GEF - United Nations Development Programme PRO DOC... · Web viewA workshop will be organized to capture and share lessons in harvesting methodology, conservation management, minimizing

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMEGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

PROJECT DOCUMENT---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Financing Plan (in US$):GEF Project/Component

Project 3,147,675PDF-B 78,550 Sub-total GEF: 3,226,225

CofinancingInternational 1,100,000Government 6,784,700 Private Sector 416,800Others: 200,000 PDF B 57,000 Sub-total Cofinancing 8,558,550TOTAL Project financing: 11,784,775

Financing for associated activities if anyEnd-Users 21,466,842

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: Signature Date Name / TitleUNDP

Government of South Africa

SA National Parks

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 Agulhas Biodiversity InitiativeABIOC ABI Project Oversight CommitteeANP Agulhas National ParkAP Agulhas PlainBotSoc Botanical Society of South AfricaCAPE Cape Action for People and EnvironmentCCC Cape Coordination CommitteeCCU Cape Coordination UnitCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCIC Cape Implementation CommitteeCFK Cape Floral KingdomCFR Cape Floristic RegionCEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CI Conservation InternationalCITES Convention on International Trade with Endangered SpeciesCOP Code of Good PracticesDEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and TourismDWAF Department of Water Affairs and ForestryFFI Fauna & Flora InternationalFLP Flower Labeling ProgramFVCT Flower Valley Conservation TrustGEF Global Environment FacilityIAS Invasive Alien SpeciesIDP Integrated Development PlanIUCN The World Conservation UnionJMI Joint Marketing InitiativeNBI National Botanical InstituteNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNGOs Non-governmental organizationsPAs Protected areasPIU Project Implementation UnitSANParks South African National ParksUNDP United Nations Development Program WBFC Walker Bay Fynbos ConservancyWCNCB Western Cape Nature Conservation BoardWfW Working for WaterWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, Page 5

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.


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 UsesStatistics/ Land Use Agulhas Plain (figures are approximate)Size of Region 270,000 ha.Total number of inhabitants 45,000Livestock farms (grazing, cash crops and game) 108,000 haFynbos farms 75,600 haConservation areas – excluding conservancies 56,304 haMixed farms 27,000 haArea of transformed land 70,000 ha Remaining natural vegetation (not transformed by agriculture) 200,000 haWater bodies 2800 ha.

10. The livestock farms derive a substantial part of their income from cereal cash crops such as wheat


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 country-wide 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.


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 p hased 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. Threats : The Agulhas Plain is currently being transformed through conversion to agriculture; alien plant infestation; inappropriate fire regimes; unsustainable harvesting of wild fynbos; and

2 The mapping exercise was completed with funding support through the GEF/ World Bank, Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project.


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 (Euston-Brown 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 plant species, which fail to reach maturity and develop safe seed store levels between fires

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.


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 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 long-term 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 untested, allow for the provision of management services from the WCNCB, including for management

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.


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 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 CFR 8. 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.

8 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.


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 cost-effective model for the management of clusters of public and private protected areas at a sub-regional

9 Of these, one is currently underway: 1] Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.


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.

53. Institutional strengthening and capacity building would entail strengthening Agulhas National

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..


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 co-ordination 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 inter-sectoral approach under the project:

(i) Consolidate Agulhas National Park (ANP) into viable ecological unit - Although SANParks have 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 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

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.


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 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 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).

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 co-labeling 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 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


(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 off-takes for different species. Further assessment is needed through site based adaptive management to

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.

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 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 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 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 opinion-forming 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 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 distributed 13 . 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 community-owned 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 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 sub-region (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


Reserve; visits to homes of residents with catering of meals; participating in crafts such as thatching and 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 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) set-up 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.

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 landscape-level 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 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 Co-ordination 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

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


the executing agency, providing a brief summary of the status of activities and output delivery, explaining 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)

ABI Project Implementation Unit Project Coordinator Project Assistant

ABI OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

WCNCB FFISANParks

UNDP

Comm.

Prov. Gov

FVCT3 Municipalities

NBI WBFC

Overberg Tourism

BotSoc

Conservation in productive landscape

Conservation AwarenessNature-based Tourism

Sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos

Conservation Planning Manager - SANParks

FVCT/FFI Communication Officer - SANParks

Tourism Coordinator

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. 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$) Total (US$)GEF Co-financing

1. Landscape-level conservation management and planning system developed and implemented in public-private partnerships negotiated by a well-capacitated extension service

2,051,640 SANParks: 4,603,550WCNCB: 216,800Municipalities: 19,700FFI: 608,300Total: 5,448,350

7,499,990

2. Ecologically, socially and ethically sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos is demonstrated as a viable land use on the Agulhas Plain

415,235 WCNCB: 8,600Grootbos: 13,500FFI: 700,050Total: 722,050

1,137,385

3. A participatory and responsible tourism strategy is implemented in the Agulhas Plain and contributes to sustainable livelihoods

433,300 SANParks: 1,508,100Tourism Bur.: 357,950WBFC: 395,000Total: 2,261,050

2,704,350

4. Increased local support for biodiversity conservation in the AP Plain is generated through a broad-based conservation awareness program

237,500 SANParks: 70,000 Total: 70,000

307,500

Total Full Project 3,147,675 8,501,550 11,649,225Project Preparation GEF US$ 78,550

SANParks US$ 28,000FFI: US$ 29,000

GRAND TOTAL (FULL PROJECT + PREPARATION 3,226,225 8,558,550 11,784,775

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 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 Rating Abatement MeasureSANParks and WCNCB unable to maintain the level of personnel and material support to the project

[L]SANParks and WCNCB are part of the ABI Project Oversight Committee and their missions and roles are aligned with ABI.

Mismatched programming of project and baseline activities

[L] Strong management can reduce this risk; The POC would play a pivotal role in assuring joint programming of the project and baseline

Conflict of interest between stakeholders [M]

Stakeholder meetings; conflict resolution training; encourage open communication of project objectives and stakeholder interests/needs

Insufficient incentives for sustainable use of natural resources

[M –L] 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

Land-owners are unwilling to enter into management and contractual agreements

[L]A joint extension service will be established to actively liase with the landowners and to mobilise sufficient positive incentives to encourage them.

Rating L=Low; M=Medium;

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.

94. 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.

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 micro-enterprise 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 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 multi-stakeholder 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 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 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 featureNeed 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

Generate conservation-based economic benefits for local populations; incentives for conservation must be sustainable and economically attractive

Sustainable use (Output 2 and 3) pilots are planned; awareness activities would impart knowledge of the economic values of natural ecosystems

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

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

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.


The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.


List of Annexes:

Annex 1 Input BudgetAnnex ia Detailed Component BudgetAnnex 2 Terms of Reference – StaffAnnex 3 Equipment RegisterAnnex 4. Country EndorsementAnnex 5. Incremental Cost Annex 6. Log frame matrix and work planAnnex 7. STAP Roster Technical Review/Response to STAP CommentsAnnex 8. Description of Site BiologyAnnex 9. Root Cause and Management Issues Annex 10. Public Involvement Plan Summary Annex 11 C.A.P.E. Programmatic FrameworkAnnex 12. Project Categorization SheetAnnex 13 List of References


Annex 1 Input Budget

Main Source of Funds: 1G - Global Environment Trust FundExecuting Agency: SANPARKS - SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL PARKS

Sbln Description Implementing Funding Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008010 PERSONNEL011 International Consultants011.01 Technical Advisor SANPARKS Net Amount 45,000 13,500 18,000 4,500 4,500 2,250 2,250

W/M 100 30 40 10 10 5 5Total 45,000 13,500 18,000 4,500 4,500 2,250 2,250

011.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 45,000 13,500 18,000 4,500 4,500 2,250 2,250W/M 100 30 40 10 10 5 5Total 45,000 13,500 18,000 4,500 4,500 2,250 2,250

016 Mission Costs016.01 Travel (PIU & ABIOC) SANPARKS Net Amount 51,400 6,000 15,400 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000

Total 51,400 6,000 15,400 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000016.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 51,400 6,000 15,400 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000

Total 51,400 6,000 15,400 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000017 National Consultants017.01 PA Infrastructure Planner SANPARKS Net Amount 33,000 15,000 18,000

W/M 120 60 60 0 0 0 0Total 33,000 15,000 18,000

017.02 Conservation Planner SANPARKS Net Amount 51,650 26,650 10,000 15,000W/M 210 0 115 30 65 0 0Total 51,650 26,650 10,000 15,000

017.03 Farm Planner SANPARKS Net Amount 7,500 5,700 1,800W/M 30 0 23 7 0 0 0Total 7,500 5,700 1,800

017.04 Field Assistants for Conser. Plan. SANPARKS Net Amount 84,000 28,000 28,000 28,000Total 84,000 28,000 28,000 28,000

017.05 Legal Experts SANPARKS Net Amount 15,400 7,600 3,800 2,000 2,000W/M 70 0 44 6 10 10 0Total 15,400 7,600 3,800 2,000 2,000

017.06 Incentive Expert SANPARKS Net Amount 40,000 14,000 14,000 12,000W/M 200 0 0 70 70 60 0Total 40,000 14,000 14,000 12,000

017.07 Resource Economist SANPARKS Net Amount 9,000 9,000W/M 45 0 45 0 0 0 0

ABI, Annex 1 – Input Budget,Page 43

Total 9,000 9,000017.08 GIS Specialist1

(WBFC+Materials)SANPARKS Net Amount 10,700 4,700 2,000 2,000 2,000

W/M 50 0 20 10 10 10 0Total 10,700 4,700 2,000 2,000 2,000

017.09 GIS Specialist2 (SANParks for BIMS)

SANPARKS Net Amount 40,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000

W/M 160 0 32 32 32 32 32Total 40,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000

017.10 Wetland Ecologist SANPARKS Net Amount 9,000 7,000 2,000W/M 40 0 0 30 10 0 0Total 9,000 7,000 2,000

017.11 Ecologist SANPARKS Net Amount 3,000 3,000W/M 15 0 15 0 0 0 0Total 3,000 3,000

017.12 Institutional Capacity Advisor SANPARKS Net Amount 3,800 3,800W/M 19 0 19 0 0 0 0Total 3,800 3,800

017.13 Project Co-ordinator SANPARKS Net Amount 95,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 15,000Total 95,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 15,000

017.14 Gender Specialist SANPARKS Net Amount 8,600 2,100 5,100 1,400W/M 17 8 9 0 0 0 0Total 8,600 2,100 5,100 1,400

017.15 Nature-based Tourism Specialist SANPARKS Net Amount 75,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Total 75,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

017.16 Community Tourism Planner SANPARKS Net Amount 23,000 5,000 18,000W/M 80 0 20 60 0 0 0Total 23,000 5,000 18,000

017.17 M&E Specialist SANPARKS Net Amount 46,000 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200W/M 205 0 41 41 41 41 41Total 46,000 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200

017.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 554,650 17,100 168,750 138,200 115,200 68,200 47,200W/M 1261 68 443 286 238 153 73Total 554,650 17,100 168,750 138,200 115,200 68,200 47,200

019 PROJECT PERSONNEL TOTAL ---------- Net Amount 651,050 36,600 202,150 152,700 129,700 75,450 54,450W/M 1361 98 483 296 248 158 78Total 651,050 36,600 202,150 152,700 129,700 75,450 54,450

020 CONTRACTS021 Contract A021.01 Personnel/Consultancies SANPARKS Net Amount 232,730 138,200 32,070 20,820 20,820 20,820

Total 232,730 138,200 32,070 20,820 20,820 20,820021.02 Independent Evaluation SANPARKS Net Amount 169,755 35,900 74,095 21,320 21,120 17,320


Total 169,755 35,900 74,095 21,320 21,120 17,320021.03 SANParks Infrastructure SANPARKS Net Amount 665,000 464,000 201,000

Total 665,000 464,000 201,000021.04 WBFC-Trail SANPARKS Net Amount 23,000 23,000

Total 23,000 23,000021.05 Implement Alien Clearing SANPARKS Net Amount 150,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Total 150,000 50,000 50,000 50,000021.06 Fire Breaks SANPARKS Net Amount 60,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Total 60,000 20,000 20,000 20,000021.07 Wetland Restoration SANPARKS Net Amount 250,000 50,000 100,000 100,000

Total 250,000 50,000 100,000 100,000021.08 Tourism Infrastracture SANPARKS Net Amount 57,000 5,000 52,000

Total 57,000 5,000 52,000021.09 Communication and ELC SANPARKS Net Amount 111,500 23,500 60,000 28,000

Total 111,500 23,500 60,000 28,000021.10 Public Awareness Materials SANPARKS Net Amount 88,000 20,600 35,600 10,600 10,600 10,600

Total 88,000 20,600 35,600 10,600 10,600 10,600021.11 Annual M&E SANPARKS Net Amount 19,500 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900

Total 19,500 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900021.12 Audit SANPARKS Net Amount 6,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Total 6,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000021.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 1,832,485 1,000 765,100 529,665 205,640 177,440 153,640

Total 1,832,485 1,000 765,100 529,665 205,640 177,440 153,640029 SUBCONTRACTS TOTAL ---------- Net Amount 1,832,485 1,000 765,100 529,665 205,640 177,440 153,640

Total 1,832,485 1,000 765,100 529,665 205,640 177,440 153,640030 TRAINING032 Other Training032.01 Orientation and legal training SANPARKS Net Amount 8,200 8,200

Total 8,200 8,200032.02 Extension and negotiation

netwokSANPARKS Net Amount 12,000 6,000 6,000

Total 12,000 6,000 6,000032.03 Training of extention staff SANPARKS Net Amount 7,200 3,600 3,600

Total 7,200 3,600 3,600032.04 Basic GIS and Farm planning SANPARKS Net Amount 12,500 8,500 4,000

