Skip to content

Conservation Services

KNP Management Plan

Background to revision of KNP Management Plan

As you may already be aware, we are busy revising the objectives hierarchy of the KNP’s management plan.

This follows from the 1997 objectives (Braack 1997) and the recognition that revisions should be done on a 5-yearly basis. This aims to keep the management plan a dynamic and up-to-date document that is widely used and follows the strategic adaptive management framework. This approach is also consistent with the requirements of the Protected Areas Act. The method of translating the KNP’s mission into objectives and goals allows clearer interpretation of goals and outcomes, and strives to integrate the overall biodiversity mandate of the KNP with other functions.

The cascading objectives allow increasing focus, rigor and achievability and are aimed at supporting and achieving the KNP’s mission statement. A detailed process was followed in 1997 to arrive at the overall KNP mission statement, which also included public inputs. In the current revision process, slight adjustments / modifications have been proposed to the mission statement (highlighted in red font). Cascading down from the KNP’s mission statement are a number of high level objectives. This provides the overall context within which the biophysical biodiversity objectives sit within the KNP.

The revised objectives have been derived after a series of in-house workshops. Biophysical objective revision has involved research and conservation management staff and is aimed at integrating research and management. Obviously there is quite some cross-referencing and some objectives could be placed under more than one higher-level objective. These objectives have been subject to external review and we received inputs from specialists in terms of the depth and breadth of the proposed objectives (i.e. to help us determine any critical gaps or shortcomings, etc.) while taking cognisance of the KNP mission.

In order to ensure continuity and keep track of logic and thought processes over time, each group of objectives is preceded by a “Preview” page. The preview provides the links to the 1997 objectives (what have we achieved since then, how have thought processes or ideologies changed, etc) and sets the scene for these revised 2005 objectives. In order to assist with forward-thinking and prioritisations for the next 5 years, each bundle of objectives is also followed by a “Postview”.

These objectives will form part of the broader management plan that is being developed for the KNP in line with the requirements of the Protected Areas Act. The setting of objectives and priorities is recognised as an important step within the overall protected area management process and will be aligned with the norms and standards for management plan development being prepared by the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. In tandem with this process, the revision of KNP policies and guidelines are also underway.

These include revision or preparation of policies dealing with: biodiversity conservation, research and monitoring, fire management, alien biota, problem biota, rare, endangered and threatened species, waterhole placement and management, sustainable use, river management, erosion, land acquisition, zonation, territorial integrity, import and export of biological material (including reintroductions), chemical and herbicide use, pest control, disease and human-wildlife interface, material property rights, information management, social ecology, community relationships, economic empowerment, environmental education, cultural heritage, communications for social ecology and biodiversity

Kruger National Park: Provisional Revision of Mission Statement Sept 2003

In keeping with the SANParks mission:

  • to maintain biodiversity in all its natural(1) facets and fluxes
  • to provide human benefits and build a strong constituency; and
  • preserve as far as possible(2) the wilderness qualities and cultural resources associated with the Park

1997 footnotes accepted. However,
(1) add the notion “indigenous” to natural
(2) “detract as little as possible from” wording (as in 1997) possibly better

Click on the links below to view the various objective trees: