CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR INVASION BIOLOGY

OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES

No. 1

TOWARDS BEST PRACTICE IN MANAGEMENT OF ROAD, POWER LINE AND RAIL RESERVES

Karen J Esler; Sue J Milton

DATE: August 2006

DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology

Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 21 808 2832 – Fax: +27 (0) 21 808 2995

E-mail: Rambau@sun.ac.za

DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

Tel: +27 (0) 21 808 2832 – Fax: +27 (0) 21 808 2995 E-mail: Rambau@sun.ac.za

Table of Contents

Note to readers ....................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 2 WHY ARE ROADS, POWER LINES AND RAILWAY SERVITUDES IMPORTANT? . 2 WHAT MAKES THE MANAGEMENT OF CORRIDORS SO CHALLENGING?........... 3 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF LABOUR- INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT......... 4 TOWARDS A SOLUTION ................................................................................................... 7 PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUS QUO............................................................................. 8 SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING AND DEALING WITH THE ECOLOGY............................................................................................................................. 8 SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING AND DEALING WITH MANDATES........................................................................................................................ 10 SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDER ISSUES AND PROMOTING AWARENESS................................................................................... 12 RESEARCH PRIORITIES .................................................................................................. 14 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 15 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 1. WHICH SERVITUDES ARE MANAGED BY WHOM AND AT WHAT SCALE? ............................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX 2: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME AND PARTICIPANTS............................. 19

Recommended citation format: Esler, KJ & Milton SJ (2006). Towards best practice in management of road, power line and rail reserves. C·I·B Occasional Paper No. 1. Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

Tel: +27 (0) 21 808 2832 – Fax: +27 (0) 21 808 2995 E-mail: Rambau@sun.ac.za

Note to readers The intention of the original workshop, funded by the Centre for Invasion Biology, was to focus on the management of both human-made and natural landscape corridors (e.g. rivers). It rapidly became obvious that the inclusion of river management into the day-long workshop was untenable and therefore the focus shifted to human-made habitat corridors managed for the public service. This is the core focus of the report. This report goes beyond the actual content of the proceedings of the Darling workshop held on June 12, 2006. Case studies and reference material which were not discussed at the workshop have been provided to add value to the document. However the basis of the document arises from inputs by delegates at the workshop. The intention is to submit revised versions of the content to various stakeholder magazines as well as to submit a more scientifically based version on best-practice guidelines to a local scientific journal.

Acknowledgements The DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology provided funding for this workshop. Thanks to Marlene Laros for her superb facilitation and Sarah Davies of the C.I.B. for note-taking at the workshop. Thanks to George Adams (Darling Presbyterian Church) for assisting with the venue, Norma Adams and her team for the teas, Rene Haslam and Sandy Collins for the excellent meals, Darling Museum for assistance with the screen and Darling Lodge and the Granary for accommodation. To the delegates (see Appendix 2 for delegate list) of the workshop who came together in a spirit of cooperation to find a solution – thank you all.

TOWARDS BEST PRACTICE IN MANAGEMENT OF ROAD, POWER LINE AND RAIL RESERVES

INTRODUCTION An inevitable consequence of population pressure and a growing economy is that landscapes increasingly become converted to those where production and transport are primary concerns. The biodiversity rich southern African landscapes are no exception to this global trend. Human-made linear transport corridors (roads, power lines, railways) through their very existence and shape have the potential to fragment habitats. However they can also be seen as essential linking corridors between habitat fragments where adjacent agricultural or urban activity has essentially eliminated biodiversity. In this context, they share features with natural corridors such as rivers. Environmental management in South Africa has been greatly improved over the past eight years by the implementation of legislation falling within the ambit of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998). New Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations have recently been promulgated in terms of NEMA (Notice No. 385/6/7, Government Gazette No. 28735, 21 April 2006). All new linear servitudes, roads and road realignment (as well as upgrades and clearing of natural vegetation greater than 3 ha) require authorisation in terms of the EIA regulations that identify and seek to mitigate potential damage to natural and cultural environment. These documents are in the public domain and can be obtained from the management agencies or viewed on their websites (see for example Holmes 2002, Eyethu Engineers 2004). Environmental Management Plans (DEAT 2004, Vosloo 2004) should detail the appropriate lifecycle management requirements for the development (i.e. from construction, through service to demolition). However, ongoing management of existing road verges and some servitudes appears not to be subject to environmental management planning, implementation or monitoring. The aim of this workshop on ecological management of habitat corridors managed for public service was to bring stakeholders together to discuss causes of the perceived poor management and to collaborate towards finding solutions.

