GEF Project Brief 1. IDENTIFIERS: PROJECT NUMBER: GE - P075997 (World Bank) SAF/02/G42/1G/03 (UNDP)
Public Disclosure Authorized COUNTRY South Africa PROJECT NAME: C.A.P.E. Biodiversity and Sustainable Development Project DURATION: 6 years (2004-2010) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: World Bank (Lead), UNDP EXECUTING AGENCY: National Botanical Institute REQUESTING COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES: South Africa GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity GEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK: OP#1,2,3,4 2. SUMMARY:
3. COSTS AND FINANCING (MILLION Public Disclosure Authorized $US):
GEF FINANCING: PDF: US$ 0.32 million Project GEF (WB) US$ 9.00 million Project GEF (UNDP) US$ 2.00 million CO-FINANCING: Government & Private US$ 44.45 million
GEF TOTAL SUPPORT: US$ 11.32 million
TOTAL PROJECT COST: US$ 55.77 million 4. IA CONTACT Public Disclosure Authorized CHRISTOPHE CREPIN SENIOR REGIONAL COORDINATOR AFRICA REGION WORLD BANK 1818 H STREET, NW, J6-177 WASHINGTON, DC 20043 (202) 473-9727 [email protected] 5. EXECUTING AGENCY CONTACT National Botanical Institute Kirstenbosch, Private Bag X7, Claremont, 7735, South Africa Contact Person: Professor Brian Huntley Tel: +27 21 79 98800 Public Disclosure Authorized [email protected]
C.A.P.E. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE
A1. Project Development Objective: (see Annex 1)
1. Introduction :
The Government of South Africa (GoSA) has developed an innovative program to protect the rich biological heritage of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) The overall goal of this Program, entitled Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E. Program) is that the natural environment of the Cape Floristic Region and adjacent marine environment will be effectively conserved, restored wherever appropriate and will deliver significant benefits to the people in a way that is embraced by local communities, endorsed by government and recognized internationally. The basis for the C.A.P.E. Program intervention was laid by GEF support in September 2000. In this period, the Cape Action Plan for the Environment, referred to as the CAPE 2000 Strategy, was developed. It identified the key ecological patterns and processes which need to be conserved in the CFR, the key threats and root causes of biodiversity losses that need to be addressed in order to conserve the floral kingdom. This resulted in a spatial plan identifying the areas which need to be conserved and a series of broad program activities which need to be undertaken over a 20 year period. ( See Figure 1 below showing the extent of the CFR ).Within the 20 year C.A.P.E., there will be 3 phases. Phase 1 and 2 will seek incremental funding from the GEF. Phase 2 will seek lower levels of GEF resources and Phase 3 will be funded from domestic resources. Each phase of the program is designed as a relatively discrete element generating defined global environmental benefits, as GEF support whilst key, cannot be assured for subsequent phases.
GEF support to the first 6 years of the C.A.P.E. Program (Phase 1) includes a Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund allocation for civil society involvement, complemented by the C.A.P.E. Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative and the subject of this application, the C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project (the Project). (See Annex 9).
The Project is aimed at (i) establishing the systemic and institutional framework for effective implementation of the C.A.P.E Program, and (ii) piloting and demonstrating site-based interventions in the CFR, through bringing in an additional 4000km2 of protected area, to establish the know-how for conservation required to give effect to the C.A.P.E. Program. There are two Project Development Objectives requiring GEF support:
• Project Development Objective 1: Capable institutions co-operate to develop a foundation for mainstreaming biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region into economic activities1.
1 Mainstreaming in this context concerns the integration of biodiversity concerns into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programs and policies, resulting in situations where there is a simultaneous achievement of gains in biodiversity and gains in an economic sector (the “win-win” scenario) (Pierce, et al., 2002). • Project Development Objective 2: Conservation of the Cape Floristic Region is enhanced through piloting and adapting site-based models for sustainable, effective management.
Seven project components have been developed to realise these Development Objectives:
Component Outcome 1. Institutional strengthening Enhanced strategic alignment of conservation activities and increased capacity of relevant institutions for integrated bioregional conservation management in the CFR supported by comprehensive performance management and information management 2. Conservation education Increased environmental awareness and committed action of people in the CFR contributes to biodiversity conservation 3. Establishing the foundations of the Market-based mechanisms for conservation management biodiversity economy are designed and micro enterprise opportunities for conservation related businesses established 4. Program co-ordination, Enhanced management capacity, effective management and monitoring communication and efficient adaptive management result in the integrated development and implementation of the Program as a whole 5. Unleashing the potential of Protected areas contributing to priority targets for protected areas conservation of the biodiversity of the CFR are consolidated or established; cost-effective management is sustained; tourism development plans are implemented; and stakeholders derive direct and indirect benefits 6. Identifying and securing Biodiversity in five to six priority remnant patches in biodiversity in key sites fragmented landscapes identified and secured in conjunction with civil society 7. Integrating biodiversity concerns Biodiversity concerns are integrated into 5 watershed into watershed management management agencies
Fig 1: Map of the Cape Floristic Region
2 2. Background to the project area
Biodiversity: South Africa is considered a megadiversity country, mainly due to its floristic diversity and the level of endemism. South Africa’s plant diversity is estimated at 23,420 species, representing 9% of the world total. Three of the world’s 25 most threatened biodiversity hotspots are found within the country’s boundaries (Cape Floristic Region, Succulent Karoo and Maputaland-Pondoland).
The Cape Floristic Region (CFR), which covers an area of 90,000 square kilometres, comprises one of six Floral Kingdoms worldwide, and is uniquely the only floral kingdom to be located entirely within the geographical confines of a single country. The CFR is exceptionally rich in species diversity; in particular, the CFR is a storehouse of plant diversity (some 9,600 species of vascular plants have been recorded). The flora is characterized by high endemism. The CFR is accordingly, listed as a centre of plant diversity and endemism. Many species have highly localized distributions. The floral inventory remains incomplete, and new species are continually being recorded. Some 127 mammal species, 300 birds, 142 reptiles and 144 amphibians have also been recorded. The region is considered an endemic bird area. The invertebrate fauna is also very rich. Though less well documented than other taxonomic groups, it is notable for containing an assemblage of ancient taxa that have largely been extirpated elsewhere. Many species are highly specialized, having developed highly mutualistic relationships with plants, and like the flora, tend to have very narrow range distributions.
Terrestrial habitat diversity is very high in the CFR. The natural environment includes semi-arid ecosystems, with precipitation of less that 500 mm per annum, remnant temperate moist forests along the eastern coast, and mountain ecosystems, with an altitude gradient ranging from sea level to 2300 metres above sea level. Habitat diversity is a product of high topographical variation, and substrate and climatic variation, and in turn influences alpha diversity. Importantly, these landscapes are characterized by a high biogeographical turnover, manifest in exceptional gamma diversity. Accordingly, seemingly similar ecosystems may have markedly different characteristics.
The CFR’s freshwater habitats harbor 19 species of fish, all endemic or near-endemic. Numerous small estuarine areas provide refugia for unique species and for juvenile fish. The coastal area is influenced by two oceanic currents, the warm Agulhas Current on the East Coast and the cold Benguela Current on the West Coast, which have their confluence on the Agulhas Bank off Cape Agulhas, the southernmost point in Africa. 11,000 species of marine animals have been recorded in South African waters, of which 3,500 are endemic to the CFR occurring only between Cape Point and Port Elizabeth. The marine fish fauna is very rich with some 400 species recorded (including several notable endemics). The nutrient-rich Benguela Current, in particular, is noted for its productive fisheries, although the Agulhas has greater absolute diversity. The mollusc fauna and other benthic communities are also exceptionally rich. These communities are characterized by a high rate of turnover across the seascape. These ecosystems further harbor an array of rare fauna, including petrels, albatrosses, African Penguins and other sea birds, important whale populations, fur seals and pelagic sharks.
Threats: The rich biodiversity of the CFR is under serious threat, as a result of the conversion of natural habitat to permanent agriculture and to rangelands for cattle, sheep and ostriches, inappropriate fire management, rapid and insensitive infrastructural development, over- exploitation of marine resources and wild flowers, and infestation by alien species. Some important habitats have been reduced by over 90% and less than 5% of land in the lowlands
3 enjoys any conservation status. The region has therefore been identified as one of the world's ‘hottest’ biodiversity hotspots. There is an urgent unmet need to arrest these anthropogenic pressures, through the creation of an enabling institutional co-ordination framework at the regional and local levels, the creation of a biogeographically representative system of protected areas, with different objectives and operated under various management arrangements, and through mainstreaming conservation into the productive sectors, particularly agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This will in turn require the creation of durable multi-stakeholder public-private partnerships.
Social and economic context: The CFR spans the provinces of the Western Cape and Eastern Cape and has an estimated population of approximately 5,2 million. Some 20-30% of the population resides in rural areas, which harbor the greatest biodiversity, although many urban communities also reside on or adjacent to biologically significant areas.
The population is dispersed across a wide area and is characterised by diversity in terms of ethnicity, language and culture. Socio-economic disparities are marked, as are disparities in skills and access to resources. There are sizable pockets of poverty existing throughout, in both rural and urban areas. On the whole, the population of the Western Cape enjoys a greater degree of human, economic and social development than their Eastern Cape counterparts, where unemployment is estimated at 49%. Many poorer rural communities are dependent upon wild resources, particularly marine resources and medicinal plants for subsistence purposes and income generation.
A range of land tenure arrangements is in evidence, including large, medium and small free holdings, state-owned land under different management arrangements, and a small proportion of communal land. As much of the biological heritage rests on land outside the public land estate, there is a need to develop tailor-made models encouraging conservation on private and communal lands, accommodating the different cost-benefit and risk calculus of small, medium and large landholders and the various communities.
Policy context: South Africa confronts numerous pressing social and economic problems, most notably widespread poverty and socio-economic inequities. The country ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1995 and is moving to address its obligations under the Convention within a larger framework for sustainable development that addresses the root causes of biodiversity loss, including by ameliorating poverty, promoting the development of livelihoods compatible with conservation objectives, and securing the participation of all sectors of society in implementation. This strategy is consistent with the plan of action agreed by world leaders at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).
In 2001, GoSA approved a Medium-term GEF Project Priority Framework, identifying strategic areas for GEF investment needed to catalyse a broad spectrum of environmental management endeavours of high national priority. In 1997, a White Paper entitled Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity was approved as government policy. The White Paper informed the design of elements of the GEF Framework addressing biodiversity conservation objectives. A key objective is to expand conservation activities to encompass whole ecological landscapes, focusing on biomes by seeking to “integrate conservation objectives into the productive sectors, strengthen land-use planning and monitoring functions, develop and
4 support implementation of conservation models, establish new institutional and operational mechanisms, and establish new conservation partnerships bridging the public and private sectors”2. The CFR was identified as a top priority for GEF intervention, to secure these intended outcomes through a holistic and long-term programmatic approach.
GEF Support: In 1998, the GEF provided US $12.3 million in funding through the World Bank for the Project: Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation (CPBCP). The project provided funding to strengthen management of and extend the globally significant Cape Peninsula National Park (CPNP), to part-capitalize an environmental trust fund, the Table Mountain Fund (TMF), and to prepare the CAPE 2000 Strategy. These respective interventions have all successfully attained their expected outcomes.
The Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project in essence constitutes a pre-feasibility phase and large site based investment for a broader initiative to protect the entire CFR. Its success, attributed in large part to strong government commitment and stakeholder support, provides a strong assurance that further conservation measures intended to realise the C.A.P.E. vision have a high probability of success, both in terms of mitigating threats and engineering sustainability. These fundamentals provide the conditions necessary for further GEF support, as part of a larger package of financing, to secure biodiversity conservation objectives within the CFR.
A2. Key Performance Indicators (see Annex 1)
Outcome/Impact indicators3
These outcomes/triggers will be used to measure overall Project performance and to measure the readiness of the Project to move to the next phase of the Project at the end of year 6.
1. C.A.P.E. implementing agencies meet all obligations of the C.A.P.E. MoU to align strategies workplans and budgets; 2. Over 4000km2 of new conservation estate will be added to existing protected areas by Year 6. This will include three terrestrial protected areas, two marine protected areas, two estuaries and two freshwater systems; 3. Three new instruments will be developed and piloted to conserve the CFR (payment for ecological services, tax breaks and transfer of development rights); 4. Civil society stakeholders and individuals contribute actively to the achievement of the Project by committing to registered program activities; 5. Planning and development in five to six priority areas adequately addresses biodiversity concerns; 6. Agri and tourism businesses in hotspots adopt environmental best-practices to mitigate impacts on biodiversity;
2 GEF Medium-Term Project Priority Framework 2000 [Para 2.11]
3 All of these indicators assume a measured 2003 baseline and a six year timeframe
5 7. The number of biodiversity-related jobs in specific Project intervention areas, increase by 50%; and 8. The number of protected areas that are appropriately classified in terms of their biodiversity conservation objectives and effectively managed according to international standards, increases by 40%.
B. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
B1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project: (see Annex 1) Document number: 18995 Date of latest CAS discussion: 03/23/99
A new CAS is currently being discussed with the Government of South Africa (GoSA), which should be completed in the next fiscal year and will update the May 1999 document. The current CAS has three main development objectives: (i) Promoting higher growth and employment while maintaining macro-economic stability in order to generate sustained improvements in living standards; (ii) Fostering social and environmental sustainability by reducing poverty and inequality through investment in human and natural capital, accelerating and improving the delivery of assets and services to the disadvantaged segments of society, and enhancing environmental management; and (iii) Strengthening South Africa's constructive role in regional development through investment projects, improved policy integration, and co-ordinated regional relations.
The project will make some contribution towards the first objective, and a more significant contribution towards the second objective. It will do this by: supporting sustainable economic development in land-based and marine conservation, flower harvesting, and ecotourism sectors of the economy. New instruments will be piloted for payment for ecological services. Small works programs and procurement will target the small business sector and previously disadvantaged communities in and around 15 proposed areas for conservation intervention. Objective 2 will be met by strengthening conservation and integrated ecosystem management in the 15 proposed sites for intervention as well through overall strengthening of conservation planning and management, environmental education, environmental rehabilitation and monitoring and evaluation systems across the CFR.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Country Co-operation Framework (Area 4) makes provision for protecting the global environment though conservation and protection of local and regional environments of global significance in partnership with the GEF. Community- based resource management initiatives will be supported and national capacity will be strengthened for co-management of natural resources including in the CFR. The Project is fully consistent with meeting these objectives.
B1a. Global Operational Strategy/ Program objective addressed by the project
The CFR is noted as one of 25 global biodiversity hotspots, is the only floristic region to be found within one country, contains high biodiversity and faces high level of threat in the
6 terrestrial (lowland and montane environments), marine and freshwater environment. The CFR is located primarily in a semi-arid environment receiving approximately 750 mm of rain per annum. The Project will support conservation of globally threatened biodiversity in a limited number of protected areas, watersheds and sites in the terrestrial, marine and aquatic components of the largely semi-arid and montane CFR. In addition it will support creation of the enabling environment for these interventions, to be deepened and replicated elsewhere in the region.
The Project is consistent with GEF Operational Strategies for Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems (OP 1), Coastal and Marine Freshwater Systems (OP 2), Forest Ecosystems (OP 3) and Mountain Ecosystems (OP 4). South Africa ratified the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) on November 2, 1995 and completed a preliminary First African National Report to the Fourth Conference of the Parties in January 1998. A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan is about to be prepared.
In supporting the creation of two clusters of marine protected areas the Project is supportive of Johannesburg Summit outcomes of “restoring fish stocks by 2015, adopting ecosystem-wide planning in the marine environment and arresting biodiversity losses by 2010”. It also supports the Millennium Development Goal of “Ensuring environmental sustainability” by enhancing the extent of protected area to maintain biodiversity. The Project is consistent with the efforts of GoSA to address national and global environmental and social priorities by supporting the development of an enabling environment to reverse land degradation and conserve marine resources.
B2. Main sector issues and Government strategy
Key sectoral issues and government strategy:
Issue 1: Addressing poverty, inequality and unemployment: The apartheid legacy has left South Africa with a number of major problems. The country has high levels of poverty and unemployment and economic performance is too low to reduce these levels. There are considerable differences in standards of living between provinces and population groups. South Africa has an overall unemployment level of 29%. In the Western Cape the figure is 25%, the lowest in the country, and it is 49% in the Eastern Cape. The Western Cape contains 10% of South Africa's population but contributes 14% to the GDP. The Eastern Cape contains 16% of population and contributes only 7,5% to the GDP. Agriculture, forestry and fishing contribute between 4-6% to the national and provincial GDP and GGP respectively. HIV figures indicate a national infection figure of 13%, with the Western Cape 4% and the Eastern Cape at 11%. Socio- economic inequality was exacerbated by the so-called “homeland policy” which saw the creation of two “homelands” in the Eastern Cape. The population of the Eastern Cape is predominantly rural, whereas the Western Cape is largely urbanized.
Whilst socio-economic data indicates that inhabitants of the Western Cape are better off than the national average, there are still at least 700,000 people living in absolute poverty in the Province with the figure far higher for the Eastern Cape.
7 Government strategy: At the macro-economic level, the GoSA has focused on creating sound and stable macro-economic policy through containing inflation and government expenditure, reducing subsidies to various sectors and supporting privatization and a stronger role for markets. Whilst necessary, the lack of innovative micro-economic policy intervention has limited the rewards which should have been reaped from a stable economy. Provincial government budgets remain focused on providing social services including health care, education and social welfare. These three sectors account for over 80% of the provincial budgets.
The Western Cape economy is relatively strong and diversified and market forces enable it to grow at a rate above the national average. The Eastern Cape economy is far less diversified and requires government intervention. For this reason the GoSA is supporting a major new industrial harbor complex at Coega, and has also supported two Spatial Development Initiatives to stimulate economic growth and exports. As tourism is a strong growth sector in both provinces, the GoSA has increasingly been marketing and supporting it. The GoSA has developed an Integrated Rural Development Strategy and small-scale farmer support programs. However, implementation has not made significant progress. Reform in the fishing sector has focused on providing quotas to small-scale fishers previously denied access to fishing rights.
On the poverty side, the GoSA has introduced the Working for Water and Poverty Relief programs. They take the form of public works programs and pay workers $3 per day to undertake environmental rehabilitation work.
Issue 2: Depletion of natural resources: South Africa contains three biodiversity hotspots and is regarded as one of 17 mega-diversity countries. It contains over 9% of the world’s plant and animal species. The CFR alone contains over 1,100 red data species. The marine environment contains a significant number of species with commercial potential. Over-exploitation of abalone and crustacea through poaching now threatens these resources. Land-use changes brought about through urban expansion, agricultural development and forestry threatens sensitive ecosystems. Alternative land-use options including ecotourism are increasingly being pursued. The CFR falls within a semi-arid ecosystem and existing water resources are coming under increasing pressure for dam construction as water demand increases. Climate change is predicted to significantly impact South Africa's ecosystems and to reduce availability of water over the forthcoming 20 year period.
Government strategy: The GoSA has signed and ratified all key international conventions pertaining to the environment including CBD, Ramsar, Bonn, Basel, London Convention, CITES and World Heritage Convention. Through hosting the WSSD in September 2002, South Africa demonstrated its commitment to supporting sustainable development. Nationally, the Constitution supports a person's right to sustainable development, though in practice this is difficult to test. The National Environmental Management Act (1998) has been promulgated, a Marine and Coastal Policy has been established, and new legislation for biodiversity management (National Biodiversity Bill), management of protected areas (Protected Area’s Bill) and atmospheric pollution will be promulgated in 2003.
South Africa is currently substantially increasing the area under protected area management from 5,5% to a proposed target of 8%. Land purchase and novel land incorporation strategies
8 involving communities and private sector are being pursued. In most cases, land purchase is not the preferred option, but rather the involvement of existing landowners in contractual arrangements for protection. Where purchases are undertaken, these do not employ GEF resources but are the result of private sector investment, or the use of dedicated funds. The support for protected area expansion has, however, been accompanied in some cases by reduced financial support to operating costs for conservation. This has necessitated the outsourcing of non-core operations, the formation of clusters of protected areas to rationalize and reduce operating costs. South Africa has three World Heritage Sites and other applications for listing are pending. New conservation initiatives are increasingly based on bioregional planning principles as in the case of the C.A.P.E, Addo and Thicket biome Projects. Eight transfrontier conservation and development projects are planned along South Africa's borders. Integrated Development Planning legislation provides a strong entry point for supporting bioregional planning. Importantly conservation initiatives are being undertaken in order to support socio-economic development and people are now regarded as integral to conservation planning and development processes.
Issue 3: Implementation of programs: The GoSA is facing a number of major transformation challenges in the environment sector. The key challenge is to match the ambitious and sophisticated level of policy development with implementation capability. The conservation sector is characterized by leading edge conservation management knowledge, but business planning, community development, ecotourism, marketing and mainstreaming skills have not been as well developed. In recent years there has been a loss of skills from government especially to the consulting sector and to private conservation operations. Overall the conservation sector needs institutional reform in four key areas in order to meet policy objectives. (i) there needs to be an expansion of the current baseline conservation skills.(ii) a new set of market based mechanisms is required to stimulate market investment in the conservation of natural capital in the marine and terrestrial environment. (iii) new institutional arrangements including public private partnerships are required to implement new policy directions. (iv) new skills and management systems are required in the private and public sector to implement new and proposed policies.
Government strategy: The GoSA is currently in the process of designing the framework for more ambitious institutional reform in the sector. Responsibilities for protected area management are expected to be rationalized. With respect to C.A.P.E., the National Botanical Institute (NBI) is expected to become the new National Biodiversity Institute which will be responsible for advising on bioregional planning. The institutional arrangements for conservation agencies are under review and could be rationalized through new biodiversity or protected area legislation. In order to support C.A.P.E., Government and non-governmental organizations have established the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination and the C.A.P.E. Implementation Committees. The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB), South African National Parks (SANParks) and key NGOs have aligned their operations to support C.A.P.E.. Government budgets from the Working for Water and Poverty Relief fund as well as training budgets are being aligned to support the Program and Project. The weakest area of reform relates to the cutting edge issue of mainstreaming biodiversity and conservation into productive sectors of the economy through new market based instruments and the development of capacity in this regard.
9 B3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices
Issue 1: Expansion of protected areas through market based mechanisms. New instruments and models are required for protected area expansion, as over 90% of the expansion will take place through options other than traditional purchase of land. The three new instruments to be developed and piloted by the Project will include: (i) design and piloting of payment for ecological services in watersheds. A system will be designed whereby landowners will be paid by water users to keep their land free of alien vegetation thereby creating a water availability and cost-reduction benefit to downstream water users. This activity will also target the use of Working for Water Funds to provide the initial clearance of alien vegetation from watersheds with follow on payment to landowners to keep catchments clear of alien vegetation. (ii) the potential for applying tax rebates to farmers in threatened lowland vegetation areas to encourage them not to plough up threatened and available land for agricultural use, will be investigated. Thereafter, together with Ministry of Finance, a system of tax rebates will be designed, implemented and monitored. (iii) the use of transferable development rights in threatened lowland coastal vegetation areas will be investigated, designed and piloted at the municipal level.
Strategic choice: The key strategic issue has been to identify a limited number of potentially high impact market based mechanisms which best address the multiplicity of key issues confronting the Project as efficiently and effectively as possible. Since a key Project issue is how to bring additional private sector land under conservation, the need to reduce the financial burden on the state in increasing the area under protected area management, the need to rely far more on markets to invest in the conservation estate and the need to mainstream conservation into the productive sectors of the economy, the choice of potential instruments was deliberately selected to be multi-purpose. Further, it was agreed that the instruments to be selected should already be under implementation in other countries so that lessons learnt could be brought to South Africa.
Issue 2: Public-private partnerships for implementing Project activities: Conservation agencies have limited financial and technical resources and business skills to execute the Project. Further, they are not all represented in the same geographic locations. Overall the conservation agencies do, however, have considerable conservation management ability. The private sector is well developed in the region and is characterized by considerable entrepreneurship, access to strong financial markets and access to best business practice through electronic and other forms of communication. Many of the key threats to the CFR either emanate on private land or, in the case of the marine environment, are caused by over-harvesting by inhabitants of the region. Therefore, the Project has been designed at high level as a partnership between government, NGOs, conservation bodies and, over time, the private sector to draw on the comparative strengths of each stakeholder group. At the local level, local partnerships will be even more important to develop to implement the Project and leverage in a new untapped layer of conservation managers and investment.
Strategic choice: The Project has deliberately been designed around a partnership model in order to build a large and robust implementation capability in the CFR which draws on the comparative advantages and collective capacity of institutions, landowners, private sector and stakeholders. The NBI will focus on project management and will effectively support executing agencies to implement the Project and to build their capacity.
10 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
C1. Project components (See Annex 1)
The key role of the Project is to catalyse and drive the implementation of the C.A.P.E. Program in Phase 1 by enhancing the policy and institutional framework for conservation in the CFR and by undertaking carefully targeted conservation demonstrations in selected biophysical, socio- economic and institutional contexts. Although the scope of planned activities is broad, the extensive preparation of the CAPE 2000 Strategy and the unprecedented alignment and support of key executing partners renders the Project feasible. The planned activities will ensure that:
Development Objective 1:
Capable institutions co-operate to develop a foundation for mainstreaming biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region into economic activities.
Development Objective 2:
Conservation of the Cape Floristic Region is enhanced through piloting and adapting models for sustainable, effective management.
The Project has seven inter-related components that together will meet the Project’s two development objectives. To ensure that capable institutions co-operate to develop a foundation for mainstreaming biodiversity in the CRF into economic activities, there is a need for enabling activities including (i) institutional strengthening; (ii) conservation education; (iii) establishing foundations for the biodiversity economy; and (iv) program co-ordination, management and monitoring. Enhancing the conservation of the CFR will be achieved, on the other hand, through piloting and adapting models for sustainable, effective management in certain priority sites, by: (v) unleashing the potential of priority protected areas; (vi) identifying and securing biodiversity in key sites; and (vii) integrating biodiversity concerns into watershed management. The design of the Project has been to target activities at the most important issues, in agreement and with the full support of the key executing agencies, and using an approach that will ensure the greatest possible active participation of relevant stakeholders.
Component 1: Institutional strengthening. Since the adoption of the CAPE 2000 Strategy at ministerial level, significant progress has been made to improve inter-agency co-operation and address key institutional constraints. In the Project, this work must be continued to take advantage of legal and institutional reform processes underway in South Africa and reduce inefficiencies. It is essential to support the continued enhancement of interagency co-operation and strategic planning by resolving institutional mandates, by assessing the needs of agencies to meet their agreed mandates, and by developing and implementing a performance management system across implementing agencies to ensure a focused approach in alignment with the CAPE 2000 Strategy. Specific strategic interventions to be undertaken, include: (i) enhancing interagency co-operation and strategic planning for conservation management in the CFR, including the five new catchment management agencies; (ii) building capacity for effective conservation management, including enhanced capacity to involve people actively; (iii)
11 appraising and developing strategies for financial sustainability across the suite of executing agencies; and (iv) establishing a shared and comprehensive information management system addressing the most important knowledge requirements.
Component 2: Conservation education. A conservation program at the scale of an entire bioregion is faced with significant challenges for raising awareness and securing committed action among the community at large. Processes of conservation education are fundamentally based on achieving demonstrated action competence by individuals and groups, indicating their understanding both of the problems confronting them and their ability to identify and implement solutions. A high level of strategic knowledge and practice regarding conservation education exists in the CFR, supported by national education policy reforms, but implementation is fragmented and inefficient. The activities in this component are targeted at increasing environmental awareness and committed action of the people in the CFR to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Key interventions are (i) to facilitate co-ordinated environmental education for the CFR by establishing a focal point and mechanism for co-ordination and technical support to site-specific interventions at the level of each sub-component and activity across the Project; (ii) the development and dissemination of materials focused on CFR biodiversity, supportive of informal and formal education curricula; and (iii) training of educators to capitalize on the favorable education policy environment. The component will employ the most innovative approaches to action learning at the level of site interventions.
Component 3: Establishing the foundations of the biodiversity economy. Many of the threats posed to the CFR are caused by economic activities and market forces which are not aligned to the conservation of the CFR. Key threats include poorly managed agricultural practices which have spill-over effects into sensitive areas, as well as the physical expansion of the agricultural and coastal urban sectors into irreplaceable landscapes. Growing the biodiversity economy presents opportunities to develop new market-based mechanisms to conserve the CFR, to reduce the impact of businesses on biodiversity and to grow new biodiversity-based business opportunities. Landowners are currently not sufficiently rewarded to conserve threatened lowland biodiversity and ecological processes (e.g. there is still too little reward to landowners to maintain watersheds free of alien vegetation). In instances where there are no other incentives for landowners to conserve threatened habitat, the Project will investigate and develop proposals for transfer of development rights and tax breaks. The job creation opportunities inherent in expanding the conservation estate can be enhanced through appropriate micro-enterprise, training and procurement opportunities being made available. Interventions include identifying and designing market-based and fiscal mechanisms for conservation by: (i) undertaking an economic evaluation of the CFR; (ii) evaluating the effectiveness of existing market-based mechanisms and piloting payment for certain ecological services (support conservation of biodiversity through water payment charges to upstream landowners); (iii) designing and piloting market-based mechanisms at the municipal level, e.g. rates rebates and transferable development rights; and investigating tax incentives to landowners to conserve irreplaceable habitat. In addition, this component will support developing mechanisms for lessening impacts of business on biodiversity by: (iv) supporting the development, implementation and monitoring of a biodiversity charter in industries such as wine, ostrich, wheat and tourism; and (v) supporting the development of micro-enterprises for conservation management contracts.
12
Component 4: Program and Project co-ordination, management and monitoring. Co- ordination of a multi-agency and multi-sectoral program across an entire bioregion is a novel and challenging approach to conservation, and a unique opportunity in the case of the CFR. Political and institutional agreements resulted in the establishment of a co-ordination process to oversee the complete portfolio of activities supporting implementation of the CAPE 2000 Strategy. The C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit provides support to executing agencies for project development and management, conducts a communication program, performs program compliance audits and reports progress. The number, size and complexity of C.A.P.E. activities demands increased capacity to provide this co-ordination hub and to design and implement an overall Monitoring and Evaluation framework. This component will result in enhanced co-ordination, effective communication and efficient adaptive management of the C.A.P.E. Program as a whole. It involves strengthening the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit at the NBI to undertake: (i) program co- ordination and management; (ii) financial management; (iii) program portfolio management and co-ordinated monitoring and evaluation; and (iv) a communication program.
Component 5: Unleashing the potential of protected areas. The CAPE 2000 Strategy identified scientifically defensible priorities for representing biodiversity pattern and process across the CFR in a system of protected areas, and for addressing the threats of climate change. A protected area in this context is defined according to IUCN (1994) as “An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” and can be classified according to their objectives into six categories. The current protected area system is inadequate to achieve global conservation targets for biodiversity in the CFR, and many of the existing protected areas include land under a variety of protection designations and managed by several authorities. There is a need to consolidate and expand the various land-holdings, rationalize jurisdictions and harmonize approaches to promote efficient and effective adaptive management. In particular, there is a need to establish linkages and corridors through fragmented lowland habitats, establish protected areas for priority freshwater and estuarine wetlands, and to establish and effectively manage marine protected areas. There is also a need to gear protected area management models towards different social and institutional settings and to ensure that appropriate investment in protected area development results in greater participation by, and benefit to communities.
This component will complement CEPF funding, which focuses on civil society participation in key biodiversity corridors, by piloting and adapting models for protected area planning and development. This will result in the consolidation and sustainable, effective management of protected areas representative of the biodiversity of the CFR. Major interventions include: (i) the planning and consolidation of three large protected areas (Cedarberg, Baviaanskloof and the Garden Route), with a particular emphasis on representation and extension through highly threatened lowland habitats, and establishing two freshwater, two estuarine and two marine protected areas representing characteristic institutional and socio-economic settings across the CFR. The latter includes piloting fisheries co-management arrangements in the Kogelberg Marine Protected Area using spatial set-asides; (ii) developing sustainable management effectiveness through designing and testing a Strategic Performance Management System, based on the models developed in the Cape Peninsula National Park and emergent rapid assessment techniques for management effectiveness being developed by IUCN; (iii) establishing a
13 harmonized protected area information management system; (iv) developing plans for responsible tourism investment and visitor impact mitigation in four protected areas; and (v) developing protected area business plans and mechanisms for financial sustainability in four protected areas. Skills development for protected area management will be consolidated as an activity under Component 1.
Component 6: Identifying and securing biodiversity in key sites. The most threatened landscapes in the CFR are in the lowlands, where extensive agricultural and urban development has taken place and which has resulted in transformed and poorly protected landscapes. The remnants continue to be threatened by land transformation, poor land management and invasive alien species. The decision-support system established in CAPE 2000 requires refinement at a finer scale, and particularly in priority areas. In addition, there is a need to integrate biodiversity priorities into decision-making at municipal level through the integrated development planning process so that biodiversity priorities are explicitly spatially recognized. There remain significant obstacles to ensuring that the outputs of fine-scale planning and prioritization are translated into the protection of key sites in fragmented landscapes, and extensive support by private landowners and sectors such as agriculture will be required. Responses include the use of fiscal and non-fiscal incentive mechanisms, effective co-ordination of fragmented extension services, and capacity-building for key actors.
This component will result in the biodiversity in five to six priority remnant patches in fragmented landscapes being identified and secured. Some of these areas lie adjacent to the proposed protected areas resulting in synergistic planning and management. The basis for the intervention will be: (i) fine-scale conservation planning in at five priority areas representing conditions across the CFR (Riversdale, Niewoudtville, Upper Breede River Valley, North West Sandveld and West Coast lowlands, including the Saldanha peninsula); (ii) integrating these plans into government spatial planning, building institutional and individual capacity in municipalities in priority areas, and strengthening regulation in land-use planning; and (iii) increasing landowner commitment to conservation by testing and refining fiscal and non-fiscal incentives, building co-ordinated extension services and piloting co-operative management schemes in priority areas.
Component 7: Integrating biodiversity concerns into watershed management. A key policy reform of GoSA is the establishment of new Catchment Management Agencies for five designated Catchment Management Areas in the CFR and setting aside of an “ecological reserve” for ecosystem maintenance in all aquatic systems. Currently, the survival of native biota as well as the maintenance of the ecosystem services are highly threatened by over-abstraction of water in the CFR. There is a risk that the implementation of these policy directives will inadequately address biodiversity concerns, but also a major opportunity to intervene and ensure that a major improvement is effected. The institutional alignment of the Catchment Management Agencies is incorporated into Component 1. This component will result in improved watershed and water resource management, improved management of alien species and an improved strategy for estuarine management. Interventions will include: (i) increasing the effectiveness of the “Ecological Reserve” measure in water resource management in three watersheds, and incorporating biodiversity concerns into the new fire management systems being implemented; (ii) creating an alien invasive species management strategy and business plan for the entire CFR
14 and piloting the control of invasive alien fish in certain priority freshwater ecosystems; and (iii) designing and testing a CFR estuarine management program, based on relevant case studies.
Note: Rounding off changes figures slightly
Costs Co- % of GEF % of Component (US$M) financing Total financing total 1. Institutional strengthening (UNDP) 5.8 4.4 9.7 1.4 12.73 2. Conservation education (UNDP) 1.11 0.51 1.16 0.6 5.45 3. Establishing the foundations for the 2.33 1.12 4.0 1.21 11 biodiversity economy/livelihoods (World Bank) 4.Program co-ordination, management 1.63 0.68 1.54 0.95 8.64 and monitoring (World Bank) 5. Unleashing the potential of protected 27.72 23.6 53.48 4.12 37.45 areas (World Bank) 6. Identifying and securing biodiversity 9.5 8.1 17.0 1.4 12.73 in key sites (World Bank) 7. Integrating biodiversity into watershed 7.04 5.72 12.96 1.32 12.00 management (World Bank) Total Project Costs 55.13 44.13 100 11 100
C2. Key policy and institutional reforms to be sought
South Africa's policy and institutional context for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development is in a phase of rapid change and transition. Policy and legislative reforms underway reflect the need to bring a larger area under conservation management, to provide for a greater range of public - private sector management models, for new fiscal and non-fiscal instruments to effect this, the need to ensure the financial viability of protected areas and finally to mainstream biodiversity into the economy. The White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biological Diversity makes some progress on these issues whilst the issue of national fiscal instruments necessarily falls under the responsibility of Treasury. The White Paper is being translated into law through the Protected Areas Bill and National Biodiversity Bill, published on 2 December, 2002 and 24 January, 2003 respectively for public comment before being submitted to Parliament. The Program and the Project are at the leading edge of implementing this draft legislation, and the implementation of the bioregional approach to conservation planning and management in South Africa. Collectively, the reforms referred to below will over the long term support the creation of a biodiversity economy.
In particular the Project addresses the following policy and institutional reforms:
Mainstreaming: The use of fiscal and non-fiscal instruments to mainstream biodiversity into the economy The mainstreaming of biodiversity into the economy will be supported by the Project in a number of ways. The key innovation and reform to be sought in this regard includes: (i) the development and piloting of payment for ecological services in the water sector, i.e.
15 downstream water consumers pay upstream landowners to keep their land clear of alien vegetation in order to ensure sufficient quantity of clean water, thereby creating a major biodiversity benefit; (ii) the possibility of using tax rebates as an incentive to encourage farmers to not plough up additional irreplaceable lowland habitat will be investigated, designed and piloted; and (iii) in threatened lowland coastal habitats where there is considerable pressure for urban development, the project will pilot the development and implementation of the transfer of development rights.
Public private partnerships to achieve conservation goals Conservation agencies have recognized that to realize conservation targets, a range of new public-private sector partnerships will be required. The models are required since much of the land will remain in private ownership, financial resources to purchase land will remain limited and both the public and private sectors have significant contributions to make towards conservation of the CFR. Therefore, a key reform to be sought by the end of the Project is to have laid the foundation for a series of successful and replicable models for protected area management which are accepted as best practice. These models will be developed in 3 large protected areas, 6 fragmented landscapes, 2 freshwater, 2 estuarine environments and 2 clusters of marine protected areas.
Co-operative governance in natural resource management Natural resource management, and particularly management of biodiversity in South Africa, is characterized by a high degree of institutional fragmentation across several tiers of government and across sectors. The Constitution and National Environment Management Act (1998) provide for interagency co-operative governance mechanisms, but these have not been effectively implemented. The Project will establish efficient and effective means to engender this co-operation in pursuit of the Project goals, and to develop options for more formal mechanisms to achieve commitment, including a multi-stakeholder monitoring and evaluation mechanism to determine and improve management effectiveness.
Sustainable financing for expanding and maintaining protected areas Even though South Africa has made substantial progress in ensuring that its protected areas generate a considerable portion of their income (average for South Africa is 40%) these levels need to be increased as the state and private sector has limited financial resources to finance the capital and operating costs of new and expanded protected areas. Therefore, a key institutional reform to be sought is to ensure that by the end of year six the existing and new protected area network can be maintained within the financial constraints of the conservation managers and stewards. In order to support this activity, over $130,000 will be made available from GEF resources. The funds will be used at two levels: firstly at the site-level, where business plans for protected areas will be developed which identify the opportunities to recover the costs of management and to create benefits for people; and secondly at the level of the bioregion, where a review of the institutional framework and costs of conservation will inform the development of a financial sustainability plan. The Project will encourage, where this is cost-effective, the development of outsourcing opportunities as a mechanism of developing the local economy and creating direct and indirect financial benefits in poor local communities.
16 3. Benefits and target population
3.1 Environmental benefits
The overriding benefit of the Project is that priority terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity conservation areas in the globally significant CFR and adjacent marine environment will be secured through a suite of interventions, including (i) expansion and consolidation of the protected area system and enhancing management effectiveness; (ii) integration of biodiversity concerns into land-use decision-making; (iii) supporting co-management initiatives involving landowners and the private sector; (iv) incorporating biodiversity concerns into watershed management; (v) improving management of invasive alien species and of estuaries; and (vi) lessening ecological impacts. Additional environmental benefits will include enhanced watershed management, increased availability of water and reduced soil erosion. Threats such as alien vegetation, fires and inappropriate land-use will be reduced and cultural resources and the cultural heritage of the region will be conserved.
3.2 Socio-economic benefits
Private sector and landowners/farmers
The Project is expected to create a number of socio-economic opportunities for communities and businesses located in and adjacent to the proposed protected areas. The Project is also expected to lay the initial foundation for the establishment of the biodiversity economy. The main benefits which are expected to accrue include: (i) procurement opportunities for small businesses and micro-enterprises located adjacent to protected areas. Opportunities will include environmental rehabilitation contracts and provision of tourism related services and accommodation; (ii) benefits are expected to accrue to a limited number of landowners and farmers located in sensitive habitats where models for payment for ecological services will be designed and piloted; (iii) in the marine environment, 2 communities will benefit from co- management models whilst others will benefit from improved anti-poaching and management of marine resources; (iv) farmers and tourist operators who participate in schemes related to product certification are expected to benefit from improved market penetration; (v) indications from projects such as the GEF funded Greater Addo Elephant National Park indicate that the multiplier effects of eco-tourism on the national and provincial are substantial. Therefore, many of the benefits associated with enhanced tourist numbers to the CFR will not only be captured by local tourist operators but also by the broader Provincial economy; (vi) further, land values are expected to increase in areas surrounding protected areas, as investment to conservation land-uses switches from less profitable land-uses; and (vii) opportunities for improvements in farm efficiency and income are expected to result from improved extension services aimed at reducing for example pesticide use and improving land management.
NGOs, civil society and disadvantaged groups Employment levels and wages are expected to increase with more stable working conditions on marginal agricultural land suitable for conservation purposes. Strong evidence now exists of this trend in the GEF funded Addo project, and other areas of South Africa. Combined with programs such as Working for Water, to undertake environmental rehabilitation, communities
17 have reaped significant socio-economic benefits. Within protected areas and watersheds, environmental rehabilitation will create much-needed employment and micro-enterprise development opportunities. Environmental education, training and capacity building opportunities will accrue to individuals, communities, schools and NGOs, enabling them to participate effectively, become actively involved in activities that support the goals of the Project, exploit entrepreneurial opportunities and access benefits. Relevant NGOs will be offered opportunities to play pivotal roles in Project implementation, in partnership with government agencies.
4. Institutional and implementation arrangements
The CAPE 2000 Strategy concluded that a purpose-built institutional arrangement would be best suited to implement C.A.P.E. at inception, but that alternative arrangements would be investigated during the course of Project implementation. The C.A.P.E. and the Project are currently governed by the same set of institutional arrangements at a strategic level. However, the Project will clearly require a more detailed set of implementation arrangements to be prepared for the various components. The key institutional and implementation arrangements are as follows: (i) the key executing agents to the C.A.P.E. and the Project, are bound by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The parties to the agreement include the National Ministries of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Water Affairs and Forestry, and the Members of the Executive Councils of the Western Cape and Eastern Cape, responsible for Environment Affairs.
The MoU created two key structures: the C.A.P.E. Coordinating Committee (CCC), with the overall function to co-ordinate the long-term implementation of the CAPE 2000 Strategy by the executing agencies, and to advance and represent the common interests of the Parties in matters concerning the management of the CFR environment. This is a structure which operates at a political level between National and Provincial Government. The second structure, the C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee (CIC), represents government departments, municipalities, statutory bodies and accredited non-governmental organizations. It is responsible for executing the CAPE 2000 Strategy according to the recommendations of the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Committee. It therefore operates at a technical level.
(ii) the MoU designates the National Botanical Institute (NBI) as the program and project management agency to C.A.P.E and therefore as recipient of external resources for execution purposes including the GEF grant. It is responsible for maintaining the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit as the C.A.P.E. secretariat and focal point for co-ordination for the program and the Project. The C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit is located within the NBI’s Directorate of Biodiversity Planning and Policy; (iii) the NBI, through a performance management agreement, is responsible to the CCC for the performance of its role as Program/Project Management Agency, and has established an Executive Committee (EXCO) to include key staff of the NBI and representatives of the CIC’s Executive Committee for day-to-day management purposes.
18 (iv) the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit consists of a Co-ordinator, Administrative Assistant, Finance/Business Manager, Communications Manager and Program Developer, with all other supervisory, administrative, financial and human resource management services being supplied by the NBI. The continued function of the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit, the key integrative structure for the co-ordinated and co-operative implementation of C.A.P.E., will be partially financed through the Project Grant, with specialized skills, e.g. for Monitoring and Evaluation, being outsourced. The Components and Sub-components being financed through World Bank support are to be executed by the NBI and a suite of executing agencies, with clearly established lead responsibilities. The NBI will generally implement all elements of the Project that have a cross-cutting nature.
(v) the NBI will enter into standard contractual agreements with lead executing agencies for the execution of elements of the Project, identified during preparation, based on their comparative advantage and legal mandates.
Financial management
The Project is being implemented jointly through the World Bank and UNDP as GEF Implementing Agencies, each with responsibilities for specific Components and Sub- components (Refer to Annex 4). GEF resources for this Project will be channeled to the NBI as the Grant Recipient and lead executing agency via separate grant agreements from the World Bank and the UNDP. Project funds will be transferred into Special Accounts established by the NBI at a commercial bank. The NBI has functioned as Grant Recipient for three other GEF grants, including the Preparatory Grant for the Project. Whilst its systems are proven for smaller projects, a financial management assessment will be undertaken for the full size grant. The necessary systems and financial management requirements will be designed based on these findings. The same approach will apply for procurement.
Project monitoring and evaluation
One of the key components of the Project is the establishment of an overall Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) mechanism for C.A.P.E.. M&E will therefore be conducted at two levels. At the level of Project performance, the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit will conduct monitoring and evaluation against the overall indicators in the logical framework for the Project (Annex 1). A six-monthly progress report will be presented to the World Bank, UNDP, CCC and CIC, co-ordinated with supervision missions of the Implementing Agencies. At the level of the Project’s impact, a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework will be developed with participation of all executing agencies to determine progress towards the goals and targets of the Project and compliance with the provisions of the MoU to implement the CAPE 2000 Strategy. It is intended that independent reviews of Project progress will be undertaken, at mid- term (late 2006) and at the end of Phase 1 (late 2008) both to guide the adaptive development of the Project and the strategy that underlies it, but also to guide the preparation and implementation of Phase 2. The key performance indicators identified in Section A2 will act as the triggers to identify the readiness of the Project to apply to the GEF for a second tranche of funding and to move to the next phase of the Program.
19 D. PROJECT RATIONALE
D1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
Bundle of projects versus programmatic approach: During the preparation of the Project, options to achieve the Development Objectives were examined. The CAPE 2000 Strategy identified 37 projects, needed to conserve the CFR. The most significant option evaluated was to finance and manage each of these projects through discrete funding initiatives, which, taken together, could conceivably achieve the objectives of the Strategy. This would involve disaggregated institutional and funding arrangements for each project. In many ways, this option would be simpler than a programmatic approach. It in theory requires little or no co-ordination, is decentralized geographically and institutionally, and the accountability of each project is unambiguous.
However, the challenge was to translate bioregional planning into efficient and effective bioregional implementation. It was clear that by definition, a bioregional program of implementation simply can not be managed through a highly decentralized suite of projects with little coordination between the activities, shared learning and adaptive management. Further, the transaction costs of preparing and managing a series of independent projects were recognised as being considerably higher than preparing and managing a suite of activities which effectively constitute a program. All stakeholders together with the GEFSEC unanimously agreed to adopt a program approach towards implementing C.A.P.E..
A bioregional programmatic approach to biodiversity conservation was adopted by South Africa in 2002 (A Bioregional Approach to South Africa’s Protected Areas 2001-2002). C.A.P.E. has been structured in terms of this approach.
Strategic use of resources: One alternative considered was to use GEF funds to fund all 37 proposed projects across the entire CFR. However, it soon became apparent that insufficient resources could be mobilised, that the agencies lacked the capacity to manage such a large range of activities, that sequencing was required and adaptive management based on lessons learnt. Therefore, the activities to be supported by the Project were carefully prioritised into enabling activities and a limited number of site based interventions which could be maintained after the Project and scaled up with the availability of additional resources.
New partners and beneficiaries: Until recently, conservation objectives in South Africa were not based on the achievement of scientifically proven biodiversity requirements. Conservation was regarded as an activity to be funded and managed by the state for the benefit of a limited sector of the population. This meant that the threats and root causes of biodiversity loses were seldom properly identified and addressed. Biodiversity objectives were usually advanced through the state purchase of scenic and pristine land to proclaim nature reserves and National Parks, to be managed by the state. CAPE 2000 Strategy identified the flaws and failings in this approach. The downscaling of state funding to conservation, the fact that threats to the environment are caused by people and require people to be involved in finding solutions, the realization that the state and private sector have certain comparative advantages in conservation, the need to better link the achievement of biodiversity objectives to socio-economic objectives and the realisation that
20 public-private partnerships are key in this regard became clear. Based on CAPE 2000 Strategy, the Project will develop conservation models which effectively use landowners and potential beneficiaries of natural resources to expand and manage priority areas under protected area management. The Project will therefore develop both public private-partnership models and a series of new market based mechanisms to advance conservation objectives.
Choice of lead agent for Project implementation: A number of possible options existed for the selection of a lead executing agency or series of agencies for Project execution. The Implementing Agencies and local partners were guided in their decision to select the NBI for a number of reasons. These included the findings of CAPE 2000 (see below) on institutional arrangements as well as subsequent considerations.
“There already are a number of strong and viable institutions in the country, each with initiatives under way and representing the private sector, government and NGO sectors. A sensible approach would be to build a coalition of groups mandated to implement the vision and strategy of the Action Plan. Best practice tells us that this coalition needs to have a shared vision with both the authority and accountability to give it credibility in broader society. A legal Trust may be one appropriate vehicle to achieve this aim.” The choice of the NBI was based on the following: (i) experience in project management has indicated that projects are better managed if there is one lead executing agent with activities identified for execution by other agencies according to their legal mandates and comparative advantages; (ii) it was important to select an institution which is anticipated to perform a key bioregional planning role under legislation about to go before Parliament. The NBI is identified in this regard as the future home for bioregional planning and has already begun to perform this role; (iii) an organization needed to be selected which has previously demonstrated ability to execute GEF-supported UNDP and World Bank projects according to the fiduciary requirements of the two agencies; (iv) robust partnerships require the trust of all parties in order to perform a leadership role. They should not be regarded as having an undue vested interest in the Project; and (v) where domestic interests have already begun to develop a sustainable and action orientated partnership and workable set of institutional arrangements, it makes sense that it is supported. Under the circumstances it was apparent that the NBI provided the best fit for the role of lead executing agent with the role of other executing agencies being defined during preparation according to their mandates and comparative advantages.
Project fund management: In order to reduce the transaction costs of fund management for the recipient, the option of a sector-wide basket funding approach to C.A.P.E. was considered. This was discussed with other donor agencies, but was rejected. Firstly, the quantum of funding does not warrant this approach and secondly there was little support for the approach from other funders and donors.
21 D2. Major related projects completed by the World Bank and/or other development agencies (completed, ongoing and planned)
Sector issue Project Latest supervision (PSR) Ratings (World Bank-financed projects only) Implementation Development Progress (IP) Objective (DO) World Bank-financed Industry Industrial Competitiveness U U Municipal Municipal Financial Management Support (awaiting disbursement) World Bank supported (MSPs do not officially have PSR ratings) WB-GEF Cape Peninsula Biodiversity S S Conservation WB-GEF Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) MSP WB-GEF Conservation Farming, MSP WB-GEF Sustainable Protected Area Development in Namaqualand. MSP GEF Global Development Renewable Energy (preparation) Other development agencies UNDP-GEF Agulhas Plain (preparation) UNDP-GEF BCLME UNDP-GEF SABONET UNDP Tourism Master Strategy UNDP-GEF Wild Coast (preparation) CEPF Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Profile CEPF CFR Ecosystem Profile DANCED Capacity Building in SANParks. Socio-economic overview of disadvantaged community neighboring AENP Industrial Development Tourism Product Development Corporation (IDC) IFC Tourism Product Development SA Government Poverty Relief Program (WfW)
D3. Lessons learned and reflected in proposed project design
Lessons learnt reflect experiences, including international best practice, from programs and projects under preparation or supervision inside and outside of South Africa, the findings of implementation completion reports and agency reviews.
22 3.1 Programmatic approach Programmatic frameworks are best advanced within the context of a well-conceived Action Plan, building on the outcomes and lessons derived from pre-feasibility investments. This plan should provide a clear blueprint for systematically mainstreaming biodiversity objectives into development plans and strategies, and identifying priorities for intervention. Bioregional conservation programs should be driven by the borrower, have strong domestic political support and interventions should be spatially defined.
3.2 Participatory approach There should be a coherence and consistency in the approach to public participation between the various Program and Project interventions. Successful stakeholder participation is dependent on a commitment to participatory approaches by executing bodies. Sensitivity to local variations of culture, history, language and traditions is required. Groups marginalised for reasons of poverty, gender, culture and language require specific attention and support in the design and implementation of detailed participation activities. Significant local stakeholder support and commitment can be leveraged through decentralized approaches. The early involvement of key stakeholders in planning is essential in order to ensure ownership and successful project implementation.
3.3 Institutional strengthening Wherever practicable, implementation responsibilities should be vested in existing institutions. An analysis of institutional capacities and performance should be undertaken prior to determination of institutional responsibilities, at a programmatic level. The need for agency alignment with the project, and synergy in effort between actors, requires strategic review of mission, goals, operations and budgets by such agencies. This should be an iterative, incremental process responding to the ongoing evolution of C.A.P.E. and the changing circumstances (e.g. enabling legal environment) of the implementing agencies and partners.
3.4 Biodiversity planning and management Protected areas cannot be effective if they are managed as discrete islands, isolated from their social and economic contexts. Achieving the expansion of the conservation network will require innovative ways of including key private land into the conservation network. Incentives will not succeed if used in isolation; they need to be complemented by other programs and initiatives by implementing agencies.
Traditional fishery management measures (e.g. size limits, bag limits, closed seasons) that are not used in conjunction with Marine Protected Areas have failed to limit exploitation. Monitoring, surveillance and control should be increased at all levels. In addition, coastal livelihoods need to be promoted. This is a long-term undertaking, and should promote win-win solutions for poverty and the environment, focus special attention on the interests of vulnerable groups, and promote gender equity. Allocation of rights to marine living resources should be guided by clearly defined criteria, goals and objectives, developed in a participatory process.
