subsistence use and over-
harvesting of natural resource base. 44% of the remaining sand forest is located within Protected
26
Areas, however, the largest of these remnant patches found in Tembe Elephant Park is suffering
disturbance impacts due to the presence of elephants that have recently been contained within the park
boundaries (Matthews, van Wyk, van Rooyen, & Botha 2001). Human impact and disturbance on
communal land is related to grazing activities, subsistence agriculture and harvesting of the resource
base.
2.3.2 Study area 2 – conservation issues and disturbance threats

Study area 2 is contained within a single ward of the Mathenjwa Tribal Authority. It has a total area of
263 km2, a population of 12846 (>99% of Black African origin), population density of 49 people / km2
and contains 2052 households (Figure 7).
Study area 2 is of predominantly Lebombo Woodland habitat type, but other habitat types including
Lebombo thicket, Lebombo grassland and Lebombo aquatic are present. Lebombo woodland has a
low species diversity dominated by Combretum sp. and Acacia sp.(Figure 10).
The Usuthu Gorge conservation corridor forms part of the study area and has been earmarked for a
community-based conservation initiative that is being developed in the region to establish ecotourism
and development opportunities. Land has been donated by the local communities and is being fenced,
prior to the introduction of wildlife. Human impact and disturbance is related to grazing activities,
subsistence agriculture and harvesting of the resource base.
27
Ndumu
Tembe
Elephant Park
Makhane
Kwa-Ndaba
Embonisweni
Mpophomeni
Esicabazini
Zama-Zama
5km
Figure 6 Study Area 1
28
Mabona Ndumu
Game Reserve
Mpolimpoli
Khume
5km
Mbadleni
Figure 7 Study Area 2
29
2.4 Quantitative resource inventories
A sequential approach was adopted that links different methodologies at appropriate scales and
incorporates ‘cross-checking’ procedures that identifies resource use. The sequential approach
involved, identification of the geographical focus, pre-site collection of relevant information,
quantitative studies and modelling resource use. Two key considerations were addressed in the
methodology. First was the consideration of resource value from the perspective of local livelihoods.
Secondly, time and budget constraints necessitated the use of ‘short cuts’ and conceptual filters for
choosing priority species and short-term ‘snap-shot’ inventories.
The inventory methodology measured resource value and human impact. The resource objective and
inventory methods were decided on in the field (in situ) through preliminary fieldwork. Prioritisation
of the focus species for the study was inclusive of ecological, socio-economic and cultural
perspectives. The limitations of time and budget constraints, allied to the habitat diversity necessitated
the use of short-term ‘snap shot’ surveys. Trees are useful prioritisation species on the basis of their
importance as a natural resource use and because they are vulnerable to human impact. Many tree
species are slow growing, slow to reproduce, have specific habitat requirements and limited
distribution. Two aspects of tree resource harvesting were measured, stem cutting and bark stripping.
Resource harvesting of bark stripping and stem cutting can be destructive and remain visible for years
and allowed field assessment of damage to individuals and populations.
2.5 Pre-site evaluation of study areas and determination of priority species

‘Cross-checking’ included a literature review of species ecology, resource supply and demand,
interviews with key informants, local resource users, resource managers and ‘walk in the woods’
approach (Cunningham 2001b). It included the determination of the primary resource user groups and
whether harvesting was for predominantly subsistence or commercial trade. Pre-site evaluation of
study area 2 included evaluation of the topographical maps produced from the participatory mapping
project which illustrated the spatial distribution of vegetation types, resource areas, resource flows,
and landscape features (Chao 2004). This identified the priority species that were inventoried in the
two study areas.
The resource inventory was performed in two phases:

• Phase 1 utilised regional inventories that showed the distribution and composition of major
habitat types and formed the basis for the location of sampling (Figure 8) (Smith 2001).
• Phase 2 involved the quantitative assessment of harvesting impacts of prioritised species that
form the basis for spatial mapping and modelling resource harvesting.
30
Figure 8 Landcover Classification Map of Maputaland (adapted from Smith 2001)
31
2.6 Sampling design and inventory methodology for assessing harvesting impact
The inventory data collected formed a description of the resource base, species composition and
intensity of harvest of the priority tree species. Resource users contributed throughout the inventory
and provided insights on the technology and tools used for harvesting, the selection criteria for
resource use and whether the species showed evidence of regeneration.
The inventory of the two study areas was performed over a 6 week period in May and June of 2004.
Sampling was performed with a map of the vegetation communities as a basis and with consideration
of each resource use option, target species and habitat diversity. The sampling provided a
representative cover of the study sites and reliable estimates of resource use and species distribution.
Belt transects were chosen as the most appropriate method for sampling (Cunningham 2001a). A
stratified sampling strategy was employed based on access via the road network. The first transect was
chosen at random and the rest followed a set spacing to ensure that the study areas were sufficiently
surveyed. Belt transects had a width of 10m in study area 1 and a width of 5m in study area 2. These
differences were based on the density of target tree species at the two study sites.
The sampling strategy was designed so that the belt transects followed a compass bearing that
travelled at right angles through subsistence agriculture and continued into ‘pristine’ habitat moving
away from transformed land. The presence of each target species was mapped (8m resolution) by
recording the co-ordinates using a Garmin 12 GPS satellite navigation system (Garmin Corp., Ulathe,
KA). Size-class determination of each tree was measured by recording DBH. Only trees with a DBH
greater than 10cm was recorded in the inventory. Size-classes were divided into 10cm increments
between 10 and 100cm, and thereafter into 101-125cm, 126-150cm, 151-200cm, 201-301cm, 301-
400cm and >401cm size-classes.
The intensity of resource harvesting impact was rated by visual assessment. For bark stripping a four
point scale was used based on the proportion of bark removed from the tree trunk below 1.3m (1-10%,
11-30%, 31-50% & 51-100%). A similar 4-point scale was used to assess the percentage of the tree
estimated to have been removed by stem cutting (1-10%, 11-50%, 51-90% and 91-100%).
Species were ranked according to three criteria, species population abundance, the total number of
trees harvested and thirdly as a percentage showing evidence of resource use out of the total
population of that species sampled. The third criteria prioritise species with the highest relative
resource value from the perspective of resource users. Resource value was also determined for the
different user groups for bark stripping and stem cutting. Information on harvest intensity on
32
individual trees was combined with DBH measurements and size-class determinations for the
development of survivorship curves to provide an assessment of harvesting impact at the population
level. The opportunity for sustainable use of the chosen priority species was assessed based on
resource value, ecological considerations and resilience to harvest impact. Species were scored for
each of the factors based on the inventory results and ‘cross-checking’ methods.
2.7 Modelling
Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors that determine natural resource use in the
two study areas and for the production of GIS maps that modelled the spatial pattern of resource
harvesting. The model predicts the likelihood that an individual tree will be harvested. Stem cutting
and bark stripping resource harvesting was analysed separately, as they reflect different resource user
groups. The tested variables were distance to roads, distance to existing subsistence agriculture,
elevation, slope, tree species and DBH. To facilitate the analysis all data was imported into ArcView
v.3.2 GIS software package (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA) for manipulation prior to analysis. The road
vector files were digitised from Landsat 5 satellite images (Smith 2001). Subsistence agriculture
polygons were based on the landcover (30m) classification (Smith 2001). The elevation and slope
were based on 90m resolution SRTM data (Smith 2001). Distance from each tree to the road vector
and subsistence agriculture polygons was determined using Nearest Distance Extension in ArcView.
Data was exported into SPSS v.9 (SPSS Inc. Chicago) statistical software for analysis. The data was
analysed using multiple stepwise logistical regression (Forward Wald) to determine whether any of the
independent variables affected the probability of resource harvesting with entry and exit variables
determined by the Wald statistic with P-values of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. The relative contribution
of variance to the model was determined by the R statistic. Model performance on the testing sets was
evaluated by calculating the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) plots.
ROC values range from 0.5 to 1.0. Values above 0.7 indicate a good model fit while those above 0.9
indicate a highly accurate model (Pearce 2000).
33
The resultant model was used to calculate the predicted value for resource harvest. The regression
model for calculating the probability of resource harvest was calculated using the following equation
Probability = e α + β 1x1 + β 2x2 +β 3x3

