Making the Case for Protected Areas in Limpopo FINAL

Making the Case for Protected Areas in Limpopo (EDET/QUT/2371/13)

FINAL

September 2014

ECOSOL GIS -‐ Ecological & Conservation GIS Services 21 Neapolis, Pier Street, South End, Port Elizabeth, 6001 (041)582-‐1872 ;[email protected]

Image source: http://www.limpopo-‐info.co.za

Report Title: Making the Case for Protected Areas in Limpopo (EDET/QUT/2371/13) Date: 3 September 2014 Version: Final Authors & contact details: ECOSOL GIS: 21 Neapolis, Pier Street, South End, Port Elizabeth, 6001 1. Dr Phillip Desmet ([email protected]) 2. Ms Julia Cloete ([email protected]) Client: Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET) Principle funding agent: Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET) Citation: Desmet, P. G & Cloete, J. (2014) Making the Case for Protected Areas in Limpopo. Contract Number EDET/QUT/2371/13. Report for Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET) by ECOSOL GIS, Port Elizabeth.

Table of Contents

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 2 Why Do We Want to Make a Case for Protected Areas? ............................................... 3 3 Key Objective for Making the Case for PAs in Limpopo ................................................. 5 4 Protected Areas in South Africa and the National Development Context ...................... 6 5 The Current Protected Area Network in Limpopo ......................................................... 6 6 The National Strategy for Making the Case for Biodiversity .......................................... 7 7 Conceptual Frameworks to Support Making the Case .................................................. 8 8 The Benefits of Protected Areas in Limpopo ............................................................... 11 8.1 Ecological Benefits ........................................................................................................... 11 8.1.1 Biodiversity conservation ................................................................................................. 11 8.1.2 Ecological sustainability ................................................................................................... 11 8.1.3 Water Security ................................................................................................................. 12 8.1.4 Climate Change Resilience ............................................................................................... 12 8.2 Social & Cultural Benefits ................................................................................................. 13 8.2.1 Rural Development .......................................................................................................... 13 8.2.2 Human Well-‐Being ........................................................................................................... 13 8.2.3 Cultural Heritage .............................................................................................................. 14 8.2.4 Scientific Research and Education ................................................................................... 14 8.3 Political Benefits .............................................................................................................. 14 8.3.1 Land reform ..................................................................................................................... 14 8.3.2 Regional Co-‐operation and Investment ........................................................................... 15 8.4 Economic & Financial Benefits ......................................................................................... 15 8.4.1 Tourism Economy ............................................................................................................ 15 8.4.2 Wildlife Economy ............................................................................................................. 17 8.4.3 Job Creation ..................................................................................................................... 17 9 LEDETS Mandate ........................................................................................................ 19 10 Building Compelling Arguments in Support of Protected Areas ................................ 20

Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy: Making the Case

1

Acronyms LEDET LPAES NPAES NBA MTC PA (PAs) PAN PAS TFCAs

Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy National Protected Area Expansion Strategy National Biodiversity Assessment Making the Case Protected area(s) Protected area network Protected area system Transfrontier conservation areas


2

1 Introduction Protected Areas (PAs) are national assets that contribute to the environmental integrity, economic development and social well-‐being of this country and society at large. Many protected areas such as Table Mountain, Kruger Park or iSimangaliso are national icons and a source of pride and well-‐being for many South Africans. Unlike minerals, ecosystems are a 100% renewable natural resource that if managed correctly will deliver environmental, social and economic returns indefinitely. More tangible benefits of protected areas include biodiversity conservation; ecological sustainability; climate change adaptation; economic development; land reform, rural livelihoods, food security, and sustainable development. Understanding the importance of PAs to this country is central to changing national mind-‐sets towards valuing and investing in PAs. The role of the Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy (LPAES) is: 1. Securing our national assets by incorporating our highest-‐value ecosystems into the PAN; and, 2. Unlocking the ecological, social and economic benefits of these assets for the people of Limpopo The purpose of this document is to understand how PAs benefit our every-‐day lives and use this understanding as a basis for developing arguments for increasing investment in the development of the provincial Protected Area Network (PAN). The Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET) has a Strategic Development vision and legal mandate that provides a context for developing “Making the Case” (MTC) arguments. Ultimately, MTC arguments need to clearly link to this vision, and by supporting it give effect to LEDET’s legal mandate. LEDET’s vision is: “A competitive economy within a sustainable environment.” The legal mandate of the Department is to develop the provincial economy, and to promote and manage environment and tourism activities. To carry out this mandate, the department pursues the following three strategic goals: 1. To improve the service delivery to communities and stakeholders through a skilled, accountable, empowered and intergraded Public Service 2. Contribute to the growth of the economy and job creation through targeted interventions 3. Protect and enhance environmental assets and natural resources The Limpopo PAN is one of the provinces most important environmental assets and the cornerstone of the province’s ecological infrastructure. Growth and investment in the PAN will help LEDET and the province achieve its vision and legal mandate. The role of this document is to provide arguments in support of achieving this vision.

