A Review of Alternative Area-Based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa

Contents

Glossary of terms iii

Acknowledgements iv

Executive summary v

Introduction 1

Review methodology 5

Comparative analysis 6

Case studies 19

Discussion 28

Conclusion 33

References and further reading 34

Annexure A: Area-based conservation mechanisms in South African legislation 36

Annexure B: International case studies 40

Annexure C: Questionnaire for investigating alternative area-based conservation mechanisms 42

Tables

Table 1. Biodiversity Stewardship Categories (SANBI, 2018) 2

Table 2. Legal permanence and duration 6

Table 3. Intent 8

Table 4. Area management 10

Table 5. Management governance 10

Table 6. Management planning 12

Table 7. Timeline, resources and costs 14

Table 8. Benefits & Incentives 16

Glossary of terms

Agreement A written agreement or contract entered into between two parties.

Biodiversity stewardship is an approach to securing land in biodiversity priority areas through entering into agreements with private and communal landowners, led by conservation authorities and supported by conservation NGOs. The objective of biodiversity Biodiversity Stewardship (BDS) stewardship is to conserve and manage biodiversity priority areas through voluntary agreements with landowners and communities. This may involve formal protection, management and restoration of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. (SANBI, 2018)

A Biodiversity Agreement is concluded in terms of contract law and is not recognised in terms of either NEMPAA or NEMBA. These agreements are typically concluded for a defined period Biodiversity Agreement of between five and fifteen years, and can be concluded for longer durations at the voluntary election of the landowner or community. These contractual agreements are generally signed between landowners or communities and provincial conservation agencies. (SANBI, 2018)

A Biodiversity Partnership Area is a non-contractual agreement, and is not recognised in terms of contract law, the Biodiversity Act or the Protected Biodiversity Partnership Area Areas Act. A Biodiversity Partnership Area contributes to the conservation estate but not to the protected area estate. (SANBI, 2018)

An area of land or sea that is not formally protected in terms of NEMPAA but is nevertheless managed at least partly for biodiversity conservation. Because Conservation Area (CA) there is no long-term security associated with conservation areas they are not considered a strong form of protection. Conservation areas contribute towards the conservation estate but not the protected area estate. (SANBI, 2018)

Conservation Estate An inclusive term referring to all protected areas and all conservation areas (SANBI, 2018).

NEMPAA National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 2004.

Initially identified as “other effective area-based conservation measures” by the IUCN as OECMs captured in the Aichi Target 11. Now subsequently referred to as Conservation Areas. (IUCN)

An area of land or sea that is formally protected in terms of NEMPAA and managed Protected Area (PA) mainly for biodiversity conservation. Includes state-owned protected areas and contract protected areas on privately or communally owned land. (SANBI, 2018).

A PPA, is a protected area, as defined by IUCN, under private governance. This can include governance by individuals and groups of individuals; non-governmental Privately Protected Area (PPA) organisations; corporations, including commercial companies and small companies established to manage groups of PPAs; for-profit owners such as ecotourism companies; research entities such as universities and field stations; or religious entities. (IUCN)

iii Acknowledgements

This report has been produced with funding from the Table Mountain Fund as part of Project TM 5488 entitled “Enhancing conservation NGO involvement in protected area expansion,” implemented by BirdLife South Africa.

The author wishes to thank all of the individuals and organisations who generously gave up their time and provided information for the case studies on which the report is based. Specifically, Andre Rossouw and Clifford Dorse from the City of Cape Town; Dr Odette Curtis and Keir Lynch of the Overberg Renosterveld Conservation Trust; Sean Privett and Rebecca Dames from the Grootbos Foundation; Roseanne Stanway at Conservation South Africa; Mick D’Alton of the Nuwejaars Special Management Area; Shelly Fuller, Joan Isham and Sam Mnguni of WWF-SA; and Andrew Purnell and Kerry Purnell.

These organisations and individuals are leading the way in developing and implementing a diverse suite of area- based conservation mechanisms in South Africa. Their pioneering role in pushing the boundaries of traditional conservation action is acknowledged and appreciated. It is intended that this report may further support and strengthen such efforts.

Candice Stevens and Daniel Marnewick are thanked for their comments on the draft report.

Images: Authors own, except where indicated.

Recommended citation: Wright, D.R. 2019. A review of the alternative area-based conservation mechanisms in South Africa. Table Mountain Fund, Cape Town, South Africa.

iv Executive summary

Conservation efforts to stem the global decline of biodiversity can be broadly categorised into different approaches, including species-based conservation, area-based conservation, planning and policy tools or threat mitigation measures. Area-based conservation efforts rely on increasing the global network of both protected areas and conservation areas in order to conserve biodiversity, improve land management and provide various socio-economic benefits. This task has traditionally fallen solely on national governments; however, the enormity of the task requires support, and recent research has indicated a shift towards more diverse forms of governance and ownership. A diversity of governance and ownership of protected areas and conservation areas is essential to address the needs of ecological connectivity across the landscape, as well as meeting high level global targets related to the representation of biodiversity and ecosystems.

This review has focused on alternative area-based conservation mechanisms which are considered as conservation areas and biodiversity partnership areas within the South African biodiversity stewardship framework. The review drew from eight case studies developed through interviews with practitioners. A series of ten over-arching principles which characterise these alternative mechanisms is described. The principles were initially extracted from the case studies presented in this report and subsequently reviewed against the most recent international and national guidance.

Importantly, these alternative mechanisms are able to enhance inclusivity within conservation, by allowing for partnerships with a broad diversity of stakeholders, who may not previously have been engaged in biodiversity conservation. These often include non-state actors, such as NGOs, rural community groups, communal property associations and the commercial agricultural sector. They also often allow for a variety of conservation compatible land-uses within their boundaries and are able to leverage private sector investment for conservation. In addition, the alternative mechanisms play an essential role in facilitating ecological connectivity. It may not be possible to establish protected areas throughout an entire landscape, and the mechanisms here can act to bridge those gaps by facilitating conservation in combination with other land-uses.

A further advantage of these mechanisms is their flexibility. Conservation Areas may be able to respond more quickly to opportunities for conservation and are potentially easier to negotiate and finalise. By remaining flexible in their approach, conservation organisations are able to engage a greater diversity of stakeholders and land- uses as would be achieved solely through mechanisms such as protected areas. In addition, these options can be used as stepping stones to more formal, long-term conservation action. They can encourage initial involvement in conservation and subsequently upskill and empower stakeholders to make stronger commitments to conservation.

All of the mechanisms reviewed contain reference to specific South African environmental legislation, which is often incorporated directly into sections of the different agreements utilised. Although some mechanisms are not able to ensure long-term security of sites, they are thus able to improve environmental compliance in the broader landscape, thereby contributing to sustainable land management. The principles also detail further recommendations for organisations supporting or implementing area-based conservation. Additional annexures briefly describe potential mechanisms embedded in existing South African legislation and international case studies which may have potential application within the South African area-based conservation landscape at a point in the future.

Whilst it is important to develop and implement a wide range of area-based conservation mechanisms to suit various contexts, it is essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each, along with their costs and the benefits they are able to provide. Furthermore, it is essential that the mechanisms be standardised to some degree, ensuring alignment with national and international best practice. The variety of mechanisms discussed in this review have an essential role to play in mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into other sectors, facilitating connectivity amongst conservation areas in the landscape, and engaging a wide diversity of stakeholders.

v © LoveGreen Communications vi BirdLife South Africa Introduction

Global context South African context

Habitat loss and degradation, alongside climate It is essential that national environmental policies change and invasive species, are considered to be provide adequate recognition and an enabling the most pressing threats facing global biodiversity framework for the diverse area-based conservation (Sala et al., 2000 Driver et al., 2012; Marnewick et al., approaches currently being implemented, if we are 2015). Conservation efforts to stem the decline of to achieve the required biodiversity targets and biodiversity can be broadly categorised into different ultimately stem the tide of biodiversity loss (Jonas approaches, including species-based conservation, et al., 2014). Fortunately, South Africa’s policy and area-based conservation, planning and policy tools legislative framework provides recognition and support or threat mitigation measures (Hofmeyer-Pretorius to diverse forms of area-based conservation. These 2014). Area-based conservation efforts rely on are primarily facilitated by the national biodiversity increasing the global network of both protected stewardship initiative, which aims to secure protection areas and conservation areas in order to conserve for land through bi-lateral agreements with private and biodiversity, improve land management and provide communal landowners (Barendse et al., 2016; SANBI, various socio-economic benefits (Watson et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2018). South Africa thus benefits 2016; Wright et al., 2018). Although in existence from a strong policy and legislative framework which for more than a century, area-based conservation supports the expansion of the protected area and efforts have increased recently in response to conservation area network (Mitchell et al., 2018a), and Strategic Goal C of the Convention on Biological has also made significant contributions to international Diversity (CBD), namely: “To improve the status of protected area policy (Stolton et al., 2014; Bingham et biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2018b). and genetic diversity” and its component Target 11, which includes numerical targets for increasing the The biodiversity stewardship framework includes three network of protected areas and other effective area- categories of biodiversity stewardship mechanisms. based conservation measures (CBD, 2010; Jonas et Category 1 of the biodiversity stewardship categories al., 2014). The establishment and management of includes Protected Areas, primarily National Parks, protected areas and conservation areas remains the Nature Reserves and Protected Environments (Table primary mandate of the state. States are required 1). These are defined by the terms of the National to expand their protected and conservation area Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act estates and achieve associated targets. However, No. 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA 2003) and managed the extent of this task requires support and recent primarily for biodiversity conservation (SANBI 2016; research has indicated a shift towards more diverse SANBI, 2018). Due to the clear terms, procedures for forms of governance and ownership, including the declaration and objectives of protected areas within development of Privately Protected Areas and other the South African legislative context our knowledge of non-government designations (Lopoukhine & de these mechanisms is well established (Mitchell et al., Souza Dias, 2012.; Butchart et al., 2015; Bingham et 2018a, 2018b). This review focuses on new, emerging al., 2017). This trend is mirrored in South Africa where and alternate mechanisms and a review of established between 2008 and 2014 approximately 67% of the new protected area mechanisms is not required, thus, we properties declared as protected areas were under omit National Parks, Nature Reserves and Protected private or communal tenure (SANBI, 2016). This has Environments. been achieved through a cooperative community of practice under biodiversity stewardship. A diversity of governance and ownership of protected areas and conservation areas is essential to address the needs of ecological connectivity across the landscape (Borrini- Feyerabend., et al 2013), as well as meeting high level global targets related to the representation of biodiversity and ecosystems (Dudley et al., 2018). In addition, the protection of ecological assets is essential for human health and well-being.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 1 Table 1. Biodiversity Stewardship Categories (SANBI, 2018)

Biodiversity Stewardship Category Type of Agreement Legal Mechanism

National Environmental Management: Category 1: Protected Areas Nature Reserve or National Park Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003)

National Environmental Management: Protected Environment Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003)

National Environmental Management: Category 2: Conservation Areas Biodiversity Management Agreement Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004)

Biodiversity Agreement Contract Law

Conservation Servitudes Property Law

Business, Industry and Biodiversity Contract Law initiatives

Conservation Agreements Contract Law

Category 3: Biodiversity Partnership Areas Conservancies No legal mechanism

Category 2 of the biodiversity stewardship categories boundaries (SANBI, 2018). The biodiversity partnership includes the Conservation Areas, namely Biodiversity areas are diverse and able to achieve various goals, Agreements, Biodiversity Management Agreements however they specifically allow for participation from and Conservation Servitudes (Table 1). Conservation landowner or user groups who would like to take Areas as defined in South Africa are areas of land collective action to manage their land, or who have or sea that are not formally protected in terms of important biodiversity but may not be willing to enter the Protected Areas Act but nevertheless managed formal or binding agreements (SANBI, 2018). Currently at least partly for biodiversity conservation (SANBI, the biodiversity partnership areas have not been fully 2016; Mitchell et al., 2018a; SANBI, 2018). Conservation assessed, identified or given defining characteristics, areas contribute towards the conservation estate although this has been noted as a future action by but not the protected area estate (SANBI, 2018). members of the national biodiversity stewardship Whilst conservation areas are not counted towards technical working group. It is intended that this review the protected area estate, they do form part of the may assist in that process. broader conservation estate in South Africa, and may also be considered to align with other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) (Mitchell et al., 2018a), now being referred to globally as Conservation Areas.

The National Biodiversity Stewardship Guidelines (SANBI, 2018) recognise a further Category 3, known as Biodiversity Partnership Areas (Table 1). These sites differ from the previous categories in that they do not include any formal or legally binding agreement with a provincial conservation authority or conservation NGO, and thus do not provide strong legal security, nor long-term intent achieved through a defined duration, and biodiversity conservation is often only a secondary management objective (SANBI, 2018; Mitchell et al., 2018a). Biodiversity Partnership Areas do not contribute to the national protected area estate, but may form part of the conservation estate if there is effective biodiversity conservation within their

2 BirdLife South Africa Alternative mechanisms which are currently being implemented in South Africa, the report describes the background context This review has focused on those mechanisms of the mechanism and details its implementation which are alternative to the protected areas as with respect to a range of criteria defining protected defined and included within Category 1 of the areas and conservation areas. Whilst it is important to biodiversity stewardship framework. These alternative develop and implement a wide range of area-based conservation approaches, including conservation conservation mechanisms to suit various contexts, it is areas and biodiversity partnership areas, include essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses many areas which although not formally recognised of each, along with their costs and the benefits they as protected areas, nonetheless are able to provide are able to provide. Furthermore, it is essential that the effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity. mechanisms be standardised to some degree, ensuring These private and communal conservation areas alignment with national and international best practice. vary widely in their approach and management objectives, however all include a focus on biodiversity conservation to some degree (Pasquini et al., 2011, Stolton et al., 2014, Selinske et al., 2015; Clements et al., 2018). Whilst these alternative area-based conservation mechanisms can provide value for conservation, there are concerns that various factors may limit their potential to contribute to long-term ecological outcomes (Clements et al., 2016). Limiting factors include their legal permanence, security and duration, potential conflict between competing management objectives and cost effectiveness.

This review has focused on the alternative area- based conservation mechanisms, which often include non-state actors, such as NGOs, private landowners and communities. They also often allow for a variety of conservation compatible land-uses within their boundaries and are able to leverage private sector investment for conservation. These kinds of mechanisms are essential for expanding the conservation estate as much of the surface area of south Africa is under private ownership and communal tenure and utilised for agriculture (Government of South Africa, 2017), which are both essential to food security and supporting livelihoods of the nation’s citizens. In addition, many of the most important areas remaining for biodiversity globally are on private or communal land, and currently outside of protected areas (Marnewick et al., 2015; Dinerstein et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2018b). As the focus of conservation agencies is broadened to include these diverse mechanisms and management arrangements the conservation gains which are possible through their application should remain the principal consideration for conservation agencies.

The aim of this review is to interrogate the characteristics of the various alternative mechanisms that are currently being mainstreamed within biodiversity stewardship. The review also includes a brief description of legislative options that may be piloted and implemented in South Africa, as well as a few case studies of novel international area- based conservation mechanisms which have not yet been applied in South Africa. For those options

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 3 4 BirdLife South Africa Review methodology

The review comprised multiple steps, initially identifying No.57 of 2003 (NEMPA), given that such declarations and drafting the list of potential mechanisms for currently represent the strongest form of area-based investigation; developing objective criteria to compare conservation in South Africa. the various mechanisms; and gathering the relevant data for analysis via semi-structured interviews with The broad categories of the criteria include: practitioners. The overall study also considered potential alternative mechanisms in South African environmental •• legal permanence and duration; legislation (Annexure A) and international case studies of area-based conservation mechanisms which have not •• intent (objective); been widely applied in South Africa (Annexure B). •• management – including governance and planning;

Identifying relevant mechanisms •• timelines, resources and costs associated with implementation; and The first step in this review was to list the variety of area-based conservation mechanisms being •• benefits and incentives. implemented in South Africa, and determine which could be considered as alternative, or newly emerging mechanisms. These included those mechanisms which Data collection and analysis have not yet been mainstreamed into the sector and are often only being implemented by a single Following the development of the questionnaire, conservation organisation. The second requirement of semi-structured interviews were held with the study is that the mechanisms in question are being conservation practitioners implementing the various applied to a specifically defined geographic area and alternative mechanisms. These interviews lasted implement conservation management within that area. between one to two hours and included the questions Thus initiatives which focus on actions for a threatened as per Annexure C, along with additional notes species, mitigate an overarching threat or focus on and considerations from open discussions. All of sustainable use of natural resources at a sector- the information gathered was captured in an excel wide level, are not considered in this review. Once spreadsheet and subsequently refined to focus on we had considered these requirements, a number of the information required for direct comparison across mechanisms were identified. A comprehensive list of all different mechanisms. Additional and background area-based conservation mechanisms in South Africa information pertaining to each mechanism is captured was drafted and subsequently those mechanisms that within the individual case study reports. did not warrant further investigation were removed. In the first instance, protected areas within the South African context were removed from the list and not Legislative and international options considered as part of this review. A further scoping of potential mechanisms embedded in existing South African legislation was conducted Developing review criteria and the results are provided in Annexure A. The review did not determine the full feasibility of these legislative In order to objectively review the various mechanisms options, but rather describes the enabling environment under consideration a standardised questionnaire they create, which may allow for future testing of such was developed (Annexure C). The review criteria options. In addition, a literature review was conducted are derived from the current legislative and policy to identify new area-based mechanisms which are framework which defines the establishment and being applied in other countries and may have management of South Africa’s conservation potential application within the South African area- estate (referring to all protected and conserved based conservation landscape at a point in the future areas). These criteria draw from the national policy (Annexure B). framework provided for biodiversity stewardship, as well as legislative processes which are required for declaration of protected areas under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 5 Comparative analysis

The following tables include detailed information compiled for each mechanism (columns) in relation to a specific criterion (rows). The presentation here is intended to allow for comparison of the different mechanisms.

Table 2. Legal permanence and duration

Conservation Biodiversity Agreements - Conservation Conservation Servitudes Agreements Conservation Conservation - Landowner Association Conservancy City of Cape Town Servitudes (ORCT) (Grootbos) (Conservation Champion Contracts Agriculture scheme South Africa)

Biodiversity Agreements (with title-deed endorsements), Company environmental Contractual Voluntary agreement What type of legal Voluntary agreements (The Contractual agreement and a Contractual agreement and a Contractual agreement policy, or contractual agreement with a between landowners instrument has been used City also uses Nature Reserve servitude with notarial deed servitude with notarial deed Contractual agreement. (based on Biodiversity agreement with relevant voluntary landowners and provincial for conserving the site? declarations, but these are registered at the deed office. registered at the deed office. Agreeement template). NPO (potential for title association (LOA) conservation agency. not reported on for the deed endorsements) purposes of this review).

Primarily communal land, tribal communal What is the legal Private (Commercial Private and/ Private, commerical Private and/ Private and/or Communal Private and/or Communal Private and/or Communal land or communal ownership of the site? wine farms) or Communal / shareholders or communal land managed by municipalities.

CapeNature and NPO and relevant Private landowners landowner (City of Cape NPO and a nominated legal entity owning the Landowners and Which parties have Landowner and NPO sign the consitution Farm owner and Town - CapeNature MOU Landowner and NPO (ORCT) individual or relevant site – ie. individuals, Provincial Conservation signed the agreement? (Grootbos) as members of the management consultant re: CoCT management management authority. companies, trusts Agency representatives landowners association support to the sites) or shareholders

Contract law (but with Contract law and property South African Does any legislation or SA Contract law and property law Contract law and property law flexibility to ensure they Contract law and law with respect to the title Contract law Companies Act; Contract law law govern the agreement? with respect to the servitude. with respect to the servitude. are not too onerous for property law deed endorsements. Contract Law the different parties)

Biodiversity Agreements with Flexible duration - Minimum three Linked to duration of What is the duration title-deed endorsements: seasonal, six months Minimum 30 years, In perpetuity In perpetuity years, with potential management plan (five Five years of the agreement? in-perpetuity. Voluntary or annual with option or “in perpetuity” for renewal years); or in perpetuity. agreements: 5 -10 years. for renewal.

Yes. Certain actions Is any aspect of the agreement as stipulated by the recorded against the title Yes Yes Yes No No No No landowner association deeds of the property? constitution.

Does the legal agreement Yes. The agreement makes Yes, using existing title- Yes, natural veld and make clear reference to the Yes. Surveyor General reference to SG diagrams, Yes. But no SG diagrams Yes, but no SG deeds as referenced production areas are site’s property description? diagrams required for title- No No title deed numbers and are required. diagram required. through the title deed mapped as per the And is use made of any deed endorsements. the deed of transfer. endorsements. farm boundaries. surveyor general diagram/s?

Individuals are bound Easily, but perhaps The agreement contains Directors may choose to How easily can the specific Difficult, but it is possible. The agreement contains by the title deed varies depending on There is a dispute resolution Difficult, but possible. cancellation clauses via re-structure company; agreement be cancelled, It can be reversed through cancellation clauses via endorsements. The Conservancy. Individual clause as per normal Mutual agreement by written notification with abolish environmental over-turned or revoked, by mutual agreement of the written notification with landowner association landowners can dissolve contractual agreements. contracting parties. specified timelines. policy and dissolve any party to the agreement? contracting parties. specified timelines. can only be dissolved their membership of management plan. with 80% quorum. the Association.

Yes, via the associated No (However, as with Does the legal instrument used Yes, as per the National Environmental/ Yes, through the other case studies, Yes, via a management to conserve the site list legally Environmental Management: Yes, as per Biodiversity management plan and No all relevant national plan which identifies No required and enforceable Protected Areas Act list of management plan. Management Plan that contractual agreement. environmental specific land uses. land use restrictions? non-permissible activities. refers to applicable legislation will apply). legislation.

Does the legal instrument used Yes, the contracts are linked Yes, as per the No. Conservation to conserve the site list legally to an approved management Yes, via the approved Yes, as per Yes, as per Environmental actions may be listed, Yes Yes required and enforceable plan which lists specific management plan. management plan. management plan. / Biodiversity but they are not conservation actions? conservation activities. management plan. legally enforceable.

6 BirdLife South Africa Table 2. Legal permanence and duration

Yes. Certain actions Is any aspect of the agreement as stipulated by the recorded against the title Yes Yes Yes No No No No landowner association deeds of the property? constitution.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 7 Table 3. Intent

Agricultural, Agricultural What are the primary Agricultural production and environmental and production - entire Subsistence agriculture, Agriculture, wine management objectives Biodiversity conservation biodiversity conservation. Environmental socio-economic farm. Conservation Agricultural production livestock production. prodcution. of the site? objectives are for the specific site considered equal. under consideration.

Secondary for the entire Is the conservation of farm, but primary for Primary objective, but biodiversity features specific portions of natural not to the detriment of a primary, secondary, Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary vegetation as identified in other objectives, such inadvertent or not at all a the management plan and as viable agriculture. management objective? linked to the servitude.

Are the site’s primary objectives (i.e.: agricultural Yes, but in future there may production) and the be conflict due to changing Varies depending on conservation objectives Yes Yes, as far as possible. conditions for agriculture and Yes Yes Yes Yes the Conservancy. as captured in the the need for expansion, or agreement, well aligned changes in land ownership. and complimentary?

Conflicts can arise, especially under certain Is there any potential conflict Potential conflict with Potential conflicts with circumstances ie. No, but dependent Yes, conflict may arise between the site’s primary recreational activities grazing or the need for Agreements No, perhaps only drought. Agreements upon the company between agricultural management objectives and conservation, or with agricultural expansion; but Yes are designed to related to access are flexible in order management vision and conservation and the biodiversity required ecological burns these are addressed via minimise conflict. to specific areas. to provide for for the property. objectives. conservation objectives? and property risks. the management plan. changing conditions to avoid conflict.

8 BirdLife South Africa Table 3. Intent

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 9 Table 4. Area management

Biodiversity Agreements - Conservation Conservation Servitudes Conservation Conservation Conservation - Landowner Association Conservancy City of Cape Town Servitudes (ORCT) (Grootbos) Agreements Champion Contracts Agriculture scheme

Is the conservation Yes, farm level mechanism in question and specifically Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes applied to a clearly defined mapped / refined geographic area? conservation area

Using Critical Biodiversity Area and fine-scale vegetation Multiple criteria and maps, subsequently review filters, including farm & cadastral boundaries, biodiversity hotspots, followed by ground truthing catchment areas and Natural areas are the areas of importance. climate vulnerability only remaining natural Selected initially through models (ecological, Areas of natural veld area on the property; Basis for the area ORCT strategy – larger water and social factors and/or transformed Initially via the Critical identified by WWF- was the inclusion of Determined by a fragments, watercourses, Identified using fine-scale in climate change areas earmarked Biodiversity Areas as part of SA using GIS /Google threatened biodiversity combination of How has this area been threatened species and maps of high priority models) - lead to for rehabilitation/ the City’s Bionet. Surveyor Earth, then map and wetlands, and then biodiversity priority identified and mapped? opportunities to work with vegetation types and species identification of broad restoration are General Diagrams and GIS are drawn in conjunction willing landowners areas and willing multiple landowners. and mapped using GIS. geographic areas. identified by farm used for further mapping. with landowner. within / owning those landowners. Most target vegetation Subsequently use management and/or WWF may pre- areas were contacted. in the project domain willingness to engage external consultants. determine the is critically endangered (from community) relevant area. and research has shown along with capacity that all of the remaining of the NGOs and a fragments are important potential enabling and help to maintain environment. ecological connectivity.

Table 5. Management governance

Yes. Specific Primarily rely on Yes. Via the Section departments and Has a management authority existing management Yes. Private or communal Yes. Generally the Yes, the conservation Private landowner / 21 Not for profit individuals on the farm No. The management been assigned to the site authorities, such as landowners remain the landowner with extension NPO acts as the ownership entity is the company. Also via or external service remains the remit of as part of the development tribal community management authority. support from ORCT. management authority. management authority. the Nuwejaars Nature providers are identified individual landowners. of the mechanism? authority or communal Reserve management. as responsible for property associations. specific activities.

Biodiversity Agreements Not necessarily a legal No. Almost more like No. The legal entity are not required to assign a requirement. Within the a contracting party The landowner Is it a legal requirement who signs the management authority – but management plan actions Not necessarily , but than a management association constitution to assign a management agreement will act No No the contract would stipulate are assigned to landowner or considered best practice. authority. requires the Sec. 21 Not authority? as the management obligations of management partner organisations. for profit company. authority. for the landowner.

