Scrutinising Multidimensional Challenges in The Maloti-Drakensberg (Lesotho/South Africa)

sustainability
Article
Scrutinising Multidimensional Challenges in the
Maloti-Drakensberg (Lesotho/South Africa)
Jess L. Delves 1,2, * , V. Ralph Clark 3 , Stefan Schneiderbauer 1,2,3 , Nigel P. Barker 4 , Jörg Szarzynski 1,2,3,5 ,
Stefano Tondini 6 , João de Deus Vidal, Jr. 3 and Andrea Membretti 3,7
1 Center for Global Mountain Safeguard Research (GLOMOS), Institute for Environment and Human Security,
United Nations University, 53113 Bonn, Germany; [email protected] (S.S.);
[email protected] (J.S.)
2 Eurac Research, Center for Global Mountain Safeguard Research (GLOMOS), Bolzano Office,
39100 Bozen/Bolzano, Italy
3 Afromontane Research Unit (ARU), Department of Geography, QwaQwa Campus,
University of the Free State, Phuthaditjhaba 9866, South Africa; [email protected] (V.R.C.);
[email protected] (J.d.D.V.J.); [email protected] (A.M.)
4 Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa;
[email protected]
5 Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC), University of the Free State (UFS),
Bloemfontein 9310, South Africa
6 Center for Sensing Solutions, Eurac Research, 39100 Bozen/Bolzano, Italy; [email protected]
7 Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland,
FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Citation: Delves, J.L.; Clark, V.R.;
Schneiderbauer, S.; Barker, N.P.; Abstract: The Maloti-Drakensberg (MD) is the largest and highest-elevation mountain system in
Szarzynski, J.; Tondini, S.; Vidal, southern Africa. Covering 40,000 km2 and reaching 3500 m, the MD provides a range of ecosystem
J.d.D., Jr.; Membretti, A. Scrutinising services (ES) to the entire southern African region—benefitting diverse users and extending well
Multidimensional Challenges in the beyond the mountains. Rapid socioecological change threatens the provision of ES and presents
Maloti-Drakensberg (Lesotho/South multidimensional challenges to sustainable development. However, the continued land degradation
Africa). Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511.
and persisting socioeconomic problems indicate that development policy has not been effective
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158511
in tackling these issues. In this paper, a multidisciplinary literature review forms the basis of a
discussion which takes an ES framing to scrutinise the multidimensional social, political, economic
Academic Editors: Harald Pechlaner,
and cultural issues in the study area. Three critical management systems are presented, and their
Stefan Schneiderbauer, Paola
Fontanella Pisa and Felix Windegger
associated ES are discussed, namely, water transfer, rangelands and conservation and tourism. In
particular, the diversity of ES uses and values in the MD is considered. The results reveal the main
Received: 27 May 2021 drivers of continued unsustainable development and highlight important information gaps.
Accepted: 26 July 2021
Published: 30 July 2021 Keywords: traditional authorities; governance systems; land use; Lesotho Highlands Water
Project; overgrazing
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. 1. Introduction
Sustainable development requires a holistic and integrated approach, which includes
the needs of diverse groups in policy and planning, and decision makers depend on
research to inform such policies. However, research in the Maloti-Drakensberg (MD)
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. mountains tends to be discipline-focussed and not address the complexity of multidimen-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. sional and multidisciplinary issues, leaving policy makers with gaps in understanding
This article is an open access article of interconnected issues. Based predominantly on literature review, this paper provides
distributed under the terms and
a much-needed synthesis of the major challenges affecting sustainable development in
conditions of the Creative Commons
the study area. It makes use of the multidisciplinary concepts of ecosystem services and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
sustainability in order to present findings in a way that is accessible to readers from diverse
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
disciplinary backgrounds.
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158511 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511 2 of 22
The Maloti-Drakensberg is a transboundary mountain range which provides ecosys-

tem services (ES) to both local and distant communities. The mountains act as a ‘water
tower’ which captures, stores and filters water, providing more than 12 million people with
water and fuelling South Africa’s industrial heartland in Gauteng province [1]. Rangeland
and arable land provide subsistence livelihoods for many of the rural inhabitants, although
soil erosion—due in large part to overgrazing—threatens these livelihoods along with
the supply of water downstream [2,3]. Protected natural areas seek to conserve water
resources, biodiversity and endemism. However, differing land use values between conser-
vationists, local farmers and private business can result in conflict, especially in an area of
high poverty and inequality. Protected areas are marketed by the tourism industry for their
recreational and cultural ES, the economic benefits of which can fund local development.
The interrelation of these groups with their mountain environment represents complex
systems in which multiple stakeholders depend to varying degrees on ES. At the same time,
a trend of ecosystem degradation forms negative feedback loops wherein decreasingly
productive land is used more intensively without an increase in output. In addition, the
mountain environment is particularly sensitive to the impacts of global climate change [4,5]
increasing the uncertainty of the future provision of ES.
Sustainable development requires an integrated and interdisciplinary approach [6],
but research in the study area is often monodisciplinary. Our research revealed that
the barriers to sustainable development in the MD are complex, multi-dimensional and
interdependent. However, policy regarding ES is dominated by mainstream economic
ideas which obfuscate alternative perspectives, uses or valuations of ES. To inform fair and
sustainable policy that accounts for the diversity of needs of ES users, we argue that an
interdisciplinary approach to research in the MD is essential.
The objective of the research is to examine the multifaceted and multidimensional
issues in the MD relating to the sustainability of its ecosystem services. The purpose
of this paper is to provide insight into the diversity of values attached to ES and reveal
research and policy gaps relating to sustainable development in the study area. In an under-
researched region where this level of interdisciplinary research has not been conducted
before, this paper offers a new, holistic perspective on research in the MD.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methods
The objective of this research is to scrutinise the multidimensional issues affecting
sustainable development in an area of the Maloti-Drakensberg mountains. An ecosys-
tem services framing is used to scrutinise the interconnected and multifaceted nature of
these issues.
Key ecosystem services were identified through a combination of desk research and
informal interviews in the field and remotely with local researchers, traditional leaders and
other stakeholders (park managers, tourism operators, charity workers). To understand
the current state of scientific research in the study area, a systematic literature search was
performed. The results give an overview of the dominant research disciplines and topics in
the study area.
A second phase consisted of collecting and qualitatively analysing literature pertaining
to ES management and use. This was initially done through extracting articles from the
systematic literature search. However, there is a general paucity of such literature due to
the fact that the MD is a remote, developing and under-researched area. From the core of
the systematically collected literature we therefore employed more qualitative literature
search methods, namely snowball method, internet searches and informal interviews (with
researchers, government officials and stakeholders). Grey literature was also included in
this phase. Demographic data were collected from official censuses where possible or from
secondary sources (i.e., research and reports), as were data on livestock numbers. Data and
reports regarding some of the protected areas were provided by managers of the provincial
(Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal) and national parks (SANParks) in South Africa.
Data collection in the different municipalities in the study area has been unsystematic
due to changing administrative borders, changes in collection methods, lack of resources
and undocumented people. Due to this, data from different indicators were available over
different timeframes and from different sources with varying levels of reliability. Generally
speaking, data collection from 1960s onwards becomes more systematic although there
remain gaps and inconsistencies in reporting. Throughout the research process, data was
always verified through secondary sources or through local informants.
2.2. Concept: Ecosystem Services

Definitions of ecosystem services differ and have been evolving since its first use in the
1980s. However, at the core of all definitions are the linkages between human well-being
and ecosystems, with ecosystem services being the ‘bridge’ between the—conceptually
separate but practically inseparable—‘human world’ and ‘natural world’. Definitions
broadly fall into two categories, those which consider ES as being “the conditions and
processes through which natural ecosystems and their species sustain and fulfil human
life,” and those which emphasise the economic importance of ES as “the benefits humans
derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions” [7]. Furthermore, frameworks have
different approaches to categorisation, classification and mensuration, making comparisons
between studies which apply different frameworks difficult.
The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) was pro-
posed in 2009 to serve as a reference classification to allow translation between different
ecosystem classification systems. As such, it is regularly updated in order to account for
developments in ES approaches. It seeks to reflect or incorporate elements of the most
prominent ES initiatives, namely: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) [8], The Eco-
nomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [9] and the Intergovernmental Platform for
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) [10]. CICES employs the most widely used
terminology and categorises ES into the three services provisioning, regulating & maintenance
and cultural services [11]. Following on from the EU MAES Process, CICES V5.1 (2018)
explicitly includes abiotic ecosystem outputs, i.e., not those ecosystem services that depend
on living systems but rather those that depend on physical systems that are part of nature.
This allows for the logically coherent consideration of outputs such as water, wind power,
salt and snow as ‘ecosystem services’, whereas they would previously be considered nat-
ural resources or natural capital. In this way, CICES V5.1 includes a broad spectrum of
natural resources and processes that human societies draw upon. Because it provides a
comprehensive and up-to-date index of ecosystem services that reflects the current state of
research in the field, CICES was chosen as the classification framework for this paper.
In general, the ecosystem services concept is applied in this paper as it provides a
framing that is accessible and applicable by a range of stakeholders involved in sustainable
development, be they scientists, practitioners or non-specialists.
2.3. Concept: Sustainable Development

Sustainable development as a concept unites concerns about the future of humanity
and the planet, treating environmental health as inseparable from socioeconomic issues
such as poverty and well-being. The most frequent definition of sustainable development
originates from the 1987 Brundtland Report, which describes it as “development which
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs” [12]. Commonly, three aspects of sustainability are considered:
economic, social and environmental. Many definitions exist and may include additional
aspects, for example the UNWTO refers to ‘socio-cultural’ sustainability in tourism [13].
Sustainable development is employed in this paper as a critical framing for the analysis of
multiple issues relating to ecosystem services.
nability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Sustainable development is employed in this paper as a critical framing for the analysis
of multiple issues relating to ecosystem services.
3. Results and3.Discussion
Results and Discussion
3.1. Systematic
3.1. Systematic Literature Literature Search
Search
A search queryA specifying
search query specifying the
the geographic areageographic area was
was run through run through
six major six major search
search sys-
systems (Figure 1), without specifying a date range. This initial search returned 3248
tems (Figure 1), without specifying a date range. This initial search returned 3248 results.
results. It revealed a majority of research from the natural sciences (51%), with social
It revealed a majority of research from the natural sciences (51%), with social sciences and
sciences and applied sciences representing 32% and 16%, respectively (Figure 1). Research
applied sciences representing 32% and 16%, respectively (Figure 1). Research categorised
categorised as ‘interdisciplinary’ accounted for 1%.
as ‘interdisciplinary’ accounted for 1%.
Figure 1. Aggregated data of discipline frequency showing absolute frequency and percentage of
Figure 1. Aggregated data of discipline frequency showing absolute frequency and percentage of total. Search from Web
total. Search from Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Springer, Wiley and JSTOR for the search
of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Springer, Wiley and JSTOR for the search query (“Qwa?Qwa” OR Phuthaditjhaba OR
query (“Qwa?Qwa” OR Phuthaditjhaba OR “Mal?ti Drakensberg” OR “Lesotho highlands”).
“Mal?ti Drakensberg” OR “Lesotho highlands”).
Most of the research in this region has been discipline-focussed, predominantly in
Most of the research in this region has been discipline-focussed, predominantly in the
the areas of ecology
areas ofand biodiversity
ecology [14], geology
and biodiversity [14],[15], pathology
geology [16] and archaeology
[15], pathology [16] and archaeology [17].
[17]. Even typically multidisciplinary research (e.g., in environmental
Even typically multidisciplinary research (e.g., in environmental sciencescience
[18], sociol-
[18], sociology [19],
ogy [19], areaareastudies
studies [20]) tends to rely on one discipline’s methodology (see,(see,
[20]) tends to rely on one discipline’s methodology e.g.,
e.g., Büscher, 2013 [21]).
Büscher, 2013 Research
[21]). Research is weighted towards natural sciences and very little research
is weighted towards natural sciences and very little research is categorised as
is categorised‘interdisciplinary’
as ‘interdisciplinary’ (Figure
(Figure 1). 1).
There is a lackThere
of research
is a lackwhich investigates
of research whichthe governance
investigates thesystems in thesystems
governance area, forin the area, for
example in the fields of sociology or public policy. There is also a paucity
example in the fields of sociology or public policy. There is also a paucity of research inof research in
medicine andmedicine
public health. There is little research, particularly in the last two decades,
and public health. There is little research, particularly in the last two decades,
from disciplines
from dealing withdealing
disciplines contemporary cultural heritage
with contemporary culturaland identity,
heritage and such as an-
identity, such as anthro-
thropology, linguistics or cultural studies. Recent literature remains mostly mono-disci-
pology, linguistics or cultural studies. Recent literature remains mostly mono-disciplinary,
plinary, with with
somesomeexceptions
exceptionsincluding
includingShowers
Showers 20052005
[22],[22],
Blignaut
Blignautet et
al.al.
2008,
2008,2010
2010 [23,24] and
[23,24] and NelNelet et
al.al.
2017
2017[25].
[25].
3.2. The Maloti-Drakensberg

3.2. The Maloti-Drakensberg Mountains Mountains
The entire Maloti-Drakensberg
The entire Maloti-Drakensberg mountains covermountains coverkm
some 40,000 some
2 as 40,000 km2 as a transboundary
a transboundary
system sharedsystem
by the shared
Kingdom by of
theLesotho
Kingdom ofthe
and Lesotho andof
Republic the Republic
South Africa of[26].
South Africa [26]. Reaching
Reaching
3482 m above3482 m above
sea level, sea level, the Maloti-Drakensberg
the Maloti-Drakensberg is the highest is the highest
mountain mountain
system system in Africa
in Africa
south of Mount Kilimanjaro and forms the most dramatic part of the 5000 km-long Great
Escarpment system in southern Africa [27].
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5
south of Mount Kilimanjaro and forms the most dramatic part of the 5000 km-long G
Escarpment system in southern Africa [27].
The study area Thecomprises part comprises
study area of the northern
part ofMaloti-Drakensberg. Literature wasLiterature
the northern Maloti-Drakensberg.
analysed which analysed
addresseswhich
issuesaddresses
in an areaissues
centred on Mont-aux-Sources peak and a radiuspeak and
in an area centred on Mont-aux-Sources
of 60 km arounddius
thisofthat includes Golden Gate and Royal Natal Highlands National
60 km around this that includes Golden Gate and Royal Natal Highlands Park; Nat
QwaQwa, Mweni and Upper Tugela regions; the urban centres of Phuthaditjhaba,
Park; QwaQwa, Mweni and Upper Tugela regions; the urban centres of Phuthaditjh Clarens
and Harrismith;Clarens
and the andadjacent Lesotho
Harrismith; and uplands
the adjacentandLesotho
lowlands (Figure
uplands and2).lowlands
This area
(Figure 2).
was chosen duearea
to the convergence of different forms of governance, national and
was chosen due to the convergence of different forms of governance, national provin-
cial/district boundaries (in both countries)
provincial/district boundariesand (in the
bothassociated
countries)social-political-ecological
and the associated social-political
complexities which represent significant challenges in territorial
logical complexities which represent significant challenges management and develop-
in territorial managemen
ment planning. It is divided administratively across many dimensions: it is a trans-national
development planning. It is divided administratively across many dimensions: it
region, encompassing two provinces
trans-national region,inencompassing
South Africa (Free State and KwaZulu-Natal
two provinces [KZN])
in South Africa (Free State and K
and three districts in Lesotho (Butha-Buthe, Leribe and Mokhotlong).
Zulu-Natal [KZN]) and three districts in Lesotho (Butha-Buthe, Leribe and Mokhotlo
Figure 2. Map showing the study area. Map creator: João de Deus Vidal Júnior.
Figure 2. Map showing the study area. Map creator: João de Deus Vidal Júnior.
In the highlands of Lesotho there is little urban development except scattered rural
villages and population density
In the highlands 57/km2there
is lowofatLesotho (Figure 3b,d).
is little Almost
urban all land isexcept
development treatedscattered
as common land used for
villages andgrazing of sheep,
population goats,
density is lowcattle and2 horses
at 57/km (Figure(‘Basotho ponies’).
3b,d). Almost all land is tre
Forty-three percent of households
as common land usedin the
for mountains depend
grazing of sheep, on subsistence
goats, agriculture,
cattle and horses (‘Basotho pon
which also comprises rainfed
Forty-three cropsof
percent (predominantly
households in maize, sorghum
the mountains and wheat)
depend that are agricul
on subsistence
grown around villages
which also comprises rainfed crops (predominantly maize, sorghum3c)
(see Figure 3b) and on terraces lower in the valleys (Figure and[28].
wheat) tha
However, due to the mountainous terrain and steep topography, only 2.5% of Lesotho’s
grown around villages (see Figure 3b) and on terraces lower in the valleys (Figure 3c)
territory is usedHowever,
for cultivating crops
due to the [29]. Withterrain
mountainous some and exceptions, officially protected
steep topography, only 2.5% of Leso
natural areas are not managed
territory or cultivating
is used for conserved,crops
allowing
[29]. herders
With some to exceptions,
graze their officially
livestockprotected
freely. The meanural
annual
areasprecipitation in theor
are not managed Maloti mountains
conserved, is 1200
allowing mm, to
herders with 85%their
graze of the
livestock fr
precipitation coming from rainfall, the majority of which occurs from October–March [30];
the remainder of the precipitation is in the form of snow, mostly between May and October
annually. National poverty levels are high at 49.7%. Nevertheless, Lesotho leads Africa on
adult literacy rates (97%) and gender parity in education [31–33].
The mean annual precipitation in the Maloti mountains is 1200 mm, with 85% of the pre-
cipitation coming from rainfall, the majority of which occurs from October–March [30];
the remainder of the precipitation is in the form of snow, mostly between May and Octo-
ber annually. National poverty levels are high at 49.7%. Nevertheless, Lesotho leads Af-
rica on adult literacy rates (97%) and gender parity in education [31–33].
Images showing
Figure 3. Images
Figure showing the
the study
study area.
area. (a)
(a) Phuthaditjhaba,
Phuthaditjhaba, South
South Africa.
Africa. (b)
(b) A
A Basotho
Basotho village,
village,
Lesotho.
Lesotho. (c)
(c) Agricultural
Agricultural terraces,
terraces, Lesotho.
Lesotho. (d)
(d) Mine
Mine workers’
workers’ housing,
housing, Lesotho.
Lesotho. Photos:
Photos: (a–c)
(a–c) A.
A.
Membretti
Membretti (d)
(d) J.J. Szarzynski.
Szarzynski.
In the
In the South
South African
African lowlands
lowlands lies lies the
the former
former Bantustans
Bantustans of of QwaQwa
QwaQwa (in the Free
State, and
State, and the
the smallest
smallest homeland)
homeland) and and KwaZulu
KwaZulu (in (in KwaZulu-Natal,
KwaZulu-Natal, and one of the the largest
largest
homelands), two
homelands), two of
of thirteen
thirteen former
former land
land reserves
reserves set aside during apartheid rule to which
Black populations
Black populations were wereforcibly
forciblyremoved.
removed. TheThecapital city ofcity
capital former QwaQwa,
of former Phutha-
QwaQwa,
ditjhaba, is located at the foot of the Maloti-Drakensberg, in the area colloquially
Phuthaditjhaba, is located at the foot of the Maloti-Drakensberg, in the area colloquially referred
to as theto
referred ‘QwaQwa sandwich’—so
as the ‘QwaQwa named due
sandwich’—so to topographical
named or administrative
due to topographical barriers
or administrative
that limitthat
barriers the limit
spatial
thegrowth
spatialofgrowth
the city. of
Phuthaditjhaba developed rapidly
the city. Phuthaditjhaba and haphazardly
developed rapidly and
under apartheid
haphazardly ruleapartheid
under in the 1960sruleand 1970s
in the andand
1960s today has and
1970s an official
today population of 275,000
has an official popu-
with a density of 1615/km 2 (Figure 3a), although unofficial estimates put the population
lation of 275,000 with a density of 1615/km (Figure 3a), although unofficial estimates put
2
between
the 400,000
population to 500,000.
between 400,000To the east andTo
to 500,000. northwest,
the east andprotected
northwest,natural areas prohibit
protected natural
urban or agricultural development. To the north, the city is surrounded
areas prohibit urban or agricultural development. To the north, the city is surrounded by extensive, by
private andprivate
extensive, predominantly White-owned
and predominantly farmland. To
White-owned the south,
farmland. Tothe
thesteep slopes
south, the of the
steep
Drakensberg
slopes make urban development
of the Drakensberg make urban virtually
developmentimpossible.
virtually The lowlands are
impossible. Thedependent
lowlands
are dependent on many mountain ES, most notably for water, and the study area World
on many mountain ES, most notably for water, and the study area forms part of the forms
Wildlife
part of theFund’s
World‘Northern Strategic
Wildlife Fund’s Water Source
‘Northern Area’
Strategic [34].Source
Water Settlements in the
Area’ [34]. lowlands
Settlements
lack
in theinfrastructure
lowlands lackand services. For
infrastructure andexample,
services.in 2011
For in Phuthaditjhaba’s
example, municipality,
in 2011 in Phuthaditjhaba’s
only 30% of households had a flush toilet connected to sewerage, only 25% had weekly
municipality, only 30% of households had a flush toilet connected to sewerage, only 25%
refuse removal and only 32% had piped water inside the dwelling (compared to national
had weekly refuse removal and only 32% had piped water inside the dwelling (compared
average of 58%, 66% and 90%, respectively) [35].
to national average of 58%, 66% and 90%, respectively) [35].
3.2.1. Social-Political Contexts in the Study Area
The study area has dual governance systems of elected government (represented by
tiered local government to national government structures) and Traditional Authorities,
operating in tandem and often in competition. Traditional Authorities are presented by
the Lesotho Royal House in Lesotho, the Zulu Royal House in KwaZulu-Natal (practically
represented by the Ingonyama Tribal Trust in Mweni and Upper Tugela) and two Royal
Houses in QwaQwa—Bakoena and Batlokoa. The main ethnic groups—whose occupation
of the area long predates modern nation states [36]—are the Sesotho (QwaQwa), Basotho
(Lesotho) and isiZulu (KwaZulu-Natal); smaller populations of Whites, other African