3.5 New market based mechanisms The lessons learnt from the payment for ecological services program in Costa Rica will be applied to design and implementation in the Project. It is important that such funding mechanisms are placed on a sustainable financial footing. Other economic instruments which
23 will be investigated to conserve biodiversity and reduce carbon emissions include looking at the World Bank’s biocarbon fund. Tax rebates for conservation and transfer of development rights precedent will be examined from a range of countries.
D4. Indication of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership
The South African Government, together with other agencies, is committed to the conservation of the 3 global biodiversity hotspots falling within its borders. To this end it has signed all key international biodiversity related conventions, is about to promulgate new biodiversity and protected areas legislation and has provided considerable resources for purchase of strategic parcels of biodiversity worthy land. Further, it has identified the NBI as the home to support bioregional planning and implementation.
The C.A.P.E. is internationally recognized as an innovative program which has the support of all main stakeholders with certain key activities currently under implementation. The CAPE 2000 Strategy was agreed to by all stakeholders in September 2000, and the main executing agencies immediately began implementation of the most important components, while continuing to seek domestic and further donor support. WWF-SA undertook to continue the role of co-ordinating C.A.P.E., and an Interim Co-ordination Committee was established. Since September 2000, C.A.P.E. has operated without significant donor support, with executing agencies agreeing to co-operate and maintaining their interest and commitment to the present day. Agreement was reached between national and provincial executive levels of government to continue the development and implementation of C.A.P.E., with a Memorandum of Understanding signed between national and provincial ministers. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by all 16 key executing agencies, representing the GoSA, NGOs and conservation agencies. These agencies have continued to support C.A.P.E., with quarterly meetings and commitments to action.
C.A.P.E. is listed as key deliverable on the annual work plan of the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism as well as in the South African GEF Medium Term Priority Framework. The Project is supported by a very significant baseline in excess of $200 million over 6 years
D5. Value added of World Bank, UNDP and Global support in this project
The CFR is a global asset. As such its value transcends national boundaries and the threats are of such a nature that they require response from the international community if the global value of this asset is to be maintained. The role of the GEF, the World Bank and of UNDP is to bring resources from the international community including technical and financial support to augment current baseline capacities. Both organizations are well positioned to support the Project due to their extensive experience in supporting programs in a large number of middle income and developing countries. Support from the World Bank and UNDP will be based on comparative advantage. The World Bank's strengths lie in supporting large programs which leverage significant investment including public and private sector and which provide opportunities for mainstreaming into productive sectors of the economy. The World Bank is currently supporting a number of biodiversity and land degradation projects which promote integrated ecosystem management, identifying threats and root causes of biodiversity loss. The World Bank has good
24 knowledge of South Africa and of the CFR through its current support to the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project (including the CAPE 2000 Strategy), support to three MSPs including through the National Botanical Institute and the preparation of Addo Project. Extensive support has been provided in the planning, management systems, capacity building, tourism promotion, environmental education, knowledge management and alien species control activities. Further, the Bank has experience in supporting new instruments such as payment for ecological services.
The UNDP has similarly provided support or is currently preparing a number of programs in the region which focus on integrated ecosystem management. Programs under implementation include the regional SABONET Program, Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Program with others under preparation including the Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative as well as MSPs. Based on experience inside and outside of South Africa the UNDP is positioned to lead on the capacity building and conservation education components of the Project.
Annual funder round tables will be hosted by the South African Government and supported by the Bank and the UNDP. The aims of the funder roundtable will be: (i) for the recipient to annually report to funders, donors and other domestic agencies on project progress and to agree on the project deliverables and use of funder resources for the next year; (ii) finalize the support of additional funders and donors to the project. The target is to increase financial support by an additional 15% in this regard; and (iii) Seek additional specialist technical support from funders to the program in components 1,2,3 and 6 in particular. The funder roundtables will therefore constitute the culmination of various earlier bilateral discussions involving Government, the Bank and UNDP with existing funders and donors, rather that the initiation thereof. This support will take place whilst recognizing the preferred South African Government position to use Government funds within the CFR and to direct donor funds to the poorer Provinces.
E. ISSUES REQUIRING SPECIAL ATTENTION
E1. Economic Summarize issues below [X] To be defined None
Economic evaluation methodology Cost benefit ( ) Cost effectiveness (*)Incremental cost ( ) Other (specify) The incremental cost analysis will be rechecked prior to appraisal based on the more detailed determination of Project activities.
E2. Financial
Summarize issues below [X] To be defined None
Whilst the NBI is already successfully executing two GEF projects and has received unqualified audits, a financial assessment will be undertaken of the capability of the NBI and other executing
25 agencies to execute the Project. If need be, a financial management strengthening plan will be prepared. Although preparatory work to date indicates the positive fiscal impact of the Project on the regional economy and on executing agencies, this will be confirmed prior to appraisal. Special attention will be paid to the implications of ongoing operating costs.
E3. Technical Summarize issues below To be defined [X] None
E4. Institutional
An institutional assessment has been undertaken of the key executing agencies. The overall assessment is that the agencies are well positioned to perform baseline activities. A readiness for implementation assessment will be reconfirmed during Project preparation based on clearer definition of responsibilities. A list of lead agencies is attached as Annex 6.
4.1 Project management
No special issues. C.A.P.E. is characterized by co-ordinated program and project management arrangements to be provided by the NBI through the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit. The NBI has a proven track record in project management, and the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit will be staffed with personnel with appropriate qualifications and experience.
4.2 Procurement issues
No special issues. Whilst the NBI has demonstrated highly satisfactory compliance to World Bank procurement requirements, its procedures will be reconfirmed and if need be a strengthening plan prepared during project preparation.
4.3 Financial management issues
In accordance with GoSA policy, the NBI will act as recipient of funds on behalf of South Africa, and will open and operate a Special Account. Whilst, the NBI has demonstrated highly satisfactory financial management for smaller grants, a financial management assessment will be undertaken and if need be a strengthening plan developed.
E5. Environmental
5.1. Summarize significant environmental issues and objectives and identify key stakeholders. (if the issues are still to be determined, describe current or planned efforts to do so)
The Project is designed to have a substantial positive benefit on a globally significant biodiversity asset. It will do this through restoring globally significant biodiversity in certain key sites as indicated in section 3 of the Project. Other Project activities will support creating and environment for replicability of Project activities outside of the identified sites. The GEF funded CPNP project as well as the Namaqualand MSP have demonstrated the positive impact of these types of interventions on the ecological, economic and social environments.
26 The key stakeholder groups and their interests are described in detail in Annexes 6 and 8. The key groups include government and parastatal conservation agencies (currently supporting project design), private sector/landowners (bringing land under conservation and tendering for business opportunities created in the CFR) and civil society, the general public and youth in terms of environmental education. Seven key national and international environment NGOs are currently supporting the project.
The key conservation-focused government, parastatals, and NGOs have been involved in the preparation of the Project and will be involved in execution. Each project activity will, during implementation, identify the key stakeholders to be consulted and involved in implementation. In other instances domestic legal requirements will trigger consultation. As the CAPE 2000 Strategy in essence constituted a major strategic environmental assessment for the whole of the CFR, this exercise will not be repeated during preparation. Instead it is proposed that an environment and social safeguards framework is developed to address all safeguard issues requiring downstream Project compliance, prior to appraisal. The framework will be consistent with the framework requirements currently being prepared by the World Bank. The Project does not trigger any specific significant environmental assessment requirements.
5.2 Environmental category and justification/rationale for category rating: B.
An environment and social safeguards framework will be required due to this being a project with interventions across an entire Floral Kingdom of 90,000 km2.
5.3 For Category A and B projects, timeline and status of EA EA start-up date: March 30, 2003 Date of first EA May 30, 2003 Expected date of final draft: July 30, 2003
5.4 Determine whether an environmental management plan (EMP) will be required and its overall scope, relationship to the legal documents, and implementation responsibilities. For Category B projects for IDA funding, determine whether a separate EA report is required. What institutional arrangements are proposed for developing and handling the EMP? No overall EMP is required. EMPs will be provided at individual site level to meet South African requirements deemed to be consistent with World Bank requirements.
5.5 How will stakeholders be consulted at the stage of (a) environmental screening and (b) draft EA report on the environmental impacts and proposed EMP? Stakeholders will be consulted at the individual project implementation level according to requirements of South Africa's legislation.
5.6 Are mechanisms being considered to monitor and measure the impact of the project on the environment? Will the indicators reflect the objectives and results of the EMP section of the EA?
27 At strategic level, clear biodiversity, social and economic indicators are in the process of being selected for a detailed project monitoring and evaluation system.
6. Social
6.1. Summarize key social issues arising out of the project objectives, and the Project’s planned social development outcomes. If the issues are still to be determined, describe current or planned efforts to do so.
The Project is designed to have a positive social benefit on inhabitants of the CFR. The projects primary social development outcomes will remain confined to those communities living in close proximity to proposed protected areas who will benefit from employment opportunities, tourism opportunities and access to marine resources. Economic benefits are intended to accrue to landowners in the later part of the project from the market based mechanisms and incentives activities. During preparation, the Project’s socio-economic benefits will be better defined.
6.2 Participatory Approach: How will key stakeholders participate in the project?
Stakeholders will participate at a number of different levels. Key stakeholders will continue to participate through the C.A.P.E. Co-ordinating Committee and the C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee, as well as through site-based Project steering committees with local stakeholders. During preparation, policy and guidelines for participation were produced to guide implementation activities. For each activity, and where appropriate, a stakeholder analysis will be undertaken and relevant participation mechanisms identified and implemented. Project-based environmental education, training and capacity building opportunities will be made available to individuals and communities to enable them to participate effectively in Project activities.
6.3 How does the project involve consultations or collaboration with NGOs or other civil society organizations?
Consultations have taken place with civil society and local and international NGOs both during the CAPE 2000 Strategy process and during preparation activities. Relevant NGOs will be offered opportunities to play pivotal roles in Project implementation, in partnership with government agencies, as has already occurred in relation to the Baviaanskloof (Wilderness Foundation), and fine-scale conservation planning (Botanical Society). Stakeholder participation will be encouraged and supported in all aspects of the Project to ensure effective involvement and commitment.
6.4 What institutional arrangements are planned to ensure that the project achieves its social development outcomes?
Key interest groups, communities and local stakeholders will be represented on all relevant Project committees. Monitoring of impacts will also take place with corrective actions taken. World Bank supervision missions will also monitor social components of the project.
6.5 What mechanisms are proposed to monitor and measure project performance in terms of social development outcomes? If unknown at this stage, please indicate.
28
At strategic level, clear biodiversity, social and economic indicators are in the process of being selected for a detailed monitoring and evaluation system which will be partly developed prior to appraisal and elaborated on during preparation.
7. Safeguard policies
7.1. Do any of the following safeguard policies apply to the project?
Policy Applicability Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) *Yes No TBD Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) *Yes No TBD Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) *Yes No TBD Pest Management (OP 4.09) *Yes No TBD Cultural Property 4 (OPN 11.03) *Yes No TBD Indigenous Peoples5 (OD 4.20) Yes * No TBD Involuntary Resettlement 6 (OP/BP 4.12) *Yes No TBD Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) Yes *No TBD Projects on International Waterways (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) Yes *No TBD Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60) Yes *No TBD
7.2. Project Compliance a) Describe provisions made by the project to ensure compliance with safeguard policies which are applicable
Under 7.2 (a) Environmental assessment (OP 4.01) is triggered by virtue of the fact the Project covers a very large area, in a sensitive global biodiversity hotspot and includes a multiplicity of interventions. Due to the nature of the Project it warrants the development of a social and environmental assessment framework to include World Bank policies 4.01, 4.04, 4.36, 4.09 and 11.03. Natural habitats (OP4.04), is triggered by virtue of the fact that the Project is located in a biodiversity hotspot, though the overall Project is designed to secure this key global asset for future generations. Forestry (OP4.36), is triggered as one of the proposed protected areas to be supported is located on the Garden Route and includes portions of pristine indigenous forest. Pest management (OP 4.09) is triggered as an activity in component 7 may include the use of pesticides in rivers to kill off alien fish under well controlled conditions and complying to international best practice. Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) is triggered by virtue of the fact that some of the proposed protected areas contain rock art and perhaps other cultural property. Conservation use will clearly help to protect these assets.
4 The World Bank’s policy on Cultural Property applies to all projects, which pose a risk of damage or destruction to any form of cultural property. 5 The World Bank’s policy on indigenous peoples applies to all projects which are undertaken on the territory occupied by social groups such as "indigenous peoples," "indigenous ethnic minorities," "tribal groups," and "scheduled tribes" who have a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society, and who are vulnerable and disadvantaged in the development process. 6 The World Bank's resettlement policy applies to investment projects in which the taking of land or other assets results in loss of shelter, assets, or loss of income sources or means of livelihood.
29 Involuntary resettlement could be triggered under the support to the proposed expansion of the protected areas in the CFR. Therefore, it is proposed that an involuntary resettlement policy and process framework is combined into one framework and developed prior to appraisal. Should any resettlement action plans be required in year one of implementation, these will be developed prior to appraisal.
b) If application is still to be determined, describe current or planned efforts to make a determination
The above safeguard requirements have been determined in cooperation with the ASPEN team.
8. Business Policies
8.1 Check applicable items: _Financing of recurrent costs (OMS 10.02) _Cost sharing above country 3-yr average (OP 6.30, BP 6.30, GP 6.30) _Retroactive financing above normal limit (OP 12.10, BP 12.10, GP12.10) _Financial management (OP 10.02, BP 10.02) _Involvement of NGOs (GP 14.70)
F. SUSTAINABILITY AND RISKS
1. Sustainability
The Project is considered to have high opportunity for being sustainable. It is characterized by low levels of GEF investment to baseline and co-financing, relatively robust institutions to execute the Project as well as growing private and public investment in the sector. Phase 1 of the Project and subsequent phases are designed to ensure that each can be concluded if need be without further GEF investment. Whilst further GEF investment in subsequent phases will be required for full Project implementation, investments and capacities which are developed will require maintenance support within the anticipated capacities of the executing agencies. Notwithstanding this, five key factors have been taken into account to ensure sustainability: (i) any institutional reorganization which is instituted will be undertaken to cause minimum disruption to the Project; (ii) the baseline financial and technical capabilities of executing agencies will be developed to meet the new requirements described in the Project; (iii) project execution will primarily take place at the executing agency level where responsibility, capacity and know how resides; (iv) the Project will engage with resource users responsible for biodiversity losses such as in the marine environment in order to ensure acceptability and support for new models; and (v) markets for the provision of ecological services will be operationalized and ecological provisions will be mainstreamed into the productive sectors of the economy in order to develop a new layer of resource managers.
30 1a. Replicability
Both the overall program as well as the GEF investment are designed and expected to be replicable in a number of contexts: (i) the overall bioregional design of C.A.P.E. provides a model which is already being used in South Africa in three other projects (Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Profile, Addo and the Thicket Biome with others in the pipeline; (ii) the institutional arrangements for implementing C.A.P.E. provide a model partnership for co-operative governance in the environment sector for other regions; (iii) the conservation education component will provide a co-operative model for implementation elsewhere; (iv) the work on creating market-based mechanisms for financing payment for ecological services will have national and possibly international application; and (v) the mechanisms to be developed to conserve fragmented landscapes will have application in other locations with similar land-use planning legislation.
2. Critical Risks - (reflecting the failure of critical assumptions found in the fourth column of Annex 1)
Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measure From Outputs to Objectives Output 1: Inadequate alignment of M Alignment to the program to be an annual strategies of key conservation agencies requirement for executing agencies to access GEF resources Output 2: Stakeholders are not M Design innovative strategies to solicit committed to support the conservation environmental education support education components of the program Output 3: Businesses are unwilling to M Ensure that realistic market based support new market-based mechanisms are selected and test market first mechanisms Output 4: Stakeholders perceive the N Base strengthening needs on capacity audits Project to be a low priority and therefore do not partake in management strengthening Output 5: Implementing agencies are M Support agencies to increase self generated not adequately resourced to maintain income protected areas Output 6: Development planning M Develop cost-effective easy to use planning resources cannot support conservation systems in fragmented landscapes Output 7: Fire Protection Associations M Support development of self generated are under-funded to perform mandates income From Components to Outputs Component 1: Lack of commitment by N Ensure that the Project responds to needs of key agencies to the Project. executing agencies whilst remaining focused on funding incremental costs Component 2: Consensus is not M Bring all key players into the process upfront reached on an education strategy
31 Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measure Component 3: Demand does not exist M Ensure that each new service or product has for services developed to support a clearly defined market biodiversity economy Component 4: Agencies fail to support N Ensure relevance of the Project to executing the Project. agencies Component 5: Resettlement issues M Ensure proper stakeholder consultation and retard establishment of protected areas proper resettlement planning should it be required Component 6: Communities unwilling M Ensure proper consultation and that to support conservation in fragmented proposals are advantageous to communities landscapes Component 7: New CMAs not H Undertake capacity assessments prior to resourced to perform mandates investments OVERALL RISK RATING M
Risk Rating – H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N (Negligible or Low Risk)
F3. Possible controversial aspects
Due to the highly beneficial impact of the Project it is unlikely to generate significant controversy. However, at the local level, issues of public interest can be expected to arise. These are likely to include (i) the contestation of limitations on harvesting of certain marine organisms (whether legal or illegal) to ensure that their relentless depletion is abated. Any other issues falling within the ambit of protected area expansion or resettlement could trigger controversy; (ii) the continued outsourcing of protected area facilities in which conservation agencies have no comparative advantage is contested by some as part of a general anti-privatization issue; (iii) the development of markets for payment for ecological services is contested in some circles for various reasons; and (iv) changes in land-use from traditional agricultural use to conservation land-use is sometimes regarded as a retrogressive step for agricultural development.
G. PROJECT PREPARATION AND PROCESSING
1. Has a project preparation plan been agreed with the borrower (see annex 2)?
[ ] Yes - date submitted: [X] No - date expected: 01/05/2003
2. Advice/consultation outside country department
[X] Within the World Bank: Project approaches have been discussed. World Bank staff from Latin America, Africa region and Central Environment Department have been consulted. UNDP staff from Madagascar and Mexico have been consulted.
[X] Other development agencies: UNDP, WWF-South Africa, Botanical Society South Africa, CEPF, Conservation International, Flora and Fauna International, Table Mountain Fund,
32 DANIDA, USAID, GTZ, NORAD, JICA, CIRAD, European Union, AUSAID, French Government, Development Bank Southern Africa.
[X] External Review: Kenton Miller
3. Composition of the Task Team (See Annex 2)
World Bank: Christopher Warner TTL, Christophe Crépin, Agi Kiss, Charlotte Bingham, Stefano Pagiola, Claudia Sobrevila, Krish Krishnakumar, Iraj Talai, Mel Jaya, Caroline Guazzo, Amanda Younge ( consultant ) UNDP: Nik Sekhran TM, Eddy Russell, Maryam Niamir-Fuller, Marcel Alers FFI: Adriana Dinu C.A.P.E. Co-ordinator: Trevor Sandwith Consultants: Mandy Barnett, Grant Benn, Derek Berliner, Barry Clark, Christopher Clarke, Marion Fogell, Onno Huyser, James Jackelman, Marlene Laros, Ian Macdonald, David Shandler, Amina Sulaiman, Razeena Wagiet. Preparation Team Leaders: Colin Attwood (MCM), Fanie Bekker (WCNCB), Mark Botha (BotSoc), Lindie Buirski (City of Cape Town), Amanda Driver (BotSoc), Dipolelo Elford (DEA&DP), Willie Enright (DWAF), Sarah Frazee (CI-SA), Hettie Gets (WWF-SA), Dawie Krüger (DEA&DP), Christo Marais (Working for Water), Kristal Maze (BotSoc), Monde Mayekiso (MCM), Wandile Mzazi (ECTB), Albert Mfenyana (DEAET), Ingrid Nänni (NBI), Khungeka Njobe (NBI), Nazeer Rawoot (NBI), Nicole Welz (WCNCB), Anton Wolfaardt (WCNCB). Project Interns: Ntobeko Bacela, Glynnis Barodien, Ismail Ebrahim, Daphne Hartney, Bongiwe Magasela, Thembani Mabasa, Eugene Matthews, Jeffrey Manuel, Phumla Ndaba, Anastelle Solomons.
4. Quality assurance arrangements (see Annex 2)
The Project has been subject to peer review to meet GEF requirements and has been reviewed independently from within the World Bank and the UNDP. World Bank safeguard requirements will be applied by the World Bank's ASPEN Team. Specialist support will be provided from within the World Bank and the UNDP to supervise project components during project implementation.
33 Annex 1: Project Design Summary LOGFRAME
Hierarchy of Objectives Indicators Monitoring and evaluation Sector-related CAS Goal: Sector Indicators: Sector/ country reports:
Ensure environmental sustainability and promote growth and higher employment Reduced rate of biodiversity loss in the CFK (as measured by status of priority Joint WB/UNDP supervision missions (twice per annum) species and habitats) State of Biodiversity Reports and M&E reports Improved regional GDP Central statistical information Increased number of people in biodiversity-related employment
GEF Operational Program: OP 1 – Arid and semi-arid zone ecosystems OP 2 – Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Systems OP 3 – Forest Ecosystems OP 4 – Mountain Ecosystems OP 12 – Integrated Ecosystem Management Global Objective: C.A.P.E. monitoring and evaluation reports
C.A.P.E. Program Goal: Supervision missions By the year 2024 the natural environment and biodiversity of the Cape Floristic Increase in extent of protected area system to meet conservation targets Region and adjacent marine environment will be effectively conserved, restored identified in CAPE 2000 Annual reports of conservation agencies wherever appropriate, and will deliver significant benefits to the people in a way that (Target: 4000 km2) is embraced by local communities, endorsed by government, and recognized Reports of the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination and Implementation internationally Number of biodiversity-related jobs increases by 50% in Project intervention Committees areas South African Statistical Services Revenue generated from protected areas in the CFR doubles
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 34 Project Development Objective 1 Outcome/Impact Indicators: Project reports (from Objective to Goal) Capable institutions cooperate to develop a foundation for mainstreaming biodiversity in the CFR into economic activities Parties to the C.A.P.E. MoU meet their obligations Annual review of compliance with terms Legal and institutional changes support of C.A.P.E. MoU co-operative relationships for Developers comply with biodiversity protection and biodiversity conservation. impact mitigation measures Compliance inspection reports
Increase in the proportional contribution of economic activities based on use of renewable natural resources in Western Cape and Eastern Cape Economic the CFR (Baseline: *) indicator reports
Number of co-operative agreements between C.A.P.E. Implementing Agencies Co-operative Agreements
Project Development Objective 2 Increase in the extent of the protected area system to meet Conservation of the CFR enhanced through piloting and adapting conservation targets for priority species, habitats and models for sustainable, effective management ecosystem processes (Target: additional 4000 km2 by the end of Year 6)
Proportion of red data species conserved within protected areas increases by 10% (Baseline: *)
Number of red data species reduced by 5% (Baseline: *)
The number of protected areas that are appropriately classified in terms of their biodiversity conservation objectives and effectively managed according to international standards, increases by 50% (Baseline: #)
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 35
Output from each Component: Output Indicators Project reports (from Outputs to Objective) PDO 1 Output 1: Enhanced strategic alignment of conservation activities and % of C.A.P.E. implementing agencies meeting all Annual audit of terms of MoU C.A.P.E. implementing agencies continue increased capacity of relevant institutions for integrated bioregional obligations of the C.A.P.E. MoU (Target: 70% by year 6 to be willing to align their strategies to conservation management in the CFR supported by comprehensive Baseline: #) achieve objectives in priority performance management and information management. Reports to Dept of Labour on skills conservation areas Agencies resourced to conserve enlarged conservation development in C.A.P.E. implementing estate agencies There is timeous resolution of mandates as a result of policy and legislative % of skills requirements (as identified in skills needs Annual report of SANParks, WCNCB, reform analysis to be conducted in 2003) fulfilled and meeting DEAET, WCTB, ECTB National Qualifications Framework (NGF) standards Planning and development control (Target: 60% by year 6. Baseline: *) Performance management reports authorities are willing to embrace the C.A.P.E. objectives and have the capacity % of C.A.P.E. implementing agencies that have adopted to enforce the law agreed performance management system (Target by year 6 Survey of users : 80%; Baseline: 0) The biodiversity of the CFR is Supervision missions increasingly valued by the general % of users who judge Cape Information Management Unit population services as meeting their requirements (Target: 80% satisfaction rating by users, by year 6, Baseline: 0) Public private partnership models are successful at Project sites Output 2: Increased environmental awareness and committed action of % of registered civil society organizations (including C.A.P.E. Action agreements Sufficient capable civil society people in the CFR contributes to biodiversity conservation; schools and community groups) that undertake to perform organizations are available and willing to a C.A.P.E. registered project or activity (Target: 30% by Orders/sales of learner-support materials undertake C.A.P.E. activities year 6; Baseline: 0) The target groups throughout the region % trained teachers requesting/using biodiversity Reflected in teacher’s annual learning are willing to take advantage of conservation learner-support materials (Target : 50 % by programs and learner profiles; appropriate courses, materials and other year 6: Baseline: 0) resources, when they are made available.
% Annual increase in school children in the CFR that Visitor statistics of Biodiversity Education Provincial education authorities and attend biodiversity education centre programs (Target: Centres partners are committed to implementing 10% per annum: Baseline: *) biodiversity education programs at schools
% of biodiversity education service providers that adopt Membership and records of the CFR the co-ordinated approach and standards for CFR Biodiversity Education Forum biodiversity education (Target: 75% by year 6: Baseline 0)
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 36
Output from each Component: Output Indicators Project reports (from Outputs to Objective) PDO 1 Output 1: Enhanced strategic alignment of conservation activities and % of C.A.P.E. implementing agencies meeting all Annual audit of terms of MoU C.A.P.E. implementing agencies continue increased capacity of relevant institutions for integrated bioregional obligations of the C.A.P.E. MoU (Target: 70% by year 6 to be willing to align their strategies to conservation management in the CFR supported by comprehensive Baseline: #) achieve objectives in priority performance management and information management. Reports to Dept of Labour on skills conservation areas Agencies resourced to conserve enlarged conservation development in C.A.P.E. implementing estate agencies There is timeous resolution of mandates as a result of policy and legislative % of skills requirements (as identified in skills needs Annual report of SANParks, WCNCB, reform analysis to be conducted in 2003) fulfilled and meeting DEAET, WCTB, ECTB National Qualifications Framework (NGF) standards Planning and development control (Target: 60% by year 6. Baseline: *) Performance management reports authorities are willing to embrace the C.A.P.E. objectives and have the capacity % of C.A.P.E. implementing agencies that have adopted to enforce the law agreed performance management system (Target by year 6 Survey of users : 80%; Baseline: 0) The biodiversity of the CFR is Supervision missions increasingly valued by the general % of users who judge Cape Information Management Unit population services as meeting their requirements (Target: 80% satisfaction rating by users, by year 6, Baseline: 0) Public private partnership models are successful at Project sites Output 2: Increased environmental awareness and committed action of % of registered civil society organizations (including C.A.P.E. Action agreements Sufficient capable civil society people in the CFR contributes to biodiversity conservation; schools and community groups) that undertake to perform organizations are available and willing to a C.A.P.E. registered project or activity (Target: 30% by Orders/sales of learner-support materials undertake C.A.P.E. activities year 6; Baseline: 0) The target groups throughout the region % trained teachers requesting/using biodiversity Reflected in teacher’s annual learning are willing to take advantage of conservation learner-support materials (Target : 50 % by programs and learner profiles appropriate courses, materials and other year 6: Baseline: 0) resources, when they are made available.
