PlantLife Volume 51.10, July 2021. Giving Invasive Alien Plants isiZulu names

Giving Invasive Alien Plants isiZulu names: Unlocking Language Barriers for Meaningful Community Participation in Ecosystem Restoration Action

 

Nxele, B.J.¹*, Zulu, Z.², Sithole, J.H.¹, Memela, B.E.B.¹, Nxumalo, M.M.³, Dlulane, L.P.¹, Mchunu, S.⁴, and Mncube, N.A.⁵  

¹Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, EThekwini Municipality, 166 KE Masinga, Durban, 4001, South Africa. ²Department of Forestry, Fisheries & Environment, R103 Midmar Dam Wall, Howick, 3209, South Africa. ³South African National Biodiversity Institute, 7 Linden Road, Durban 4001, South Africa. ⁴Deputy City Manager’s Office, Trading Services, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, 4001, South Africa. ⁵Zenature Environmental Consultants, Durban, 4001, South Africa.

________________

*Corresponding author. Bheka Nxele, Bheka.Nxele@durban.gov.za

Abstract

The United Nations has declared 2021 – 2030 as a Decade of Ecosystem Restoration. Ecosystem restoration interventions are critical for native biodiversity as well as for ecosystem services, which are a product of biodiversity and the UN-defined ecosystem services (human livelihoods), as the benefits humans derive from the natural environment. As such, ecosystem restoration is key to ensuring socio-ecological resilience. A correlation has been acknowledged between poverty and reliance on the natural environment for survival. For indigenous communities to make a meaningful contribution in ecosystem restoration, barriers such as language, may need to be prioritized and addressed. In the control of Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs), which is another intervention towards ecosystem restoration, appointment of people from disadvantaged communities exposes such people, as well as their communities, to certain barriers. In a large-scale, community-based programme known as Working for Ecosystems (WFE), of eThekwini Municipality, it was noted that IAPs dominantly known by their respective English Common Names and/or Latin names, could be creating unintentional barriers. This motivated an undertaking to name IAPs in isiZulu, which is an indigenous language dominantly spoken in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. A group of environmentalists, who are indigenous isiZulu speakers, got together to review already existing isiZulu IAP names and to derive names for IAPs that currently do not have names in isiZulu. This may empower indigenous communities to see themselves more as a part of the restoration action, as well as a solution to the challenge. A recommendation is made that IAPs should have “negative” names to indicate they are not wanted. Furthermore, English Common Names may also need to be reviewed, preferably by native English speakers.

 

Introduction

The United Nations has declared 2021–2030 as the decade of ecosystem restoration. The natural environment plays a critical role in providing and sustaining livelihoods, through supplying ecosystem services (Cimon-Morin, et al., 2013; Bhatta et al., 2015; Huq et al., 2020). In the last couple of decades, this realisation has gained more attention leading to new concepts such as ecosystem restoration, community participation and upscaling restoration action (Costanza et al., 1997; MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Bennett et al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2009).

EThekwini Municipality, in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa implements large-scale, ecosystem restoration programmes. These appoint people (beneficiaries), from neighbouring communities, thus creating job opportunities, improving skills development, and addressing poverty alleviation. In paying attention to the control of invasive alien plants (IAPs), the authors noticed that most of IAPs are known by their English common names, and/or by their scientific (Latin) names. Since most ecosystem restoration projects employ community members from disadvantaged backgrounds, it goes without saying that language soon becomes a comprehension barrier (Keenan et al., 2019). The situation is exacerbated by the fact that ecosystem restoration terminology is largely in English, in which most beneficiaries are not fluent.