nationalities and people of Asian origin are also present [37,38]. Land ownership is a
patchwork of communal, private, and state-owned land, with complicated administration
structures, which are often ambiguous or contested [39,40]. The area has a complicated
tribal and political history, with different experiences of the Mfecane (major tribal unrest
mid-1800s) and European colonisation [41]. For example, Lesotho remained a traditional
monarchy as a British Protectorate (‘Basutoland’), while the indigenous populations in
today’s South Africa were overtly oppressed under colonialism and apartheid. Current
land distribution and land use is characterised by great heterogeneity resulting from these
colonisation processes.
Under apartheid rule in South Africa, policies of racial segregation were aggressively
and radically enforced from 1948 until the early 1990s, under the ideologies of Afrikaner
nationalism and White supremacy. The advent of universal suffrage in 1994 marked the
dismantling of racist legislation. Following the 1959 Promotion of Bantu Self-Government
Act [42], 70% of South Africa’s population was forcibly removed to Bantustans that covered
only 13% of the national territory. In theory, the Bantustans ran their own affairs without
any share in the wider South Africa [43]. In practice, South Africa maintained control
through its appointment of cooperative traditional leaders (see article 6, Promotion of Bantu
Self-Government Act, Act No 46 of 1959).
In the QwaQwa Bantustan, the population exploded from 24,000 to 300,000 between
1970 and 1980 [44]. The Bantustan was wedged between officially protected natural areas
and agricultural land from which settlement was excluded. The majority of people removed
to QwaQwa found themselves crowded in “areas urban in density of population and lack
of agricultural land, but devoid of urban employment or services” [44]. Service provision
continues to be inadequate in Phuthaditjhaba (the former capital). A water shortage crisis
in summer 2019–2020 followed two years of a pronounced drought and late rain period
across southern Africa, compounded by chronic underinvestment in infrastructure and
mismanagement at the local municipal level [45].
3.3. Key Ecosystem Services

Identifying key ecosystem services in the MD was an iterative process combining
desk research with exchanges with local experts. In order to identify the ES relevant to our
research, previous ES research carried out in the study area was selected from the literature
search [23,40,46–49].
There is a lack of systematic quantitative ecosystem service accounting, mapping or
monitoring in the MD, which would inform policy on sustainable development and allow
for comparison of ecosystem service provision between protected and non-protected areas.
In the early 2000s, the Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Park (MDTP)—a transboundary
conservation area covering 14 740 km2 and most of the study area—commissioned a report
into the feasibility of a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme [46]. The baseline
report and related research provides some quantitative assessment of ES in part of the study
area. Other research has also classified or described other ecosystem services, environments
or related processes, namely hydrological modelling in the Upper uThukela catchment [23]
and montane wetland vegetation across the MD [50,51]. Since the proposed PES scheme,
and in step with a general increase in ES research globally, research output addressing ES
issues in the MD has increased but remains mostly qualitative or theoretical. In addition, no
research takes a gendered approach and considers how impacts in changes to ES provision
may affect genders differently.
In the MD, there are three principal management systems which govern access to
ES and influence their provision. The competing interests and unequal power dynamics
between land users and managers has often led to conflict when land management by
one group impacts the ES used by another. This paper is structured around these three
management systems, namely: Water transfer (managed by the Lesotho Highlands Water
Project (LHWP) and Lesotho Highlands Development Agency (LHDA)), Rangelands and
Conservation and tourism. Under each category, key ES services are identified, and the
sustainability of their management considered.
Water transfer
Southern Africa is a water stressed region [52]. The MD is an important ‘water tower’,
capturing, storing and filtering water which is slowly released during the dry season.
Management of this resource is crucial as predicted warmer temperatures will likely
exacerbate water scarcity in the region [53]. Considering the current and future importance
of water in the region, the control of high catchment areas is a politically charged issue. The
LHWP is a multi-billion-dollar project initiated in the 1980s which dams and diverts water
from Lesotho to South Africa and has raised concerns regarding ecosystem degradation,
the displacement of indigenous populations, access to and control of productive resources
and Lesotho’s national sovereignty.
Rangelands
Rangeland provides the basis for subsistence farming for many of the highland inhab-
itants. At the same time, overgrazing is degrading the land and affecting water availability
and quality downstream. Overexploitation also has implications for plant populations sen-
sitive to grazing and the invertebrate fauna that depend on them. Rangeland management
is a key issue where differences in traditional and modern management practices cause
conflict between the many land users and managers.
Conservation and tourism
Conservation areas have been established in the MD since the beginning of the 20th
century, sometimes excluding inhabitants that depend on the ES these areas provide.
Increasingly, there is also demand for recreational mountain activities from locals and
visitors. Increased tourist numbers raise questions about the role of the industry in the
local communities and the demands it places on land and resources.
Ecosystem services depend on living systems, that is, biodiversity in its broadest
sense [54]. The three management systems in the MD affect biodiversity in different ways,
either through concerted efforts to preserve or enhance it (as in conservation practices), or
through environmentally unsustainable practices which reduce biodiversity. What follows
is a brief description of biodiversity in the study area.
3.4. Biodiversity
3.4.1. Biodiversity and Rangelands
Natural rangelands cover the vast majority of the study area and comprise important
areas for in situ conservation of MD’s endemic-rich biodiversity, as well as being a vital
form of food security (mostly livestock) in a region with limited arable land and limited
dryland cropping potential [2,55–58]. Well-managed rangelands are the most successful
and cheapest form of conservation in grassland-dominated ecosystems, such as the MD.
The region has long been recognised as a centre of plant diversity and endemism, known
as the Drakensberg Mountain Centre, with approximately 9% of the species considered
to be endemic [26]. Wild plants are harvested for products which are sold locally, for
example brooms made from the riparian grass Merxmuellera macowanii. Interestingly, a
species considered invasive and in need of eradication by conservationists (Sweet-Briar,
Rosa rubiginosa) is harvested by locals for its oil (which is exported to Europe) and juice.
Similarly, Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) (also invasive and which are water-expensive com-
pared to natural riparian vegetation) provides fuelwood (where previously dried cow dung
was used in the highlands) and timber for construction.
The MD also has considerable levels of endemic animals. For example, Hamer and
Slowtow (2009) [59] found that 85% of millipede samples from the Maloti-Drakensberg
were restricted to that region. Three species of birds are considered endemic, with several
near-endemic species [60]. Three-hundred-and-ninety-three species of Lepidoptera have
been recorded from Lesotho. This represents 13% and 3.7% of southern African butterflies
Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) (also invasive and which are water-expensive compared to
natural riparian vegetation) provides fuelwood (where previously dried cow dung was
used in the highlands) and timber for construction.
The MD also has considerable levels of endemic animals. For example, Hamer and
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511 Slowtow (2009) [59] found that 85% of millipede samples from the Maloti-Drakensberg 9 of 22
were restricted to that region. Three species of birds are considered endemic, with several
near-endemic species [60]. Three-hundred-and-ninety-three species of Lepidoptera have
been recorded from Lesotho. This represents 13% and 3.7% of southern African butterflies
and
andmoths,
moths,respectively,
respectively, many
many of
of which are probably
which are probablyendemic
endemicorornear-endemic
near-endemictotothe
theMDMD
region [61].
region [61].
3.4.2. Drivers of Biodiversity Loss
3.4.2. Drivers of Biodiversity Loss
Overgrazing is frequently blamed for land degradation and biodiversity loss in
Overgrazing is frequently blamed for land degradation and biodiversity loss in the
the study area (Figure 4). This claim has been alternately refuted and confirmed (see,
study area (Figure 4). This claim has been alternately refuted and confirmed (see, e.g.,
e.g., Büscher, 2013 [21]; Driver, 1999 [55]; Makhoalibe, 1999 [30]; ORASECOM, 2014 [57];
Büscher, 2013 [21]; Driver, 1999 [55]; Makhoalibe, 1999 [30]; ORASECOM, 2014 [57]; Quin-
Quinlan, 1995 [62]; Rohde et al., 2006 [2]; Showers, 2005, 1989 [22,63]; Slater, 2002b [64];
lan, 1995 [62]; Rohde et al., 2006 [2]; Showers, 2005, 1989 [22,63]; Slater, 2002b [64]; Turpie
Turpie et al., 2008 [48]). That stock levels are unsustainably high is, however, undisputed.
et al., 2008 [48]). That stock levels are unsustainably high is, however, undisputed.
Figure4.4.Rangeland
Figure Rangeland showing
showing signs
signs of
of erosion
erosion being
beinggrazed
grazedin
inLesotho.
Lesotho.Photo:
Photo:S.S.Schneiderbauer.
Schneiderbauer.
What was
What was once
once good
good grazing
grazingrangelands
rangelandswith with Red RedGrass (Themeda
Grass (Themedatriandra) (up to
triandra) (up
2500 m) and Festuca spp. (above 2500 m) have become invaded
to 2500 m) and Festuca spp. (above 2500 m) have become invaded with unpalatablewith unpalatable shrublets
includingincluding
shrublets Chrysocoma ciliate, Eumorphia
Chrysocoma sericea andsericea
ciliate, Eumorphia Helichrysum trilineatum,trilineatum,
and Helichrysum greatly increas-
greatly
ing the riskthe
increasing of risk
bushofencroachment.
bush encroachment.In the absence
In the of clear integrated
absence rangeland rangeland
of clear integrated manage-
ment, some farmers
management, some employ
farmers short-sighted management
employ short-sighted practices such
management as the burning
practices such as ofthe
rangeland to improve winter grazing [57]. Although fire is part
burning of rangeland to improve winter grazing [57]. Although fire is part of the of the natural cycle of
natural
grasslands,
cycle excessive
of grasslands, burningburning
excessive leaves soil exposed
leaves to erosion
soil exposed and does
to erosion andnot effectively
does con-
not effectively
trol the invasion of shrubs [24,57]. During the winter following the fires,
control the invasion of shrubs [24,57]. During the winter following the fires, heavy grazing heavy grazing
reducesvegetation
reduces vegetation cover
cover further
further and
and exposes
exposes soil
soil to
to spring
springrains.
rains.
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP), described in the following section, is
having considerable negative impacts on biodiversity in the MD. A recent environmental
assessment predicts ‘major’ and ‘moderate’ long-term negative impacts to downstream
river ecosystems (from the Senqu River to confluence with Malibamatso), as well as ‘critical’
or ‘major’ negative impacts to surrounding wetlands, which are critical for water retention
and filtration [65]. It is also predicted that the dam will impact other ecosystem services
through the destruction of habitat of local flora and fauna, with particularly negative
impacts on cliff nesting birds upstream and fish populations both up- and downstream [65].
Increased pressure on rangelands and wetlands will result from the displacement of
communities for the reservoir construction, exacerbating erosion and land degradation [65].
Alien and invasive species also compete with native flora and fauna. Alien trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salmo trutta), introduced in the late 1800s for commercial and
recreational fishing, have severely impacted the populations of Maluti Redfin (Pseudobar-
bus quathlambae) in Lesotho [66] and the indigenous Natal Cascade frog (Hadromophryne
natalensis) in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park [67].
Research, accounting and monitoring of biodiversity is a prominent field in the lit-
erature, and therefore data is available on plant and animal populations in specific areas,
however, this is not comprehensive. According to Carbutt and Edwards (2015), missing
from the research is a consideration of below-ground drivers for changes in biodiversity,
as research tends to focus on above-ground drivers such as fires and herbivory [68]. A
national scale map of soil erosion in South Africa was published in 2008 and could form
the basis of further research into the cascading impacts of erosion on biodiversity [69]. A
key knowledge gap is the identification and mapping of areas in which overgrazing is
degrading land and biodiversity in Lesotho. Such an exercise would be indispensable to
identify priority areas of intervention for sustainable development and protection not only
of biodiversity but also other ecosystem services.
3.5. Water Transfer