1 + e α + β 1x1 + β 2x2 +β 3x3
Where α = constant
β1 = regression coefficient of the first significant variable
β2 = regression coefficient of the first significant variable
β3 = regression coefficient of the first significant variable (when applicable)
x1 = the first significant variable
The model was then transformed into a 25m-resolution risk coverage using the Map Calculator in
ArcView.
Site-specific resource use and the association with important variables identified in the model was
determined by dividing each of the transects into 100m sections in ArcView using the extension
Divide Line. The percentage of trees that showed resource use in each transect section was then
plotted against significant factors identified in the model.
34
Figure 9
Sand Forest Habitat (Study Area 1)
35
Figure 10
Lebombo Woodland Habitat (Study Area 2)
36
Figure 12
Bark Stripping Resource Use
37
a) b)
c) d)
Figure 11
Stem Cutting Tree Resource Use
a) Honey Collection b) Stem Cut for Poles
c) Poles Waiting for Collection d) Bush Knife Handles
38
3 Results
3.1 Resource harvest inventory, species prioritisation and resource use
The methodology included 8 priority species from study area 1 and 5 priority species from study area
2. Table 1 shows the priority tree species inventoried and the species habitat requirements. Additional
tree species identified as being used included Hymenocardia ulmoides (fuelwood / poles), Strychnos
madagascariensis (fuelwood), Manilkara discolor (fuelwood), Terminalia sericea (fuelwood /poles/
bark used medicinally), Psydrax lucopules (general-purpose timber), Diospyros inhacaensis (poles),
Albizia vericolor (bark used medicinally), Albizia forbesii (trade in crafts), Trichilia dregeana (bark
used medicinally). Many other species not documented in the study are used for a variety of purposes.
(See Figures 11 and 12 for examples of resource use).
A total of 22 separate tansects were walked in study area 1 (total length 40.01km, mean 1.82 km,
sampled area of 0.4 km2) and 6 transects in study area 2 (total length 13.6km, mean 2.26km, sampled
area 0.14km2). A sample size of 3257 and 2208 trees were recorded in study area 1 and 2 respectively.
A high percentage of trees showed no evidence of resource use, 87% (2834) in study area 1 and 89.6%
(1979) in study area 2.
Of the priority trees inventoried, 9.7% (317) in study area 1 and 10.2% (229) in study area 2 showed
signs of stem cutting. The majority of the use was for stem cutting of live wood for collection of
fuelwood, poles and general-purpose timber. In study area 1, 0.4% (12) of the focus species had
evidence of destructive harvesting for the collection of honey. Only 2.9% (94) in study area 1 and
0.2% (4) in study area 2 had evidence of bark stripping. The majority of bark stripping was related to
medicinal use.
39
Table 1
Priority Tree Species Innventoried Based on ‘Cross-Checking’ Methods
40
3.2 Relative resource value, tree abundance and user groups
Tree species were ranked according to their abundance, the number of individual trees harvested and
importantly, according to the number used out of the total population of that species sampled, a
measure of their relative use value (Table 2). In addition, tree species were ranked according to their
relative use value for different resource user groups, either stem cutting (Table 3A) or bark-stripping
(Table 3B)
The population abundance of the species varied. Some species such as Dalium schlechteri (964),
Cleistanthus schlechteri (1028) in study area 1 and Combretum zeyheri (1499), Acacia burkei (402) in
study area 2 are abundant and common. Other species, such as Brachylaenia huillensis (204),
Newtonia hildebrandtii (270), Balanites maughami (244) and Ptaeroxylon obliquum (217) were less
common. A few species such as Erythrophleum lasianthum (104) were uncommon.
The inventory identified species with the highest relative resource value. These included popularly
harvested and uncommon species such as Brachylaenia huillensis (21.6%), Erythrophleum lasianthum
(26%) and Newtonia hildebrandtii (18.9%) in study area 1 and Acacia burkei (12.4%) and
Combretum zeyheri (11.1%) in study area 2. Other species, such as Cleistanthus schlechteri (12.1%)
although popularly harvested because they are common species have lower relative use values.
Differences in the resource value of tree species for the different user groups are evident.
Erythophleum lasianthum has the highest relative value for bark resource users (23.1%) but the lowest
value for stem resource users (2.9%). Similarly Brachylaena huillensis has little resource value to bark
users (0%) users and the highest relative value for stem cutting (21.6%).
41
Table 2 Relative Resource Value of Priority Species
Shows priority tree species ranked according to their abundance, the number of individual trees harvested
and importantly, according to the percentage showing evidence of resource use out of the total population
of that species sampled. The final column prioritises species from the perspective of resource users.
(1 = Highest rank).
Tree species Rank Rank Resource use Rank

population resource use as % of the Use as % of
abundance (number used) total species species
(number sampled ) number abundance
Study area 1
Erythophleum lasianthum 8 (104) 7 (27) 26% 1
Brachylaena huillensis 7 (204) 4 (44) 21.6% 2
Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii 3 (270) 3 (51) 18.9% 3
Balanites maughami 4 (244) 5 (39) 16% 4
Ptaeroxylon obliquum 6 (217) 6 (27) 12.4% 5
Cleistanthus schlechteri 1 (1028) 1 (124) 12.1% 6
Albizia adianthifolia 5 (226) 8 (26) 11.5% 7
Dalium schlechteri 2 (964 ) 2 (85) 8.8% 8
Study area 2
Acacia burkei 2 (402) 2 (50) 12.4% 1
Combretum zeyheri 1 (1499) 1 (166) 11.1% 2
Combretum molle 5 (57) 4= (3) 5.2% 3
Philonoptera violacea 4 (72) 4= (3) 4.2% 4
Sclerocarya birrea subsp, caffra 3 (178) 3 (4) 3.9% 5
Table 3 Relative Resource Value of Priority Species and different user groups
Shows priority tree species ranked from the perspective of different resource user groups (1 = Highest Rank).
Resource use has been separated into A) Stem cutting & B) Bark stripping resource use.
A) Stem cutting associated with harvesting of fuelwood, general-purpose timber and poles for construction.
Tree species Resource use as % of the Rank

total species number
Stem cutting resource use
Brachylaena huillensis 21.6% 1
Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii 14.4% 2
Ptaeroxylon obliquum 12.4% 3
Cleistanthus schlechteri 10.3% 4
Dalium schlechteri 8.2% 5
Balanites maughami 4.9% 6
Albizia adianthifolia 3.1% 7
Erythophleum lasianthum 2.9% 8
B) Bark stripping associated with harvesting for medicinal uses.
Tree species Resource use as % of the Rank

total species number
Bark stripping resource use
Erythophleum lasianthum 23.1% 1
Balanites maughami 11.1% 2
Albizia adianthifolia 8% 3
Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii 4.1% 4
Cleistanthus schlechteri 1% 5
Dalium schlechteri 0.4% 6
Brachylaena huillensis 0% 7
Ptaeroxylon obliquum 0% 8
42
3.3 Relative resource value, individual tree harvest intensity, harvest impact and resilience
The use patterns of the individual trees is related to their resource value (Figure 13a, 13b & 13c). For
stem cutting resource use, species with the highest relative resource value (Brachylaenia huillensis,
Ptaeroxylon obliquum, Cleistanthus schlechteri, Acacia burkei and Combretum zeyheri) are more
likely to be destructively harvested at the individual level. Individuals of species with lower relative
values are less intensively harvested.
Use patterns of individual trees are also related to the end product user requirements. Large forest trees
such as Newtonia hildebrandtii and Balanites maughami are less likely to be destructively harvested
for general-purpose timber uses or fuelwood collection. Species such as Brachylaena huillensis,
Ptaeroxylon obliquum are single-stemmed species valued for poles used for building and harvesting
often involved complete destruction of the individual.
Some species that are of high value and destructively harvested at the individual level because of the
method of harvest have high a resilience to harvesting use patterns. 60% of Acacia burkei trees were
heavily harvested (>91% stem cutting), but because harvesting involves the removal of branches rather
than cutting the main stem, 87% (27/31) showed complete regrowth.
Similarly species with high relative values, that include Erythrophleum lasianthum, Balanites
maughami and Albizia adianthifolia are more likely to be destructively harvested at the individual
level for bark stripping uses.
43
100 100
Brachylaenia huillensis (n=44) Newtonia hildebrandtii (n=39)