WHY ARE ROADS, POWER LINES AND RAILWAY SERVITUDES IMPORTANT? Linear landscape corridors do not only play an important role for connectivity of fragmented landscapes. In some situations, they represent a large portion of all that is left of certain threatened habitats. In select cases where habitats have largely been transformed by agriculture, individuals of threatened species occur only within these corridors. For example, clearing of road verges near Worcester unnecessarily destroyed 30 % of the remaining population of a fynbos cone bush (Leucadendron chamalaea) in 2004 (Rebelo 2005). In these situations, South Africa has a legal imperative, the Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) which focuses special attention on the

2

conservation of these habitats and species. These corridors can help us meet our biodiversity targets (e.g. as identified by the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, Driver et al. 2005). The genetic diversity (rare species, varieties, populations) retained in such corridors and the ecosystem services that the corridors provide (e.g. seed banks, pollinators, soil conservation, small mammal and bird dispersers) have inherent value for restoration of neighbouring degraded habitats. Linear corridors adjacent to power lines, railway lines and roads could provide an insurance policy for biodiversity in the context of global climate change because they may allow organisms to shift their ranges across temperature and rainfall zones to escape the potentially lethal effects of climate change. Road verges have important aesthetic, educational and tourism value as they are sometimes the only pieces of natural vegetation visible and accessible to the general public. Although relative to the rest of the landscape, these areas are small, the combined area of these servitudes still represents a significant portion of the land surface of South Africa. ESKOM transmission line servitudes (30-80 metres wide) run for 28 000 km over private land (Vosloo 2004). The South African National road network alone is 7200 kilometres long (http://www.nra.co.za/aboutintro.html) with a minimum road reserve of 20 m on either side of the road.

WHAT MAKES THE MANAGEMENT OF CORRIDORS SO CHALLENGING? These natural and human-made corridors present interesting challenges for managers. Although they make up a small proportion of the landscape, their accessibility and linear characteristics mean that they are vulnerable both to disturbance and invasion (Photo 1). Human-made corridors have the added complexity in that their core function is not to serve as biodiversity corridors. For example, a key mandate for road and rail verge management is to maintain visibility for safety, while power servitudes are managed to maintain safe clearance for power cables and vehicle access for maintenance crews. It is understandable that management mandates can influence how remnant biodiversity is managed. National job creation initiatives in South Africa have recently magnified these sometimes conflicting management mandates. The Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and the Working for Water Programme (WfW) are two national initiatives aimed at reducing poverty and unemployment by using labour intensive methods to generate jobs and economic growth. Their key target areas are roads and river corridors.

3

Photo 1. Roads act as landscape conduits for invasive alien plants (IAPs). For example, the highly flammable Fountain grass, (Pennisetum setaceum) thrives in disturbed areas adjacent to road sides (Between Barrydale and Ladismith, Photo: Karen Esler). This widely distributed invasive C4 perennial bunchgrass has the potential to become invasive across a variety of ecosystems inSouth Africa. When servare cleared of natural vegetation, as recently seen in the Karoo, this species takes advantage of the situation, thriving when competition from native species is absent. It has the ability to “jump” into the adjacent landscape natural corridors such as rivers intersect with roads (Arrow, photo 1B, Between Willowmore and

Uniondale, Photo: Sebataolo Rahlao).

A

B

1A,

itudes

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF LABOUR- INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT Nationally, contractors and their largely unskilled work teams are employed by the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), the Department of Transport and Public Works and ESKOM, amongst other agencies, to intensively manage road verges and other servitudes. Road contractors are tasked to clear vegetation with the aim of improving road safety and visibility and to simplify road maintenance. The problem is that these well intended programs with potentially huge social benefits have generated some unintended consequences for biodiversity (Boxes 1, 2). In some cases, over zealous interpretation of the terms of reference for vegetation clearing, or poor training, appears to be damaging roadside vegetation and promoting weeds without necessarily improving road safety. Similarly, the clearing of vegetation below power lines can cause damage to vegetation or to soil, or result in introduction and establishment of invasive alien plant species.

4

Box 1: Rolbos takes the gap: Unwanted consequences of Karoo roadside vegetation clearing for plants, wildlife and people (SJ Milton) On 31 March 2005, I drove from Lutzville via Nieuwoudville, Calvinia, Williston and Frazerburg to Prince Albert. There were “werkskeppings” project teams (5-6 people each) clearing roadverges of vegetation within 30 km either side of Nieuwoudville, Calvinia and Williston. I stopped to ask the first team why they were clearing the shrubs from the roadside (Photo 2A). The team leader told me that there were four reasons for this activity:

1. Improved road safety: it was assumed that clearing of the half-meter high shrub layer would reduce hare and antelope collisions with vehicles

2. Improved visibility: it was assumed that removal of the low shrubs would improve visibility on this long straight road;

3. Simplified road maintenance; 4. Job creation.

I said that I was concerned about the removal of indigenous plants because they would be replaced with weeds. I was told that the workers were no longer skoffelling the plants out just cutting the bushes back to ground level (Photo 2B), and that there were no threatened plants in that region. They added that rolbos was a problem on roadverges nearer Nieuwoudville but not 30 km to the east where they were clearing. All these responses were given most willingly and sincerely. Unfortunately the team was poorly informed.

