UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
PROPOSAL FOR PDF B FUNDING
Country
Focal Area
Strategic Priority
Operational Programme
Project Title
PIMS
Duration
Funding Requested
PDF B
South Africa
Biological Diversity, with relevance to the cross cutting theme of land
degradation
Strategic Priority 1: Catalyzing sustainability for protected area
systems
OP 2: Coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity on The South
African Wild Coast
1767
PDF B
12 months
Full Project
5 Years
US $ 340,000 GEF
US $55 000 from European Union
US $133 000 from DEA&T
US $528,000 Total
Full Project (Estimates)
US $ 15 million - Total
US $ 5- million - GEF
US $ 10 million in co-financing from DEAT, DEAET, DWAF, NRA
Requesting Agency
Executing Agency
Country Eligibility
Block A Grant Awarded
Council Submission
UNDP
Department for Environment and Tourism (DEAT)
South Africa Ratified the CBD in 1997
Not requested Concept Approved (GEF Pipeline May 17: 2001)
November 2004
SUMMARY
1. The Wild Coast, in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province, contains a rich and globally significant
storehouse of biodiversity. Acclaimed for its species richness, habitat diversity and biological
distinctiveness, it has been identified as one of WWF International’s Global 200 Ecoregions of global
significance, and is an important centre of endemism. The region houses several globally important
coastal and marine ecosystems, including mangrove forests and the Maputaland-Pondoland coastal forest.
2. Although South Africa has made great efforts in conserving biodiversity from human induced threats in
recent years, it faces numerous challenges. Many of its globally important habitats are home to poor
communities who rely on natural resources to sustain their livelihoods and further action is needed to
integrate biodiversity conservation efforts into sustainable development initiatives designed to abate
poverty.
3. The proposed project will assess, plan and implement a strategy for conservation and sustainable land
use management of the Wild Coast, which will strengthen the sustainable development initiatives
1
underway in the region whilst at the same time protecting globally important biodiversity. Interventions
will support the development and implementation of an integrated landuse plan for the Wild Coast, aimed
at nesting biodiversity conservation objectives into the regional sustainable development framework. The
land use plan would provide for the management of a mosaic of land uses, focusing on a network of
protected areas as nuclei for biodiversity conservation allowing for the pursuit of conservation compatible
livelihoods, and development zones, managed to mitigate negative environmental externalities. GEF
funding will be drawn upon to finance the incremental costs of operationalising this representative
protected area network, through various co-management arrangements and removing barriers to the
sustainable utilization of biological resources. These activities will be supported by capacity development
initiatives at the provincial, local government and community levels in support of the integrated
programme. Institutional arrangements will be fine-tuned to assure effective delivery of the programme.
An accompanying monitoring and evaluation programme will provide information to facilitate adaptive
management.
4. The project is eligible under the GEF Strategic Priority 1 ‘Catalyzing sustainability for protected area
systems’ and, in particular, the sub activity; ‘to improve opportunities for sustainable use, benefit sharing
and broad stakeholder participation among communities – indigenous groups and private sector’. South
Africa is currently seeking alternative ways to expand the area under its protected area estate as the
traditional purchase of land for the estate from private land owners cannot continue indefinitely. New
approaches are necessary; in particular, there is a need to pursue conservation on communal lands, many
of which are important repositories of biodiversity. However there is a gap in knowledge and readily
demonstrable models to assist this process. This project will be instrumental in providing lessons for
establishing non traditional protected areas on communal lands. Workable and cost effective models for
co-management of such areas will be developed and adapted to this end. Replication will be encouraged
across the protected area network through the distillation and dissemination of best practice and lessons to
conservation authorities and through policy instruments thereby contributing to a strengthened national
system of protected areas.
LINKS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES, ACTION PLANS AND PROGRAMS
5. The Government of South Africa is committed to protecting biodiversity. The Constitution of South
Africa guarantees the right to a healthy environment and environmental protection through conservation,
pollution control and sustainable development. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
(DEAT) published a White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of South Africa’s
Biological Diversity in 1997 and is in the process of developing the National Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy and Action Plan (with funding sourced through GEF/ UNDP). The country has ratified several
international treaties, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar Convention, World
Heritage Convention, and Convention on International Trade with Endangered Species of Flora and
Fauna.
6. The Wild Coast has been identified as a national conservation priority as reflected in the prioritization
framework for GEF investment, prepared by the GEF Operational Focal Point. It is also identified as a
national priority in the Subsistence Fishing Policy. The Pondoland area, at the heart of the Wild Coast, is
identified as a national priority in the Bioregional Approach/Strategy to South Africa’s Protected Areas
which forms part of DEATS’s Environmental Management Plan (Government Gazette no 23232, vol 441,
2002). The project also reflects a number of new policy initiatives, codified through legislative reforms –
i.e: National Environmental Management; Biodiversity and Protected Areas Bills and National
Environment Management Act amendments.
Furthermore, the project specifically addresses the following national policies and programmes:
 National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998)
 Marine Living Resources Act (1998)
2





National Water Act (No.36 of 1998): DWAF is in the process of forming Catchment Management
Agencies that are tasked, among others with developing management strategies for protection,
conservation and control of water resources.
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 has alignment with a number of provincial plans and programmes such as the Sustainable
Coastal Livelihoods Programme and the Eastern Cape Estuaries Management Project. The province is
also in the process of developing provincial environmental legislation which will be of direct relevance.
7. The project is being proposed by the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and
Tourism (DEAET) through the Eastern Cape Tourism Board (ECTB). The Project will seek to integrate
conservation objectives into two sustainable development initiatives in the area: the Wild Coast Spatial
Development Initiative (SDI) and the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP).
The Eastern Cape DEAET established the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) in
conjunction with the National Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism. The SDI is nationally
driven and constitutes one of the mechanisms for engendering poverty alleviation nationally. Under the
SDI a tourism development plan for the Wild Coast has been developed and gazetted by the Eastern Cape
government. This constitutes a zonal plan allowing for different forms of development along the Wild
Coast. The initiative is being assisted by the European Union Support Programme to the Wild Coast SDI.
This is a community-based enterprise programme which aims to improve the livelihoods of disadvantaged
communities within the Wild Coast through the development of tourism based enterprises and services.
The Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme aims to take a well co-ordinated, bottom up
approach to rural local economic development with the objective of ensuring by the year 2010 that rural
areas have attained the internal capacity for integrated and sustainable development. Under the ISRDP
and the Local Municipalities Planning Act, District Municipalities have been made responsible for
producing and implementing Integrated Development Plans (IDP’s). There are two District Municipalities
covering the Wild Coast; O.R. Tambo and Amatola, encompassing a number of local councils. While this
programme will make a considerable contribution to sustainable development it will, however, not
significantly improve biodiversity conservation in the Wild Coast and GEF funding assistance is urgently
required to ensure that biodiversity conservation is mainstreamed into this poverty alleviation mechanism.
PROJECT CONTEXT
Global Significance of Biodiversity
8. The Wild Coast is part of the Eastern Cape Province, which stretches 250Km from the Kei River in the
south, to the Umtamvuna River in the north. The topography of the region is very diverse, consisting of
dunes along the coast, low-lying plains, mountain ranges and series of rugged terraces incised by deep
river valleys. The landscape of the region was shaped by the rifting and break-up of east and west
Gondwanaland and subsequent uplift and erosion cycles. These processes formed the Great Escarpment,
which receded from the coast after the establishment of an effective drainage system. To the South of Port
St. Johns the land is gently undulating, with interspersed forest and grassland, with long sandy beaches
interspersed with rocky points. This region is densely populated, with people living close to the shore.
North of Port St Johns the shores are mostly rocky, with a high platform, incised by larger rivers, and
spectacular waterfalls, created by smaller streams falling straight down to the sea. This coastal platform is
derived from sandstone and is 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.
3
9. The Wild Coast has been identified as one of WWF International’s Global 200 Ecoregions of global
significance. Davis et al. (1974) has identified a Centre of Plant Endemism in the region, known as the
Pondo Land Centre, within the Maputaland-Pondoland Endemic Region, along the sandstone belt north of
Port St Johns. This is a principal centre of plant diversity in Southern Africa and one of only 235 sites on
Earth recognised as being of global importance to floral biodiversity (Davis et al., 1994). Although
limited surveys have been carried out, 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 5). In addition to interesting coastal forests, at least 80 grassland
associated endemics have been recorded (van Wyk 1990). In the Umtamvuna Nature Reserve, only 3,260
ha in extent, more than 1300 vascular plant species have been found; this is approximately the same
number of plant species as the whole of the Kruger National Park, and even the whole of Great Britain.
10. The coastal region consists mainly of grassland with a few isolated forest patches confined chiefly to
protected riverine gorges. Forest patches are more extensive and exposed in the south, particularly on the
Karoo sediments of the Egossa Interval. They are exceptionally rich floristically and different plant
communities are frequently found within single forest stands. Many of these forest areas are heavily
utilized for firewood, medicinal barks and poles for domestic use. The Pondoland Coastal Plateau
Sourveld, the smallest of the 70 veld types distinguished by Acocks (1953) in South Africa, is naturally
floristically very rich, but management practices of the rural population have degraded most of the
grasslands leading to a loss of floristic diversity and an increase in the unpalatable grass Aristida
junciformis.
11. The region supports a rich marine 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 for the 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 endemics. The Wild
Coast is central to their distribution, but recent findings place most of them in the critically overexploited
category (Mann 2000). 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).
12. The Wild Coast is fed by three major catchments (Umzimvubu, Mbashe and Kei Rivers), two
medium-sized 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. 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. 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 area.
Existing Protected Areas
13. Five Nature Reserves already exist in the Wild Coast; Mkambati is situated on the coast of NorthEastern Pondoland forming one of the anchor nodes of the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative. It
covers an area of 7720 ha, bounded 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 and Cwebe Nature Reserves
form another anchor node of the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative and are located on either side
of the estuary of the Mbashe River, and approximately 250 km north-east of East London. Dwesa Nature
Reserve is approximately 3500 ha in extent and Cwebe 2200 ha. Hluleka Nature Reserve, located
4
approximately 45 kms. south of Port St. Johns, also forms an anchor project area for the Wild Coast SDI.
It has a terrestrial area of 400 hectares. Silaka Nature Reserve is located approximately 4km south of Port
St. Johns and is 336 hectares in extent. These reserves, whilst offering some protection to biodiversity,
are still under threat and efforts are necessary to improve their management effectiveness by involving
local communities. Further details of these Nature Reserves are provided in Annex 2.
Threats to Biodiversity
14. This area has long been known as the “Wild Coast” because of its rugged, undeveloped nature and the
stormy seas that lash the shores. However a number of threats exist, their magnitude and determinants
varying greatly from area to area, and are undermining this wilderness area. The main threats are:
Inappropriate Development
15. Much of the area was designated an “independent Bantu homeland” - the Transkei— during the
Apartheid era. Lying at the periphery of economic development, it was characterized by widespread
poverty. The ecological integrity of several areas was pressured, as communities turned to the natural
resource base to satisfy their income generation and subsistence needs, but without compensating
management. As a result, some shellfish, plants and game animals were locally extirpated in certain areas.
Additionally, certain shellfish were utilised commercially, using permits 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 few of the benefits derived from this harvest were enjoyed by resident
communities.
16. In the post Apartheid period, several development schemes have been promoted as a means of
tackling poverty and creating employment. In many instances, the environmental externalities have not
been properly accommodated. For example, substantial deposits of heavy metals have been found at two
sites (Xolobeni and Wavecrest), and dune mining is being considered. This would effectively destroy
several estuaries. Elsewhere a proposed commercial blue gum plantation on the Pondoland coast would
destroy existing grassland causing the loss of numerous natural resources that sustain people’s
livelihoods. Whether the economic benefits of the plantation will replace these losses has not been
assessed.