80 Rank 1 80 Rank 2
60 60
%
40 40
20 20
0
0
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100%
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100%
Harvest intensity - Stem cutting
100 100
80 Ptaeroxylon obliquum (n=27) 80 Cleistanthus schlechteri (n=106)

Rank 3 Rank 4
60 60
%
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100% 1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100%
Harvest intensity - Stem cutting Harvest intensity - Stem cutting
100 100
80
Dalium schlechteri (n=79) 80
Balanites maughami (n=12)
Rank 5 Rank 6
60 60
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100% 1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100%
100 100
Albizia adianthifolia (n=7) Erythrophleum lasianthum (n=3)

80 80
Rank 7 Rank 8
60 60
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100% 1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100%
Figure 13A) Stem cutting – Harvest Intensity of Individual trees (Study Area 1)
Trees are ranked according to their relative use value. Shows the % of trees and the harvest intensity.
44
100 100
Acacia burkei (n=50) Combretum zeyheri (n=165)

80 Rank 1 80 Rank 2
60 60
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100 % 1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100 %
100 100
80 Combretum molle (n=30 80 Philonoptera

Rank 3 violacea (n=3)
60 60
Rank 4
%
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100 % 1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100 %
100
Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra
80
Rank 5 (n=4)
60
%
40
20
0
1-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100 %
Figure 13B) Stem cutting – Harvest Intensity of Individual trees (Study Area 2)
Trees are ranked according to their relative use value. Shows the % if trees and the harvest intensity
45
100 100
Erythrophleum lasianthum (n=24) Balanites maughami (n=27)

80 80
60 60
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-30% 31 - 50% 51 - 100% 1-10% 11-30% 31 - 50% 51 - 100%
Harvest intensity - bark strip Harvest intensity - bark strip
100 100
80 Albizia adianthifolia (n=18) 80 Newtonia hildebrandtii (n=11)
60 60
%
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-30% 31 - 50% 51 - 100% 1-10% 11-30% 31 - 50% 51 - 100%
100 100
80 Cleistanthus schlechteri (n=10) 80 Dalium schlechteri (n=4)
60 60
%
40 40
20 20
0 0
1-10% 11-30% 31 - 50% 51 - 100% 1-10% 11-30% 31 - 50% 51 - 100%
Figure 13C) Bark stripping – Harvest Intensity of Individual trees (Study Area 1)
Trees are ranked according to their relative use value. Shows the % of trees and the harvest intensity.
46
Table 4
Opportunity for Sustainable Use Based on Predictors of Resilience to Harvesting
47
3.4 Harvesting population and landscape level effects and potential for sustainable use
Species that have the highest relative value to resource users and are destructively harvested such as
Brachylaena huillensis and Erythophleum lasianthum show size-class distribution curves that deviate
from ‘model’ distribution curves (Appendix 2). The majority of the other species have size-class
distribution curves that conform to the ‘ideal distribution’ models.
The opportunities for sustainable harvest based on predictors of resilience or vulnerability to

harvesting and the relative resource value of the species inventoried is shown in Table 4. The table
provides a first approximation of the potential for sustainable use of the priority species.
3.5 Socio-economic results of resource use from the ‘cross-checking’ methods

A limited trade in one species (Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii) for fuelwood was identified
at 19 sites along the road. In addition, a small trade (8-10 small stalls) in local crafts produced from
two species (Cleistanthus schlechteri & Albizia forbesii) was occurring along the same road (Figure
6). Resource use in both study areas was restricted to local users and harvesting involved the use of
‘traditional’ implements, either bush knife or small hand saw. Evidence of chain saw use was observed
on only two occasions with the cutting of two large Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii
specimens.
3.6 Logistic regression modelling of resource use and prediction of harvest impact
The initial models for resource harvesting included the variables of distance from subsistence
agriculture, distance from road, elevation, slope, tree species and DBH. The final model for stem
cutting included distance from subsistence agriculture (P <0.001), elevation (P=0.001), slope
(P=0.006) and tree species (P<0.001) (Table 5). Model performance from the ROC value was 0.734,
indicating a good model fit. Not unsurprisingly, harvesting is species-specific. Importantly, the model
shows that trees that are close to subsistence, at low elevation and on flat ground were more likely to
be cut (Figure 14). Distance to road had a small negative contribution to the initial model and was not
included in the final model.
The final model for bark stripping included distance from subsistence agriculture (P=0.016), DBH
(P<0.001) and tree species (P<0.001) (Table 6). Model performance from the ROC value was 0.896,
indicating a highly accurate model. Again, harvesting is species-specific. Trees with large DBH that
were close to subsistence were more likely to be cut (Figure 15).
48
Table 5 Results of multiple logistic regression showing the factors that significantly
determined stem cutting resource harvesting.
Factor B Regression coefficient df Wald Significance

Subsistence agriculture -0.002 -0.238 1 86.8 0.0000
Elevation -0.017 -0.091 1 14.5 0.0001
Slope -0.275 -0.061 1 7.6 0.0058
Tree 0.153 12 89.2 0.0000
Constant 3.070 1 8.6 0.0034
Table 6 Results of multiple logistic regression showing the factors that significantly
determined bark stripping resource harvesting.
Factor B Regression coefficient df Wald Significance

Tree -1.976 0.368 7 50.8 0.0000
DBH 0.009 0.185 1 11.3 0.0008
Subsistence agriculture -0.001 -0.119 1 5.8 0.0157
Constant 0.427 1 0.1 0.7239
3.7 GIS map and graphical representation of resource harvesting risk

The bark stripping and stem cutting models were used to calculate the predicted amount of harvesting,
which was transformed into the 25m resolution risk coverage maps. Distance from subsistence
agriculture, elevation and slope was included in the risk coverage map for stem cutting and distance to
subsistence agriculture included for bark stripping. The GIS maps provide a visual representation of
the probability of tree harvesting for stem cutting (Figure 16) and bark stripping (Figure 17) for the
Maputaland area for the factors included in the model. Figure 18 shows a graphical representation of
how the predicted probability of resource harvesting for stem cutting and bark stripping changed with
distance from subsistence agriculture, one of the significant factors in the model
How the amount of resource use changed with distance from subsistence is shown in Figure 19. A
high percentage of trees, 18% for stem cutting and 23% for bark stripping were harvested in the
vicinity of subsistence agriculture. This decreased to less than 5% of the trees beyond 1000m. The
analysis included resource use of all the trees for stem cutting, but for bark stripping, included the four
species with the highest relative value, Erythophleum lasianthum, Balanites maughami, Albizia
adianthifolia and Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii.
49
A). B). C).
500 116 1.30
115
400 1.25
114
300 1.20
elevation (m)
distance (m)
slope
113
200 1.15
112
100 1.10
111
0 110 1.05
No use Stem cutting No use Stem cutting No use Stem cutting
Figure 14 Factors Significant in Modelling Stem Cutting

