D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
COVER NOTE
TO REVISED CONCEPT PAPER
CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY
ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN WILD COAST
1.
Additional information has been provided on the root causes of threats to biodiversity in the Wild Coast:
poverty, and policy environment (see first two bullets on page 6 of section on root causes)
2.
Additional information on stakeholder involvement during preparation of the project, including
contributions of WWF to preparation (see first paragraph under section 12; and see Annex 6).
3.
Estimated size of the PDF B and Full project are provided (see section 14).
4.
Further clarification of expected government commitment to the Wild Coast as co-financing are provided
(see section 14).
5.
UNDP’s expected commitment to the Wild Coast (Growth and Development Initiative and LIFE
programmes) are explained in last paragraph of section 15.
MNF: 26/04/01 based on input from J.Sturgeon.
1
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
CONCEPT PAPER FOR FULL PROJECT
1 . Project title:
Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity on the South African Wild Coast
2. GEF Implementing Agency:
United Nations Development Program
3. Country or countries in which the project is being implemented:
South Africa
4. GEF Focal Area(s):
Biodiversity, with relevance to the cross-cutting theme of land degradation
5. Operational Program/Short-term measure:
OP 2: Coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems
6. Country Drivenness (Project linkage to national priorities, action plans and programs):
The Wild Coast has been identified as a national priority in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan, which is in the process of being formulated. It is also identified as a national priority in the
Subsistence Fishing Policy. Furthermore, the project specifically addresses the following national
policies and programmes:
 National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998)
 Marine Living Resources Act (1998)
 National Water Act (No.36 of 1998).
 White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity, Dept
of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (July 1997)
 White Paper for Sustainable Coastal Development in South Africa, DEA&T (April 2000)
 White Paper Development & Promotion of Tourism in South Africa, DEA&T (June 1996)
 Policy on subsistence fishing in South Africa, DEA&T (1999)
The project is being proposed by the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) Implementing
Authority. The Wild Coast SDI falls jointly under the national Minister of Environment Affairs &
Tourism, the national Minister of Water Affairs, and the provincial MEC for Economic Affairs,
Environment & Tourism. It has two overall goals: (a) development of the local economy through major
investments in infrastructure, tourism and equity partnerships, and (b) conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity, biomes and ecosystems of the Wild Coast. The GEF Alternative not only addresses both
goals, but is an integral part of the SDI.
7. Context
Biodiversity of Global Significance.
The “Wild Coast” is that part of the Eastern Cape Province that was once made into an “independent
Bantu homeland” during the Apartheid era. It has for long been known as the “Wild Coast” because of
its rugged, undeveloped nature and the stormy seas that lash the shores. It is 250 km long, and can be
divided into two broad areas. South of Port St Johns the land is more gently undulating, with
2
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
interspersed forest and grassland, and a shore of many long sandy beaches interspersed with rocky points.
This region is densely populated, with people living right down close to the shore. North of Port St
Johns the shores are mostly rocky, with a high platform along most of its length, where larger rivers are
deeply incised, and some smaller streams fall straight down to the sea in spectacular waterfalls. Sandy
beaches are less common. This coastal platform is derived from sandstone and of very low nutrient
status. Therefore, it is largely unsuitable for agriculture and only good for grazing in summer. The
majority of local inhabitants live further inland.
The Wild Coast is fed by three major catchments (Umzimvubu, Mbashe and Kei Rivers), to mediumsized catchments (Mtata and Mtamvuna Rivers) and nearly 100 minor catchments that stretch no more
than 60 km inland. It is these smaller coastal rivers and their estuaries that give the Wild Coast much of
its unique character.
The Wild Coast is an important centre of endemism, both on land and in the marine environment. While
systematic inventory surveys are lacking or fragmented for most taxa, substantial collecting has been
done for terrestrial vascular plants and marine fish. Davis et al. (1974) identified the Pondoland Centre
of Plant Endemism, within the Maputaland-Pondoland Endemic Region, along the sandstone belt north
of Port St Johns. Although only limited surveys have been carried out, and the numbers of endemic
species have not been checked, Davis et al. (1974) recorded more than 130 endemic vascular plants,
including one monotipic family and six monotipic genera, with a remarkable 34 endemic tree species (see
initial list in Annex 7). Apart from the interesting coastal forests, at least 80 grassland associated
endemics have been recorded (van Wyk 1990). A further example of the rich biodiversity in this
Pondoland Centre is the fact that more than 1300 vascular plant species have been found in the
Umtamvuna Nature Reserve, which is only 3260 ha in extent. This is approximately the same number of
plant species as the whole of the Kruger National Park, and even the whole of Great Britain.
In addition to endemism in the terrestrial environment, Turpie et al (2000) identified the Wild Coast and
KwaZulu-Natal South Coast together as a separate marine biogeographic province, with a high number of
endemic species. Southern Africa has a total of 227 endemic coastal fish species, with the number
reaching a peak in the Eastern Cape. The most important endemics are from three families the Clinidae
(klipfishes), the Gobidae (gobies), and the Sparidae (seabreams e.g. stumpnoses, red steenbrass). Nearly
80% of the world’s seabream species occur in South African waters, half of them as endemics. The Wild
Coast is central to their distribution, but recent findings place most of them in the critically overexploited
category (Mann 2000). This is therefore a major threat to biodiversity, but also an opportunity to make a
meaningful contribution to the conservation of this group.
Among marine invertebrates there is also a unique transition zone along the Wild Coast between East
London and Durban, which contains a high number of endemic species (Emanuel et al. 1992). There has
been little research on the freshwater aquatic systems of the Wild Coast, but they are also likely to show
important endemism and biodiversity. For example, two new Barbus fish species have recently been
discovered by Anton Bok of Rhodes University. The Wild Coast has the most southerly distribution of
mangrove forests, linked to the warm sub-tropical marine currents. There are 16 mangrove forests,
covering nearly 300 ha (Ward & Steinke 1982), with the most southerly forest in the Nxaxo River at
Wavecrest.