Conservation concepts and terminology thus become foreign not only to beneficiaries employed on ecosystem restoration projects, but also to indigenous communities. This could constitute another barrier for indigenous communities to comprehend objectives and challenges facing restoration action (Keenan et al., 2019; Kusmanoff et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2021). Terms such as “biodiversity”; “invasion”; “ecosystem services”; “ecosystems”; “socio-ecological resilience”; “invasive species”; “encroachment” and “sequestration” do not have direct translations in indigenous languages and secondly, explanatory translation differs with each project manager or expert engaging beneficiaries. Barriers delay indigenous beneficiaries’ understanding of restoration action and their ability to make meaningful contributions and suggestions that may enhance restoration (Williams et al., 2021). To sustain human-ecosystem interactions and connections, it becomes imperative then to create and maintain awareness, as well as to establish platforms for indigenous communities to play a meaningful role in managing their own natural spaces (Ostrom, 2010; Huq et al., 2020).  This can be helped by ensuring that conservation language is understood or translatable to African languages.

With isiZulu being the predominantly spoken language in the province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), and by beneficiaries employed in restoration projects from disadvantaged backgrounds, it was anticipated that language might be a potential barrier. The prevalence of IAPs not having indigenous names has resulted in people either propagating IAPs for medicinal use or giving IAPs names used for native plants just because they look similar. This led to the realisation that language acts as a barrier for rural, indigenous communities to relate to ecosystem restoration interventions. Other practical implications include that if an IAP is given the same name as a native plant, which is used in traditional medicine, and a traditional healer intends collecting the native plant but collects or propagates the IAP in error, this could threaten both native biodiversity and indigenous culture. Naming IAPs in isiZulu was thus regarded as a primary barrier needing to be addressed and a project was initiated to develop a set of standard isiZulu names for IAPs found in KZN (Nxele et al., 2019). This intervention was deemed critical as failing to influence the IAP naming process has negative connotations for both biodiversity and indigenous (isiZulu) culture. The ultimate intention of the project is to publish a book on isiZulu names for IAPs.

 

Methodology

The authors of this paper, together with those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section of this article, compiled a list of IAPs from existing material used in controlling IAPs, viz., Beautiful but Dangerous Posters and Flash Cards (printed and disseminated by the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department of eThekwini Municipality), as well the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa’s (WESSA) Book of IAPs. IAPs that currently do not have common names in isiZulu were given new names and the authors always preferred “negative” names (see for example Fig. 2 below), i.e. names that allude to negative environmental impacts (Nxele et al., 2019). During the naming process, each IAP would be projected for everyone to see and the naming was largely informed by growth form, leaf and flower shapes, smell associated with the plant, environment in which the IAP grow (Nxele et al., 2019). Names such as Idungasivande (direct English translation would “vegetable garden spoiler”) and Umagubuzela (direct English translation would be “that which suffocates or covers something up”) are some of the examples of “negative” names recommended. If an IAP was dominantly known by its English Common Name, then it would be given a direct translation of that Name e.g., Pinus sylvestris Pine Tree (uPhayni) and Eucalyptus grandis Gumtree (uGamthilini). Other IAPs were given completely new names like Salvinia molesta Kariba Weed (uMantunta, direct translation into English would be “Wanderer”) and Senna didymobotrya Peanut Butter Cassia (Umakhephuka, due to its pungent smell).

Some names proposed by the working group were discarded after considering community inputs. For instance, the working group proposed the name “Umantuntanamanzi” (which translates, “water-wanderer”) for Pistia stratiotes Water Lettuce, but community stakeholders pointed out that the name “Indwane” was already in use. Existing isiZulu names for IAPs were reviewed to make sure that names are not already used for native plants and to ensure IAPs have “negative” or “neutral” names (see Fig 1 and Fig 2, below for examples) to emphasize that these plants are unwanted and should not be accepted as alternatives for indigenous plants. Proposed names would then be presented at workshops which community representatives such as traditional leaders, muthi plant gatherers (i.e. people who collect medicinal plants for traditional healers), livestock owners, general members of the community, women, elders and youth would all be present (Nxele et al., 2019). Each IAP would be projected showing its Latin and English common name (Nxele et al., 2019). Then attendees would be asked if everyone was familiar with the plant and by what name they know it. If conditions allowed, an outing would be made to show everyone some of the IAPs in their vicinity (Nxele et al., 2019).

Results

Table 1: The list of Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs) with names derived in isiZulu language, which is an indigenous language spoken mainly in South Africa, dominantly in the province of KwaZulu-Natal.