Lesotho Highlands Water Project
Freshwater capture, filtration, storage and flow regulation are vital ES provided by
the Maloti-Drakensberg mountains. They not only supply drinking water to local and
distant populations, but also water used in agriculture and industry. The MD mountains
are therefore of fundamental importance for national and local economies [24]. However,
according to the UN definition, South Africa is a water-stressed country [70,71] with
increasing demand that is expected to outstrip supply in future [72]. South Africa has
therefore sought to control the mountain water catchment areas, and since the 1970s,
transnational water transfer infrastructure projects have redirected water from Lesotho
to South Africa. Water management in the region presents important sustainability trade-
offs: the economic and societal importance of water export is in contention with the
ecosystem degradation caused by water infrastructure, as well as the sociocultural impact
on affected communities.
The largest water transfer project, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP), was
initiated in 1986 following decades of failed negotiations. From the outset, the project has
been embroiled in geopolitics. In the 1980s, severe droughts in South Africa had increased
demand for water, but the Prime Minister of Lesotho at that time insisted on maintaining
control over water flow in Lesotho [73]. His removal in a South African-backed military
coup in January 1986 cleared the way for the signing of the LHWP treaty.
Today, the LHWP is key to the economies of both countries. Its primary beneficiaries
are the more than 12 million South Africans in the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan
areas, whose water arrives from the Lesotho highlands. As a provisioning ES, this water
also fuels South Africa’s industrial heartland in Gauteng province (Figure 5, insert) [1]
and generates power at the ‘Muela hydropower station. Lesotho receives royalties from
South Africa for water, estimated in 2001 at USD 44 million [74], and also sells electricity
produced by the ‘Muela hydropower station to Eskom, the South African utilities company.
The hydropower station, completed in 1998, also feeds into the Lesotho national electricity
grid, meeting 50% of national electricity demand in 2013 [75].
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23
South Africa for water, estimated in 2001 at USD 44 million [74], and also sells electricity
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511 produced by the ‘Muela hydropower station to Eskom, the South African utilities com-
11 of 22
pany. The hydropower station, completed in 1998, also feeds into the Lesotho national
electricity grid, meeting 50% of national electricity demand in 2013 [75].
Figure 5. Map of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHDA, 1995). Study area indicated in green
Figure 5. Map of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHDA, 1995). Study area indicated in
circle.
green circle.
TheLHWP
The LHWPisiscontroversial
controversial due
due to
to social
social impacts
impacts arising
arisingfrom
fromsuchsuchmajor
majorwater in-
water
frastructure. The relocation of communities from the flooded valleys for the
infrastructure. The relocation of communities from the flooded valleys for the Katse and Katse and
Mohaledams—opened
Mohale dams—openedinin19961996and
and2004,
2004,respectively
respectively(and
(andthe
thefirst
firsttwo
twoofoffive
fiveplanned
planned
dams)—are case examples (Figure 5). In total, 573 households were relocated.
dams)—are case examples (Figure 5). In total, 573 households were relocated. ES on which ES on which
local people depended were destroyed; 3825 ha of grazing land and 1800 ha
local people depended were destroyed; 3825 ha of grazing land and 1800 ha of arable landof arable land
were lost, overall affecting 27,400 people [76]. Material compensation has been criticised as
inadequate and poorly administrated [76]. Short-sighted compensation schemes by the
Lesotho Highlands Development Agency (LHDA) exposed inhabitants to poverty and
food insecurity [76]. For example, lost arable land was compensated with grain hand-outs
and lost grazing land with fodder—even though many people were resettled to urban
areas or sites with no grazing for their animals [77].
The construction of the next dam, Polihali, began in 2019. A resettlement plan by
the African Development Bank Group (ADBG) claims “The discussions [with affected
communities] were a success, and people in the host communities were generally excited
about the project and the opportunities it comes with . . . ” [78]. Investigations by Amnesty
International, however, contradict this claim, alleging that the LHDA has failed to properly
consult and compensate the 2300 households affected by the construction of the Polihali
dam, due to open in 2026 [78,79]. The environmental and social impact assessment of the
Polihali dam predicts ‘major’ long-term negative impacts due to economic displacement of
affected communities, but ‘major’ long-term positive impacts through employment during
the operational phase [65]. Amnesty International is calling for all work on the dam to be
halted until it complies with human rights standards [74].
The areas affected by the LHWP provide cultural ES to local populations who attribute
sacred or religious meaning to elements of living systems, meanings which were insuf-
ficiently considered by the LHDA [80]. Basotho culture revolves around village life and
strong social relations based around extended family structures. In traditional Basotho
culture, ancestors are revered and present a link to divinity, and land belongs to and is
protected by ancestors, who must be consulted before changes in land use [80]. The social
impact assessment for the Polihali dam predicts there to be ‘major’ short-term negative
impacts on cultural heritage sites (including ancestors’ graves) which the project plans
to mitigate through the ‘relocation’ and ‘demarcation’ of graves, resulting in what the
assessment deems to be ‘minor residual impact’ on cultural heritage [65]. In earlier phases
of the project, many Basotho allegedly resisted resettlement, suggesting that the values
they attributed to the land surpassed the material and in-kind compensation offered by the
LHDA [79,80]. Many people suffered from the shock of such sudden change, the loss of
livelihoods and removal from ancestral homes [74]. The trade-off between the social and
economic sustainability of the Polihali dam is summarised neatly by the ADBG: “Most of
the displacement is associated with the reservoir and cannot be avoided without seriously
affecting the economic viability of the project.” [78].
However, the LHWP also offers employment and services to local communities.
The construction of the first dam (Katse) brought new infrastructure, Corporate Social
Responsibility programmes (CSR), training and 7000 jobs, half of which were offered
to people in the ‘disadvantaged highlands’ [29]. The immense artificial water system
has also diversified the local economy, with small scale tourist accommodation, nature-
based adventure activities and a trout farm at the Katse reservoir. The LHWP invested
in infrastructure that also benefits the communities affected by the project: hundreds of
kilometres of roads were built, mobile phone networks established and ventilated pit
latrines built [81]. Sanitation and hygiene classes for local populations were offered by
the LHDA [81]. Similar schemes are planned around the Polihali dam, currently under
construction [65]. Several research papers and reports suggest, however, that the same
social issues (e.g., material and spiritual loss, increased insecurity, loss of autonomy)
were observed again as a result of the second LHWP dam, the Mohale Dam (opened in
2004) [82–86].
The environmental sustainability of the LHWP has been repeatedly under scrutiny in
the literature. Nel and Illgner (2001) [81] report that seismic activity caused by the reservoirs
have affected the water supply from springs, damaged buildings and opened cracks in
the earth’s surface, negatively impacting the functioning of water flow regulation ES. The
first environmental impact assessment was only published in 1997 (the year following
the opening of the Katse dam), and the Mohale dam assessment found far-reaching and
irreversible damage to the river ecosystem [87]. Habitat destruction, species extinction,
soil erosion, loss of arable land and ecosystem alterations up- and downstream are cited
as the environmental impacts [87]. In addition, rangelands and wetlands will also suffer
ongoing degradation due to the increased land use pressure caused by displacement from
the reservoir [65], which could increase food insecurity and malnutrition, as seen around
the Katse reservoir [86]. The long-term social sustainability of the LHWP is questionable,
as jobs in construction are temporary and can raise the local cost of living. Furthermore,
CSR schemes implemented around the Katse dam have since been abandoned [86].
In addition to the controversy caused by the poor social and environmental sustain-
ability of the LHWP, there have been multiple accusations and convictions of corruption
and fraud relating to the granting of construction contracts [74,88].
3.6. Rangeland
3.6.1. Land Tenure Regimes
In order to understand the use and management of rangeland it is necessary to
understand the two systems of governance (traditional and elected) that govern access
to rangelands. These systems often find themselves at odds on both an ideological and
operational level due to a fundamental disjunction in the worldviews of their associated
populations. Amongst indigenous communities in both South Africa and Lesotho, land
is predominantly communal and administered by local chiefs, while the state adheres to
the land regime based on private ownership as introduced under colonialism. Crucially,
these worldviews shape attitudes and decisions regarding land access, administration and
ownership. A contentious issue is that of land access and use by local farmers in designated
(or proposed) conservation areas.
Under the customary land tenure regime in Lesotho, land is valued as a common
good and today’s chiefs allocate land to people in their communities. The chiefs are able to
administer land as if they own it but farmers have the right of access for the purposes of use
which can only be revoked under specific conditions (e.g., misuse or abandonment) [39]. In
the traditional conception of ‘ownership’ (although this word is inadequate as it does not
translate across cultures), all land ‘belongs’ to the people or to the nation, and the rights
to access and use land rests with the people [39]. This system is mirrored in South Africa,
where common and communal (i.e., administered by Tribal Authorities) land is nonetheless
fragmented and dominated by private property.
In the past, land reforms in both countries have sought to replace traditional land
tenure with private property regimes (e.g., 1997 White Paper on South African Land Policy [89];
Land Restitution and Reform Laws Amendment Act 18 of 1999 [90]; Lesotho Land Act, 2010 [91]).
In 2019, the African National Congress (ANC) government of South Africa began pursuing
a policy of land expropriation and redistribution [92]. However, the reality is that, in
many rural areas, traditional leaders maintain decision-making power with regards to land
access [43,93,94].
The repeated repeal and replacement of colonial- and apartheid-era laws has left
planning laws fragmented, complicated and inconsistent [93–95]. This creates confusion
today regarding the roles of traditional authorities and elected government structures at
the local level where policies relating to ES access are implemented [43,94]. This legal
and practical dualism has often led to conflict between rangeland users, with uncertainty
over who is responsible for resolving such disputes [39,46,55,95]. This confusion can have
various negative outcomes: the abuse of power by chiefs who claim land for their own
profit; contradiction and conflict between traditional leaders and civil courts; a perceived
lack of personal responsibility by individuals and thus overexploitation of resources which
affects ecosystem service provision. The latter argument has been given in defence of land
reforms which significantly reduced Traditional Authorities’ powers over land allocation.
This over exploitation of rangeland on both sides of the border negatively impacts the
provision of water-related ecosystem services in the study area. Overgrazed rangelands
show increasing levels of erosion, decreased infiltration and increased run-off, all which
affect the functioning of water flow regulation and water provisioning ES and lead to
contamination and modification of the watershed.
Problems have arisen where there has been insufficient understanding of the valuation
and perspectives of local communities in policy decisions. This was exemplified by the
land reforms in Lesotho (Land Act 2010 [91]) which removed the customary rights to land
and allowed for titles to be granted. This land policy took a unidimensional valuation ap-
proach to land, recognising only its economic value and not considering the non-economic
valuations associated with the ES used by local communities. The argument for the reforms
were that they would offer poor farmers security of tenure. Pule and Thabane (2004) [39]
argue, however, that an absence of long-term agricultural development is the result of a
lack of capital to invest in agriculture, and not a result of a sense of insecurity regarding
land tenure among farmers. The introduction of land titles has, in Lesotho, created two
parallel systems of land administration with few linkages between them; the ‘formal’ state
system of private ownership is superimposed on the ‘informal’ (i.e., communal) traditional
system [39,93]. Furthermore, the Land Act 2010 [91] opened the territory to foreign and
domestic acquisition, making the future of land access rights for subsistence farmers ar-
guably more insecure since the removal of their (legally invisible) customary rights. In this
context, it is unsurprising that economically weak and resource-poor farmers sell their land
for cash. Furthermore, Sections 51 and 52 of the Land Act allow for “the expropriation and
acquisition of land for the public interest” based on incredibly low standards and a very
broad interpretation of ‘public interest’ and has effectively legalised the dispossession of
land for ‘development projects’ [96]. This is particularly pertinent in the context of the land
required for water transfer infrastructure discussed in Section 3.5.
It is clear that the current systems of land management are not sustainable. Environ-
mental degradation continues in negative feedback loops, while decreasingly productive
land threatens increasing numbers of people with poverty and food insecurity or pushes
them to abandon their homes in search of alternative livelihoods.
3.6.2. Animal Husbandry

