CapeNature Protected Area Expansion Strategy and Implementation Plan 2010 2015

September 2010

Authors: Kerry Purnell, Donovan Kirkwood, Kerry Maree

The CapeNature Protected Area Expansion Strategy addresses the formal proclamation of priority natural habitats as Protected Areas to secure biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Western Cape; it is aligned with the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy.

INDEX

HEADING

PAGE NUMBER

ACRONYMS

KEY DEFINITIONS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

10

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 13

CHAPTER 2: CAPENATURE PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION STRATEGY 27

CHAPTER 3: CAPENATURES FIVE-YEAR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (JULY 2010 MARCH 2015)

36

CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL MODEL 52

CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT OF DECLARED PROTECTED AREAS

55

CHAPTER 6: MONITORING, REVIEW AND REPORTING 56

CHAPTER 7: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 58

CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES 58

APPENDICES 60

ACRONYMS
BWI CAPE CEPF CBA CBD CCRS CFR CoCT DEADP DEA EPWP EWT FSP GCBC GI GEF HA IDP MDG MEC MEDS MINTEC MTEF NBF NBSAP NEMA NFDS NGO NPAES NR NSBA NSDP PFMA PA PAES NEMPAA NPAES PSDF SANBI SDF SKEP Biodiversity and Wine Initiative Cape Action for People and the Environment Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund Critical Biodiversity Area Convention on Biological Diversity Western Cape Climate Change Response Strategy and Action Plan Cape Floristic Region City of Cape Town Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs Expanded Public Works Programme Endangered Wildlife Trust Fine Scale Planning Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor Gouritz Initiative Global Environment Facility Hectares Integrated Development Plan (Municipal) Millennium Development Goals Provincial Member of the Executive Council Micro-Economic Development Strategy Ministerial Technical Committee Medium Term Expenditure Framework National Biodiversity Framework National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan National Environmental Management Act National Framework for Sustainable Development Non Government Organisation National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Nature Reserve National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment National Spatial Development Plan Public Finance Management Act (Act No.1 of 1999) Protected Area Protected Area Expansion Strategy National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Provincial Spatial Development Framework South African National Biodiversity Institute Spatial Development Framework (Municipal) Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Project

STEP TMF WCDA WfW WWF-SA WoF

Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Project Table Mountain Fund Western Cape Department of Agriculture Working for Water World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa Working on Fire Threatened Ecosystem acronyms Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Least Threatened

CR EN VU LT

KEY DEFINITIONS Biodiversity Biological diversity, or biodiversity refers not only to species of plants, animals and micro-organisms, but also their range of genetic diversity, and the landscapes, ecological and evolutionary processes that allow the diversity of life to persist over time. Biodiversity therefore includes the diversity of all living organisms, the diversity within species and of the ecosystems that contain them. Biodiversity Threshold Also known as the Biodiversity Target. The proportion of the original extent of an ecosystem that must be retained in a functional natural state to conserve most of the biodiversity of the original system. For Western Cape terrestrial ecosystems the average Biodiversity Threshold is 26% with a range from 16 40%. Ecosystems with higher diversity and variability require higher Biodiversity Thresholds. These thresholds are based on science rather than an arbitrarily defined threshold such as 10%. The threshold is a pragmatic conservation compromise, and does already accept some biodiversity loss and species extinction. Landowners voluntarily participate in biodiversity conservation by formally agreeing (through a biodiversity stewardship agreement) to secure the conservation status of their land to (i) protect important ecosystems; (ii) enable the more sustainable use of natural resources and (iii) effectively manage threats to natural systems and biodiversity. Incentives may be offered to the landowner. A biodiversity stewardship agreement is a voluntary agreement that may be informal or legally binding, and which commits a landowner and a public conservation agency to mutually agreed conservation management objectives. In the case of Protected Areas declared under the NEMPAA a contract is also signed between the landowner and the MEC for Environment in the Province. Incentives may be linked to the stewardship agreement. The CapeNature Biodiversity Stewardship Programme offers the choice of four types of stewardship agreement: Conservation Area: a flexible agreement that is not legally binding and

Biodiversity Stewardship

Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement

has no defined period of commitment. Biodiversity Agreement: a negotiable, legally binding agreement to conserve biodiversity in the medium term. Contract Nature Reserve: a negotiable, legally binding contractual agreement to protect biodiversity in the long term. Protected Environment: a negotiable, legally binding contractual agreement to protect biodiversity in the long term with less restrictive land uses. Biodiversity Stewardship Programme Incentives A programme that pursues biodiversity stewardship and seeks to encourage, build and sustain a stewardship ethic in landowners through the negotiation and maintenance of biodiversity stewardship agreements. Incentives are financial or non-financial factors that motivate individuals to take a specific course of action, in this case the action is to conserve (protect and manage) biodiversity and natural systems on their land. The primary reason for offering incentives is that the landowner incurs a potential opportunity cost while providing a public good. Development that meets the needs of the current generation without threatening the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and choose their own life-style. This requires for environmental protection, economic growth and social justice to be reconciled with one another. An area of 1 kilometre x 1 kilometre or 100 hectares

Sustainable development

km2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vegetation diversity and habitat loss in the Western Cape Figure 2 Conservation planning in a biodiverse landscape Figure 3 Comparison of percentage area actually conserved vs. national conservation threshold for SA Vegetation types. Figure 4 Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in the Western Cape Figure 5 Illustration of logic and strategy used in site selection for protected area expansion priorities Figure 6 Portfolio of targeted priority sites for CapeNature 5 year protected area expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship Figure 7 Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites, Ramsar sites, Mountain Catchment Areas and Wilderness Areas of the Western Cape Figure 8 Proposed organogram for the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Quick reference to terrestrial Protected Areas in the Western Cape. Table 2 Categorisation of Protected Areas as per the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Table 3 The Legislative Framework for Protected Area Expansion in South Africa and the Western Cape Table 4 The Policy Framework for Protected Area Expansion in South Africa and Western Cape with reference to CapeNatures Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (adapted from Jackalman et. al. 2008) Table 5 Summary of the suite of options that may be employed to secure priority biodiversity in the Western Cape (adapted from Morris and Corcoran, 2009).

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1a Logic used to select the very highest priority sites for Protected Area Expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship in the Western Cape. Appendix 1b Data and method for selection of CapeNature five year Biodiversity Stewardship priorities Appendix 2 Planning for Biodiversity Conservation in the Western Cape Appendix 3 Biodiversity Stewardship Categories Appendix 4 Comparison of Stewardship Categories employed in the CapeNature Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (Cadman, M. et. al. 2010) Appendix 5 Flow diagram outlining the process required to secure Stewardship Agreements (Stewardship Operational Procedures Manual updated version 2009)

CONTENTS
HEADING

PAGE NUMBER 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

13 13 20 20 20 22 24 27 27 29 29 29 32 32 33 33 36

1.1 Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area Expansion in South Africa and the Western Cape 1.2 The Legal Mandate and Legislative Framework for Protected Area Expansion 1.2.1 Legal mandate for Protected Area Expansion 1.2.2 Legislative framework for Protected Area Expansion 1.3 The Policy Framework for Protected Area Expansion 1.4 Mechanisms for securing priority biodiversity
CHAPTER 2: CAPENATURE PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION STRATEGY

2.1 Approach taken and Principles applied 2.2 Targets for the twenty-year Protected Area Expansion Strategy and fiveyear Implementation Plan 2.2.1 The twenty-year target 2.2.2 The five-year target 2.3 CapeNature Spatial Priorities for Protected Area Expansion 2.3.1 Applying the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy to the Western Cape 2.3.2 Western Cape Provincial Biodiversity Framework 2.3.3 Focal Areas
CHAPTER 3: CAPENATURES FIVE-YEAR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (JULY 2010 MARCH 2015)

3.1 Biodiversity Stewardship as the primary mechanism for Protected Area expansion 3.1.1 Incentives 3.1.2 Extension Staff 3.1.3 Provincial and Inter-Provincial Working Groups 3.1.4 Biodiversity Stewardship and Land Reform 3.2 Land Acquisition through willing seller 3.2.1 Land Acquisition through purchase in partnership with WWF 3.3 Other means of Land Acquisition 3.3.1 State-owned land 3.3.2 Donations 3.3.3 Forestry Exit Areas

37 38 40 40 41 41 41 43 43 43 43

3.4 Integrated Environmental Management and Environmental Authorization Processes as a tool for Protected Area expansion 3.5 Protected Area Support Mechanisms 3.6 Inter-Institutional Arrangements 3.6.1 South African National Parks 3.6.2 City of Cape Town 3.6.2 Non-Governmental Organisations 3.7 Additional Institutional Capacity for Protected Area Expansion in the Western Cape
CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL MODEL

45 46 50

51

52 52 52 53 53 54 55

4.1 Financial Requirements of Protected Area Expansion 4.1.1. Biodiversity Stewardship Programme 4.1.2 Protected Area Management Fund 4.1.3 Land Acquisition Fund 4.2 Alternative Mechanisms for funding Protected Area Expansion
CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT OF DECLARED PROTECTED AREAS

CHAPTER 6: MONITORING, REVIEW AND REPORTING

56 56 56 58

6.1 Biodiversity Stewardship Programme Performance Monitoring, Review Processes and Reporting 6.2 Updating of Spatial Informants
CHAPTER 7: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES

58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This CapeNature Protected Area Expansion Strategy (PAES) addresses the formal proclamation of priority natural habitats as Protected Areas to secure biodiversity and ecosystem services for future generations. The Western Cape includes two globally recognised Biodiversity Hotspots, with many threatened ecosystems and exceptional numbers of threatened plant species. The historical protected area network does not adequately protect the majority of ecosystems and biodiversity. Establishment of additional protected areas in the most threatened and under-conserved habitats in the Western Cape are thus essential. This strategy is aligned to the concepts and goals of the 2008 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES), but does identify some different spatial priorities. To make best use of limited resources, this CapeNature PAES is primarily a Biodiversity Stewardship-based implementation plan. It identifies explicit spatial goals for the establishment of Contract Nature Reserves achievable with available agency resources. The selected sites are: o locations where habitat loss would result in the highest immediate globally significant biodiversity loss; o located within broader priority corridors, to support ecological function and landscape-scale features and process, now and in the face of climate change; o where large areas of this habitat are held by individual landowners who can be targeted in a cost-effective manner; o the most extensive property holdings of large, intact, Critically Endangered or Endangered habitats. These sites are the last remaining places from these ecosystems that shelter close to a full spectrum of the original biodiversity; o where the habitat remains under significant threat of loss. All identified sites are ideal anchor locations for future consolidation of priority clusters, or contribute to consolidation of existing priority sites. Every site is located to provide for ecological persistence, and most are part of broader climate change adaptation corridors. Crucially, for the first time, sites account for the unpredictable nature of achieving protected area targets in a privately owned landscape, and are explicitly chosen so that even if no further adjacent sites can be protected, every individual site still represents an excellent investment of conservation funding. Even with limited resources, this approach allows for a relatively ambitious 5 year Biodiversity Stewardship target of formally conserving 1,477.4 km2 of highest priority habitat. Together with the 221 km2 planned by other conservation agencies, this represents 69% of the NPAES five year target to conserve 2,510 km2 of threatened, under-conserved ecosystems of the Western Cape. CapeNature currently reviews opportunities for outright acquisition of protected areas on an ad hoc basis against known biodiversity priorities. Typically this land comes at no cost to CapeNature by transfer from other agencies, or by donation. However, with no budget allowance for expanded conservation management, evaluating whether to take on these areas can be difficult. This document identifies the need to develop a Land Acquisition component for the CapeNature PAES that should identify funding sources and budgets for the additional ongoing costs of managing any new reserves. An optimal spatial

10

configuration for land acquisition can then be added to current spatial targets to achieve a greater proportion of the NPAES target. This Protected Area Expansion Strategy and Implementation Plan is a response to the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) (SANBI & DEAT, 2008) which calls on provinces to develop implementation plans in support of the NPAES and in support of provincial conservation efforts and priorities. The NPAES, which provides a broad national framework for Protected Area expansion in South Africa, also identifies areas of importance to be targeted for Protected Area expansion in the country, and mechanisms to achieve this.

Table 1 Quick reference to terrestrial Protected Areas in the Western Cape. Note that targets are linked to specific habitats in the landscape to represent previously underconserved biodiversity and ecological processes and should not be interpreted as simple area targets from province size or the theoretical 13% of the Western Cape mentioned in the NPAES
Percentage of total terrestrial area of Western Cape Province 100% 75% 30 34% 5.8% 2.5%

Area

Western Cape Province - total area Remaining Natural & Near Natural habitat (2008) Likely total Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) for Western Cape (excluding existing Protected Areas) Existing CapeNature Provincial Reserves (Formal A) Existing Protected Areas Other Agency (Formal A) Existing Mountain Catchment (Formal B)
(little active management and no specific control of land-use not considered protected for PA gap analysis)

129,400 km 97,300 km
2

39,000 km 2 44,000 km 7,447 km 3,229 km

2

6,166 km

4.8%

Existing Protected Areas Other Agency (Formal B) NPAES Western Cape 20 year target new formal PAs
(equivalent to formally conserving 60% of the Biodiversity Threshold for all Vegetation Types)

294 km

0.2%

10,040 km

7.8%

NPAES Western Cape 5 year target new formal Protected Areas ( of 20 yr target above) CapeNature 5 year target new formal Protected 2 Areas (excludes 552.8 km of the recently established but not yet proclaimed Knersvlakte Nature Reserve) All other agencys combined 5 year target natural habitat in new Protected Areas (Formal A & B)

2,510 km

1.9%

1,477.4 km

1.14%

220.6 km

0.17%

11

Table 2 Categorisation of Protected Areas as per the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy
Formal A Protected Areas Forest Act Protected Area Island Reserve Marine Protected Area Specially protected forest areas, forest nature reserves and forest wilderness areas declared in terms of the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No. 84 of 1998) A sub-set of provincial nature reserves, which are islands administered by provinces in terms of provincial legislation An area declared as a marine protected area in terms of section 43 of the Marine Living Resources Act, 1998 (Act No. 18 of 1998) An area declared in terms of the National Parks Act, 1976 (Act No. 57 of 1976), or in terms of Section 20 of the Protected Areas Amendment Act, 2004 (Act No. 31, 2004), including private areas declared under this legislation A nature reserve other than a national park or special nature reserve, managed by a national organ of state or which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister for any other reason An area declared in terms of section 23 of Protected Areas Act, 2003 (No. 57 of 2003), or declared in terms of provincial legislation for conservation purposes, and which is managed by a provincial organ of state, including private areas declared under this legislation An area which was a special nature reserve in terms of the Environment Special nature reserve Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989), or an area declared in terms of section 18 of Protected Areas Act, 2003 (No. 57 of 2003) A world heritage site declared in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 (Act No. 49 of 1999) Marine Protected Area usually associated with an adjacent terrestrial protected area and managed by the same agency.

National Park

Other national protected area

Provincial Nature Reserve

World Heritage Site

MPA

Formal B Protected Areas Mountain Catchment Area Local Nature Reserve National Botanical Garden An area declared in terms of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act, 1970 (Act No. 63 of 1970) A nature reserve which is managed by a municipality, potentially of undefined legal status

A reserve managed by the South African National Botanical Institute

Informal Conservation Area System:

Unproclaimed Private Nature Reserves

Unproclaimed Private Nature Reserves, Game Reserves or Game Farms

12

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE WESTERN CAPE The Western Cape includes nearly the full extent of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR), the Worlds most diverse non-tropical flora. Although most famous for the fine-leaved, fire-prone Fynbos vegetation, the CFR also includes the core of the Succulent Karoo, undoubtedly the richest desert flora on Earth. With nearly 70% endemism, the uniqueness of the CFR is such that the area is recognized as an entirely separate Floral Kingdom, one of only 6 globally. With less than 0.1% of the Earth's land surface, the Western Cape is custodian to well over 9,000 higher plant species, perhaps 3% to 4% of the World total. Recent work suggests that terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate diversity and endemism may be as exceptional. Although not rich in vertebrates, the CFR includes priority areas for endemic amphibians and freshwater fish, and encompasses diverse, productive marine ecosystems.

Figure 1 Even the very coarse-scale mapping of the South African Vegetation Units (SA Veg 2006) shows the massive diversity and complex distribution of biodiversity in the Western Cape. The figure top right shows areas where no natural habitat remains within the Western Cape in pale grey, with remnant natural habitat coloured by 2009 Ecosystem Status. With up to 94% habitat loss in certain ecosystems, more are considered highly threatened in the Western Cape than anywhere else in South Africa. This diversity and threat together mean that the Western Cape is considered a global Biodiversity Hotspot. Dark grey indicates areas outside the Province.

The natural systems of the CFR and Western Cape are however under serious threat from a range of factors including historical patterns of unsustainable natural resource use, extensive alien species infestations and recent rapid infrastructural development. Many areas, particularly the lowlands, have been reduced to a fraction of their original extent and little of

13

what remains is protected. As a result, 74% of the province is included in of 2 of 34 global Biodiversity Hotspots1 highest priority locations globally, where exceptional biodiversity is under severe pressure from habitat loss. Most (80%) of the Cape Floristic Region Hotspot is inside the Western Cape, and the 31% of the Succulent Karoo Hotspot in the province includes the highly diverse and endemic winter rainfall flora of the Little Karoo. The importance and urgency of better conserving the province was emphasized by the 2009 SANBI National Ecosystem Status assessment. With 21 Critically Endangered (CR), 13 Endangered (EN) and 22 Vulnerable (VU) ecosystems listed from the Western Cape, this is by far the highest concentration of threatened ecosystems countrywide (of the 53 CR, 64 EN and 108 VU in South Africa). Virtually all of the provinces main stem river ecosystems are in a Critically Endangered state. The 2009 Red List of South African Plants further emphasises the extent and severity of ongoing permanent biodiversity loss. With 67% of all South African threatened plant taxa occurring in the Fynbos Biome, and the Little Karoo and Namaqualand habitats of the Succulent Karoo having the second highest concentration of threatened plant species in South Africa, urgent conservation action is clearly required. Once lost, species and other regional elements of biodiversity are gone forever. The natural landscapes of the Western Cape not only support exceptional threatened biodiversity, but also provide an irreplaceable source of goods and services for people and the economy (Jackelman et al., 2008). The total economic value of these services flowing from the natural resources and biodiversity in the CFR, known as ecosystem services2, has been estimated to be at least R10 billion per year, equivalent to more than 10% of the Gross Domestic Product of the Western Cape (Turpie et al., 2003). Most of these ecosystem services we take for granted, such as the provision of water, clean air, crop pollination, medicines and grazing for livestock. As importantly, intact natural systems mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, particularly in buffering flood events and unpredictable water supply. In addition to habitat loss and direct impacts, climate change and global warming are predicted to further threaten the natural ecosystems of the Western Cape. Within this century, the climate is likely to become warmer and drier, with less winter rainfall and more irregular and intense rainfall events (Midgley et al., 2005). This will have various consequences for the provinces economy, ecological integrity and livelihoods including: i) reduced water quantity and quality through negative impacts on rivers, wetlands and estuaries; ii) detrimental effects on biodiversity, including significant species losses in the CFR; iii) increased fire danger and frequency; iv) threats to livelihoods, especially of the poor who are most vulnerable; and v) impacts on economic sectors such as fishing, forestry, agriculture, insurance, banking, infrastructure and construction (Midgley et al., 2005). As the provincial conservation authority, CapeNature is the lead agency responsible for conserving the Western Capes biodiversity and resources for future generations. From at least the early 1900s, State Forest and other land was set aside for conservation by the authorities. Typically these were the least economically productive sites: dry, remote, steep or inaccessible mountain areas not suited to agriculture, mining, industry or human
1

Sites identified by conservation scientist Norman Myers and Conservation International, see www.biodiversityhotspots.org 2 The benefits that people get from nature (ecosystems), such as a regular supply of clean water, flood control, prevention of erosion, pollination (important to the fruit industry, for example), carbon storage (to counteract global warming), stone and sand for building, and clean air vital for our survival. In other words, ecosystem services are what nature does for us.

14

settlement. The historically conserved habitat that makes up our current protected area network does have great value as the backbone for landscape scale connectivity, for ecological functioning of adjacent habitats, for water production, and as the core of an expanded conservation network. However, as a result of this strong tendency to conserve only economically unimportant land, most of the ecosystems currently conserved are more than adequately protected, whereas nearly 75% of terrestrial ecosystems in the Western Cape are poorly, hardly or not protected at all (See Figure 3 overleaf). Many under-protected ecosystems are unlikely to suffer biodiversity loss without further protection, but habitats in productive landscapes are typically both very under-conserved and under pressure. Responding to this historical imbalance in the highly heterogeneous, sensitive and locally unique ecosystems of the CFR is a huge challenge. A complete conservation network must not only represent the full range of plant and animal species in large enough habitats to support them, but must also include landscape-scale natural systems and processes, aquatic and marine habitats and be ecologically functional and resistant to the impacts of climate change. This must also be achieved in a reasonable amount of space without impacting negatively on livelihoods or economic production. As an early adopter of systematic conservation planning, the South African conservation community now has the tools and data to identify areas to best conserve a representative, ecologically viable and resilient network of natural habitat. Increasingly this work is coupled to a practical and clear implementation framework to make the best use of very limited resources. Within the last five years, CapeNature, with other provincial partners, has developed Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Maps showing areas that must be retained in a natural state to meet biodiversity pattern and process thresholds (see Appendix 2 for more information on systematic conservation planning concepts in the Western Cape).

Figure 2 Representing the full spectrum of biological diversity in a conservation plan requires mapping either the features themselves or surrogates for those features at a fine enough scale to capture the range of local variation. At the core of current Western Cape conservation plans are the fine scale vegetation or habitat maps, with targets for every ecosystem aligned to national standards. Targets are also set for populations of threatened and endemic species, aquatic habitats and systems like wetlands, rivers and the catchments that support them, and for areas that meet identified ecosystem process targets.

15

Figure 3 Comparison of percentage area actually conserved vs. national conservation threshold for all South African Vegetation Types in the Western Cape. Note the heavily skewed representation, with almost the entire extent of some major ecosystems formally conserved, while the majority are poorly conserved or not conserved at all. Threatened ecosystems are typically amongst the most under-conserved. The few threatened ecosystems that are also well protected (toward the right of the graph) are those systems listed under the species criterion rather than because of habitat loss.

(Please note that this diagram will be printed in an A3 fold in, zoom in to read vegetation types)

16

Although conservation planning algorithms require efficiency meeting conservation targets in as little space as possible typically around 34% of the landscape is identified as Critical Biodiversity Area in the biodiverse Western Cape. These areas must be retained in a natural state into perpetuity to prevent mass extinction, loss of ecological resilience and critical ecosystem services. This area is in addition to the existing 13% or 10,993 km2 of legally recognised protected areas, and equates to 44,000 km2 of the remaining 97,300 km2 of natural habitat in the province. However not all CBAs require the highest security and management standards provided by land purchase and Protected Area status and other complementary mechanisms can be applied (see Chapters 2 & 3).

Figure 4 Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) as identified in the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework. These are the areas identified by systematic fine-scale conservation plans that must be maintained in a natural state to conserve a reasonable proportion of all biodiversity in a representative, ecologically functional configuration, resilient to the impacts of global climate change.

For the least conserved and most threatened habitats in productive and densely settled landscapes, the biodiversity of identified priority habitats continues to erode rapidly as a result of illegal activities, poor land-use practices, lack of active management of invasive alien plants and unnaturally frequent or unseasonal wildfires. Formal protection with active management is the only way to provide long-term security for priority conservation sites. CapeNature already directly manages its own Nature Reserves and supports contract Nature Reserves on 5.8% (7,447 km2) of the 129,430 km2 Western Cape land surface, and provides limited support to another 4.8% of declared private Mountain Catchment Areas. SANParks and Local Authority Reserves together manage a further 2.7% of the province in formal protected areas. Although all of these protected areas comprise 17,139 km2 or 13.2% of the land area of the province, 39% of ecosystems (64 of 163) and many key biodiversity

17

features are entirely or almost entirely unprotected. A further 33% of ecosystems (54 of 163) must be considered poorly protected3. It is therefore crucial that CapeNature continue to pursue an active Protected Area expansion plan and the identification of an achievable, priority subset of CBAs and the mechanism to conserve them is the purpose of this document. To place the CapeNature strategy in context it is important to consider what is already protected and what an ideal Protected Area network might look like. Protecting the entire currently unprotected 39,000 44,000 km2 extent of a final provincial CBA network or the lower 20,000 km2 of additional habitat required to represent the full conservation threshold for every vegetation type would be expensive. To establish a near comprehensive Protected Area network might cost as much as R15.3 billion to establish with R400M per annum ongoing costs (Frazee et al 2003, adjusted to 2010 Rands). While the value of ecosystem services, particularly water production, from this network would exceed the ongoing costs, this level of investment has not yet been considered for implementation. However, South Africa does recognise the essential role of biodiversity and intact natural systems in our countrys wellbeing. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, we have given effect to this with the National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan4 that outlines the principles of representing and conserving the full range of biodiversity in the country and the mechanisms to achieve this. Arising from this, the 2008 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) identifies Protected Area priorities for immediate implementation. This focuses on ecologically functional areas of poorly protected, threatened habitats that will experience severe biodiversity loss unless protected. It also prioritises opportunities for cost-effective conservation of underrepresented habitats that are currently not threatened, but likely to come under pressure in future (Figure 3). The NPAES provides a defensible absolute minimum goal for the Western Cape of 854 km2 over the next years and an additional 10,040 km2 after 20 years to protect the most urgent priorities in the Western Cape. The NPAES does not provide for a funding mechanism to implement its goals. CapeNature currently has no explicit budgetary provision for implementing the NPAES. However as a lead partner of the C.A.P.E. programme5, CapeNature had already begun to implement Protected Area expansion by working with private landowners from 2003 as part of the mandate of the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme. To date this has formally proclaimed 183 km2 of priority private land (0.14% of the Province) as Provincial Nature Reserves with full conservation servitudes and audited management plans. Further sites are already in negotiation or close to formal proclamation and we expect that even with existing capacity, an additional 906 km2 (0.70% of the Province) of priority habitat will be added within the next two to three years.

Of 163 W Cape ecosystems 33 are entirely unconserved, and a further 31 have less than 5% of their Biodiversity Threshold conserved (typically <<1.3% of their original extent). The 54 of 164 ecosystems considered Poorly Protected have less than 60% of their Biodiversity Threshold conserved. On average 60% of the Biodiversity Threshold equates to approximately 16% of the original extent of the ecosystem, but will be more or less for particular ecosystems with different Biodiversity Threshold values 4 See CBD South Africa country profile and NBSAP document at http://www.cbd.int/countries/?country=za 5 www.capeaction.org.za

18

This CapeNature Protected Area Expansion Strategy document describes an implementation plan and explicit spatial targets for the next 5 year period for the established Biodiversity Stewardship programme. It also describes the current approach to land acquisition, and how explicit spatial targets and a funding and implementation strategy will be developed for this mechanism. The CapeNature Protected Area Expansion Strategy and Implementation Plan therefore provides a provincial framework for an integrated and coordinated approach to: the expansion of Protected Areas to allow for the protection of biodiversity and persistence of ecological services; and the securing of landscape corridors to facilitate climate change adaptation.

19

1.2 THE LEGAL MANDATE AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION

1.2.1 Legal mandate for Protected Area expansion The Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Developmental Planning hereafter referred to as (the Minister) is responsible for the environmental mandate within the province, including the conservation of biodiversity. The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (trading as CapeNature and hereafter referred to as CapeNature) acts as the implementing agency on behalf of the Minister and is delegated with the responsibility for biodiversity conservation within the Western Cape, including Protected Area management. This delegation includes biodiversity planning and biodiversity conservation outside of Protected Areas. The legal mandate for Protected Area Expansion thus vests with the Minister and CapeNature acts as the implementing agency on behalf of the Minister in the declaration of Provincial Nature Reserves in terms of National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003) (NEMPAA). In the Western Cape, NEMPAA is also supplemented by the Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1974, the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act of 1998 and the Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 3 of 2000). However it must be noted that all terrestrial Protected Area declaration is now done in terms of the NEMPAA. The Minister is also delegated to implement the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA). However the National Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs is empowered to sign Biodiversity Management Agreements (under NEMBA) with landowners and as of yet has not delegated this responsibility to the provinces. Thus in the Western Cape, CapeNature signs Biodiversity Agreements with Private Landowners under the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act (Act No. 15 of 1998), these areas are not necessarily fixed on the title deeds of a property and are therefore not considered sufficiently secure to be formal Protected Areas. 1.2.2 Legislative framework for Protected Area Expansion

The NEMPAA distinguishes between several categories of Protected Areas: Special Nature Reserves, National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Protected Environments. It also recognises World Heritage Sites declared in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act (Act No. 49 of 1999); Marine Protected Areas in terms of the Marine Living Resources Act (Act No.18 of 1998) and/or the NEMPAA; specially protected Forest Areas declared in terms of the National Forests Act (Act No. 84 of 1998); and Mountain Catchment Areas declared in terms of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act (Act No. 63 of 1970). This can include privately-owned areas if they have been formally declared as National Parks, Nature Reserves or Protected Environments under NEMPAA, (Maree and Vromans, 2010) (see Table 3 below).

20

Table 3 The Legislative Framework for Protected Area Expansion in South Africa and the Western Cape Legislation
National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003) (NEMPAA)

Provisions for formal biodiversity protection on land outside of the state-owned protected areas system
One of the objectives of the NEMPAA is to provide for a representative network of protected areas on state land, private land and communal land (Chapter I, Section 2). NEMPAA recognises a streamlined set of categories for Protected Areas and details the legal procedure for declaring Special Nature Reserves; Nature Reserves; National Parks; and Protected Environments (Chapter 3). The protection of private and communal land is specifically catered for under these categories. It requires the mutual agreement of landowners and the National Minister or MEC (depending on the category of Protected Area). NEMBA provides important spatial and strategic planning instruments that enable conservation outside of formally declared Protected Areas, including: the publishing of bioregional plans that identify Critical Biodiversity Areas outside of the protected areas system; the listing of threatened or protected ecosystems and species; and the development of biodiversity management plans and biodiversity management agreements (e.g. with landowners other than the state).

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No.10 of 2004) (NEMBA)

The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act (Act No. 15 of 1998)

The Act provides for CapeNature to negotiate and cooperate with any other party in order to achieve its objectives for conserving biodiversity. (Chapter II, Section 9: 1c, d, f) CapeNature may therefore enter into biodiversity stewardship agreements with private and communal landowners as well as the state. The Ordinance provides for the establishment of nature reserves on private land (see Chapter II, Section 12, 13, as amended in the Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act 3 of 2000). However this mechanism has now been replaced in practice by the use of NEMPAA.

Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance, (No. 19 of 1974)

21

1.3 THE POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION Table 4 The Policy Framework for Protected Area Expansion in South Africa and the Western Cape with reference to CapeNatures Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (adapted from Jackelman et. al., 2008)
Policy Name Type (Agreements, Strategies, Programmes and Plans) International agreement Relevant goal, objective or intervention

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)

National Policy

National strategy

National Biodiversity Framework (NBF)

National strategy

National Protected

National strategy

The CBD provides the framework, norms and standards for the conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefitsharing of South Africas biological resources. The Biodiversity Stewardship Programme contributes to the aim of significantly reducing the current rate of loss of biological diversity by the year 2010 (Conference of Parties, COP, 2002) by developing an effectively managed and ecologically representative system of national and regional protected areas (COP, 2004) across South Africa. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (DEAT, 2005), has been developed as a requirement of South Africa being a signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The NSBA highlights the fact that the National Protected Area System is biased towards particular ecosystems and species and does not conserve a representative sample of biodiversity within the country, and excludes some key ecological processes. The NSBA identifies the CFR as one of nine key priority areas for biodiversity conservation in the country. The NBSAP provides a 20-year framework for the conservation and management of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in order to ensure sustainable and equitable benefits to the people of South Africa. The Biodiversity Stewardship Programme is closely aligned with activities under Strategic Objective 5: A network of conservation areas conserves a representative sample of biodiversity and maintains key ecological processes across the landscape and seascape. Outcome 5.2: The protected area network is secured, expanded and managed to ensure that a representative sample of biodiversity and key ecological processes are conserved . Outcome 5.3: Biodiversity is effectively managed in key ecological corridors and in high priority fragments of natural habitat across the landscape and seascape, using tools such as incentives. The National Biodiversity Framework (NBF) (DEAT, 2007) is an explicit requirement of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No.10 of 2004). The NBF is informed by and draws together key elements from both the NBSAP and the NSBA. The NBF focuses attention on the immediate priorities, both spatial and thematic, for the next five years within each of the Strategic Objectives of the NBSAP. The NBF identifies the following four top priority actions for Strategic Objective 5 (see NBSAP above) for the period 2008 to 2012: Finalise the twenty-year protected area expansion strategy, underpinned by the national biodiversity targets in the NSBA, refined for biomes, provinces and marine biozones; Implement Phase 1 of twenty-year protected area expansion strategy; Establish and strengthen provincial stewardship programmes; and Establish National Botanical Gardens in unrepresented provinces (Mpumalanga PAES, 2009). A National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy has been developed for South Africa (SANBI and DEAT, 2008), as a

22

Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES)

requirement of the National Biodiversity Framework. The strategy uses systematic biodiversity planning tools to identify and prioritise focus areas where Protected Area expansion will contribute to meeting national biodiversity targets. The NPAES is based on the premise that effective conservation in South Africa is best achieved through strategies that integrate the following two approaches across regions or landscapes: i) The establishment and management of a secure comprehensive, adequate and representative national protected areas system ; and ii) The ecologically sustainable management of natural resources across the broader landscape and seascape for areas that are outside the national protected areas system. This is especially important in areas that have been identified as biodiversity priorities. Further, the NPAES explicitly identifies the negotiation of contractual arrangements with landowners as one of four key mechanisms for expanding protected areas by conservation agencies throughout South Africa. The National Stewardship Programme provides a national coordinating framework for the implementation of biodiversity stewardship initiatives by provincial conservation agencies across South Africa. It sets out guiding principles and approaches for biodiversity stewardship. This bioregional partnership programme seeks to integrate biodiversity conservation in the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) with developmental needs. It is a key programme contributing to the goals as outlined in the Western Cape s Sustainable Development Plan. CapeNature is a key implementing agency of C.A.P.E. This strategy addresses priority issues for dealing with climate change in South Africa. A key action is to: Develop protection plans for plant, animal and marine biodiversity. Specific recommendations to which the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme is contributing are: Land use practices and land-use patterns outside conservation areas should be adapted to minimise the negative impacts of climate change on biodiversity conservation and future dispersal probabilities and Adaptation options for maintaining animal diversity could include the implementation of a conservation area network that would buffer the effects of climate change. The CCRS provides a strategic approach for the provincial government to minimise negative climate change impacts. A lead intervention in the proposed adaptation response is a Land stewardship and Livelihoods Programme (key outcome 3) with four focus areas: 1. Wetland conservation, Riverine and Estuary Integrity; 2. Integrated Invasive Alien Species Programme; 3. Extension of protected areas and 4. Fire risk management and control. The CCRS recommends under focus area 3: Increasing protected areas requires a focus on public land and privately owned land. The Biodiversity Stewardship Programme already plays a pivotal role in the extension of Protected Areas and contributes directly to the following action identified in the CCRS: Engage private land owners in conservation activities through facilitative actions (Stewardship and LandCare programmes) accessing funds from the Adaptation Fund.

National Stewardship Programme of South Africa (DEA) Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS)

National programme Bioregional programme National strategy

Western Cape Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (CCRS)

Provincial strategy

23

1.4 MECHANISMS FOR SECURING PRIORITY BIODIVERSITY IN PROTECTED AREAS The priority areas for conservation fall either within communal, private or state-owned land. These different forms of land tenure may present different opportunities for Protected Area Expansion. The main mechanisms are acquisition of land, contract agreements and declaration of public land. Each one has an important role to play, with contract agreements through the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme being the main operational tool for CapeNature. The full suite of mechanisms applicable for CapeNature is listed in Table 5 below. Some of the mechanisms are also dealt with in more detail in the five year implementation plan in Chapter 3.

24

Table 5 Summary of the suite of options that may be employed to secure priority biodiversity in the Western Cape (adapted from Morris and Corcoran, 2009).
Mechanism Options Description All Protected Areas in Western Cape managed or co-managed by CapeNature. All CapeNature private nature reserves, proclaimed or listed. Currently submitting extension nomination Identify State-owned land holdings (including existing Forest Reserves) and assess in relation to priority areas. Mechanisms to reduce transactions costs should be developed by National Treasury. The NPAES recommends that DEA engage with Treasury on this matter. Details of Mechanism Undertake audit of all CapeNature Protected Areas to determine whether or not they are proclaimed and whether the boundaries have been adequately surveyed. Undertake audit of all CapeNature private nature reserves falling in priority expansion areas to determine proclamation status and whether their status should be converted to S23 Contract Nature Reserves under the NEMPAA. All other Private Nature Reserves will continue to be considered as Voluntary Areas under the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme. Cape Floral Region Protected Areas World Heritage Site Proclaimed in the Western Cape currently being expanded through an extension nomination. Guided by the Distribution and Transfer of Certain State Land Act (Ac t 119 of 1993 as amended). The Minister or MEC shall consult with the land distribution commissioner requesting the transfer of land for the purpose of declaration. Conduct evaluation, identify state properties for transfer and implement land acquisition process. Attempt to consolidate with adjacent Protected Area if possible. A partnership with WWF SA is currently being implemented regards land acquisition in the Western Cape and a Protected Areas Management Fund, for post acquisition management is being investigated. CapeNature currently has 99 year lease Agreements on certain portions of land owned by WWF-SA. These areas are declared as Nature Reserves in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 19 0f 1974. In the future all land purchased by WWF-SA to be managed by CapeNature will be declared under NEMPAA and CapeNature will be the designated Management Authority. No other long term leases are currently being considered. Assess biodiversity value of land in relation to priority areas; consider the gift provided that funding for management is available. Also consider an exchange option if the biodiversity value of land is unacceptably low.

Provincial Protected Areas Consolidate and formalize existing Protected Area system

Private Nature Reserves

World Heritage Sites Acquisition through transfer of State-owned land (e.g. former DWAF State Forests; Western Cape Dept. of Public Works). Land Acquisition (and development of a financial model for the establishment of a land acquisition fund)

Acquisition through purchase (willing seller)

Acquisition through lease agreements

Private land of high biodiversity value is leased from a land owner.

Acquisition through donations (gifts) and bequests

The establishment of Protected Areas through donations or bequests from deceased estates.

25

Offsets

Negotiations through the IEM process

Developers and decision makers negotiate the setting aside of land or funds (on the part of the developer) for the irreversible transformation of land with significant biodiversity. The funds are used to purchase other land for conservation. Areas of low biodiversity value are exchanged in return for areas of high biodiversity value; the areas of low biodiversity value are then developed; the areas of high biodiversity value are secured for conservation. Land under the control of Land Affairs Portions of land under Municipal control (non-state land), or alternatively under provincial and national control (state land, including communal land). Expression of intent by private land owners to secure biodiversity on their properties for conservation. Investigate the status and contributions made by conservancies, natural heritage sites Investigate the potential interest on the part of the land claimants to manage their land for conservation and ecotourism.

Although there are draft Guidelines on Biodiversity Offsets for the Western Cape, these have not yet been finalised and approved, making them difficult to legally implement. There is also no agreed-on mechanism to manage financial offsets. Formalising and managing offsets can therefore be complicated and time-consuming and offsets are therefore only considered in exceptional circumstances with voluntary agreements being more readily used (pers. comm., S. Ralston, 2010).

Land exchange / swopping

Not recommended at this stage, not at least until an approved land exchange policy has been developed for the Western Cape. This option also requires a high level of cooperation between the government departments as the granting of development rights cannot be guaranteed. Generally not an attractive option, unless under exceptional circumstances.

National Dept. of Land Affairs

Assess biodiversity value of land in relation to priority areas.

Public land (state land and non-state land) Biodiversity Stewardship (Nature Reserve or Protected Environment are the two categories to be employed wart. priority biodiversity areas) Private Land Owners

Assess biodiversity value of land in relation to priority areas; identify areas to be secured through declaration under the NEMPAA and provide support in the form of expertise and management. Assess biodiversity value of land in relation to priority areas; assess level of biodiversity stewardship agreement in relation to the biodiversity value of land and commitment on behalf of the land owner. Provide support in the form of expertise and development of a management plan. Assess biodiversity value of land in relation to priority areas; assess the opportunities to incorporate these sites into stewardship agreements (as above). Assess biodiversity value of land in relation to priority areas; assess the opportunities to incorporate these sites into biodiversity stewardship agreements (as above).

Existing Conservancies, Natural Heritage Sites

Land reform (restitution and redistribution)

26

CHAPTER 2: CAPENATURE PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

2.1 APPROACH TAKEN AND PRINCIPLES APPLIED National policy is underpinned by the principle of sustainable development that aims to ensure that all development serves both present and future generations. Therefore it is vital to safeguard critical natural services such as clean and adequate water supplies, nutritious veldt for grazing livestock, and stable, healthy soils resilient to flood damage and erosion. Therefore an important prerequisite for sustainability is the safeguarding of biodiversity (i.e. the variety of local plants and animals, their habitats, and the natural processes that sustain them) (Maree and Vromans, 2010). As custodians of globally important biodiversity and a signatory committed to the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity, we also have a moral obligation to preserve our rich natural heritage for all future generations. The safeguarding of biodiversity is achieved through a suite of mechanisms. Only one of these is the formal declaration of land as Protected Areas. A holistic approach to biodiversity conservation (or safeguarding) should be comprised of formal declaration of Protected Areas together with the complementary establishment of informal conservation areas, wise landuse and management, and environmentally conscientious business practices. Although each mechanism plays a vital role in safeguarding biodiversity, only the formal declaration of Protected Areas and funded management of these areas can assure the retention of biodiversity into the future. For this reason, the largest conservation mechanism should be the formal declaration of Protected Areas. The following principles have therefore been adopted by CapeNatures Protected Area Expansion Strategy and Implementation Plan: CapeNatures goal is to safeguard identified Critical Biodiversity Area6 (CBA) habitat to ensure the persistence of at least accepted national Biodiversity Thresholds7 for all ecosystems. The current Western Cape Biodiversity Framework identifies approximately 34% of the landscape that must be retained in a natural state. Safeguarding this habitat should be achieved by implementing the full suite of mechanisms and not only the establishment of Protected Areas. The Protected Area network of the Western Cape, including Mountain Catchment areas, already comprises 17,159 km2. The National Protected Area Expansion Strategy indicates that a further 10,040 km2 of land should be conserved within 20 years to protect a greater proportion of currently under-conserved ecosystems. If this area target was located in the right areas, the resulting 27,299 km2 protected area network could formally conserve approximately 60% of the Biodiversity Threshold of most currently under-conserved SA Vegetation types.

These are terrestrial and aquatic features (e.g. vleis, rivers and estuaries), and the buffer areas along these aquatic CBA features, that must be safeguarded to meet biodiversity pattern and process thresholds. They are identified through a systematic biodiversity planning approach (see below) and represent the most land-efficient option to meeting all thresholds. 7 Thresholds represent the absolute minimum of that ecosystem or species which is required in order to ensure the continued persistence of the ecosystem or species. It can be represented by a number (e.g. 52 individuals of a species) or size (e.g. 102 hectares of an ecosystem type).

27

CapeNature will aim to meet or exceed the NPAES target and formally protect at least 60% of the Biodiversity Threshold of currently under protected ecosystems over 20 years, or the equivalent area of other under-protected and threatened CBA features. This area equates to around 25% of a likely final CBA network, which therefore requires that by the end of the 20 year strategy period that the remaining 75% of CBA be addressed through complementary conservation mechanisms. Beyond the current 20 year strategy, CapeNature should aim to include at least half of the CBA network in formal protected areas, or an approximate additional 10,000 km2 after the NPAES 20 year targets are met. CapeNature will initially target sites that have exceptional biodiversity and are under significant threat of loss, and that are located within CBA corridors for climate change adaptation and ecological functioning, for formal declaration of Protected Areas. Highest priority sites would have at least 500 to 5000 ha of threatened, underconserved habitat and should form key anchor sites or expand existing connectivity corridors for ecological persistence and climate change adaptation. Sites are chosen so that even if no further adjacent sites could be protected to protect planned landscape corridors, the individual site would still represent a good investment. An ideal Protected Areas network should represent as many threatened and underconserved biodiversity surrogates as possible. These would include vegetation types, ecological process areas, endemic and threatened species locations, etc. CapeNature will not target non-threatened habitat types for formal protection, unless these are located within threatened essential process areas or areas contributing to important and threatened landscape corridors. For under-conserved but largely intact and non-threatened ecosystems, CapeNature will instead rely on complementary mechanisms to safeguard this biodiversity. CapeNature will work in partnership with SANParks and conservation NGOs to meet combined provincial targets. All departments and programmes within CapeNature will work within the same priority areas to overlap energies and disciplines rather than dilute them. CapeNature aims to mainstream8 biodiversity into all sectors ensuring that biodiversity protection is adequately considered in land-use planning and decisionmaking but to do so in a manner whereby sustainable development (social, economic and natural) can be achieved. This implies that CapeNature will not aim to protect more than that which is required, as this might be to the detriment of other sectors, and that the sum of Protected Areas should never exceed the sum of the CBA network.

Mainstreaming biodiversity means integrating biodiversity considerations into the policies, strategies and day-today operations of a range of sectors whose core business is not biodiversity conservation. Mainstreaming biodiversity is essential for overcoming the "conservation versus development" mindset, and for ensuring sustainable development.

28

2.2 TARGETS FOR THE TWENTY YEAR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION STRATEGY AND FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN As mentioned in Section 2.1 above, the entire Critical Biodiversity Area network spatially defined by the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework should be safeguarded. CBAs are terrestrial and aquatic features (e.g. vleis, rivers and estuaries) that must be kept in a natural state in order to retain a reasonable proportion of biodiversity pattern in an ecologically functional and resilient landscape. They are identified through a systematic biodiversity planning approach9 and represent the most land-efficient option to meeting all thresholds (Maree and Vromans, 2010). 2.2.1 The twenty year target10 is to legally proclaim 10,040 km2 of currently underconserved ecosystems or features as formal Protected Areas (while the remaining identified CBA network is addressed through complementary mechanisms as mentioned in 2.1 above). This target is identical to the NPAES target and equates to 60% of the Biodiversity Threshold if each under-conserved national vegetation types were targeted proportionally. The reason for the relatively high target for the Western Cape despite having nearly 13% of the province already formally protected arises from the low levels of existing protection for most ecosystems and the high Biodiversity Thresholds of very diverse ecosystems. The result is that to achieve an overall NPAES South African target of 12% of the countrys area in a representative manner, the Western Cape must protect another 7.8% of its total area. 2.2.2 The five year implementation target for the province should aim to formally declare 25% of the 20 year vision, i.e. 2,510 km2. Unfortunately, due to limited resources available to CapeNature in this funding cycle, it is unlikely that the full target will be reached. The CapeNature five year implementation targets have therefore aim to make best use of current resource capacity and represent an achievable target for CapeNature. Year one and two will target only those sites that are currently under negotiation with the CapeNature Biodiversity Stewardship Programme. Relationships have already been built with the land owners and retracting from the areas would be unprofessional and jeopardize the future of the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme. These 37 Contract Nature Reserves and three Protected Environment sites amount to 906 km2.

Systematic biodiversity planning is an approach to conservation that prioritises actions by setting quantitative thresholds for biodiversity features (e.g. vegetation types). It is premised on conserving a representative sample of biodiversity pattern, including species and habitats (the principle of representation), as well as the ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain biodiversity over time (the principle of persistence). The configuration of priority areas identified in the plan is designed to be spatially efficient (i.e. to meet biodiversity thresholds as efficiently as possible in terms of the amount of land required) and where possible to avoid conflict with other land-uses where these are known to exist (principles of efficiency and conflict avoidance). It recognises that the whole landscape must be planned and managed strategically to ensure sustainable development. 10 A target represents the desired extent, the aim or goal. The target should not be confused with threshold which represents the bare minimum required for existence.

29

Year three, four and five will be informed by an estimated budget of R 16 000 000.00 that the CapeNature Executive will aim to secure by such time (see Section 4.1 below). A three year cumulative budget of 16 million Rand will be sufficient to target 96 properties in the province. According to the current Conservation Action Priorities (CAP) Map11, the top 96 properties amount to an additional 571 km2. The 96 properties can be chosen from a priority portfolio of 200 properties, as not all negotiations are successful (see Appendix 1a). Together, all CapeNature five year targets, plus the 220.6 km2 planned for Protected Areas by other agencies in the province amounts to 69% of the NPAES five year area target. It is important to note that these described targets are based on a current and conservative expectation of resources to be availed to the province. In the event that a larger Protected Area expansion budget is made available, this strategy will be realigned accordingly to meet a higher percentage of the CBA network and the NPAES target.

11

The Conservation Action Priorities (CAP) Map is a spatial product which prioritises each cadastre in the province according to a set of biodiversity and pragmatic criteria. The CAP Map is revised annually according to new information and establishment of Protected Areas and forms the annual action plan for CapeNature Stewardship Programme. Because the CAP Map is linked to actual cadastres on the ground, it remains an internal product only.

30

Figure 5 Logic used to select the very highest priority sites for protected area expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship in the Western Cape. Sites from within a number of identified priority corridors were filtered on the basis of several key criteria, with highest ranked sites being those that are within Climate Change corridors, with most extensive areas of remnant threatened habitat held by a single landowner, and adjacent to other extensive CR or EN properties, located close to an existing formal Protected Areas.

31

2.3 CAPENATURE SPATIAL PRIORITIES FOR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION

Figure 6 CapeNatures three to five year portfolio of priority sites for Protected Area expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship. Although the target is a total of 96 sites by end of year five, 200 alternatives are provided to allow for unwilling landowners and failed negotiations. Note that although sites are clustered mostly in threatened lowland habitats that they also fall within identified priority corridors. Wherever possible sites are close to existing Protected Areas.

2.3.1 Applying the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy to the Western Cape The CapeNature PAES is aligned to the concepts and goals of the 2008 National PAES (NPAES). There is some spatial overlap in priority sites, but we do identify many different spatial priorities. This is required for a number of reasons. Most importantly, spatial planning is based on finer scale informants than the NPAES, and CapeNatures primary implementation mechanism is Biodiversity Stewardship. This allowed identification of sites that meet all the key NPAES prioritisation criteria of highest biodiversity value, extreme urgency, and cost-effective protected area establishment opportunities. A key additional factor was that CapeNature planned specifically to mitigate the implementation risk inherent in negotiation with private landowners. Selected sites can form the core of expansion nodes in priority connectivity and climate adaptation corridors, but will still be excellent conservation investments if no further adjacent sites are added. We feel this is a sound approach in general, but particularly when the resources to implement this plan are limited.

32

2.3.2 Western Cape Provincial Biodiversity Framework The Western Cape Biodiversity Framework (WCBF) currently being finalised under the auspices of C.A.P.E. is a compilation of all the current fine scale conservation plans across the Western Cape. The WCBF provides a common Critical Biodiversity Areas framework for all the different plans. Importantly where different plans overlap or disagree, the framework identifies only the best current informants by consultation with all the planners involved. Where fine-scale planning is not yet complete, the WCBF does identify those features already known to be CBAs such as natural remnants of Critically Endangered ecosystems, The CapeNature PAES is based on data derived from a preliminary version of the WCBF, and the final version will be used to regularly update the spatial priorities to account for progress, and to develop a spatial plan for land acquisition. 2.3.3 Focal Areas The following areas where identified as key site clusters within identified critical connectivity and climate adaptation corridors (descriptions adapted from Pence 2009): West Coast Cederberg Mountains This area comprises the original Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor, and is a high priority due to existing planning and implementation, plus acknowledged threats (primarily agriculture, climate change and too frequent fires in the mountain areas), high diversity of endemics and threatened plant species, and climate change relevance. The corridor runs from the West Coast, where Strandveld vegetation is dominant (few threatened species), inland across the Sandveld (Sand Fynbos dominant; rich in threatened species), and then up into the Olifants River Mountains, down into the Olifants River valley, and up again into the high peaks of the Cederberg (rich in threatened and endemic species). Altitude ranges from sea level to over 2000m, and topographic diversity is exceptionally high (lowland, montane, upland lowland gradients), especially in the eastern half of the corridor. The corridor includes the Verlorenvlei and its catchments, the largest natural freshwater body on the Cape West Coast, and a RAMSAR site. The Olifants River is one of the three largest perennial rivers in the region, and is especially important for endemic fish (although mostly outside the designated corridor). Numerous soil (edaphic) interfaces are present, often on a small, unmapped scale. Primary threats are ongoing agricultural expansion (mainly in the Sandveld, Olifants River Mountains, and Olifants River Valley), alien plant invasion (relatively insignificant, except along rivers and in wetlands), and too frequent fires (especially in the mountains east of the Olifants River). The primary bottlenecks occur in the lowland areas of the Sandveld and in the Olifants River valley, and in some of these cases rehabilitation of old lands may be a real and worthwhile option. West Coast Berg River An entirely lowland corridor, with little topographic diversity. The corridor falls entirely with the Sandveld bioregion, and passes through the Hopefield Flats centre of endemism. The dominant soil type is acid sand, which supports Sand Fynbos with surprisingly high small mammal densities, and a significant number of threatened plant species. It also borders on the western edges of the Swartland, with its Shale 33

Renosterveld, and vegetation along this ecotone is species rich, and very high in threatened species. The corridor incorporates substantial Strandveld elements. The relatively aridity and infertile soils mean that this is one of the largest remaining areas of intact natural vegetation in the region, and it is thus also an obvious target for expansion of the West Coast National Park, which currently conserves relatively little Sand Fynbos (it is mostly Strandveld). The corridor also incorporates parts of the Sout River, one of the very few Sandveld rivers. The Berg River and its associated floodplains and salt marshes is an exceptionally important perennial wetland system, especially for birds. Primary threats are agricultural expansion (potatoes and rooibos), and alien invasive Acacias (severe in places). Riverlands Pella Bokbaai An entirely lowland corridor, although it does incorporate the Mamre Hills. Selected for the very high numbers of local endemics and threatened plant species, and anchored by Pella and Riverlands Nature Reserves both managed by CapeNature. Existing conservation initiatives at Mamre commonage and on various private properties. Atlantis dune fields property (south-western portion of corridor) managed by City of Cape Town for water catchment. Riverlands is quite exceptional in the CFR, and has the greatest concentration of threatened plant species of any CapeNature reserve over 100 RDB species (Koopman & Helme pers comm. 2010). Located within the south-western coastal lowlands, and borders on the southern edge of the Swartland. Altitude ranges from sea level to about 300m. Incorporates some of the best examples of acid sands in the region (all very poorly protected) supporting Sand Fynbos, with Renosterveld (granite and shale) on the Mamre hills. Many sites have long been known to be regional conservation priorities as identified by Jarman in his 1986report and Killian in 1995. Major threats are alien vegetation (severe in places), agricultural expansion, and urban development (Atlantis, Mamre, and Chatsworth). Various bottlenecks notably just west of railway between Pella and Riverlands (owned by Intersite (Transnet)), and southeast of Mamre. Elandsberg Mountains Witsenberg Mountains The obvious western anchor point is the large Elandsberg Contract Nature Reserve (4000ha) at the western base of the Limietberg Mountains (south of Voelvlei dam), which is the largest privately owned Renosterveld conservation area, with very high levels of threatened species. This then links into the Sandstone Fynbos and shale bands of the (relatively high altitude) Elandsberg and Limietberg Mountains, via Waterfall State Forest, and then descends into the heavily transformed Tulbagh valley, where key corridors have already been identified in the Renosterveld and Alluvium Fynbos remnants (very high levels of endemism and threatened species). To the east this connects with the high altitude (1600m) Witzenberg Mountains (Sandstone Fynbos), which have important north south connectivity as well. The bottlenecks are all in the Tulbagh valley, and rehabilitation of key corridors should be considered. The primary threats are agriculture (in the lowlands), and alien invasive plants (in the montane areas), along with too frequent fires (montane areas). An extensive pine and gum plantation at the southern end of Waterfall State Forest includes some important habitat remnants (on Silcrete).

34

Klein River Mountains Salmonsdam Mountains De Mond Selected sites are key Elim Ferricrete and Renosterveld sites within a broader corridor that could technically link with the Botriver Riviersonderend and Babilonstoring corridors via the Klein River Mountains (Maanskynkop, Vogelgat Nature Reserve and Fernkloof Municipal Reserve). Together they include a significant chunk of the Sandstone Fynbos diversity of the southern Overberg, and the area is home to many rare and localised species. The corridor is both montane (Sandstone Fynbos) and lowland (Renosterveld and Sand Fynbos, with Dune Strandveld and Limestone Fynbos in coastal areas), and ranges in altitude from 700m to sea level. The corridor is poorly conserved, apart from the Salmonsdam Nature Reserve, and the CapeNature run De Mond reserve at the coast. Main threats are alien vegetation (severe in places (such as the eastern Klein River Mountains), and many areas in the early stages of serious invasion), and agriculture (especially wine). Corridor includes the critical freshwater wetlands (floodplains and riverine) of the Nuwejaarsrivier, which feeds the Agulhas Plain wetlands the largest remaining lowland wetland area in the CFR, and partly within the Agulhas National Park. Corridor connects to very important coastal strip from Agulhas National Park east to Arniston and De Hoop. Bottlenecks include the Heuningnes river where it is crossed by the Struisbaai road, and various other points in the Nuwejaarsrivier area in the Elim area. Euston- Brown has previously identified the Salmonsdam range as an important climate refuge, and this could in fact be applied to the entire south slope of the mountains within this corridor, due to the abundant presence of summer southeast cloud and associated precipitation. Ruens Silcrete Hills - De Hoop Vlei A Critically Endangered lowland corridor, with riverine elements connecting into the important De Hoop vlei. Selected sites are in the most extensive remaining area of totally unconserved Ruens Silcrete Hills (Renosterveld) to the coast, via the existing De Hoop Reserve and its mix of Strandveld and Limestone Fynbos. The Reserve currently protects very little Renosterveld, and one of the two highest priorities in the region is the Silcrete hill area to the north (the other is the Potberg foot slopes in the east). The Silcrete hills support many localised and threatened species, including a number of undescribed species. In addition, some of the rare species are succulents most closely related to Little Karoo and Worcester Robertson Karoo species, indicating some sort of previous link in that direction (possibly via the Breede River valley to the east). Main ongoing threat is agriculture (ploughing, and trampling by livestock). Various bottlenecks and rehabilitation of old lands would be recommended to restore or widen certain key links.

35

CHAPTER 3: CAPENATURES FIVE YEAR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (JULY 2010 MARCH 2015)

The National Biodiversity Framework (NBF) (DEAT 2008) highlights the development of the NPAES and the implementation of its first five years as two of the 33 priority actions for the biodiversity sector to be carried out between 2008 and 2013.The NPAES, in response includes both a 20-year strategy with 20-year targets and a five-year target which is to be revised every five years. The Provinces were thus called to submit their Protected Area Expansion Plans and CapeNatures response (this document) includes a 20-year strategy and a five-year implementation plan, as discussed in this chapter. As expressed in Section 2.1 CapeNatures five-year implementation plan will focus on those areas comprised of Critical Biodiversity Areas which form the core corridors for climate change adaptation and ecological functioning, have exceptional biodiversity and are under significant threat of loss. The sites should be comprised of threatened habitat which act as key anchor sites capable of surviving, even if secured only in isolation. The CapeNature five-year implementation plan will make use of Biodiversity Stewardship as its main mechanism to secure these sites as formally declared Protected Areas. Its second mechanism will be land acquisition through partnership agreements and alternative funding mechanisms will also be investigated and considered during this first implementation phase. The five-year implementation plan will endeavour to: Negotiate and contract Stewardship Agreements identified for the first two years and source funding for further negotiation of sites in year three to five. Revise CapeNatures Land Acquisition Policy. Formalise an MOU with WWF-SA regards land acquisition and management. Undertake an assessment on all state-owned land which has been identified as a Critical Biodiversity Area. Determine which Forestry Exit areas are available for conservation and negotiate for the areas which are Critical Biodiversity Areas. Investigate the options of a financial biodiversity offset mechanism and if possible mobilize its formation and operations. Re-evaluate the interpretation of the Ramsar Convention and declaration of Ramsar sites, outside of existing Protected Areas. Evaluate unproclaimed Mountain Catchments for declaration and investigate the promulgation of regulations as well as the assignment of management authorities for Mountain Catchment Areas. Establish a Protected Area Management Fund. Establish a Land Acquisition Fund.

36

3.1 BIODIVERSITY STEWARDSHIP AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM FOR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION

Biodiversity Stewardship is the practice of effectively managing biodiversity outside of the existing state-managed Protected Area system. It achieves this by placing the responsibility into the hands of the private landowners to conserve biodiversity on their own land through a variety of contractual agreements. The Biodiversity Stewardship Programme was formally launched in CapeNature in 2003 after a successful two-year pilot phase and has since secured 38 Contract Nature Reserves agreements amounting to 49 081ha which contribute to the formal Protected Areas of the Province. The Programme has also concluded a further 19 Biodiversity and 28 Conservation Area agreements which do not have formal conservation status but contribute to the improved ecological management of the landscape (see Appendix 3: Biodiversity Stewardship Categories). The institutional motivation for adopting Biodiversity Stewardship as a core strategy for CapeNature is that 80% of conservation-worthy biodiversity is located on private land in the Western Cape and that Biodiversity Stewardship is widely regarded as one of the most costeffective and feasible mechanisms for protecting important natural systems across the world (Jackelman et al., 2008). CapeNatures investment into the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme is of paramount importance as the return on this investment will be exponential in the long term. It is a nonnegotiable option for CapeNature given its limited resources and the alternative of exorbitant land costs. An exercise undertaken as part of the Mpumalanga PAES (MPAES) showed that the Biodiversity Stewardship option will amount to a quarter of the cost of land acquisition, even though the MPAES has assumed that the stewardship option will be used 90% of the time, with land acquisition accounting for the remaining 10% (Morris and Corcoran, 2009).

37

CapeNatures Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (adapted from the

(Stewardship Operational Procedures Manual, 2007) The overarching goal of the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme in CapeNature is: To secure, and maintain, the conservation status of land in high priority conservation areas of the Western Cape The principles of the Biodiversity Stewardship in CapeNature are as follows: 1. Focus on biodiversity conservation outcomes: The conservation of biodiversity will be the key determining factor in identifying properties to be targeted by the programme. 2. Target priority areas: The programme will limit the spatial focus of its activities to areas of high conservation priority, to ensure optimal use of capacity and resources. 3. Be responsive to needs: The programme will attempt to understand the attitudes, concerns and requirements of land owners (and land occupants) of the targeted properties. Wherever possible, it will seek to accommodate these needs in negotiations with willing landowners. 4. Secure the highest conservation tenure possible: The programme will seek to secure the highest legal tenure, and conservation status, possible for land that is subject to a negotiated stewardship agreement. 5. Provide ongoing support to landowners: The programme will actively provide ongoing information, assistance and support to landowners who have concluded a stewardship agreement. 6. Build cooperation and partnerships: The programme will seek to develop opportunities to link land under stewardship agreements with broader landscapewide conservation initiatives implemented by partner CapeNature programmes, public institutions and organisations.

3.1.1 Incentives The biggest challenges regarding the provision of incentives for land owners are maintaining a steady supply of incentives and ensuring that they are appropriate for the different levels of commitment to conservation. CapeNature does not offer many direct incentives for signing Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements but instead relies on our partners to offer these incentives to the priority land owners in a co-coordinated manner. Our main partners in this regard are: WWF-SA through the Table Mountain Fund and the Provincial Department of Agricultures LandCare programme. Relationships with NGOs such as the Botanical Society and WWF-SA have provided two of the most important incentives availed to the Biodiversity Stewardship, namely the fiscal tax reform which resulted in tax incentives and the Table Mountain Fund Stewardship Trust which supplies direct conservation action incentives to landowners. These two mechanisms, along with two alternative incentives are described below.

38

Statutory Fiscal Incentives: In response to the commitments of landowners to secure

biodiversity on their land, Treasury has recognised that:

a) Landowners have forgone use rights to their land, which have inherent value; and b) Landowners often incur substantial costs in managing their land under these agreements. As a result, a number of fiscal mechanisms have been developed to support what is essentially a cost carried by an individual for the public good. These mechanisms have been legislated in the Revenue Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 60 of 2008). Various scenarios are addressed by tax mechanisms, each providing a more secure conservation agreement, and demanding a higher level of commitment and cost from the landowner. This Act further provides for a situation of non-compliance or breach of agreement with the inclusion of a recoupment clause, whereby, if the taxpayer is in breach of the agreement, he/she will be subject to a recoupment of the deductions previously allowed in the five years preceding the contravention (Draft Biodiversity Stewardship Guideline Document, 2009). Table Mountain Fund: The Table Mountain Fund (TMF) is considered to be the premier fund for the conservation of the Fynbos and is also recognised as one of the worlds leading Conservation Trust Funds. The TMF has identified supporting conservation on private land as one of the key activities that needs to occur in order to secure the Cape Floristic Region (CFR). In 2004, TMF opened the TMF Stewardship Fund, which is dedicated to financing incentives for land owners and projects that support the rollout of the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme across the CFR. TMF continue to operate this fund and to date, this contribution has assisted in securing 49 000 ha of threatened ecosystems (pers comm., O. Huyser, 2010). Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group: The Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group (UBCEG) represents a model whereby numerous partners and funding opportunities, all active within one geographic area, can be managed in a comprehensive manner. UBCEG is made up of NGOs, local and provincial government departments, members from the private sector and public entities such as CapeNature. The group meets on a quarterly basis to coordinate work programmes and projects thereby ensuring that the maximum benefit is received from the sharing of resources and resulting in an improved service-delivery. This collaborative extension model has been very effective and the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme aims to set up similar collaborative extension groups throughout the Western Cape. Pioneer Foods Stewardship Project: Pioneer Foods Stewardship Project was made possible through funding donated by Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd for social development and community upliftment whilst conserving the Boland. The funding is channelled through the TMF and is to be used to train up three local contracting teams and then to provide them with stable employment for a year. This employment will be carried out on private land which has been signed into an agreement with CapeNatures Biodiversity Stewardship Programme. This model of using funding to create jobs which ultimately benefit conservation can be replicated with other donors who do not solely fund conservation.

39

3.1.2

Extension Staff

A very capable team of extension staff has developed in CapeNature. This team has been capacitated through the sharing of lessons learnt between individuals and provinces. The Biodiversity Stewardship Programme can only function with skilled negotiation staff that is strong in both conservation expertise and social skills. The Programme has found that the most effective negotiations are implemented when the extension staff are dedicated specialists working full-time in negotiation and not part-time. This became evident when comparing success rates of full-time negotiators funded by the C.A.P.E. programme versus permanently employed CapeNature staff with a broader portfolio of Key Performance Areas and therefore only negotiating part-time. Currently the staff undertaking Biodiversity Stewardship are negotiating and maintaining the sites which they have signed up. However this does restrict the growth of the Programme to approximately twelve sites per negotiator as the maintenance of the sites is as important as the declaration and it would be irresponsible of CapeNature to continue negotiating sites beyond their capacity to maintain them. The Programme has grown to include staff in Conservation Services, Reserve Management and People and Conservation, strongly supported by Scientific Services and Law Support. Currently CapeNature has four staff members as full-time Stewardship negotiators, two contractual negotiators and another ten working on Stewardship in varying percentages of their full-time positions. The need for fulltime extension staff is further discussed in this chapter under section 3.6: Additional institutional capacity for Protected Area expansion in the Western Cape. 3.1.3 Provincial and Interprovincial Working Groups

The CapeNature Biodiversity Stewardship Programme obtains guidance from two main working groups: The Biodiversity Stewardship Reference Group (provincial) and the Biodiversity Stewardship Technical Working Group (inter-provincial). The Biodiversity Stewardship Reference Group: The Stewardship Task Team was a successful implementation tool of CAPE as a relationship building platform and is being continued in the form of a reference group in the Province. Members of this provincial reference group include government departments carrying out extension services in the province as well as partner organisations assisting in the delivery of incentives for conservation-conscious land owners thereby encouraging best practice in the landscape. The group also forms a platform for knowledge exchange on topics such as best methodologies to be applied and ways in which to address challenges facing the programme.

The Biodiversity Stewardship Technical Working Group: This is an inter-provincial group which aims to resolve technical issues regarding the implementation of Biodiversity Stewardship across the country and to assist in developing norms and standards for Biodiversity Stewardship which can be applied by all provincial agencies. Members of the group include representatives from the provinces with active biodiversity stewardship programmes, SANBI, DEA and key NGOs engaged with Biodiversity Stewardship at a national level (currently only WWF-SA).

40

3.1.4

Biodiversity Stewardship and Land Reform

There are significant potential synergies between stewardship programmes, land reform and rural development. In 2008, stakeholders dealing with Biodiversity Stewardship and land reform decided to work together to develop a land reform/communal lands biodiversity stewardship initiative. SANBI and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), in partnership with provincial conservation agencies, land and conservation NGOs have agreed to work together on this. The Western Cape has three pilot sites for this initiative, and has begun to apply Biodiversity Stewardship mechanisms to these sites. 3.2 LAND ACQUISITION THROUGH A WILLING SELLER

The purchase and declaration of privately owned land generally applies when a property with high biodiversity value is voluntarily placed on the market for sale. Alternatively, the purchaser may proactively approach the landowner inquiring whether or not they are willing to sell. The willing seller - willing buyer route will depend on whether the purchase price reflects the market value of the property. Land purchase will be directed toward key strategic properties of significant biodiversity value for incorporation into the Protected Areas network. This mechanism will rely on CapeNature having access to a land acquisition fund (refer to Chapter 4: Financial Model) and on the partnership with WWF-SA as outlined below. 3.2.1 Land acquisition through purchase in partnership with WWF

CapeNature and WWF-SA have worked together in the past to acquire and manage important land portions of valuable biodiversity in the Western Cape. This can be seen in the CapeNature, WWF-SA and Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust partnership which, amongst other projects, has successfully expanded the Anysberg Nature Reserve. The mechanism employed was primarily that the (i) WWF-SA would facilitate the purchase of the land through an appropriate donor or trust (ii) and then enter into a 99 year lease agreement with CapeNature regarding the management, (iii) and that the land would be declared a Nature Reserve under the NEMPAA. Currently WWF-SA and CapeNature do not have a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding land acquisition and management, however an MOU will be finalised shortly as the two organizations continue to engage in a partnership which results in the Protected Areas of the Western Cape expanding into the appropriate places. The MOU, which forms a vital component of the five-year implementation plan, will be based on the following principles: Contact between the organisations will be regular and strategic; The same spatial biodiversity informants for land acquisition or any other Protected Area expansion mechanisms will be adopted; and The commitment to the partnership, as well as the levels of support which can be expected for newly acquired sites will be agreed upon by both organisations. As a deliverable of the five-year implementation plan CapeNature will specify standard operating procedures regarding land acquisition and management of land which is acquired by partners and then handed over to CapeNature for management by CapeNature, this will also result in the revision of the CapeNature Land Acquisition Policy. The current Land 41

Acquisition Committee will merge with the Stewardship Review Committee to form the Protected Area Expansion Review Committee where all properties will be evaluated first on their biodiversity value and contribution to vegetation thresholds and then on the more pragmatic management implications of the sites. WWF-SA will become a member of this review committee and present proposed properties for acquisition for consideration by CapeNature. The conservation status as well as the option of the property being managed by CapeNature or other mechanisms will be considered.

WWF-SA land-acquisition trusts and funds

WWF-SA manages two independent trusts for the acquisition of land, namely: Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust which provides funding to WWF-SA to acquire land which will result in the conservation of the plant diversity of the Succulent Karoo Biome. Normally WWF-SA will purchase and hold title for properties and then enter into a long-term lease agreement with a suitable entity who will assume responsibility for the management of the property in a manner which will maintain its conservation value. WWF-SA will negotiate a suitable management plan against which such properties should be managed; and National Parks Trust which provides funding for the purchase of immovable property which enlarges the existing National Parks or establishes a new National Park or contributes to capital works, such as the building of dams and fencing. In addition to the above mentioned trusts, WWF-SA also has earmarked internal funds, not requiring external approval, for the acquisition of land, namely: Elizabeth Harding Bequest is to be used to purchase/assist in the purchasing of nature reserves or their enlargement and to meet the cost of maintenance thereof, for the purpose of providing a sanctuary for indigenous and migratory birds in the Western Cape; and Fynbos Land Fund for the purposes of protecting Fynbos in its natural environment in South Africa. 3.3 OTHER MEANS OF LAND ACQUISITION

42

3.3 OTHER MEANS OF LAND ACQUISITION 3.3.1 State-owned land

There are large portions of land in the Western Cape, owned by the National Department of Public Works and managed by various departments, which are of high biodiversity value. A good example of this would be portions of land on the West Coast and in the Karoo which are managed by the Department of Defence. These areas should receive appropriate conservation status and be managed by their current management authorities in a manner which is compatible with biodiversity conservation. There are two mechanisms which could be used to secure state-owned land for conservation. The first option is for the land to be transferred to CapeNature according the Distribution and Transfer of Certain State Land Act (Act No. 119 of 1993 as amended). In this scenario The Minister or MEC would consult with the land distribution commissioner requesting the transfer of land for the purpose of declaration. The second option is that the Department of Public Works would declare the important areas as Nature Reserves and assign a management authority, which could be the current management authority. In the second scenario a management agreement could be signed with CapeNature and the Management authority could be assisted by CapeNature in the management of the site. In order to apply this option the five-year implementation strategy will include an assessment on all state owned land which has been identified as a Critical Biodiversity Area to verify its significance to biodiversity conservation. 3.3.2 Donations

When land is offered to CapeNature as a donation, these properties need to be site assessed for biodiversity value and go through the Protected Area Expansion Review Committee and a decision then made as to whether CapeNature is able to take on the management burden of the property. Only if the biodiversity on the property is deemed significant enough and the additional management burdens deemed acceptable, will the donation be considered by CapeNature. 3.3.3 Forestry Exit Areas

The Forestry Exit Process aims to re-allocate state-owned land managed by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), that demonstrates very poor potential in terms of timber yield, to other land-uses, one of which being conservation. These areas are leased to Mountain to Ocean (MTO) who are in the process of clear felling areas that have harvestable timber. Once the area has been clear felled MTO may either choose to eradicate alien vegetation or they can pay the receiving agent a set fee per hectare to carry out the alien vegetation eradication themselves. The cadastral units are then passed back to the Department of Public Works (DPW) for distribution to the receiving agents.

43

There are a number of cadastral units that are currently residing with DPW waiting for the receiving agents to indicate that they are willing to take them over. Unfortunately it was not possible to get a map of these cadastral units. CapeNature would also like to reconfirm that the final outcome of the allocation process is not a result of consultation with CapeNature and that some areas identified for reforestation may well be of high biodiversity significance. It is thus proposed that all the cadastres that were allocated to conservation be assessed for biodiversity value and that these areas are presented to DAFF as well as other areas important for biodiversity to finalise their transferral to the appropriate organisations.

44

3.4 INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORIZATION PROCESSES AS A TOOL FOR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION IEM is a philosophy which prescribes a code of practice for ensuring that environmental considerations are fully integrated into all stages of the development process in order to achieve a desirable balance between conservation and development (DEAT, 1998), while the Environmental Authorization Processes (e.g. Environmental Impact Assessments) are the tools which implement IEM. An opportunity for conservation (including Protected Area establishment) may arise when development rights for a portion of land are applied for through the Environmental Authorization Processes. This is enabled through one of the key principles of Integrated Environmental Management whereby negative impacts on the environment must be avoided, or where they cannot be avoided, they should be minimised and remedied (National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998), e.g. through the setting aside or avoidance, for conservation purposes, of natural areas on the property which are not to be developed Furthermore, where unavoidable, residual impacts on biodiversity may result from a proposed development (i.e. after avoid, minimise or remedy), biodiversity offsets may be required to compensate for theses losses. Generally, offsets involve setting aside and formally protecting an area (either within the application area or off-site) for biodiversity conservation. However, in some instances a biodiversity offset can be in the form of monetary compensation, where the funds are to be used for the acquisition and management of priority habitat thereby contributing to the expansion of the Protected Area network (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, 2007). Environmental Authorization Processes can require varying degrees of protection for the habitat which is to be set aside for conservation. Details regarding the protection and management of the conservation area may be included as a recommendation in the environmental authorisation (i.e. voluntary) or as a condition (i.e. enforceable). The details will vary depending on the context and the potential impacts of the proposed development. A requirement for a reactive Biodiversity Stewardship agreement and title deed restrictions limiting further transformation offers the highest level of long term security and would usually be required where a biodiversity offset is necessary. The benefit of Protected Area expansion through Environmental Authorization Processes as a tool is that it allows for an increase in the Protected Area network with a far smaller resource investment by CapeNature. The reduced resources required by CapeNature are as a result of a shorter and simpler Biodiversity Stewardship negotiation process (when compared to proactive Biodiversity Stewardship), as well as the applicant carrying the costs of the biodiversity assessments, drafting of contracts and management plans, land management and auditing. In CapeNature we refer to this as Reactive Stewardship.

45

A further benefit of this tool is that it offers protection to areas of high conservation value that face a high level of threat, thereby allowing for other mechanisms of Protected Area expansion to focus less on these sites. The disadvantage of making use of the Environmental Authorization Processes for Protected Area expansion is that it is an opportunistic and largely reactive tool thereby making planning and goal-setting difficult. Furthermore, although there are draft Guidelines on Biodiversity Offsets for the Western Cape, these have not yet been finalised and approved making them difficult to legally implement. There is also no agreed-on mechanism to manage financial offsets. Formalising and managing offsets can therefore be complicated and time-consuming and offsets are therefore only considered in exceptional circumstances with voluntary agreements being more readily used (pers. comm., S. Ralston, 2010). As a result of the potential which lies in using the financial offsets to expand the Protected Areas network, the five-year implementation plan will investigate the options for the formation and operations of such a mechanism. 3.5 PROTECTED AREA SUPPORT MECHANISMS

Due to the internationally recognised significance of the biodiversity of the Western Cape a complex array of measures are being applied in an effort to ensure the long-term persistence of this asset. Some of these mechanisms are legal mechanisms (e.g. the establishment of Ramsar sites within Protected Areas and in terms of the Ramsar Convention to add further protection to the area) while others are operational mechanisms (e.g. operating within a focused corridor within the landscape thereby increasing the likelihood of biodiversity conservation being adopted by relevant stakeholders ). Each of these mechanisms can be applied to enhance the Protected Area network either by elevating the status of the Protected Areas or by buffering them against deleterious external influences. What must be kept in mind is that several of these supporting layers may be applicable to the same area thus creating an extremely complex system of protection (Figure 7). These supporting mechanisms, which supply buffering and mitigation against ongoing development and global climate change, are an integral component of the Protected Areas Expansion Strategy and Implementation Plan (pers. comm., G. Palmer, 2010).

46

Figure 7 Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites, Ramsar sites, Mountain Catchment Areas and Wilderness Areas of the Western Cape.

Corridors: A biodiversity conservation corridor is a biologically and strategically defined subregional space, selected as a unit for large-scale conservation planning and implementation purposes. The success of a corridor programme lies in the concentration of resources in a spatially delineated area thereby increasing the co-operation of the local stakeholders in biodiversity conservation. CapeNature has implemented two corridor initiatives since 2004, the Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor and the Gouritz Corridor. The Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor covers an expanse of 1.8 million hectares and stretches from the West Coast to the Tankwa Karoo in the East and from the Groot Winterhoek Wilderness in the South to the Bokkeveld Plateau in the North. The north-south and east-west gradients of this corridor are important for providing landscape linkages allowing for species to migrate to cooler refugia as the globe warms. The Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor has focused areas or core corridors within the larger planning domain that were prioritized for implementation, which include, amongst others, the formal declaration of Protected Areas. These focus areas were prioritised because they have been classified as Critical Biodiversity Areas which are threatened by high development pressure.

47

The Gouritz Corridor has an extensive planning domain which is in excess of 3.2 million hectares or 25% of the Western Cape Province. The Gouritz River is a primary corridor within the larger planning domain. The core corridors within have been established by making use of both land acquisition through the WWF-SA Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust and Biodiversity Stewardship mechanisms. Freshwater Corridors: The Grootwinterhoek Freshwater Stewardship Corridor has just completed its planning phase and will be implemented in the Upper Catchment of the Olifants and Doring River systems. It is proposed that a Protected Environment will be used as the Biodiversity Stewardship mechanism as well as one Contract Nature Reserve. This freshwater corridor together with the Protected Environments being implemented in the Southern Cape, Upper Keurbooms and Bitou Rivers by the NGO Eden to Addo (see section 3.6.3) and CapeNature, can be seen as pilots for other freshwater ecosystems needing conservation status. CapeNature will be investigating other additional mechanisms for conserving priority freshwater, estuarine and coastal ecosystems over the next five years.

Biosphere Reserves: Biosphere Reserves are a product of the Man and the Biosphere programme of UNESCO. They aim at achieving a sustainable balance between the sometimes conflicting goals of conserving biological diversity, promoting economic development and maintaining associated cultural values. One of the most important attributes of a Biosphere Reserve is to provide mechanisms for communication and cooperation between the various organs of governance. The Western Cape has three UNESCO proclaimed Biosphere Reserves, The Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve, the Cape Winelands Biosphere Reserve and the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve. The core areas of the Kogelberg and Cape Winelands Biosphere reserve are managed by CapeNature while the core of the West Coast Biosphere Reserve is managed by SANParks. In addition to these three existing Biosphere Reserves, the Gouritz Corridor is currently applying for Biosphere Reserve status whereby the core is to either be managed by CapeNature or secured through contract nature reserves. World Heritage Sites: UNESCO proclaimed World Heritage Sites (WHS) not only raise the status of existing Protected Areas but also delineate buffer zones that assist in the maintenance of the Outstanding Universal Value which is a requirement of any site listed as a WHS. The Western Cape has a WHS called the Cape Floral Region Protected Areas WHS. This serial natural WHS is comprised of eight Protected Areas (Cederberg, Grootwinterhoek and Boosmansbos Wilderness Areas, Table Mountain National Park, Boland Mountain Complex, De Hoop Nature Reserve, Swartberg Nature Reserve and Baviaanskloof) and a buffer zone comprised of additional Protected Areas, Stewardship sites, Private and Municipal Nature Reserves. This variety in protection levels in the buffer zones is due to the lack of a dedicated mechanism, in either the NEMPAA or the World Heritage Convention Act (Act No. 49 of 1999), for the formal creation of buffer zones. An extension for the Cape Floral Region Protected Areas WHS, which seeks to add an additional 37 Protected Areas and augment the buffer zones with the Critical Biodiversity Areas, has already been proposed.

48

Ramsar Sites: South Africa is a signatory to the Ramsar Convention which allows for the declaration of important wetlands as Ramsar Sites. Unfortunately, the South African interpretation of this convention, has limited this designation to existing Protected Areas only. This is not interpreted as a requirement outside of South Africa and is believed to be hampering the recognition and protection of important South African wetlands outside of our existing Protected Areas network. The five-year implementation strategy will aim to reevaluate this interpretation taking into account the numerous developments in the conservation arena over the past twenty years. Private Mountain Catchment Areas: Formally declared Private Mountain Catchment Areas provide and augment vital linkages between many Protected Areas. These linkages are extremely important particularly for the support of ongoing ecological and evolutionary processes, not to mention their essential role in the production of water. Unfortunately, the declaration of Private Mountain Catchment Areas within the province was never completed. The result was that several critical catchment areas which are vitally important from a water production and a biodiversity perspective have not been awarded this level of protection. The actual level of protection provided by Private Mountain Catchment status is minimal, as unlike other formally declared Protected Areas, they do not have promulgated regulations limiting development, nor any management requirements. The five-year implementation plan aims to unlock the potential of Private Mountain Catchment Areas contributing to long-term biodiversity conservation, through investigating the promulgation of regulations as well as the assignment of management authorities. Private Mountain Catchment Areas which were previously not declared will be put through a conservation planning exercise to check for pattern and connectivity to see which areas are required to be declared in addition to existing Private Mountain Catchment Areas. Wilderness Areas: The Western Cape has four Wilderness Areas in terms of The Forest Act (Act No. 72 of 1968). It is envisaged that in due course this status will be afforded to other qualifying Protected Areas, or portions thereof, thus significantly raising their conservation status and influencing land-use in the surrounding landscape.

49

3.6

INTER - INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

3.6.1

South African National Parks

South African National Parks (SANParks) and CapeNature exchange Protected Area expansion strategies to ensure that the two organisations are not targeting the same parcels of land. They also collaborate to meet the common provincial vegetation type targets in the most effective and complementary manner possible. The five-year implementation plan will take the SANParks expansion zones into account and identify those areas where both organisations plan to be active. In such areas, e.g. the West Coast, it has been agreed that the organisations will agree on a joint strategy before approaching the landowner. 3.6.2 City of Cape Town

The City of Cape Town collaborates with CapeNature in the expansion of Protected Areas within the province by the City implementing the Biodiversity Network (Bionet). The Bionet is a fine-scale map and implementation plan for the conservation of important biodiversity areas within the City boundaries through various mechanisms including Biodiversity Stewardship. The City is also a member of the Protected Area Expansion Review Committee and processes all of its proposals for Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements including Nature Reserves through CapeNature to ensure that they are in line with the Provinces vegetation targets. The City also relies on CapeNature submitting the ministerial submissions for declaration of these areas. 3.6.3 Non-government Organisations

Eden to Addo: CapeNature has signed an MOU with the Southern Cape NGO, Eden to Addo. This MOU aims to increase the extension capacity in the area in order to sign up more Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements. This is the first time CapeNature has entered into an agreement of this kind with an NGO and is proving to be a viable alternative mechanism for Protected Area expansion when faced with capacity constraints. In the Eden to Addo MOU, the parties: 1. Commit themselves to working closely together to achieve the declaration of a Protected Environment in at least one of the pilot sites identified by Eden to Addo in partnership with the Garden Route Initiative (GRI) during the pilot phase of the Table Mountain Fund-sponsored project from 2009 2011; 2. Acknowledge Eden to Addo as the stewardship facilitator for the Protected Environment project during the pilot phase 2009 2011; and 3. Acknowledge CapeNature as the authority responsible for auditing the implementation of the management plan on an annual basis and for endorsing the application to the MEC. Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve: The Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve has a dedicated Biodiversity Stewardship negotiator who targets Protected Area expansion in the priority areas agreed upon with CapeNature. This results in an increased extension capacity in this area which once again contributes to Protected Area expansion. The Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve and CapeNature are considering signing an MOU, similar to the Eden to Addo/CapeNature MOU.

50

3.7

ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY FOR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION IN THE WESTERN CAPE

As CapeNature is currently using Biodiversity Stewardship as its main mechanism for Protected Area expansion, additional staff are required for the negotiation of new sites and the maintenance of the signed sites. CapeNature has divided the Western Cape Province into eight operational regions known as Areas. It was decided to budget for eight negotiators as that would allow each Area within CapeNature to have a full-time negotiator. Thirteen facilitators were budgeted for as this would allow each Area to have a full-time facilitator to maintain the sites post signature, with the additional five facilitators being placed in the regions where there is an extra focus on Biodiversity Stewardship, e.g. in the Corridors. The minimum number of staff proposed, eight negotiators and thirteen facilitators for the Medium-term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget, will only reach a small percentage of the sites needed to reach the NPAES targets for the Western Cape. A larger budget however would probably not be approved by Treasury and the R16 Million required for the basic extension team is also not guaranteed. The organogram below illustrates the structure which these additional staff will fit into.

Figure 8 Proposed Organogram for the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (programme unit depicted in green; business units depicted in brown; dedicated programme staff shown in green shading; solid black lines show direct reporting relationship; and dotted grey lines show direct liaison relationship)

51

CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL MODEL

4.1

FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS OF PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION

Government funding of Protected Area agencies is in the form of an annual appropriation/ grant from the Provincial Treasury. This grant is divided into 1) a recurrent component which covers operational and human resource costs; and 2) a capital expenditure component (which the Eastern Cape Parks for example, uses for land acquisition). CapeNature, however only receives the recurrent component which is therefore used to cover all operational costs associated with Protected Area expansion, such as CapeNatures Biodiversity Stewardship Programme salary costs. The Biodiversity Stewardship Programme is currently the preferred mechanism for Protected Area expansion in CapeNature. This can be attributed to the reduced financial and logistical implications associated with the Programme, when being compared to the alternative mechanisms. However, the strategy would like to deal with all future possibilities and thus will be discussing new options for unlocking funding under this heading.

4.1.1 Biodiversity Stewardship Programme A comprehensive implementation plan with an attached budget was produced by the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme in collaboration with James Jackelman and associates in 2008 (Jackelman, 2008). This Implementation plan has now been revised and verified by the CapeNature HR and Finance Departments and will be resubmitted to treasury over the next three years via the following mechanisms: Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF): In August/ September 2010, when this annual process occurs, CapeNature will motivate for a three year budget to support the above introduced staff requirements (see section 3.7 above). The full amount for an additional eight negotiators and thirteen facilitators introduced over a three year period is R16m. The budget will only increase by R3 million in year one and it will compound to R16 million by year three and beyond. The permanent staff complement will therefore increase gradually from eight to twenty one effectively, should the funding be approved. Adjustment Estimate: In October of each year, CapeNature can apply for funds which were motivated for, but not allocated/ approved for that current budget cycle. This implies that if the above-mentioned MTEF budget proposal was not approved in the 2011/2012 cycle, CapeNature could then apply for these funds in October 2011. If these funds are then approved, they will be considered permanent operational expenses which will be accounted for in MTEFs future annual allocations to CapeNatures. Organisational Development Process: CapeNature is currently in the midst of an Organisational Development Process which is being undertaken by the Premiers Office. In this process a volumetric analysis of the organisation is being undertaken to ensure that there are sufficient staff members in the correct positions to carry out the mandated activities of the organisation. If the analysis highlights a shortfall, The Department of the Premier may support the awarding of additional funds to the organisation so that they are able to deliver 52

upon their mandate. It is envisaged that the CapeNature volumetric analysis will highlight the need for additional staff required by the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme in order to respond to our provincial mandate of expanding our Protected Areas. 4.1.2 Protected Area Management Fund The acquisition of land is only the first step in Protected Area expansion which requires funding. The permanent long-term management of the newly acquired land post its acquisition also requires noteworthy funding. To this end, CapeNature proposes an internal Protected Area Management Fund which is to be funded by the various sources listed below. However, in order to ring fence the funds generated through these additional funding streams, and ensure that they are awarded to the Protected Area Management Fund, CapeNature will have to obtain National Treasurys approval. Therefore, as part of the five-year implementation plan, CapeNature will apply to National Treasury to have any funds generated through the following funding stream awarded to the Protected Area Management Fund: Income generated from access to Protected Areas, e.g. entrance fees and accommodation (which may be used by a registered public entity to supplement Protected Area expansion projects); Payment for Ecosystem Services, e.g. the provision of water from the Mountain Catchment Areas managed by CapeNature (whereby an additional approval/ agreement with the relevant municipality and Department of Water Affairs would have to be reached in this regard); Instatement of a Conservation levy on reserve entrance fees; An additional charge levied on accommodation; Voluntary donations from the public when booking accommodation, e.g. the booking slip could provide a carbon neutral mechanism for the public to voluntarily donate funds to offset their carbon emissions for travelling to the reserve (as suggested by the KZN Ezemvelo Wildlife PAES, 2009); and Fund raising initiatives or campaigns developed in conjunction with private sector, NGO partners (e.g. WWF, BirdLife SA, CI, BotSoc), conservation foundations and trusts or donor agencies, relating to the management (and possibly even acquisition) of Protected Areas required for the fulfilment of their specific goals. These Fund raising initiatives developed in collaboration with the partner organisations might however require an additional approval by Provincial Treasury according to Section 54 (2) of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), Act No.1 of 1999 (as amended by Public Finance Management Amendment Act, Act No. 29 of 1999) (pers. comm., A. Preston, 2010). 4.1.3 Land Acquisition Fund The possibility of CapeNature itself acquiring land should not be ignored and the strategy will therefore investigate the mechanisms listed below as possible funding streams for an internal Land Acquisition Fund. This fund should be primarily for the purchase of land from willing landowners or for the payment of rentals in terms of the lease agreements but could also address associated purchasing expenses such as conveyance, surveys and legal costs. The PFMA may be restrictive regards the funding mechanisms of the Land Acquisition Fund however The Act does allow CapeNature to obtain approval from the MEC for these alternative mechanisms. The structure and functioning of the fund, as

53

well as the possible PFMA restrictions regarding the use of the following funding streams will be further researched as part of the strategy: A capital grant (see section 4.1 above) from the Provincial Treasury. The fiveyear implementation plan will therefore include CapeNatures Chief Financial Officer proposing this to the Chief Financial Officers of DEADP and Provincial Treasury. Financial Biodiversity Offsets (see section 3.4 above) to be generated through the Environmental Authorization Processes. The five-year implementation plan will therefore engage with the drafters of Biodiversity Offsets Policy to ascertain if this is possible and if not, attempt to amend the draft policy to accommodate the transfer of Financial Biodiversity Offsets to the CapeNature Land Acquisition Fund. A capital grant from the National government. This will require CapeNature to engage with The National Department of Environmental Affairs regarding the development of a national financial model that ensures the equitable distribution of funding to provincial conservation organisations for Protected Area expansion. The NPAES has recommended that DEA should test the efficacy of a revolving Land Conservation Fund by piloting a partnership with a provincial conservation agency which aims to raise finances for the acquisition of a priority property. CapeNature should apply to DEA to be the conservation agency the Land Conservation Fund is piloted on. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS FOR FUNDING PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION

CapeNature recognises that enabling all of the above possible streams to fund a) the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme, b) The Protected Area Management Fund and c) Land Acquisition Fund depend on many variables. It is also apparent that the economic markets will dictate which of the above proposed funding streams are viable options, as well as help to identify many more possible funding streams which should be investigated. It is thus evident that further research needs to be made into the market mechanisms which drive land-use decisions in the landscape so that the landscape could be redesigned into an environmentally and financially sustainable matrix of land-use types which includes Protected Areas. This redesigning would have to take into consideration the existing and proposed land-use changes, new forms of land-use or markets, capacity and resource requirements, incentives and disincentives, risks and legalities, etc. Such holistic, landscape level thinking whereby the economic markets are viewed as conservation support mechanisms rather than opposing conservation needs to be mainstreamed into the implementation of the expansion of protected Areas in the Western Cape. The Protected Area Expansion Strategy would thus like to motivate for new partnerships and approaches that allow landowners to explore and develop different modes of operating in the landscape. This could take the form a specialist landscape engineer consulting to CapeNature or training of staff in the Biodiversity Stewardship and Corridor Programmes.

54

CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT OF DECLARED PROTECTED AREAS

Protected Areas need to be actively managed post their declaration and the associated management implications borne by CapeNature are dependent on the mechanism whereby the land has been acquired, e.g. Reactive Stewardship, or Protected Areas acquired through the Environmental Authorization Process should have far less of a resource and financial burden on CapeNature that proactively targeted Biodiversity Stewardship sites (see section 3.4). In the case of a Biodiversity Stewardship Contract Nature Reserve, the landowner is designated the Management Authority and the management responsibilities fall onto the private landowner. CapeNature only 1) covers the costs associated with facilitating the management, which includes the salaries and operational costs of staff, and 2) through its Biodiversity Stewardship Programme and in collaboration with its partners, endeavours to produce management incentives for the landowner (see section 3.1.2 above). However, in the case where land has been acquired through other mechanisms and donated to CapeNature, CapeNature bears full responsibility for all the management and its costs. All Nature Reserves, whether Biodiversity Stewardship Contract Nature Reserves under section 23 of NEMPAA or Provincial Nature Reserves, must have an up-to-date, NEMPAAcompliant Management Plan. These Management Plans are to be approved by the Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Developmental Planning and must be updated every five years. In addition to this, all Contract Nature Reserves are also audited annually by CapeNature and their Management Plans are revised according to changing management needs. In the case of Contract Nature Reserves a management agreement is signed between the landowner and CapeNature. As the process of declaring a Contract Nature Reserve is often lengthy, an interim agreement in the form of an MOU is signed between CapeNature and the landowner to allow for the management of the site to commence according to the Management Plan and Management Agreement. The expansion of the Protected Areas is thus limited by the number of staff dedicated to the maintenance of Biodiversity Stewardship sites.

55

CHAPTER 6: MONITORING, REVIEW AND REPORTING

CapeNature is a public entity and is therefore bound by The Policy Framework for the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation System (November 2007). As the expansion of Protected Areas in the Western Cape is a mandate of CapeNature, land acquisition and Biodiversity Stewardship are embedded into the organisations planning and review mechanisms. To monitor and evaluate non-financial performance of the organisation, CapeNature conforms to the following protocols: a strategic five-year Plan; annual performance plan; quarterly reporting and the production of an annual report. In addition to the above required protocols, CapeNature also implements a Biodiversity Monitoring System and Performance Management System. The Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) with five-year biodiversity management targets further defines goals for biodiversity based programmes and is reported on a quarterly basis. While the CapeNature Performance Management System ensures that organisational targets are embedded in individual performance contracts. This is essential as expansion targets become specific measurable targets for individual staff members who are evaluated on them, ensuring accountability. All monitoring and evaluation regarding Protected Area expansion is thus already imbedded in CapeNatures current systems. 6.1 BIODIVERSITY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE MONITORING, REVIEW PROCESSES AND REPORTING The Biodiversity Stewardship Programme database will be the source of most information used to monitor the performance of the Biodiversity Stewardship programme as well as to guide review processes and to inform reporting. This will take place through discrete meetings with specific functions throughout the year and for this reason the database needs to be kept as up-to-date as possible and to be able to report on the most current information. The table below describes the specific reports, plans and/or meetings will need to be programmed by the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme to meet its performance monitoring, review and reporting requirements. 6.2 UPDATING OF SPATIAL PRODUCTS The identification of priority cadastres to be considered for the 20 and five-year Protected Areas Expansion Strategy and Implementation Plan are to be informed by up-to-date spatial biodiversity informants12. These biodiversity informants are currently represented by the provincial biodiversity framework.
12

The 2010 BSCD Terminal Evaluation Report by Philip Tortell stipulates that the next phase of CAPE should Provide for Fine-Scale Planning to be updated regularly and managed effectively

56

This provincial biodiversity framework will however require regular updating owing to: inaccuracies and changes in land-cover; unavoidable losses of Critical Biodiversity Areas through development; establishment of new Protected Areas; and the availability of improved biodiversity knowledge (e.g. the discovery of a new Species of Special Concern13 or new location of an existing Species of Special Concern). The updating of the provincial biodiversity framework is to happen on a continuous basis with a revised version of the product being made available to all public users every two to three years14. Failure to update these products will result in a reduced level of accuracy in the products which in time, as confidence in the products diminishes, will result in their ultimate redundancy. This provincial biodiversity framework also forms the basis for the Conservation Action Priorities Map. This CAP Map needs to be revised on an annual basis to reflect the updated provincial biodiversity framework; establishment of new Protected Areas as well as those sites where negotiations have failed (to be determined from the Stewardship Database and fed-in as a cost layer15 in the CAP Map assessment). The updating of these products requires the specialist services of at least a Conservation Planner but ideally a Conservation Planner together with a GIS technician. It would be preferable if these services were permanently employment by CapeNatures Scientific Services but if this is not possible, then alternative routes will need to be identified, whereby the services are availed to the organisation (e.g. appointment of a consultant, training up of existing staff, collaborating with partners such as SANBI to make use of their specialists16, etc). The five-year implementation plan therefore includes one updating of the provincial biodiversity framework (or translation thereof into a Provincial Systematic Biodiversity Plan), and five annual updates of the Conservation Action Priorities Map.

13

Species of Special Concern refer to threatened, endemic, scarce and/or nationally protected species. Species of Special Concern are also referred to as Species of Conservation Concern. 14 Please note that if portions of the provincial biodiversity framework are published as Bioregional Plans in terms of the NEMBA, that the product must be revised every five years. 15 A cost layer allows for certain areas to be preferentially selected over others. The application of a failed negotiation cost layer would imply that cadastres where land owners have expressed unwillingness for stewardship will have a far lower chance of being selected for the Protected Area Expansion Strategy and Implementation Plan. 16 The 2010 BCSD Terminal Evaluation Report by Philip Tortell also stipulates that the second phase of CAPE needs to Seek institutional champions e.g. for Stewardship, Fine-Scale Planning, financial incentives and other successful products and services, thereby recognizing that these functions need not be solely housed within CapeNature

57

CHAPTER 7: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project team would like to acknowledge the following people for their contributions to the CapeNature Protected Area Expansion Plan: Allan Preston (CapeNature); Chris Martens (CapeNature); Clifford Dorse (City of Cape Town); Deon Hignett (CapeNature); Fanie Bekker (CapeNature); Garth Mortimer (CapeNature); Gail Cleaver-Christie (CapeNature); Guy Palmer (CapeNature); Peter Lategan (CapeNature); Jennifer Gouza (CapeNature); Kas Hamman (CapeNature); Kevin Shaw (CapeNature); Mark Botha (WWF-SA);Onno Huyser (Table Mountain Fund); Samantha Ralston (CapeNature); Stephen Holness (SANParks) and Therese Brinkcate (WWF-SA).

CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES

Cadman, M., Driver A., Maze, K., Petersen, C. and Sekhran, N. (in press 2010) Biodiversity for Development: South Africas Landsca pe Approach to Conserving Biodiversity and Ensuring Ecosystem Resilience. SANBI, Pretoria. CapeNature, 2009. The Stewardship Operational Procedures Manual. Unpublished internal document. Cowling, R. M., Pressey, R. L., Rouget, M. and Lombard, A. T. 2003 A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspotthe Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation. Volume 112, Issues 1-2, July-August 2003, Pages 191-216 Department of Environmental Affairs (2009) Biodiversity Stewardship Guidelines. DEA, Pretoria. Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2007. Draft Provincial Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2009. National Biodiversity Framework. Government Gazette, 3 August 2009. No 32474. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2005. South Africas National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. 2010. KZN Protected Area Expansion Strategy and Action Plan (2009-2028). Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife unpublished report, Pietermaritzburg.

58

Frazee, S.R., Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Turpie, J.K. and Lindenberg, N. 2003 Estimating the costs of conserving a biodiversity hotspot: a case-study of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112: 275-290 Jackelman, J., Von Hase, A., Balfour, D. and Ferriera, D. 2008. Business Case: CapeNature Conservation Stewardship Programme, 22 July 2008. Maree, K.S. and Vromans, D.C. 2010. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Cederberg and Matzikama Municipalities: Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas. Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale Biodiversity Planning Project. Kirstenbosch. Midgley, G.F., Chapman, R.A., Hewitson, B., Johnston, P., de Wit, M., Ziervogel, G., Mukheibir, P., van Niekerk, L., Tadross, M., van Wilgen, B.W., Kgope, B., Morant, P.D., Theron, A., Scholes, R.J., Forsyth, G.G. 2005. A Status Quo, Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment of the Physical and Socio-economic Effects of Climate Change in the Western Cape. Report to the Western Cape Government, Cape Town, South Africa. CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C 2005-073, Stellenbosch. Morris, B. and Corcoran, B. 2009. Mpumalanga Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (2009 2028). Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, July 2009. Pence, G.Q.K., 2009 Adaptation Implementation Scenarios for the Cape Floristic Region. Unpublished Planning Technical Report for Table Mountain Fund (TMF). Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. & Manyama, P.A. (eds) 2009 Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. South African National Biodiversity Institute and the Department of Environmental Affairs. 2010. National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy for South Africa; Priorities for expanding the protected area network for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation. Published by the Government of South Africa, Pretoria, 2010. ISBN 978-1-919976-55-6 Tortell, P. 2010. The C.A.P.E. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project Terminal Evaluation Report, July 2010. Turpie, J., Heydenrych, B. J. and Lamberth, S. J. 2003. Economic value of terrestrial and marine biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region: implications for defining effective and socially optimal conservation strategies. Biological Conservation 112:233-273.

59

APPENDICES

Appendix 1a Logic used to select the very highest priority sites for Protected Area Expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship in the Western Cape. Appendix 1b Data and method for selection of CapeNature five year Biodiversity Stewardship priorities Appendix 2 Planning for Biodiversity Conservation in the Western Cape Appendix 3 Biodiversity Stewardship Categories Appendix 4 Comparison of Stewardship Categories employed in the CapeNature Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (Cadman, M. et. al. 2010) Appendix 5 Flow diagram outlining the process required to secure Stewardship Agreements (Stewardship Operational Procedures Manual updated version 2009) _________________________________

Appendix 1a Logic used to select the very highest priority sites for Protected Area Expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship in the Western Cape. The CapeNature Executive have committed to sourcing an additional R16M to resource the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme to contract a further 96 sites over the next five years. As this funding is lower than would be required to implement the full target set by the NPAES, CapeNature has chosen a portfolio of highest priority sites, aligned to the principles of the NPAES, but based on finer scale spatial planning, and better aligned to our budget and implementation strategy. The spatial GIS map identifying a sub-set of CBAs as provincial protected area expansion priorities is known as the Conservation Action Priorities (CAP) Map. Biodiversity Stewardship is a cost-effective and sustainable Protected Area expansion technique in a landscape where nearly all priority habitat for conservation is held by private landowners. After nearly a decade of experience implementing Biodiversity Stewardship, this CapeNature strategy for protected area expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship is based on the following logic and principles to make best use of very limited resources available in the face of extreme urgency: Only a handful of locations (<300) in the Province retain functional areas of a few hundred hectares or more of the most threatened and under-conserved habitats. Although most Critically Endangered habitats are now mostly confined to inaccessible slopes and small valleys, less vulnerable to outright loss, these few largest habitats are the exception and are also the last ecologically functional locations where much of the original ecosystem biodiversity is intact, typically also supporting multiple threatened species. These larger sites are still under extreme pressure as prime agricultural or development sites. They thus represent the sites where habitat loss would result in the highest immediate globally significant biodiversity loss.

60

Even at these locations, connected critical habitats usually extends over multiple small properties. The fundamental unit cost to CapeNature of protected area expansion by Biodiversity Stewardship is not land area or property cost, but the time required to negotiate with and support a single landowner. The largest benefit therefore comes from targeting the subset of locations where single landowners hold the largest areas of key habitats. Although we must plan networks of sites that represent these key habitats within functional, connected corridors that can persist into the future, we cannot know which neighbouring landowners will be willing to commit to the full requirements to achieve Contract Nature Reserve status. Targeted sites must therefore be able to form the core of a priority network of connected sites, but still be a priority even if no further adjacent sites can be protected. A single experienced, full-time staff member can expect to sign up approximately 12 landowners for full Contract Nature Reserves status in a year, or provide ongoing support to the same number of Contract Nature Reserves. This therefore allows accurate costing of a strategy and what can be achieved with available resources. Because of all of the above, sites cannot be chosen from a much larger portfolio on an ad hoc basis, but the very highest priority sites must be identified in a single planning exercise. Although selected sites must contribute to landscape-scale process, and largescale features like the river catchments required to protect aquatic priorities must be included, these features are unlikely to be meaningfully conserved in any single property. Extensive features must therefore be inherent in the locations chosen so that future PA expansion and other initiatives will conserve them, but they cannot be explicitly targeted at single property scales.

This strategy therefore provides for finalising negotiation at sites already in progress, and identifies a highest priority portfolio of 200 properties from which anticipated funding should allow 96 further sites to be targeted within the next 5 years. Sites are ranked by filtering all properties in the Western Cape by sets of values for key parameters inherent in the following criteria. Highest ranked are sites with highest values for all of the first three criteria, with further sites being selected that meet some of these and the fourth criterion: (1) Sites where the largest total area of Critically Endangered or Endangered habitat are held by single landowners. All of these habitats are also very poorly protected in the existing PA network (2) Sites that fall within identified TMF Climate Change Corridors (Pence 2009). These sites are also all criterion 1a (habitat loss) threatened habitats or Critical Biodiversity Areas identified by systematic conservation plans that meet multiple properly identified biodiversity pattern and process targets in an efficient and defensible manner. (3) Sites that are adjacent to or near existing formal protected areas, including all already gazetted or signed Biodiversity Stewardship Contract Nature Reserves.

61

(4) Sites that include very extensive areas of under-conserved Critical Biodiversity Area habitat identified by systematic conservation plans, but that fall outside the TMF corridors. Following the initial filtering process to select combinations of feature values aligned to the above criteria, expert nominated sites were evaluated against these. Only sites known to match or exceed all values within any particular ranking where then included in the same rank value (1-10 for the 5 yr portfolio). This expert initiated process was required due to the variable scale and nature of data included in the desktop planning process. Key however was that expert sites were evaluated against the same objective criteria used in the initial selection process. See Appendix 1 for the full set of actual values used to filter and rank the final portfolio. Achieving the highest priority 96 sites identified in the CAP map would represent an additional 571 km2 (0.44% of the Province). Together with CapeNature Stewardship sites already in process, and the additional 220 km that SANParks and the City of Cape Town are targeting, this represents the Province achieving 1,697.4 km of priority underrepresented habitat, or 69% of the NPAES 5 year target. Appendix 1b Data and method for selection of CapeNature five year Biodiversity Stewardship priorities
Site Priority Criteria used to filter sites or explicit features targeted for each priority level Each cell represents a separate filtering process >1400 ha. CBA with Cr habitat, adjacent to existing Contract PA, TMF corridor >150 ha. Cr habitat with exceptional no threatened & site endemic plants, adjacent to Kogelberg, willing landowner >2500 ha of CBA including En habitat - great anchor site for corridor cluster - portion already contracted - consider expanding contract area to all natural habitat if possible >2500 ha. natural CR CBA habitat (two CR types), multiple threatened plants, TMF corridor >3,600 ha. of natural En habitat, Moravian Church land + NB include the >1500 ha En habitat in erf 595 next door to east adjacent sites, common landowner, with combined Cr CBA habitat >1000 ha. sites with >=1000ha CBA and CR or EN habitat and adjacent to existing CapeNature reserve (including Contracts and Biodiversity Agreement) >6000 ha. of adjacent natural CR Atlantis Sand Fynbos habitat belonging to Nat Housing Board, supporting Riverlands area, TMF corridor adjacent sites together having >1200ha of CBA and CR or En habitat, all owned by Moravian Church = Elim community, in TMF corridor more than 500 ha CBA with CR or En habitat, in TMF corridor, adjacent to CapeNature PA (including Contract and Biodiversity Agreement) more than 500 ha CBA with CR or En habitat, in TMF corridor, adjacent to CapeNature PA (including Contract and Biodiversity Agreement) - NB include ERVEN 444 & 458 to the west in this cluster - not shown on this cad layer Plaatjieskraal cluster - many Threatened plant species - NAT_CBA_HA >=250 AND ECOSTATUS_ >=8 AND TMF_corridor = 'TMF corridor' AND TOP_SITES = 0 AND cons_status = '' AND SUM_NAT_CB >= 1000 Plaatjieskraal cluster of CR Silcrete Renosterveld - core sites with largest area natural habitat, TMF corridor sites adjacent to Riverlands NR, many threatened plant species, connectivity to Mamre, essential to maintain viability of key site

62

>1000 ha CBA on adjacent properties with one landowner, mostly Cr habitat with many threatened plants and process links, adjacent to TMF corridor >2000 ha. natural CBA habitat mostly Vu but including CR habitat on adjacent sites belonging to one landowner - ISCOR, TMF corridor >3,000 ha. CBA with En habitat and CBA wetlands, identified TMF corridor adjacent to CapeNature PA, this cluster of adjacent properties owned by DUTOIT GROEP PTY LTD should have all natural areas in Contract, see also other CBA properties of same landowner >450 ha. CBA including high proportion Cr habitat adjacent to priority cluster, and in TMF corridor >6000 ha. of adjacent natural CR Atlantis Sand Fynbos habitat belonging to Nat Housing Board, supporting Riverlands area, TMF corridor - more peripheral areas for connectivity Cluster of 150-300 ha Cr CBA habitat adjacent to even larger Cr properties, part of TMF corridor NAT_CBA_HA >=500 AND ECOSTATUS_ >=8 AND TMF_corridor = 'TMF corridor' AND TOP_SITES = 0 AND cons_status = '' Plaatjieskraal cluster - connectivity site with CR Silcrete Renosterveld Plaatjieskraal cluster of CR Silcrete Renosterveld - core sites with largest area natural habitat, TMF corridor sites adjacent to Riverlands NR, many threatened plant species, connectivity to Mamre, essential to maintain viability of key site (smaller sites) cluster of same landowner with >1400 ha. CBA with En & Vu habitat, mostly in TMF corridor NAT_CBA_HA >=250 AND ECOSTATUS_ >=8 AND TMF_corridor = 'TMF corridor' AND TOP_SITES = 0 AND cons_status = '' AND SUM_NAT_CB >= 1000 Plaatjieskraal cluster, CR habitat in TMF corridor many threatened plants, sites peripheral to core cluster sites relatively small area Cr habitat (2 adjacent sites of 50 & 130 ha natural) but one of last remaining of habitat type, likely many threatened plants, and adjacent to Kogelberg NR >1300 ha. of CBA on 3 adjacent properties belonging to same landowner, mostly Vu habitat in TMF corridor >1500 ha CBA Vu habitat, adjacent to priority cluster, in TMF corridor & GCBC, contributing link in direction of existing Biodiversity Agreement multiple sites owned by DUTOIT GROEP PTY LTD with CBA including En & Vu habitat adding up to >3800 ha CBA - properties ranked 5 are much less important than properties ranked 3 Plaatjieskraal cluster of priority CR Silcrete Renosterveld habitat - more peripheral to core sites, but still important for connectivity >1500 ha CoCT CBA habitat, under-conserved Vu habitat adjacent to existing CapeNature PA, TMF corridor with extensive coastal interface, Municipal land more than 100-300 hectares per cadastre of En CBA clustered together in TMF corridor more than 500 ha CBA with Vu habitat, in TMF corridor, adjacent to CapeNature PA and another priority site, wetland CBA nearly 10,000 ha. of FSP CBA, community owned, river/wetland, TMF corridor Small area, but adds to Solva Cr habitat with exceptional no threatened & site endemic plants, adjacent to Kogelberg - pursue only if willing landowner & site assessment agrees

6 7 9 10

63

Appendix 2 Planning for Biodiversity Conservation in the Western Cape Development of a holistic conservation strategy for the exceptionally biodiverse Western Cape is based on decades of groundwork. Although the lack of representation in the current protected area network, and the high levels of ongoing habitat pressure are a challenge, South Africa has a well established biodiversity legislation, policy and implementation framework that provides for multiple complementary mechanisms to achieve conservation goals. Implementing any regional biodiversity strategy rests of our ability to identify a spatial configuration of habitats that represents and protects the full spectrum of animals, plants, ecosystems, and processes, in a layout that conflicts as little as possible with economic development and human livelihoods, and is able to survive in the face of further habitat loss and changing climates. Systematic conservation plans do this in a scientifically defensible, logically robust and transparent manner using GIS based planning methods and dedicated software. This is required because of the sheer complexity of the task. In the Western Cape Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) of plans must represent literally thousands of locally unique terrestrial habitats, wetlands, rivers, catchments, animals, and plants, all scattered across a landscape fragmented by human activity. Then, these CBAs must be configured to retain locally functional habitats, but also connected across the landscape to in a way that can support broad-scale ecological process and climate change adaptation. Recent planning initiatives have made huge advances by also considering implementation mechanisms upfront, and creating products to address the needs of all sectors. Fundamentally all modern South African conservation plans are based on the same core principles and methods, and these are now required of published bioregional plans:

Representivity the most important principle of systematic conservation planning is that objective targets be set for every identifiable biodiversity feature that can and should be mapped. These targets are the proportion of every ecosystem, habitat, animal or plant distribution or spatially mapped ecological process required to retain most but not necessarily all of the original diversity. Vegetation or habitat types are typically used as one important surrogate to represent identifiable units of biodiversity as characteristic associations of identifiable plants are also likely to represent more cryptic components such as invertebrates. In South Africa, nationally accepted targets have been calculated for the national vegetation types based on species-area curves, to identify the minimum total area of habitat required to prevent the extinction of the majority of species in that ecosystem. These targets or thresholds also dictate ecosystem status. Critically Endangered ecosystems are by definition those ecosystems where habitat loss has exceeded the conservation threshold, and significant extinctions will already have occurred, with further extinctions certain to result from further loss of natural habitat. Detailed mapping of remaining natural habitat is a key input layer. Efficiency and complementarity with the massive complexity of the landscape, and multiple possible layouts to meet targets, conservation planners use GIS based software to 64

select layouts that meet targets in the minimum amount of space. The algorithms strive to achieve conservation goals in the smallest possible total area by identifying complementarity essentially this means identifying the most efficient portfolios of sites. Connectivity, ecosystem functions and landscape process The same planning algorithms select layouts that result in large, well connected areas of habitat wherever possible. Typically planners will use multiple iterations of outputs to identify landscape scale connectivity and corridors, and may use manual design to ensure than targets for larger scale features are met in a meaningful fashion, although these layouts will still be based on objective targets. The original CAPE, SKEP, STEP and even the implementation oriented CAPE Lowlands conservation plans identified huge swathes of the province as short-term protected area expansion priorities by means of Stewardship Contracts or outright purchase. Actual progress turned out to be very much slower than anticipated, partly due to a lack of staff and funding to achieve anything close to identified networks. Current plans have built on this experience and provide for wall-to-wall fine-scale land-use guidelines. Within the last five years, CapeNature, with other provincial partners, has developed Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) maps for most of the province showing areas that must be retained in a natural state to meet biodiversity pattern and process thresholds. Critical Biodiversity Areas will also trigger Environmental Impact Assessment requirements for a range of identified activities. Prioritising protected area expansion sites within CBAs requires a further planning process that takes account of resourcing, context and mechanisms available to the conservation agency. The logic and method for identification of a priority portfolio for protected area expansion for CapeNature is described in section 2.1.

65

Appendix 3 Biodiversity Stewardship Categories (The diagram below shows the increasing levels of protection afforded by these options).

66

Appendix 4 Comparison of Stewardship Categories employed in the CapeNature Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (Cadman, M. et. al. 2010) Biodiversity stewardship category Informal agreements (Conservation Area )
Weakest

Agreements under contract law (Biodiversity Agreements)

Intermediate

Formal protected areas Protected Environments

Intermediate to strong Flexible protected area category providing medium to long term protection to important biodiversity, but allowing some other land use types that are compatible with wise biodiversity management

Nature Reserves
Strongest

Degree of conservation security Purpose

Entry level, informal, flexible agreements that enable landowners or communities to conserve and manage their properties; may provide a platform for greater site security later

A formalised partnership between a landowner or community and the conservation authority, to improve management of specific biodiversity features or elements of landscape

To provide longterm protection and management of important biodiversity on private or communally owned land; this category is preferred for sites of highest biodiversity priority

Qualifying criteria

Any natural land (If rare or threatened ecosystems or species are present, rather progress to higher level of conservation security)

Land of at least moderate biodiversity importance

Applicable to portion of a property, whole property or groups of properties

Can apply to portion of property, whole property or group of properties

Landscapes that include areas of biodiversity importance that require conservation management, but where other biodiversitycompatible land uses are acceptable Applies to a individual property or group of properties

Areas of highest biodiversity importance; contain critically important species, habitats and ecosystems and conservation management is the primary land use Can apply to portion of a property or a whole property

Legal status

No legal status Voluntary Memorandum of Agreement (noncontractual), registered with conservation authority

Legal status under contract law Contract between landowner and a conservation authority Minimum period of 510 years preferred. May be longer (even in perpetuity) Few land use limitations; the property or properties to which the agreement applies must be kept in a natural or nearnatural state and must be managed in accordance with the

Declared in terms of national legislation governing protected areas (Protected Areas Act)

Duration

Flexible, no fixed period of commitment

Minimum 30 years preferred (may be in perpetuity) Biodiversitycompatible land-uses permissible (determined by provisions in the declaration notice), area should be kept in a natural or nearnatural state and must be managed in

Land-use limitations

Very few limitations but area must retain its overall natural character Invasive Alien Plant clearing plan must be put in place

Minimum 30 years, but preferably 50 or more, or in perpetuity Land use restricted by provisions of the Protected Areas Act governing Nature Reserves; to be kept in a natural or near-natural state

67

agreed management plan Benefits to landowners Advice and support through basic extension services (e.g. habitat management) Guidance with management plans and farm maps Advanced extension services (e.g. alien clearing planning

accordance with the management plan Advanced extension services Advanced extension services and practical assistance with habitat management Increased recognition and marketing exposure Income tax deductions and municipal rates exclusions

Specific agreements for fire, alien species, plant and animal management

Use of the landscape regulated through co-operation between landowners Some income tax deductions

68

APPENDIX 5 Flow diagram outlining the process required to secure Stewardship Agreements (Stewardship Operational Procedures Manual updated version 2009)

69

70