Shows the mean and standard error of the factors that were significant in the model for pre
stem cutting resource use.
A) Distance from subsistence agriculture
B) Elevation
C) Slope.
A). B).
500 150
400 120
300 90
distance (m)
DBH (cm)
200 60
100 30
0 0
No use Bark strip No use Bark strip
Figure 15 Factors Significant in Modelling Bark stripping

Shows the mean and standard error of the factors that were significant in the model for
predicting bark stripping resource use.
A) Distance from subsistence agriculture
B) DBH.
50
Probability of Stem Cutting
Figure 16 Modelling Stem Cutting Resource Use in Maputaland
51
Figure 17 Modelling Bark Stripping Resource Harvesting in Maputaland
52
0.7 Bark strip
Stem cutting
0.6
Probability of tree harvest
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Distance from subsistence agriculture (m)
Figure 18 Predicted probability of Resource Harvesting and

Distance from Subsistence Agriculture
53
A)
30 Stem cutting
Log. (Stem cutting)
y = -4.2155Ln(x) + 32.783
% of trees harvested
R2 = 0.8638
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
B)
30 Bark strip
Log. (Bark strip)
y = -5.5323Ln(x) + 43.239
R2 = 0.6796
% of trees harvested
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Figure 19 Site Specific Resource Harvesting and Distance from Subsistence Agriculture
A) Shows the resource use at study areas 1 and 2 for stem cutting and distance from subsistence
agriculture.
B) Shows the resource use at study site 1 of four tree species with the highest relative value for
bark stripping (Erythrophleum lasianthum, Balanites maughami, Albizia adianthifolia, &
Newtonia hildebrandtii) and distance from subsistence agriculture.
54
4 Discussion
4.1 Overview
Inventories and models of the spatial distribution of plant species resource use can provide important
information for determining biodiversity loss and human impact that is not possible with remote
sensing techniques. In addition, if the appropriate species are chosen, they can also provide
recommendations for practical actions and effective land-use planning that can contribute to both rural
livelihood improvements and biodiversity conservation. The sustainable use of plants species, because
of their cultural and economic value can lay the foundations for the conservation of not only the
vulnerable species of concern, but also of habitats and ecosystems more generally.
The study objective was to collect quantitative data on resource use at the appropriate scales that can
be of significance to resource users, local communities, resource managers and policy makers. A
sequential approach was adopted that identified the geographical focus and the priority species based
on awareness of wider conservation issues and concerns related to over harvesting. A significant
contribution of the present study has been the development of a robust and practical inventory that
utilises priority species based on their relative value from the perspective of users. This gave a
description of how the resource base was being utilised and formed the basis for spatial mapping. An
important output has been the development of a ‘fine-scale’ GIS map to model natural resource
harvesting that can provide recommendations for practical actions and effective land use planning.
4.2 Harvesting and resource value to rural communities of Maputaland

Quantitative studies of tree resource harvesting can be used as an appropriate measure for inventories
to assess resource use in rural communities. Rural communities value tree resources and their biology
and geographical distribution make them vulnerable to harvesting impact. Short-term ‘snap-shot’
inventories can be employed, as harvesting impact can remain visible for long periods. This is an
important consideration. Other plant resources, for example bulbs or whole plants are heavily
harvested, but their growth form and method of harvest require long-term monitoring of populations to
determine the impact of resource use (Raunkiaer 1934; Cunningham 2001b). An additional significant
factor is that different tree resource uses and users can be readily identified from harvesting practices.
Contrary to expectations and most other reports, there was little evidence of over-harvesting of the
plant resource base either for subsistence use or for commercial purposes in the study areas. Trade in
fuelwood and crafts currently provide only limited entrepreneurial and employment opportunities to a
few homesteads. The majority of use was for subsistence purposes and provides an important resource
base for rural communities.
55
Of the focal species 10% had evidence of stem cutting and a diverse range of harvesting activities was
identified, including use of wood for general-purpose timber, poles for construction, fuelwood and
harvesting of honey. Not unsurprisingly, resource use was species-specific. Importantly, however,
from a conservation perspective, there was evidence that individuals of species that are popularly
harvested and have the highest relative resource value are more likely to be destructively harvested.
Harvesting intensity and the impact this has on individual trees is related to a number of factors.
Important considerations are the end product requirement of the resource user and the biology and
resilience of the target species. Some resource use has little impact whereas others are detrimental and
destructive. For example, harvesting for poles has little impact on multi-stemmed trees such as Dalium
schlechteri, but single-stemmed species such as Brachylaena huillensis and Ptaeroxylon obliquum are
likely to be destructively harvested. Stem cutting of other species (Newtonia hildebrandtii and
Balanites maughami) for general-purpose timber and fuelwood uses was often more benign at the
individual plant level. Harvesting impact is also fundamentally related to plant resilience. Acacia
burkei branches were heavily harvested but species readily resprouted, and resource use appeared to
have little impact.
The final ecological consideration of harvesting relates to the impact at the population level and how
this can contribute to landscape level effects. Harvesting impacts of different size-classes can provide
useful insights. Species that have the highest relative value to resource users and are destructively
harvested such as Brachylaena huillensis and Erythophleum lasianthum show size-class distribution
curves that deviate from ‘model’ distribution curves. This may be indicative that harvesting is having
detrimental effects at the population level. Such species would have a higher priority for conservation
strategies and for the implementation of management programmes. However, determination of
impacts at the population level require long-term studies of permanent plots or comparison with
appropriate control groups that are not available for the species in this study.
Fuelwood collection of live trees was not an apparent problem at the study sites. Fuelwood has been
identified as being an important primary energy source for rural communities (Twine 2002; Williams
& Shackleton 2002). Many rural communities face increasing shortages, related to intensity of use,
largely a function of human population growth and clearance for agriculture (Banks, Griffin,
Shackleton, Shackleton, & Mavrandonis 1996). The majority of fuelwood collection at the study areas
was for subsistence use and a large number of species were regularly used confirming previous studies
(Shackleton, Netshiluvhi, Shackleton, Geach, Ballance, & Fairbanks 1999). There was an absence of
substantial commercial trade, which is apparently not uncommon in areas that are remote or where
there are relatively abundant fuel stocks (Williams & Shackleton 2002).
56
However, a small-scale local trade in fuelwood of Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii was
identified at site 1. Trade was restricted to 19 outlets, located next to homesteads situated along a main
road. Trade volume appeared to be low and trade in other species was not apparent. In addition, a
small craft trade was also in evidence along the same road with 8-10 temporary stalls again located in
close vicinity to homesteads. Two species of trees were identified as being used for the production of
crafts, mainly trays, Cleistanthus schlechteri and Albizia forbesii. The trade in fuelwood and crafts
currently represent small entrepreneurial and employment opportunities for a limited number of
households, presumably reliant on the small number of passing tourists. The use of Newtonia
hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii and Cleistanthus schlechteri appeared sustainable, however,
confirmation of this requires long-term monitoring studies.
Bark stripping of the 13 priority species in the two study areas was low, less than 3% in study area 1
and less than 0.5% in study area 2. This was despite the fact that 12 of the 13 species have been
recorded as being used for medicinal purposes (Goldring 2002; Grace, Prendergast, Jager, & van
Staden 2003; Mander 1998). Four species, (Erythropleum lasianthum (23%), Balanites maughami
(11%), Albizia adianthifolia (8%) and Newtonia hildebrandtii (4%)), however, were more heavily
harvested. These higher value species were more likely to be destructively bark stripped
(Cunningham1990). Three of the species are regularly traded in the Durban markets (Grace,
Prendergast, Jager, & van Staden 2003; Mander 1998). There was evidence of bark stripping of other
species included in the inventory, but at much lower frequency and intensity. Five individuals of three
other species (Terminalia sericea, Albizia versicolor and Trichilia dregeana), not included in the
inventory were recorded as being bark stripped.
The vulnerability of the tree species in the study to bark stripping is not known. Bark regeneration
after removal is not a common response for most species, although some species may show complete
regrowth after ring barking (Warburgia salutaris) or complete bark removal (Prunus africana).
Experimental studies or long-term monitoring are required to determine the outcome of bark stripping
resource-harvesting practices on the species studied (Geldenhuys 1999).
Bark stripping appeared to be for subsistence by local herbalists and resource users. Again, contrary to
expectations there was little evidence of trade and no identified market flows. The findings are in
agreement with a recent report that found no signs of over exploitation of medicinal plants near the
village of Mnqobokazi, Maputaland (Trygger 2003). Present harvesting was not considered to be
indiscriminate, destructive and unsustainable as has been documented for other areas (Cooper 1979;
Cunningham 1988; Dold & Cocks 2002; Geldenhuys 2004).
57
4.3 Resource use impact and recommendations
There may be several explanations as to why large-scale overexploitation or commercial harvesting of
the natural resource base was not taking place. The lack of market flow may be related to distance to
markets or to the fact that a trade network was not well developed in the area. Value is related to
supply and demand and for many uses, substitute species or alternatives can be readily found. This
was evident in the study areas for wood used for poles, general-purpose timber and fuelwood. For
medicinal plants, although many species are commercially traded only a few are in high demand
(Cunningham 1988; Williams, Balkwill, & Witkowski 2000).
There appeared to be few opportunities for trade. There is little disposable income due to the high
poverty levels. Perhaps of more significance is the fact that most of the rural population pursue
subsistence livelihoods and are reliant to some extent on the natural resource base, which forms an
important part of their culture. Harvesting practices appeared to rely on traditional knowledge of
species biology that respected customary practices. Community leaders and local resource users
implement traditional management practices and conservation measures and there appeared to be a
wide social acceptance and compliance with regulations with recognition of ownership, access rights
and responsibilities.
It cannot be ruled out that over-harvesting in isolated patches might occur or that exploitation of high
value species has resulted in their local extinction. This has in fact already been documented for one
species (Warburgia salutaris) which is now only found in adjacent Protected Areas (Mander 1997).
The present study cannot ascertain whether harvesting has resulted in changes in species population
dynamics or landscape effects. However, some high value species were being more intensively and
destructively harvested at the individual level. Long-term monitoring studies or experimental
procedures are required to determine whether use of these species can be considered sustainable.
However, the presence of high value species and factors that relate to an increasing human population,
that include urbanisation, high rates of unemployment, influx of outsiders, increased road access and
entrepreneurial opportunities could result in an increase in harvesting pressure. If associated with a
loss of access rights and diminishing of regulations that enforce conservation practices this could
result in over-exploitation and loss of the resource base. Increased demand for fuelwood and trade in
crafts of canopy dominant keystone species such as Newtonia hildebrandtii var hildebrandtii and
Cleistanthus schlechteri could have significant affects on the fragile endemic sand forest habitat.
Commercial gatherers are prepared to travel increasing distance from the major markets for gathering
medicinal plant products and will often speculatively harvest species if there is a potential for trade
(Cunningham 1988; Mander 1998). Increased harvesting pressure of slow growing, slow reproducing,
58
uncommon species with limited geographical distribution such as Erythropleum lasianthum, Albizia
adianthifolia and Balanites maughami are likely to result in a rapid decline of vulnerable species and
loss of associated biodiversity. Changes in harvesting procedures of species like Acacia burkei could
lead to unsustainable use and environmental degradation
The study would recommend that while over-exploitation of the resource base is not apparent at the
present time, the presence of high value species and the potential for socio-economic conditions to
change rapidly requires the implementation of conservation strategies. Inventory of high value species
should form an important component for management plans. There are important information gaps and
uncertainties for most of the factors for determining sustainable use. However, the prioritisation of
species and identifying the opportunities for sustainable harvest based on predictors of resilience or
vulnerability can lay the foundation for the instigation of monitoring and adaptive management of
priority species. The process should be participatory, building on traditional knowledge, local
institutions and should be incentive-driven (IIED 1994). A recent example of such a development is
the formation of the Sizamimphilo Association, which comprises a core group of bark harvesters that
trade in the Durban market. They have implemented a sustainable harvesting management plan that
contributes to the recovery of the forest and allows sustainable harvesting in the uMzimkulu District
(Diederichs, Geldenhuys, & Mitchell 2002).
4.4 Modelling tree resource use in the Maputaland Centre of Endemism