The role of livestock farming in Basotho economy, society and culture has constantly
evolved in response to political-economic conditions. Ovicaprids (sheep and goats) rep-
resent provisioning ES and are produced for mohair and wool as well as for meat. They
are grazed in the Lesotho highlands and, increasingly, illegally in officially protected areas
in South Africa. In the Lesotho highlands, approximately half the ruminant livestock are
sheep, a quarter are goats and a quarter are cattle [97].
In the absence of private property in which to invest capital, livestock offer an invest-
ment of remittances for workers in South African mines, with a herd often built up as a
retirement investment [98]. However, mass retrenchment in the mines in the 1980s–1990s
resulted in a shift to livestock farming as a primary source of income for many rural
inhabitants. Hoag (2018) [99] goes so far as to say that ovicaprid production is now an
‘economic dreamworld’ for young entrepreneurial Basotho. Compared to cattle, ovicaprids
grow quickly and can subsist in the harsher highland conditions. In the study area, the
main meat market is in QwaQwa. Herders risk violent attacks by livestock thieves in order
to smuggle their animals over the national border to buyers in the lowlands [99].
Cattle tend to be less commodified because they hold a greater symbolic value—a
cultural ES—and are used more in rituals, as dowries or as symbols of wealth and pres-
tige [100]. However, interpretations differ regarding the economic and sociocultural ra-
tionale behind the commodification of ovicaprids and the non-commodification of cat-
tle [2,98–102]. Similarly, the roles these animals play in cultural and spiritual practices have
been investigated by these same authors (and others) without consensus.
Addressing rangeland degradation should be a priority in sustainable develop ini-
tiatives, since the overexploitation of rangeland reduces biodiversity and has cascading
negative impacts on a range of ES. Understanding the valuation and decision-making
processes of livestock herders and owners is crucial to understanding why rangelands
are perpetually overstocked, despite the obvious unsustainability of this practice, be it
economically, environmentally or socially. Different theories are proposed in the literature
for the apparently irrational overstocking of rangeland. Swallow et al. (1987) [98] argue
that individuals sharing a communal resource do not consider the social costs inflicted by
overgrazing, and so each individual stocks too many animals in the interest of personal
profit. It could also be seen as a rational response to the circumstances and constraints
of herders’ socioeconomic situation: Ferguson (1994) [100] suggests that high numbers of
low-quality stock may be preferential to fewer, high-quality animals when the herder’s
principal concern is the security and survival of the herd. Similarly, the reticence to sell
stock even when fodder is scarce may be a rational appraisal of the use-value compared
with the cash-value of the herd [100].
3.6.3. The Impacts of Overgrazing

Human communities and ecosystems downstream are also greatly affected by high-
land rangeland management. Overgrazing interferes with water ES provision, causing
reduced soil retention, infiltration and slope stability, leading to soil run-off and the siltation
of water courses and dams, water pollution and flooding downstream. Sediment is also
sometimes deposited on arable or rangelands, killing off the vegetation beneath it [103].
Traditionally, the seasonal movement of livestock was controlled by traditional lead-
ers depending on the conditions of different areas of rangeland [2,62,104], with upper
slopes treated as common land and grazed sporadically in summer [62]. At the advent of
colonialism, European rulers sought to reform traditional grazing regimes, introducing
increasingly intense and mechanised arable farming practices and importing non-native
livestock [62,63]. In South Africa, land was divided and sold privately to colonisers,
fracturing and ultimately reducing communal land to 13% of the national territory [105].
The first European record of soil erosion processes in Lesotho were made in the late
nineteenth century. Showers (2005, 1989) [22,63] cites the cutting of riparian trees by
missionaries, deeper ploughing and the channels caused by makeshift dirt ‘roads’ as partly
responsible for triggering cycles of erosion. Increased human population and agricultural
activities further exacerbated this process. At the same time, colonial-imposed political and
geographical demarcations interfered with traditional land management and sequestration
of traditional land reduced available rangeland thereby increasing pressure on that which
remained (similar to the processes of land-taking for the LHWP). These historical factors
triggered cycles of environmental overexploitation, erosion and degradation which are
still in motion today. In parallel, colonial powers established a political and economic
system based on exploitation (of people and ES) and racism. By forcing indigenous peoples
from their land (in South Africa) and imposing foreign land management and uses (in
both Lesotho and South Africa), colonial settlers disrupted both the environment and the
knowledge systems able to maintain it.
Nowadays, sustainable and integrated rangeland management strategies are hindered
by the legal and practical dualism caused by the parallel systems of land administra-
tion discussed in Section 3.2.1. This creates confusion regarding who is responsible for
managing grazing regimes. Some initiatives have been successful in increasing sustain-
ability in rangeland management in other areas of the Drakensberg and could serve as
examples of best practices, for example, the Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership Pro-
gramme (www.umzimvubu.org) (accessed on 29 July 2021) and its partner, Meat Natu-
rally (www.meatnaturallyafrica.com) (accessed on 29 July 2021). These initiatives aim at
restoring and protecting rangeland ecosystems that support agricultural livelihoods and
developing infrastructure to provide herders with access to meat markets.
Research is still needed to ascertain carrying capacity and provide a scientific basis for
rural sustainable development strategies in the study area that address the root causes of
overgrazing, which leads to far-reaching impacts on the watershed. Of equal importance is
a thorough understanding of the valuation systems of land users. Management strategies
will not be appropriated by herders if the perspectives that drive their decision-making are
not understood and accounted for. Against this background, participatory and deliberative
policy development would be necessary.
3.7. Conservation and Tourism

