United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility Full Project – Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity on the South African Wild Coast



Download 1.07 Mb.
Page14/16
Date conversion15.05.2016
Size1.07 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16

PART V: MAP OF PROJECT AREA




PART VI: THREAT ANALYSIS



Threats, Root causes and Activities


Biological Impact

Root causes

Management Issues/ Key Barriers

Solutions: Interventions from Project Barrier Removal Activities

Baseline Activities

1. Threats to the biodiversity of marine protected areas

1.1 Over-exploitation and poaching of estuarine and inshore and offshore coastal resources within ‘take’ and ‘no-take’ MPAs by subsistence, recreational and commercial fishers

Depleted productivity of selected species (e.g. Eastern Cape Rock Lobster, Brown Mussel, Dusky Kob, White Steenbras and mangroves)


Intra- and inter-specific impacts associated with selective removal of animals from ecosystem (such as abalone, oysters, red bait and crayfish)
Recruitment failures in selected species (such as brown mussel)
Change in community composition and structure of intertidal and estuarine areas (such as the conversion of productive mussel beds to crustose corraline dominated areas)
Physical damage to intertidal and subtidal habitats (for example due to destructive harvesting techniques)

Failure of mandated institutions to meet their planning and operational responsibilities


Low levels of compliance and weak enforcement capacity: existing enforcement agencies have limited or no on-the-ground presence in many areas
Risks of interception and successful prosecution for illegal fishing practices are perceived to be lower than in other parts of the country.
No local capacity (staff, resources and equipment) to undertake offshore patrols in MPA’s
Strong livelihood dependence of coastal communities abutting MPAs on intertidal and shallow subtidal marine resources: limited alternative livelihood opportunities for these communities.
Fishery management efforts are dominated by conventional methods (TAC, bag limits), which are costly to administer;
Income obtained per unit production from fishing in the “take’ areas of MPAs is marginal, necessitating higher fishing efforts to meet target income;
Some vital spawning and grow out areas for target species not included in PA estate.




Barrier: Institutional Capacity

Integrated and coordinated decision-making both within and between government departments requires strengthening; there is poor delineation of management responsibilities and functions between different spheres of government;


Mandated institutions have not established appropriate performance standards against which their activities are measured and publicly reported
The deployment of staff to enforce fishing licenses, permits and bag limits is not adequate to respond to the existing pressures on the resources: the MCM offices are generally far from the MPAs and access is a severe constraint – the regulatory authority (MCM) has not delegated its management capacity for the management of MPAs to the provincial administration who currently have a staff complement in the immediate area of the MPAs
The fishing committees in local communities have not been properly constituted to monitor, review and ensure compliance with agreed management strictures.
There is not a culture of co-management inculcated in both communities and public institutions.
Barrier: Systemic capacity

The establishment, planning and management of the MPAs is still reactive and ad hoc, with little strategic perspective and strong knowledge base to direct decision-making.


Staff are not properly trained and equipment is not available, to undertake offshore patrols of the MPAs
Barrier: Knowledge barriers

The basic research, stock assessments and monitoring required to guide sustainable and equitable resource use of the MPAs is uncoordinated and fragmented.





Barrier removal: Institutional strengthening

Strengthen capacity within the Eastern Cape Parks Board to manage and enforce MPAs; (Output 1.1., 1.2. and 3.1. )


Strengthen capacity of local institutions (community committees, etc) to participate in co-management arrangements. (Output 2.1)
Reconfiguration of MPA boundaries (zoning, community consultations, proclamation/ amendment of boundaries; clarifying delegated management authorities) (baseline, Output 2.2. and 2.3)
Barrier Removal: Systemic Capacity: Establish a community-led monitoring service for MPAs (Output 3.5)
Strengthen capacity of key institutions to integrate biodiversity concerns into planning and to participate in co-management agreements (Output 1.3.)
Barrier removal: Management Tools

Establish operational capacity for MPAs (staffing, equipment, infrastructure, demarcation, financial mechanism) (baseline, Output 1.6., 2.2., 2.3.)


Identify alternative livelihood options for affected coastal communities (Output 3.6)

Local sustainable Livelihood initiatives such as the Mussel Rehabilitation Project at Coffee Bay (MCM)


Poverty Alleviation Funding, through CoastCare (beach cleanups, rehabilitation projects, environmental education, training)
Marine Living Resources Fund (funds for research and operational management costs of MPA’s)
Establishment of new MCM offices and staff;
Development of TAC’s (MCM);
Mariculture projects (MCM);
Mangrove restoration projects (MCM and municipalities);
State of South African Estuaries reporting
Eastern Cape Estuaries Management Research Sub-Programme (WRC)
Management Plan framework for the Pondoland MPA (MCM)

