-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
PROJECT DOCUMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Financing Plan (in US$):
UNDP Project ID: SAF/03/G31/A/1G/99
Country: South Africa
Project Title: C.A.P.E. Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
(ABI)
GEF Agency: UNDP
Executing Agency: S.A. National Parks (SANParks)
Duration: 5 years (2003-2008)
GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity Conservation
GEF Operational Program: OP 1: – Arid and
semi-arid ecosystems cross cutting with land degradation
GEF Strategic Priority: SP 1: Protected Areas
Estimated Starting Date: September 2003
Primary Target Beneficiaries: Local Communities
GEF Project/Component
Project
3,147,675
PDF-B
78,550
Sub-total GEF:
3,226,225
Cofinancing
International
1,100,000
Government
6,784,700
Private Sector
416,800
Others:
200,000
PDF B
57,000
Sub-total Cofinancing 8,558,550
TOTAL Project financing: 11,784,775
Financing for associated activities if any
End-Users
21,466,842
Secondary Target Beneficiaries: Government and NGOs
DCAS Sector/Subsector: (20) Environment; (10)
Environment policies, planning and legislation
ACC Sector/Subsector: (3) Natural resources; (12) Sector policy and planning
Primary areas of focus: (3) Promoting environmental and natural resources sustainability;
(17) Improvement of data and information on sustainable development
Primary Type of Intervention: (2) Direct support; (9) Advocacy and strategic-oriented
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Project Summary: The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) Biodiversity Hotspot is a globally significant
repository of biodiversity, recognized for its high vulnerability. The Hotspot is threatened by a
number of human-induced pressures, which are gradually undermining key conservation values. The
Government of South Africa has initiated an ambitious and comprehensive long-term program to
arrest these pressures and protect a representative sample of biodiversity. The Program, known as
Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) will implement the Cape Action Plan for
the Environment (CAPE Strategy), which was endorsed by the Government of South Africa in 2000.
The CAPE Strategy provides a long-term vision for biodiversity conservation in the CFR, and
articulates an action plan to strategically address recognized conservation priorities. Activities are
being scheduled over 20 years, divided into three distinct phases. The Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
(ABI) comprises one of three complementary GEF initiatives in support of C.A.P.E. aimed at
strengthening systemic, institutional and individual capacities and establishing the know-how needed
for conservation in different ecological and socio-economic conditions as needed to attain and
sustain positive conservation outcomes. The initiative has been designed to distil lessons and best
practices in Phase 1 of C.A.P.E., through demonstration activities geared to addressing gaps in the
management framework, to inform implementation of subsequent phases of the CAPE Programme.
The Agulhas Plain constitutes one of the largest extant storehouses of lowland fynbos and
Renosterveld habitats in the world. The diversity of habitat types, wetland ecosystems, Red data
plant species and local endemics is unmatched in the CFR. The area is currently being threatened by
a range of anthropogenic pressures, but nevertheless constitutes one of the best remaining
opportunities at an in situ site level for conserving the CFR’s lowland habitats. ABI would pilot new
management measures and institutional arrangements for conservation at a sub-regional level, tied
closely to the activities of the productive sectors and rooted in decentralised governance frameworks
Signatures:
On Behalf of:
UNDP
Government of South
Africa
SA National Parks
Signature
Date
Name / Title
Table of Content
Section
Page Number
Project background and context
5 – 8 (paras 1-19)
Baseline course of action
8 – 14
Alternative course of action
14 – 29
Stakeholder participation and implementation arrangements
30- 34
Financial arrangements
34
Risks and sustainability
34 – 37
Monitoring, evaluation, and lessons learned
37 – 39
Legal context
39
Audit
39
List of Annexes
40
Annexes
41 - 140
ACRONYMS
ABI
ABIOC
ANP
AP
BotSoc
CAPE
CCC
CCU
CBD
CIC
CFK
CFR
CEPF
CI
CITES
COP
DEAT
DWAF
FFI
FLP
FVCT
GEF
IAS
IDP
IUCN
JMI
NBI
NBSAP
NGOs
PAs
PIU
SANParks
UNDP
WBFC
WCNCB
WfW
WWF
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
ABI Project Oversight Committee
Agulhas National Park
Agulhas Plain
Botanical Society of South Africa
Cape Action for People and Environment
Cape Coordination Committee
Cape Coordination Unit
Convention on Biological Diversity
Cape Implementation Committee
Cape Floral Kingdom
Cape Floristic Region
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
Conservation International
Convention on International Trade with Endangered Species
Code of Good Practices
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
Fauna & Flora International
Flower Labeling Program
Flower Valley Conservation Trust
Global Environment Facility
Invasive Alien Species
Integrated Development Plan
The World Conservation Union
Joint Marketing Initiative
National Botanical Institute
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
Non-governmental organizations
Protected areas
Project Implementation Unit
South African National Parks
United Nations Development Program
Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy
Western Cape Nature Conservation Board
Working for Water
World Wide Fund for Nature
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 4
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT:
1.
Environmental Context: South Africa is one of the 17 megadiversity countries of the world,
identified as such owing to the strength of its floral diversity and endemism. South Africa has three of the
world’s 19 threatened biodiversity hotspots, namely the Cape Floristic Region (CFR), the Succulent
Karoo and Maputaland-Pondoland. It also has six of the world’s Centers of Plant Diversity and
Endemism as identified by WWF/IUCN including the Cape Floristic Region, one of six floral kingdoms
globally (and the only floral kingdom found entirely within the bounds of a single country). South
Africa’s plant diversity is estimated at 23,420 species (9% of the world’s total) with 16,500 endemics, of
which 5,870 are found just within the fynbos of the CFR (Megadiversity, Conservation International).
The CFR occupies a surface of 90,000 square kilometers and 70% of its 9,600 plant species are endemic.
2.
The Agulhas Plain covers 270,000 ha of semi-arid, lowland fynbos and Renosterveld. Located in
the Cape Floristic Region Biodiversity Hotspot, the area is a globally significant repository of
biodiversity, recognized for its high irreplaceability and vulnerability (see Annex E for a detailed
description of site biology). The diversity of habitat types, wetland ecosystems, Red data plant species
and local endemics is unmatched in the CFR. The Plain constitutes one of the largest extant storehouses
of lowland fynbos and threatened Renosterveld in the world, which are considered the highest priorities
for conservation in South Africa and globally.1 With an annual mean precipitation of some 350 mm, the
area is classified as semi arid with a Mediterranean type climate typified by a winter rainfall regime.
3.
The plant diversity is remarkable, with almost 2,500 species known from the area, including at
least 100 in the Red Data Book and 100 locally endemic and unique vegetation types. The Agulhas Plain
is renowned for harboring an endemic vegetation type, Elim Asteraceous Fynbos, an endemic-rich, low
growing transition between fynbos and renosterveld characteristic of shale and shallow lateritic soils.
Characteristic species include 6 endemic Proteaceae: Leucadendron elimense, L. laxum, L. modestum, L.
stelligerum, Leucospermum heterophyllum, and Protea pudens (Mustart et al 1997). Three other
vegetation types (limestone proteoid, Elim asteraceous fynbos, restioid fynbos and neutral sand or
proteoid fynbos) are highly threatened. The most recent detailed vegetation mapping of a part of the area
identified no less than 36 different vegetation types (Euston-Brown 1999), and 12 different wetland types
(Jones et al 2000). The high biodiversity is attributed firstly to change in plant species composition on
different soil types and to changes in plant assemblages on the same soil type but in different geographic
locations.
4.
The very low gradients in the south-eastern plain result in significant wetland development, and
create the second largest lacustrine wetland in South Africa, Soetendals vlei. The Agulhas region is
unique in terms of the wide variety of wetlands (freshwater springs, rivers, estuaries, lakes, vleis and
endorheic pans) that occur within a relatively small area. Two Ramsar Sites are located on the Agulhas
Plain, De Hoop vlei and the De Mond estuary.
5.
The Agulhas Plain houses, or is a significant part of, three Important Bird Areas: De Hoop (SA
119), Heuningnes River and Estuary (SA 121), and Overberg Wheatbelt (SA 115) (Barnes 1998). These
areas hold the largest populations of blue cranes (Anthropoides paradiseus) in the world, and significant
numbers of Stanley’s bustard (Neotis denhami), white stork (Ciconia ciconia), Caspian tern
(Hydroprogne caspia) and black harrier (Circus maurus). Over 270 bird species have been documented
in the Agulhas region. The Agulhas long-billed lark is endemic to the plain and near threatened (Ryan &
Bloomer 1999). Genetic and vocal analyses also confirm that a second species, the Agulhas Clapper lark,
is endemic to the plain (P. Ryan, pers comm.). The project area is home to the endangered Cape vulture
(Gyps coprotheres) and significant populations of the Red listed striped flufftail (Sarothrura affinis). De
Hoop vlei is the only locality where greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus ruber) have successfully bred in
1
Lombard et. al. , 1997. Reserve design on the Agulhas Plain, South Africa: a flexible tool for conservation in a species-rich and fragmented
landscape. Conservation Biology, 11, 1101 – 1116.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 5
South Africa. The coastline supports a rich marine and intertidal life, with breeding sites of endangered
and rare bird species, such as the African black oystercatcher (Heamatopus moquini) and the Damara tern
(Sterna balaenarum). Two endangered, endemic amphibians have significant proportions of their global
populations in the project site, namely the micro frog (Microbatrachella capensis) and Cape platanna
(Xenopus gilli). The Red Data listed leopard toad (Bufo pardalis) has a viable population in the area. The
threatened southern dwarf adder (Bitis armata), extinct from similar habitat further West in the CFR
occurs in some numbers on the calcareous and limestone outcrops of the coastal plain (Baard et al 2000).
6.
Of the 81 terrestrial mammals known from the CFR, 72 have been recorded historically from the
Plain. Historically, the area supported vast herds of plains game, being one of the few areas of the Cape
with adequate grazing and year round fresh water. Currently, it retains one of the only extant habitats for
viable populations of the endemic and threatened bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas dorcas ) and Cape
mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra)( Boshoff et al 2001; C. Martens pers comm). The population of
eland (Taurotragus oryx) in De Hoop Nature Reserve is the third largest in South Africa at 320+ animals.
The Agulhas Plain is one of very few strongholds of the honey badger (Mellivora capensis), widely
persecuted for its local destruction of apiaries and fowl runs. Significant numbers of Southern right
whales frequent the Agulhas coast for breeding. The large breeding colony of fur seals (Arctocephalus
pusillus) on Geyser Rock produces over 8000 pups a year or 3% of the recruitment in Southern Africa.
7.
Land use pressures on biodiversity and future development potential imply that the area is
increasingly threatened (Cole et al 2000). However, sufficiently intact ecosystems and potentially
compatible land uses remain to construct a representative and viable system of protected areas (for
sustainable use and conservation purposes) representing an adequate sample of the area’s biodiversity.
8.
Socio-economic Context: There are eight major urban settlements in the area, namely: Struisbaai,
Stanford, Gansbaai, Bredarsdop, De Kelders, Pearly Beach, Arniston and Agulhas, four smaller villages
and informal communities, divided in two municipalities: Overstrand and Agulhas. About 60% of the
region’s estimated 45,000 inhabitants live in rural areas, with a mean population density of 6/hectare.
However, there has been a tendency towards urbanization, with comparative urbanization figures of
50.3% for 1980 compared with 64% for 1997/98, affecting mainly the coastal areas. Many of the jobs
available to unskilled people in the area are of a seasonal or temporary nature. This can be seen in the
seasonal nature of fishery work, domestic services in the tourism industry, as well as wildflower and
agricultural labor. The Agulhas Plain is characterized by a very high under employment rate (e.g. 58 % in
Gansbaai), rudimentary health services and poor education levels in many of the rural areas.
9.
Most of the land is in private or communal ownership and is used mainly for commercial
agriculture. Four main categories of farm have been identified (Barry Heydenrych, 1999): livestock farms
(40%), fynbos farms (28%), conservation areas (22%) and mixed farms (10%). It is estimated that approx.
74% of the Agulhas Plain is still covered by natural vegetation and has not yet been transformed by
agriculture.
TABLE 1: LAND USES
Statistics/ Land Use
Size of Region
Total number of inhabitants
Livestock farms (grazing, cash crops and game)
Fynbos farms
Conservation areas – excluding conservancies
Mixed farms
Area of transformed land
Remaining natural vegetation (not transformed by agriculture)
Water bodies
10.
Agulhas Plain (figures are approximate)
270,000 ha.
45,000
108,000 ha
75,600 ha
56,304 ha
27,000 ha
70,000 ha
200,000 ha
2800 ha.
The livestock farms derive a substantial part of their income from cereal cash crops such as wheat
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 6
and barley. As a result of falling profits for wheat crops, farmers have also begun to cultivate other cash
crops such as canola. The net income for livestock farming on cultivated land in Agulhas Plain is
estimated to be approx. US$ 1 million/year. Almost half of the working farms on the Plain rely on veld
for cattle grazing, a quarter for sheep grazing and 10% for game. The value of grazing of indigenous veld
on the Agulhas Plain amounts to an estimated US$ 445,000/year. Combined with the grazing value from
cultivated lands, livestock farming on the Agulhas Plain generates an estimated net income of US$ 1.5
million/year. Very few farmers in Agulhas Plain are presently ranching game, and the estimated income
from game is small at US$ 10,000/year. The harvest of fynbos comprises the largest single livelihood
opportunity in Agulhas Plain, yielding an estimated net income of US $ 1.15 million/year. Cultivated
flower orchards yield an estimated net income of US$ 200,000/year (from 20 large- and 100 small farms).
11.
In addition to its biodiversity values, the area is very important for its cultural-historical features.
The Moravian mission station at Elim has the largest wooden waterwheel in South Africa and the clock in
the Elim church dates back to 1764. High concentrations of Late Stone Age shell middens, as well as fish
traps, apparently constructed by Khokhoi pastoralists, are found along the coast.
12.
Institutional Context: The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is responsible for
most environmental management functions in South Africa. South African National Parks (SANParks) is
the statutory agency responsible for the national network of protected areas. Its mission is “to acquire and
manage a system of national parks that represents the indigenous wildlife, vegetation, landscapes and
significant cultural assets of South Africa, for the joy and benefit and spiritual well being of the nation
and the people of the world”. Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB) is the provincial
agency responsible for biodiversity conservation in Western Cape Province and manages most of the
protected areas (except national parks) in the CFR. The National Botanical Institute with its headquarters
at Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens aims “to promote the sustainable use, conservation, appreciation and
enjoyment of the exceptionally rich plant life of South Africa for the benefit of all people”. The
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s Working for Water Program conducts a very active countrywide alien clearance campaign, focused on the control of alien trees that undermine hydrological systems.
Finally, the area is sub-divided into the Overstrand and Cape Agulhas Municalities, which, are expected
to progressively assume greater responsibilities for coordinating government services, as an outgrowth of
government policy promoting the decentralization of a range of public services to local governments.
13.
The Botanical Society of South Africa’s Cape Conservation Unit is very active in the CFR,
working on development of conservation incentives with private landowners and on lowland
conservation. Flower Valley Conservation Trust (FVCT), is another local NGO in the project area
pioneering biodiversity businesses based on sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos. Fauna & Flora
International (FFI), the world’s longest established international conservation organization is working
with SANParks and FVCT to support conservation activities and biodiversity-based business
development.
14.
Policy and Legislative Context: The Government of South Africa has long demonstrated a
commitment 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. Policy frameworks have been substantially transformed in the Post apartheid era. The
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) has 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 (NBSAP) with assistance
from GEF/UNDP. The country has ratified the Ramsar and Bonn Convention, World Heritage
Convention, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) and
the Convention on Biological Diversity. In addition, the Government is in the process of developing a
biome management program to advance biodiversity conservation at the bioregional scale. Ecoregional
Conservation Plans developed for 4 regions (including the Agulhas plain), enjoy widespread recognition
and institutional support and provide a unique platform to galvanize collective action and commitment.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 7
15.
National Biodiversity, Protected Area, Agricultural Resource Use and Land Management
legislation is all currently under review or being redrafted. This provides a significant opportunity for
successful pilot projects to lead policy development. Strict alien plant control laws have been in place
since early 2001 but suffer from a lack of implementation and compliance provisions. Provincial
ordinances enabling private conservation initiatives (co-operative conservation management) and
affecting resource utilization (such as flower harvesting) date from 1974 and require significant
amendments to reflect advances in scientific understanding, and assure integration into national policies.
16.
The Agulhas Plain was identified as a conservation priority by SANParks in 1986. The area is
currently recognized as the highest priority on the SANParks’ agenda. Recognizing the importance of the
area, a fine scale conservation mapping exercise was completed in 20002, and identified critical areas for
conservation, allowing for the development of a conservation strategy. In 2000, the SA Government
approved a Medium-Term GEF Project Priority Framework, identifying strategic areas for GEF
investment, needed to catalyse a broad spectrum of environmental management endeavours of high
national priority. This identified the CFR, including the Agulhas Plain as the top priority for conservation
intervention.
17.
In September 2000, the South African Government approved the Cape Action Plan for the
Environment (CAPE Strategy), prepared with assistance from the GEF/ World Bank, under the Cape
Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project. The CAPE strategy constitutes the first strategy developed
for an entire biodiversity hotspot. The Government of South Africa is now moving to implement the
Strategy through a comprehensive twenty-year national programmatic framework entitled Cape Action
for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.). The long-term objective is to protect and where appropriate
restore a representative sample of the biodiversity of the CFR, to optimise global and domestic
environmental benefits. Under C.A.P.E, the policy foundations, institutional arrangements, capacities,
financial instruments, and other tools needed to achieve this objective would be systematically developed,
allowing for the effective integration of conservation objectives in the productive sectors. A suite of
different conservation approaches would be designed, tested, adapted and replicated to scale,
accommodating the range of ecological, socio-economic and institutional conditions found in the CFR.
18.
Over its 20 year timescale, C.A.P.E. aims at expanding the area under effective conservation
management, supported by a strong policy framework, capacitated institutions, new financial mechanisms
and other instruments needed to assure the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of management. An
overriding objective is to create the foundations for a ‘biodiversity economy’: linking the environmental
benefits of the CFR directly to economic growth and livelihood creation. A key strategic design feature of
C.A.P.E. is a phased approach: Activities are being scheduled over 20 years, providing an adequate time
budget to systematically address current and emergent threats to biodiversity and ensure sustainable
management. Interventions would be phased, with 3 distinct stages anticipated. From an international
perspective, C.A.P.E. represents the most highly developed of a number of biome-wide conservation
initiatives being undertaken, and C.A.P.E.’s approach to strategic planning at regional scale is being used
as a model in many regions. Implementation will pilot a number of innovative approaches and will
provide replicable experiences and lessons both within South Africa and beyond.
19.
Following an international donor conference in September 2000, the Government of South Africa
requested support from GEF through the World Bank and UNDP to implement the C.A.P.E programme,
and specifically to establish the institutional foundations, systemic, institutional and individual capacities
and know how needed to spearhead conservation in a cost effective, participatory and sustainable manner.
BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION
20.
2
Threats: The Agulhas Plain is currently being transformed through conversion to agriculture;
The mapping exercise was completed with funding support through the GEF/ World Bank, Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 8
alien plant infestation; inappropriate fire regimes; unsustainable harvesting of wild fynbos; and
indiscriminate coastal development and urbanization3.
21.
Direct habitat transformation by agriculture. Cereal cropping and dairy pastures have converted
more than 90% of available shale soils on the Agulhas Plain, with significant impacts on Elim
Asteraceous Fynbos and Renoster Fynbos, two vegetation types endemic to the Agulhas Plain (EustonBrown 1999). Cultivation of the more fertile shale-derived soils (previously supporting coastal
Renosterveld and Elim fynbos) for cereals, vineyards, pastures and cultivated flowers covers 22.5% of the
area4. Centuries of intensive agriculture have reduced coastal Renosterveld to between 5 % (in the west)
and 35% (in the east) of its former extent5 and only 1.5% of the original area is conserved6.
22.
Although most transformation for agriculture was completed by the late 1960’s, a new trend is the
development of novel crops and cultivars, which are able to grow in previously marginal areas. The
Agulhas Plain is a recognized area of growth in the wine industry, exploiting the cooling summer sea
breezes and poor soils for low volume, high quality wines (Hughes et al 2002). Several experimental
vineyards have been erected, some in sensitive head water catchments of the two main river systems and
others requiring in-stream irrigation dams. Increased international demand could greatly expand the area
under wine, threatening even small remnants of natural habitat.
23.
Native flower cultivation has emerged in the 1990’s as another major threat to habitats previously
considered safe. Driven by demand from international consumers demanding perfect flowers on long
stalks, many farmers have been forced into planting cultivars and hybrids. These are planted in
monoculture back into freshly cleared fynbos areas (Proteas will not grow in previously disturbed and
fertilized lands due to phosphate toxicity). Apart from any threats of genetic exchange with wild relatives,
this cultivation effectively disrupts many natural processes in fynbos, eliminates many native species and
introduces weeds into pristine vegetation.
24.
The second greatest threat to biodiversity in Agulhas Plain is represented by alien plant species.
Shifting dune corridors were stabilized from the 1930s to the 1970s with Australian Acacia species, many
of which have invaded acid fynbos and limestone habitats. At least 14.7% of the natural habitat is
completely converted to dense thickets of invasive alien plants. Wind, water and birds spread seeds and
40% of the plain is infested to some degree. Alien plant infestation threatens to displace the endangered
fynbos types, such as neutral sand proteoid fynbos. Limestone Proteoid Fynbos is primarily threatened by
invading stands of Acacia cyclops. Without pathogens or native seed predators, alien species outcompete
locally adapted plants, grow to greater heights and greatly increase standing and leaf litter biomass. This
increases the frequency and intensity of natural and man-induced wildfires, which burn with few
impediments. Native seeds and shrubs are ill adapted to overly frequent and intense wildfires, and retreat
with each fire cycle while aliens trees thrive (often increasing in density by 1000%.)
25.
Inappropriate fire regime is another threat to the lowland fynbos in the Agulhas Plain and has
resulted in a reduced seed production and subsequently reduced plant diversity in the affected area. Fire
has been used for a very long time as a management tool and almost half of the farmers in the region burn
their land to improve wildflower production. Increased frequency of wildfires due to invasive aliens,
insufficient firebreaks and early warning systems and increased human activities is impacting on many
3
It is estimated that at least 1,400 plant species in the CFR are now endangered or close to extinction. Although the area has been utilized since
the Early Stone Age, the most dramatic change to the landscape has occurred after 1850, with two major forces, direct habitat transformation by
agriculture and alien plant species, being responsible for the transformation of indigenous veld. Settlers eliminated most large carnivores and
herbivores during the early colonization of the plain in the 1700s. Severe habitat fragmentation due to agriculture and direct persecution have
impacted many large bird species.
4
Lombard et. al. , 1997. Reserve design on the Agulhas Plain, South Africa: a flexible tool for conservation in a species-rich and fragmented
landscape. Conservation Biology, 11, 1101 – 1116.
5
Heijnis et. al. 1999 Picking up the pieces: A biosphere reserve framework for fragmented landscape – The Coastal lowlands of the Western
Cape, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 471 – 496.
6
Rebelo, A.G., 1992 Preservation of biotic diversity. In The Ecology of Fynbos. Nutrients Fire and Diversity. (ed. R.M. Cowling) pp. 309 – 344,
Oxford University Press, Cape Town.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 9
plant species, which fail to reach maturity and develop safe seed store levels between fires
Implementation of fire control suffers from an over centralization of planning systems and legislative
deficiencies. Civil structures to co-ordinate farm level control, training and preparedness are not yet in
place.
26.
High concentrations of livestock along wetlands Sheep and cattle are reared throughout the plain
except on sandstone-derived soils too poor to support any grazing. Small farm size and generally poor
veld condition led to high concentrations of stock along wetlands where over-trampling, local
overgrazing, bank erosion and eutrophication result. A dominant perennial wetland sedge, Palmiet
(Prionium serratum), has been reduced over wide areas impairing its ameliorating influence on high
flows and channel stability. This coupled with the invasive alien plant species in the catchment areas
contributes significantly to wetlands deterioration.
27.
Unsustainable use of the natural resources, such as wildflower harvesting represent other threats
to the biodiversity of the Agulhas Plain. Without a long history of utilization, sustainable harvest levels
for many species are unknown. Many farmers and itinerant harvesters over-exploit wildflower resources
to profit from short term leases. Coupled with the threat of poor harvesting techniques, excessive off-take
of flower (and hence seed) resources severely reduce post fire recruitment of sensitive species.
28.
Although potentially sustainable industries are widespread on the Agulhas Plain, inappropriate
practices and indiscriminate persecution threaten numerous species. Honey production from wildflowers
and pollination hives are an important income stream during winter, which is raided by Honey badgers if
unsecured. Apiarists were responsible for dramatic declines in Honey Badger populations through gin
trapping. The Agulhas Plain is one of the few strongholds of the species. A farmer awareness campaign
and “badger-friendly” honey certification scheme appears to be working but needs continual
reinforcement.
29.
Indiscriminate coastal development and urbanization is destroying and degrading the integrity of
coastal habitats and ecosystem processes, as well as exacerbating pollution problems and increasing
pressure on already over-utilized natural resources. Many plant species are narrow range endemics,
occurring as edaphic specialists particularly on the shale, laterite and limestone soils. These are threatened
by inappropriately located developments of several seaside towns and resorts.
30.
Land Degradation: The Cape Floral Region is fragile on account of its dryland characteristics.
The Agulhas Plain is at risk of land degradation, from many of the same processes that threaten
biodiversity. There is currently a dearth of quantitative baseline data on the incidence of soil erosion and
hydrological disturbance in Agulhas Plain. Presently, such degradation appears to be patchy and
localized. The area is nevertheless vulnerable. The spread of alien invasive trees (particularly acacias)
constitutes a particular problem. These species grow in dense thickets, and suppress the growth of
understorey vegetation, leaving soil exposed and vulnerable to sheet erosion, which in certain areas is
causing the submergence of wetlands by sand deposits. The problem is intensified in areas that have
suffered from frequent intensive fires, which further reduce ground vegetation. Fire hazards tend to be
greatest in areas suffering from heavy alien infestation, due to the increase in combustible material (tree
bark and leaf litter). Several alien species are also known to change soil properties, including by
increasing nutrient loads and ph factors. This in turn, tends to retard the growth of native plants, poorly
adapted to these soil conditions.
31.
A further consequence of invading alien species is greatly altered ground water and river flow
regimes. Invasive tree species (e.g. Acacia cyclops) can use up 300 l of water per adult tree per day in
summer, and reach a density of 3000-4000 trees per ha (Toens et al 1998). This has significant impacts on
the hydrology of the complex wetland systems, which are sensitive to subtle changes in water level, and
on the productive estuaries requiring flushes for fish spawning and connection to the sea. The impacts on
biodiversity from changes in hydrology from alien infestation are heightened in the semi-arid Agulhas
Plain. The failure to clear invasive alien plants from the catchment of Nuvejaars – Heuningnes River, is
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 10
expected to result in reduced water flows, which could close the mouth of Heuningnes estuary.
32.
Ostrich ranching is presently limited in the area, but is known to contribute to land degradation
unless carefully managed. Ostriches are effective foragers, and can quickly denude fields of vegetation.
Further they contribute to over-trampling, and their acidic phosphorous rich droppings change soil
characteristics. A watching brief is needed on the development of this industry in the project region. The
impacts of other livestock are less damaging; while nutrients from dairy cow herds can cause wetland
eutrophication, carefully constructed catchment dams on many farms are largely containing the problem.
Studies show that some form of indigenous plant cover can be readily restored in most degraded areas
that have become densely invaded by alien plants.7 However, the technical know how to facilitate full
ecological restoration of such lands is perfunctory.
33.
A detailed analysis of the afore-mentioned threats, and description of effects, root causes and
management issues is provided in Annex F.
34.
Baseline: The baseline course of events in a business-as usual scenario over the next five years is
described below. The incremental cost analysis (Annex B) provides a detailed summary of baseline costs.
35.
Conservation Management in the Productive Landscape of Agulhas Plain: Most conservation
initiatives in the CFR have focused heretofore on protecting the mountainous landscapes of the Cape
Folded Belt. The biologically rich Cape lowlands have, by comparison, received relatively little attention.
Some 22% of the Agulhas Plain is under nominal protection, including the Agulhas National Park (11,000
ha), proclaimed in 1999 and located in the Southern extremity of the area and De Hoop Nature Reserve
(36,000 ha,) on the Eastern boundary. The former is managed by South African National Parks and the
latter by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board. Several private protected areas have also been
established. One such reserve is owned by a para-statal electricity utility (ESKOM) and covers some of
the richest areas of limestone fynbos known, with remarkable levels of highly range restricted endemic
species. One community reserve, Geelkop (Yellow hill) is managed by the Elim Church Council, and
harbors critically threatened Elim Fynbos. The area is mostly clear of alien species, unlike many of the
other reserves. Finally, three voluntary co-operative land management areas (known locally as
conservancies) have been established by farmers. In the West, the Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy
currently conserves over 13000 ha. These sites provide varying degrees of security for flora and fauna.
While the De Hoop Nature Reserve is relatively well protected, the Agulhas National Park remains is in
its infancy, and the full range of protected area management functions and systems have yet to be
installed. The Private Reserves suffer from a dearth of management capacity, as a conservation extension
service is lacking. These sites mostly lack management plans, and have limited enforcement capabilities.
36.
There is thus a dual need to strengthen management in the Agulhas National Park and improve
conservation systems on the private reserves. Unfortunately, the existing conservation agencies tend to
operate in isolation, in the absence of a collaborative institutional mechanism at the sub-regional level.
Several conservation functions are duplicated leading to a sub-optimal utilization of conservation moneys.
This problem is particularly acute with respect to the provision of services to the network of private
reserves. Various pieces of legislation provide for the establishment of private reserves. The National
Parks Act (1976) allows for the establishment of contractual parks, managed by SANParks under longterm contracts. Although remaining under private ownership, use rights on these sites have historically
been strictly delimited. This has diminished the incentives for landholders to establish reserves under this
category. In the Western Cape, Private Nature Reserves are regulated under the Cape Nature
Conservation Ordinance (1974). Although registered with the WCNCB, they enjoy no security of tenure
or management support. The WCNCB Act (1999) allows for the Board to enter into management
agreements with any landowner, but no legislation has been enacted allowing for the creation of
conservancies. Generally these areas are subject to less restrictive use rights. The agreements, although
7
Holmes and Cowling, 1997 The effects of invasion by Accacia saligna on the guild structure and regeneration capabilities of South African
fynbos shrubland. Journal of applied ecology, 34, 317 – 332.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 11
untested, allow for the provision of management services from the WCNCB, including for management
planning and biological monitoring. The capacity of the afore-mentioned conservation agencies to service
private reserves is for all practical purposes limited, meaning that the conservation potential of these
reserves has yet to be properly realized.
37.
The existing reserve system is furthermore not representative of the patterns of biodiversity in the
landscape. Existing protected areas are mainly located on sandy substrates on the coastal margins of the
Plain. These areas are largely artifacts of earlier efforts to stabilize sand dunes under forestry legislation.
Only 3 out of 36 vegetation types in the plain West of Arniston (70% of the study area) are sufficiently
represented in protected areas (Cole et al 2000). In addition, with the exception of the De Hoop NR, most
established reserves are small and fragmented, and are inadequate to sustain vital ecological processes.
Very few corridors are open for species movement in response to climatic shifts, grazing pressures or
natural dispersal. Riverine and wetland ecosystems are poorly represented, particularly in upstream areas.
Based on recommendations for the establishment of a system of reserves on both public and private lands,
made by Cowling and Mustart in the structure plan for Agulhas Plain (1994), Lombard (1977) undertook
the first comprehensive and systematic reserve selection exercise for the Agulhas Plain. This was
followed by a second and broader conservation planning exercise (1:250,000 scale) undertaken as part of
the process of preparing the CAPE Strategy (Cowling, 1999) covering the entire CFR. This identified the
Plain as a priority area requiring a more detailed plan. Subsequently, a fine-scale (1:10,000) conservation
plan was developed for the area (Cole et. Al, 2000), using cadastral boundaries as site selection units.
38.
The fine scale planning pointed to the need to expand the area under conservation management.
Given that funds for land purchase are limited, and limited land is currently held in the public domain, the
potential for establishing a publicly owned and managed conservation estate is obviously limited. While
there is a need to purchase lands of outstanding ecological significance to create core refugia, under
public ownership, the challenge remains not only of improving management systems on existing private
reserves, but also to establish new reserves, buffers and other areas on private and communal
landholdings. This challenge is evident to a greater or lesser effect throughout South Africa, and is
constraining efforts to expand the protected area estate, to protect a biologically representative sample of
biodiversity.
39.
There is furthermore, an unmet need to integrate protected areas into local planning and
development to ensure that off-reserve production systems are compatible with conservation objectives. A
mechanism for assuring such integration is provided under the Municipal Systems Act of 2000, which
requires all municipalities to produce integrated development plans (IDPs) to guide and inform all
planning, budgeting, management and decision making in the municipality. The Plans have legal status,
and can provide a powerful tool for assuring the integration of conservation and development objectives
locally. However, the institutional coordination mechanisms, planning and oversight systems and
individual capacities need to be systematically created and improved to secure these intended outcomes.
This necessitates the creation of partnerships between conservation authorities, landholders and
municipalities. In Agulhas, the two municipalities and local department of Agriculture are demonstrably
committed to developing a comprehensive model to integrate conservation concerns across the productive
sectors. However, no funding would specifically be earmarked for this in the baseline course of events. In
the absence of an integrated sub-regional management planning and decision making apparatus, backed
by an integrated cross-sectoral extension service, the threats to biodiversity are unlikely to be mitigated.
40.
Alien vegetation clearance. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s Working for Water
Program and the Department of Agriculture’s Landcare Project invest heavily in ecological restoration
works in the CFR, aiming simultaneously to provide employment for the socially marginalized populace.
SANParks and WCNCB has been able to secure funds from the Working for Water Program to clear alien
vegetation clearance in the Agulhas Plain. While some 4000 ha of land have been cleared, there is a need
to expand the scale of intervention, and in particular, to focus limited resources in areas of conservation
priority. There is a serious need to streamline the institutional arrangements, project planning processes
and implementation mechanisms around the objectives of biodiversity conservation, job creation and
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 12
water protection. The baseline will see some further investments in alien clearance, but no comprehensive
approach to lift technical and economic barriers by identifying priority conservation areas for protection,
increasing awareness about the benefits accruing from alien clearance, and developing markets for wood.
41.
Fire Management Strategy. Recently a National Veld and Forest Fire Act was promulgated. The
Act mandates that veldfire management strategies be developed at the local level and require landowners
to create and maintain firebreaks and install equipment to fight wildfires. There is a general
acknowledgment that landowners must work together to manage runaway veld fires. A fire management
association has been established in the area. However, there is a need to integrate biodiversity
conservation objectives into fire management strategies, recognizing that low-frequency low-intensity
fires are necessary to stimulate reproduction in many fynbos species, while wildfires may have a
substantial and detrimental impact. However, given limited awareness and coordination among the
landowners, fires will continue to affect large surfaces, with negative implications for biodiversity
management.
42.
Supporting biodiversity business based on the sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos: Wild fynbos
harvesting is the single largest economic activity on the Plain (Heydenrych, 1999). In 1999, Fauna &
Flora International purchased a fynbos farm in the name of a local NGO, Flower Valley Conservation
Trust and saved it from being ploughed and transformed into vineyards. The operation is based on the
sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos for the domestic and international cut flower markets. Recent
diversification of the business to include the manufacture of hand-made fynbos paper products has been
instrumental in ensuring year-round employment for people working in the largely seasonal flower
business, making Flower Valley an important contributor to poverty alleviation efforts in the CFR8. Over
the past year, efforts have focused on establishing a Certification system for sustainably harvested fynbos
flowers and on marketing. Strong linkages with European niche-markets have been established as a result
of this work and Flower Valley flowers and paper products are sold both on domestic and international
markets.
43.
The baseline situation is however characterized by a number of emergent risks, threatening
conservation outcomes: (a) unsustainable off take of commercially important species, without reference to
intra and inter-specific impacts. (b) a trend in South Africa towards flower farming. [This does little to
protect the conservation of whole plant communities and thus biodiversity, although it may, in instances,
reduce pressures on certain species.] These pressures need to be confronted, to protect the resource base
and foster conservation compatible livelihoods. However, a number of barriers impede the paradigm shift
from the unsustainable to sustainable use of wildflowers. These may be summarized as (a) inadequate
knowledge of the ecological determinants of sustainability, for different landholding units; (b) weak
regulatory and enforcement regimes, to ensure compliance with management best practices; (c) absence
of coordinated supply networks, to provide throughput while reducing offtake of certain desired species
at individual sites; (d) a lack of mechanisms to recover the marginal costs associated with ecosystem
management. These barriers need to be addressed if the industry is to be placed on a sustainable footing.
44.
Development of models for nature-based tourism: The tourism sector in South Africa has been
gradually expanding, fuelled by an increase in overseas visitors as well as growth in domestic tourism
markets. The proximity of the area to other tourism destinations in the CFR, such as Cape Town and
Garden Route, also augur well for the development of tourism in Agulhas Plain. Depending on how it is
managed, tourism may either support conservation objectives and values or threaten them. The ad hoc
development of tourism infrastructure and plant in coastal areas poses a threat to coastal biodiversity and
lowland fynbos communities. The Chief Directorate of Planning in the Western Cape Department of
Planning and the Overberg District Council are responsible for promoting development in the sector.
However, these authorities lack the mandate, information and technical resources to ensure that
biodiversity management objectives are mainstreamed into the industry. Hence threats are likely to grow.
The program is used by the Government fund for poverty alleviation as a model for community micro-enterprise development
and job creation and was showcased as such at WSSD.
8
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 13
45.
There is accordingly a need to develop regulatory tools and voluntary impact mitigation measures
for the area. Institutional co-ordination arrangements linking government departments with communities
and local entrepreneurs are needed to find a workable and durable solution. Furthermore, there is a need
to build the nature tourism sub sector in the area, to tie income from the industry specifically to
biodiversity management. Although there is considerable potential for such tourism in the AP, the
industry is poorly developed. Barriers to engendering development of an environmentally and
economically sustainable nature tourism sector include: (a) lack of articulation of the Agulhas Plain in
key eco-tourism markets as a destination, despite its obvious attractions, including its location at the
southern tip of Africa, wilderness, whale watching, and flora. (b) lack of coordination in the sector
locally. Specific expertise, outreach and monitoring capacity is lacking; (c) an absence of land based
ecotourism products provides little incentive for tourists to visit the area; (d) local communities in the
Agulhas Plain have few opportunities to participate in the industry, implying a risk that benefits will be
inequitably distributed; and (e) mechanisms to monitor and regulate the impacts of tourism are lacking.
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION
46.
The GEF would provide phased and multi-project support for the implementation of C.A.P.E, to
create systemic, institutional and individual capacities and pilot and adapt innovative conservation
approaches to create a platform for sustainable biodiversity management. GEF support will be channeled
through three complementary interventions9.
(i)
C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
(ii)
C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the CFR Ecoregion [Phase
I/II]
(iii)
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) [Phase I]
A detailed summary of the respective contributions of these initiatives to the C.A.P.E. program is
provided in Annex H, describing the programmatic framework for GEF interventions in the CFR.
47.
The ABI Project Goal has been aligned to the goal of the national C.A.P.E. program, in which it
is nested: By 2020 the biodiversity of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) is effectively conserved, restored
wherever appropriate, and delivering significant benefits to the region. The purpose of the project is:
Biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development on the Agulhas Plain are significantly
enhanced through effective management and coordinated multi-sector stakeholder involvement.
Interventions have been designed to mitigate threats to the lowland fynbos habitats and wetland
environments of the Agulhas Plain. The Threats Annex (Annex F) shows how activities will address the
underlying root causes of biodiversity loss. Four complementary outputs are proposed, with the GEF
financing the agreed incremental costs of biodiversity conservation. Co-financing has been committed by
SANParks, WCNCB, FFI, FVCT, WBFC, and the local Overstrand and Cape Agulhas municipalities.
48.
The GEF Alternative will assist the executing agencies to institute innovative new cross-sectoral
approaches to conservation management at a sub-regional level, through enhancing multi-stakeholder
partnerships and assuring better integration with regional development strategies and programs. A mosaic
of protected areas will be created and capacitated: small reserves to protect habitat patches and large
reserves with connecting corridors to protect fauna and provide for floral dispersion. The PA systems will
be buttressed through the promotion of conservation compatible land use options in support zones
(buffers and corridors), that provide for equitable benefit distribution. In addition, the GEF increment will
remove the barriers associated with the lack of awareness of the benefits resulted from fynbos
conservation and management by supporting the development and implementation of a fynbos awareness
activities targeted at the main stakeholders. These interventions will reduce the risk of land degradation.
49.
The project will make a substantial contribution towards strengthening the system of protected
areas both in the Western and Eastern Cape Provinces and at the national level, by creating a cost9
Of these, one is currently underway: 1] Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 14
effective model for the management of clusters of public and private protected areas at a sub-regional
level Collectively, activities would demonstrate cost-effective and replicable ways and means for
facilitating the broad based participation of communities, the private sector and other key actors in PA
management, improve benefit sharing arrangements associated with PAs, and reconcile PA management
with sustainable use objectives and production systems to create conservation incentives and improve
prospects for sustainability. The proposed model marks a significant departure from the traditional modus
operandi for PA management. The project constitutes one of the top priorities for South African National
Parks (SANParks), which recognizes the need to rationalize its operations outside Parks and to better
service the site management demands of private and communal reserves neighboring these sites. This is
understood to be critical if the PA system is to be expanded to conserve a representative range of
biodiversity.
50.
The project comprises an integral component of the national C.A.P.E. program and has been
designed to inform the design and implementation of the C.A.P.E. program over the long-term. The long-term
objective of the South African Government, reflected in the objectives of the C.A.P.E. program is to
decentralize conservation management as far as possible to the sub-regional level. ABI will provide a model
and toolkit to facilitate this process. Unlike other areas in the Cape Floral Kingdom, targeted under the
C.A.P.E. program, the Agulhas Plain is in a high state of readiness for successful conservation intervention.
The site thus provides an ideal venue for testing and adapting many of approaches to be spearheaded
throughout the CFR, and thus to reduce risks and enhance cost-effectiveness of interventions. Accordingly,
ABI is designed as a fast-track initiative under C.A.P.E., geared to providing early lessons and conservation
impacts. Close programmatic linkages with other GEF activities in the CFR have been developed during
preparation10. These will be maintained during implementation, to facilitate the continued transfer of key
lessons. The overall programmatic framework for C.A.P.E, and contributions of ABI are outlined in Annex H.
51.
Project Preparation: Project development has been jointly financed by UNDP/GEF through a PDF
B grant, SANParks and FFI. Preparation commenced in 2001 and was highly participatory, involving
stakeholders from different sectors and constituencies. A consensus was reached among the stakeholder
groups on the project strategy and components and the sequencing of activities during implementation.
The preparation stage included (i) identification of key social issues and development of a public
participation plan; (ii) preparation of an institutional needs assessment to define the institutional
arrangements for project implementation; (iii) a series of multi-stakeholder workshops with conservation
agencies, agriculture departments, municipalities, farmers, landowners, and NGOs to design the project
strategy; (iv) development of a detailed (GIS) vegetation map of Flower Valley farm and basic
vegetation/compartment map of farms supplying Flower Valley; (v) design of a model for recording
harvest methods and harvested species (location, quantity, timing); (vi) assessment of training needs for
flower pickers; (vii) preparation of an experimental protocol for identifying sustainable offtake levels;
(viii) development of a draft marketing strategy for wild fynbos; (ix) assessment of the various
certification schemes and development of a draft Code of Practice for sustainable flower harvesting; (x)
assessment of the nature-based tourism opportunities; and (xi) development of a information materials.
Output 1: A landscape-level conservation management and planning system is developed and
implemented in public-private partnerships negotiated by a well-capacitated extension service
Total cost:
US$7,499,990; Co-financing:
5,448,350; GEF request:
US$ 2,051,640
52.
To achieve this output, the project would include a series of strategic interventions targeted at
institutional strengthening and capacity building; securing land under conservation management;
conservation management planning; controlling alien plant spread; fire management; and wetland
rehabilitation.
10
The transfer of lessons commenced during project preparation. The ABI preparation team prepared updates on the progress for each meeting of
the Cape Coordinating Committee. Consequently, lessons learned in the preparation stage of ABI have already been incorporated in C.A.P.E..
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 15
53.
Institutional strengthening and capacity building would entail strengthening Agulhas National
Park (ANP), establishing a joint conservation extension service for Agulhas Plain and building the
capacity of the landowners and communities to manage contractual reserves. Additional personnel will
be hired by SANParks to complement existing staff to negotiate contractual inclusion of outstanding
properties in the core area and overall Park management. SANParks will also fund the construction and
maintenance of roads, upgrading the park offices, equipment and vehicles. GEF funds will cover
incremental costs associated with planning, purchase of field equipment, landowner liaison and legal
agreements.
54.
To ensure reduction of the key external threats to the Agulhas Plain and circumvent fragmented
institutional extension efforts, a joint extension service will be established between SANParks and
WCNCB, with each agency focusing on their respective target areas. For SANParks, this will revolve
around the centers of Agulhas and Elim, and for WCNCB, around Walker Bay and De Hoop. This service
will remove institutional barriers to effective collaboration across the sectors between conservation
agencies, the local municipalities, department of agriculture, and other departmental land management
programs (Land Care, Working for Water and District Fire Management) and farmers. SANParks has
hired a Conservation Planning Manager to lead the extension work, who will be responsible for coordination of communications, training and provision of incentives. In order to shift the relative values of
conservation friendly land use, the extension service will provide the key platform for securing reduced
municipal rates for areas under conservation management and priority access to government land
management assistance programs. Many stakeholders will be engaging in conservation sector for the first
time, and there is a need to build the capacity of landowners and community groups in the co-operative
agreement reserves to manage biodiversity as part of broader land management practices. Funds from
GEF are required to cover the costs of providing training in conservation negotiation, information
dissemination to landowner groups and community members and capacity building. SANParks and
WCNCB will be responsible for funding the recurrent costs of the joint service during and after project
completion.
55.
Securing land under conservation management: The four multi – stakeholder workshops
conducted during the preparation stage indicated that baseline conservation agency activities will be
insufficient to conserve a representative set of all important biodiversity features on the Agulhas Plain.
Owing to the habitat diversity, the scale of ecosystem maintenance processes (especially fire) and the
scattered location of important ecosystems, conservation action must occur in large (Agulhas National
Park, De Hoop Nature Reserve and Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy) and small reserves, and allow for
corridors to link habitat parcels across the landscape for fauna dispersal and floral range extension under
altered climates. The project will test a range of mechanisms to secure additional lands for conservation.
These are listed below, ranked according to the intensity of management control (from highest to lowest):
Public lands: where possible and needed to protect critical biodiversity hotspots that demand the
strictest management strictures, land will be purchased with funding from SANParks and FFI;
Contractual National Parks: defined as a formalised partnership whereby the landowner agrees to
make their land available as a National Park for a period not less than 30 years, and SANParks
undertakes to assume management costs and administer the property as part of the park;
Management agreements: these are a novel mechanism being tested in the Agulhas Biodiversity
Initiative whereby landowners agree to certain restrictions on their land, often securing certain
valuable biodiversity features, in exchange for which, the responsible conservation agency will
assist with certain land management or other incentives;
Conservancies: established as a voluntary agreement between two or more landowners to protect
the environment.
56.
The following seven key areas of direct conservation intervention will be pursued in an intersectoral approach under the project:
(i)
Consolidate Agulhas National Park (ANP) into viable ecological unit - Although SANParks have
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 16
managed to conserve a significant portion of the priority areas in the southern portion of the Agulhas
Plain, insufficient internal funds remain to consolidate the core area (see Attachment 1 to Annex E for
map) and complete requisite infrastructural development. A few properties remain in private ownership
within the core target area, co-financing has been secured through FFI for select land purchases, while
GEF funding would support the establishment contractual agreements with landowners for other
properties, as needed to expand the ANP. These agreements would aim at operationalising contractual
Parks on private lands, within the ANP. Three stages of expansion are contemplated, determined by the
need to create pragmatic landscape management units, the representation of habitats not under any
protection and the perceived length of negotiations with landowners. Rationalization of existing internal
fences and buildings will be initiated once core area boundaries are finalized, and visitor plans are in
place and will be supported through counterpart funding. GEF funds will be used to cover participatory
stakeholder workshops to determine appropriate boundaries, and to develop a holistic operational plan.
(ii)
Secure high priority freshwater ecosystems West of ANP to Quoin point, lowland Elim fynbos
and renosterveld habitats and the critical northern corridor to the Heuningberg - To establish viable
ecosystems with natural boundaries and maintain crucial corridors, the project will support the expansion
of Agulhas National Park in the West to include the Ratel river wetland system and North to the existing
district road. This would include the negotiation of contractual agreements with the private landowners
and/or outright purchase of key properties. Existing ploughed lands will be leased to the previous owners
or adjacent farmers until production schedules permit them to be restored to satisfy conservation
objectives. The extent and timing of the contractual agreements will be determined through participatory
farm planning with the owners and the Provincial Department of Agriculture. GEF will cover the
incremental transactions costs associated with establishing the contractual agreements costs of fine scale
operational planning in the target areas. SANParks and FFI will cover the costs of land purchase where
necessitated.
(iii)
Secure high endemism limestone habitats through establishing a satellite Contractual Park
including Groot Hagelkraal, and North towards Elim - Inducements to make land available, as a
Contractual National Park will be tested with private landowners and the power utility Eskom to provide
greater statutory protection to the limestone center of endemism. Through securing five farms in the
Hagelkraal area, all limestone vegetation conservation targets will be achieved, and a quaternary
catchment11 entirely protected. This will constitute one of the key demonstration sites looking at novel
alien clearing mechanisms and cost sharing arrangements, and is a strategic future threat avoidance
measure for the Park’s core Area. If left unchecked, this area of dense alien infestation is likely to expand
into the western portions of the core area and also significantly increase the risk of uncontrolled wildfires.
GEF will cover the costs associated with stakeholder workshops, negotiating suitable alien clearing and
fire management incentive packages with the current landowners and legal costs for securing the
properties in perpetuity. SANParks will fund the costs associated with the identification of the priority
areas and liaison with landowners.
(iv)
Secure highest priority vegetation types through contractual agreements around Geelkop - A
pilot project using farm planning processes to set aside priority remnant endemic vegetation types was
initiated during the ABI preparation stage between the Department of Agriculture, SANParks, WCNCB
and local communities and farmers. This will investigate the possibilities of defining, at a property scale,
specific areas which can be reserved for conservation, and which can be retained for agricultural
production in the short to medium term. The pilot has created an opportunity to involve stakeholders in
the conservation planning process and link the Elim community reserve at Geelkop with a Private
Reserve at Kosierskraal through negotiated management agreements. Further it will identify and proclaim
certain key properties as a Contractual National Park. GEF funds will support the final stages of this pilot
farm planning by capturing the lessons learned, integrating the outcomes in the conservation management
system; training the extension officers in the technical aspects of planning framework and developing
11
Quaternary catchments are the smallest hydrological landscape units, usually delimiting local drainage basins from the coast to the first
watershed. As they enclose complete river systems, they are often the most appropriate scale to planning catchment alien clearing exercises.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 17
protocols for extrapolating it to other priority conservation areas in farm landscapes. Thus, the project
will remove technical barriers to using agricultural planning processes for flora conservation and provide
training to enable conservation extension personnel to monitor community compliance.
(v)
Secure unconserved vegetation types through consolidating Walker Bay Conservancy - GEF
funds will be used for extending an existing management plan developed by the conservancy to the three
outstanding properties required to manage the area as an ecological unit and for outside expertise to
negotiate appropriate management agreements. This will test the possibility of brokering agreements
between landowners to develop joint management arrangements that are currently not feasible due to lack
of a critical mass, institutional skills and support. It will create a conservation area of sufficient size for
retaining key wildlife populations and a controlled burning regime. This area is a key site demonstration
of the efficacy of a landowner-driven fire management strategy that will be replicated in other
conservancies.
(vi)
Secure endemic wildlife habitat through management agreements in order to maintain the only
possible corridor between De Mond and De Hoop reserves for animal and plant dispersal - Currently,
endemic and threatened mammal populations (bontebok, Cape mountain zebra, eland) in the De Hoop
reserve are constrained by lack of suitable grazing and limited dispersal ability. The project will assist
with negotiating management agreements to test whether private owners will allow herbivores access to
key areas, in exchange for certain incentives, such as inclusion in the De Hoop alien eradication and fire
management plans, and enhanced marketing of tourism opportunities. GEF funds will be used for to
secure professional for constructing agreements and developing suitable policies for such conservation
partnerships.
(vii)
Secure the Heuningnes estuary from Soetendalsvlei to the De Mond Ramsar site through
management agreements - The Heuningnes Riparian owner’s association protects the bulk of the
internationally important Heuningnes estuary. GEF funds will support the extension service to develop a
participatory management regime, involving the existing Riparian Owners Association, formalizing their
existence as a conservancy, and determine the most appropriate water level regulation to maintain
biodiversity without impinging on existing agricultural practices. Management agreements for remaining
natural habitat will create the only inland corridor across fertile soils linking De Mond and Agulhas
National Park, as well as meet several lowland vegetation type targets and protect Soetendasvlei - the
second largest freshwater body in South Africa.
57.
Conservation Management Planning - The project’s approach to removing institutional obstacles
to integrated conservation planning is to establish a single system for the Agulhas Plain that will guide
Park development, co-operative management agreements at the landscape level, extension services,
Working for Water, LandCare and District Fire Management Programs. GEF funds will cover the
incremental costs associated with (i) baseline ecological surveys; (ii) stakeholder consultation regarding
planning and continual revision of the management system; (iii) establishing a biodiversity information
monitoring system and update the databases and maps for the entire Agulhas Plain, so as to provide
baseline information for monitoring, and contractual and management agreements; (iv) the establishment
of joint planning and management system; (v) develop participatory farm conservation planning protocols
in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture; and (vi) integrate cultural heritage concerns in the
management planning. The proposed process will provide the primary link to the local municipal
Integrated Development Plans and land use decision-making processes, which provide the forum for
integrating conservation planning at a landscape level into local and regional development planning
covering the social and economic sectors. The ABI pilot marks the first attempt to use Department of
Agriculture farm-planning processes to reinforce conservation objectives at a landscape scale to keep
corridors and protect ecological processes. The model will be adapted for replication under C.A.P.E.
58.
Controlling alien plant spread - To overcome institutional barriers and differing objectives, the
project will develop joint alien strategies for landscape units (quaternary catchments). Significant baseline
prioritization exercises have been undertaken for one such catchment in the Walker Bay area, and around
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 18
De Hoop. The project will test how these may be extrapolated to the remaining priority Agulhas
catchments, and how different institutions may become responsible for complementary components of a
catchment strategy. A liaison mechanism between the agencies’ strategies and local municipal Integrated
Development Planning will be piloted for the first time in the CFR, using Groot Hagelkraal area as a key
demonstration site looking at novel alien clearing mechanisms and cost sharing arrangements. The
existing National Park-focused alien monitoring system will be adapted to meet the challenges of control
methods at a landscape scale. GEF assistance will enable the removal of a serious barrier to implementing
public-private conservation partnerships by formalizing a policy on alien clearing on contractual National
Park properties and land under management agreements. Legal assistance will be engaged to determine
the optimal mechanisms to secure existing and future investment in alien clearing outside of state-owned
conservation land. The project would also build on the significant experience gained in managing and
prioritizing alien clearance in the GEF-financed Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Project. GEF funds will be
used to adapt lessons from this urban setting to the rural Agulhas scenario through information sharing
and personnel exchange involving both SANParks and WCNCB. Co-financing from Working for Water
and Ukuvuka will enable the agencies and landowners to carry out alien clearance in the selected areas.
59.
Fire management – GEF funds will address the lack of a coherent fire management strategy by
providing resources to ensure that fire plans include a biodiversity management component and by
providing information to the recently established Fire Protection Association information on conservation
priorities. SANParks, WCNCB and GEF funds will be used train and equip rapid four response teams
(one for each major catchment area) to augment conservancy initiatives in areas of high biodiversity
significance.
60.
Wetland rehabilitation - Ecosystem rehabilitation in previously alien-infested areas will be
achieved through participatory planning to remove livestock pressures during critical months. The second
largest lacustrine wetland in South Africa, Soetendals vlei, home to the microfrog was selected in the
preparation stage as a pilot for testing appropriate strategies for vegetation recovery, and the necessary
investment will be secured through binding management agreements. Existing community and
agricultural rehabilitation projects will be extended to include conservation objectives, and reinforce alien
and fire control strategies. GEF funds will be used to determine priority areas and techniques for
rehabilitating wetlands, and specifically in areas where alien plant clearance has already been undertaken.
Output 2: Ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos is demonstrated
as a viable land use on the Agulhas Plain
Total cost:
US$ 1,137,385; Co-financing: US$ 722,150; GEF request: US$ 415,235
61.
In 1998 the world floriculture market was worth US$ 6.85 billion, with 54% of exports coming
from the Netherlands, the primary redistribution market. South African floriculture accounted for only
0.44% of world volume. The CFR’s importance to South African floriculture is evident in that protea,
other fynbos and indigenous foliage account for 70% of total floriculture exports. Less than 10% of
production is sold locally. South Africa currently exports US$12 million in foliage and US$ 9 million of
protea and other fynbos (Kaiser, 2000). Consumers perceive these products as novel, exotic and “natural
looking” and a strong growth in demand is expected. Recent studies conclude that this is a fraction of
South Africa’s true potential given the following competitive advantages: (i) the demand for South
African indigenous products is strong, particularly in the UK, Germany, Japan and Holland; (ii) the
diversity of South Africa’s product range will provide protection from sudden shifts in demand; and (iii)
South Africa’s climate provides seasonal advantages in supplying the Northern Hemisphere. Notably, the
Agulhas Plain is considered to be one of the richest wildflower areas in the CFR (Heydenrych, 1999).
62.
Indigenous products in particular have a good reputation for quality, continuity of supply and
strong associations with South Africa. Significant gains in revenue and job creation can be derived from
this competitive advantage. Quality controls of proteaceae in terms of stem length shape and color as well
as stringent phyto-sanitary requirements have led to the increased cultivation of flowers. However, it is
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 19
estimated that 80% of foliage is still wild harvested and 70% of bouquets exported contain wildflowers
(Steele, pers. comm.). Five of the seven most popular export varieties of foliage grow in the Agulhas
region and German and UK importers believe that there is significant potential for South African foliage
producers to further develop these markets. Flowers also occur in abundance, and are exportable in a
bouquet surrounded by foliage. As the supermarket channel worldwide grows, ready-for-shelf bouquets
will become increasingly important (Kaiser, 2000). In the UK, supermarkets control 46% of cut flower
imports and are demanding a high degree of coordination from their supply chain in order to satisfy the
move towards customer specific offerings (Bockett, 2001). The diversity of product available in the
Agulhas region makes bouquet production possible, with improved communications and coordination
through the supply chain a ready-for-shelf bouquet could be exported. Supplying a supermarket, although
demanding, offers guaranteed volumes and far better returns than the wholesale trade (Kaiser, 2000).
63.
Harvesting from the wild poses a significant risk to wild resources: this derives from over
harvests of commercially important species, without reference to intra and inter-specific impacts. The
alternative, flower farming, does little to protect the conservation of whole plant communities and thus
biodiversity, although it may, in instances, reduce pressures on certain species. An opportunity exists to
develop a wild cut flower industry as a conservation industry, whereby land management objectives are
dictated by the dual need to protect biodiversity and develop rural livelihoods in an area where poverty is
widespread. However, a number of barriers exist towards realization of this opportunity. The project
would fund activities aimed at addressing these barriers, and ensuring a paradigm shift to sustainability.
(i)
The regulatory enforcement regime is imperfectly developed, allowing harvesting malpractices to
continue. The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board is responsible for enforcing the regulations
relating to the harvest of indigenous flora in CFR. The Nature and Environmental Conservation
Ordinance, 1974 is outdated and provides an ineffective tool for regulating the industry. In addition, there
is a lack of capacity in WCNCB to regulate the flower harvesting industry on the Agulhas Plain. GEF
funds will be used to contract expertise to (a) update the current permit system for flower harvesting to
include an agreed subset of the Code of Practice for sustainable harvesting, invoicing protocol and farms
cadastral numbers; (b) update the protected and endangered species list for the Agulhas Plain and produce
a “no go “list attached to the permit regulations; and (c) train WCNCB staff in plant identification and
field monitoring techniques. Information from the monitoring and biological studies will be incorporated
into the ordinance as it becomes available.
(ii)
The absence of a coordinated supply network hampers management, as several species are found
at low densities over large areas and ecological sustainability requirements dictate that supplies are
sourced from multiple land holdings. Consequently, the project aims to secure a supply network focused
towards priority conservation areas that are harvested on the plain. GEF funds will cover the incremental
costs associated with running stakeholder workshops to finalize the contractual agreements with
landowners and contract pickers and establish the supply network management forum to oversee the
implementation of the Code of Practice for sustainable harvesting. The process of establishing the forum
will involve targeted one-to-one consultations, joint meetings, the development of terms of reference, and
the convening of the founding meeting of the Forum.