2 Why Do We Want to Make a Case for Protected Areas? Despite the legal obligation of the state to protect our natural heritage, the broader socio-‐economic context of South Africa has resulted in the majority of state spending priorities being allocated towards expenditure on basic service delivery and poverty alleviation -‐ particularly in the areas of health, education, social protection, public order and safety and local government.


3

Science, Naaonal Budget Allocaaons in South Africa 2014 Technology & Environmental Social protecion Aﬀairs Public Order & Safety 13% 2% 10% Defence

4% Economic

Local Government 13%

Health 13%

General Public Services Employment & 6% Social Security 5%

Infrastructure 8%

Educaion 22%

Economic Services 4%

As a result, science, technology and the environment received only 2% of the National Budget in South Africa during the 2014 financial year. This allocation must cover the costs associated with all aspects of science, technology, environmental management, and environmental regulation for which the state is responsible in South Africa. As a result, the thirteen national and provincial conservation agencies as well as all of the municipalities tasked with managing over 500 protected areas across South Africa are currently facing severe funding shortages. The conservation sector in South Africa is currently unable to fulfil their legal mandate to conserve biodiversity within current budget allocations. Social and political priority areas determine budget allocations within the state, and these priority areas are determined by a combination of public sentiment and political lobbying by interest groups. Counter to common logic, the value of a particular issue to the health and well being of society at large is not simply determined by the impact of that area on society, but rather the perceived impact of that area on society. The perceived impact of an issue on society is determined by the availability of public and political knowledge on the subject as well as the number of lobbyists supporting a focus on this subject. Where a social or political issue has been well publicised by lobby groups, and where there is a wealth of information in the public domain regarding relevant solutions to this issue, that issue tends to be adequately budgeted for (e.g. “The Rhino Problem”). Making the case for protected areas aims to directly address the dearth of information and positive sentiment available to the public regarding the value of protected areas to society. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that protected areas play an important role in maintaining the health and well being of society, but this evidence is poorly understood outside of the conservation sector and therefore the value of protected areas to society is not perceived as being high on the governments spending agenda. As a result, budget allocations to protected areas remain insufficient to allow government departments to meet their conservation obligations in terms of managing protected areas. Other land uses and budget areas are given priority when in competition with protected areas.


4

Box 1: What are Protected Areas? Protected areas are areas of land or sea that are formally protected by law and managed mainly for biodiversity conservation. Protected areas recognised in the Protected Areas Act are considered formal protected areas in the NBA. The same definition is used in South Africa’s National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) 2008. The Protected Areas Act sets out several categories of protected areas: Special Nature Reserves, National Parks, Nature Reserves and Protected Environments. It also recognises World Heritage Sites, Marine Protected Areas, Specially Protected Forest Areas and Mountain Catchment Areas, all of which are declared in terms of other legislation. In the NBA and the NPAES we distinguish between land-‐based protected areas, which m ay protect both terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity features, and marine protected areas. Protected areas declared in terms of the Protected Areas Act need not be owned and managed by the state. A protected area can be declared on private or communal land, with the landowner recognised as the management authority. This provision has enabled the development of biodiversity stewardship programmes, in which conservation authorities enter into contract agreements with private and communal landowners. The landowner agrees to restrictions on use of the land in return for formal protected area status, an exclusion from property rates, and possible income tax benefits. The conservation authority provides technical advice and management assistance; however, the primary responsibility for management remains with the landowner. Contract protected areas are playing an increasingly important role in protected area expansion—see Chapter 4 for more on this. It is important to differentiate protected areas from conservation areas. Conservation areas are areas of land not formally protected by law but informally protected by the current owners and users and managed at least partly for biodiversity conservation. Because there is no long-‐term security associated with conservation areas, they are not considered a strong form of protection. Conservation areas are not considered in the analysis of ecosystem protection levels in the NBA. The IUCN defines a protected area as a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-‐term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. This is a broader definition than the one used in the NBA and the NPAES, as it includes areas that are not legally protected and that we would define in South Africa as conservation areas rather than protected areas.

