|
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context for recreational Environmental Management Plans (EMP's)
Table Mountain National Park (TMNP), one of South Africa's 23 National Parks, is managed by the South African National Parks (SANParks). SANParks is a Schedule 3(a) "public entity" in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1 of 1999. The core mandate of SANParks is the conservation and management of biodiversity through a system of National Parks. It functions primarily under the ambit of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (PAA), 57 of 2003 (as amended) and the "Regulations for the proper administration of Special Nature Reserves, National Parks and World Heritage Sites" (GN R.1061, 28 October 2005) issued in terms of Section 86(1) of the PAA.
Inline with the vision of the Park, "A Park for All, Forever", Park management strives to balance the core business mandates (biodiversity, heritage and tourism management) required by SANParks with the need for management excellence within an urban environment.
The Park is not a continuous land unit but is fragmented by urban development and privately owned land. It is divided into four management areas, as follows:
The Park is a popular destination for a wide variety of outdoor recreational activities with around 25 approved recreational activities occurring in the park. These include mountain biking; hiking; horse-riding; sport-climbing; hang-gliding; fishing; diving; surfing; picnicking; and walking with dogs. In addition, due to its proximity to the City of Cape Town and world renowned tourism destinations such as Cape Point, Boulders and the Table Mountain Cableway, it is a popular tourist destination with more than 4.2 million visits to the park per annum.
A significant challenge for Park management is how to provide for and administer these diverse recreational activities without compromising the experience of other visitors and users, and the integrity of the unique biodiversity and heritage features which the Park is mandated to conserve. To this end, the Park developed in 2000, and revised in 2007, a strategic spatial framework known as the Conservation Development Framework (CDF) . The CDF differentiates between Use Zones, Visitor Site and Park Entry Points.
Use Zones define aspects such as the experiential qualities; the type of activities; the degree of interaction with other users; the type and size of facilities; the sophistication of facilities; the type of access, and the standard of roads within each zone.
Visitor Sites note the placement of visitor facilities (tourism and recreation) and infrastructure, and the size & nature of those facilities.
Park Entry Points designate the Points of entry into the Park which may be a Pay Point or Open Access Point.
During the public consultation process in the revising of the CDF, concern was raised by dog walkers, that the updated version of the CDF sought to restrict the areas available for dog walking. In response to the concerns raised, the park management agreed to review the EMP for walkers accompanied by dogs in conjunction with stakeholders. This is inline with the Park's Integrated Environmental Management System which calls for Plans to be updated every five years.
The Parks EMP's are loosely based on the ISO 14000 Standard for Environmental Management Systems (EMS) (SABS, 1996) which seeks to provide a structured and consistent approach in addressing a range of environmental issues relating to the recreational activity. To date the following recreational EMP's have been compiled: Rock and sport climbing (2000); Walkers accompanied by dogs (2002); Horse riding (2004); Mountain biking (2002) and Paragliding and hang-gliding (2004).
1.2 Profile of walkers accompanied by dogs
TMNP is one of the few National Parks in South Africa where recreational dog walking is permitted. A comprehensive visitor survey conducted by the Park during 1999-2000 estimated that some 78,000 dog-owners use the Park for recreational dog walking, with the most popular destinations for dog walking including Newlands Forest (60% of users), Cecilia Forest (49%), Constantia Nek (39%), Silvermine south (35%), Noordhoek beach (31%), van Riebeek Park (28%) and Scarborough Beach (19%). With the incorporation of the popular dog walking areas of Tokai & Cecilia Plantations into the TMNP, the total number of people walking their dogs in the TMNP has increased accordingly.
People who enter the Park with their dogs are a somewhat amorphous group comprising a wide range of individuals, groups and families. Most people walking their dogs do not belong to any organized group, or have any interest in doing so. People generally visit the Park with their dogs for their own exercise, and to enjoy the natural open spaces. Dog owners tend to enjoy the psychological benefits of taking their pets with them, as well as being able to exercise their dogs. It is argued that walkers accompanied by dogs feel more secure and safer in the more remote areas of the Park. As a general rule, dogs that are regularly walked in the park (or other open spaces in the City) tend to be well socialized and are accustomed to interacting with strange dogs and people. A smaller number of these dogs, which are habitually walked in the park, have also attended dog training.
1.3 The purpose of this EMP
This EMP will provide an overarching framework for the regulation, management and monitoring of walkers accompanied by dogs in the TMNP.
This EMP specifically aims to:
- Build on the foundation of the Environmental Management Program for Walkers Accompanied by Dogs (2002);
- Sustain and strengthen a constructive partnership between people walking with dogs in the Park and Park management;
- Identify and mitigate the impacts of people walking with dogs on the biodiversity and heritage features of the park;
- Identify and mitigate the impacts of people walking with dogs on other recreational users and Park visitors;
- Identify the key social issues motivating
- Identify appropriate areas in which people can walk with their dogs;
- Develop regulations, and associated code of conduct, for walkers accompanied by dogs;
- Develop a coordinated and uniform approach to, and activities required for, the implementation and monitoring of the EMP; and
- Identify the roles and responsibilities of the Park and different stakeholders in the implementation and monitoring of the EMP.
The purpose of the EMP is however not to:
- Replicate information from other Park planning documents;
- Provide a detailed profile, or spatial distribution, of people walking with their dogs in the park;
- Provide a scientifically defensible description of the impacts of people walking with dogs in the park;
- Adopt an authoritarian, regulatory approach in the control and regulation of people walking with dogs in the park; or
- Specify the technical details of, and costs and timelines for, activities identified in the EMP.
1.4 Format of the EMP
The EMP is structured as follows:
- " Section 1 introduces the EMP, including
- the context for its drafting,
- the profile of the user group,
- its purpose, and
- the consultation process adopted in its drafting;
- Section 2 profiles the potential environmental impacts of walkers accompanied by dogs on the natural and heritage features of the park, other recreational users and visitors;
- Section 3 frames the overall vision and objectives for the EMP, and identifies the commitments of the different stakeholder groups to the implementation of the EMP;
- Section 4 describes the implementation of the EMP, including:
- identification of areas for walking with dogs, with special management considerations for certain areas,
- a code of conduct for walkers accompanied by dogs,
- Park regulations for walkers accompanied by dogs,
- identification of management and enforcement activities and
- description of the communication, education and information requirements;
- Section 5 describes the
- cooperative governance arrangements for the EMP, and
- institutional roles and responsibilities for the EMP
- Section 6 identifies the broad scheduling for the implementation of the EMP.
1.5 Consultation process in the revision of the EMP
1.5.1 Stakeholders in the drafting of the EMP
The TMNP established a core group of Park staff who provided inputs into the iterative development of the EMP. This group of Park staff are responsible for the planning, management and implementation of the EMP.
The TMNP contracted The Nature Conservation Corporation (NatConCorp) to facilitate the consultation process, and produce the revised EMP.
The Friends of the Dog Walkers (FDW) are a group of local citizens who initially approached Park Management in 2001 with a view to opening discussions on the issue of reasonable access to the Park for dogs accompanied by their owners or handlers. Although FDW are not an elected body, they have obtained a broad mandate from interested persons to continue to negotiate with the Park. The primary objective of the FDW is to represent and protect the interests of the dog owning community while respecting the environment and the needs of other interest groups.
NatConCorp and the TMNP advertised in different media (including notices at entrance points to the Park, newspaper advertisements and on the SANParks/TMNP website) for interested and affected parties to register their interest in the EMP, provide their contact details and submit a list of any issues they would like addressed in the EMP. NatConCorp maintained a database of these I&AP's. A copy of the advertisements, and the database of I&AP's and issues raised, are available on request.
The City of Cape Town (CoCT) was invited to participate in the iterative development of the EMP.
A Walking with Dogs Reference Group (the 'Reference Group') was constituted to discuss the development of the EMP. The Reference Group includes representation of the following groups:
- Park Management
- FDW
- CoCT
- I&AP's
1.5.2 Approach to consultation
For the purposes of compiling the first draft of the updated EMP, NatConCorp consulted directly with two core reference groups - the FDW and I&AP's in the one group and the Park management staff and City of Cape Town representatives in the other. Once a first draft of the EMP was compiled, NatConCorp then consulted with a consolidated reference group (the 'Walking with Dogs Reference Group') comprising I&AP's, FDW and the Park management staff.
This second draft of the EMP is circulated for wider public comment. Comments received will discussed with the consolidated reference group and recommendations included where possible. The revised EMP will then be drafted for approval by the consolidated reference group, and subsequent adoption by the TMNP. Figure 2 provides an illustration of this participation process while Table 1 lists the formal meetings held to date with stakeholders during the iterative drafting of this version of the EMP.
Table 1: Summary of consultative meetings held to date, in the drafting of the EMP
| Date | Stakeholder group/s | Objective of meeting |
|---|
| 18 September, 2007 | Park management staff | Identify approach to, and issues that need to be addressed in, the revised EMP |
| 18 September, 2007 | Friends of the Dog Walkers | Identify approach to, and issues that need to be addressed in, the revised EMP |
| 21 November, 2007 | Park management staff | Internal review of first draft of EMP |
| 21 November, 2007 | Friends of the Dog Walkers | Internal review of first draft of EMP |
Figure 2: Illustration of the consultation process followed in the revising the EMP
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ISSUES
During the initial registration and public participation process, several key issues listed in Table 2a were raised by members of the public and Parks management. It is envisaged that more issues may be received from comments on the 2nd draft.
Table 2a: Key issues raised
| Key Issues Raised | Comments |
|---|
| Walkers receive physical and psychological benefit from walking with their dogs | This has been noted and taken into consideration in the drafting of the EMP. |
| Walkers have historically and traditionally been allowed to walk their dogs within the Park | This has been noted. |
| Walkers with dogs require several long walks to prevent repetitive walking | This has been noted and taken into consideration in the drafting of the EMP. |
| Walking with a dog mitigates safety concerns | This has been noted and taken into consideration in the drafting of the EMP. |
| Self policing should be enhanced and enforced | This has been reviewed in the drafting of the EMP. |
| Mitigate conflict between user groups | This has been noted and taken into consideration in the drafting of the EMP. |
| A manageable and practical code conduct should be enforced | This has been reviewed in the drafting of the EMP. |
The identification of these key environmental impacts provides the framework for: (i) the development of the environmental vision and objectives for the EMP (Section 3); (ii) the identification of the areas available for walking with dogs, and any areas requiring special management consideration (Section 4); and (iii) a code of conduct, specific regulations and any other management activities that may be required to mitigate these impacts (Section 4).
To ensure consistency and continuity with the 'Environmental Impacts and Issues' identified in Section 2 of the Environmental Management Program for Walkers Accompanied by Dogs (2002), this section simply constitutes an update of the information contained in the original EMP.
The potential impacts that were identified in relation to activities associated with dogs are presented in Table 2b. The status of these potential impacts, with and without management, is reflected in Table 2b as follows: if they are positive (+); if they are slight/ neutral (0); or if they are negative (-).
Table 2b: The potential environmental impacts of dogs in the Park
| Activity | Potential Impact | Status |
|---|
Without
management | With
management |
|---|
1.
Arrival at the
park entrance
with dogs | (i) Erosion/compaction of area at entry point | 0 | 0 |
|---|
| (ii) Trampling of, and damage to, indigenous vegetation at entry point | - | 0 |
| (iii) Increased noise | - | 0 |
| (iv) Conflict with other dogs | - | 0 |
| (v) Experience with other visitors or recreational users | - | 0 |
| (vi) Dog faeces | - | 0 |
| (vii) Increased litter ... DOGS litter ?? !! | - | 0 |
| (viii) Increased sense of security of dog handler | + | + |
| Activity | Potential Impact | Status |
|---|
Without
management | With
management |
|---|
2.
Walking
in the park
with dogs | (i) Erosion of footpaths and surrounding area | - | 0 |
|---|
| (ii) Trampling and compaction of natural vegetation, notably young sapling plants | - | - |
| (iii) Conflict with other dogs | - | 0 |
| (iv) Increased noise | - | 0 |
| (v) Increased monitoring presence in the Park | 0 | + |
| (vi) Disturbance of animals | - | - |
| (vii) Disturbance of nesting or ground birds | - | - |
| (viii) Dog faeces | - | 0 |
| (ix) Disturbance of heritage sites | - | 0 |
| (x) Increased sense of security of dog handler | + | + |
| (xi) Increased litter .... DOGS litter ?? !! | - | 0 |
| (xii) Physical exercise of dog and dog handler | + | + |
| (xiii) Experience of other recreational users and visitors | - | 0 |
3. EMP VISION AND OBJECTIVES
This section introduces the overarching vision for the EMP and the high level objectives required to achieve this vision. Based on the vision and objectives, this section broadly frames the agreement between park management and people walking with their dogs in the park.
3.1 Vision and objectives
The following vision will guide the implementation of this EMP:
To ensure responsible access to, and use of, the Table Mountain National Park for the purposes of walking with dogs, enabled through a collaborative and constructive relationship between park management and stakeholder groups
The following five complementary objectives will direct the activities required to achieve this vision:
- To clearly define areas in the Park available for walking with dogs
- To clearly describe a code of conduct for people walking with dogs in the park
- To ensure effective and ongoing communication and provision of relevant and useful information
- To build the capacity to effectively monitor, and enforce, the compliance with internal park rules
- To cooperatively monitor and review the effectiveness of the EMP
3.2 The agreement between park management and people walking with their dogs
In order for this vision to be achieved, the different stakeholder groups need to commit to the following guiding principles:
3.2.1 The Park Management team will
- Manage the Park in accordance with the legal requirements of the PAA and any other complementary legislation and policy.
- Direct resources and capacity to achieve the park vision and objectives as directed by the strategies and actions framed in the Park Management Plan, and the linked Conservation Development Framework.
- Seek to promote responsible access to, and use of the park by, walkers accompanied by dogs.
- Seek to effectively manage any threats to biodiversity and heritage by walkers accompanied by dogs in the park.
- Seek to strengthen relationships with people walking with their dogs in the park, and groups mandated to represent their interests.
- Continue to identify and assess the significance of the environmental impact of dogs in the Park.
- Comply with the agreements negotiated in this Environmental Management Programme.
3.2.2 Walkers accompanied by dogs will
- Recognize the unique biodiversity and heritage significance of the Park, and acknowledge the Park management's mandated responsibility to conserve this.
- Acknowledge that walking in the Park with dogs could have adverse effects on Parks' users/visitors, and the natural and heritage features, if the activity is not effectively administered.
- Seek to collaboratively work with Park management, and other recreational user groups, on an ongoing basis to facilitate fair and equitable access to, and use of, the Park for the purpose of walking with dogs.
- Comply with the agreements negotiated in this Environmental Management Programme.
4. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
This section seeks to operationalise the vision and objectives described in Section 3. It explicitly identifies the agreed areas of the park for walking with dogs, the code of conduct that will guide and direct the etiquette of people walking with dogs, the elements of the code of conduct that will be enforced by park staff and the mechanisms for communication, informing and educating walkers with dogs about their responsibilities when in the park.
4.1 Identification of areas for walking with dogs
4.1.1 Open Areas identified for walking their dogs
General areas available for walking with dogs that do not differ from current areas are outlined in Map 2 (2a = Table Mountain; 2b = Karbonkelberg/ Silvermine/ Noordhoek beach; and 2c = southern Peninsula) provided dog walkers remain on recognised management tracks and footpaths.
With the assignment of Tokai and Cecilia Plantations to SANParks management, the traditional areas for walking with dogs (east of Orpen Road for Tokai and the entire Cecilia Plantation) are now governed by this EMP.
New areas that are proposed to be opened for walking with dogs (were not included in the 2002 EMP) are:
- Tokai Plantation: West of Orpen Rd.
- Noordhoek Wetlands
- Shusterskraal picnic area
4.1.2 Open Areas that will require special management
Of the open areas available for people walking with dogs, the following sites will require special management considerations:
Newlands Forest parking area (see Map 2a) - dogs accompanied by walkers should be leashed from the main parking area, up along the tarred road past the office buildings to the T-Junction at the park helicopter landing pad. All dog faeces must be removed from this route.
Western Table (see Map 2a) - dogs to be kept on a leash.
Rhodes Memorial (see Map 2a) - dogs to kept on a leash in the designated and signposted area.
Noordhoek Beach parking area (see Map 2b) - access to the beach for walkers with dogs, from the parking area to the beach, is limited to the designated and signposted route. All dog faeces must be removed from the parking area.
Noordhoek corner near Klein Slangkop (as broadly indicated in Map 2b) - a park-designated area may be seasonally closed to walkers with dogs to prevent disturbance of ground-breeding birds.
All picnic areas not closed to dog walking - dogs may only route through these areas on a leash
Willis Walk (see Map 2c) - dogs to be kept on a leash and all dog faeces must be removed from this route.
Scarborough Beach and Parking Area (see Map 2c) - All dog faeces must be removed from this these areas.
4.1.3 Areas that are closed for walking with dogs
The following areas of the TMNP remain closed to walkers accompanied by dogs as agreed in the 2002 EMP:
- Cape of Good Hope section (fenced area: Map 2c)
- Orange Kloof (valley bounded by escarpment: Map 2a)
- Rhodes Estate Game Camp (fenced area: Map 2a)
- Boulders (area below Willis walk: Map 2c)
- Oudekraal Picnic Area (fenced area: Map 2a)
- Kirstenbosch Garden (as designated by NBI: Map 2a)
- Klawer Valley Restricted Military Area (as designated by SANDF: Map 2c) and Signal Hill Battery.
- With the assignment of Tokai Plantation to SANParks Management, the area to the west of Orpen road is currently not available for walking with dogs.
- Areas that were closed to walking with dogs between 2002 and 2007, namely the boardwalk area around the Silvermine Reservoir (Map 2b).
New areas proposed to be closed to walking with dogs are:
- The 'remote wilderness zone' (as designated in the TMNP CDF) of the Twelve Apostles, Devil's Peak.
- The 'remote wilderness zone' (as designated in the TMNP CDF) of the Karbonkelberg, including the abutting coastline (see Map 2b).
- Noordhoek boardwalk (see inset in Map 2b)
- Environmental education areas - Sunbird Environmental Education Centre
Map 2a: Areas in the Northern region (Signal Hill to Llundudno) of TMNP
where people accompanied by dogs may walk (designated in shades of green)
Map 2b: Areas in the Central region (Llundudno to Kommetjie) of TMNP
where people accompanied by dogs may walk (designated in shades of green)
Map 2c: Areas in the Southern region (Kommetjie to Cape Point) of the TMNP
where people accompanied by dogs may walk (designated in shades of green)
|
|---|
4.2 Code of Conduct for walking with dogs
The management focus of this EMP is an ongoing communication with, and education of, people walking their dogs in the Park. The principal message for this communication and education program is captured in a succinct 'code of conduct'. All persons taking their dogs into the Park need must adhere to this code of conduct.
The objective of the code of conduct is to:
- Inculcate courtesy and consideration towards other Park users and visitors; and
- Develop a respect for, and reduce the impacts on, the globally and nationally unique natural and cultural features of the Park
The following code of conduct will guide the activities of walkers accompanied by dogs in the TMNP :
- Walking with dogs must only occur in the designated areas (see accompanying maps) and subject to any special management conditions that may apply.
- All Park notices and Park signage, and any legitimate instruction from a Park official, must be complied with.
- All dog handlers must be in possession of a valid Wild Card with the necessary dog walking activity permit loaded onto the card
- No more than two dogs per person can be taken into the Park.
- Dogs taken into the park must be under the control, and within sight, of the handler at all times.
- Dog handlers must always carry a leash. Dogs must be leashed:-
- Upon instruction from any Park official.
- As required by any official Park notice and/or signage.
- While passing through designated parking areas, picnic areas and braai sites.
- If the handler is unable to control the dog or if it is aggressive or otherwise dangerous.
- When meeting a leashed dog, the handler of the unleashed dog should provide space for both dogs to pass without contact.
- Dog handlers must remain on Park approved paths and tracks at all times.
- Dog handlers must remove their dog's faeces from paths, car parks and any other demarcated areas used by park visitors and/or park staff. Faeces should be removed and deposited in bins, where these are provided.
- Dog handlers must ensure that their dogs do not injure or kill any wild life
- Dog handlers should not allow their dogs to interfere with the pleasure of other users in the Park.
- Dog handlers should give right of way to people unaccompanied by dogs.
- Dog handlers should restrain their dogs from disturbing any wild life
- Bitches in heat should not be walked in Park
- Aggressive dogs should be muzzled on request from a Park official.
- Dogs taken into the park should have a valid rabies vaccination
4.3 Internal rules for walking with dogs
It has been found that self-policing, on its own, is currently inadequate to enable Park Management to achieve its conservation mandate. To complement self-policing, the following provisions of the code of conduct (see 4.2) will be regularized to enable them to more effectively enforce and compliance, where necessary, with this EMP (Table 3):
Table 3: The proposed internal rules to mitigate the environmental impacts of dogs in the Park
| Proposed internal rule | Proposed penalties/fines |
|---|
| Walking with dogs may only take place in the designated areas and subject to any special management conditions that may apply
| |
| All Park notices and Park signage, and any legitimate instruction from a Park official, must be complied with | |
| People walking their dogs in the Park must be in possession of a valid Wild Card | |
| No more than two dogs per person may be taken into the Park | |
| Dogs taken into the park must be under the control, and within sight, of the handler at all times | |
| Dog handlers must always carry a leash | |
Dogs must be leashed:- - Upon instruction from any Park official.
- As required by any official Park notice and/or signage.
- If the handler is unable to control the dog, or if it is aggressive or otherwise dangerous
| |
| Dog handlers must remain on approved paths and tracks at all times | |
| Dog handlers must remove their dog's faeces from any demarcated areas and Park paths, tracks and car parks
| |
| Dog handlers must ensure that their dogs do not injure or kill any wild life | |
To regularize these provisions, SANParks will gazette 'internal rules' for walking with dogs in the TMNP, in terms of Section 35 of the Regulations for the proper administration of Special Nature Reserves, National Parks and World Heritage Sites (the 'regulations').
The exclusive Wild Card for TMNP (Cape Town's Wild Card), with the necessary dog walking activity permit ('activity permit') loaded onto the card, will constitute the 'Special Use Permit' provided for in terms of Section 35 of the regulations.
Currently the Wild Card for TMNP:
- Is an electronic 'smart card';
- Costs R45; Allows 12 free entries to park pay entry points (Cape of Good Hope, Tokai, Boulders, Oudekraal, Silvermine) and the use of braai and picnic sites at Newlands and Perdekloof);
- Allows recreational and sporting permits to be loaded onto the card for an additional fee;
- The additional fee for walking with dogs is R55 (i.e. total cost of card is R100);
The internal rules for walking with dogs in the Park, and the map of areas designated for walking with dogs, will be provided to all Cape Town's Wild Card holders. The internal rules, and maps of designated areas, will also be indicated on park notices and/or signage at main Park entry points for people walking with dogs. The full EMP will be posted on the park's website, hard copies of the EMP will be made available at all TMNP offices and electronic copies of the EMP will be e-mailed on request.
The enforcement of these internal rules will be directed by Chapter 8, Sections 61-64 of the regulations. Although still to be agreed by the Reference Group, failure to comply with the internal rules may result in a warning, a fine, eviction from the park and/or withdrawal of the dog walking activity permit (the 'Special Use Permit' as described in the regulations), depending on the nature of the transgression and the number of previous warnings.
Section 5.2 describes the roles and responsibilities for the implementation of activities associated with the development of the internal rules.
4.4 Communication, information, awareness and education
The EMP is underpinned by ongoing communication and education of this EMP and it's code of conduct to users of the Park. As such the following activities are required in order to affect this EMP:
- The communication of the agreements contained in, and responsibilities for, the EMP to all affected Park staff and walkers accompanied by dogs
- Ongoing communications by Park staff and the FDW with people walking with their dogs in the park
- Issue of a press release to different media about the approved areas, and internal rules, for walking with dogs in the park
- Constitution of the Walking with Dogs Reference Group, with agreed terms of reference and representation
- Annual review of the EMP by the Walking with Dogs Reference Group
- Development and installation of Park notices at main entry points describing the internal rules for walking with dogs in the park
- Development and installation of Park signage depicting areas where walking with dogs is allowed, and any special conditions that may apply
- Development of a single page information sheet depicting the approved areas, and the code of conduct (and internal rules), for walking with dogs in the park. This information sheet will accompany the issue of the Cape Town's Wild Card recreational permit for walking with dogs.
- Circulation of the final EMP to all registered I&AP's and current holders of recreational permits allowing for walking with dogs in the park
- Ad hoc development and implementation of education courses/programs for Park staff (e.g. dog handling) and dog handlers (e.g. dog training).
- Integration of elements of the EMP (notably the code of conduct) into existing park information media, communications materials, awareness initiatives and educational programs.
- Ad hoc publication of results of research and monitoring initiatives to determine the impacts of walking with dogs
Section 5.2 describes the respective responsibilities in the implementation of these communication, information and education activities.
5. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
This section describes the cooperative governance arrangements to oversee the implementation of this EMP, and the roles and responsibilities of each of the stakeholders.
5.1 Cooperative governance arrangements
One of the aims of the EMP (see Section 1.3) is to 'Sustain and strengthen a constructive partnership between people walking with dogs in the Park and Park management'. This is also reflected in the vision (see Section 3.1)
A key mechanism for achieving this objective is the establishment of a cooperative governance structure, the 'Walking with Dogs Reference Group' (the 'Reference Group').
A preliminary Reference Group was informally constituted during the process of developing this EMP (see Section 1.5). It is envisaged that this Reference Group will be formalized on adoption of this EMP.
The Reference Group must include, but is not limited to, representation from at least:
- Park Management
- City of Cape Town
- Friends of Dog Walkers
- Mountain Bike and Horse Riding Working Committee
The TMNP park management will be responsible for convening meetings of the Reference Group.
The Reference Group will meet at least once annually to review progress in the implementation of the EMP, and address any key issues that have arisen during the year under review. The Reference Group may also meet, as required, to discuss any proposals to amend the areas approved for, or closed to, walking with dogs and any suggested changes to areas subject to special management arrangements.
The specific functions of the Reference Group are described in Table 4 below
5.2 Roles and responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities in the implementation of the EMP are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4: Roles and responsibilities in the implementation of the EMP
| Institution/ Cooperative governance structure | Roles and responsibilities |
|---|
TMNP
Park Management | Participation in the development of the EMP
Adoption of the final EMP
Overall responsibility for the implementation of the EMP
Gazetting of 'internal rules' for walking with dogs in the TMNP
Publishing of the relevant penalties and fines
Ensuring the effective administration of the dog walking activity permit (and associated internal rules and map of approved areas) on the Cape Town's Wild Card
Posting of notices and signage at entry points presenting the 'internal rules', and the approved areas, for walking with dogs
Public communications about the EMP and its contents
Posting of this EMP on the park website and to I&AP's on request
Monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the internal rules for walking with dogs in the TMNP
Development, installation and maintenance of receptacles for dog faeces
Ongoing education of, and communications with, people walking with dogs about the EMP generally, and the code of conduct specifically
Administration and management of areas requiring special management considerations
Convening the Walking with Dogs Reference Group
Identification of new areas, or temporary/permanent closure of existing areas, for people walking with dogs
Identification of new restrictions, or relaxing of existing restrictions, for people walking with dogs
Contracting ongoing research and monitoring programs to assess the socio-economic, heritage and ecological impacts of dogs |
|
Friends of the Dog Walkers | Participation in the development of the EMP
Ad hoc training and development of park staff in dog handling
Ad hoc educational programmes for dog handlers on mitigating the impacts of dogs on other users and the natural and heritage features of the park
Building mutually cooperative relationships between FDW membership and park management
Maintaining communications with the dog-owning community that walks in the park about the EMP and its contents |
| Walking with Dogs Reference Group | Collaboratively developing the draft EMP
Making a recommendation to park management on the adoption of the draft EMP
Annual reviewing of areas/paths approved for walkers accompanied by dogs, and any special management conditions associated with these areas/paths
Annual reviewing of the efficacy of the EMP and its implementation
Consideration of park management, other recreational user groups, or dog handler requests for temporary or permanent closure of areas/paths, or opening of new areas/paths, for walking with dogs
Consideration of park management, other recreational user groups, or dog handler requests for new restrictions (temporary or permanent), or relaxing of existing restrictions, for people walking with dogs
Annual review of the penalties and fines
Ad hoc discussions around issues of concern regarding walking with dogs
|
6. SCHEDULING OF IMPLEMENTATION
This section describes the activities that are required to enable implementation of this EMP.
Table 5 describes the key implementation activities identified in this EMP, the prioritization of the activity, the responsibility for the activity and the anticipated scheduling.
Table 5: Implementation program for the EMP
| Activity | Priority* | Responsibility | Anticipated completion/ implementation date |
|---|
| 1. Adoption and initial communication of the EMP |
| 1.1. Adopt the final EMP | High | Park management | Completion:February, 2008 |
| 1.2 Initiate focused public communications in different media about the EMP and its contents | Moderate | Park management | Implementation: April, 2008 |
| 1.3 Circulation of the final EMP to all registered I&AP's and current holders of recreational permits allowing for walking with dogs in the park | Moderate | Park management | Implementation:March, 2008 |
| 1.4 Development of a single page information sheet depicting the approved areas, and the code of conduct (and internal rules), to accompany the issue of the Cape Town's Wild Card recreational permit for walking with dogs | High | Park management | Implementation:March, 2008 |
| 1.5 Communicate the agreements contained in, and responsibilities for, the EMP to all affected park staff | High | Park management | Implementation:Immediate |
| 1.6 'Post' the EMP on the park website | Moderate | Park management | Implementation: March, 2008 |
| 2. Establishment of cooperative governance arrangements for EMP |
| 2.1 Formally constitute, and convene, the Reference Group with agreed terms of reference and representation | High | Park management | Implementation:April, 2008 |
| 3. Administration, gazetting and enforcement of internal rules |
| 3.1 Gazette 'internal rules' for walking with dogs in the TMNP (including publishing of the relevant penalties and fines) | Moderate | SANParks corporate | Completion: December, 2008 |
| 3.2 Monitor and enforce compliance with the internal rules for walking with dogs | High | Park management | Implementation: Immediate
(& /or as internal rules are gazetted) |
| 3.3 Administer and manage areas requiring special management considerations | High | Park management | Implementation:Immediate |
| 3.4 Ensure the effective administration of the dog walking activity permit on the Cape Town's Wild Card | High | Park management | Implementation: Immediate |
| 4. Ongoing communication, education and awareness of EMP |
| 4.1 Educate, and communicate with, people walking with dogs about the EMP generally, and the code of conduct specifically | High | Park management | Implementation:Immediate |
| 4.2 Train and develop park staff in dog handling | Low | FDW | Implementation:As required |
| 4.3 Initiate educational programmes for dog handlers on mitigating the impacts of dogs on other users and the natural and heritage features of the park | Low | FDW | Implementation: As required |
| 5. Development, installation and maintenance of relevant park infrastructure and facilities |
| 5.1 Post notices and signage at all entry points presenting the 'internal rules', and the approved areas, for walking with dogs | High | Park management | Completion:
Main entry points
December, 2008
Minor entry points
December, 2009 |
| 5.2 Develop, install and maintain receptacles for dog faeces at key park entry points | Low | Park management | Completion (installation):
June, 2009
Implementation (maintenance):
July, 2009 |
| 6. Research, monitoring and review of EMP |
| 6.1 Contract ongoing research and monitoring programs to assess the socio-economic, heritage and ecological impacts of dogs | Low | SANParks Scientific Services | Implementation:As required |
| 6.2 Annually review the efficacy of the EMP and its implementation | High | Reference Group | Implementation:
1st Review - March, 2008
Annually thereafter |
| 6.3 Annually review the areas approved for walkers accompanied by dogs, and any special management conditions associated with these areas | High | Reference Group | Implementation:
1st Review - March, 2008
Annually thereafter |
| 6.3 Identify new restrictions, or relaxing of existing restrictions, for people walking with dogs | Moderate | Reference Group | Implementation:
As required |
6.1 Performance indicators
The following indicators will be used for assessing the performance against the EMP:
Table 6: Performance indicators for the EMP
| Indicator | Target for indicator |
|---|
Data collection frequency
| 1. Number of Wild Card holders with the necessary dog walking activity permit | > 95% of estimated number of dog handlers using park | Annually |
| 2. Record of Reference group meetings | At least one meeting/annum, with minutes of meeting and record of decisions | Annually |
| 3. Number of entry points to park used by people walking their dogs, with the necessary signage and notices | All major Park entry points with relevant signage and notices | Annually |
| 4. Profile and penalties and fines issued by Park staff in terms of internal rules | Annual decrease in number of penalties and fines issued | Monthly |
| 5. Extent of the Park (as total kilometres of footpaths and tracks) accessible to walkers accompanied by dogs | Not less than the total area available as per the 2002 EMP. | Annually |