% Annual increase in school children in the CFR that Visitor statistics of Biodiversity Education Provincial education authorities and attend biodiversity education centre programs (Target: Centres partners are committed to implementing 10% per annum: Baseline: *) biodiversity education programs at schools
% of biodiversity education service providers that adopt Membership and records of the CFR the co-ordinated approach and standards for CFR Biodiversity Education Forum biodiversity education (Target: 75% by year 6: Baseline 0)
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 37
Output 3: Market-based mechanisms for conservation management designed, tested and Number of landowners benefiting from MBM’s Local authority and tax records indicate potential contribution to meeting conservation targets Number of businesses adopting a Biodiversity Charter (Target: 100 by year 6. Code of Conduct agreements Baseline 0)
Number of businesses adopting the Code of Conduct for responsible tourism (Target E Cape and W Cape tourism statistics and surveys : 70 by year 6. Baseline 0)
Number of business applying for responsible tourism certification (Target: 20 by year 6. Baseline 0)
Output 4: Enhanced co-ordination, effective communication and efficient adaptive management % of CCC and CIC members attend co-ordination meetings (Target: 80%) Records of meetings results in the integrated development and implementation of the C.A.P.E. program and the Project Lessons learned through monitoring and evaluation are incorporated into C.A.P.E. Strategy and M&E system Strategy review workshop proceedings
Mid-term review Phase 1 review
Record of M&E review workshops
M&E system Output 5: Protected areas contributing to priority targets for conservation of the biodiversity of Three large protected areas consolidated and under effective conservation Protected area register the CFR, are consolidated or established, cost-effective management is sustained, tourism management, and two estuarine and two freshwater protected areas established by development plans are implemented; and stakeholders derive direct and indirect benefits the end of year 6
Comprehensive management plans developed and implemented for two Marine Management plans Protected Areas by the end of year 6;
% increase in visits to protected areas where tourism plans are operational (Target: 10% per annum over 2002 baseline: *) Protected area visitor statistics
% recovery in abundance of key exploited species in Kogelberg Marine Protected Area (Target: 20% by year 6 over 2002 baseline: *) Stock assessment studies Legal proclamation of the Kogelberg Marine Protected Area secured with the MCM reports authority and control of the inshore resource management function vested with local communities by the end of year 3 Protected area register % increase in number of jobs directly associated with conservation and nature-based Government Gazette tourism in priority protected areas (Target: 100% by year 6 over 2002 baseline: #)
Protected area agency reports
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 38 Output 6: Biodiversity in 5-6 priority remnant patches in fragmented landscapes identified and % of uncultivated lowland priority areas remaining untransformed (Target 97% by State of Biodiversity Report secured in conjunction with civil society year 6 over 2002 baseline: *)
% increase in area under conservation management in priority areas (Target 5% by year 6 (23,550 ha currently under conservation management);
% of Spatial Development Frameworks in local municipalities in priority areas incorporating conservation planning priorities (Target 100% by year 6: Baseline: 0) Review of approved SDFs
% of EIAs in priority areas explicitly addressing conservation planning priorities (Target 80% by year 6: Baseline: #) Records of decision for EIAs at provincial and municipal levels
Output 7: Biodiversity concerns are integrated into watershed management % of fires in three priority watersheds that fall within 20% of the desired fire Fire Data base – WCNCB, DEAET frequency (Target: 80% by year 6: Baseline: *) Fire Records of FPAs
Deviation of low flow rate of three priority rivers from the prescribed Ecological DWAF Flow record databases Reserve (Target: <10%; Baseline:*) Biodiversity Monitoring reports of % population size increase of native minnows in alien fish control pilots (Target: WCNCB/DEAET 200% by year 6*; Baseline: *) Annual reports of cross-institutional reference % deviation from estuarine health index (Target: within 10%; Baseline: #) group on CFR estuaries
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 39
Project Components/Subcomponents/Activities Inputs: (Budget per each component) Project Reports (from Component to Outputs) 1. Institutional strengthening US$ 5.8 million 1.1 Enhance inter-agency cooperation and strategic planning for US$ 0.315 million C.A.P.E. Monitoring and evaluation Institutional commitment at national, conservation management in the CFR reports provincial and local levels 1.1.2 Facilitate the resolution of legal mandates and institutional roles for conservation of CFR; Supervision mission reports National policy and legislation clearly assigns 1.1.3 Assess the requirements of the contributing agencies to meet their legal responsibility of key national and agreed mandates; Legal and institutional assessment reports provincial biodiversity conservation agencies 1.1.4 Develop generic performance management system across implementing agencies to ensure alignment and compliance with Performance management reports Agreements on standards and protocols for CAPE Strategy; information management 1.1.5 Incorporate biodiversity concerns into the strategies and workplans of five new CMAs.
1.2 Build capacity for effective conservation management in the CFR US$4.054 million 1.2.1 Undertake training, based on participatory training needs Needs assessment report assessment; 1.2.2 Undertake institutional and training needs assessment for the Agency skills development reports establishment of Eastern Cape Nature Conservation Agency; 1.2.3 Conduct capacity building program in conjunction with THETA7; 1.2.4 Facilitate and support the development of a networked program to attract and retain new entrants into conservation management; 1.2.5 Undertake skills development for watershed and PA management.
1.3 Develop financial sustainability plan 1.3.1 Determine the financial needs of implementing agencies for all conservation management activities; US$ 0.95 million 1.3.2 Identify and select appropriate funding mechanisms and targets for implementing agencies; Financial needs assessment 1.3.3 Assess the contribution of protected area tourism to the sustainability of conservation management programs.
1.4 Establish a comprehensive information management system 1.4.1 Provide information management system outside protected areas; 1.4.2 Develop mechanisms for skills and knowledge transfer. US$ 0.48 million
Information management strategy and program report
2. Conservation education US$ 1.1 million 2.1 Raise awareness and understanding of biodiversity issues and C.A.P.E. Monitoring and Evaluation Educational authorities and service providers benefits in CFR; reports reach consensus on strategy and 2.1.1 Facilitate co-ordinated environmental education in the CFR at Supervision mission reports implementation arrangements Project and site level; 2.1.2 Develop and disseminate materials focusing on CFR biodiversity; Biodiversity education strategy reports
7 Tourism and Hospitality Education and Training Authority
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 40 Project Components/Subcomponents/Activities Inputs: (Budget per each component) Project Reports (from Component to Outputs) 2.1.3 Train environmental educators and teachers to use materials. . 3. Establishing the foundations of the biodiversity economy US$ 2.33 million 3.1 Identify and design market-based and fiscal mechanisms for $US1.0 million C.A.P.E. Monitoring and Evaluation Willingness of business to adopt and comply conservation reports with provisions of Codes of Practice 3.1.1 Undertake an economic evaluation of the ecological services of the CFR; Supervision mission reports Availability and willingness of community 3.1.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of existing market-based mechanisms organizations to develop partnership and pilot payment for ecological services; arrangements 3.1.3 Design and pilot market-based mechanisms at the municipal level Knowledge dissemination system e.g. rates rebates and tradable development rights and Social stability in priority areas such as the investigate tax incentives for conservation. Cape Flats Certification systems report 3.2 Develop mechanisms for lessening the impacts of business on US$ 1.33 million biodiversity Code of practice report 3.2.1 Develop a Biodiversity Charter, and targets for commitment of different industries to biodiversity management; Support the Community eco-enterprises strategy development of micro-enterprises for conservation reports management contracts. Report on analysis of markets for environmental services
4. Program Co-ordination, Management and Monitoring US$ 1.67 million 4.1Undertake program co-ordination, management and monitoring C.A.P.E. Monitoring and Evaluation Willingness of agencies to co-operate and 4.1.2 Undertake program co-ordination; reports contribute to the implementation of the CAPE 4.1.3 Undertake financial management and auditing; 2000 Strategy 4.1.4 Undertake program management, co-ordinated monitoring and Supervision mission reports evaluation; 4.1.1 Undertake communication program C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit reports Minutes of CCC and CIC meetings
Communication strategy and materials 5. Unleashing the potential of protected areas US$ 27.72 million 5.1 Establishing and consolidating key protected areas C.A.P.E. Monitoring and Evaluation Legal mandates for protected area 5.1.1 Consolidate three priority large protected areas; reports establishment, development and management 5.1.2 Establish two priority freshwater and two estuarine protected are clearly resolved areas; Supervision mission reports 5.1.3 Establish two priority marine protected areas, including fisheries Communities surrounding protected areas are co-management arrangements in the Kogelberg Marine Protected area development plans willing to engage in participatory planning Protected Area. processes Protected area Strategic Performance 5.2 Developing sustainable management effectiveness Management Systems report Changes in access rights to resources in 5.2.1 Design and test a Strategic Performance Management System in protected areas can be successfully negotiated three target PAs; Protected area business plans with user groups 5.2.2 Adapt the EIS model developed in Cape Peninsula National Park for other priority PAs; Communities in the Kogelberg Marine 5.2.3 Develop plans for responsible tourism in target PAs; Protected Area are willing to co-operate to 5.2.4 Facilitate development of tourism infrastructure and facilities in develop improved management and target PAs; monitoring arrangements 5.2.5 Develop PAs business plans and mechanisms for financial
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 41 Project Components/Subcomponents/Activities Inputs: (Budget per each component) Project Reports (from Component to Outputs) sustainability for target PAs; 5.2.6 Implement priority management programs;
6. Identifying and securing biodiversity in 6 priority areas US$ 9.5 million 6.1 Undertaking fine-scale conservation planning US$ 0.4 million C.A.P.E. Monitoring and Evaluation Property tax regime favours biodiversity 6.1.1 Undertake fine-scale conservation analysis; reports conservation on private land 6.1.2 Develop conservation plans and guidelines. Supervision mission reports The importance of conserving globally 6.2 Integrating biodiversity in land-use decision-making US$ 3.2 million significant biodiversity is understood by 6.2.1 Integrate fine-scale conservation plans into government spatial Fine-scale conservation planning reports authorities and communities in the priority planning; areas 6.2.2 Strengthen land-use regulation; SDF and ISP planning reports 6.2.3 Build institutional and individual capacity in municipalities in There are sufficient skills to conduct priority areas. Extension service reports conservation planning studies and to build capacity at the local municipal level 6.3 Increasing landowners commitment to conservation US$ 8.8 million 6.3.1 Build extension services and pilot cooperative management schemes.
7. Integrating biodiversity concerns into watershed management US$ 7.04 million 7.1 Improving watershed management and water resource US$ 3.2 million There is a willingness and capacity on the management C.A.P.E. Monitoring and Evaluation part of the new Catchment Management 7.1.1 Increase the effectiveness of the “Ecological Reserve” measure in reports agencies to incorporate biodiversity concerns water resource management; into CMAs 7.1.2 Incorporate biodiversity concerns into the new fire management Supervision mission reports system. Catchment management agency There is timeous recognition and commitment agreements to act regarding IAS in the CFR 7.2 Improving Management of Invasive Alien Species US$ 2.48 million 7.2.1 Create an IAS management strategy and business plan for the Fire management association reports Environmentally-friendly techniques are entire CFR; available to address alien fish threat 7.2.2 Establish centres of excellence for IAS prevention and management in the CFR; The legal jurisdiction for the management of 7.2.3 Pilot the control of invasive alien fish in priority freshwater estuaries is clarified. ecosystems. IAS management strategy report
7.3 Improving estuarine management US$1.36 million 7.3.1 Design and test a CFR estuarine management program, based on relevant case studies Alien fish control report
Estuarine management strategy report
* Baseline figure to be established from various statistics # Baseline to be established by analysis in 2003 42 Annex 2: Incremental Cost Analysis
1. National development objectives
South Africa is strongly committed to the pursuit of sustainable development. The country's primary challenge is to ensure social and economic upliftment, and in particular, to create new employment opportunities and systematically address the root causes of poverty. The GoSA is highly committed, within this context, to biodiversity conservation. However, the country's astonishing species richness and biogeographic turnover amplify the magnitude of its conservation challenge. While the GoSA appropriates substantial funding directly to conservation management, this is insufficient to establish a biologically representative conservation estate on public, private and community lands, mainstreamed into the sustainable development framework. The State is seeking financial and technical assistance from the international community to advance its global conservation agenda by defraying the high one-time costs associated with building the necessary institutional, social and economic capital and management frameworks. The aim is to align such investment with its broader sustainable development strategies and programs.
2. Global environmental objectives
The CFR is an exceptionally rich storehouse of biodiversity, characterized by high floristic species richness, beta and gamma diversity, fragility and irreplaceability. One of six recognized Plant Kingdoms, the CFR is the only Plant Kingdom located entirely within the boundaries of a single nation. The region's uniqueness makes it one of the highest global conservation priorities and South Africa shoulders a special responsibility for its stewardship on behalf of the global community. There is presently, however, a very real risk that accelerating anthropogenic pressures on the system, if left unchecked, will result in a loss of biodiversity. The GoSA is committed to conserving the CFR's biological heritage but lacks the financial and technical resources and know-how needed to fully operationalize a comprehensive, performance-driven conservation program. A national Programmatic Framework for conservation action, known as Cape Action for People and Environment (C.A.P.E.) has been developed. The Global Environmental Objective of the Program, which underpins the rationale for GEF assistance, is to ensure that by the year 2024 a representative sample of the CFR's biological diversity is effectively conserved, and where appropriate is restored.
3. Baseline scenario
The principal threats to biodiversity in the CFR stem from habitat conversion, colonization by alien invasive species, uncontrolled fires, and unsustainable offtakes of certain commercially important wild resources. These threats are explicated in Annex 7. The CAPE 2000 Strategy has identified a suite of interventions needed to arrest anthropogenic pressures and protect areas of global conservation importance. The baseline course of events, over six years without the C.A.P.E. and GEF support may be characterized as follows:
Institutional strengthening: The GoSA is embarking on a series of institutional reforms to clarify mandates, roles and structures within and between government agencies. However, there are no plans to address systemic and institutional capacity weaknesses for the management of biodiversity at the bioregional scale, implying that the conservation functions of different institutions will remain poorly co-ordinated. Various conservation agencies would appropriate funds for skills development (US $1.07 million); this is
43 inadequate, relative to need, in terms of creating the skills set required for effective implementation of the CAPE 2000 Strategy by government and non-government agencies. A further US $2.85 million will be allocated to data base management, including for the procurement of hardware and software and the development of decision support systems. However, data management systems would remain poorly co-ordinated, with little quality standardization.
Conservation education: A total of US $0.63 million would be allocated for curriculum development and teacher training. However, no specific provision is being made to integrate CFR specific biodiversity issues into the curricula, nor to develop quality materials dealing with these issues. A total of US $0.58 million would be expended on education by conservation authorities. This would be dedicated towards designing and updating visitor interpretation materials. As interpretation centres are located mainly in protected areas and botanical gardens, the exposure of rural communities and disadvantaged groups will be limited. Finally, a sum of US $0.75 million would be appropriated towards general environmental education, dealing mostly with `brown issues' such as waste management.
Establishing the foundations for the biodiversity economy: A total of US $15 million would be expended on environmental impact assessment for major private sector developments. General environmental standards would be utilized, which are poorly tuned to specific biodiversity conservation needs. Further, such environmental impact mitigation would largely be pursued through `command and control' mechanisms, rather than through employment of market mechanisms, and voluntary compacts with key businesses. A sizeable investment is planned to develop small, medium and micro enterprises. The total anticipated budget is US $16.47 million.
Program co-ordination, management and monitoring: An effective program co-ordination mechanism would be lacking as needed to ensure synergies between the conservation activities of different government and non-government agencies. This will result in a sub- optimal utilization of scarce financial and technical resources. A number of biodiversity monitoring initiatives would continue, including helicopter-based game counts and transect surveys in selected protected areas (cost: US $ 3.5 million). The utility of these initiatives would be limited as they do not make adequate provision for socio-economic assessments nor for ecoregional scale consolidation. A more comprehensive system is needed to monitor pressure, state and response.
Unleashing the potential of protected area management: PA management authorities (SANParks, WCNCB, DEAET, DEAT) would allocate sizable resources towards the recurrent costs of managing protected areas (mostly terrestrial sites) throughout the CFR (US$ 59 million). This allocation would support a public PA estate of 10,800 km2, relative to a target of 16,632 km2, needed to effectively conserve a biologically representative sample of biodiversity A further 22,288 km2 of private lands will need to be managed for conservation. A total of US$ 5.4 million would be allocated to the development of nature- based tourism activities in a small number of protected areas. Tourism development would concentrate in a few sites with little diffusion, meaning that prospects for banking on the sector to provide conservation livelihoods in areas of biodiversity significance will remain poor. Also, there is little guarantee that any investment in such areas would be compatible with or contribute to site-specific objectives. A further US $1 million would be allocated towards the purchase of land. Land would be acquired in an ad hoc manner, without necessarily reflecting the highest conservation priorities. Thus while the PA system is
44 expected to gradually expand, it is unlikely that expansion would facilitate the consolidation of PAs across critical ecological landscapes. Many key ecosystems would remain under-represented in the network, including in particular, wetlands and coastal areas. Furthermore, management jurisdictions would continue to be vested in several institutions, leading to programmatic overlap and operational inefficiencies.
A total of US $14.8 million would be allocated by DEAT and other responsible authorities towards the management of inshore fisheries. Management would be effected through traditional means under a weak enforcement framework, including stock assessments, gear restrictions and seasonal closures, rather than through ecosystem-based approaches. There is an unmet need to develop multiple-use marine protected areas to accommodate biodiversity conservation objectives while allowing sustainable fishery utilization.
Identifying and securing biodiversity in priority areas: A sizeable investment is planned in the development of Integrated Development Plans at the municipal level (est. US $14.6 million). These include a spatial component, and are intended to provide a mechanism for coordinating development investments in infrastructure and services at the local-level. However, limited funding would be available for fine-scale planning, to map the precise location of important land parcels. The lack of precise maps and essential planning capacities would result in a weak reflection of conservation objectives and priorities in the IDPs. This would compromise efforts to mainstream biodiversity management into the agricultural sector. Finally, an estimated US $2.6 million would be expended in strengthening local extension services. However, there would be very limited capacity in these outfits to service conservation needs. Further, development and implementation of public- private sector models to incorporate land into conservation use would be neglected.
Integrating biodiversity concerns into watershed management: The State is making significant investments in watershed and water resource management. The total baseline allocation is estimated at US $ 75.6 million. This includes allocations for the control of alien woody plants in catchments, hydrological assessments, demand-side management and pollution control. There is a major unmet need to integrate key biodiversity conservation imperatives into the baseline program. This includes expanding the focus of invasive alien species (IAS) control to include currently un-targeted species and improving the cost efficiency of existing control measures, such as through induction of bio-control methods, to free up funds to address currently uncontrolled groups of IAS. Further there is a need to make proper provision for ecological reserve requirements in critical wetlands, in allocating water. Finally, there is a need to address biodiversity conservation management needs in estuaries, which have hitherto been neglected.
Baseline scenario costs. The total baseline scenario costs are estimated at US $213 million over years to be provided by different sources of funding (see Tables 1 and 2 below). It is important to note that the baseline estimate is conservative. The program preparation team were of the view that whilst significant private land and private sector initiatives are underway in the CFR there is no reliable way of assessing the conservation effectiveness of these investments. Therefore, they are excluded from the baseline calculations.
4. GEF alternative
This proposal is one of three complementary initiatives, to be supported by the GEF, under the national C.A.P.E. Program, aimed at realizing the afore-mentioned Global Environmental Objective. C.A.P.E. will implement priority actions identified in the Cape
45 Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE 2000 Strategy), completed in September 2000, over and above the baseline scenario so as to progressively mitigate human-induced threats to the CFR's globally significant biodiversity. C.A.P.E. is being implemented in three distinct phases. The first Phase of six years aims at creating the underlying policies, institutional framework and capacities needed to implement the CAPE 2000 Strategy, as well as to pilot new conservation approaches (site based interventions) to address the spectrum of conservation needs and management challenges in the CFR. This project would strategically support a number of Phase 1 interventions with a view towards assuring effective execution of C.A.P.E and fostering conditions for replication. Two development objectives are specified, with seven components:
Development Objective 1: Capable institutions co-operate to develop a foundation for mainstreaming biodiversity in the CFR into economic activities
Component 1: Strengthened institutions (UNDP) GEF alternative US $ 5,8 [GEF funding US $1,4]
The GEF would provide incremental funding to ensure better alignment between the operations of different institutions in advancing the CAPE 2000 Strategy. This includes the integration of biodiversity management objectives into strategies, business plans, and annual work plans, such as for the 5 new Catchment Management Agencies [GEF: $0.315 m]. GEF funding is being requested to design and deliver a comprehensive training program for conservation skills upliftment; significant co-financing is being supplied by THETA [GEF: $0.554 m; Co-fin: $ 3.5 m]. A medium-term financial sustainability plan for biodiversity conservation operations in the CFR would be prepared [GEF: $0.13 m; Co-fin: $0.82 m]. Finally, information management activities would be consolidated and improved, to enhance the utility of data and diffusion of knowledge to end-users [GEF: $0.4 m; Co- fin: $ .08 m]. Funding for this component is wholly incremental to the baseline for institutional development.
Component 2: Conservation education (UNDP) GEF alternative US $1,1 [GEF funding US $0,6]
The GEF would fund efforts to co-ordinate conservation specific education programs [GEF: $.37 m], and for the preparation of resource materials for schools and educational centres and associated teacher training [GEF: $0.23 m; Co-fin: $0.173 m]. These activities are incremental to the baseline. Co-financing ($0.34) has been secured to impart conservation education to students at schools and educational centres.
Component 3: Establishing the foundations for the biodiversity economy (WB) GEF alternative US $2,37 [GEF funding US $1,21].The GEF would provide funding to activities aimed at lessening the impacts of business on biological diversity by facilitating the development of innovative voluntary market incentive measures (codes of conduct, certification systems, procurement compacts), and public-private partnerships with key enterprises, to mainstream biodiversity conservation objectives into the wine, wheat tourism and ostrich industries. [GEF: $0.21 m; Co-fin: $1.12 m]. Finally, GEF would provide funding to identify and design promising market-based mechanisms and fiscal incentives for conservation [$1.0 m].
46 Component 4: Program co-ordination, management and monitoring (WB) GEF alternative US $1,67 [GEF funding US $0,95]
Activities are incremental to the baseline. The GEF would provide funding to staff and operate the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit, to co-ordinate interventions spearheaded under the program [GEF: $0.71 Co-fin $0.494 m]. A monitoring and evaluation system would be set up to track conservation processes and impact in advancing the Program as a basis for facilitating adaptive management [GEF: $0.15 m; Co-fin: $0.1 m]. Finally, a communications system would be set up for the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit [GEF: $0.09 m; Co-fin: $0.083 m]. These inputs are incremental. Discussions are underway to increase government contributions.
7.4 Development Objective 2: Conservation of the CFR enhanced through piloting and adopting models for sustainable, effective management.
Component 5: PA management (WB) GEF alternative US $27.72 [GEF funding US $ 4,12]
Funding would be allocated to consolidate and strengthen management systems in three priority terrestrial PAs (meriting different management approaches), and establish two priority freshwater, two estuarine, and two marine protected areas. The GEF would provide funding for management planning, the development of visitor management plans, and Strategic Performance Management Systems. Support will also be provided to secure private land under conservation management. Private and public land to the value of $5 million is conservatively expected to be secured in this manner. Income earning private sector investment in tourism and environmental infrastructure in protected areas of $10 million is anticipated.
Co-financing has been secured from the GoSA and NGO sector for protected area operations, including for staffing, equipment and operations costs for boundary demarcation, IAS and fire management, and key infrastructure (ranger posts, visitor facilities, interpretation). [GEF: $ 3.885 m; Co-fin: $22.4 m]. These activities will generate largely global benefits over the medium term; in the longer term, tourism development at the target sites is expected to generate domestic co-benefits, justifying the national funding contribution.
In marine protected areas, activities would include the design and piloting of pilot fishery set-asides co-management arrangements for sustainable utilization of living coastal resources and biodiversity conservation. The GoSA would finance the costs of capital acquisition and of enforcement services for the pilots. The GEF would fund the incremental costs of removing knowledge barriers to effecting sustainable utilization of inshore fisheries through spatial management means, and thus to mainstream biodiversity management in the artisanal fishery sector. In the long-term, these demonstrations are expected to increase fishery productivity through an increase in spawning biomass in refugia and spillover effects. The domestic co-benefits derived from the pilot will provide a vehicle for ensuring the financial sustainability of management. [GEF: $0.235 m; Co-fin: $1.2 m].
47 Component 6: Identifying and securing biodiversity in priority areas (WB) GEF alternative US $9,5[GEF funding US $1,2]
The GEF would allocate funds to undertake fine-scale planning, to map habitat patches and potential corridors in five to six priority areas, identified as lowland priorities in the CAPE 2000 Strategy [GEF:$0.4 m]. The GoSA would fund the development of integrated conservation and development plans in these areas. The GEF would fund capacity building activities to enhance the ability of local area planners in municipalities at these sites to accommodate biodiversity conservation needs in local planning and decision- making, including for the execution of incentives measures (rates rebates). [GEF:$0.3 m; Co-fin: $2.9 m]. The GEF would finance efforts to build the capacity of extension officers in these areas to impart biodiversity management advice to landholders with a view to facilitating formal conservation agreements. The operations of the extension services at these six sites would be co-funded by GoSA [GEF:$1.3 m; Co-fin:$ 8.1 m].
Component 7: Integrating biodiversity into watershed management (WB) GEF alternative US $ 7.04 [GEF funding US $1,32]
The GEF would allocate funds to develop, test and adapt protocols and tools for incorporating biodiversity concerns into water catchment management. This includes establishing ecological reserve requirements for important wetlands, and strengthening fire management systems and protocols [GEF:$0.3 m, Co-Fin U$ $2.9 m]. GEF and non-GEF funding (from the GoSA) would be appropriated towards the development of an overall strategic plan, across all taxonomic groups, for IAS control. The GEF would provide funding to test novel control technologies, and establish safeguards for species not currently subject to effective control. The GoSA would replicate successful approaches [GEF:$0.48m;Co-fin $2m]. For estuarine management, the GEF would pilot novel approaches to cooperative governance (local communities and multi-institutional) and integrated management [GEF:$0.54m] while the GoSA would handle the technical aspects underpinning the new management system [$0.82m].
Incremental Costs and Benefits:
The systems boundary is defined spatially by the CFR’s geographic boundary, spanning an area of 90,000 km2 within the Western Cape and Eastern Cape provinces. The systems boundary is defined temporally by the life of the project (six years). The GEF would provide funding for activities that generate clear global benefits, and could not be justified solely on account of domestic benefits. These benefits are diffuse, and distributed over long time- horizons, and would not ordinarily have been pursued solely in the national interest. Co- financing has been secured for activities producing substantial co-benefits (global + domestic benefits). The baseline, comprising activities that would be pursued irrespective of project investment, has been estimated at US $213.15 million8. The Alternative has been costed at US $268.28 million. The GEF would fund incremental costs, amounting to US $11 million, exclusive of preparatory assistance. Co-financing of US $ 44.13 million has been leveraged for the Alternative (exclusive of preparatory assistance).