17. A number of people have recently 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. Such ‘adhoc’
developments need to be put in check and a land use planning exercise is critical to prevent habitat
deterioration.
Habitat Loss
18. Transformation and overgrazing of grasslands as a result of inappropriate forestry and agricultural
projects is threatening important habitats. Conservation objectives will need to be nested within
agricultural sector strategies with sustained investments in integrated land management and programmatic
coordination.
Overuse harvesting of wild resources
19. Many poor people throughout the world have little other option but to exploit natural resources to
sustain their livelihoods. This area is no exception and poverty and the lack of alternative food sources is
leading to overuse of intertidal and sub-tidal resources. It is critical that any biodiversity conservation
measures link closely to sustainable development programmes that create realistic livelihood alternatives
5
for people living there. These threats are compounded at a larger scale by inadequate control of fishing
licenses and illegal entry into coastal waters, having a detrimental effect on existing marine fish stock.
Invasive Species
20. Very little is known of the extent of invasions along the Wild Coast, but sites such as Port St Johns
already show extensive collonisation of triffid weed (Chromolaena Odorata) and Barbados gooseberry
(Pereskia aculeata). 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
control and eradication feasible, within many of the region’s coastal catchments and conservation areas.
However, while a number of national control efforts are underway, these need to be focused specifically
to address hotspots, and systematically integrated with biodiversity conservation strategies and field
programmes.
Overgrazing
21. 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. A few specific areas such as the red sands of the Mzamba area are however affected. 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 a serious problem in localised areas along the coast and in the
upper catchments of the major rivers far from the coast.
22. A wide range of root causes, identified below, will have to be addressed to secure the biodiversity in
the region.
a) Poverty: the former Transkei has been identified as one of the poorest parts of South Africa. 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. Subsequently the local communities became increasingly
dependent on migrant labour to the mines and cities, social pensions and local natural resources to support
their livelihoods such as poles and vines for hut-building and cattle kraals, medicinal plants, and shellfish
for protein. In the absence of compensating management many of these resources have been biologically
over-utilised.
b) Barriers to sustainable utilization: a number of natural resources are currently being utilized
indiscriminately with no long term management vision or programme geared to assuring environmental
sustainability.
c) Absence of an overall coordinated conservation strategy for the Wild Coast linked to the ISRDP: a
holistic approach to development, codified in an integrated plan that encompasses environmental
sustainability issues is necessary for the Wild Coast if resources are to be utilized sustainably in the long
term.In this context, there is a risk that development activities designed to address poverty and create
livelihoods could have negative environmental affects, compromising conservation values in the process.
d)Institutional capacity weaknesses for the regulatory enforcement and management of resources by
provincial, local authorities and communities: authorities lack expertise, capacity and basic resources
such as communication and transport, and have therefore struggled to enforce existing regulations in the
area.
Annex 6 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.
6
Stakeholders
23. The main stakeholders involved in the Wild Coast are identified in the matrix below:
Stakeholder
Functions
Department of Economic
Affairs, Environment and
Tourism
(Eastern
Cape
Province)
Eastern Cape Tourism Board
Perform functions on behalf of DEAT and Department of Water Affairs & Forestry for
enforcement of national legislation including for marine areas, discharge regulatory
and operational obligations under provincial legislation including the management of
provincial protected areas
A statutory body under the jurisdiction of the Department of Economic Affairs,
Environment and Tourism; responsible for the promotion and management of tourism
operations inside public owned and managed land
Responsible for environmental policy, legislation and general oversight of
environmental affairs. Marine & Coastal Management, a Branch within DEAT, is
responsible for policy, functions and regulatory oversight of coastal marine resources,
this includes licensing the harvesting of fisheries and sedentary marine resources
Statutory responsibilities for watersheds and forestry management, policy planning and
monitoring and approval of permits for development on forestry land in the public
estate
Holds land in trust for local communities and is responsible for approving any changes
in land use on communal lands
The province is in the process of establishing a provincial parks authority for the
management of the conservation function in the Eastern Cape. This authority will be a
critical stakeholder in the project
Represented through local government, local civil society structures, traditional
leadership
Department
Environmental Affairs
Tourism (DEAT)
of
&
Department of Water Affairs
& Forestry
Department of Land Affairs
Provincial Parks authority
Local communities
National and international
NGO’s
Research institutions
These include WWF, Pondocrop, Amatola Water, Oceanographic Research Institute,
Wildlife and Environment Society of Southern Africa; undertake a number of small
conservation activities and research including environmental education
These include the University of Port Elizabeth, the University of Transkei, Agricultural
Research Council
These stakeholders will be involved fully in designing the project interventions.
BASELINE SITUATION
24. The default scenario, in the absence of support from GEF, is described below. While South Africa’s
investment in its protected area system is significant and will continue, limitations in resources means that
purchase of private lands for conservation activities within a ‘public’ protected area estate cannot
continue indefinitely and alternative mechanisms are necessary. Furthermore, there is a high unmet need
to address conservation and sustainable use objectives on communal lands (where levels of biodiversity
are high but pressures such as those identified above are significant). The conjunction of the pressures
described above, if left unchecked, will continue to undermine the ecological integrity of the Wild Coast,
thus threatening its high global conservation values. Support is urgently needed to help plan and
implement a strategy for conservation management of the Wild Coast, founded on the establishment of
non-traditional protected areas under co-management with communities, and integrated within the
country’s sustainable development framework. These needs mark out an entry point for GEF intervention.
i) Sustainable Development: The Wild Coast is recognised as a national development priority as a result
of its high extant poverty levels and unrealized tourism potential. The Spatial Development Initiative and
the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme aim to address these issues to some extent but
they do not, explicitly, further the conservation management agenda. It is essential – to protect the unique
7
conservation values of the Wild Coast – that sustainable use objectives for biodiversity are addressed and
that biodiversity conservation is mainstreamed into the poverty alleviation and rural development agenda.
ii) Sustainable Tourism: The European Union Support Programme to the SDI aims “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 underway.
This includes the establishment of 3-4 multi-purpose centres to promote sustainable tourism and
seventeen community trusts. Through these trusts a number of management cooperation agreements are
being formed between the local community and relevant authorities. GEF support is urgently required to
support the environmental sustainability elements of the EU support programme, in particular the
cooperation agreements and to link this initiative to biodiversity conservation efforts, both to ensure that
the ecological footprint from tourism is minimized, and to ensure that benefits are tied to conservation.
iii) Conservation: 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 available
in 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. Without a coordinated effort to
strengthen institutional management capacities, effective biodiversity conservation will not be possible.
25. Two national departments, the Marine & Coastal Management component of the Department of
Environmental Affairs & Tourism, and the Department of Water Affairs & Forestry are also active in the
region, but they have only limited jurisdiction outside of the landscapes under their immediate control: the
immediate coastal and marine zone and forests respectively. Institutional coordination remains very weak.
26. 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. It is important that these initiatives be coordinated, under the aegis of a long term plan.
27. The baseline or business-as-usual scenario is that biodiversity of global and local significance will
continue to degrade due to increasing pressures from the subsistence needs of local communities who
have few other livelihood alternatives other than the use 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 could lead local authorities to
make land use decisions that are contrary to sustainable development principles. Although the SDI and
local IDP’s are expected to redress this threat to some degree, they will not necessarily focus on
biodiversity conservation and sustainable harvesting issues. In addition, the SDI and IDP’s will not have
enough capacity to fully establish and assure the functioning of new conservation areas (e.g. 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 conservation planning, implementation and monitoring.
PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
GEF Alternative
8
28. The long term goal of the full GEF project is: ‘a coherent, comprehensive, integrated management
framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development is installed for the Wild Coast’.
29. To achieve this goal the project aims to take an integrated approach to ensuring conservation and
sustainable use of globally significant biodiversity on the Wild Coast, through the development and
dissemination of best management practices. Interventions will focus on the development of a network of
protected areas, with associated buffers and corridors, under various co-management regimes with local
communities, promotion of sustainable tourism development as an alternative option for economic
development, removal of invasive aliens and institutional capacity building at local and provincial levels.
Baseline development activities will be progressively adapted, within the construct of a cohesive land use
plan, to accommodate conservation objectives Collectively, these interventions will ‘green’ planned
national SDI/ISRDP activities on the Wild Coast, thus ensuring cost-effectiveness and sustainability.
30. The project is a partnership between the local governments (through the ISRDP’s), Wild Coast SDI
(combining several Provincial and National Government Departments), the EU Support Programme, and
the GEF, through UNDP with collaboration of NGOs and academic institutions 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 and legislative reform etc.),
while the GEF increment will be used to remove threats to globally significant biodiversity in selected hot
spots; to demonstrate best practices for local level community based biodiversity conservation in
protected areas through various comanagement regimes, including public private partnerships; 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 functioning of existing
institutions. The incremental costs to be financed by the GEF increment will be determined during project
preparation.
31. Based on the consultations carried out to date (see Annex 4), the following activities have been
identified1.
Provincial and Local Conservation Capacity- and Institution-Building Programme.
This component will build capacity at provincial and local levels for sustained conservation of
biodiversity and natural resources in the Wild Coast. Activities in this component will focus upon
developing the capacity of local communities to optimize their involvement in conservation activities.

i) Establishment of an institutional regime for co-management; Effective management of biodiversity on
the Wild Coast, including the enforcement of regulations on the use of terrestrial and marine
resources, and ensuring all developments are sustainable, will require the cooperation of all
stakeholders and mechanisms will be sought to establish an effective framework of co-management
with a strong focus on community involvement. Efforts will be made to ensure programmatic
integration of mechanisms established to manage the Spatial Development Initiative and Integrated
Development Plans with biodiversity management.
ii. Supporting environment for institutions established: The full project will ensure that the comanagement regime is properly empowered by legislation, and has adequate expertise and resources
to carry out the various tasks effectively and well beyond the project lifetime.

Land Use Planning Strategy for the Wild Coast.
1
This list is subject to change, following the outcomes of further planning and stakeholder engagement in the PDF
B phase. Activities will however directly address threats to globally significant biodiversity in the Wild Coast.
9
An overall flexible, strategic and systematic land use planning framework that complements the
Spatial Development Initiative, Integrated Development Plans and existing Tourism Develop Plan
will be developed, to advance biodiversity conservation goals bio-regionally. This will be achieved in
a highly participatory manner involving key stakeholders and, in particular, the local communities.
On-going sustainable development initiatives will be re-geared, as needed to operationalise the Plan.
Protected Area Programme
i) Protected area establishment: A strategic assessment of the conservation status and needs of specific
areas will be undertaken during project preparation leading to the identification and establishment of
a mosaic of protected areas with various types of co-management structures during the
implementation phase. The feasibility of establishing a large integrated conservation area with several
core Protected Areas and connecting corridors and buffer zones along the Wild Coast from south of
Port St Johns to the north (which has already been identified as a priority area) will be investigated in
the PDF B phase. The conservation area would include sections of the Pondoland Centre of Plant
Endemism and coastal terrain and coastal/ marine seascapes that would act as a breeding ground for
the replenishment of fish stocks.
ii) Protected Area Operations: Generic activities in the conservation strategy would include: surveys,
zoning and planning; mapping and eradication of alien plants; a focus upon the facilitation of
community participation in conservation management, stakeholder liaison; development of revenue
sharing arrangements; environmental education; protected area co-management infrastructure
development and capacity building; mechanisms for enforcing regulations and working with DEAT
Tourism Section (national), DEEAT (Provincial), the Eastern Cape Tourism Board (ECTB) and the
Provincial Eastern Cape Development Corporation to facilitate tourism investment in the PAs and
buffer zones that would generate sufficient returns to place conservation interventions on a financially
sustainable footing. Opportunities for public private partnerships will be actively pursued and
activities to overcome existing barriers to such initiatives will be undertaken.