Scientific Name	isiZulu Name	English Common Name
Acacia dealbata	Uwatelosiliva	Silver Wattle
Acacia longifolia	Ukhaselide	Long-leaved Wattle
Acacia mearnsii	Uwatelomnyama*	Black Wattle
Acacia podalyriifolia	Uwatelomhlophe	Pearl Acacia
Acacia saligna	Uwatelolisikela	Port Jackson Willow
Ageratina adenophora	Isithwashaza	Crofton Weed
Albizia lebbeck	Unjengosolo	Lebbeck Tree
Anredera cordifolia	Idungasivande	Madeira Vine
Arundo donax	Umhlangawezimvu, umhlangambumbulu	Spanish Reed
Bryophyllum delagoense	Umalivilivi	Chandelier Plant
Caesalpinia decapetala	Uvimbangameva	Mauritius Thorn
Campuloclinium macrocephalum	Uphomuphomu	Pom Pom Weed
Canna indica	Udabulamaxhaphozi	Indian Shot
Cardiospermum grandiflorum	Ugigane	Balloon Vine
Datura stramonium	Iloyi**	Common Thorn Apple
Diplocyclos palmatus	Umakotela	Lollipop Climber, Striped Cucumber
Eichhornia crassipes	Umantuntanamanzi	Water Hyacinth
Eucalyptus grandis	Ugamthilini	Saligna Gum
Hydrilla verticillata	Umanhlembanhlemba	Hydrilla
Hydrocleys nymphoides	Isixhakela	Waterpoppy
Ipomoea indica	Ujomba/inguboze	Purple Morning Glory
Iris pseudacorus	Umxhantela	Yellow Iris
Lantana camara	Ubhicilwesalukazi	Lantana
Leucaena leucocephala	Umdungazwe	River Tamarind
Lilium formosanum	Icilongo/ubhubha	Formosa Lily
Litsea glutinosa	Ujika	Indian Laurel
Parthenium hysterophorus	Umbulalazwe	Parthenium Weed
Pereskia aculeata	Uzimbeva	Barbados Gooseberry
Pinus sylvestris	Uswibiswibi/uphayni	Patula Pine
Pistia stratiotes	Indwane	Water Lettuce
Pontederia cordata	Ihleza	Pickerel Weed
Pueraria montana var. lobata	Umagubuzela	Kudzu Vine
Rubus cuneifolius	Ijikijolo-elinomhobholo	American Bramble
Sagittaria platyphylla	Ukhandalomcibisholo	Delta Arrowhead, Broad-leaf Arrowhead
Salvinia molesta	Umantunta	Kariba Weed
Schinus terebinthifolius	Isihlekehleke	Brazilian Pepper Tree
Senna didymobotrya	Umakhephuka	Peanut Butter Cassia
Solanum mauritianum	Ubhongabhonga	Bugweed
Syngonium podophyllum	Unyawolwedada	Goosefoot Plant,  Arrowhead Plant
Tecoma stans	Insimbephuzi	Yellow Bells
Tithonia diversifolia	Uphuthumani	Mexican Sunflower
* Existing name was “uwatela” but upon review, it was felt since uwatela (wattle) is rather a collective name, “uwatelomnyama” is more specific.
**The name “iloyi” was already in use, for this plant, and upon review, it was retained since it does not clash with any indigenous plant nor another IAP.

 

Fig. 1: Bryophyllum delagoense (Chandelier Plant) was named “Umalivilivi” because of the structure and formation of its leaves.  This is a new name for the plant. It is not negative but is rather neutral. (images taken by Michael Cheek).

Fig. 2: Hydrilla verticillata (Hydrilla), was given a negative name “Umanhlembanhlemba” in association with the messy formation it develops into, which is thick, impenetrable structure obstructing free movement of aquatic organisms as well as sun rays from penetrating the water body, wherein it is found. (images taken by Menzi Nxumalo).