3.7.1. Protected Areas
In traditional communities, the value of land is bound to its use as a common resource.
This is at odds with the modern notion of private property and of protected areas, both of
which establish borders and define exclusionary rights. Modern conservation, in the form
of territorial exclusionary policies, has become a key cultural element of the relationship
that predominantly urban societies hold with nature [106,107] and are connected to many
different cultural ES. However, environmental sustainability efforts can interfere with local
populations’ access to cultural ESs, which support local identities through sacred sites,
ceremonies and maintaining sense of place [107–109].
Conservation discourses surrounding protected areas often reflect modernity’s main
narratives: state bureaucratic governmentality, a dominance of science and experts, state-
making and commoditisation [2,107]. The protected areas of the Maloti-Drakensberg reflect
this insofar as they are exclusionary areas whose aesthetic and recreational value is experi-
enced by visitors, often at a fee. The MD protected areas were created as part of a concerted
effort by the South African state to promote an image of the nation as a trailblazer of
wildlife conservation in southern Africa, to improve the country’s international reputation
and to develop its tourism industry [110]. As such, they also represent cultural ES as
“living systems that are resonant in terms of culture or heritage” [54]. In addition, these
protected areas require the creation of institutional, administrative and technical/scientific
capacity to manage these areas sustainably for the benefit of ES users. However, they
also reflect other values, which are both use-values (e.g., the protection of water provision
or the conservation of nature for recreational activities) and non-use values (e.g., carbon
sequestration as a regulating ES or the conservation of nature for its existence or bequest
value). As protected areas, they “enable scientific investigation” and “enable education
and training” due to their high biodiversity and endemic species [26,54]. Importantly, these
areas are (at least in theory) safeguarded from the overexploitation which is degrading
much of the surrounding areas.
The three main South African protected areas in the study region are: Royal Natal
National Park (est. 1916), Golden Gate National Park (est. 1963) and Sterkfontein Dam
Nature Reserve (est. 1977). The area is also dotted with private estates and game reserves
which are nationally designated nature reserves. In the study area of the Lesotho highlands
there is one official protected area (Tséhlanyane National Park). Almost the entire study
area falls within the Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Park (MDTP).
The different entities that conceive of and manage the protected areas do so in line with
their own agendas and the valuation systems of the societal groups or power structures
that those entities represent. Royal Natal National Park was inscribed as part of the
Maloti-Drakensberg UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2000 as a ‘mixed’ site based on both
cultural and natural criteria. Three years later the MDTP was established, uniting pre-
existing protected areas under the Peace Parks initiative (www.peaceparks.org) (accessed
on 5 July 2021) and created the trans-boundary Maloti-Drakensberg Park World Heritage
Site. The MDTP was promoted as a tool to consolidate regional conservation knowledge as
well as to foster cooperation between Lesotho and South Africa [3,21]. However, the project
has been criticised by Büscher (2013) over conservation strategies which did not sufficiently
consult local people or consider the social sustainability of conservation strategies. Cain
(2009) [109], contracted by the MDTP in 2005–2006 to survey cultural heritage in Lesotho,
cites significant limitations resulting in the under-reporting of living heritage sites—places
that hold spiritual, religious and cultural value as sites of rituals, historic events and
collective identity creation.
Wittmayer and Büscher (2010) [40] document the negotiation process of the MDTP-
proposed Liqobong park in Lesotho. Local farmers attribute use-values to the provisioning
ES services used for food production, in addition to as sites of prayer, ritual and ancestors’
graves, as cultural ES [40]. Wittmayer and Büscher describe how the ‘local community’ were
treated as a homogenous group by project managers and were left feeling that their concerns
were unaddressed. This common conservation narrative of a homogenous ‘community’