8 The baseline cost estimate omits baseline costs attached to complementary GEF interventions in the CFR, aimed at supporting the national C.A.P.E. program, including the C.A.P.E.:Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative (ABI) and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.
48
Table 1: Cost summaries All costs in m US Baseline GEF Alternative Increment Increment Increment $ scenario Component GEF Others Total
Institutional 3.92 9.72 1.4 4.4 5.8 strengthening Conservation 1.96 3.07 0.6 0.51 1.11 education Establishing the 31.47 33.9 1.21 1.12 2.31 foundations for the biodiversity economy Program support 2.8 4.43 0.95 0.68 1.63 PA Management 80.2 107.92 4.12 23.6 27.72 Identifying and 17.2 26.7 1.6 8.1 9.5 securing biodiversity in priority areas Integrating 75.6 82.64 1.32 5.72 7.04 biodiversity into watershed management Total 213.15 268.28 11 44.13 55.13
Incremental Cost Matrix Component Cost category Cost (US $ mln) Domestic benefit Global benefit
Component 1: Baseline Total= 3.92 Institutional strengthening GEF Alternative Total= 9.72 Increment GEF: 1.4 Programmatic synergies assure cost- Improved capacity for long term THETA: 3.5 effective delivery of national BD sustainability of conservation SANParks: 0.82 conservation commitments through interventions at the systemic level to Fynbos Forum:0.08 development programs manage global biodiversity Total: 5.8 Component 2: Conservation Baseline Total = 1.96 education GEF Alternative Total= 3.07 Increment GEF: 0.6 Expanded access within rural/ Enhanced awareness of DEAT: 0.51 disadvantaged communities to conservation values amongst Total: 1.11 education on ‘green’ issues decision-makers and civil society; pertinent to their livelihoods new collaborative management mechanisms enlist a new constituency for BD management Component 3: Total = 31.47 Establishing the Baseline foundations of the biodiversity economy GEF Alternative Total= 33.8 Increment GEF: 1.21 New management arrangements New incentive measures help Ford F: 0.12 provide for better stewardship of mitigate threats to global Private: 1 natural capital stocks important to ecosystems and uncover tangible Total: 2.33 welfare new conservation incentives Component 4: Program support Baseline Total= 2.8
GEF Alternative Total= 4.43 Increment GEF: 0.95 Monitoring Systems in place to NBI/DEAT: 0.68 n/a measure pressure, state and Total: 1.63 response of global conservation investments
49 Component Cost category Cost (US $ mln) Domestic benefit Global benefit
Component 5: Baseline Total= 80.2 PA management
GEF Alternative Total= 107.92 Increment GEF: 4.12 Improved cost recovery System of PAs established to SANParks: 2.2 mechanisms for PAs, and cost conserve global biodiversity WCNCB:4.44 effectiveness in service delivery DEAT:0.74 MCM: 1.2 Private: 15.02 Total: 27.72 Component 6: Identifying and Baseline Total = 17.2 securing biodiversity in priority areas GEF Alternative Total= 26.7 Increment GEF: 1.4 The ecological sustainability of Integrated spatial plans provide a Local Gov’t: 6.1 local area development is enhanced framework for mainstreaming Private: 2 global BD objectives into Total: 9.5 irreplaceable habitats Component 7: Integrating Baseline Total = 75.6 biodiversity into watershed management GEF Alternative Total= 82.64 Increment GEF: 1.32 Efficiencies in IAS controls IAS management expanded to DWAF: 5.72 improves impacts per-unit-input address species threatening native Total: 7.04 biota, and the minimum ecological reserves of threatened wetlands are maintained to secure global BD Total Baseline US $213.15 GEF Alternative US $268.28 Incremental Cost GEF Non-GEF Total Full Project 11 44.13 55.13 Preparation 0.32 0.32 0.64 Grand Total 11.32 44.45 55.77
50 Annex 3: STAP Technical Review
Date: February 16, 2003 Project ID: PO75997 Focal Area: B – Biodiversity STAP Review Expert: Dr. Kenton Miller General
I find this to be an excellent project proposal. For the most part it is clear and concise, well written, and ambitious. Below please find my comments following the 4 February 2002 TOR for Technical Review of Project Proposals, and the Focal Area-specific annotations to the GTOR of the STAP Roster Review.
Scientific and technical soundness of the project
The project has a solid scientific and technical basis in biological, social and economic aspects. While much research remains to be done, there is sufficient information available to support the planning and managerial process. Furthermore, the professionals that prepared the proposal and the staff of NBI are top-notch people. The program adequately reflects the GEF design criteria.
Global environmental benefits
Maintaining and restoring the Cape biota, including ecosystems, genetic and specie components, is of itself a significant global environment benefit. In this way, the unique Cape flora and fauna can be kept available for the global human populations, e.g., the development of future medicines, tourism, and overall ecosystem functions and processes. This effort will contribute to the development of the global "conservation economy." The project seeks to mainstream biodiversity conservation objectives into "all the productive sectors, the regional economy and key government programs over a 3-phase 20-year period.
On p. 37, the first full para. says "The program is designed to have a substantial positive global environmental benefit which secures the CFR for future generations."
Fit within the goals of GEF
The proposal fits very well within the goals and operational strategies of GEF (including OP1, 2, 4, and 12).
Regional context
By applying the bioregional approach, the project will identify opportunities for advancing RSA's advanced transboundary conservation program. Already such multi-country parks, such as with Botswana, and Mozambique, and others. Research and planning are well advanced to link key core reserve sites through corridors that will cross international boundaries as needed. Thus, South Africa will provide stimulus to its neighbors to develop a southern Africa protected area system, which will in turn become a core resource base for development through wildlife tourism and sustainable use.
51 Replicability
Aside from the obvious distinctions with its neighbors in terms of social and economic development, and infrastructure, the surrounding countries have in common a major capital stock of wildlife and wildlands. As research by John Hanks and others has shown, this model of core park areas, buffer zones, and corridor linkages can be repeated in each of the other countries. All have need for institutional and personnel development, creating jobs, etc. In this sense, South African experience and learning will be of considerable value to its neighbors.
Sustainability of the project
The potential for sustainability of the project (the legacy) for extending its value well into the future is high. This is for several reasons. First, the duration of the project (20 years) in of itself provides a certain guarantee that the goals, activities, and lessons learned during the life of the Project will continue beyond the implementation period. This period is sufficiently long as to permit the necessary reforms of policy, institution building, and capacity development.
The Project engages all related public agencies, private sector and citizen bodies. The environmental education module will create a future generation that is well disposed to conserve their wildlife treasure. Lastly, from personal experience, the public and private managers and entrepreneurs in the RSA are very anxious to become ever more involved in wildlife management.
Secondary issues:
Linkages to other focal areas
This topic is not covered explicitly in the proposal. However, several points can be made based upon the text:
Environmental education: p. 33. "There is potential benefit in linking training and course development to an institution of higher learning that acts as a focal point in a partnership with NGOs…" There are also references to the Climate Change Education project, and the Water Education Program.
P. 35 under value added of Bank support refers to linkages with planning, management systems, capacity building, tourism promotion, environmental education, knowledge management and alien species control activities. While again the document does now explicitly address these items as "linkages of other focal areas," this reference makes the case that by relating to other projects lead by the World Bank, this project is associated with these noted focal areas. Other references refer to UNDP activities in the region that focus on integrated ecosystem management, capacity building and environmental education.
Linkages to other programmes and action plans at regional or sub-regional levels.
There is little reference in the document to regional or sub-regional programmes. This is perhaps due to the project's geographic focus on biological resources whose range lies within one country (RSA).
52
On p. 9, Strategic Context, reference is made to a country assistance strategy goal that is supported by the project. There are three development objectives. The third reads: "Strengthening South Africa's constructive role in regional development through investment projects, improved policy integration, and co-ordinated regional relations." Reference is also made to UNDP's Country Co-operation Framework that "…makes provision for protecting the global environment through conservation and protection of local and regional environments of global significance…"
On p. 11, reference is made to use of "bioregional planning," and the development of trans- frontier protected areas along South Africa's boundaries. Also, on pp. 15, 17, and elsewhere, reference is made to linkages with watershed management and invasive species control. Surely, to work on these and other similar large-scale issues will demand working with neighboring countries that have shared or transboundary ecosystems. I find no explicit reference to this issue.
The table on p. 28 lists "Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies." This would suggest a serious effort to explore the linkages with activities focus on other sectors.
Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects
On p. 17+ reference is made to environmental benefits, e.g., "The overriding benefit of the Program is that priority terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity conservation areas in the globally significant CCCVR and adjacent marine environments will be secured through a suite of interventions…" A list of positive benefits follows. I find no reference to damaging environmental effects.
Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project
Project methodology appears to be centrally dedicated to the involvement and engagement of local rural communities, business and industry, and political jurisdictions. On p. 16, "The design of activities under the CAPE umbrella has to date focused on civil society involvement…to seed and catalyze the involvement of local communities in conservation action. "…every component of the Program is designed to be participatory, with emphasis on involving previously disadvantaged sectors of the population…" Also, see pp23-24 regarding the lessons learned from other projects regarding successful stakeholder participation.
My main concern here is that throughout the document reference is made to "consultation" with the stakeholders. The literature is filled with reports on the fallacy of considering "consultation" to be equal to "engagement" or "involvement" of stakeholders. To consult may only cover showing the proposals at an open public meeting; it may NOT mean discussion, conflict resolution, forging agreements, and reaching consensus. What is actually meant by "consultation?" Be that as it may, the project method laudably includes various "consultations with stakeholders" throughout the process. However, the proposal does make a strong case for stakeholder participation on p. 24.
53 Capacity building aspects
The presentation appears to assume that capacity building will take place throughout project implementation for all those individual and groups involved. Very limited capacity building is noted on p. 24. There, a recommendation is made "…to make sure that participants are well aware of plans." The lack of development of a full section on staff capacity building is perhaps one of the weakest components of the Project. However, considerable investment is made in institution building. Working from what are already very strong solid institutions, such as the National Botanical Institute, this project promises to expand the capacity to manage biodiversity conservation projects.
Innovativeness of the Project
The project takes good advantage of existing institutions (NBI) that already have a proven track record at project planning and implementation. While the individual methods and models utilized are not necessarily pioneering, the overall approach, including the project duration, phasing and M&E, and geographic scale, are innovative as a package of components. The inclusion of lessons learned from earlier projects is extremely helpful to building a knowledge base, and for sharing what is learned among peers.
Reviewer's comments
1. The proposal lacks clear and explicit presentation of information on a series of points. Specifically, statements of goals and objectives are not always backed by explanations of process. For example: on p. 9, under the Strategic Context, and the CAS, the contributions of the project to the three CAS development objectives are not explained. Where is it clarified how the project will increase jobs, reduce poverty and inequality. There are other cases of this same disjuncture between statements of goals or outputs and outcomes, and how the project methodology will achieve these objectives.
These points can be corrected by writing more systematically to associate goals with means.
2. Including "Lessons Learned" is a major a innovation. This is a cutting edge effort. IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas is now establishing a Protected Areas Learning Network (PALNet) for purposes of capturing lessons learned and sharing them for testing and application elsewhere through an interactive web site at IUCN. This approach can be expected to accelerate the development and dispersal of knowledge and practice.
3. Under international partnerships, why is there no reference to partners along the national boundary that will assist in the development of transboundary protected areas and watershed management? This could be added quickly to the presentation. This would strengthen that section of the proposal, but also the section on regional impact and cooperation.
4. Don't forget to add the explanation of "Safeguards" on p. 4.
5. On p. 9, the Key performance indicators section is very important and in some respects an innovation. You could add some specific guidance and explanation to numeral 8: Cite the IUCN Protected Area Classification system; international standards will be one of the subjects to be debated at the 5th World Parks Congress.
54 6. Strengthen Item B: Strategic Context point #1: add two or three sentences to explain each of the three main development objectives, particularly #3. South Africa's regional influence on conservation is very important for future development for people and nature.
7. You might want to consider adding an annex to present the Millennium Development Goal and the Johannesburg Summit outcomes as related to this topic. Some readers will not as yet have had the opportunity to review these documents.
8. On p. 11, the text notes summary numerals by percent of terrestrial coverage. This is normal shorthand for park people. But it misses a crucial dimension: How are these areas classified in terms of their objectives of management? That is, add a matrix graphic showing the numbers, areas, and percents of coverage. UNEP/WCMC has the numbers.
9. On p. 12, end of para on Government Strategy: How is the project going "to mainstream biodiversity and conservation into productive sectors of the economy, and development of capacity in this regard." Two sentences here would be helpful.
10. Listing the Project Components on p. 13+ is very helpful.
11. I trust that there will be more "Latest Supervision Ratings" in the table on p. 22, otherwise one could question its utility. And please give the graphs numbers as figures, tables, etc.
12. p. 24: under item 4, reference is made to economic dimensions of biodiversity planning and management in both marine and terrestrial environments. One would want to include the "non-material" values and benefits of biodiversity and biological resources as well. (see A. D. Putney, IUCN/WCPA c/o IUCN headquarters). These cultural, aesthetic, recreational and other similar values are often the most powerful in terms of income generation, economic development, and peoples' quality of life.
13. p. 25. Would be good to clarify "Whose money" is being used to purchase land.
14. p. 31. We are rather close to having a good system to evaluate management effectiveness. (see Dr. Marc Hockings, U. Queensland; see WCPA web site for publications)
15. p. 34. See earlier reference to PALNet.
16. p. 37-38, 41. Again question of the term "consult(ed).
17. p. 41. What are the units on item 5.2? Do you mean square kms?
End------
Dr. Kenton Miller Lost Hollow Farm RR 1, Box 131 Mathias, WV 26812 Phone/fax: 304-897-6576 Email: [email protected] please cc to [email protected]
55 Response to STAP comments by the Project Team
Replicability The reviewer commented that, aside from the obvious Agreed, the C.A.P.E. Program will through dissemination distinctions with its neighbors in terms of social and mechanisms ensure that the lessons learned contribute to economic development, and infrastructure, the bioregional programs in South Africa, in neighbouring countries surrounding countries have in common a major capital and elsewhere. stock of wildlife and wildlands, and that this model of core park areas, buffer zones, and corridor linkages could be repeated in each of the other countries. All have need for institutional and personnel development, creating jobs, etc. In this sense, South African experience and learning would be of considerable value to its neighbors. Linkages to other programmes and action plans at regional or sub-regional levels, and between Project components The reviewer indicated a need for more explicit The Project has been designed with close linkages between all reference to linkages between components and with components and activities. Implementing agencies will ensure other interventions in the region. close coordination between the respective project activities and other related interventions in the region. Linkages between components have been made more explicit in the document. The reviewer commented that there is little reference in The project domain is unaffected by shared and transboundary the document to regional or sub-regional programmes, ecosystems. and asks whether work on this programme would demand working with neighboring countries that have shared or transboundary ecosystems.
Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project The reviewer notes the Project’s commitment to Preparation of both the C.A.P.E. Program and this Project were meaningful involvement of and engagement with characterized by extensive participation and involvement of stakeholders, but feels that where the term stakeholders. The title Cape Action for People and the “consultation” is used, it should be defined to ensure Environment alludes to this, and the design reflects committed that this is not token consultation. participation at all levels.
Capacity building aspects The reviewer feels that “The lack of development of a Component 1: Institutional Strengthening incorporates a full section on staff capacity building is perhaps one of complete needs analysis and focused capacity-building the weakest components of the Project. However, component. There are capacity-building elements in each considerable investment is made in institution component and sub-component, but the key is co-ordination and building.” focus. In addition, it should be noted that the 4th strategic direction of CEPF funding to the CFR is dedicated to capacity building especially in civil society, and that the CEPF funding is complementary to the Project. Other Comments The reviewer feels that statements of goals and This point has been addressed in the document (see section on objectives are not always backed by explanations of CAS and Annex 1:Project Logframe) process, and that these points can be corrected by writing more systematically to associate goals with means. The reviewer requested that an explanation of This has been done (see Safeguards section) "Safeguards" be inserted. The reviewer requested that an explanation of the This has been done. See description of Component 5. IUCN protected area classification be inserted into the document. The reviewer requested a short explanation of each of The Development Objectives are explained in the Component the development objectives. Descriptions. The reviewer suggests adding an annex to present the Not necessary for this audience. Millennium Development Goal and the Johannesburg Summit outcomes as related to this topic. The reviewer requests adding a matrix graphic showing Further information has been provided in Annex 10. the numbers, areas, and percents of coverage of protected areas The reviewer asks for clarification on how the project See C2: Key policy and institutional reforms to be sought. The will " mainstream biodiversity and conservation into concept of mainstreaming is explained in a footnote in the
56 productive sectors of the economy, and development of Program Description C1. Project Components 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and capacity in this regard." 7 are all concerned with ensuring that biodiversity underpins socio-economic development, and that biodiversity benefits from this “win-win” relationship. The reviewer requests that the "non-material" values The Monitoring and Evaluation system referred to in and benefits of biodiversity and biological resources be Component 4 embraces measurement of Project impact across included in any evaluation. Biodiversity, Economic and Social dimensions. The economic evaluation of biodiversity in the CFR to be undertake as an activity under Component 3 will consider non-material values of biodiversity. The reviewer suggests that it would be good to clarify This has been clarified in the document. In most cases, land "Whose money" is being used to purchase land. purchase is not the preferred option, but the involvement of existing landowners in contractual arrangements for protection. Where purchases are undertaken, these do not employ GEF resources but are the result of private sector investment, or the use of dedicated funds. The reviewer suggests making reference to newly This has been emphasized in the document under the developed mechanisms to evaluate management description of Component 5. effectiveness.
57 Annex 4: Institutions associated with the project
The following institutions are directly involved in aspects of C.A.P.E. implementation. In addition, there is a huge range of organisations that could become more directly involved in the Project.
Program co-ordination institutions
• C.A.P.E. Co-ordinating Committee (CCC). The Parties to the C.A.P.E. Memorandum of Understanding form the CCC. They are the National Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the National Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, the Member of the Executive Council of the Eastern Cape for Environmental Affairs, and the Member of the Executive Council of the Western Cape for Environmental Affairs. The CCC’s function is to provide direction and oversight to ensure that the CAPE 2000 Strategy is implemented and achieves its purpose.
• C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee (CIC). The CIC is established in terms of a subsidiary MoU to the C.A.P.E. MoU. The Parties to the CIC MoU are all agencies that play a significant and on-going role in implementing aspects of the CAPE 2000 Strategy. It consists of 16 agencies, including government departments at national, provincial and local level, NGOs and international conservation bodies.
• National Botanical Institute (NBI). The NBI is a statutory body established in terms of the Forest Act. In terms of the Biodiversity Bill published on 24 January 2003, it will become the National Biodiversity Institute with a responsibility for, inter alia, bioregional conservation programs. In terms of the C.A.P.E. MoU the NBI is designated as the Program Management Agency for C.A.P.E. It is responsible for establishing and housing the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit.
• C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit (CCU). The Cape Co-ordination Unit is responsible for the day to day management of the Project. It consists of a Co-ordinator, Administrator, Communications Manager, Project Developer and Finance/Business Manager. The Co-ordinator reports to the Director: Biodiversity Policy and Planning of the NBI.
National institutions
• Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). DEAT is the lead agency for the implementation of C.A.P.E. as a priority program of the GoSA. DEAT is responsible for national and international programs concerning biodiversity, sustainable development and the key conventions concerning the natural environment. In addition DEAT is responsible for tourism and for programs to enhance tourism and job creation through sustainable development.
• Chief Directorate of Marine and Coastal Management of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (MCM). MCM is responsible for the implementation of Coastal and Marine programs in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape provinces.
58 • Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). DWAF is concerned with C.A.P.E. both in terms of its forestry and water components. DWAF is the custodian of State Forests which form the core of many protected areas throughout the CFR, and is the key agency for implementing the provisions of the Water Act, under which the responsibilities for watershed management are being devolved to Catchment Management Agencies.
• Working for Water Program, which is responsible for the removal of alien plants from catchments, is an initiative of DWAF. It is regarded as an example of the kind of collaborative program required to fulfil the objectives of C.A.P.E. in that it seeks to address a threat to biodiversity while simultaneously improving water run-off and meeting social and development objectives, through job creation and the development of entrepreneurs.
• Department of Land Affairs (DLA). DLA is concerned with the access to and development of land. This includes land redistribution, restitution and tenure reform. These issues arise in the establishment of contractual parks, buffer areas and resettlement programs.
• Department of Agriculture (DA). The DA is responsible for agricultural resource conservation, and decision-making concerning the use of land. Conversion of land from agricultural uses to other uses as well as the conversion of unused land requires the approval of the DA.
• Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG). This department provides resources and support to local authorities in compiling Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and will oversee the local authority's land-use regulation and planning, housing and township establishment, development planning and local economic development.
• South African National Parks (SANParks). SANParks has the primary responsibility for all protected areas that are designated as National Parks within the CFR.
• Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The CSIR is the premier technology and research organization in Africa committed to innovation, supporting sustainable development and economic growth and creating value for clients, partners and stakeholders. Its Foundation for Research Development has supported the Fynbos Forum, an association of conservation managers, researchers, private sector and individuals interested in the CFR.
• The Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA). The DBSA is playing a role together with other C.A.P.E. implementing agencies to develop conditions for investment and growth in the region. The DBSA will support C.A.P.E. in its mission to increase investment in the CFR in appropriate infrastructure and development.
• Tourism and Hospitality Education and Training Authority (THETA). The THETA is responsible for the administration of skills development in the nature conservation and tourism sectors. It is currently involved in C.A.P.E. through the Integrated Nature–based Tourism and Conservation Management Project, but will continue to play a direct and indirect role in capacity-building in this sector.
59 Provincial institutions
• Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism (EC DEAET). The Chief Directorate of Environmental Affairs is the lead agency for the implementation of C.A.P.E. in the province. It houses the Eastern Cape C.A.P.E. Co- ordination office.
• The Eastern Cape Tourism Board (ECTB). The ECTB is responsible for tourism development and marketing in the Eastern Cape, and is therefore a key instrument in developing economic opportunities based on natural resources.
• The Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC). The ECDC is responsible for development programs in the Eastern Cape. It is currently involved in the development of the Baviaanskloof Mega-reserve in partnership with the EC DEAET and the Wilderness Foundation.
• Eastern Cape Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs (EC DLA). The department is responsible for agricultural development in the Eastern Cape.
• Eastern Cape Department of Housing and Local Government (EC DHLG). The department is responsible for land-use planning in the Eastern Cape, and is therefore a key agency in the development of decision-support to local government in the province.
• Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (WC DEA&DP). This Department is responsible for the dual functions of land-use planning and environmental affairs. It is a key institution in the development of the strategic development frameworks and integrated development plans for the province and is the authorizing agency for development.
• Western Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Tourism. Several branches of this Department are closely involved with C.A.P.E., including the economic development of the province, agricultural development, agricultural extension services and skills development.
• Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB). The WCNCB is responsible for nature conservation throughout the Western Cape, both within and beyond protected areas.
• Western Cape Tourism Board (WCTB). The WCTB is responsible for tourism marketing and promotion in the province. It is a key contributor in terms of its role in influencing private sector investment in nature-based tourism and in championing responsible tourism development in the province.
Municipal institutions
• City of Cape Town (CoCT). CoCT is responsible for municipal service provision and administration within the greater Cape Town area. It has adopted an Integrated Management and Environmental Plan and a Biodiversity Policy and Strategy which
60 accords with CAPE 2000 Strategy. It is responsible for core flora sites within the municipal boundaries.
• Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (NMMM). The NMMM is responsible for municipal service provision and administration in the greater Port Elizabeth area in the Eastern Cape. Within the municipal boundaries are several municipal protected areas.
• District Councils. The CFR is administered by several District Councils. These municipalities are integral to the successful implementation of C.A.P.E. as they are responsible for the development and implementation of Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).
Non-governmental organizations
• Botanical Society of South Africa. The Botanical Society, with 25,000 members, has promoted the conservation of indigenous flora in South Africa since 1913. The Botanical Society's Cape Conservation Unit plays an important role in conservation, and its activities include advocacy, planning, research, and implementation. Taking the lead from the C.A.P.E. recommendations, this group is prioritizing lowland areas for conservation and enhancing opportunities for private conservation.
• Wilderness Foundation (WF). The Wilderness Foundation is the only national NGO based in the Eastern Cape portion of the CFR, where it is undertaking Program management functions in partnership with the EC DEAET to implement the Baviaanskloof mega-reserve project.
• Wildlife and Environment Society of Southern Africa (WESSA). WESSA, founded in 1927, has demonstrated ability to organize grassroots conservation efforts such as lobbying, monitoring water quality, and providing environmental education. The organization's experience in these areas, as well as its membership base in the CFR, make it an important stakeholder in the implementation of C.A.P.E., WESSA’s branches in both the Western Cape and Eastern Cape are actively involved in elements of C.A.P.E..
• Table Mountain Fund (TMF). Founded by WWF-SA, the TMF was established as a capital trust fund to catalyse the development of projects throughout the CFR. It is also the manager of a capacity-building program utilising funding from the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.
• Mountain Club of South Africa (MCSA). The MCSA has become involved in aspects of C.A.P.E. concerning the preservation of wilderness qualities especially in mountainous areas of the CFR.
• Flower Valley Conservation Trust (FVCT). The FVCT is implementing a program in the Agulhas Plain to promote the sustainable harvesting of wild flowers together with job-creation, diversification of employment and the provision of early learning opportunities.
61 • Fynbos Forum (FF). The Fynbos Forum was established by academics, managers, NGOs and private sector organisations as a network to exchange ideas and develop new approaches to conservation and development in the CFR. It has adopted C.A.P.E. as its primary focus.
• Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve Company. The Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve Company was established to manage the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO listed Biosphere Reserve.
• West Coast Biosphere Reserve Company. The West Coast Biosphere Reserve Company was established to manage the West Coast Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO listed Biosphere Reserve.
• South African Association of Protea Producers and Exporters (SAPPEX). SAPPEX is a voluntary organisation, and the recognized mouthpiece of the Fynbos Industry. SAPPEX encourages its members to accept stewardship of the Cape Floristic Region’s biological wealth to ensure long-term economic growth based on sustainable use.
• International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). The IAIA will be involved in the development of environmental best practices for application in the CFR.
• National Business Initiative (NBI). The National Business Initiative operates as a partnership between business and GoSA in the area of socio-economic delivery, in order to make an impact on national problems.
International institutions
• Conservation International (CI). CI will not initiate an expansive program, but will provide technical assistance and liaison work on special initiatives that could benefit from the global expertise in CI's Centre for Applied Biodiversity Science and the Centre for Environmental Leadership in Business. The Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund ( CEPF ) is providing US $8 million to the civil society component of the CAPE Strategy.
• World Wide Fund for Nature – South Africa (WWF-SA). One of the world's largest and most effective independent organizations dedicated to the conservation of nature WWF-SA represents the WWF in South Africa. WWF-SA's conservation strategy prioritises sustainable use of renewable natural resources; species and habitats of special concern; protected areas; legislation, policies and treaties and pollution and consumption of non-renewable natural resources.