Strategic planning that identifies conservation priorities is an important component of efficient and
effective conservation planning. Remote sensing of habitats and landscape level features that reflect
the distribution of other biodiversity can be used in systematic planning. It cannot however, identify
over harvesting of high value species or adequately identify where sustainable use strategies can
effectively contribute to conservation strategies (Smith 2001). A comprehensive picture is provided by
combining large spatial scale analysis with the monitoring of species at the individual and population
level. The present study has used the inventory data collected to develop a ‘fine scale’ GIS map that
models tree resource harvesting in Maputaland Centre of Endemism.
Logistic regression modelling identified that a number of factors were important in predicting resource
use. The model performance from the ROC value was 0.734 for stem cutting indicating a good model
fit and 0.896 for bark cutting indicating a highly accurate model. For both bark stripping (P<0.001)
and stem cutting (P<0.001), not unsurprisingly, tree species was an important factor reflecting species-
specific selection by resource users. For bark stripping, DBH was an important factor (P<0.001), with
larger size-classes of trees more likely to be stripped.
59
Distance from subsistence agriculture was an important predictor for both stem cutting (P<0.001) and
bark stripping (P<0.001). This acts as a surrogate for human density and occurs at the interface
between transformed and pristine habitat. The majority of the population at the two study sites resides
in households that are situated on transformed subsistence land. Most households typically have small
dry land agricultural plots surrounding their homesteads and pursue subsistence livelihoods reliant on
the surrounding natural resource base. In addition, slope (P=0.006) and elevation (P<0.001) was found
to be an important variable for stem cutting. Harvesting of resources, particularly fuelwood and timber
for construction purposes is difficult in areas that are elevated and have steep slopes. These areas will
be avoided when more suitable sites are available. The distance from an access road was found not to
contribute significantly to the model for predicting resource use. Distance from road was probably not
significant as most of Maputaland is made accessible by a network of unplanned roads (Smith 2001).
The maps provide an important tool for the visual representation of information on resource use. They
can inform of areas where resource harvesting is likely to be important, where there is the potential for
over harvesting and where sustainable use strategies can contribute to conservation and improve
livelihoods.
Harvesting frequency and intensity, however, are related to many factors that have not been included
in the model. These include ecological and biological considerations such as vegetation habitat type
and species composition. It is likely that socio-economic consideration and not populations per se that
are important in determining site-specific harvesting practices (Woodroffe 2000). This could include
factors such as land-ownership and access, land use and socio-economic factors such as poverty and
employment levels. It is difficult to quantitate some of these factors for modelling requirements. It
may not be necessary to do so, as much of the communal land in Maputaland is homogeneous. It
would be of value to identify those communal areas where resource access rights, responsibilities and
regulations have been eroded. These areas are more likely to be over-harvested. It is also important to
perform additional inventories, a larger database can be used to develop more robust models.
However, information gaps and biological uncertainties require the adoption of adaptive management
practices that monitor and determine the extent and impact of harvesting that are site-specific.
Identification of factors and relating them to harvesting practices provides information that can be of
value to resource users. In the present study the amount of stem cutting and bark stripping resource use
and how this changes with distance from subsistence agriculture was determined. 18% of trees were
stem cut and 23% (of the high value species) were bark stripped in the vicinity of subsistence
agriculture. This was reduced to less than 5% of trees at distances greater than 1000m. This
observation is important, as the immediate impression is that close to subsistence, unsustainable
60
resource use is occurring. Indeed, most access to communal land requires transit across subsistence
agriculture, magnifying this impression.
It is important that consideration of the harvest impact should be viewed at the population and
landscape level in a quantitative manner using management plans. Management requires that targets
are set and management actions can be measured. Modelling risk factors and analysis of quantitative
data can be used to evaluate the success of policies and to provide recommendations for adaptive
management and future actions.
The study has developed a predictive model that can identify areas where resource harvesting is likely
to occur. It has incorporated robust methodologies that prioritise species from the perspective of
resource users. These outputs are of value to policy makers, resource managers, local communities and
resource users alike. Inventories of species and models of resource use can be used to determine the
extent of harvesting impact on the resource base that can be used for assessment of biodiversity loss.
More importantly, modelling of appropriate priority species can provide recommendations for
practical actions and effective land-use planning that can contribute to both rural livelihood
improvements and conservation of biodiversity. The significance, both culturally and economically of
some plant species can be sufficiently great that sustainable use strategies can lay the foundation for
conservation of not only vulnerable species, but of habitats and ecosystems more generally.
61
5 Conclusions
Inventories and models that map plant resource use can provide important information for determining
biodiversity loss and human impact that is not possible with remote sensing techniques. In addition, if
the appropriate species are chosen, they can also provide recommendations for practical actions and
effective land-use planning that can contribute to both rural livelihood improvements and biodiversity
conservation.
A significant contribution of the present study has been the development of a robust and practical
inventory that utilises priority species based on their relative value from the perspective of users. This
gave a description of how the resource base was being utilised and formed the basis for spatial
mapping. An important output has been the development of a ‘fine-scale’ GIS map to model natural
resource harvesting that can provide recommendations for practical actions and effective land use
planning.
The inventory found that contrary to expectations there was little evidence of over harvesting of the
resource base either for subsistence or commercial purposes. Trade in fuelwood and crafts currently
provides only limited entrepreneurial and employment opportunities. The majority of use, including
medicinal plant harvesting, was for subsistence purposes and provided an important resource base for
rural communities. The current socio-economic conditions and the wide social acceptance and
compliance with regulations that recognise ownership, access rights and responsibilities are the
probable explanations for the reasons why large-scale exploitation is not presently occurring in the
study areas inventoried.
Distance from subsistence agriculture and other land scape features were identified as being important
predictors of resource use and were used for the production of ‘fine scale’ GIS maps. These can be of
value in providing recommendations for practical actions and effective land use planning for relevant
stakeholders at the appropriate scale.
The study would recommend that where high value plant species occur, especially in vulnerable
habitats and in situations where socio-economic conditions can change rapidly, that inventories and
modelling, incorporating methodologies used in the present study, should be implemented. The
process should be participatory, building on traditional knowledge, local institutions and should be
incentive-driven. These can lead to the establishment of conservation strategies of not only vulnerable
plant species but of habitats and ecosystems more generally.
62
6 References
Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y. A., Saigal, S., Kapoor, N. & Cunningham, A. B. 1999. Joint management in
the making - reflections and experiences. People and Plants Working Paper no.7. Division of
Ecological Sciences, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris, France.
Baker & Mutitjulu Community. 1992. Comparing two views of the landscape: aboriginal ecological
knowledge and modern scientific knowledge. Rangeland Journal 14: 174-189.
Banks, D. I., Griffin, N., Shackleton, C. M., Shackleton, S. E. & Mavrandonis, J. 1996. Wood supply
and demand around two rural settlements in a semi-arid savannah, South Africa. Biomass and
Bioenergy 11: 319-331.
Bell, R. H. V. & McShane, T. O. 1984. Landscape classification. In Conservation and Wildlife

