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.
Size1.07 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16


Abbott, T, 2002. Proposed Pondoland conservation development area. In: Strategic Environmental Perspective for the Pondoland region of the Eastern Cape. Discussion document prepared for DEAT, Pretoria.

Akella, A., Cannon, J., Strengthening the Weakest Links, Strategies for Improving the Enforcement of Environmental laws Globally, Conservation International, Washington DC, 2004

Attwood, C.G., B.Q. Mann, J. Beaumont & J. Harris., 1997. Critical review of the state of marine protected areas in South Africa In: Towards a new policy on marine protected areas for South Africa. SANCOR Occasional Rep. 2: 63 – 97.

Avis, A.M., Nicholson, G. Norton, P. Myles, P., 1996. Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative: Environment report. LAPC, unpublished.

Bayon, R., Lovink, S., and Veening, W., 2002. Financing Biodiversity Conservation, Inter-American Development Bank, Environmental Division, Ref. no. ENV-134.

Berliner D. and Benn G., 2004. Protected Area Planning for the Forest Biome: Integrated project output report. Report for DWAF WFSP Forestry Programme.

Borrini, G., (ed.), Lessons Learned in Community-based Environmental Management, ICHM/ Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, 1991.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the approach to the context. IUCN Social Policy Group. Switzerland.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, ed. (1997) Beyond Fences: Seeking Sustainability in Conservation. IUCN/Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, Gland, Switzerland.

Child B (ed.), 2004. Parks in Transition: biodiversity, rural development and the bottom line. IUCN, SASUSG and Earthscan.

Coastal and Environmental Services, 2004. The Eastern Cape Provincial Coastal Management Programme. Report for the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Bisho.

Cowan, GI., Yawitch, J. and Swift, M., 2003. Strategic innovations in biodiversity conservation – the South African experience. DEAT, Pretoria.

Cowling, R.M. and Hilton-Taylor, C., 1994. Patterns of plant diversity and endemism in Southern Africa: an overview In : Huntley, B.J (ed). Botanical Diversity in Southern Africa. Strelitzia 1:pp 31-52.

CSIR, 2004. Eastern Cape State of the Environment Report. Report for Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Bisho.

Davey, A.G. (1998) National System Planning for Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 1. World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). IUCN-The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland

Davis, S.D, V.H. Heywood & A.C. Hamilton, 1994. Centres of plant diversity, a guide and strategy for their conservation, Vol 1, Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East, WWF/IUCN, pp. 227 – 237.

De Villiers, D.J. and R.M. White 2000. The distribution, status and conservation management of indigenous mammals in Transkei coastal forests. In Towards sustainable management based on scientific understanding of forests and woodlands. Proceedings of the Natural Forest and Woodlands Symposium II, Knysna, South Africa, 1999. Ed. A.H.W. Seydack, W.J. Vermeulen and C. Vermeulen. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, South Africa. pp115-123.

DEAET, 2004. Strategic Assessment of Biodiversity in the Eastern Cape. Report for the Dept. of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Bisho

DEAT. 2001. Bioregional approach to South Africa’s protected areas. Policy statement: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT. 2004. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP Stocktaking Report (draft)).http://www.environment.gov.za/ProjProg/ProjProg/2004Jun10/stocktaking/NBSAP%20stocktaking_Sustainable%20use_Annex%202%20Terrestrial_Mar%2004.doc

Driver, A, Cowling, RM, and Maze, K. 2003. Planning for Living Landscapes: Perspectives and Lessons from South Africa, Washington D.C. Centre for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International. Cape Town, Botanical Society of South Africa.

Driver, A., Maze, K., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Rouget, M., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B., Sink, K. & Strauss, T., 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Summary Report. Report for DEAT, Pretoria.

Eastern Cape Provincial Government 2004. Eastern Cape Provincial Growth and Development Plan, 2004-2014.

Fabricius, C. and Koch, E., 2004. Rights, Resources and Rural Development: community-based natural resource management in southern Africa. Earthscan.

 James, A.N. (1999) Institutional constraints to protected area funding. Parks. Vol.9 No.2: 15-26

Lombard, A.T., Strauss, T., Harris, J., Sink, K., Attwood, C. & Hutchings, L. 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment: Technical Report. Volume 4: Marine Component. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.

Mann, B., 2001. A biodiversity survey of the proposed Pondoland marine protected area, DEAT, MCM Project No. ERD 28.

Martin, R., S.A, 2003. South African fishing industry experiences with local access rights and marine resources management, Internet: www.capri.ciagr.org/pdf/devolution_martin.pdf.

Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N. and Mittermeier, C.G. 1999 Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX/Conservation International, Washington, D.C.

Murphree, M. W., "Communities as Institutions for Resource Management", occasional paper of the Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, 1991.

Myers. 2003. Biodiversity hotspots revisited. BioScience 53: 916-917

Nel, J., Maree, G., Roux, D., Moolman, J., Kleynhans, N., Silberbauer, M. & Driver, A. 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume 2: River Component. CSIR Report Number ENV-S-I-2004-063. Stellenbosch: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

Nicolson, G., Avis, A.M., Norton, P., and Tyrell, H. 1996. Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative: Environmental Report. Report commissioned by Land and Agriculture Policy centre for the Development Bank of Southern Africa and the department of Trade and Industry.

Obiri, J., Lawes, M. & Mukolwe, M. 2001. The dynamics and sustainable use of high-value tree species of the coastal Pondoland forests of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Forest Ecology and Management, 5712: 1-18.

Olsen, D.M. & E. Dinerstein, 2002. The Global 200: Priority Ecoregions for Global Conservation, Annuals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens, 89: 199-224.

Ralston, L., Anderson, J. and E. Colson, Voluntary Efforts in Decentralized Management, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Research Series No. 53, Berkeley (California), 1983.

Rhodes University, Strategic Assessment of Biodiversity in the Eastern Cape, Draft 1, Compiled for the Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism.

Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M., Cowling, R.M., Fishpool, L.D.C., Fonseca, G.A.B., Gaston, K.J., Hoffman, M., Long, J., Marquet, P.A., Pilgrim, J.D., Pressey, R.L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts, M.E.J., Xie Y. 2003. Global Gap Analysis: towards a representative network of protected areas. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 5. Washington DC: Conservation International.

Salafsky, N, Margoluis, R, Redford, KH, and Robinson, JG. 2002. Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16(6): 1469-1479.

SANParks 2001. Conceptual document for the Pondoland National Park: The consolidated Wild Coast Protected Area, 14 pp.

Schoultz, A., 2001. Socio-Economic and Biophysical context of the Wild Coast, Report for the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative.

Shackleton, C.M., Shackleton, S.E., and Cousins, B. 2001. The role of land-based strategies in rural livelihoods: the contribution of arable production, animal husbandry and natural resource harvesting in communal areas in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 18, 581-604.

Timmermans, H. and Rouhani, Q. 2001. Towards achieving sustainable indigenous forest management in Centane, Eastern Cape Province. Report for DWAF.

Turpie, J.K, J.B. Adams, A. Joubert, T.D. Harrison, B.M Collotty, R.C. Maree, A.K Whitfield, T.H. Wooldridge, S.J. Lamberth, S. Taljaard, & L. van Niekerk. 2004. Assessment of the conservation priority status of South African estuaries for use in management and water allocation. Water SA.

Turpie. J.K., L.E. Beckley & S.M. Katua, 2000. Biogeography and the selection of priority areas for conservation of South African coastal fishes. Biol. Conserv. 92: 59 – 72.

Van Wyk ,A.E. 1990. The sandstone regions of Natal and Pondoland: Remarkable centres of endemism in: Palaeoecology of Africa and the surrounding islands. Heine, K. (Ed). Rotterdam : A.A. Balkema, pp 243-257.

Van Wyk, A.E. & Smith, G.F. 2001. Regions of floristic endemism in southern Africa. Umdaus Press, Hatfield.

Ward, C.J. and T.D. Steinke, A note on the distribution and approximate areas of mangroves in South Africa, S. Afr. J. Bot., 1: 51 – 53. 1982

White, R.M.,2001. Patterns of utilisation of indigenous forest fauna and other natural resources in the Transkei region, Eastern Cape. University of Transkei.

WWF and IUCN. 1994. Centres of plant diversity. A guide and strategy for their conservation. Volume 1. Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East. IUCN Publications Unit, Cambridge, U.K.

Yawitch J, Mancotywa S, and K Naude. 2003. Governance: New Ways of Working Together in Strategic Innovations in Biodiversity Conservation – The South African Experience, DEAT.


Country: South Africa (ZAF 10)

UNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s):

Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s)/MYFF Service Line:

MYFF Service Line: Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

MYFF Expected Outcome(s): Commitments under global environment conventions incorporated into national environment and development framework.

Outcome Indicators: Adoption by government of national policy
Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s):

Intended Output:

National policy and legislation that clearly assigns legal responsibility to key national & provincial biodiversity agencies, institutional commitment at national, provincial & local conservation planning studies & implementation to build capacity at local level, & biodiversity education strategy.

Output indicators:

National biodiversity strategy and poverty reduction strategies integrated within development strategies at local, provincial and national level and implemented.

Biodiversity conservation incorporated into the completed NSSD & experience of Wild Coast contributing to implementation of NSSD.
Implementing partner: Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB)
Other Partners: National Dept. of Environment Affairs & Tourism (DEAT), Eastern Cape Provincial Dept. of Economic Affairs, Environment & Tourism (DEAET), Dept. Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF).

Total for full size US$ 30,818,000

Project Budget

1. Allocated resources: (Full size)
GEF (estimated) US$ 6,500,000

Co-financing US$ 24,318,000


Programme Period: 01.12.2005 – 31.12.2010

Programme Component: Environmentally sustainable development to reduce human poverty

Project Title: Conservation & Sustainable use of biodiversity on SA Wild Coast.

Project ID:

Project Duration: 5 yrs and 2 months (62 months)

Management Arrangement: National Execution (NEX) & PSC

Agreed by:

On behalf of:




National Treasury

Shaheed Rajie, Chief Director

GEF Focal Point


Pam Yako, Director General, DEAT

Executing Agency


Simpiwe Somdyala, Chairman, ECPB

Eastern Cape Provincial Oversight Authority


Adv. N. Burwana-Bisiwe, HOD, DEAET


Scholastica Sylvan Kimaryo, Resident Representative, UNDP

1 These arrangements are being supported under several other GEF projects, including in Addo National Park, Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, and reserves in the CAPE Floral Kingdom and Succulent Karoo biomes.

2 The terrestrial component of the project site comprises an area of just under 5000 km2. It is 30 km wide at its widest point and 10 km wide at its narrowest point. The marine boundary of the project site extends to the end of the deep photic zone which is at the 30 m depth and about 1-3 km off shore and comprises an area of just under 445 km2.

3 Mkambati Provincial NR (7,720 ha), on the coast of north-eastern Pondoland is bordered by the Mtentu River to the north and the Msikaba River in the south, with approximately 12 km of coastline forming the eastern limit. The Dwesa (3,500 ha) and Cwebe (2,200 ha) Provincial NR are located on either side of the estuary of the Mbashe River, and approximately 250 km north-east of East London. Hluleka Provincial NR (400 ha) is located approximately 45 km south of Port St. Johns. Silaka Provincial Nature Reserve (336 ha) is located approximately 4km south of Port St. Johns.

4 Dwesa-Cwebe MPA area directly abuts the Dwesa-Cwebe Provincial Nature Reserves and is 18,150 ha in extent, traverses 16 km of coastline and stretches 11 km out to sea. Hluleka MPA directly abuts the Hluleka Provincial NR and is 4,125 ha in extent, covers 1.3 km of coastline and stretches 11km out to sea. The newly proclaimed Pondoland MPA is located between the Mzamba river and Mzimvubu river, extends 17 km out to sea and covers over 90 km of coastline.

5 These are threats to identified to type I and type 2 PAs, and in the latter category include threats at a landscape level.

6 See Section IV, Part VI: Threats Analysis for more detail.

7 The objective of the project is to proclaim as many parts of the protected area estate as practicable at a higher level of protection status, with a target of IUCN category II protection. The initial focus on multiple use areas (IUCN categories IV and VI) is a question of pragmatism - in a region of such high levels of poverty where the majority of landscapes are occupied and used by rural communities, where there is an extensive subsistence dependence on natural resource utilization and where the majority of the area is under communal land tenure, the establishment of effectively managed multiple use protected areas is considered an appropriate transitional strategic intervention.

8 The proposed focus of interventions at the sub-regional level is justified in light of the country context to (i) address gaps in bio-geographic coverage; and (ii) to protect biodiversity in a globally threatened hotspot, in need of immediate attention; however replication effects are targeted more broadly at the national level.

9 The term “co-management” used in the project is broadly based on the definition of Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the context, 1996). “Collaborative management differs from other forms of participatory management in … that it describes a partnership among different stakeholders for the management of a territory or a set of resources.” The main element of a collaborative management arrangement is a formal agreement between two or more parties. The agreement specifies the respective roles, responsibilities and rights in planning and management of a PA. In order to be meaningful and effective, a management agreement must involve the body that has legal authority over the territory or set of resources (usually the state) covered under the agreement. The parties in an agreement may include other organs of state, public entities, NGO’s, local government, traditional leaders, community-based structures, co-operatives, resource users or the private sector.

10 CSIR Environmentek, 2004.

11 Consumptive direct use values of biodiversity in the Wild Coast were classified in terms of the following broad categories of resources: grasses and reeds, non timber forest products, including fuel wood, terrestrial fauna and marine and estuarine resources. Non consumptive use values were estimated for tourism (assuming a 40% average annual bed occupancy rate, and assuming that an average of 50% of total visitation is related to biodiversity). The value of ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration was not estimated, owing to a dearth of data on these benefits for the area.

12 The current operational budget for the existing PA estate is estimated at R10.1m/annum, of which over 80% is subsidized by state funding in the form of grant allocations. It is conservatively estimated that, with the inclusion of an additional 14,000ha into the PA estate, the recurrent operational costs would be in the region of R27m/annum. During the preparatory phase current income streams from (i) entry fees and accommodation (upward of R7m/annum), and (ii) grant allocations from the state, may be supplemented by additional funding raised through securitization of PA entry fees (at least R3.2m/5 years), environmental service fees from tour and accommodation operators (R6.9m/annum); concessionaire fees (upward of R1m/annum), conservation agreements (upward of R1m/annum) and legal cottage fees (upward of R2m/annum).

13 For this project, the baseline situation included: (i) financing committed by government agencies to activities that complement biodiversity conservation objectives and targets in the region and the effective management of protected areas, but whose investment rationale is primarily founded on addressing poverty alleviation, boosting local economic development and strengthening the general institutional capacity of government institutions in the Wild Coast; (ii) financing committed by government agencies to the provision of environmental and biodiversity conservation services in the region, but are not specifically directed at, or support, protected area management per se; and (iii) financing committed by government agencies to supporting the development and maintenance of income generating opportunities for protected areas.

14 This builds on investments over the period 2000-2004, which are excluded from the baseline analysis, as they falls outside of the systems boundary.

15 For this project, the co-financing commitments included: (i) financing committed by government to the recurrent and capital operational expenditure required to sustain GEF project investments in protected areas; and (ii) financing of projects or initiatives that have been accelerated, and prioritized, as a consequence of the GEF project intervention and are directed at enhancing the conservation and management of the protected areas.

16 While it is intended that the conservation approaches piloted under the project will be replicated elsewhere in South Africa, baseline investments in these areas are excluded from the analysis.

17 Projected financial returns from PA’s in the Wild Coast is higher than the estimated return on agriculture (R40-42/ha) and small stock farming.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page