Discussion

Protecting the environment is not only good for the environment, but it is in the best interest for humans too (Posey, 1999; Corrigan et al., 2018). Employing beneficiaries, from disadvantaged communities, on ecosystem restoration projects, where they get trained on what needs to be done and how to do it, is not necessarily comprehensive. Emphasis on why certain interventions are needed is equally significant. Addressing the why aspect, directly draws on “language”, as a means of fruitful communication, otherwise miscommunication undermines achievements that can be attained. Barriers for people to make contributions in managing ecosystems should be identified and addressed (Keenan et al., 2019; Buxton et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021). Addressing barriers to meaningful community-based ecosystem restoration may assist communities to reduce their own vulnerabilities to environmental disasters by applying their own learned, appreciated and lived experiences (Sangha et al., 2018; Lin, 2019; Buscher et al., 2021).

Through the IAP naming and reviewing process, it was noted that some English common names might need to be reviewed by English speakers. Some of these are not just “positive” but are also extremely “positive”, for instance the “Tree of Heaven” (Ailanthus altissima). Other “positive” names fail to depict the negativity associated with IAPs thus reducing the urge to control the IAP. Some examples are “Chandelier Plant” (Bryophyllum delagoense), “Queen of the Night” (Cereus jamacaru); “Crimson Oak” (Grevillea banksii); “Purple Morning Glory” (Ipomea indica); “Peanut Butter Cassia” (Senna didymobotrya); “Lollipop Climber” (Diplocyclos palmatus) and “Blue Passion Flower” (Passiflora caerulea). It is assumed that some of these positive, beautiful names might have been given to promote the trade of these plants for ornamental purposes in their places of origin. Some names may even be politically insensitive, for instance “Indian Shot” (Canna indica); “Scottish Attorney” (Clusia rosea) and “Wandering Jew” (Tradescantia zebrina).

Concluding Remarks & Recommendations

Since restoration ecology’s emergence in the past decades, as a new discipline of applied science, the field has demonstrated astounding growth (Choi et al., 2008). However, this is not to say it is without shortfalls and oversights, as it has been criticized for its disjointed approach, and its uncompromising goals, which do not necessarily align with the real-world context (Choi et al., 2008). Barriers and opportunities for communities to play pivotal roles in ecosystem restoration and management, need to be identified and included in policies and strategies (Hobbs & Norton, 1996). When engaging in the process of naming IAPs in indigenous languages, first-language speakers of that language should dominate the reviewing committee to respect cultural boundaries, language rules and to draw from the deeper meaning of words. Proposed names should be indicative of the unwanted nature of IAPs and must be presented to relevant communities before being adopted as official names. Expected users of those names must be granted opportunities to input either in the naming process or in the commenting phase. Their views should be respected and acknowledged so that they feel part of the solution as it is easier to uphold something you are part of than something imposed on you. In the context of community engagement, we need to learn to “plan together” as opposed to “planning for” others and such an undertaking calls for breaking silos and barriers that impede fruitful and meaningful communication. As we enter the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, this is an opportune time to empower communities so that they also contribute towards sustainable living. We also need to improve the educational events that we run annually by taking those events to the rural areas instead of running them in the cities and to run the events in a language that is understandable to target audience instead of continuing to use conservation terminologies that people do not understand.  That way people will learn and interact with environmentalists more openly and freely.  If conservation events that are run in a language that people barely understand, people tend to listen, then go home. But if they understand the language spoken at the event they participate, interact, and engage far beyond the event, because they now relate to the proceedings.

 

Acknowledgements

The authors of this article would like to thank the following, Mkhipheni Ngwenya; Bheki Mdletshe; Phakamani Mlaba; Khulekani Nhleko; Samkelisiwe Mkhwanazi; Thabiso Cele and Mthobisi Hadebe for their contribution during the naming and reviewing process of Invasive Alien Plant (IAP) names. The following institutions are also thanked for their resources;

• The Environmental Planning & Climate Protection Department (EPCPD), of eThekwini Municipality for access to its products, the Beautiful but Dangerous Posters and Flashcards. These provided the foundation of the species reviewed.
• The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) for providing invasive alien species names out of its Emerging Species List. These species contributed as a foundation of species reviewed by the authors of this project.
• The Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa for its Book on Invasive Alien Plants, which were used as a foundation of the species reviewed.
• The respective organizations and institutes, serving as employers of the authors, for allowing their respective employees to be part of this undertaking.