• Fauna and Flora International (FFI). FFI is one of the C.A.P.E. implementing agencies and has provided technical assistance in the development of the Program. FFI is also directly involved in the C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative and in the activities of the Flower Valley Conservation Trust.
• Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). The CEPF has allocated resources to the CFR in terms of an Ecosystem Profile, which lists four strategic funding directions to involve civil society in conservation action supportive of C.A.P.E.
62
Academic institutions
• Goldfields Environmental Education Service Centre, Rhodes University. The Goldfields Centre conducts research and skills development in the field of Environmental Education and will be approached to undertake specific responsibilities in C.A.P.E.
• Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town (GSB). The GSB has recently initiated a Business and Environment program in association with Cambridge University, and may undertake specific responsibilities in C.A.P.E.
• Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town (PFIAO). The PFIAO conducts research and skills development in Conservation Biology and in Ornithology with many activities directly implementing aspects of C.A.P.E.
• University of Stellenbosch (US). The University of Stellenbosch undertakes research and skills development in nature conservation and agriculture and has made significant progress in investigating the conservation and management concerns regarding the Renosterveld, one of the most threatened lowland habitat units in the CFR.
• Program for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape (PLAAS). PLAAS undertakes policy and research studies dealing with community-based natural resource management. It is likely to play a significant role in aspects of C.A.P.E.
• Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth (TERU). TERU has developed expertise in conservation planning and implementation methodologies and is a key research and development institution in the CFR.
• Institute for Plant Conservation, University of Cape Town (IPC). The IPC has undertaken conservation planning research and development for C.A.P.E. and in particular, has been developing techniques to ensure the representation of biodiversity processes in conservation plans.
63 Annex 5: Environmental Threat Analysis
C.A.P.E. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the CFR
Major Root causes Solutions including GEF Risks environmental intervention (numbers = threats LFA subcomponent addressing the issue) I. Habitat transformation due to land conversion (urban development and agriculture) (i) High priority 1. The total economic This is a complex problem for which Studies are inconclusive conservation areas in CFR value of vulnerable there is no short-term solution. The or unconvincing to key encompassing transition ecological systems Project will lay the foundations for stakeholders. zones between montane (underpinning addressing this problem by: and lowlands are severely livelihoods) is not undertaking an economic valuation transformed and accommodated in the of the ecological services value of fragmented, resulting in cost/benefit calculus of the CFR (3.1); encouraging loss of connectivity and land-use. environmental best practices (3.2); gradients between large encouraging community eco- habitat blocks. enterprise development around conservation objectives (3.3); designing and piloting payments for specific ecological services and investigating tax incentives (3.4); and investigating tradable development rights in threatened coastal lowland areas (3.5).
2. Biodiversity 2. Feasibility studies will be Biodiversity conservation conservation experiencing undertaken in a representative becomes a “cash cow” to decline in support to sample of priority protected areas to cross-subsidise other operating budgets. develop PA business plans and socio-economic priorities mechanisms for financial without maintaining the sustainability to support ongoing investment in the source protected development and of income. management (1.3, 5.2); Economic evaluation of ecological services will Executing agencies lose provide a sound rationale for further their financial autonomy. investment in biodiversity conservation (3.1).
3. There is generally poor 3. The Project will raise awareness Unwillingness on the part public awareness of the and understanding of biodiversity of the large number of importance of the CFR, issues and benefits in the CFR. It conservation education its critically threatened will establish a conservation service providers to co- status and the education focal point to serve the ordinate activities. opportunities that will be C.A.P.E. Program and provide lost should biodiversity technical resources to support site- losses continue unabated. based conservation education One of the reasons is that, processes across the entire Project. It despite a high level of will also build on the favorable understanding of national education policy conservation education environment to ensure that CFR processes, there is poor biodiversity features in school co-ordination of effort. curricula throughout the CFR (2.1).
4. Inadequate resolution 4. The Project will support Political conflicts between of institutional mandates enhancing inter-agency co-operation different levels of and poor inter-agency co- and strategic planning for government – national, ordination in biodiversity conservation management in the provincial and local – may conservation in CFR. CFR (1.1.) by facilitating the compromise inter-agency resolution of legal mandates, co-operation and co- assessing the role of the National ordination. Biodiversity Institute; and developing a generic performance
64 Major Root causes Solutions including GEF Risks environmental intervention (numbers = threats LFA subcomponent addressing the issue) management system to ensure alignment with C.A.P.E. It will also address the alignment of the Catchment Management Agencies with biodiversity conservation objectives.
5. Skills development 5. The Project will support a co- Skills developed in agency programs are ad-hoc and ordinated approach across staff are not retained not part of a institutions for training, skills within the institutions as comprehensive development and cross-institutional staff losses occur with the institutional capacity skill sharing (1.2). consequent skills drain. building strategy.
6. Information on 6. The Project will address the lack Agencies do not perceive biodiversity is scattered of a coherent information value of a coherent cross- across various agencies management system by establishing institutional information and is of inappropriate a C.A.P.E. Information Management management system and quality and resolution. Unit, which will provide reliable resort to legacy information to land-use planners, information systems. conservation agencies and municipalities and will assist in the development of skills and knowledge transfer. (1.4). It will also ensure that information management for protected areas management is appropriately implemented across the protected area system (5.2).
7. The current protected 7. The Project will consolidate three Political, public and area system is inadequate priority protected areas, to ensure financial support cannot to achieve global that the broad-scale planning is be gained to establish, conservation targets for operationalized to meet regional consolidate and manage biodiversity in the CFR; pattern and process targets, and large and complex existing large protected particularly in developing the protected areas. areas include land under a linkages through critical lowland variety of protection habitats (5.1). In addition it will pilot designations and managed the enhancement of formal protected by several authorities. area status for the top two priority Critically threatened freshwater and estuarine systems in lowland habitats are the CFR, reflecting a wide range of poorly represented. environmental, socio-economic and management conditions (5.1). The Project will also implement management planning for priority marine protected areas in the CFR reflecting a variety of conditions in both the Indian and Atlantic Ocean contexts (5.1).
8. Adequate mechanisms 8. The Project will support the Implementing agencies do and indicators to assess development of a Performance not support and maintain the effectiveness of Management System in the context the performance protected area of the four major management management systems. management are lacking. agencies responsible for protected areas in the CFR (5.2); In addition, the overall Monitoring and Evaluation System will ensure that key outcomes and impacts are
65 Major Root causes Solutions including GEF Risks environmental intervention (numbers = threats LFA subcomponent addressing the issue) assessed and evaluated across the Project (4.1).
(ii) Threatened lowland 1. There are no effective 1, 2 and 3. The Project will Tax incentives measures fynbos and renosterveld incentives for landowners investigate the application of specific are not acceptable to highly fragmented. to conserve priority areas tax incentive measures to support policy-makers. – including inadequate landowners to conserve irreplaceable policy and legal biodiversity in threatened lowland environment for such areas (3.4). It will also ensure that incentives. municipal Integrated Development Plans reflect biodiversity priorities, 2. Local rates provide a thereby constraining inappropriate disincentive to uses (6.2), and it will build co- landowners to retain land ordinated extension services to as private conservation support landowners directly (6.3). areas.
3. High priority conservation areas in lowlands are not incorporated into the current land-use planning system and therefore legal constraints are not available.
4. Inadequate information 4. The Project will support fine-scale The fine-scale information on status and distribution conservation planning (6.1), is not effected and of biodiversity in integrating the outputs into becomes quickly outdated. lowlands (including lack government spatial planning and of relevant expertise to building capacity at the municipality collect these data and of level (6.2); it will also support the standardized system for establishment of C.A.P.E. information gathering, Information Management Unit (1.4) management and which will provide reliable, quality communication). information in user-friendly formats to decision-makers and support staff involved in land-use planning and the conservation of biodiversity in the currently unprotected matrix.
5. Landowners unaware 5. Conservation education processes of alternative are aimed at enabling a broad conservation land-use awareness and action competence options. among stakeholders at all levels regarding biodiversity values and opportunities (2.1); and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities increase the options available to landowners (3.3).
II. Habitat degradation inside and outside protected areas (i) Spread of invasive 1. Alien clearing priorities 1,2,3. Effective control strategies and Political and hence alien plant species results are not linked to measures developed by the Centres government support for in altered hydrology, biodiversity conservation of Excellence in IAS management Working for Water altered soil properties, priorities. (7.2) will be implemented as part of program declines
66 Major Root causes Solutions including GEF Risks environmental intervention (numbers = threats LFA subcomponent addressing the issue) accelerated soil erosion the overall CFR IAS strategy (7.2); (possibly mitigated by and increased fire 2. Long-term bioregional improved efficiency of control having a major Education, frequency and intensity. strategic and business techniques for established alien Awareness and Training planning for invasive programs brought about by the IPM program aimed at building alien clearing is lacking. and Biocontrol activities of the popular support for this Centres of Excellence (7.2); alien Project (2.1). 3. Biocontrol agents still clearing activities will also be have limited impacts. conducted as integral part of high impact management programs (5.2). (ii) Inappropriate fire 1. Overlapping 1,2. The Project will support the New FPAs do not receive regimes result in responsibilities for fire incorporation of biodiversity adequate financing to alteration of soil management. concerns into the new fire enable them to control fire properties and erosion management system (7.1). regime effectively; effects. 2. Fire management Fire legislation not strategies focus on amended so as to reduce prevention and don’t liability of authorities integrate biodiversity attempting to carry out management issues. planned fires which then escape and do damage to 3. Lack of resources to adjacent landowners’ manage fires property. (iii) Physical 1. Biodiversity aspects not 1. The Project supports improved Political support for developments: urban integrated into the coastal land-use planning approaches (6.1 & ecologically sound land- developments in highly zone development plans. 6.2) which will contribute to use planning decision- vulnerable habitats/4x4 mainstreaming biodiversity in land- making and for the tracks/ mining activity in use decision-making aided by fine researching, management the coastal zone/bridges scale biodiversity information being and monitoring of in estuarine areas impair made available for priority areas (6.1 estuaries in the CFR is not water flows and natural & 6.2). forthcoming. sediment movement patterns; increased Monitoring and disturbance in enforcement of biologically sensitive development planning is areas (sound and air not adequate to prevent pollution). illegal inappropriate 2. Recreational activities 2. Carrying capacities properly developments in the estuarine quantified, accepted, and enforced by Local special interest ecosystems exceed the relevant authorities in accordance groups are allowed to have carrying capacity. with the CFR Estuarine Management their views prevail on this Program (7.3). issue of estuary mouth breaching, and carrying capacity and remain unconvinced of the benefits of ecologically sound breaching regimes and of enforcing ecologically sound limits to recreational use of the estuaries. (iv) Over-abstraction of 1. Water management 1. Water supply increased to meet Political and hence water from the CFR’s programs do not integrate demand through effective alien government support for surface and ground water biodiversity aspects. woody plant removal programs in Working for Water resources leads to catchment areas (see II (i)). Program declines. irreversible pollution of freshwater aquifers by salt 2. The Project will support the Political support for water water intrusion in coastal incorporation of biodiversity conservation/water areas. concerns into water demand management conservation/water demand programs is not management program; (7.1). forthcoming.
3. Over-abstraction prevented by the Enforcement of the
67 Major Root causes Solutions including GEF Risks environmental intervention (numbers = threats LFA subcomponent addressing the issue) rigorous implementation by well “Ecological Reserve” capacitated Catchment Management measure is ineffective. Authorities (7.1) of the “Ecological Reserve” measure to all aquatic Global climate change ecosystems in the CFR (7.1). leads to such significant declines in water supply or increases in water demand in the CFR, that human management of the system becomes impossible. III. Loss of biodiversity (i) Alien species (plants 1. Introduction of ballast 1. Effective prevention (e.g. ballast The alien fish angling and fish) displace the water. water introductions prevented fraternity continue to native species, most of through the GEF supported promote their hobby, even them threatened: GloBallast southern African once they have been program). informed as to the • Marine organisms unsustainable nature of • Aquatic plants 2. Currently, there is no 2. Control strategies and measures this activity. In the worse co-ordinated approach for developed for the marine and case scenario they could controlling invasive freshwater alien species, in co- actively oppose the species in priority areas operation with the Centres of control of alien fish in for conservation. Excellence in IAS management (7.2) priority freshwater and implemented as part of the ecosystems and even overall CFR IAS strategy (7.2); The sabotage these pilot Project will support piloting the schemes by re-introducing control invasive alien fish species in alien fish into cleared three priority freshwater ecosystems sections of rivers. (7.2). Control of aquatic invasive alien plants does not continue receiving governmental support (possibly mitigated by 2.1). (ii) Over-exploitation of 1. Understanding of 1. Scientifically sound maximal User groups remain natural resources: ecosystem fundamentals sustainable use levels for major unconvinced as to the dictating sustainable off- exploited living resources are set and desirability of controlling Estuarine fish and bait takes remains inadequate implemented as part of the CFR their off-take of exploited organisms are declining. at all levels. Estuarine Management Program species in the short-term (7.3). in the interests of heightened harvestable levels in the medium and long-term.
68 Major Root causes Solutions including GEF Risks environmental intervention (numbers = threats LFA subcomponent addressing the issue) Marine resources - 1. The regulatory 1. The Project will support piloting Elements in these user linefish, abalone and West enforcement regime is innovative management groups defy use Coast rock lobster are in imperfectly developed. arrangements for sustainable use of regulations and serious decline, due to living coastal and marine resources enforcement capacity or poaching. (5.2) – testing new co-management social pressures are arrangements with the fishing inadequate to regulate this communities; strengthening policing illegal off-take (as is capacities of conservation agencies; currently being designing of set asides as fishery experienced with abalone management tool. in the marine environment of the CFR). 2. Awareness of viable 2. The Project will support a series of alternative sustainable strategic interventions which will land-uses (tourism/ lead to establishing the foundations sustainable flower for a “biodiversity economy” (3.1, harvesting) limited 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5), which would amongst landholders and include a certification system for capital markets. responsible tourism and conducting a marketing promotion campaign, supported by a capacity building program, a code of practice and mechanisms to facilitate social corporate investments. Over-harvesting of wild 1. The regulatory This work is being piloted through Enforcement capacity of fynbos for the flower enforcement regime is the C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity the relevant authorities trade, herbal medicines or imperfectly developed. Initiative and will not be duplicated remains inadequate to herbal teas may contribute in Phase 1 as the results of ABI will regulate illegal off-take of to extirpation of rare 2. The marginal costs of be rolled out in the CFR during these plant products. species, including ecosystem management to Phase 2. endemics. facilitate sustainable use are not recovered; Profits accrue elsewhere in the value chain (high mark ups ate retail end relative to farm gate).
3. Market opportunities are presently focused on few selected flowers; Indiscriminate market and product focused value chain. Niche market not developed because of supply driven market. (iv) Pollution of Fully capacitated CMAs (1.1) hold Regulation and freshwater ecosystems pollution at acceptable levels, aided enforcement of water from agricultural, in this by well defined water quality quality management for industrial and urban criteria in the “Ecological Reserve” CFR aquatic systems does effluents. measure developed for CFR systems not receive adequate (7.1) and by good guidelines as to political support, and how this can be achieved, derived hence funding, so as to be from the three water conservation/ effective. water demand management pilot programs (7.1).
69 Annex 6: Socio-economic assessment
Involvement of stakeholders in C.A.P.E
During the process of formulating the CAPE 2000 Strategy, an extensive process of stakeholder consultation and participation was undertaken, involving a systematic identification of all stakeholders in the CFR who could influence biodiversity conservation or be affected by it. Stakeholders were involved in developing the analysis, strategy and action plan. Participation in the CAPE 2000 Strategy process was structured to allow different degrees and levels of involvement by different groups, depending on their preference and on the roles that they would play in implementation. Executing agencies that would be responsible for the implementation of C.A.P.E. were involved closely in project governance throughout the process in order to develop a sense of ownership and to guarantee long-term sustainability of the initiative. A media campaign was undertaken to inform the broader public of the CAPE 2000 Strategy process and outputs. Information was made available through a website, brochures and public presentations.
In the period since September 2000, the commitment and involvement of government agencies and other key stakeholders has been sustained and enhanced. Key stakeholder partnerships, supported by two Memoranda of Understanding between government agencies and other stakeholders, have guided preparation activities.
During the project preparation phase, a rapid assessment of stakeholder and social issues was undertaken as part of project preparation in an effort to:
• identify key stakeholders with respect to biodiversity conservation in the CFR; • review stakeholder interests and associated impacts on resource use and the project; • identify and mitigate against possible negative socio-economic impacts on local stakeholders resulting from the project; and • develop a mitigation strategy.
Project preparation was undertaken in a participatory manner, involving a broad range of stakeholder groups using a number of different information gathering methods, including formal and semi-formal interviews, group discussions and workshops, and literature review. In addition, local consultants participating in project preparation provided information and contributed to the identification of risks, impacts and mitigation strategies.
Key social issues
The key social issues relevant to the CFR, as identified in the project preparation stage were analysed according to the following categories: (i) population; (ii) economy; (iii) cultural history; (iv) governance and development; (v) perceptions of conservation; and (vi) capacity.
Population: The CFR covers two provinces, the Western and Eastern Cape, with a very small portion falling into the Northern Cape. The region contains an estimated 5.2 million people, most of whom inhabit the Western Cape province (est. 4.5 million). The population in the region is highly urbanised, with over 70% of the Western Cape population living in the Cape Metropolitan Area, and similar patterns pertaining in the portion of the CFR that falls into the Eastern Cape province. The population of the Western Cape enjoys a greater degree of human, economic and social development than their Eastern Cape counterparts. The Eastern
70 Cape has the second lowest score on the Human Development Index of South Africa's nine provinces. It also has the highest unemployment rate in the country and the second lowest per capita income. This gives rise to relatively high levels of urbanization from rural areas in the Eastern Cape to the Western Cape and Cape Town in particular. Urbanization rates have been particularly high since the abolition of influx control policies in the late 1980’s, leading to a marked increase in urban informal settlements. Human and environmental health issues, fire and flooding impose a distinct burden on resources, services and infrastructure of authorities. The effect of this has been a reduced focus on rural development issues in this region in favor of an increasing concern with urban development priorities. Urban environmental concerns tend to focus on pollution and waste management with limited concern for biodiversity, despite the impact of the urban system on ecosystems and habitat. This indicates a need for increased awareness-raising and education activities amongst the urban communities of the CFR.
The population of the region is characterized by diversity and disparities, in terms of ethnicity, language, skills, income and resources. Between ethnic groups there are significant disparities of skills, educational levels, incomes/wealth, living conditions and access to opportunities, the result of a history of inequality and racially skewed allocation of resources. Inequalities contribute to a range of social problems, including homelessness, poverty, unemployment, degraded human environments and crime.
Economy: South Africa's Gross Domestic Product (ZAR 800-billion/USD130-billion) has been increasing at about 2- 3% in real terms over the past four years, with manufacturing contributing 20%, mining a declining share of 7% and the tertiary sector in excess of 60%. Exports have increased from R100-billion in 1995 to R175-billion in 1999 notwithstanding a significant decline in gold output. Per capita GDP (measured at PPP adjusted exchange rates) exceeds US$7600, which equals that of Malaysia and Brazil. South Africa has an adult literacy rate of 75%, an average unemployment level of 29,3%, a housing shortage of about 2,3 million units and an infant mortality rate of 42 per 1000.
In the 2000/1 Africa Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum, South Africa ranks 7th out of the 51 countries on the continent. Internationally South Africa can been ranked amongst "upper middle income countries" like Chile, Portugal, Korea, Malaysia, Turkey, Brazil and Poland.
Since the political change of 1994, South Africa has made great strides towards a democratic, socially more equitable and economically more globally competitive country. Recent growth in the South African economy has largely been based on the tourism sector, a gradually diversifying and increasingly competitive manufacturing sector, value-adding beneficiation of mineral and agricultural raw materials and a sophisticated trading, financial and professional services sector. Currently, the country is lifting the level of education, training and entrepreneurial development of its labour force, a critical factor in the creation of more employment opportunities and greater international competitiveness.
The Western Cape produces 14% of the annual GDP of South Africa and is the second most productive province. It generates nearly a quarter of the South African agricultural sector's GDP (23%) and accounts for more than half of its agricultural exports. 85% of the arable land in the Western Cape is under agriculture. The climatic and topographic diversity of the province lends itself to the production of various agricultural products, which can be produced for specific domestic and overseas niche markets. The sector is able to generate on
71 average 5.9% of the Western Cape's Gross Regional Product per annum and employs 9% of the province's labour force.
Travel and tourism contribute 9.1% to the Western Cape Gross Regional Product, and 9.3% to Western Cape employment. In order of preference, international visitors to South Africa visited the following destinations: V&A Waterfront, Cape Point, Table Mountain, the Winelands, the Garden Route, Kirstenbosch. Nature-based tourism offers significant opportunities for economic growth and employment in both urban and rural areas.
In contrast to the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape produced only 8% of the National GDP in 1999. It is South Africa's second most populous province, with an unemployment figure of 49%. The metropolitan economy of Port Elizabeth, within the CFR, is based primarily on manufacturing. Other major industries in the province include agriculture, textiles and clothing, tourism, wool, timber and transport. With a significant shift in the agricultural sector from stock to game farming, tourism is becoming a major growth industry. Nevertheless, rural districts within the CFR such as the Baviaanskloof region face general economic decline and growing socio-economic problems. Unless new initiatives such as nature-based tourism come to the fore this decline is unlikely to be arrested.
Cultural history: The CFR is a rich repository of cultural history. A wide diversity of historical artifacts, built environments and cultural traditions exist as reminders of the region’s Palaeolithic, pre-colonial and colonial history, as well as the Apartheid period. C.A.P.E. presents distinct opportunities to both retain the character of the cultural history of the region and build on it as an attraction.
Governance and development: Recent political and institutional changes, including the democratization of local government, have created wide opportunities for participatory development. Integrated Development Plans prepared recently by all local authorities in the region indicate a wide array of interventions required for local development, including provision of basic services and the promotion of economic and social development. C.A.P.E. will align closely with the integrated development planning objectives of local government in the CFR by ensuring that biodiversity concerns are incorporated into municipal land-use planning in priority areas.
Perceptions of conservation: Throughout South Africa and the CFR, perceptions of disadvantaged groups towards conservation are influenced by a history of colonial conquest and land dispossession., Therefore, the C.A.P.E. will take these factors into account in its design of the conservation education component. Capacity: There is a marked disparity in capacity levels between different social groups in the CFR, particularly with regard to participating in project activities. This factor has been closely addressed and incorporated into the design and implementation of C.A.P.E. Three areas of consideration are important in this respect: • disparities in knowledge levels between stakeholder groups with respect to a basic understanding of conservation and biodiversity in general and specifically in the CFR. • disparities in participation skills, as well as applied skills related to the implementation of key aspects of the C.A.P.E. • disparities in material resources at the disposal of stakeholder groups.
72 Stakeholder Analysis
The stakeholders to be involved in the Project cover the full spectrum of government and civil society. For purposes of this participatory approach they have been grouped into categories in terms of their respective interests. Below is a table setting out the various groups within each of the stakeholder categories, the potential interests and benefits that they may derive from the Project, their potential roles in the Project, and a reflection on potential conflicts that may arise with respect to each of the stakeholder groups and how these might be mitigated.