Deal flow identification – Land owners will be provided with information on the economic returns
available from different land uses, with a view to promoting conservation compatible land uses. This
service will be facilitated through the integrated extension service, and will be part funded by the
Development Bank of Southern Africa. Through the intervention of DBSA, financial intermediaries
will be sensitised to the business opportunities afforded by the wild flower market and nature tourism,
thus facilitating deal flows: matching financing with promising new business opportunities at select
plots. While model business plans have been developed for these sectors, investment opportunities
will need to be identified and developed on a plot by plot basis, reflecting the fine scale conservation
planning that has already occurred, and site fundamentals (soil characteristics, access to water,
amenity values, quality of infrastructure, skills endowments and other fundamentals of business
success).
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 20

Monitoring Economic Performance of Sustainable Harvesting – the project will cover the costs
associated with the development and conducting an annual survey on the economic benefits to the
local communities in Agulhas Plain as a result of the implementation of the sustainable harvesting
practices. The first step will be to collect data on how many people are employed by the supply
network and what is their average earnings, including costing of some of the benefits provided by the
farmers (such as accommodation, food etc). The annual audits which will be conducted as a part of
the certification scheme will generate information related to the financial benefits of the members of
the supply network and how these benefits are passed on down to their employees
(iii)
A mechanism to recover the marginal costs of ecosystem management to facilitate sustainable
utilization is lacking. Evidence points to the existence of a market segment willing to pay premium prices
to compensate for these costs, but the lack of a certification system makes it difficult to differentiate
between produce that has been sustainably and unsustainably harvested; further the market is in its
infancy and consumer education is needed. Consequently, the project aims to develop a certification
scheme using Flower Valley and the restructured supply network as a pilot. In years 3 – 5 it is expected
that the certification scheme will be rolled out onto the other conservation priority areas. Certification
alone cannot protect all wild fynbos on the Agulhas Plain. However it is an important tool in the strategy
to improve the economic value of wild fynbos and to influence the harvesting practices and social aspects
of the wild fynbos industry. Through increasing economic incentives private landowners can be
encouraged to retain land under wild fynbos, rather than converting it to other land uses, and hence ensure
the conservation of biodiversity. GEF funds will be used to cover the incremental costs associated with:
(a) establishing the institutional arrangements to develop and administer the certification scheme; (b)
finalizing the development of the code of practice for sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos; (c) build the
capacity of the WCNCBs Certification Unit; (d) work together with the extension service to provide
information to farmers who want to join the scheme; (e) contract expertise to develop the monitoring and
auditing systems for the certification scheme; and (f) support stakeholder workshops for producers and
suppliers on the costs and benefits of joining an international certification scheme, such as the Flower
Labeling Program. The Code of Practice will be prepared in a way that can be easily incorporated into the
South African Horticultural Code of Practice that will be developed and standardized for southern African
countries under the auspice of the African Center for Auditing and Training for Ethical Agriculture.
(iv)
Market opportunities are presently focused on a few select flowers. Market diversification will be
integral to ensure sustainability including by: expanding the range of flowers sold; harvesting greens as an
accompaniment to bouquets; and development of paper and other products for the handicrafts sector. A
simple and effective logo will be developed to convey the sustainable harvesting message of ABI along
with the well recognized FLP, Max Havelaar, or other market specific logo. The logo will focus on the
concept of sustainably harvested wild flowers. The simple strap line - “Sustainably Harvested Wild
Flowers” - may suffice but a professional marketing opinion is required to confirm this strategy. A colabeling agreement will be negotiated to ensure the sustainable harvesting logo appears on both the
product box and bouquet/bunch tag. An advertising agency from the country where the fynbos products
from Flower Valley are being marketed will be contracted to develop the logo in tandem with the market
specific logo in order to prevent consumer confusion. In order to service the priority markets effectively,
coordination and cooperation between the members of the supply chain will be improved. This will
require regular meetings and follow up communication between retail category managers, importers and
producers to develop awareness at each link in the chain of market trends and their impact. Critical to the
strategy of generating increased profitability for sustainably harvested wild fynbos products, is market
differentiation between flowers harvested to the criteria set out in the COP and those that are not. To
ensure that the marketing message conveyed across all markets is consistent and sustained, a marketing
expert will be employed to implement market specific activities in the priority markets, emphasizing the
high quality of the products as well as their environmental and socially beneficial nature12.
12
Based on the results of the marketing survey undertaken in the preparation stage, the marketing plan will target Germany,
United Kingdom, Switzerland and the Netherlands. In Germany, FVCT will work with the Flower Labeling Program, in United
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 21
(v)
The lack of information regarding species and volumes harvested on the Agulhas Plain will be
addressed by developing a pilot system for monitoring species harvested on the Flower Valley supply
network. The recording protocol will provide the fundamental data set from which the monitoring and
accreditation is assessed. GEF funds will be used to establish the monitoring system at Flower Valley,
train two full time Flower Valley personnel in its operations and assist in communicating the system to
the supply network. Training of Flower Valley personnel will include identification of species that move
through the packing shed, pressing of plants, use of a herbarium and computer skills. Computer
equipment onto which the information can be directly stored in electronic format will be acquired. To
avoid duplication of technical capacity, the information gathered by the monitoring system will be
transferred to the WCNCB GIS unit, from where the Certification Unit will gain access. The capacity of
this unit will be developed to house all information pertaining to flower harvesting on the Agulhas Plain
(e.g. cadastral boundaries, vegetation types, flower harvesting permit information, species, quantities
harvested). The lack of detailed information on the locality of harvested material will be addressed
through the development of proper zonation maps for all farms in the supply network. Problems with the
identification of harvested species will be aided through the development of a mini-herbarium at Flower
Valley housing all species harvested for the flower business (non-permitted species). The herbarium will
have both the species used by the business as well as endangered species to be used as reference material.
Botanical expertise will be provided to assist with identification and the establishment of the herbarium.
(vi)
Lack of knowledge and understanding of sustainable practices. Current harvesting practices on
the Agulhas Plain are posing a threat to the fynbos resources. The GEF will fund capacity building
activities that facilitate a paradigm shift from unsustainable to sustainable practices. A comprehensive
capacity building targeting the fynbos pickers, landwners and fynbos farms will be designed to ensure that
correct harvesting levels and methodologies are applied on the ground according to the Code of Practice.
Capacity amongst the networks picking teams will be built through annual training courses which will
cover fynbos ecology, species identification, sustainability principles, methods of harvesting according to
sustainability Code of Practice, waste management, fire control, first aid and safe working practices
(based on the requirements of the Health and Safety Act). A handbook will be developed in English,
Afrikaans and Xhosa to be used in conjunction with the courses. The course module will be developed by
Flower Valley staff, with technical input contracted from outside. The training modules for the land
owners and staff will be conducted so to instruct them on how to operate in a manner that is compliant
with the COP and how to provide the information that is required for the Certification Unit to monitor
performance and compliance. A workshop will be organized to capture and share lessons in harvesting
methodology, conservation management, minimizing the impact of harvesting at the landscape scale and
recording and invoicing methods. A formal training accreditation system for landowners and contractor
pickers, endorsed by SANParks and WCNCB, and linked to the certification program will be developed.
Capacity amongst the staff of the participating certification scheme members will be built through annual
training courses for production staff, in order to ensure consistent levels of quality and shelf life. The
courses will cover critical aspects of production such as conditioning, fumigation, grading and
bouquet/bunch composition. The training program will be developed by horticultural and floristry
professionals from the Otley College of the UK in collaboration with Flower Valley. The course will be
run at Flower Valley for all members of the certification scheme. A project proposal has been submitted
to Darwin Initiative to cover the funds associated with the training for production staff.
(vii)
A lack of understanding of ecosystem functioning hampers the task of defining sustainable offtakes for different species. Further assessment is needed through site based adaptive management to
Kingdom with the specialist importers to the supermarket channel and supermarket buyers, in Switzerland with the Swiss Max
Havelaar importers and supermarket buyers, particularly Migros and in the Netherlands, Flower Valley will utilize the existing
structures to maintain production capacity through the Netherlands redistribution market. Professional promotional material
suitable for the respective markets will be developed and placed in trade publications and the newsletters for member florists. A
stand at the annual IPM Essen trade show in Germany will provide the opportunity to develop direct relations with German
importers supplying the florist channel. Flower Valley and FFI are in the process of securing co-financing for all marketing related
activities.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 22
inform management decisions. Long-term monitoring and biological studies on the impacts of harvesting
on different species guilds provide a scientific basis for effective adaptive management of the resource. In
line with GEF’s policy of taking a precautionary approach to biodiversity conservation, this dearth of
scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing action to remove the threat. However,
the proposed experimental work is needed to provide crucial missing information that can be fed into the
sustainable harvesting Code of Practice during the course of project implementation.

Impacts of harvesting on different guild - The scientific information used to develop guidelines for
sustainability is deficient for certain guilds. The project will address this through supporting
biological field studies on the effects of harvesting on myrmecochorous (ant dispersed) species and
species with soils stored seed banks.

Impacts of harvesting on inter-specific competition - The effects of lowering the recruitment potential
of desired species by harvesting is poorly understood. Assuming that there are thresholds of species
numbers below which harvested species, may loose their competitive edge, resulting in population
crashes and perhaps local extinction, over-harvesting could result in the gradual replacement of
valuable species by non-harvested competitors. The project will investigate these competitive effects.

Long-term monitoring - It is crucial that the effects of the prescribed harvesting regime is monitored
over time and adapted as new information becomes available. The monitoring sites established by the
project on Flower Valley Farm will be harvested on an annual basis in the manner prescribed by the
certification guidelines. Adjacent control sites will not be harvested. This will provide valuable
information on how continued harvesting at the levels prescribed by the project guidelines influences
individual harvested species, as well as community-scale dynamics over time. The sustainable
harvesting Code of Practice will be updated as information from the monitoring program becomes
available.

Species index of vulnerability to harvesting - The high number of species harvested on the Agulhas
Plain makes it impossible to undertake species–specific studies on the impacts of harvesting on all
species. As a result, a coherent methodology for determining the vulnerability of a species to
harvesting on the basis of their distributional (abundance and range) and biological characteristics
was developed as part of the project preparation phase. During project implementation, the
distribution and biological characteristics of all the species harvested on the Agulhas Plain will be
collected and used to determine their vulnerability index (an index measuring their vulnerability to
harvesting). This index will provide the basis for determining the list of endangered (not allowed to
be harvested) species that will be incorporated into the ordinance and permit system updated by the
project.

Resource base assessment of the supply network - Detailed information on the levels of harvested
species within the supply network is not available. To ensure that harvesting is carried out in a
sustainable manner, a resource base assessment will be undertaken using the model for Flower Valley
developed in the preparation stage on all farms in the supply network. This information will be linked
to the zonation maps of each property and recorded on the GIS system of the WCNCB.

Rehabilitation of orchards and old farm lands - Large areas of pristine fynbos on the Agulhas Plain,
including sites in the Agulhas National Park, have been ploughed for flower orchard development,
due to the fact that old farm lands are rich in nutrients particularly phosphate and calcium which have
a negative effect on the development of fynbos flower orchards. Ecosystem rehabilitation in
previously ploughed and broadcast sown sites will be piloted by testing appropriate strategies for
vegetation recovery on Flower Valley farm. GEF funds will be utilized to develop the various trial
sites and produce an information handbook on restoration methods. Where old farm lands form the
only corridors between areas of high conservation value, optimal revegetation methods will be
determined using species compatible with maintaining pollination, dispersal and foraging ecosystem
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 23
processes. The emphasis will fall on choosing species that are likely to yield desirable and harvestable
wildflower resources in the future, and local provenances will be used to avoid genetic pollution of
neighboring indigenous vegetation.
64.
The project’s approach to removing obstacles to integrated sustainable harvesting practices on the
Agulhas Plain is to establish a single forum for the Agulhas Plain (from the sustainable harvesting
oversight committee) that will guide development, co-operative management agreements, joint marketing
strategies and the implementation of the training programs. GEF will cover the costs associated with
establishing the sustainable harvesting oversight committee which involve targeted one-to-one
consultations with the members of the supply network management forum and other stakeholders, joint
meetings, the development of terms of reference, and the convening of founding meeting of the
Committee. After the initial two-year period of establishing the Code of Practice for sustainable
harvesting and certification program within the FV model, the sustainable harvesting practices will be
expanded to include other properties on the Agulhas Plain. Targeting the certification scheme to those
farms and operations where the economic incentive derived from certification can be most beneficial will
require consultation with a variety of stakeholders. This would involve: (a) development of promotional
materials; (b) stakeholder consultations; and (c) detailed on-site advice. Landowners will be required to
provide an annual membership fee as well as a pre-audit inspection for joining the certification scheme. In
addition they may be required to upgrade various management and operational activities to comply with
the certification criteria. The membership fee and pre-audit fee may present a barrier to scheme entry.
65.
This is the first time that the GEF is specifically addressing sustainable use of flowers as a project
activity. ABI could provide important lessons and the management arrangements could potentially be
replicated (best practices would be relevant to other environments beyond the CFR).
Output 3: A participatory and responsible tourism strategy is implemented in the Agulhas Plain
and contributes to sustainable livelihoods.
Total cost:
US$2,704,350; Co-financing: US$ 2,261,050; GEF request: US$ 443,300
66.
Tourism is the world’s largest and fastest growing industry with an estimated US$ 3.6 trillion
generated in 2000 in economic activity and accounting for one of 12 jobs worldwide. This growth has
also been experienced in South Africa, which has moved up from the 55th world destination in 1995 to
25th in 1998 (Anon. 1999: Wesgro 1998). South Africa was the only tourism destination in the world to
have increased its market share after the terror attacks on the United States on September 11 2001
(Tourism Minister Valli Moosa (Cape Times 13 May 2002, p4). South African markets have increased
around the world, especially in Europe and Asia. There are some 5.7 million tourists arrivals in South
Africa each year. Figures released at the Tourism Indaba on 11 May 2002 showed that 18,469 more
foreign tourists visited SA in January 2002 than in 2001; there was a 14.5% growth in the number of
visitors from Europe and Germany in January in 2002, compared to the same period last year, as
perceptions have changed about what constitutes a safe destination.
67.
The South African Travel and Tourism Economy contributes 6.9% to the South African Gross
Domestic Product at present, and 6.6% to South African employment (World Travel and Tourism Council
estimate, 2001; Anon. 2001b). The Western Cape Travel and Tourism Economy contribution is relatively
higher, namely 9.1% to the Western Cape Gross Regional Product, and 9.3% to Western Cape
employment (Wesgro 2000 estimate; Anon. 2001b). The top destination in South Africa for international
tourists is Western Cape Province, representing 51% of South African overseas arrivals (Anon. 2001b).
68.
The world tourism industry is expected to triple in size by 2020, from 700 million arrivals today
to over 2 billion. Based on current trends the market share in Southern Africa is expected to grow.
Depending on how is managed, tourism may either support conservation objectives and values or threaten
them. There is a danger that the latter will prevail, as growth of the industry accelerates faster than the
development of conservation management capacity. This is a long-term risk for Agulhas Plain. In the
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 24
short term a number of barriers exist towards developing a tourism industry on the Plain that is fully
compatible with conservation objectives.
69.
The main barriers, together with the project strategic interventions to remove them are presented
below:
(i)
Lack of coordination in the tourism sector at the local level – Local operators and tourism
bureaux in Agulhas Plain are poorly networked, and with a few exceptions are not attuned to conservation
needs and the specific management responsibilities of the sector. The project would include a series of
strategic interventions aiming at removing the institutional barriers by establishing the Agulhas Plain
Tourism Forum and two Heritage Centers. GEF funds will cover the costs associated with hiring a nature
tourism coordinator for the first five years, based at the Elim Heritage Center (SANParks has undertaken
to underwrite the costs of the tourism coordinator’s salary after the end of the project) and the
establishment of the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum, composed of representatives of parastatal
conservation bodies (SANParks and WCNCB), local authorities, tourism and business associations,
private enterprises, local community projects, NGOs, conservancies, private nature reserves and farmers.
The Forum will assist stakeholders in (a) promoting full representation and participation by local
communities; (b) maintaining communication through a newsletter; (c) ensuring that the capacity of local
tourism bureaux and other institutions involved in nature-based tourism is built; (d) cultivating media
interest in the initiative in order to publicize successes; and (e) ensuring that the benefits of nature-based
tourism flow to host communities and to the conservation of natural and cultural resources. The tourism
coordinator in collaboration with the Tourism Forum will be also responsible to select a pilot area where
to fine tune and implement the recently launched national Guidelines for Responsible tourism.
The project will support the establishment of two Heritage Centers on the main tourism nodes at Elim and
Cape Agulhas. The heritage centers will form the core of the project in terms of tourism, hospitality
training and skills development for historically disadvantaged communities, awareness and outreach. The
centers will be established in cooperation with the local Cape Agulhas tourism bureau and will (a)
showcase, interpret and market the region’s natural and cultural diversity; (b) provide a top-class
information and booking service for tourists (including accredited local guides); (c) form a focus for the
manufacture and sale of local produce, art and crafts; (d) coordinate training facilities for tourism-related
activities; and (v) provide a base for environmental education and awareness facilities. A focal function of
the centers will be the development and enhancement of community tourism projects in economically
poor but biodiversity rich areas such as Kassiesbaai, Molshoop, Elim and Buffeljags.
SANParks will pay the salary for the manager of the Cape Agulhas Center starting with the first year of
the project. The manager of the Cape Agulhas Center will also coordinate the management of the Elim
center, assisted by an administrative officer who is presently (and will continue to be) employed by the
Elim Supervisory Council. GEF funds will cover the costs of the design and lay-out of infrastructure,
provision of small interpretation centers, signage, information boards, bird hides, and preparation of an
action plan for each center.
(ii)
Whale watching and shark diving provide important tourism lures to the region. But the absence
of land based ecotourism products provides little incentive for tourists to visit sites in the area and visits
are generally brief. There is a need to market the region to encourage visitation. In order to maximize the
advantages of partnerships, collective branding and marketing, the project will support the costs
associated with the establishment of a tourism route in the Agulhas Plain. The route will incorporate the
many inter-linked facets of the Cape Floral Kingdom on the Agulhas Plain, with a special focus on core
conservation areas in both public and private hands. These facets include: (i) the unique landscapes; (ii)
floral diversity; (iii) associated terrestrial and freshwater animals; (iv) coastal landscapes; (v) shark
diving; (vi) whale watching; (vii) the cultural-historical heritage, including the strong Khoikhoi elements,
four lighthouses and many shipwrecks, fishing villages, the Moravian mission station of Elim, and
traditional local architecture, cuisine, music, art and crafts. The tourism coordinator and the Forum will
identify individual and small groups of stakeholders on the Agulhas Plain and facilitate regular meetings
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 25
in order to establish the layout and content of the route. Sub-committees will be formed within the Forum
to deal with identified actions, such as the monitoring of tourism impacts, development and the promotion
of partnerships, facilitation of tourism packages, marketing, finance and fund-raising, lobbying for
government support and capital investment, tourism centers, training and skills development, community
upliftment, conservation awareness and education and communication. Linkages will be sought with
existing routes both locally and elsewhere, e.g. the MTN Whale Route, the Overberg Blue Crane Routes,
proposed Overberg meander and Overberg Birding Meander, floral routes within the Cape Floral
Kingdom, birding routes in other areas, Khoisan heritage routes, Afrikatourism routes, the new Africa
Coast 2 Coast initiative; and the Cape Metropole Secret Season initiative.
(iii)
Lack of articulation of the area in key eco-tourism markets as a destination – The project will
remove this barrier by (a) undertaking a market analysis and identify and understand the needs and
perceptions of the key target markets, how these are formed and how they can be influenced, to determine
the criteria to create sustainable competitive advantage; (b) developing a compelling and motivating
positioning for the Agulhas Plain that will differentiate it in the nature-tourism market and define
portfolio and branding implications; (c) developing an implementation plan for the Agulhas Plain; (d)
communication development and implementation; and (e) development of brand measurement tools. All
the market related activities would be co-financed.

The market analysis would include a series of workshops and desk-study focusing on (a)
understanding where the high potential opportunities lie; (b) developing key Agulhas Plain tourism
attributes, opportunities and challenges; (c) developing initial view on branding structure; (d)
confirming key target audiences; (e) confirming brand vision and tangible targets; and (f) ensuring
team alignment around project direction and deliverables. The process will ensure that the product
will be integrated and aligned with regional and national tourism initiatives such as the Joint
Marketing Initiative (JMI) and Brand South Africa (BSA), C.A.P.E., and initiatives within the
Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Western Cape. The project will cover the costs
associated with conducting interviews with the key stakeholders to explore initial brand hypotheses
and potential marketing solution areas up-front; highlight issues across the various components of the
project, relevant to branding; provide insight into current consumer understanding; and determine
expectations and concerns with regard to branding. Expert interviews will be conducted with opinionforming individuals in the eco-tourism industry. These interviews are likely to involve eco-tourism
experts representing: competitor tourism initiatives, cultural-historical and nature based tourism
initiatives; existing tourism routes in and around the Agulhas Plain; representative tourism
organizations and boards, editors and or publishers of local and international tourism magazines; and
travel agents, tour operators in the tourism market.
The process of identifying, selecting and understanding the key target markets will be based on a
thorough knowledge of the consumers’ needs, motivations, and benefits they derive from the broader
Agulhas Plain offer. This will be determined by running qualitative group discussions with the target
audience and is likely to include 14 group discussions with the following types of consumers: (a)
domestic and international tourists to the Western Cape; (b) residents of the Agulhas Plain working in
the tourism industry; (c) residents of the Western Cape who have an interest in biodiversity
conservation.

The body of consumer understanding obtained in the previous stage will be a credible basis for the
development of a differentiation strategy, which will create a distinctive place in the consumers’ mind
that differentiates the Agulhas Plain from its competitors, on attributes that are meaningful to the
target market, and gives it a competitive edge. The project will cover the costs of one day and a half
workshop to discuss the main elements of the strategy.

Once the final brand positioning strategy has been agreed a brand implementation plan for the
Agulhas Plain would be developed in collaboration with the Agulhas Plain Project Team and the
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 26
appointed Advertising Agency in a workshop manner. This process is likely to include qualitative
group discussions with the target audience, followed by post validation debrief.

A graphic designer and/or art director will be hired to work on originating the visual identity. The
development of a Communication Plan will involve working together with strategic communications
planners, media planners and account management people to determine the main messages. The
output from this process (a communication plan) is subject to review and approval from the ABI
Oversight Committee. A media planner will be hired to put together a media strategy document, to
map out where and when the ABI message will be conveyed to people. Most of the communication
produced would be direct marketing based. Wherever possible, will try to get free airtime on radio
and television and free space in print publications subject to availability, the profile of the initiative
and the inclination of the media owner. The advertising production will involve printing brochures
and mailers.