The Wild Coast has been identified as one of WWF International’s Global 200 Ecoregions of global
significance. It qualifies based on the grassland biome, marine, mangroves and the MaputalandPondoland coastal forests.
Status of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the Wild Coast.
3
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
Since the creation of the Transkei “homeland” in 1976 poverty of local communities has increased.
When it was decreed that whites could no longer own property in the area, a substantial number of hotel
owners and private entrepreneurs moved out, and the tourism infrastructure degraded steadily to the point
where several had to be closed down completely. This meant that the local communities became
increasingly dependent on migrant labour to the mines and cities, social pensions and local natural
resources for their livelihood. While money bought them some basic foodstuffs and clothing, many
resources came from nature, such as poles and vines for hut-building and cattle kraals, medicinal plants,
and shellfish for protein.
The increasing pressure on natural resources, when combined with a more and more under-resourced and
ineffective nature conservation authority, resulted in, particularly, some shellfish and forest species
resources being wiped out in certain areas. Game animals were almost eradicated in many nature and
forest reserves. In addition, certain shellfish were utilised commercially, under permits that were
obtained under dubious circumstances. For example, 90 tons of abalone were harvested in a small area
between the Mbashe and Kei Rivers in 1991, when the sustainable Total Allowable Catch is estimated at
between 3 and 20 tons per annum (Fielding et al. 1994). Very little of the benefits of this harvest found
their way back to the local communities along the Wild Coast.
“Reincorporation” into South Africa has had its own problems as well, since the new Government has
not been able to produce on expectations raised. In 1995, disillusionment with “promises” not being kept
by the provincial government led to the local community totally stripping the intertidal resources of the
Cwebe Nature Reserve in one week-end, to make a political “statement”.
With the former Transkei once again opening up to whites, a number of people have seized the
opportunity to obtain “rights” to build cottages on prime sites along the coast, sometimes in exchange for
a small gift to the local headman. The legality of many of these cottages is being challenged by a special
task force, and some have even been broken down where they are totally incompatible with land use
plans.
The shortage of economic activity also creates an ideal situation for inappropriate development schemes,
where the full implications are not properly taken into account. For example, substantial deposits of
heavy metals have been found at two sites (Xolobeni and Wavecrest), and dune mining is being
considered. Even though several estuaries would be effectively destroyed the conservation lobby does
not have compelling information to show that the ecotourism option has greater benefits for local
communities and is more sustainable in the long term.
Another example of inappropriate development schemes is a plan to develop commercial bluegum
plantations on the Pondoland coast. While the jobs and economic benefits of the plantation have been
well-worked out, there is little evidence that the true value to the communities of all the natural resources
that would be displaced by the transformation of the grassland in to bluegum plantation have been
worked out.
The conservation importance of the Wild Coast has long been recognised by non-governmental
organisations. For example, the Wildlife & Environment Society has conducted several studies aimed at
improving the conservation status of, particularly, the forests and the Pondoland Coast (Wildlife Society
1977, Cooper & Swart 1992, Nicholson 1997). In 1996 WWF-SA and Goldfields conducted a
Participatory Planning Workshop for Port St Johns. Biological studies of various aspects of the marine
environment have been carried out over many years by the University of Transkei and the Oceanographic
Research Institute.
4
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
With amalgamation of the nature conservation functions of the former Transkei, Ciskei and the Eastern
Cape Region of Cape Province in 1994, more conservation expertise was applied to the Wild Coast,
particularly the Pondoland Coast and the Dwesa-Cwebe Nature Reserve, for a short while. However,
most of the scientists left the Department in 1996, and since then the provincial conservation body has
been very short on expertise, capacity and resources. There have been several studies aimed at setting up
a more independent provincial conservation organisation, such as a parastatal board, but as yet the
recommendations have not been implemented.
Two national departments, the Marine & Coastal Management component of the Dept of Environmental
Affairs & Tourism, and the Dept of Water Affairs & Forestry, are also active on the Wild Coast, but they
have only limited jurisdiction outside of the habitats under their control, the immediate coastal and
marine zone and forests respectively.
The Wild Coast was recognised as a national development priority because of the high poverty levels and
unrealised tourism potential, which led to the establishment of the Wild Coast Spatial Development
Initiative in 1995. Several important studies on tourism development and environmental planning were
carried out, but the SDI was not very successful in implementing the plans on the ground. Recently the
SDI has been reorganised and placed directly under the Department of Environment Affairs & Tourism,
and it has already shown some success in implementing its development objectives. In particular, it is
bringing together funding and expertise from a range of sources to accelerate development, such as the
Poverty Relief Fund, the Dept of Water Affairs and Forestry Working for Water Programme, the Marine
Living Resources Fund.
The SDI is also being supported by a major new community tourism-based initiative funded by the
European Union, using the scenery, biodiversity and natural ecosystems of the Wild Coast as the primary
tourism resource. The primary objective of the programme is “to increase income levels and job
opportunities by assisting local communities to participate in responsible tourism development and to
improve their participation in existing initiatives”. In support of this primary objective there are a
number of business skills development and capacity building initiatives, plus the following
environmental objectives: To improve environmental awareness of the affected communities, business organisations and
government structures
 To facilitate the establishment of more cohesive and effective management structures and policies for
environmentally important areas to promote effective and sustainable development
 To encourage and support the development of sustainable and responsible tourism and related
enterprises (environmental, socio-cultural and economic).
This provides a major co-funding opportunity for the GEF to build these initiatives into a sound
conservation strategy that will ensure their long-term sustainability.
While the above initiatives should make a substantial contribution to sustainable development, they will
not significantly improve biodiversity conservation on the Wild Coast, and additional incremental action
is required to achieve global benefits.
8. Project Rationale and Objectives:
The attached table (Annex 8) summarises the main threats to biodiversity on the Wild Coast, the root
causes, the activities suggested, and some projected outcomes of the proposed full GEF project.
Threats.
In summary, the major threats to globally significant biodiversity on the Wild Coast are:
5
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16


Overutilisation of resources, especially intertidal, fishing, coastal forests for subsistence and
commercial purposes, and overgrazing.