Any ecologist could have advised that clearing of indigenous vegetation would not make the roads a safer place or simplify road maintenance in the Nama Karoo. The reasons are firstly that clearing of long-lived shrubs frees up water, nutrients and space for faster-growing annual weeds and grasses. These provide a green flush (Photo 2C) when shrubs are dry and brown. The green flush attracts hares, steenbok and tortoises to the road edges from the dry veld. Secondly, although removal of shrubs slightly improves visibility in the short term, grasses and weeds, such as rolbos or tumbleweed (Salsola kali) grow taller than Karoo bossies and soon obscure more of the road than did the original vegetation (Photo 2C). Moreover, rolbos breaks off at ground level when dry and rolls in the wind. Apart from spreading seeds, these tumbling plants some 1 m in diameter can present an alarming spectacle for some motorists (Photo 2D). Whether or not there are rare plants in the roadverges of the Nama Karoo is unknown. There have been few plant collections from this part of the Karoo. What is certain, however, is that the plants on road verges are a potential seed reserve and source of seeds after drought. This is because than the road verges benefit from rainfall runoff from the road and are not as intensively grazed as the adjacent veld. This of course applies for weeds as much as it does for forage plants. When indigenous Karoo bossies are replaced by weeds, the weeds may move into the veld after a drought thins out the natural vegetation. At a time when worldwide an enormous effort is being made to beautify road verges for locals and tourists, and to improve their nature conservation value by replanting roadsides with indigenous vegetation, it is strange and tragic that natural vegetation should be cleared from road sides in this very arid part of South Africa.

5

Box 1: Rolbos takes the gap cont/….

Photo 2. A. Team funded by Extended Public Works Programme clearing indigenous Karoo bushes from the roadside between east of Nieuwoudville in the Nama Karoo on 31 March 2005. Note the low stature and brown colour of the vegetation. B. The Karoo bushes are not uprooted, but are cut off at ground level. The roots of the plants at least reduce erosion of soil by wind and water. Piles of cut branches are stacked against the fence. C. Grasses and weeds (including the ball-like Russian Tumbleweed) colonise road verges near Williston that were cleared of indigenous shrubs about two months previously. Note that the tumble weeds are larger and greener than the local Karoo bushes. They therefore obscure more of the road as well as attracting hares and antelope searching for green forage plants in this dry landscape. D. A dry Russian Tumbleweed (Salsola kali) that has broken free of the soil and is about to roll across the road. The bush, although light in weight, measures 1 m in diameter and could easily cause a driver to swerve particularly if it tumbles across a motorist’s path at night. An old name for this plant is perdeskrikbos.

6

Box 2: Learning from the Darling example (KJ Esler) The unique botanical diversity of the Darling-Hopefield area, centered in the threatened Cape Lowlands of the Cape Floristic Region, is seen as one of its community’s biggest assets and a major draw card for the town of Darling. The Darling wildflower show, held in September annually since 1917, provides ecotourism capital to this small west coast agricultural town. Local farmers participate by setting aside on-farm reserves that are opened to the public during the peak flower season (July-October), but these areas are still island fragments in an agriculturally altered sea of wheat and vines. Many of the showy annuals and some threatened species have found refuge along the road servitudes leading into the town. These linking corridors provide an additional showy display in spring and it is not surprising that they are regarded by the locals as precious and worthy of conservation attention. In the early 2000s, conflict arose when the newly created Swartland municipality embarked on a programme of herbicide spraying and mowing, ostensibly in the interests of road maintenance and weed control. However, with the demise of natural competitors, the weedy flora (e.g. Khaki bos, Tagetes minuta and Kikuyu, Pennisetum clandestinum) flourished – an unintended consequence of the management procedure. The visual difference was immediate. Concerned botanical champions in the community immediately started negotiations with the municipality and later the roads engineers to find a common solution to the problem. An early challenge for these involved citizens was to find out exactly who they had to deal with. The dedicated persistence of the Darling community paid off. As a result of negotiations the road network was divided into bio-regional sections, ecologically sensitive management specifications were drawn up with the assistance of CapeNature officials and other interested and affected parties and in collaboration with District Roads Engineers, the contract specifications were revised to take these specifications into account (District Roads Engineers Ceres, 2006). In addition, contract supervisors underwent an environmental awareness course, provided by local botanical experts, on invasive aliens. Within the town itself, the residents have devised “Darling Daisy” signs which they place on priority verges to warn municipal workers not to spray. There are still challenges to overcome (e.g. the lack of accredited trainers to assist with environmental awareness education of contractors and their labour) but an important lesson is that individual interactions between people in a local area are more likely to yield results than national, “one solution fits all” resolutions. This requires dedicated champions in the community.