 

References

Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12: 1394–1404, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x

Bhatta, L.D., van Oort, B.E.H., Stork, N.E., Baral, H., 2015. Ecosystem services and livelihoods in a changing climate: understanding local adaptations in the Upper Koshi. Nepal. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 11 (2): 145–155, https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1027793

Buscher, E., Mathews, D.L., Bryce, C., Bryce, K., Joseph, D. & Ban, N.C. 2021. Differences and similarities between Indigenous and conventional marine conservation planning: The case of the Songhees Nation, Canada. Marine Policy, 129: 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104520

Buxton, R.T., Bennett, J.R., Reid, A.J., Shulman, C., Cooke, S.J. et al. 2021. Key information needs to move from knowledge to action for biodiversity conservation in Canada. Biological Conservation, 256: 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108983

Choi, Y.D., Temperton, V.M., Allen, E.B., Grootjans, A.P., Halassy, M., Hobbs, R.J., Naeth, M.A. and Torok, K., 2008. Ecological restoration for future sustainability in a changing environment. Ecoscience, 15(1): 53–64, https://doi.org/10.2980/1195-6860(2008)15[53:erffsi]2.0.co;2

Cimon-Morin, J., Darveau, M., Poulin, M., 2013. Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biological Conservation, 166: 144–154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.023

Corrigan, C., Bingham, H., Lewis, E., Chauvenet, A. & Kingston, N. 2018. Quantifying the contribution to biodiversity conservation of protected areas governed by indigenous people and local communities. Biological Conservation, 227: 403–412, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.007

Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., et al., 1997. The value of the word’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–260, https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3): 643–653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014

Hobbs, R.J. and Norton, D.A., 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 4(2): 93–110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.x

Huq, N., Pedroso, R., Bruns, A., Ribbe, L. & Huq, S. 2020. Changing dynamics of livelihood dependence on ecosystem services at temporal and spatial scales: An assessment in the southern wetland areas of Bangladesh. Ecological Indicators 110: 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105855

Keenan, R.J., Pozza, G. & Fitzsimons, J.A. 2019. Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption. Ecosystem Services, 38: 1 – 13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100943

Kusmanoff, A.M., Fidler, F., Gordon, A. & Bekessy, S.A. 2017. Decline of ‘Biodiversity’ in conservation policy discourse in Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 106–165, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.016

Lin, P-S. S. 2019. Building resilience through ecosystem restoration and community participation: Post-disaster recovery in coastal island communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 39: 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101249

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Nxele, B.J., Mdletshe, B.A., Memela, B.E.B., Nxumalo, M., Sithole, J.H., et al. (2019) Naming Invasive Alien Plants into Indigenous Languages: KwaZulu-Natal Case Study, South Africa. Journal of Biodiversity Management and Forestry 8 (1): 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.37532/jbmf.2019.8(1).207

Ostrom, E., 2010. A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. Policy Research Working Paper 509. World Development Report, World Bank.

Posey, D. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Intermediate Technology Publications, Nairobi.

Sangha, K.K., Preece, L., Villarreal-Rosas, J., Kegamba, J.J., Paudyal, K., Warmenhoven, T. & RamaKrishnan, P.S. 2018. An ecosystem services framework to evaluate indigenous and local people’s connections with nature. Ecosystem Services, 31(A): 111–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.017

Williams, F.W., Williams, H.F., & Knight, A. 2021. Barrier and benefits to tree kangaroo conservation in Papua New Guinea. Journal for Nature Conservation, 60: 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.125972

 

About the authors:

Bheka Nxele is an Ecologist by qualification, with a BSc. Degree in Plant Bio- & Molecular Technology, an Honours Degree in Molecular Biology and an MSc. Degree in Conservation Ecology. He has worked as an Ecologist and as a Bioregional Planner, for Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, communicating the significance of the Systematic Conservation Plan information, and motivating for its incorporation, into municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) as well as into other strategic, planning tools used by municipalities. He is passionate about life, the social aspects in terms of human livelihoods (ecosystem services) as well as the ecological interactions between the living (biotic) and the non-living (abiotic) components of ecosystems. Presently he is employed by eThekwini Municipality, managing ecosystem restoration, through the control of invasive alien species and the incorporation of traditional knowledge in upscaling restoration action. So far, he has accumulated 17 years of field experience.