Sustainable Resource Use Programme.
i)
Develop and disseminate best practice: The community facilitation activities of the EU Programme
are in the process of establishing three resource use centres in the Wild Coast. The GEF increment
will assist the communities around these centres 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 co-management 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 support
removal of alien invasive plants. The Resource Centres will also leverage co-funding from various
sources; serve as a base for promoting 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.
ii) Awareness raising and Empowerment The Resource Centres will provide a 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 community
members.
10

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 Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry.
i)
Establishment of the baseline: Initial conditions (baseline) will be established that will be used later
to assess the impact of the project. This 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. Indicators
will be developed in the PDF B phase and adapted if necessary. In addition to measuring this
project’s performance, indicators will be designed to inform the progress of the project’s contribution
to meeting the targets of Strategic Priority 1 (as identified in the paper presented to the GEF Council
‘Emerging directions in biodiversity under GEF 3).
ii)
Adaptive management: Capacity will be established 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.

Replication strategy
The replication component will focus upon disseminating important lessons learnt and best practice in
the integration of conservation objectives into regional and local development plans such as the
Spatial Development Initiative and Integrated Rural Development Plans. Models of non traditional
protected areas under various co-management regimes will be trialed and tested in the project and will
serve as useful pilots for replication in other similar socio-economic landscapes.
PDF B activities (see component 3 below) will aim to identify activities within the replication
strategy but these are likely to focus upon;
i)
Policy strengthening to facilitate co-management of non-traditional protected areas.
ii)
Workshops to capture and share lessons with other Integrated Rural Development Initiatives
in other areas.
iii)
Exchange visits of local government staff and other key individuals from other similar socioeconomic areas, where similar activities contributing to conservation and poverty alleviation
objectives can be pursued, to the Wild Coast project.
iv)
Exchange visits for champions from local communities in other areas to learn from activities
in the Wild Coast project.
v)
Articles from of lessons learnt to be published in key journals and magazines.
vi)
Promotion video to disseminate lessons learnt.
vii)
Participation of project staff in key workshops or conferences.
Linkages to other GEF financed Projects in South Africa
32. 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 focused 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 Project will further liase closely
with the Greater Addo Elephant National Park Project. While Addo National Park is located some 300
kilometers from the Wild Coast, it is located in the Eastern Cape, and potential synergies could be
11
leveraged with respect to capacity development interventions. Mechanisms for cooperation will be
formalized during preparation
33. Other projects in South Africa may also be of relevance to this project. For example, the World Bank/
UNDP GEF project “CAPE Action for People and 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 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.
Linkages to UNDP Programmes in South Africa
34. UNDP’s Country Cooperation Framework in South Africa focuses on the poorest Provinces, one of
which is the Eastern Cape. The proposed project has key linkages with two of the Programme areas;
Integrated Sustainable Rural Development and Environment and Development. The UNDP Poverty
Alleviation programme is planning on extending into the Wild Coast. The exact nature of this
contribution and potential for collaboration with this programme will be identified during the PDF B
stage. The Eastern Cape has requested support from UNDP for the monitoring and implementation of the
Poverty Relief Fund to reverse its under-delivery. This will qualify as important co-financing for the
project. With UNDP’s assistance an integrated development framework will be developed for the Eastern
Cape Province in partnership with the Premier’s office, Eastern Cape Socio-economic Consultative
Council, the Eastern Cape Development Corporation and other partners. The Project’s activities will fit
within this framework and will be critical to the development in the region. UNDP is currently
implementing a L.I.F.E. (Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment) project in the Eastern Cape
area, which was launched in 1999. LIFE uses urban environmental-small scale projects to promote
dialogue at local level amongst and between stakeholders, the community at large and local authorities in
an effort to promote public-public partnerships. The main objectives are: (i) to demonstrate local solutions
to urban environment problems; (ii) to strengthen institutional capacities and collaboration through smallscale projects involving NGOs, CBOs and local authorities; (iii) to facilitate policy dialogue at grassroots
level and scaling up based on local initiatives through national and local consultations involving NGOs,
CBOs and local authorities; and (iv) to promote the exchange and replication of successful approaches
and innovations.This project will build upon the experience gained in the LIFE project in the development
of partnerships and broad-scale stakeholder consultation and participation in decision making processes.
Sustainability and Potential for Replication
35. 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 Wild Coast Conservation Area (WCCA) as a prime tourism destination.
Entrance fees and commission paid by tourism concessionaires should go a long way towards covering
the operational costs of the terrestrial component 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 reviewed during project preparation. 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 arrangements with local communities will also have to be factored into this.
36. The Marine and Coastal Management branch of DEAT 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 first phase of the GEF project to ensure continuity of successful results.
12
37. 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.
38. The regulatory functions of the institutional regimes established for co-management of resources can
be funded from the provincial budgets, specific funds such as the Marine Living Resources Fund and/or
the national budget. The project will investigate how best to design this framework to ensure optimal
long-term financial and institutional sustainability.
39. 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 final design recommendations.
40. 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 other conservation initiatives, particularly
those focusing in similar social and economic landscapes, throughout South Africa. The various
comanaged non-traditional protected areas will serve as pilots, trialed and tested in the project, providing
valuable models for replication in comparable situations throughout South Africa.
41. 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, particularly in communal lands, 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 rural development banks
for example) to replicate them.
42. This project offers a unique demonstration opportunity to illustrate how biodiversity conservation and
in particular protected area management can be integrated within regional and local development plans
such as the Spatial Development Initiative and Integrated Development Plans. It will act as a pilot model
for replication in other such sustainable development initiatives around the country, operating in similar
socio-economic landscapes, thereby helping to mainstream biodiversity conservation activities into the
national poverty alleviation agenda.
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROPOSED PDF B ACTIVITES AND OUTPUTS
43. The PDF B grant and associated co-financing will finance activities required to prepare the full
Project, to scope out capacity strengthening activities and to develop a proposal and ancillary
documentation for submission to GEF. The PDF phase will emphasis a process of stakeholder
participation. These activities will be scheduled over 12 months. The PDF B will have the following
components.
Component 1: Institutional analysis.
This component will analyse the roles and responsibilities of different institutions involved in the dual
arenas of development and environmental management. It will identify mechanisms for assuring
meaningful community leadership in conservation activities. Furthermore it will assess the strengths and
weaknesses and identify capacity gaps that need to be strengthened to ensure resources can be sustainably
managed on the Wild Coast. This will include assessing the institutional structures needed to
operationalise the various proposed co-management models for resource use and assure close
13
programmatic integration with the SDI/ ISRDP.
Deliverables:
1] Institutional Participation plan detailing the different institutions, strengths and weaknesses, role in
management of the Wild Coast, and protected areas in particular, and potential role and responsibilities
in project design and implementation.
2] An Institutional Development Plan to identify and develop consensus on a strategy to develop an
institutional regime, including clarifying roles and responsibilities, for co-management of biological
resources on the Wild Coast. This regime will complement existing mechanisms established for
sustainable development activities with the aim of strengthening resource management capacities in an
integrated, holistic manner. Activities necessary to build the capacity of institutions and local
communities to manage the resources on the Wild Coast and for the provision of a supporting enabling
environment will be identified.
Consultant: Institutional analyst
Component 2: Gaps analysis for information planning
This will include: identification of the distribution, status, value and general threats to the biodiversity and
natural resources of the Wild Coast; gap analysis of existing information and GIS-based synthesis of
ecological and land-use information in a format compatible with provincial planning GIS. The overall
objective will be the development of a Framework for the Conservation Strategy for the Wild Coast
(broad goals and vision, recommended actions). This will include the identification of potential
conservation areas and the development of a range of types of conservation area models with various
community based comanagement regimes. This work will be done in conjunction with key stakeholders,
and based on identified threats to globally significant biodiversity.
Deliverables: 1] A GIS-based decision-making data base for conservation and land use planning; 2] report
detailing other potential conservation areas and conservation area models 3] Framework for the Wild
Coast Conservation Strategy, including selected sites and Pondoland Conservation Area
Consultants: Conservation Planning specialist with assistance from a biologist
Component 3: Options Analysis for Protected Areas.
This component will assess the feasibility of consolidated conservation areas on the Wild Coast and carry
out the initial planning process. This will include an analysis of all relevant plans and policies to
determine consistency with conservation values, validity in changing circumstances, gaps and barriers to
implementation. Activities will identify opportunities for mainstreaming conservation considerations into
planning, building on going efforts. A strategy for replication of best practice will be developed to ensure
that valuable lessons learnt are actively disseminated and inform similar initiatives elsewhere in the
country.
Deliverables: 1] Policy analysis and gaps assessment 2] Recommendations for policy strengthening 3] A
plan for conservation areas on the Wild Coast 4] Strategy for replication of best practice.
Consultants: Legal analyst
Component 4: Management Options Analysis
Management options for protected areas will be investigated with the objective of designing abatement
measures to combat threats to biodiversity, catalyzing a paradigm shift from unsustainable to sustainable
uses and creating positive conservation incentives. This will be achieved by carrying out a threat analysis
at identified sites to examine the present and potential scale of natural resource use and threats to
biological diversity and an assessment of underlying social, economic and institutional root causes. An
accompanying sustainable use assessment which will also include an economic and environmental
14
analysis of various land-use options (e.g. tourism, fisheries, grazing etc). A Resource Economist will
review the financial returns derived from various land uses, drawing on existing financial information
prepared by the Wild Coast SDI, Pondocrop and others. The costs and benefits associated with adapting
land/natural resource uses in identified PA sites to ensure conservation compatibility will be evaluated.
Further, an environmental assessment will evaluate the environmental impacts of land/ natural resource
use, and identify the key environmental management fundamentals that will need to be addressed in
effecting a paradigm shift from unsustainable to sustainable use. The biological, social, institutional and
related factors that act as barriers to sustainable use will be identified. Recommendations will be provided
on a strategy and specific measures for ensuring sustainability by removing these barriers under the full
project. A scoping exercise will be carried out for the establishment of resource use centres that will assist
the communities to use their resources sustainably. Opportunities for private sector involvement in
conservation activities through public-private partnerships will be sought and barriers to their
establishment identified. Project activities in the full project will be recommended to remove these
barriers to facilitate these innovative comanagement regimes.
Deliverables
1] Detailed report for each site documenting the outcomes from the sustainable use analysis and threat
analysis assessment
2] Report on the options for the establishment of resource centres.
3] Recommendations of management options for each project site, to include various comanagement
initiatives
4] Recommendations for barrier removal activities to facilitate public-private partnerships
Consultants: Conservation Manager and Associate Expert, Resource Economist
Component 5: Participatory Social Feasibility Assessment and Community Dialogue
PDF funds would be used to undertake consultations with local and national stakeholders, with an
emphasis on local communities. This component aims to facilitate local community participation at all
stages throughout the project and to ensure support for project activities. GEF funding will be incremental
to the EU Support Programme’s capacity building measures for community participation and comanagement of state/communal areas. The 17 Community Trusts established under this programme will
provide a useful mechanism for gaining support among the local community. The GEF contribution will
focus on community participation and capacity building in and around identified protected areas.
Discussions will centre on stakeholder perceptions of biodiversity conservation and Protected Areas and
development needs and will provide a forum for clarifying project objectives and conservation strategies.
A socio-economic assessment will be carried out to identify key stakeholders and their interests,
priorities, associated impacts on resource use and perceptions of the different groups. It will document
constraints, challenges and opportunities for conservation from a social perspective. This assessment will
draw upon the extensive work that has previously been carried out by Pondocrop, the sustainable
livelihoods on the coast project (Marine and Coastal Management. DEAT) and others. Consultants will
draw together existing information and identify the gaps. Mechanisms to ensure stakeholder participation
in project activities will be identified and a public participation plan prepared defining how primary and
secondary stakeholders will participate in project planning, implementation and monitoring. Community
engagement will be one of the objectives of Phase 1 but PDF activities will initiate engagement through a
carefully managed process of community entry. A team of experienced community facilitators, trained in
community engagement methods, will implement community entry activities. Methods to be followed
include participation workshops, social dynamics studies, and study tours for key community leaders.