TOWARDS A SOLUTION With this context in mind, the Centre for Invasion Biology provided funding for a workshop to explore these perceived problems, to consider which habitat types are most vulnerable to damage or weed invasion, which types of clearing are most damaging, and, where possible, to find solutions acceptable to all parties. The aim was to find a trans-disciplinary solution to inform management of best-practice

7

guidelines that would minimize habitat impact along corridors without endangering or compromising safety and service quality. Participants from a variety of academic, government, non-government, public and private institutions were invited to participate. Land-owners and interested and affected public from the Darling community were also invited, since this community has had considerable experience and success in negotiating with the Provincial roads department in formulating solutions to their roadside biodiversity conflict.

PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUS QUO Participatory discussion and visual gathering of ideas highlighted three key areas where participants perceived there to be a problem with the status quo:

1. Understanding and dealing with the ecology. Ecological information and consequences are not adequately communicated to managers. Ecological input relates to planning, compliance monitoring and knowing what ecological outcomes are required and how these should be achieved.

2. Understanding and dealing with mandates. Legal requirements and institutional complexity can lead to conflicting mandates.

3. Understanding stakeholder issues and promoting awareness. There is insufficient training and communication with/of contractors and key role players. Management objectives are not always clear, nor are they adequately communicated to the contractors and labour. Landowners are not always adequately consulted or informed.

SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING AND DEALING WITH THE ECOLOGY The various ecosystems through which roads and linear servitudes pass differ in the timing of growth and flowering and in the ecological drivers needed to promote species richness and regeneration. For example, most Fynbos plant species regenerate only after fire (not mowing), whereas in the Karoo fire eliminates succulents and promotes grass. For this reason ecologically sensitive management solutions are likely to have a habitat-specific flavour. This means that a range of best-practice guidelines will be required, each tailored for a particular priority vegetation type. In order to prioritize action for the most sensitive or critical areas, a large-scale inventory is required to determine exactly what is where. Bioregional conservation plans already exist in many regions of South Africa. Where these are translated into fine-scale plans that provide information on a local level, these can assist with information on irreplaceability1 of vegetation types, allowing for critical area prioritization. Specific species-level data such as those provided by the Red Data Book, CREW teams and the Protea Atlas can highlight areas that require

1 Irreplaceability is a term used in conservation planning and refers to the proportion of a remaining area of a specific vegetation types (as a surrogate for habitiat) that is needed to achieve a conservation goal. The more threatened or unique an area is (e.g. the species rich Renosterveld, where only 5-6% remains), the higher its irreplaceability score

8

immediate attention. It is likely that sensitive areas are already known to managers, interested and affected parties and ecologists alike. However what is required is a programme of action that incorporates ecological considerations into the decision making process. Because solutions are habitat specific, it is unlikely that they will be effective at a national scale. Lines of communication need to be opened at a regional or local level (see Understanding stakeholder issues and promoting awareness), where affected parties can raise their concerns, and champions within the community can, together with managing authorities, seek common solutions, as was the case in Darling (Box 2). Ecological guidelines need to be developed on a per-biome basis and made available to users either as hard copy booklets or web-based documents. Once priority areas have been identified, multi-phase goals will need to be implemented, depending on the level of threat (Table 1). It is suggested that a functional approach be employed, where the primary goal is to maintain ecological integrity and functional diversity (in relation to an equivalent reference vegetation community), without unduly compromising the mandate of the servitude managers. Maintaining functional diversity implies that conversion of Strandveld or Fynbos to grassland in road verges and servitudes is less acceptable than maintaining a pruned shrubland. In priority situations, threats first need to be minimized (Phase 1) before management actions are implemented (Phase 2). It is recognised, for example, that disturbance creates a window for invasion by alien plant species, therefore disturbance impacts need to be minimised. In critical areas, for example where a road cuts through pristine Fynbos, restoration actions might need to be employed (Phase 3) to restore cover and suppress invasion. While it is often assumed that servitude management is the primary source of threat for remnant biodiversity, it should be noted that adjacent land use might also play a role. For example, spill-over effects from crop spraying might severely impact remnant vegetation while adjacent pastures may be a source of invasive alien grass propagules. In cases where servitude habitat is highly irreplaceable, buffer zones might need to be negotiated with adjacent landowners. Fire management is a particular area of concern where conflict is likely to continue. In Fynbos (fire return time 20 years) and Renosterveld (fire return time 10 years), fire is essential to maintain ecological function and diversity. However, for servitude managers, it is a particular threat. ESKOM has specific priorities around fire fault management, since fire damage and soot on transmission lines can result in supply interruptions. Smoke causes visibility and safety problems for road management. There are also legal implications if fires move onto adjacent properties and cause damage. In these situations, carefully controlled burns under Fire Protection Agency management might still be feasible and should be explored as an option. Finally, the boundaries of vegetation types do not always conform to political or municipal boundaries, so that, in some cases a single maintenance team may need to be familiar with more than one set of guidelines.

9

Table 1. While acknowledging that servitude mandates (e.g. visibility, safety) remain a priority, ecologically sensitive management actions are suggested for several general scenarios Scenario ActionHabitat / species is unique / rare and is largely restricted to servitude

No management action (e.g. vegetation clearing) to occur until an ecologist is consulted. Identify best-practice management procedures to maintain or restore ecological integrity. Remove IAPs and restrict clearing to immediate servitude edge only (unless mandate is compromised). Carefully control herbicide use

Habitat / species is unique / rare and distributed along the servitude and adjacent natural remnant

Partner with adjacent remnant authority to integrate management between servitude and adjacent remnant. Identify best-practice management procedures to maintain or restore ecological integrity. Remove IAPs and restrict clearing to immediate servitude edge only (unless mandate is compromised). Carefully control herbicide use

Ecological integrity of habitat / species is threatened by invasive alien plants

Clear IAPs where removal will not destabilize ecosystem function (e.g. result in erosion). Carefully control herbicide use. Allow for follow-up management

Habitat / species is endangered, functional integrity has been compromised (e.g. soil erosion; compromised pollinator resources) and will not recover without further action

Initiate restoration actions to provide appropriate cover and to prevent invasion

SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING AND DEALING WITH MANDATES Many people would like to see nature along roadsides and linear servitudes put back the way it was before disturbance caused by service provision or road building. However there are limitations imposed by the non-negotiable mandates of the roads agencies and the electricity supply company (ESKOM). These non-mandates need to be understood before ecological issues around best ecological practise of road verges and servitudes can be developed. Roads and power lines should be able to function optimally as per the design. For roads this means that the driver must be able to see three times as far as the design speed of the road, i.e. for a road where the permitted speed is 100 km/hr, the driver needs a clear view for 300 m. Where risk of collision is particularly high, i.e. at

10

stop signs, yield signs and railway crossings, vegetation should be kept below 0.1 m in height for 100 m on all sides of the intersection. To protect road infrastructure, all vegetation must be removed within 2-3 m of the road edge, in front of distance markers and around drains and culverts. ESKOM must comply with the Occupational Heath and Safety Act (85 of 1993), i.e. that the equipment will be safe and without risks to health when properly used. This act, together with the requirement for minimization of faults, necessitates a clearance distance between the ground and the lines of 8 - 15 m (depending on the voltage), dictating vegetation management such as the clearing of tall shrubs and trees below lines (Photo 3). Power delivery may be interrupted by excreta of large birds that causes short-circuits in transmission lines, as well as by lightening strikes and fires, and for this reason maintenance teams must have road access to all servitudes.

Photo 3. A typical servitude for two lines, showing the extent of the servitude and the structure of managed vegetation beneath the lines (From Vosloo 2004). In order to comply with the National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998) which states that “every owner on whose land a veld fire may start or burn or from whose land it may spread must prepare and maintain a firebreak on his or her side of the boundary between his or her land and any adjoining land.” Therefore, both ESKOM and the roads management agencies may be required to clear vegetation. This compliance has legal and financial implications for management agencies, particularly where road verges or power servitudes abut cereal crops or other flammable property of high value. Failure of roads agencies to clear flammable vegetation from

11

road verges adjacent to flammable crops often leads to illegal herbiciding or ploughing of the road verge by the landowner. In addition to their mandates, ESKOM and roads agencies must comply with all other relevant legislation including the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983 amended 2001) that requires removal of listed alien invasive plants, the Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989), the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999), Atmospheric Pollution Act (Act 45 of 1965), the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998), the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies Amendment Act (Act 4 of 1980) that deals with the storage and use of herbicides, the Fencing Act (Act 31 of 1963) and legislation relating to business practices (Vosloo 2004). As indicated here, roads, rail and power servitude management agencies have their own mandates and must also comply to a wide range of sometimes conflicting legislation (for example the Veld and Fire Act requiring firebreaks versus National Environmental Management Act requiring protection of fire-dependent threatened habitats and species). For this reason, guidelines for ecologically sound management of road verges and corridors need to be simple and generic as regards general policy (for example, identification of ecologically sensitive areas, education of contractors, public consultation, control of herbicide use, maximum vegetation height to comply with safety standards, clearing distance from road edge), but could more specific in dealing with management recommendations for various biomes.

SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDER ISSUES AND PROMOTING AWARENESS To improve the management of road verges and linear servitudes it is necessary to identify stakeholders, and to understand their points of view and the management challenges they face. These stakeholders (Table 2) include roads engineers, adjacent landowners, conservation agencies, local citizens with interests in conservation issues and aesthetics as well as road safety and service provision. Implementation of best practise management requires the availability of guidelines, the communication of these guidelines to the implementation agent or manager, the willingness and capacity of agents to put the guidelines into practise, and the regular monitoring of compliance. The workshop identified gaps all along the chain. There are no guidelines for best practise ecological management of road verges for the various biomes, and general information on this topic is not readily available to roads engineers and contractors. Communication is thwarted by out-dated manuals and loss of experienced staff. Finally, there is little or no control or monitoring of the rapidly conceptualized Extended Public Works Programme by District Offices of the Provincial Roads engineers. A key component to resolving best-practice management challenges is to provide opportunity for stakeholder education and to raise awareness about the key issues. Many of the conflicts around servitude management have arisen because of lack of communication. As the Darling case study (Box 2) indicates, solutions are more likely to be found at a local (rather than national or provincial) scale, where champions within communities link with regional authorities to find a common solution and an acceptable compromise. This community initially battled because

12

they did not have a clear line of communication with the relevant authorities. It was only due to dedicated persistence of key individuals that communication channels were opened and solutions could be found. A wider solution to this problem is to provide an access point (such as a web-portal) where regional information and contact details are provided for various servitude types at the local, regional and national scale. Open communication lines alone are insufficient unless contractors are provided with clear guidelines (as was done in the Darling case study) and are trained, along with their labour, to be ecologically sensitive. Table 2 provides a series of options for stakeholder education and awareness. Table 2. Servitude management stakeholder education and awareness actions and responsibilities Stakeholders Actions Responsibilities South African National Biodiversity Institute, General public

Generate a web portal to supply key resources, articles, organogram of responsibilities and contact details, best practice guidelines, legal questions and answers.

SANBI, Universities (C.I.B.)

Management authorities (e.g. ESKOM, TELKOM, SENTEC, NRA etc), contractors

Incorporate ecologically friendly management practice into contract conditions. Include penalty clauses if conditions are not met.

Management authorities

Regional government, general public, business

Introduce “Adopt a Road” programme to raise funds and awareness.

Regional government

SETA (Sector Education and Training Authorities), contractors

Provide opportunity for the creation of a certified training opportunity / training videos for contractors and labour.

SETA

Contractors, unskilled labour

Provide training opportunities to labour. Keep close watch on activities and consult with local biologists when in doubt.

Management authorities, SETA, Contractors

Roads engineers Provide awareness information to Society of Roads Engineers. NGOs and academics can offer awareness seminars.

Universities (C.I.B.), NGOs (e.g. Botanical Society)

Landowners Raise awareness through articles in the farming press

Universities (C.I.B.), NGOs (e.g. Botanical

13

(Landbou Burger; Landbou Weekblad; Farmers Weekly; Wynboer; Agriprobe). Articles should highlight problems; provide solutions and key resources and contacts.

Society), Interested and affected parties

Tertiary education Influence future decision makers by ensuring a biodiversity component in training of civil engineers, planners etc.

Universities

RESEARCH PRIORITIES A protocol for prioritization of action on road verges and other servitudes is needed. This requires an urgent survey of what habitats / species are left as well as a determination of the importance of these remnants. Importance will need to be determined in a variety of ways, for example a remnant may have value because it contributes to a conservation target (it is irreplaceable) or it may have ecotourism or functional (e.g. pollinator service) value. Research is also required into the nature of servitude vegetation, as this will determine best-practice management. For example in a specific ecoregion, what kind of vegetation occurs in the “zones” of road servitudes, which invasive alien species are likely to occur there and why? What plants contribute to the maintenance of ecological processes and which species allow for the suppression of weedy of invasive species? Research of this nature is already taking place at the Centre for Invasion Biology, but the results need to be communicated in a palatable manner to the relevant stakeholders. Research into the effects of servitude management (mowing; scoffeling) on vegetation structure and function is required as is an investigation into the effects of pruning vegetation to different heights. Can a compromise be reached that takes both the servitude mandate and the ecological requirements of the relevant vegetation type into consideration? It is critical that we ask the question – does a changing management approach support improved ecological integrity and functional diversity? We hypothesize that functional diversity and ecological integrity will improve when an improved management approach (as apposed to “business as usual”) is adopted. To ensure that the limited resources for conservation make a difference, we need research that tests this type of hypothesis (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006) Finally, there is scope for a sociological study that investigates the attitudes of various stakeholders towards road verge management.

14

CONCLUSIONS It is acknowledged from the outset that servitude mandates (e.g. visibility, safety) will always remain a priority for those who manage habitat corridors for public service. However, unintended consequences of labour intensive clearing programmes require urgent and immediate attention. Solutions are habitat specific and a local programme of action that incorporates ecological considerations into the decision making process is the one most likely to succeed. This requires stakeholder education, awareness actions and dedicated champions at the local level.