Zukiswa Zulu has a Master’s degree in Entomology where I specialized in biological control of invasive alien plants. Zukiswa is currently doing a PhD part-time, conducting research that is focusing on assessing the risks and benefits of using herbicides for the management of invasive alien plants. Zukiswa has been working for the National Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the environment for nine years, specializing in the management of aquatic weeds, the management of invasive fauna, and the biological control of invasive alien species.  Other interests are in environmental education, as well as monitoring and evaluation of natural resource management interventions. 

Hlobisile Sithole holds an M.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons) and B.Sc. degree in Botany and Microbiology, and is registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professional. She has more than 14 years of work experience acquired from various positions in environmental management coordinating detection and management of invasive alien species (IAS), conservation planning and management of natural forests, forestry enterprise development and greening activities, the regulation of water service provision, compliance monitoring of drinking water and wastewater management, project and programme management, research planning and development of research projects, development of policies, strategic planning, supervision and mentoring, providing technical guidance and advices. Her role in her current position is to ensure that municipal departments, decision-makers and the public consider sustainability and resilience in the development of strategies, plans, programmes and projects.

Bheka Memela is a Specialist Ecologist in eThekwini Municipality’s Planning and Climate Protection Department in South Africa’s eThekwini Municipality. The first part of his work is around coordinating proclamation of the eThekwini Municipality’s Protected Areas. He is also responsible for coordinating development, and implementation of, eThekwini Biodiversity Stewardship Programme’s Management and Legal Tools. His Biodiversity Stewardship work involves engaging different stakeholders and negotiating with different landowners and land users for Biodiversity Stewardship partnerships.  His main interests over the years have been Participatory Research Methodologies and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. His hobbies include photography, hiking and travelling.

Menzi Nxumalo is a Biodiversity Conservation Officer from eThekwini, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Specializing in project management of conservation and environmental projects with passion for the management of ecosystem and restoration projects. He has more than 10 years of experience in the conservation field.  He is currently employed by South African National Biodiversity Institute, under the Directorate of Biodiversity Evidence (SANBI-DBE) specializing in Invasive Alien Species management.

Lungi Dlulane has a Bachelor of Commerce Degree and Post Graduate diploma in Project Management. She is currently working as a Project Officer for Ecosystem Restoration projects in the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department of eThekwini Municipality. She has an interest in biodiversity conservation as well as in human livelihoods. The Project’s focus is on restoring ecosystem functionality and also in improving the quality of life for the communities within eThekwini Municipality. Previously she worked for SANParks at Kruger National Park.

Sanelo Mchunu has a BSc in Environmental Science and is a committed environmental scientist, passionate about the environment and ensuring the organization they work for is fully compliant with current environmental legislation in relation to emissions, pollution, carbon footprint and waste management. Sanelo has considerable experience of formulating field data and analysis procedures, good practices and impact assessments, and implementing these followed by monitoring and reviewing.

Nomzamo Mncube completed higher education at the University of KwaZulu Natal, where I received my Bachelor of Social Science degree in Geography and Environmental Management. Nomzamo went on to do honours in Geography at University of South Africa. Part of the dissertation looked at food security and environmental management in the local city of Richards Bay. Nomzamo  worked with the municipality as an intern for two years where getting exposed to the realities of Invasive alien species impacts on the environment. Now currently working with Zenature Environmental Consultants as a project assistant on a restoration project funded by the municipality. Nomzamo’s research interests vary from Invasive alien species and ecosystem restoration to human geography, hoping to be involved in more ecosystem restoration research in future.