No. In some cases there are “grazing associations” which are not a legal entity, in A constitution is in place for other instances there If a Landowners Is a constitution Grootbos Foundation. It is Not necessarily – usually are “cooperatives” Association is developed for the No not generated specifically No Yes No individual landowners. which are constituted developed they will management authority? for the management as a legal entity. A require a Constitution. authority in this instance. constitution may be developed if necessary, but only as a parallel process.

Who constitutes the Individual private Owner, Manager, Farm Landowners who Farm owner / company Landowners and ORCT Landowners / membership of the landowners or community Grootbos Foundation Communal land-users. staff, conservation staff are signatory to directors, management working in collaboration. communities management authority? property associations. or other relevant staff. the constitution. staff and consultant.

10 BirdLife South Africa Table 4. Area management

Is the conservation Yes, farm level mechanism in question and specifically Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes applied to a clearly defined mapped / refined geographic area? conservation area

Table 5. Management governance

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 11 Table 6. Management planning

Yes, considered best practice Does the mechanism Not legally, but for Biodiversity Agreements. No. Grazing plans are require an environmental a development Landowners need to know developed, but not management plan as part Yes Yes Yes framework was drafted Yes No what they are committing usually broad-scale of the legal instrument and in turn linked to to and the contracts refer environmental plans. being applied? a management plan. to a management plan.

Grazing plan is developed in collaboration Who is responsible WWF-SA – co- External consultant Landowner or City of Cape Town (CoCT) ORCT in collaboration between NPO and for developing the Grootbos Foundation. developed with in collaboration with Consultant Conservation agency staff develop the plan. with the landowner. communal land-users, management plan? landowner. management team staff if one is required. and subsequently reviewed by technical / scientific advisers.

Landowner is Landowner, and through Landowners and CoCT, The landowner, the presented with plan, Who approves the consultation with other Both parties to Internal approval Provincial Agency, if with further approval director of ORCT and they then agree to Company management management plan? third party conservation the agreement. by the members. a plan is developed. from CapeNature. the project manager. an Annual Plan of organisations. Operation (APO).

Almost monthly Annual review of successes review, community and challenges, with the Annual reviews, conducted reviews plans on Annual. Self- How often is progress against Annual Plan of Operation Annually, internal review by CoCT in partnership almost daily basis, Annually, and the assessment with the plan reviewed, and who (APO) adapted each year by conservation staff of Ad hoc basis N/A with CapeNature and and ecological impact APO is then revised. input from external undertakes the review? according to progress. Grootbos Foundation. the landowners. reviewed annually by consultant. Multiple extension visits the NPO and / or a provided throughout the year. university partner.

Legal requirement is now ten years, however the Every year the plan is CoCT is more adaptive in revised, but potential Budgeted Management approach. For example if Annually, the Is the plan regularly revised, Five year duration for the for more flexible Not regularly, although Plan is revised Annually. an accidental burn happens Every five years. management plan is N/A and if so, how often? plan, and annual APO review. revision, for example it has been revised. Management Strategy and alien vegetation clearing revised if necessary. if conditions change revised every five years. needs to be scheduled, due to a drought. Biodiversity Agreements can then be amended.

Baseline studies are conducted; yearly updating of CREW lists, Very complex baseline or bird lists, but not assessments before Camera trapping, botanical necessarily specified. protected area review, rely surveys, bioblitz, baseline Need baseline studies Bird point counts, on Custodians of Rare and resource inventory, to register, but then game counts, fixed Endangered Wild flowers Compile a biological Veld condition Wide range of is ad hoc…eg camera point photography, Varies between (CREW) to do baseline. inventory provided to each Monitor alien vegetation, assessment, monitoring activities/ traps, CREW etc. alien clearing before conservancies and What kinds of biodiversity Some fixed point landowner in a report. veld age linked to fire species inventory, tools are applied. Many are linked with and after monitoring, also among members monitoring activities photography, occasional use threat, botanical diversity, biomass measuring, Monitoring activities Invasive species monitored. Conservancies who Univ of Western Cape of a conservancy, but are undertaken? of camera traps. Fire and erosion control monitoring grazing capacity, are determined by the Bird surveys, atlasing, bird regularly undertake doing water quality on landowner interest alien vegetation mapping and wildlife surveys. infiltration, erosion management objectives lasser etc. Ecological burn – these activities. and water levels and willingness. and monitoring. Certain post burn floral surveys for monitoring, run-off. and/or activities. Some biodiversity monitoring. Ad hoc threatened species may need a minimum of three years. monitoring through sightings, road kill data more detailed monitoring Usually at least botanical the annual review / in all protected areas and monitoring every spring. APO audit. Eg, have conservation areas. stands of alien veg been cleared (similar to ground trothing).

12 BirdLife South Africa Table 6. Management planning

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 13 Table 7. Timeline, resources and costs

Biodiversity Agreements - Conservation Servitudes Conservation Conservation - Conservation Servitudes Conservation Agreements Landowner Association Conservancy City of Cape Town (Grootbos) Champion Contracts Agriculture scheme

(Modelling and feasibility assessment (due diligence, Negotiation varies between Can take up to one year to social issues etc) – might Negotiation can vary, but landowners, subsequent to complete the agreement, 6 - 12 months, How long, on average, take anything from 1 Approximately 6 -8 years signing can be very quick negotiation could conclude through initiation, desktop depending does it take to conclude Six months week to 6 months). to establish the Special 3-6 months once successful negotiation the agreement within 3 -6 analysis, information on landowner this kind of agreement? From first encounters with Management Area. has been concluded. months, also depending on review, negotiation, interest. the community following obtaining bond holder consent. and final signing. the feasibility assessment. Approx. 6 months.

Yes. Initial discussions Yes, about four different with landowner, building Yes, five / six steps: Including an initial MOU phases, including relationship and trust (scoping), Feasibility, engagement, Are there different phases signing. Site assessment phase; negotiation and sign-up. Yes. Negotiation in particular can negotiation around area to design and negotiation, Yes, different phases, scoping, involved; i.e.: scoping, negotiation phase, Subsequently the Annual Yes Yes become very lengthy process. be included, conditions of implementation, monitoring, negotiation, mainteance. negotiation, declaration etc.? legal contracting phase, Plan of Operation and agreement, declaration and sustainability. (Important then signing and celebration. conservation area map signing ceremony, followed by to include exit strategy). are reviewed annually. management implementation.

An extension officer and NPO – few staff members NGO staff member, NGO At least one full time Landowner, one extension Government What are the human resources management staff. A major asset Four principal landowner Environmental (director and extension officer), conservation director, NGO staff member per project officer and one legal conservation required to conclude this is having ring-fenced funds to members have driven consultant and farm one NPO staff member doing fauna specialist (internal), site, plus higher level advisor (within the NGO), agency staff kinds of agreement? get external legal support and the initiative. management farm visits, and a lawyer. landowner and lawyer. technical oversight. or potentially external. or NPO staff thereby expedite processes.

Operational costs of the extension officer and Operational costs include the legal advisor. Events vehicle, cellphone, Legal costs associated with costs, workshop costs, Operational costs – as per NGO field costs, monitoring, declarations; landowner providing training to What are the additional costs activities, staff time, fuel, vehicle Operational costs of NGO scientific expertise. incentive funds Eg. Small grants landowners. Costs are Operational required for this agreement maintenance etc. staff, legal fees and incentives Generally a three year for alien clearing. creating the benefits for Approx. R1.5 million. Consulting Fees. costs for the i.e.: legal fees, incentives, Legal fees – R10,000 – R15,000 (mainly fencing and alien conservation agreement CoCT budgets do not provide the landowners (almost staff member operational costs etc. maximum. Incentives up to vegetation clearing). project = $200,000. operational support, which R2,000,000 per annum). R100,000 per landowner. (Includes all human is sourced externally. There are costs for resources, operational the landowner – eg. costs and benefits). Alien clearing, fire break maintenance.

Extension officer salary, Rough initial cost of R40,000 for What are the approximate Rezoning, registration, legal advisor salary divided R2,000,000 to get going. R30 000. Excluding incentives $200,000 approx. a Biodiversity total costs for concluding advertisement etc up to As per previous cost indications. by total agreements. R20 million investment from which vary from site to site. R3,000,000 for 3 years. Management Plan this kind of agreement? R130,000 per site. R10,000- R15,000 German development bank for as a minimum. estimate per site. fencing, purchase of game etc.

Maintenance costs are Maintenance costs – staff Benefits – R100,000 per Depends on doing the annual review, Depends on the costs What are the average annual Varies across sites, mainly time and resources for annual R12 000 per anum internal annum per community, the interest time of site visit and before of implementing the maintenance costs associated salary components from review and APO update. staff time, R3000 travel. Plus majority of costs come and activities / after the site visit. activities approved with this kind of agreement CoCT budgets, very little if Aim to provide some small incentive work depending after signing (approx.. undertaken by The landowner pays in budgeted Annual after it has been concluded? split across multiple sites. maintenance support on funding availability. $120,000 for 2.5 years the Conservancy for the environmental Plan of Operations funding, alien clearing etc. of “maintenance”). members. management costs.

Blended funding mechanisms – eg. DEA NRM; private philanthropy via the CI network. Income generated Limpopo – GEF through CoCT for negotiation and project across multiple collaborative servicing and then other grants, different countries. Traditional grants, Conservation funding Large international donors; Company profits activities What are the primary sources in-kind co-funding support etc. Traditional grants from other private sector support, through internal Grootbos Traditional grant making smaller traditional grants pay for the plan and undertaken by of funding for this mechanism? TMF small grants. Landowners NPOs, international donors. global funds, thus a Foundation funding cycles. entities eg. Malago. Mostly from local donors. implementation Conservancy don’t want to spend money mix of finance. international donors and members. Small on their property usually. SA government co-funding, grants issued and some local donors. by Conservancy Long-term sustainability linked NPOs mechanism is market access, thus supported by private companies.

14 BirdLife South Africa Table 7. Timeline, resources and costs

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 15 Table 8. Benefits & Incentives

Biodiversity Agreements - Conservation Servitudes Conservation Conservation Conservation - Conservation Servitudes Landowner Association Conservancy City of Cape Town (Grootbos) Agreements Champion Contracts Agriculture scheme

Whatever the community requests / negotiates with the NPO. Financial support for certain Annual extension CoCT servicing the Benefits must management actions and support, technical agreements, management Extension services, annual be related to the management mentorship advice, eg. APOs. Free What are the long-term support in terms of accessing review, incentives for environment for CSA. Advice and through the Grootbos training sessions / support mechanisms resources for alien clearing. assistance with management Benefits are often None. Entirely implementation NGO, Government Foundation and other NPOs. workshops, marketing available to entities signing Biodiversity Agreements with actions, biodiversity related to training / landowner driven. support from Agency support Additional support avenues support. Access to this kind of agreement? title deed endorsements get surveys, implementation of skills development / external consultant are being sought through markets, and potential the same level of support management activities. registering a business, partnerships with other funding support as Nature Reserves. support /market access conservation organisations. for other work. as a further benefit. Livestock vaccinations for certain groups.

The CoCT rates policy with Conservation management respect to the establishment advice and support represents Enhanced The landowners have of conservation areas is a a major benefit - especially ecosystem resilience, been in a position The benefits and major incentive. related to management improvements to raise funds, and Varies depending support mechanisms But requires title deed plan development, which is to ecological tackle alien plants on Conservancy. are inter-changeable. restrictions, as then the rates Benefits resemble the very costly if procured from infrastructure. in a strategic and Improved standing with Access to information What are the benefits which Ecological and socio- benefits apply to the land NOT support mechanisms, but also private sector. Access to alien Often the technical joint manner. clients with regards to for management, may accrue to the entity economic benefits. the owner. There is no rates include access to technical clearing funding, fencing, support is the most Benefits from working on-farm environmental access to ecotourism signing the agreement? Eg. Increased grazing holiday whilst landowners scientific knowledge. joint fire management and valued support across entire landscape management practices. opportunities, and land, increased wter decide. Maintenance support support, access to information mechanism. with respect to fire access to funding run-off, improved through the agreement, regarding flora and wildlife management, habitat for management social situation. Benefits from a healthy technical advice, signing up (fauna and flora lists, motion environment – for the management, alien to FPAs, dealing with legal sensor camera images, brag wine production. clearing etc. issues of aliens and fire etc. book and management plans)

Rates rebates offered Yes, depending on Are there any incentives Sometimes there are Avoid making promises. No. Access to support as an incentive, and available finances (sites offered to the entity up front up-front incentives The only incentive for environmental offers of support for Yes. Detailed management so far have received alien to encourage signing of the demonstrating offered is free technical No No activities may be management, especially incentives etc. clearing funding, fence agreement? Or to encourage commitment before the advice and marketing offered in some in terms of fires. Technical construction and mountain maintenance of the site. entity signs. Not always. (but this is not pushed). instances. ecological knowledge. bike trail development).