REFERENCES Crowther, Campbell & Associates. (2002) Final environmental impact report. the proposed N1 N2 winelands toll highway for the South African National Roads Agency Limited www.nra.co.za/documents/winemain1.pdf . DEAT. (2004) Environmental Management Plans, Integrated Environmental Management Information series 12. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Pretoria. District Roads Engineer Ceres. (2006) West Coast Road Reserve Grass Cutting Projects: The Darling Case Study. Unpublished Report. Department of Transport & Public Works Roads Infrastructure Branch. Provincial Government – Western Cape. Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Reyers, B., Sink, K., Strauss, T. (2005). National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17: South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Eyethu Engineers cc. (2004) Houhoek-Palmiet-Stikland draft scoping report. www.eskom.co.za/content/ HPS%20Scoping%20Report.rev01.pdf Ferraro, P.J. and Pattanayak S.K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4(4):482-488. Holmes, P.M. (2002). Specialist study on the potential impact of the proposed N1 N2 winelands toll highway project on the affected vegetation and plant species. Report to Crowther, Campbell & Associates on behalf of South African National Roads Agency Limited. www.nra.co.za/documents/ Rebelo, A. (2005). Letter to South African Bird Net (SABN) on http://lists.ukzn.ac.za/pipermail/sabirdnet/2005-February/001745.html as retrieved on 26 Jul 2005

15

Vosloo, H.F. (2004). The need for and contents of a Life Cycle Management Plan for Eskom Transmission Line Servitudes. MSc Rand Afrikaans University.

16

APPENDIX 1. WHICH SERVITUDES ARE MANAGED BY WHOM AND AT WHAT SCALE? Note: We would greatly appreciate assistance in completing this table What Who Level Power line servitudes ESKOM National National roads - verges Department of Transport

(NDoT) via SANRAL Each province has a regional office

National

Provincial roads - verges District engineers, municipalities mostly through contractors such as Kwezi V3

Provincial and Municipal

Municipal roads - verges Unclear – see extract below*

Municipal

Roads within towns or cities

City of Cape Town - responsible directorate is "Transport, Roads and Planning". Actions at district level within the city (e.g. South Peninsula or Helderberg) fall under "Roads & Stormwater" dept.

Local

Railway line servitude *Lack of clarity re management of municipal roads: Source: http://www.transport.gov.za/library/docs/rifsa/arrange.html (accessed June 2006) “As it is the core function of the NDoT to ensure that the basic transport needs of all South Africans are met, the NDoT has therefore been at the forefront of introducing Service Delivery Innovation. As part of the innovation process, the Department, with Parliamentary approval, created the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) in 1998, to carry out the delivery of the National Road Network. SANRAL operates at arms length from, but under the control of the NDoT. Similar agencies have been created for provincial and municipal roads, e.g. in the Limpopo Province and the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Council, respectively.”…………………….. The delivery of provincial roads is extremely variable in execution. In some provinces, such as Gauteng and the Western Cape, the only barrier towards an effective delivery of the provincial roads network is a chronic shortage of funds. On the other hand, there are other provincial authorities in which conditions, such as bloated, unskilled and inefficient staff structures, a lack of professional managerial and technical skills, as well as inefficient procedures, prevail.

17

Municipal roads. The roads delivery function in this sphere of government perhaps requires the most attention in terms of institutional arrangements. Much confusion exists regarding the co-ordination of and responsibility for the planning and delivery of the primary metropolitan road networks. There are several reasons for this situation – one of which is the fact that road networks must perforce act in an integrated fashion and, with many municipal road networks having both provincial and national road components within their set-ups, the "higher" spheres of government have tended to dominate.

18

APPENDIX 2: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME AND PARTICIPANTS Towards best practice in management of road, power line and rail reserves and river corridors Stakeholder workshop to brainstorm issues and solutions 12 June 2006, 08h00 to 16h30 Organised by the Centre of Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University Darling, Presbyterian Church Hall. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Organizers: Karen J Esler (072 5293232) & Sue J Milton; Centre for Invasion Biology, University of Stellenbosch; Facilitator: Marlene Laros; Scribe: Sarah Davies Background: National and Provincial road verges are managed to promote road safety and conserve biodiversity. In most cases the management is carried out by contractors and funded by the Extended Public Works Programme. In some cases, over zealous management or poor training appears to be damaging roadside vegetation and promoting weeds without necessarily improving road safety. Similarly, the clearing of vegetation below power lines can cause damage to vegetation or soil or result in introduction and establishment of invasive alien plant species. A related issue is the clearing of invasive alien plants from river corridors to conserve indigenous vegetation and improve river flow and water yield. However, depending on the density and nature of the alien vegetation and the clearing method, such management sometimes results in erosion that defeats the clearing objectives. This workshop intends to explore these perceived problems, to consider which habitat types are most vulnerable to damage or weed invasion, which types of clearing are most damaging, and, where possible, to find solutions acceptable to all parties. Aim of Workshop: To gather together a core team of people to workshop issues and solutions relating to the management of biodiversity along road, power line and river corridors in relation to other objectives such as road safety and increased water yield of rivers. To produce a best-practice manual (possibly supplement by training material), tailor-made for specific biome types, for the ecological management of roads and rivers that addresses safety and conservation issues. To gather key ideas for a SAJ Science article on best-practice methods and conceptual ideas for an international overview paper (e.g. in “Landscape Ecology” or “Landscape and Urban Planning”). Participants: Name Affiliation e-mail Tel / FAX Sue Milton C.I.B. & Cons Ecol,

US sukaroo@telkomsa.net 023541182

8 082770020

19

6 Karen Esler C.I.B. & Cons Ecol,

US kje@sun.ac.za 021 808

4005 Dave Richardson C.I.B., US rich@sun.ac.za 21 808-

3711 Pat Holmes City of Cape Town patricia.holmes@capetown.go

v.za 021 7127816

Melodie McGeogh C.I.B. & Cons Ecol, US

mcgeoch@sun.ac.za 021 8082635

Richard Dean Percy FitzPatrick Institute

lycium@telkomsa.net 0235411828

Clement Cupido W Cape Dept Agric clementc@elsenberg.com 083 6903586

Lars Starke PGWC, Roads engineer

lstarke@pgwc.gov.za 082 8096170

Johan Pienaar PGWC, Roads engineer

jhpienaa@pgwc.gov.za

Llewellyn Foxcroft

SANParks LlewellynF@sanparks.org 013 735 4125

John Duckitt Interested & affected party, Darling

jduckitt@mweb.co.za 082 2228135

Martin Halvorsen W Coast Branch of BotSoc, Yzerfontein

darlingwines@westc.co.za 022492 3740

Hein Vosloo ESKOM hein.vosloo@eskom.co.za Tony Rebelo SANBI rebelo@sanbi.org 021

7998690 Peter Carrick Namaqualand

Restoration Initiative

carrick@botzoo.uct.ac.za 021 650 5789

Ernest Thompson Centre Forward Trading – consultant to provincial administration on road reserves

ths@worldonline.co.za 082 3331543

Anton Wolfhaart CapeNature anton@donline.co.za Verna Bowie CapeNature verna@cncjnk.wcape.gov.za Shirlane Douglas ExpandedWorks

Program sdouglas@pgwc.gov.za 021

4832125 Chris Ihlenfeldt Interested &

affected party, Darling

c.ihlenfeldt@ourhome.co.za

Tony Basquez Contractor involved with DRE – Ceres

anfer@mweb.co.za 021 553-0228/ 082-551-6743

20

Renate du Plessis Swartland Municipality

duplessisr@swartland.org.za 083 792 2473

Cobus Retief District Roads Engineers Office, Paarl

Jjretief@pgwc.gov.za 082 9062814

Ismail Ebrahim SANBI, CREW CFR project manager

ebrahim@sanbi.org 021 7998751

Eugene van Rensburg

Weed scientist, ESKOM

David Whiteman Contractor; herbicide specialist & horticulturalist

Blom-bos@mweb.co.za 082 7227809

Myke Scott Horticulturalist, Renosterveld restoration

mykes@telkomsa.net 021 8813167

Note Taker: Sarah Davies

C.I.B. sdavies@sun.ac.za 021 808 3922

Facilitator: Marlene Laros

MLA Sustainability Matters

mtlaros@mweb.co.za 021 780 1120

Apologies: Charl de Villiers (Botanical Society); Ahmed Kahn (Working for Water); Jesse Kalwij (SU, Dept. ConsEnt); Guy Preston (Chairperson / National Programme Leader: The Working for Water Programme); Jean Coultas (NRA); Mpati Makoa (NRA); Heletter Prinsloo (DoA) Land Use and Soil Management).

21

Workshop Programme

TIMING AGENDA ITEM PRESENTER/ RESPONSIBILITY

08h00-10h30

1. Session One - Welcome & workshop opening 1.1 Welcome 1.2 Introductions 1.3 Purpose of the workshop and overall process 1.4 Introductory presentation 1.5 Expectations 1.6. Workshop objectives and programme

Marlene, Karen, Sue All/Marlene Karen Sue All/Marlene Marlene

10h30-12h30

2. Session Two - Issues and problems 2.1 Key contextual issues (plenary) 2.2 Problems/issues with status quo (facilitated visual gathering) 2.3 Discussion and prioritisation of issues 2.4 Agreeing the key aspects to be addressed in session 3

All/Marlene

12h30-13h45 LUNCH

13h45-15h30

3. Session Three – Solutions and way forward 3.1 Group work on solutions and/or guidance 3.2 Fairground report back 3.3 Discussion of inputs

All/Marlene

15h30-15h45 TEA

15h45-16h30 3.4 Way forward and next steps 3.5 Thanks and closure

Karen/Sue

22