Deliverables: 1] Detailed Social Feasibility Assessment with clear description of community participation
workshops, to document the consultative process and awareness raised, outline and description of
stakeholders, with social data and analyses
15
2] Public Participation Plan identifying the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders during
project implementation.
Consultants: Rural Sociologist and Community Outreach Team
Component 6: Invasive aliens eradication programme:
This component, carried out by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), will evaluate the threat posed
by alien plants at a landscape level with a focus on the coastal catchments of the area. This analysis will
be used to draw up a draft strategy for the control of alien plants on the Wild Coast, to ensure that national
control efforts are focused on ‘hot-spots’, and are geared to address biodiversity conservation objectives.
Deliverables: Strategy for the control of alien plants on the Wild Coast.
Consultants: ARC team
Component 7: Development of Full Project Brief and Project Document.
This project will be developed in consultation with all the stakeholders in the Wild Coast. The Delphi
approach will provide the forum for development of the project proposal. The community outreach teams
and institutions specialist will regularly report views and interests of all stakeholders to the Project
Coordinator subsequently informing on project design and rationale. The Project Coordinator will be
responsible for synthesizing this information into a Full Project Brief following appropriate GEF
guidelines for logical framework, incremental costs, with particular effort placed on a monitoring and
evaluation plan. A Donor conference will be organized to identify and leverage co-financing for the Full
Project.
Deliverables: Co-financing will be identified to secure the sustainable development baseline. A consensus
regarding the project strategy will have been obtained. The main body of the Brief will clearly present the
following information:
Project Background
 A summary of the global significance and unique biological and ecological attributes of the Wild Coast,
and the global benefits that will accrue from conservation intervention
 Details of the ecological, social and economic attributes of the Wild Coast
Baseline Description
 A description of the threats facing the project sites and their root causes
 An account of the realistic baseline (this comprises activities in the arena of coastal and marine
management, that will occur irrespective of GEF inputs, that have a bearing on the resolution of threats)
Alternative
 Overview of goals and objectives and general strategies;
 Description of outputs and activities for mitigating threats and their underlying causes;
 Measures for assuring sustainability;
 GEF eligibility;
 Links with other GEF activities and with the UNDP Country Program;
 Risks matrix – assessment of the risks affecting project implementation and outline of mitigation
measures;
 Institutional arrangements for project implementation, with an accompanying organogram;
 Incremental Cost summary and output budget - identification and justification of the incremental
cost of activities needed to generate global conservation benefits, over and above the sustainable
development baseline;
16
Monitoring and Evaluation
 Overview of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan;
 Lessons learned
The following annexes will be attached to the Brief:











Details of the global significance and biodiversity values of each of the chosen sites, to supplement
information provided in the main body of the Brief
Socio-economic analysis
Framework for the Conservation Strategy for the Wild Coast
Logical Framework Assessment, with quantifiable indicators to measure impact, a list of sources of
verification, and an outline of the assumptions and risks that underpin the project
Incremental Cost Assessment describing global and domestic benefits, and justifying incremental costs
for each output
Assessment of the risks affecting project implementation and outline of mitigation measures
Stakeholder participation plan; summary of the Institutional Analysis and Social Feasibility Study,
defining the roles and responsibilities of different groups in design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation
Detailed Project Budget in agreed UNDP format
Maps of the project area (province and sites)
Terms of Reference for consultants and sub-contractors to be employed under the full project.
List of reference materials
Consultant: Project Coordinator with assistance from the Project Development Specialist
Component 8: Development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan:
Impact and output indicators will be selected, and baseline data obtained as a basis for measuring project
outcomes. Indicators will focus upon measuring both environmental and social impacts and will, for
example, include; management effectiveness against baseline scenarios, number of protected areas and
total hectares, number of replication situations directly emerging from the project, capacity development
of indigenous and local communities and benefits to livelihoods. In addition to being critical to informing
the project progress indicators will be designed to inform the performance of the GEF projects under
Strategic Priority 1. A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be developed, clearly articulating the
objectives of monitoring, and specifying the periodicity of monitoring and evaluation activities and how
they will be orchestrated.
Deliverables: 1] Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, with clear performance indicators
Consultant: Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist
OUTPUTS OF THE PDF B
44. The main output of the PDF Phase would be a complete and comprehensive GEF Project Brief, with
Logical Framework, Incremental Cost Analysis etc, that would describe in detail the range of measures
that need to be implemented in order to secure the biodiversity of the Wild Coast for the national and
global benefits. An accompanying Financial Plan will propose how these activities should be financed.
Incremental Costs
45. A clear separation would be made between activities that generate mainly domestic benefits and those
that generate global benefits and which would not ordinarily be undertaken without GEF intervention. In
estimating incremental costs, a distinction would be made between the realistic baseline— activities that
17
would be funded irrespective of GEF involvement— and the sustainable development baseline,
comprising new and additional activities that may be justified in the national self interest, and which
would be funded by non GEF sources. Most of the activities proposed for GEF financing are
complementary rather than substitutional in nature, adding to rather than modifying the baseline.
ELIGIBILITY
National Priorities
46. South Africa ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in February 1997. The proposed project
will fulfill a number of the objectives of the Convention, including the in situ conservation of biodiversity
and the enhancement of national capacities to manage natural ecosystems. The project is consistent with
the GEF Medium Term Strategy, endorsed by DEAT and circulated to the SA cabinet as an information
paper, which identifies biodiversity conservation of the Wild Coast as a high national priority. Further,
the project is fully consistent with national policies and strategies to protect biodiversity and is strongly
supported by the South African authorities. In particular, it spearheads priority actions outlined in the
White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity (1997).
GEF Strategic Priorities
47. South Africa is currently seeking to expand the area under its protected area estate so as to include a
bio-geographically representative sample of natural ecosystems. Historically, the State has sought to
expand the protected area estate through the purchase of lands from private landholders. While this effort
continues, the Government is seeking new mechanisms for incorporating land into the protected area
estate, recognizing that constraints on the public purse will prevent an optimal amount of land being
secured in this manner. A number of new approaches are being trialed to formalize protected areas on
private lands under various co-management systems. These include Management Agreements and
Contractual Parks. These arrangements are being supported under several other GEF projects, including
in Addo National Park, Agulhas National Park, and reserves in the CAPE Floral Kingdom and Succulent
Karoo biomes. The Government has underscored the urgent need to expand and adapt these mechanisms
to facilitate conservation in communal lands. The objective is to expand opportunities for conserving
biodiversity in these areas whilst providing benefits to local people and especially, alleviating poverty.
Given the high social and cultural heterogeneity evident in the country, a number of different approaches
are needed to accommodate different historical circumstances and social and economic landscapes.
48. Many of South Africa’s ex homelands are important storehouses of biodiversity. National policies and
programmes in these areas focus upon rural development and poverty alleviation, mainly through the
vehicle of IRDPs. Given their conservation significance, there is a need to reconcile biodiversity
conservation and rural development agendas in these areas, anchored through the development of
protected areas on communal lands, managed by communities with support from protected area
management authorities. The development of community managed protected areas is currently in its
infancy in South Africa and, whilst the legislation allows for such initiatives, there is a gap in knowledge
and readily demonstrable models to facilitate conservation through this means. This project will be
instrumental in providing workable and cost-effective models for informing evolving Government policy
and strategies as protected area authorities seek to consolidate and expand the protected area system.
Based in the ex Transkei homelands, the project will be instrumental in providing lessons for similar
initiatives in other ex-homeland areas and other areas, where opportunities for establishing PAs on
communal lands are greatest. It will provide proven mechanisms for adapting IRDP’s, to ensure their
congruency with conservation objectives. Opportunities for operationalising effective public-private
partnerships will be actively pursued and barrier removal activities undertaken to facilitate this process.
Accordingly, the project fits squarely with the first strategic priority in the new emerging directions in the
Biodiversity Focal Area of GEF; catalyzing sustainability for protected area systems and, in particular,
18
the sub activity; ‘to improve opportunities for sustainable use, benefit sharing and broad stakeholder
participation among communities – indigenous groups and the private sector’. Replication will be
encouraged across the protected area network through the distillation and dissemination of best practice
and lessons to conservation authorities and through policy instruments.
49. Beyond the afore-mentioned immediate objective, the project will have several outcomes that are
compatible with those expected under Strategic Priority 1. It will develop a mosaic of protected areas in
the Wild Coast, connecting corridors and buffer zones under suitable co-management structures involving
the communities, conservation authorities, other government agencies and the private sector.
Accordingly, it will contribute directly to the expansion of the national conservation estate in a recognized
hotspot. By emphasizing community participation, developing sustainable use and benefit sharing
schemes and attracting private sector investment, the project will make a significant contribution towards
improving management effectiveness within the PA system. Activities will provide for the necessary
capacity building, at the systemic, institutional and individual levels, to assure long term sustainability.
50. In addition to fitting within Strategic Priority 1 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). The project is consistent with activities under
Operational Programme 2 coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems, covering the incremental costs of
measures required to secure global conservation benefits. The project will have the dual purpose of
conserving endemic species in protected areas, and promoting sustainable use regimes and land use
planning for improved livelihoods and poverty alleviation.
51. 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. It therefore also
addresses the 1999 GEF Action Plan for Land Degradation, as well as CBD COP 5 guidance focusing on
Drylands.
NATIONAL LEVEL SUPPORT
52. There has been substantial government support for this GEF Project at both the national and
provincial levels (see Annex 4). The concept has been strongly supported by the Department of
Environment Affairs & Tourism Project Management Unit, which is managing the Wild Coast SDI, and
incorporation into the SDI has been supported by both the SDI Project Steering Committee and a Wild
Coast SDI Strategic Planning Workshop with a range of stakeholders. Financial support has been
committed and DEA&T will fund the Pondoland Conservation Area feasibility study and the EU
Programme will fund facilitation of community co-management of state/communal areas, stakeholder
workshops and the establishment of multi-use centres, as well as training and capacity building.
JUSTIFICATION FOR PDF B GRANT
53. The prospects for success of the full project rest to a large extent upon the thoroughness of design
work undertaken at the preparatory stage. The Wild Coast faces a range of complex conservation issues
and there are a number of significant information gaps which hamper targeted conservation intervention.
These information gaps need to be addressed to build up a picture of the current baseline to inform project
design. Data on threats needs to be consolidated and verified, and a strategy finalized regarding the modus
operandi for ensuring biodiversity fundamentals are addressed within the existing poverty alleviation and
sustainable development agenda. In addition, strong stakeholder participation in project design and
implementation is critical to ensure sustainability of conservation. The process of clarifying objectives
and activities at all levels and ensuring stakeholder involvement is necessary in order to build ownership
over project activities and to establish the cooperation and co-ordination mechanisms to ensure successful
conservation outcomes. Finally, funding is needed to confirm financial arrangements, including
convening a donor round table to synergise donor intervention.
19
IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PDF B
54. The Department of Economic Affairs and the Environment (DEAET) (Eastern Cape) through the
Eastern Cape Tourism Board (environment section) (ECTB) will serve as the implementing agency for
this project. As the GEF implementing agency for this project UNDP will monitor all activities and
outputs. UNDP will ensure that the activities are being conducted in co-ordination with the government
and other stakeholders.
As the Government implementing agency, the DEAET through the ECTB will be responsible for project
coordination and management, in addition to monitoring adherence to the work plan, which forms the
basis for project execution.