Management in Africa. US Peace Corps, Washington, D.C., pp 95-106.
Central Statistical Services. 1996. Central Statistics. Republic of South Africa.
Chao, N. 2004. Local Community perceptions to the establishment of a community conservation area
in Usuthu Gorge, South Africa. MSc. Dissertation, Durrell Institute of Conservation & Ecology,
University of Kent at Canterbury.
Chapman, M. 1987. Traditional political structure and conservation in Oceania. Ambio 16: 201-205.
Cooper, K. H. 1979. An investigation of the herbal medicine trade in Natal/KwaZulu. University of

Natal, Institute of Natural Resources, (INR Investigational Report 29), Pietersmaritzburg.
Cuaron, A. D. 2000. A global perspective on habitat disturbance and tropical rainforests mammals.
Conservation Biology 14: 1574-1579.
Cunningham, A. B. 1985. The resource value of indigenous plants to rural people in a low agricultural
potential area. PhD, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Cunningham, A. B. 1988. An Investigation of the Herbal Medicine Trade in Natal/KwaZulu. Institute

of Natural Resources, University of Natal, Pietersmaritzburg, South Africa. Investigational Report No
29.
Cunningham, A. B. 1990. African medicinal plants: setting priorities at the interface between
conservation and primary health care. Report for the WWF Project 3331. Institute of Natural
Resources. Pietersmaritzburg, South Africa.
Cunningham, A. B. 1991. Development of a conservation policy on commercially exploited medicinal

plants: a case study from southern Africa. In Conservation of Medicinal Plants. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 337-358.
Cunningham, A. B. 2001a. Measuring Individual Plants and Assessing Harvesting Impacts. In

Applied Ethnobotany: People, Wild Plant Use & Conservation. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London
and Sterling, VA, pp. 96-143.
Cunningham, A. B. 2001b. Settlement, commercialisation and change. In Applied Ethnobotany:

people, wild plant use & conservation. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London and Sterling, VA, pp. 60-
95.
63
DEAT 1997. White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity.
Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.
Diederichs, N., Geldenhuys, C. J. & Mitchell, D. 2002. The first legal harvesters of protected
medicinal plants in South Africa. Science in Africa.
DME 1998. White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa. Department of
Minerals and Energy (DME), Pretoria.
Dold, A. P. & Cocks, M. L. 2002. The trade in medicinal plants in the Eastern Cape Province, South
Africa. South African Journal of Science 98: 589-597.
DWAF 1996. Sustainable Forest Development in South Africa: the Policy of the Government of
National Unity. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.
DWAF 1997. South Africa's National Forestry Action Programme. Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry, Pretoria.
Farnsworth, N. R. & Soejarto, D. D. 1991. Global importance of medicinal plants. In The

Conservation of medicinal plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 25-51.
Gandar, M. V. 1984. Wood as a source of fuel in South Africa. Southern African Forestry Journal 1: 9.
Geldenhuys, C. J. 1992. The use of diameter distributions in sustained use management of forests:
examples from Southern Africa. Paper presented at the SAREC/Zimbabwe Forestry Commission
Symposium: Ecology and Management of Indigenous Forests in Southern Africa.
Geldenhuys, C. J. 2004. Bark harvesting for traditional medicine: from illegal resource degradation to
participatory management. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Science 22: 1.
Goldring, J. 2002. Workshop Proceedings: Revision of the National List of Protected Trees as per
Section 12, National Forests Act of 1998. Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, Directorate: Forest
Regulation (Scientific Services), Pretoria.
Goodman, P. S. 2002. A rapid assessment of terrestrial protected area management effectiveness in

KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife.
Grace, O. M., Prendergast, H. D. V., Jager, A. K. & van Staden, J. 2003. Bark medicines used in
traditional healthcare in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: An inventory. South African Journal of Botany
69: 301-363.
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants Academic Press, New York.
Hilton-Taylor, C. 1996. Red Data List of southern African plants. Pretoria, National Botanical
Institute. Stretlitzia 4: 117.
Hutchings, A. 1996. Zulu medicinal plants: an inventory. University of Natal Press, Pietersmaritzburg.
IIED 1994. Whose Eden? An overview of community approaches to wildlife management.