is reinforced by state land administration regimes which, in communal contexts, forces
ownership to be vested in a single communal legal entity [93]. This merging of the varied
interests of individuals obscures the community processes employed to manage and
mediate interests and legally renders communities a homogenous group with regards to
land administration [93].
These cases are demonstrative of the power imbalance between those implementing
top-down development strategies and some ES users. This power imbalance reflects an
unequal valuation of economic, environmental and social sustainability. In a global society
in which economic and political power are practically synonymous, it is unsurprising that
economic sustainability is given precedence in large, transboundary conservation projects.
Although attempts were made address the social sustainability of MDTP policy, this seems
to have been more of a symbolic gesture. The MDTP vision instead prioritised the pressing
regional issue of water related ES protection, as well as economic development through
tourism. There is currently an obvious paucity in research which investigates cultural ES,
whereas such research could help to redress these power imbalances, by lending visibility
and scientific authority to local voices.
3.7.2. Tourism
In a similar way that ES contributes to the cultural life of traditional communities,
so does it also feed into a national narrative of South Africa as a conservation heartland.
Valued as apolitical symbols of a post-apartheid South Africa, protected wildlife areas also
draw tourists (and their cash) to the Maloti-Drakensberg. The tourism industry depends on
cultural ES (for recreational sports, aesthetic beauty, wildlife observation and as spiritual
or symbolic sites) as well as provisioning ES (freshwater production, wild animals, food
production) to support its touristic offer.
Tourism is often posited as the best way to marry conservation, local development
and private sector profits [111], and in so doing, addresses all three aspects of sustainability.
Tourist facilities in the MD such as Witsieshoek Mountain Lodge can have benefits to
the local community, providing training and employment through various skill levels.
However, tourism’s contribution to regional development in the MD is limited due to
several factors: the relatively small size of the industry; a lack of capital investment; the
concentration of tourist accommodation in one urban centre; and the often low-skilled,
low-paid and seasonal nature of employment [112]. A large and wealthy segment of the
tourism market resides in the town of Clarens, 60 km west of Phuthaditjhaba. Its economy
of ‘intensive leisure consumption’ focuses around recreational activities in the Golden Gate
Highlands National Park by wealthy White second-home owners [113]. The development
benefits in terms of employment (e.g., in construction, domestic work, gardening and
retail) are limited to the town and its township (Kgubetswane), where there is a surplus of
low-skilled labour.
Mutana and Mukwada (2018) [114] claim that stifled development is due to insufficient
engagement between tourism operators and local communities in the MD. Conservation
areas cater to tourists and a local wealthy minority because of the economic value that they
represent, but the social and environmental sustainability of tourism is not guaranteed. No
studies have yet proposed a tourist carrying capacity for anywhere in the study area and
increased visitors could in future impact negatively on the environmental sustainability of
tourism in protected areas [114]. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that tourism is not a
panacea to local socioeconomic issues, and considering the ecological footprint of almost
all forms of tourist consumption, it can be argued that only local, low-emission tourism is
truly environmentally sustainable.
4. Conclusions
We have provided a novel synthesis of the major multidimensional issues in the study
area, highlighting their interconnectivity and interdependence.
The most salient research gap identified is a lack of multi- and interdisciplinarity
due to the weak cooperation between scientific disciplines, particularly across social sci-
ences/humanities (SSH) and natural sciences. Such cooperation is essential in an area
where issues regarding ecosystem health, livelihoods and politics/administration are so
obviously intertwined. While research in environmental sciences is strong in the MD, most
prominently in biodiversity and soil sciences, if research findings are not considered in
context of human-nature relations they risk fuelling conflict over development initiatives
which do not sufficiently consider the needs and values of local people, as seen in the
example in Section 3.7.1. Therefore, there needs to be increased opportunities for exchange
and cooperation between disciplines, as well as between scientists and policy makers.
Policy needs to equally consider all three aspects of sustainability and not allow dominant
economic values to skew the focus of resources towards economic development. Further-
more, civil society must be meaningfully included in decision-making processes in order to
build trust in governance structures, which has been eroded due historic discriminatory
policies, top-down management and corruption among the political classes.
Further research gaps identified in the study area include: the monitoring and map-
ping of ecosystem health and ES provision, in tandem with monitoring of changes in
sociocultural wellbeing; the investigation of factors driving overstocking of rangeland; the
assessment of ecosystem carrying capacity in terms of livestock but also tourist numbers;
mapping of areas of highest degradation and priority areas for sustainable development;
a quantitative analysis of ES including research into causality, trade-offs and interaction
between degradation of multiple ecosystem services.
In the Maloti-Drakensberg, pressures on ES services are considerable and negative
feedback loops of degradation and overexploitation are ongoing issues. Historic and
current processes have led to complex and contradictory social and political structures
that govern access to ES. Furthermore, the worldviews pertaining to ES valuation, use
and management differ between groups of ES users. This diversity of approach needs to
be addressed in policy making and planning in order to appropriately consider power
imbalances and not further marginalise under-represented groups.
The MD is an under researched area, and this paper has analysed the main mul-
tidimensional issues that concern its sustainable social, environmental and economic
development. Although the lack of research in the MD may currently be seen as a barrier
to effective sustainable development, the authors consider there to be strong potential
for multi- and interdisciplinary research in the future which can address these issues. In
this context, it is hoped that this research will provide an informative basis for future
multidisciplinary research.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, J.L.D. and A.M.; methodology, S.S.; validation, V.R.C., J.S.
and N.P.B.; data curation, J.L.D. and S.T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.D.; writing—review
and editing, J.L.D. and S.T.; visualization, J.d.D.V.J.; supervision, V.R.C. and A.M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The information and bibliographies provided by David Ambrose (National
University of Lesotho) and Jacqui Taylor (Agritourism Africa) in the early stages of our research
are greatly appreciated. We would particularly like to acknowledge the support provided by the
Afromontane Research Unit staff and students during Andrea Membretti’s visit to South Africa and
Lesotho: João de Deus Vidal Jnr., Nicholas le Maitre, Retselisitsoe Albert Malefane, Anthony Mapaura
and Ntebohiseng Sekhele. We also thank Royal Natal National Park and Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal
for providing data on visitor numbers, Witsieshoek Mountain Lodge for their hospitality and Sue
Taylor (Afromontane Research Unit) and Michele Toucher (South African Environmental Observation
Network) for their valuable comments on the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Rousselot, Y. Upstream Flows of Water: From the Lesotho Highlands to Metropolitan South Africa. Territorialities and Hydropol-
itics in Southern Africa. J. Alp. Res. Rev. De Géog. Alp. 2015. [CrossRef]
2. Rohde, R.F.; Moleele, N.M.; Mphale, M.; Allsopp, N.; Chanda, R.; Hoffman, M.T.; Magole, L.; Young, E. Dynamics of Grazing
Policy and Practice: Environmental and Social Impacts in Three Communal Areas of Southern Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9,
302–316. [CrossRef]
3. Zunckel, K. Managing and Conserving Southern African Grasslands with High Endemism: The Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier
Conservation and Development Program. Mt. Res. Dev. 2003, 23, 113–118. [CrossRef]
4. Mountain Partnership Secretariat in collaboration with the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA).
Declaration on Mountains and Climate Change for COP21 (2015). Twenty-First Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); UIAA: Paris, France, 2015.
5. Pepin, N.; Diaz, H.F.; Baraer, M.; Caceres, E.B.; Forsythe, N.; Fowler, H.; Greenwood, G.; Hashmi, M.Z.; Liu, X.D.; Miller, J.R.; et al.
Elevation-Dependent Warming in Mountain Regions of the World. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 424–430. [CrossRef]
6. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
7. de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Costanza, R. A short history of the ecosystem services concept. In Mapping Ecosystem Services; Burkhard, B.,
Maes, J., Eds.; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017.
8. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
9. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions
and Recommendations of TEEB; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010.
10. UNEP. IPBES/4/INF/1: Preliminary Guide Regarding Diverse Conceptualization of Multiple Values of Nature and Its Benefits, In-
cluding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions and Services (Deliverable 3(d)); Report of the Fourth Session of the Pleneray of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015.
11. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Towards a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) for Integrated Environ-
mental and Economic Accounting; Fabis Consulting Ltd.: Nottingham, UK, 2018.
12. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; WCED: Cape Town, Shouth Africa, 1987.
13. Sustainable Development. UNWTO. Available online: https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development (accessed on
24 June 2021).
14. Arthington, A.H.; Rall, J.L.; Kennard, M.J.; Pusey, B.J. Environmental Flow Requirements of Fish in Lesotho Rivers Using the
Drift Methodology. River Res. Appl. 2003, 19, 641–666. [CrossRef]
15. Brown, R.W.; Summerfield, M.A.; Gleadow, A.J.W. Denudational History along a Transect across the Drakensberg Escarpment of
Southern Africa Derived from Apatite Fission Track Thermochronology. J. Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth 2002, 107, 2350. [CrossRef]
16. Thekisoe, M.M.O.; Mbati, P.A.; Bisschop, S.P.R. Different Approaches to the Vaccination of Free Ranging Village Chickens against
Newcastle Disease in Qwa-Qwa, South Africa. Vet. Microbiol. 2004, 101, 23–30. [CrossRef]
17. Plug, I.; Mitchell, P. Fishing in the Lesotho Highlands: 26,000 Years of Fish Exploitation, with Special Reference to Sehonghong
Shelter. J. Afr. Archaeol. 2008, 6, 33–55. [CrossRef]
18. Tilt, B.; Braun, Y.; He, D. Social Impacts of Large Dam Projects: A Comparison of International Case Studies and Implications for
Best Practice. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, S249–S257. [CrossRef]
19. Slater, R. Differentiation and Diversification: Changing Livelihoods in Qwaqwa, South Africa, 1970-2000. J. South. Afr. Stud. 2002,
28, 599–614. [CrossRef]
20. Challis, S. Creolisation on the Nineteenth-Century Frontiers of Southern Africa: A Case Study of the AmaTola “Bushmen” in the
Maloti-Drakensberg. J. South. Afr. Stud. 2012, 38, 265–280. [CrossRef]
21. Büscher, B. Transforming the Frontier: Peace Parks and the Politics of Neoliberal Conservation in Southern Africa; Duke University Press:
Durham, UK; London, UK, 2013.
22. Showers, K.B. Imperial Gullies: Soil Erosion and Conservation in Lesotho, 1st ed.; Ohio University Press: Athens, OH, USA, 2005;
ISBN 978-0-8214-1614-3.
23. Blignaut, J.; Mander, M.; Schulze, R.; Horan, M.; Dickens, C.; Pringle, C.; Mavundla, K.; Mahlangu, I.; Wilson, A.; McKenzie,
M.; et al. Restoring and Managing Natural Capital towards Fostering Economic Development: Evidence from the Drakensberg,
South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1313–1323. [CrossRef]
24. Blignaut, J.; Aronson, J.; Mander, M.; Marais, C. Investing in Natural Capital and Economic Development: South Africa’s
Drakensberg Mountains. Ecol. Restor. 2008, 26, 143–150. [CrossRef]
25. Nel, J.L.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Roux, D.J.; Colvin, C.; Smith, J.S.; Smith-Adao, L.B.; Maherry, A.; Sitas, N. Strategic Water Source Areas
for Urban Water Security: Making the Connection between Protecting Ecosystems and Benefiting from Their Services. Ecosyst.
Serv. 2017, 28, 251–259. [CrossRef]
26. Carbutt, C. The Drakensberg Mountain Centre: A Necessary Revision of Southern Africa’s High-Elevation Centre of Plant
Endemism. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 124, 508–529. [CrossRef]
27. Clark, V.R.; Barker, N.P.; Mucina, L. The Great Escarpment of Southern Africa: A New Frontier for Biodiversity Exploration.
Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 20, 2543. [CrossRef]
28. BoS. 2010/2011 Household Budget Survey. Analytical Report Volume 1; Lesotho Bureau of Statistics: Maseru, Lesotho, 2014.
29. Scholvin, S. Key Projects of Regional Integration. In The Geopolitics of Regional Power: Geography, Economics and Politics in Southern
Africa; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-315-55771-7.
30. Makhoalibe, S. Management of Water Resources in the Maloti/Drakensberg Mountains of Lesotho. Ambio 1999, 28, 460–461.
31. World Bank. Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines (% of Population); The World Bank Group: Wasighton DC, USA, 2020.
32. BoS. Population and Housing Census 2016; Bureau of Statistics: Maseru, Lesotho, 2016.
33. World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2020; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
34. Colvin, C.; Imelda, H.; Nel, J.; Le Maitre, D.; Smith, J. Defining South Africa’s Water Source Areas; WWF-SA: Newlands, South
Africa, 2013.
35. StatsSA GHS Series Volume VIII. Water and Sanitation. In-Depth Analysis of the GHS 2002-2015 and CS 2016 Data; Statistics South
Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2016.
36. Comaroff, J. Reflections on Liberalism, Policulturalism, and ID-Ology: Citizenship and Difference in South Africa. Soc. Identities
2003, 9, 445–473. [CrossRef]
37. Lehohla, P. Provincial Profile: Free State; Statistics South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2011.
38. Lehohla, P. Provincial Profile: KwaZulu-Natal; South African Statistics: Pretoria, South Africa, 2011.
39. Pule, N.W.; Thabane, M. Lesotho’s Land Tenure Regimes: Experiences of Rural Communities and the Calls for Land Reform. J.
Mod. Afr. Stud. 2004, 42, 283–303. [CrossRef]