The coordination among Government agencies and other relevant stakeholders will be achieved through a
Project Steering Committee (PSC) and Project Reference Group (PRG) as outlined in Annex 3. The
Project Steering Committee will consist of a core group of stakeholders [DEAT (national) DEAET
(provincial), ECTB, SDI Steering Committee representative, Department of Water Affairs and Forests
(DWAF), O.R Tambo District Municipality, Amatola District Municipality, Pondocrop, WWF and
UNDP-GEF], which will meet frequently. The PSC will be chaired by the DEAET (provincial). This core
group will primarily be responsible for driving the project design process, in line with national policies,
plans and conservation strategies and with GEF eligibility. Specifically this group will be tasked with





Overseeing the appointment of technical staff
Overseeing the work being carried out by the Project Management Unit (PMU) by monitoring its
progress and analyzing reports
Overseeing the design of the full project and ensuring the integration of activities with poverty
alleviation and sustainable development objectives in the region
Overseeing the development of the full GEF proposal
Financial management and the production of financial reports
The PSC will work closely with the Project Reference Group (PRG) which will consist of the
following agencies; Department of Land Affairs (DLA) (Eastern Cape Office), Provincial Department
of Planning (PDoP), Civil Society represented by the NGO’s; Pondocrop, WWF, the Oceanographic
Research Society (ORI), Triple Trust (TTO), Wildlife Environment Society of Southern Africa
(WESSA), the traditional regional authorities, University representatives (University of Transkei
(UNITRA), University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), Rhodes University). The PRG will have the
following roles;



To provide stakeholder representivity and to consolidate views of key sectors of the society
To build consensus and mobilise support for the wide ranging aspects of the project, particularly
with regards to raising awareness, building networks, building capacity and management
arrangements.
To provide technical support on request
The PRG will meet quarterly unless specifically requested by the PMG. The aim of this group is to ensure
that all stakeholders can play a role in project development, whilst recognizing that these wider
stakeholders will not be able to attend all meetings and meet as regularly as the PSC. The interaction
between the PMG and PRG will allow the Steering Committee to remain small and efficient whilst still
being able to draw upon technical support and wider opinions from the PRG as required.
The Project Management Unit (PMU) will oversee and support implementation of all project preparation
activities that will be contracted to consultants. This unit will be headed by the Project Coordinator
assisted by a finance officer and administrative assistant.
UNDP will be ultimately accountable to GEF for project delivery and responsible for supervising project
20
development, guiding PDF activities and contracting staff. UNDP will provide technical backstopping
and monitor adherence to the work plan. UNDP will participate in project design and consultations as
well as contribute to the preparation of the project brief and the project document.
BUDGET AND WORKPLAN
55. The PDF grant will finance the following Outputs.
ACTIVITY BUDGET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Output
Institutional Analysis
Gap Analysis for Information Planning
Options Analysis for Protected Areas
Management Options Analysis
Participatory Social Feasibility Assessment
Invasive aliens eradication Programme
Development of Full Project Brief and Project
Document2
Total
Grand Total: US$ 528,000
56.
GEF $
30981
33281
22201
74964
95721
29501
Gov of SA $
5000
56000
45000
5000
20000
2000
EU $
35000
14000
6000
-
133000
55000
53351
340,000
The EU is providing a cash payment of $ 55,000 for:
The creation of a data base on low-impact tourism development sites on the Wild Coast;
Developing protocols for establishing co-management agreements between authorities
and local communities in at least three localities on the Wild Coast;
 The establishment of Community Trusts as locally representative bodies in twenty four
(24) locations on the Wild Coast (covering the whole length of the Coast);
 The development of the Tourism Marketing Master Plan and Tourim management
Guidelines for the Wild Coast.
The Government is providing a cash contribution of US$ 133,000 for developing:
 Tourism Development Guidelines for the Wild Coast SDI ($ 55,000) (Cash).
 Proposal for Pondoland Protected Area Study ($ 40,000) (Cash)
 Business Plan for Wild Coast SDI ($ 7,000) (in Kind)
 Study on Invasive Aliens on Wild Coast ($ 8,000) (Cash)
 Participatory Forest Management in Mpondoland Study ( $ 23,000) (Cash).


Financing Plan of Full project
56. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $14.5 million, with GEF co-funding to be $4.5 million.
Likely donors will be the Government of South Africa (through various Funds and budgetary allocations),
EU, WWF-SA sourced funds and other aid organisations. The Full GEF Project would run for 5 years,
after the planning phase of 12 months.
57. Substantial funding for the sustainable development component of the overall project is already
committed or lined up. The European Union Support Programme to the Wild Coast SDI has recently been
launched, with the aim of encouraging participation of previously disadvantaged communities in the
2
The proposed budget for project preparation (US$ 53,351) is intended to over the direct costs of undertaking
stakeholder consultations and preparing documentation specific to the GEF project (M& E Plan, IC Analysis, threats
and risks analyses etc). The budget will not cover UNDP supervision costs.
21
tourism industry on the Wild Coast. The budget is over R100m (12.8m ECUs or $11m) for an initial life
cycle of 4 years.
58. From the Poverty Relief Fund (the new lottery fund) R35m ($4.5m) has been committed to the Wild
Coast for 2001, through the Wild Coast SDI, and the total for the next four years may be as high as
R200m ($26m). The main themes are training, alien plant eradication, waste management, communitybased 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.
WORKPLAN
Activity
Months
1
2
3
4
Recruitment, establish office
Initial scoping exercise
Inception stakeholder workshop
Community outreach workshop
Donor workshop
Final workshop
Community consultations
Gap analysis
Options analysis
Management options analysis
Sustainable use analysis
Institutional analysis
Invasive aliens eradication
programme
Develop project long frame and
rationale
Development of the project brief
and draft UNDP Project
document
Submission of the project brief
Monitoring and evaluation
Bilateral meeting
Circulation of Project Brief to
the Council
22
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Consultation on Project
Document
Preparing Project Document
GEF Council meeting
(intersessional)
Completion of project document
EXPECTED DATE OF PREPARATION COMPLETION
59. The appointment of people to carry out the project development activities would begin within one
month of approval of the funds. A donor conference would be organized after 8 months. The Project
Coordinator would be funded for four months after that to manage the transition into the Implementation
Phase.
SPECIAL FEATURES
60. This project has a number of special features. First, it would establish major new conservation areas,
including virtually the whole of a major centre of plant endemism in the coastal areas, linked it to a
marine protected area with an exceptionally high diversity. Furthermore this new conservation area will
be primarily managed by local communities; the conservation paradigms established will inform the
design of protected area management initiatives on other communal lands—especially in ex homelands.
By seeking to obtain a nexus between conservation and development, the project will ensure that
development initiatives on the Wild Coast, as and when they occur, are congruent with the objectives of
biodiversity protection. In this regard the proposal is congruent with the precautionary principle embodied
in the Convention on Biological Diversity. This project presents a unique opportunity to pilot
methodologies for ‘greening’ existing sustainable development initiatives, such as the SDI’s and IDP’s,
that can be replicated in similar socio-economic landscapes. Finally, GEF support is cost effective when
measured against the magnitude of benefits, the amount of associated cofinancing, and the fact that this
initiative is a very high national priority – improving chances that objectives will be realised and benefits
sustained beyond the live of the proposed interventions.
Legal Context
61. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Standard Basic
Assistance Agreement between the Government of state country and the United Nations Development
Programme, signed by the parties on insert date of signature. The host country implementing agency
shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating
agency described in that Agreement.
62. UNDP acts in this Project as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and all
rights and privileges pertaining to UNDP as per the terms of the SBAA shall be extended mutatis
mutandis to GEF.
63. The UNDP Resident Representative in South Africa is authorized to effect in writing the following
types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the agreement thereto by
GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no objection to the
proposed changes:


Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document;
Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities
23


of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases
due to inflation;
Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert
or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and
Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project Document.
64. The Government will provide the 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 Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged
by the Government.
24
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.
25
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. A policy for subsistence fishing. Marine & Coastal
Management, DEA&T.
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.
26
ANNEXES
1
Map of Project areas
2.
Details of Nature Reserves in the Wild Coast
3.
Implementation arrangements of the project development phase
4.
Summary of activities leading up to the submission of the GEF PDF-B Proposal
5.
Lists of endemic species of plants from the Wild Coast
6.
Threats, root causes and activities table.
7.
Terms of Reference for Consultants
27
Annex 1 Map illustrating the Wild Coast and Project site
28
Annex 2 Details of Nature Reserves in the Wild Coast
Mkambati Nature Reserve: situated on the coast of North-Eastern Pondoland forming one of the anchor
nodes of the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative. It covers an area of 7720 ha and is bounded by
the Mtentu river to the north and the Msikaba river in the south, with approximately 12 km of coastline
forming the eastern limit. Mkambati Nature Reserve is the largest reserve within the Pondo Centre of
Endemism. More than 80 % of Mkambati is grassveld and it is the only conservation area in the Eastern
Cape incorporating a portion of the Pondoland Coastal Plateau Sourveld. A number of indigenous forests
are represented within the reserve including small patches of afromontane forest, swamp forest, dune
forest and mangrove forests. About 490ha of wetlands are also found at Mkambati.
In order to maintain the diversity of plant species, grasslands are burnt in a rotational block burning
programme. A number of invasive species however threaten the reserve and need to be eradicated. Legal
access through the issuing of permits allows a limited harvest of wood, thatching grass and fish.
The Mkambati Marine Protected Area extends 6 nautical miles seawards and is an important haven for a
number of in-shore and reef fish species. The Mtentu and Miskaba Estuaries and a number of smaller
rivers have their mouths in Mkambati Nature Reserve and act as nursery areas for marine fishes.
Protection of the Mkambati MPA against illegal fishing is difficult with much of the damage being
carried out by commercial and recreational fishing boats. Stocks of inter-tidal food organisms on the Wild
Coast are very low, caused by high levels of harvesting. A management planning framework for
Mkambati Nature Reserve is currently under discussion.
Dwesa and Cwebe Nature Reserves:
The Dwesa and Cwebe Nature Reserves form another anchor node of the Wild Coast Spatial
Development Initiative and are located on either side of the estuary of the Mbashe River, one of the major
rivers on the Wild Coast, and approximately 250 km north-east of East London. The Mbashe River
effectively isolates the two reserves. Dwesa Nature Reserve is approximately 3500 ha in extent and
Cwebe 2200 ha. Roughly 80% of the land in Dwesa Nature Reserve is covered by indigenous forest of
various types, with a corresponding figure of approximately 50% in Cwebe Nature Reserve. These forests
represent the largest remaining on the Eastern Cape Coast and have a unique floristic composition.
Although commercial exploitation was stopped long ago, subsistence utilization by local people has
occurred on an ongoing basis and concerns have been raised about the sustainability of present levels of
utilization. The grasslands, which are only protected in these reserves, differ from those found on the
Pondoland sandstones, and despite having fewer endemic species botanical diversity is still high. A small
mangrove community occurs on the banks of the Nqabara River representing one of the most threatened
plant communities in South Africa. A permit system allows legal access to a number of resources,
however although potentially workable, the system is not always applied consistently and there are
concerns over its effectiveness in ensuring sustainable levels of utilisation. A working for water
programme has just been approved to address the problem of alien species.
A Marine Protected Area of approximately 18000ha in extent aims to protect line-fish resources and intertidal zone. The endangered and endemic White Steenbras breeds on sand and mud banks off Cwebe
Nature Reserve, representing one of only two breeding sites used by this fish. The equally threatened Red
or Copper Steenbras also breeds on reefs just outside the Cwebe MPA. The MPA contains some of the
last significant populations of Brown Mussels, heavily exploited elsewhere on the coast. As a result of
high levels of harvest and low ecosystem productivity stocks of inter-tidal food organisms on the Wild
Coast are very low, protection against illegal fishing is difficult and major damage is caused by
commercial and recreational fishing boats.