In order to monitor the affect of the brand strategy on the perceptions and behaviors of the key target
markets, it is necessary to develop a brand-tracking program, which can be implemented on an
ongoing basis. This will involve a quantitative and a qualitative tracking study. The qualitative study
will take the form of a self-completion questionnaire completed at various strategic points in and
around the Agulhas Plain. Complimentary sources of information [e.g. Satour] will be used as a
means to understand the broader context of nature tourism in South Africa and how the Agulhas Plain
offering fits within that context. Secondly, an annual qualitative measure identifying any changes in
consumer needs and perceptions in order to gain fresh insight into their behavior and evolve our
understanding of their brand experience will be required. This process is likely to take the form of
qualitative discussion groups with the target audience. Lastly, an annual review with the broader ABI
Project Team assessing the holistic brand offering will be conducted in order to: (i) evaluate the
results of the brand tracking program; (ii) review the effectiveness of the communication strategy;
(iii) evaluate the performance of the previous year and set goals for the following year; and (iv)
develop an action plan. This process will take the form of a workshop with the ABI Project Team and
other relevant parties.
(iv)
Local communities in the Agulhas Plain have few opportunities to participate in the industry,
implying a risk that the benefits will be inequitably distributed13. Specific attention is needed to ensure
that benefits accrue to stakeholders vital to the conservation stakes. The project will target especially the
local communities at Elim, Kassiesbaai, Buffeljags, Blompark, Molshoop and several townships
(Gansbaai and Bredasdorp), which have traditionally been excluded from tourism activities. The tourism
coordinator will hold a series of workshops with the targeted local communities to identify the training
needs as relevant to the Agulhas Plain Route. Training will be conducted in co-operation with THETA
(the national Tourism Hospitality, Education and Training Authority) and will include hospitality and
tour-guide training, according to national standards. In addition, the project will hire expertise to develop
specific curricula with a high local content so that training courses are relevant to the Agulhas Plain.
The project will promote, through the heritage centers the development and marketing of communityowned tourism initiatives, based on the rich cultural and natural heritage of the area. GEF funds will
cover the costs associated with the planning, development and implementation of the community
initiatives at Elim and Kassiesbaai. The Elim Mission Cultural Village involves visits to Geelkop Nature
Reserve; visits to homes of residents with catering of meals; participating in crafts such as thatching and
13
This component builds on a sizable baseline investment in tourism development, with a substantial contribution
expected from the private sector. It is intended that Community Based Tourism will be incubated through
partnerships with the private sector, including lodges and tour operators, with the support of public institutions such
as Western Cape tourism and DBSA. Project activities have been designed to reflect lessons specific to the subregion (Western Cape Province) in spearheading CBT. Activities will be managed so as to assure optimal
community participation, in managing heritage sites, and providing guiding, reflecting the specific absorptive
capacities evident in different communities
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 27
the making of dried flower products, and the development of new crafts; and the marketing of available
guides and of the attraction. The Cultural Fishing Village Route promoting the cultural heritage of the
fishing villages at Kassiesbaai, Struisbaai, and Buffeljags will include visits to the harbour, trips on
fishing boats; visits to homes of residents with catering of meals and entertainment (singing etc.); the
development of art and crafts; the training of guides and the marketing of the attraction.
The Support to the development of a hiking trail in Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy will complement
the activities already undertaken by the WBFC in this regard and will provide opportunities for members
of local communities to participate in activities such as trail construction and maintenance, guiding, the
hospitality trade and craft production, in association with training and empowerment programs. GEF
funds will be used to cover the costs associated with compiling the layout plan and the alignment and
construction of the trail; training of local communities in guiding and trail interpretation and marketing.
The WBFC will cover the costs of the construction of five overnight accommodation units and general
operational costs.
(v)
A mechanism to monitor the impacts of tourism is lacking, hampering the task of adaptive
management - the GEF funds will cover the costs associated with monitoring of trends in tourism
activities, as a result of the activities undertaken by ABI. Aspects, such as increases in arrivals and length
of stay, will be monitored by each Heritage Centers and compared with the baseline identified in the
preparation stage. The effects of tourism activities will be evaluated and monitored from their inception
by the Heritage Centers. Ecological monitoring in protected areas is part of the normal functions of
parastatal conservation agencies, and is therefore included in baseline funding. The economic and social
effects will be monitored by the relevant tourism institutions (including tourism bureaux) and coordinated
by the tourism coordinator. GEF funding will be used to support the costs associated with regular
interviews and questionnaires with key participants in all project components, and regular workshops to
monitor and evaluate ABI tourism activities.
Output 4: Increased local support for biodiversity conservation in the Agulhas Plain is generated
through a broad-based conservation awareness program.
Total cost:
US$ 307,500; Co-financing: US$ 70,000; GEF request:
US$ 237,500
70.
The program will be aimed at target audiences on several different levels that will include local
communities, school students, community leaders, provincial planners and decision-makers, church
leaders, school teachers and other key actors.
71.
Conservation awareness and outreach: A broad based awareness campaign will be executed with
financing from the GEF. The communication officer appointed by SANParks will work closely with the
Heritage Centers and the tourism coordinator to (i) promote internal and external communication in local
language; (ii) cultivate mass media interest in the biodiversity conservation and work with the radio, local
newspapers and the church in Elim; (iii) to design appropriate awareness materials for different
stakeholder groups to impart conservation values and emphasize the interconnections between human
activities and fynbos resources, including a book on Agulhas Plain; (iv) to pilot alternative
communication methods targeting the communities where the level of literacy is very low, such as
community theater; and (v) conduct targeted workshops, farmers’ days and other community activities;
GEF funds will be used to cover the costs of stakeholder meetings and consultations to design and
produce promotional materials, training, producing and distributing an ABI newsletter and website.
72.
Environmental Education Program: To target the poor colored families working on fynbos farms
on the Plain, the project will support the replication of the successful environmental education program of
the Early Learning Center developed at Flower Valley, which provides pre-elementary school education
focused on environmental issues to the children in the poor communities working in the Agulhas Plain,
who don’t have access to any other form of education. The program has been funded in the past by the
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 28
AusAid, FFI, FVCT, Open Gate Foundation. GEF funds will cover the incremental costs associated with
the (i) community consultations; (ii) conducting a needs assessment; (iii) program development; (iv) setup costs of educational structures; (iv) training historically disadvantaged local women as Early
Childhood Development practitioners and transport. Activities would be carefully coordinated with
Component 2 of the C.A.P.E. Biodiversity and Sustainable Development Program for the CFR:
Environmental Education, which will provide an umbrella environmental education framework for the
CFR, including curricula development and teacher training, linked closely to the national education
programme.
73.
End of Project Situation: The project would have demonstrated the vibility of a new model for
managing protected areas, linking management within core protected areas, in the public domain, with
various categories of private reserves, and surrounding productive landscapes. New institutional
arrangements will have been developed and capacitated towards this end linking conservation agencies,
municipalities, agriculture departments, tourism agencies, private landowners and community
associations. Conservation aims would be mainstreamed into development, through integration of PA
management objectives into the Integrated Development Plans and extension operations of the Overstrand
and Cape Agulhas municipalities. Barriers to sustainable utilization of wild flowers and development of
nature tourism will be lifted, and management systems and safeguards instituted to enable the sustainable
utilization of wild resources, and in particular fynbos within specially demarcated zones in the Agulhas
National Park and in private reserves, thus providing economic incentives for conservation and livelihood
opportunities. The model will have been codified in conservation strategies and site action plans in other
protected areas by SANParks, and will provide a model for spearheading conservation in Phase 2 of
C.A.P.E.
74.
The globally significant biodiversity of the Agulhas Plain will have been secured, across a mosaic
of conservation compatible land uses Alien control strategies will be coordinated and effectively
implemented. The fire management strategy will include a conservation focus and the rapid-response
teams would be more efficient. The sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos would be more tightly
regulated, with better enforcement, and demonstrated as a viable land-use on Agulhas Plain. Harvesters
will be receiving a premium on sustainable harvested wild fynbos and encouraged to keep their land
under wild fynbos. Ecotourism would be generating new sources of revenue for biodiversity conservation,
as the area will be better known and the number of nature-based tourists will have increased. Finally, the
conservation constituency will have been strengthened through a broad based informal awareness
campaign.
75.
The project will generate a number of secondary environmental benefits by preventing and
mitigating land degradation. Benefits include: improved stream flows/ reduced soil erosion from the
clearance of alien vegetation, and prevention of watershed degradation (i.e. maintenance of water tables),
through institution of a comprehensive alien clearance programme, targeted at areas where further
infestation will have large down stream impacts. Efforts will further be made to improve land
management on existing livestock ranches to optimize grazing/ browsing pressure, and maintain on farm
productivity—so reducing the impetus for landowners to convert additional land to agriculture and
ranching over the long-term. Information on appropriate stocking densities and management practices for
different livestock and land types will be conveyed to farmers/ ranchers through the integrated extension
services. Further, a comprehensive set of data on changes in land condition, including the extent of soil
erosion and withdrawals of ground and surface water will have been assembled and assessed. This will be
providing an early warning mechanism, and will be triggering appropriate management responses at
different scales to arrest land degradation Land zoning regulations will further be circumscribing
developments likely to cause land degradation in sensitive areas. While the focus of activities will be on
prevention rather than remediation, the project will also have generated new know-how for rehabilitating
degraded lands, or areas at risk of degradation. Three pilots will have been completed, covering different
substrate conditions (ca 90 has), on old farm lands, and will provide a replicable tool for restoration. A
further 2800 hectares of wetlands will have been ecologically restored through pilot interventions.
Collectively, these actions are expected to make a significant contribution to arresting land degradation.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 29
76.
Project Beneficiaries: The biological diversity of the lowland fynbos of Agulhas Plain, as a an
area of high vulnerability and irreplaceability of the Cape Floristic Region accords a range of benefits at
the global and national levels—with associated direct and indirect use. The global community would
benefit from the protection of the lowland fynbos and associated habitats and species, unique to South
Africa, that would otherwise be extinguished by habitat fragmentation, unsustainable harvesting of wild
fynbos, cultivation, alien plant species and indiscriminate coastal development. At the national and local
levels, the project would maintain the option to use biological diversity for consumptive and productive
purposes.
77.
The project will contribute to the national poverty alleviation efforts as the local communities
(Elim, Struisbaai North, Kassiesbaai, Buffeljags, Agulhas, etc) in the Agulhas Plain would benefit
materially as biodiversity-based businesses are developed. Other beneficiaries include government
department (Department of Agriculture, local municipalities) and parastatal (SANParks, WCNCB)
personnel, and local NGOs (FVCT, BotSoc, Fynbos Ecotourism Forum) who would benefit from
additional training and ‘hands on’ management experience. Community empowerment and poverty
alleviation are central to the project’s overall objective, with special emphasis placed on providing local
communities with new choices and opportunities, from paper-making using fynbos products, to small
nature-based tourism initiatives. The network of farms surrounding Flower Valley alone employs up to
200 flower pickers with 500 dependants, representing one of the few stable employment opportunities in
the region. Many members of the local communities currently dependent on the farm for their livelihood.
The ABI activities are designed to increase the income generated from wildflower harvesting and, thus,
the standard of living of the communities involved. In addition, most of the sub-contracts for the
implementation of ABI have built into them the principle of employing local labour. Discussions with the
relevant agencies operating on the Plain indicated that most of the people trained through ABI will be
integrated into future positions. Strengthening capacity of the local firefighting teams and encouraging
new entrants from the local communities to participate into the fire fighting activities promoted by ABI,
would provide local people with an incredible amount of practical experience, which will help them in
their future contracts. For example, the Agulhas Park Fire fighting team that was already trained is
currently used by the municipalities for their firebreaks, and coastcare teams are being used by WCNCB.
78.
Eligibility under CBD: South Africa ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 2nd
November 1995. The project is consistent with the precautionary principle embodied in the Convention.
The project meets the following provisions of the CBD: Article 6, General Measures for Conservation and
Sustainable Use, by nesting conservation objectives into the wild cut flower harvesting industry and the
agricultural sector in the Agulhas Plain area; Article 8, In Situ Conservation, by establishing a landscapelevel conservation management system for the Agulhas Plain; Article 7, Identification and Monitoring,
through stock taking, impact monitoring and documenting lessons learned; Article 12, Capacity Building,
by transferring know how, building institutional capacities for conservation, and enhancing individual
capabilities; Articles 13 and 17, Awareness Raising and Information Sharing, through planned awareness
and outreach activities; and Article 10, Sustainable Use Management, by removing barriers to the
harvesting of wild fynbos for the flower market through conservation-enforcing management approaches.
79.
Eligibility for GEF financing: The project is identified as a priority in the GEF Medium term
strategy for South Africa, endorsed by DEAT and circulated to the SA cabinet as an information paper.
As a recipient of UNDP assistance, South Africa meets the eligibility criteria for GEF funding outlined in
paragraph 9(b) of the GEF instrument. The project is consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy and
with Operational Program 1: Arid and Semi-arid ecosystems. The project also addresses the GEF 1999
Action Plan on Land Degradation, as well as CBD COP 5 guidance on focusing on Drylands. The Project
satisfies the First Strategic Priority of the new emerging directions in the Biodiversity Focal Area:
Catalyzing Sustainability for Protected Areas. A novel model for protected areas management, for
replication within the CFR and nation wide will be developed, improving prospects for expanding the
network to conserve representative biodiversity. The model will rationalize and consolidate management
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 30
in public and private protected areas, and mainstream protected area activities with production landscapes
within ecosystem approaches. Further it will improve implementation of sustainable use and benefit
sharing schemes with the participation of key local communities, private sector and government
agencies14.
80.
Linkages with other GEF Initiatives: The project will build upon SANParks’ experience in
implementing part of the GEF-financed Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Project, which started in 1997 and is
administered by the World Bank. ABI was identified as a result of the broad consultation process
facilitated by the CAPE Strategy component of the above project. ABI is one of the core projects for the
implementation of the C.A.P.E. program. The project is highly complementary to two other GEF
initiatives in support of the C.A.P.E. program,: The Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable
Development Project, implemented by the World Bank and UNDP, and the Critical Ecosystem
Partnership Fund, implemented by the World Bank. These respective initiatives address different
components of C.A.P.E., and have been specifically designed to generate a range of different
management instruments, to suit different ecological, socio-economic and institutional conditions. The
specific objectives, interventions and programmatic synergies of these initiatives is detailed in Annex H.
81.
ABI will build upon the experience gained in the GEF/World Bank – financed Greater Addo
Elephant Park project in Eastern Cape, which is implemented by SANParks. The NBSAP will be
implemented through the National DEAT, with GEF-UNDP assistance. During the ABI preparation stage
a working group was established on farm planning to include conservation concerns and the collaboration
with the GEF-financed MSP in Conservation farming was initiated. The projects will liaise with each
other in order to transfer lessons learnt.
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
82.
Implementation and Execution Arrangements: The project would be executed by SANParks,
following UNDP guidelines for nationally executed projects. SANParks will sign the grant agreement
with UNDP and will be accountable to UNDP for the disbursement of funds and the achievement of the
project goals, according to the approved workplan. Institutional arrangements developed for C.A.P.E. and
their associated memoranda of understanding provide the overarching institutional context for the project:
83.
The institutional arrangements for the implementation of C.A.P.E. are: the C.A.P.E. Coordination
Committee (CCC), C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee (CIC) and C.A.P.E. Coordination Unit (CCU).
The CCC was established though an MoU between the Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism,
Minister for Water Affairs and Forestry, Western Cape member of the Executive Council for the
Environment and Cultural Affairs and Eastern Cape member of the Executive Council for the
Environment, Economic Affairs and Tourism to coordinate the implementation of the CAPE Strategy.
The Committee is responsible for facilitating programmatic coordination of conservation activities in the
Cape Floristic Kingdom. The aim is to maximize synergies between initiatives, irrespective of their
funding source. The CIC is composed of government departments, municipalities, statutory bodies and
Accredited NGOs that will implement the CAPE Strategy. This Committee will provide a forum for
distilling and cross-fertilizing management lessons between CAPE initiatives.The National Botanical
Institute (NBI) acts as the Program Management Agency for CAPE and is housing the CAPE Coordination Unit, which provides the primary locus for programme coordination on a day-to day basis.
84.
The project will comply with UNDP’s monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements, as
spelled out in the UNDP Programming Manual. Quarterly progress reports will be submitted to UNDP by
the executing agency, providing a brief summary of the status of activities and output delivery, explaining
14
The M&E programme will monitor processes underpinning results, taking care to define the determinants of
project performance. Specific local fundamentals (social dynamic, infrastructure etc). which may not be evident in
other areas, where re[placation is sought will be noted, and guidance will not be prescriptive in that it ill stress the
need for adaptation to suit different social, economic and institutional contexts
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 31
variances from the work plan, and presenting work-plans for each successive quarter for review and
endorsement. The Quarterly progress reports will provide a basis for managing disbursements. An Annual
Project Report (APR) will be prepared at the end of year 1, summarizing and evaluating work in progress
in more detail, and will be reviewed by the Project Steering Committee, which shall make
recommendations to the executing agency and UNDP regarding the subsequent scheduling of project
activities. A Terminal Report will be prepared upon project completion and reviewed at a terminal PSC
meeting.
85.
The project will establish the ABI Project Implementation Unit (PIU), which will be housed at
Agulhas National Park and composed of a project Coordinator and a Project Assistant. The ABI PIU will
be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the ABI Project, for work programming and
monitoring, certifying expenditures and preparing ToRs for consultants and tender documents for
subcontracts. The ABI Project Coordinator will report to the ABI Oversight Committee (ABIOC), which
will need to account directly to C.A.P.E. structures as well as UNDP/GEF through SANParks. The PIU
will be supported by a Technical Advisor from FFI who will both build the capacity of the PIU in project
management and monitoring and provide expertise in matters related to the project implementation. GEF
funds will pay for the coordinator, technical advisor, communication, travel, vehicle and monitoring costs.
SANParks will cover the operational costs of hiring a project assistant, undertaking the financial
management and will provide the offices.
Institutional Arrangements for ABI Implementation
CAPE Coordination Committee
(national and provincial ministers)
CAPE Implementation Committee
(govt., parastatal, funders and key stakeholders)
Prov. Gov
Comm.
UNDP
NBI
3 Municipalities
ABI OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
WCNCB
SANParks
FFI
FVCT
WBFC
BotSoc
Overberg Tourism
ABI Project Implementation Unit
Project Coordinator
Project Assistant
Conservation Planning
Manager - SANParks
FVCT/FFI
Tourism
Coordinator
Communication Officer
- SANParks
Conservation in
productive landscape
Sustainable
harvesting of
wild fynbos
Nature-based
Tourism
Conservation Awareness
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 32
86.
The project will establish the ABI Oversight Committee (ABIOC) composed of: Western Cape
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning; Western Cape Department of
Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Tourism; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; UNDP/GEF;
SANParks; WCNCB; C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee; NBI, FFI; WBFC; FVCT; Overberg District
Municipality; Agulhas Municipality; Overstrand Municipality; Overberg Tourism Council; Botanical
Society of South Africa; civil society local representatives of business sector; farmers’ organizations;
(two/three representatives from different geographic areas); community-based organizations (two/three
representatives from different geographic areas). With the proposed representation and efficient
management and facilitation, ABIOC will perform a pivotal role in institutionalizing partnerships in the
project by ensuring collective decision-making and implementation accountability of both baseline and
incremental activities. The ABIOC will meet at least twice a year, where possible in conjunction with
meetings of the Cape Implementation Committee, and it will be convened and supported logistically by
the ABI Project Implementation Unit (PIU). The ABIOC will elect a chair and formally adopt terms of
reference and agree upon a mode of operation. The following terms of reference are recommended for the
ABIOC: (i) review and provide advice on annual plans of activity presented at the last quarterly meeting
of each year; (ii) review and approve annual reports submitted to UNDP/GEF and other donors and
C.A.P.E. Coordination and Implementation Committees which will be produced within the UNDP/GEF
reporting schedule; (iii) advise the ABI PIU on policy decisions; and, (iv) report on any strategic activities
that may affect the ABI implementation process on an ongoing basis. All members of the ABIOC will be
required to carry a formal mandate of the organizations or sector that they represent. The Committee may
also create non executive sub committees comprised entirely of local stakeholder representatives to
consider technical issues; such sub-committees will not have policy nor financial oversighjt
responsibilities.
87
During the project preparation stage, the institutional requirements have been assessed in the
context of the implementation requirements of each project component and the overall co-ordination of
ABI. ABI institutional arrangements will pilot institutional models for other implementation initiatives
within CAPE. The institutional challenges of coordinating the actions of government organizations,
parastatals, business, landowners and civil society within the four project components will be met through
the: alignment of institutional strategic objectives, institutional strengthening and capacity building,
effective project implementation institutional arrangements and management systems and support for
implementation. The alignment of the SANParks’ and WCNCB’s strategies and activities on the Agulhas
Plain is the most significant intervention that has occurred to date and has to a large degree been
facilitated through the process of project preparation for ABI.
88.
At a strategic level, influencing the Integrated Development Planning objectives of the local
authorities, the focus of the farm planning activities of the Department of Agriculture, the planning for
catchments by DWAF, as well as the focus of local tourism bodies is essential in achieving the goals of
ABI. The project places a special emphasis on the alignment of objectives of existing wildflower
harvesting concerns through influencing supply chains and markets for the product. These specific
influences pertain to the land-use planning and decision-making processes, as well as natural resources
use and economic development on the Agulhas Plain. The further effort that will be required in
community-based organizations, business and private landowners who have economic interests other than
conservation, will be addressed in the process of implementation of the individual components, as well as
the Participation Plan.
89.
Stakeholder Participation: A comprehensive stakeholder analysis was undertaken as part of the
project preparatory process. SANParks, FFI and their key partners have organized consultative workshops
with the identified stakeholders to ensure that: (a) their input was fully considered and integrated for data
collection purposes; (b) stakeholders are aware of project objectives and activities; (c) stakeholders
participate in project design and in the determination of implementation arrangements; and (d) project
development is integrated with ongoing and planned initiatives both in the country and in the project area.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 33
A special emphasis was placed in developing the participation plan to ensure that women from previously
disadvantaged communities are actively participating in and benefiting from the project. During the
project implementation a gender specialist will be hired to work with the stakeholders and increase the
involvement of women in project activities. In addition, the gender specialist will work together with the
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist in monitoring the stakeholder participation into the project
components with a special focus on gender issues.
90.
Key governmental organizations that will provide support within the ambit of their administrative
functions include the parastatal agencies (SANParks and WCNCB), local authorities (Overberg District
Municipality, Cape Agulhas Municipality, Overstrand Municipality), particularly with regard to
Integrated Development Planning and tourism related functions, and Provincial Government structure,
especially the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). Non-governmental organizations
include all conservancies, Botanical Society of South Africa, Flower Valley Conservation Trust, Fauna &
Flora International as well as organized civil society structures such as civic and residents’ associations.
Farmers’ and landowners’ organizations are the most significant groupings in the context of achieving the
goals of the project and hence are as a collective a significant partner. Multi-stakeholder forums include
all of the catchment management forums and future catchment management authorities, Integrated
Development Planning forums as well as the Fire Protection Agency (FPA) for the area. A complete list
of all stakeholders developed during the preparation stage and participation plan is provided in Annex G.
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS:
91.
Incremental costs: The total cost of the Alternative Strategy amounts to US$11,649,725,
excluding preparatory assistance. The incremental costs to be financed by the GEF amount to US$
3,148,175 and co-financing to US$ 8,501,550. GEF investments represent a modest increment to South
Africa’s own commitments to conservation and sustainable development. The budget summary below
provides a breakdown of costs.
BUDGET:
Project Outputs
Amount (US$)
GEF
Co-financing
1. Landscape-level conservation management and
planning system developed and implemented in
public-private partnerships negotiated by a wellcapacitated extension service
2,051,640
2. Ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable
harvesting of wild fynbos is demonstrated as a viable
land use on the Agulhas Plain
415,235
3. A participatory and responsible tourism strategy is
implemented in the Agulhas Plain and contributes to
sustainable livelihoods
433,300
4. Increased local support for biodiversity
conservation in the AP Plain is generated through a
broad-based conservation awareness program
Total Full Project
Project Preparation
237,500
SANParks: 4,603,550
WCNCB:
216,800
Municipalities: 19,700
FFI:
608,300
Total:
5,448,350
WCNCB:
8,600
Grootbos:
13,500
FFI:
700,050
Total:
722,050
SANParks: 1,508,100
Tourism Bur.: 357,950
WBFC:
395,000
Total:
2,261,050
SANParks:
70,000
Total:
70,000
GRAND TOTAL (FULL PROJECT + PREPARATION
Total
(US$)
7,499,990
1,137,385
2,704,350
307,500
3,147,675
8,501,550
GEF
US$ 78,550
SANParks US$ 28,000
FFI:
US$ 29,000
11,649,225
3,226,225
11,784,775
8,558,550
RISKS AND SUSTAINABLITY
92.
Project Risks: The root causes of threats to biodiversity in Agulhas Plain are presented in Annex
F and have guided design of project interventions. The project preparation team has carefully weighed the
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 34
likelihood of these fundamentals changing over the course of implementation and assessed the impact on
outcomes. The assumptions that underpin project design are listed in the project log frame. Four key risks
have been identified. These are listed below, with a description of planned risk abatement measures:
Risk
SANParks and WCNCB unable
to maintain the level of personnel
and material support to the
project
Mismatched programming of
project and baseline activities
Conflict of interest between
stakeholders
Insufficient incentives for
sustainable use of natural
resources
Land-owners are unwilling to
enter into management and
contractual agreements
Rating L=Low; M=Medium;
Rating
Abatement Measure
[L]
SANParks and WCNCB are part of the ABI Project
Oversight Committee and their missions and roles are
aligned with ABI.
[L]
[M]
[M –L]
[L]
Strong management can reduce this risk; The POC
would play a pivotal role in assuring joint programming
of the project and baseline
Stakeholder meetings; conflict resolution training;
encourage open communication of project objectives
and stakeholder interests/needs
The project would focus sustainable use interventions on
industries where economic returns appear promising,
such as wild fynbos harvesting and ecotourism. This
risk would lessen over time as barriers to management
are removed
A joint extension service will be established to actively
liase with the landowners and to mobilise sufficient
positive incentives to encourage them.
93.
Sustainability: Project design has addressed institutional sustainability through strengthening the
capacity of SANParks, WCNCB, Department of Agriculture, local municipalities and other key partners
to develop and implement participatory conservation management plans at a landscape level and models
for sustainable use of natural resources for the Agulhas Plain. SANParks, which has a strong institutional
capacity and a proven track record for parks’ management at the country level will have lead
responsibility for project implementation and will continue to manage the Agulhas National Park after the
close of the project. Initiatives to engage local communities and other local stakeholders, including
private landowners, in project preparation and implementation and in sharing the benefits from lowland
fynbos conservation and sustainable use should contribute to social sustainability. With regards to
financial sustainability, SANParks has committed to shoulder the recurrent costs associated with park
management, including staff salaries and PA operations and the work with the private landowners after
completion of the project. SANParks has demonstrated consistent financial commitment for the
implementation of other GEF – financed projects in South Africa, including for the Cape Peninsula
National Park. The project is further supporting activities designed to remove barriers to sustainable
utilization of components of biodiversity (harvest of wild fynbos and recreational uses). These activities
have been designed so as to improve the conservation compatibility of local livelihoods, and to change
the calculus of land use decisions in favour of conservation goals at the productive landscape level.
Replicability: The project has been carefully designed to maximize opportunities for
replicating the new conservation methods, institutional arrangements, and know how for
sustainable use within the national C.A.P.E. program and across South Africa’s system of
protected areas. ABI marks the first occasion that an institutional role for SANParks is being
effected beyond formal public PA boundaries. The project should play a pivotal role in
strengthening management of PAs and demonstrating effective and cost-efficient ways and
means for improving management services on private reserves and neighboring lands. In order to
distill and share lessons (on private land incorporation, institutional alignment at the sub-regional
level etc.) with Park managers from across the PA network, a series of technical and training
workshops will be sponsored at the project site for PA managers and associated personnel.
94.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 35
95.
ABI has been designed as a fast track component of C.A.P.E. The lessons derived through the
project will be systematically fed through the C.A.P.E. coordinating apparatus to other initiatives
spearheaded under the program. The model for sub-regional scale management developed and adapted
under ABI will be systematically incorporated into the design of phase 2 activities under C.A.P.E, which
will scale up successful demonstrations activities to the CFR landscape more broadly. Using the Walker
Bay Fynbos Conservancy as a pilot, extension officers from WCNCB will catalyze participatory
management planning in four conservancies adjoining the Agulhas Plain area. This experience will be
captured by WCNCB for use in the 50 plus conservancies currently functioning in the CFR. GEF will
cover the costs associated with convening a regional conservancy forum at the Walker Bay Fynbos
Conservancy to distill and disseminate critical management lessons. Thus it will act as a prime-motivating
agent for convincing landowners of the benefits of the process. Moreover, the project marks the first time
that farm-planning processes developed and utilized by the Department of Agriculture are being
employed to reinforce conservation of threatened habitat types and keep corridors and landscape level
processes operating. This experience will be adapted for application in livestock farms throughout the
CFR, and will have bearing elsewhere in South Africa. Finally, the barrier removal demonstrations to
engender sustainable use of fynbos and develop nature tourism will provide a model for sustainable
biodiversity businesses that may be replicated elsewhere within the CFR, thereby better tying biodiversity
conservation with economic objectives.
96.
Cross-cutting issues: Community empowerment and poverty alleviation are central to the
project’s overall objective, with special emphasis on providing local communities with new choices and
opportunities, from paper-making using fynbos products, to small nature-based tourism initiatives. Flower
Valley Farm represents one of the few employment options for much of the local workforce in the
Agulhas plain. Many members of the local communities are currently dependent on the farm and export
business for their livelihood. The network of farms surrounding Flower Valley alone employs up to 200
flower pickers with 500 dependants. Fynbos harvesting is the most labour-intensive use of land and local
job prospects are being enhanced considerably already. The main activities are the development of a
certification system for sustainably harvested and ethically produced wild flowers and the development of
a market for these products. These activities are designed to increase the income generated from
wildflower harvesting and, thus, the standard of living of the communities involved.
97.
As the flower export season currently lasts from July to December only, the manufacture of
additional fynbos products will be developed for year-round production, increasing employment
opportunities in the Agulhas Plain. In order to provide steady, year-round employment for the local
workforce employed in flower harvesting, ABI will build upon the success of the Fynbos paper microenterprise developed by FVCT, by encouraging and training disadvantaged women in hand-made fynbos
paper production and design, building their capacity to take leadership, initiative and ownership of their
own developmental process. There is a strong link between the flower business and fynbos papermaking
in terms of materials used and skills required. Fynbos is being used in the paper for texture and natural
dyes. In addition, the shift to the handmade paper products was facilitated by the dexterity and colour
composition skills the women have obtained from bouquet making. The relatively low set-up costs and
simple process makes this type of micro-enterprise easily replicable across the plain and will ensure that
local women will have new opportunities to be employed. Additional training would be provided for local
women in bouquet and paper-making, as well as in pre-auditing and monitoring methodology for
certification, recording harvested species and other skills following the needs assessment which would be
conducted during the project implementation.
98.
Most of the sub-contracts for the implementation of ABI have built into them the principle of
making use of local labour. This would ensure community empowerment by training local people for
future positions, such as the fine scale assistant landuse/farm planners, or the firefighting teams, or alien
clearing teams trained in the new methods, etc. Discussions with the relevant agencies operating on the
Plain indicated that most of the trained people through ABI will be integrated into future positions, for
instance Dept. of Agriculture is already working in this regard with Umzumvumbu (a local NGO used by
the government to implement their youth development program) and the Department’s National Landcare
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 36
program to create these new positions which are needed for the implementation of the newly adopted
Areawide conservation planning methodology. Strengthening capacity of the local firefighting teams and
encouraging new entrants from the local communities to participate into the fire fighting activities
promoted by ABI, would provide local people with an incredible amount of practical experience, which
will help them in their future contracts. For example, the Agulhas Park Fire fighting team that has already
been trained is currently used by the municipalities for their firebreaks, and Coastcare teams are being
used by WCNCB at De Mond, etc.
99.
Since its inception, ABI catalyzed a stronger collaboration between a series of initiatives focused
on poverty alleviation on Agulhas Plain, such as Work for Water (WfW), Coastcare, Parks Empowering
People (PEP), Work for Fire (WfF) and Work for Wetlands. In addition, the project team negotiated with
the local authorities in the region for ABI to be incorporated into the Integrated Development Plan
documents as Local Economic Empowerment project indicating the poverty alleviation value of ABI to
the various authorities, local, provincial and national.
100.
Project contribution to poverty alleviation on the Agulhas Plain will be monitored closely,
through conducting annual surveys of the economic benefits to the local communities as a result of the
implementation of the sustainable harvesting practices. The first step will be to collect data on how many
people are employed by the supply network and what is their average earnings, including costing of some
of the benefits provided by the farmers (such as accommodation, food etc). The annual audits which will
be conducted as a part of the certification scheme will generate information related to the financial
benefits of the members of the supply network and how these benefits are passed on down to their
employees.
101.
Cost effectiveness: –It is most cost-effective to take action now rather than repair the damage
later. In the absence of immediate conservation intervention, it is estimated that the alien plant infestation
in Agulhas Plain will reach a density of 50 – 75% in the next five years. Alien clearance costs will
amount to US$ 100.2/ha/year (Genevieve Kent Pence, 2001). The conservation actions spearheaded
through the project will amount to just US$ 21/ha/year. While the option of focusing only on Agulhas
National Park and not at the landscape level was considered, it was discarded because it will lead to
fragmentation and will affect the ecological integrity of Agulhas Plain. In the longer-term, the multistakeholder approach and the partnerships between conservation agencies, local municipalities,
agriculture departments, private landowners, farmers and communities will reduce the recurrent costs of
conservation management and enhance prospects for success, ensuring that investments are cost-effective.
MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LESSONS LEARNED
102.
Monitoring has been incorporated as an integral sub-component at the level of each output. The
objectives of the monitoring programme are to assess the project’s effectiveness in protecting
biodiversity, evaluate the benefits accruing to communities and other beneficiaries, appraise the
underlying causes of project outcomes (whether positive or negative), and track the level and quality of
public participation in conservation activities. The project will be implemented through an adaptive
framework that feeds the findings of process- response monitoring into operational planning, thus
enabling management strategies and activities to be adjusted as necessary where corrective measures are
warranted. Monitoring exercises would involve both government and local communities in order to
facilitate inputs from all key stakeholders and obtain a common understanding of successes and failures in
management. A number of indicators to measure impact and processes have been selected (see log frame
in Annex B) at the goal, purpose and output levels. Immediately upon the project commencement, the
PIU would develop analytical and sampling tools for field monitoring activities. Monitoring will be
carried out using participatory and independent monitoring techniques with the involvement of
stakeholders.
103.
Key landscape level threat indicators include: contraction or increase of different habitat types
(aerial extent), and specific target levels are set up in the logframe. For alien plants, this will relate to
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 37
percentage area still to be cleared in each 40 catchment, and be determined by the baseline year 2000
infestation level and initial alien density class. For wildfires, this will relate to vegetation age since last
fire. Conservation success in the Agulhas region will hinge on landowners investing in land management
and complying with conditions of Contractual and Management Agreements. To determine the efficacy of
these conservation partnerships, the following indicators could be measured: (i) number of management
agreements entered into, and aerial extent of priority areas under conservation; (ii) number of
conservancies established in ABI area; (iii) percentage owners who increase investment in land
management; and (iv) number of applicants for assistance with alien clearing and fire management.
104.
Long-term monitoring and biological studies on the impacts of harvesting on different species
guilds will provide a scientific basis for effective adaptive management of the resource. A comprehensive
monitoring program has been developed as a part of the sustainable harvesting component. The project
will support field studies on the effects of harvesting on myrmecochorous species and species with seed
banks; on the inter-specific competition and will determine the species index of vulnerability to
harvesting in order to update the current knowledge on sustainable harvesting. The effects of the
prescribed harvesting regime will be monitored over time and adapted as new information becomes
available. Monitoring sites will be established on Flower Valley Farm and will be harvested on an annual
basis in the manner prescribed by the certification guidelines. Adjacent control sites will not be harvested.
This will provide valuable information on how continued harvesting at the levels prescribed by the project
guidelines influences individual harvested species, as well as community-scale dynamics over time. The
sustainable harvesting Code of Practice will be updated as data becomes available from field monitoring.
105.
The effects of tourism activities will be evaluated and monitored from their inception by the
Heritage Centers. Ecological monitoring in protected areas is part of the normal functions of parastatal
conservation agencies, and is therefore included in baseline funding. The economic and social effects will
be monitored by the relevant tourism institutions (including tourism bureaux) and coordinated by the
tourism coordinator. The project would conduct regular interviews and questionnaires with key
participants in all project components, and regular workshops to monitor and evaluate the impact of
tourism activities. In addition, the PIU will carry out annual monitoring of stakeholder participation in the
project components, according to the participation plan, and update the work plans based upon the results.
106.
Evaluation: There will be three forums for evaluation: a monthly meeting of the project team, a
quarterly consultation with project partners and stakeholders, and biannual meetings of the ABI Oversight
Committee. The purpose of these meetings would be to ascertain that project activities and tasks are
occurring in the set time frame with the appropriate resource allocations, raise problems/issues faced in
delivery, and adjust interventions as necessary. These meetings will also serve as a forum for discussing
general issues/concerns regarding the project direction/approach, including new threats and/or
opportunities that may affect the project. SANParks, as Executing Agency will provide UNDP with
quarterly and annual workplans and will report on progress in achieving targets enumerated in the plans.
The Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) would provide a brief summary of the status of input
procurement and output delivery, explain variances from the work plan, and present work-plans for each
successive quarter for review and endorsement. The Annual Project Report (APR) would provide a rating
and textual assessment of the progress of the project in achieving its objectives and present stakeholders'
insights into issues affecting the implementation of a project and their proposals for addressing those
issues. UNDP will report to the GEF on progress in implementation during the annual Project
Implementation Review, drawing on the APR and quarterly reports, and independent evaluations. Beyond
the requirements of reporting to the UNDP/GEF, CAPE Structures and the ABIOC, the ABI
Implementation Unit will present a summary annual report to all stakeholders. The reporting requirements
will be aligned into one reporting cycle so that the unit is not overburdened by reporting arrangements.
107.
Provision has been made for two independent evaluations of project performance, mid way
during implementation andjust prior to project closure.
108.
ABI, as an integral component of the C.A.P.E. will aim to generate knowledge and to improve the
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 38
dissemination of the best practices in conservation in productive landscapes and sustainable livelihoods.
The lessons learned in its implementation will be made available in a timely manner to enable a constant
cycle of development and cross-fertilization of ideas and practices. The lessons learned from other similar
activities have been incorporated into project design. The most pertinent lessons are articulated below
with a summary of features incorporated into design to enhance prospects for securing stable conservation
outcomes.
Lesson learned
Design feature
Need to ensure that all key stakeholders are
involved from the early stage of preparation and
understand project objectives and their role in the
implementation of various activities and have
realistic expectations of outcomes
Addressed during the course of the preparation
through consultative workshops with key
stakeholders to ensure that stakeholders’: (a) input
is fully considered and integrated for data collection
purposes; (b) are aware of project objectives and
activities; (c) participate in project design and
implementation; and (d) project development is
integrated with ongoing and planned initiatives in
the country and particularly the project area
Sustainable use (Output 2 and 3) pilots are planned;
awareness activities would impart knowledge of the
economic values of natural ecosystems
A comprehensive monitoring program will be
established and capacity built to undertake it;
initiate sustainable use pilot activities that can then
be used as models to inform decision making and
encourage replication
Generate conservation-based economic benefits for
local populations; incentives for conservation must
be sustainable and economically attractive
Sustainable use can only occur with close
monitoring of the resources under exploitation.
Activities should be structured as to be adaptable to
changing conditions; barrier removal is complex,
and it is advisable to start small and scale upwards
as lessons are learned
LEGAL CONTEXT
108.
The project shall be the instrument referred to as such in article 1 of the Standard Basic
Assistance Agreement between the Government of South Africa and the United Nations Development
Programme, signed by the parties on 24 October 1994. The host country’s implementation agency shall,
for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the Government co-operating
agency described in that agreement. Any other procedural requirements concerning international
agreements will be complied with.
109.
The following types of revisions may be made to this Project Document with the signature of
UNDP alone, provided that UNDP is assured that the other signatories of the project Document have no
objection to the proposed changes, and with the concurrence of UNDP-GEF:
(a)
Revisions in, or additions to any of the annexes of the Project Document;
(b)
Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or
activities of a project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by
cost increases due to inflation; and
(c)
Mandatory quarterly revisions which rephase the delivery of agreed project inputs, or reflect
increased expert or other costs due to inflation, or take into account agency expenditure
flexibility. More frequent revisions will occur as needed.
AUDIT
110.
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.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 39
The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial
auditor engaged by the Government.
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 40
List of Annexes:
Annex 1
Annex ia
Annex 2
Annex 3
Annex 4.
Annex 5.
Annex 6.
Annex 7.
Annex 8.
Annex 9.
Annex 10.
Annex 11
Annex 12.
Annex 13
Input Budget
Detailed Component Budget
Terms of Reference – Staff
Equipment Register
Country Endorsement
Incremental Cost
Log frame matrix and work plan
STAP Roster Technical Review/Response to STAP Comments
Description of Site Biology
Root Cause and Management Issues
Public Involvement Plan Summary
C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Project Categorization Sheet
List of References
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 41
Annex 1
Input Budget
Main Source of Funds: 1G - Global Environment Trust Fund
Executing Agency: SANPARKS - SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL PARKS
Sbln
Implementing
011
011.01
Description
PERSONNEL
International Consultants
Technical Advisor
011.99
Line Total
----------
016
016.01
Mission Costs
Travel (PIU & ABIOC)
016.99
Line Total
017
017.01
National Consultants
010
017.02
017.03
PA Infrastructure Planner
Conservation Planner
Farm Planner
SANPARKS
2005
2006
2007
2008
18,000
40
18,000
18,000
40
18,000
4,500
10
4,500
4,500
10
4,500
4,500
10
4,500
4,500
10
4,500
2,250
5
2,250
2,250
5
2,250
2,250
5
2,250
2,250
5
2,250
SANPARKS
Net Amount
Total
51,400
51,400
6,000
6,000
15,400
15,400
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
----------
Net Amount
Total
51,400
51,400
6,000
6,000
15,400
15,400
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
SANPARKS
Net Amount
W/M
Total
33,000
120
33,000
15,000
60
15,000
18,000
60
18,000
0
0
0
0
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
Total
51,650
210
51,650
7,500
30
7,500
84,000
84,000
26,650
115
26,650
5,700
23
5,700
28,000
28,000
10,000
30
10,000
1,800
7
1,800
28,000
28,000
15,000
65
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
15,400
70
15,400
40,000
200
40,000
9,000
0
7,600
44
7,600
0
0
3,800
6
3,800
14,000
70
14,000
2,000
10
2,000
14,000
70
14,000
SANPARKS
SANPARKS
Legal Experts
Resource Economist
2004
13,500
30
13,500
13,500
30
13,500
017.05
017.07
2003
45,000
100
45,000
45,000
100
45,000
Field Assistants for Conser. Plan. SANPARKS
Incentive Expert
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
017.04
017.06
Funding
SANPARKS
SANPARKS
SANPARKS
0
0
28,000
28,000
2,000
10
2,000
12,000
60
12,000
0
0
9,000
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 42
017.08
017.09
017.10
017.11
017.12
GIS Specialist1
(WBFC+Materials)
GIS Specialist2 (SANParks for
BIMS)
Wetland Ecologist
Ecologist
Institutional Capacity Advisor
45
9,000
10,700
0
SANPARKS
W/M
Total
Net Amount
50
10,700
40,000
0
SANPARKS
W/M
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
160
40,000
9,000
40
9,000
3,000
15
3,000
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
3,800
19
3,800
95,000
95,000
8,600
17
8,600
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
75,000
75,000
23,000
80
23,000
46,000
205
46,000
SANPARKS
SANPARKS
SANPARKS
017.13
Project Co-ordinator
SANPARKS
017.14
Gender Specialist
SANPARKS
017.15
Nature-based Tourism Specialist
SANPARKS
017.16
Community Tourism Planner
SANPARKS
017.17
M&E Specialist
SANPARKS
45
9,000
4,700
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
2,000
20
4,700
8,000
10
2,000
8,000
10
2,000
8,000
10
2,000
8,000
8,000
0
32
8,000
32
8,000
0
32
8,000
2,000
10
2,000
32
8,000
0
32
8,000
7,000
30
7,000
0
0
0
3,000
15
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,100
8
2,100
0
0
0
0
3,800
19
3,800
20,000
20,000
5,100
9
5,100
0
0
0
0
20,000
20,000
1,400
0
1,400
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
0
0
0
15,000
15,000
5,000
20
5,000
9,200
41
9,200
15,000
15,000
18,000
60
18,000
9,200
41
9,200
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
0
0
0
9,200
41
9,200
9,200
41
9,200
9,200
41
9,200
017.99
Line Total
----------
Net Amount
W/M
Total
554,650
1261
554,650
17,100
68
17,100
168,750
443
168,750
138,200
286
138,200
115,200
238
115,200
68,200
153
68,200
47,200
73
47,200
019
PROJECT PERSONNEL TOTAL ----------
Net Amount
W/M
Total
651,050
1361
651,050
36,600
98
36,600
202,150
483
202,150
152,700
296
152,700
129,700
248
129,700
75,450
158
75,450
54,450
78
54,450
020
CONTRACTS
021
021.01
Contract A
Personnel/Consultancies
Net Amount
232,730
138,200
32,070
20,820
20,820
20,820
SANPARKS
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 43
021.02
Independent Evaluation
SANPARKS
021.03
SANParks Infrastructure
SANPARKS
021.04
WBFC-Trail
SANPARKS
021.05
Implement Alien Clearing
SANPARKS
021.06
Fire Breaks
SANPARKS
021.07
Wetland Restoration
SANPARKS
021.08
Tourism Infrastracture
SANPARKS
021.09
Communication and ELC
SANPARKS
021.10
Public Awareness Materials
SANPARKS
021.11
021.12
Annual M&E
Audit
SANPARKS
SANPARKS
021.99
Line Total
----------
029
SUBCONTRACTS TOTAL
----------
030
TRAINING
Other Training
032
032.01
032.02
Orientation and legal training
SANPARKS
Extension and negotiation
netwok
SANPARKS
032.03
Training of extention staff
SANPARKS
032.04
Basic GIS and Farm planning
SANPARKS
032.05
Conservation farm planning
SANPARKS
Total
Net Amount
Total
232,730
169,755
169,755
138,200
35,900
35,900
32,070
74,095
74,095
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
665,000
665,000
23,000
23,000
150,000
150,000
464,000
464,000
23,000
23,000
50,000
50,000
201,000
201,000
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
60,000
60,000
250,000
250,000
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
57,000
57,000
111,500
111,500
88,000
88,000
5,000
5,000
23,500
23,500
20,600
20,600
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
19,500
19,500
6,000
6,000
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
1,832,485
1,832,485
1,832,485
1,832,485
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
20,820
21,320
21,320
20,820
21,120
21,120
20,820
17,320
17,320
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
50,000
50,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
52,000
52,000
60,000
60,000
35,600
35,600
28,000
28,000
10,600
10,600
10,600
10,600
10,600
10,600
1,000
1,000
3,900
3,900
1,000
1,000
3,900
3,900
1,000
1,000
3,900
3,900
1,000
1,000
3,900
3,900
1,000
1,000
3,900
3,900
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
765,100
765,100
765,100
765,100
529,665
529,665
529,665
529,665
205,640
205,640
205,640
205,640
177,440
177,440
177,440
177,440
153,640
153,640
153,640
153,640
8,200
8,200
12,000
8,200
8,200
6,000
6,000
Total
Net Amount
Total
12,000
7,200
7,200
6,000
3,600
3,600
6,000
3,600
3,600
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
12,500
12,500
10,000
10,000
8,500
8,500
5,000
5,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 44
032.06
Firefighting training
SANPARKS
Net Amount
Total
15,000
15,000
5,000
5,000
032.07
Training of local tour guides
SANPARKS
Entrepreunership
SANPARKS
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
032.08
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
032.09
Conservancy trail guiding
SANPARKS
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
4,000
4,000
12,000
12,000
104,900
104,900
Net Amount
Total
032.10
Conservancy management
SANPARKS
5,000
5,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
10,000
10,000
60,300
60,300
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
30,600
30,600
8,000
8,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
16,800
16,800
13,000
13,000
1,700
1,700
700
700
700
700
700
700
032.99
Line Total
033
033.01
In-Service Training
Secure land unde Conser. Mnage. SANPARKS
033.02
Conservation Management
Planning
SANPARKS
Net Amount
19,900
4,100
10,800
2,000
2,200
800
033.03
Controlling Alien Plant Spread
SANPARKS
Total
Net Amount
Total
19,900
39,750
39,750
4,100
11,200
11,200
10,800
9,200
9,200
2,000
9,200
9,200
2,200
6,000
6,000
800
4,150
4,150
033.04
Develop Fire Management Strat
SANPARKS
033.05
ABIOC establishment and
meetings
SANPARKS
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
5,500
5,500
11,000
5,500
5,500
3,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
033.06
AP Tourism Forum
SANPARKS
Total
Net Amount
Total
11,000
5,500
5,500
3,400
1,500
1,500
1,400
1,000
1,000
1,400
1,000
1,000
1,400
1,000
1,000
1,400
1,000
1,000
033.07
Establish AP Tourism Route
SANPARKS
033.08
Conservation Livelihood
SANPARKS
Stakeholder Parti. Project comp.
SANPARKS
27,000
27,000
52,700
52,700
16,800
16,800
13,500
13,500
37,500
37,500
033.09
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
13,500
13,500
6,200
6,200
6,100
6,100
3,000
3,000
2,300
2,300
3,000
3,000
6,100
6,100
3,000
3,000
2,300
2,300
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
20,000
20,000
214,950
214,950
2,000
2,000
4,000
4,000
93,700
93,700
4,000
4,000
53,900
53,900
4,000
4,000
23,600
23,600
4,000
4,000
24,400
24,400
4,000
4,000
17,350
17,350
Net Amount
Total
319,850
319,850
2,000
2,000
154,000
154,000
84,500
84,500
31,600
31,600
27,400
27,400
20,350
20,350
033.10
Conflict Resolution
----------
5,000
5,000
SANPARKS
033.99
Line Total
----------
039
TRAINING TOTAL
----------
040
EQUIPMENT
2,000
2,000
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 45
045
045.01
Equipment
Expendable
SANPARKS
045.02
Furniture and Equipment
SANPARKS
045.03
Pick-Truck for Park HQ
SANPARKS
045.04
Combi/Van for park HQ
SANPARKS
045.05
Tractor & Implements for Park
SANPARKS
045.06
4x4 for Extention Services
SANPARKS
045.07
Firefighting Vehicle
SANPARKS
045.08
4 * 4 for ABI PIU
SANPARKS
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
5,540
5,540
100,500
100,500
800
800
18,750
18,750
3,940
3,940
25,250
25,250
800
800
55,250
55,250
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
12,500
12,500
13,000
13,000
12,500
12,500
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
24,000
24,000
44,000
44,000
38,000
38,000
44,000
44,000
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
22,000
22,000
259,540
259,540
22,000
22,000
98,050
98,050
42,190
42,190
118,050
118,050
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,250
13,000
13,000
24,000
24,000
38,000
38,000
045.99
Line Total
----------
049
EQUIPMENT TOTAL
----------
Net Amount
Total
259,540
259,540
98,050
98,050
42,190
42,190
118,050
118,050
1,250
1,250
050
MISCELLANEOUS
053
053.01
Sundries
Sundries
SANPARKS
Net Amount
Total
84,750
84,750
1,400
1,400
7,150
7,150
9,400
9,400
29,400
29,400
9,400
9,400
28,000
28,000
053.99
Line Total
----------
059
MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL
----------
099
BUDGET TOTAL
----------
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
Total
Net Amount
W/M
Total
84,750
1,400
7,150
84,750
1,400
7,150
84,750
1,400
7,150
84,750
1,400
7,150
3,147,675 139,050 1,170,590
1361
98
483
3,147,675 139,050 1,170,590
9,400
9,400
9,400
9,400
894,315
296
894,315
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
397,590
248
397,590
9,400
9,400
9,400
9,400
289,690
158
289,690
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
256,440
78
256,440
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 46
Annex 1 A: Detailed Component Budget
Component 1: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLANNING
COMPONENTS
CATEG.
Unit
Cost/unit ($) No of units
TOTAL COST
($)
SANParks
FFI/ Grootbos
WCNCB
Other Depts
& Agencies
CO-FINANCING
REQUEST
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
1. Insititutional Strengthening for Agulhas National Park
1.1. Establish park administrative structures
(i) Provide staff
Park Manager
Section ranger
Ranger (6)
Student rangers (2)
Social ecologist
Financial Officer
Field guide
Administrative Officer
Switchboard Operator
Gate guard (3)
Security Guard (3)
Laborer (4)
Handyman
Subtotal staff
(ii) Provide Park infrastructure
Infrastructure planning
Infrastructure design
Main entrance gate
Entrance gates
Visitor center-Lighthouse
Information points
Parking area
Road construction
Road maintenance
Relocate navig. equip. and restore lighthouse
Access control
Signage, information boards, bird hides, whale and seal watching
platforms)
Boundary fencing
Subtotal Park infrastructure
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
staff
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
20,000
10,000
6,000
1,200
10,000
15,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
3,000
4,000
5
5
18
10
5
4
4
5
3
10
10
12
5
100,000
50,000
108,000
12,000
50,000
60,000
16,000
30,000
12,000
40,000
40,000
36,000
20,000
574,000
100,000
50,000
108,000
12,000
50,000
60,000
16,000
30,000
12,000
40,000
40,000
36,000
20,000
574,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100,000
50,000
108,000
12,000
50,000
60,000
16,000
30,000
12,000
40,000
40,000
36,000
20,000
574,000
-
-
20,000
10,000
2,400
10,000
6,000
4,000
52,400
20,000
10,000
12,000
2,400
10,000
15,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
91,400
20,000
10,000
24,000
2,400
10,000
15,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
4,000
135,400
20,000
10,000
36,000
2,400
10,000
15,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
4,000
147,400
20,000
10,000
36,000
2,400
10,000
15,000
4,000
6,000
4,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
4,000
147,400
15,000
18,000
50,000
40,000
45,000
180,000
-
15,000
-
18,000
25,000
10,000
180,000
-
25,000
10,000
40,000
9,000
5,000
100,000
-
50,000
36,000
20,000
100,000
30,000
50,000
12,000
-
12,000
-
15,000
233,000
200,000
389,000
200,000
436,000
200,000
262,000
114,000
126,000
0
0
cons.
cons.
works
works
works
works
works
works
works
works
works
days
days
building
building
building
building
building
km
km
building
lumpsum
250
300
50,000
10,000
140,000
9,000
5,000
2,500
300
180,000
60
60
1
2
1
5
5
80
80
1
15,000
18,000
50,000
20,000
140,000
45,000
25,000
200,000
24,000
180,000
30,000
0
0
0
20,000
100,000
0
25,000
200,000
24,000
30,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,000
100,000
0
25,000
200,000
24,000
0
30,000
works
works
building
km
300,000
3,000
2
38
600,000
114,000
1,461,000
300,000
114,000
813,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300,000
114,000
813,000
300,000
648,000
0
0
0
0
0
7,000
-
-
1,000
400
6
2
6,000
800
5,000
1,000
800
3,000
23,600
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
4,000
800
5,000
1,000
800
3,000
21,600
4,000
800
1,250
3,000
9,050
2,000
1,250
3,250
(iii) Provide facilities and equipment for Park HQ and visitor center
Furniture
Hardware
computers
printers
Software
Overhead projector
TV and video
Data projector
Subtotal facilities and equipment
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
7,000
7,000
1,250
1,000
800
10,050
-
-
-
1,250
1,250
-
-
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 47
(iv) Provide Park vehicles
4x4
bakkie/pickup
venture/people mover
tractor + implements
Subtotal vehicles
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
cars
cars
cars
cars
(v) Provide field equipment
GPS
radio equipment
binoculars
chainsaw
brushcutter
gardening equipment
miscellaneous equipment
Subtotal field equipment
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
e.
25,000
12,500
13,000
24,000
1
1
1
1
25,000
12,500
13,000
24,000
74,500
25,000
0
0
0
25000
0
0
0
0
0
400
3,000
100
400
420
400
500
2
1
6
2
2
1
1
800
3,000
600
800
840
400
500
6,940
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
10
100,000
70,000
140,000
100,000
0
70,000
0
0
0
0
70,000
70,000
0
0
0
8,200
12,000
7,200
8,000
5,500
7,500
30,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
30,000
66,000
454,400
22,000
192,000
0
0
2,594,440
1,606,000
1.2 Establish joint communications/extension service for ABI area
(i) Provide staff
Conservation Planning Manager
staff
WCNCB part time extension staff
staff
Extension officers
staff
year
year
year
20,000
7,000
14,000
(ii) Provide Training & equipment
Orientation and legal workshops
Extension and negotiation skills
On site training (4pax)
Basic GIS and Farm planning skills
Office stationery, maps, data layers
GIS capable computers
Handheld GIS Info capture devices
training
training
training
training
training
equip.
equip.
lumpsum
lumpsum
days
days
lumpsum
each
each
8,200
12,000
120
200
5,500
2,500
10,000
vehicles
lumpsum
22,000
(iii) Provide vehicles
4X4
Subtotal Establish Joint extension service
60
40
3
3
3
INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING
0
0
0
0
25,000
0
0
0
25,000
12,500
13,000
24,000
49,500
12,500
12,500
25,000
13,000
38,000
24,000
24,000
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
3,000
600
800
840
400
500
6,940
-
800
3,000
600
800
840
400
500
6,940
-
-
-
-
100,000
70,000
140,000
-
-
20,000
14,000
28,000
20,000
14,000
28,000
20,000
14,000
28,000
20,000
14,000
28,000
20,000
14,000
28,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
30,000
8,200
12,000
7,200
8,000
4,500
7,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,500
0
8,200
6,000
3,600
4,000
4,500
0
10,000
0
6,000
3,600
4,000
1,000
0
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
171,000
0
22,000
363,000
44,000
91,400
44,000
51,500
22,000
120,300
0
86,600
72,000
62,000
62,000
0
171,000
0
1,777,000
817,440
88,050
453,890
601,050
644,650
471,400
335,400
2. Securing land under conservation
2.1 Consolidate park into viable unit
(i) Negotiate purchase and remaining contracts in core area
Identification of core parcels for consolidation
wkshop
10,000
10,000
0
0
0
10,000
-
-
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
Land valuation
cons.
days
200
20
4,000
-
0
0
0
-
4,000
-
4,000
-
-
-
-
Land purchase (Rietfontein)
capital
year
400,000
5
2,000,000
0
0
0
Legal costs
cons.
days
300
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal land acquisition through purchase
(ii) Phase 1, incorporate Quoin pt, and up to Nuwejaars river
6,000
2,020,000
Determine boundaries and select target areas
wkshop
Fine scale planning of target areas
Legal fees and transaction costs
Purchase of key properties (Ratel River)
cons.
cons.
capital
2,000
days
days
year
200
300
400,000
10
12
2
Subtotal expansion phase 1
2,000,000
2,010,000
-
2,000,000
2,010,000
-
6,000
10,000
2,000
600,000
600,000
-
800,000
600,000
4,000
2,000
810,000
604,000
2,000
-
-
-
2,000
2,000
2,000
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
2,000
3,600
800,000
2,000
0
700,000
0
0
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
800,000
3,600
-
400,000
1,800
400,000
2,000
1,800
-
-
-
-
807,600
702,000
100,000
0
0
802,000
5,600
400,000
403,800
3,800
-
-
-
1,600
1,600
1,600
800
800
800
(iii) Expand phase 2a, create Contractual park at Hagelkraal, Waterford
Identification of priority parcels/liaison mechanism
wkshop
8,000
8,000
0
0
0
8,000
-
-
Liaison with landowners
cons.
days
200
20
4,000
4,000
0
0
0
4,000
-
-
Develop specific incentives for alien clearing
cons.
days
200
200
40,000
-
0
0
0
-
40,000
-
14,000
Resource economist to work in collab. With FV one
cons.
days
200
45
9,000
-
0
0
0
-
9,000
-
9,000
Legal costs
cons.
days
200
20
4,000
4,000
0
0
0
4,000
-
-
800
800
800
800
800
65,000
16,000
0
0
17,200
15,200
3,200
3,200
5,000
-
0
-
-
-
20,000
3,600
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,500
Subtotal contractual agreements with SANP
1,600
1,600
800
800
14,000
12,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,000
49,000
-
26,200
2,500
2,500
2,500
-
5,000
5,000
0
10,000
-
10,000
3,600
-
5,000
1,800
-
2,000
-
400
400
400
400
400
12,500
18,100
-
12,200
12,200
5,400
400
400
(iv) Establish Elim fynbos Contractual park
Finalize Pilot farm planning
wkshop
Training in conservation farm planning
Develop protocols to extrapolate the farm planning
training
cons.
days
days
Stakeholder workshops to liaise with farmers
wkshop
wshop
Subtotal Elim fynbos park
300
12
2,000
30,600
5,000
10,000
1,800
5,000
0
0
0
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 48
0
(v) Consolidate Walker Bay Fynbos conservancy
Development of the management plan
Vegetation boundaries & age classes
cons.
days
200
20
4,000
0
2,000
2,000
-
4,000
-
-
-
-
-
cons.
days
200
26
5,200
0
2,600
2,600
5,200
-
5,200
-
-
-
-
-
Roads, fences, infrastructure
cons.
days
200
7
1,400
0
700
700
0
0
0
4,000
Alien vegetation
1,400
-
1,400
-
-
-
-
-
Data input and map creation
cons.
days
200
20
4,000
0
0
0
0
-
4,000
-
4,000
-
-
-
-
Materials and satelite image
equip.
lumpsum
700
0
0
0
0
-
700
-
700
-
-
-
-
Implementing the plan
Land purchase (Witvoetskloof)
capital
lumpsum
500,000
0
500,000
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
Workshops with landowners
wkshop
wshop
5,800
0
0
0
0
-
5,800
-
5,800
-
-
-
0
0
-
10,000
-
4,000
0
0
-
650
-
650
-
12,000
-
Negotiate specific incentives for entering into management agreementscons.
Communication
op.
Management plan
cons.
days
days
200
200
50
60
Subtotal Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy
10,000
-
650
0
0
12,000
0
3,000
543,750
0
508,300
2,000
3,600
0
0
1,000
1,800
1,000
0
1,500
0
0
0
0
0
5,300
0
-
500,000
-
500,000
6,000
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
6,000
-
-
-
3,000
9,000
513,600
30,150
2,000
1,800
1,800
-
1,000
1,800
1,000
1,800
-
-
-
-
1,500
-
300
300
300
300
300
3,800
3,300
-
3,100
3,100
300
300
300
-
-
510,600
27,150
(vi) Secure endemic wildlife habitat through De Hoop corridor to Agulhas
Identify best landscape corridors/negotiate agreements
Legal fees and transaction costs
wkshop
consultancy days
Develop policies for conservation partnerships/liaise
wkshop
300
12
wshop
Subtotal secure wildlife habitat
7,100
0
-
0
2,800
1,000
(vii) Consolidate De Mond Ramsar Site Conservancy through Riparian owners association management agreements
Formalize the existence of Riparian Owner Association
wkshop
day
200
20
4,000
0
0
1,000
0
1,000
3,000
-
2,000
2,000
-
Determine water level regulations
consultant
day
200
20
4,000
0
0
0
0
-
4,000
-
-
2,000
2,000
Negotiate agrements
cons.
day
200
20
0
0
1,000
0
1,000
-
Legal fees to develop agreements
Subtotal consolidate De Mond
cons.
day
200
20
0
0
0
0
2,000
4,000
4,000
16,000
SECURE LAND UNDER CONSERVATION
3,490,050
2,733,000
608,300
10,100
0
8,500
3,000
-
2,000
2,000
-
-
-
4,000
-
-
-
2,000
2,000
-
2,000
14,000
-
2,000
6,000
6,000
2,000
-
3,359,900
130,150
1,284,450
652,300
28,900
7,900
5,900
1,510,600
3. Conservation management planning
3.1 Participatory collaborative planning and management system for Agulhas Plain
(i) Rapid ecological surveys of priority ecosystems
Gap analysis
cons.
days
10
2,000
cons.
days
200
200
10
2,000
Design survey (2)
cons.
days
200
10
2,000
Conduct survey
cons.
lumpsum
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
-
2,000
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
1,000
1,000
-
2,000
-
-
-
-
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
-
-
2,000
-
-
-
-
15,000
0
0
0
15,000
-
-
7,500
7,500
-
-
-
21,000
18000
0
0
0
18,000
3,000
-
13,500
7,500
-
-
-
Design standard formats for data acquisitions, storage, analysis
Subtotal ecological surveys
1,000
(ii) Stakeholder consultation
Institutional synergy assessment
cons.
days
200
24
4,800
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
3,800
-
4,800
-
-
-
-
Liaison Committee meetings (3/year)
wkshop
wshop
200
15
3,000
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
2,000
-
600
600
600
600
600
Sectoral working group meetings (6/year)
wkshop
wshop
100
30
3,000
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
2,000
-
600
600
600
600
600
10,800
3,000
0
3,000
7,800
-
6,000
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Subtotal stakeholder analysis
(iii) Geo referenced Biodiversity Information and Monitoring Systems (BIMS)
Workshop to identify the needs for BIMS
Design workplans for data management
wkshop
wshop
1,000
2,000
600
0
0
0
1,400
-
wkshop
wshop
2,000
1
2,000
300
0
0
0
300
1,700
-
-
2,000
-
-
-
GIS support for BIMS
cons.
days
250
240
2
60,000
0
0
20,000
0
20,000
40,000
-
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
Data input, verification, BIMS review
op.
year
1,000
5
Subtotal monitoring
5,000
2,500
600
-
2,000
-
-
-
0
2,500
0
5,000
-
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
69,000
3400
0
22,500
0
25,900
43,100
-
13,000
17,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
(iv) Develop collaborative management plan guidelines for Agulhas plain
Stakeholder workshop for boundary analysis
wkshop
whsop
1,000
2
2,000
600
0
0
0
600
1,400
-
2,000
-
-
-
-
Stakeholder workshop for zoning
Management plan development
wkshop
wshop
1,000
2
2,000
600
0
0
0
600
1,400
-
2,000
-
-
-
-
wkshop
wshop
1,000
6
6,000
1,800
0
0
0
1,800
4,200
-
-
3,000
3,000
-
-
Compilation of management plan
consultant
day
300
50
15,000
-
0
0
0
0
15,000
-
3,000
2,000
10,000
-
-
Printing and distributing management plan
cons.
lump sum
3,000
-
0
0
0
0
3,000
-
-
-
3,000
-
-
Stakeholder workshop for presenting management plan
workshop
whsop
600
0
0
0
600
1,400
-
-
-
-
2,000
-
Maintenance of management plan
operating
days
Subtotal park management plan
1,000
2
2,000
50
300
15,000
15,000
0
0
0
15,000
-
-
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
45,000
18,600
0
0
0
18,600
26,400
-
10,000
8,000
19,000
5,000
3,000
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 49
(v) Develop participatory farm conservation planning protocols
Stakeholder workshop for training, demonstration
wkshop
wshop
500
5
2,500
1500
0
0
0
1,500
1,000
-
500
500
500
500
500
Farm planners
wkshop
wshop
1,200
6
7,200
0
0
0
7,200
7,200
-
-
3,600
3,600
-
-
-
Trainee planners, field assistants
Conduct farm planning in priority areas
staff
year
7,000
12
84,000
0
0
0
0
0
84,000
-
28,000
28,000
28,000
-
cons.
4,200
0
0
0
1,800
2,400
-
2,400
1,800
-
-
0
0
0
0
1,500
0
1,500
0
0
0
1,200
4,000
6,000
2,000
0
0
4,000
4,000
0
property
300
14
Develop protocols for extrapolating farm planning exercise to other priority
cons.
areas
days
250
6
1,500
0
Regional Farm scale conservation planning w/shop
wshop
4,000
2
8,000
800
wkshop
Subtotal fam conservation planning
107,400
1,800
4,100
-
1,200
11,200
16,500
90,900
-
36,000
37,900
32,500
0
0
500
500
(vi) Integrate cultural heritage concerns into management planning
Gather info on marine cultural sites
cons.
days
200
30
6,000
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
4,000
-
6,000
-
-
-
-
Gather info on cultural sites
cons.
days
200
20
4,000
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
-
4,000
-
-
-
-
1,000
2
2,000
600
0
0
0
600
1,400
-
-
2,000
-
-
-
12,000
4600
0
0
0
4,600
7,400
-
10,000
2,000
-
-
-
178,600
-
88,500
73,600
65,700
19,700
17,700
Guidelines for integration cultural heritage in management planning
wkshop
Subtotal cultural heritage
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLANNING
265,200
51,700
-
23,700
11,200
86,600
4. Controlling Alien plant spread
4.1 Ascertain best practice for alien management
(i) Capture lessons from Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Project
Criteria for Identification of priority areas
Training for info capture and review
wkshop
wkshop
w.shop
w.shop
Develop new alien clearance techniques
op.
year
(ii) Finalise policy on clearing in contractual/ management agreement areas
Legal fees
cons.
days
1,000
2,000
2
2
2,000
4,000
2,000
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
2,000
-
1,000
2,000
1,000
2,000
-
-
-
50,000
5
250,000
100,000
0
0
0
100,000
150,000
-
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
3,600
0
0
0
3,600
-
-
3600
0
0
0
3,600
8,400
-
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
300
12
3,600
12,000
1,800
1,800
Liaison with stakeholders
wkshop
wshop
1,000
12
4.2 Expand existing alien vegetation clearance program
(i) Establish joint clearing strategy per quaternary catchment
Stakeholder workshops in each catchment
Identification of priority areas
wkshop
wkshop
w.shop
year
1,200
1,000
5
5
6,000
5,000
2,400
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,400
2,000
3,600
3,000
-
1,200
1,000
1,200
1,000
1,200
1,000
1,200
1,000
1,200
1,000
Identify the priorities for follow-up
workshop
year
5,500
5
27,500
2,750
0
12,000
0
14,750
12,750
-
7,500
6,000
6,000
4,000
4,000
wkshop
wshop
(ii) Municipal/Departmental liaison mechanism
Liaison meetings (3/year)
1,000
15
CONTROL OF ALIEN PLANT
15,000
325,100
5,000
123,350
0
-
0
12,000
0
-
5,000
135,350
10,000
-
-
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
189,750
-
69,900
68,400
63,600
61,600
61,600
5. Fire management
5.1 Develop and initiate fire management strategy
Identify stakeholders
wkshop
wshop
1,000
2
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
-
2,000
-
-
-
-
Development of participatory mechanisms
Establish rapid-response units for fire management and control
wkshop
wshop
1,000
2
2,000
600
0
0
0
600
1,400
-
2,000
-
-
-
-
wkshop
wshop
1,000
3
3,000
900
0
0
0
900
2,100
-
3,000
-
-
-
-
Firefighting training
training
year
5,000
3
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
15,000
-
5,000
5,000
5,000
-
-
Firefighting vehicles
equip.
lump sum
50,000
1
50,000
12,000
0
0
0
12,000
38,000
-
-
50,000
-
Assessment and mapping of the area
GIS fire management plan - update to integrate conservation
cons.
year
1,000
5
5,000
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
3,000
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
cons.
lump sum
5,000
1
5,000
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
3,000
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Create firebreaks and initiate controlled burning
op.
year
20,000
4
80,000
20,000
0
0
0
20,000
60,000
-
-
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
162,000
37,500
0
0
0
37,500
124,500
-
14,000
77,000
27,000
22,000
22,000
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
-
-
5,000
-
0
0
0
0
0
250,000
-
-
-
50,000
100,000
100,000
0
0
0
0
255,000
-
-
5,000
50,000
100,000
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,700
1,100
1,100
0
0
0
3,900
1,700
1,100
1,100
1,500
800
5,000
11,200
1,700
1,100
1,100
1,500
800
5,000
11,200
FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
-
-
6. Wetland rehabilitation
Identify priority areas and techniques
cons.
Implementation of restoration plan in a pilot area
op.
days
250
20
7. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Annual interviews
Annual M&E workshop (Park and stakeholders)
Annual M&E workshops (WBFC stakeholders)
Monitoring stakeholder participation
Evaluation report preparation and distribution
Conflict intervention
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
5,000
250,000
WETLAND RESTORATION
255,000
wshop
wshop
wshop
mat
lumpsum
1,700
1,100
1,100
1,500
800
5,000
5
5
5
4
4
4
8,500
5,500
5,500
6,000
3,200
20,000
48,700
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,500
5,500
5,500
6,000
3,200
20,000
48,700
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
1,700
1,100
1,100
1,500
800
5,000
11,200
-
1,700
1,100
1,100
1,500
800
5,000
11,200
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 50
8. Component Management
8.1. ABI Project Implementation Unit
ABI Project Coordinator
ABI Project Assistant
ABI Technical Advisor/Capacity Building
Travel for the technical advisor and PIU
Operation of ABI PIU
Vehicle
Laptop + printer
ABI PIU
8.2. ABI Oversight Committee
One-to-one consultations
Familiarisation tours of the area (Two)
Sub-area meetings
Draft terms of reference/groundrules (produce and distribute)
Further one-to-one discussions
Public meeting
Forum meetings (two in first year)
Public report back meeting (one/year)
ABI Oversight Committee
8.3. Monitoring and Evaluation
Undertake independent M&E
Audit
M&E
staff
staff
cons.
travel
op.
equip.
equip.
years
years
days
lumpsum
lumpsum
car
equip.
8,000
450
10,000
8,000
22,000
3,000
5
100
5
5
1
1
95,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
40,000
22,000
3,000
295,000
40,000
12,000
52,000
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
40,000
12,000
52,000
95,000
45,000
50,000
28,000
22,000
3,000
243,000
13,500
6,000
2,400
22,000
3,000
46,900
20,000
8,000
18,000
14,000
8,600
68,600
20,000
8,000
4,500
10,000
8,600
51,100
20,000
8,000
4,500
10,000
8,600
51,100
20,000
8,000
2,250
5,000
7,600
42,850
15,000
8,000
2,250
5,000
4,200
34,450
2,000
1,400
1,000
-
-
-
-
2,100
1,000
1,400
800
7,600
1,400
800
2,200
1,400
800
2,200
1,400
800
2,200
1,400
800
2,200
wkshops
travel
workshop
2,000
700
1
2
2,000
1,400
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
2,000
1,400
1,000
cons.
cons.
wkshops
wkshops
mat.
300
300
1,000
700
800
3
4
1
10
5
900
1,200
1,000
7,000
4,000
18,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
900
1,200
1,000
7,000
4,000
18,500
40,000
6,000
46,000
359,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40,000
6,000
46,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
20,000
1,000
21,000
1,000
1,000
20,000
1,000
21,000
52,000
-
-
-
52,000
307,500
50,000
77,200
54,300
74,300
46,050
57,650
7,499,990
4,603,550
5,448,350
2,051,640
1,648,650
1,991,840
1,542,850
965,350
739,850
611,450
cons.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
TOTAL CONSERVATION IN PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE
20,000
2
608,300
216,800
19,700
900
1,200
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 51
Component 2: SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING OF WILD FYNBOS
COMPONENTS
Category Unit
Cost/unit ($) No of
units
TOTAL COST
($)
WCNCB
Grootbos ($)
FFI/FVCT ($)
Co-financing
Request
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Development of a model for sustainable harvesting of wildflowers in lowland fynbos
1. Legal framework
1.1. Updating regulations
1.2. Updating permit system
1.3. Capacity building of WCNCB staff
Legal framework
2. Securing the supply network
2.1. Formalising the supply network
Stakeholder workshops
2.2. Establish supply network management forum
Confirm relevant stakeholders
One-to-one consultations with key stakeholders
Draft terms of reference/groundrules
Meetings with stakeholders
Further one-to-one discussions
Founding meeting
Management Forum Meetings (4 per year)
Supply network
cons.
cons.
training
days
months
days
250
2,000
200
20
2
96
5,000
4,000
19,200
28,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
4,000
19,200
28,200
5,000
4,000
9,600
18,600
cons.
wkshop
days
days
250
2,000
15
2
3,750
4,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
1,000
3,750
3,000
cons.
cons.
cons.
wkshop
cons.
wkshop
wkshop
days
days
days
300
300
300
500
300
700
500
1
6
3
3
3.5
1
20
300
1,800
900
1,500
1,050
700
10,000
24,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
days
3. Develop a certification scheme/join an
internationally established scheme
3.1. Capacity building for the Certification Unit/WCNCB
Training for WCNCB Certification Unit
lumpsum
Provide equipment for the Certification Unit
equip.
3.2. Develop the CoP
cons
days
3.3. Support FVCT to liaise with farmers
lumpsum
3.4. Develop monitoring and audit system
cons.
days
3.5. Stakeholder workshops
wkshop
3.6. Negotiate with FLP (fee + travel)
cons
days
Certification
4. Marketing of sustainably harvested fynbos
4.1. Co-label packaging
develop the logo
negotiate the incorporation of the logo
4.2. Modernize and integrate the supply chain
Travel costs (Germany, Switzerland, UK)
Marketing expert
4.3. Marketing Plan
Promotional materials
stand at the Essen Trade Show
video clip
Communication
4.4. Sales Plan
website (bilingual)
maintenance of website
organizing the florist exchange program
Communication
Marketing
0
0
9,600
9,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,750
4,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
1,800
900
1,500
1,050
700
10,000
23,000
300
1,800
900
1,500
1,050
700
2,000
16,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
3,000
1,000
4,000
3,000
1,000
4,000
3,000
1,000
4,000
5,000
3,000
400
3,000
400
1,000
600
1
1
45
4
30
4
20
5,000
3,000
18,000
12,000
12,000
4,000
12,000
66,000
1,000
1,000
-
-
1,000
1,000
5,000
2,000
18,000
12,000
12,000
4,000
12,000
65,000
2,500
3,000
18,000
12,000
35,500
2,500
3,000
12,000
1,000
18,500
70,000
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
-
-
-
-
12,000
-
14,000
3,000
14,000
3,000
14,000
3,000
14,000
3,000
14,000
5,000
1,000
4,800
6,000
86,800
7,500
7,500
5,000
24,000
2,500
3,000
88,500
1,500
2,500
5,000
1,500
2,500
5,000
5,000
1,500
2,500
5,000
1,500
2,500
1,500
2,500
5,000
5,000
-
2,500
1,200
-
50,000
34,700
1,200
2,000
1,000
30,200
1,200
2,000
1,000
30,200
1,200
2,000
1,000
30,200
cons.
cons.
days
days
450
450
30
30
13,500
13,500
-
-
-
travel
staff
year
year
3,000
14,000
4
5
12,000
70,000
-
-
70,000
mat.
equip.
mat.
op.
5
5
1
5
-
5,000
1,000
cons.
staff
staff
op.
year
year
year
year
2,500
1,200
2,000
1,000
1
4
3
3
7,500
12,500
5,000
25,000
2,500
4,800
6,000
3,000
175,300
-
year
1,500
2,500
5,000
5,000
-
-
4,800
6,000
86,800
-
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 52
5. Pilot recording system for harvested species
5.1. Provide equipment
Hardware
Software
5.2. Develop a small herbarium at Flower Valley
5.3. Capacity building of FV staff
5.4. Develop zonation maps for supply network
5.5. Flower Valley Harvest manager
5.6. WCNCB Field inspector
5.7. Develop capacity of WCNCB GIS
Pilot system to record species
6. Capacity building
6.1. Training courses for picking teams
Consultant to develop module
Provision of technical input
Handbook
Training of flower pickers
6.2. Training for landowners/contract pickers
Consultant to develop module
Provision of technical input
Training workshop
6.3. Opportunities for new entrants
Identify potential entrepreneurs
Meetings with community based organisations