International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Jones, J. L. 2004. Transboundary Conservation in Southern Africa: Exploring conflict between local
resource access and conservation. Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
64
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Low, A. B. 1996. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. DEAT, Pretoria.
MacNally, R. & Quinn, G. P. 1998. Symposium introduction: the importance of scale in ecology.
Australian Journal of Ecology 23: 1-7.
Mander, J., Quinn, N. & Mander, M. 1997. Trade in wildlife medicinals in South Africa. Institute of
Natural Resources Investigational Report 154. Institute of Natural Resources, Pietersmaritzburg.
Mander, M. 1998. Marketing of medicinal plants in South Africa: A case study in KwaZulu-Natal.
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253.
Marsh, A. C. & Seely, M. K. 1992. Oshanas: sustaining people, environment and development in
Central Owambo, Namibia. Typoprint, Windhoek, Namibia.
Marshall, N. T. 1998. Searching for a cure: Conservation of medicinal wildlife resources in East and
Southern Africa. TRAFFIC International.
Matthews, W. S., van Wyk, A. E., van Rooyen, N. & Botha, G. A. 2001. Vegetation of the Tembe
Elephant Park, Maputaland, South Africa. South African Journal of Botany 67: 573-594.
Mattos, M., Nepstad, D. C. & Viera, I. C. M. 1992. Cartilha sobremapeamento de area, cubagem de
maderia e inventario florestal. Woods Hole Research Centre, Belem, Brazil.
Molur, S. & Walker, S. 1996. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP II) for
Selected Species of Medicinal Plants of Southern India. Coimbatore, India.
Muir, J. 1916. A thousand mile walk to the gulf. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation

Biology 4: 355-364.
Olson, D. M. & Dinerstein, E. 1998. The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the
earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12: 502-515.
Pearce, J. & Ferrier, S. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using
logistic regression. Ecological Modelling 133: 225-245.
Penso, G. 1980. The role of WHO in the selection and characterisation of medicinal plants (vegetable
drugs). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 2 183-188.
Peters, C. M. 1994. Sustainable Harvest of Non--timber Forest Plant Resources in Tropical Moist
forest: an ecological primer. Biodiversity Support Programme, Washington, DC.
Picton, M. A. & Putz, F. E. 1989. African Textiles British Museum Publications, London.
Pimm, S.L., Jones, H.L., & Diamond, J. 1988. On the risk of extinction. American Naturalist. 132:
757-785.
Pitman, N. C. A., Terborgh, J., Silman, M. R. & Nunez, P. 1999. Tree species distributions in an upper
Amazonian forest. Ecology 80: 2651-2661.
65
Plotkin, M. & Famolare, L. 1992. Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of rain forest Products. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Poffenberger, M. B., McGean, M. B., Ravindranath, N. H. & Gadgil, M. 1992. Field Methods Manual,
volume 1: diagnostic tools for supporting joint forest management systems. Joint Forest Management
Support Programme, Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development, New Delhi, India.
Pooley, E. 1993. The complete field guide to trees of Natal, Zululand and Tanskei. Natal Floral
Publications Trust, Cape Town.
Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J., Margules, C. R., Vanewright, R. I. & Williams, P. H. 1993. Beyond
opportunism - Key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8: 124-
128.
Rabinowitz, D. S., Cairns, S. & Dillon, T. 1986. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora
of the British Isles. In Conservation Biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp. 182-204.
Raunkiaer, C. 1934. Life forms of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Rundstrom, R. A. 1990. A cultural interpretation of Inuit map accuracy. The Geographical Review 80:
155-168.
Schopp-Guth, A., & Fremuth, W. 2001. Sustainable use of medicinal plants and nature conservation in
the Prespa National Park area, Albania. Medicinal Plant Conservation 7: 5-8.
Scott, P. J. 1995. Progress report on multiple-use management to Uganda national Parks. Fort Portal,
Uganda, WWF Rwenzori Mountains Conservation and Development Project.
Shackleton, C. M. 2001. Re-examining local and market orientated use of wild plant species for the
conservation of biodiversity. Environmental Conservation 28: 270-278.
Shackleton, C. M., Netshiluvhi, T. R., Shackleton, S. E., Geach, B. S., Ballance, A. & Fairbanks, D. F.
K. 1999. Direct use values of woodland resources from three rural villages. Rep. No. ENV-P-198120,
CSIR, Pretoria.
Shackleton, C. M. & Shackleton, S. E. 2000. Direct use values of secondary resources harvested from
communal savannahs in the Bushbuckridge Lowveld, South Africa. Journal of Tropical Forest
Products 26: 28-47.
Smith, R. J. 2001. Designing an integrated protected area network for Maputand, South Africa, PhD,
Durrell Institute of Conservation & Ecology, University of Kent at Canterbury.
Smith, R. J., Goodman, P. S., Matthews, W. S. & Leader-Williams, N. 2004. Systematic conservation
land-use planning: a review of perceived problems and actual benefits, illustrated with a case study
from Maputaland, South Africa. Oryx (in press).
Stattersfield, J. M., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. J. & et al. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities
for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Series 7. Birdlife International.
Stevens, S. 1997. The Legacy of Yellowstone. In Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous
Peoples and Protected Areas, Island Press, Washington.
66
Ticktin, T. 2004. The ecological implication of harvesting non-timber forest products. Ecology 41: 11-
21.
Tietema, T. 1993. Biomass determination of fuelwood trees and bushes of Botswana, Southern Africa.
Forest Ecology and Management 60: 257-269.
Trygger, S. 2003. Local extraction and use of medicinal plants - a case study from Mkuze Wetland,
South Africa. Minor Field Studies No.257, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU
Communications, Uppsala.
Tuxill, H. & Nabhan, G. P. 2001. People, plants and protected areas. Earthscan, London.
Twine, W. 2002. The fuelwood problem: are we reaching a crisis point? Environment Today 2: 20-21.
van Rensburg, B. J., Chown, S. L., van Jaarsveld, A. S. & McGeoch, M. A. 2000. Spatial variation and
biogeography of sand forest avian assemblages in South Africa. Journal of Biogeography 27: 1385-
1401.
van Rensburg, B. J., McGeoch, M. A., Chown, S. L. & van Jaarsveld, A. S. 1999. Conservation of
heterogeneity among dung beetles in the Maputand Centre of Endemism, South Africa. Biological
Conservation 88: 145-153.
van Wyk, A. E. 1994. Maputaland Pondoland region. In Centres of plant diversity: a guide and
strategy for their conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 227-235.
van Wyk, G. F., Everard.D, A., Midgley, J. J., & Gordon, I. G. 1996. Classification and dynamics of a
southern African subtropical coastal lowland forest. South African Journal of Botany 62: 133-142.
van Wyk, B. & van Wyk,P. 1997. Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape
Town.
Von Maltitz, G. P. & Scholes, R. J. 1995. The burning of fuelwood in South Africa: when is it
sustainable. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 38: 243-251.
Walsh, F. J. 1990. An ecological study of traditional use of "country": Martu in the Great and Little
Sandy deserts, Western Australia'. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16: 23-37.
Walsh, F. J. 1993. The relevance of some aspects of Aboriginal subsistence to the management of
national parks; with reference to Martu people of the Western Desert. In Aboriginal involvement in
parks and protected areas. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Studies,
Canberra, pp. 75-97.
Williams, A. & Shackleton, C. M. 2002. Fuelwood use in South Africa: Where to in the 21st Century?
Southern African Forestry Journal 196: 1-7.
Williams, V. L., Balkwill, K. & Witkowski, E. T. F. 2000. Unravelling the commercial market for
medicinal plants and plant parts on the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Economic Botany 54: 310-327.
Woodroffe, R. 2000. Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large
carnivores. Animal Conservation. 3: 165-173.
World Conservation Union and WWF-UK. 1994. Centres of plant diversity: a guide and strategy for
their conservation.
67
Appendices
Appendix 1
Priority tree species used in the inventories
Species Common English name
Albizia adianthifolia Flat Crown