29
Hluleka Nature Reserve:
Hluleka Nature Reserve also forms an anchor project area for the Wild Coast SDI. It has a terrestrial area
of 400 hectares. Hluleka is located approximately 45 kms. south of Port St. Johns and is important in
terms of both the terrestrial and marine biodiversity. Hluleka is a hilly coastal reserve with interspersed
rocky and sandy shores, lagoons, savanna and evergreen coastal forest. The Hluleka River flows through
the forest into a wide estuarine area with large coral trees (Erythina caffra), Quinine trees (Rauvolfia
caffra) and Natal Fig trees (Ficus natalensis). A number of game animals are also located in Hluleka.
These include plains zebra, blesbok, eland, bushbuck, blue wildebeest and blue duiker. Bird species
include; black duck, dabchick, African jacana, blackbellied starling, green pigeon, cape batis, olive bush
shrike, dusky flycatcher, pygmy kingfisher, halfcollared kingfisher and longcrested eagle. The Reserve
has a small rest camp for visitors and an overnight camp for hikers on the Wild Coast hiking trail.
Silaka Nature Reserve:
Located approximately four kms south of Port St. Johns Silaka Nature Reserve is 336 hectares in extent.
The Gxwaleni River flows through the thick coastal forest to the sea. Epiphytic orchids clad the forest
trees with lilies on the forest floor. Aloe ferox bloom in winter on the grassy hills facing the sea. Strelitzia
nicolai blanket many of the sea facing slopes along with red-hot pokers and flame lilies. Game animals
include; blue duiker, bushbuck, blesbuck, blue wildebeest and plains zebra. Birds include; Knysna loerie,
cinnamon dove, grey cuckoo-shrike, halfcollared kingfisher, longtailed wagtail, thickbilled weaver,
yellowthroated longclaw and the whitebreasted cormorant. Self-catering bungalows provide
accommodation (total number of beds of 56) for visitors. Day visitors, especially school groups are
encouraged.
30
Annex 3Implementation arrangements for the project development phase
Project Reference Group:
DLA, PDoP, Pondocrop, WWF, ORI, TTO,
WESSA traditional regional authorities, ,
UNITRA, UPE, Rhodes University.
Project Steering Committee
DEAT, DEAET (Chair), ECTB, SDI SC
Rep, DWAF, District Municipalities O.R
Tambo and Amatola, Pondocrop, WWF
and UNDP-GEF
SDI
Steering
committee
Project Management Unit
Project coordinator, Finance officer
and administrative assistant
Consultants responsible for implementing the
PDF activities below
Management
Options
Analysis
Gap Analysis
Participatory
Social
Feasibility
Assessment
Options
Analysis
31
Invasive
aliens
eradication
programme
Project
Brief/Document
Development
Institutional
analysis
ANNEX 4SUMMARY 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.
32
ANNEX 5LISTS 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
33
ANNEX 6 PRELIMINARY THREATS, ROOT CAUSES AND ACTIVITIES TABLE
Threats
Transformation
and overgrazing
of grasslands
leads to loss in
biodiversity
Destruction of
forests leading to
loss of
biodiversity and
impacting on
vital ecological
services
Uncontrolled
alien plant
invasion results
in altered
hydrology,
smothered
priority
vegetation types,
increased fire
intensity and
frequency, and
changed soil
properties
Ribbon
development
Root cause
Activities
- No overall strategy for land
planning and management
exists leading to
inappropriate infrastructure,
forestry & agricultural
projects
- Unclear agencies’ mandates
and weak cooperation
apparatus means any
conservation/ land
management efforts are
unfocused
- Knowledge barriers
regarding parameters for
sustainable use (offtake
thresholds, inter-specific
impacts etc)
- Wild Coast Conservation planning and
management strategy developed as part
of integrated bioregional plan
- Resource use studies to determine true
value of existing resource use and land
use options
- Institutional management roles for
resource management are defined,
capacity is developed and a legal and
policy enabling environment is built.
- Establishment of the Wild Coast
Conservation planning and
management strategy
- More informed decision-making
- Coordination between various
agencies responsible for land resource
use in the Wild Coast
- Training & capacity building in
sustainable use at nodal resource centres
- pilot adaptive management
demonstrations
- Establish community and other forms
of reserves to protect nuclei populations
- Develop nurseries
- Awareness raised
- Best practices disseminated
- Communities are given the
responsibility to manage resources and
derive benefits from them
- Develop woodlots
Alternative energy source programmes
- Concerted alien removal programmes
focused on hotspots
- IA control objectives are integrated
into the overall conservation planning
and management strategy for the Wild
Coast
- Incentives are developed for land
holder/community support for IAS
clearance
- Awareness and education programmes
to inform local communities and land
holders are developed
- Community woodlots established.
Alternative energy sources are found.
Reduced infestation
(Zero infestation in key areas)
- IA control forms part of an overall
conservation strategy
- Communities and land owners
receive incentives for IA clearance
- Greater awareness achieved at all
levels
- Development and implementation of
conservation planning and management
- Planning strategy developed and
implemented retaining wilderness areas
- Commercial demand for
medicinal plants
- Demand for building
material and firewood
- Eradication programmes are
spatially diffused
- Spatial development plans
do not accommodate IAS
control objectives
- Regulatory framework and
incentives to enlist
landholder/community
support for IAS clearance on
private/communal lands is
weak
- Impacts of invasives and
scale of problem is unknown
- Inadequate planning or
implementation of plans
Outcomes/outputs
34
Linkages
/notes
- Reduced pressure on wild stocks
Working for Water Programe
Agricultural Research
Council
MCM Programme
Wild Coast SDI
along the coast
including
building of
illegal cottages is
leading to the
loss of
‘wilderness’
areas and
impacting upon
biodiversity
Estuary
functioning
disturbed or
destroyed
- Unclear agencies’ mandates
and weak agency cooperation
to enforce legislation
-
strategy
- Institutional management roles for land
planning are defined, capacity is
developed and a legal and policy
enabling environment is built.
within the Wild Coast
- Institutional management roles are
established and mechanisms put in
place to enforce legislation
Planned over-extraction of
water for dune mining
- Wild Coast Conservation planning and
management strategy developed
- Cost-benefit analysis of water use and
environmental impact assessment
- Wild Coast Conservation planning and
management strategy developed
- Planning of estuarine developments
- Law enforcement by provincial bodies
- Alternatives are investigated and
developed with the communities at
resource centres
- Land use planning mechanisms
ensure sustainable land use
- EIA’s prevent destructing activities
Inappropriate developments
Overuse of
intertidal and
sub-tidal
resources
Overfishing of
marine fish leads
to loss of
biodiversity and
interference in
breeding and
recruitment
Poverty and barriers to
alternative food sources
Economic alternatives are
weakly developed
Tourism development programme
Knowledge barriers re:
determinants of sustainable
use
Inadequate enforcement of
regulations
Enforcement of fishing
licenses
Illegal entry of vessels into
coastal waters
Training & capacity building in
sustainable use at nodal resource centres
No overall strategy for
conserving marine resources
Community policing
Improve monitoring of catches, and
fishing methods used
Shore based observation (distance
offshore)
More effective sea patrols
Research and monitoring of breeding
Improve management of estuaries
Creation of marine reserves
35
- Land use planning, development and
enforcement systems in place
Provincial government
Wild Coast SDI
- Communities livelihoods are
improved through the introduction of
alternative activities
- Intertidal resources used sustainably
Improved living standards through
tourism lead to decreased dependence
on intertidal resources
Intertidal resources used sustainably
Recource centres set up by
EU Programme
Increased capacity for community
policing
Improved compliance
Better law enforcement reduces illegal
fishing
Improved recruitment
Integrity of estuaries assured
Marine reserves lead to replenishment
of fish stocks
EU Tourism Project
Impact needs monitoring
Marine Living Resources
Fund active from 2002
“
“
Annex 7 Terms of Reference for Consultants and Specified Activities
1. Project Coordinator
Objectives: The Project Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating activities under the PDF B, and,
with backstopping support from UNDP, finalising the project brief for submission to the GEF. The
Project Coordinator would assume primary responsibility for ensuring broad-based consensus on the
design of activities by working closely with other consultants using the Delphi technique. Working with
Government, DEAT, and UNDP-South Africa, the Project Coordinator would also be responsible for
negotiating co-financing from other funding sources, in particular from the private sector, and for
ensuring a joint programming of interventions to address both sustainable development needs and
conservation objectives.
The Project Coordinator, assisted by the Project Development Specialist, will integrate information
generated by studies, workshops and consultants into an overall project strategy in order to define and
describe activities and outputs under the Full Project that will facilitate biodiversity conservation by
mitigating threats/ root causes while simultaneously realising the sustainable development objectives of
the project region. The Project brief would contain a strong and clearly articulated strategic logic,
describing the conservation values that would be protected, detailing threats to biodiversity, outlining
activities required to mitigate threats, determining the baseline of sustainable development interventions,
and justifying incremental costs to be financed by the GEF. The Coordinator will also ensure that the
lessons learned from similar conservation initiatives in the region are integrated into project design.
The Project Coordinator will assist responsible authorities in The Wild Coast and contracted consultants
to 1] ensure broad based stakeholder consultation; 2] collate and quantify information of prevailing
threats at each site, and assess their social, policy, institutional or economic determinants; and 3] prepare
a project proposal for consideration by the GEF.
The Project Coordinator should have access to a vehicle.
Duration: 12 months
Results: The Project Coordinator will be responsible for the development of the full project brief and
project document [Component 7]:
-
-
-
An in-depth analysis of the distribution, status, value and threats to the biodiversity and natural
resources for the Wild Coast (Conservation Planning Specialist, Conservation Manager and Biologist)
Analysis of the social and economic attributes to the Wild Coast (Rural sociologist, Community
Outreach Team, Sustainable Use Expert)
Collate and quantify an in-depth analysis of the prevailing threats to biodiversity and their underlying
causes at each of the sites as a basis for scoping activities (Associate Expert to Conservation
Manager, Community Outreach Team), including institutional, policy related, social and economic
factors likely to have a bearing on conservation outcomes;
Collate information on conservation related activities that constitute the existing baseline upon which
the project will build.
A well developed stakeholder participation plan, to be attached as an annex to the project proposalthis document will be developed in close consultation with the Rural Sociologist (who is responsible
for the Public Participation Plan) and the Institutional Specialist (responsible for the Institutional
Participation Plan) in order to encompass the complete range of stakeholders
The GEF Alternative: A well-defined project strategy for each of the sites, aimed at mitigating threats
and assuring sustainability (Conservation Manager) based upon the threat analysis and sustainable use
assessment (Associate Expert to Conservation Manager, Sustainable Use Expert).
36
-
-
Measures for assuring sustainability
A detailed summary of project risks, and enumeration of workable measures to abate risk.
Institutional Arrangements for Project implementation
Incremental Cost summary and output budget - identification and justification of the incremental cost
of activities needed to generate global conservation benefits, over and above the sustainable
development baseline
Overview of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Full Project Brief, in the agreed GEF format with the following annexes (with assistance provided by
the Project Development Specialist):
* Framework for the Conservation Strategy for the Wild Coast (with assistance from the
Conservation Planning Specialist, Legal Analyst and Conservation Manager)
 Incremental Cost assessment, with a narrative justifying the calculation of incremental costs, and
matrix describing global and domestic benefits and containing incremental cost estimates for each of
the proposed project outputs.
 Logical Framework Matrix, in UNDP’s standard format
 Overview of the global significance of the selected sites.
 Socio-economic analysis
 Root causes matrix, describing the threats at each site and the activities required to remove them.