16 BirdLife South Africa Table 8. Benefits & Incentives

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 17 Namaqua lady making use of local materials to build a shelter with her livestock grazing in the background. Users of the Leliefontein Commonage in Namaqualand sign conservation agreements to ensure resilience of their arid grazing lands. © Conservation International, Charlie Shoemaker 18 BirdLife South Africa Case studies

Each of the case studies in this report represents one sign the agreements in-perpetuity, thereby providing mechanism being applied for area-based conservation. the necessary long-term protection. In most instances The case studies provide a brief background on biodiversity conservation is the primary objective of the organisation implementing the mechanism, the land management, as many of the properties which followed by a brief summary of the major aspects have been secured could be considered as “lifestyle of implementation, as per the comparative analysis farms” with little agricultural production or other tables. The case studies below are not written as land uses. There is also relatively low levels of conflict exhaustive summaries of the mechanism and must between the existing land uses and conservation, be read in conjunction with the comparative analysis where conflict exists it is mostly in relation to in order to develop a full understanding of the recreational activities (such as mountain biking) or mechanism. Rather, each case study is designed to the need for ecological burns and the risk this poses provide further context and nuances related to each to hard infrastructure. Whilst regular biodiversity mechanism. In closing, the case studies detail the monitoring takes place, a concern is that more detailed strengths and weaknesses of each mechanism, as well monitoring of specific threatened species is required. as potential for replicability. It should be noted that Land-use restrictions reflect the list of non-permissible these case studies do not represent an exhaustive list activities as per NEMPA, and these restrictions are of all alternative area-based conservation mechanisms, recorded against the title deed. and other options may be available.

Strengths and weaknesses 1. Biodiversity agreements: City of Cape Town The strength of this mechanism is that it allows for long-term conservation of highly threatened Background biodiversity, where a full protected area declaration is not possible. The title deed endorsements are The Environmental Management Department of designed in perpetuity, i.e. for 99 years, and one the City of Cape Town (hereafter CoCT) has been area of concern is how and when such agreements using biodiversity stewardship to secure remnants should be re-negotiated after this period has expired. of threatened vegetation which exist within the city’s Internal systems should perhaps be put in place boundaries. Much of the remaining vegetation is to flag such agreements as and when they reach highly threatened due to historical levels of habitat maturity. A question exists regarding the status of transformation. The continuous development within such agreements after the 99 year period lapses. This the urban edge requires that these remnants be same concern applies to other protected areas and secured for conservation. conservation areas around South Africa. A further issue is how one is able to revoke such title deed endorsements, if this is required by either party. This Mechanism implementation information is also pertinent to the application of title deed endorsements in relation to the conservation The CoCT applies the various categories in the servitudes mechanism (Case studies 2 and 3). biodiversity stewardship framework, in particular Nature Reserve and Biodiversity Agreements. The A major advance in this practice is the very strong comparative analysis in this instance focuses solely municipal rates rebates policy which the CoCT on the biodiversity agreements with title deed has promulgated in respect of land protected for endorsements. Due to the highly fragmented nature conservation. The rebates policy and conservation of the natural habitats many of the sites which require action forms part of a broader umbrella of work related protection are too small to qualify as Nature Reserve, to “building a sustainable city”, which has assisted with although long-term protection is ideally required to securing political buy-in for biodiversity conservation. mitigate the level of threat to the biodiversity. The This approach, including the development of a robust CoCT has therefore utilised Biodiversity Agreements rates rebates policy could be adopted by other with voluntary title deed endorsements to secure these municipalities interested in pursuing conservation fragments. Biodiversity Agreements are currently within their jurisdiction. The CoCT has relied on considered as Conservation Areas within Category 2 external donor-funding which is ring-fenced for legal of the biodiversity stewardship framework. The CoCT costs associated with the declarations, as well as the

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 19 implementation of certain management activities as with willing landowners. However, subsequent to the incentives for landowners. Whilst the appointment of initial intention to declare the final agreement can be permanent CoCT staff to facilitate these agreements is concluded in as little as three months. Costs are further a strength, the reliance on external funding to facilitate reduced as there is no sub-division or surveyor general certain aspects could be considered a weakness. diagram required, as per protected area declarations. Such costs can then be re-directed to management actions on the ground. The ORCT aims to offer 2. Conservation servitudes: Overberg incentives to all landowners entering agreements, Renosterveld Conservation Trust dependent on available funding and the landowner or property needs. Incentives are considered essential Background to gaining landowner support for these agreements; without incentive funding many of the agreements The Overberg Renosterveld Conservation Trust (ORCT) might not be possible. Whilst the incentives generate was developed due to the need for a dedicated landowner support, they are also tackling essential organisation to address the conservation of one of management actions which would be needed on the the most threatened and diverse plant areas on the ground, thus serving two purposes. An advantage of planet. The Renosterveld vegetation comprises much the mechanism is that it can be implemented by NGOs of the lowland areas of the Cape Floristic Kingdom, working independently, although it is advised that and due to the fertile soils and accessibility, high levels the relevant biodiversity stewardship reference group of habitat transformation have occurred. The ORCT be consulted in order to provide guidance where has been one of the first organisations in the country necessary. to test the application of conservation servitudes (also referred to internationally as conservation easements). The conservation servitude model is relatively new in South Africa and has recently received increased attention from the conservation community, seeking Mechanism implementation to both ensure the strength of the mechanism and encourage its mainstreaming and appropriate These servitudes have involved the registration of application within the broader biodiversity stewardship certain terms of a conservation agreement on the framework. In this regard, a number of legal opinions title of the land, in order to protect the threatened have been sought to clarify its application and the Renosterveld vegetation. The ORCT has aimed at sector is looking to refine a minimum norms and holistic farm management, by assisting farmers to standards or best practice implementation guideline to mitigate potential impacts of agricultural activities help strengthen the use of this mechanism. A current on the natural vegetation. The servitude is registered weakness is the uncertainty of the mechanism to legal against the entire property, however the conservation challenges, or the role of the NGO in ensuring the action is achieved through a zonation map and landowner maintains their commitments. Regional management plan, which are linked to the conservation trust among landowners may be undone if one area for the property and also referenced in the landowner needs to be taken to court to uphold the contractual agreement. The zonation map indicates requirements of an agreement. A major concern in the which portions of the property shall remain natural application of this mechanism is the sustainability and and which are used for agricultural production. The longevity of the organisation who the conservation conservation agreements which are signed are linked servitude is signed in favour of. Questions remain to detailed management plans which specify a list of as to the continuation of the servitude or legality non-permissible activities, such as ploughing of natural thereof, if the organisation ceases to exist. A further areas. Legal compliance with the agreements is also concern is the lack of understanding and best practice driven by existing legislation which affects agricultural regarding the hybrid mechanism involving property land, such as NEMA, water use licencing and other law for the servitude, which attaches to land, and environmentally-focused legislation. the management plan actions through contract law which attach to the contracting parties. The current situation is under investigation and offers lots of scope Strengths and weaknesses for implementation, but the sector must avoid any misconceptions and fully understand the different legal The advantage of this approach is that the legal mechanisms and what they achieve when creating this and implementation costs are reduced due to the hybrid arrangement. shorter time periods for concluding the agreements and the omission of public participation processes The conservation servitude is practically similar to the and advertisements. As with other protected area biodiversity agreement with title deed endorsements, expansion processes, the time for implementation as implemented by the CoCT. can vary widely, as it is dependent on negotiations

20 BirdLife South Africa 3. Conservation corridor: raised to service these agreements and implement the Grootbos Foundation relevant management plan for each property. Thus, whilst the NGO may not be limited by government Background capacity to establish the conservation areas (as with other biodiversity stewardship categories), they The Grootbos Foundation is based on the Grootbos are limited by their own capacity. Whilst the NGO Nature Reserve near Stanford in the Western Cape. operating in isolation may represent a strength in The Reserve was initially established to protect the terms of reduced costs and expediency for establishing threatened vegetation of the area, but through the the conservation area, it may also represent a risk, Foundation they have expanded their activities. The dependent on the sustainability and longevity of the Foundation runs programmes on childhood and youth NGO. This mechanism has begun to be replicated development through sport, skills development and already, and it would be prudent to ensure a set of empowerment programmes through training initiatives, best practice guidelines for implementation and full alongside a number of conservation initiatives. The understanding of the risks for NGOs are in place before “Green Futures” includes a horticulture and life skills it is adopted more widely. The biodiversity stewardship college, eco-tourism training, indigenous fynbos community of practice is currently addressing these nursery, future trees project, ecological research, issues, to ultimately support the mainstreaming of the alien vegetation eradication and early childhood mechanism. development. A further Green Futures programme project has been supporting the establishment and maintenance of the Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy. 4. Conservation agreements: The Conservancy extends approximately 18,000 Conservation South Africa hectares and includes multiple landowners within this area, with its primary aim being to encourage Background collaboration amongst landowners to tackle shared environmental threats. There are a number of highly Conservation South Africa partners with rural threatened vegetation types within the area which communities in various Provinces to support occur predominantly on private land. ecosystem restoration and livelihood improvement through projects aimed at sustainable, communal range-land management. Conservation South Africa Mechanism implementation enters into bilateral agreements with either individuals, or representatives of the communal land user group, Through this project, Grootbos is now working to and negotiates specific management actions, which establish a conservation corridor, the “Green Corridor serve to support the sustainable use of rangelands. This Initiative” linking multiple properties from the Klein in turn allows for ecosystem service and biodiversity River estuary across to Agulhas National Park, within conservation outcomes as rangelands are managed the Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy. Certain of the appropriately, thereby reducing negative ecological properties within this corridor are already declared impacts. Detailed maps and management plans are as protected areas or conservation areas under created which utilise planned rotational grazing to biodiversity stewardship, however the Foundation ensure that portions of land are rested every season has begun working with others to protect their to allow for plant recovery, regrowth and reproduction, properties using the conservation servitudes model. and associated biodiversity gains (e.g. breeding areas The mechanism is very similar to that as applied by for birds are undisturbed). Biodiversity conservation in the Overberg Renosterveld Conservation Trust, and this instance is a secondary objective, with ecosystem essentially uses a biodiversity agreement, endorsed services being a primary objective – provision of on the title deed of the property, to ensure long-term fodder / grazing for livestock through restoration conservation of the property. and maintenance of functional rangelands. The conservation agreements do not specifically include a requirement of stock reduction as livestock are an Strengths and weaknesses integral part of cultural traditions in South Africa, and it is essential that cultural traditions are understood and The same attributes as discussed in relation to the respected when engaging with communal landholders. ORCT conservation servitudes (Case study 2) also apply in this instance. A potential concern is the level of support which the Grootbos Foundation is able to provide to landowners once they have signed the conservation servitude. As with the ORCT it is up to the organisation to ensure that sufficient funds are

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 21 Community elders with Ecorangers at community meeting discussing grazing plans in Dixievillage, outside Kruger National Park © Conservation International, Trond Larsen

Mechanism implementation the language and are empathetic to the community. The organisation aims at providing one extension The agreement between the parties is formulated officer per three villages / governance structures to as a written contract and is signed by both parties. ensure adequate contact. The Conservation Agreement is based on a premise of voluntary involvement. The Conservation Agreements detail the delivery of specific incentives Strengths and weaknesses by the organisation, delivered in exchange for positive actions and behaviour change from the community A key challenge in this mechanism is the lack of representatives and landholders. These incentives security of land tenure for many communal land are withdrawn if the contract terms are not met. The users. In some respects securing their actual title Conservation Agreements may be re-negotiated under deeds and ensuring land ownership is a major extenuating circumstances such as drought events. benefit of the engagement with the organisation. The agreements are of a flexible nature, depending A further challenge is that the mechanism lacks on the requirements of each specific site, and can permanence and is regularly re-negotiated, either apply for as short as a single season, but mostly over annually or even seasonally. The human capital and a one year term, with potential for annual renewal. overall running costs of this mechanism are therefore The contract lists land-use restrictions such as not higher than those investigated in other case studies. ploughing natural veld or developing near wetlands Collaborating with local communities requires an (as per national legislation). Management actions are intensive human resources investment to maintain designed to improve the site for improved rangeland the conservation outcomes. The relatively short-term condition, which at the site level can include enhancing duration of the agreement thus represents a risk to plant biodiversity, promoting soil health, improved the organisation investing such large-scale financial water infiltration, functioning ecological services (e.g. and human resources. However, the close working wetland health), natural burning regimes and reduced relationship and regular renewal does ensure that the alien infestation. A range of financing mechanisms biodiversity conservation objectives are maintained. are blended through the implementation of these Due to the need to negotiate and build trust with agreements, including international and national a range of community leaders and representatives grants, through to government programmes and the mechanism may require protracted periods of finally via the private sector as the communities gain negotiation, adding to the financial resources needed market access. As with most area-based conservation for its implementation. Securing long-term funding is mechanisms, the extension officer is a critical thus a challenge for this mechanism; however this is a component for success, and must meet regularly with shared challenge across almost all of the case studies all individuals and different sections of the community. in this review. Extension officers are often from the local area, speak

22 BirdLife South Africa The major strength of this mechanism is that it provides Mechanism implementation a platform for generating biodiversity conservation outcomes on communally-owned land and with These champions are required to sign a three year community management authorities, thus increasing agreement with WWF-SA which indicates the the diversity of actors involved in conservation. environmental management activities they will In addition, the mechanism moves beyond simple undertake, stipulates certain non-permissible activities, biodiversity conservation and ensures that people’s and is attached to a zonation map which identifies the livelihoods are maintained in the long-term and that natural and agricultural portions of the property. Wine communities can become more resilient to the impacts making remains the primary management objective of of climate change. In this instance, it is an essential the site, however WWF-SA takes a holistic approach tool within conservation, which has been criticised to the farm’s management, including promoting for under-valuing the role of local communities in sustainable wine-making processes and improving sustainable environmental management, and could be productivity, whilst reducing negative environmental replicated by other NGOs pursuing similar outcomes. impacts wherever possible. If the human capital required for monitoring and maintaining the agreement could be reduced over time, as communities are up-skilled to suitably manage Strengths and weaknesses their own land, it may become possible to sign long- term agreements. The fundamental difference between The move from a previously more informal engagement this mechanism and protected areas or conservation with the landowners, to a formal, signed contract has areas are the short-term duration and secondary proven tricky, with much negotiation necessary. The intention of biodiversity conservation. Extending the process of concluding the agreements can be delayed duration of such agreements would be essential for when engagements occur with the farm’s management, their recognition within the suite of conservation areas. rather than the entities who must sign the agreements, such as the wine farm owner or representative of the shareholders. This can generally take up to one 5. Conservation Champions year, given the existing trust built through previous Programme: WWF South Africa engagements, and landowner willingness. A risk for the resources invested in the mechanism is that the Background agreements fall away in the event of an ownership change and need to be re-negotiated with the new WWF-SA has been engaging with the wine industry of owners. The agreement can also be cancelled by the South Africa for well over a decade. This engagement, NPO, based on their discretion, if the wine farm fails initially through the Biodiversity and Wine Initiative, to meet the environmental criteria of the agreement. formed part of a suite of “Business and Biodiversity” Again, this represents a risk for the organisation, and projects. These initiatives were developed in response may lead to a loss of the investment in conservation if to a study which determined that much threatened the agreement is not maintained over the medium- to biodiversity of the Western Cape was present on long-term. Fortunately the resources required for each private land, and in particular on wine farms in agreement are spread across multiple wine farms, thus the region. The BWI worked with wine farmers to reducing the resources being applied in each case. implement environmental management plans which addressed numerous environmental impacts of their An important difference here is the brand association production, whilst also aiming at protecting existing which the agreement provides and which acts as natural areas on the wine farms. After many years an incentive for the commercial enterprise and a of engagement the initiative was adopted into the disincentive for dissolving the conservation agreement. industry and became part of the industry certification Simply belonging to WWF-SA and even a loose scheme. Subsequently WWF-SA decided to reduce affiliation can assist in combating unsustainable land the extent of its engagement and focus solely on what uses. In this case study the conservation efforts which they considered as the “Conservation Champion” started as a default response to certain legislation can wine farms; those estates which pursue long-term change to become a central management objective conservation commitments and spearhead innovations for the wine farm. A major strength of the mechanism in water and energy efficiencies. The BWI was is the ability to drive the transition to sustainable thereafter replaced with the WWF-SA Conservation agriculture, and the ability of the organisation to Champions Programme. reach multiple properties with fairly low human and financial capital requirements. However, the duration and intention associated with the wine farms would preclude this mechanism from qualifying as a conservation area. As this agreement is linked to a

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 23 specific geographic area, in the form of the individual (with agreement from 80% of the members) and farm, the conservation mechanism essentially bridges subsequently the title deed endorsements would also sustainable agriculture and area-based conservation. be removed. Whilst certain aspects of the programme have been incorporated into an industry-wide sustainability Initially a development framework was drafted, standard, the role of the agreement is to ensure with input from various government agencies and conservation action at farm level, and thus we have conservation bodies, and which stipulates the relevant included them as one of the area-based conservation environmental management actions for members of the mechanisms. Similar initiatives which span both the initiative. The framework is linked to a management plan sector and individual farm-level should be replicated which identifies specific land uses. Individual owners by those organisations seeking positive outcomes for must notify the association if there is a departure biodiversity within the agricultural sector. This model from the designated land-uses. Conservation actions which combines both sector and individual farm level are determined collaboratively and captured in the engagement will likely produce the greatest outcomes management plan. for conservation.

Strengths and weaknesses 6. Nuwejaars Wetland Special Management Area The advantage of this mechanism is that it can be driven by any interested and committed group of landowners. Background Although government and external conservation agency support has played an important role in securing The Nuwejaars Wetland Special Management Area funds for management plans and other conservation (NWSMA) is a novel area-based conservation activities, the initiative has largely been led by the mechanism which arose around 1998 as a result of a landowners themselves. However, the dependence on few landowners’ desires to see their area appropriately the core group of champions is a cause for concern managed for biodiversity. This was particularly due to for the longevity of the mechanism. Additionally, in the the threatened biodiversity of the area and the network absence of external support fewer incentives and other of important wetlands. The initiative has been primarily benefits are available to landowners, thus the NWSMA landowner driven, with some support from government is tasked with providing in-house management support conservation agencies and other stakeholders due and incentives. In addition, a lack of regular, external to its suitability to achieve objectives for the Agulhas review of progress against the management plan may Biodiversity Initiative of the Global Environment Fund weaken the mechanism. If conservation actions are supported CAPE plan (Cape Action for People and the not implemented and monitored on a regular basis the Environment). mechanism may revert to a “paper park”, however, this is not the case currently. NGO or government support and declaration as a formal protected area might Mechanism implementation provide a good route to improve the long-term security of this mechanism. There is an intention to declare the The initiative was formalised through the development area as a Protected Environment, however this has not of a landowners association with a constitution and come to fruition as yet. development framework outlining their vision for the area. All the participating landowners are members of the legally constituted, but voluntary landowners 7. Conservation – agriculture schemes association. The landowners association provides for a committee of four executive members, who then Background automatically become directors of the section 21 Not for Profit Company, the Nuwejaars River Nature Agricultural entities have increasingly been recognising Reserve. The Reserve manages all the natural areas and valuing the benefits which natural areas and in the NWSMA and employs staff, owns assets such ecological infrastructure can provide to their farming as vehicles and game and raises funds to support the business. In many instances global export certification management. All members are required to place title schemes are requiring detailed environmental deed endorsements on their properties related to management plans which often include biodiversity the relevant terms of the constitution. New property management plans. Whilst these are a requirement, owners must remain as members of the association and certain agricultural companies are going “above and abide by the development framework and constitution beyond” in their efforts to conserve and enhance the governing the NWSMA. The mechanism can be biodiversity elements which remain on their land. revoked by dissolution of the landowners association Although the development of the environmental

24 BirdLife South Africa management plan can support environmental enforced through the Companies Act, which makes certification processes, the ultimate aim is primarily to these policies binding on the company. However, mitigate environmental risks, which may in turn impact uncertainty remains as to what happens if a company on the business. contravenes its own policy. Alternatively the company board may decide to amend the policy, thus this mechanism may be effective only as long as the Mechanism implementation relevant management team or directors see value in its application. There are multiple, potential benefits The process includes a business process mapping for an agricultural company investing in such a policy, exercise which assists with drafting an environmental including integrated pest management through natural risk register, which may include issues such as ecosystems, improved water quality and quantity, chemical spills or high fire risk activities. A multi- mitigation of potential environmental risks, financial criterion analysis is used to weight the various benefits through fixed pricing from importers, agri- risk factors and prioritise them for action. An tourism benefits (for example mountain biking trails), environmental policy statement is subsequently export certification compliance, enhancing brand drafted to mitigate the identified risks through the marketing, engaging foreign consumers through application of specific management controls. Controls the brand storytelling, healthy working and living can be grouped by responsible person, management conditions for farm workers and improved awareness division or location. The policy is in turn linked to the and education for farm workers. Natural areas within environmental management plan and biodiversity the agricultural matrix provide opportunities for management plan. The natural areas of the farm are education and awareness and there are examples of mapped, including terrestrial and freshwater areas shared ownership and beneficiation for farm workers. such as rivers and dams. Natural areas are excluded Extensive social programmes can be developed when from future development plans and should remain the conservation area is fully valued and integrated natural. The company implements the plan through into the farm operations. actions such as alien plant clearing, environmental rehabilitation or restoration of the natural vegetation corridors and enhancing habitat where possible. All Strengths and weaknesses actions are monitored in order to provide for adaptive management. In many instances the primary incentive is improved compliance with the relevant product certification The environmental policy is usually signed off by scheme, including improved audit scores and company directors, and as such constitutes company subsequent improved access to markets. Certification policy, which, although voluntary, may be binding schemes are often driven by consumer pressure, which on the company. The environmental policy may be exerts influence on the buyer, and subsequently back

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 25 © LoveGreen Communications

to the farmer. By scoring very high in the certification 8. Conservancies scheme this gives the farmer more power to negotiate higher pricing for their product. This point of departure Background may represent a risk in this mechanism, as farm-level action is dependent on external policies informing A conservancy is essentially a voluntary agreement certification schemes. Engendering an “in-house” ethic established between two or more landowners who of environmental sustainability through engagement share a common vision for the conservation of the in this process could go some way to offsetting natural environment on their properties. Whilst they this risk. Essentially assisting the farm management have traditionally been formed on agricultural land they to understand the long-term business benefits of can also be established in urban or industrial areas. sustainability. A strength of this mechanism is that In most instances, the members of the conservancy the funding comes from the interested business register their group with the appropriate provincial themselves, thereby reducing competition for conservation agency, who then provides some traditional grants or relying on government support. technical guidance and support to the conservancy, depending on available resources. Unfortunately Whilst the current application of the mechanism discrepancies exist in the implementation of lacks long-term intent and security, this could be conservancies around the country, creating difficulties amended through the testing of new options, which for evaluating this mechanism. include other types of agreements as described in this report. The farmers may elect to negotiate a form of contractual agreement with another third party, such Mechanism implementation as a relevant Biosphere Reserve or a local NGO, or electing to register aspects of the agreement against Conservancies are flexible in nature, and are not the title deed. This would improve the security of the binding on successors in title nor requiring stringent conservation investment. Benefits for the environment legal agreements. Essentially the interested parties will be compounded if multiple adjacent farms and meet and vote to bring the conservancy into existence. properties apply the same principles, such as in the Thereafter the members establish a chairperson case of the Nuwejaars Special Management Area or and steering committee, who in turn oversee the similar Conservancies. development of a constitution for the association. All members sign the constitution, which includes their shared vision and outlines potential environmental

26 BirdLife South Africa actions for their properties, or the broader local area. Conservancies vary widely in how active they are, with some meeting regularly and using their collaborative strength to promote ecotourism in their region and generate funds for local conservation projects. There are a number of umbrella organisations, such as Conservation at Work in the Western Cape, which seek to support conservancies and assist them in their goals.

Strengths and weaknesses

Whilst conservancies do not provide a long-term mechanism for securing critical biodiversity, they are useful for generating a collaborative spirit amongst a group of landowners, and introducing landowners to the types of activities which are undertaken through involvement in more stringent conservation agreements. In this way, they can sensitise a group of landowners to biodiversity conservation and provide a useful entry point for engagement with the sector. Conservancies are weaker than other mechanisms described in this report due to the lack of a binding agreement, short-term duration and secondary focus on biodiversity conservation for most of landowners involved. However, they vary widely in their actions and impacts, with some resembling more formal protected areas due to the high degree of commitment and action from the participating landowners. Conservation organisations should be cautious regarding investing limited financial resources into conservancies, if they do not appear to be very active and able to maintain the gains made into the future.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 27 Discussion

This review has shed light on a specific suite of area- This aligns directly with the Guiding principles and based conservation mechanisms being applied Common characteristics of OECMs (CBD, 2018): in South Africa. During this process a number of over-arching principles and other considerations “(a) Other effective area-based conservation have emerged, which are common to many of the measures have a significant biodiversity value, mechanisms investigated, and which may provide or have objectives to achieve this, which is the value in the refinement of existing mechanisms. The basis for their consideration to achieve Target key principles are discussed below, and linked to the 11 of Strategic Goal C of the Strategic Plan for latest guidance from the IUCN regarding the “other Biodiversity 2011-2020;” (CBD, 2018) effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs), as these represent similar kinds of conservation mechanisms. The principles were initially extracted 2. Active management from the case studies presented in this report and subsequently reviewed against the most recent In all area-based conservation mechanisms the international guidance regarding OECMs, to determine presence of an active, well-resourced management the degree of overlap. In addition, the principles were entity is perhaps the most important consideration. compared with those developed by the current South The lack of a management authority (or relevant Africa’s Conservation Areas Project, also implemented entity), management plan and the resources to by BirdLife South Africa, and which has developed support its implementation can result in the creation key principles in consultation with the community of of “paper parks”. These may contribute towards practice. national or international targets, however provide no meaningful contribution to biodiversity conservation in reality. Conservancies which do not actively maintain Principles of alternative area-based members’ involvement or implement conservation conservation mechanisms actions are one such example. A defining characteristic of the case studies presented here is that almost 1. Conserving areas of high all involve ongoing, active management of the site. biodiversity value In alignment with the OECM identification criteria, these sites are usually managed in ways that “achieve Most of the mechanisms which were reviewed are positive and sustained outcomes for the conservation focused on conserving areas with high biodiversity of biological diversity” (CBD, 2018). The degree of legal value. Spatial planning and prioritisation tools such protection, duration or intention of the mechanism as Key Biodiversity Areas, Critical Biodiversity Areas are also only as strong as the delivery of conservation and other fine-scale mapping products are being actions on the ground to improve or maintain the applied in most instances to identify suitable areas for biodiversity values of the site. In this respect, active implementation. South Africa is considered a global management of the site could be considered one of leader in the extensive spatial planning which has the most important principles for developing area- been undertaken to prioritise areas for conservation. based conservation mechanisms. Monitoring and The legitimacy of these mechanisms is directly linked periodic review of progress against annual plans of to their focus on such areas, which are essential for operation and revision of overall management plans conserving the overall biodiversity of South Africa and are also essential components of active management which often make meaningful contributions to national of the site and must be considered in all area-based biodiversity protection targets or ecosystem targets conservation mechanisms. Monitoring provides the (See case studies 1 and 2). With limited resources framework through which active management can available for biodiversity conservation it is imperative proceed. that efforts focus on high priority sites first, expanding further afield once these have been conserved. As the Active management is often primarily achieved sector refines these mechanisms the goal of securing through a close working relationship between the high priority biodiversity should remain at the core of extension officer or similar personnel of a conservation area-based conservation approaches. agency and the relevant management authority of the site. Conservation agencies wishing to utilise these mechanisms must ensure adequate financial and human resources to facilitate active management,

28 BirdLife South Africa usually through employment of an extension officer. And the recent OECM identification criteria: The comparative analysis indicates that many of the mechanisms require very similar operational resources, “Relevant authorities and stakeholders are as these costs are usually linked to the employment of identified and involved in management.” (CBD, an extension officer. Extension officers in the landscape 2018) are essential for building relationships and trust with private and communal landowners implementing these area-based conservation mechanisms. Their role often 4. Duration extends to the ongoing management or maintenance of sites once they are established. Donor agencies In order to realize benefits for biodiversity and the should thus be aware of the resources required to organisations and landholders engaged in these support an extension officer and ensure that area- mechanisms, it is important that the mechanisms are based conservation projects provide for this in the implemented beyond short-term time horizons such short and long-term. (See case studies 2 and 5). as one year. The mechanisms reviewed vary in terms of their duration, with some extending in-perpetuity This principle aligns with two of the OECM (Conservation (Case studies 1, 2 and 6) and others being reviewed Areas) identification criteria: annually or even seasonally (Case studies 4 and 5). It is difficult to obtain positive outcomes for biodiversity “A management system is in place that over short-time periods, given the nature of contributes to sustaining the in situ conservation ecosystems and ecological functioning. An opportunity of biodiversity.” exists to strengthen certain of the mechanisms reviewed, primarily in terms of their duration; however “Managed in ways that achieve positive and this would have obvious consequences on capacity sustained outcomes for the conservation of and resources for the organisation. By extending the biological diversity.” (CBD, 2018) timelines of certain mechanisms they may be brought into alignment with the requirements of Conservation Areas as per international standards (CBD, 2018), and 3. Sound governance thereby make a greater contribution to biodiversity conservation. Organisations implementing the short- The mechanisms reviewed here all rely on the term mechanisms (less than five years), may consider appointment of a suitable management authority for extending the duration where possible, to align with the site, alongside a degree of oversight provided by the international standards, and thereby provide the conservation organisation. Sound governance greater recognition to their conservation work and for in this respect relates to the accountability of the their stakeholders. management authority for ensuring compliance with the relevant agreement used to conserve the site. In all However, in some instances the short term nature instances, the relevant stakeholders at each project site of the agreement is an important factor influencing are engaged with regard to the implementation of the the communities and landowners entering into the conservation mechanism. It is essential that a relevant agreements. For this reason it is important that local stakeholder or the landowner, either communal organisations consider the needs of their stakeholders, or private, is capacitated to take responsibility for and design appropriate time intervals for their ensuring management actions are implemented, in agreements, rather than focusing solely on alignment turn meeting the biodiversity conservation objectives with external, international criteria. This example for the site. The conservation organisation and their illustrates how the context and aims of the different partners then provide a monitoring and review organisations vary, and their strengths or weaknesses function, which ensures the management actions are vary depending on that context. One size does not fit undertaken. This ensures accountability on the part of all, and the diversity of approaches and timeframes the management authority. is required to engage a diversity of stakeholders and land-uses with biodiversity conservation. For This aligns with the South Africa Conservation Areas example, landholders in case studies 4, 5 and 7 may Project investigation: not be interested in pursuing long-term agreements, and would not enter into these, if the organisation Key principle 4: Governance speaks to form of attempted to extend their duration, thus eliminating accountability that cannot easily be overturned the opportunity for any kind of conservation action (legislation, common law, customary law, civil within that domain. However, for those landowners procedure) utilising the mechanisms in case studies 1, 2 and 3, a long-term outlook is preferable and they are comfortable signing in-perpetuity agreements.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 29 Key Principle 6: Long term accepted as 5 years 7. Flexibility and beyond, or potentially 3 years with strong renewal clause (South Africa’s Conservation The flexibility in relation to some of the mechanisms Areas Project) described here is perhaps one of their more valuable attributes. Conservation Areas may be able to respond more quickly to opportunities for conservation, 5. Objective potentially involve less bureaucracy than protected area options and are easier to process (Pasquini et Objective in this instance refers to the primary al., 2011). By remaining flexible in their approach, management objectives of the site in question and conservation organisations are able engage a greater how these align with, or may be in conflict with, the diversity of stakeholders and land-uses as would biodiversity conservation objectives of the site. This be achieved solely through mechanisms such as issue was investigated for each mechanism reviewed protected areas. Flexibility in this instance refers to and in most instances it was found that there is good mechanisms which can, for example, revise agreements alignment between the site’s overall management if the need arises (Case Study 4). The ability to design objectives and the biodiversity conservation objectives mechanisms which can also be cancelled through (Table 3), even if conservation is not the primary written notification perhaps serves as an incentive to management objective. An important factor for sign such agreements. The same community groups these mechanisms is that the primary management or individuals might not enter into more restrictive objectives, as defined by the predominant land-use, or long-term agreements and thus would have no are not in conflict with the secondary objectives recourse to conservation action. of biodiversity conservation. For example, in the agricultural examples discussed here (see case studies Practitioners and organisations must also remain 2, 3, 4 & 5), the land-use can be complementary to flexible in how they respond to the changing needs conservation, whereas in other instances, such as a of landholders (Wright et al., 2018). For those willing mine or infrastructure development, the land-use would landowners or communities the option to extend the be in direct conflict with conservation objectives. duration of agreements, or to adopt stronger legal mechanisms could be provided at a later stage. In doing so, these mechanisms may offer a stepping 6. Ensuring environmental compliance stone to formal, long-term conservation action and protection. An example may entail securing land tenure All the mechanisms reviewed here essentially draw on for a community and then allowing the community to and ensure compliance with various pieces of South opt into title deed endorsements or other mechanisms African environmental legislation. In this instance, to ensure the long-term protection of their communal NGOs and civil society are able to partially fill a gap rangelands, and therefore the sustainability of their left in environmental compliance monitoring by livelihoods. government agencies, who lack adequate capacity to monitor compliance effectively. All of the mechanisms Key principle 3: Clearly identify CA network reviewed contain reference to specific South that includes OECMs that are both flexible and African environmental legislation, and which is often legitimate in terms of biodiversity conservation incorporated directly into sections of the different (South Africa’s Conservation Areas Project). agreements utilised. The National Environmental Management Act plays an overarching role for informing this practice. Whilst some mechanisms are not able to ensure long-term security of sites, they are able to improve environmental compliance in the broader landscape, thereby contributing to sustainable land management. However, this raises the question of whether it is the role of NGOs to enforce the law, as may become the case when contractual agreements require compliance with environmental legislation. (See case studies 2, 4 and 5)

30 BirdLife South Africa 8. Facilitating inclusivity in conservation might shift then to those areas that provide important linkages within the landscape, for reducing the impacts One of the most important principles emerging from of habitat fragmentation. the alternative conservation mechanisms is that they allow for partnerships with a broad diversity This principle is captured within two OECM guiding of stakeholders, who may not previously have been principles: engaged in biodiversity conservation (Pasquini et al., 2011; Bingham et al., 2017). The diversity of “b) complementary to protected areas and stakeholders includes rural community groups, contributing to the coherence and connectivity communal property associations and the commercial of protected area networks, as well as in agricultural sector (See case studies 3, 4, 5 and 7). mainstreaming biodiversity into other uses in land and sea, and across sectors;” OECM Guiding Principle: “f) Other effective area-based conservation “k) Other effective area-based conservation measures can help deliver greater represen- measures recognize, promote and make visible tativeness and connectivity in protected area the roles of different governance systems and systems and thus may help address larger and actors in biodiversity conservation; Incentives to pervasive threats to the components of biodi- ensure effectiveness can include a range of social versity and ecosystem functions and services, and ecological benefits, including empowerment and enhance resilience, including with regard to of indigenous peoples and local communities;” climate change;” (CBD 2018) (CBD, 2018) (See case study 4).

10. Distinguishing between PAs and CAs, 9. Facilitating landscape connectivity and aligning with international standards

Whilst the mechanisms described herein are not as The first criterion for identifying OECMs (Conservation secure as protected areas, they nonetheless can play Areas) is that they are not a protected area (CBD, an essential role in the landscape through facilitating 2018). South Africa is fortunate to have a clear ecological connectivity. It may not be possible to legislative and reporting framework which allows for establish protected areas throughout an entire the identification of those sites which are protected landscape, and the mechanisms here can act to bridge areas. This review dealt with that consideration by those gaps by facilitating conservation in combination focusing on the existing Conservation Areas and with other land-uses. As the Aichi target period comes Biodiversity Partnership Areas, as per the current to a close and international negotiations focus on a biodiversity stewardship framework. As the Convention new set of biodiversity conservation targets for the on Biological Diversity: Aichi target period comes to planet, some conservation biologists have been calling a close, nations aiming to meet the targets may look for bold new targets such as “Half Earth” (Dinerstein et for a broader suite of mechanisms for area-based al., 2017). The establishment of protected areas at such conservation which conform to the international a large scale will definitely not be possible; however criteria and can therefore be counted towards those through a diverse mix of mechanisms, allowing targets. It is important that all double counting or for alternative land-uses and diverse governance reporting is avoided, which can be achieved through arrangements, the emerging Conservation Areas proper categorisation of any particular mechanism. A (OECMs), may provide the tools necessary to meet further important consideration, is that the option to such an ambitious target (Dudley et al., 2018). use Conservation Areas to meet these targets should not result in weaker outcomes for biodiversity. Whilst OECM Guiding Principle: the different mechanisms can be counted together towards Aichi target 11 it may become prudent to “c) Integrating protected areas into wider separate these into separate targets going forward. landscapes, seascapes etc and allowing for The South African community of practice can also sustainable human activity alongside biodiversity consider adjusting the existing mechanisms, such conservation.” (CBD, 2018) that some may be strengthened from Conservation Areas to Protected Areas, whereas certain Biodiversity In some instances, the development of conservation Partnership Areas could in turn be strengthened to corridors may not be able to take in the areas of align with Conservation Area standards. Overall, this highest priority for conservation; however through could provide greater recognition for the variety of active management and restoration or rehabilitation area-based mechanisms considered here, however of degraded ecosystems where possible, these sites these changes should not inhibit the mechanisms can perform essential ecological functions. A focus implementation with existing stakeholder groups.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 31 32 BirdLife South Africa Conclusion

The intention in this review was to provide an objective comparison across a variety of area-based conservation mechanisms currently being implemented in South Africa. Rather than develop a hierarchy of the mechanisms available, the review has illustrated the diversity of contexts and stakeholders which are engaged with these mechanisms. Practitioners wishing to implement area-based conservation can draw on the comparative analysis and use the options available to determine a suitable mechanism which fits their context, resources and objectives.

The report also indicates that rather than developing new mechanisms, the South African community of practice should look to further refine, and where possible standardise, the existing suite of mechanisms. Particularly in relation to relevant international criteria and the biodiversity stewardship framework. This could prevent a proliferation of untested area-based conservation mechanisms, when the existing suite of tools should suffice for almost all applications. In addition, the diversity of mechanisms can allow for a step-wise increase in security, duration and intention, as landholders gain trust and skills to engage in conservation and are more willing to increase their level of commitment. This step-wise improvement and capacity building process can lead to global recognition and assistance for these conservation areas. In certain instances conservation organisations could look to implement this continuum approach, rather than solely chasing new sites.

The variety of mechanisms discussed in this review have an essential role to play in mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into other sectors, facilitating connectivity amongst conservation areas in the landscape, and engaging a wide diversity of stakeholders. It is hoped that the principles discussed here can further strengthen these and other mechanisms, for the benefit of people and biodiversity.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 33 References and further reading

Barendse, J., Roux, D., Currie, B., Wilson, N. and Driver A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.N., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, Fabricius, C. 2016. A broader view of stewardship to L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. and achieve conservation and sustainability goals in South Maze, K. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment Africa. South African Journal of Science 112 (5/6). 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150359 and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Bingham, H., Fitzsimons, J.A., Redford, K.H., Mitchell, Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. B.A., Bezuary-Creel, J. and Cumming, T.L. 2017. Privately protected areas: Advances and challenges Dudley, N., Jonas, H., Nelson, F., Parrish, J., Phyala, A., in guidance, policy and documentation. PARKS 23(1): Stolton, S. and Watson, J.E.M. 2018. The essential role 13–28. of other effective area-based conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation targets. Global Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, Ecology and Conservation 15: e00424. B., Pathak Broome, N., et al., 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: from Understanding to Action. Best Government of South Africa. 2017. The Land Audit Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20. Report: PHASE II: PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. BY RACE, GENDER AND NATIONALITY. Pretoria: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Butchart, S.H.M.; Clarke, M.; Smith, R.J.; Sykes, R.E.; Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Harfoot, M.; Buchanan, G.M.; Hofmeyer-Pretorius, I. 2014. Legal mechanisms to Angulo, A.; Balmford, A.; Bertzky, B.; et al., 2015. achieve long-term biodiversity conservation on Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and privately-owned land in South Africa. Unpublished global conservation area targets. Conservation Letters thesis, Stellenbosch University. 8: 329–337. Jonas, H.D., Barbuto, V., Jonas, H.C., Kothari, A. and CBD. 2010. COP Decision X/2. Strategic plan for Nelson, F. 2014. New steps of change: Looking beyond biodiversity 2011–2020. www.cbd.int/decision/ protected areas to consider other effective area-based cop/?id=12268. conservation measures. PARKS 20(2) DOI: 10.2305/ IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-20-2.HDJ.en CBD. 2018. COP - Annex III Scientific and technical advice on other effective area-based conservation Lopoukhine, N., and de Souza Dias, B. F. 2012. Editorial: measures. What does Target 11 really mean? PARKS 18(1) 5. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2012.PARKS-18-1.NL.en Clements, H.S., Baum, J. & G.S. Cumming. 2016. Money and motives: an organizational ecology perspective on Marnewick, M.D., Retief, E.F., Wright, D.R. and private land conservation. Biological Conservation 197: Theron N.T. 2015. South Africa’s Important Bird and 108–115 Biodiversity Areas Status Report 2015. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. Clements, H.S., Selinske,M.J., Archibald, C.L., Cooke, B., Fitzsimons, J.A., Groce, J.E., Torabi, N. & M.J. Hardy. Mitchell, B.A, Fitzsimons, J.A, Stevens, C.M.D. and 2018. Fairness and Transparency Are Required for Wright, D.R. 2018a. PPA or OECM? Differentiating the Inclusion of Privately Protected Areas in Publicly between privately protected areas and other effective Accessible Conservation Databases. Land 7 (96): area-based conservation mechanisms on private land. doi:10.3390/land7030096 PARKS 24 (Special Issue): 49-60.

Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, Mitchell, B.A., Stolton, S., Bezaury-Creel, J., Bingham, N.D., et al., 2017. An ecoregion-based approach to H.C., Cumming, T.L., Dudley, N., Fitzsimons, J.A., protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67 (6), Malleret-King, D., Redford, K.H. and Solano, P. 2018b. 534e545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014. Guidelines for privately protected areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 29. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xii + 100pp.

Pasquini, L., Fitzsimons, J.A., Cowell, S., Brandon,

34 BirdLife South Africa K., and G. Wescott (2011). The establishment of Wright, D.R., Stevens, C.M.D., Marnewick, D. and large private nature reserves by conservation Mortimer, G. 2018. PPAs and Biodiversity Stewardship NGOs: key factors for successful implementation. in South Africa: current challenges and opportunities Oryx 45 (3): 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523- for implementation agencies. PARKS 24.2: 45-62. 1739.2009.01344.x www.birdlife.org.za Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sannwald, E., Huenneke, www.thetablemountainfund.org.za L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R.; Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., www.wwf.org.za Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall and Wall., D.H. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science www.capetown.gov.za/Departments/ 287:1770-1774. Environmental%20Management%20Department

SANBI. 2016. The business case for biodiversity www.overbergrenosterveld.org.za stewardship. A report produced for the Department of Environmental Affairs. Developed by Cumming, T., www.grootbosfoundation.org Driver, A., Pillay, P., Martindale, G., Purnell, K., McCann, K. and Maree, K. Pretoria: South African National www.nuwejaars.com Biodiversity Institute. www.conservation.org/global/ci_south_africa/Pages/ SANBI. 2018. Biodiversity Stewardship Guideline. conservation-south-africa.aspx A guideline produced for the Department of Environmental Affairs. Developed by Wilson, N., Kershaw, P., Marnewick, D. and Purnell, A.

Selinske, M. J., Coetzee, J., Purnell, K. and Knight, A.T. 2015. Understanding the motivations, satisfaction, and retention of landowners in private land conservation programs. Conservation Letters 8 (4): 282-289.

Solano, C. 2017. Fundacion Natura. Conservation Agreements and Private Conservation Mechanisms in Colombia. In: Mills M., Rueda X., Shanker K. editors. Proceedings of the 28th International Congress for Conservation Biology. Cartagena 23-27 July 2017. p.229. Society for Conservation Biology. https://doi. org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13183.92324

Stolton, S., Redford, K.H. and Dudley, N. 2014. The Futures of Privately Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Watson, J.E.M., Darling, E.S., Venter, O., Maron, M., Walston, J., Possingham, H.P., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Barnes, M. and Brooks, T.M. 2016. Bolder science needed now for Protected Areas. Conservation Biology 30 (2): 243–248.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 35 Annexure A: Area-based conservation mechanisms in South African legislation

In this section several legislative options which plantations. These indigenous forests are managed may potentially be used to provide area-based for sustainable timber harvesting of old-growth/dying conservation for specific sites in South Africa are indigenous trees, but with very low levels of actual described. Specifically, attention is drawn to the harvesting, and thus contribute towards biodiversity enabling environment created by the legislation in conservation, although it is not likely to be a specified question, however the details of the implementation management objective. are not discussed due to uncertainty in that regard. To date, most of these options have not been widely It is important that areas which may be considered for implemented and their testing by conservation this type of protection meet the original requirements agencies is encouraged, in order to determine their of being designated as a natural forest. The Minister feasibility. may declare such a site in one of three categories, including a “forest nature reserve”, “forest wilderness area” or “any other type of protected area which is World Heritage Convention Act (1999) recognised in international law or practice”. Full public participation and consultation processes are required The World Heritage Convention Act gives effect to to either declare or dissolve the forest protected area, the incorporation of the World Heritage Convention similar to the procedures under NEMPA. The Minister into South African law. The Act provides for the is deemed the responsible management authority identification and declaration of areas of significant for such sites and must draft rules and regulations as cultural and biological value as World Heritage Sites. necessary for the protected area and its management. These areas are assigned a management authority The land is already state-owned, thereby facilitating and an integrated management plan is developed for the potential transfer of the land from one state the site. It is unclear whether the inclusion of an area entity to the next, and the declaration of these forest within a World Heritage Site would provide protection sites as other protected area types if necessary. from unsustainable land uses. Other mechanisms described in this report, such as a conservation agreement with a local community regarding their use of the forest resources, may also be National Forest Act (1998) used to facilitate connectivity between forest patches and support local livelihoods. Such agreements could The National Forest Act pertains primarily to those be used alongside the designations provided by the forested areas as defined by the act; National Forest Act.

“natural forest” means a group of indigenous trees - (a) whose crowns are largely contiguous; National Environmental or (b) which have been declared by the Minister Management Act (1998) to be a natural forest under section 7(2); Chapter five, Integrated Environmental Management In addition, the Act allows for the declaration of Act, Section 24(2) of NEMA (1998) allows for the protected forest areas: promulgation of regulations over specific geographic areas: “Part 2 allows the Minister to declare certain forests as protected forest areas. It sets out the “The Minister may with the concurrence of the procedure for and effect of this declaration. It MEC, and every MEC may with the concurrence provides for the management of such an area.” of the Minister. in the prescribed manner -

The National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and (a) identify activities which may not be Fisheries (DAFF) manages a network of indigenous commenced without prior authorisation from the forest fragments alongside commercial forestry Minister or MEC:

36 BirdLife South Africa (b) identify geographical areas in which specified The provisions allow for the Minister to declare a activities may not be commenced without prior Special Management Area within the coastal zone, for authorisation from the Minister or MEC and various purposes, including conserving or protecting specify such activities: coastal ecosystems and their associated biodiversity. The Minister may also amend and withdraw such (c) make regulations in accordance with declarations and must follow a public participation subsections (3) and (4) in respect of such process in all instances. In addition, Section 24 requires authorisations:” the appointment of a manager or management authority and the specification of rules or regulations NEMA provides provision for regulations to be applied for the Special Management Area, thereby ensuring to a specific geographic area in order to encourage its proper administration and management and giving integrated environmental management. The regulations effect to the declaration. may specify non-permissible activities, which may not be undertaken without the approval of the Minister. Such declarations may be particularly valuable for This option may be used in a variety of contexts to protecting the coastal zone, including estuaries and provide either permanent or temporary protection for sensitive coastal shorelines such as mobile dune a site. It may be used to restrict unsustainable land use fields, large inter-tidal zones or rocky shores, and their activities in areas such as Strategic Water Source Areas, associated biodiversity or coastal natural resources. Biodiversity Economy Nodes, buffer zones of national Much uncertainty exists as to the appropriate parks, nature reserves or biosphere reserves, or private authority and type of protected area designation for or communal lands. Particularly where such areas are areas such as estuaries, which exist at the interface under threat from unsustainable land use practices between marine and terrestrial environments. Multiple and where a protected area declaration is not feasible. government agencies also have jurisdiction and This option could also serve to provide temporary responsibilities for actions at the estuaries, however the protection to an area where it is envisaged that the site lack of an overall management authority often leads to may in future be declared a protected area and requires a lack of accountability. Special Management Areas may interim protection. also provide further support for the implementation of municipal by-laws promulgated at estuaries in respect of various land-use zones and activities, as these could NEMA – Integrated Coastal be drafted as part of the regulations for the Special Management Act (2014) Management Area. SMAs also provide a platform to support the implementation of a coastal management The National Environmental Management Act: programme and ensure sustainable use of natural Integrated Coastal Management Amendment Act, resources by a local community. To the best of our No. 36 of 2014, Part 6, Sections 23 and 24 provide knowledge, this particular designation has not yet for the establishment and management of “Special been tested or applied in South Africa. The legislative Management Areas”. Relevant portions of the act are processes and requirement of a management authority inserted below: and regulations resemble that of a protected area as contemplated under NEMPA. “23. Declaration of special management areas.

(1) The Minister may, after consultation with the NEMA – Biodiversity Act (2004) MEC, by notice in the Gazette- The biodiversity act includes a number of tools (a) declare an area that is wholly or partially designed for use by various organs of state for within the coastal zone to be a special biodiversity conservation of identified species and management area; ecosystems. These tools include bioregional plans, biodiversity management plans, listing of threatened (3) An area may be declared as a special or protected ecosystems, listing of threatened or management area only if environmental, cultural protected species, and regulations on alien and or socio-economic conditions in that area invasive species. Biodiversity Management Plans can require the introduction of measures which are be drafted in order to protect threatened species, necessary in order to more effectively- ecosystems or other elements of biodiversity, as per section 43 of the Act: (d) conserve, protect or enhance coastal ecosystems and biodiversity in the area.” “43. (1) Any person, organisation or organ of state desiring to contribute to biodiversity management may submit to the Minister for his or her approval a draft management plan for”

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 37 Biodiversity Management Plans are subsequently Catchment Area. Legislation also allows for the assigned a relevant implementing agency. To give compensation of owners in respect of such directions further effect to the plan, the Act includes the and their exemption from certain taxes. However, provision for Biodiversity Management Agreements: as no directions have been issued with respect to any declared Mountain Catchment Areas they are “Biodiversity management agreements ineffectual in achieving conservation objectives (Cumming & Daniels 2014). This designation could 44. The Minister may enter into a biodiversity be tested on the recently identified Strategic Water management agreement with the person, Source Areas, and is particularly pertinent given organisation or organ of state identified in terms the water-stressed nature of South Africa and the of section 43(2), or any other suitable person, essential role of water in our ongoing socio-economic organisation or organ of state, regarding the development. implementation of a biodiversity management plan, or any aspect of it.” Spatial Planning and Land Use The potential application of Biodiversity Management Management Act (2013) Agreements has not been tested in South Africa as yet. Subsequent to the conclusion and gazetting of The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act the Biodiversity Management Plan, specific areas (SPLUMA) has an overarching goal of providing a which protect the relevant species or ecosystems may framework for guiding spatial planning and land use then be considered for declaration as Biodiversity management decisions within South Africa, including Management Areas. However the Act does not provide to provide for the “the sustainable and efficient further guidance as to the legislative process for use of land”. This legislation requires that various declaring these areas. Conservation agencies working levels of government and municipalities draft Spatial on specific threatened species may be interested in Development Frameworks (SFDs) to guide land applying this mechanism to provide protection to use decision making. Amongst the principles under critical habitat refuges for those species. consideration for SDFs is that they should recognise any environmental management instrument as adopted by the relevant environmental management Mountain Catchment Areas authority (Chapter 4; Section 12 (1) m). This provides Act (Amended 1996) the opportunity to include already declared protected areas or conservation areas within the relevant plans. “2. Declaration of mountain catchment areas Whilst they guide development, SDFs can also be The Minister may by notice in the Gazette define applied to identify areas in which no, or limited, any area and declare that area to be a mountain development may take place: catchment area and may from time to time by like notice alter the boundaries of any mountain “(b) indicate the desired and intended pattern of catchment area was established.” land use development in the province, including the delineation of areas in which development Part 3, Section 1(b),i(aa): “the conservation, use, in general or development of a particular type management and control of such land” would not be appropriate” (Section 16 (b)).

Part 3, Section 2(c): “be binding on every owner A land use scheme (Section 24) is required and is and occupier of the land with reference to binding on all landowners and organs of state and which it has been declared applicable, and their must also recognise any existing environmental successors in title.” management instruments and comply with relevant environmental legislation (Section 24, 2(b)). All The purpose of Mountain Catchment Areas is the amendments to a land use scheme must follow conservation, use and control of mountain catchment public participation processes. Areas which represent areas, with a particular reference to soil erosion important areas for biodiversity or environmentally and removal of unwanted vegetation. These areas sensitive areas should be identified and included within are managed through the issuing of “directions” the land use scheme. They should be recognised as for (Part 3) which relate to the conservation, wise “conservation purposes”, with the specific definition: use and management of the area, and which are binding on successors in title of the land, which is “means purposes normally or otherwise predominantly private land. Such directions may also reasonably associated with the use of land for apply to a specified buffer zone around the Mountain the preservation or protection of the natural or

38 BirdLife South Africa built environment, including the preservation or protection of the physical, ecological, cultural or historical characteristics of land against undesirable change or human activity;”

This recognition of land parcels within the municipalities SDF as “for conservation purposes” could be used to protect critical areas from unsustainable development, or act as a temporary protection mechanism whilst another protected area or conservation area designation is negotiated with the relevant landowner. NGOs or the relevant government agency could then support the municipality and the landowner to manage the land in such a way as to promote the conservation values for which it was identified. The recognition of Critical Biodiversity Areas within the SDFs and their appropriate zoning for conservation purposes may be used to prevent further land transformation.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 39 Annexure B: International case studies

These mechanisms have been extracted from a One example of such a site is Lake Funduzi in Limpopo literature review of various options being applied Province. This site has been declared a national outside the borders of South Africa. The options heritage area due to its cultural significance for the described below, have, to the best of our knowledge, Venda people. The Moravian church and other religious either not been implemented at all, or only tested in entities may also own large tracts of land which limited cases in South Africa. We thus propose these could be secured for nature conservation, if their use as potential new options to be investigated and remains compatible with biodiversity conservation. tested within the South African context when the The church group A’Rocha is also involved in a number opportunity arises. This review has focused primarily of conservation initiatives around the country and may on mechanisms which have been applied to private provide an additional option for collaboration. and communal agricultural lands, and thus here we try to focus on other land-uses which may provide opportunities for conservation. Commercial resource utilisation areas

The main types of “commercial” protected areas and Religious and Sacred sites conservation areas in South Africa include the private game reserves operating around the country, focused Historically, sites of cultural significance have been on wildlife-based ecotourism. However, in other parts known by local communities and been subject to of the world, a number of commercial protected areas informal laws or taboos regarding the use of their and conservation areas exist on mining areas, forestry natural resources. One example is Buddhist temple areas, or other areas in which a natural resource is forests in The Republic of Korea which are owned utilised for commercial purposes in part of the overall and have been managed to a degree by monks for area, allowing for the remainder of such an area to be centuries. Whilst their aims may not explicitly indicate conserved for biodiversity. Not all commercial utilisation biodiversity conservation, their protection and limited may be compatible with conservation, but examples use can result in de facto biodiversity conservation do exist. In many instances a mining company may which may endure in the long-term (Stolton et al., purchase land which extends far beyond the extent 2014). of the resource which they would like to extract, or as required as part of a biodiversity offset. The remaining To date, an extensive review, identification and listing portions of land are often then excluded from other of the most significant religious or sacred cultural forms of utilisation due to security concerns and exist sites in South Africa has not been undertaken. mostly in isolation as putative wilderness areas. These This exercise should be completed as a matter of companies could be approached to enter into long-term urgency, to preserve sites of cultural significance in conservation agreements to manage such portions of the first instance, whilst also providing protection their property to the benefit of biodiversity. for the biodiversity present at such sites. This could also include an assessment of the state of such a Obstacles may exist due to national legislation which site in terms of threats to its cultural heritage and would prevent protected area declarations on any environment, as well as relevant biodiversity values. areas in which active prospecting or mining rights The South African Heritage Agency should be the exist. However, NGOs interested in utilising some of the primary partner driving such an exercise, but it alternative area-based mechanisms as proposed in this may prove beneficial for conservation agencies report, especially those including long-term contractual seeking alternative mechanisms to protect sites. agreements, may be able to secure and appropriately Such an approach would also support inclusivity in manage such land, to the benefit of biodiversity. A point conservation, as traditional cultures are preserved of concern might be the security of investments made in through conservation action. These sites may also such a site, if the mining house subsequently extends its warrant declaration as World Heritage Sites. A recent operations into the previously conserved areas. Detailed court order regarding the rights of communities may mapping and careful consideration of the future of the be seen as a precedent for protecting areas of cultural, mining operations in the entire area would be essential religious or biodiversity significance based on the in designing such conservation areas. rights of communities.

40 BirdLife South Africa Securing sites through purchase of Temporary or seasonal leasing of habitat commercial rights to natural resources In certain parts of the United States, conservation A relatively new mechanism which is currently being agencies will negotiate temporary leases of land to applied in China and elsewhere involves a NGO or provide refuge for species at critical times in their government environmental agency buying development life history. This has proven particularly effective for rights from another government agency. In some migratory birds utilising the Pacific Flyway. The Central instances, private philanthropists leased forested areas Valley of California is one of the most important areas from the national government, but subsequently choose along this migratory corridor, regularly hosting up to not to harvest the relevant natural resources, thereby 60% of the total population of birds utilising the flyway. removing the areas from production. In a similar manner, The numerous wetlands along the valley provide philanthropists in China buy “rights bundles” for areas to essential habitat for migratory birds for feeding and both protect against unsustainable development, whilst resting. Property values in this area are also very securing the provision of ecosystem services. To date high, which prevents the use of land purchase or China has spent more than US$ 100 billion on buying conservation easements as a mechanism for securing back development rights from local communities (a habitat for the migratory birds. process known as eco-compensation) (Liu et al., 2008). This ensures the continued provision of ecosystem The Nature Conservancy’s California Migratory Bird services from natural areas. Program has thus developed a novel mechanism which provides for temporary leases of optimal habitat, This raises the question of whether private where and when it is required. Known as the Bird organisations or individuals could buy mineral or Returns Program, the initiative applies large scale bird prospecting rights from areas within South Africa, distribution data with satellite imagery to determine and subsequently choose not to utilise such rights, the ideal sites. A reverse auction is then run, in which and by doing so, prevent other mining companies farmers who are interested in participating provide from accessing these areas. The same approach might a bid for how much they would want to be paid to apply to potentially leasing a mineral rights area, temporarily flood their fields. The flooding takes the but again choosing not to establish a mine in such fields out of rice production and thus the farmers an area. Such an option could also be considered in require an incentive to offset this loss of production. combination with the above option, where a mining TNC is then able to compare the satellite mapped house might choose to purchase a large area or the areas with the bids provided by farmers to identify and rights to such an area, and subsequently only utilise lease the optimal areas, essentially paying the farmers a smaller portion of the area. A major concern here to keep their fields flooded during important migration is the view that such an approach would lead to periods. Research indicated the success of the sterilising areas from future developments and the program, where much higher numbers and diversity of potential loss to the national economy and reduction birds was recorded on flooded areas. in jobs. If this approach is applied, the implementing agency should ensure that the conservation area Such an initiative might be applied in a variety of which is created is able to provide jobs and in doing contexts in South Africa, including to reduce grazing so contribute to the economy. pressure on rangelands during plant flowering or bird breeding seasons or to secure estuarine habitats for migratory birds. Conservation South Africa has been Payments for ecosystem services utilising a similar mechanism in their more short-term, or ecological infrastructure seasonal agreements with communal landowners, which benefits endemic plant species. Although regarded as a potential panacea to support conservation action in the long-term, this mechanism has unfortunately not yielded any results in South Africa as yet. However, there are a number of examples of the successful application of this concept in other countries. An example from Colombia involves an annual payment to landowners who sign a conservation agreement with the local municipality. The agreement commits them to conservation land use, in order to prevent soil erosion and pollution associated with agricultural land use in the catchment areas. Known as a ‘Reciprocal Water Agreement” it has proven to be an effective tool for conserving water catchments whilst providing additional benefits (Solano, 2017).

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 41 Annexure C: Questionnaire for investigating alternative area-based conservation mechanisms

1. Legal Permanence and Duration k. Is the site listed on any national or international database? a. What designation / mechanism has been allocated to this site, e.g.: Biodiversity l. Is the site subject to any opposition Agreement/ Conservancy/ Servitude / or legal challenge regarding its Conservation Agriculture scheme / other? conservation designation?

b. What type of legal instrument has been m. Does the legal instrument used to conserve used for the purpose of conserving the site list legally required and enforceable this site, e.g. contractual agreement/ land use restrictions, e.g.: extractive declaration of a protected area through activities/ commercial crop farming/ government gazette notice/ servitude commercial development/ other? registered with the Deeds Office/ etc.? n. Does the legal instrument used to conserve c. What is the legal ownership of the the site list legally required and enforceable site, e.g.: private or public company/ conservation actions, e.g. clearing of alien CPA/ private individual/ etc.? invasive species/ restoration work for specific habitat/ specific species management d. Which parties have signed the agreement, interventions/ or is the instrument related e.g. legal entity owning the site and to an environmental management plan? provincial conservation agency/ legal entity owning the site and an NGO/ etc.? 2. Intent e. Does any legislation govern the agreement, e.g. NEMPA with regards to protected areas as a. What are the primary management defined/ NEMBA with regards to Biodiversity objectives of the site, e.g.: economic/ Management Agreements/ Previous provincial social/ or environmental? ordinance / contract law / property law etc.? b. Is the conservation of biodiversity features f. What is the duration of the agreement? a primary, secondary, inadvertent or not at all a management objective? g. Is any aspect of the agreement recorded against the title deeds of the property? c. Are the site’s primary objectives (i.e.: agricultural production) and the conservation h. Does the legal agreement make clear reference objectives as captured in the agreement, to the site’s property description? And is use well aligned and complimentary? made of any surveyor general diagram/s? d. Is there any potential conflict between the i. If not recorded on title deed, is the agreement site’s primary management objectives and otherwise binding on the successors in title, the biodiversity conservation objectives? through a separate condition in a deed of sale or other legislative prescript?

j. How easily can the specific agreement be cancelled, over-turned or revoked, by any party to the agreement?

42 BirdLife South Africa 3. Management v. Is the plan regularly revised, and if so, how often is the plan revised (I.e.: Every five years a. Geographic area as per legislation for protected areas)?

i. Is the conservation mechanism in question vi. What kinds of biodiversity monitoring applied to a clearly defined geographic area? activities are undertaken?

ii. How was this geographic area d. Timeline, Resources and Costs identified and designed? i. How long, on average, does it take to iii. How has this area been mapped, e.g. Google conclude this kind of agreement? Earth/ GIS/ surveyor general diagram/etc.? ii. Are there different phases involved; i.e.: b. Management governance scoping, negotiation, declaration etc.?

i. Has a management authority been iii. What are the human resources required assigned to the site as part of the to conclude this kinds of agreement? I.e.: development of the mechanism, and if so One extension officer and one lawyer / what type of entity has been assigned? only NGO staff member and landowners?

ii. Is it a legal requirement to assign iv. What are the additional costs required a management authority? for this agreement i.e. legal fees, incentives, operational costs etc. iii. Is it required that the management authority be a legal entity? v. What are the approximate total costs for concluding this kind of agreement, iv. Is a constitution developed for given the duration, human resources and the management authority? additional costs as indicated above?

v. Who constitutes the membership vi. What are the average annual maintenance of the management authority? costs associated with this kind of agreement after it has been concluded?. vi. Does the management of the site comply with any applicable legislated guidance on vii. What are the primary sources of management, e.g.: Norms and Standards funding for this mechanism? for Private Nature Reserves/etc.? viii. Assess the cost-benefit ratio for this c. Management plan kind of agreement given its potential contribution to biodiversity conservation. i. Does the mechanism require an environmental management plan as part ix. What are the major challenges encountered of the legal instrument being applied, when utilising this mechanism? e.g.: NEMPA required management plan for a nature reserve/ listed as e. Benefits and Incentives a condition in a servitude/etc.? i. What are the long-term support ii. Who is responsible for developing mechanisms available to entities the management plan? signing this kind of agreement?

iii. Who approves the management plan? ii. What are the benefits which may accrue to the entity signing the agreement? iv. How often is progress against the plan reviewed, and who undertakes the review iii. Are there any incentives offered to (I.e: annual review against an annual plan the entity up front to encourage of operations/ METT assessment)? signing of the agreement? Or to encourage maintenance of the site.

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa 43 f. Additional considerations

i. Who is able to lead this process i.e.: NGO staff / government official / private landowner / communal landowner?

ii. Does this mechanism require government or NGO involvement or can landowners implement this themselves?

iii. Is it possible to have multiple organisations collaborating to conclude this kind of agreement?

iv. Is it possible to have different organisations implementing different stages of the agreement i.e.: Initial signing vs long-term maintenance?

v. Does the mechanism involve / require any government department support or implementation?

vi. Does the mechanism require a lawyer / conveyancing attorney / legal adviser / tax practitioner or financial advisor to assist in implementation at any stage?

vii. Are there public participation or public advertisement / notification processes?

viii. Is the site’s ability to contribute to national biodiversity targets considered when identifying the appropriate areas? Or is it based solely on the implementing agencies discretion / mandate / focal areas?

ix. Is there a limit to the type of land-use or size of the site over which this mechanism may be used?

44 BirdLife South Africa

A Review of Alternative Area-based Conservation Mechanisms in South Africa Wright, D.R. 2019

www.birdlife.org.za

46 BirdLife South Africa