40. Wittmayer, J.M.; Büscher, B. Conserving Conflict? Transfrontier Conservation, Development Discourses and Local Conflict
Between South Africa and Lesotho. Hum. Ecol. 2010, 38, 763–773. [CrossRef]
41. Cobbing, J. The Mfecane as Alibi: Thoughts on Dithakong and Mbolompo. J. Afr. Hist. 1988, 29, 487–519. [CrossRef]
42. Union of South Africa. Promotion of Bantu Self-Governing Act; Union of South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 1959.
43. Khunou, S.F. Traditional Leadership and Independent Bantustans of South Africa: Some Milestones of Transformative Constitu-
tionalism beyond Apartheid. PER Potchefstroomse Elektron. Regsblad 2009, 12, 81–122.
44. Iliffe, J. The African Poor: A History; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1987; ISBN 978-0-521-34877-5.
45. Modiba, I. More than R2 Billion Needed to Solve Maluti-A-Phofung Water Crisis: Sisulu. Available online: https:
//www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/more-than-r2-billion-needed-to-solve-maluti-a-phofung-water-crisis-sisulu/ (accessed on
13 April 2020).
46. Diederichs, N.; Mander, M. Payment for Environmental Services Baseline Study; FutureWorks! Everton: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
47. Blignaut, J.N.; Marais, C.; Turpie, J.K. Determining a Charge for the Clearing of Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAPs) to Augment
Water Supply in South Africa. Water SA 2007, 33, 27–34. [CrossRef]
48. Turpie, J.K.; Marais, C.; Blignaut, J.N. The Working for Water Programme: Evolution of a Payments for Ecosystem Services Mech-
anism That Addresses Both Poverty and Ecosystem Service Delivery in South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 788–798. [CrossRef]
49. Büscher, B. Selling Success: Constructing Value in Conservation and Development. World Dev. 2014, 57, 79–90. [CrossRef]
50. Chatanga, P.; Kotze, D.C.; Janks, M.; Sieben, E.J.J. Classification, Description and Environmental Factors of Montane Wetland
Vegetation of the Maloti-Drakensberg Region and the Surrounding Areas. South Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 125, 221–233. [CrossRef]
51. Chatanga, P.; Seleteng-Kose, L. Montane Palustrine Wetlands of Lesotho: Vegetation, Ecosystem Services, Current Status, Threats
and Conservation. Wetlands 2021, 41, 67. [CrossRef]
52. Matchaya, G.; Nhamo, L.; Nhlengethwa, S.; Nhemachena, C. An Overview of Water Markets in Southern Africa: An Option for
Water Management in Times of Scarcity. Water 2019, 11, 1006. [CrossRef]
53. Coldrey, K.; O’Connor, T.; Rushworth, I.; Carbutt, C.; Manson, A. UKhahlamba Drakensberg Park Climate Change Predictions, Impacts,
Vulnerability and Adaptation; Unpublished; 2019.
54. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the
Application of the Revised Structure; European Environment Agency (EEA): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018.
55. Driver, T. Anti-Erosion Policies in the Mountain Areas of Lesotho: The South African Connection. Environ. Hist. 1999,
5, 1–25. [CrossRef]
56. IPCC. Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services. In TAR Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; IPCC: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2001.
57. ORASECOM. Rehabilitating Rangelands for Healthy Headwaters: Steps Basotho Communities Are Taking to Reverse Land Degradation at
the Source of the Orange–Senqu River; Orange–Senqu River Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2014.
58. Quinlan, T.; Morris, C.D. Implications of Changes to the Transhumance System for Conservation of the Mountain Catchments in
Eastern Lesotho. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 1994, 11, 76–81. [CrossRef]
59. Hamer, M.; Slowtow, R. A Comparison and Conservation Assessment of the High-Altitude Grassland and Forest-Millipede
(Diplopoda) Fauna of the South African Drakensberg. Soil Org. 2009, 81, 701–717.
60. Kopij, G. Avian Assemblages in Afro-Mountain and Alti-Mountain Grasslands in the Endemic Maloti/Drakensberg Region of
Lesotho. Zool. Ecol. 2015, 25, 319–326. [CrossRef]
61. Kopij, G. Lepidoptera Fauna of Lesotho. Acta Zool. Crac. 2006, 49, 137–180. [CrossRef]
62. Quinlan, T. Grassland Degradation and Livestock Rearing in Lesotho. J. South. Afr. Stud. 1995, 21, 491–507. [CrossRef]
63. Showers, K.B. Soil Erosion in the Kingdom of Lesotho: Origins and Colonial Response, 1830s–1950s. J. South. Afr. Stud. 1989, 15,
64. Slater, R. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Contested Livelihoods in Qwaqwa National Park, South Africa. Geogr. J. 2002, 168,
65. African Development Bank Group. Lesotho Highland Water Project Phase II. Environmental & Social Impact Assessment. Summary
for Polihali Reservoir & Associated Infrastructure. 2019. Available online: https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/lesotho-
lesotho-highland-water-project-phase-ii-lhwpii-polihali-reservoir-associated-infrastructure-esia-summary-108571 (accessed on
29 July 2021).
66. Cambray, J.A. The Global Impact of Alien Trout Species—A Review; with Reference to Their Impact in South Africa. Afr. J. Aquat.
Sci. 2003, 28, 61–67. [CrossRef]
67. Karssing, R.J.; Rivers-Moore, N.A.; Slater, K. Influence of Waterfalls on Patterns of Association between Trout and Natal Cascade
Frog Hadromophryne Natalensis Tadpoles in Two Headwater Streams in the UKhahlamba Drakensberg Park World Heritage
Site, South Africa. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 2012, 37, 107–112. [CrossRef]
68. Carbutt, C.; Edwards, T. Plant–Soil Interactions in Lower–Upper Montane Systems and Their Implications in a Warming World:
A Case Study from the Maloti-Drakensberg Park, Southern Africa. Biodiversity 2016, 16, 262–277. [CrossRef]
69. Roux, J.L.; Morgenthal, T.L.; Malherbe, J.; Pretorius, D.J.; Sumner, P.D. Water Erosion Prediction at a National Scale for South
Africa. Water SA 2008, 34, 305–314. [CrossRef]
70. Otieno, F.A.O.; Ochieng, G.M.M. Water Management Tools as a Means of Averting a Possible Water Scarcity in South Africa by
the Year 2025. Water SA 2004, 30, 120–124. [CrossRef]
71. UNDCWS. United Nations World Water Development Report 4. Volume 1: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk; United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP),
UN-Water: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
72. Blignaut, J.N.; Van Heerden, J.H.; Jan, H. The Impact of Water Scarcity on Economic Development Initiatives. Water Sa 2009,
34, 5. [CrossRef]
73. Mwangi, O. Hydropolitics, Ecocide and Human Security in Lesotho: A Case Study of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. J.
South. Afr. Stud. 2007, 33, 3–17. [CrossRef]
74. Keketso, L. The Mixed Blessings of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. MRED 2003, 23, 7–10. [CrossRef]
75. Ministry of Energy and Meteorology. Lesotho Energy Policy 2015–2025; Ministry of Energy and Meteorology: Maseru,
Lesotho, 2015.
76. Hitchcock, R.K. The Lesotho Highlands Water Project: Dams, Development, and the World Bank. Sociol. Anthropol. 2015, 3,
77. Mashinini, V. The Lesotho Highlands Water Project and Sustainable Livelihoods: Policy Implications for SADC; 2010. Available
online: https://www.africaportal.org/publications/the-lesotho-highlands-water-project-and-sustainable-livelihoods-policy-
implications-for-sadc/ (accessed on 29 July 2021).
78. African Development Bank Group. Resettlement Action Plan Summary for the Lesotho Highland Water Project Phase II; African
Development Bank Group: Centurion, South Africa, 2019.
79. Amnesty International: Lesotho. 8000 People at Risk of Displacement in Lesotho Due to Water Deal with South Africa; Amnesty
International: Tyoko, Japan, 2020.
80. Rakotsoane, F.C. The Southern Sotho’s Ultimate Object of Worship: Sky Divinity or Water Divinity? Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 2001.
81. Nel, E.; Illgner, P. Tapping Lesotho’s “White Gold”: Inter-Basin Water Transfer in Southern Africa. Geography 2001, 86, 163–167.
82. Thamae, M.L.; Pottinger, L. Transformation. On the Wrong Side of Development: Lessons Learned from the Lesotho Highlands Water
Project; Transformation Resource Centre: Maseru, Lesotho, 2006; ISBN 978-99911-32-01-3.
83. Transforming Society through Advocacy for Justice: Case Histories of Communities Impacted by the Lesotho Highlands Water Project: Phase
1B: Mohale Dam Project; Thamae, M.L.; Transformation (Organization) (Eds.) Transformation Resource Centre: Maseru, Lesotho,
2015; ISBN 978-99911-32-03-7.
84. The New Humanitarian; 11 November 2011. Available online: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2011/11/11
/government-optimistic-about-peace-talks-despite-fighting (accessed on 29 July 2021).
85. Lenka, T. The Irony of Development: Communities Impacted by the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. 2020. Available online:
https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjn7arW1onyAhURNuwKHcacC8
kQFjAAegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.protimos.org%2Fuploads%2F6%2F6%2F2%2F1%2F6621888%2Fthe_irony_
of_development_l_thamae.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3lZeC54Gwygk97EqsgpVhD (accessed on 29 July 2021).
86. Letsebe, P.H. A Study of the Impact of Lesotho Highlands Water Project on Residents of Khohlo-Ntso: Is It Too Late for Equitable
Benefit Sharing? Master’s Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2013.
87. LHDA. Lesotho—Highlands Water Project—Phase B: Environmental Impact Assessment; World Development Sources; The World
Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
88. Darroch, F. The Lesotho Corruption Trials—A Case Study. Commonw. Law Bull. 2003, 29, 901–975. [CrossRef]
89. DLA. White Paper on South African Land Policy1997. Available online: https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/white-paper-
south-african-land-policy-april-1997 (accessed on 29 July 2021).
90. Land Restitution and Reform Laws Amendment Act 18 of 1999; 406 § 19968; Republic of South Africa: Johannesburg,
South Africa, 1999.
91. Land Act, 2010 (Act No. 8 of 2010); Volume LV, No. 42; Paliament of Lesotho: Maseru, Lesotho, 2010.
92. National Assembly Proposed Section 74(2). Consitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill; initiated by the Ad Hoc Committee on
the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; National Assembly: Cape Town,
South Africa, 2019.
93. Alcock, R.; Hornby, D. Traditional Land Matters—A Look into Land Administration in Tribal Areas in KwaZulu-Natal. Legal Entity
Assessment Project. 2004, p. 35. Available online: https://mokoro.co.uk/land-rights-article/traditional-land-matters-a-look-
into-land-administration-in-tribal-areas-in-kwazulu-natal/ (accessed on 29 July 2021).
94. Logan, C. Selected Chiefs, Elected Councillors and Hybrid Democrats: Popular Perspectives on the Co-Existence of Democracy
and Traditional Authority. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 2009, 47, 101–128. [CrossRef]
95. Clark, M.; Luwaya, N. Communal Land Tenure 1994-2017: Commissioned Report for High Level Panel on the Assessment of Key Legislation
and the Acceleration of Fundamental Change, an Initiative of the Parliament of South Africa; Land and Accountability Research Centre:
Cape Town, South Africa, 2017.
96. Fogelman, C. Development by Dispossession: The Post-2000 Development Agenda and Land Rights in Lesotho. Afr. Geogr. Rev.
2018, 37, 257–272. [CrossRef]
97. Bureau of Statistics. Lesotho Livestock Statistics Report 2013/2014; Bureau of Statistics: Maseru, Letsotho, 2015.
98. Swallow, B.M.; Brokken, F.R.; Motsamai, M.; Sopeng, L.; Storey, G.G. Livestock Development and Range Utilization in Lesotho;
1987. Available online: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/5974 (accessed on 29 July 2021).
99. Hoag, C. The Ovicaprine Mystique: Livestock Commodification in Postindustrial Lesotho. Am. Anthropol. 2018,
120, 725–737. [CrossRef]
100. Ferguson, J. The Anti-Politics Machine; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-8166-2437-9.
101. Ashton, H. The Basuto: A Social Study of Traditional and Modern Lesotho; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
ISBN 978-1-351-04306-9.
102. Turkon, D. Modernity, Tradition and the Demystification of Cattle in Lesotho. Afr. Stud. 2003, 62, 147–169. [CrossRef]
103. Preez, P.J.D.; Brown, L.R. Impact of Domestic Animals on Ecosystem Integrity of Lesotho High Altitude Peatlands. In Ecosystems
Biodiversity; Grillo, O., Venora, G., Eds.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011.
104. Orasecom Demographic and Economic Activity in the Four Orange Basin States. Orange River Integrated Water Resource
Management Plan; 2007. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=
&ved=2ahUKEwj3hvi-04nyAhWHyosBHcz1Co8QFjAAegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.orasecom.org%2F_system%
2Fwritable%2FDMSStorage%2F1941DEMOGRAPHICS.PDF&usg=AOvVaw1nVkILPYsEMMW5IBnkQKIX (accessed on
29 July 2021).
105. Collins, R.O.; Burns, J.M. A History of Sub-Saharan Africa; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; ISBN 978-0-521-86746-7.
106. Latour, B. Nous N’avons Jamais Été Modernes. Essai D’anthropologie Symétrique; La Decouverte Editions: Paris, France, 2007;
ISBN 978-2-7071-2692-4.
107. Vaccaro, I.; Beltran, O.; Paquet, P.A. Political Ecology and Conservation Policies: Some Theoretical Genealogies. J. Political Ecol.
2013, 20, 255–272. [CrossRef]
108. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al.
Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [CrossRef]
109. Cain, C.R. Cultural Heritage Survey of Lesotho of the Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Project, 2005-2006: Palaeontology,
Archaeology, History and Heritage Management. South Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 2009, 64, 33–44.
110. Witz, L.; Rassool, C.; Minkley, G. Repackaging the Past for South African Tourism. Daedalus 2001, 130, 277–296.
111. Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction. Conserv. Soc. 2007, 5, 432.
112. Halseth, G.; Meiklejohn, C. Indicators of Small Town Tourism Development Potential: The Case of Fouriesburg, South Africa.
Urban Forum 2009, 20, 293. [CrossRef]
113. Hoogendoorn, G. Second Homes and Local Economic Impacts in the South African Post-Productivist Countryside. Ph.D.Thesis,
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2010.
114. Mutana, S.; Mukwada, G. Can Mountain Route Tourism Work for the Poor? Exploring Worldviews from Maluti Route in the
Drakensberg Region of South Africa. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2018, 1467358418791312. [CrossRef]

Scrutinising Multidimensional Challenges in The Maloti-Drakensberg (Lesotho/South Africa)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scrutinising Multidimensional Challenges in The Maloti-Drakensberg (Lesotho/South Africa)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scrutinising Multidimensional Challenges in The Maloti-Drakensberg (Lesotho/South Africa)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158511 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

The Maloti-Drakensberg is a transboundary mountain range which provides ecosys-

2. Materials and Methods

2.2. Concept: Ecosystem Services

2.3. Concept: Sustainable Development

Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511 4 of 22

3.2. The Maloti-Drakensberg

Sustainability 2021, 13, 8511 5 of 22

(Lesotho) and isiZulu (KwaZulu-Natal); smaller populations of Whites, other African

3.3. Key Ecosystem Services

3.5. Water Transfer

3.6.2. Animal Husbandry

3.6.3. The Impacts of Overgrazing

3.7. Conservation and Tourism

were unaddressed. This common conservation narrative of a homogenous ‘community’

You might also like