 Stakeholder Participation Plan, describing the main stakeholders and outlining their respective
roles and responsibilities in project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
 Maps of the project area.
 Terms of Reference for consultants and sub-contractors to be employed under the full project.
 Detailed Project Budget, in agreed UNDP format (input budget with standard budget lines).
 List of key reference materials.
Outputs for Project Development
Work-plan and Terms of Reference for specialists;
 Quarterly Progress and Financial Reports;
 Co-financing Plan;
 Workshops and Field Missions;
 Project Implementation Plan;
Work Plan and Supervision
The Project Coordinator will work directly under the Director General of the Department for Environment
and Tourism and will supervise the activities of other consultants and assume responsibility for the
delivery and of all outputs under the PDF B.
2. Project Development Specialist
Objectives
The Project Development Specialist will contribute to the Full Project Brief by assisting to fine tune the
strategic logic for project interventions and advising the project coordinator on GEF-specific design
elements. The Specialist will also assist in the preparation of project documentation, in particular GEF
eligibility, links with other GEF activities and UNDP Country Programme, the incremental cost
assessment and logical framework. The Specialist will be responsible for ensuring delivery of inputs
required by the GEF, especially in relation to the preparation of the incremental costs analysis, utilizing
data and information collected by the various consultants.
Duration 3 months
37
Results
A complete and comprehensive Full Project Brief for submission to the GEF, including an incremental
cost analysis and other required information.
3. Finance Officer
The Officer will look after financial management and reporting responsibilities for UNDP. The Officer
will assist in the co-ordination of activities scheduled under the PDF project and facilitation of timely
delivery of PDF outputs. The incumbent will provide support to personnel recruited under the project on
sub contract, assist in efforts to leverage co-financing, and perform project reporting and assessment
functions.
Responsibilities
 Prepare financial plans as required by UNDP.
 Set up and maintain a financial accounting, transactions and reporting system for the project in
accordance with UNDP’s financial rules and regulations.
 Assist in the collection and interpretation of baseline information for the incremental cost
assessment.
 Assist in efforts to leverage co-financing from Government agencies, and bilateral and
multilateral donors.
Duration:12 months
4. Administrative Support
The main task of the Project Assistant will be to assist the Project Coordinator by ensuring administrative
support exists for the project implementation. Furthermore, the incumbent will be responsible for the
supervision of the data pool, the effective procedural functioning of the meetings and workshops, for
consultation and other community liaison processes and maintaining a network database. More
specifically the incumbent would undertake the following responsibilities:







Create an effective and efficient administrative capacity;
Supervise the data pool in a manner that ensures optimal accessibility;
Upkeep and sustaining of a project management methodology;
Provide support to the Project Coordinator in the collection and compilation of data;
Provide the secretariat for meetings and workshops;
Assist in the preparation of progress reports;
Assist in the procurement procedures to ensure efficient execution of projects.
Outputs:
 Set up and upkeep of operational office that will continue beyond the work period of the preparation
phase;
 Set up and upkeep of data pool that will be kept functional beyond the preparation phase;
 Set up and upkeep of project management framework;
 Set up accepted procurement procedure;
Duration 12 months
5. Institutions Specialist: Institutional Analysis [Component 1]
Objectives
38
The Institutions Specialist will investigate the roles and responsibilities of different institutions and local
communities in the management of resources in the Wild Coast; assessing strengths, weaknesses and
capacity gaps that need addressing. Results will be presented in an Institutional Participation Plan which
will also describe the input of these stakeholders in project development and implementation. Working
closely with the Provincial Eastern Cape Government, the consultant will also conduct a feasibility study
to identify and develop consensus on a strategy to develop an institutional regime, including the
clarification of roles and responsibilities, for co-management of resources on the Wild Coast. This will
consist of a synthesis and review of studies that have already been carried out and workshops with the
relevant stakeholders with a focus on the involvement of local communities. The consultant will ensure
that the regime complements existing mechanisms established for sustainable development activities with
the aim of strengthening resource management capacities in an integrated, holistic manner. He/she will
investigate the legal implications of this framework, assess capacity building needs and help initiate the
development process that will continue in the full project and produce an Institutional Development Plan
for this process. The consultant will also assess the institutional structures that are necessary in the
various proposed co-management land use models and protected areas. The possibility of establishing
and NGO-run Environment Fund to fund environmental management projects on an on-going basis will
also be investigated.
Duration 30 days
Results
- Institutional participation plan
- Completed feasibility study of the capacity of existing authorities and local communities to manage
resources in the Wild Coast
- Clear documentation and consensus built for a strategy to develop an institutional regime for comanagement of resources on the Wild Coast.
- Institutional development plan for initiating the development process for this co-management
framework, including preliminary capacity building and enabling environment
- Clear documentation of options and recommendations for development of an NGO-run Environment
Fund.
- Contribution towards successful negotiation of co-financing from government institutions, NGO’s, the
private sector and donor agencies.
6. Gap analysis for information planning; Conservation Planning Specialist [Component 2]
Objectives
The Conservation Planning Specialist will, with the help of a biologist, collate and quantify existing
information, and carry out research on the distribution, status, value and threats to the biodiversity and
natural resources of the Wild Coast and to synthesize this work on GIS. The specialist will be responsible
for carrying out a gap analysis of existing information and developing a framework for the Conservation
Strategy for the Wild Coast in conjunction with key stakeholders. A summary of this framework will be
presented as an annex to the Project Brief. The feasibility of a consolidated Pondoland Conservation Area
will be investigated and initial planning for this protected area carried out. Other potential conservation
areas should be identified and a range of types of conservation area models developed. Preliminary
concept planning will be carried out for identified sites and recommendations of specific conservation
actions based on the biodiversity value of a site and its vulnerability to identified threats.
Duration 40 days
Results
39
1. An in-depth analysis of the distribution, status, value and threats to the biodiversity and natural
resources for the Wild Coast (with assistance from the Biologist)
2. Gap analysis of existing information
3. GIS based synthesis of ecological and land-use information in a format compatible with
provincial planning GIS
4. GIS based decision-making data base for conservation and land use planning
5. A completed feasibility study and recommended planning framework of a consolidated
Pondoland Conservation Area
6. Site selection (as identified below)
7. Models developed for a range of types of conservation area such as provincial reserves, state
forest, marine protected areas, biosphere reserves, conservancies, community reserves and
possibly one or more national parks.
8. Framework for the Conservation Strategy for the Wild Coast (broad goals and visions,
recommended actions)
9. Assistance given to the monitoring and evaluation specialist in the design of a comprehensive
monitoring system for biodiversity conservation in the project sites with realistic, quantifiable
project impact indicators. This should be done in conjunction with the rural sociologist and
sustainable use expert.
6.1 Site Selection
To be carried out by the Conservation Planning Specialist
 Review the biological and ecological attributes of proposed sites
 Justify selection of the sites based on their unique biogeographic/zoogeographic features,
habitats, or other attributes
 Prepare a 3-4 page description of the global biological significance of 1] the area along the
Pondoland Coast north of Port St. Johns and 2] the other prospective sites
 Identify present and potential threats to biological diversity at the proposed project sites (With
assistance from the Associate Expert to Conservation Manager)
 Perform an assessment of and quantify the root causes of each threat, including social, economic,
policy, institutional and other related factors (Associate Expert to Conservation Manager)
 Perform an assessment of the social feasibility of planned project interventions at each potential
site (with assistance from the rural sociologist)
 Develop a problem tree to inform project design
 Prepare a matrix describing each of the threats and their root causes in the format prescribed by
UNDP
7. Biologist [Component 2]
The Biologist will be responsible for carrying out an in-depth analysis of the distribution, status, value
and threats to the biodiversity and natural resources for the Wild Coast. This will include an evaluation of
biodiversity significance at each of the project sites. This should review such aspects as alpha and beta
diversity, endemism, rarity and ecological uniqueness, drawing on both published and unpublished
sources. The consultant will work closely with the associate expert to the conservation manager to define
threats to biodiversity and assess their social, economic, political and other determinants.
Duration 15 days
Results
- Report presented to the Conservation Planning Specialist on the global significance and unique
biological and ecological attributes of the Wild Coast to include; distribution, status, value and threats
40
-
to the biodiversity and natural resources.
A summary narrative of the biodiversity significance of each site, to be incorporated into the project
brief as an attachment. This should provide a strong scientific basis for the selection of sites.
Methods
- Review of published and unpublished sources and consultations with relevant persons to establish the
global significance of biodiversity in the Wild Coast.
- Liaison with the Associate expert to the conservation manager in defining the biodiversity
significance of each project site.
8. Legal Analyst: Options Analysis for Protected Areas [Component 3]
The consultant will assess the feasibility of the Conservation Strategy for the Wild Coast Area and carry
out initial planning for this protected area. Opportunities for mainstreaming conservation considerations
into planning and replicating lessons learnt will be identified.
Duration 15 days
Results
Policy analysis and gaps assessment
Recommendations for policy strengthening
Initial plans for the Conservation Strategy for the Wild Coast
Strategy for replication of best practice
Methods
Analyse all relevant plans and policies to determine consistency with conservation values,
validity in changing circumstances, gaps and barriers to implementation of a conservation area.
Identify opportunities for mainstreaming conservation considerations into planning.
Based upon findings develop initial plans for the Conservation Strategy for the Wild Coast
9. Conservation Manager; Management Options Analysis [Component 4]
The conservation manager will be responsible for the Management Options Analysis at the project sites.
He/she will consolidate the results from the threat analyses (associate expert to conservation manger) and
the sustainable use assessments (resource economist) and make recommendations for management at the
project sites. This will include opportunities for public-private partnerships and a scoping exercise for the
establishment of resource use centres.
Duration 80 days
Results
 Collation of information into a report for each site on the outcomes of the sustainable use
analysis (including various land and resource use options) and threat analysis.
 Based on an evaluation of management options to develop a well-defined project strategy for
each of the sites, aimed at mitigating threats and assuring sustainability. This should include
opportunities for the establishment of resource centres.
 Produce a report identifying opportunities for public-private partnerships and making
recommendations for any barrier removal activities to facilitate this process.
 Provide recommendations to the M&E specialist on appropriate indicators, sources of
verification and appropriate analytical and sampling tools for monitoring the impact of the
project.
41
Methods
Assist the resource economist to undertake the sustainable use assessment (activities identified in
section 10)
Work closely with the associate expert to obtain relevant information from the threat analysis
Analyse the results from these investigations and produce recommendations for management
options at each project site in the form of a well defined project strategy.
Carry out a scoping exercise for the establishment of resource use centres and their role in
promoting project activities.
With assistance from the associate expert identify a set of measurable indicators that may be used
to track project impact. These indicators should provide a basis for recording changes in the state
of biodiversity conservation.
Identify sources of verification of indicators.
Determine appropriate analytical and sampling tools for impact monitoring
10. Associate Expert to Conservation Manager: Management Options Analysis [Component 4]
The associate expert will assist the conservation manager by carrying out the threat analysis at the
proposed sites to examine the present and potential scale of natural resource use and threat to biological
diversity as well as an appraisal of the biological, social, institutional and related factors that act as
barriers to sustainable use. This will be carried out with close collaboration with the sustainable use
expert and community outreach team.
Duration 80 days
Results
Analysis of the threats to biodiversity for each project site. This should include the identification
and assessment of present and future threats scenarios. A flow chart (systems analysis)
documenting the interconnectedness of threats, and feedback mechanisms will be prepared as a
basis for developing a problem tree for project design.
A summary narrative of the threats and root causes for incorporation in the project brief as an
annex.
Methods
 Review existing information for evidence of threats
 Historical trends analysis of conservation conditions (determinants of threats)
 Liaise with community outreach team to collect information from local informants
 Identify through a field assessment (ground truthing) present and potential threats to biological
diversity at the proposed project sites
 Perform an assessment of and quantify the root causes of each threat, including social, economic,
policy, institutional and other related factors
 Develop a problem tree for each project site to inform project design
 Assist the Conservation Manager to identify a set of measurable indicators, sources of verification
and appropriate analytical and sampling tools for impact monitoring
11. Sustainable Use Analysis: Management Options Analysis [Component 4]
A number of threats to biodiversity in the Wild Coast stem from unsustainable subsistence and
commercial use of plants and marine species. In order to resolve these pressures, it is proposed that the
full project includes measures to demonstrate ways and means of effecting sustainable use.
This analysis will be undertaken by two consultants
a) a resource economist
42
b) the Conservation Manager (section 8)
The resource economist will be responsible for investigating the economic dimension of resource and
land use and the Conservation Manager will provide the technical expertise to draw in the environmental
dimensions. Together the consultants will define management problems in both these dimensions and
appraise barriers for the resolution of these problems.
a) Resource economist
The consultant will examine current forms of resource and land use and identify the economic value on
the full range of natural resources presently used by communities, including inter alia grazing, firewood,
poles for hut-building, medicinal plants and fish. The degree to which these resources contribute to the
livelihoods of the communities will be assessed. He/she will investigate the existing positive and
negative incentive structures for degrading/sustaining biodiversity and assess opportunities for positive
incentives for biodiversity friendly resource use options thereby recommending a process and activities to
encourage a paradigm shift from unsustainable to sustainable use. The potential economic benefits to
households of various models of nature-based tourism will be quantified. A mix of GEF and non-GEF
funding would be leveraged for sustainable use activities under the full project.
Duration 75 days
Results
- Collation of data concerning use intensity and patterns and economic returns illustrating the value of
natural resources to the livelihoods of the communities.
- Enhanced understanding of the barriers to sustainable use, including institutional, technical, social,
economic, policy, legislative and other factors. The consultant would provide information on the costs
and benefits of barrier removal activities, providing a basis for estimating incremental costs.
- Evaluation of existing land and resource use options that take into account socio-economic factors
and assessment of the impacts of the different options, including nature based tourism, on livelihoods.
- Recommendations regarding activities to engender a paradigm shift from unsustainable to sustainable
use for target species, to include a menu of incentives for encouraging sustainable use for
implementation under the full project that could be spearheaded under the rubric of barrier removal
- Definition of monitoring arrangements, with identification of quantifiable indicators and sources of
verification
Methods
- Review existing information (bibliography, technical reports, databases, geographical information,
identifying existing information on the land tenure arrangement).
- Peer review, Delphi workshops.
- Trends analysis of determinants of use.
- Collect information from local informants with the help of the community outreach team.
- Identify a set of measurable indicators that may be used to track project impact. Identify sources of
verification of indicators and determine appropriate analytical and sampling tools for impact
monitoring.
b) Conservation Manager
The consultant will assist the resource economist to examine the current levels of natural resource use
presently used by communities. He/she will assess the expected environmental impacts of these off takes
and associated interspecific impacts. He/she will identify the gaps in management that will need to be
addressed to engender a shift from unsustainable to sustainable resource use. The conservation manager
will also evaluate the environmental impacts of alternative sources of livelihoods such as nature based
43
tourism.
Results
- Collation of data concerning use intensity and patterns
- Assessment of expected environmental impacts of current levels of land and resource use
- Assessment of the environmental impacts of different options of land and resource use; including
nature based tourism.
- Assessment of the gaps in management that will need to be addressed to engender a paradigm shift
from unsustainable to sustainable use for target species
- Definition of monitoring arrangements, with identification of quantifiable indicators and sources of
verification
Methods
- Review existing information (bibliography, technical reports, databases, geographical information).
- Collect information from local informants with the help of the community outreach team.
- Analyse intensity and resource use patters and evaluate expected environmental impact
- Analyse environmental impact of alternative livelihood options
- Identify a set of measurable indicators that may be used to track project impact. Identify sources of
verification of indicators and determine appropriate analytical and sampling tools for impact
monitoring.
12. Rural Sociologist; Participatory Social Feasibility Assessment [Component 5]
Objectives
The Rural Sociologist, with associated Community Outreach Team, will undertake community based
stakeholder consultations and finesse stakeholder buy-in with respect to project interventions,. This will
build upon the work carried out by the EU Support Programme with the GEF contribution focusing on
community participation and capacity building around identified conservation areas.
The Specialist will be responsible for co-ordinating the Socio-economic assessment (outlined below).
He/she would provide recommendations regarding avenues and mechanisms for engendering public
participation in project design and implementation, in line with current GEF policy. Methods to be
followed are likely to include participation workshops, social dynamics studies, study tours for
community leaders and assisting communities in institution-building. The specialist will prepare a Public
Participation Plan detailing the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders at the community level
in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of project activities.
Duration 75 days
Results
- Completed Socio-economic assessment
- Contribution towards defining the outputs and activities required to address threats to biodiversity, by
providing inputs regarding social feasibility.
- Public Participation Plan for engendering community based multi-stakeholder participation in the
activities of the full project, describing the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders at the
community level in project activities; a summary of this Plan (5-6 pages maximum) for incorporation
in the stakeholder participation plan which will be included in the Project Brief.
- Clear documentation of the stakeholder consultation process undertaken during the PDF B.
13. Community Outreach; Team Participatory Social Feasibility Assessment [Component 5]
Objectives
The Community Outreach Team, consisting of 2 males and 2 females, will assist the rural sociologist to
44
prepare the Public Participation Plan and document the perspectives of local communities, with a special
focus on indigenous groups, as regards natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. An
assessment of potential resource use conflicts with a bearing on conservation outcomes will be undertaken
and will provide a basis for determining the feasibility of different conservation and associated
interventions. The information derived will provide a basis for scoping project activities, and for
designing public participation mechanisms. The work will encourage the participation of major
community based stakeholders in design work, paving the way for multi-stakeholder “ownership” of
proposed conservation strategies and processes.
Duration 12 months
Results
-
-
-
-
Design of a process for engaging community participation in the socio-economic assessment, in
defining conservation management problems, and in designing solutions, making use, where
appropriate, of participatory planning tools.
Execution of community outreach activities to clarify project objectives, define activities, appraise
local needs, priorities and perceptions, and identify social, institutional, economic and other local
level issues with a bearing on conservation. This will involve community workshops once a month
throughout project development.
Report on the perceptions and needs of the different stakeholder groups; identify possible conflicts
and provide recommendations as to how expectations can be addressed under the Full Project,
including mechanisms for conflict avoidance or resolution, while permitting the goal of biodiversity
conservation to be met.
A carefully documented account of the consultation process, providing clear evidence of
participation, particularly of indigenous communities.
Wide ranging community support for proposed project activities, greater clarity regarding the roles
and responsibilities of communities in the conservation stakes, and agreed strategies and activities to
foster conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
13.1 Socio-economic Assessment
To be carried out by the Rural Sociologist and the Community Outreach Team
Objectives
The objective of this study is to provide an assessment of different stakeholder groups in the project
regions, including a review of their perspectives and needs as regards natural resource management and
biodiversity conservation. The study would provide an assessment of potential resource use conflicts that
will have a bearing on conservation outcomes, and provide a basis for determining the feasibility of
intervention at each of the sites. The information provided will provide a basis for scoping project
activities, and for designing public participation mechanisms. The work will encourage the participation
of major stakeholders in design work, paving the way for multi-stakeholder “ownership” of proposed
conservation processes.
Information derived under this study will feed into the design of the Public Participation Plan, and
determination of optimal execution and implementation arrangements. It will also help scoping project
activities, particularly conservation awareness and advocacy elements, monitoring measures, and
participatory management mechanisms. The quality of social engagement at this stage, will have a major
bearing on the efficacy of future conservation efforts in the regions.
Duration 40 days
45
Results
-
-
Design of a participatory process for engaging the participation of community based stakeholders in
the assessment.
Characterisation of different stakeholder groups (group size, leadership, livelihoods, sociological and
demographic trends).
Report on the perceptions and needs of the different stakeholder groups, identification and mitigation
against possible negative socio-economic impacts on local stakeholders resulting from the project and
recommendations as to how expectations can be addressed under the Full Project, including
mechanisms for conflict avoidance or resolution, while permitting the goal of biodiversity
conservation to be met.
A carefully documented account of the consultation process, providing clear evidence of
participation.
Information will be provided for each of the project sites enabling stakeholder characteristics to be
clearly differentiated by site.
Public Participation Plan describing the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in project
activities; a summary of this Plan (5-6 pages maximum) for incorporation in the stakeholder
participation plan which will be included as an attachment to the Project Brief.
Methods
- Review previous stakeholder analyses and anthropological studies on the regions.
- Identify different stakeholder groups in consultation with local government and community and
indigenous peoples leaders.
- Conduct meetings/workshops with leaders of stakeholder groups and/or interviews with
representatives in order to determine their perceptions, expectations and aspirations in relation to
economic and social development, utilisation of natural resources, and conservation of biodiversity.
- Working together with the Rural Sociologist and other consultants, identify options for interventions
under the Full Project to provide incentives for public involvement in project implementation and to
avoid or resolve conflicts between the expectations of stakeholder groups and conservation of
biodiversity.
14. Invasive Species (IS) Eradication to be carried out by the Agricultural Research Council
[Component 6]
Objectives:
The activity should assist authorities in the Wild Coast to work on the control of alien plants. The team
contracted will help to produce a draft strategy for the control of alien plants on the Wild Coast
This will include site and species specific management plans for priority areas and strategies for the
management of buffer areas. They will work closely with the Working for Water programme.
Duration: 40 days
Results: The Technical Assistance will contribute substantially towards the following deliverables.
- Initiation of experimental research; including mapping of invasives and input into Wild Coast
decision making GIS, documentation of inter-specific interactions between invasive plants and native
flora. If necessary this will be completed during the project implementation phase.
- Draft strategy for the control of alien plants on the Wild Coast
- Priority areas identified and species specific management plans and strategies for the management of
buffer areas established.
- Collaborative strategy designed to involve local communities in control efforts
46
15. Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist [Component 8]
To be carried out by a specialist with input from other consultants, in particular; Project Coordinator,
Conservation Manager, Associate Expert to the Conservation Manager, Conservation Planning Specialist,
Rural Sociologist, Sustainable Use Expert
Objectives
To design a monitoring, reporting and evaluation system that measures the impact of project activities
using quantifiable indicators, and provides a basis for collating and disseminating lessons learned. To
investigate the possibility of adapting the existing Conservation Advisory Committee to perform the
function of the Independent Expert Panel. This panel would act as the Technical Advisory Committee of
the Full Project which would assist in M&E activities.
Duration 20 days
Results



Framework design for a monitoring system for biodiversity conservation in the project sites.
Baseline situation report with objectively verifiable indicators that may be used as a basis for tracking
project performance and impact.
Recommendations on the continuation of the Monitoring and Evaluation Independent Expert Panel.
Method
 Identify, with assistance from other consultants, a set of measurable and synthetic indicators on
the basis of the specific characteristics of each region. These indicators should provide a basis for
recording changes in the state of biodiversity conservation and associated socio-economic
parameters. These will track anthropogenic impacts on critical habitats and keystone species.
Indicators will, by design, also measure the projects contribution to meeting targets set under
Strategic Priority 1.
 Identify sources of verification of indicators.
 Determine appropriate analytical and sampling tools for impact monitoring.
 Design a monitoring and evaluation system for application in the full project. A summary
narrative describing this system will be prepared, for insertion into the final project
documentation. The main focus will be to maintain a watching brief on biodiversity trends, with
information fed through to decision-makers to inform policy development and guide regulatory
activities.
47