Non-sustainable and inappropriate developments, such as mining of sand dunes for heavy metals,
inappropriate farming or aforestation projects, “ribbon” development along the coast, “illegal
cottages”.
The threat of overgrazing is minor in comparison with other threats. Overgrazing by cattle is most
relevant to the lower-rainfall inland plateau of the former Transkei, and is somewhat marginal to the
Wild Coast. While there are large mumbers of cattle along the Wild Coast the impact is not as great as
inland, apart from a few specific areas, such as the red sands of the Mzamba area, which will require a
more specific action. The the priority of this issue will be decided during the PDF B (particularly in
terms of its watershed impact downstream), but at the moment it is only considered as a serious problem
in localised areas along the coast, and in the upper catchments of the major rivers, far from the coast.
Another minor threat to biodiversity is that of invasive aliens, particularly plants. The Wild Coast does
not have the spectacular invasions of Australian wattles that can be seen in the Western Cape, and their
impact is often ignored. In fact, very little is know of the extent of invasions along the Wild Coast, but
sites such as Port St Johns already show extensive impacts of triffid weed (Chromolaena) and Barbados
gooseberry (Pereskia). The high rainfall, rich soil and level of disturbance in some areas of the Wild
Coast provide ideal conditions for the spread of invasives, and they could pose a substantial threat to
biodiversity if allowed to multiply unchecked. The fact that their impacts are still relatively low makes it
realistic to set a target that many of the coastal catchments of the Wild Coast should be completely
cleared of important categories of invasive alien plants. While much of this work will be funded through
the Poverty Relief Programme, it will be important to extend it to critical biodiversity hotspots, to remove
this threat to biodiversity. This issue will also be investigated further during the PDF B.
Root causes.
There are a wide range of root causes for the biodiversity threats identified above. However, the
following can be identified as key root causes that will need to be addressed if the biodiversity of the
region is to be secured: Poverty: the former Transkei has been identified as one of the poorest parts of South Africa.
Desperately poor people who have no alternatives inevitably utilise the natural resources around
them to maintain their livelihood. The more desperate they are, the less likely they will be to take
into consideration the consequences of overuse. Any biodiversity conservation measures on the Wild
Coast will have no alternative but to include, or link closely to, sustainable development programmes
that create realistic livelihood alternatives for the people living there.
 Inappropriate use of resource uses at community, local government and provincial level:
Development programmes on the Wild Coast are focussed at a very basic level, and poor education
and training levels have led to poor understanding of sustainable resource use principles in many
areas. At the same time, tensions between the “new” civic organisations and the traditional
leadership in rural areas, combined with unclear land “ownership”, have created an environment
where “quick-fix” programmes are attractive, without due consideration of the long-term
consequences.
 One of the root causes of poverty in South Africa has been the high population growth rate
(nationally 2.25% over the past 5 years), which has normally been higher in the Eastern Cape.
However, this picture has been dramatically altered and intensified by the AIDS pandemic. There is
a clear symmetry between HIV infection and poverty.
6
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16


A further root cause is the limited delivery on adequate provincial policies and incentives for
sustainable development, and on expectations raised under the new government’s policies of
“reincorporation” and “transformation”.
Inadequate resources for policing of developments and resource use by provincial and national
authorities: While there have been reasonable planning activities on the Wild Coast, the conservation
authorities are short on expertise, capacity and basic resources such as communication and transport,
and have therefore struggled to enforce existing regulations in the Wild Coast. There have also been
very few resources to use on insidious long-term threats such as invasive alien plants.
Overall Objectives of the Full Project.
The long term objective of the GEF project is to ensure conservation and sustainable use of nationally
and globally significant biodiversity in the Wild Coast, through the development and dissemination of
best practices for sustainable use and land use planning, protection of hot spots, removal of invasive
aliens and capacity and institutional building at local and provincial levels for long term sustained
beneficial impacts.
Baseline scenario.
The baseline or business-as-usual scenario is that biodiversity of global and local significance will
continue to degrade due to increasing pressures from subsistence needs of local communities who have
few other livelihood alternatives to the overuse of natural resources. In the absence of an effective
conservation and sustainable use planning and implementation structure, increasing commercial
development pressures from the tourism industry, mining, and construction will lead local and
community authorities to make land use decisions that are contrary to sustainable development
principles. Although the SDI is expected to redress this threat to some degree, it will not necessarily
focus on biodiversity conservation and sustainable harvesting issues. In addition, the SDI will not have
enough capacity to fully establish and assure the functioning of new conservation areas (e.g. Pondoland,
community reserves, etc.), and some catchments are likely to be gradually infested with alien vegetation.
Finally, lack of technical and institutional capacity at the provincial level will continue to hamper the
efforts of the Provincial Government in ensuring sustained planning, implementation and monitoring of
biodiversity conservation in the Wild Coast.
Alternative scenario
The Alternative would build upon the baseline situation by promoting sustainable economic development
and poverty alleviation, while conserving biodiversity hot spots in the coastal and near-shore marine
ecosystems of the Wild Coast. The overall project will assess, plan and implement a strategy for
conservation and sustainable land use planning; develop best practices for sustainable harvesting and use
of natural resources and disseminate these to local communities in the buffer zones of hot spots; eradicate
invasive alien plants from most of the coastal catchments, promote sustainable tourism development as
an alternative option for economic development and improved local livelihoods; build capacity (both
institutional and technical) and appropriate enabling environment (policies, legal framework) for these
actions at local and provincial levels; and conduct awareness raising campaigns aimed at local decisionmakers, sectoral government units, and the private sector on the importance and benefits from sustainable
use and conservation of biodiversity and natural resources in the Wild Coast.
The project is a partnership between the Wild Coast SDI (combining several Provincial and National
Government Departments), the EU Support Programme, and the GEF, with collaboration of NGOs such
as WWF-SA, the Wildlife & Environment Society of SA, the Oceanographic Research Institute, the
University of Transkei and others. Non-GEF resources will be used to move the baseline situation to a
sustainable baseline level (e.g. sustainable tourism options; invasive species control; land use planning
7
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
and legislative reform; feasibility study for Pondoland Protected Area, etc.), while the GEF increment
will be used to remove threats to globally significant biodiversity in selected hot spots using the
ecosystem approach; to demonstrate best practices for local level community based biodiversity
conservation, for integrated land use planning and management; and to remove barriers to the adoption of
these best practices. These barriers are mostly technical, policy and institutional in nature, and will
require capacity building and improved structure and functioning of existing institutions. The specific
activities to be financed through the GEF increment will be determined during the PDF B process.