Development of training module for new entrants
Running of annual training programs
Capacity Building
7. Monitoring
7.1. Impacts of harvesting on different guilds
Accommodation
Meals
Communication
Transportation
Student
7.2. Impacts of harvesting on interspecific competition
Accommodation
Meals
Communication
Transportation
Student
7.3. Long term monitoring program
Farm Manager
Full-time harvesters (nine)
Part-time harvesters (four)
Land
Transportation
4X4
tractor
maintenance
Brushcutter
equip.
equip.
equip.
training
cons.
staff
staff
training
equip.
equip.
equip.
days
days
months
months
months
1,000
8,500
1,000
100
250
60
200
800
1
1
1
10
25
28
28
8
1,000
8,500
1,000
1,000
6,250
1,680
5,600
6,400
31,430
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,600
2,000
7,600
8,500
250
0
0
0
0
0
8,750
0
0
0
400
0
1,680
0
0
2,080
0
8,500
250
400
0
1,680
5,600
2,000
18,430
1,000
0
750
600
6,250
0
0
4,400
13,000
1,000
8,500
1,000
1,000
6,250
0
0
17,750
0
0
0
0
0
420
1,400
1,600
3,420
0
0
0
0
0
420
1,400
1,600
3,420
0
0
0
0
0
420
1,400
1,600
3,420
0
0
0
0
0
420
1,400
1,600
3,420
cons.
cons.
material
training
days
days
lumpsum
days
200
200
15,000
150
14
7
1
50
2,800
1,400
15,000
7,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
700
0
4,000
7,500
700
0
4,000
7,500
2,100
1,400
11,000
0
2,800
1,400
15,000
1,500
0
0
0
1,500
0
0
0
1,500
0
0
0
1,500
0
0
0
1,500
cons.
cons.
wkshop
days
days
days
200
200
250
5
3
10
1,000
600
2,500
750
600
2,000
1,000
600
500
0
0
500
0
0
500
0
0
500
0
0
500
cons.
wkshop
cons.
training
days
250
5
days
days
250
150
5
10
2,500
2,500
1,250
1,500
38,550
op.
op.
op.
op.
cons.
days
days
lumpsum
lumpsum
days
10
15
50
50
30
50
op.
op.
op.
op.
cons.
days
days
lumpsum
lumpsum
days
10
15
50
50
30
50
staff
months
staff
months
staff
months
land purchase
lumpsum
100
85
80
22,000
8,000
60
1,200
equip.
equip.
op.
equip.
car
car
months
equipment
0
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
14,450
0
250
0
500
0
0
0
0
1,500
14,450
250
-
-
2,500
2,500
1,250
0
24,100
2,500
2,500
1,250
300
29,350
0
0
0
0
0
300
2,300
0
300
2,300
0
300
2,300
0
300
2,300
500
750
500
1,500
1,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
750
500
750
0
500
0
0
750
0
500
750
500
1,500
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
250
375
250
900
900
100
150
100
150
150
50
75
50
150
150
50
75
50
150
150
50
75
50
150
150
500
750
500
1,500
1,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
750
500
750
0
500
0
0
750
0
500
750
500
1,500
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
250
375
250
900
900
100
150
100
150
150
50
75
50
150
150
50
75
50
150
150
50
75
50
150
150
28
48
20
2,800
36,720
6,400
500,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,800
36,720
0
500,000
2,800
36,720
0
500,000
0
0
6,400
0
0
0
0
500,000
700
9,180
1,600
0
700
9,180
1,600
0
700
9,180
1,600
0
700
9,180
1,600
0
1
1
48
1
22,000
8,000
2,880
1,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,000
8,000
2,880
1,200
0
0
0
0
22,000
8,000
720
1,200
0
0
720
0
0
0
720
0
0
0
720
0
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 53
Trailer
Scale
Harvesting shears
Harvesting gear
Operational costs
7.4. Species vulnerability index
7.5. Resource base assessment of supply network
7.6. Orchardand/old farm land rehabilitation
Transportation
Accommodation
Soil samples
Seeds
Tractor hire
Irrigation costs
Communication
Expert fee
7.7. Demonstrate the higher ec. value for sust.
Accommodation
Meals
Communication
Transportation
MSc Student
Materials
7.8. Monitoring economic performance
Develop an annual survey on economic benefits
Collect data
Process data
Produce and distribute report
Monitoring stakeholder participation
Evaluation report
Monitoring
8. Replication
8.1.Stakeholder workshop
8.2. Sustainable harvesting committee - meetings
8.3. Promotional materials
8.4. Stakeholder workshops to extrapolate FV model
Replication
SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING
equip.
equip.
equip.
equip.
op.
cons.
cons.
equipment
equipment
equipment
equipment
months
months
days
travel
travel
lumpsum
lumpsum
lumpsum
lumpsum
lumpsum
hours
op.
op.
op.
op.
cons.
days
days
lumpsum
lumpsum
days
lumpsum
cons.
cons.
cons.
cons.
whsop
mat
days
year
year
year
1,000
200
45
30
1,000
2,000
250
1
2
13
13
48
2
25
800
20
2,000
50
700
300
200
15
4
24
8
8
8
8
8
1200
10
15
100
100
50
100
300
300
300
1,000
1,500
800
20
50
50
5
2
2
equipment, days
supplies, materials 2,500
operating costs
years
1,000
lumpsum
equipment, days
supplies, materials 2,000
1
5
3
1,000
400
585
390
48,000
4,000
6,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
48,000
0
0
0
200
0
0
48,000
0
1,000
200
585
390
0
4,000
6,250
0
0
0
0
0
4,000
6,250
1,000
400
585
390
12,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,000
0
0
3,200
480
16,000
400
5,600
2,400
1,600
18,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,200
480
16,000
400
5,600
2,400
1,600
18,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
120
4,000
100
1,400
600
400
4500
800
120
4,000
100
1,400
600
400
4500
800
120
4,000
100
1,400
600
400
4500
800
120
4,000
100
1,400
600
400
4500
1,000
1,500
500
2,000
5,000
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
750
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
750
0
0
0
0
0
750
500
2,000
5,000
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
1,500
500
500
5,000
3,000
0
0
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
500
0
0
6,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
3,000
1,600
756,405
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
591,220
0
0
0
0
0
0
595,970
6,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
3,000
1,600
160,435
6,000
3,000
3,000
1,000
0
0
528,600
3,000
3,000
1,000
1,500
800
91,795
3,000
3,000
1,000
0
0
44,570
3,000
3,000
1,000
1,500
800
46,870
3,000
3,000
1,000
0
0
44,570
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500
2,500
0
1,500
4,500
500
2,500
0
1,500
4,500
2,000
2,500
4,000
4,500
13,000
2,500
1,000
-
1,000
1,000
3,500
2,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
4,000
699,300
164,315
2,500
5,000
4,000
6,000
17,500
1,137,385
-
-
-
8,600
13,500
700,050
722,150
415,235
90,490
92,790
90,490
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 54
Component 3: NATURE-BASED TOURISM
Components
Category
Unit
Cost/ unit
($)
No of
units
Total Cost ($)
SANP
WCNCB
Grootbos/WBF
C
Others
Co-financing
GEF Funding
Request (R)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
1. Co-ordination in the tourism sector
(i) Establish the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum
Nature-based tourism specialist
staff
year
15,000
5
75,000
0
0
0
0
0
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
Identify and confirm relevant stakeholders
cons.
lumpsum
500
1
500
200
0
0
0
200
300
-
500
0
0
0
0
Coonsultations with key stakeholders
cons.
lumpsum
2,000
1
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
-
2,000
0
0
0
0
Draft ToR - produce and distribute
cons.
days
200
5
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
-
1,000
0
0
0
0
Conduct two meetings with stakeholders
cons.
lumpsum
500
2
1,000
200
0
0
0
200
800
-
1,000
0
0
0
0
Further one-to-one discussions
cons.
lumpsum
200
5
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
-
1,000
0
0
0
0
Mechansims to increase participation
cons
lumpsum
1,400
1
1,400
0
0
0
0
0
1,400
-
0
1,400
0
0
0
Founding meeting
wkshop
lumpsum
1,000
1
1,000
300
0
0
0
300
700
-
1,000
0
0
0
0
Convene ongoing meetings of Forum
Subtotal tourism AP Tourism Forum/Trust
wkshop
wkshops
500
10
5,000
200
0
0
0
200
4,800
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
87,000
-
-
-
87,900
900
-
-
-
900
75,000
0
22,500
17,400
16,000
16,000
16,000
(ii) Establish two Heritage Centers
Elim Heritage Center
Tourism Officer
staff
year
Elim Centre administrator (salary)
Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..)
staff
year
equip.
lumpsum
Administration
op.
Furnishings (office, workbenches, desks, etc.)
Equipment (tele./fax ,photo copier & hand tools)
Computers + software + printers
2,400
5
3,000
5
20,000
1
20,000
6,000
5
30,000
year
3,000
2
year
3,000
2
lumpsum
5,000
1
9,000
5
100,000
1
1
5,000
5,000
1
20,000
12,000
0
0
0
12,000
12,000
15,000
0
0
0
15,000
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
6,000
0
0
0
0
6,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45,000
45,000
0
0
0
100,000
50,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
0
0
0
1
20,000
0
0
3,000
5
15,000
15,000
8,000
8,000
trail
5,000
3
15,000
0
works
trail
10,000
1
10,000
works
trail
16,000
2
32,000
Camping facilities (Die Damme)
works
building
250,000
1
250,000
250,000
Village accommodation for visitors
works
building
600,000
1
600,000
Restaurant
works
building
100,000
1
Shop
works
building
100,000
Restaurant manager
staff
year
10,000
Shop manager
staff
year
Shop staff (4)
staff
Restaurant staff (12)
staff
Accommodation staff (15)
staff
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
-
-
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
20,000
-
10,000
10,000
0
0
0
-
-
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
0
6,000
-
3,000
3,000
0
0
0
0
6,000
-
3,000
3,000
0
0
0
0
5,000
-
5,000
0
0
0
0
45,000
-
-
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
50,000
50,000
-
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
-
0
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
-
0
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,000
-
0
20,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,000
-
-
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
0
0
0
8,000
-
-
8,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,000
-
5,000
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
-
0
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32,000
-
0
32,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
250,000
-
-
0
0
0
0
250,000
600,000
0
0
0
600,000
-
-
0
0
600,000
0
0
100,000
100,000
0
0
0
100,000
-
-
0
0
100,000
0
1
100,000
100,000
0
0
0
100,000
-
-
0
0
100,000
0
0
3
30,000
30,000
0
0
0
30,000
-
-
0
0
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
3
30,000
30,000
0
0
0
30,000
-
-
0
0
10,000
10,000
10,000
year
3,000
12
36,000
36,000
0
0
0
36,000
-
-
0
0
12,000
12,000
12,000
year
3,000
36
108,000
108,000
108,000
-
-
0
0
36,000
36,000
year
3,000
45
135,000
135,000
0
0
0
135,000
-
-
45,000
0
45,000
0
45,000
1,738,000
1,507,000
0
0
57,000
1,564,000
202,400
121,400
936,400
91,400
386,400
year
equip.
equip.
equip.
Manager of Cape Agulhas Center
staff
year
Building
works
lumpsum
Furniture
equip.
lumpsum
5,000
Computers + software + printers
equip.
lumpsum
Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..)
equip.
lumpsum
Administration
op.
year
op.
works
lumpsum
Day-trails
Over-night trails
Trail over-night facilities
5,000
Cape Agulhas Center
Tourism infrastructure in ANP
Design and layout for infrastructure
Subtotal tourism centers and Agulhas National
Park
COORDINATE TOURISM INITIATIVES
1,825,900
1,507,900
-
-
0
-
57,000
1,564,900
174,000
261,000
0
-
224,900
138,800
952,400
107,400
0
0
36,000
402,400
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 55
2. Marketing
(i) Agulhas Plain Tourist Route
Stakeholder workshops/consultations
wkshops
lumpsum
4,000
6
24,000
0
0
0
0
0
24,000
-
12,000
12,000
0
0
Materials
equip.
lumpsum
500
6
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
3,000
-
1,500
1,500
0
0
27,000
-
Subtotal AP Route
27,000
-
-
-
-
-
13,500
13,500
0
0
-
-
-
(ii) Market analysis
Kick-off Workshop 1day time: 8 days
wkshop
lumpsum
5,000
1
25,000
0
0
0
0
0
25,000
0
25,000
0
0
0
0
Kick-off Workshop 1 day expenses: transport: petrol,
& catering
accommodation,venue
time: 3 days
of existing material
Exploration
wkshop
lumpsum
500
1
500
0
0
0
0
0
500
0
500
0
0
0
0
cons.
lumpsum
1,200
1
1,200
0
0
0
1,200
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
20 Stakeholder interviews time: 11.5 days
cons.
lumpsum
6,100
1
6,100
0
0
0
6,100
6,100
0
0
6,100
0
0
0
0
20 Stakeholder interviews expenses:
transport:1domestic
days car hire, parking,
time: 7petrol,
12 Expert interviews flight,
cons.
lumpsum
2,370
1
2,370
0
0
0
2,370
2,370
0
0
2,370
0
0
0
0
cons.
lumpsum
380
1
380
0
0
0
380
380
0
0
380
0
0
0
0
12 Expert interviews: expenses: transport: 1domestic
parking, petrol,
car hire,research
flight,
time: 29.5 days costs
groupsaccommodation,
Consumer
14
cons.
lumpsum
2,200
1
2,200
0
0
0
2,200
2,200
0
0
2,200
0
0
0
0
cons.
lumpsum
14,750
1
14,750
0
0
0
14,750
14,750
0
0
14,750
0
0
0
0
14 Consumer research groups: expenses: transport: 2 cons.
domestic flights, car hire, parking, accommodation,
cons.
Consolidation of findings time: 11 days
lumpsum
12,050
1
12,050
0
0
0
12,050
12,050
0
0
12,050
0
0
0
0
lumpsum
6,000
1
6,000
0
0
0
6,000
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
0
0
70,550
0
0
0
45,050
45,050
25,500
0
70,550
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal Market analysis
(iii) Positioning & portfolio implications
Positioning Workshop 1.5 days time: 17.5 days
0
0
9,000
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
10,200
0
0
0
10,200
10,200
0
0
10,200
0
0
0
0
9,000
1
9,000
lumpsum
cons.
venue & catering
communication
transport: petrol, 31,200
Positioning Workshop 1.5 days: expenses: accommodation,
1 experts attendance,1,200
cons.tel & fax,lumpsum
Subtotal positioning/portfolio implications
9,000
(iv) Develop implementation plan
Implementation Workshop 1 day time: 14.5 days
wkshop
Implementation Workshop 1 day expenses:
wkshop
&
venue
petrol,
tel & fax, transport:
accommodation,
24 days
time:
groups
Consumer research-validation
7
cons.
7 Consumer research-validation- groups: expenses:
cons.
parking,
hire,
car
flights,
domestic
2
transport:
Post validation debrief time: 9.5 days
cons.
Post validation debrief expenses: venue & catering,
cons.
transport: petrol
Subtotal Implementation plan
7,500
1
7,500
0
0
0
7,500
0
0
7,500
0
0
0
0
lumpsum
600
1
600
0
0
0
600
600
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
lumpsum
12,000
1
12,000
0
0
0
12,000
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
0
0
lumpsum
6,300
1
6,300
0
0
0
6,300
6,300
0
0
6,300
0
0
0
0
lumpsum
6,000
1
6,000
0
0
0
6,000
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
0
0
lumpsum
400
1
lumpsum
7,500
400
0
0
0
400
400
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
32,800
0
0
0
32,800
32,800
0
0
32,800
0
0
0
0
(v) Communication
Visual Identity Development
cons.
lumpsum
5,000
1
5,000
0
0
0
5,000
5,000
0
0
5,000
Advertising Production
cons.
year
5,500
5
27,500
0
0
0
27,500
27,500
0
0
10,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
2,500
Flighting, Placement and Mailing
cons.
year
13,500
5
67,500
0
0
0
67,500
67,500
0
0
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
100,000
0
0
0
100,000
100,000
0
0
28,500
18,500
18,500
18,500
16,000
Subtotal Communication
(vi) Brand measurement tools
Quantitative tracking study time: 16.5 days
cons.
Quantitative tracking study expenses: data processing, cons.
questionares
printing
Qualitatative tracking study time: 14.5 days
cons.
Qualitatative tracking study: expenses: transport,
cons.
parking,
hire, 1day:
flight,car
1domestic
time: 5.5 days
workshop
reivew
Annual
cons.
Annual reivew workshop: expenses: transport:petrol, cons.
accommodation, tel & fax, venue & catering
Subtotal brand measurement tools
year
7,000
5
35,000
0
0
0
35,000
35,000
0
0
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
year
1,100
5
5,500
0
0
0
5,500
5,500
0
0
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
year
4,850
4
19,400
0
0
0
19,400
19,400
0
0
0
4,850
4,850
4,850
4,850
year
3,650
4
14,600
0
0
0
14,600
14,600
0
0
0
3,650
3,650
3,650
3,650
year
4,500
4
18,000
0
0
0
18,000
18,000
0
0
0
4,500
4,500
4,500
4,500
year
600
4
2,400
0
0
0
2,400
2,400
0
0
0
600
600
600
600
94,900
0
0
0
94,900
94,900
0
0
8,100
21,700
21,700
21,700
21,700
335,450
0
0
0
282,950
282,950
52,500
0
163,650
53,700
40,200
40,200
37,700
MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION
3. Support community initiatives
(i) Create opportunities for new entrants
Identify potential communities/interested entrants wkshop
wkshop
wkshop
400
1
400
200
0
0
0
200
200
-
0
400
0
0
0
wkshop
1000
1
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
-
0
1,000
0
0
0
Capacity building activity sessions
wkshop
wkshop
1000
1
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
-
0
1,000
0
0
0
Implement agreed introduction process
Subtotal opportunities
wkshop
wkshop
1000
1
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
-
0
1,000
0
0
3,200
-
Meetings with community based organisations
3,400
200
-
-
-
200
-
3,400
-
-
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 56
0
-
(ii) Capacity building
Training needs assessment
cons.
days
250
20
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
-
5,000
0
0
0
0
Tour guide
training
year
3,000
4
12,000
0
0
0
0
0
12,000
-
0
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Hospitality
training
year
3,000
4
12,000
Entrepreneurship
training
year
3,000
4
12,000
Subtotal training
41,000
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
12,000
0
-
12,000
0
12,000
12,000
-
-
12,000
-
29,000
-
0
0
5,000
3,000
3,000
9,000
3,000
3,000
9,000
3,000
3,000
9,000
3,000
3,000
9,000
(iii) Support local community progr.
Kassiesbaai and Elim
Planning (cons., travel, materials)
wkshop
wkshop
Develop a tourism program
cons.
days
5,000
2
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
0
10,000
0
0
0
0
300
60
18,000
0
0
0
0
0
18,000
0
0
18,000
0
0
0
28,000
0
0
0
0
0
28,000
0
10,000
18,000
0
0
0
210,000
37,000
37,000
37,000
Subtotal community initiatives
(iv) Hiking Trail (6 day)
Construction of overnight facilities
Layout plan, application procedure & alignment
works
building
cons.
lumpsum
210,000
1
210,000
0
0
210,000
0
210,000
0
0
7,000
1
7,000
0
0
0
0
0
7,000
0
Construction of trail
works
7,000
building
16,000
1
16,000
0
0
0
0
0
16,000
0
16,000
Operating costs
Trail guide; 4 persons
Tour guide; 4 persons
op.
year
37,000
5
185,000
0
0
185,000
0
185,000
0
0
37,000
37,000
training
year
1,000
2
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
1,000
1,000
training
year
1,000
2
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
1,000
1,000
Hospitality; 4 persons
training
year
1,000
2
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
1,000
1,000
Domestic services; 4 persons
training
year
1,000
2
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
1,000
1,000
Interpretation
equip.
lumpsum
8,000
1
8,000
0
0
0
0
0
8,000
0
8,000
Brochures/website
equip.
lumpsum
5,000
1
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
0
5,000
Subtotal of WBFC hiking trail
439,000
0
0
395,000
0
395,000
44,000
0
287,000
41,000
37,000
37,000
37,000
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
511,400
200
0
395,000
12,000
407,200
104,200
0
302,000
71,400
46,000
46,000
46,000
4. Tourism Monitoring
Tourism patterns, scale and trends
op.
years
1,200
5
6,000
0
0
0
6,000
6,000
0
0
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Impact on biodiversity
op.
years
1,800
5
9,000
0
0
0
0
0
9,000
0
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
Impact on the regional economy
op.
years
1,200
5
6,000
0
0
0
0
0
6,000
0
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Impact on social environment
op.
years
1,200
5
6,000
0
0
0
0
0
6,000
0
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Stakeholder participation
wshop
years
1,500
2
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
3,000
0
0
1,500
0
1,500
0
Evlauation report distributed
mat
800
2
1,600
0
0
0
0
0
1,600
0
0
800
TOURISM MONITORING
NATURE - BASED TOURISM
31,600
2,704,350
0
1,508,100
0
-
0
395,000
6,000
357,950
6,000
2,261,050
25,600
443,300
0
-
5,400
695,950
7,700
271,600
800
5,400
1,044,000
7,700
201,300
5,400
491,500
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 57
Component 4: AWARENESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Components
Category
Unit
Cost/ unit
($)
No of
units
Total Cost ($)
SANP
WCNCB
FFI
Co-financing
GEF Request
(R)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
1. Awareness and outreach
Communication officer
staff
year
14,000
5
70,000
70,000
-
-
70,000
-
-
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
Stakeholder meeting
wkshop
year
2,000
5
10,000
-
-
-
-
10,000
-
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
Design information materials
cons.
days
10,000
0
0
0
-
10,000
-
5,000
5,000
Produce awareness materials & packages
materials
materials
lumpsum
50,000
0
0
0
-
50,000
-
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Agulhas Plain conservation book
lumpsum
20,000
0
0
0
-
20,000
-
0
20,000
0
0
0
ABI newsletter (2/year)
materials
mag.
3,000
0
0
0
-
3,000
-
600
600
600
600
600
Conservation Farners's Day
wkshop
wklshop
250
40
300
10
1,000
5
DESIGN AWARENESS PROGRAM
5,000
0
0
0
-
5,000
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
168,000
70,000
0
0
70,000
98,000
0
32,600
52,600
27,600
27,600
27,600
2. Pilot alternative communication
Co-ordinator
staff
years
7,000
2
14,000
0
0
0
-
14,000
-
0
7,000
7,000
0
0
Workshops
training
years
8,000
2
16,000
0
0
0
-
16,000
-
0
8,000
8,000
0
0
0
-
10,000
-
0
5,000
5,000
0
0
0
-
2,000
-
0
1,000
1,000
0
0
13,500
-
Weekly Tuition
Outings & exposure
training
years
operating cost
equip.
lumpsum
Equipment & materials
Transportation/communication
op.
years
lumpsum
5,000
1,000
2
2
10,000
2,000
0
0
0
0
13,500
1
13,500
0
0
0
-
0
13,500
0
0
7,000
2
14,000
0
0
0
-
14,000
-
0
7,000
7,000
0
0
69,500
0
0
0
0
69,500
0
0
41,500
28,000
0
0
PILOT ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION
3. Early Learning Center - env. education
Setup costs
equip
lumpsum
5,000
1
5,000
0
0
0
0
5,000
0
5,000
0
0
0
0
Training - women practitioners
years
10,000
2
20,000
0
0
0
0
20,000
0
10,000
10,000
0
0
0
Administrative costs
training
op.
years
8,000
2
16,000
0
0
0
0
16,000
0
8,000
8,000
0
0
0
Transport
op.
years
500
2
1,000
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
500
500
0
0
0
42,000
0
0
0
0
42,000
0
23,500
18,500
0
0
0
5,000
EARLY LEARNING CENTER
4. Monitoring of target groups
Interviews/questionnaires workshops
cons.
years
5,000
5
25,000
0
0
0
0
25,000
0
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Monitoring stakeholder participation
wkshop
years
1,500
2
3,000
0
0
0
0
3,000
0
0
1,500
0
1,500
0
28,000
0
0
0
0
28,000
0
5,000
6,500
5,000
6,500
5,000
MONITORING
AWARENESS PROGRAM
307,500
70,000
-
-
70,000
237,500
61,100
119,100
60,600
34,100
32,600
ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,
Page 58
Annex 2
Terms of Reference – Staff
National staff
1.
Project Coordinator
Background: The Project Coordinator will be appointed by SANParks to manage the execution of the
project, including the mobilization of all project inputs, supervision over project staff, consultants and subcontractors. The Project Coordinator will manage the ABI Project Implementation Unit (ABI PIU), will be
fully accountable to the SANParks and ABI Oversight Committee (ABIOC) for satisfactory execution of
the entire project and will be responsible for meeting government obligations under the Project, under the
national execution modality. The ABI Project Implementation Unit (ABI PIU) will have operational and
financial autonomy, including the authority to select and sub-contract specific project activities or
components to local and international consultants or government agencies. He/She shall perform liaison
role with government, UNDP, Fauna & Flora international and other project partners and maintain tight
links with other donor agencies providing co-financing.
Duties and Responsibilities
1. Overall management of the project, including providing guidance and direction to establish capacity to
put in place a landscape-level conservation management system for the Agulhas Plain, support
conservation livelihoods interventions (tourism and wild fynbos), and build the local support for
biodiversity conservation through a comprehensive awareness and outreach program;
2. Supervise and coordinate the production of project outputs as per the project document;
3. Liaise with UNDP, SANParks, Western Cape Nature Conservation Board, relevant government
agencies, Fauna & Flora International and all project partners, including donor organizations and
NGOs for effective coordination of all project activities;
4. Mobilize all project inputs in accordance with UNDP procedures for nationally executed projects;
5. Finalize the ToR for the consultants and subcontractors;
6. Coordinate the recruitment and selection of project personnel;
7. Supervise and coordinate the work of all project staff, consultants and sub-contractors;
8. Facilitate administrative backstopping to subcontractors and training activities supported by the
Project;
9. Work closely with ABI Conservation Planning Manager and Conservation Planners to design and
coordinate all the conservation management interventions and attend all the relevant workshops;
10. Work closely with the ABI Nature-based tourism expert to design and coordinate the tourism
interventions and attend all meetings of the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum;
11. Manage and train (where necessary) project staff;
12. Prepare and revise project work and financial plans, as required by SANParks and UNDP;
13. Manage procurement of goods and services under UNDP and SANParks guidelines and oversight of
contracts;
14. Ensure proper management of funds consistent with UNDP requirements, and budget planning and
control;
15. Establish project monitoring and reporting;
16. Arrange for audit of all project accounts for each fiscal year;
17. Coordinate with SANParks, WCNCB and C.A.P.E. on the formulation of DEAT policies for Agulhas
Plain as well as the integration of project plans and activities in their regular plans and key result areas
;
18. Oversee and ensure timely submission of quarterly financial reports, quarterly progress reports,
PPER, mid-term reports, and other reports as may be required by UNDP, SANParks and other
oversight agencies;
19. Disseminate project reports to and respond to queries from concerned stakeholders;
20. Report progress of project to the ABI Oversight Committee and ensure the fulfillment of ABIOC
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 59
directives;
21. Attend all Cape Implementation Committee meetings and prepare updates on ABI progress against the
approved indicators;
22. Oversee the exchange and sharing of experiences and lessons learned with relevant conservation and
development projects nationally and internationally.
Selection Criteria
1. Post-graduate degree in natural resources management or other relevant academic and profession
qualifications with at least 5 years professional experience;
2. Proven extensive experience and technical ability to manage a large project and a good technical
knowledge of biodiversity;
3. Effective interpersonal and negotiation skills proven through successful interactions with all levels of
project stakeholder groups, including senior government officials, business executives, farmers and
communities;
4. Ability to effectively coordinate a large, multi-stakeholder project;
5. Ability to lead, manage and motivate a team of international and local consultants to achieve results;
and
6. Excellent track record and experience in project management, and coordination preferably of
conservation/natural resource management projects;
7. Excellent communication skills in English (knowledge of Afrikaans desirable);
8. Knowledge of UNDP project implementation procedures, including procurement, disbursements, and
reporting and monitoring;
Duration of the assignment: Project implementation is for a period of five years, starting with January
2004. Continuity of staff during this time will be crucial for effective implementation.
2.
Nature-based Tourism Specialist
Background: The nature-based tourism specialist will be appointed by SANParks to coordinate and
manage the execution of the nature-based tourism interventions in ABI. He/she will report to the Project
Coordinator and will work very closely with the managers of the Elim and Agulhas Heritage Centers.
Duties and Responsibilities:
1. To coordinate and manage the nature-based tourism activities under ABI as per the Project Document,
in co-operation with the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum (APTF);
2. To organize the APTF meetings and encourage new members to join the APTF, and maintain the
interest and motivation of existing members;
3. To initiate, facilitate and co-ordinate training and education, according to specific needs;
4. To identify local champions whose capacity will be built in order to run the Agulhas and Elim
Heritage Centers over five years;
5. To assist the Elim and Agulhas Heritage Centers in developing workplans and ensuring that the
centers are well equipped and housing relevant materials;
6. To facilitate the creation of partnerships and packages that include accommodation, guided visits to
points of interest, interaction with local communities etc., with a special focus on involving emergent
entrepreneurs and members of historically disadvantaged communities;
7. To develop various subroutes with the overall Agulhas Plain Tourism route and the Cape Agulhas
Tourism Development Framework;
8. To organize and facilitate a serious of workshops with communities and CBOs in order to ensure to
create opportunities for new entrants;
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 60
9. To work closely with the community tourism planner to assess the training needs of the selected
communities of Kassiesbaai and Elim and assist in the development of a tourism pan to support the
local communities initiatives;
10. To identify training courses and select in cooperation with APTF members of communities to attend
the courses;
11. To facilitate regular educational workshops, in association with the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum;
12. To provide relevant info and support to the M&E specialist in order to assess the impact of tourism
activities on biodiversity, regional economy, social environment and stakeholder participation in
tourism activities;
13. To promote communication among members and other interested parties, e.g. by means of a regular
newsletter and the maintenance of a website;
14. To collaborate with the person/agency responsible for the development of the
communication/awareness materials to ensure that the tourism message is integrated;
15. To assist in marketing the route according to an approved marketing plan;
16. To fundraise for the implementation of the tourism strategy (in association with the APTF), so that by
the end of the project the functions of the tourism forum and centers will be paid from non-project
funds.
Selection Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
Relevant academic and professional qualifications with at least five years experience in the
tourism sector (preferably at the community level);
Proven extensive experience and technical ability to work in a large project and a good technical
knowledge of the tourism sector;
Effective interpersonal and negotiation skills proven through successful interactions with all levels
of project stakeholder groups, including senior government officials, business executives, farmers
and communities;
Excellent communication skills in English (knowledge of Afrikaans and/or Xhosa desirable);
Duration of assignment: Project implementation is for a period of five years, starting with January 2004.
Continuity of staff during this time will be crucial for effective implementation.
Short-term consultants
1.
Protected Area Infrastructure Planner
Background: The PA Infrastructure Planner shall be a senior, nationally recruited consultant who will be
responsible for providing the overall framework for infrastructure planning for the Agulhas National Park
integrated within the Conceptual Cape Agulhas Tourism Development frameworks. He/She will report to
the Conservation Planning Manager and will work very closely with the Agulhas National Park Manager.
Duties and Responsibilities:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Develop a framework and guidelines for the infrastructure planning and design for the Agulhas
National Park;
Align developmental principles for infrastructure planning with the Cape Agulhas Tourism
Development framework;
Work closely with the Conservation Planner Manager, Agulhas National Park Manager, National
Ports Authority, the Cape Agulhas Tourism Bureaux and local authorities to ensure proper integration
of development guidelines;
Gather information on cultural significance of the area of design and historical occurrences to
incorporate in the planning and design;
Formulate a template for the operational infrastructure development taking into account the Cape
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 61
6.
7.
8.
Agulhas Tourism Development Framework proposed time line;
Liaise with municipalities, local authorities and local organizations to ensure the integration of the
development plans into the IDP’s;
Provide high levels of professional services and advice on infrastructure development plans to the
project and project staff as needed;
Implement the EIA process for these various infrastructure developments.
Selection Criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Minimum of 5 years experience in infrastructure planning and design in South Africa;
Knowledge of the Provincial Planning Processes and their Tourism Development Priorities;
Good support structure with other Planning and design companies/individuals where a lack of skills
can be accessed;
Willingness to travel regularly to the Agulhas National Park;
Good interpersonal skills;
Excellent English communicatory skills.
Duration of assignment: The PA Infrastructure planner will be appointed for a period of 120 days over
the first 9 months of the project.
2.
Conservation Planning Expert
Background: The Conservation Planning Expert shall be a senior, nationally recruited consultant who
will be responsible for providing the overall framework for the landscape-level conservation management
planning on the Agulhas Plain community, developing capacity among project staff and partners on
landscape-level conservation, and ensuring high standards of quality in the execution and implementation
of conservation and management functions for ABI. He/She will assist in setting up the conservation
management system for the Agulhas Plain. The Conservation Planning Expert 1 will be appointed by ABI
PIU and will report to the Conservation Planning Manager.
Duties and Responsibilities:
1. Develop a framework and guidelines for participatory planning and conservation management for
Agulhas Plain taking note of existing protocols and practices in South Africa, the provisions of the
Biodiversity Bill, and existing procedures in the selection and setting up different types of protected
areas;
2. Provide advise in the implementation of participatory planning processes for Agulhas Plain to ensure
broad based consultation and representation, building the capacity of the joint extension service,
guiding and supporting the negotiation and consultation processes;
3. Coordinate and facilitate a series of stakeholder workshops for boundary analysis, zoning,
establishment of sectoral working groups for management plan, development of a framework for
management plan, presentation and public discussions on the management plan for Agulhas Plain;
4. Provide technical advise in development and negotiating contractual and management agreements;
5. Work closely with the Conservation Planning Manager, the manager of Agulhas National Park,
WBFC conservation manager and the other two conservation planners to ensure a proper integration
of the management guidelines for farm planning, contractual parks and conservancies into an umbrella
conservation management framework for the Agulhas Plain;
6. Gather information on the cultural sites in Agulhas Plain; compile a map of cultural sites and organize
a workshop to develop guidelines to integrate cultural concerns into management planning also the
SAHRA requirements, using the experience of Cape Peninsula National Park;
7. Formulate a template for the operational work plans, comprehensive 5 - year management plans,
validate and adapt the indicative zoning plans utilizing the phased approach as discussed in the Project
Document;
8. Assist the project staff, SANParks, WCNCB, WBFC, Elim community, and other relevant partners in
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 62
the development, execution, review and adaptation of the Agulhas Plain conservation management
plans and policies;
9. Provide hands-on training to counterpart project staff to develop their skills in participatory planning
and conservation management, negotiate contractual and management agreements for effective
conservation management;
10. Liaise with municipalities, local authorities and private landowners to ensure the integration of the
management plan for Agulhas Plain with IDPs;
11. Provide high levels of professional services and advice on conservation planning, field management
and operational support to project staff as needed.
Selection Criteria
1. Minimum of 5 years experience in conservation planning and management in South Africa (preferably
in Agulhas Plain);
2. Experience in working with and developing effective partnerships with private farmers, local
communities and government agencies;
3. Knowledge and skills in various aspects of conservation area operations and field management
including participatory approaches in management, operational planning, and enforcement;
4. Willingness to travel frequently to Agulhas Plain;
5. Good interpersonal skills;
6. Excellent English communication skills.
Duration of assignment: The Conservation Planning Expert will be appointed for a period of 210 days
over year 2-4.
3.
Farm planner
Background: The Farm Planner shall be a senior, nationally or provincially recruited consultant
(agency) who will be responsible for developing protocols to incorporate conservation principles into
farm planning and management and to conduct farm planning in priority areas. He/she will be appointed
by the ABI PIU and will report to the Conservation Planning Manager.
Duties and Responsibilities:
1.
2.
Develop a framework and guidelines for farm planning on the Agulhas Plain;
Interact with local and provincial authorities to integrate the framework and guidelines as part of
their Spatial planning framework;
3. Conduct fine scale 1: 10 000 farm planning in selected priority areas on the Agulhas Plain;
4. Develop a booklet on fine scale farm planning as resource material for extrapolation purpose;
5. Present fine scale planning to ABIOC, C.A.P.E. Provincial Planning Dept., Dept. of Water Affairs,
local municipalities on the Agulhas Plain and other stakeholders to lobby for their support at a
planning workshop;
6. Provide hands on fine scale planning to the field assistants and other candidates;
7. Incorporate Dept. of Agriculture landcare principles into the planning;
8. Work closely with the local authorities, landowners, conservation bodies, Dept. Water Affairs and
Conservation Planning Manager;
9. Assist in organizing and facilitating the relevant stakeholder workshops in farm planning and
selecting of priority areas;
10. Assist with and guiding the field assistants in their training and work.
Selection Criteria:
1.
Minimum of 5 years experience in farm planning (Areawide Conservation Planning) in South Africa;
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 63
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Experience in working with and developing effective partnership with private farmers, local
communities and government agencies;
Knowledge and skills in various aspects of resource conservation planning and management;
Willingness to travel frequently to Agulhas Plain;
Good interpersonal skills;
Excellent English communication skills and knowledge of Afrikaans, desirable.
Duration of Assignment: The Conservation Farm Planner will be appointed for a period of 54 days over
3 years.
4.
Legal expert
Background: The Legal Expert shall be responsible for legal advice and registration and proclamation
of purchased land and support the land valuation process, legal contracts and agreements with landowners
and deproclamation of public roads in the Agulhas National Park. He/she will report to the Conservation
Planning Manager and will work closely with the manager of the Agulhas National Parks and of the
reserves under WCNCB.
Duties and Responsibilities:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Resolve legal disputes on purchased land;
Registration and proclamation of purchased land;
Support land valuation processes and disputes;
Screen all transactions for servitudes, various rights such as right of first refusal, access, mineral rights
etc.;
Drawing up of legal contracts and agreements on management, sustainable utilization, access, etc.;
Assist in the consolidation of the De Hoop corridor and De Mond Ramsar site Conservancy with
management agreements;
Deproclamation of public roads within the Agulhas National Park;
Screen the provincial roads regulations on positioning of entrance gates in and around public roads;
Assistance in land acquisition transactions with landowners.
Selection Criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Degree in law with at least five years experience working on conservation concerns;
Fluency in the English language, knowledge of Afrikaans, desirable;
Familiarity with legislative making processes and environmental litigation;
Ability to relate well with private landowners, communities, NGOs, and multisectoral groups;
Duration of Assignment: The Legal Expert will be appointed for a period of 58 day over a period of 4
years.
6.
Resource Economist
Background: The Resource Economist shall be responsible for conducting a study on comparative
economics of sustainable fynbos harvesting on Agulhas Plain, building upon the work done during the
project preparation stage. He/she will be hired by the ABI PIU and will report to the Conservation
Planning Manager and to the Project Coordinator. The Resource Economist will work closely with the
MSc student undertaking the under the FVCT subcontract.
Duties and Responsibilities
1.
analyze and present the economics of sustainable fynbos harvesting;
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 64
2.
carry out a modeling exercise to present a collection of appropriately sized enterprises that would be
representative of the size of farming units in the target area (such size of operation is necessary to
determine capital and overhead cost structure);
3. establish comparable costs of production for the main agricultural enterprises prevalent on the
Agulhas Plain;
4. compare, contrast and appraise the economic value of each of the above land use options open to
agriculture of the region;
5. using the valuation estimates and other significant study results, identify the best conservation option
and land uses for Agulhas Plain and integrate this in the Agulhas Plain management plan;
6. collaborate with the Conservation Planning Manager to provide information to the land-owners on
the economic returns available from different land uses, with a view to promoting conservation
compatible land uses.
7. prepare a program to sensitize the sectoral agencies and local government units on the conservation
values of SINP;
8. in collaboration with the Project Coordinator and the Conservation Planning Manager undertake a
program to review the sectoral and local development plans of the various agencies with a view to
optimizing the economic value from conservation activities;
9. determine the added value of having natural veld for the local authorities;
10. provide advice to relevant agencies in the revision of their respective plans and activities to
internalize conservation objectives;
Selection Criteria
1. Masters degree or advanced degree in Resource Economics, Environmental Economics, or related
fields;
2. At least ten years experience in valuation and development of pricing mechanisms;
3. Excellent communication skills;
4. Willingness to travel frequently in Agulhas Plain for the duration of the assignment;
5. Experience in working in the region, particularly in Agulhas Plain.
Duration of assignment: The resource economist will be appointed for 30 days in the second year of the
project.
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 65
International consultants
1.
Chief Technical Adviser
Background: The Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) will be responsible for providing overall technical
advice to the Project. He/She shall render technical support to the Project Coordinator, staff, and other
government counterparts, so that they may continue to manage the project after its closure. The CTA will
coordinate the provision of the required technical inputs, reviewing and preparing Terms of Reference,
and reviewing the outputs of Consultants and other sub-contractors. He/She shall report directly to the
Project Coordinator.
Duties and Responsibilities
1. Provide technical assistance for project activities, including planning, monitoring and conservation
management operations;
2. Provide hands on support to the Project Coordinator, project staff, and other government counterparts
in the areas of project management, conservation management and sustainable use of wild fynbos,
monitoring, and impact assessment;
3. Assist the Project Coordinator in Finalizing Terms of Reference for Consultants and Subcontractors,
and assist in the selection and recruitment process;
4. Assist the Project Coordinator in coordinating the work of all Consultants and Subcontractors,
ensuring the timely delivery of expected outputs, and effective synergy among the various
subcontracted activities;
5. Assist the Project Coordinator in the preparation and revision of 4-year Operational Plan as well as
Annual Work Plans;
6. Assist the Project Coordinator in the preparation of Project Performance Evaluation Report (PPER),
quarterly progress reports, annual project report, and mid-term report for submission to UNDP, GEF,
other donors and SANParks;
7. Assist the Project Coordinator and the Conservation Planning Manager in mobilizing staff and
consultants in the conduct of mid-term project evaluation and in undertaking revisions in the
implementation program and strategy based on evaluation results;
8. Assist the Project Coordinator in liaison work with project partners, donor organizations, NGOs and
other groups to ensure effective coordination of project activities;
9. Perform other tasks relevant to ABI as may be requested by the Project Managers, SANparks and
other project partners.
Selection Criteria
1. Post-graduate degree in biodiversity conservation and management with at least 10 years of
professional experience;
2. Ability to effectively coordinate a large, multidisciplinary team of experts and consultants;
3. Experience in implementing conservation/natural resource management projects;
4. Experience in implementing and supervising GEF-funded projects;
5. Fluency in the English language (reading, writing and communication);
Duration of assignment
The CTA will be appointed for a period of 100 days over the five year of the project.
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 66
Sub Contracted Activities
1.
FVCT
Objectives:
To coordinate and manage the execution of Component 2 of Agulhas Biodiversity
Initiative so to achieve the stated output: ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable harvesting of wild
fynbos is demonstrated as a viable land use on the Agulhas Plain.
Activities:
Flower Valley Conservation Trust will be responsible for:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Working together with Western Cape Nature Conservation Board to ensure that the legal and
regulatory framework for harvesting indigenous flora is updated and enforced. FVCT will contract
relevant expertise to: (i) update the current permit system for flower harvesting, to include and
agreed an agreed subset of the Code of Practice for sustainable harvesting, invoicing protocol and
farms cadastral numbers; (ii) update the protected and endangered species list for the Agulhas
Plain and produce a “no go “list attached to the permit regulations; and (c) train WCNCB staff in
plant identification and field monitoring techniques.
Securing a supply network focused towards priority conservation areas that are harvested on the
Agulhas Plain, to include running stakeholder workshops to finalize the contractual agreements
with landowners and contract pickers and establish the supply network management forum to
oversee the implementation of the Code of Practice for sustainable harvesting;
Assist the joint Extension Service and the Resource Economist to provide landowners with
information on the economic returns available from different land uses, with a view to promoting
conservation compatible land uses;
Contract expertise to monitor the economic performance of sustainable harvesting, assisting with
the development and conducting an annual survey on the economic benefits to the local
communities in Agulhas Plain as a result of the implementation of the sustainable harvesting
practices.
Assist with the establishment of the institutional arrangements to develop and administer the
certification scheme;
Coordinate and assist with the development of the code of practice for sustainable harvesting of
wild fynbos in a way that can be easily incorporated into the South African Horticultural Code of
Practice that will be developed and standardized for southern African countries under the auspice
of the African Center for Auditing and Training for Ethical Agriculture;
Contract expertise to build the capacity of the WCNCBs Certification Unit;
Work together with the extension service to provide information to farmers who want to join the
certification scheme;
Contract expertise to develop the monitoring and auditing systems for the certification scheme;
Organize stakeholder workshops for producers and suppliers on the costs and benefits of joining
an international certification scheme, such as the Flower Labeling Program;
Develop a simple and effective logo to convey the sustainable harvesting message of ABI along
with the well recognized FLP.
Negotiate (if appropriate) a co-labeling agreement to ensure the sustainable harvesting logo
appears on both the product box and bouquet/bunch tag;
Organize require regular meetings and follow up communication between retail category
managers, importers and producers to develop awareness at each link in the chain of market trends
and their impact;
Hire a marketing expert to implement market specific activities in the priority markets,
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 67
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
emphasizing the high quality of the products as well as their environmental and socially beneficial
nature;
Develop a pilot system for monitoring species harvested on the Flower Valley supply network,
train two full time Flower Valley personnel in its operations and assist in communicating the
system to the supply network;
Develop a mini-herbarium at Flower Valley housing all species harvested for the flower business
(non-permitted species). The herbarium will have both the species used by the business as well as
endangered species to be used as reference material. Transfer the monitoring information to the
WCNCB, from where the Certification Unit will gain access;
Develop proper zonation maps for all farms in the supply network;
Design and undertake a comprehensive capacity building targeting the fynbos pickers, landowners
and fynbos farms to ensure that correct harvesting levels and methodologies are applied on the
ground according to the Code of Practice;
Develop a handbook in English, Afrikaans and Xhosa to be used in conjunction with the training
courses;
Organize a workshop to capture and share lessons in harvesting methodology, conservation
management, minimizing the impact of harvesting at the landscape scale and recording and
invoicing methods.
Develop a formal training accreditation system for landowners and contractor pickers, endorsed
by SANParks and WCNCB, and linked to the certification program will be developed;
Support biological field studies on the effects of harvesting on myrmecochorous (ant dispersed)
species and species with soils stored seed banks;
Support the investigation of the impacts of harvesting on inter-specific competition;
Design and install a long-term monitoring system, harvesting the monitoring sites established at
Flower Valley on an annual basis in the manner prescribed by the certification guidelines and
comparing them with adjacent control sites which will not be harvested;
Update the Code of Practice as information from the monitoring program becomes available;
Collect information on the distribution and biological characteristics of all the species harvested
and determine their vulnerability to harvesting; This index will provide the basis for determining
the list of endangered (not allowed to be harvested) species that will be incorporated into the
ordinance and permit system updated by the project;
Undertake a resource base assessment using the model for Flower Valley developed in the
preparation stage on all farms in the supply network. This information will be linked to the
zonation maps of each property and recorded on the GIS system of the WCNCB;
Pilot Ecosystem rehabilitation in previously ploughed and broadcast sown sites by testing
appropriate strategies for vegetation recovery on Flower Valley farm, develop the various trial
sites and produce an information handbook on restoration methods;
Support the establishment of a sustainable harvesting oversight committee and develop
promotional materials;
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 5 years.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be hired by ABIPIU and will be accountable to the Project
Coordinator for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract. The Chief Technical
Adviser shall provide technical guidance and inputs
2.
Park Infrastructure
Objectives:
To manage and implement the Park Infrastructure on the principles and guidelines given
in the Park Planning and Design documents as well as the Cape Agulhas Development Framework on the
time schedule as given in the documents.
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 68
Activities:
1. The placement and strategic use of existing and new infrastructure;
2. Deal with the Suiderstrand users access need during implementation;
3. The PA Infrastructure placement & design must be according to the Cape Agulhas Tourism
Development Framework and the PA Infrastructure planning and design document;
4. All the infrastructure must be build/developed according to the specified regulations as stipulated in
the EIA document, NPA – National Port Authority and Municipal regulations;
5. The successful candidate will be responsible to:
(i)
Build Main Entrance Gate;
(ii)
Build Visitor Center;
(iii)
Build Information Points;
(iv)
Renovate the Agulhas Heritage Center;
(v)
Relocate NPA Navigational Equipment;
(vi)
Develop Signage an Information Boards in the Park.
6. The contractor must as far as possible make use of local labour.
Experience:
1. Minimum 5 years experience in Infrastructure developments;
2. Good interpersonal skills, and must be able to work among tourist;
3. Appropriate conservation and management background to successfully implement the EIA
requirements;
4. Bilingual in Afrikaans and English (Knowledge of Xhosa, desirable).
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 3 years.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator and Agulhas National
Park Manager for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
3.
WBFC hiking trail
Objectives:
To co-ordinate and manage the final planning, alignment and construction of the Walker
Bay Fynbos Conservancy Hiking Trail
Activities:
The sub-contractor will be responsible for the following activities relating to the development of a hiking
trail in the Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy.
1. The planning of the final layout of the hiking trail route;
2. Liaison with landowners with regards the exact alignment of the route across their property and the
exact location of overnight facilities;
3. Finalizing the title deed restrictions on each property (notary agreements securing the right of way for
trail users “into perpetuity”), finalizing all application procedures as well as the legal agreements
between landowners, accommodation providers and the Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy Trust;
4. Constructing the entire trail (approximately 80-km in length);
5. During construction the contractor will be obliged to use a team of local labor, preferably from within
the conservancy, to undertake the construction work. The contractor will be responsible for the
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 69
training of this team of builders to a level of competence in trail construction and maintenance that
they can be employed to maintain the trail on its completion.
Experience:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The sub-contractor will ideally have the following expertise and experience:
Experience in trail design, alignment and leading a team in trail construction.
Experience in training and empowerment of unskilled labour.
Expertise in submitting development application procedures.
Familiarity with the Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy and its members, and/or a proven ability in
negotiating and managing a project of this nature.
Duration:
The sub-contract will have six months duration.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator and Walker Bay Fynbos
Conservancy for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
4.
Alien Clearance
Objectives:
To develop new alien clearance techniques and a best practice booklet.
Activities:
1. Compile all available information and research on Work for Water to get the latest on existing
clearance techniques;
2. Develop new techniques based on sound environmental principals to do better long term clearance and
monitoring;
3. Make use of local labor in clearance activities as far as possible;
4. Link closely to the priority focus areas as indicated by the various studies on alien infestation and
wetland rehabilitation to integrate all the efforts;
5. Liaise with municipalities, local authorities and private land owners to ensure the integration of
clearance operations with the IDP’s;
6. Assist the Extension services with the development of alien clearance incentives packages;
7. Develop a work plan where the new techniques will be implemented in consultation with the Dept. of
Water Affairs – WfW, local government, Dept. of Agriculture and the conservation agencies.
8. Implement the new clearance techniques on the agreed terms as indicated by the study;
9. Monitor and Evaluate the impacts of the techniques.
Experience:
1. Minimum 5 years experience in Alien clearance related work.
2. Appropriate conservation or management qualification.
3. Experience in implementing conservation/natural resource management projects;
4. Fluency in Afrikaans and English (Xhosa recommendable);
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 3 years.
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 70
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator and Conservation
Planning Manager for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
5.
Fire breaks
Objectives:
To build a system of fire-breaks based on the FPA principles of the Local authorities to be
legally correct and to align the fire breaks with larger natural units and do controlled burns within the time
frame as given.
Activities:
1. Develop a system of fire-breaks based on the FPA principles of the Local Authority;
2. Ensure the legality of the firebreaks before controlled burning is applied;
3. Inform all the relevant Authorities and Landowners before controlled burning is being attempted;
4. Adhere to the Local Authorities burning principles and guidelines and all the legal requirements
before any burning;
5. Make use of local fire fighting teams as far as possible, and assist with further training for new
entrants;
6. Implement the burning in conjunction with the local firefighting officer in charge, and only on his
support and agreement.
Experience:
1. Minimum 5 years experience in fire related work;
2. Appropriate conservation and disaster management qualification;
3. Experience in implementing conservation/natural resource management projects;
4. Fluency in Afrikaans and English (Xhosa recommendable).
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 3 years.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator and Conservation
Planning Manager for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
6.
Wetland restoration
Objectives:
To restore the selected wetland system to an improved state and to ensure long term
survival of the river system.
Activities: 1. Compile all available information and research on the Heuningnes river and vlei system;
2. Provide a summary document of above information;
3. Identify problem areas in the wetland area and prioritize them;
4. Provide an environmental management plan for the wetland;
5. Provide management strategies for wetland rehabilitation;
6. Evaluated rehabilitation progress over a 2 year period, and develop a monitoring program;
7. Determine the desired water levels and flow at De Mond estuary to assist with regulation decisions;
8. Monitor water flow from the wetland to the estuary to determine seasonal patterns;
9. Determine the need for weather monitoring in the Heuningnes system, based on the current situation.
Experience:
1. Minimum 5 years experience in wetland rehabilitation;
2. Appropriate conservation or management qualification;
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 71
3. Be prepared to travel to the Agulhas Plain frequently;
4. Bilingual in Afrikaans and English.
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 30 months.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator and Conservation
Planning Manager for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
7.
Tourism Infrastructure
Objectives:
To manage and implement the Tourism Infrastructure in the Agulhas National Park on the
principles and guidelines given in the Park Planning and Design documents as well as the Cape Agulhas
Development Framework on the time schedule as given in the documents.
Activities:
1. The placement and strategic use of existing and new infrastructure;
2. The Tourism Infrastructure placement & design must be according to the Cape Agulhas Tourism
Development Framework and the PA Infrastructure planning and design document;
3. The Tourism infrastructure must be build/developed according to the specified regulations as
stipulated in the EIA document and Municipal regulations;
4. The successful candidate will be responsible to build and develop the following infrastructure: Day
trails, Overnight trails and Trail overnight facilities;
5. The contractor must as far as possible make use of local labor.
Experience:
1. The incumbent must have a minimum of 5 years experience in the relevant field;
2. A good knowledge of environmental principles and the human interactions to it is a requirement to
assist with good trail implementation;
3. Have good experience with tourism facilities, tourists, hikers and their specific needs;
4. Fluency in English and Afrikaans.
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 12 months.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator and Conservation
Planning Manager for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
8.
Communication and ELC
Objectives:
To develop and pilot alternative communication methods targeted to the poor
communities working on fynbos farms on the Agulhas Plain and to support the replication of the
successful environmental education program of the Early Learning Center developed at Flower Valley,
which provides pre-elementary school education focused on environmental issues to the children in the
poor communities working in the Agulhas Plain, who don’t have access to any other form of education.
Activities:
1. to select and appoint a part-time coordinator for the alternative communication methods in close
collaboration with the ABI Project Coordinator;
2. to develop a comprehensive package of alternative methods for communication, based on
community consultations in selected fynbos farms in Agulhas Plain;
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 72
3. to conduct a needs assessment for the development of community theater teams or other alternative
methods of communication;
4. training historically disadvantaged local women as Early Childhood Development practitioners;
5. to ensure that the proposed activities are carefully coordinated with Component 2 of the C.A.P.E.
Biodiversity and Sustainable Development Program for the CFR: Environmental Education, which
will provide an umbrella environmental education framework for the CFR, including curricula
development and teacher training, linked closely to the national education programme.
Experience:
1. The incumbent must have a minimum of 3 years experience in the relevant field.
2. A good knowledge of media principals and the human interactions to it is a requirement to assist with
good communication.
3. Have good experience with the written and electronic media and the uses thereof
4. Fluent in English and Afrikaans (reading, writing and communication), knowledge of Xhosa
desirable.
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 2 years.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator for the quality and
timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
9.
Public Awareness materials
Objectives:
To develop an overall awareness of the Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative and its targets
through a series of pamphlets, books, brochures, materials and ABI newsletters, within the given time
framework.
Activities:
1. Develop a coffee table book indicating the features, moods and scenery of the area, as a marketing
tool;
2. Promote internal and external communication in the local language through newsletters and
pamphlets.
3. Cultivate mass media interest in the biodiversity conservation and work with the radio, local
newspapers and the local communities and the local festivals, such as the Elim flower festival.
4. Design appropriate awareness materials for different stakeholder groups to impart conservation values
and emphasize the interconnections between human activities and fynbos resources.
5. Pilot alternative communication methods targeting the communities where the level of literacy is very
low, such as Community Theater, and an illustrative booklet.
Experience:
5. The incumbent must have a minimum of 3 years experience in the relevant field.
6. A good knowledge of media principals and the human interactions to it is a requirement to assist with
good communication.
7. Have good experience with the written and electronic media and the uses thereof
8. Fluent in English and Afrikaans (reading, writing and communication)
Duration:
The sub-contract will have duration of 5 years.
Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator for the quality and
timeliness of outputs required under this contract.
ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,
Page 73
Annex 3
Equipment Register
Component 1: Conservation Management of the Productive Landscape.
Item
1 Furniture: For Park
HQ and Visitors
Center
Unit
3
2
20
3
8
2
4
2
2
4
3
3
Specification
Unit Cost
(US $)
833
250
60
65
85
65
65
190
75
60
250
5
Air-Conditioning
Conference Tables
Conference Chairs
Screen/Dry Wipe moveable board
Clip on boards
Flip chart
Magnetic Boards
Desks
Chairs Executive
Chairs General
Filing Cabinet
Waste Bins
Total Cost
(US $)
2500
500
1200
195
680
130
260
380
150
240
750
15
$7000
2 Computers for:
Parks HQ and Visitors
Centers:
Internet Café Computer – 17/19 inch
screen 40 Gig, RAM 256, CD writer
1600
Admin P.C. Pentium 4, RAM 250, 20
Gig Hard drive and CD writer;
1400
Scanner (colour);
700
Printer Colour HP
300
Workstation Program Package (MS
Word, MS Exel, Microsoft Windows and
Office Outlook, Graphix, Power Point,
Acrobat, Winzip.
1250
1,250
Arc View
2500
2,500
$4000
3 Software
2
$5000
1
Vista Varia
1000
$1000
5 Data Projector
6 Radio Equipment Mid
Band:
1
1
2
2
Sony
3000
1000
550
450
7 Computers for
Extension Service:
3
Pentium 4; 1.5 GHZ; 60 Gbytes HDD;
500 MB RAM; CD Writer, Built in fax
modem (56kbps); sound card (multi
media); 2 internal bays; keyboard;
mouse; video card/interface; 17”/19”
color monitor; pre installed Windows XP
Professional; including mouse; CD
Writer; Arc View
$3000
1000
1100
900
$3000
$7500
4 Overhead Projector
Base Unit - QD Traser Mid band
Vehicle Radios – QD Traser
Portable Radios - Penta
2500
ABI, Annex 3 – Equipment Registrar,
Page 74
Item
8
Laptop and Printer
for ABI PIU
Unit
Specification
Unit Cost
Total Cost
(US $)
(US $)
1
Pentium 4; 1,5 Ghz; 40 G byts HDD;
256 MD RAM; CD Writer Built in Fax
Modem 2500 (56kbps); sound card
(multi media); video card/interface; 15”
color monitor; serial and parallel ports;
pre installed Windows XP professional
and Office XP Professional.
2500
1
HP Laser Jet
500
$3000
Component 2: Sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos
Item
Computer
1 and printer
for the Certification
Unit
Computer
2 for
recording harvested
species:
Unit
1
Specification
Pentium 4; 1.5 GHZ; 60 Gbytes HDD;
500 MB RAM; CD Writer, Built in fax
modem (56kbps); sound card (multi
media); 2 internal bays; keyboard;
mouse; video card/interface; 17”/19”
color monitor; pre installed Windows
XP Professional; including mouse; Arc
View
1
Unit Cost
(US $)
1500
Laser Jet printer
500
Pentium 4; 1.5 GHZ; 60 Gbytes HDD;
500 MB RAM; Built in fax modem
(56kbps); keyboard; mouse; video
card/interface; 17”/19” color monitor;
pre installed Windows XP
Professional; including mouse; Arc
View
1,000
Total Cost
(US $)
$2,000
$1,000
Component 3: Sustainable Nature-based Tourism in the Agulhas Plain
Item
Interpretation
1
Boards/Equipment
for Elim HC
Unit
1
5
7
1
4
Specification
Exhibition Boards and Connectors
Display Cabinets
Information Boards/Display Panels
Combi unit (monitor and video)
External Direction and Road Signs
Unit Cost
(US $)
2500
500
1687.50
1687.50
375
Total Cost
(US $)
2500
2500
11812.50
1687.50
1500
$20 000
Furniture
2 for Elim
HC
61
2
3
2
Conference/Tee Garden Chairs
Office Desk
Bookcases
Air-conditioning
50
150
100
600
3050
300
200
1200
ABI, Annex 3 – Equipment Registrar,
Page 75
3
5
Coffee Tables
Conference/Tee Garden Tables
75
250
225
1250
$6000
Office3 Equipment for
EHC
2
4
2
3
1
1
5
1
6
1
10
2
Office Desk
Chairs General
Chairs Executive
Filing Cabinet
Printer Table
Fax/Copier
Waste Bins
Coffee Table
Executive Reception Chairs
Conference Table
Conference Chairs
Air-conditioning
187.50
56.25
75
250
50
1650
5
25
105
250
32
775
375
225
150
750
50
1650
25
25
630
250
320
1550
$6000
Computers,
4
software,
printers for EHC
3
Pentium 4; 1.5 GHZ; 60 Gbytes
HDD; 500 MB RAM; CD Writer,
Built in fax modem (56kbps); sound
card (multi media); 2 internal bays;
keyboard;
mouse;
video
card/interface;
17”/19”
color
monitor; pre installed Windows XP
Professional; including mouse; CD
Writer; Arc View
1
1500
4500
500
500
HP Laser Printer (Colour)
Furniture
5 for Agulhas
Heritage Centre
75
3
3
$5000
Chairs
Desk
Bookcases
50
150
100
3750
450
300
$5000
Hardware
6
and
software for AHC
3
Computer and Software (same
specifications as under point 2,
component 1)
4500
1
HP Lazer Printer (Colour)
500
$5000
Interpretation
7
facilities for AHC
1
5
7
1
4
Exhibition Boards and Connectors
Display Cabinets
Information Boards/Display Panels
Combi (monitor and video)
External Direction and Road Signs
2500
500
1687.50
1687.50
375
2500
2500
11812.50
1687.50
1500
$20 000
Vehicles:
Item
Uni
Specification
t
Unit Cost
Total Cost
(US $)
(US $)
ABI, Annex 3 – Equipment Registrar,
Page 76
1 Pick-up truck for
Park HQ
2 Combi/Van for Park
HQ
1
Toyota Hilux LWB 2x4
12500
12500
1
Toyota Venture 1800
13000
13000
3 Tractor and
Implements
1
Tractor 4x4.
Implements: Falcon Bruschcutter
24000
24000
4 4x4 for Extension
Service
5 Fire Fighting
Vehicles
2
Toyota Hilux 2.4D SC 4x4
22000
44000
1
Toyota Land Cruiser 4.2D 4x4 and Trailer
for bulk water and chemicals.
38000
38000
6 4x4 for ABI PIU
1
Toyota Hilux SC 2.4D 4x4
22000
22000
7 Tractor and
implements for
FVCT
8 4x4 for FVCT
1
Tractor with Falcon brushcutter and trailler
$10,200
1
Toyota Hilux SC 2.4 D 4x4
8,000
1,200
1,000
22,000
$22,200
ABI, Annex 3 – Equipment Registrar,
Page 77
Annex 4: Country Endorsement
ABI, Annex 4 – Country endorsement,
Page 78
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 5: Incremental Cost Analysis
1.
Broad Development Objectives:
1.1.
South Africa has demonstrated a strong and enduring commitment to biodiversity conservation. A
White Paper, approved in 1997, provides a policy framework for biodiversity conservation, sustainable
use, access and benefit sharing. A new regulatory framework for biodiversity management is under
advanced stages of preparation, and will strengthen the underlying institutional and legal framework. The
government faces numerous challenges in realising its conservation objectives: on the one hand, the
country – one of the richest storehouses of biodiversity in the world –is characterised by a high ecological
turnover across the natural landscape. Accordingly, there is a need to bring a sizable land area into the
conservation estate so as to ensure adequate bio-geographic representation. On the other, the country faces
pressing social and economic challenges, including poverty and socio-economic inequities. One of the
main thrusts of government policy is, therefore, to spur growth in the rural economy. The government is
seeking to align its conservation activities with its integrated rural development strategies and
programmes. To this end the country is spearheading a number of bio-regional scale conservation
demonstrations, including on the Agulhas Plain. These enjoy widespread recognition and institutional
support and provide a unique platform to galvanize collective action and commitment. However, financial
assistance is needed from international partners to defray the one-time costs associated with
operationalising integrated, innovative, locally adapted and replicable conservation models.
2.
Global Environmental Objectives:
2.1.
As pilot for the implementation of the broader C.A.P.E. program, ABI’s overall goal is that by
year 2020 the biodiversity of the CFR is effectively conserved, restored wherever appropriate and
delivering significant benefits for the region. The project development objective is biodiversity
conservation and socio-economic development on the Agulhas Plain are significantly enhanced through
effective management and co-ordinated stakeholder involvement. The Agulhas Plain constitutes an
especially rich repository of the biodiversity of the CFK, with some of the largest extant patches of coastal
Renosterveld and lowland fynbos, considered top conservation priorities. The region is however
threatened by a number of anthropogenic pressures, which, unless arrested, threaten to extirpate rare plant
communities, and cause irreversible ecological degradation. The Plain, consequently, deserves special and
immediate conservation attention. Global environment benefits include: the maintenance of existence
values, protection of habitats for migratory species, and preservation of future use options, including for
recreation.
3.
Baseline
4.
The principal threats to biodiversity on the Agulhas Plain may be summarized as follows:
direct habitat transformation due to agriculture; alien plant infestation; unsustainable
harvesting of wild fynbos; inappropriate fire regimes and indiscriminate coastal
development. The baseline course of events, in the absence of GEF intervention may be
ummarized as follows:
(ii) Landscape-level conservation management: A number of conservation activities have been
undertaken in the Agulhas Plain during the recent past, including the designation of the Agulhas National
Park in 1999, land purchase for conservation (SANParks and FFI), contractual and management
agreements for conservation, establishment of Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy (landowners, Grootbos,
FFI and WCNCB), alien clearance (Working for Water), and establishment of a fire management
ABI, Annex 5, Incremental Cost Analysis,
Page 79
association. In addition, the area has served as a pilot for fine-scale conservation planning, performed by
Provincial conservation authorities. These investments total US$ 4.5 million. However, as they were
appropriated prior to project inception, they are treated as sunk costs and are not factored into the baseline
estimate. The aggregate baseline is projected at US$ 5,108,505. These include expenditures of US$
1,738,285 over five years by SANParks, WCNCB, Department of Agriculture, Overberg District Council
and Agulhas Municipalities for salaries, travel, utilities and operational costs to manage the existing
reserves and to support conservation management planning activities. In addition, WCNCB and the
District Council will spend US$ 204,320 on law enforcement activities, US$ 239,958 on extension
services and US$ 5,000 on environmental assessments. Alien clearance activities on the Plain are
budgeted at 2,365,700 for the next five years by DEAT, DWAF, SANparks, WCNCB, Overberg District
Council and Agulhas Municipality. SANParks, DEAT and Overberg District will spend US$ 681,000 on
coastal Management activities in the region. Department of Agriculture will continue support for the Elim
Land Care Project (approx. US$ 100,000 for the next four years). In the absence of additional technical
and funding support, the existing institutions concerned with conservation would continue to work in
isolation, based on a sectoral approach, with inadequate capacity to establish an integrated management
system at the landscape level. There will be a lack of incentives and mechanisms to ensure the direct
participation of landholders and communities in conservation. Consequently, there would be a continued
impetus for habitat conversion.
(iii)
Wild Cut Flower Industry: Sunk costs amount to approx US$ 1 million and include the costs
associated with the establishment of the Flower Valley Conservation Trust [land purchase, setting-up the
flower business, the micro-enterprise based on hand-made paper, community development activities,
fynbos marketing, and building infrastructure]. The expenditures were made by FFI, FVCT with
additional financial support from the government (Poverty Relief Fund), private foundations and
individuals, bilaterals, and private sector (Shell, Association of Electrical Engineers of UK). The
aggregated baseline is projected at US$ 943,000 from the Flower Valley Conservation Trust and FFI to
cover the costs associated with salaries, travel, communication, marketing, and community development.
The baseline situation is ummarized ed by a number of emergent risks, threatening conservation
outcomes: (a) unsustainable off take of commercially important species, without reference to intra and
inter-specific impacts. (b) a trend in South Africa towards flower farming. [This does little to protect the
conservation of whole plant communities and thus biodiversity, although it may, in instances, reduce
pressures on certain species.] These pressures need to be confronted, to protect the resource base and
foster conservation compatible livelihoods. However, a number of barriers impede the paradigm shift from
unsustainable to sustainable use. These may be summarized as (a) inadequate knowledge of the ecological
determinants of sustainability, for different landholding units; (b) weak regulatory and enforcement
regime; (c) absence of coordinated supply networks; (d) lack of mechanisms to recover the marginal costs
associated with ecosystem management; and (e) limited market diversification in industry.
(iv)
Tourism Development: SANParks, tourism bureaux, Ecotourism Forum and others have allocated
US$ 1.1 million in the recent past for various interventions aiming at developing tourism. The estimated
baseline over the next five years is projected at US$ 13,954,159 with SANParks providing US$ 151,000,
WCNCB US$ 783,541, tourism bureaux US$ 241,740 and private tourism operations US$ 12,479,688
(operational and capital costs). In addition, the tourism bureaux have allocated US$ 298,190 for
marketing, over the next five years. However, this investment will be inadequate to build a vibrant ecotourism industry, clearly linked to conservation outcomes. Depending on how it is managed, tourism may
either support conservation objectives and values or threaten them. There is a danger that the latter
scenario will prevail, as growth of the industry accelerates faster than the development of conservation
management capacity. Barriers to engendering environmental and economic sustainability include: (a)
lack of articulation of the area in key eco-tourism markets as a destination. (b) lack of coordination in the
sector locally. Specific expertise, outreach and monitoring capacity is lacking. (c) absence of land based
ecotourism products provides little incentive for tourists to visit the area; (d) local communities in the
ABI, Annex 5, Incremental Cost Analysis,
Page 80
Agulhas Plain have few opportunities to participate in the industry, implying a risk that benefits will be
inequitably distributed; and (e) mechanisms to monitor and regulate the impacts of tourism are lacking.
(v)
Increased local-support for biodiversity conservation, through a broad-based public awareness
campaign: There was little financing available in the past for such activities, with a sunk cost estimated at
only US$ 300,000. However, in the next five years, the aggregate baseline is projected at US$ 1,216,220.
WCNCB estimates to spend US$ 557,520 mainly on operational costs and activities undertaken at the
Potberg Environmental Education Center in De Hoop Nature Reserve. Various NGOs on the Plain will
continue their awareness activities costed at US$ 296,000 mainly in volunteer time to organize awareness
campaigns and produce and distribute materials. In addition, FVCT will spend US$ 25,000 representing
the running costs of the Early Learning Center at the Flower Valley Farm focused on environmental issues
and Grootbos Private Nature Reserve has a projected expenditure on awareness issues of US$ 139,500.
Overberg District Council has budgeted US$ 105,00 for environmental awareness activities on the
Agulhas Plain and an additional US$ 50,000 for training. However, projected investments would occur at
a low background level, and need to be scaled up to strengthen the conservation constituency and build
broad-based public support for biodiversity protection, especially targeted to the black and colored
communities with high level of illiteracy. Further awareness, outreach and education are needed especially
to sensitize the public to conservation policies and legislation, to impart conservation values, and build
recognition of the linkages between development and conservation.
4.
GEF Alternative
4.1
The proposed GEF Alternative includes activities designed to mitigate the threats to the lowland
fynbos ecosystem of the Agulhas Plain and achieve conservation objectives over and above those
spearheaded in the baseline scenario. The GEF Alternative will assist the executing agencies to institute
innovative new cross-sectoral approaches to conservation management at a bio-regional level, through
enhancing multi-stakeholder partnerships and assuring better integration with regional development
strategies and programmes. A mosaic of protected units will be created and capacitated: small reserves to
protect habitat patches and large reserves with connecting corridors to protect fauna and provide for floral
dispersion. The PA systems will be buttressed through the promotion of conservation compatible land use
options in support zones (buffers and corridors), that provide for equitable benefit distribution. The
Alternative will provide a replicable new model for integrating management of public and private
protected areas, and linking protected areas to the management of production systems at a landscape level.
4.1. Four outputs are proposed to achieve the ABI objective:
Output 1: Landscape-level conservation management and planning system developed and implemented in
public-private partnerships negotiated by a well-capacitated extension service
To achieve this output, the project would include a series of strategic interventions targeted at:
institutional strengthening and capacity building [GEF: US$817,440; SANParks: US$ 1,606,000;
WCNCB: US$ 171,000]; securing land under conservation management [GEF: US$ 130,150; SANParks:
US$ 2,733,000; WCNCB: US$ 10,100; Municipalities: US$ 8,500; FFI: US$ 608,300]; conservation
management planning [GEF: US$ 178,600; SANParks; US$ 51,700; WCNCB: US$ 23,700;
Municipalities: US$ 11,200]; controlling alien plant spread [GEF: US$ 189,750; SANParks: US$
123,350; WCNCB: US$ 12,000]; fire management [GEF: US$ 124,500; SANParks: US$ 37,500]; wetland
rehabilitation [GEF: US$ 255,000]; monitoring, evaluation and management [GEF: US$ 356,200;
SANParks: US$ 52,000].
Output2: Ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos is demonstrated
as a viable land use on the Agulhas Plain
ABI, Annex 5, Incremental Cost Analysis,
Page 81
Review and update the legal framework pertaining to the flower industry [GEF: US$ 28,200]; secure the
supply network for Flower Valley [GEF: US$ 23,000; FFI/FVCT: US$ 1,000]; develop a certification
scheme for sustainably harvested wild fynbos flowers and join an internationally established scheme
[GEF: US$ 65,000; WCNCB: US$ 1,000]; marketing of sustainably harvested wild fynbos [GEF: US$
88,500; FFI/FVCT: US$ 86,800]; pilot recording system for harvested species [GEF: US$ 13,000;
WCNCB: US$ 7,600; FFI/FVCT: US$ 2,080; Grootbos: US$ 8,750]; capacity building to implement COP
for sustainable harvesting within the supply network [GEF: US$ 24,100; FFI/FVCT: US$ 14,450];
monitoring of sustainable harvesting [GEF: US$ 160,435; FFI/FVCT: US$ 591,220, Grootbos: US$
4,750]; and replication of sustainable harvesting practices [GEF: US$ 13,000; FFI/FVCT: US$ 4,500;
Grootbos: US$ 4,500].
Output 3: A participatory and responsible tourism strategy is implemented in the Agulhas Plain
and contributes to sustainable livelihoods
GEF alternative would include the following activities: strengthen coordination among tourism activities
and agencies in the AP [GEF: US$ 261,000; SANParks: US$ 1,507,900; Tourism bureaux: US$ 57,000];
establish and market the Agulhas Plain route [GEF: US$52,500; private sector: US$ 282,950]; Support
tourism initiatives in Agulhas Plain [GEF: US$ 104,200; SANParks: US$ 200; WBFC: US$ 395,000;
tourism bureaux: US$ 12,000]; Monitoring of tourism activities [GEF: US$ 25,600; tourism bureaux: US$
6,000 ].
Output 4: Increased local support for biodiversity conservation in the Agulhas Plain is generated
through a broad-based conservation awareness program
Conservation awareness and outreach [GEF: US$ 98,000; SANParks: US$ 70,000]; pilot alternative
communication [GEF: US$ 69,500]; Early Learning Centers on environmental education [GEF: US$
42,000]; and monitoring [GEF: US$ 28,600].
5.
Incremental Costs and Benefits
5.1.1. The scope of analysis is defined (i) geographically by the Agulhas Plain, covering an area of
270,000 ha of lowland fynbos in the Cape Floristic Region; (ii) temporally by the proposed life of the
project (5 years); and (iii) thematically by the bundles of strategic interventions proposed to conserve
biodiversity, and their accompanying baselines.
5.2.
The baseline, comprising activities that would be pursued irrespective of project investment, has
been estimated at US$ 21,466,842. Incremental costs amount to US$11,649,725, of which the GEF would
fund US$ 3,148,175. The GEF contribution amounts to 9.5 % of the cost of the alternative (US$
33,116,567). The GEF would provide funding for activities that generate clear global benefits, and could
not be justified solely on domestic benefits.
Annex: 6 Incremental Cost Matrix
Component
Cost
Cost (in US$)
Domestic Benefit
Global Benefit
Output 1:
Landscape-level
conservation
management and
planning system
developed and
implemented
Baseline
Total= 5,353,463
Institutions
concerned
with conservation work
in isolation. There is
limited synergy between
conservation
and
development activities.
Limited capacity to work in
partnership at a landscapelevel results in gradual
erosion of global
environmental benefits.
Reserve system on the Plain
is not representative of the
ABI, Annex 5, Incremental Cost Analysis,
Page 82
Component
Cost
Cost (in US$)
Domestic Benefit
The
gradual
loss
ecological
integrity
threatens environmental
service
functions.(i.e.
hydrological cycles)
GEF
Alternative
Total= 12,853,453
Landscape-level
integrated conservation
management systems
established on the Plain,
providing a clear link to
spatial development
objectives.
Global Benefit
patterns of biodiversity in the
landscape
Conservation operations in
PAs are geared towards
effective threat reduction in
representative ecosystems.
The risk of biodiversity loss
on the AP is significantly
reduced
Institutional basis for
conservation strengthened
with active multi-stakeholder
collaboration
Increment
GEF:
2,051,640
SANParks:
4,603,550
WCNCB:
216,800
Municip.:
19,700
FFI:
608,300
Total=
7,499,990
Output 2:
Ecologically,
socially and
ethically
sustainable
harvesting of wild
fynbos is
demonstrated as a
viable land use
Baseline
Total= 943,000
GEF
Alternative
Total=2,080,385
Increment
GEF:
WCNCB:
Grootbos:
FFI:
Total:
Unsustainable use of the
fynbos resources threatens
ecological processes and
conservation values
Sustainable harvesting
demonstrated as viable
land-use and livelihood
Removal of barriers to
sustainable use mitigates
threats and provide incentives
for biodiversity conservation
Poor coordination of
tourism, inadequate
marketing of the area and
limited involvement of
and benefit to local
communities
Lack of management leads to
ad hoc tourism development,
and ecological footprint in
sensitive areas; limited link
between tourism benefits and
conservation
Coordinated effort to
market AP and to create
opportunities for
disadvantaged
Coordinated nature-based
tourism activities contribute
to sustainable livelihoods and
reduction of the pressure on
415,235
8,600
13,500
700,050
1,137,385
Output 3:
A participatory
and responsible
tourism strategy
contributes to
sustainable
livelihoods
Gradual erosion of a
promising sustainable
use option, and
livelihood source, as
wild resource is
extirpated.
Baseline
Total = 13,954,159
GEF
Alternative
Total= 16,658,509
ABI, Annex 5, Incremental Cost Analysis,
Page 83
Component
Cost
Increment
Output 4:
Increased local
support for
biodiversity
conservation in
the AP Plain is
generated
through a broadbased
conservation
awareness
program
Cost (in US$)
1,216,220
Baseline
Increment
Global Benefit
communities
the globally significant
fynbos diversity
Limited understanding
of the economic and
conservation values of
fynbos ecosystems
Weak understanding of
conservation values threatens
sustainability of management
Cognisance of the
contributory values of
fynbos ecosystems to
social and economic
systems improves
support for biodiversity
conservation
Global environmental
benefits are better protected
through creation of new
conservation constituencies
and consciousness raising
GEF:
443,300
SANParks: 1,508,100
Tourism Bur: 357,950
WBFC:
395,000
Total=
2,704,350
Total=
GEF
Alternative
Domestic Benefit
Total=
1,523,720
GEF:
SANParks:
237,500
70,000
Total:
307,500
Improved prospects for
securing stable conservation
in the long-term.
Total
Baseline
GEF
Alternative
US$ 21,466,842
US$ 33,116,067
Incremental Cost
Full Project
GEF
Non-GEF
Total
US$ 3,147,675
US$ 8,501,550
US$ 11,649,225
Preparation
GEF
Non-GEF
Total
US$ 78,550
US$ 57,000
US$ 135,550
Grand Total
GEF
Non-GEF
Total
US$ 3,226,225
US$ 8,558,550
US$ 11,784,775
ABI, Annex 5, Incremental Cost Analysis,
Page 84
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 6: Logical Framework Matrix
Objectives
Goal:
By 2020 the biodiversity of the Cape
Floristic Region (CFR) is effectively
conserved, restored, and delivering
significant benefits to the region.
The goal is the CAPE goal, since ABI
is the pilot of CAPE
Purpose: Biodiversity conservation
and socio-economic development on
the Agulhas Plain are significantly
enhanced through effective
management and co-ordinated
stakeholder involvement.