Stakeholder category Interests/potential Role in the Project Potential conflicts and mitigation benefits GOVERNMENT National Government, such • Co-operative • Setter of legal, policy, strategy and Potential conflicts: as: governance between regulatory environment • May perceive stakeholder participation as interference in internal functions leading to National departments, spheres of government • Provider of baseline funding poor relationships including Department of • Project aligns with key through key programs, such as • Balancing contending needs of nature conservation and economic development Water Affairs and Forestry, national government Working or Water • Possible lack of co-operation and co-ordination between National and Provincial Department of Agriculture, socio-economic, • Ultimate decision-making and Government departments Department of Environment taxation, development management authority for key Mitigating measures: Affairs and Tourism, and biodiversity resources, such as coastal and • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict Department of Art Culture conservation policy marine resources • Decision-makers and officials will undergo skills development in stakeholder Science and Technology, • Promotion of key • Provider of knowledge and participation and conflict management South African Navy, South economic sectors, such information • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate African Police Service, South as agriculture, tourism, • Support to education and conflicts where required African Revenue Service value-added awareness activity • • Institutions will be established and developed on the basis of clear participatory National government manufacturing, SMMEs • Participants in Project policy, guidelines and frameworks programs, including • Optimize use of strategy, regulation activities • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials Working for Water, government resources • Participants in Project resource Working for Wetlands, through co-ordination management activities Coastcare, Landcare and co-operation • Participants in Project socio- • National government • Access to funding and economic development activities decision-makers resources • Recipients of education and including Ministers and • Alignment with awareness activities Members of Parliament education policy and • Resource management programs structures established through national government, such as Catchment Management Agencies
73 Provincial Government, such • Co-operative • Key planning and decision-making Potential conflicts: as: governance between functions • May perceive stakeholder participation as interference in internal functions leading to • Provincial departments, spheres of government • Provider and user of knowledge poor relationships including Agriculture, • Project aligns with key and information • Balancing contending needs of nature conservation and economic development Environment Affairs socio-economic • Setter of legal, policy, strategy and • Possible lack of co-operation and co-ordination between Government departments and Development development and regulatory environment Mitigating measures: Planning, and Education biodiversity • Support to education and • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict • Provincial government conservation policy awareness activity • Decision-makers and officials will undergo skills development in stakeholder decision-makers • Promotion of key • Participants in Project policy, participation and conflict management including Members of economic sectors, such strategy, regulation activities • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate the Executive as agriculture, tourism, • Participants in Project resource conflicts where required Committees and value-added management activities • Institutions will be established and developed on the basis of clear participatory Members of the manufacturing, SMMEs • Participants in Project socio- guidelines and frameworks • Provincial Legislatures Optimise use of economic development activities • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials government resources • Recipients of education and through co-ordination awareness activities and co-operation • Access to funding and resources • Alignment with education policy and programs Local Government, such as: • Project aligns with key • Key planning and decision-making Potential conflicts: • Individual socio-economic functions • May perceive stakeholder participation as interference in internal functions leading to municipalities, development and • Provider and user of knowledge poor relationships municipal councilors biodiversity and information • Balancing contending needs of nature conservation and economic development and officials conservation policy • Participants in Project policy, • Possible lack of co-operation and co-ordination with National and Provincial • South African Local • Project supports strategy, regulation activities Government departments Government planning, infrastructure • Participants in Project resource Mitigating measures: Association development and local management activities • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict economic development • Participants in Project socio- • Decision-makers and officials will undergo skills development in stakeholder functions economic development activities participation and conflict management • Optimize use of • Recipients of education and • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate government resources awareness activities conflicts where required through co-ordination • Management authority for key • Institutions will be established and developed on the basis of clear participatory and co-operation resources, such as coastal and guidelines and frameworks • Access to funding and marine resources • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials resources • Co-operative governance between spheres of government • Access to knowledge
74 and information
CONSERVATION BODIES Conservation Agencies, such • Project objectives • Key implementing agencies Potential conflicts: as: are closely aligned • Key decision-makers • May perceive stakeholder participation as interference in internal functions leading to • Western Cape to organizational • Facilitators of stakeholder poor relationships Nature missions participation • Balancing contending needs of nature conservation and economic development Conservation • Access to resources • Possible lack of co-operation and co-ordination with Government departments Board • Optimize resources Mitigating measures: • South African through Project • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with National Parks activities conflict • Decision-makers and officials will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and conflict management • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate conflicts where required • Institutions will be established and developed on the basis of clear participatory guidelines and frameworks • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials Conservation NGOs, such as: • Project objectives are • Participants in processes of policy, Potential conflicts: • Conservancies closely aligned to strategy and regulation setting • Primary focus on nature conservation may lead to conflicts with interests promoting • Biosphere Organizations organizational missions • Implementing agents in certain socio-economic development • Local Estuary • Project can provide circumstances • Potential confusion of roles with government and conservation agencies in context of Management Forums access to resources • Research and knowledge implementation function • Botanical Society • Project can provide generation bodies • Conflict in roles between being lobbyists on one hand, and implementers on the other • Wildlife and opportunities to • Mechanisms to reach broader Mitigating measures: Environment Society of influence governance public • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict South Africa and decision-making • Lobbyists • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all stakeholder groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory approach • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and conflict management • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate conflicts where required • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials Natural Resource • Project objectives are • Sources of information and Potential conflicts: Conservation Specialist and closely aligned to knowledge • Primary focus on nature conservation may lead to conflicts with interests promoting Research groups, such as: organizational or • Providers of training and education socio-economic development • Biodiversity institutes, individual missions resources • Potential confusion of roles with government and conservation agencies in context of e.g. National Botanical • Project can provide • Implementing agents in certain implementation function where this applies Institute programmatic basis for instances • Conflict in roles between being lobbyists on one hand, and implementers on the other • Research forums, e.g., research • Participants in Project policy, Mitigating measures:
75 Fynbos Forum, Arid • Project can provide strategy, regulation activities • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict Zone Forum access to resources • Participants in Project resource • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all stakeholder • Research and planning • Project can provide management activities groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory approach bodies, individual opportunities to • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and researchers and influence governance conflict management consultants and decision-making • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate • Agricultural sector • Access to information conflicts where required research bodies • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials • University-based researchers, institutes and units ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS Landowners, such as: • Access to resources and • Participants in Project policy, Potential conflicts: • Commercial farmers information strategy, regulation activities • Contending needs to promote socio-economic goals, and those for biodiversity • Absentee owners • Agricultural economic • Participants in Project resource conservation may arise • Water User Associations development management activities • Lack of capacity to participate as a result of lack of resources, skills or socio-cultural opportunities • Participants in Project socio- factors may give rise to conflict • Generating economic economic development activities Mitigating measures: benefits • Recipients of education and • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict • Agricultural best awareness activities • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all stakeholder practice • Source of localised knowledge and groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory approach information • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and conflict management • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate conflicts where required • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials Medium and large-scale • Economic • Possibly opponents of key Potential conflicts: business, including development initiatives where these may • Contending needs to promote socio-economic goals, and those for biodiversity Land development opportunities clash with interests conservation may arise companies • Opportunities to • Participants in Project policy, • Biodiversity objectives may threaten the basic interests of business National public enterprises, maximize profits strategy, regulation activities • Conflicts with other stakeholder groups pursuing differing interests in the e.g. Eskom, Telkom and • Land development • Participants in Project implementation of business-focused activities may arise Transnet opportunities resource management Mitigating measures: National development • Opportunities to activities • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with agencies, such as: exploit natural • Participants in Project socio- conflict • SABS & Satour resources economic development • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all • Tourism operators • Improved asset activities stakeholder groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory • Fishing companies base • Recipients of education and approach • Agricultural • Influence over awareness activities • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation product decisions regarding • Source of localized and conflict management beneficiators CFR resources knowledge and information • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to
76 • Operations with conciliate conflicts where required significant • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and ecological impact officials • Professional consultants advising companies • Organized business associations Small, medium and micro- • Livelihood opportunities • Participants in Project socio- Potential conflicts: enterprises (SMMEs), such • Entrepreneurial economic development activities • Need to promote socio-economic goals may conflict with those pursuing biodiversity as: opportunities • Recipients of education and conservation ends • Individual entrepreneurs • Capital accumulation awareness activities • Lack of capacity to participate as a result of lack of resources, skills or socio-cultural • Small business • Participants in Project policy, factors may give rise to conflict organizations strategy, regulation activities • Perception of exclusion from decision-making processes may set up antagonisms • SMME promotion between community and implementing groups agencies, such as Ntsika Mitigating measures: and Khula • SMME development strategy based on reconciling socio-economic and biodiversity conservation goals • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all stakeholder groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory approach • SMMEs need to be seen and treated equally to other stakeholder groups in keeping with the underlying principles for participation in the project • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and conflict management • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate conflicts where required • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials Trade Unions, such as those • Workplace and • Participants in Project policy, Potential conflicts: organizing workers employed livelihood interest strategy, regulation activities • Contending needs to promote socio-economic goals, and those for biodiversity by: of workers • Participants in Project conservation may arise • Conservation • Employment resource management • Lack of capacity to participate as a result of lack of resources, skills or socio- agencies opportunities activities cultural factors may give rise to conflict • Farmers • Alignment with • Participants in Project socio- • Perception of exclusion from decision-making processes may set up antagonisms • Businesses based trade union economic development between community and implementing groups on natural environmental activities Mitigating measures: resources policies • Recipients of education and • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with • Business targeted awareness activities conflict to reduce • Source of localized • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all ecological footprint knowledge and information stakeholder groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory • Trade Union approach federations, such as • Trade unions need to be seen and treated equally to other stakeholder groups in
77 Cosatu, Nactu and keeping with the underlying principles for participation in the project Fedusa • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and conflict management • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate conflicts where required • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials Umbrella economic • Economic • Participants in Project socio- Potential conflicts: development organizations, development economic development • Contending needs to promote socio-economic goals, and those for biodiversity such as: opportunities activities conservation may arise Development Bank of South • Livelihood • Participants in Project policy, Mitigating measures: Africa opportunities strategy, regulation activities • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with National Economic conflict Development and Labour • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all Council stakeholder groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory Wesgro, approach Western Cape Business • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to Opportunities Forum conciliate conflicts where required Lanok • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and Western Cape Technology officials Forum COMMUNITY GROUPS Community Organizations, • Community • Participants in Project policy, Potential conflicts: such as: development interests strategy, regulation activities • Contending needs to promote socio-economic goals, and those for biodiversity • Civic organisations could be met through • Participants in Project resource conservation may arise • Ratepayer associations the Project management activities • Lack of capacity to participate as a result of lack of resources, skills or socio-cultural • Traditional leaders • Access to resources • Participants in Project socio- factors may give rise to conflict • Project could promote economic development activities • Perception of exclusion from decision-making processes may set up antagonisms environmental • Recipients of education and between community and implementing groups objectives awareness activities Mitigating measures: • Source of localized knowledge and • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with conflict information • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all stakeholder groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory approach • Community groups need to be perceived and treated equally to other stakeholder groups in keeping with the underlying principles for participation in the Project • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and conflict management • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate conflicts where required • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials •
78 General Public • Public • Participants in Project policy, Potential conflicts: accountability strategy, regulation activities • Contending interest in socio-economic goals, and those for biodiversity conservation • Access to • Participants in Project may arise information resource management • Lack of capacity to participate as a result of lack of resources, skills or socio-cultural • Biodiversity activities factors may give rise to conflict conservation • Participants in Project socio- • Perception of exclusion from decision-making processes may set up antagonisms • Socio-economic economic development between community and implementing groups development activities Mitigating measures: • Recipients of education and • Policies and guidelines for participation will set out measures for dealing with awareness activities conflict • Projects and activities will actively seek to address and meet the needs of all stakeholder groups in keeping with the principles and objectives of the participatory approach • Project implementers will undergo skills development in stakeholder participation and conflict management • A network of external conflict management specialists will be drawn on to conciliate conflicts where required • Support in stakeholder participation will be provided to decision-makers and officials DONORS Donor Funders, such as: • Promotion of • Provider of funds Potential conflicts: • GEF sustainable development • Monitoring and evaluating • Lack of adherence or difference in interpretation to project agreements and biodiversity implementation Mitigating measures: objectives • Project agreements to include measures for dealing with conflicts arising • Wise use of funds
79 Participation plan
The challenge of participation at bioregional scale: A conservation program at bioregional scale is faced with significant challenges regarding participation. The stakeholder group is vast, dispersed across a wide area and characterized by diversity in terms of language, culture, history, and relationship to the land and sea. The population displays significant socio-economic and educational disparities, as well as disparities in skills and access to resources. Most of the population is concentrated in two major metropolitan areas (Cape Town and Port Elizabeth), but there is a significant rural population often characterized by dire poverty. Many well-organized groups exist, including strong NGO, private sector and trade union organizations, but community-based organizations have withered significantly in the last decade. While government agencies and large organizations with a broad base in the bioregion can participate in conservation programs taking place at bioregional scale, it is difficult for local stakeholder groups to do so, being more suited to participating in local projects. To prevent local groups being marginalized from the broad-scale policy and strategy aspects of the project, the Project will undertake a suite of overall and local awareness- raising, communication and participation activities and will monitor impacts.
A new democratic dispensation: The Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution (1996) provides all citizens with the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being, and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures. New constitutional and legislative provisions require public consultation and transparency in government decision- making, and present new opportunities for participation in environmental decision-making. The democratic culture engendered in political struggle and the democratisation process has created an expectation and a desire on the part of citizens to be involved meaningfully in decision-making on all issues including the environment. There is nevertheless a need to prevent marginalisation of disadvantaged groups such as the poor, rural communities and women and ensure equity of access and benefit sharing at project level. This can be achieved through well-designed participation plans and targeted environmental education at project level, to enhance the ability of such groups to participate effectively, and to encourage ownership of and commitment to implementation.
Increased awareness and enthusiasm: In spite of limited awareness, knowledge and understanding of biodiversity in the CFR, communities display increasing levels of interest in environmental issues, demonstrate enthusiastic responses to awareness-raising activities in local conservation projects, and display significant levels of indigenous knowledge. A recent participation exercise undertaken in the neighbouring Succulent Karoo Biome with similar socio-economic conditions revealed enormous potential for local leadership and action partnerships in conservation projects. However, there is a need to develop stakeholder understanding of how to engage effectively with such projects.
Participatory mechanisms
Each of the Project components has associated participation mechanisms which are to be adopted in the implementation of the Project. These mechanisms are set out in the section following the table.
80
Component Participation activities 1. Institutional strengthening Partnerships/Negotiated agreements Participation activities under this heading include the facilitation of a consensus building process for the resolution of legal mandates and lead institutional roles in the conservation management of the CFR Institution development Participation activities under this heading include reviewing the composition and function of the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination and C.A.P.E. Implementing Committees.
Consultative processes Participation activities under this heading include supporting participation in Project activities 2. Conservation education Partnerships/Negotiated agreements Participation activities under this heading include the building of partnerships between education service providers Institution development Participation activities under this heading include the establishment of a formal network of biodiversity education service providers; creating the capacity to provide stakeholder participation and conflict management support.
Capacity building Participation activities under this heading includes targeting the skills of biodiversity education service providers; developing the skills of all stakeholders in stakeholder participation and conflict management 3. Establishing the foundations Policy, strategy, regulation and plan formulation of the biodiversity economy Participation activities under this heading include those associated with designing and testing market based mechanisms including tax breaks, transferable development rights, payment for ecological services, encouraging community eco-enterprise development around conservation objectives, ; development of a Biodiversity Charter and developing a certification system for responsible business. .
Consultative processes Participation activities under this heading include those associated with the process of identifying and promoting innovative techniques for the exploitation of marine and coastal resources and integrating biodiversity concerns into national certification schemes. Partnerships/Negotiated agreements Participation activities under this heading are directed at the process of developing community-public-private partnership arrangements to support emerging community eco- enterprises through provision of knowledge or other resources; and developing a code of practice governing procurement arrangements for conservation compatible industries and the public sector to support the development of viable eco-enterprises Institution development Participation activities under this heading focus on inter-institutional co-operation in the form of seeking increased co-operation and integration of the dispersed planning and management activities associated with the marine and coastal environment.
Integrated development Participation activities under this heading focuses on integrated activities associated with communities where co-management arrangements are put in place. Participatory approaches will be adopted to identifying capacity building needs, implementing training, instituting processes of project development, developing infrastructure, and establishing economic development opportunities. In addition there will be participation in pilot and demonstration projects to promote responsible tourism, processes to assist stakeholders in sustainable use of natural resources; and processes to ensure equity in access to benefits. Integrated business development Participation activities under this heading include the development of SMMEs in the field of the consumptive and non-consumptive use of natural resources; and the development of secondary community eco-enterprises around traditional businesses. 4. Program co-ordination, Partnerships/Negotiated agreements management and monitoring Participation activities under this heading include processes associated with negotiating agreements with various agencies on participation in and alignment with the Project, on the collection and reporting of monitoring and evaluation data, and on implementing the outcomes of review processes. Capacity building Participation activities under this heading includes the provision of training to the C.A.P.E. project managers
81 Consultative processes Participation activities under this heading include the participatory undertaking of monitoring and evaluation exercises, as well as strategic review processes. 5. Unleashing the potential of Policy, strategy, regulation and plan formulation protected areas Participatory activities under this heading include: Overarching plans for the CFR, including the process to formulate policy and a strategic management framework for the Protected Area network as a whole; the formulation and development of tools and mechanisms for securing financial support; the development of an overarching financial sustainability plan for the protected areas network; local area plans, including the development of systematic and strategic conservation plans with conservation targets; and the development of individual Marine Protected Area management plans. Consultative processes Participation activities under this heading include processes of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders at the local and CFR levels and includes the following: expanding protected areas through using agency staff in outreach activities with stakeholders; stakeholder involvement in processes to secure the priority status of three river systems and three estuaries; and the process for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of Marine Protected Areas. Partnerships/Negotiated agreements Participation activities under this heading include processes to expand protected areas through the use of fiscal and non-fiscal incentive programs; and activities to co-ordinate the work of various agencies with respect to biodiversity and resource use. Institution development Participation activities under this heading relate to processes associated with the establishment of a range of structures, including: the establishment of appropriate CFR- wide institutional arrangements; establishing a conservation training network; and a range of working groups related to managing the expansion of the protected area network, as well as the consolidation of the protected status of three estuaries and three river systems. Capacity building Participation activities under this heading relate to the content to be incorporated into a range of capacity building activities, which include building focused project management teams for the development of the protected area network; providing short-term start up support to assist the initiation of new protected areas; strengthening conservation management in the Eastern Cape, building the capacity of law enforcement personnel, and the rolling out of an education and awareness program for Marine Protected Areas.
6. Identifying and securing Policy, strategy, regulation and plan formulation biodiversity in key sites Participation activities under this heading include policy and planning processes which will call on the participation of stakeholders at the CFR-wide and local levels. The CFR-wide activities include processes to lobby for legislative change, and to develop socio-economic instruments for application in localized planning and development processes. Local level planning activities in priority areas will include stakeholder participation in developing conservation plans for priority municipal districts; the development of action plans and guidelines; and, the roll out of a pilot planning project to test land management tools and protocols. Consultative processes Participation activities under this heading include activities that will require the facilitation and mediation of stakeholder participation in: processes of lobbying for, and negotiating, supportive policy and legislation, participation in municipal development forums and the mediation of land-use conflicts. Partnerships/Negotiated agreements Participation activities under this heading includes the forging of partnerships with the Working for Water program regarding the application of incentives and co-operative management arrangements; and negotiated and sustained relationships with farmers. Institution development Participation activities under this heading include the formulation and implementation of a range of working groups and forums. They include institutional co-ordination mechanisms in the form of a provincial incentives working group; liaison structures with the agricultural sector in the form of forums involving farmers; and, research co-ordination in the form of the Fynbos Forum and other ad hoc forums. Capacity building Participation activities under this heading include training in participation and conflict management skills for decision-makers and officials involved in land-use decision-making and building skills in partnership creation. 7. Integrating biodiversity Policy, strategy, regulation and plan formulation concerns into watershed Participation activities under this heading include participatory processes associated with management the development of an overarching plan for 2 estuaries
82 Consultative processes Participation activities under this heading include overarching consultative processes for the development of an invasive alien species strategy; and, processes for the formulation of national policy, legislation, guidelines and protocols for ballast water management
Institution development Participation activities under this heading include the establishment and management of a set of working groups to: guide the estuary planning process at the provincial level; to bring institutions together to align the C.A.P.E. objectives with the five CFR catchment management agencies; and, a multi-institutional reference group on invasive alien species. Capacity building Participation activities under this heading are aimed at incorporating content on stakeholder management in the capacity building activities associated with the implementation of estuary plans.
83 Annex 7: Programmatic framework for GEF supported biodiversity conservation activities in the Cape Floristic Region [South Africa]
Purpose of the Note
The purpose of this note is to explain the rationale behind GEF investment in the CFR including the linkages and complementarity between the various interventions. The note has been prepared by the World Bank and UNDP, through which GEF support is being rendered.
National Programmatic framework
The CFR harbors exceptional biodiversity, exemplified by high species richness, habitat diversity and gamma diversity, or turnover across the ecological landscape. This vital heritage faces accelerating anthropogenic pressures, spurring leading scientists to list the region as one of the world's ‘hottest’ biodiversity hotspots. Given the great ecological heterogeneity, social differences, economic stratification, and variation in institutional and individual capacities across the CFR’s landscape, it is evident that a number of different conservation approaches are needed to satisfy conservation objectives9.
The GoSA is moving to address the afore-mentioned challenges, through a comprehensive and long-term programmatic framework entitled Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.). The Program aims at implementing the Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE 2000 Strategy), completed in September 2000, with financial support from the GEF10, following broad-based stakeholder involvement. The CAPE 2000 Strategy provides a long-term vision for biodiversity conservation in the CFR, identifies conservation priorities based on an assessment of the threats to biodiversity, and articulates an action plan and investment program to address these priorities. All key government conservation and development agencies and major NGOs and private sector associations in the CFR have aligned themselves to the CAPE 2000 vision, and to the accompanying strategy. Over its 20 year time-scale, C.A.P.E. aims at expanding the area under effective conservation management from 10,800 km2 (12% of the CFR) to 30,800 km2 (34,2% of the CFR), assuming that a further 13,000 km2 (14,44% of CFR) will persist because of its inaccessibility for any development. Conservation activities would be backstopped by a strong policy framework, capacitated institutions, new financial mechanisms and other instruments needed to assure the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of management. An overriding objective is to create the foundations for a ‘biodiversity economy’: linking the environmental benefits of the CFR directly to economic growth and livelihood creation. This will be achieved through nurturing the development of conservation compatible industries, such as nature-based tourism, and assuring the sustainable utilisation of wild resources, mainstreaming conservation objectives into the production sectors, particularly agriculture, and creating markets for environmental services underpinning the natural resource sectors. The key strategic design features of the C.A.P.E. Program may be summarised as follows:
9 The challenge is multifold: First, there is an unmet need to align conservation objectives with those of the production sectors, and to mainstream conservation programs into the economic and social sectors; second, there is a need to expand the conservation estate. A multitude of sites of various sizes will need to be brought under conservation management, to ensure that protection is extended to a biologically representative sample of biodiversity, and to restricted range species. Different conservation models will need to be developed, geared towards addressing different socio-economic and institutional specificities; third, new models for facilitating sustainable utilisation of biological resources are needed to mitigate threats, develop conservation compatible livelihoods and to ensure that the benefits accruing from conservation are equitably distributed; fourth, systemic level, institutional and individual capacities need to be developed to ensure the sustainability of management, and fifth, there is a need to create broad-based environmental awareness in the region 10 Funding was made available through the GEF/ WB Project: Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation
84 Phased approach: activities are being scheduled over 20 years, providing an adequate time budget to systematically address current and emergent threats to biodiversity and assure sustainable management. Interventions would be phased, with three distinct stages anticipated:
• Phase 1 (6 years), will be characterized by measures being tested and taken to arrest biodiversity losses in the CFR. GEF investment will support the establishment of the overall C.A.P.E. as a program and the implementation of the GEF-supported program components. The GEF support will focus on establishing a systemic and institutional enabling environment for conservation and developing know-how to address key threats and root causes of biodiversity losses. (See Annex 7, Threats Analysis). Lessons learnt from other GEF support to South Africa will be replicated whilst also piloting and demonstrating new approaches to conservation. This phase will result in substantial gains being made in expanding the area under conservation (4,800 km2). Importantly it will lay the basis for what is termed "the biodiversity economy". The term is used to describe a region and an economy which grows with minimal negative impact on natural systems, rehabilitates the regions ecological capital and supports sustainable economic growth and employment opportunities presented by the regions unique biodiversity and environment.
• Phase 2 (6 years), will be characterized by a significant expansion of capacity to conserve the CFR with most key areas secured under conservation management. Conservation interventions will bring an additional 7,600 square kilometres (8,4%) into the conservation estate, including protected areas, buffers and other support zones, where conservation objectives have been mainstreamed into development. Institutional and individual capacity will be expanded through local government and community conservation programs.
• In Phase 3 (8 years), the mature phase of the program, markets are expected to play a key role in conserving and even restoring the ecological capital of the CFR. The goals of the national program should be met with a further 7,600 square kilometres (8,4%) inducted into the conservation estate. Institutional arrangements for ecoregional scale management would be strengthened, programmatic links strengthened between biodiversity, climate change, and water management initiatives. The root causes and key threats to the conservation of the CFR should have been significantly eliminated through a barrier removal approach. This phase will be funded domestically, but with some technical support still provided by the World Bank and the UNDP.
Mainstreaming: .C.A.P.E will focus on mainstreaming biodiversity conservation objectives into all the productive sectors, the bioregional economy and key government programs.
Public-private partnership: strong emphasis is placed on deepening the role of the private sector in conservation and related activities. Differentiated strategies will be pursued for different sectors (tourism, fisheries and agriculture) and large, medium and small enterprises. The key program challenge is to leverage substantial private sector investment into rehabilitating the ecological capital of the CFR, thereby also supporting economic growth and employment. Since much of thee land to be conserved is owned privately, models will need to be developed for inducting it into the conservation estate. Even where state land is to be included, the maintenance costs and management requirements are likely to exceed state resources. Therefore, a range of public- private sector models will need to be developed and tested in order conserve the CFR. (See Annex 6, Institutions associated with the Project). The creation of large marine reserves will require a similar approach.
85
International partnerships: The GoSA is seeking partnerships with a range of multi-lateral and bilateral agencies and the private sector to create a diverse base of experience, technical know-how and networks that may be drawn upon to strengthen actions. The partnership currently primarily includes the World Bank, UNDP and the CEPF to attain Program targets. Central program co-ordination will therefore remain lean, with execution primarily being the responsibility of technically competent and resourced executing agencies.
Program co-ordination: The program will be characterized by strategic program co- ordination, provided by the National Botanical Institute to support executing agencies to attain project targets.
Financial management and procurement: The financial management capacity of the key executing agencies is regarded as sound, but a proper evaluation will be undertaken prior to Appraisal, and if need be, a financial management strengthening plan will be developed. The NBI's financial management systems will be carefully evaluated since they will be the recipient of the full size grant. Similarly, procurement capacities will be evaluated and strengthened, if need be, for the NBI.
Previous GEF support
In 1998, the GEF provided US$12.3 million in funding through the World Bank for the Project: Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project (CPBCP). The Project provided funding to strengthen management of and extend the globally significant Cape Peninsula National Park (CPNP), to part-capitalize an environmental Trust Fund, the Table Mountain Fund (TMF), and to prepare the CAPE 2000 Strategy. These respective interventions have all successfully attained their expected outcomes: • Conservation operations in the CPNP have been successfully strengthened. The Park has been expanded to encompass previously unprotected and vulnerable ecological units. An intensive effort to control alien invasive plants has greatly reduced threats from infestation. Park planning systems have been systematically integrated into town planning frameworks and a locally relevant conservation education program has been developed. Recurrent management costs are now being partially recovered through institution of user fees. The systems developed provide tested and replicable models for other PAs in montane environments. • The TMF was initially established with domestic contributions of US $2 million to support the conservation of Table Mountain. The CPBCP provided funding (US $5 million) to broaden the mandate of the fund to support small-medium scale community- based conservation actions throughout the CFR. To date it has funded or is funding over 40 projects. The TMF has established a reputation as a model Trust Fund, having developed significant project management capabilities. • The Cape Action Plan for the Environment has provided the framework for more systematically coordinating the activities of government and non-government agencies within the conservation arena. Further, at a site level, a fine-scale conservation mapping exercise was completed in the Agulhas Plain - one of the most important refugia for lowland Cape fynbos vegetation globally. The Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project in essence constituted a pre-feasibility phase and substantial investment for a broader initiative to protect the entire CFR. The project has met key performance benchmarks. This success, attributed in large part to strong government commitment and stakeholder support, provides a strong assurance that further conservation measures intended to realise the CAPE 2000 vision have a high probability of
86 success, both in terms of mitigating threats and engineering sustainability. These fundamentals provide the conditions necessary for further GEF support, as part of a larger package, to secure biodiversity conservation objectives within the CFR.
GEF support to C.A.P.E.
In 2001, the GoSA approved a medium-term GEF Project Priority Framework, identifying strategic areas for GEF investment, needed to catalyse a broad spectrum of environmental management endeavours of high national priority. A key objective is to expand conservation activities to encompass whole ecological landscapes, focusing on biomes by seeking to “integrate conservation objectives into the productive sectors, strengthen land-use planning and monitoring functions, develop and support implementation of conservation models, establish new institutional and operational mechanisms, and establish new conservation partnerships bridging the public and private sectors”11. The CFR was identified as a top priority for GEF intervention, to secure these intended outcomes.
The GEF would provide phased support for the implementation C.A.P.E, to create systemic, institutional and individual capacities and pilot and adapt innovative conservation approaches to create a platform for sustainable biodiversity management. GEF support is aimed at integrating and mainstreaming biodiversity objectives in the sustainable development framework for the area, building on the exceptional progress already made by South Africa. The proposed interventions are consistent with GEF operational principles and satisfy all key eligibility criteria, including country-drivenness, conformity with operational programs and therefore with CBD guidance, incremental cost, and co-ordination with other national development activities. By cultivating increased country ownership and commitment to longer-term frameworks for sustainable development and biodiversity conservation, GEF investment will improve the capacities and scope for catalyzing and sustaining action, and assure cost-effectiveness, replication and innovation. C.A.P.E. constitutes an unparalleled opportunity to protect an entire floral kingdom, and to test cutting edge conservation approaches, across the productive sectors, with strong stakeholder involvement. GEF support to the initiative would provide important lessons and best practices for other bioregional scale conservation initiatives, particularly in Mediterranean type, dryland environments.
The design parameters for this approach reflect policy guidance supplied by the GEF Executive Council in May 2001, following review and endorsement of the policy on Programmatic Approaches12.
Phasing: GEF investment will be requested in two phases (of approximately six years each), with distinct objectives, aligned to the phased approach adopted by South Africa for the C.A.P.E Program. The proportion of co-financing to GEF funding will be progressively
11 GEF Medium-Term Project Priority Framework 2000 [Para 2.11] 12 The GEF investment in C.A.P.E. through this Project is consistent with the design elements of GEF Council Paper, GEF/C.17.Inf.11" the GEF Programmatic Approach: Current Understandings". In particular, the Project is consistent with the following design aspects of a program framework: (a) provision of information on the enabling environment, including critical policy environment, legal and institutional arrangements and in-country capacity; (b) agreed goals, objectives, milestones and indicators of outcomes/impacts for each phase of the Project, with specific details for the phase seeking approval; (c) development of a learning and adaptive management system, including monitoring and evaluation plans, with specific details for the phase seeking approval; (d) provision of a financing plan for the entire program including the envelope of request from the GEF, the main partners and their contributions (including the country). As a minimum the details of the first phase should be clearly spelt out and the co-financing arrangements secure.
87 increased in each phase, as biodiversity conservation objectives are successfully mainstreamed in the development agenda, engendering long-term financial sustainability; Activities in Phase 1 will contribute substantively to national efforts to strengthen the overall management framework, through building necessary capacities at the systemic, institutional and individual levels and testing conservation approaches. Activities in Phase 2 will seek to enhance lessons learned from implementation and refine management activities across the CFR and to consolidate and deepen conservation impacts. The strategy will allow management systems to be progressively adapted to improve results, and accommodate emergent best practice for different ecological/ social contexts; Interventions are being designed with a clear GEF exit strategy in mind, to ensure sustainability; activities in Phase 3 of C.A.P.E would be nationally funded. The Project has been designed to ensure that Phase 1 activities can be concluded if need be without further GEF investment. Whilst further GEF investment in subsequent phases will be required for full C.A.P.E. Program implementation, Phase 1 activities will require a level of maintenance support that is well within the anticipated capacities of the national executing agencies - thus assuring sustainability.
Performance: GEF funding for Phase 2 of C.A.P.E. will be predicated on the realization of the trigger indicators listed in Section A2 of this document; funding will be closely tied to institutional delivery and program performance of Phase 1 initiatives, which will be subject to an independent evaluation. The strength of stakeholder commitments will be tested through funding arrangements and policy/ program reform;
Strategic priorities: Interventions are aligned with new GEF Strategic Priorities, including for strengthening the national system of protected areas, and mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes.
The overall co-financing which the program is anticipated to leverage over a 20 year period for each Program Phase is shown in the table below. The ratio of GEF support to non-GEF support is highly favorable.13
Funding per phase excluding baseline for 20ears: $US million GEF funding including CEPF Phase Co-funding Total (GEF) and Agulhas Plain Phase 1 $44 $15,5 $59,5 Phase 2 $55 $10 $65 Phase 3 $70 $0 $70 Total $169 $25,5 $194,5
GEF support to Phase 1 of the C.A.P.E. Project will be channeled through three complementary interventions:14
• Mainstreaming Biodiversity Objectives in the Cape Floristic Region [Phase I/II] • C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative [Phase I] • Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) [Phase I]
13 The current baseline funding for Phase 1 over 6 years is in excess of $200 million and is not reflected in these figures. 14 Of these, one is currently underway: 1] Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.
88
A summary of these respective initiatives for Phase 1, and a description of their respective complementarities, within the ambit of the national C.A.P.E. Program, is provided below:
C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the CFR Ecoregion
Funding: GEF US$ 11 million/ Co-Financing US$ 28.51 million GEF IA: World Bank (lead) and UNDP Executing Agency: National Botanical Institute (NBI) Duration: Six Years Brief description: The primary objective of the Project is to mainstream biodiversity in production systems at a bioregional scale. The initiative was approved as part of the GEF Pipeline in 2002 when a PDF B grant of US $320,000 was made available to facilitate the preparation stage. A funding application for GEF work program approval is being submitted to the May 2003 GEF Council meeting. The Project is designed to establish the overall enabling environment for conservation efforts in the CFR across national, provincial and other jurisdictional boundaries. GEF support to the Project is intended to catalyse innovative, cost-effective and replicable approaches to conservation in different ecosystems and social landscapes. The GEF would provide funding for Project co-ordination and key technical support in the areas of knowledge management, capacity building, monitoring, policy development, detailed planning and conservation education. Collectively, these interventions will provide a co-ordinated framework for conservation investments, ensuring effective Project delivery and optimizing benefits. The Project will be delivered over two phases, with different objectives. Phase 1 will create the enabling environment, and pilot innovative conservation methods:
• Develop public-private sector models for management of conservation estates • Incorporate another 4,000 square kilometres into the conservation estate on a sustainable basis • Supporting program management, monitoring, evaluation and communications functions • Building capacities by developing a knowledge-management system geared to the specific needs of different end users, and creating platforms for multi-stakeholder participation in conservation activities • Supporting broad-based conservation education in schools and vocational learning centres • Advancing the development of sustainable livelihoods by developing and testing new systems including codes of conduct and certification measures to lessen the impacts of business activities on biodiversity • Evaluating and piloting market-based mechanisms to complement traditional management instruments. • Establishing and consolidating protected areas to reach a 20-year conservation target for the CFR. GEF funding will support park planning and implementing management systems • Undertaking fine-scale conservation planning, to determine conservation priorities in threatened ecosystems as needed to catalyse long-term investment and build capacities within municipalities, in priority areas, for integrating biodiversity in land- use decision-making • Integrating biodiversity concerns into fire management and watershed and estuarine management
89 Subject to the success of the various GEF interventions, The GoSA would lodge an application for GEF support to Phase 1, under this Program (see Table 1 for activities). Key triggers for moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2 will be:
• 4,000 square kilometres of the CFR brought under protected area management • Additional protected areas to include three terrestrial sites, two estuaries, two rivers and six formally fragmented landscapes • All new protected areas characterized by functional management systems and adequate financial resources • Market-based mechanisms designed and piloted
Complementarity: The Project will ensure that key interventions in the CFR are delivered on schedule and that financial and technical resources dedicated towards conservation efforts are efficiently managed and effectively targeted to maximize impact. The key Project components discussed above are critical to the conservation of the CFR and are not being undertaken through other GEF interventions or funding arrangements. The C.A.P.E. Program has already mobilized and motivated a substantial number of partners to begin implementation of key activities using local resources and innovation. The Project will ensure that lessons emerging from the CPBCP and C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative are systematically applied across the CFR planning domain. Protected Area demonstrations will complement the models already established for montane ecosystems (CPBCP) and being established for lowlands (under the C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative), by focusing on forests, estuarine, coastal and marine environments.
C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Funding: GEF S $3 million/ Co-Financing US $8 million GEF IA: UNDP Executing Agency: South African National Parks Duration: Five Years
Brief description: This initiative was approved as part of the GEF Pipeline in 2001, when a PDF B grant of US$ 78,550 was made available for project preparation. A funding application for work program approval is being submitted to the May 2003 GEF Council meeting, concurrently with the Program entitled C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project. The project will protect one of the largest extant areas of lowland fynbos in the CFR: the Agulhas Plain. The Plain has been mapped at fine-scale, with CPBCP funding, a process that identified priority sites for biodiversity conservation. Activities would facilitate conservation in productive landscapes: • Operationalizing a new Protected Area representing dryland environments, Agulhas National Park, and outlying protected sites under contractual agreements with private landowners. The initiative will pilot GoSA policies aimed at establishing Contractual Parks on private lands, installing the institutional arrangements, planning, monitoring and other PA management tools, and incentives that may be applied later both in the CFR and nationally • Developing institutional models and capacities to facilitate multi-stakeholder and inter-sectoral collaboration and public-private partnerships at a local level, on a pilot basis. The model will be tested and adapted, for eventual replication under Phase 2 of C.A.P.E. • Developing knowhow, testing management arrangements for and optimizing benefits from the sustainable utilization of wild fynbos, as a demonstration for C.A.P.E. • Testing effective means for mainstreaming biodiversity management objectives into
90 the local tourism industry, to inform tourism development activities under C.A.P.E.; and • Establishing critical know-how for the restoration of degraded lands.
The Project has been designed with a time budget of five years. This will allow for best practices to be codified in management arrangements to be spearheaded in C.A.P.E. Phase 2, which will be developed in year six.
Complementarity: The primary objective is to develop new PA management models, mainstreamed into the productive landscape to catalyse long-term sustainability both within the CFR’s PA network, and nationally. C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative has been designed as a fast track project, intended to test a host of initiatives planned under the national C.A.P.E. Program over 20 years, at a sub-regional level within a time span of 5 years. The long-term objective of the GoSA and C.A.P.E. is to decentralize conservation management as far as possible to the sub-regional level. ABI will provide a model and toolkit to facilitate this process. Unlike other sites, the Agulhas Plain is in a high state of readiness for successful conservation intervention (following fine-scale planning and intensive stakeholder engagement under the CPBCP). The site thus provides an ideal venue for testing and adapting conservation models to be spearheaded throughout the CFR, and thus to reduce risks and enhance cost-effectiveness of interventions. The initiative has been designed to inform the design and implementation of C.A.P.E.. In addition, ABI will demonstrate: one, a model for management of PAs in CFR lowlands, complementing the model for montane ecosystems, already provided by the CPBCP; two, the efficacy of new institutional arrangements, linking protected areas, contractual parks and surrounding productive landscapes, and anchored by an integrated extension service; three, tested management models for sustainable wild fynbos harvesting and tourism. Close programmatic linkages with other GEF activities in the CFR have been developed during preparation. These will be maintained during implementation, to facilitate the continued transfer of key lessons.
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund for the CFR (CEPF)
Funding: GEF US$ 1.5 million/ Co-Financing US$ 4.5 million GEF IA: World Bank Executing Agency: Conservation International
Brief description: CEPF funding for the CFR was approved in December 2001 by the CEPF Donor Council. An Ecosystem Profile has been prepared, defining the strategic niche and value added of CEPF activities in light of other planned interventions, funded by the GEF, GoSA and other sources. Funding is available for the following activities: • Supporting civil society involvement in the establishment of community managed protected areas (such as conservancies) and management of biological corridors in the Cedarberg, Gouritz and Baviaanskloof areas • Promoting partnerships between communities and private enterprises for conservation • Building capacity for conservation work amongst civil society organizations in the region, enabling them to participate meaningfully in new conservation partnerships with public institutions, parastatals and other organizations
Complementarity: CEPF is funding conservation initiatives led by civil society organizations. Investments are being carefully targeted to avoid any duplication of effort with other GEF activities and maximize synergies with the said activities. Efforts are focused on organizing and building capacities within civil society to implement conservation activities, taking a ‘learning by doing’ approach. The objective to equip communities with core capacities and know-how that will enable them to collaborate as equal partners on larger conservation
91 initiatives, initiated through C.A.P.E. in Cedarberg, Gouritz and Baviaanskloof. The lack of individual and institutional capacities at the community level currently handicaps effective community involvement in larger conservation interventions. CEPF funding is intended to provide a flexible and rapid funding mechanism to address immediate threats to biodiversity, where prospects for success are high, and to augment long term funding windows. CEPF provides funding for initial planning, stakeholder organization and advocacy, to create conditions necessary for the success of larger long-term investments planned in the CFR.
Implementation and co-ordination arrangements
GEF activities will be jointly implemented by the World Bank and UNDP, expanding the range of technical competencies, experience and technical networks available to beneficiaries. The two agencies have closely collaborated in supporting preparation of the various C.A.P.E. activities under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding. The World Bank will assume overall responsibility for managing the C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the CFR Ecoregion Program including components 3-7. The UNDP will be responsible for implementing the institutional capacity building and conservation education components ( 1and 2 ) of this project. UNDP will serve as the Implementing Agency for the C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative.
This Project will broadly be implemented and co-ordinated as follows: • An annual work program will be developed by the C.A.P.E. Co-ordinator in co-operation with the key executing agents. It will contain the key deliverables/ targets, the program budget, and responsibilities for execution and sources of funding. The work program will be approved by the C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee (technical committee comprising of key execution agencies) and C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Committee (heads of executing agency). • A funder round table comprising of the UNDP, World Bank and all other program funders will be convened once a year to approve the work program. • Every six months the UNDP and the World Bank will undertake supervision missions for those components of the Project for which they are responsible for supervising. The recipient will be responsible for preparing six monthly progress reports and activity plans. • Disbursement of grant funds will be the responsibility of each Implementing Agency and Project and Special accounts will be opened by the recipient, for the receipt and use of project funds. • A Mid-term review will be held at which significant Project adjustments will be considered by the UNDP and the World Bank. • Annual audits will be provided by the recipient. In year five, the next application to the GEF is likely to be prepared for C.A.P.E. under the Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project. It will be supported by an independent technical and financial evaluation of the success of the Project. It will design the next phase of GEF support with an increased role identified for the private sector. • UNDP/World Bank/SANParks will develop mechanisms to systematically disseminate information and lessons from ABI to the NBI and other executing agencies, for application throughout the CFR.
92 Attachment 1: Summary matrix
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF GEF ACTIVITIES C.A.P.E. ABI CEPF TARGETED SITES/ NOTES A. ENABLING POLICY/ INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT A.i Program Management Activity co-ordination, reporting, integrated C.A.P.E.: CFR monitoring and evaluation systems, performance × management training, Program development A.ii Information Management Environmental Information Systems × C.A.P.E.: CFR A.iii Systemic Capacities Policy integration × C.A.P.E.: CFR A.iv Institutional Framework Programmatic integration and institutional co- × ABI: Sub Regional level demonstration ordination at the sub-regional level; capacity building A.v Conservation education Communication, materials development, capacity C.A.P.E.: CFR Systemic Co-ordination building, community facilitation × ABI: Agulhas Plain Informal Education × A.vi Civil society participation Advocacy, institutional strengthening × CEPF: facilitated A.vii Market-based instruments New market-based instruments developed for × mainstreaming biodiversity into the economy B. CONSERVATION OF LARGE HABITAT BLOCKS B.i Protected Areas Establishment and consolidation C.A.P.E.: Cedarberg, Garden Route, Baviaanskloof, West Mountains Fine-scale planning, legal incorporation, × × Coast MPA. Lowlands (drylands) development of PA business plans, performance × Gouritz: Phase 2. Lowlands (forests) management systems, ecological surveys × × CEPF will finance multi-stakeholder planning activities at Freshwater × Cedarberg, Gouritz and Baviaanskloof PAs. Estuarine × ABI: Agulhas National Park Coastal/ Marine × B.ii Protected Areas Private Lands/ Communal Lands C.A.P.E.: Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve Contractual Reserve Institutional arrangements, legal incorporation, × Conservancies development of business plans, technical × ABI: Elim community reserve, Groot Hagelkraal Community Reserve assistance, to develop and adapt PA operations, × Contractual Park, six private nature reserves, Walker Bay Private Sector (Eskom) strengthen supervisory functions, capacity building × Fynbos Conservancy Biosphere Reserve for landowners and communities to manage × contractual and community reserves, zoning C. CONSERVATION OF SMALL HABITAT BLOCKS C.i Site Prioritization Fine-scale conservation planning, conservation C.A.P.E.: Upper Breede River Valley, Niewoudtville Lowland fynbos (drylands) plans and guidelines × Plateau, North West Sandveld, Riversdale West Coast Lowlands (forests) × Biosphere Reserve, South-east lowlands Coastal Renosterveld TMF: Overberg/ Swartland/ Boland and Cape Peninsula National Park C.ii Landscape Level Management Integrated extension services, contractual and × ABI will fund the execution of a landscape level management agreements, On farm conservation conservation management plan for the Agulhas Plain planning
93 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF GEF ACTIVITIES C.A.P.E. ABI CEPF TARGETED SITES/ NOTES C.iii Mainstreaming biodiversity in Integrate conservation planning into spatial × × C.A.P.E. land-use planning planning, strengthen land-use regulations, capacity ABI: Agulhas Plain building for municipalities C.iv. Urban planning Spatial planning TMF: Port Elizabeth and Cape Town D. LAND/ WATERSHED DEGRADATION D.i Restoration C.A.P.E. will support the clearance of invasive species, Drylands (disused farm lands) Pilot activities, to acquire know-how for ecological × Wetlands restoration in degraded areas × Renosterveld D.ii Integrating biodiversity into Integrate conservation objectives into operations of C.A.P.E.: Olifants/Doring, Berg, Breede, Gouritz, watershed management Catchment Management Authorities × Fish/Tsitsikamma, D.iii Estuarine Management Participatory design and test a CFR estuarine × C.A.P.E. will fund the testing of the estuarine management program management program at: Olifants, Lourens, Klein, Heuningness, Goukamma, Keurbooms-Bitou D.iv Fire Management Align baseline fire management system with biodiversity conservation objectives × × D.v Fire Management Monitoring impacts of fire and piloting appropriate × fire management regime, to curtail land degradation on drylands D.vi Invasive Alien Species Install monitoring and prediction systems, to Management Systems facilitate/ target management controls, policies on × × alien clearing on contractual national parks, pilot novel alien clearing mechanisms D.vii Invasive Alien Species Pilot/ adapt new management measures to control C.A.P.E.: field scale testing in Doring, Goukamma, Groot Bio-control alien invasive species, where know how is lacking, × TMF: experiment techniques in Cedarberg Integrated Pest Management and threats are significant × Invasive Alien Fish × D.viii Invasive Alien Species Systematize public awareness activities, × × Education/ Awareness promotional materials E. SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION OF WILD RESOURCES E.i Wild Fynbos Determine sustainable offtakes, management × planning, certification, market efficiencies E.ii Coastal/ Marine Resources Co-management arrangements, Pilot/ adapt spatial × Management tools E.iii Tourism Management Promotion × × E.iv Community-Based Natural Small grants for capacity building, advocacy, × Resource Management education, pilot management activities, legal support F. ANCILLARY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES E.i Species Management Planning, research, demonstration, stock CEPF will fund the Threatened Plant Species Program Ichthyofauna assessment TMF will fund implementation of management plans for
94 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF GEF ACTIVITIES C.A.P.E. ABI CEPF TARGETED SITES/ NOTES Avifauna × threatened birds (i.e. Black Oyster catcher) and stock Flora assessments for marine fish in CPNP E.ii Offshore Marine Management Researching environmental variability in Benguela Ecosystem, early warning for red tides/ anoxia
95 Annex 8: Project description summary
Project components (See Annex 1)
The Project has seven inter-related components that serve to meet the Development Objectives of the Program. The first four components (institutional strengthening, involving people, establishing the foundations of the biodiversity economy and program co-ordination management and monitoring) serve to meet Development Objective 1, while the other three components (unleashing the potential of protected areas, identifying and securing biodiversity in key sites, and integrating biodiversity concerns into watershed management) serve to meet Development Objective 2.
Component 1: Institutional strengthening
Output 1
Enhanced strategic alignment of conservation activities and increased capacity of relevant institutions for integrated bioregional conservation management in the CFR supported by comprehensive performance management and information management.
Subcomponents
1.1 Enhance inter-agency co-operation and strategic planning for conservation management in the CFR. This subcomponent will entail three activity clusters: facilitating the resolution of legal mandates and institutional roles for conservation of the CFR; assessing the requirements of the contributing agencies to meet their agreed mandates; and developing performance management system across implementing agencies to ensure alignment and compliance with CAPE 2000 Strategy. In particular it will address the alignment of the new Catchment Management Agencies and the incorporation of biodiversity concerns into watershed management (see Component 7).
1.2 Build capacity for effective conservation management in the CFR. This subcomponent will entail undertaking training, based on participatory training needs assessment; undertaking an institutional and training needs assessment for the establishment of Eastern Cape Nature Conservation Agency; conducting a capacity building program in conjunction with THETA15; and facilitating and supporting the development of a networked program to attract and retain new entrants into conservation management. It will also conduct activity-specific capacity-building across the Project, including for the application of a participatory approach, for watershed management and for protected areas management.
1.3 Appraise and develop strategies for financial sustainability. This subcomponent will entail determining the financial needs of implementing agencies for all conservation management activities; and identifying and selecting appropriate funding mechanisms, targets and strategies for implementing agencies. This subcomponent will also involve assessing the contribution of protected area-based tourism to the sustainability of conservation management programs.
15 Tourism and Hospitality Education and Training Authority
96 1.4 Establish a comprehensive information management system. This subcomponent will support the further development of the C.A.P.E. Information Management Unit as a partnership between key organizations. The Unit’s responsibility will be the development and maintenance of a centralized data warehouse with standardized protocols for accession and distribution of information to executing agencies for both protected areas and landscape management.
Component 2: Conservation education
Output 2: Increased environmental awareness and committed action of people in the CFR contributes to biodiversity conservation.
Subcomponents
2.1 Raise awareness and understanding of biodiversity issues and benefits in the CFR. This subcomponent will entail establishing a conservation education focal point in the CFR for facilitating co-ordinated programs at Project and site levels; developing and disseminating materials that focus on CFR biodiversity and C.A.P.E. Program components to support curriculum and educators; and training environmental educators and teachers to use the materials developed.
Component 3: Establishing the foundations of the biodiversity economy
Outputs 3: Market-based mechanisms for conservation management are designed to mitigate negative impacts of growth.
Subcomponents
3.1 Identify and design market-based and fiscal mechanisms for conservation.
3.1.1 Undertake an economic evaluation of the ecological services value of the CFR . The aim of the study is to identify the economic value and willingness of consumers to pay for maintenance of key ecological services, resources and products from the CFR in order to achieve biodiversity benefits. The study will build on what is already identified as a key ecological service and for which consumers have indicated willingness to pay- namely provision of clean water through maintaining watersheds clear of alien vegetation. The study will also identify those key resources and ecological services under threat for which there is no potential willing buyer and for which tax incentives and other mechanisms are required to ensure conservation. 3.1.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of existing market-based mechanisms and pilot payment for certain ecological services (support conservation of biodiversity through water payment charges to upstream landowners). This subcomponent will, based on the economic valuation of the CFR, design and pilot payment for ecological services in the water sector. The intention is that landowners will be paid to keep catchments clear of alien vegetation thereby boosting water run off, biodiversity conservation and reducing the need for new dams. One other sector such as the market for payment for carbon sequestration will also be examined. The actual payment for ecological services will need to be financed by purchasers of services themselves;
97 3.1.3 Design and pilot market-based mechanisms at the municipal and national level, e.g. rates rebates and tradable development rights. Building on dialogue with National Treasury, this sub-component will also investigate, design, monitor and pilot a tax incentive system to support landowners to conserve irreplaceable biodiversity in threatened lowland areas. 3.2 Develop mechanisms for lessening impacts of business on biodiversity. 3.2.1 Support the development, implementation and monitoring of a Biodiversity Charter. This entails establishing a vision, set of principles, and responsibilities and targets for commitment of the wine, wheat, ostrich and tourism industries to biodiversity management. A certification and compliance system will be developed and piloted for those businesses linked to biodiversity conservation objectives in the CFR. 3.2.2 Support the development of micro-enterprises for conservation management. Building on previous GEF Bank successes, developing community-public-private partnership arrangements to support emerging community eco-enterprises in environmental rehabilitation and minor tourism/ infrastructure development.
Component 4: Program and Project co-ordination, management and monitoring
Output 4: Enhanced management capacity, effective communication and efficient adaptive management result in the integrated development and implementation of the C.A.P.E. Program.
Subcomponents
4.1 Program and project co-ordination, management and monitoring. This subcomponent will entail undertaking program co-ordination, management and monitoring; undertaking financial management; undertaking program management, co-ordinated monitoring and evaluation; undertaking a communications program and providing support for stakeholder participation.
Component 5: Unleashing the potential of protected areas
Output 5: Protected areas contributing to priority targets for conservation of the biodiversity of the CFR are consolidated or established; cost-effective management is sustained; tourism development plans are implemented; and stakeholders derive direct and indirect benefits.
Subcomponents
5.1 Establish and consolidate key protected areas. This subcomponent will entail consolidating and expanding priority protected areas (Baviaanskloof, Garden Route, Cedarberg) with an emphasis on developing the linkages through critically threatened lowland habitats [the Gouritz area is prioritized as a recipient of CEPF funding for a similar set of activities]; establishing two priority freshwater and two estuarine protected areas; and establishing two priority marine protected areas (Garden Route and Kogelberg). The Project will pilot fisheries co-management arrangements in the Kogelberg Marine Protected Area using spatial set-asides. The baseline of protected areas is detailed in Table 1 below, and the Project will seek to expand the area under protection by 4000km2.
98 5.2 Develop sustainable management effectiveness. This subcomponent will entail designing and testing a Strategic Performance Management System in three target protected areas; developing plans for responsible tourism and visitor impact mitigation in four target protected areas; facilitating development of tourism infrastructure and facilities; developing protected area business plans and mechanisms for financial sustainability for four target protected areas; implementing high impact management programs; and undertaking skills development for protected area management.
Component 6: Identifying and securing biodiversity in key sites
Output 6: Biodiversity in priority remnant patches in fragmented landscapes is identified and secured in conjunction with civil society
Subcomponents
6.1 Undertake fine-scale conservation planning in priority areas. This subcomponent will entail undertaking fine scale conservation analysis in five priority areas:, Riversdale, Niewoudtville, Upper Breede River Valley, North West Sandveld, and the West Coast lowlands including Saldanha Peninsula. [The priority South East Lowlands are a potential recipient of CEPF funds]. The fine scale planning will inform other sub- components, and form the basis for priority actions to secure the protection of the most important sites.
6.2 Integrate biodiversity into land-use decision-making. This subcomponent will entail integrating fine scale conservation plans into government spatial planning, building institutional and individual capacity in municipalities in priority areas, and strengthening regulation in land-use planning.
6.3 Increase landowner commitment to conservation. This subcomponent will entail testing and refining non-fiscal incentives, building co-ordinated extension services and piloting cooperative management schemes in priority areas.
Component 7: Integrating biodiversity concerns into watershed management
Output 7: Biodiversity concerns are integrated into watershed management
Subcomponents
7.1 Improve watershed management and water resource management. This subcomponent will entail increasing the effectiveness of the “Ecological Reserve” measure in water resource management; incorporating biodiversity concerns into the new fire management system; and incorporating biodiversity concerns into water conservation/water demand management programs.
7.2 Improve management of invasive alien species (IAS). This subcomponent will entail creating an IAS management strategy and business plan for the entire CFR; establishing centres of excellence for IAS prevention and management in the CFR; and piloting the control of invasive alien fish in three priority freshwater ecosystems.
99 7.3 Improve estuarine management program. This subcomponent will entail designing and testing a CFR estuarine management program, based on relevant case studies.
Table 1. Extent of protected areas in the CFR
Statutory Conservation Management Authority Number of Total Area Area conservation (km2) areas Wilderness Area Western Cape Nature Conservation 4 1169.24 Board, Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism: Eastern Cape National Park South African National Parks 7 902.83 Provincial Nature Reserve Western Cape Nature Conservation 79 5776.88 Board Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism: Eastern Cape Marine Protected Area Western Cape Nature Conservation 7 419.29 Board/ South African National Parks Island Reserves Western Cape Nature Conservation 12 2.95 Board Local Authority Nature Various District Councils and 38 255.82 Reserve Municipalities Mountain Catchment Area Western Cape Nature Conservation 15 6190.37 Board and private landowners Private Conservation Area Private Nature Reserve Private landowners 148 1223.98 Conservancies Private landowners 43 5631.20 Natural Heritage Sites Private landowners 36 331.98 Biosphere Reserves Private landowners and Western Cape 2 4608.18 Nature Conservation Board
END
100