Total 12,500 8,500 4,000032.05 Conservation farm planning SANPARKS Net Amount 10,000 5,000 5,000

Total 10,000 5,000 5,000032.06 Firefighting training SANPARKS Net Amount 15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Total 15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000032.07 Training of local tour guides SANPARKS Net Amount 12,000 12,000


Total 12,000 12,000032.08 Entrepreunership SANPARKS Net Amount 12,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Total 12,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000032.09 Conservancy trail guiding SANPARKS Net Amount 4,000 2,000 2,000

Total 4,000 2,000 2,000032.10 Conservancy management SANPARKS Net Amount 12,000 10,000 2,000

Total 12,000 10,000 2,000032.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 104,900 60,300 30,600 8,000 3,000 3,000

Total 104,900 60,300 30,600 8,000 3,000 3,000033 In-Service Training033.01 Secure land unde Conser. Mnage. SANPARKS Net Amount 16,800 13,000 1,700 700 700 700

Total 16,800 13,000 1,700 700 700 700033.02 Conservation Management

PlanningSANPARKS Net Amount 19,900 4,100 10,800 2,000 2,200 800

Total 19,900 4,100 10,800 2,000 2,200 800033.03 Controlling Alien Plant Spread SANPARKS Net Amount 39,750 11,200 9,200 9,200 6,000 4,150

Total 39,750 11,200 9,200 9,200 6,000 4,150033.04 Develop Fire Management Strat SANPARKS Net Amount 5,500 5,500

Total 5,500 5,500033.05 ABIOC establishment and

meetingsSANPARKS Net Amount 11,000 2,000 3,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400

Total 11,000 2,000 3,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400033.06 AP Tourism Forum SANPARKS Net Amount 5,500 1,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Total 5,500 1,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000033.07 Establish AP Tourism Route SANPARKS Net Amount 27,000 13,500 13,500

Total 27,000 13,500 13,500033.08 Conservation Livelihood SANPARKS Net Amount 52,700 37,500 6,200 3,000 3,000 3,000

Total 52,700 37,500 6,200 3,000 3,000 3,000033.09 Stakeholder Parti. Project comp. SANPARKS Net Amount 16,800 6,100 2,300 6,100 2,300

Total 16,800 6,100 2,300 6,100 2,300033.10 Conflict Resolution SANPARKS Net Amount 20,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Total 20,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000033.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 214,950 2,000 93,700 53,900 23,600 24,400 17,350

Total 214,950 2,000 93,700 53,900 23,600 24,400 17,350039 TRAINING TOTAL ---------- Net Amount 319,850 2,000 154,000 84,500 31,600 27,400 20,350

Total 319,850 2,000 154,000 84,500 31,600 27,400 20,350040 EQUIPMENT045 Equipment045.01 Expendable SANPARKS Net Amount 5,540 800 3,940 800

Total 5,540 800 3,940 800045.02 Furniture and Equipment SANPARKS Net Amount 100,500 18,750 25,250 55,250 1,250

Total 100,500 18,750 25,250 55,250 1,250


045.03 Pick-Truck for Park HQ SANPARKS Net Amount 12,500 12,500Total 12,500 12,500

045.04 Combi/Van for park HQ SANPARKS Net Amount 13,000 13,000Total 13,000 13,000

045.05 Tractor & Implements for Park SANPARKS Net Amount 24,000 24,000Total 24,000 24,000

045.06 4x4 for Extention Services SANPARKS Net Amount 44,000 44,000Total 44,000 44,000

045.07 Firefighting Vehicle SANPARKS Net Amount 38,000 38,000Total 38,000 38,000

045.08 4 * 4 for ABI PIU SANPARKS Net Amount 22,000 22,000Total 22,000 22,000

045.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 259,540 98,050 42,190 118,050 1,250Total 259,540 98,050 42,190 118,050 1,250

049 EQUIPMENT TOTAL ---------- Net Amount 259,540 98,050 42,190 118,050 1,250Total 259,540 98,050 42,190 118,050 1,250

050 MISCELLANEOUS053 Sundries053.01 Sundries SANPARKS Net Amount 84,750 1,400 7,150 9,400 29,400 9,400 28,000

Total 84,750 1,400 7,150 9,400 29,400 9,400 28,000053.99 Line Total ---------- Net Amount 84,750 1,400 7,150 9,400 29,400 9,400 28,000

Total 84,750 1,400 7,150 9,400 29,400 9,400 28,000059 MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL ---------- Net Amount 84,750 1,400 7,150 9,400 29,400 9,400 28,000

Total 84,750 1,400 7,150 9,400 29,400 9,400 28,000099 BUDGET TOTAL ---------- Net Amount 3,147,675 139,050 1,170,590 894,315 397,590 289,690 256,440

W/M 1361 98 483 296 248 158 78Total 3,147,675 139,050 1,170,590 894,315 397,590 289,690 256,440


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 Park1.1. Establish park administrative structures(i) Provide staff

Park Manager staff year 20,000 5 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 - - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Section ranger staff year 10,000 5 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 - - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Ranger (6) staff year 6,000 18 108,000 108,000 0 0 0 108,000 - - - 12,000 24,000 36,000 36,000 Student rangers (2) staff year 1,200 10 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 - - 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 Social ecologist staff year 10,000 5 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 - - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Financial Officer staff year 15,000 4 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 60,000 - - - 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Field guide staff year 4,000 4 16,000 16,000 0 0 0 16,000 - - - 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Administrative Officer staff year 6,000 5 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 - - 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Switchboard Operator staff year 4,000 3 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 - - - - 4,000 4,000 4,000 Gate guard (3) staff year 4,000 10 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 - - - 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Security Guard (3) staff year 4,000 10 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 - - - 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Laborer (4) staff year 3,000 12 36,000 36,000 0 0 0 36,000 - - - - 12,000 12,000 12,000 Handyman staff year 4,000 5 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 - - 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Subtotal staff 574,000 574,000 0 0 0 574,000 0 0 52,400 91,400 135,400 147,400 147,400

(ii) Provide Park infrastructureInfrastructure planning cons. days 250 60 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 - - - - - Infrastructure design cons. days 300 60 18,000 0 0 0 0 18,000 18,000 - - - - Main entrance gate works building 50,000 1 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 - 25,000 25,000 - - - Entrance gates works building 10,000 2 20,000 20,000 0 0 20,000 - - 10,000 10,000 - - - Visitor center-Lighthouse works building 140,000 1 140,000 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 40,000 - - 40,000 50,000 50,000 - Information points works building 9,000 5 45,000 0 0 0 0 0 45,000 - - 9,000 36,000 - - Parking area works building 5,000 5 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 - - - 5,000 20,000 - - Road construction works km 2,500 80 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 - - - 100,000 100,000 - - Road maintenance works km 300 80 24,000 24,000 0 0 0 24,000 - - - - - 12,000 12,000 Relocate navig. equip. and restore lighthouse works building 180,000 1 180,000 - 0 0 0 0 180,000 - 180,000 - - - - Access control works lumpsum 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 - - - - 30,000 - - Signage, information boards, bird hides, whale and seal watching platforms) works building 300,000 2 600,000 300,000 0 0 0 300,000 300,000 - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 Boundary fencing works km 3,000 38 114,000 114,000 0 0 0 114,000 - - - - - - 114,000

Subtotal Park infrastructure 1,461,000 813,000 0 0 0 813,000 648,000 15,000 233,000 389,000 436,000 262,000 126,000

Furniture equip. e. 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 - - 7,000 - - - Hardware equip. e.

computers equip. e. 1,000 6 6,000 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 - - printers equip. e. 400 2 800 0 0 0 0 0 800 800 - - -

Software equip. e. 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 - - Overhead projector equip. e. 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 - - 1,000 - - - TV and video equip. e. 800 0 0 0 0 0 800 - - 800 - - - Data projector equip. e. 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 - - - - - Subtotal facilities and equipment 23,600 2000 0 0 0 2,000 21,600 9,050 3,250 10,050 1,250 - -

(iii) Provide facilities and equipment for Park HQ and visitor center


(iv) Provide Park vehicles4 x 4 equip. cars 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 0 0 25,000 - - 25,000 - - - - bakkie/pickup equip. cars 12,500 1 12,500 0 0 0 0 12,500 12,500 - - - - - venture/people mover equip. cars 13,000 1 13,000 0 0 0 0 13,000 - 13,000 - - - - tractor + implements equip. cars 24,000 1 24,000 0 0 0 0 24,000 - - 24,000 - - - Subtotal vehicles 74,500 25000 0 25,000 49,500 12,500 38,000 24,000 - - -

(v) Provide field equipmentGPS equip. e. 400 2 800 0 0 0 800 - 800 - - - - radio equipment equip. e. 3,000 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 - 3,000 - - - - binoculars equip. e. 100 6 600 0 0 0 600 - 600 - - - - chainsaw equip. e. 400 2 800 0 0 0 800 - 800 - - - - brushcutter equip. e. 420 2 840 0 0 0 840 - 840 - - - - gardening equipment equip. e. 400 1 400 0 0 0 400 - 400 - - - - miscellaneous equipment equip. e. 500 1 500 0 0 0 500 - 500 - - - - Subtotal field equipment 6,940 0 0 0 6,940 - 6,940 - - - -

1.2 Establish joint communications/extension service for ABI area(i) Provide staffConservation Planning Manager staff year 20,000 5 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 - - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 WCNCB part time extension staff staff year 7,000 10 70,000 0 0 70,000 0 70,000 - - 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 Extension officers staff year 14,000 10 140,000 70,000 0 70,000 0 140,000 - - 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000

(ii) Provide Training & equipmentOrientation and legal workshops training lumpsum 8,200 8,200 0 0 0 0 0 8,200 0 8,200 0 0 0 0Extension and negotiation skills training lumpsum 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 0 6,000 6,000 0 0 0On site training (4pax) training days 120 60 7,200 0 0 0 0 0 7,200 0 3,600 3,600 0 0 0Basic GIS and Farm planning skills training days 200 40 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 0 4,000 4,000 0 0 0Office stationery, maps, data layers training lumpsum 5,500 5,500 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 4,500 0 4,500 1,000 0 0 0GIS capable computers equip. each 2,500 3 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0Handheld GIS Info capture devices equip. each 10,000 3 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0

(iii) Provide vehicles4X4 vehicles lumpsum 22,000 3 66,000 22,000 0 0 22,000 44,000 44,000 22,000 0Subtotal Establish Joint extension service 454,400 192,000 0 171,000 0 363,000 91,400 51,500 120,300 86,600 72,000 62,000 62,000

INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING 2,594,440 1,606,000 0 171,000 0 1,777,000 817,440 88,050 453,890 601,050 644,650 471,400 335,4002. Securing land under conservation2.1 Consolidate park into viable unit(i) Negotiate purchase and remaining contracts in core areaIdentification 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 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 - 600,000 800,000 600,000 - Legal costs cons. days 300 20 6,000 - 0 0 0 - 6,000 - 4,000 2,000 - - - Subtotal land acquisition through purchase 2,020,000 2,010,000 0 0 0 2,010,000 10,000 600,000 810,000 604,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 (ii) Phase 1, incorporate Quoin pt, and up to Nuwejaars riverDetermine boundaries and select target areas wkshop 2,000 - 0 0 0 - 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - Fine scale planning of target areas cons. days 200 10 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 - - - 2,000 - - - Legal fees and transaction costs cons. days 300 12 3,600 0 0 0 0 0 3,600 - 1,800 1,800 - - - Purchase of key properties (Ratel River) capital year 400,000 2 800,000 700,000 100,000 0 0 800,000 - 400,000 400,000 - - - - Subtotal expansion phase 1 807,600 702,000 100,000 0 0 802,000 5,600 400,000 403,800 3,800 - - - (iii) Expand phase 2a, create Contractual park at Hagelkraal, WaterfordIdentification of priority parcels/liaison mechanism wkshop 8,000 8,000 0 0 0 8,000 - - 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Liaison with landowners cons. days 200 20 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 - - 800 800 800 800 800 Develop specific incentives for alien clearing cons. days 200 200 40,000 - 0 0 0 - 40,000 - 14,000 14,000 12,000 0 0Resource economist to work in collab. With FV one cons. days 200 45 9,000 - 0 0 0 - 9,000 - 9,000 0 0 0 0Legal costs cons. days 200 20 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 - - 800 800 800 800 800 Subtotal contractual agreements with SANP 65,000 16,000 0 0 0 16,000 49,000 - 26,200 17,200 15,200 3,200 3,200 (iv) Establish Elim fynbos Contractual parkFinalize Pilot farm planning wkshop 5,000 - 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 5,000 - - - Training in conservation farm planning training days 20,000 5,000 0 0 5,000 10,000 10,000 - 5,000 10,000 5,000 0Develop protocols to extrapolate the farm planning cons. days 300 12 3,600 0 0 0 0 - 3,600 1,800 1,800 0 0 0Stakeholder workshops to liaise with farmers wkshop wshop 2,000 0 0 0 0 - 2,000 - 400 400 400 400 400 Subtotal Elim fynbos park 30,600 5,000 0 0 7,500 12,500 18,100 - 12,200 12,200 5,400 400 400


(v) Consolidate Walker Bay Fynbos conservancyDevelopment of the management plan Vegetation boundaries & age classes cons. days 200 20 4,000 0 2,000 2,000 0 4,000 - 4,000 - - - - - Alien vegetation cons. days 200 26 5,200 0 2,600 2,600 0 5,200 - 5,200 - - - - - Roads, fences, infrastructure cons. days 200 7 1,400 0 700 700 0 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 0 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - - Workshops with landowners wkshop wshop 5,800 0 0 0 0 - 5,800 - 5,800 - - - - Negotiate specific incentives for entering into management agreementscons. days 200 50 10,000 - 0 0 - 10,000 - 4,000 6,000 0 0 - Communication op. 650 0 0 0 0 - 650 - 650 - - - - Management plan cons. days 200 60 12,000 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 9,000 - 12,000 Subtotal Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy 543,750 0 508,300 5,300 - 513,600 30,150 510,600 27,150 6,000 - - -

(vi) Secure endemic wildlife habitat through De Hoop corridor to AgulhasIdentify best landscape corridors/negotiate agreements wkshop 2,000 0 0 1,000 1,000 2,000 - - 1,000 1,000 - - - Legal fees and transaction costs consultancy days 300 12 3,600 0 1,800 0 1,800 1,800 - 1,800 1,800Develop policies for conservation partnerships/liaise wkshop wshop 1,500 0 0 0 0 - 1,500 - 300 300 300 300 300 Subtotal secure wildlife habitat 7,100 - 0 2,800 1,000 3,800 3,300 - 3,100 3,100 300 300 300

(vii) Consolidate De Mond Ramsar Site Conservancy through Riparian owners association management agreementsFormalize 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 4,000 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 3,000 - - 2,000 2,000 - - Legal fees to develop agreements cons. day 200 20 4,000 0 0 0 0 - 4,000 - - - 2,000 2,000 - Subtotal consolidate De Mond 16,000 - 0 2,000 - 2,000 14,000 - 2,000 6,000 6,000 2,000 -

SECURE LAND UNDER CONSERVATION 3,490,050 2,733,000 608,300 10,100 8,500 3,359,900 130,150 1,510,600 1,284,450 652,300 28,900 7,900 5,900

3. Conservation management planning

(i) Rapid ecological surveys of priority ecosystemsGap analysis cons. days 200 10 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - Design standard formats for data acquisitions, storage, analysis

cons. days 200 10 2,000 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 - 2,000 - - - - Design survey (2) cons. days 200 10 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 - - 2,000 - - - - Conduct survey cons. lumpsum 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 - - 7,500 7,500 - - - Subtotal ecological surveys 21,000 18000 0 0 0 18,000 3,000 - 13,500 7,500 - - -

(ii) Stakeholder consultationInstitutional 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 Subtotal stakeholder analysis 10,800 3,000 0 3,000 7,800 - 6,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

3.1 Participatory collaborative planning and management system for Agulhas Plain

Workshop to identify the needs for BIMS wkshop wshop 1,000 2 2,000 600 0 0 0 600 1,400 - - 2,000 - - - Design workplans for data management wkshop wshop 2,000 1 2,000 300 0 0 0 300 1,700 - - 2,000 - - - GIS support for BIMS cons. days 250 240 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 5,000 2,500 0 2,500 0 5,000 - - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Subtotal monitoring 69,000 3400 0 22,500 0 25,900 43,100 - 13,000 17,000 13,000 13,000 13,000

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 wkshop wshop 1,000 2 2,000 600 0 0 0 600 1,400 - 2,000 - - - - Management plan development 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 1,000 2 2,000 600 0 0 0 600 1,400 - - - - 2,000 - Maintenance of management plan operating days 50 300 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 - - 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Subtotal park management plan 45,000 18,600 0 0 0 18,600 26,400 - 10,000 8,000 19,000 5,000 3,000

(iii) Geo referenced Biodiversity Information and Monitoring Systems (BIMS)

(iv) Develop collaborative management plan guidelines for Agulhas plain


(v) Develop participatory farm conservation planning protocolsStakeholder 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 staff year 7,000 12 84,000 0 0 0 0 0 84,000 - 28,000 28,000 28,000 - - Conduct farm planning in priority areas cons. property 300 14 4,200 1,800 0 0 0 1,800 2,400 - 2,400 1,800 - - - Develop protocols for extrapolating farm planning exercise to other priority areascons. days 250 6 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 0 0 0 0Regional Farm scale conservation planning w/shop wkshop wshop 4,000 2 8,000 800 1,200 4,000 6,000 2,000 0 0 4,000 4,000 0 0Subtotal fam conservation planning 107,400 4,100 - 1,200 11,200 16,500 90,900 - 36,000 37,900 32,500 500 500

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 - - - - Guidelines for integration cultural heritage in management planning

wkshop 1,000 2 2,000 600 0 0 0 600 1,400 - - 2,000 - - - Subtotal cultural heritage 12,000 4600 0 0 0 4,600 7,400 - 10,000 2,000 - - -

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLANNING 265,200 51,700 - 23,700 11,200 86,600 178,600 - 88,500 73,600 65,700 19,700 17,700

4. Controlling Alien plant spread

(i) Capture lessons from Cape Peninsula Biodiversity ProjectCriteria for Identification of priority areas wkshop w.shop 1,000 2 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 - - 1,000 1,000 - - - Training for info capture and review wkshop w.shop 2,000 2 4,000 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 - 2,000 2,000 Develop new alien clearance techniques op. year 50,000 5 250,000 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 150,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

(ii) Finalise policy on clearing in contractual/ management agreement areasLegal fees cons. days 300 12 3,600 3,600 0 0 0 3,600 - - 1,800 1,800Liaison with stakeholders wkshop wshop 1,000 12 12,000 3600 0 0 0 3,600 8,400 - 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400

4.2 Expand existing alien vegetation clearance program(i) Establish joint clearing strategy per quaternary catchmentStakeholder workshops in each catchment wkshop w.shop 1,200 5 6,000 2,400 0 0 0 2,400 3,600 - 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Identification of priority areas wkshop 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 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

(ii) Municipal/Departmental liaison mechanismLiaison meetings (3/year) wkshop wshop 1,000 15 15,000 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 10,000 - 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

- CONTROL OF ALIEN PLANT 325,100 123,350 - 12,000 - 135,350 189,750 - 69,900 68,400 63,600 61,600 61,600

5. Fire management

Identify stakeholders wkshop wshop 1,000 2 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 - 2,000 - - - -

Development of participatory mechanisms wkshop wshop 1,000 2 2,000 600 0 0 0 600 1,400 - 2,000 - - - - Establish rapid-response units for fire management and control

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 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 GIS fire management plan - update to integrate conservation 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 FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 162,000 37,500 0 0 0 37,500 124,500 - 14,000 77,000 27,000 22,000 22,000

6. Wetland rehabilitationIdentify priority areas and techniques cons. days 250 20 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 - - 5,000 - - - Implementation of restoration plan in a pilot area op. 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 - - - 50,000 100,000 100,000 WETLAND RESTORATION 255,000 - 0 0 0 0 255,000 - - 5,000 50,000 100,000 100,000

5.1 Develop and initiate fire management strategy

4.1 Ascertain best practice for alien management

(vi) Integrate cultural heritage concerns into management planning

7. Participatory Monitoring and EvaluationAnnual interviews 1,700 5 8,500 0 0 0 0 0 8,500 0 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700Annual M&E workshop (Park and stakeholders) wshop 1,100 5 5,500 0 0 0 0 0 5,500 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100Annual M&E workshops (WBFC stakeholders) wshop 1,100 5 5,500 0 0 0 0 0 5,500 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100Monitoring stakeholder participation wshop 1,500 4 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500Evaluation report preparation and distribution mat 800 4 3,200 0 0 0 0 0 3,200 0 0 800 800 800 800Conflict intervention lumpsum 5,000 4 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000MONITORING AND EVALUATION 48,700 48,700 - 3,900 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200


8. Component Management8.1. ABI Project Implementation UnitABI Project Coordinator staff years 95,000 - - - 0 - 95,000 - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 ABI Project Assistant staff years 8,000 5 40,000 40,000 - - 0 40,000 - - 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 ABI Technical Advisor/Capacity Building cons. days 450 100 45,000 - - - 0 - 45,000 13,500 18,000 4,500 4,500 2,250 2,250 Travel for the technical advisor and PIU travel lumpsum 10,000 5 50,000 - - - 0 - 50,000 6,000 14,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 Operation of ABI PIU op. lumpsum 8,000 5 40,000 12,000 - - 0 12,000 28,000 2,400 8,600 8,600 8,600 7,600 4,200 Vehicle equip. car 22,000 1 22,000 - - - 0 - 22,000 22,000 - - - - - Laptop + printer equip. equip. 3,000 1 3,000 - - - 0 - 3,000 3,000 - - - - - ABI PIU 295,000 52,000 - - - 52,000 243,000 46,900 68,600 51,100 51,100 42,850 34,450

8.2. ABI Oversight CommitteeOne-to-one consultations wkshops 2,000 1 2,000 - - - - - 2,000 2,000 - - - - Familiarisation tours of the area (Two) travel 700 2 1,400 - - - - - 1,400 1,400 - - - - Sub-area meetings workshop 1,000 - - - - - 1,000 1,000 - - - -

Draft terms of reference/groundrules (produce and distribute) cons. 300 3 900 - - - - - 900 900 - - - - - Further one-to-one discussions cons. 300 4 1,200 - - - - - 1,200 1,200 - - - - - Public meeting wkshops 1,000 1 1,000 - - - - - 1,000 1,000 - - - - Forum meetings (two in first year) wkshops 700 10 7,000 - - - - - 7,000 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 Public report back meeting (one/year) mat. 800 5 4,000 - - - 4,000 800 800 800 800 800 ABI Oversight Committee 18,500 - - - - - 18,500 2,100 7,600 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200

8.3. Monitoring and EvaluationUndertake independent M&E cons. 20,000 2 40,000 - - - - - 40,000 - - 20,000 - 20,000 Audit 6,000 6,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 M&E 46,000 - - - - - 46,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 21,000 1,000 21,000

- PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING 359,500 52,000 - - - 52,000 307,500 50,000 77,200 54,300 74,300 46,050 57,650

TOTAL CONSERVATION IN PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE 7,499,990 4,603,550 608,300 216,800 19,700 5,448,350 2,051,640 1,648,650 1,991,840 1,542,850 965,350 739,850 611,450


Component 2: SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING OF WILD FYNBOS

COMPONENTS Category Unit Cost/unit ($) No of units

WCNCB Grootbos ($) FFI/FVCT ($) Co-financing Request Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

1. Legal framework 1.1. Updating regulations cons. days 250 20 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 01.2. Updating permit system cons. months 2,000 2 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 01.3. Capacity building of WCNCB staff training days 200 96 19,200 0 0 0 0 19,200 9,600 9,600 0 0 0Legal framework 28,200 0 0 0 0 28,200 18,600 9,600 0 0 0

2. Securing the supply network2.1. Formalising the supply network cons. days 250 15 3,750 0 0 0 0 3,750 3,750 0 0 0 0Stakeholder workshops wkshop days 2,000 2 4,000 0 0 1,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 0 0 0 0

2.2. Establish supply network management forumConfirm relevant stakeholders cons. days 300 1 300 0 0 0 0 300 300 0 0 0 0One-to-one consultations with key stakeholders cons. days 300 6 1,800 0 0 0 0 1,800 1,800 0 0 0 0Draft terms of reference/groundrules cons. days 300 3 900 0 0 0 0 900 900 0 0 0 0Meetings with stakeholders wkshop 500 3 1,500 0 0 0 0 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0Further one-to-one discussions cons. days 300 3.5 1,050 0 0 0 0 1,050 1,050 0 0 0 0Founding meeting wkshop 700 1 700 0 0 0 0 700 700 0 0 0 0Management Forum Meetings (4 per year) wkshop 500 20 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Supply network 24,000 - - 1,000 1,000 23,000 16,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

3. Develop a certification scheme/join an internationally established scheme3.1. Capacity building for the Certification Unit/WCNCBTraining for WCNCB Certification Unit lumpsum 5,000 1 5,000 - - - - 5,000 2,500 2,500 - - - Provide equipment for the Certification Unit equip. 3,000 1 3,000 1,000 - - 1,000 2,000 3,000 - - - - 3.2. Develop the CoP cons days 400 45 18,000 - - - - 18,000 18,000 - - - - 3.3. Support FVCT to liaise with farmers lumpsum 3,000 4 12,000 - - - - 12,000 - 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3.4. Develop monitoring and audit system cons. days 400 30 12,000 - - - - 12,000 - 12,000 - - - 3.5. Stakeholder workshops wkshop 1,000 4 4,000 - - - - 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3.6. Negotiate with FLP (fee + travel) cons days 600 20 12,000 - - - - 12,000 12,000 - - - - Certification 66,000 1,000 - - 1,000 65,000 35,500 18,500 4,000 4,000 4,000

4. Marketing of sustainably harvested fynbos4.1. Co-label packagingdevelop the logo cons. days 450 30 13,500 - - - - 13,500 13,500 - - - - negotiate the incorporation of the logo cons. days 450 30 13,500 - - - - 13,500 13,500 - - - - 4.2. Modernize and integrate the supply chain - Travel costs (Germany, Switzerland, UK) travel year 3,000 4 12,000 - - - - 12,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Marketing expert staff year 14,000 5 70,000 - - 70,000 70,000 - 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 4.3. Marketing PlanPromotional materials mat. 1,500 5 7,500 - - - - 7,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 stand at the Essen Trade Show equip. 2,500 5 12,500 - - 5,000 5,000 7,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 video clip mat. 5,000 1 5,000 - - - - 5,000 - 5,000 - Communication op. year 5,000 5 25,000 1,000 1,000 24,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4.4. Sales Plan - - - website (bilingual) cons. year 2,500 1 2,500 - - - - 2,500 - 2,500 - - - maintenance of website staff year 1,200 4 4,800 - 4,800 4,800 - - 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 organizing the florist exchange program staff year 2,000 3 6,000 - 6,000 6,000 - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 Communication op. year 1,000 3 3,000 - - - 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Marketing 175,300 - - 86,800 86,800 88,500 50,000 34,700 30,200 30,200 30,200

TOTAL COST ($)

Development of a model for sustainable harvesting of wildflowers in lowland fynbos


5. Pilot recording system for harvested species5.1. Provide equipmentHardware equip. equip. 1,000 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 0Software equip. equip. 8,500 1 8,500 0 8,500 0 8,500 0 8,500 0 0 0 05.2. Develop a small herbarium at Flower Valley equip. equip. 1,000 1 1,000 0 250 0 250 750 1,000 0 0 0 05.3. Capacity building of FV staff training days 100 10 1,000 0 0 400 400 600 1,000 0 0 0 05.4. Develop zonation maps for supply network cons. days 250 25 6,250 0 0 0 0 6,250 6,250 0 0 0 05.5. Flower Valley Harvest manager staff months 60 28 1,680 0 0 1,680 1,680 0 0 420 420 420 420 5.6. WCNCB Field inspector staff months 200 28 5,600 5,600 0 0 5,600 0 0 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 5.7. Develop capacity of WCNCB GIS training months 800 8 6,400 2,000 0 0 2,000 4,400 - 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600Pilot system to record species 31,430 7,600 8,750 2,080 18,430 13,000 17,750 3,420 3,420 3,420 3,420

6. Capacity building6.1. Training courses for picking teamsConsultant to develop module cons. days 200 14 2,800 0 0 700 700 2,100 2,800 0 0 0 0Provision of technical input cons. days 200 7 1,400 0 0 0 0 1,400 1,400 0 0 0 0Handbook material lumpsum 15,000 1 15,000 0 0 4,000 4,000 11,000 15,000 0 0 0 0Training of flower pickers training days 150 50 7,500 0 0 7,500 7,500 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,5006.2. Training for landowners/contract pickers

0Consultant to develop module cons. days 200 5 1,000 250 250 750 1,000 0 0 0 0Provision of technical input cons. days 200 3 600 0 600 600 0 0 0 0Training workshop wkshop days 250 10 2,500 0 0 500 500 2,000 500 500 500 500 500 6.3. Opportunities for new entrants 0Identify potential entrepreneurs cons. days 250 5 2,500 0 0 0 0 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0Meetings with community based organisations wkshop 2,500 0 0 0 0 2,500 2,500 Development of training module for new entrants cons. days 250 5 1,250 0 0 0 0 1,250 1,250 0 0 0 0Running of annual training programs training days 150 10 1,500 0 0 1,500 1,500 0 300 300 300 300 300Capacity Building 38,550 - - 14,450 14,450 24,100 29,350 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300

7. Monitoring7.1. Impacts of harvesting on different guildsAccommodation op. days 10 50 500 0 0 500 500 0 250 100 50 50 50Meals op. days 15 50 750 0 750 0 750 0 375 150 75 75 75Communication op. lumpsum 500 0 500 0 500 0 250 100 50 50 50Transportation op. lumpsum 1,500 0 750 750 1,500 0 900 150 150 150 150Student cons. days 30 50 1,500 0 0 0 0 1,500 900 150 150 150 1507.2. Impacts of harvesting on interspecific competition

Accommodation op. days 10 50 500 0 0 500 500 0 250 100 50 50 50Meals op. days 15 50 750 0 750 0 750 0 375 150 75 75 75Communication op. lumpsum 500 0 500 0 500 0 250 100 50 50 50Transportation op. lumpsum 1,500 0 750 750 1,500 0 900 150 150 150 150Student cons. days 30 50 1,500 0 0 0 0 1,500 900 150 150 150 1507.3. Long term monitoring programFarm Manager staff months 100 28 2,800 0 0 2,800 2,800 0 0 700 700 700 700 Full-time harvesters (nine) staff months 85 48 36,720 0 0 36,720 36,720 0 0 9,180 9,180 9,180 9,180 Part-time harvesters (four) staff months 80 20 6,400 0 0 0 0 6,400 0 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Land land purchaselumpsum 500,000 0 0 500,000 500,000 0 500,000 0 0 0 0Transportation

4 X 4 equip. car 22,000 1 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 0 22,000 0 0 0tractor equip. car 8,000 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 8,000 0 8,000 0 0 0maintenance op. months 60 48 2,880 0 0 0 0 2,880 0 720 720 720 720

Brushcutter equip. equipment 1,200 1 1,200 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 1,200 0 0 0


Trailer equip. equipment 1,000 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 0 0 0Scale equip. equipment 200 2 400 0 0 200 200 200 0 400 0 0 0Harvesting shears equip. equipment 45 13 585 0 0 0 0 585 0 585 0 0 0Harvesting gear equip. equipment 30 13 390 0 0 0 0 390 0 390 0 0 0Operational costs op. months 1,000 48 48,000 0 0 48,000 48,000 0 0 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,0007.4. Species vulnerability index cons. months 2,000 2 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 07.5. Resource base assessment of supply network cons. days 250 25 6,250 0 0 0 6,250 6,250 0 0 0 07.6. Orchardand/old farm land rehabilitationTransportation travel 800 4 3,200 0 0 0 0 3,200 0 800 800 800 800Accommodation travel 20 24 480 0 0 0 0 480 0 120 120 120 120Soil samples lumpsum 2,000 8 16,000 0 0 0 0 16,000 0 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000Seeds lumpsum 50 8 400 0 0 0 0 400 0 100 100 100 100Tractor hire lumpsum 700 8 5,600 0 0 0 0 5,600 0 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400Irrigation costs lumpsum 300 8 2,400 0 0 0 0 2,400 0 600 600 600 600Communication lumpsum 200 8 1,600 0 0 0 0 1,600 0 400 400 400 400Expert fee hours 15 1200 18,000 0 0 0 0 18,000 0 4500 4500 4500 45007.7. Demonstrate the higher ec. value for sust.Accommodation op. days 10 100 1,000 0 0 1,000 1,000 0 0 1,000 0 0 0Meals op. days 15 100 1,500 0 750 0 750 750 0 1,500 0 0 0Communication op. lumpsum 500 0 0 0 0 500 0 500 0 0 0Transportation op. lumpsum 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 500 500 500 500MSc Student cons. days 50 100 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0Materials lumpsum 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 07.8. Monitoring economic performanceDevelop an annual survey on economic benefits cons. days 300 20 6,000 0 0 0 0 6,000 6,000Collect data cons. 300 50 15,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Process data cons. 300 50 15,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Produce and distribute report cons. year 1,000 5 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000Monitoring stakeholder participation whsop year 1,500 2 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 1,500 0 1,500 0Evaluation report mat year 800 2 1,600 0 0 0 0 1,600 0 800 0 800 0Monitoring 756,405 - 4,750 591,220 595,970 160,435 528,600 91,795 44,570 46,870 44,570

8. Replication 8.1.Stakeholder workshop equipment, supplies, materialsdays 2,500 1 2,500 0 0 500 500 2,000 2,500 8.2. Sustainable harvesting committee - meetings operating costsyears 1,000 5 5,000 0 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 8.3. Promotional materials lumpsum 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,0008.4. Stakeholder workshops to extrapolate FV model equipment, supplies, materialsdays 2,000 3 6,000 0 0 1,500 1,500 4,500 2,000 2,000 2,000Replication 17,500 - - 4,500 4,500 13,000 3,500 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING 1,137,385 8,600 13,500 700,050 722,150 415,235 699,300 164,315 90,490 92,790 90,490


Component 3: NATURE-BASED TOURISM

Components Category Unit Cost/ unit ($)

No of units

Total Cost ($) SANP WCNCB Grootbos/WBFC

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 ForumNature-based tourism specialist staff year 15,000 5 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Identify and confirm relevant stakeholders cons. lumpsum 500 1 500 200 0 0 0 200 300 - 500 0 0 0 0Coonsultations with key stakeholders cons. lumpsum 2,000 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 - 2,000 0 0 0 0Draft ToR - produce and distribute cons. days 200 5 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 - 1,000 0 0 0 0Conduct two meetings with stakeholders cons. lumpsum 500 2 1,000 200 0 0 0 200 800 - 1,000 0 0 0 0Further one-to-one discussions cons. lumpsum 200 5 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 - 1,000 0 0 0 0Mechansims to increase participation cons lumpsum 1,400 1 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 1,400 - 0 1,400 0 0 0Founding meeting wkshop lumpsum 1,000 1 1,000 300 0 0 0 300 700 - 1,000 0 0 0 0Convene ongoing meetings of Forum wkshop wkshops 500 10 5,000 200 0 0 0 200 4,800 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000Subtotal tourism AP Tourism Forum/Trust 87,900 900 - - - 900 87,000 - 22,500 17,400 16,000 16,000 16,000

(ii) Establish two Heritage Centers

Elim Heritage Center Tourism Officer staff year 2,400 5 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 12,000 - - 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400Elim Centre administrator (salary) staff year 3,000 5 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 - - 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..) equip. lumpsum 20,000 1 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 - 10,000 10,000 0 0 0Administration op. year 6,000 5 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 - - 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

Furnishings (office, workbenches, desks, etc.) equip. year 3,000 2 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 - 3,000 3,000 0 0 0

Equipment (tele./fax ,photo copier & hand tools) equip. year 3,000 2 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 - 3,000 3,000 0 0 0Computers + software + printers equip. lumpsum 5,000 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 - 5,000 0 0 0 0Cape Agulhas CenterManager of Cape Agulhas Center staff year 9,000 5 45,000 45,000 0 0 0 45,000 - - 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000Building works lumpsum 100,000 1 100,000 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 0 0 0 0Furniture equip. lumpsum 5,000 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 - 0 5,000 0 0 0Computers + software + printers equip. lumpsum 5,000 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 - 0 5,000 0 0 0Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..) equip. lumpsum 20,000 1 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 - 0 20,000 0 0 0Administration op. year 3,000 5 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 - - 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Tourism infrastructure in ANPDesign and layout for infrastructure op. lumpsum 8,000 8,000 0 0 0 8,000 - - 8,000 0 0 0 0Day-trails works trail 5,000 3 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 - 5,000 10,000 0 0 0Over-night trails works trail 10,000 1 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 - 0 10,000 0 0 0Trail over-night facilities works trail 16,000 2 32,000 0 0 0 0 0 32,000 - 0 32,000 0 0 0Camping facilities (Die Damme) works building 250,000 1 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 - - 0 0 0 0 250,000Village accommodation for visitors works building 600,000 1 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 600,000 - - 0 0 600,000 0 0Restaurant works building 100,000 1 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 - - 0 0 100,000 0 0Shop works building 100,000 1 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 - - 0 0 100,000 0 0Restaurant manager staff year 10,000 3 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 - - 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000Shop manager staff year 10,000 3 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 - - 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000Shop staff (4) staff year 3,000 12 36,000 36,000 0 0 0 36,000 - - 0 0 12,000 12,000 12,000Restaurant staff (12) staff year 3,000 36 108,000 108,000 - 0 108,000 - - 0 0 36,000 36,000 36,000Accommodation staff (15) staff year 3,000 45 135,000 135,000 0 0 0 135,000 - - 45,000 0 45,000 0 45,000Subtotal tourism centers and Agulhas National Park

1,738,000 1,507,000 0 0 57,000 1,564,000 174,000 0 202,400 121,400 936,400 91,400 386,400

COORDINATE TOURISM INITIATIVES 1,825,900 1,507,900 - - 57,000 1,564,900 261,000 - 224,900 138,800 952,400 107,400 402,400


2. Marketing(i) Agulhas Plain Tourist RouteStakeholder workshops/consultations wkshops lumpsum 4,000 6 24,000 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 - 12,000 12,000 0 0 0Materials equip. lumpsum 500 6 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 - 1,500 1,500 0 0 0Subtotal AP Route 27,000 - - - - - 27,000 - 13,500 13,500 - - -

(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 0Kick-off Workshop 1 day expenses: transport: petrol, accommodation,venue & catering

wkshop lumpsum 500 1 500 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 500 0 0 0 0Exploration of existing material time: 3 days cons. lumpsum 1,200 1 1,200 0 0 0 1,200 1,200 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 020 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 0 020 Stakeholder interviews expenses: transport:1domestic flight, petrol, car hire, parking,

cons. lumpsum 2,370 1 2,370 0 0 0 2,370 2,370 0 0 2,370 0 0 0 012 Expert interviews time: 7 days cons. lumpsum 380 1 380 0 0 0 380 380 0 0 380 0 0 0 012 Expert interviews: expenses: transport: 1domestic flight, car hire, parking, petrol, accommodation, costs

cons. lumpsum 2,200 1 2,200 0 0 0 2,200 2,200 0 0 2,200 0 0 0 014 Consumer research groups time: 29.5 days cons. lumpsum 14,750 1 14,750 0 0 0 14,750 14,750 0 0 14,750 0 0 0 014 Consumer research groups: expenses: transport: 2 domestic flights, car hire, parking, accommodation,

cons. lumpsum 12,050 1 12,050 0 0 0 12,050 12,050 0 0 12,050 0 0 0 0Consolidation of findings time: 11 days cons. lumpsum 6,000 1 6,000 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 0

Subtotal Market analysis 70,550 0 0 0 45,050 45,050 25,500 0 70,550 0 0 0 0

(iii) Positioning & portfolio implicationsPositioning Workshop 1.5 days time: 17.5 days cons. lumpsum 9,000 1 9,000 0 0 0 9,000 9,000 0 0 9,000 0 0 0 0Positioning Workshop 1.5 days: expenses: accommodation, tel & fax, transport: petrol, 3 communication experts attendance, venue & cateringcons. lumpsum 1,200 1 1,200 0 0 0 1,200 1,200 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 0

Subtotal positioning/portfolio implications 10,200 0 0 0 10,200 10,200 0 0 10,200 0 0 0 0

(iv) Develop implementation plan Implementation Workshop 1 day time: 14.5 days wkshop lumpsum 7,500 1 7,500 0 0 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 0Implementation Workshop 1 day expenses: accommodation, tel & fax, transport: petrol, venue &

wkshop lumpsum 600 1 600 0 0 0 600 600 0 0 600 0 0 0 07 Consumer research-validation groups time: 24 days cons. lumpsum 12,000 1 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 12,000 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 07 Consumer research-validation- groups: expenses: transport: 2 domestic flights, car hire, parking,

cons. lumpsum 6,300 1 6,300 0 0 0 6,300 6,300 0 0 6,300 0 0 0 0Post validation debrief time: 9.5 days cons. lumpsum 6,000 1 6,000 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 0Post validation debrief expenses: venue & catering, transport: petrol

cons. lumpsum 400 1 400 0 0 0 400 400 0 0 400 0 0 0 0

Subtotal Implementation plan 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 5,000Advertising 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 13,500Subtotal Communication 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 28,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 16,000

(vi) Brand measurement toolsQuantitative tracking study time: 16.5 days cons. year 7,000 5 35,000 0 0 0 35,000 35,000 0 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000Quantitative tracking study expenses: data processing, printing questionares

cons. year 1,100 5 5,500 0 0 0 5,500 5,500 0 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100Qualitatative tracking study time: 14.5 days cons. year 4,850 4 19,400 0 0 0 19,400 19,400 0 0 0 4,850 4,850 4,850 4,850Qualitatative tracking study: expenses: transport, 1domestic flight,car hire, parking,

cons. year 3,650 4 14,600 0 0 0 14,600 14,600 0 0 0 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650Annual reivew workshop 1day: time: 5.5 days cons. year 4,500 4 18,000 0 0 0 18,000 18,000 0 0 0 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500Annual reivew workshop: expenses: transport:petrol, accommodation, tel & fax, venue & catering

cons. year 600 4 2,400 0 0 0 2,400 2,400 0 0 0 600 600 600 600

Subtotal brand measurement tools 94,900 0 0 0 94,900 94,900 0 0 8,100 21,700 21,700 21,700 21,700

MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION 335,450 0 0 0 282,950 282,950 52,500 0 163,650 53,700 40,200 40,200 37,7003. Support community initiatives(i) Create opportunities for new entrants

Identify potential communities/interested entrants wkshop wkshop 400 1 400 200 0 0 0 200 200 - 0 400 0 0 0Meetings with community based organisations wkshop 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 0Implement agreed introduction process wkshop wkshop 1000 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 - 0 1,000 0 0 0Subtotal opportunities 3,400 200 - - - 200 3,200 - - 3,400 - - -


(ii) Capacity buildingTraining needs assessment cons. days 250 20 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 - 5,000 0 0 0 0Tour guide training year 3,000 4 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 - 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Hospitality training year 3,000 4 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 12,000 - - 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Entrepreneurship training year 3,000 4 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 - 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Subtotal training 41,000 - - - 12,000 12,000 29,000 - 5,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000

(iii) Support local community progr.Kassiesbaai and Elim Planning (cons., travel, materials) wkshop wkshop 5,000 2 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 0Develop a tourism program cons. days 300 60 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 0 0 18,000 0 0 0Subtotal community initiatives 28,000 0 0 0 0 0 28,000 0 10,000 18,000 0 0 0

(iv) Hiking Trail (6 day)

Construction of overnight facilities works building 210,000 1 210,000 0 0 210,000 0 210,000 0 0 210,000Layout plan, application procedure & alignment cons. lumpsum 7,000 1 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0 7,000Construction of trail works building 16,000 1 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 0 16,000

Operating costs op. year 37,000 5 185,000 0 0 185,000 0 185,000 0 0 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000Trail guide; 4 persons training year 1,000 2 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 1,000 1,000Tour guide; 4 persons training year 1,000 2 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 1,000 1,000Hospitality; 4 persons training year 1,000 2 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 1,000 1,000Domestic services; 4 persons training year 1,000 2 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 1,000 1,000Interpretation equip. lumpsum 8,000 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 0 8,000Brochures/website equip. lumpsum 5,000 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000Subtotal 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 1,200Impact 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 1,800Impact 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 1,200Impact 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 1,200Stakeholder participation wshop years 1,500 2 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 0Evlauation report distributed mat 800 2 1,600 0 0 0 0 0 1,600 0 0 800 800TOURISM MONITORING 31,600 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 25,600 0 5,400 7,700 5,400 7,700 5,400

NATURE - BASED TOURISM 2,704,350 1,508,100 - 395,000 357,950 2,261,050 443,300 - 695,950 271,600 1,044,000 201,300 491,500


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 outreachCommunication 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 250 40 10,000 0 0 0 - 10,000 - 5,000 5,000Produce awareness materials & packages materials lumpsum 50,000 0 0 0 - 50,000 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Agulhas Plain conservation book materials lumpsum 20,000 0 0 0 - 20,000 - 0 20,000 0 0 0ABI newsletter (2/year) materials mag. 300 10 3,000 0 0 0 - 3,000 - 600 600 600 600 600Conservation Farners's Day wkshop wklshop 1,000 5 5,000 0 0 0 - 5,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000DESIGN AWARENESS PROGRAM 168,000 70,000 0 0 70,000 98,000 0 32,600 52,600 27,600 27,600 27,600

2. Pilot alternative communicationCo-ordinator staff years 7,000 2 14,000 0 0 0 - 14,000 - 0 7,000 7,000 0 0Workshops training years 8,000 2 16,000 0 0 0 - 16,000 - 0 8,000 8,000 0 0Weekly Tuition training years 5,000 2 10,000 0 0 0 - 10,000 - 0 5,000 5,000 0 0Outings & exposure operating cost lumpsum 1,000 2 2,000 0 0 0 - 2,000 - 0 1,000 1,000 0 0Equipment & materials equip. lumpsum 13,500 1 13,500 0 0 0 - 13,500 - 0 13,500 0 0Transportation/communication op. years 7,000 2 14,000 0 0 0 - 14,000 - 0 7,000 7,000 0 0PILOT ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION 69,500 0 0 0 0 69,500 0 0 41,500 28,000 0 0

3. Early Learning Center - env. educationSetup costs equip lumpsum 5,000 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0Training - women practitioners training years 10,000 2 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0Administrative costs op. years 8,000 2 16,000 0 0 0 0 16,000 0 8,000 8,000 0 0 0Transport op. years 500 2 1,000 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 500 500 0 0 0EARLY LEARNING CENTER 42,000 0 0 0 0 42,000 0 23,500 18,500 0 0 0

4. Monitoring of target groupsInterviews/questionnaires workshops cons. years 5,000 5 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000Monitoring stakeholder participation wkshop years 1,500 2 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 0MONITORING 28,000 0 0 0 0 28,000 0 5,000 6,500 5,000 6,500 5,000

AWARENESS PROGRAM 307,500 70,000 - - 70,000 237,500 61,100 119,100 60,600 34,100 32,600


Annex 2 Terms of Reference – Staff

National staff1. 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 sub-contractors. 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 60

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;

and6. 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;


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. Relevant academic and professional qualifications with at least five years experience in the tourism sector (preferably at the community level);

2. Proven extensive experience and technical ability to work in a large project and a good technical knowledge of the tourism sector;

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. 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.


1. Develop a framework and guidelines for the infrastructure planning and design for the Agulhas National Park;

2. Align developmental principles for infrastructure planning with the Cape Agulhas Tourism Development framework;

3. 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;

4. Gather information on cultural significance of the area of design and historical occurrences to incorporate in the planning and design;

5. Formulate a template for the operational infrastructure development taking into account the Cape ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,

Page 62

Agulhas Tourism Development Framework proposed time line;6. Liaise with municipalities, local authorities and local organizations to ensure the integration of the

development plans into the IDP’s;7. Provide high levels of professional services and advice on infrastructure development plans to the

project and project staff as needed;8. Implement the EIA process for these various infrastructure developments.

Selection Criteria:

1. Minimum of 5 years experience in infrastructure planning and design in South Africa;2. Knowledge of the Provincial Planning Processes and their Tourism Development Priorities;3. Good support structure with other Planning and design companies/individuals where a lack of skills

can be accessed;4. Willingness to travel regularly to the Agulhas National Park;5. Good interpersonal skills;6. 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.


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 63

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.


1. Develop a framework and guidelines for farm planning on the Agulhas Plain;2. 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 64

2. Experience in working with and developing effective partnership with private farmers, local communities and government agencies;

3. Knowledge and skills in various aspects of resource conservation planning and management;4. Willingness to travel frequently to Agulhas Plain;5. Good interpersonal skills;6. 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.


1. Resolve legal disputes on purchased land;2. Registration and proclamation of purchased land;3. Support land valuation processes and disputes;4. Screen all transactions for servitudes, various rights such as right of first refusal, access, mineral rights

etc.;5. Drawing up of legal contracts and agreements on management, sustainable utilization, access, etc.;6. Assist in the consolidation of the De Hoop corridor and De Mond Ramsar site Conservancy with

management agreements;7. Deproclamation of public roads within the Agulhas National Park;8. Screen the provincial roads regulations on positioning of entrance gates in and around public roads;9. Assistance in land acquisition transactions with landowners.

Selection Criteria:

1. Degree in law with at least five years experience working on conservation concerns;2. Fluency in the English language, knowledge of Afrikaans, desirable;3. Familiarity with legislative making processes and environmental litigation;4. 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.


1. analyze and present the economics of sustainable fynbos harvesting;ABI, Annex 2 – Terms of Reference,

Page 65

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.


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.


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 assignmentThe CTA will be appointed for a period of 100 days over the five year of the project.


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. 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.

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. 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.

5. Assist with the establishment of the institutional arrangements to develop and administer the certification scheme;

6. 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;

7. Contract expertise to build the capacity of the WCNCBs Certification Unit; 8. Work together with the extension service to provide information to farmers who want to join the

certification scheme; 9. Contract expertise to develop the monitoring and auditing systems for the certification scheme; 10. Organize stakeholder workshops for producers and suppliers on the costs and benefits of joining

an international certification scheme, such as the Flower Labeling Program;11. Develop a simple and effective logo to convey the sustainable harvesting message of ABI along

with the well recognized FLP. 12. Negotiate (if appropriate) a co-labeling agreement to ensure the sustainable harvesting logo

appears on both the product box and bouquet/bunch tag;13. 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;

14. Hire a marketing expert to implement market specific activities in the priority markets,


emphasizing the high quality of the products as well as their environmental and socially beneficial nature;

15. 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;

16. 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;

17. Develop proper zonation maps for all farms in the supply network;18. 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;

19. Develop a handbook in English, Afrikaans and Xhosa to be used in conjunction with the training courses;

20. 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.

21. 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;

22. Support biological field studies on the effects of harvesting on myrmecochorous (ant dispersed) species and species with soils stored seed banks;

23. Support the investigation of the impacts of harvesting on inter-specific competition;24. 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;

25. Update the Code of Practice as information from the monitoring program becomes available;26. 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;

27. 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;

28. 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;

29. 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.


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).


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 70

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: The sub-contractor will ideally have the following expertise and experience:

1. Experience in trail design, alignment and leading a team in trail construction.2. Experience in training and empowerment of unskilled labour.3. Expertise in submitting development application procedures. 4. 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 71

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).



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;


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.


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;


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.


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)


Accountability: The subcontractor will be accountable to the Project Coordinator for the quality and timeliness of outputs required under this contract.


Annex 3 Equipment Register

Component 1: Conservation Management of the Productive Landscape.

Item Unit Specification Unit Cost(US $)

Total Cost(US $)

1 Furniture: For Park HQ and Visitors Center

3220382422433

Air-ConditioningConference TablesConference ChairsScreen/Dry Wipe moveable boardClip on boardsFlip chartMagnetic BoardsDesksChairs ExecutiveChairs GeneralFiling CabinetWaste Bins

833250606585656519075602505

2500500120019568013026038015024075015$7000

2

3

Computers for:Parks HQ and Visitors Centers:

Software 2

Internet Café Computer – 17/19 inch screen 40 Gig, RAM 256, CD writer

Admin P.C. Pentium 4, RAM 250, 20 Gig Hard drive and CD writer;

Scanner (colour);

Printer Colour HP

Workstation Program Package (MS Word, MS Exel, Microsoft Windows and Office Outlook, Graphix, Power Point, Acrobat, Winzip.

Arc View

1600

1400

700

300

1250

2500

$4000

1,250

2,500

$5000

4 Overhead Projector 1 Vista Varia 1000 $10005 Data Projector 1 Sony 3000 $30006 Radio Equipment Mid

Band:122

Base Unit - QD Traser Mid bandVehicle Radios – QD TraserPortable Radios - Penta

1000550450

10001100900$3000

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

2500 $7500

ABI, Annex 3 – Equipment Registrar,Page 75


Total Cost(US $)

8 Laptop and Printer for ABI PIU

1

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.

HP Laser Jet

2500

500$3000

Component 2: Sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos


Total Cost(US $)

1 Computer and printer for the Certification Unit

1 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

Laser Jet printer

1500

500

$2,000

2 Computer for recording harvested species:

1 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 $1,000

Component 3: Sustainable Nature-based Tourism in the Agulhas Plain


Total Cost(US $)

1 Interpretation Boards/Equipment for Elim HC

15714

Exhibition Boards and ConnectorsDisplay CabinetsInformation Boards/Display PanelsCombi unit (monitor and video)External Direction and Road Signs

25005001687.501687.50375

2500250011812.501687.501500

$20 000

2 Furniture for Elim HC

61232

Conference/Tee Garden ChairsOffice DeskBookcasesAir-conditioning

50150100600

30503002001200


35

Coffee TablesConference/Tee Garden Tables

75250

2251250

$6000

3 Office Equipment for EHC

2423115161102

Office DeskChairs GeneralChairs ExecutiveFiling CabinetPrinter TableFax/CopierWaste BinsCoffee TableExecutive Reception ChairsConference TableConference ChairsAir-conditioning

187.5056.257525050165052510525032775

37522515075050165025256302503201550

$6000

4 Computers, software, printers for EHC

3

1

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

HP Laser Printer (Colour)

1500

500

4500

500

$5000

5 Furniture for Agulhas Heritage Centre

7533

ChairsDeskBookcases

50150100

3750450300

$5000

6 Hardware and software for AHC

3

1

Computer and Software (same specifications as under point 2, component 1)

HP Lazer Printer (Colour)

4500

500$5000

7 Interpretation facilities for AHC

15714

Exhibition Boards and ConnectorsDisplay CabinetsInformation Boards/Display PanelsCombi (monitor and video)External Direction and Road Signs

25005001687.501687.50375

2500250011812.501687.501500$20 000

Vehicles:

Item Uni Specification Unit Cost(US $)

Total Cost(US $)


1 Pick-up truck for Park HQ

1 Toyota Hilux LWB 2x4 12500 12500

2 Combi/Van for Park HQ

1 Toyota Venture 1800 13000 13000

3 Tractor and Implements

1 Tractor 4x4.Implements: Falcon Bruschcutter

24000 24000

4 4x4 for Extension Service

2 Toyota Hilux 2.4D SC 4x4 22000 44000

5 Fire Fighting Vehicles

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

1 Tractor with Falcon brushcutter and trailler 8,0001,2001,000

$10,200

8 4x4 for FVCT 1 Toyota Hilux SC 2.4 D 4x4 22,000 $22,200


Annex 4: Country Endorsement

ABI, Annex 4 – Country endorsement,Page 79

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 80ummarized 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 80

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 81ummarized81ed 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 eco-tourism 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


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


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 landscape-level results in gradual erosion of global environmental benefits.

Reserve system on the Plain is not representative of the



The gradual loss ecological integrity threatens environmental service functions.(i.e. hydrological cycles)

patterns of biodiversity in the landscape

GEF Alternative

Total= 12,853,453 Landscape-level integrated conservation management systems established on the Plain, providing a clear link to spatial development objectives.

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

IncrementGEF: 2,051,640SANParks: 4,603,550WCNCB: 216,800Municip.: 19,700FFI: 608,300Total= 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

Gradual erosion of a promising sustainable use option, and livelihood source, as wild resource is extirpated.

Unsustainable use of the fynbos resources threatens ecological processes and conservation values

GEF Alternative

Total=2,080,385 Sustainable harvesting demonstrated as viable land-use and livelihood

Removal of barriers to sustainable use mitigates threats and provide incentives for biodiversity conservation

Increment GEF: 415,235WCNCB: 8,600Grootbos: 13,500FFI: 700,050Total: 1,137,385

Output 3: A participatory and responsible tourism strategy contributes to sustainable livelihoods

Baseline Total = 13,954,159

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

GEF Alternative Total= 16,658,509 Coordinated effort to

market AP and to create opportunities for disadvantaged communities

Coordinated nature-based tourism activities contribute to sustainable livelihoods and reduction of the pressure on the globally significant



fynbos diversity

IncrementGEF: 443,300SANParks: 1,508,100Tourism Bur: 357,950WBFC: 395,000Total= 2,704,350

Output 4:Increased local support for biodiversity conservation in the AP Plain is generated through a broad-based conservation awareness program

BaselineTotal= 1,216,220 Limited understanding

of the economic and conservation values of fynbos ecosystems

Weak understanding of conservation values threatens sustainability of management

GEF Alternative

Total= 1,523,720 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

Improved prospects for securing stable conservation in the long-term.

Increment GEF: 237,500SANParks: 70,000

Total: 307,500Total

Baseline US$ 21,466,842GEF Alternative US$ 33,116,067

Incremental CostFull ProjectGEFNon-GEFTotal

PreparationGEFNon-GEFTotal

Grand TotalGEFNon-GEFTotal

US$ 3,147,675US$ 8,501,550US$ 11,649,225

US$ 78,550US$ 57,000US$ 135,550

US$ 3,226,225US$ 8,558,550 US$ 11,784,775


South Africa


Annex 6: Logical Framework Matrix

Objectives Indicators Means of verification Assumptions and RisksGoal: 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

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 biodiversity-

related employment

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.

There is continued private sector investment in sustainable biodiversity-based business.

Purpose: Biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development on the Agulhas Plain are significantly enhanced through effective management and co-ordinated stakeholder involvement.

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;

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.

ABI, Annex 6, Logical Framework and workplan,Page 86

Vegetation Type Priority Rating Target Remaining

Renoster fynbos 1 1209 ha Elim asteraceous fynbos 2 3572 haRenosterveld 3 922 haRenoster grassland 4 1418 haElim transitional fynbos 5 1678 ha

Objectives Indicators Means of verification Assumptions and Risks

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)

Output 1: A.- landscape-level conservation management and planning system is established. by public-private partnerships negotiated by a well-capacitated extension service.

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

SANParks and WCNCB have increased capacity for integrated extension services, by end of year 2

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.


Process concerned Area to be conserved by the end of project 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 At least two E-W and N-S corridors from crest to coast n/agradients and herbivore migration

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 At least one sand movement corridor n/agradients of subsequent soil development.

Alien plant species Target area of infestation remaining per 5 year cycle1. High density aliens 50% of 2000 extent, and 80% of this limited to demarcated woodlots2. Moderate density aliens 30% of 2000 extent3. Low density aliens 5% of the 2000 extentWildfires Target area (p.a.) of burnt vegetation4. Unplanned & uncontrolled wildfires <5000 ha in vegetation less than 6 years old5. Unplanned & uncontrolled wildfires <1000 ha in vegetation less than 3 years old

Objectives Indicators Means of verification Assumptions and Risks(25 additional people hired and trained by SANParks, 2 additional staff members recruited and trained by the WCNCB )

Output 2: Ecologically, socially and economically sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos is demonstrated as a viable land-use on Agulhas Plain.

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.

Code of Practice for sustainable harvesting of wild fynbos is adopted by Flower Labeling Program by the end of year 2;

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.

Other packing sheds are willing to adopt the Code of Practice.

Output 3: A participatory and responsible tourism strategy is implemented in the Agulhas Plain and contributes to sustainable livelihoods.

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;

All tourism operators in protected areas are applying responsible tourism guidelines, by year 3

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.

Dedicated champions can be recruited from local communities to drive tourism projects.

Output 4: Increased local support for biodiversity conservation in the Agulhas Plain is generated through a broad-based conservation awareness program.

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.

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.

Local media willing to collaborate.

Components/Subcomponents/Activities Inputs (budget for each component)1. A landscape-level conservation management and planning system is established by public-private partnerships negotiated by a well-capacitated extension service.

Total Cost: US$ 7,499,990; Co-financing: US 5,448,350; GEF Request: US$ 2,051,640


Components/Subcomponents/Activities Inputs (budget for each component)1. 1. Institutional strengthening, cooperation and capacity building1.1.1. Establish park administrative structures1.1.2. Establish joint communication/ extension service for Agulhas Plain

1.2. Securing land under conservation management 1.2.1. Consolidate Agulhas National Park into a viable ecological unit1.2.2. 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

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 catchment1.4.3. 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.

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$ 2,594,440; Co-financing: US$ 1,777,000; GEF Request: US$ 817,440


Total Cost: US$ 265,200; Co-financing: US$ 86,600; GEF Request: US$ 178,600



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 interviews1.7.2. Annual evaluation workshops (SANParks, WCNCB and stakeholders);1.7.3. Monitoring stakeholder participation1.7.4. Production and distribution of the evaluation report1.7.5. Conflict resolution

1.8. Management/ABI project Oversight Committee


Total Cost: US$ 359,500; Co-financing: US$ 52,00; GEF Request: 307,5002. 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: 722,150; GEF Request: US$ 415,235


Components/Subcomponents/Activities Inputs (budget for each component)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.

2.2. Secure the supply network for Flower Valley 2.2 Formalize the supply network;2.3 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.

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.

2.5. Pilot recording system for harvested species2.5.1. Training requirements and capacity building2.5.2. 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


Total Cost: US$ 24,000; Co-financing: US$1,000; GEF Request: US$ 23,000



Total Cost: US$ 31,430; Co-financing: US$ 18,43 0; GEF Request: US$ 13,000


2.6.3. Training to ensure compliance with quality standards;2.6.4. 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

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



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


Components/Subcomponents/Activities Inputs (budget for each component)3.1. Strengthen coordination among tourism activities and agencies in the AP3.1.1. Establish Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum;3.1.2. Establish Agulhas Plain Heritage Centers.

3.2. Establish and market the Agulhas Plain route 3.2.1. Planning of a multi-faceted circular Agulhas Plain Tourist Route;3.2.2. Marketing analysis;3.2.3. Positioning and portfolio;3.2.4. Implementation plan;3.2.5. Communication;3.2.6. Brand measurement tools.

3.3. Support tourism initiatives in Agulhas Plain 3.3.1. Create opportunities for new entrants; 3.3.2. Build the capacity of the local communities to participate in tourism in tourism initiatives;3.3.3. Support local community programs;3.3.4. Support the development of a hiking trail in WBFC.




3.4. Monitoring of tourism activities 3.4.1. Monitoring of tourism trends;3.4.2. Monitoring of ecological, economic and social effects of tourism activities;3.4.3. Monitoring stakeholder participation3.4.4. Production and distribution of evaluation report


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 outreach4.1.1. 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;

4.2. Environmental Education at Early Learning Centers 4.2.1. Community consultations;4.2.2. Participatory needs assessment;4.2.3. Training historically disadvantaged local women as practioners;

4.3. Monitoring strategy 4.3.1. Monitoring of target groups


Total Cost: US$ 111,500; Co-financing: US$ 0; GEF Request: US$ 111,500

Total Cost: US$ 28,000; Co-financing: US$ 0; GEF Request: US$ 28,000


Work Plan

OUTPUTS/SUBCOMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES TOTAL Y1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 US$ Q 4 Q

1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

I. LANDSCAPE-LEVEL CONSERVATION1. Insititutional Strengthening for ANP1.1. Establish park administrative structures1.1.1. Provide staff 574,000 1.1.2.Provide Park infrastructure 1,461,000 Infrastructure planningInfrastructure designMain entrance gateEntrance gatesVisitor center-LighthouseInformation pointsParking areaRoad constructionRoad maintenanceRelocate navig. equip. and restore lighthouseAccess controlSignage, information boards, bird hides, etc.Boundary fencing1.1.3. Provide facilities and equipment 23,600 FurnitureHardwareSoftwareOverhead projectorTV and videoData projector1.1.4. Provide Park vehicles 74,500 4 x 4bakkie/pickupventure/people movertractor + implements1.1.5. Provide field equipment 6,940 GPSradio equipmentbinocularschainsawbrushcuttermiscellaneous equipment1.2 Establish joint extension service for ABI area1.2.1. Provide staff 310,000 Conservation Planning ManagerWCNCB part time extension staffExtension officers1.2.2. Provide Training & equipment 78,400 Orientation and legal workshops



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Extension and negotiation skillsOn site training (4pax)Basic GIS and Farm planning skillsOffice stationery, maps, data layersGIS capable computersHandheld GIS Info capture devices1.2.3. Provide vehicles (one 4x4) 66,000

2. Securing land under conservation2.1 Consolidate park into viable unit 2,020,000 Identification of core parcels for consolidation and liaisonLand valuationLand purchase (Rietfontein)Develop and negotiate agreements2.2. Phase 1, incorporate Quoin pt 807,600 Determine boundaries and select target areasFine scale planning of target areasLegal fees and transaction costsPurchase of key properties (Ratel River)2.3. Create Contractual park at Hagelkraal 65,000 Identification of priority parcels/liaison mechanismLiaison with landownersDevelop specific incentives for alien clearingResource economist to work in collab. With FV oneNegotiate agreements2.4. Establish Elim fynbos Contractual park 30,600 Finalize Pilot farm planningTraining in conservation farm planningDevelop protocols to extrapolate the farm planningStakeholder workshops to liaise with farmers2.5. Consolidate Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy 543,750 2.5.1. Development of the management plan Vegetation boundaries & age classesAlien vegetationRoads, fences, infrastructureData input and map creation2.5.2. Implementing the planLand purchase (Witvoetskloof)Workshops with landownersNegotiate specific incentives for management agreementsDevelop management plan2.6. Secure endemic wildlife habitat 7,100 Identify best landscape corridors/negotiate agreementsLegal fees and transaction costsDevelop policies for conservation partnerships/liaise2.7. Consolidate De Mond Ramsar Site Conservancy

16,000

Formalize the existence of Riparian Owner Association



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Determine water level regulationsDevelop agrementsNegotiate agreements

3. Conservation management planning3.1. Rapid ecological surveys of priority ecosystems

21,000

Gap analysisDesign standard formats for data acquisitions, storageDesign survey (2)Conduct survey3.2. Stakeholder consultation 10,800 Institutional synergy assessmentLiaison Committee meetings (3/year)Sectoral working group meetings (6/year)3.3. Design a Biological Monitoring System 69,000 Workshop to identify the needs for BIMSDesign workplans for data managementGIS support for BIMS Data input, verification, BIMS review3.4. Conservation management planning for AP 45,000 Stakeholder workshop for boundary analysisStakeholder workshop for zoning Management plan developmentCompilation of management planPrinting and distributing management planStakeholder workshop for presenting management plan3.5. Develop farm conservation planning protocols 107,400 Stakeholder workshop for training, demonstration Farm planners Trainee planners, field assistantsConduct farm planning in priority areas Develop protocols for extrapolating farm planning exercise Regional Farm scale conservation planning w/shop3.6. Integrate cultural heritage in management 12,000 Gather info on marine cultural sites Gather info on cultural sites Guidelines for integration cultural heritage in management

4. Controlling Alien plant spread4.1. Capture lessons from Cape Peninsula Project 256,000 Criteria for Identification of priority areasTraining for info capture and reviewDevelop and implement new alien clearance techniques 4.2. Finalise policy on clearing in contractual areas 15,600 Negotiate agreementsLiaison with stakeholders4.2 Expand alien vegetation clearance program



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

4.2.1. Establish joint clearing strategy per catchment

38,500

Stakeholder workshops in each catchmentSelect priority areas for clearingIdentify the priorities for follow-up4.2.2. Municipal/Departmental liaison mechanism 15,000 Liaison meetings (3/year)

5. Fire management 162,000 Identify stakeholders Development of participatory mechanisms Establish rapid-response units for fire management Firefighting trainingFirefighting vehiclesAssessment and mapping of the areaGIS fire management plan - update to integrate conservationCreate firebreaks and initiate controlled burning

6. Wetland rehabilitation 255,000 Identify priority areas and techniques Implementation of restoration plan in a pilot area

7. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation 48,700 Annual interviewsAnnual M&E workshop (Park and stakeholders)Annual M&E workshops (WBFC stakeholders) Monitoring stakeholder participationEvaluation report preparation and distributionConflict intervention

8. Component Management8.1. ABI Project Implementation Unit 295,000 ABI Project CoordinatorABI Project AssistantABI Technical Advisor/Capacity BuildingTravel for the technical advisor and PIUVehicle Laptop + printer8.2. ABI Oversight Committee 18,500 One-to-one consultationsFamiliarisation tours of the area (Two)Sub-area meetingsDraft terms of reference/groundrules Further one-to-one discussionsPublic meetingForum meetings Public report back meeting (one/year) 8.3. Monitoring and Evaluation 46,000



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Undertake independent M&EAudit

II. SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING OF WILD FYNBOS1. Legal framework 1.1. Updating regulations 5,000 1.2. Updating permit system 4,000 1.3. Capacity building of WCNCB staff 19,200

2. Securing the supply network2.1. Formalising the supply network 7,750 2.2. Establish supply network management forum 16,250 Confirm relevant stakeholdersOne-to-one consultations with key stakeholdersDraft terms of reference/groundrules Meetings with stakeholders Further one-to-one discussionsFounding meeting Management Forum Meetings (4 per year)

3. Develop a certification scheme3.1. Capacity building for the Certification Unit/WCNCB

8,000

Training for WCNCB Certification UnitProvide equipment for the Certification Unit3.2. Develop the CoP 18,000 3.3. Support FVCT to liaise with farmers 12,000 3.4. Develop monitoring and audit system 12,000 3.5. Stakeholder workshops 4,000 3.6. Negotiate with FLP 12,000

4. Marketing of sustainably harvested fynbos4.1. Co-label packaging 27,000 develop the logonegotiate the incorporation of the logo4.2. Modernize and integrate the supply chain 82,000 Travel costs to Germany, Switzerland, UKMarketing expert4.3. Marketing Plan 50,000 Promotional materialsstand at the Essen Trade Showvideo clip4.4. Sales Plan 16,300 website (bilingual)maintenance of websiteorganizing the florist exchange program

5. Pilot recording system for harvested species



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

5.1. Provide equipment 9,500 5.2. Develop a small herbarium at Flower Valley 1,000 5.3. Capacity building of FV staff 1,000 5.4. Develop zonation maps for supply network 6,250 5.5. Flower Valley Harvest manager 1,680 5.6. WCNCB Field inspector 5,600 5.7. Develop capacity of WCNCB GIS Unit for recording

6,400

6. Capacity building6.1. Training courses for picking teams 26,700 Consultant to develop moduleProvision of technical inputHandbookTraining of flower pickers6.2. Training for landowners/contract pickers 4,100 Consultant to develop moduleProvision of technical inputTraining workshop6.3. Opportunities for new entrants 7,750 Identify potential entrepreneursMeetings with community based organisationsDevelopment of training module for new entrantsRunning of annual training programs

7. Monitoring7.1. Impacts of harvesting on different guilds 4,750 7.2. Impacts of harvesting on interspecific competition

4,750

7.3. Long term monitoring program 630,375 Farm ManagerFull-time harvesters (nine)Part-time harvesters (four)Vehicles (4x4 and tractor)Provide equipment (brushcutter,trailer, scale etc)7.4. Species vulnerability index 4,000 7.5. Resource base assessment of supply network 6,250 7.6. Orchardand/old farm land rehabilitation 47,680 7.7. Demonstrate the higher ec. value for sust. 13,000 7.8. Monitoring economic performance 45,600 Develop an annual survey on economic benefitsCollect data Process data Produce and distribute reportMonitoring stakeholder participationEvaluation report

8. Replication 17,500



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Stakeholder workshopSustainable harvesting committee - meetingsPromotional materials Stakeholder workshops to extrapolate FV model

III. NATURE-BASED TOURISM1. Co-ordination in the tourism sector1.1. Establish the Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum 87,900 Nature-based tourism specialistIdentify and confirm relevant stakeholdersCoonsultations with key stakeholdersDraft ToR - produce and distributeConduct two meetings with stakeholders Further one-to-one discussions Mechansims to increase participationFounding meeting Convene ongoing meetings of Forum 1.2. Establish two Heritage Centers1.2.1. Elim Heritage Center 94,000 Tourism Officer Elim Centre administrator (salary)Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..)Furnishings (office, workbenches, desks, etc.) Equipment (tele./fax ,photo copier & hand tools)Computers + software + printers1.2.2. Cape Agulhas Center 190,000 Manager of Cape Agulhas CenterBuildingFurnitureComputers + software + printers Interpretation facilities (displays, demonstrations..)1.3. Tourism infrastructure in ANP 1,454,000 Design and layout for infrastructureDay-trailsOver-night trailsTrail over-night facilities Camping facilities (Die Damme)Village accommodation for visitorsRestaurantShopRestaurant managerShop managerShop staff (4)Restaurant staff (12)Accommodation staff (15)

2. Marketing2.1. Agulhas Plain Tourist Route 27,000



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Stakeholder workshops/consultations2.2. Market analysis 70,550 Kick-off Workshop Exploration of existing material time: 3 days20 Stakeholder interviews time: 11.5 days12 Expert interviews time: 7 days14 Consumer research groups time: 29.5 daysConsolidation of findings time: 11 days2.3. Positioning & portfolio implications 10,200 Positioning Workshop 1.5 days time: 17.5 days2.4. Develop implementation plan 32,800 Implementation Workshop 1 day time: 14.5 days7 Consumer research-validation groups time: 24 daysPost validation debrief time: 9.5 days2.5. Communication 100,000 Visual Identity DevelopmentAdvertising ProductionFlighting, Placement and Mailing2.6. Brand measurement tools 94,900 Quantitative tracking study time: 16.5 daysQualitatative tracking study time: 14.5 daysAnnual reivew workshop 1day: time: 5.5 days

3. Support community initiatives3.1. Create opportunities for new entrants 3,400 Identify potential communities/interested entrantsMeetings with community based organisationsCapacity building activity sessions Implement agreed introduction process3.2. Capacity building 41,000 Training needs assessmentTraining tour guides 3.3. Support local community progr. 28,000 Planning Develop a tourism program3.4. Hiking Trail (6 day) 439,000 Construction of overnight facilitiesLayout plan, application procedure & alignmentConstruction of trailTraining trail guidesTraining in interpretationBrochures/website

4. Tourism Monitoring 31,600 Tourism patterns, scale and trendsImpact on biodiversityImpact on the regional economyImpact on social environment



1 Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Stakeholder participationEvlauation report distributed

IV. AWARENESS AND EDUCATION1. Awareness and outreach 168,000 Communication officerStakeholder meetingDesign information materials Produce awareness materials & packagesAgulhas Plain conservation bookABI newsletter (2/year)Conservation Farners's Day

2. Pilot alternative communication and ELC 111,500 Co-ordinatorWorkshopsTraining

3. Monitoring of target groups 28,000 Interviews/questionnaires workshopsMonitoring stakeholder participation


South Africa

Agulhas Biodiversity InitiativeAnnex 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 ReviewPage 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.


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.


South Africa


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 DescriptionPage 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).


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.


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.


South Africa


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)

Decline of species in remnant vegetation patches due to pollination & dispersal limitations, agricultural “edge effects” and breakdown of crucial ecosystem processes

Soil degradation

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;

2. Current conservation activities are not representative of endemic remnant ecosystems;

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;

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;

6. Illegal ploughing, due to uneconomic farm units that lead to exploitation of marginal areas; Ineffective extension advice regarding long term

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. 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)

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)

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)

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


farm planning /capability tuned to individual land holdings;

7. Awareness of alternative sustainable land uses (tourism/ sustainable flower harvesting) limited amongst landholders and capital markets;

8. Ineffective soil rehabilitation measures & no monitoring after alien clearing; Knowledge deficient with respect to appropriate rehabilitation techniques;

9. International flower markets demand perfect flowers on long stems and pristine fynbos is ploughed for monocultures of proteas

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. 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. 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. 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);

Displacement of the endangered fynbos (neutral sand and limestone proteoid fynbos);

Increased fire intensity and frequency;

Altered hydrology;

Land degradation

Invasive alien plant species

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;

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;

3. The economic/ financial benefits derived from invasive alien plant clearance (i.e. restoration of hydrological services, financial

1. Local authority planners and personnel involved in planning, priority setting (1.3); development of appropriate regulatory/ enforcement mechanisms;

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. 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


Biological Impact


benefits derived from sale of timber) are poorly articulated to land holders, communities and regional planners;

4. Local mechanisms to generate continued revenue for alien clearing ineffective; distribution/systems for products derived from IAS are locally absent;

4.1.3); participatory monitoring and evaluation will be conducted (1.7.1, 1.72, 1.7.3 and 1.7.4)

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)

Reduced seed production and plant diversity;

Species decline;

Alien plant spread.

Insufficient fire breaksInappropriate burning regimes

1. Overlapping institutional responsibilities regarding fire management; limited co-ordination & communication; weak-accountability within landholding community for fire management in the area;

2. Knowledge of appropriate fire management procedures for different environments is deficient; the rapid-response units for fire management and control are weak;

3. Fire control in rural areas is not recognised as a priority by the Government (as reflected in the budget);

4. Biodiversity concerns are not integrated in fire strategies;

5. Alien species invasion intensifies problem;

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. 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. Involvement of local officials in planning and communication forums designed to redress this. (1.5.1 and 1.5.2)

4. In local Fire Protection Association strategies, conservation officials will be tasked to ensure integration (1.5.2 and 1.5.3)

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. Inappropriate agricultural practices; &

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)


Biological Impact


Sectoral approach of natural resource planning;

4. Catchment & estuary management doesn’t integrate biodiversity conservation concerns; Eutrophication (both N & P)

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)

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);

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;

6. Landowners, farmers and contract pickers are unaware of sustainable practices

7. Understanding of ecosystem fundamentals dictating sustainable off-takes remains inadequate at all levels;

8. The total economic value of vulnerable

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);

5. Pilot program to monitor species harvested at Flower Valley will be developed and the information supplied to WCNCB GIS Unit (2.5)

6. Capacity building program targeting the wild fynbos pickers, landowners and farmers will be conducted to implement COP (2.6)

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. A deal flow identification study will be conducted, looking at the


Biological Impact


ecological systems (underpinning livelihoods) are not accommodated in the cost/benefit calculus of land use;

9. Awareness of viable alternative sustainable land uses (tourism/ sustainable flower harvesting) limited amongst landholders and capital markets;

environmental costs of different land-use practices, profitability of the various land-uses in financial and ecological terms (2.7.7)

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)

Loss of narrow range endemic species.

Inappropriately located development and associated infrastructure causes

1. Poor land use planning at the local level; Poor enforcement; Political interference in local decision-making;

2. Protected areas don’t cover the representative samples of ecosystems;

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. 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;

2. Limited enforcement (identification, listing, integrating into management planning, reporting);

3. No signage, interpretation materials or effective protection of sites;

4. Poorly planned and controlled visitor management due to limited awareness among tourists & operators/ accommodation establishments.

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. Institutional capacity building and integration in conservation management planning catered for (1.3 and 3.1)

3. Awareness targeted, and alternative access routes constructed, bypassing sensitive sites (3.1, 3.2)

4. Park capacitated to provide effective visitor management, nodes of use established in planning system (1.1, 1.3)


South Africa


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 community-based 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 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: (i) 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 ___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements

Page 115

agencies, provincial and local government), and those with legal responsibility for biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and/or protected areas;

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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 ImpactStakeholders most able to influence project – interests, influence and impact mitigationStatutory Conservation Agencies SANParks Western Cape Nature Conservation Board

Project directly promotes corporate mission

Direct responsibility for key project components

Participation in Oversight Committee

Project will intensify activity

Project will draw on financial and human resources

Provide support in the form of financial resources, additional human resource capacity and training

International Agencies FFI UNDP GEF

Provision of project funds

Project directly promotes mission

Direct responsibility for key project components


Project will impose administrative responsibility

Accommodate within existing administrative resources

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

Project directly aligns with, and promotes policy at all levels;

Project creates opportunities for integrated action on key government policy initiatives, such as the catchment clearance program and tourism industry sector development

Decision making powers vest in Government on a range of matters;

Existing law and policy will act as a legal framework for project activities


Government bodies will need to ensure alignment with policy

Project will impact on human and financial resources

Focus involvement on key activities

Dedicate personnel to monitoring and liaising with Initiative

Identify and source necessary funds for involvement

State Enterprises: Eskom

Land holdings can be incorporated into conservation activities of project

Have the capability to include holdings into pool of land incorporated within project



Accommodate within existing administrative resources

Identify and source necessary funds for involvement

Conservation NGOs: Botanical Society Flower Valley Conservation Trust (FVCT)

Project contributes to biodiversity promotion objectives

Project provides funds for ongoing activities

Project allows for organizations to play core role in major initiative

Botanical Society will have direct involvement in key project Components One and Two

FVCT will have direct responsibility for key project Components Two and Four


FVCT will be drawn on as best practice example

Project will impose on capacity of organizations to deliver efficient and effective service



Identify capacity building needs

Identify and implement action to build capacity

Identify and source financial and other resources required for participation


Stakeholders Interests in Project Influence on Project Impact of Project Mitigation of ImpactPrivate Land Owners and Conservancies: Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy Contracted land owners Land owners’ associations (Heuningnes River Riparian Owners Association

Project focus on core conservation management concerns

Project will provide support to conservation activities

Participation in key project components 1 & 2


Project will impose on organizational capacity






Flower Farmers SAPPEX

Project will promote wild fynbos harvesting as alternative to cultivation and consequently detract from this group’s activity

Group may lobby to protect its interests if threatened by the project

Group should be directly involved in process of developing strategies and implementation

Project will detract from basis of group’s economic activity which is flower cultivation

Activities are designed to establish and maintain good lines of communication with this group

Involve group in all relevant strategy development activities

Group to be involved in sustainable harvesting activities

Wine Farmers A small emerging group of farmers are converting existing natural or agricultural land uses to viticulture

Project aims to promote natural land uses

Group may lobby to protect its interests if threatened by the project

Group should be directly involved in process of developing strategies and implementation

Project will detract from basis of group’s economic activity

Activities are designed to establish and maintain good lines of communication with this group

Involve group in all relevant strategy development activitiesAttempt to involve group in sustainable harvesting activities

Tourism Bodies Fynbos Ecotourism Forum

Project will support the development of nature-based tourism

Participation in key project component 3



Stakeholders affected by project activity, but of lesser influenceCBOs e.g.: Residents and ratepayer organizations in urban areas

Economic and developmental opportunities for organizations representing poorer communities, particularly those from African and colored communities

Education and awareness can be raised

Due to indirect involvement, influence is likely to be lowWhite community-based organizations have historically been able to have greater influence than African and colored counterparts


Project will extend organizations beyond current major concerns, potentially detracting from core focus





Establish appropriate level of involvement in Initiative

Wild plant poachers

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

This group is informal, unorganized and largely based in marginalized and poor communities

It is unlikely to have an organized voice in the process

The group’s activities may detract from the conservation and wild flower gathering components of the project

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 ProjectStakeholders Interests in Project Influence on Project Impact of Project Mitigation of ImpactBusiness, e.g.: Organized business groups, such as Chambers of Commerce Individual

Indirect interest in potential economic benefits arising from the project

Indirect influence through participation in limited public participation activities


Project will extend organizations beyond current major concerns,


Establish appropriate level of involvement in Initiative


Stakeholders Interests in Project Influence on Project Impact of Project Mitigation of Impactenterprises operating within the region

potentially detracting from core focus


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 Stakeholder participation will:Value Adding be an essential means of adding value to the ABIInclusivity include all relevant stakeholdersAccessibility and Access be accessible and promote access to the processTransparency be based on transparency and fair access to informationFairness ensure that all stakeholders are treated in a fair and unbiased wayAccountability be based on a commitment to accountability by all stakeholdersConstructive seek to manage conflict and promote the public interestRedressing seek to redress inequity and injusticeCapacitating seek to develop the capacity of all stakeholdersNeeds Based be based on the needs of all stakeholdersFlexible be flexibly designed and implementedRational and Coordinated be rationally planned and co-ordinated, and not be ad hocExcellence 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) Language: The process needs to ensure that Afrikaans is a prominently used language(ii) Race: There is a pattern of racial exclusion on the Plain, with coloured and African residents

feeling historically and currently excluded from the mainstream;(iii) Gender: Women are a particularly marginalized group within the area, but play highly significant

social roles;(iv) 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

(v) 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 Management Forum, Fire Management Association, Supply Network Management Forum, Sustainable Harvesting Oversight Committee, and Agulhas Plain Tourism Forum.


(ii) Capacity Building, trough provision of training for the main stakeholders(iii) 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 consistent image and brand for ABI.

22. A mixed media approach to communications will be adopted. This will include: mass media ___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements

Page 119

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

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 one-to-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. 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 ___________________________________ABI, Annex 10: Public Participation Arrangements

Page 121

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. UNDP administrative arrangements relative to public participation:(i) 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.

(iii) 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 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 TasksLandscape-level conservation management and planning system1.1 Secure land under Conservation Management:

Confirm all stakeholdersConduct one-to-one consultations with all stakeholdersConduct 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

1.2. Establish joint clearing strategy per quaternary catchment

Five workshops – already budgeted for in Conservation Management component

1.3 Develop replication strategy – this activity will be based on participatory monitoring and evaluation on an annual basis

Conduct interviews with key stakeholders on an annual basisConduct 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 fynbos2.1 Establish Supply Network Management Forum

Confirm relevant stakeholdersConduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholdersDevelop 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 ForumConvene 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

2.2 Create opportunities for new entrants to sustainable harvesting sector

Identify potential communities and interested entrantsConvene meetings with community based organisations to discuss opportunities and process for introducing new entrantsConduct capacity building activity sessions with community groups to facilitate their participation on this matter (capacity building)Implement agreed introduction process

2.3 Establish Sustainable Harvesting Oversight Committee

Identify and confirm relevant stakeholdersConduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholdersDevelop 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 CommitteeConvene 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)Conduct capacity building activity with Committee members to assist their understanding of relevant issues (capacity building)Conduct two Committee meetings per annumConduct one annual public report back meeting

Participatory and responsible tourism strategy3.1 Establish Tourism Forum Identify and confirm relevant stakeholders


Activity TasksConduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholdersDevelop 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)

3.2 Create opportunities for new entrants to nature-based tourism sector

Identify potential communities and interested entrantsConvene meetings with community based organisations to discuss opportunities and process for introducing new entrantsConduct capacity building activity sessions with community groups to facilitate their participation on this matter (capacity building)Implement agreed introduction process

Project Management and Monitoring4.1 Project Oversight Committee

Conduct one-to-one consultations with key stakeholdersConduct 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 stakeholdersConduct further one-to-one discussions with key stakeholders to refine terms of reference/ground rules and representation to the CommitteeConvene 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 5Convene one public report back meeting per annum for years 2 to 5

4.2 Monitoring and evaluation of stakeholder participation

Conduct annual interviews with key participants in all project componentsConduct 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

4.3 Conflict intervention Ad hoc conflict/dispute intervention as need arises on contingency basis


South Africa


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 long-term 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 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. 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

15 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 region16 Funding was made available through the GEF/ WB Project: Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation___________________________________________________________________________

ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic FrameworkPage 125

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:

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 co-___________________________________________________________________________


ordination will therefore remain lean, with execution primarily being the responsibility of technically competent and resourced executing agencies.

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 part-capitalize 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 country-drivenness, 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.

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

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.


Page 128

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 US$ 11 million/ Co-Financing US$ 28.51 millionGEF IA: World Bank (lead) and UNDPExecuting Agency: National Botanical Institute (NBI)Duration: 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:

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 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

19 Of these, one is currently underway: 1] Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. ___________________________________________________________________________


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 US $3 million/ Co-Financing US $8 millionGEF IA: UNDPExecuting Agency: South African National ParksDuration: 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 inter-sectoral 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 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


Page 130

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 US$ 1.5 million/ Co-Financing US$ 4.5 millionGEF IA: World BankExecuting Agency: 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, to create conditions necessary for the success of larger long-term investments planned in the CFR.

Implementation and co-ordination arrangements


Page 131

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.


Page 132

Attachment 11: Summary matrix

CATEGORYDESCRIPTION OF GEF ACTIVITIES C.A.P.E. ABI CEPF TARGETED SITES/ NOTES

A. ENABLING POLICY/ INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTA.i Program Management Activity co-ordination, reporting, integrated

monitoring and evaluation systems, performance management training, Program development

×C.A.P.E.: CFR

A.ii Information Management Environmental Information Systems × C.A.P.E.: CFRA.iii Systemic Capacities Policy integration × C.A.P.E.: CFRA.iv Institutional Framework Programmatic integration and institutional co-

ordination at the sub-regional level; capacity building

× ABI: Sub Regional level demonstration

A.v Conservation educationSystemic Co-ordinationInformal Education

Communication, materials development, capacity building, community facilitation ×

×

C.A.P.E.: CFRABI: Agulhas Plain

A. vi Civil society participation Advocacy, institutional strengthening × CEPF: facilitatedA. vii Market-based instruments New market-based instruments developed for

conservation×

B. CONSERVATION OF LARGE HABITAT BLOCKSB.i Protected AreasMountainsLowlands (drylands)Lowlands (forests)FreshwaterEstuarineCoastal/ Marine

Establishment and consolidationFine-scale planning, legal incorporation, development of PA business plans, performance management systems, ecological surveys

××××××

×

×

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

B.ii Protected AreasContractual ReserveConservanciesCommunity ReservePrivate Sector (Eskom)Biosphere Reserve

Private Lands/ Communal LandsInstitutional 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.A.P.E.: Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve

ABI: Elim community reserve, Groot Hagelkraal Contractual Park, six private nature reserves, Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy

C. CONSERVATION OF SMALL HABITAT BLOCKSC.i Site PrioritisationLowland fynbos (drylands)Lowlands (forests)Coastal Renosterveld

Fine-scale conservation planning, conservation plans and guidelines ×

×

C.A.P.E.: Upper Breede River Valley, Niewoudtville Plateau, North West Sandveld, Riversdale West Coast Biosphere Reserve, South-east lowlandsTMF: Overberg/ Swartland/ Boland and Cape Peninsula National Park

C.ii Landscape Level Management Integrated extension services, contractual and management agreements, On farm conservation planning

× ABI will fund the execution of a landscape level conservation management plan for the Agulhas Plain

C.iii Mainstreaming biodiversity in Integrate conservation planning into spatial × × C.A.P.E.

___________________________________________________________________________ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic FrameworkPage 133

CATEGORYDESCRIPTION OF GEF ACTIVITIES C.A.P.E. ABI CEPF TARGETED SITES/ NOTES

land-use planning planning, strengthen land-use regulations, capacity building for municipalities

ABI: Agulhas Plain

C. iv. Urban planning Spatial planning TMF: Port Elizabeth and Cape TownD. LAND/ WATERSHED DEGRADATIOND.i RestorationDrylands (disused farm lands)WetlandsRenosterveld

Pilot activities, to acquire know-how for ecological restoration in degraded areas

××

C.A.P.E. will support the clearance of invasive species,

D.ii Integrating biodiversity into watershed management

Integrate conservation objectives into operations of Catchment Management Authorities ×

C.A.P.E.: Olifants/Doring, Berg, Breede, Gouritz, Fish/Tsitsikamma,

D.iii Estuarine Management Participatory design and test a CFR estuarine management program

× C.A.P.E. will fund the testing of the estuarine management program at: Olifants, Lourens, Klein, Heuningness, Goukamma, Keurbooms-Bitou

D.iv Fire Management Align baseline fire management system with biodiversity conservation objectives × ×

D.v Fire Management Monitoring impacts of fire and piloting appropriate fire management regime, to curtail land degradation on drylands

×

D. vi Invasive Alien SpeciesManagement Systems

Install monitoring and prediction systems, to facilitate/ target management controls, policies on alien clearing on contractual national parks, pilot novel alien clearing mechanisms

× ×

D. vii Invasive Alien SpeciesBio-controlIntegrated Pest ManagementInvasive Alien Fish

Pilot/ adapt new management measures to control alien invasive species, where know how is lacking, and threats are significant

×××

C.A.P.E.: field scale testing in Doring, Goukamma, GrootTMF: experiment techniques in Cederberg

D. viii Invasive Alien SpeciesEducation/ Awareness

Systematize public awareness activities, promotional materials

× ×

E. SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION OF WILD RESOURCESE.i Wild Fynbos Determine sustainable offtake, management

planning, certification, market efficiencies×

E.ii Coastal/ Marine Resources Co-management arrangements, Pilot/ adapt spatialManagement tools

×

E.iii Tourism Management Promotion × ×E.iv Community-Based Natural Resource Management

Small grants for capacity building, advocacy, education, pilot management activities, legal support

×

F. ANCILLARY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

___________________________________________________________________________ABI, Annex 11: C.A.P.E. Programmatic FrameworkPage 134

South Africa


Annex 12: Project Categorization Sheet

Focal Area Categories

Biodiversity Climate Change International Waters Ozone Depletion

Conservation Energy conservation (prod./distribution)

Transboundary Analysis Monitoring:

in situ ex situ ESCO’s Efficient Designs

Strat. Action Plan Development

ODS phase out (Production)

Sustainable Use Solar: Freshwater Basin ODS Phase Out(Consumption)

Benefit-sharing Biomass: Marine Ecosystem Other:Agrobiodiversity Wind: Wetland Habitat Trust fund Hydro: Ship-basedEcotourism Geothermal: Toxic Contaminants Biosafety Fuel cells: GPA DemonstrationPolicy & Legislation

Methane recovery: Fisheries Protection

Buffer Zone Dev.

Other: Global Support:

b. Categories of General InterestInvestment Technical Assistance Targeted Research Land Degradation Technology Transf. Small Islands Info/Awareness Private Sector

c. Community & NGO Participation

Involvement type project design Implementation info/awareness consultationElim Kassiesbaai, Buffeljags, Blompark, Molshoop Gansbaai township Bredasdorp Masekane FVCTBotSocFFI

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

____________________________________ABI, Annex 12: Project Categorization Sheet, Page 135

South Africa


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


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.


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 landscape-scale 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 1737-1869. 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.


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.


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.


Documents

GEF - United Nations Development Programme PRO DOC... · Web viewA workshop will be organized to capture and share lessons in harvesting methodology, conservation management, minimizing