2. Threats to the biodiversity of the terrestrial protected areas

2.1 Unsustainable harvesting of forest products (fuel wood, construction poles/posts, medicinal plants, carving wood and food) in trust forests, coastal conservation area and provincial protected areas by local communities for livelihood use, non-resident users for commercial use and visitors for recreational use

Loss of forest productivity of selected species critical to local livelihoods (such as Harpephyllum caffrum, Trichelia dregeana, Cassipourea gerrardii)


Changes in forest ecosystem dynamics
Extirpation of highly localized species utilized as medicinal plants
Reduction in wildlife numbers (notably bushpig, duiker, bushbuck, porcupine, caracal)
Localised loss of faunal species

Strong livelihood dependence of proximate local communities on forest products, in the absence of viable cost-effective alternatives


Cultural resistance to using alternatives to forest products such as alien wood from woodlots;
Alternative wood supplies not appropriate for construction material when compared to indigenous wood, especially rot- resistant mangrove wood;
Most of the area has no access to electricity, hence the ongoing dependence on fuel wood for heating and cooking;
Forest goods not priced and constitute a free livelihood resource to poverty-stricken unemployed local communities;
Health service outreach has not reached many rural communities and there is still a strong dependence on traditional medicines;
Strong commercial demand nationally for medicinal plants used in traditional healing;
Open access system for visitors to, and users of, the forest areas;
Increasing commercial demand for rare plants by collectors;
Many land claims for state forests not processed leading to a lack of clarity of the ‘ownership’ of the forest resources: transition in land tenure arrangements is preventing institutions from committing adequate resources to effectively manage sustainable development and resource use



Barrier: Institutional capacity

The efficacy of the PFM policy by DWAF officials is affected by the skills of in situ staff to mediate, enforce and monitor the resource use agreements with local communities;


Local community structures are weak in some areas and unable to enforce PFM co-management agreements;
DWAF are in the process of delegating management authority for indigenous forests: during this transitional period many resource use management initiatives have stalled and the number and distribution of enforcement staff has decreased.
Barrier: Systemic capacity

The indigenous forests are managed as fragmented units and do not form part of an integrated representative conservation estate;


The strategic planning and management of indigenous forests is fragmented and uncoordinated leading to unsustainable use and inappropriate developments;
Communication tools and materials are often not tailored to local community needs and constraints;
There is little or no collaboration and cooperation between DWAF and other conservation agencies in the development and implementation of conservation, education, tourism and community development projects to realize overall conservation and sustainable resource use objectives;
The widely dispersed nature of settlements precludes the likelihood of providing health and electrical services to many rural communities in the short- to medium-term.
Barrier: Knowledge barriers

Knowledge barriers regarding the definition and management of sustainable use of forest products include off take thresholds, inter-specific impacts, and options for restoration/ rehabilitation.


Barrier: Management tools

Cultural resistance, practical limitations of woodlots and the dispersed nature of settlements across the landscape reduce the efficacy of woodlots to address the needs for fuel, construction and carving materials.





Barrier removal: Institutional strengthening

Reconfiguration of indigenous forest boundaries (zoning, community consultations, proclamation/ amendment of boundaries; clarifying delegated management authorities) (baseline, Output 2.2. and 2.3)


Strengthen capacity within the Eastern Cape Parks Board to manage the rationalized protected area estate and negotiate and implement co-management agreements (Output 1.1. – 1.2. , 3.1. and 3.3.);
Strengthen capacity of local institutions to participate in co-management arrangements. (Output 2.1. and 3.1.);
Design a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation System (Output 1.9.);
Barrier removal: Systemic capacity
Management arrangements codified and implemented for each indigenous forest; (Output 1.4.,,1.5., 2.2., 2.4., 3.4. and 3.7.);
Barrier removal: Sustainable use

Sustainable use policy developed (Output 1.7);


Micro-enterprises based on sustainable use of wild resources established (Output 3.6.);
Barrier removal: PA Management Tools

Active management interventions: alien control, fire management requirements, rehabilitation of indigenous forests (Output 2.3. and 3.5.);


Targeted communication strategy around the communities living around priority forests: target local councilors, traditional leaders, municipal officers (output 1.8.)

Participatory forest management agreements;


Negotiation for the devolution of indigenous forests from DWAF to Eastern Cape Parks Board (staff, assets, processes, etc);
Transfer of smaller forest plots and woodlots from DWAF to the province;
Rural Livelihoods (RuLiv) projects;
Community woodlots;
Expanded Public Works Program funding (forest rehabilitation, alien clearing, clean ups, conservancies, education and awareness, communications, infrastructure and services);
Working for Water
Coastcare
Regulations for enactment of Communal Land Rights Act
CBNRM programs


2.2 Habitat degradation is occurring in multiple resource use protected areas through: (i) illegal cottage and tourism developments; (ii) inappropriate and unsustainable coastal developments; (iii) spread of invasive alien plants; (iv) overgrazing of grasslands and associated compensatory burning; (iv) land clearing for agriculture, settlements and community forestry; (vi) off-road driving; and (vii) sand-mining

Change in species composition (as a result of overgrazing and short burning cycles)


Loss of productivity of grasslands (as a result of overgrazing, inappropriate burning cycles and invasive alien plants)
Altered hydrological cycles (as a result of invasive alien plants)
Fragmentation of habitats (as a result of coastal developments, road developments, illegal cottages, agricultural developments and spread of human settlements)
Disturbance of ecologically sensitive areas (as a result of inappropriate developments and services, spread of human settlements, agricultural developments and illegal cottages)
Erosion (as a result of invasive alien plants, off-road driving, poor agricultural practices and inappropriate developments)
Loss, or disturbance, of habitat of select faunal and floral species (as a result of inappropriate coastal developments, agricultural spread, off road driving, sand mining and invasive alien plants)


Strong dependency of local communities on subsistence agriculture and livestock husbandry to sustain livelihoods;


Transition in land tenure arrangements is preventing institutions from committing adequate resources to effectively manage sustainable development and resource use
Grazing and agricultural management focused on yielding optimal, not sustainable, returns;
Forest lands and wetlands more fertile than denuded old land; cheaper to use forest lands than purchasing fertilizers;
Cultural values of cattle are high (repository of wealth);
Increasing demand for access to land for settlement;
Land degradation, provides habitat for colonization with invasive alien species (IAS);
Pressures for coastal developments as mechanisms for alleviating poverty results in inappropriate and unsustainable developments;
Risks of interception and successful prosecution of illegal activities are perceived to be quite low;
Enabling legal framework for directing land use development and management in the coastal areas lacks clarity in key areas (such as defining outer boundaries of development nodes);




Barrier: Institutional capacity

Support services for agricultural extension to local communities has been too diffuse to effect behavioral changes;


Enforcement/management staff for a number of functions (e.g. mining permits, agricultural extension, ORV control) not located on site;
Unclear agencies’ mandates and limited collaboration, results in unfocussed and ineffective conservation actions, land management planning and enforcement;
Deployment of sustainable resource use management programs, and associated staff complement, not distributed equally across landscape;
Weak forward land use planning capacity in local authorities inhibits the ability to guide and direct responsible and sustainable coastal development.
Barrier: Systemic capacity

Regulatory framework and incentives to enlist community involvement in resource management on communal lands has not been properly developed;


Regional and local spatial and strategic development plans do not adequately accommodate sustainable resource use and development principles;
Sustainable habitat management measures not properly integrated into IDPs;
Legal system for prosecution is slow, with low priority given to environmental issues;
Weak understanding of local communities and visitors of the natural resource values;
Enabling legal framework requires modernization.




Barrier removal: Institutional strengthening

Rationalise delegated management authority for managed resource use protected areas (Output 3.1)


Establish co-operative governance structure for CCA (Output 3.3)
Strengthen capacity within the Eastern Cape Parks Board to manage the rationalized protected area estate and negotiate and implement co-management agreements (Output 1.1);
Develop and train a community outreach team and monitoring team (Output 1.8 and 3.5)
Strengthen capacity of local institutions to participate in co-management arrangements. (Output 2.1. and 3.1.);
Design a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation System (Output 1.9.);
Strengthen municipal and land affairs capacity to integrate conservation into the IDP (Output 1.3.).
Barrier removal: Systemic capacity

Management arrangements codified and implemented for each protected area; (Output 1.4.,,1.5., 2.2., 2.4., 3.4. and 3.7.);


Communication strategy developed and materials translated in all local languages (Output 1.8.).
Barrier removal: Sustainable use

Sustainable use policy developed (Output 1.7);


Micro-enterprises based on sustainable use of wild resources established (Output 3.6.).
Barrier removal: PA Management Tools

Active management interventions: alien control, fire management requirements, boundary survey, rehabilitation (Output 2.3. and 3.5.).


IDP review (SDF and land-use management systems);


Municipal mentoring, training and capacity building Program (CONSOLIDATE)
LandCare Program
Illegal Cottages Task team
EIA regulations
Working on Fire
ORV regulations
Transportation planning
Institutional structure for co-ordination of Wild Coast Tourism Development Policy;
Working for Water Program;
Working for the Coast;
Expanded Public Works Program (road construction, infrastructure development, water supply, health services, alien clearing, rehabilitation, fire management, monitoring program, erosion control)
Provincial Growth and Development programs (agriculture, tourism, environment)
Provincial Growth and Development Plan
Rural sustainable development program
CBNRM programs
EU-funded community tourism enterprises
Establishment of environmental court/s
Regulations for enactment of Communal Land Rights Act

Regularisation of sand mining


1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page