CONTRIBUTORS
The following individuals contributed to the raising of issues, and drafting of the review of this EMP :
| NAME | AFFILIATION |
|---|
| A Visser | Private |
| A. Thompson (Mrs) | Private |
| AF Tooke, Dr | Private |
| Alan Barnard | Private |
| Alastair Potts | Department of Botany,
UCT |
| Alexandra Dunn | Private |
| AN Van Leeuwen | Private |
| Andre and Sandra Schoon | Private |
| Andre Pulfrich, Dr | Pisces Environmental
Services |
| Ann and Arnold van der Riet | Private |
| Anya Klages | Private |
| B Hitenaus Mrs | Private |
| Bernard & Jeanette Shapiro | Private |
| Binny Ridgway | Private |
| Brian Elton | Private |
| Carla Brogan | Private |
| Catherine Burnett | Private |
| Catherine M. Richardson. | Private |
| Cecil Whiteman | Noordhoek Environmental
Action Group |
| Charlotte Barnard | Private |
| Cheryll Cowley | Private |
| Chris and Juday Barratt | Private |
| Cobus Scholtz | Private |
| Crecilda van den Berg | TMNP - Section Ranger |
| Danny Fisher | Tabankula Treatment Centre |
| Debbie Stewart | Private |
| Dominique Posen | Private |
| E Wilson | Private |
| Emile and Berta Van Rooyen | Private |
| Frank Hunziker | Private |
| Gavin Bell | TMNP - Area Manager |
| Geoff and Rosemary Duncan | Private |
| Geraldine Goncalves | FDW |
| Gerald Rosenthal, Dr | Private |
| Gill Weinberg | Private |
| H. Berry Mr & Mrs | Private |
H. Berry Mr & Mrs
Hudson
Cochrane
M. Dittcott
P. Du Toit
D. Hardie
L. Forguson | Small elderly walking
(hiking) group |
| Hardie | Private |
| Hennie Delport | TMNP - Section Ranger |
| Howard and Rosie Garstka | Private |
| Iming Lin | Private |
| Jackie King, Dr | Freshwater Research Unit,
Zoology Department, UCT |
| James Jackelman | Envirocentric |
| James Reeler | Private |
| Janice Colins | Private |
| Jason Sole | The Technology Syndicate |
| JB Geidt | The Capricorn Link |
| Jean Gray, Mrs | Private |
| Jenny Brown | Private |
| Jenny Owen | Private |
| Jette Moughton | Private |
| Jill Mac Arthur | Private |
| Jo Lorentzen | Private |
| Joan Leighton | Private |
| Johan Cornelius | City of Cape Town |
| John Davies | Private |
| Julie Anderson | Member of Bokkemanskloof
Home Owners Association |
| Justin Miller | NatConCorp |
| Ken Findley | Private |
| Kenis Wim | Private |
| Khetsi Lehoko, Mr | Private |
| Kiki Allan | Private |
| Kim de Bruin | Private |
| Laura Barnard | Private |
| Laura Dobson | Private |
| Lesley I'Ons, Dr | Private |
| Lesley Skarzynski | Private |
| |
| NAME | AFFILIATION |
|---|
| L. Forguson | Private |
| Liesl | Private |
| Leighan Mossop | TMNP
Senior Section Ranger |
| Linda Smorenburg | Walks About |
| Lisa Perold | Private |
| Liz Miszewska | Private |
| Luke Haigh | Private |
| Luvuyo Siqhwala | TMNP Principal Planner |
| Margaret Koopman | Private |
| Marian Shinn | Private |
| Mark and Bryony Evans | Private |
| Mark Blagus | Private |
| Mark Shortreed | Fish Hoek
Veterinary Clinic |
| Martin and Daphne Treadaway | Private |
| Matthew Swart | SafariNow.com |
| Mathabatha Matjila | TMNP Section Ranger |
| Maureen Lavies | Private |
| Maureen Lavies, Mrs | Private |
| M. Dittcott | Private |
| Michael Madden | Private |
| Michelle Discombe | Private |
| Mike Slayen | TMNP
Management Planning |
| Mike Stewart | Private |
| Miranda Forshaw | Private |
| Moraig De Witt Miranda Forshaw | Private |
| M. Mdala | TMNP - P&C Manager |
| Neil and Hazel Taylor | NPA & NEAG |
| Neil and Kathryn Hamilton | Private |
| Nina Steffani | Private |
| P Thompson, Dr | Private |
| Paddy Gordon | TMNP - Area Manager |
| Patricia Hagen | Private |
| Patrick Semple, Prof | Private |
| Patrick Wright | Private |
| Paul Hoffman | Centre for
Constitutional Rights |
| Paul McCreadie | Mountain Club member |
| Paul Warmeant | Eco-nomics & IDS |
| P. Du Toit | Private |
| Penny Barnard | Private |
| Philip Lloyd | Private |
| Philip van der spuy | Private
(Mountain Club of SA) |
| Phyllis Carter | FDW |
| Reneé Baard | Pet Hydrotherapy Unit |
| Rina Nel (Mrs) | Member of Mountain Club of SA |
| Robin Boyd | Cool Forest, Urban Forest
Protection Association |
| Robyn & Phil Hopkinson | Private |
| Roland & Bronwyn Smidt | Private |
| Rosie Garstka | Private |
| Sandra Hollermann | TMNP - Section Ranger |
| Sarah Brockenhurst | Private |
| Sharon Bielen | Private |
| Sheridan Marks | Private |
| Shirie Rebelo | Private |
| Stephen Jacobs | The Natural Step |
| Steve Gohl | Private |
| Sue Montgomery | Private |
| Susan Woodward | Private |
| Suzanne O'Meara | Private |
| Sylvia Hammond | Private |
| T Hislock | Trails club |
| Taryn Blyth | FDW |
| Taryn Rossenrode | CapeNature |
| Teri-Lin Robertson | Private |
| Tessa Gauntlett | Private |
| Ursula Sauerborn | Private |
| Val Bennet | FDW |
| Vanessa Munro | Private |
| Victoria Draper | Dog walkers of Cape Town |
| Wendy Lopatin | Private |
| Wolfgang Thomas | Private |
| WS Robson | Private |
| |