Balanites maughami Torchwood
Brachylaenia huillensis Silver Oak
Cleistanthus schlechteri False Tamboti
Dalium schlechteri Zulu Podberry
Erythrophleum lasianthum Swazi Ordeal
Newtonia hildebrandtii Lebombo Wattle
Ptaeroxylon obliquum Sneezewood
Acacia burkei Black Monkey Thorn
Combretum zeyheri Large Fruited Bushwillow
Combretum molle Velvet Bushwillow
Philonoptera violacea Apple Leaf
Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra Marula
68
Appendix 2
Size-Class Distributions of Tree Species Inventoried
Three ideal types of size-class distribution are recognised for trees in uneven-aged mixed species
forests. The reverse J-shaped (negative exponential) eg. Albizia adianthifolia and Dalium schlechteri.
The Uni-modal (flat curve) eg Newtonia hildebrandtii and Acacia burkei and the Bell-shaped curve is
the third type eg Combretum zeyheri.
Species with the highest relative value to resource user and are destructively harvested such
as Brachylaenia huillensis and Erythrophleum lasianthum show size class distribution curves
that deviate from ‘model’ distribution curves. This may be indicative that harvesting is having
detrimental affects at the population level. Such species would have a higher conservation
priority.
The graphs show the size-class distribution of the species included in the inventories, determined from
the DBH. The Black Bars indicate the number of trees that have had human resource impact
Acacia burkei
50
45
40
35
No. of trees
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
101-125
126-150
151-200
201-300
301-400
91-100
10-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
>400
DBH (cm)
69
.
No. of trees No. of trees No. of trees
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
10-20 10-20 10-20
21-30 21-30 21-30
31-40 31-40 31-40
41-50 41-50 41-50
51-60 51-60 51-60
61-70 61-70 61-70
71-80 71-80 71-80
70
Erythrophleum lasianthum
Brachylaenia huillensis
81-90 81-90 81-90
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
91-100 91-100 91-100
Philonoptera violacea
101-125 101-125 101-125
126-150 126-150 126-150
151-200 151-200 151-200
201-300 201-300 201-300
301-400 301-400 301-400
>400 >400 >400

No. of trees
No. of trees No. of trees
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10-20
10-20 10-20
21-30
21-30 21-30
31-40
31-40 31-40
41-50
41-50 41-50
51-60
51-60 51-60
Albizia adianthifolia
Newtonia hildebrandtii
Cleistanthus schlechteri
61-70
61-70 61-70
71-80
71-80 71-80
71
81-90
81-90 81-90
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
91-100
91-100 91-100
101-125
101-125 101-125
126-150
126-150 126-150
151-200
151-200 151-200
201-300
201-300 201-300
301-400
301-400 301-400
>400
>400 >400
No. of trees
No. of trees No. of trees
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10-20
10-20 10-20
21-30
21-30 21-30
31-40
31-40 31-40
41-50
41-50 41-50
51-60
51-60 51-60
61-70
61-70 61-70
71-80
Ptaeroxylon obliquum
71-80 71-80
72
81-90
Balanites maughami
81-90 81-90
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
91-100
91-100 91-100
101-125
101-125 101-125
126-150
126-150 126-150
151-200
151-200 151-200
201-300
Dalium schlechteri
201-300 201-300
301-400
301-400 301-400
>400
>400 >400
No. of trees No. of trees No. of trees
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
10-20 10-20 10-20
21-30 21-30 21-30
31-40 31-40 31-40
41-50 41-50 41-50
51-60 51-60 51-60
61-70 61-70 61-70

Combretum zeyheri
Combretum molle
71-80 71-80 71-80
73
81-90 81-90
Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra
81-90
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
DBH (cm)
91-100 91-100 91-100
101-125 101-125 101-125
126-150 126-150 126-150
151-200 151-200 151-200
201-300 201-300 201-300
301-400 301-400 301-400
>400 >400 >400

74
75

Brookes, PA, Tree Resource Harvesting in Land

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brookes, PA, Tree Resource Harvesting in Land

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling tree resource harvesting on communal land in the

Maputaland Centre of Endemism.

Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology

Figure 1 Maputaland Centre of Endemism 14

Table 1 Priority Tree Species Inventoried Based on ‘Cross-Checking’ Methods 40

Table 2 Relative Resource Value of Priority Species 42

Table 4 Opportunity for Sustainable Use Based on Predictors of Resilience to Harvesting 47

1.2 Systematic conservation planning and design of conservation land-scapes

1.3 Setting priorities for identifying plant resource use

1.3.1 Resource value and priority plant species

1.3.2 A hierarchical approach to understanding biodiversity and establishing priorities

1.3.3 The use of ‘short cuts’ and conceptual filters

Geographic distribution is important in prioritisation of species from a conservation perspective. The

1.5.1 Biodiversity and conservation in Maputaland

Conservation of biodiversity is the responsibility of Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZN

1.5.2 Conservation planning and management of biodiversity in Maputaland

Figure 3 Preliminary Conservation Planning Exercise for Maputaland

1.5.4 The fuelwood natural resource base

1.5.5 The medicinal plants natural resource base

• A rapidly growing and urbanising black population (Cunningham 1988).

1.6 Study aims and objectives

2.2 The Maputaland study area

2.3.1 Study area 1 – conservation issues and disturbance threats

2.3.2 Study area 2 – conservation issues and disturbance threats

Figure 6 Study Area 1

Figure 7 Study Area 2

2.5 Pre-site evaluation of study areas and determination of priority species

The resource inventory was performed in two phases:

Probability = e α + β 1x1 + β 2x2 +β 3x3

3.1 Resource harvest inventory, species prioritisation and resource use

Tree species Rank Rank Resource use Rank

Tree species Resource use as % of the Rank

B) Bark stripping associated with harvesting for medicinal uses.

Tree species Resource use as % of the Rank

Brachylaenia huillensis (n=44) Newtonia hildebrandtii (n=39)

80 Ptaeroxylon obliquum (n=27) 80 Cleistanthus schlechteri (n=106)

Albizia adianthifolia (n=7) Erythrophleum lasianthum (n=3)

Acacia burkei (n=50) Combretum zeyheri (n=165)

80 Combretum molle (n=30 80 Philonoptera

Erythrophleum lasianthum (n=24) Balanites maughami (n=27)

80 Albizia adianthifolia (n=18) 80 Newtonia hildebrandtii (n=11)

80 Cleistanthus schlechteri (n=10) 80 Dalium schlechteri (n=4)

The opportunities for sustainable harvest based on predictors of resilience or vulnerability to

3.5 Socio-economic results of resource use from the ‘cross-checking’ methods

Factor B Regression coefficient df Wald Significance

Factor B Regression coefficient df Wald Significance

3.7 GIS map and graphical representation of resource harvesting risk

Figure 14 Factors Significant in Modelling Stem Cutting

Figure 15 Factors Significant in Modelling Bark stripping

Figure 16 Modelling Stem Cutting Resource Use in Maputaland

Figure 18 Predicted probability of Resource Harvesting and

Distance from subsistence agriculture (m)

Distance from subsistence agriculture (m)

4.2 Harvesting and resource value to rural communities of Maputaland

4.4 Modelling tree resource use in the Maputaland Centre of Endemism

Bell, R. H. V. & McShane, T. O. 1984. Landscape classification. In Conservation and Wildlife

Central Statistical Services. 1996. Central Statistics. Republic of South Africa.

Cooper, K. H. 1979. An investigation of the herbal medicine trade in Natal/KwaZulu. University of

Cunningham, A. B. 1988. An Investigation of the Herbal Medicine Trade in Natal/KwaZulu. Institute

Cunningham, A. B. 1991. Development of a conservation policy on commercially exploited medicinal

Cunningham, A. B. 2001a. Measuring Individual Plants and Assessing Harvesting Impacts. In

Cunningham, A. B. 2001b. Settlement, commercialisation and change. In Applied Ethnobotany: