1. The Project has been designed based on a detailed identification and analysis of barriers to effective management of the protected areas in the Wild Coast, and more broadly, to address management deficiencies and opportunities in the South Africa System of National Protected Areas. The Wild Coast provides an excellent laboratory for testing the achievements of conservation objectives on communal lands. A replication strategy will form an important component of the full project. This will ensure lessons learnt and best practice are actively disseminated to inform conservation initiatives focusing on co-management models on communal lands throughout South Africa and wider Southern Africa region.
Anticipated replication strategy
Outcome 1: Institutional framework and capacity to facilitate co-management systems for PAs is in place
The capacity of the Eastern region of the Eastern Cape Parks Board to broker and implement co-management systems in protected areas will be strengthened, providing a mechanism to replicate good practice throughout the entire Eastern Cape PAs, as well as improving co-management systems at a systemic level.
The set of guidelines for mainstreaming conservation and co-management into Integrated Development Plans: developed as part of this outcome will be shared and finalized in a series of workshops at regional and national level with all the relevant municipalities and authorities in Eastern Cape and wider South Africa.
The Knowledge Management System (KMS) on co-management established by the project will enable the exchange of ideas and lessons learnt between and within government departments and between the project and other initiatives in South Africa and in the region through the National Knowledge Management System housed in SANBI’s Collaborative Learning Center. It will also benefit from SANBI’s national and regional network of conservation practitioners to optimize outreach potential. The representative of local government and traditional authorities will benefit from village to village exchange of co-management lessons. The project provides for guidance materials, secondments, and study tours to ensure that the lessons learnt are shared and replicated elsewhere.
The regulations for co-management of protected areas which will be developed by the project in the Wild Coast have the potential to be used elsewhere in the region and across rural areas of southern Africa.
The financial mechanisms for protected areas will explore and adopt innovative sources of income for co-management, as well as the required legal framework for their implementation contributing to the sustainability of the co-managed areas. These mechanisms will be shared via the KMS with the wider network of governmental, non-governmental and private sectors involved in protected area management.
The Sustainable Resource Use policy guidelines developed during the project will provide a model to be replicated elsewhere; the information on the policy will be distributed via KMS and consultations with communities and authorities supported by the project
The Monitoring and Evaluation system will improve impact and accommodate lessons emerging elsewhere. This includes the identification of mechanisms and processes which are working and therefore are ready to be replicated and the modification of what is not working in order to achieve the project objectives. In addition, the independent evaluation scheduled during project life (year 2 and 4) will be tasked with the identification of determinants of success for project activities.
Outcome 2: Management effectiveness is enhanced within a rationalized and more representative system of strict protected areas, operating under co-management agreements with local communities and the private sector.
The multidisciplinary reserve management teams established by the project will provide a model for new partnerships in developing conservation management plans for nature reserves and marine protected areas, which could be replicated elsewhere.
Key results on mechanisms to improve management effectiveness will be fed back through the State of Environmental Report via the KMS to the Minister and Parliament.
Outcome 3: A functioning network of managed resource use protected areas is in place, and is being effectively managed in active collaboration with local communities
The community-led monitoring and enforcement service established by the project on a pilot basis on the Coastal Conservation Area will provide valuable lessons to be used in other similar areas in South Africa.
Scientific information on sustainable off-takes will be made available to be used on the Eastern South African coastline ecosystems;
The results of the second order economic study commissioned by the project will facilitate the development of sustainable livelihoods strategies based on resource use in co-managed areas and create new opportunities for access and benefit sharing will be distributed through the State of Environmental Report via the National KMS to the Minister and Parliament.
The enforcement economics analysis commissioned under the project to define the optimum intensity of enforcement would provide a replicable tool to be shared with conservation practitioners via the KMS.
2. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) will provide three complementary mechanisms to facilitate information-sharing, project co-ordination, cross-project synergies, knowledge management and capacity building between this project and other bioregional programs/projects and associated GEF projects in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa and southern Africa:
(i) At a provincial level, SANBI have established the Eastern Cape Implementation Committee to facilitate and support the implementation of large-scale conservation projects and bioregional programs (e.g. STEP, CAPE, SKEP, Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve, Great Fish Project, Drakensberg-Maluti TFCA, Wild Coast Program, Grassland Program and Garden Route Conservation Project) within the Eastern Cape Province.
(ii) At a national level, SANBI has established the National Bioregional Forum as a structure to enable exchange of ideas and lessons learnt, share resources and facilitate cross-project synergies between coordinators and implementers of bioregional programs across South Africa. A similar Bioregional Forum, initiated and supported by SANBI, already exists for the co-ordination of the spatial planning and spatial products developed during Bioregional Program development across South Africa.
(iii) At a national level, SANBI is also establishing a National Knowledge Management System, housed in SANBI’s Collaborative Learning Centre, to house and disseminate lessons learnt and exchange ideas between biodiversity conservation projects across southern Africa.
PART VIII: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the Wild Coast CASU and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) Pretoria with support from UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator. The Logical Framework Matrix in Section II of the Project Brief provides impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built. This Part includes: (i) a detailed explanation of the monitoring and reporting system for the project; (ii) a presentation of the evaluation system; (iii) a matrix presenting the workplan and the budget for M&E section; (iv) the Result Measurement Table; and (v) METT tables.
Monitoring and evaluation A. Project Inception Phase
The CASU will conduct an inception workshop with the key stakeholders responsible for project management and implementation at the commencement of the project with the aim to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix.
The key objectives of the Inception Workshop are to:
review the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed;
finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project;
develop specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators;
introduce project staff with the representatives of the UNDP Country Office and the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU);
detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team;
provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations;
inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings;
present the ToR for project staff and decision-making structures in order to clarify each party’s roles, functions, and responsibilities, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms;
B. Monitoring responsibilities and events
The CASU in consultation with relevant stakeholders will develop a detailed schedule of project reviews meetings, which will be incorporated in the Project Inception Report. The schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings, (or relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.
Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The CASU will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop and tentatively outlined in the indicative Impact Measurement Template at the end of this Part. The measurement, of these will be undertaken through subcontracts with relevant institutions or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities.
Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the CASU, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities. UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCUs as appropriate will conduct yearly visits to the Wild Coast to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Project Steering Committee can also accompany, as decided by the SC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all SC members, and UNDP-GEF.
Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is t
he highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The CASU will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments. The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The CASU will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants and will inform the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary. The TPR has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks (developed at the inception workshop) are not met.
Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR) is held in the last month of project operations. The CASU is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and LAC-GEF's Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. T
he terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.
C. Project Monitoring Reporting
The Project Coordinator in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process:
Inception Report (IR) - will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed Firs Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation. The finalized report will be distributed to the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit and after that to the project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries.
Annual Project Report (APR) - is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight, monitoring and project management. It is a self -assessment report by project management to the CO and provides input to the country office reporting process and the ROAR, as well as forming a key input to the Tripartite Project Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Tripartite Project Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. The format of the APR is flexible but should include:
An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome;
The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these;
The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results;
Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress.
Project Implementation Review - is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a Project Implementation Report must be completed by the CO together with the project. The PIR can be prepared any time during the year and ideally prior to the TPR. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPR so that the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing agency, UNDP CO and the concerned RC. The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and analyzed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters. The focal area clusters supported by the UNDP/GEF M&E Unit analyze the PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. The TAs and PTAs play a key role in this consolidating analysis. The focal area PIRs are then discussed in the GEF Interagency Focal Area Task Forces in or around November each year and consolidated reports by focal area are collated by the GEF Independent M&E Unit based on the Task Force findings
Quarterly Progress Reports- Short reportsoutlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the CASU. The format will be provided.
Periodic Thematic Reports - As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the CASU will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team;
Project Terminal Report - During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities;
The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:
Mid-term Evaluation- will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.
inal Evaluation- will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism will provide the UNDP Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the DEAT, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.
Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Workplan and Corresponsing Budget
Table 1 present an indicative M&E workplan and corresponding budget.
Table 1: Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and corresponding budget
Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)
UNDP Country Office
UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit (as appropriate)
15,000 (average one visit per year)
TOTAL indicative COST
Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses
Result Measurement Table
Table 2 lists the main impact indicators used, along with the justification for their choice and institutional responsibility for monitoring the indicators
Table 2 – Main indicators, rationale and responsibility for monitoring
1. National conservation targets for protected areas:
Protection levels of terrestrial ecosystems by biome and vegetation types >8%
Protection levels of marine biozones in inshore region >20%
The determination of conservation targets by the NSBA provides an indication of how much of each biome/biozone must be conserved to ensure the representation and persistence of biodiversity in a region.
Increase of protected area coverage through strategic additions to the conservation estate:
Increase in the extent (ha) of provincial protected areas
Increase in the extent (ha) of terrestrial managed resource use protected areas
By year 3, the provincial protected areas (or equivalent) will increase to 26,000ha while managed resource use protected areas will increase to 56,000ha. By EOP, the terrestrial conservation estate will be increased to 95,000ha.
2. Percentage of the priority vegetation types included into the protected area estate as a proportion of the national conservation targets for protected areas:
Subtropical Estuarine Salt Marshes
Transkei Coastal Belt
Pondoland-Natal Sandstone Coastal Sourveld
By EOP, the priority vegetation types contribute at least 10% of the national conservation targets for protected areas.
3. Compatibility of economic returns (Rands/ha/annum) from the inclusion of communal land into the protected area estate.
By EOP, communal land should yield, on average, at least R110/ha per annum (calculated as TEV).
4. Employment returns from the inclusion of communal land into the protected area estate.
By Year 3, the communal land included into the PA estate generates employment levels of at least 11,000 person days/year
5. Number of local micro-enterprises providing a planning and management support service to the protected area estate
1. The NSBA has provided national conservation targets for the vegetation types within each biome. The gap between these conservation targets and the actual percentage of the vegetation type protected in existing conservation areas along the Wild Coast was identified during project preparation. The extent of protection of many of the vegetation types fall far short of their targets. The values reflected in the indicators then indicate the extent and level of conservation that will be realized for these vegetation types to meet national priorities.
2. During project preparation, eight priority areas for conservation action were identified. The capacity of the communities to engage in negotiations within these priority areas was evaluated and two community structures were identified as sufficiently capacitated to initiate discussions i.r.o. options for co-management agreements. The project is targeting at least 60% of the 8 priority areas to have some form of co-management agreement in place by the end of the GEF funding phase.
3. It was clearly articulated during project preparation that it must be demonstrated to local communities that conservation is an economically viable land use that could generate direct and indirect financial returns back to communal landowners both collectively and individually. In the absence of this demonstration, local communities are generally reluctant to initiate negotiations to enter into co-management agreements.
4. In an area beset by high levels of unemployment and associated poverty, it is critical that the establishment of PAs on communal land actively contribute to creating employment and developing skills and capacity in local communities. In proactively responding to this need, communities will more amenably engage in negotiations for the incorporation of communal land into the PA estate.
5. To project has as one of its key objectives, the development of entrepreneurial opportunities linked to PA management and sustainable natural resource use. The success of this can best be demonstrated through the support to, and development of, new local micro-enterprises providing direct services to the PA and natural resource management sectors. The sustainability of these developmental investments also needs to be measured through the continued use over time of these micro-enterprises by the respective sectors.
CASU in liaison with ECPB regional ecologist, ECPB HR Director and ECPB Chief Financial Officer.
Year 1, 3 and 5;
1. Percentage of staffing in the eastern region of the ECPB that meet the competence and skills required for the following occupational levels:
Level 5: Director Strategic and program based
Level 4: Managerial, Project management and or high level technical
Level 3: Technical Supervisory and/ or mid-level technical
Level 2: Skilled worker, technical functions with some team leadership
Level 1: Laborer , non-technical functions
By EOP, greater than 60% of staff in the eastern region of the ECPB meet the required competence and skills standards for PA management.
2. The average score of staff performance evaluations (on a performance rating of 1-5) for the eastern region of the ECPB.
By year 3, average staff performance scores will exceed 2.5/5, while by EOP staff performance scores will exceed 3/5.
3. Total operational budget for recurrent operational costs:
Increase (%) of budget amount appropriated for the recurrent operational management costs of the Wild Coast PAs (through development of PA usage/concession fees, new financing mechanisms and more cost-effective HR management)
Ratio of HR costs: recurrent operations costs
By year 3, the operational budget is increased by 70% and the HR: operations budget is reduced to 70:30. By EOP, the operational budget is increased by 260% and the HR: operations budget reduced to 60:40.
4. Management Effectiveness of the Wild Coast Program Management Unit
% of the funded conservation and sustainable development initiatives that are integrated and aligned with the PGDP, municipal IDP’s and the Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Program. (mid term target 60%; EOP target 90%)
1&2. During project preparation, the organizational restructuring of the ECPB resulted in the determination of five occupational levels for all staff. For each occupational level, the requisite competence, management skills and NQF educational standards were identified. Because over 90% of the current staff was transferred from other organs of state, posts were filled without meeting the required levels of skills and competence. To address this, a number of capacity building interventions are required and the efficacy of these interventions will also be measured through the 5-point performance evaluation system currently being developed by ECPB.
3. The current operational budget for the management of Type 1 PAs is inadequate to meet the operational and maintenance requirements of the PAs. During project preparation, a number of funding mechanisms for supplementing existing funds directed to recurrent PA expenditure were identified. Specifically, securitization of projected PA income streams, payment for environmental services by tourism operators and cottage residents and investment from conservation agreements can generate upward of R7m/ annum with very little structural or regulatory requirements. As an artifact of the apartheid ‘bantustan’ system, the PAs also have a large number of supernumeraries funded from the PA budget, many of whom are close to retirement age. Over time, the natural attrition of staff will allow PA management to re-allocate the current high HR numbers, and associated costs, to operational costs, thus freeing finance to address PA operational priorities, notably maintenance requirements.
4. The indicator measures the extent to which PA management objectives and programmes are aligned and coordinated with development activities in the project area.
CASU: Skills development facilitator in liaison with ECPB HR Director.
Financial service contract managed by CASU and supervised by ECPB Chief Financial Officer:
Year 1; 3 and 5;
1. Increase of Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) scores for targeted protected areas:
Dwesa-Cwebe Nature reserve and MPA
Mkambati Nature Reserve
Hluleka Nature Reserve
Silaka Nature Reserve
By year 3, the METT scores have increased to 59, 60, 54, 60 and 52 respectively.
2. Percentage of alien infested areas in a regular, properly funded control and eradication program.
By EOP, all IAS within the Type 1 PAs are part of a structured, properly funded and managed control and eradication program.
1. The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool has been developed to provide a quick overview of progress in improving the effectiveness of management in individual protected areas. With the currently limited operational capacity within the Wild Coast protected areas and the dearth of good quality baseline information, the METT is quick and easy to complete by protected area staff and is easily understood by non-specialists. The METT will then provide a consistent reporting system for the protected area assessment during project implementation.
2. During project preparation, the current extent of IAS across the extent of the Wild Coast was estimated to be generally low to moderate. IAS are however considered to be a significant future threat to the biodiversity of the Wild Coast in the absence of a coordinated and funded program of initial clearing and ongoing maintenance – a case of the need for large and focused investments initially with huge financial and biodiversity savings over the medium- to long-term. High levels of infestation by IAS are documented in localized areas such as Port St. Johns while moderate levels of infestation occur in disturbed areas of PAs such as Hluleka, Silaka and Dwesa_Cwebe. IAS programs in the PA network is generally uncoordinated and sporadically funded. A directed strategic effort and dedicated investment will yield high conservation returns and reduce future cost implications.
CASU in liaison with ECPB regional ecologist;
Year 1; 3 and 5;
1. Extent (ha) of communal land included into managed resource use protected area estate.
By year 3, at least 6000ha is included into the PA estate
2. Number of co-management structures developed, maintained and functional on communal land in the high priority areas.
By year 3, three management structures are established, maintained and functioning effectively and by EOP, six are functioning effectively.
3. Increase in METT scores for Type 2 PA’s:
State Forests (excluding above PAs)
Coastal Conservation area
By year 3, the METT scores are 41 and 45 respectively.
4. Numbers of co-management models for managed resource protected developed on communal lands in the Wild Coast replicated in Southern Africa.
By EOP, 2 co-management models developed and tested in the Wild Coast are replicated on communal land elsewhere in southern Africa.
During preparation phase, the needs of communities within the priority areas for conservation were intimately linked to their socio-economic well being. Key success factors for the incorporation of communal land into the conservation estate were:
1&2. Developing a successful new co-management agreement which can be used as a demonstration model for other communal land owners who may be reluctant to risk engagement with PA agencies for the incorporation of land in the conservation estate. During project preparation, communal landowners at Lambasi, Amadiba and TRACOR demonstrated a willingness to test the efficacy of a co-management agreement for undeveloped land proximate to Mkambati NR. The success of new demonstration models, along with the strengthening of the existing Mkambati and Dwesa-Cwebe co-management structures should result in other communal landowners agreeing to negotiate further agreements.
3. The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool has been developed to provide a quick overview of progress in improving the effectiveness of management in individual protected areas. With the currently limited operational capacity within the Wild Coast protected areas and the dearth of good quality baseline information, the METT is quick and easy to complete by protected area staff and is easily understood by non-specialists. The METT will then provide a consistent reporting system for the protected area assessment during project implementation.
4. One of the project objectives is to develop replicable best practice models for the incorporation of communal land into the PA estate without compromising communal land owners’ rights to sustainable resource use and cultural use – if they are, the costs and usufruct rights must then be offset or replaced.