Indicators
The priority species and habitats defined as
irreplaceable in the CAPE are maintained;
The levels of productivity measured in 2002 in
indicator terrestrial (wildflower harvesting) and
marine ecosystems (total catch) is maintained;
Improved regional GDP
Increased number of people in biodiversityrelated employment
Area of priority land under legally binding
conservation management in productive
landscapes on the Agulhas Plain doubled by
the end of the project to encompass approx.
112,000 ha and continues to increase;
No further loss of coastal of renosterveld and
endemic Elim fynbos (1209ha and 3572 ha
currently; 80% of the threatened vegetation
types (see table) will be conserved by the end
of the project;
Priority wetland ecosystems (Soetendals vlei,
Voelvlei vlei, Langpan, Ratel vlei and Modder
vlei) recovered to restore natural hydrological
regime by the end of the project;
Vegetation Type
Renoster fynbos
Elim asteraceous fynbos
Renosterveld
Renoster grassland
Elim transitional fynbos













Priority Rating
1
2
3
4
5
Means of verification
C.A.P.E. monitoring and evaluation
reports;
State of CFR biodiversity report;
Provincial State of Environment
reports;
Annual reports of conservation
agencies;
Reports of the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination
and Implementation Committees.
Assumptions and Risks
There is continued private sector investment in
sustainable biodiversity-based business.
MoU for the ABI Oversight
Committee;
Minutes of meetings of ABI Oversight
Committee;
Annual Workshops proceedings;
Annual M&E reports;
Protected areas database (Conservation
Planning Unit);
Local municipal land-use zoning
schemes;
ABI annual economic performance
report;
Geographic economic data sources,
e.g. Provincial Economic Development
Agency, Central Statistical Services,
Development Bank of South Africa
reports, IDP reports.
There is relative stability in the local economy.
Political stability, law and order are maintained.
Target Remaining
1209 ha
3572 ha
922 ha
1418 ha
1678 ha
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 85
Objectives
Indicators
Means of verification
Process concerned
Area to be conserved by the end of project
Output 1: A.- landscape-level
conservation management and
planning system is established. by
public-private partnerships negotiated
by a well-capacitated extension
service.
Remaining area req.
Edaphic interface generating
ecological diversification
25% of linear interface
5000 ha (or 53km linear habitat)
Entire 40 catchment and drainage intact
One entire catchment
n/a
Ecological corridors for altitudinal
gradients and herbivore migration
At least two E-W and N-S corridors from crest to coast
n/a
Sufficient intact habitat for meso predators At least two areas of contiguous habitat of 15,000 ha
15,000 ha
Inland movement of marine sands and
gradients of subsequent soil development.
n/a
At least one sand movement corridor
Alien plant species

Assumptions and Risks
Target area of infestation remaining per 5 year cycle
1. High density aliens
2. Moderate density aliens
3. Low density aliens
50% of 2000 extent, and 80% of this limited to demarcated woodlots
30% of 2000 extent
5% of the 2000 extent
Wildfires
Target area (p.a.) of burnt vegetation
4. Unplanned & uncontrolled wildfires
5. Unplanned & uncontrolled wildfires
<5000 ha in vegetation less than 6 years old
<1000 ha in vegetation less than 3 years old
The proportion of benefits arising from ABI (livelihood, income, jobs, and business opportunities) to historically disadvantaged groups’ increased
by 40% by the end of the project (currently 800 households)
Landscape-level conservation management plan
implemented by the end of the project;


At least ten contractual and ten management
agreements are signed with both SANParks and
WCNCB by the end of the project;


Protocols for farm conservation planning in place,
implemented in one pilot site (Haasvlakte) by the
end of year 2 and replicated at the Agulhas Plain
level by the end of the project;
Independent monitoring confirms that, by Year 3,
monitoring systems have high stakeholder
participation (local communities, farmers, NGOs,
land-owners, local authorities).and that collected
data is feeding into management decisions






Project reports;
Annual Plans of Operations and
Budgets – SANParks and WCNCB;
Conservation Management Plan;
Protected areas database (Conservation
Planning Unit);
Fire Management Strategy;
Alien Control Strategy;
Wetland Conservation Strategy;
Annual reports of two other National
Parks;
Conservation Management Plans for
two additional Conservancies on the
AP;
Farm Conservation Plans;
Communication and trust between stakeholders
and the project are maintained.
Threats from alien species (alien type or rate of
spread) or unsustainable harvesting do not
increase significantly.
SANParks and WCNCB have increased capacity
for integrated extension services, by end of year 2
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 86
Objectives
Output 2:
Ecologically, socially and
economically sustainable harvesting
of wild fynbos is demonstrated as a
viable land-use on Agulhas Plain.
Indicators
(25 additional people hired and trained by
SANParks, 2 additional staff members recruited and
trained by the WCNCB )
At least 18 new entrants properly trained and
accredited with ABI sustainable harvesting
qualification by the end of the project.
Harvesters receive 20% premium on sustainable
harvested wild fynbos, by the end of the project and
sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos demonstrated
as a viable land-use form.
Output 3:
A participatory and responsible
tourism strategy is implemented in the
Agulhas Plain and contributes to
sustainable livelihoods.
Code of Practice for sustainable harvesting of wild
fynbos is adopted by Flower Labeling Program by
the end of year 2;
Eco-tourism development activities are coordinated
by a well capacitated multi-stakeholder Tourism
Forum by year 2;
By the end of the project the number of visitors to
the key sites in Agulhas Plain exceeds 150,000 per
annum compared to 50,000 at project start.
A five-fold increase in current employment in
community-based tourism activities on the Plain by
the end of year 5;
Output 4:
Increased local support for
biodiversity conservation in the
Agulhas Plain is generated through a
broad-based conservation awareness
program.
All tourism operators in protected areas are applying
responsible tourism guidelines, by year 3
Increased positive coverage in the media by the end
of year 1;
All decision-makers and more than 40% of the
general public in Agulhas Plain are aware of the
value of biodiversity and 10% are actively involved
in conservation-related activities by the end of the
project.
Components/Subcomponents/Activities
1. A landscape-level conservation management and planning system is established by public-private
partnerships negotiated by a well-capacitated extension service.
Means of verification



























Assumptions and Risks
Project reports;
Provincial gazette;
Code of Practice;
Annual Report of WCNCB;
Management agreements;
Marketing and sales plans;
Flower Valley accounting;
MoU for the Sustainable Harvesting
Oversight Committee;
Minutes of the Oversight Committee;
ABI Annual Economic Performance
Report.
International wildflower markets remain stable
or expand.
Minutes of the AP Tourism Forum;
Project reports;
Maps and guides of the route;
Web;
Tourism agencies publications;
Annual Report – SANParks;
Agulhas Park visitor records;
ABI Annual Economic Performance
Report;
IDP;
Minutes of WBFC.
SA remains an attractive market for tourism and
the Agulhas Plain products are competitive.
Awareness strategy;
Project reports;
Annual Report and budget of
SANParks;
Awareness Surveys;
Project records;
Council resolutions;
Revised IDPs.
Target audiences receptive to biodiversity
conservation messages.
Other packing sheds are willing to adopt the
Code of Practice.
Dedicated champions can be recruited from
local communities to drive tourism projects.
Local media willing to collaborate.
Inputs (budget for each component)
Total Cost: US$ 7,499,990; Co-financing: US 5,448,350; GEF Request: US$ 2,051,640
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 87
Components/Subcomponents/Activities
1. 1. Institutional strengthening, cooperation and capacity building
1.1.1.
Establish park administrative structures
1.1.2.
Establish joint communication/ extension service for Agulhas Plain
Inputs (budget for each component)
Total Cost: US$ 2,594,440; Co-financing: US$ 1,777,000; GEF Request: US$ 817,440
1.2. Securing land under conservation management
1.2.1.
Consolidate Agulhas National Park into a viable ecological unit
1.2.2.
Secure high priority freshwater ecosystems, lowland Elim fynbos and renosterveld habitats;
1.2.3.
Secure high endemism limestone habitats through establishing a satellite contractual park;
1.2.4.
Secure highest priority vegetation types through contractual agreements;
1.2.5.
Securing unconserved vegetation types through consolidation of Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy;
1.2.6.
Secure endemic wildlife habitat between De Hoop/OTB and Arniston and North into hard dunes through
management agreements;
1.2.7.
Secure De Mond Ramsar Site Conservancy through management agreements with Riparian Owners
Association
Total Cost: US$ 3,490,050; Co-financing: US$ 3,359,900; GEF Request: US$ 130,150
1.3. Conservation management planning
1.3.1.
Rapid ecological surveys of priority ecosystems;
1.3.2.
Stakeholder consultation in management planning;
1.3.3.
BIMS;
1.3.4.
Joint conservation management planning for Agulhas Plain;
1.3.5.
Farm conservation planning jointly with Dep. of Agriculture;
1.3.6.
Integrate cultural heritage concerns into management planning
1.4. Controlling Alien plant spread
1.4.1.
Adapt lessons learned from GEF – financed Cape Peninsula project;
1.4.2.
Establish and implement joint (Conservation Agencies and local municipalities) clearing strategy per
quaternary catchment
1.4.3.
Finalise policy on clearing in contractual/management agreement areas
1.5. Fire management
1.5.1.
Stakeholder identification and consultation;
1.5.2.
Integrate conservation management principles into the fire management strategy;
1.5.3.
Prepare GIS fire management plan with priority focal areas for conservation;
1.5.4.
Establish, train and equip rapid-response units for fire management and control;
1.5.5.
Create firebreaks and initiate control burning.
Total Cost: US$ 265,200; Co-financing: US$ 86,600; GEF Request: US$ 178,600
Total Cost: US$ 325,100; Co-financing: US$ 135,350; GEF Request: US$ 189,750
Total Cost: US$ 162,000; Co-financing: US$ 37,500; GEF Request: US$ 124,500
1.6. Wetland rehabilitation
1.6.1.
Participatory planning to remove livestock pressure during critical months;
1.6.2.
Participatory prioritisation and selection of sites for vegetation recovery;
1.6.3.
Design and implement strategies for vegetation recovery at selected pilot site
Total Cost: US$ 255,000; Co-financing: 0; GEF Request: US$ 255,000
1.7. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of the conservation strategy
1.7.1.
Annual interviews
1.7.2.
Annual evaluation workshops (SANParks, WCNCB and stakeholders);
1.7.3.
Monitoring stakeholder participation
1.7.4.
Production and distribution of the evaluation report
1.7.5.
Conflict resolution
Total Cost: US$ 48,700; Co-financing: 0; GEF Request: US$ 48,700
1.8. Management/ABI project Oversight Committee
2. Ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos is demonstrated as a viable land use
on the Agulhas Plain
Total Cost: US$ 359,500; Co-financing: US$ 52,00; GEF Request: 307,500
Total Cost: US$ 1,137,385; Co-financing: 722,150; GEF Request: US$ 415,235
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 88
Components/Subcomponents/Activities
2.1. Review and update the legal framework pertaining to the flower industry
2.1.1.
Update regulations pertaining to the flower industry on Agulhas Plain;
2.1.2.
Update permit system and build law enforcement capacity.
Inputs (budget for each component)
Total Cost: US$ 28,200; Co-financing: 0; GEF Request: US$ 28,200
2.2.
2.2
2.3
Total Cost: US$ 24,000; Co-financing: US$1,000; GEF Request: US$ 23,000
Secure the supply network for Flower Valley
Formalize the supply network;
Establish of the supply network management forum.
2.3.
Develop a certification scheme for sustainably harvested wild fynbos flowers and join an internationally
established scheme;
2.3.1.
Establishing the institutional arrangements to develop and administer the certification scheme for
sustainably harvested wild fynbos;
2.3.2.
Develop the code of practice for the sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos flowers;
2.3.3.
Negotiate the incorporation of the sustainable harvesting Code of Good Practice into the FLP;
2.3.4.
Join the Flower Labelling Program;
2.3.5.
Develop the monitoring and auditing systems for the certification scheme.
Total Cost: US$ 66,000; Co-financing: US$ 1,000; GEF Request: US$ 65,000
2.4. Marketing of sustainably harvested wild fynbos flowers;
2.4.1.
Co-label packaging;
2.4.2.
Modernize and integrate the supply chain;
2.4.3.
Marketing Plan;
2.4.4.
Sales Plan.
Total Cost: US$ 175,300; Co-financing: US$ 86,800; GEF Request: US$ 88,500
2.5. Pilot recording system for harvested species
2.5.1.
Training requirements and capacity building
2.5.2.
Species identification and harvesting localities;
2.5.3.
Develop WCNCB GIS capacity.
2.6. Implementation of COP for sustainable harvesting within the supply network
2.6.1.
Building capacity of the picking teams;
2.6.2.
Building capacity of the landowners/contract pickers
2.6.3.
2.6.4.
Total Cost: US$ 31,430; Co-financing: US$ 18,43 0; GEF Request: US$ 13,000
Total Cost: US$ 38,500; Co-financing: US$ 14,450; GEF Request: US$ 24,100
Training to ensure compliance with quality standards;
Provide opportunities for new entrants into the network.
2.7. Monitoring of sustainable harvesting
2.7.1.
Monitor the impacts of harvesting on different guilds;
2.7.2.
Monitor impact of harvesting on inter-specific competition;
2.7.3.
Long-term monitoring;
2.7.4.
Species index of vulnerability to harvesting;
2.7.5.
Resource base assessment of the supply network;
2.7.6.
Orchard rehabilitation;
2.7.7.
Dual flow identification;
2.7.8.
Economic performance of sustainable harvesting
Total Cost: US$ 756,405; Co-financing: US$ 595,970; GEF Request: US$ 160,435
2.8. Replication of sustainable harvesting practices
2.8.1.
Establish the sustainable harvesting oversight committee;
2.8.2.
Promoting and rolling out the certification scheme to attract landowners within the high conservation area
target
Total Cost: US$ 17,500; Co-financing: US$ 4,500; GEF Request: US$ 13,000
3. Development and implementation of nature-based tourism activities
Total Cost: US$ 2,794,350; Co-financing: US$ 2,261,050 ; GEF Request: US$ 443,300
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 89
Components/Subcomponents/Activities
3.1.
Strengthen coordination among tourism activities and agencies in the AP
3.1.1.
Establish Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum;
3.1.2.
Establish Agulhas Plain Heritage Centers.
Inputs (budget for each component)
Total Cost: US$ 1,825,900; Co-financing: US$ 1,564,900; GEF Request: US$ 261,000
3.2.
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.2.3.
3.2.4.
3.2.5.
3.2.6.
Establish and market the Agulhas Plain route
Planning of a multi-faceted circular Agulhas Plain Tourist Route;
Marketing analysis;
Positioning and portfolio;
Implementation plan;
Communication;
Brand measurement tools.
Total Cost: US$ 335,450; Co-financing: US$ 282,950; GEF Request: US$ 52,500
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
3.3.3.
3.3.4.
Support tourism initiatives in Agulhas Plain
Create opportunities for new entrants;
Build the capacity of the local communities to participate in tourism in tourism initiatives;
Support local community programs;
Support the development of a hiking trail in WBFC.
Total Cost: US$ 511,400; Co-financing: US$ 407,200; GEF Request: US$ 104,200
3.4.
3.4.1.
3.4.2.
3.4.3.
3.4.4.
Monitoring of tourism activities
Monitoring of tourism trends;
Monitoring of ecological, economic and social effects of tourism activities;
Monitoring stakeholder participation
Production and distribution of evaluation report
Total Cost: US$ 31,600; Co-financing: US$ 6,000; GEF Request: US$ 25,600
4. Build local support for biodiversity conservation through a public awareness program
Total Cost: US$ 317,500; Co-financing: US$ 70,000; GEF Request: US$ 247,500
4.1. Awareness and outreach
4.1.1.
Strengthen capacity of the Heritage Centers to participate actively in public awareness activities;
4.1.2.
Participatory design and production of promotional materials for different stakeholder groups;
4.1.3.
Pilot alternative communication methods design and implement a Community arts program;
Total Cost: US$ 168,000; Co-financing: US$ 70,000; GEF Request: US$ 98,00
4.2.
4.2.1.
4.2.2.
4.2.3.
Environmental Education at Early Learning Centers
Community consultations;
Participatory needs assessment;
Training historically disadvantaged local women as practioners;
Total Cost: US$ 111,500; Co-financing: US$ 0; GEF Request: US$ 111,500
4.3.
4.3.1.
Monitoring strategy
Monitoring of target groups
Total Cost: US$ 28,000; Co-financing: US$ 0; GEF Request: US$ 28,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 90
Work Plan
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
I. LANDSCAPE-LEVEL CONSERVATION
1. Insititutional Strengthening for ANP
1.1. Establish park administrative structures
1.1.1. Provide staff
1.1.2.Provide Park infrastructure
Infrastructure planning
Infrastructure design
Main entrance gate
Entrance gates
Visitor center-Lighthouse
Information points
Parking area
Road construction
Road maintenance
Relocate navig. equip. and restore lighthouse
Access control
Signage, information boards, bird hides, etc.
Boundary fencing
1.1.3. Provide facilities and equipment
Furniture
Hardware
Software
Overhead projector
TV and video
Data projector
1.1.4. Provide Park vehicles
4x4
bakkie/pickup
venture/people mover
tractor + implements
1.1.5. Provide field equipment
GPS
radio equipment
binoculars
chainsaw
brushcutter
miscellaneous equipment
1.2 Establish joint extension service for ABI area
1.2.1. Provide staff
Conservation Planning Manager
WCNCB part time extension staff
TOTAL
US$
Y1
Q4
Q
1
YEAR 2
Q
Q
2
3
Q
4
Q
1
YEAR 3
Q
Q
2
3
Q
4
Q
1
YEAR 4
Q
Q
2
3
Q
4
Q
1
YEAR 5
Q
Q
2
3
Q
4
Q
1
YEAR 6
Q
Q
2
3
574,000
1,461,000
23,600
74,500
6,940
310,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 91
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
Extension officers
1.2.2. Provide Training & equipment
Orientation and legal workshops
Extension and negotiation skills
On site training (4pax)
Basic GIS and Farm planning skills
Office stationery, maps, data layers
GIS capable computers
Handheld GIS Info capture devices
1.2.3. Provide vehicles (one 4x4)
2. Securing land under conservation
2.1 Consolidate park into viable unit
Identification of core parcels for consolidation and liaison
Land valuation
Land purchase (Rietfontein)
Develop and negotiate agreements
2.2. Phase 1, incorporate Quoin pt
Determine boundaries and select target areas
Fine scale planning of target areas
Legal fees and transaction costs
Purchase of key properties (Ratel River)
2.3. Create Contractual park at Hagelkraal
Identification of priority parcels/liaison mechanism
Liaison with landowners
Develop specific incentives for alien clearing
Resource economist to work in collab. With FV one
Negotiate agreements
2.4. Establish Elim fynbos Contractual park
Finalize Pilot farm planning
Training in conservation farm planning
Develop protocols to extrapolate the farm planning
Stakeholder workshops to liaise with farmers
2.5. Consolidate Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy
2.5.1. Development of the management plan
Vegetation boundaries & age classes
Alien vegetation
Roads, fences, infrastructure
Data input and map creation
2.5.2. Implementing the plan
Land purchase (Witvoetskloof)
Workshops with landowners
Negotiate specific incentives for management agreements
Develop management plan
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
78,400
66,000
2,020,000
807,600
65,000
30,600
543,750
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 92
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
2.6. Secure endemic wildlife habitat
Identify best landscape corridors/negotiate agreements
Legal fees and transaction costs
Develop policies for conservation partnerships/liaise
2.7. Consolidate De Mond Ramsar Site
Conservancy
Formalize the existence of Riparian Owner Association
Determine water level regulations
Develop agrements
Negotiate agreements
3. Conservation management planning
3.1. Rapid ecological surveys of priority
ecosystems
Gap analysis
Design standard formats for data acquisitions, storage
Design survey (2)
Conduct survey
3.2. Stakeholder consultation
Institutional synergy assessment
Liaison Committee meetings (3/year)
Sectoral working group meetings (6/year)
3.3. Design a Biological Monitoring System
Workshop to identify the needs for BIMS
Design workplans for data management
GIS support for BIMS
Data input, verification, BIMS review
3.4. Conservation management planning for AP
Stakeholder workshop for boundary analysis
Stakeholder workshop for zoning
Management plan development
Compilation of management plan
Printing and distributing management plan
Stakeholder workshop for presenting management plan
3.5. Develop farm conservation planning protocols
Stakeholder workshop for training, demonstration
Farm planners
Trainee planners, field assistants
Conduct farm planning in priority areas
Develop protocols for extrapolating farm planning exercise
Regional Farm scale conservation planning w/shop
3.6. Integrate cultural heritage in management
Gather info on marine cultural sites
Gather info on cultural sites
Guidelines for integration cultural heritage in management
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
7,100
16,000
21,000
10,800
69,000
45,000
107,400
12,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 93
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
4. Controlling Alien plant spread
4.1. Capture lessons from Cape Peninsula Project
Criteria for Identification of priority areas
Training for info capture and review
Develop and implement new alien clearance techniques
4.2. Finalise policy on clearing in contractual areas
Negotiate agreements
Liaison with stakeholders
4.2 Expand alien vegetation clearance program
4.2.1. Establish joint clearing strategy per
catchment
Stakeholder workshops in each catchment
Select priority areas for clearing
Identify the priorities for follow-up
4.2.2. Municipal/Departmental liaison mechanism
Liaison meetings (3/year)
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
256,000
15,600
38,500
15,000
5. Fire management
Identify stakeholders
Development of participatory mechanisms
Establish rapid-response units for fire management
Firefighting training
Firefighting vehicles
Assessment and mapping of the area
GIS fire management plan - update to integrate conservation
Create firebreaks and initiate controlled burning
162,000
6. Wetland rehabilitation
Identify priority areas and techniques
Implementation of restoration plan in a pilot area
255,000
7. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Annual interviews
Annual M&E workshop (Park and stakeholders)
Annual M&E workshops (WBFC stakeholders)
Monitoring stakeholder participation
Evaluation report preparation and distribution
Conflict intervention
48,700
8. Component Management
8.1. ABI Project Implementation Unit
ABI Project Coordinator
ABI Project Assistant
Y1
295,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 94
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
ABI Technical Advisor/Capacity Building
Travel for the technical advisor and PIU
Vehicle
Laptop + printer
8.2. ABI Oversight Committee
One-to-one consultations
Familiarisation tours of the area (Two)
Sub-area meetings
Draft terms of reference/groundrules
Further one-to-one discussions
Public meeting
Forum meetings
Public report back meeting (one/year)
8.3. Monitoring and Evaluation
Undertake independent M&E
Audit
II. SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING OF WILD FYNBOS
1. Legal framework
1.1. Updating regulations
1.2. Updating permit system
1.3. Capacity building of WCNCB staff
2. Securing the supply network
2.1. Formalising the supply network
2.2. Establish supply network management forum
Confirm relevant stakeholders
One-to-one consultations with key stakeholders
Draft terms of reference/groundrules
Meetings with stakeholders
Further one-to-one discussions
Founding meeting
Management Forum Meetings (4 per year)
3. Develop a certification scheme
3.1. Capacity building for the Certification
Unit/WCNCB
Training for WCNCB Certification Unit
Provide equipment for the Certification Unit
3.2. Develop the CoP
3.3. Support FVCT to liaise with farmers
3.4. Develop monitoring and audit system
3.5. Stakeholder workshops
3.6. Negotiate with FLP
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
18,500
46,000
5,000
4,000
19,200
7,750
16,250
8,000
18,000
12,000
12,000
4,000
12,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 95
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
4. Marketing of sustainably harvested fynbos
4.1. Co-label packaging
develop the logo
negotiate the incorporation of the logo
4.2. Modernize and integrate the supply chain
Travel costs to Germany, Switzerland, UK
Marketing expert
4.3. Marketing Plan
Promotional materials
stand at the Essen Trade Show
video clip
4.4. Sales Plan
website (bilingual)
maintenance of website
organizing the florist exchange program
5. Pilot recording system for harvested species
5.1. Provide equipment
5.2. Develop a small herbarium at Flower Valley
5.3. Capacity building of FV staff
5.4. Develop zonation maps for supply network
5.5. Flower Valley Harvest manager
5.6. WCNCB Field inspector
5.7. Develop capacity of WCNCB GIS Unit for
recording
6. Capacity building
6.1. Training courses for picking teams
Consultant to develop module
Provision of technical input
Handbook
Training of flower pickers
6.2. Training for landowners/contract pickers
Consultant to develop module
Provision of technical input
Training workshop
6.3. Opportunities for new entrants
Identify potential entrepreneurs
Meetings with community based organisations
Development of training module for new entrants
Running of annual training programs
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
27,000
82,000
50,000
16,300
9,500
1,000
1,000
6,250
1,680
5,600
6,400
26,700
4,100
7,750
7. Monitoring
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 96
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
7.1. Impacts of harvesting on different guilds
7.2. Impacts of harvesting on interspecific
competition
7.3. Long term monitoring program
Farm Manager
Full-time harvesters (nine)
Part-time harvesters (four)
Vehicles (4x4 and tractor)
Provide equipment (brushcutter,trailer, scale etc)
7.4. Species vulnerability index
7.5. Resource base assessment of supply network
7.6. Orchardand/old farm land rehabilitation
7.7. Demonstrate the higher ec. value for sust.
7.8. Monitoring economic performance
Develop an annual survey on economic benefits
Collect data
Process data
Produce and distribute report
Monitoring stakeholder participation
Evaluation report
8. Replication
Stakeholder workshop
Sustainable harvesting committee - meetings
Promotional materials
Stakeholder workshops to extrapolate FV model
III. NATURE-BASED TOURISM
1. Co-ordination in the tourism sector
1.1. Establish the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum
Nature-based tourism specialist
Identify and confirm relevant stakeholders
Coonsultations with key stakeholders
Draft ToR - produce and distribute
Conduct two meetings with stakeholders
Further one-to-one discussions
Mechansims to increase participation
Founding meeting
Convene ongoing meetings of Forum
1.2. Establish two Heritage Centers
1.2.1. Elim Heritage Center
Tourism Officer
Elim Centre administrator (salary)
Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..)
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
4,750
4,750
630,375
4,000
6,250
47,680
13,000
45,600
17,500
87,900
94,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 97
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
Furnishings (office, workbenches, desks, etc.)
Equipment (tele./fax ,photo copier & hand tools)
Computers + software + printers
1.2.2. Cape Agulhas Center
Manager of Cape Agulhas Center
Building
Furniture
Computers + software + printers
Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..)
1.3. Tourism infrastructure in ANP
Design and layout for infrastructure
Day-trails
Over-night trails
Trail over-night facilities
Camping facilities (Die Damme)
Village accommodation for visitors
Restaurant
Shop
Restaurant manager
Shop manager
Shop staff (4)
Restaurant staff (12)
Accommodation staff (15)
2. Marketing
2.1. Agulhas Plain Tourist Route
Stakeholder workshops/consultations
2.2. Market analysis
Kick-off Workshop
Exploration of existing material time: 3 days
20 Stakeholder interviews time: 11.5 days
12 Expert interviews time: 7 days
14 Consumer research groups time: 29.5 days
Consolidation of findings time: 11 days
2.3. Positioning & portfolio implications
Positioning Workshop 1.5 days time: 17.5 days
2.4. Develop implementation plan
Implementation Workshop 1 day time: 14.5 days
7 Consumer research-validation groups time: 24 days
Post validation debrief time: 9.5 days
2.5. Communication
Visual Identity Development
Advertising Production
Flighting, Placement and Mailing
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
190,000
1,454,000
27,000
70,550
10,200
32,800
100,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 98
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
2.6. Brand measurement tools
Quantitative tracking study time: 16.5 days
Qualitatative tracking study time: 14.5 days
Annual reivew workshop 1day: time: 5.5 days
3. Support community initiatives
3.1. Create opportunities for new entrants
Identify potential communities/interested entrants
Meetings with community based organisations
Capacity building activity sessions
Implement agreed introduction process
3.2. Capacity building
Training needs assessment
Training tour guides
3.3. Support local community progr.
Planning
Develop a tourism program
3.4. Hiking Trail (6 day)
Construction of overnight facilities
Layout plan, application procedure & alignment
Construction of trail
Training trail guides
Training in interpretation
Brochures/website
4. Tourism Monitoring
Tourism patterns, scale and trends
Impact on biodiversity
Impact on the regional economy
Impact on social environment
Stakeholder participation
Evlauation report distributed
IV. AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
1. Awareness and outreach
Communication officer
Stakeholder meeting
Design information materials
Produce awareness materials & packages
Agulhas Plain conservation book
ABI newsletter (2/year)
Conservation Farners's Day
2. Pilot alternative communication and ELC
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
94,900
3,400
41,000
28,000
439,000
31,600
168,000
111,500
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 99
OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES
TOTAL
US$
Y1
Q4
YEAR 2
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 3
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 4
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 5
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
YEAR 6
Q
4
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
Co-ordinator
Workshops
Training
3. Monitoring of target groups
Interviews/questionnaires workshops
Monitoring stakeholder participation
28,000
ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,
Page 100
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 7
STAP Comments
By Ghillean T. Prance
A. Key Issues
1. The importance of the Cape Floristic Province
The fact that the Cape region is regarded as a separate floristic province on its own shows the uniqueness
of this region. It has been classified as a biodiversity hotspot in all assessments of that topic. The claims
made in several places in the proposal about the importance of the region are not exaggerated. It is one of
the most globally significant areas, yet the ecosystem is under severe threat. Any effort to conserve this
unique environment should be encouraged. The Agulhas Plain is an integral part of the Cape Floristic
Province. The ABI project focuses on a vital part of the area covered by the Cape Action for People and
Environment (C.A.P.E),a program that proposes to increase the conserved area of the Cape region from
10,800 Km sq. to 29,600. This goal is obviously of great importance for the conservation of flora. The
proposed Agulhas Plain Initiative will focus on one of the most threatened components of the Cape biome.
It is the lowland flatter part of the Cape region that is particularly under threat, so this project addresses
the area where the greatest challenges for conservation lie. The more hilly part of the region are under less
threat.
2. Scientific and technical soundness of the proposal.
The project is based on sound scientific knowledge of the biodiversity of the region and of the threats
which it under. The proposal shows that much preliminary work has been carried out to understand the
variation and the distribution of the vegetation types in the area. The fynbos and the renosterveld are of
particular importance, but the Agulhas Plain has a remarkable variety of different vegetation types. The
project combines and balances well the mixture of science and social issues. Most of the science has
already been addressed and this phase of the project is to address important issues of biological
conservation, landscape conservation and sustainable use of the ecosystem. There is a good balance
between the aspects of conservation and sustainable use from both tourism and sustainable harvesting of
the fynbos plants. There is also an appropriate element of teaching and capacity building built into the
plan. The proposal gives the impression of a well-designed plan based on good science and technology
and with considerable prior work and contacts. The collaborating institutions include such well-established
entities as the National Botanical Institute that is well equipped to help the proposed project.
The four principle intended outputs of this proposal are all logical and important for the Cape Region and
are complimentary to each other. 1. The development of landscape-level conservation management and
planning system through partnerships with the stakeholders. 2. The sustainable harvesting of the flowers
of the wild fynbos to benefit local peoples. 3. The development of a tourism strategy for the Agulhas plain
to improve the local economy of the area. 4. The fostering of local support for biodiversity conservation
through increasing awareness of the advantages of this.
2.
Environmental Benefits and drawbacks of the project
There are considerable environmental benefits especially to the biodiversity of the Cape region. It will
help to conserve many of plant species and vegetation types of the Cape flora and the habitat for many
birds and mammals. There is no other place in the world where so many species can be conserved in such
a small area. Another benefit is that some of the plant species could be used sustainably if the proposed
actions are carried out. The proposal would benefit the local economy and some the poorer local residents.
ABI, Annex 7, STAP Review
Page 101
One of the special strengths of this project is the relationships that have been established with a wide range
of stakeholders from public and private institutions. There are no drawbacks other than the few threats that
are well outlined in the proposal.
3. Context within the goals of GEF
This is a project with the principle goal of conservation of the Cape flora one of the most important
hotspots in the world. It contains many additional elements within the goals of GEF and the Convention
on Biological Diversity such as sustainable use of the ecosystem and good ideas for the benefit sharing by
the local population. It also has a strong element of work on policy for the region and legislation and
includes a good amount of capacity building. A good balance between the involvement of the public and
private sector. Also GEF has made considerable investment in the Cape Region of South Africa and this is
a logical continuation. GEF has supported the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Project which has both yielded
positive results and provide a good feasibility study for this new proposal to continue the work. I know
from both visiting the Cape Peninsula National Park and from the data provided in the proposal that the
previous grant has had very positive results in the Cape Peninsula National Park. This new five year
project of the Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative(ABI) is also directly relevant to GEF because the Cape
Peninsula is within the priority framework of the South African Government who have identified the Cape
Floristic region as a top priority for GEF intervention. The project will, therefore, have government
support.
Regional Context
The Cape region is the single most important part of southern Africa in terms of biodiversity. It is essential
to establish a rational conservation policy for this region above all others. The conservation of this region
can set an example for the rest of southern Africa. This is the right place for GEF to be investing its funds.
The ABI is designed to protect the biodiversity of the Agulhas Plain and to define institutional
arrangements for conservation at what is a sub-regional level. It will be of considerable application to
other initiatives of the C.A.P.E. program.
Replicability
The project as outlined will yield much useful information that could be applied elsewhere especially
within South Africa’s system of protected areas. It will yield useful data on conservation methods,
institutional arrangements and sustainable use. It should help to strengthen the National Parks system of
South Africa. The ABI seems to be well integrated into the twenty year program of the Cape Action for
People and the Environment. This means that it should create good conditions for replicating best
practices in other areas of the Cape Floristic Region. The ABI project should produce new models for PA
management strengthened by integrated institutional arrangements for conservation at the sub-regional
level. It is a good blend of involvement of conservation agencies, municipalities and agricultural and
community businesses. This could easily be instituted elsewhere in the Cape Floristic Region as is clearly
the intention of the proposal.
Sustainability of the project
This is a five-year project in its entirety and is well phased in the proposal which makes sustainability
realistic. There is much to be done with the local peoples to make it truly sustainable, but the proposal
gives the impression that the investigators are well aware of this and are designing the project to produce
sustainable results. This is a project about the sustainable utilization and the long-term conservation of the
region. The extensive work with stakeholders already carried out and the proposed further actions with
this grant will contribute greatly to the sustainability of the project.
ABI, Annex 7, STAP Review
Page 102
Other issues
The previous work, partly for GEF sponsored funding and partially from local funding has established
relationships with a large number of stakeholders from both the private and public sectors. There is still
much to do in this area, but the proposal shows that the project is well aware of this. It will be vitally
important to see that benefit from the economic activities of plant sales and tourism filters down to the
local people. The only way to save the flora of the region will be to balance sustainable use with the
conservation. There is much to be done in capacity building and with local racial relationships for this
project to succeed.
D. Conclusions
This is a well-reasoned case for the continuation of GEF support for the conservation of one of the most
important hotspots of biodiversity in the world. Rather that being completely innovative it is building
upon considerable foundation of previous work which is much more likely to yield long-term sustainable
results. This is a project that will add considerable new information to the body of knowledge regarding
conservation approaches and methods that will be of use far beyond the local region. The ABI will
undoubtedly provide new models that will be an important contribution to conservation more generally. Of
particular relevance will be the new models for sustainable use of the fynbos vegetation through barrier
removal activities and new models for the restoration of the degraded farmlands and wetlands. From the
point of view of vegetation there is no region of the world more appropriate for GEF support, and the
project also has a strong element of help to the local peoples.
ABI, Annex 7, STAP Review
Page 103
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 8: Description of Site Biology
1.
Introduction: South Africa is one of the 17 megadiversity countries of the world, mainly due to
the strength of its floral diversity and endemism. South Africa has within its borders three of the world’s
25 threatened biodiversity hotspots, namely the Cape Floristic Region, the Succulent Karoo and
Maputaland-Pondoland. It also has six of the world’s Centers of Plant Diversity and Endemism as
identified by WWF/IUCN including Cape Floristic Region (CFR), the Western Cape or Succulent Karoo
Domain and Maputaland-Pondoland Region, Drakensberg Afromontane Region, Drakensberg Alpine
Region and the Albany Center. South Africa’s plant diversity is estimated at 23,420 species (9% of the
world’s total) with 16,500 endemics, of which 5,870 are found just within the fynbos of the CFR
(Megadiversity, Conservation International). The CFR is the only floral kingdom found entirely within
one country. It occupies a surface of 90,000 square kilometres and 70% of its 9,600 plant species are
endemic.
2.
Environment: The Agulhas Plain is an important component of the Cape Floristic Region, being
an area of high irreplaceability and high vulnerability, with exceptionally rich coastal lowland ecosystems
containing remnant patches of coastal Renosterveld and lowland fynbos (Cowling et al 1999). These are
considered the highest priorities for conservation in South Africa and globally (Lombard et al 1997). The
diversity of habitat types, wetland ecosystems, Red data plant species and local endemics is unmatched in
the Cape Floristic Region. Land use pressures on biodiversity and future development potential result in
the area having one of the highest threat levels (Cole et al 2000). However, sufficiently intact ecosystems
and potentially compatible land uses remain to construct a representative and viable system of protected
areas to conserve an adequate sample of the region’s biodiversity.
3.
The Agulhas Plain (see Attachment E 1 for the map) from the Klein River mouth to the Breede
River covers an area of 270,000ha of coastal lowlands and low quartzitic hills. It is separated from the
interior plains of the Overberg by the almost continuous Kleinrivier-Heuningberg Mountains in the West
and Tertiary hardened dunes and Potberg Mountain in the East. Lower Sandstone ranges and Limestone
outcrops intersect the plain generating an undulating terrain drained by four major river systems. Basal
Bokkeveld formation shales capped with silcrete, ferricrete and laterite outcrops enhance the geological
diversity. Accumulation of deep marine sands on coastal margins adds to the highly differentiated and
juxtaposed edaphic heterogeneity. The mostly winter rainfall averages 400mm per annum over most of the
plain with the higher mountains receiving up to 600mm (Lombard et al 1997).
4.
The very low gradients in the south-eastern plain result in significant wetland development, and
create the second largest lacustrine wetland in South Africa, Soetendals vlei. The great variability of
substrate materials, salinity range and flow regimes create a distinct assemblage of ecosystems from
highly acidic black water rivers to basic limestone pools, and fresh water peat bogs to hypersaline
endorheic pans (Jones et al 2000). Seasonal flooding creates extensive palustrine wetlands of significant
importance for waterfowl.
5.
Walker Bay State Forest lays 5km South-east of Hermanus town and stretches along the coastal
dune cordon until Gansbaai. Agulhas National Park extends over 20km to the West of Struisbaai and the
Southern tip. De Mond State Forest occupies the coastal dunes between Struisbaai and the Arniston, while
de Hoop is 20km East of the regional centre of Bredasdorp (see Annex E1 for Map).
6.
Nature Reserves: De Hoop is by far the largest protected area on the Agulhas Plain. At 36,000ha it
is larger than all others combined, has an almost complete animal species complement and maintains
significant populations of many threatened herbivore species. It maintains intact the only gradient from
ABI, Annex 8, Site Description
Page 104
coast to mountain crest in a protected area on the South Cape Coast, as well as permitting the natural
ecological functioning of a range of other large-area dependent processes. It is currently the only lowland
portion of the proposed serial World Heritage Site nomination for the Cape Floral Kingdom. Walker Bay
State Forest and De Mond and Salmonsdam Nature Reserves together make up another 8,586 ha in
protected areas under the control of the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board.
7.
The current extent of the Agulhas National Park (July 2002) is 11,000 ha, with negotiations
underway for purchase of further properties of about 3,000ha. It is estimated that in the future the park
will have a total area of 71,000 ha (26,000 ha core area and a further 45,000 contracted). The Park
conserves the entire Soetanysberg Mountain, a recognised local centre of plant diversity, as well as many
crucial edaphic interfaces between acid and alkali soils. The southern Tip of Africa, many globally
significant wetland systems, and climatic and altitudinal gradients are conserved within the park. The
lowland plains in the north of the area once supported the largest concentrations of herbivores in the CFR,
and the final consolidation of this area would enable reintroduction of endemic species such as mountain
zebra and bontebok. The many diverse wetland systems found within the park support large
concentrations of waterbirds.
8.
With a surface of 518 ha, Heuningberg nature reserve, preserves the only representative habitat of
the mountain vegetation types and their interface with lowland habitats. The reserve is managed by the
Agulhas Municipality, who have indicated that they cannot continue to support it financially due to budget
constraints and development priorities.
9.
Six large (>200ha) private nature reserves totalling 4,500 ha (Andrew’s Field, Grootbos, Fairhill,
Freshwater Sands, Groot Hagelkraal, and Heuningnes River) are also found on the plain. However, this
protected area type is not statutorily enforceable, carries no perpetual conservation restrictions, and cannot
be considered secure. Four of these reserves form part of conservancies. The Groot Hagelkraal reserve,
owned by the power utility Eskom for potential nuclear power generation, is situated in critically
important limestone habitats that would be a logical contractual inclusion in the extended Agulhas
National Park. This designation would not necessarily have to exclude the (very unlikely) possibility of
the erection of any nuclear facility in future, provided it was of sufficiently limited size.
10.
Several conservancies (co-operative management agreements between neighbouring landowners)
are functioning or recently instated. The largest, Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy comprises 13
committed landowners and covers about 5,000 ha (excluding the Walker Bay State Forest accounted for
above). The Kleinriviersberg, Akkedisberg, Worcesterberg and Sandies Glen Conservancies cover another
7,000 ha.
11.
The Elim community manage a 200ha communal nature reserve on Geelkop, which is the only
such site harbouring any examples of the endemic Elim Fynbos vegetation type.
12.
Levels of conservation management in these private conservation initiatives are variable, and
many areas are infested with alien plants. Nevertheless, many of them are more effective at capturing
vegetation types for conservation than statutory protected areas, and these initiatives must be nurtured and
further supported. As of December 1999, 94.2% of the land is in private ownership and management.
Flora of Agulhas Plain
13.
The juxtaposed edaphic habitats and steep climatic gradients have generated remarkable plant
diversity, with almost 2,500 species known from the area. Vegetation associations identified on the plain
include acid sand, neutral and limestone proteoid fynbos, ericaceous fynbos, dune and elim asteraceous
fynbos, restoid associations, renosterveld, forest and thicket. The most recent detailed vegetation mapping
of the area West of Arniston yielded no less than 36 different vegetation types (Euston-Brown 1999), and
a classification of 12 different wetland types (Jones et al 2000).
ABI, Annex 8, Site Description
Page 105
14.
Although few detailed floras exist for farm units, a seemingly unremarkable 1,100 ha farm in the
west of the plain has recorded over 650 species, including the only population of a recently discovered
Erica (S. Privett pers comm.). Such massive species richness is commonplace, but narrow distributions,
naturally rare species and increasing habitat loss create particularly challenging circumstances for
conservation.
15.
The Plain is renowned for harbouring an endemic vegetation type, Elim Asteraceous Fynbos, an
endemic-rich, low growing transition between fynbos and renosterveld characteristic of shale and shallow
lateritic soils. Distinctive guilds include fine-leaved ericoid shrubs and numerous geophytes.
Characteristic species include 6 endemic Proteaceae: Leucadendron elimense, L. laxum, L. modestum, L.
stelligerum, Leucospermum heterophyllum, and Protea pudens (Mustart et al 1997). Most Elim Fynbos
has been converted for agriculture.
16.
Limestone fynbos also reaches its best expression on the Agulhas Plain. It poses significant
physiological challenges to species from neighbouring acid sand fynbos, resulting in high endemism and
narrow ranges. A single limestone ridge is known for its 6 endemic species and a further 21 narrow range
Red List species occur within 3000 ha. Characteristic endemic protea taxa include Protea obtusifolia, and
Leucadendron meridianum. Wetter areas harbour Leucospermum patersonii and the threatened Mimetes
saxitilis. The southernmost range (Soetanysberg- sweet anise mountain) of hills is named after the
distinctive smelling endemic members of the Rutaceae, Agathosma cerefolium and Euchaetis
longibracteata.
17.
Of the 2500 species known from the area, at least 100 are red listed as threatened taxa, with many
more likely to be added, particularly in the De Hoop section (Hilton-Taylor 1996). The new IUCN criteria
are in the process of being applied to fully update the most recent red data book. More than 112 species
are not found anywhere beyond the Agulhas Plain.
18.
The vegetation types on the Agulhas Plain of most conservation concern due to percentage
transformation and current threat are Renoster fynbos (14% or 1,209 ha original cover remaining), Elim
asteraceous fynbos (15%, 3,572 ha remaining), Renosterveld (21%, 922 ha), Renoster grassland (27%,
1,418 ha) and Elim transitional fynbos (34%, 1,678 ha) (Cole et al 2000). All of these vegetation types
required 100% of all remaining vegetation fragments to meet modest conservation targets based on a
percentage of pre-European area, weighted with an index of future transformation threat.
Vertebrate Fauna of Agulhas Plain
19.
Mammals: Of the 81 terrestrial mammals known from the CFR, 72 have been recorded
historically from the Agulhas Plain. Currently 52+ species are recorded from De Hoop alone. The
Agulhas-De Hoop target area is vital habitat for several threatened mammals. Historically, the area
supported vast herds of plains game in one of the few areas of the Cape with adequate grazing and year
round fresh water. Currently, it retains some of the only extant habitat opportunities to provide sufficient
forage for viable populations of the Endemic and threatened Bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas dorcas reserve population 620+) and Cape Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra zebra –reserve population of 72 is the
fastest growing of all (Boshoff et al 2001, C.) Martens pers comm). The population of Eland (Taurotragus
oryx) in De Hoop Nature Reserve is the third largest in South Africa at 320+ animals.
20.
Significant numbers of Southern right whales frequent the Agulhas coast for breeding. The large
breeding colony of South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus) on Geyser Rock produces over 8000
pups a year or 3 % of the seal pup population in southern Africa. The De Hoop area is the probably the
only terrestrial/marine reserve interface where seals can haul out unmolested.
21.
The Agulhas plain is one of the very few Cape strongholds of the Honey badger (Mellivora
capensis), widely persecuted for its local destruction of apiaries and fowl runs. Initiatives are underway on
the plain to mitigate badger damage on hives and thus halt their population decline through trapping.
ABI, Annex 8, Site Description
Page 106
22.
The plain is a crucial area in the CFR for potential re-introductions of locally extripated species,
especially the endangered Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis minor- the endemic Cape subspecies
bicornis is extinct), disease free Cape Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), and Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus
amphibius).
23.
Birds: Over 270 bird species are recorded for Agulhas Plain. The wetlands of the Heuningnes
River were type localities for numerous birds, including Wattled crane (Bugeranus carunculatus) and
Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) now locally extinct in Agulhas, endangered in South Africa and vulnerable
globally (Harrison et al 1997, Collar et al 1994). At least one lark species, the Agulhas Long-billed Lark is
endemic to the plain and near threatened. It is of conservation concern because of changing land use
patterns (Ryan & Bloomer 1999). Genetic and vocal analyses also confirm that a second species, the
Agulhas Clapper lark, is a recently identified endemic to the plain (P Ryan, pers comm.). The study area is
home to the only extant colony of the Endangered Cape vulture (Gyps coprotheres) extant South of the
Gariep and Vaal Rivers. Taylor (1997) noted the river systems and palustrine wetlands as being critically
important sites for rare rallids and other water birds in southern Africa. Significant populations of the Red
listed Striped Flufftail (Sarothrura affinis) occur, and the De Hoop vlei is the only locality where Greater
Flamingo’s (Phoenicopterus ruber) have successfully bred in South Africa.
24.
Two Ramsar Sites are located on the Agulhas Plain, being De Hoop vlei and the De Mond
estuary. They support significant breeding colonies of the rare and endangered Damara Tern (Sterna
balaenarum) and African Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus moquini). The Agulhas Plain houses, or is a
significant part of, three Important Bird Areas: De Hoop (SA 119), Heuningnes River and Estuary (SA
121), and Overberg Wheatbelt (SA 115) (Barnes 1998). These areas hold the largest populations of Blue
cranes (Anthropoides paradiseus) in the world, and significant numbers of Stanley’s Bustard (Neotis
denhami), White Stork (Ciconia ciconia), Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) and Black Harrier (Circus
maurus).
25.
Reptiles and Amphibians: Although the Agulhas Plain is not a recognised centre of
herpetological endemism, two endangered, endemic amphibians have significant proportions of their
global populations in the project site, namely the micro frog (Microbatrachella capensis) and Cape
platanna (Xenopus gilli). Both are well represented in the Ratel River and Hagelkraal wetlands. The Red
Data listed leopard toad (Bufo pardalis) has a viable population in De Hoop. The threatened southern
dwarf adder (Bitis armata) which is extinct from similar habitat further West occurs in some numbers on
the calcareous and limestone outcrops of the coastal plain (Baard et al 2000).
Invertebrates:
26.
Very little inventory or assessment work for invertebrates is known from the Agulhas Plain.
Three Red Data Book butterfly species (Argyrocupha malagrida maryae, Poecilimitis brooksi tearei and
Thestor rossouwi) occur in the area (Henning 1989). A significant population of the Red Data listed
flightless dung beetle (Circellium bacchus) occurs in De Hoop and in private reserves in the Walker Bay
area.
ABI, Annex 8, Site Description
Page 107
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 9: Root Causes and Management Issues
Biological
Impact
Threats
Root causes and management issues Alternative strategy & design elements
Loss of endemic
remnant ecosystems
(Coastal renosterveld
and Elim fynbos)
Habitat
transformation
through agricultural
conversion:

cereal cropping;

dairy pastures;

novel crops and
cultivars;

viticulture;

flower
cultivation –
monocultures;
1. Conservation agencies in Agulhas Plain
have a sectoral approach to conservation on the
Plain and there is a weak coordination between
stakeholders;
1. Institutional strengthening and aligning, improving collaboration between
conservation agencies, local municipalities, agricultural departments,
landowners, communities (1.1.1. and 1.1.2); Institutional synergy created by
joint conservation planning and management system (1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4,
1.3.5 and 1.3.6)
2. Current conservation activities are not
representative of endemic remnant ecosystems;
2. A landscape –level approach will be supported by the project with seven
key areas of direct conservation interventions implemented in partnership by
SANParks, WCNCB, Department of Agriculture, local municipalities, Power
utility, private landowners, local communities aiming to: secure (i) ecological
integrity of ANP (1.2.1); high priority freshwater ecosystems (1.2.2); limestone
center of endemism (1.2.3); remnant endemic vegetation types (1.2.4 and
1.2.5); endemic wildlife habitat (1.2.6) Heuningnes River IBA (1.2.7), Direct
attention paid to priority systems (ensure most biologically valuable land
parcels are secured through management and contractual agreements based on
the incentive approach – access to funds for alien clearance, fire management,
contracts for wild fynbos harvesting, etc. (1.2)
Decline of species in
remnant vegetation
patches due to
pollination & dispersal
limitations, agricultural
“edge effects” and
breakdown of crucial
ecosystem processes
Soil degradation
3. Information at appropriate scale for property
level land use decision-making deficient;
4. The total economic value of vulnerable
ecological systems (underpinning livelihoods) are
not accommodated in the cost/benefit calculus of
land use;
3. Extension service (1.1.2 ) will actively involve landholders in planning
and decision-making (1.3. 2, 13.4. and 1.3.5); the BIMS will provide baseline
information for contractual and management agreements (1.3.3)
5. Knowledge of existing regulatory controls is
weak amongst landholding community; the
policy and legal framework is outdated and not
congruent with new bio-regional scale
management plans;
4. Extension service provides point of engagement regarding economic
values, and alternative, economically profitable land use options (1.1.2, 1.2
and 1.3); A deal flow identification study will be conducted, looking at the
environmental costs of different land-use practices, profitability of the various
land-uses in financial and ecological terms (2.7.7)
6. Illegal ploughing, due to uneconomic farm
units that lead to exploitation of marginal areas;
Ineffective extension advice regarding long term
5. Develop updated permit system & procedures, and joint extension service
(2.1.1, 2.1.2). Extension service will be geared and trained to provide detailed
policy input into a broader CAPE legislative review process
ABI, Annex 9, Root cause and management issues,
Page 108
Biological
Impact
Threats
Root causes and management issues Alternative strategy & design elements
farm planning /capability tuned to individual land
holdings;
6. Farm planning (1.2.2., 1.2.4, 1.3.5) and appropriate alternative land uses
(output 2) will address several economic threats to biodiversity
7. Awareness of alternative sustainable land
uses (tourism/ sustainable flower harvesting)
limited amongst landholders and capital markets;
7. Project develops/ promotes code of practice (2.3), and capacitates
extension system to communicate economically / ecologically viable land use
alternatives (1.1.2); deal flow identification (2.7.7); the Agulhas Plain Tourism
Forum and Heritage Centers will raise awareness about the nature-based
tourism (3.1.1 and 3.1.2) and will support tourism initiatives on the Plain (3.3);
participatory monitoring and evaluation will be conducted for all activities and
the results will be distributed to the general public (1.7.1. – 1.7.5; 2.7.8,
8. Ineffective soil rehabilitation measures & no
monitoring after alien clearing; Knowledge
deficient with respect to appropriate rehabilitation
techniques;
8. Alien clearing strategies in micro catchments will take a holistic
ecosystem approach and communication forums established (1.4.2, 1.4.3) (1.1,
4.1); a pilot orchard rehabilitation will be supported (2.7.6)
9. International flower markets demand perfect
flowers on long stems and pristine fynbos is
ploughed for monocultures of proteas
Displacement of the
endangered fynbos
(neutral sand and
limestone proteoid
fynbos);
Increased fire intensity
and frequency;
Altered hydrology;
Land degradation
Invasive alien plant
species
9. Develop a certification scheme for sustainably harvested fynbos flowers,
as a tool to improve the economic value of wild fynbos. Premiums negotiated
with boutique retail outfits and rent capture at local level enhanced by
establishing coordinated supply chain (2.3.). Monitoring economic
performance of sustainable harvesting (2.7.8); Market diversification;
marketing strategy; Consumer/ buyer education about ecological impacts of
unsustainable harvesting methods and resultant products (2.4);
1. Spatial development plans do not
accommodate IAS control objectives, and the
regulatory framework and incentives to enlist
landholder/ community support for IAS clearance
on private/ communal lands is weak; information
tools need to be developed;
1. Local authority planners and personnel involved in planning, priority
setting (1.3); development of appropriate regulatory/ enforcement mechanisms;
2. Unclear agencies’ mandates, weak agency
co-operation apparatus for alien species control
implies that existing IAS control efforts are
unfocused—reducing their long-term efficacy and
cost-effectiveness; Local government mandates
for conservation management have yet to be
clarified;
2. Joint extension service (1.1.2) and clearing strategy created and
implemented in pilot area – quartenary catchement (1.4.1 and 1.2.3)
3. The economic/ financial benefits derived
from invasive alien plant clearance (i.e.
restoration of hydrological services, financial
3. Project designed in local scale components, and institutional strengthening
& communication and regulatory mechanisms will motivate individuals (1.1.2,
1.2.3, 1.4.2 and 1.4.3) ; Joint extension service designed around
communication, supported by public awareness program (4.1.1, 4.12 and
ABI, Annex 9, Root cause and management issues,
Page 109
Biological
Impact
Reduced seed
production and plant
diversity;
Threats
Insufficient fire
breaks
Inappropriate burning
regimes
Species decline;
Alien plant spread.
Root causes and management issues Alternative strategy & design elements
benefits derived from sale of timber) are poorly
articulated to land holders, communities and
regional planners;
4.1.3); participatory monitoring and evaluation will be conducted (1.7.1, 1.72,
1.7.3 and 1.7.4)
4. Local mechanisms to generate continued
revenue for alien clearing ineffective;
distribution/systems for products derived from
IAS are locally absent;
4. Opportunity created for local authority engagement in joint Conservation
Planning & Management (CPM) system and extension service (once
operational 1. and 1.3); Project creates forum for co-operative approaches with
industry partners (1.4.2)
1. Overlapping institutional responsibilities
regarding fire management; limited co-ordination
& communication; weak-accountability within
landholding community for fire management in
the area;
1. Joint extension service, and dedicated focal point for planning and
management system should clarify roles of local authority and conservation
agencies (1.1.2, 1.3, 1.5.1 and 1.5.2);
2. Knowledge of appropriate fire management
procedures for different environments is
deficient; the rapid-response units for fire
management and control are weak;
2. Training and lesson sharing catered for (1.1.2, 1.53 and 1.5.4); firebreaks
created and control burning initiated (1.5.5); participatory monitoring and
evaluation will be conducted (1.7.1, 1.72, 1.7.3 and 1.7.4) Opportunities
created for information sharing, and hands on learning (1.7, 4.1)
3. Fire control in rural areas is not recognised
as a priority by the Government (as reflected in
the budget);
3. Involvement of local officials in planning and communication forums
designed to redress this. (1.5.1 and 1.5.2)
4. Biodiversity concerns are not integrated in
fire strategies;
5.
4. In local Fire Protection Association strategies, conservation officials will
be tasked to ensure integration (1.5.2 and 1.5.3)
Alien species invasion intensifies problem;
5. Synergy created between alien clearing and fire management (1.1, 1.4,
1.5)
Loss of wetland and
related species and
ecological processes;
River bank erosion
Over grazing and
over-trampling of
vegetation;
Over extraction of
water;
Invasive alien plants
1. The economic values of wetlands are poorly
understood by landowners and user communities;
2. Regulatory authorities focus more on water
supply rather than on water resource
management; Statutory limits on water extraction
are undetermined;
3.
1. Extension service and awareness program forum will raise awareness
about the wetlands values (1.1.2, and 4.1); participatory monitoring and
evaluation will be conducted (1.7.1, 1.72, 1.7.3 and 1.7.4)
2. Dedicated communication channel to authorities established, and latter
involved in participatory planning (1.3, 1.6.1, 1.6.2)
Inappropriate agricultural practices; &
ABI, Annex 9, Root cause and management issues,
Page 110
Biological
Impact
Threats
Root causes and management issues Alternative strategy & design elements
Sectoral approach of natural resource planning;
4. Catchment & estuary management doesn’t
integrate biodiversity conservation concerns;
Eutrophication (both N & P)
Extirpation of
susceptible species
Unsustainable
harvesting of wild
fynbos flowers
1. The regulatory enforcement regime is
imperfectly developed;
2. The absence of a coordinated supply
network hampers management;
3. The marginal costs of ecosystem
management to facilitate sustainable use are not
recovered; Profits accrue elsewhere in the value
chain (high mark ups ate retail end relative to
farm gate);
3. Conservation planning & management system structured to accommodate
agricultural sector (1.3, 1.6)
4. Planning systems will allow integration of conservation objectives, Farm
planning will reduce direct impact on habitat and likely nutrient impact (1.2.2.,
1.2.4, 1.3 and 1.6)
1. Update the WCNCB permit system to include COP; review and update
the regulations and develop of a “no go” list; capacity building for WCNB
staff: (2.1.1. and 2.1.2)
2. Secure a supply network focused towards conservation areas and establish
a supply network management forum (2.2.1 and 2.2.2);
3. Develop a certification scheme for sustainably harvested fynbos flowers,
as a tool to improve the economic value of wild fynbos. Premiums negotiated
with boutique retail outfits and rent capture at local level enhanced by
establishing coordinated supply chain (2.3.). Monitoring economic
performance of sustainable harvesting (2.7.8)
4. Market diversification; marketing strategy; Consumer/ buyer education
about ecological impacts of unsustainable harvesting methods and resultant
products (2.4);
4. Market opportunities are presently focused
on few selected flowers; Indiscriminate market
and product focused value chain. Niche market
not developed because of supply driven market;
5. Species and volumes harvested on the Plain
are not recorded;
5. Pilot program to monitor species harvested at Flower Valley will be
developed and the information supplied to WCNCB GIS Unit (2.5)
6. Landowners, farmers and contract pickers
are unaware of sustainable practices
6. Capacity building program targeting the wild fynbos pickers, landowners
and farmers will be conducted to implement COP (2.6)
7. Understanding of ecosystem fundamentals
dictating sustainable off-takes remains inadequate
at all levels;
7. Long-term monitoring of the impact of harvesting on different guilds, on
inter-specific competition, species index of vulnerability to harvesting;
resource base assessment of the supply network will be conducted (2.7.1, 2.7.2,
2.7.3, 2.7.2, and 2.7.5)
8.
8.
The total economic value of vulnerable
A deal flow identification study will be conducted, looking at the
ABI, Annex 9, Root cause and management issues,
Page 111
Biological
Impact
Loss of narrow range
endemic species.
Threats
Inappropriately
located development
and associated
infrastructure causes
Root causes and management issues Alternative strategy & design elements
ecological systems (underpinning livelihoods) are
not accommodated in the cost/benefit calculus of
land use;
environmental costs of different land-use practices, profitability of the various
land-uses in financial and ecological terms (2.7.7)
9. Awareness of viable alternative sustainable
land uses (tourism/ sustainable flower harvesting)
limited amongst landholders and capital markets;
9. Establishing of sustainable harvesting oversight committee and prmotion
of the certification scheme to attract landowners within the high conservation
target (2.8); Establishment of the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum and Heritage
Centers to increase awareness and strengthen collaboration between various
agencies and communities (3.1.). Tourism marketing strategy developed for the
Plain (3.2)
1. Poor land use planning at the local level;
Poor enforcement; Political interference in local
decision-making;
1. Local authority planners involved in project design and integral to
Participatory planning component (1.3). Greater awareness of conservation
priorities and community involvement in decision making will make political
interference more difficult (4.1) Awareness for and locally empowered
communities should help to address this (4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3) as well as the
nature-based tourism initiatives supported by the project (3.3)
2. Protected areas don’t cover the
representative samples of ecosystems;
2. Expanded contractual and management agreements will target
representative biodiversity (1.2)
Future threats
Increased footpaths,
noise, pollution, litter,
as a result of increased
tourism activities.
Destruction of cultural
heritage remnants
1. Location of environmental/cultural heritage
sites on Agulhas Plain not known;
1. Inventory of cultural heritage resources included in planning system
(1.3.6), the two Heritage Centers and the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum (3.1.1
and 3.1.2) will monitor and communicate sites;
2. Limited enforcement (identification, listing,
integrating into management planning, reporting);
2. Institutional capacity building and integration in conservation
management planning catered for (1.3 and 3.1)
3. No signage, interpretation materials or
effective protection of sites;
3. Awareness targeted, and alternative access routes constructed, bypassing
sensitive sites (3.1, 3.2)
4. Poorly planned and controlled visitor
management due to limited awareness among
tourists & operators/ accommodation
establishments.
4. Park capacitated to provide effective visitor management, nodes of use
established in planning system (1.1, 1.3)
ABI, Annex 9, Root cause and management issues,
Page 112
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
1.
An assessment of stakeholder and social issues was undertaken as part of project preparation in an
effort to: (i) identify key stakeholders with respect to biodiversity conservation in Agulhas Plain; (ii)
review stakeholder interests and associated impacts on resource use, land tenure and the project; (iii)
identify and mitigate possible negative socio-economic impacts on local stakeholders resulting from the
project; and (iv) identify and develop opportunities for the project to benefit stakeholders. Project
preparation entailed consultation with a broad range of stakeholder groups using a number of different
information gathering methods, including formal and semi-formal interviews, group discussions and
workshops, rapid rural appraisal and literature review (see attachment 1). In addition, local consultants
participating in project preparation provided information and contributed to the identification of risks,
impacts and mitigation strategies
Key Social Issues
2.
The key social issues relevant to ABI, as identified in the project preparation stage are: (i)
population; (ii) economy: (iii) social development; (iv) job creation; (v) cultural history; (vi) conservation
activities; (vii) governance; (viii) Racial patterns; (ix) capacity; and (x) importance and influence.
3.
Population - A significant trend in the Agulhas Plain area has been a tendency towards
urbanization, with comparative urbanization figures of 50.3% for 1980 compared with 64% for 1997/98.
The urbanization trend within Agulhas Plain indicates a pattern of movement away from rural areas to the
towns. This is likely to impose a distinct burden on the resources and services provided by these towns,
while at the same time lessening the dependence of members of the broader community on rural and
natural resources. It is also likely to result in an increasing concern with urban priorities and issues on the
part both of government and civil society in the area. This may detract to a limited extent from the
conservation priorities of the ABI. It may, consequently, imply a need for increased awareness raising and
education activities amongst the urban community of the Plain.
4.
Economy - The economy of the Agulhas Plain is highly undiversified with a major emphasis on
primary agricultural production. There has been an apparent general decline in the sub-regional economy,
which is cause for significant concern. There is a distinctly seasonal character to the regional economy
associated with the agricultural cycles. Of direct relevance to ABI is the catchment clearance activities
conducted by farmers, as well as the harvesting of wildflowers. In the former case, the financial
constraints experienced by local farmers may place distinct limitations on their potential to contribute to
the catchment clearance efforts required in the region. With respect to the latter there has been an
increasing awareness of the economic value of wildflower harvesting as a supplementary source of
income for farmers in the region during the preparation stage. Evidence of the emergence of a changing
pattern of land ownership in the farming sector is significant for ABI, as indications are that the new cadre
of owners may be significantly more resourced than the historically present group and may well be more
inclined to expend resources on conservation related activities on its holdings. It is apparent that
wildflower harvesting and nature-based tourism present distinct opportunities for economic development
in the region. The value of this opportunity lies in its potential to add diversity to the local economy as
well as to promote local economic development, job creation and growth. The precise economic impact
of these sectors is uncertain and will need to be quantified and evaluated. The experience gained by the
Flower Valley Farm, while at an initial stage of development, needs to be replicated. It points to
significant strategies with respect to value creation, earnings retention, job creation and social
development. The challenges posed by the decline in the fishery resource, associated with the illegal
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 113
plundering of coastal natural resources is a concern. This development is associated with increased levels
of poverty apparent in the disadvantaged sectors of the coastal communities. The potential to create
alternative sustainable livelihoods, such as nature-based tourism for these communities is a matter of
urgent concern.
5.
Social development - There is uncertainty as to the extent of unemployment and job security
within the region. It is assumed that there is a higher level of unemployment than the official figures
given. There is a need to ensure an equitable spread of opportunities geographically throughout the Plain
so as to avoid perceptions that any particular area being favored. There is extensive poverty in the Agulhas
Plain, with a consequent need to ensure the development of sustainable livelihood opportunities for local
people.
6.
Job creation - Many of the jobs available to unskilled people in the area are of a seasonal or
temporary nature. This can be seen in the seasonal nature of fishery work, domestic services in the tourism
industry, as well as wildflower and agricultural labor. The combination of competition for scarce
opportunities and low skill levels within the region calls for a direct response in the implementation of
ABI. It is important to build practical skill development activities and entrepreneurial training, as well as
ensuring that the capacity building aspects, including education, awareness raising and skills transfer,
should have an emphasis on follow through. It is important to overcome the perception existing within the
Plain of capacity building initiatives being isolated efforts, not contributing to ongoing maintenance of
skill levels and social development.
7.
Cultural history – Agulhas Plain is a rich repository of cultural history. The pre-colonial history,
as well as developments subsequent to the settlement of European colonists in the area through to present
times have generated a wide diversity of historical artifacts, built environments and cultural traditions.
ABI presents distinct opportunities to both retain the character of the cultural history of the Plain, as well
as to build on it as an attraction. There is a fear that the Plain may lose the qualities inherent in the cultural
history.
8.
Conservation activities – There is a distinct correlation between race and concerns with matters
related to conservation within Agulhas Plain. The capacity building activities of ABI will be integrated
with the livelihood concerns of local residents. In this way, the value of a conservation-related awareness
and education program will be realized for local people. The lack of involvement of many communitybased organizations in participatory processes related to conservation activities in the Plain is an important
concern. The specific experiences of poor and marginalized people in catchment clearance activities
within the Plain are to be taken into account. It was noted in particular by representatives of the Struisbaai
Noord community, that local residents were excluded from opportunities to access jobs in clearing aliens
within their area. The community at Elim was concerned that it was not allowed to utilize wood extracted
in catchment clearance activities on farms bought by SANParks. Recognition should be given of the
financial burden that catchment clearance activities poses on commercial farmers, especially in the context
of the economic stress they are currently experiencing.
9.
Governance – The draft Integrated Development Plans for the district and municipal local
authorities indicate a wide array of interventions required for local development. These cover the
provision of basic services, the promotion of human development and welfare, as well as the promotion of
economic development in the area. The Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative will align closely with the
integrated development planning objectives of local government within the Plain.
10.
Racial Patterns: Agulhas Plain manifests many of the economic and social disparities associated
with apartheid. The legacy of this history of inequality and racially skewed allocation of resources is
reflected in the significant social and economic inequalities experienced by the different communities of
the Plain. An analysis of the population of the Agulhas Plain indicates that the colored community
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 114
constitutes the majority of the population, followed by whites, with a small minority of Africans mostly
concentrated in the Gansbaai area. While changes in the political makeup of local government have
resulted in a more equitable political arrangement, economic power still resides with the white community
of the Plain. It is important to note that while the formal separation of people into racially defined
communities no longer exists, life on the Agulhas Plain still largely follows the historical pattern. This
has a fundamental impact on the roles and interests of stakeholders and can be seen in three ways, which
are described below.
(i)
while stakeholder groups on the Plain are not racially exclusive, the informal perpetuation of the
historical racial divisions at a community level has the consequence that most stakeholder
organisations tend to have a racially distinct character. An example of this can be seen in
Struisbaai. In this case, the Struisbaai Permanent Residents' Association largely represents the
interests of white Struisbaai residents, despite it having a non-racial constitution. By contrast the
Struisbaai North Skakelkomitee represents the coloured community of a part of the town;
(ii)
there is little contact or communication between stakeholder groups across the racial divide,
although many of the organisations serve on common forums such as those set up for the process
of facilitating integrated development plans or community policing action;
(iii) organizations primarily active in white communities tend to have greater access to financial,
logistical and other resources than their counterparts in the coloured and African communities.
This, combined with the general political and socio-economic conditions of the Plain, may result
in these organisations having greater lobbying power and influence.
11.
Capacity: There is a marked disparity in capacity levels between groups located in the white,
colored and African communities. This factor has been closely addressed and incorporated into the design
and implementation of the Initiative so as not to compromise its potential success. Three areas of
consideration are important in this respect.
(i)
the wide disparity in knowledge levels between stakeholder groups with respect to a basic
understanding of conservation and biodiversity issues will be addressed in the project
implementation in order to ensure the fullest participation of groups, which would otherwise be
marginalized from the process;
(ii)
the skills in participatory processes, as well as applied skills related to the implementation of key
aspects of the ABI, notably wild fynbos harvesting and nature-based tourism;
(iii) the material resources at the disposal of stakeholder groups. It is vital that groups should not feel
constrained from participating in the ABI y virtue of their limited access to transport or finances.
12.
Importance and Influence: Importance should be understood as the objective significance of the
respective stakeholder group to the potential success of the initiative. Influence, by contrast, should be
understood as the potential influence that the group has as a consequence of its access to socio-economic
power and resources. Often, groups important to the success of a project, such as community
organizations representing poor and disadvantaged communities, have relatively little influence. By
contrast groups of lesser importance such as volunteer conservation groups may have significant influence
by virtue of their ability to mobilize significant material resources. Stakeholder groups that operate within
and largely represent the interests of white communities tend to have more influence and power than those
stakeholder groups that represent black and colored community interests. In addition, while the power and
influence of these stakeholders may extend beyond the confines of their local area of operation, the power
and influence of stakeholders in the colored and African areas tends to be restricted to their local
communities. Stakeholder groups in white communities tend to have greater access to finance, transport
and lobbying capabilities, considerable effort is made to build the capacity and involvement of community
organizations from disadvantaged communities in order for them to participate effectively.
Stakeholder Analysis
13.
Three different groupings of stakeholders are described separately. These include:
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 115
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Stakeholders most able to influence the project: This group includes decision makers at national
and local levels; those who have significant influence regarding decision making (conservation
agencies, provincial and local government), and those with legal responsibility for biodiversity
conservation, natural resource management and/or protected areas;
Stakeholders who are most affected by the project but have only moderate influence on it: This
group is most likely to be impacted either negatively (e.g. through loss of access to resources) or
positively (e.g., through provisions of new opportunities for income generation, etc.).
Consequently, the project will mitigate negative impacts and strengthen linkages between benefits
and project objectives.
Stakeholders whose influence on, and impact from the project are negligible: This group will be
involved through the participatory mechanisms of the project, however, their influence overall
may be negligible. Additionally, while this group may receive some benefits as a result of project
activities, there will not be significant impact.
14.
Below, is a summary of stakeholder analysis, interests, potential impacts and influence on the
project
Stakeholders
Interests in Project
Influence on Project
Impact of Project
Mitigation of Impact
Stakeholders most able to influence project – interests, influence and impact mitigation
Statutory Conservation
Agencies

SANParks

Western Cape
Nature Conservation
Board
International Agencies

FFI

UNDP

GEF
Government Bodies:

National Govt.
Depart (Working for
Water, and Coastcare)

Provincial Gov.
Depart.
(Economic
development/planning)

Local
Govt.
structures, (Overberg
District
Council,
Agulhas, Overstrand
Municipality)

CAPE
State Enterprises:

Eskom
Conservation NGOs:

Botanical Society

Flower Valley
Conservation Trust
(FVCT)
Project directly
promotes corporate
mission
Direct responsibility for
key project components
Project will intensify
activity
Participation in Oversight
Committee
Project will draw on
financial and human
resources
Project will impose
administrative
responsibility
Provision of project
funds
Direct responsibility for
key project components
Project directly
promotes mission
Project directly aligns
with, and promotes
policy at all levels;
Participation in Oversight
Committee
Decision making powers
vest in Government on a
range of matters;
Project creates
opportunities for
integrated action on key
government policy
initiatives, such as the
catchment clearance
program and tourism
industry sector
development
Existing law and policy
will act as a legal
framework for project
activities
Land holdings can be
incorporated into
conservation activities
of project
Have the capability to
include holdings into pool
of land incorporated within
project
Project contributes to
biodiversity promotion
objectives
Project provides funds
for ongoing activities
Project allows for
organizations to play
core role in major
initiative
Project will impose
administrative
responsibility
Government bodies will
need to ensure
alignment with policy
Project will impact on
human and financial
resources
Botanical Society will have
direct involvement in key
project Components One
and Two
Project will impose
administrative
responsibility
Project will impact on
human and financial
resources
Project will impose on
capacity of
organizations to deliver
efficient and effective
service
FVCT will have direct
responsibility for key
project Components Two
and Four
Project will impose
administrative
responsibility
Participation in Oversight
Committee
Project will impact on
human and financial
Provide support in the form of
financial resources, additional
human resource capacity and
training
Accommodate within existing
administrative resources
Focus involvement on key
activities
Dedicate personnel to
monitoring and liaising with
Initiative
Identify and source necessary
funds for involvement
Accommodate within existing
administrative resources
Identify and source necessary
funds for involvement
Identify capacity building
needs
Identify and implement action
to build capacity
Identify and source financial
and other resources required
for participation
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 116
Stakeholders
Private Land Owners
and Conservancies:

Walker Bay
Fynbos Conservancy

Contracted land
owners

Land owners’
associations
(Heuningnes River
Riparian Owners
Association

Flower Farmers

SAPPEX

Wine Farmers
Interests in Project
Project focus on core
conservation
management concerns
Project will provide
support to conservation
activities
FVCT will be drawn on as
best practice example
Participation in key project
components 1 & 2
Participation in Oversight
Committee
Impact of Project
resources
Mitigation of Impact
Project will impose on
organizational capacity
Identify capacity building
needs
Project will impose
administrative
responsibility
Identify and implement action
to build capacity
Project will impact on
human and financial
resources
Project will promote
wild fynbos harvesting
as alternative to
cultivation and
consequently detract
from this group’s
activity
A small emerging group
of farmers are
converting existing
natural or agricultural
land uses to viticulture
Project aims to promote
natural land uses

Tourism Bodies

Fynbos
Ecotourism Forum
Influence on Project
Project will support the
development of naturebased tourism
Group may lobby to
protect its interests if
threatened by the project
Project will detract from
basis of group’s
economic activity which
is flower cultivation
Group should be directly
involved in process of
developing strategies and
implementation
Group may lobby to
protect its interests if
threatened by the project
Activities are designed to
establish and maintain good
lines of communication with
this group
Involve group in all relevant
strategy development
activities
Project will detract from
basis of group’s
economic activity
Group should be directly
involved in process of
developing strategies and
implementation
Participation in key project
component 3
Identify and source financial
and other resources required
for participation
Project will impact on
human and financial
resources
Group to be involved in
sustainable harvesting
activities
Activities are designed to
establish and maintain good
lines of communication with
this group
Involve group in all relevant
strategy development
activities
Attempt to involve group in
sustainable harvesting
activities
Identify and source financial
and other resources required
for participation
Stakeholders affected by project activity, but of lesser influence
CBOs e.g.:

Residents and
ratepayer organizations
in urban areas

Wild plant
poachers
Economic and
developmental
opportunities for
organizations
representing poorer
communities,
particularly those from
African and colored
communities
Education and
awareness can be raised
The activities of illegal
gatherers of sour figs
and medicinal plants
will be threatened by the
project
This group could be
economically
disadvantaged by the
project
Due to indirect
involvement, influence is
likely to be low
White community-based
organizations have
historically been able to
have greater influence than
African and colored
counterparts
This group is informal,
unorganized and largely
based in marginalized and
poor communities
It is unlikely to have an
organized voice in the
process
Project will impose on
organizational capacity
Identify capacity building
needs
Project will extend
organizations beyond
current major concerns,
potentially detracting
from core focus
Identify and implement action
to build capacity
Project will impact on
human and financial
resources
The group’s activities
may detract from the
conservation and wild
flower gathering
components of the
project
Identify and source financial
and other resources required
for participation
Establish appropriate level of
involvement in Initiative
The group should be reached
out to through making direct
contact and other
communication mechanisms
Members of the group will be
actively targeted for
involvement in the
conservation, harvesting and
nature-based tourism
economic activities of the
project
Stakeholders with minor influence and impact on the Project
Stakeholders
Business, e.g.:

Organized
business groups, such
Interests in Project
Indirect interest in
potential economic
benefits arising from the
Influence on Project
Indirect influence through
participation in limited
public participation
Impact of Project
Project will impose on
organizational capacity
Mitigation of Impact
Identify and source financial
and other resources required
for participation
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 117
Stakeholders
as Chambers of
Commerce

Individual
enterprises operating
within the region
Interests in Project
project
Influence on Project
activities
Impact of Project
Project will extend
organizations beyond
current major concerns,
potentially detracting
from core focus
Mitigation of Impact
Establish appropriate level of
involvement in Initiative
Project will impact on
human and financial
resources
Participation mechanisms
15.
Participation principles: The process of stakeholder participation in the ABI is guided by a clear
set of principles. These principles are:
Principle
Value Adding
Inclusivity
Accessibility and Access
Transparency
Fairness
Accountability
Constructive
Redressing
Capacitating
Needs Based
Flexible
Rational and Coordinated
Excellence
Stakeholder participation will:
be an essential means of adding value to the ABI
include all relevant stakeholders
be accessible and promote access to the process
be based on transparency and fair access to information
ensure that all stakeholders are treated in a fair and unbiased way
be based on a commitment to accountability by all stakeholders
seek to manage conflict and promote the public interest
seek to redress inequity and injustice
seek to develop the capacity of all stakeholders
be based on the needs of all stakeholders
be flexibly designed and implemented
be rationally planned and co-ordinated, and not be ad hoc
be subject to ongoing reflection and improvement
16.
Local design challenges: The Agulhas Plain stakeholder context poses a number of important
challenges in the design of participatory activities. Stakeholders relevant to all project components were
identified. While there are certain stakeholders relevant to all of the areas of activity within the Initiative,
certain stakeholders are relevant to particular aspects. The differing requirements of the different kinds of
activity associated with these categories imply different approaches to participation and in certain
instances differing stakeholder groups. These together with the complex and varied activities included in
ABI led to design of a sophisticated, textured and diverse participation plan in its focus and activities. The
design of the participation process ensured that those most isolated and disadvantaged historically are
fully incorporated into the participation process. This required a focus on:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Language: The process needs to ensure that Afrikaans is a prominently used language
Race: There is a pattern of racial exclusion on the Plain, with coloured and African residents
feeling historically and currently excluded from the mainstream;
Gender: Women are a particularly marginalized group within the area, but play highly significant
social roles;
Practical needs: The most disadvantaged groups on the Plain may lack the resources to be
adequately involved in the Initiative unless supported. The process design will consider providing
support for aspects such as transport for local residents to participate in the activities of the
Initiative, as well as other reasonable requirements
Literacy: There is a relatively high level of illiteracy on the Plain. In activities which target
illiterate people, sensitivity and care needs to be taken in the design of communication materials.
17.
Participation mechanisms: The project will provide the following opportunities for participation
(i)
Decision-making, through establishment of Project Oversight Committee, Conservation
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 118
(ii)
(iii)
Management Forum, Fire Management Association, Supply Network Management Forum,
Sustainable Harvesting Oversight Committee, and Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum.
Capacity Building, trough provision of training for the main stakeholders
Raising awareness of stakeholders of conservation needs and of opportunities to participate in
and/or support project activities.
18.
Decision-making: Where new structures are established, great care will be taken to ensure that all
participants agree to the ground rules for them. Consideration will be given to three sets of ground rules:
(i) substantive ground rules that will establish the issues to be considered by the relevant forum or
structure; (ii) procedural ground rules that will guide the operation of the forum or structure, such as
meeting procedure, frequency of meetings, quorums, chairing, record keeping, decision-making and the
like; and (iii) behavioral ground rules that will guide the behavior of participants within each of the fora or
structures. Where new structures or forums will be established, the necessary support for their successful
operation will be given by the project. This will include support in the facilitation of the forums
proceedings. In some cases the structures will be of a temporary nature. In these cases the terms of
reference for the forum will be clearly established and once fulfilled the forum will be disbanded. In
cases, structures will assume a permanent nature. Examples of these include the Fire Protection
Association. In these cases the process will be designed to consider the sustainability and ongoing
effectiveness of these bodies. All relevant existing structures and fora in the area will be evaluated for
possible involvement. These include Integrated Development Plan For a, Working for Water structures,
bodies associated with the national poverty alleviation program and the structures established by the
national Coastcare project.
19.
Capacity Building – A comprehensive capacity building program has been designed and will be
implemented during the lifetime of the project with an emphasis on the historically disadvantaged
communities. The set of activities will include:
(i)
Skill development - will be directly addressed as an aspect of the economic development and
conservation intervention components of the ABI;
(ii)
facilitate the participation of disadvantaged groups to various workshops and meetings by
supporting material requirements within the program funds to provide limited reasonable support
to community organizations to facilitate their participation in ABI activities. This will include
covering the costs of transport and other minor out of pocket expenses.
(iii) ensuring a good process - the participation process will be designed so as to allow the capacity of
all participants to be built through their involvement.
20.
Disadvantages associated with historical exclusion and oppression based on race and class have
left out particular groups, notably those of the poorer colored and African communities in need of capacity
building. Consequently, the capacity building components of ABI will directly address divisions of race
and class. In addition, the capacity building program will be based on an identification of best practice, for
example, those developed by the Working for Water program, activities of the Flower Valley
Conservation Trust and Grootbos Nature Reserve. The potential exists for conflict and disputes to develop
within the program. These need to be anticipated and preferably prevented through appropriate process
design and facilitation. In cases it will be necessary to intervene into situations of conflict. The project
makes general provision for specialist intervention on an ad hoc basis for this purpose.
21.
Raising awareness and communication – will include the participatory development of an
integrated communication strategy, as a foundation aspect of the participation program. All aspects of the
participation program need to carry with them a communications dimension. It is a crosscutting activity.
The communication strategy will ensure that difficulties of accessibility associated with language, access
to technology and literacy be directly addressed The communication strategy will be based on the
following key principles: (i) providing information to all stakeholders; (ii) promote dialogue between ABI
Project Implementation Unit and stakeholders; (iii) promote access to information; and (iv) promote a
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 119
consistent image and brand for ABI.
22.
A mixed media approach to communications will be adopted. This will include: mass media
coverage; pamphlets and brochures; bimonthly newsletter; posters and displays; audio-visual material:
videos, slide presentations, and other audio-visual presentations. In addition, the project will support the
direct communication with stakeholders through meetings and talks at all available outlets. These would
include regular meetings of stakeholder organizations, schools, community groups, specific open day
events, as well as guided tours for stakeholders.
23.
Conflict management - The potential exists for conflict and disputes to develop within the
program. These need to be anticipated and preferably prevented through appropriate process design and
facilitation. In cases it will be necessary to intervene into situations of conflict, the budget makes general
provision for specialist intervention on an ad hoc basis for this purpose.
Component 1: Landscape-level conservation management and planning system
24.
The development of a landscape-level conservation management system will involve
extensive stakeholder participation in securing land under conservation, establishing a joint clearing
strategy per quaternary catchment, establishing a Fire Protection Association, developing a replication
strategy, as well as capacity building activities, based on the needs assessment. The core group to be
involved in the conservation management component will primarily be those identified for involvement in
the Project Oversight Committee and will include: SANParks, WCNCB, Local municipalities and
departments of agriculture; WBFC, private landowners; Elim community; Botanical Society of South
Africa, FFI, etc. It is vital that all other stakeholders are given opportunities to inform the system and its
contents. The process of developing the conservation management systems will support participatory
activities, which will identify stakeholder issues, generate creative thinking on a future vision, as well as
the debating and selection of preferred options for future management and will ensure that these factors
are built into the exercise.
25.
Mechanisms for participation in the conservation management component will include an array of
communication activities, community workshops, focused issue-based meetings, stakeholder tours of the
area for familiarization purposes, and focus group discussions. The structures established by local
authorities in the area for the formulation of statutory Integrated Development Plans present possible
vehicles for involving stakeholders in this aspect. The local authorities will be engaged to assess whether
these structures can be used for this purpose. A Conservation Management Forum composed of
stakeholders drawn from throughout the area will be established. The forum will be constituted on a
representative basis and have a specific mandate to debate the strategy and management systems for the
area. It should not become a standing body.
26.
The process to secure land under conservation will focus on involving directly affected
stakeholders, such as the SANParks, Western Cape Nature Conservation Board and specific landowners.
The process will involve these stakeholders within seven demarcated geographic areas in an exercise of
facilitated negotiation. The joint clearing strategy in each of five quaternary catchments will require a
basic process of conducting workshops with affected stakeholders. The establishment of a Fire Protection
Association will come about through a structured process of involving key stakeholders. This process will
include targeted one-to-one consultations, catchment-specific joint meetings, the development of terms of
reference, the convening of a founding meeting of the Association and ongoing meetings of the
Association. A strategy to replicate the conservation management interventions will be developed on a
participatory basis. Drawing on a monitoring and evaluation methodology it will involve an annual cycle
of workshop-based evaluation sessions with key stakeholders.
Component 2: Ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos as a viable
land use on the Agulhas Plain
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 120
27.
ABI has a significant focus on the promotion of economic development, to reduce the threats to
biodiversity conservation in Agulhas Plain and improve the livelihoods of the local communities. This
will be in the form of activities associated with sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos flowers and the
promotion of nature-based tourism. The sustainable harvesting component will include the following core
stakeholders: Fauna & Flora International, Flower Valley Conservation Trust, Western Cape Nature
Conservation Board, South African National Parks, the Botanical Society, Walker Bay Fynbos
Conservancy, South African Protea Producers and Exporters (SAPPEX), private farmers and the
communities living and working on the farms. While these will constitute the core participants in the
development of the sustainable harvesting strategy, care will be taken to ensure that potential beneficiaries
from poor and disadvantaged communities are fully involved at all relevant points.
28.
Two key forums will be established to facilitate stakeholder participation in much of the activity
within this component. These are: the Supply Network Management Forum; and, the Sustainable
Harvesting Oversight Committee. The process of establishing these structures will involve targeted oneto-one consultations, joint meetings, the development of terms of reference, and the convening of
founding meetings of the For a. It is envisaged that the Fora will require support in their initial
establishment, after which they will be self-sustaining.
29.
A further participatory activity will see the creation of opportunities for new entrants into this
sector. In the identification of beneficiaries from poor and disadvantaged communities, careful
consideration will be given to working with representative community organizations to determine
mechanisms for the identification and selection of participants in the program. The necessary skills in
conflict management will be identified and either developed or retained to assist in the smooth
implementation of the process. The process will involve consultations with community-based
organizations to establish the appropriate process of identifying new entrants.
30.
The lessons learnt by the Flower Valley Conservation Trust’s activities in the area would be
closely studied. This will assist the process of ensuring appropriate stakeholder participation. Emphasis
will be given to providing ongoing support and capacity building to identified stakeholders. A specific
aspect relevant to the participation program will be the conducting of capacity building sessions with
community groups to allow them to develop a working knowledge of the issues.
Component 3: Participatory and responsible tourism strategy
31.
The nature-based tourism component of the ABI will include the following core stakeholders:
South African National Parks, Western Cape Nature Conservation Board, Walker Bay Fynbos
Conservancy, Fynbos Ecotourism Forum, tourism bureaux, Elim village and other relevant agencies. Care
will be taken to ensure that beneficiaries from disadvantaged communities are adequately involved in the
process.
32.
The primary vehicle for stakeholder participation in this component will be through the
establishment and operation of the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum. The process of establishing the forum
will include consultations with key stakeholders, meetings of all interested and affected parties, the
development of terms of reference and the founding meeting of the body. The Forum will establish its
own work program for ongoing meetings. Capacity building activity entailing workshops for members of
the forum will be conducted to increase their familiarity with key issues, and enhance the skills of
participants.
33.
A further activity will focus on the identification of new entrants into the industry from poor and
disadvantaged communities. Careful consideration will be given to working with representative
community organization to identify mechanisms for the identification and selection of participants in the
program. The necessary skills in conflict management will be identified and either developed or retained
to assist in the smooth implementation of the process.
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 121
Component 4: Increased local support for biodiversity conservation in the Agulhas Plain generated
through a broad-based conservation awareness program
34.
Public Awareness and communication are core aspect of the ABI All aspects of the participation
program need to carry with them a communications dimension. It is a crosscutting activity. The
communication specialist at SANParks will lead the process of developing an integrated communication
strategy as a foundation aspect of the participation program. The communication strategy will be based
on: (i) providing information to all stakeholders;(ii) promoting dialogue between ABI and stakeholders, as
well as between stakeholders; (iii) the promotion of access to information; and (iv) promotion of a
consistent image and brand for ABI. The strategy will ensure that difficulties of accessibility associated
with language, access to technology and literacy be directly addressed.
Project Management and Monitoring
35.
The Project Oversight Committee – (ABIOC) composed of: Western Cape Department of
Environmental Affairs and Development Planning; Western Cape Department of Economic Affairs,
Agriculture and Tourism; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; UNDP/GEF; SANParks; WCNCB;
CAPE Implementation Committee; NBI, FFI; WBFC; FVCT; Overberg District Municipality; Agulhas
Municipality; Overstrand Municipality; Overberg Tourism Council; Botanical Society of South Africa;
civil society local representatives of business sector; farmers’ organizations; (two/three representatives
from different geographic areas); community-based organizations (two/three representatives from
different geographic areas). With the proposed representation and efficient management and facilitation,
ABIOC will perform a pivotal role in institutionalizing partnerships in the project by ensuring collective
decision-making and implementation accountability of both baseline and incremental activities.
36.
The ABIOC will be formally founded under a constitution or with a memorandum of
understanding between all of the organizations presented. The ABIOC will meet quarterly in the first year,
and twice a year in the following years, or as the Committee decides, and it will be convened and
supported logistically by the ABI Project Implementation Unit (PIU). The ABIOC will elect a chair and
formally adopt terms of reference and agree upon a mode of operation. The following terms of reference
are recommended for the ABIOC: (i) review and provide advice on annual plans of activity presented at
the last quarterly meeting of each year; (ii) review and approve annual reports submitted to UNDP/GEF
and other donors and CAPE Coordination and Implementation Committees which will be produced within
the UNDP/GEF reporting schedule; (iii) advise the ABI PIU on policy decisions; and, (iv) report on any
strategic activities that may affect the ABI implementation process on an ongoing basis. All members of
the ABIOC will be required to carry a formal mandate of the organizations or sector that they represent.
37.
The project will support annual monitoring and assessment of the participation aspects of ABI.
This will promote learning within the project and the integration of lessons learned. A learning system
will be designed and integrated into the overall design of the ABI. The system will be used to record and
learn lessons from the participation process. The process of monitoring and assessment will assess the
effectiveness and appropriateness of all participatory activity. It will lead to changes being made in the
process where these are needed.
38.
(i)
UNDP administrative arrangements relative to public participation:
Progress in attaining participatory management objectives would be assessed in Annual Progress
Reports; UNDP would report to the GEF on what was learned during the annual Project
Implementation Review (PIR) conducted with the GEF Secretariat.
(ii)
UNDP would actively promote participation by sharing lessons learned from other UNDP and
GEF projects, catalysing networks, and, when necessary, contributing to dispute mediation.
Participation will be a focal area of review during the three scheduled Independent Evaluations of
the project. The Evaluation teams will include a sociologist familiar with participatory methods
and their application in integrated conservation and development. The teams would meet with ABI
(iii)
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 122
Project Team to gauge progress and verify information presented in progress reports.
Detailed Description of Participation Activities
39.
The following table sets out a detailed description of the participation activities relevant to the
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative. The total budget allocated for stakeholder participation in ABI amounts
to: US$ 160,000.
Activity
Tasks
Landscape-level conservation management and planning system
1.1 Secure land under
Conservation Management:
1.2. Establish joint clearing
strategy per quaternary
catchment
1.3 Develop replication
strategy – this activity will be
based on participatory
monitoring and evaluation on
an annual basis
Confirm all stakeholders
Conduct one-to-one consultations with all stakeholders
Conduct 2 workshops in each of the target areas with the relevant stakeholders
(task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venues, catering, facilitation,
recording and distributing record)
Finalise agreements with stakeholders
Five workshops – already budgeted for in Conservation Management component
Conduct interviews with key stakeholders on an annual basis
Conduct annual monitoring and evaluation workshop involving the Park and its
stakeholders (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venue, catering,
facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Conduct one annual monitoring and evaluation workshops involving the
stakeholders in the Walker Bay fynbos conservancy (task includes planning,
invitations, logistics, venues, catering, facilitation, recording and distributing
record)
Ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos
2.1 Establish Supply Network
Management Forum
2.2 Create opportunities for
new entrants to sustainable
harvesting sector
2.3 Establish Sustainable
Harvesting Oversight
Committee
Confirm relevant stakeholders
Conduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholders
Develop draft terms of reference/ground rules for Management Forum and
distribute to all stakeholders
Conduct two meetings with stakeholders to agree terms of reference/ground
rules for proposed Management Forum (task includes planning, invitations,
logistics, venues, catering, facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Conduct further one-to-one discussions with key stakeholders to refine terms of
reference/ground rules and representation on Management Forum
Convene founding meeting to confirm terms of reference/ground rules and elect
Management Forum (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venue,
catering, facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Convene six meetings of Management Forum per year
Identify potential communities and interested entrants
Convene meetings with community based organisations to discuss opportunities
and process for introducing new entrants
Conduct capacity building activity sessions with community groups to facilitate
their participation on this matter (capacity building)
Implement agreed introduction process
Identify and confirm relevant stakeholders
Conduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholders
Develop draft terms of reference/ground rules for Oversight Committee and
distribute to all stakeholders
Conduct two meetings with stakeholders to agree terms of reference/ground
rules for proposed Oversight Committee (task includes planning, invitations,
logistics, venues, catering, facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Conduct further one-to-one discussions with key stakeholders to refine terms of
reference/ground rules and representation on Oversight Committee
Convene founding meeting to confirm terms of reference/ground rules and elect
Oversight Committee (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venue,
catering, facilitation, recording and distributing record)
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 123
Activity
Tasks
Conduct capacity building activity with Committee members to assist their
understanding of relevant issues (capacity building)
Conduct two Committee meetings per annum
Conduct one annual public report back meeting
Participatory and responsible tourism strategy
3.1 Establish Tourism Forum
3.2 Create opportunities for
new entrants to nature-based
tourism sector
Identify and confirm relevant stakeholders
Conduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholders
Develop draft terms of reference/ground rules for Forum and distribute to all
stakeholders
Conduct two meetings with stakeholders to agree terms of reference/ground
rules for proposed Forum (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venues,
catering, facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Conduct further one-to-one discussions with key stakeholders to refine terms of
reference/ground rules and representation on Forum
Convene founding meeting to confirm terms of reference/ground rules and elect
Forum (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venue, catering, facilitation,
recording and distributing record)
Convene ongoing meetings of Forum
Conduct capacity building activity with Forum members to assist their
understanding of relevant issues (capacity building)
Identify potential communities and interested entrants
Convene meetings with community based organisations to discuss opportunities
and process for introducing new entrants
Conduct capacity building activity sessions with community groups to facilitate
their participation on this matter (capacity building)
Implement agreed introduction process
Project Management and Monitoring
4.1 Project Oversight
Committee
4.2 Monitoring and evaluation
of stakeholder participation
4.3 Conflict intervention
Conduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholders
Conduct 2 familiarisation tours of the area for stakeholders to introduce key
issues and concepts (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venues,
catering, and transport) (capacity building)
Conduct 3 sub-area meetings with cross-sections of stakeholders to discuss
conservation planning process and terms of reference/ground rules for proposed
forum (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venues, catering,
facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Develop draft terms of reference/ground rules for Committee and distribute to all
stakeholders
Conduct further one-to-one discussions with key stakeholders to refine terms of
reference/ground rules and representation to the Committee
Convene public meeting to confirm terms of reference/ground rules and elect
Committee (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venue, catering,
facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Convene two meetings of Committee in first year (task includes planning,
invitations, logistics, venues, catering, facilitation, recording and distributing
records)
Convene one public report back meeting in first year (task includes planning,
invitations, logistics, venue, catering, facilitation, recording and distributing
record)
Convene four Committee meetings in year two and two per annum for years 3 to
5
Convene one public report back meeting per annum for years 2 to 5
Conduct annual interviews with key participants in all project components
Conduct two annual monitoring and evaluation workshops with participants in
all project components (task includes planning, invitations, logistics, venues,
catering, facilitation, recording and distributing record)
Prepare annual monitoring and evaluation report on stakeholder participation
Ad hoc conflict/dispute intervention as need arises on contingency basis
___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements
Page 124
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Purpose of the Note
The purpose of this note is to explain the rationale behind GEF investment in the CFR including the
linkages and complementarity between the various interventions. The note has been prepared by the
World Bank and UNDP, through which GEF support is being rendered.
National Programmatic framework
The CFR harbours exceptional biodiversity, exemplified by high species richness, habitat diversity
and gamma diversity, or turnover across the ecological landscape. This vital heritage faces
accelerating anthropogenic pressures, spurring leading scientists to list the region as one of the world's
‘hottest’ biodiversity hotspots. Given the great ecological heterogeneity, social differences, economic
stratification, and variation in institutional and individual capacities across the CFR’s landscape, it is
evident that a number of different conservation approaches are needed to satisfy conservation
objectives15.
The GoSA is moving to address the afore-mentioned challenges, through a comprehensive and longterm programmatic framework entitled Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.). The
Program aims at implementing the Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE 2000 Strategy),
completed in September 2000, with financial support from the GEF16, following broad-based
stakeholder involvement. The CAPE 2000 Strategy provides a long-term vision for biodiversity
conservation in the CFR, identifies conservation priorities based on an assessment of the threats to
biodiversity, and articulates an action plan and investment program to address these priorities. All key
government conservation and development agencies and major NGOs and private sector associations
in the CFR have aligned themselves to the CAPE 2000 vision, and to the accompanying strategy.
Over its 20 year time-scale, C.A.P.E. aims at expanding the area under effective conservation
management from 10,800 km2 (12% of the CFR) to 30,800 km2 (34,2% of the CFR), assuming that a
further 13,000 km2 (14,44% of CFR) will persist because of its inaccessibility for any development.
Conservation activities would be backstopped by a strong policy framework, capacitated institutions,
new financial mechanisms and other instruments needed to assure the sustainability and costeffectiveness of management. An overriding objective is to create the foundations for a ‘biodiversity
economy’: linking the environmental benefits of the CFR directly to economic growth and livelihood
creation. This will be achieved through nurturing the development of conservation compatible
industries, such as nature-based tourism, and assuring the sustainable utilisation of wild resources,
mainstreaming conservation objectives into the production sectors, particularly agriculture, and
creating markets for environmental services underpinning the natural resource sectors. The key
strategic design features of the C.A.P.E. Program may be summarised as follows:
The challenge is multifold: First, there is an unmet need to align conservation objectives with those of the
production sectors, and to mainstream conservation programs into the economic and social sectors; second, there
is a need to expand the conservation estate. A multitude of sites of various sizes will need to be brought under
conservation management, to ensure that protection is extended to a biologically representative sample of
biodiversity, and to restricted range species. Different conservation models will need to be developed, geared
towards addressing different socio-economic and institutional specificities; third, new models for facilitating
sustainable utilisation of biological resources are needed to mitigate threats, develop conservation compatible
livelihoods and to ensure that the benefits accruing from conservation are equitably distributed; fourth, systemic
level, institutional and individual capacities need to be developed to ensure the sustainability of management,
and fifth, there is a need to create broad-based environmental awareness in the region
16 Funding was made available through the GEF/ WB Project: Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation
15
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 125
Phased approach. Activities are being scheduled over 20 years, providing an adequate time budget to
systematically address current and emergent threats to biodiversity and assure sustainable
management. Interventions would be phased, with three distinct stages anticipated:

Phase 1 (6 years), will be characterized by measures being tested and taken to arrest
biodiversity losses in the CFR. GEF investment will support the establishment of the overall
C.A.P.E. as a program and the implementation of the GEF-supported program components.
The GEF support will focus on establishing a systemic and institutional enabling environment
for conservation and developing know-how to address key threats and root causes of
biodiversity losses. (See Annex 7, Threats Analysis). Lessons learnt from other GEF support
to South Africa will be replicated whilst also piloting and demonstrating new approaches to
conservation. This phase will result in substantial gains being made in expanding the area
under conservation (4,800 km2). Importantly it will lay the basis for what is termed "the
biodiversity economy". The term is used to describe a region and an economy which grows
with minimal negative impact on natural systems, rehabilitates the regions ecological capital
and supports sustainable economic growth and employment opportunities presented by the
regions unique biodiversity and environment.

Phase 2 (6 years), will be characterized by a significant expansion of capacity to conserve the
CFR with most key areas secured under conservation management. Conservation
interventions will bring an additional 7,600 square kilometres (8,4%) into the conservation
estate, including protected areas, buffers and other support zones, where conservation
objectives have been mainstreamed into development. Institutional and individual capacity
will be expanded through local government and community conservation programs.

In Phase 3 (8 years), the mature phase of the program, markets are expected to play a key role
in conserving and even restoring the ecological capital of the CFR. The goals of the national
program should be met with a further 7,600 square kilometres (8,4%)inducted into the
conservation estate. Institutional arrangements for ecoregional scale management would be
strengthened, programmatic links strengthened between biodiversity, climate change, and
water management initiatives. The root causes and key threats to the conservation of the CFR
should have been significantly eliminated through a barrier removal approach. This phase will
be funded domestically, but with some technical support still provided by the World Bank and
the UNDP.
Mainstreaming. C.A.P.E. will focus on mainstreaming biodiversity conservation objectives into all the
productive sectors, the bioregional economy and key government programs.
Public-private partnerships. A strong emphasis is placed on deepening the role of the private sector
in conservation and related activities. Differentiated strategies will be pursued for different sectors
(tourism, fisheries and agriculture) and large, medium and small enterprises. The key program
challenge is to leverage substantial private sector investment into rehabilitating the ecological
capital of the CFR, thereby also supporting economic growth and employment. Since much of thee
land to be conserved is owned privately, models will need to be developed for inducting it into the
conservation estate. Even where state land is to be included, the maintenance costs and management
requirements are likely to exceed state resources. Therefore, a range of public- private sector
models will need to be developed and tested in order conserve the CFR. (See Annex 6, Institutions
associated with the Project). The creation of large marine reserves will require a similar approach.
International partnerships: The GoSA is seeking partnerships with a range of multi-lateral and
bilateral agencies and the private sector to create a diverse base of experience, technical know-how
and networks that may be drawn upon to strengthen actions. The partnership currently primarily
includes the World Bank, UNDP and the CEPF to attain Program targets. Central program coordination will therefore remain lean, with execution primarily being the responsibility of
technically competent and resourced executing agencies.
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 126
Program co-ordination: The program will be characterized by strategic program co-ordination,
provided by the National Botanical Institute to support executing agencies to attain project targets.
Financial management and procurement: The financial management capacity of the key executing
agencies is regarded as sound, but a proper evaluation will be undertaken prior to Appraisal, and if
need be, a financial management strengthening plan will be developed. The NBI's financial
management systems will be carefully evaluated since they will be the recipient of the full size
grant. Similarly, procurement capacities will be evaluated and strengthened, if need be, for the NBI.
Previous GEF support
In 1998, the GEF provided US$12.3 million in funding through the World Bank for the Project: Cape
Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project (CPBCP). The Project provided funding to strengthen
management of and extend the globally significant Cape Peninsula National Park (CPNP), to partcapitalize an environmental Trust Fund, the Table Mountain Fund (TMF), and to prepare the CAPE
2000 Strategy. These respective interventions have all successfully attained their expected outcomes:

Conservation operations in the CPNP have been successfully strengthened. The Park has been
expanded to encompass previously unprotected and vulnerable ecological units. An intensive
effort to control alien invasive plants has greatly reduced threats from infestation. Park planning
systems have been systematically integrated into town planning frameworks and a locally relevant
conservation education program has been developed. Recurrent management costs are now being
partially recovered through institution of user fees. The systems developed provide tested and
replicable models for other PAs in montane environments.

The TMF was initially established with domestic contributions of US $2 million to support the
conservation of Table Mountain. The CPBCP provided funding (US $5 million) to broaden the
mandate of the fund to support small-medium scale community-based conservation actions
throughout the CFR. To date it has funded or is funding over 40 projects. The TMF has
established a reputation as a model Trust Fund, having developed significant project management
capabilities.

The Cape Action Plan for the Environment has provided the framework for more systematically
coordinating the activities of government and non-government agencies within the conservation
arena. Further, at a site level, a fine-scale conservation mapping exercise was completed in the
Agulhas Plain - one of the most important refugia for lowland Cape fynbos vegetation globally.
The Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project in essence constituted a pre-feasibility phase
and substantial investment for a broader initiative to protect the entire CFR. The project has met key
performance benchmarks. This success, attributed in large part to strong government commitment and
stakeholder support, provides a strong assurance that further conservation measures intended to realise
the CAPE 2000 vision have a high probability of success, both in terms of mitigating threats and
engineering sustainability. These fundamentals provide the conditions necessary for further GEF
support, as part of a larger package, to secure biodiversity conservation objectives within the CFR.
GEF support to C.A.P.E.
In 2001, the GoSA approved a medium-term GEF Project Priority Framework, identifying strategic
areas for GEF investment, needed to catalyse a broad spectrum of environmental management
endeavours of high national priority. A key objective is to expand conservation activities to
encompass whole ecological landscapes, focusing on biomes by seeking to “integrate conservation
objectives into the productive sectors, strengthen land-use planning and monitoring functions, develop
and support implementation of conservation models, establish new institutional and operational
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 127
mechanisms, and establish new conservation partnerships bridging the public and private sectors”17.
The CFR was identified as a top priority for GEF intervention, to secure these intended outcomes.
The GEF would provide phased support for the implementation C.A.P.E, to create systemic,
institutional and individual capacities and pilot and adapt innovative conservation approaches to
create a platform for sustainable biodiversity management. GEF support is aimed at integrating and
mainstreaming biodiversity objectives in the sustainable development framework for the area,
building on the exceptional progress already made by South Africa. The proposed interventions are
consistent with GEF operational principles and satisfy all key eligibility criteria, including countrydrivenness, conformity with operational programs and therefore with CBD guidance, incremental
cost, and co-ordination with other national development activities. By cultivating increased country
ownership and commitment to longer-term frameworks for sustainable development and biodiversity
conservation, GEF investment will improve the capacities and scope for catalyzing and sustaining
action, and assure cost-effectiveness, replication and innovation. C.A.P.E. constitutes an unparalleled
opportunity to protect an entire floral kingdom, and to test cutting edge conservation approaches,
across the productive sectors, with strong stakeholder involvement. GEF support to the initiative
would provide important lessons and best practices for other bioregional scale conservation initiatives,
particularly in Mediterranean type, dryland environments.
The design parameters for this approach reflect policy guidance supplied by the GEF Executive
Council in May 2001, following review and endorsement of the policy on Programmatic
Approaches18.
Phasing: GEF investment will be requested in two phases (of approximately six years each), with
distinct objectives, aligned to the phased approach adopted by South Africa for the C.A.P.E Program.
The proportion of co-financing to GEF funding will be progressively increased in each phase, as
biodiversity conservation objectives are successfully mainstreamed in the development agenda,
engendering long-term financial sustainability; Activities in Phase 1 will contribute substantively to
national efforts to strengthen the overall management framework, through building necessary
capacities at the systemic, institutional and individual levels and testing conservation approaches.
Activities in Phase 2 will seek to enhance lessons learned from implementation and refine
management activities across the CFR and to consolidate and deepen conservation impacts. The
strategy will allow management systems to be progressively adapted to improve results, and
accommodate emergent best practice for different ecological/ social contexts; Interventions are being
designed with a clear exit strategy in mind, to ensure sustainability; activities in Phase 3 of C.A.P.E
would be nationally funded. The Project has been designed to ensure that Phase 1 activities can be
concluded if need be without further GEF investment. Whilst further GEF investment in subsequent
phases will be required for full C.A.P.E. Program implementation, Phase 1 activities will require a
level of maintenance support that is well within the anticipated capacities of the national executing
agencies - thus assuring sustainability.
17
GEF Medium-Term Project Priority Framework 2000 [Para 2.11]
18
The GEF investment in C.A.P.E. through this Project is consistent with the design elements of GEF Council Paper,
GEF/C.17.Inf.11" the GEF Programmatic Approach: Current Understandings". In particular, the Project is consistent with
the following design aspects of a program framework:
(a) provision of information on the enabling environment, including critical policy environment, legal and institutional
arrangements and in-country capacity;
(b) agreed goals, objectives, milestones and indicators of outcomes/impacts for each phase of the Project, with specific
details for the phase seeking approval;
(c) development of a learning and adaptive management system, including monitoring and evaluation plans, with specific
details for the phase seeking approval;
(d) provision of a financing plan for the entire program including the envelope of request from the GEF, the main partners
and their contributions (including the country). As a minimum the details of the first phase should be clearly spelt out and
the co-financing arrangements secure.
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 128
Performance: GEF funding for Phase 2 of C.A.P.E. will be predicated on the realisation of a series of
trigger indicators; funding will be closely tied to institutional delivery and program performance of
Phase 1 initiatives, which will be subject to an independent evaluation. The strength of stakeholder
commitments will be tested through funding arrangements and policy/ program reform;
Strategic priorities: Interventions are aligned with new GEF Strategic Priorities, including for
strengthening the national system of protected areas, and mainstreaming biodiversity in production
landscapes.
GEF support to Phase 1 of the C.A.P.E. Project will be channelled through three complementary
interventions:19



Mainstreaming Biodiversity Objectives in the Cape Floristic Region [Phase I/II]
C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative [Phase I]
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) [Phase I]
A summary of these respective initiatives for Phase 1, and a description of their respective
complementarities, within the ambit of the national C.A.P.E. Program, is provided below:
C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the CFR Ecoregion
Funding:
GEF IA:
Executing Agency:
Duration:
GEF US$ 11 million/ Co-Financing US$ 28.51 million
World Bank (lead) and UNDP
National Botanical Institute (NBI)
Six Years
Brief description: The primary objective of the Project is to mainstream biodiversity in production
systems at a bioregional scale. The initiative was approved as part of the GEF Pipeline in 2002 when a
PDF B grant of US $320,000 was made available to facilitate the preparation stage. A funding
application for GEF work program approval is being submitted to the May 2003 GEF Council
meeting. The Project is designed to establish the overall enabling environment for conservation efforts
in the CFR across national, provincial and other jurisdictional boundaries. GEF support to the Project
is intended to catalyse innovative, cost-effective and replicable approaches to conservation in different
ecosystems and social landscapes. The GEF would provide funding for Project co-ordination and key
technical support in the areas of knowledge management, capacity building, monitoring, policy
development, detailed planning and conservation education. Collectively, these interventions will
provide a co-ordinated framework for conservation investments, ensuring effective Project delivery
and optimising benefits. The Project will be delivered over two phases, with different objectives.
Phase 1 will create the enabling environment, and pilot innovative conservation methods:








19
Develop public-private sector models for management of conservation estates
Incorporate another 4,800 square kilometres into the conservation estate on a sustainable basis
Supporting program management, monitoring, evaluation and communications functions
Building capacities by developing a knowledge-management system geared to the specific
needs of different end users, and creating platforms for multi-stakeholder participation in
conservation activities
Supporting broad-based conservation education in schools and vocational learning centres
Advancing the development of sustainable livelihoods by developing and testing new systems
including codes of conduct and certification measures to lessen the impacts of business
activities on biodiversity
Evaluating and piloting market-based mechanisms to complement traditional management
Establishing and consolidating protected areas to reach a 20-year conservation target for the
CFR. GEF funding will support park planning and implementing management systems
Of these, one is currently underway: 1] Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund .
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 129


Undertaking fine-scale conservation planning, to determine conservation priorities in
threatened ecosystems as needed to catalyse long-term investment and build capacities within
municipalities, in priority areas, for integrating biodiversity in land-use decision-making
Integrating biodiversity concerns into fire management and watershed and estuarine
management
Subject to the success of the various GEF interventions, The GoSA would lodge an application for
GEF support to Phase 1, under this Program (see Table 1 for activities). Triggers for moving from
Phase 1 to Phase 2 will be:




4,000 square kilometres of the CFR brought under protected area management
Additional protected areas to include three terrestrial sites, two estuaries, two rivers and six
formally fragmented landscapes
All new protected areas characterized by functional management systems and adequate
financial resources
Market-based mechanisms designed and piloted
Complementarity: The Project will ensure that key interventions in the CFR are delivered on schedule
and that financial and technical resources dedicated towards conservation efforts are efficiently
managed and effectively targeted to maximise impact. The key Project components discussed above
are critical to the conservation of the CFR and are not being undertaken through other GEF
interventions or funding arrangements. The C.A.P.E. Program has already mobilised and motivated a
substantial number of partners to begin implementation of key activities using local resources and
innovation. The Project will ensure that lessons emerging from the CPBCP and C.A.P.E.: Agulhas
Biodiversity Initiative are systematically applied across the CFR planning domain. Protected Area
demonstrations will complement the models already established for montane ecosystems (CPBCP)
and being established for lowlands (under the C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative), by focusing
on forests, estuarine, coastal and marine environments.
C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Funding:
GEF IA:
Executing Agency:
Duration:
GEF US $3 million/ Co-Financing US $8 million
UNDP
South African National Parks
Five Years
Brief description: This initiative was approved as part of the GEF Pipeline in 2001, when a PDF B
grant of US$ 78,550 was made available for project preparation. A funding application for work
program approval is being submitted to the May 2003 GEF Council meeting, concurrently with the
Program entitled C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project. The
project will protect one of the largest extant areas of lowland fynbos in the CFR: the Agulhas Plain.
The Plain has been mapped at fine-scale, with CPBCP funding, a process that identified priority sites
for biodiversity conservation. Activities would facilitate conservation in productive landscapes:
 Operationalising a new Protected Area representing dryland environments, Agulhas National
Park, and outlying protected sites under contractual agreements with private landowners. The
initiative will pilot GoSA policies aimed at establishing Contractual Parks on private lands,
installing the institutional arrangements, planning, monitoring and other PA management
tools, and incentives that may be applied later both in the CFR and nationally
 Developing institutional models and capacities to facilitate multi-stakeholder and intersectoral collaboration and public-private partnerships at a local level, on a pilot basis. The
model will be tested and adapted, for eventual replication under Phase 2 of C.A.P.E.
 Developing knowhow, testing management arrangements for and optimising benefits from the
sustainable utilisation of wild fynbos, as a demonstration for C.A.P.E.
 Testing effective means for mainstreaming biodiversity management objectives into the local
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 130

tourism industry, to inform tourism development activities under C.A.P.E.; and
Establishing critical know-how for the restoration of degraded lands.
The Project has been designed with a time budget of five years. This will allow for best practices to be
codified in management arrangements to be spearheaded in C.A.P.E. Phase 2, which will be
developed in year six.
Complementarity: The primary objective is to develop new PA management models, mainstreamed
into the productive landscape to catalyse long-term sustainability both within the CFR’s PA network,
and nationally. C.A.P.E.: Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative has been designed as a fast track project,
intended to test a host of initiatives planned under the national C.A.P.E. Program over 20 years, at a
sub-regional level within a time span of 5 years. The long-term objective of the GoSA and C.A.P.E. is
to decentralize conservation management as far as possible to the sub-regional level. ABI will provide
a model and toolkit to facilitate this process. Unlike other sites, the Agulhas Plain is in a high state of
readiness for successful conservation intervention (following fine-scale planning and intensive
stakeholder engagement under the CPBCP). The site thus provides an ideal venue for testing and
adapting conservation models to be spearheaded throughout the CFR, and thus to reduce risks and
enhance cost-effectiveness of interventions. The initiative has been designed to inform the design and
implementation of C.A.P.E.. In addition, ABI will demonstrate: one, a model for management of PAs
in CFR lowlands, complementing the model for montane ecosystems, already provided by the
CPBCP; two, the efficacy of new institutional arrangements, linking protected areas, contractual parks
and surrounding productive landscapes, and anchored by an integrated extension service; three, tested
management models for sustainable wild fynbos harvesting and tourism. Close programmatic linkages
with other GEF activities in the CFR have been developed during preparation. These will be
maintained during implementation, to facilitate the continued transfer of key lessons.
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund for the CFR (CEPF)
Funding:
GEF IA:
Executing Agency:
GEF US$ 1.5 million/ Co-Financing US$ 4.5 million
World Bank
Conservation International
Brief description: CEPF funding for the CFR was approved in December 2001 by the CEPF Donor
Council. An Ecosystem Profile has been prepared, defining the strategic niche and value added of
CEPF activities in light of other planned interventions, funded by the GEF, GoSA and other sources.
Funding is available for the following activities:
 Supporting civil society involvement in the establishment of community managed protected
areas (such as conservancies) and management of biological corridors in the Cederberg,
Gouritz and Baviaanskloof areas
 Promoting partnerships between communities and private enterprises for conservation
 Building capacity for conservation work amongst civil society organisations in the region,
enabling them to participate meaningfully in new conservation partnerships with public
institutions, parastatals and other organisations
Complementarity: CEPF is funding conservation initiatives led by civil society organisations.
Investments are being carefully targeted to avoid any duplication of effort with other GEF activities
and maximise synergies with the said activities. Efforts are focused on organising and building
capacities within civil society to implement conservation activities, taking a ‘learning by doing’
approach. The objective to equip communities with core capacities and know-how that will enable
them to collaborate as equal partners on larger conservation initiatives, initiated through C.A.P.E. in
Cedarberg, Gouritz and Baviaanskloof. The lack of individual and institutional capacities at the
community level currently handicaps effective community involvement in larger conservation
interventions. CEPF funding is intended to provide a flexible and rapid funding mechanism to address
immediate threats to biodiversity, where prospects for success are high, and to augment long term
funding windows. CEPF provides funding for initial planning, stakeholder organisation and advocacy,
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 131
to create conditions necessary for the success of larger long-term investments planned in the CFR.
Implementation and co-ordination arrangements
GEF activities will be jointly implemented by the World Bank and UNDP, expanding the range of
technical competencies, experience and technical networks available to beneficiaries. The two
agencies have closely collaborated in supporting preparation of the various C.A.P.E. activities under
the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding. The World Bank is the GEF Implementing Agency for
CEPF. The World Bank will assume overall responsibility for managing the C.A.P.E.: Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Development in the CFR Ecoregion Program. UNDP will be
responsible for implementing the institutional capacity building and conservation education
components of this project. UNDP will serve as the Implementing Agency for the C.A.P.E.: Agulhas
Biodiversity Initiative. This Project will broadly be implemented and co-ordinated as follows:
 An annual work program will be developed by the C.A.P.E. Co-ordinator in co-operation with the
key executing agents. It will contain the key deliverables/ targets, the program budget, and
responsibilities for execution and sources of funding. The work program will be approved by the
C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee (technical committee comprising of key execution agencies)
and C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Committee (heads of executing agency).
 A funder round table comprising of the UNDP, World Bank and all other program funders will be
convened once a year to approve the work program.
 Every six months the UNDP and the World Bank will undertake supervision missions for those
components of the Project for which they are responsible for supervising. The recipient will be
responsible for preparing six monthly progress reports and activity plans.
 Disbursement of grant funds will be the responsibility of each Implementing Agency and Project
and Special accounts will be opened by the recipient, for the receipt and use of project funds.
 A Mid-term review will be held at which significant Project adjustments will be considered by the
UNDP and the World Bank.
 Annual audits will be provided by the recipient. In year five, the next application to the GEF is
likely to be prepared for C.A.P.E. under the Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable
Development Project. It will be supported by an independent technical and financial evaluation of
the success of the Project. It will design the next phase of GEF support with an increased role
identified for the private sector.
 UNDP/World Bank/SANParks will develop mechanisms to systematically disseminate
information and lessons from ABI to the NBI and other executing agencies, for application
throughout the CFR.
___________________________________________________________________________
ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 132
Attachment 11: Summary matrix
DESCRIPTION OF GEF ACTIVITIES
CATEGORY
A. ENABLING POLICY/ INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
A.i Program Management
A.ii Information Management
A.iii Systemic Capacities
A.iv Institutional Framework
A.v Conservation education
Systemic Co-ordination
Informal Education
A. vi Civil society participation
A. vii Market-based instruments
Activity co-ordination, reporting, integrated
monitoring and evaluation systems, performance
management training, Program development
Environmental Information Systems
Policy integration
Programmatic integration and institutional coordination at the sub-regional level; capacity
building
Communication, materials development, capacity
building, community facilitation
C.A.P.E.
ABI
CEPF
TARGETED SITES/ NOTES
C.A.P.E.: CFR
×
×
×
C.A.P.E.: CFR
C.A.P.E.: CFR
ABI: Sub Regional level demonstration
×
C.A.P.E.: CFR
ABI: Agulhas Plain
×
×
Advocacy, institutional strengthening
New market-based instruments developed for
conservation
×
CEPF: facilitated
×
B. CONSERVATION OF LARGE HABITAT BLOCKS
B.i Protected Areas
Mountains
Lowlands (drylands)
Lowlands (forests)
Freshwater
Estuarine
Coastal/ Marine
B.ii Protected Areas
Contractual Reserve
Conservancies
Community Reserve
Private Sector (Eskom)
Biosphere Reserve
Establishment and consolidation
Fine-scale
planning,
legal
incorporation,
development of PA business plans, performance
management systems, ecological surveys
Private Lands/ Communal Lands
Institutional arrangements, legal incorporation,
development of business plans, technical
assistance, to develop and adapt PA operations,
strengthen supervisory functions, capacity building
for landowners and communities to manage
contractual and community reserves, zoning
C. CONSERVATION OF SMALL HABITAT BLOCKS
C.i Site Prioritisation
Fine-scale conservation planning, conservation
Lowland fynbos (drylands)
plans and guidelines
Lowlands (forests)
Coastal Renosterveld
C.ii Landscape Level Management
C.iii Mainstreaming biodiversity in
Integrated extension services, contractual and
management agreements, On farm conservation
planning
Integrate conservation planning into spatial
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
C.A.P.E.: Cedarberg, Garden Route, Baviaanskloof, West
Coast MPA.
Gouritz: Phase 2.
CEPF will finance multi-stakeholder planning activities at
Cedarberg, Gouritz and Baviaanskloof PAs.
ABI: Agulhas National Park
C.A.P.E.: Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve
×
×
×
×
ABI: Elim community reserve, Groot Hagelkraal
Contractual Park, six private nature reserves, Walker Bay
Fynbos Conservancy
×
×
×
×
×
×
C.A.P.E.: Upper Breede River Valley, Niewoudtville
Plateau, North West Sandveld, Riversdale West Coast
Biosphere Reserve, South-east lowlands
TMF: Overberg/ Swartland/ Boland and Cape Peninsula
National Park
ABI will fund the execution of a landscape level
conservation management plan for the Agulhas Plain
C.A.P.E.
___________________________________________________________________________ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 133
DESCRIPTION OF GEF ACTIVITIES
C.A.P.E.
ABI
CEPF
TARGETED SITES/ NOTES
CATEGORY
land-use planning
planning, strengthen land-use regulations, capacity
building for municipalities
Spatial planning
C. iv. Urban planning
ABI: Agulhas Plain
TMF: Port Elizabeth and Cape Town
D. LAND/ WATERSHED DEGRADATION
D.i Restoration
Drylands (disused farm lands)
Wetlands
Renosterveld
D.ii Integrating biodiversity
watershed management
D.iii Estuarine Management
D.iv Fire Management
D.v Fire Management
D. vi Invasive Alien Species
Management Systems
D. vii Invasive Alien Species
Bio-control
Integrated Pest Management
Invasive Alien Fish
D. viii Invasive Alien Species
Education/ Awareness
C.A.P.E. will support the clearance of invasive species,
Pilot activities, to acquire know-how for ecological
restoration in degraded areas
into
Integrate conservation objectives into operations of
Catchment Management Authorities
Participatory design and test a CFR estuarine
management program
Align baseline fire management system with
biodiversity conservation objectives
Monitoring impacts of fire and piloting appropriate
fire management regime, to curtail land
degradation on drylands
Install monitoring and prediction systems, to
facilitate/ target management controls, policies on
alien clearing on contractual national parks, pilot
novel alien clearing mechanisms
Pilot/ adapt new management measures to control
alien invasive species, where know how is lacking,
and threats are significant
Systematize
public
promotional materials
awareness
activities,
×
×
C.A.P.E.: Olifants/Doring, Berg, Breede, Gouritz,
Fish/Tsitsikamma,
C.A.P.E. will fund the testing of the estuarine
management program at: Olifants, Lourens, Klein,
Heuningness, Goukamma, Keurbooms-Bitou
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
C.A.P.E.: field scale testing in Doring, Goukamma, Groot
TMF: experiment techniques in Cederberg
×
E. SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION OF WILD RESOURCES
E.i Wild Fynbos
E.ii Coastal/ Marine Resources
E.iii Tourism Management
E.iv Community-Based Natural
Resource Management
Determine sustainable offtake, management
planning, certification, market efficiencies
Co-management arrangements, Pilot/ adapt spatial
Management tools
Promotion
Small grants for capacity building, advocacy,
education, pilot management activities, legal
support
×
×
×
×
×
F. ANCILLARY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
___________________________________________________________________________ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic Framework
Page 134
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 12: Project Categorization Sheet
Focal Area Categories
Biodiversity
Climate Change
International Waters
Ozone Depletion
Conservation 
Energy conservation
(prod./distribution)
ESCO’s
Efficient
Designs
Transboundary Analysis
Monitoring:
Strat. Action Plan
Development
ODS phase out
(Production)
Solar:
Freshwater Basin
ODS Phase Out
(Consumption)
Other:
in situ
ex situ
Sustainable Use 
Biomass:
Benefit-sharing 
Agrobiodiversity
Wind:
Trust fund
Hydro:
Geothermal:
Ecotourism 
Biosafety
Fuel cells:
Policy &
Methane recovery:
Legislation 
Buffer Zone
Other:
Dev. 
b. Categories of General Interest
Technical
Investment 
Assistance
Technology Transf.
Small Islands
Marine Ecosystem
Wetland Habitat
Ship-based
Toxic Contaminants
GPA Demonstration
Fisheries Protection
Global Support:
Targeted Research
Land Degradation 
Info/Awareness
Private Sector
c. Community & NGO Participation
Involvement type
Elim
Kassiesbaai,
Buffeljags,
Blompark,
Molshoop
Gansbaai
township
Bredasdorp
Masekane
FVCT
BotSoc
FFI
project design
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
info/awareness
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
consultation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
____________________________________ABI, Annex 12: Project Categorization Sheet,
Page 135
South Africa
Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative
Annex 13 : List of References
Alexander, U. 1999. A Comparative Investigation into the Management of Natural Resources at Two
Tourism centres. Unpublished MSc (Tourism Development and Management) thesis, Buckinghamshire
Chilterns University College, United Kingdom.
Anon. 1994. Southern Overberg Sub-Regional Structure Plan. MLH Architects and Planners, Cape Town.
Anon. 1998. The Western Cape tourism sector: Background for investors. KPMG, Cape Town.
Anon. 1999a. Marketing Strategy for the Cape Overberg, Western Cape. KPMG for Cape Overberg
Tourism Association. 56 pp.
Anon. 1999b. Tourism development in Hermanus. GHACT’s contribution towards the spatial
development framework submitted by Urban Dynamics, March 1999, Greater Hermanus Association of
Commerce and Tourism, Hermanus,
Anon. 1999d. Western Cape Tourism Board Market Survey. Travel Patterns of domestic tourists. Douglas
Parker Associates, Cape Town.
Anon. 1999e. Western Cape Tourism Board. Travel Patterns Overberg. Douglas Parker Associates, Cape
Town.
Anon. 2000. CAPE Strategy Development Programme. Tourism Theme Group Report. Unpublished
report, Metaplan (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town.
Anon. 2000. Proceedings of Annual General Meeting, 25 October 2000, Hermanus. Unpublished report,
Overberg Tourism, Caledon.
Anon. 2000. Request for proposals: Integrated Tourism Master Plan for the Agulhas Area. Draft
discussion document, Agulhas Tourism Working Group.
Anon. 2001a. A renewed tourism market outlook and marketing focus for Overstrand. Report prepared
for Overstrand Municipality, Multi-Purpose Business Solutions. 119 pp.
Anon. 2001b. Management Plan for De Hoop Nature Reserve. Unpublished report, compiled for the
Western Cape Nature Conservation Board by Overberg Conservation Services
cc, Gansbaai.
Anon. 2001b. South African Domestic Tourism Survey 2001. South African Tourism.
Anon. 2001c. Spatial Framework for Tourism in Overstrand. Report prepared for Overstrand
Municipality, Multi-Purpose Business Solutions. 40 pp.
Anon. 2002. Western Cape Tourism & Investment Trends. Western Cape Tourism Board, Wesgro &
Grant Thornton Kessel Feinstein, Cape Town.
Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Goldberg, P., Grine, F.E., Klein, R.G., Lenardi, M.J., Marean, C.W., Rink,
_______________________________________________ABI, Annex 13: List of References
Page 136
W.J., Schwarcz, H.P.,Thackeray, A.I. and Wilson, M.L. 1997. The 1992-1993 excavations at the Die
Kelders Middle and Later Stone Age Cave Site, South Africa. Journal of Field Archaeology. 24,263-291.
Azorin, E.J. 1992. The potential of alien Acacias as a woodfuel resources in the south western Cape.
National Energy Council, Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Pretoria.
Baard, E.H.W., Branch, W.R., Channing, A.C., de Villiers, A.L., le Roux, A. and Mouton, P.L.N. 1999. A
review of amphibians and reptiles of the Cape Floristic Region as indicators of centres of biodiversity,
sensitive habitats and sites of special interest. Report submitted to the C.A.P.E. project. CSIR &
University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Barnes, K. N. (ed) 1998. The Important Bird Areas of Southern Africa. BirdLife South Africa,
Johannesburg.
Benchley, P. 2000. Great White Sharks. National Geographic 197 (4): 2-29.
Bickerton, I.B. 1984. Estuaries of the Cape. Part II: Synopsis of available information on individual
systems. Heydorn, A.E.F. & J.R. Grindley. (Eds). Report No. 25: Heuningnes (CSW 19). CSIR Research
Report 424. Stellenbosch.
Boshoff, A.F. & Kerley, G.I.H. 2001. Potential distributions of the medium- to large-sized mammals in
the Cape Floristic Region, based on historical accounts and habitat requirements. African Zoology 36(2)
245-273.
Burgers, C.J. 1994 Report on progress with implementation of recommendations of the "Jarman Report"
on the conservation of the coastal lowlands of the western and south-western Cape. Unpublished report,
Cape Nature Conservation, Stellenbosch.
Cape Agulhas Municipality, May 2002 Geintegreerde Ontwikkelingsplan, Draft
Cape Nature Conservation 1995. Wildflower utilisation in conservation areas: Resourcism gone wild.
Unpublished report, CNC, Stellenbosch.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 2001. Integrating Biodiversity into the Tourism Sector: Best Practice Guidelines.
Report submitted to UNEP/UNDP/GEF/BPSP.
Coetzee, D.J. & P. Zoutendyk 1993. Species composition, distribution and standing stock of rocky-shore
intertidal communities in the De Hoop Marine Reserve. Bontebok 8: 1 - 21.
Cole, N., Lombard, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Euston-Brown, D., Richardson, D.M., Heijnis, C.E., 2000.
Framework for a conservation plan for the Agulhas Plain, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Institute
for Plant Conservation, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. & Statterfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to watch 2. The world list of threatened birds.
Birdlife International, Cambridge.
Cowling, R.M. 1993. Ecotourism: what is it and what can it mean for conservation? Veld & Flora 79(1):
335.
Cowling, R.M. & Holmes, P.M. 1992 Endemism and speciation in a lowland flora from the Cape Floristic
Region. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 47, 367-383.
Cowling, R.M. & Mustart P.J. 1994 Vegetation and conservation. Volume 2. Appendix 5. Southern
_______________________________________________ABI, Annex 13: List of References
Page 137
Overberg sub-regional structure plan. MLH Architects and Planners, Cape Town.
Cowling, R.M., Campbell, B.M., Mustart, P., McDonald, D.J., Jarman, M.L. & Moll, E.J. 1988
Vegetation classification in a floristically complex area: the Agulhas Plain. S.Afr.J.Bot., 54(3),290-300.
Cupido, R. 1998. Market survey report. Proposed Agulhas National Park – southern most point of Africa.
Unpublished report. South African National Parks, Cape Town.
Du Toit, L. and Rehder, A. 1998. Archaeological reconnaissance report: Agulhas National Park.
Department of Archaeology, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Euston-Brown D. 1999. Agulhas Plain Field Mapping Report. Institute of Plant Conservation, University
of Cape Town. Cape Town.
Filion, F.I., Foley, J.P. & Jacquemot, A.J. 1994. The economics of global tourism. In
Munasinghe, M. & McNeely, J. (eds) Protected area economics and policy. Linking conservation with
sustainable development, pp 235-252. IUCN. The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Friedman, R, 2002 “Flower Power”, in Cape Africa No. 1/2002,
Gale, B. 1998. Report on the possible impact of a proposed dam on the ecology of the Uilkraal River.
Aquacatch. Report no.AQ 5/4A, Caledon Square, Cape Town.
Geach, B.G.S. 1995. The Addo Elephant National Park as a model for sustainable land use through
ecotourism. MSc Thesis, University of Port Elizabeth.
Greyling, T. and Davis, G.W. (Eds) 1989. The Wildflower Resource: Commerce, conservation and
research. Report no. 40, FRD, CSIR, Pretoria.
Hanekom, N., Randall, R.M., Russel, I.A. & Sachse B. 1995 The Agulhas Area. An investigation of its
potential for proclamation as a national park. Scientific Services, National Parks Board, Sedgefield.
Harrison, A.J., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V. & Brown, C.J. (eds).
1997. The atlas of southern African birds. Vol.2: Passerines. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Heijnis, C., Lombard, A.T., Cowling, R.M. & Desmet, P.G. 1999 Picking up the pieces: A biosphere
reserve framework for a fragmented landscape – The Coastal Lowlands of the Western Cape, South
Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 471-496.
Henning, G.A. 1989 South African Red Data Book Butterflies, South African National Scientific
Programmes Report No. 158, CSIR, Pretoria
Heydenrych, B.J., Cowling, R.M., Lombard, A.T., 1999. Strategic conservation interventions in a region
of high biodiversity and vulnerability: a case study from the Agulhas Plain at the southern tip of Africa.
Oryx, 33, 256-269.
Heydenrych, BJ. 1998. Agulhas Working For Water Project (Poverty Relief) Final Report. Feb - March
1998. Unpublished Report, South African National Parks, Stanford.
Heydenrych, B.J., 2000. An investigation of land-use practices on the Agulhas Plain (South Africa), with
emphasis on socio-economic and conservation issues. MSc Thesis, Institute for Plant Conservation,
Botany Department, University of Cape Town.
_______________________________________________ABI, Annex 13: List of References
Page 138
Higgins, S.I., 1998. Modelling the spread of invasive alien plants in Cape fynbos landscapes. PhD Thesis,
University of Cape Town.
Higgins, S.I., Richardson, D.M., Cowling, R.M. and Trinder-Smith, T.H. 1999. Predicting the landscapescale distribution of alien plants and their threat to biodiversity. Conservation Biology. 13(2), 303-313.
Hill, R.C. 1984 (ed). Environmental evaluation of the proposed Main rd. No. 28 from Die Dam to
Struisbaai, School of Environmental Studies, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Hilton-Taylor, C. 1996. Red data list of southern African plants. Strelitzia (4), National Botanical
Institute, Pretoria.
Hoyt, E. 1995. The worldwide value and extent of whale watching. Bath, Whale and Dolphin
Conservation Society.
Jarman M.L. (ed.) 1986. Conservation priorities in lowland regions of the fynbos biome. South African
National Scientific Programmes Report. 87: Pretoria: CSIR
Jeffery, D. and Heydenrych, B. 1996. A proposed fynbos management plan for Elim. Commissioned by
LANOK. Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultation and Facilitation Services, Klapmuts, Cape.
Jones MGW, van Nieuwenhuizen GDP and Day JA. 2000: Selecting priority wetlands for conservation
measures. The Agulhas Plain as a case study. A CAPE report by the Freshwater Research Unit, University
of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Kellas, B. 1999. Western Cape Tourism travel patterns – Overberg. Douglas Parker
Associates, Dieprivier.
Kemper, J., Cowling, R.M., Richardson, D. M., Forsyth, G.C. & Mckelly, D.H. 1999. Landscape
fragmentation in South Coast Renosterveld, South Africa in relation to topography and rainfall. Australian
Journal of Ecology (in press).
Kruger, B. 1967 The Pear Tree Blossoms - The history of the Moravian Church in South Africa 17371869. Genadendal Printing Works, Genadendal.
Kumleben, M.E., Sangweni, S.S. & Ledger, J.A. 1998 Board of Investigation into the Institutional
Arrangements for Nature Conservation in South Africa. Unpublished report, Ministry of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.
Le Roux, G.H. 1988. Die gebruik van die Kaapse fynbos vir weiding en die probleme wat dit skep. South
African Forestry Journal. 145:51-54
Leiman, 1996. The economics of conserving land. In The Sustainable Use Of The Western Cape Lowlands
- Can this be achieved? Proceedings of a Symposium. FCC report 96/2. (Eds B.J. Heydenrych, C.J.,
Burgers, & J.H. Oberholtzer) Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch, Cape Town.
Lombard, A., Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Mustart, P.J., 1997. Reserve selection in a species-rich and
fragmented landscape on the Agulhas Plain, South Africa. Conservation Biology 11, 1101-1116.
McDowell, 1988. Factors affecting the conservation of Renosterveld. PhD Thesis, University of Cape
Town.
MLH Architects & Planners 1994 Southern Overberg Sub-Regional Structure Plan, MLH, Contract No:
CR 991114, MLH, Cape Town.
_______________________________________________ABI, Annex 13: List of References
Page 139
Mustart, P. and Cowling, R. Undated. Fynbos Ecology for Wildflower Harvesters. Unpublished document,
Botany Department, UCT, Rondebosch.
Mustart, P., Cowling, R. and Albertyn, J. 1997. Southern Overberg: South African Wildflower Guide 8.
Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch.
Mustart, P.J. and Cowling, R.M. 1992. Impact of flower and cone harvesting on seed banks and seed set of
serotinous Agulhas Proteaceae. South African Journal of Botany. 58(5), 337-342.
Nel, J.H. 2001. The changing profile of tourism in Hermanus. Unpublished report, Greater Hermanus
Association for Commerce and Tourism.
Overberg Conservation Services 1997. Cape Overberg Fynbos Ecotourism ProgrammeS.tanford/
Gansbaai/Elim/ Wolvengat. Unpublished report, Overberg Conservation Services, Gansbaai.
Overberg District Municipality, April 2002 Geintegreerde Ontwikkelingsplan, Final Draft
Overberg Regional Services Council, July 1994 Southern Overberg Sub-Regional Structure Plan
Pithers, L. 1997. Gansbaai: An investment Profile. Document prepared for Wesgro. Clovelly
Communications.
Prins, J. 1999. Ontwikkelingsprofiel van die Overberg. Draft Document, Overberg District Council,
Bredasdorp.
Raimondo, J.P. & J.A. Barker 1988. ESKOM nuclear site investigation Southern Cape region, regional
study Gansbaai to Agulhas, main report. Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town. 32pp.
Robinson, G.A. 1995. Management Plan for New National Park. Custos, 14(7), 48-49.
Ryan PG and Bloomer P. 1999: The long-billed lark complex; a species mosaic in south-western Africa.
Auk 116, 194-208.
Schroeder, L. & Wasserfall. 2002. Routing Around. The Country Marketing Column South African
Country Life, July 2002: 84-85.
Scott, A. (Ed.) 1995. The Overberg Explorer. Cape Overberg Tourism Association, Caledon.
Scott, A. & Scott, M. 2001. The Overberg Explorer. A guide for environment-orientated
travel in the Overberg. Second edition. Overberg Conservation Services cc, Gansbaai.
Skead, C.J. 1980. Historical mammal incidence in the Cape Province. Vol 1. The western and northern
Cape. Cape Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation, Cape Town.
Smith, A.B. 1983. Prehistoric pastoralism in the Southwestern Cape, South Africa. World Archeology.
15(1): 79-89
Taylor, P.B. 1997. The status and conservation of rallids in South Africa; Results of a wetland survey in
1995/6. ADU Research Report no 23, ADU, University of Cape Town.
Thwaites, R.N. & Cowling, R.M. 1988. Soil vegetation relationships on the Agulhas Plain, South Africa.
_______________________________________________ABI, Annex 13: List of References
Page 140
Catena, 15,333-345.
Toens, P.D, Visser, D, van der Westhuizen, CR, Stadler, W and. Rasmussen, JM. 1998. Report on the
Overberg Coastal Groundwater Resources. Volume II. Tand.P Report No. 980148. Commissioned by the
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Toens and. Partners cc, Wynberg.
Turpie, J.K. 1996. A preliminary economic assessment of De Hoop Nature Reserve. Unpublished report,
FitzPatrick Institute, UCT, 97pp.
Turpie, J.K. & Heydenrych B.J. In press. Economic consequences of alien infestation of fynbos vegetation.
Proceedings of a GISP project. York 11-13 March 1999.
Turpie J.K., Heydenrych B.J. and. Hassan R. In press. Accounting for fynbos:A preliminary assessment of
the status and economic value of fynbos vegetation in the Western Cape. EENESA.
Turpie, J.K. and Ryan, P.G. 1998. The nature and value of birding in South Africa. Unpublished report,
Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Turpie, J.K. and Ryan, P.G. 1999. What are birds worth? Africa Birds & Birding 4(1): 64-68.
Van der Hoven, L. 2001. Elim: A cultural-historical study of a Moravian mission station at the southern
extreme of Africa. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Van der Merwe, W.J. and Eloff, B.J. 1995. Byeboerdery in Wes-Kaapland. South African Bee Journal.
67(4),105-114.
Visser, D, Norman, N & Stadler, W. 1999. Working For Water: The Effect Of Invasive Alien Plant
Eradication On The Groundwaters Of The L'Agulhas Plains, Western Cape Province. Toens & Partners
Report No 980173b
Walsh, B.N. 1968. Some notes on the incidence and control of drift sands along the Caledon, Bredasdorp
and Riversdale coastline of South Africa. Dept Forestry Bulletin 44, Govt Printer, Pretoria.
WESGRO, 1997. Growth prospects in the Overberg region. Western Cape economic monitor. First issue
1997, p. 2.
WESGRO, 1998. Western Cape Tourism Trends. June 1998. Wesgro, Cape Town.
WESGRO, February 1999 Investment and Development Opportunity Series: Bredasdorp and
Waenshuiskrans (Arniston); Elim and Wolvengat; Gansbaai; Napier 1999; Stanford, February; Struisbaai
and L’Agulhas
Willis, C.K., Lombard, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Heydenrych, B.J. and Burgers, C.J. 1996. Reserve systems
for limestone endemic flora of the Cape lowland fynbos: Iterative versus linear programming techniques.
Biological Conservation, 77,53-62.
Wilson, M. 1988. Archaeological sites in the Hagelkraalrivier - Cape Agulhas Area. In Raimondo, J.P. &
J.A. Barker (Eds) ESKOM nuclear site investigation Southern Cape region, regional study Gansbaai to
Agulhas, supplementary report Vol.2. Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town. Pp. 11.
_______________________________________________ABI, Annex 13: List of References
Page 141