9. Expected outcomes and activities of Full Project:
The final logical framework of the Full Project will be clarified during the PDF B Phase. Based on the
consultations carried out to date (see Annex 6), it is possible to identify four main components of the Full
Project :Protected Area Programme.
This component will focus on strategic assessment of conservation status and needs leading to the
identification and establishment of several types of protected areas in the Wild Coast, with various types
of co-management structures. This could include the establishment of community and other forms of
nature reserves (for sustainable use areas such as riperian forests and estuaries outside of formal
protected areas), and establishment of Integrated Protected Areas (IPA) that include a core conservation
zone and a sustainable use buffer zone. The PDF B will identify the full list of these sites, but it is
expected that the project will commence with the establishment of a large, consolidated and integrated
conservation area along the Pondoland Coast north of Port St Johns, which has already been identified by
the SDI as a priority area. The terrestrial portion of the Pondoland Centre of Plant Endemism would be
complemented by a Marine Protected Area offshore that would act as a breeding ground for the
replenishment of fish stocks on both the Wild Coast and the KwaZulu-Natal Coast.

Generic activities in this and other new protected areas would include: surveys, zoning and planning of
the integrated protected area; mapping and eradication of alien plants; buffer zone community
participation, stakeholder liaison, and revenue sharing arrangements; environmental education; protected
area co-management infrastructure development and capacity building; and working with DEA&T
Tourism Section and Provincial CIMEC to facilitate tourism investment on the new reserves and
surrounding buffer zones that would generate sufficient income to make the integrated protected area
sustainable. The component will also investigate the possibility of getting the Pondoland Conservation
Area declared as a World Heritage Site.
Sustainable Resource Use Programme.
The community facilitation activities of the EU Programme will set up and equip at least three resource
use centres in the Wild Coast. The GEF increment will assist the communities around these centers to
develop and disseminate best practices in order to: conserve and use their resources sustainably, using
livelihood alternatives such as woodlots, permaculture, medicinal plant nurseries; develop comanagement agreements in the nature reserves and protected areas; and help ensure equitable distribution
of benefits. In areas where soil erosion due to overgrazing is evident (such as the red sand dunes near
Mzamba), Poverty Relief Programmes will be developed to control erosion and investigate alternatives to
grazing these areas, as well as to removal of alien invasive biota that threaten biodiversity. The Resource
Centres will also leverage co-funding from various sources; serve as a base for responsible community
tourism projects; develop incentives for community biodiversity conservation; and be the focal areas for
resource economics studies that would provide a sound body of data on the value of existing resource
use. This information will also be used to inform sound decision-making around alternative land use and
conservation options.

8
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
Furthermore, the Resource Centres will be the mechanism for awareness raising, environmental
education, and access to information by the local communities. At the end of the project, the
communities will be empowered to take over the centres themselves to serve as a focus for a range of
entrepreneurial and resource-orientated activities. The Project will identify and develop mechanisms for
the sustainable management and financing of these centres, including assisting local communities to
develop business plans; explore the use of Revolving Funds, membership dues, and other means for
sustainable financing; and capacity-building for youth and community leaders, including study tours.
Provincial Conservation Capacity- and Institution-Building Programme.
This component would build capacity at provincial level for sustained conservation of biodiversity and
natural resources in the Wild Coast. The component would help to ensure that one or more fully
operational conservation institutions were in place to manage the biodiversity of the Wild Coast, to
enforce regulations on the use of terrestrial and marine resources effectively, and to ensure that all
developments are sustainable. The actual structure and nature of the institution(s), and the exact GEF
increment, would depend on the outcome of the investigation in the PDF Phase. These institutions could
be provincial or national government bodies, provincial or national parastatals, or one or more of a range
of other types of structures. One of these institutions would be responsible for the implementation of the
GEF Full project. Whatever the structure, the Full project will ensure that they be properly empowered
by legislation, and have adequate expertise and resources to carry out the various tasks effectively and
well beyond the project lifetime.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation in the Wild Coast.
The Monitoring & Evaluation component would build upon existing programs, such as the National
Marine Linefish System (a joint initiative between Marine & Coastal Management, KwaZulu-Natal
Wildlife and the Oceanographic Research Institute which generates annual assessments on the status of
linefish) and Eastern Cape Forest Surveys carried out by the Dept of Water Affairs and Forestry. the first
activity will be to establish initial conditions (baseline) that will be used later to assess impact. It will be
a cross-cutting component that builds capacity for participatory M&E among local communities
(centered around co-management structures, Resource Centres, and buffer zones of selected protected
areas), builds capacity for monitoring by provincial authorities, and establish a network/panel of experts
from institutions such as universities. This component will have the dual function of monitoring the
impact of the project, as well as establishing capacity for more widespread and long term monitoring that
would feed into adaptive management at local and provincial levels. For example, it could involve
development of indicators, regular reports on biodiversity conservation measures of relevance to the
Wild Coast, and an annual “state of the environment” report for the Wild Coast, which would link into
studies such as the recent DWAF survey of forests on the Wild Coast. The PDF B will investigate the
possibility of adapting the existing Conservation Advisory Committee to perform the function of the
Independent Expert Panel. This expert panel (in whole or in part) can also act as the Technical Advisory
Committee of the Full Project which would assist in the M&E of the project results. However, the fact
that many of the limited number of scientists with expertise on the Wild Coast will also be employed as
consultants will have to be considered, to avoid a conflict of interests.

10. Sustainability (financial, social, environmental) and replicability of the full project
After completion of project implementation substantial components of the various programmes should be
sustainable and self-funding. For the Protected Area Programme sufficient progress should have been
made with establishing the major Pondoland Conservation Area (PCA) as a tourism destination so that a
substantial flow of visitors would be established. Entrance fees and commission paid by tourism
concessionaires should go a long way towards covering the operational costs of the terrestrial component
9
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
of the PCA, as has been done for several national parks in South Africa, such as Kruger NP, Tsitsikamma
NP, Addo NP and others. The extent to which operating costs can be covered will be a key element of
the planning phase. If there is a shortfall there will either have to be an undertaking from the government
or else an Environment Fund will have to be set up. Possible revenue sharing with local communities
will also have to be factored into this.
The Marine and Coastal Management Section of DEA&T is already well-advanced with plans to set up
and manage a Marine Living Resources Fund. Fishing licence fees and levies will be paid directly into
the Fund, which is expected to generate more than R200 m ($27m) per year. Approximately half will be
used to fund compliance measures along the whole coastline, and the other half will be used for marine
and fisheries research. This means that substantial funds for both compliance and research will become
available towards the end of the GEF project to ensure continuity of successful results.
The Sustainable Resource Use Programme will develop and implement incentives and other financial
measures to ensure the continuity of the Resource Centres. Already similar centres, e.g. at
Dwesa/Cwebe, are used by local communities as tools for community consultation, democratic debate,
and outreach/training centers, and the EU programme’s additional assistance will serve to strengthen this.
The nature conservation body that is formed out of the institution building process will be self-funding to
a certain degree from a number of income generating activities. In addition, its regulatory functions can
be funded from the provincial budgets, resources specific funds such as the Marine Living Resources
Fund and/or the national budget. The PDF B will investigate how best to design this(these) institutions
for optimal financial and institutional sustainability (e.g. the possibility of a parastatal will be explored,
where the Institution could manage certain reserves as independent business units). The GEF increment
will be additional to support from the EU programme to set up co-management agreements for
environmentally important areas such as nature reserves.
The possibility of continuing the Monitoring & Evaluation Independent Expert Panel will be investigated
during the PDF B. It is expected that by the end of the Project Implementation Phase, this Panel would
have proven its value enough for a body such as the national or provincial government, an aid
organisation or a conservation NGO to continue supporting this function. The PDF B will investigate
these possibilities before making a final design.
The models and best practices for organising the balance between conservation, communities and the
tourism industry that are developed in this project should be useful for replication to a range of situations
in South Africa and elsewhere in southern and eastern Africa. The success of the project in showing the
financial and social viability of the Resource Centres should make it possible for local communities
elsewhere in South Africa (assisted through the development banks for example) to replicate them.
11. Country Eligibility
South Africa ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in February 1997, and published a White
Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity in July 1997. The
Wild Coast Project addresses all of the Programme Priorities outlined in the Biodiversity Chapter of the
GEF Operational Strategy (see also Document UNDP/CBD/ COP/1/17, annex I, pages 33 – 34). In
particular, it addresses a area of national priority; is part of the Wild Coast Spatial Development
Initiative; and focuses on strengthening conservation, management and sustainable use of ecosystems and
habitats. It includes activities on identification, monitoring and conservation of biodiversity, capacitybuilding and institutional development, provides access to technology, and technology transfer. It has inbuilt mechanisms for ensuring sustainability of project benefits, and will leverage considerable
10
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
international, national and/or private sector funds. Its innovative measures includes development of
incentives for local communities to participate in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, and
development of public/private partnerships for sustainable economic development.
The project address the operational guidance provided by the Coastal, Freshwater and Marine
Ecosystems Operational Programme. It has a dual purpose of conservation of endemic species in
protected areas, and promotion of sustainable use regimes and land use planning for improved
livelihoods and poverty alleviation.
A substantial portion of the former Transkei, which includes the Wild Coast, is subject to overgrazing
and soil erosion, as well as forest degradation. The project is therefore clearly relevant to the cross
cutting theme of Land Degradation, and responds to the 1999 GEF Action Plan for Land Degradation’s
concerns with building capacity and improving the enabling environment for addressing land degradation
in South Africa. In addition, the project will develop and disseminate best practices for natural resource
use that will directly address the causes of land degradation related to overgrazing and deforestation.
12. Stakeholders involved in project:
Although no PDF A funds were requested, the Government of South Africa has instead through its own
resources, and with assistance from WWF-SAF ($75,000 in preparatory assistance so far), conducted a
10 month process of consultation with local, provincial, and national stakeholders. See Annex 5 for the
committee members, stakeholders and contacts already involved with the project; and Annex 6 for a
description of the main milestones during this period. This was done through a series of meetings
organized primarily in the Wild Coast, but also in East London , with a wide range of stakeholders (local
leaders, local development NGOs, and local conservation NGOs; Provincial sectors involved in wildlife,
forestry, fisheries, agriculture and sustainable development issues; EU, DFID, UNDP and other donors;
and the research community such as universities and research institutions). This concept paper has been
endorsed by representatives of all of these sectors and enjoys highest level political support from the
Minister of Environment.
13. Information on project proposer:
The project proposer is the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative Implementing Authority, which is
a committee of the national Minister of Environment Affairs & Tourism, the national Minister of Water
Affairs & Forestry, and the Eastern Cape Member of the Executive Committee for Economic Affairs,
Environment & Tourism. This committee was mandated by a national Cabinet memorandum to
coordinate development on the Wild Coast.
14. Financing Plan of Full project
The total cost of the project is unknown at this stage, and will be determined during the PDF Phase.
However, as an order of magnitude, it can be expected to be between $4-6 million in GEF contributions.
Co-funders of the project will be sought at a Donor’s conference towards the end of the PDF B Phase.
Likely donors will be Government of South Africa (through various Funds and budgetary allocations),
EU, WWF-SA sourced funds and other aid organisations. The Full GEF Project would run for 7-8 years,
after the planning phase of 16 months.
Substantial funding for the sustainable development component of the overall project is already
committed or lined up. The European Union Support Programme to the Wild Coast SDI has recently
been launched, with the aim of encouraging participation of previously disadvantaged communities in the
tourism industry on the Wild Coast. The budget is R80m (12.8m ECUs or $11m) for an initial life cycle
11
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
of 4 years. During the PDF phase, at least $250 000 from EU funding will contribute directly to the
project. The SDI budget for 2001/2 is R3.2 million ($400 000), and the national Government will also
contribute $67,000 to the PDF B (see TOR of PDF B). GEF contribution to the PDF B is expected to be
about $340,000, but this will be verified at the time of submission of the TOR for the PDF B.
From the Poverty Relief Fund R12.5 million ($1.56 M) has been committed to the Wild Coast for 2001/2,
through the Wild Coast SDI, and the total for the next four years may be as high as R87.5 million ($11
M). The main themes are training, alien plant eradication, waste management, community-based
resource use projects and tourism enterprise development. These projects have not yet been finalised yet,
and the PDF B will investigate the best avenues for collaboration and co-financing. While Poverty Relief
Funding will pay for most of the labour for alien plant eradication, the GEF Project will provide the
scientific expertise necessary to ensure that the programmes remove threats to biodiversity hotspots. In
addition, it is anticipated that other national departments will spend up to R200m ($25m) on roads and
bulk service supply, via the SDI. It is expected that the government co-financing to this programme
through these and other channels will be substantial in covering the sustainable baseline. If necessary,
other sources of co-funding for the project, such as through bilateral and multi-lateral funding will be
explored during the PDF B.
15. IA coordination and Linkages to GEF and IA programs and activities
There are two ongoing GEF projects with which the project will coordinate closely. The “Joint Integrated
Management of the Maputo Basin Project” is an UNDP/FAO International Waters project and may
extend marginally into the Wild Coast area. The PDF B for this was recently approved, and will develop
the framework for a transboundary diagnosis analysis, as well as a Full project proposal that will finalize
the TDA and a Strategic Action Plan for the Basin. The Wild Coast project will coordinate closely with
this endeavor, and build in the biodiversity conservation elements to complement the land and water
elements of the regional project. In addition, the Wild Coast project will coordinate with the World Bank
GEF Project entitled “Conservation planning for biodiversity in the Thicket Biome, South Africa” which
is being executed by the University of Port Elizabeth Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit. This project’s
field work is focussed on the southern parts of the Thicket Biome, but it may have recommendations
relevant to the thickets in the river valleys of the Wild Coast, which this project will take into
consideration.
The invasive plants component of the project will coordinate with the pipeline MSP project entitled
"Chromolaena control" which will engage in testing methods for biological control of Chromolaena
audorata in several areas of South Africa. The project will get GEF-UNDP funding.
Other projects in South Africa and the sub-region can also be of relevance to this project. For example,
the World Bank GEF PDF-B project “CAPE Action Plan for the Environment” is a Cape Floral Kingdom
project. Although there are some species with Cape affinities on the Wild Coast, the Wild Coast is not
considered to be part of the CAPE Action Plan. The Maluti Transfrontier project on the boundary with
Lesotho will also have some indirect relevance, as it may affect the upper catchments of the major Wild
Coast rivers.
UNDP’s Poverty Alleviation programme in South Africa considers the Wild Coast as a high priority area,
and is planning on extending into the Wild Coast. So far, two windows have been identified for this :
one is the Growth and Development Initiative to be funded through UNDP core resources, and the other
is the LIFE Programme which consists of small grants for poverty alleviation administered by UNDP. As
both of these programmes are currenlty in the planning stages, the exact nature of UNDP contribution
12
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
and potential for collaboration with the Wild Coast programme will be identified during the PDF B
process.
13
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
Annexes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Letters of support from government officials
Map of area and country/region [still to come]
References
Organisation chart of the Wild Coast GEF Project [still to come]
List of stakeholders and contact details for the Wild Coast GEF Project
Summary of activities leading up to the submission of the GEF PDF-B Proposal
Lists of endemic species of plants from the Wild Coast
Threats, root causes and activities table.
14
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
ANNEX 3. SELECTED REFERENCES
Briers,J H, Powell,M, Feely,J M & Norton,P M. 1996. Identification and preliminary evaluation of
potential conservation areas along the Pondoland Coast. Unpublished manuscript, Eastern Cape
Nature Conservation.
Cawe,S. 1992. The coastal forests of Transkei. Their history and conservation value. Veld & Flora
78(4):114-117.
Cooper,K H & Swart,W. 1992. Transkei Forest Survey. Wildlife Soc of S.A. Durban.
Davis,S D, Heywood,V H & Hamilton,A C. 1994. Centres of plant diversity. A guide and strategy for
their conservation. Vol.1: Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East. Oxford, U.K.
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 1996. White Paper Development & Promotion of Tourism in
South Africa.
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 1997. White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use
of South Africa’s Biological Diversity
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 1998. National Environmental Management Act (No 107).
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 1998. Marine Living Resources Act.
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. 2000. White Paper for Sustainable Coastal Development in
South Africa.
Dept of Water Affairs & Forestry. 1998. National Water Act (No.36).
Emanuel, B.P., Bustamante, R.H., Branch, G.M., Eekhout, S. and F.J. Odendaal 1992 A zoogeographic
and functional approach to the selection of marine reserves on the west coast of South Africa. S. Afr.
J. mar. Sci. 12: 341-354.
EU Programme of support to the Wild Coast SDI. Overview Document. 7pp.
Fielding,P J, Robertson, W D, Dye,A H,Tomalin,B J, van der Elst,R P, Beckley,L E, Mann,B Q, Birnie,S,
Scleyer,M H & lasiak,T A. 1994. Transkei coastal fisheries resources. Durban: Oceonographic
Research Institute, Special Publication No.3.
Mann,B. 1998. A draft proposal for the establishment of a marine protected area on the southern
KwaZulu-Natal and northern Transkei Coast. Oceanographic Research Institute.
Mann,B (ed). 2000. Status reports of South African marine linefish. Oceonographic Research Institute,
Special Publication No.7.
Nicolson,G., Norton,P.M. & Myles,P. 1996. Wild Coast Strategic Development Initiative: Tourism
Report. Land & Agriculture Policy Centre for Development Bank of S.A. and Dept of Trade and
Industry. 77 pp.
15
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
Nicolson,G., Avis,A.M., Norton,P.M. & Tyrell,H. 1996. Wild Coast Strategic Development Initiative:
Environmental Report. Land & Agriculture Policy Centre for the Development Bank of S.A. and the
Dept of Trade and Industry. 78 pp.
Nicholson,G. 1997. Motivation for the establishment of a Wild Coast National Park. Produced on behalf
of the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa. 52pp.
Province of the Eastern Cape. 2000. Wild Coast Tourism Development Policy. Dept of Economic
Affairs, Environment & Tourism.
Report of the Gold Fields/WWF-SA Port St Johns Participatory Planning Workshop. 1996.
Robertson,W D & Fielding,P J (eds). 1997. Transkei Coastal Fisheries Resources. Phase 2: Resource
utilisation, development and tourism. Oceanographic Research Institute.
Subsistence Fisheries Task Group. 1999.
Management, DEA&T.
A policy for subsistence fishing.
Marine & Coastal
Turpie,J K, Beckley,L E & Katua,S M. 2000. Biogeography of South African coastal ichthyofauna and
the selection of priority areas for conservation. Biological Conservation 92:59-72.
16
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
ANNEX 5: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS AND CONTACT DETAILS FOR THE WILD COAST
GEF PROJECT
Organisation
Name
Designation
Tel
Fax
Manager:WFW
043
7452081
043-721
1003
082
8945281
082
7714486
043
7420360
0437451375
043 721
1006
083
2336860
040
6093200
012-310
3612
012 312
9363
043
6424984
0406092929
040–
6093201
0123103541
012 312
9441
0436424773
Amatola
Water
CIMEC
Mzukisi Bushet
Community
member
DBSA
Gavin Hewson
Julie Clarke
Environmentalist
DEAE&T
Gerry Pienaar
DEAE&T
Graham Taylor
Regional
Manager
(Central Region)
Policy Unit
DEAE&T
Maria
Mbengashe
Julian Sturgeon
Deputy
Permanent Secr
PMU
DEAT
Lindi Jordan
Dept Land
Affairs
DWAF
Margot Pienaar
DWAF, EC
(Forestry)
C Mtoba
DWAF, EC
(Forestry)
Lunga Maswana
DWAF, EC
(Forestry)
Nikki Michell
DWAF/WFW
Ethne Davey
European
Commission
ORI
E U Wild
Coast Project
PondoCrop
Ernst Erasmus
Forestry Scientist
0113133086
0437420365
043 642
5665
082 802
2939
043 642
5665
043 642
5665
083
4637411
043
6045482
Alex o'Riordan
Project Officer
012 460
4319 x 159
012 460
9923
Rudy van der
Elst
Gernot Ott
Dep Director
Eddy Russell
Director
031
3373536
031-2062770
082
031
3322845
0312062368
031
17
w4w@amatolawater.co
.za
lindi@cimec.co.za
hewson@netactive.co.z
a
Juliec@dbsa.org
pienaar@eetrmdc.ecape
.gov.za
Taylrgj@eetmind.ecape
.gov.za
noloyiso@eetmind.ecap
e.gov.za
jsturgeon@ozone.pwv.
gov.za
mpienaar@sghq.pwv.g
ov.za
Forestrykwt@dwaf.eca
pe.gov.za (mark for
attention)
Forestrykwt@dwaf.eca
pe.gov.za (mark for
attention)
Forestrykwt@dwaf.eca
pe.gov.za (mark for
attention)
Micheln@dwaf.ecape.g
ov.za
Assistant
Director,
Scientific
Services
Regional ISD Coordinator
Head, PMU
email
mcgeara@dwaf.ecape.g
ov.za
(mark for attention)
alexander.oriordan@delzaf.cec.eu.i
nt
Seaworld@dbn.lia.net
(mark for attention)
josa@mweb.co.za
Cropeddy@iafrica.com
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
SANP
Guy Castley
Animal Ecologist
Triple Trust
Org
UNITRA
Nobambo Cuba
EU project Coordinator
Dean of Research
UNITRA
(bot)
UNITRA
(Zoology)
Univ. PE
Zoology
Univ. PE
Zoology
Univ. PE
Zoology
WESSA
Elize Cloete
WESSA
Keith Cooper
WWF-SA
Lesley
Richardson
Malta
Qwathekana
Rob Little
WWF-SA
WWF-SA
Arthur Dye
Andre Boshoff
Herbarium
Curatrix
Lecturer and
Research
Research Fellow
Graham Kerley
Director
Richard Cowling
Research Fellow
Avril Wilkinson
Regional
Manager
Director:
Conserv.
Rehema White
EU Project Coordinator
Director:
Conservation
18
9005291
041
5085411
043
7437457
047
5022935
082
9245304
082
2020989
041 504
2844
041 504
2308
041 504
2400
043
7270726
031 201
3126
0218872801
047
5641978
0218872801
2055180
041
5085415
043
7437943
047
5022937
047
5022655
047
5022894
041
5042317
041
5042317
0415042317
043
7270726
031
2019525
0218879517
047
5641920
0218879517
Gcastley@upe.ac.za
ttoeusa@telkomsa.net
Dye@getafix.utr.ac.za
Elize@getafix.utr.ac.za
White@getafix.utr.ac.z
a
zlaafb@zoo.upe.ac.za
zlagik@zoo.upe.ac.za
btarmc@upe.ac.za
Wesav@iafrica.com
wlskzn@saol.com
lrichard@wwfsa.org.za
mqwathek@wwfsa.org.
za
rlittle@wwfsa.org.za
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
ANNEX 6 SUMMARY OF MAIN ACTIVITIES LEADING UP TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE
GEF PDF-B PROPOSAL
22 August 2000: Meeting of interested parties in East London organised by WWF-SA to discuss the
possibility of a GEF Project and form a Reference Group
14 September 2000: Dr Peter Norton of Peter Norton & Associates cc appointed on contract to prepare a
GEF PDF-B Proposal
26-27 September 2000: Norton attended the GEF CAPE Project Conference and Donor’s Workshop to
learn about the GEF Process
26 September 2000: Meeting with Niamir-Fuller, WWF-SA, E Cape DEAE&T to discuss the proposal.
2-6 October 2000: Field trip to Durban, Wild Coast, East London & Port Elizabeth to discuss proposals
with a range of stakeholders. Summary report circulated to Reference Group.
9 October 2000: Meeting with J.Sturgeon of DEA&T Project Management Unit to discuss linking the
GEF Project to the Wild Coast SDI
7 November 2000: Brief presentation to Wild Coast SDI Project Steering Committee
27 November 2000: First draft of project proposal circulated for comment to Reference Group
29-30 November 2000: Attended Wild Coast SDI Workshop, and gave presentation on proposed GEF
Project. Incorporated comments from Reference Group members. Submitted second
draft to Niamir-Fuller.
4 December 2000: Second draft of Proposal circulated to reference group for comment.
19
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
ANNEX 7 LISTS OF ENDEMIC SPECIES OF PLANTS FROM THE WILD COAST
ENDEMIC VASCULAR PLANTS
Umtiza listeriana
Bauhenia bowkerii
Begonia dregei
Brachystelma australe
Streptocarpus johannis
S. primulifolius
S. haygarthii
S. porphyrostachys
S. trabeculosus
Plectranthus malvinus
P. lucidus
P. reflexus
P. praetermissis
P. hilliardii
P. ernstii
P. oertendahlii
P. oribiensis
Impatiens flanaganiae
Jubaeopsis caffra
Apodytes abbottii
Canthium vanwykii
Catha abbottii
Colubrina nicholsonii
Cyphostemma rubroglandulosum
Dahlgrenodendron natalense
Eugenia erythrophylla
E. simii
E. umtamvunensis
E. verdoorniae
E. sp nov A
E sp nov B
E sp nov D
Grewia pondoensis
Gymnosporia bachmanii
G. uniflora
Leucadentron pondoense
Manilkaria nicholsonii
Maytenus abbottii
M oleosa
M vanwykii
Ochna natalitia
Pseudosalacia streyii
Pseudoscolopia polyantha
Putterlickia retrospinosa
Raspalia trigyna
Rinorea domatiosa
Rhus acocksii
Rhynchocalyx lawsonioides
Syzygium pondoense
Teprhosia pondoensis
Tricalysia afrticana
Anthospermum streyi
Aristea platycaulis
Bulbine sp. nov.
Calopsis paniculata
Cassytha pondoensis
Carissa sp. nov.
Crassula streyii
Craterostigma nanum
Delosperma edwardsiae
D. grantiae
D. pallidum
D. stenandrum
D. sp nov.
Erica abbottii
Eriosema umtamvunensis
Eriosemopsis subanisophylla
Euryops leiocarpus
Helichrysum pannosum
H. phpulifolium
Indigofera spp. nov. - several species
Kniphofia drepanophylla
Lampranthus stipulaceus
Leucadendron spissifolium subsp natalense
L. spissifolium subsp. oribinum
Leucospermum innovans
Lopholaena dregeana
Phylica natalensis
Polygala esterae
Psoralea abbottii
Senecio glanuloso-lanosus
S. medley-woodii
Syncolostemon ramulosus
Tephrosia bachmannii
Turraea streyi
Watsonia bachmannii
W. mtamvunae
W.
pondoensis
20
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
ANNEX 8: THREATS, ROOT CAUSES AND ACTIVITIES TABLE
Threats
Root cause
Activities
Outcomes/outputs
Transformation
and overgrazing
of grasslands
Inappropriate forestry
& agricultural
projects
More informed decision-making
Establishment of a formal
Pondoland Conservation Area
Destruction of
forests
Lack of
understanding of
sustainable use
Resource use studies to determine true
value of existing resource use
Develop and disseminate best practices
for agricultural production
Pondoland Conservation Area
feasibility study & planning
Training & capacity building in
sustainable use at nodal resource
centres
Establish community and other forms of
reserves
Develop nurseries
Develop woodlots
Alternative energy source programmes
Community woodlots.
Alternative energies.
Concerted alien removal programmes
Reduced infestation
(Zero infestation in key areas)
Awareness and education programmes
Greater awareness at all levels
Enforcement programme
Development and implementation of
conservation plan
Removal of selected cottages
Nodal development with “wild”
areas in internodes
Cost-benefit analysis of water use and
environmental impact assessment
Land use planning
Planning of estuarine developments
Law enforcement by provincial bodies
Land use planning and
enforcement
Poverty and the lack
of alternative food
sources
Lack of economic
alternatives
Investigate and develop alternatives at
resource centres
Intertidal resources used
sustainably
Tourism development programme
Lack of
understanding of
sustainable use
Inadequate
enforcement
Training & capacity building in
sustainable use at nodal resource
centres
Community policing
Improved living standards
through tourism lead to
decreased dependence on
intertidal resources
Intertidal resources used
sustainably
Spread of
invasive alien
plants
Ribbon
development
along the coast
Estuary
functioning
disturbed or
destroyed
Overuse of
intertidal and
sub-tidal
resources
Commercial demand
for medicinal plants
Demand for building
material and
firewood
Inadequate
eradication
programmes
Lack of awareness of
invasives
Illegal cottages
Inadequate planning
or implementation
of plans
Planned
overextraction of
water for dune
mining
Inappropriate
developments
21
Community and other forms of
reserves
Awareness raised
Best practices disseminated
Reduced pressure on wild stocks
Increased capacity for
community policing
D:\116100736.doc02/12/16
Overfishing of
marine fish
Inadequate control of
fishing licenses
Improve monitoring of catches, and
fishing methods used
Improved compliance
Illegal entry into
coastal waters
Shore based observation (distance
offshore)
More effective sea patrols
Research and monitoring of breeding
Improve management of estuaries
Creation of marine reserves
Better law enforcement reduces
illegal fishing
Interference in
breeding and
recruitment
22
Improved recruitment
Integrity of estuaries assured
Marine reserves lead to
replenishment of fish stocks