3 Key Objective for Making the Case for PAs in Limpopo The LEDET is legally mandated to conserve the provinces biodiversity assets. The provinces protected area network and the effective management thereof is the primary vehicle whereby the province strives to achieve this mandate. To ensure that LEDET is successfully able to fulfil this mandate it needs to: 1. Secure political buy-‐in and generate broad based political support for investment in PAs in the province; 2. Put in place policies and strategies to enable more effective private sector participation 3. Unlock state and private financial and human resources to ensure sufficient funds are available for protected area expansion and management; 4. Understand the various trade offs that need to be made within the province in relation to competing land use types and budget allocations; and, 5. Build multi-‐sector support through demonstrating shared value.


5

4 Protected Areas in South Africa and the National Development Context South Africa is to home to vast biodiversity resources and contains the third highest level of biodiversity of any country in the world. Occupying only 2% of global surface area, South Africa is home to nearly 10% of known plant species; 7% of known terrestrial reptile, bird and mammal species; and 15% of known marine plants and animals1. Despite this species richness, the aim of biodiversity conservation in South Africa’s is steadily shifting away from a focus on individual species management towards a focus on ecosystem management. This shift is being driven by the understanding that individual species form part of a complex whole – and that this whole is important for both species conservation and the provision of ecosystem goods and services to society. Protected areas are no longer valued only for their conservation function, but for their role in maintaining the ecological integrity of their surrounding landscapes and the ability of these landscapes to contribute goods and services to society. Protected Areas are also increasingly valued for their direct contribution to economic growth – particularly in relation to the role they play in the growth of the travel and tourism industry, and the development of a robust wildlife economy. This shift is a direct response to the states imperative to respond to the development context in South Africa, as well as the emergence of Climate Change science and its focus on the integrity and maintenance of ecological systems rather than individual species. The National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy supports this shift in focus by highlighting the social and economic benefits of healthy ecosystems and the need for the expansion of the protected areas network to respond directly to addressing ecosystem management from a holistic perspective. Ecological systems and processes interact across different biomes and landscapes and the overall maintenance of South Africa’s ecological infrastructure depends on the protection of representative samples of all types of habitats. This bodes well for the role of protected areas in national development as each protected area has a unique contribution to make to ensure the ecological integrity and the productivity of ecosystem processes in the landscape in which it is located. Each individual protected area has a unique contribution to make to the sustainability of the countries growth and development trajectory – both in terms of the provision of ecosystem goods and services and in terms of the development of economic sectors dependent on healthy landscapes. In support of this perspective, the National Biodiversity Framework suggests that biodiversity assets should be seen as the source of development rather than as a medium of development. This means that protected areas play an important role in providing the source material for national development in addition to their role in providing a context for the growth of certain economic sectors.

5 The Current Protected Area Network in Limpopo Limpopo has an existing PAN comprising both formal (i.e. state owned and/or declared in terms of NEMBA) and informal (i.e. private nature reserves not declared in terms of NEMBA). The existing formal protected area network of Limpopo is made up of 61 protected areas covering a total of 1,357,156ha (11% 0f Limpopo). The major contributor to this is the Kruger National Park, which contributes 72% to the provincial PAN. There are two UNESCO word heritage sites, three national parks, and over 40 provincial nature reserves managed by LEDET. The informal conservation area network in the province is estimated to be approximately 573,239ha in extent. There are three well-‐ 1

South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2005


6

established biosphere reserve initiatives in the province (Waterberg, Kruger to Canyons and Vhembe); two transfrontier conservation areas (TFCA) (Mapungubwe and Greater Limpopo); and, six land reform PA initiatives. There is a well-‐established PAN in the province that makes a significant contribution towards meeting the states biodiversity conservation obligations. Despite this the existing PAN needs to more than double in area in order to fully achieve these obligations. In achieving these goals the state will need to develop more extensive partnerships with communities and the private sector. A more detailed summary of the status quo of Limpopo’s PAN is provided in the LPAES technical report2.

6 The National Strategy for Making the Case for Biodiversity In recognition of the resource constraints facing the conservation sector in South Africa the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) started a process in 2010 to try and understand why biodiversity is systematically undervalued and underfunded. This involved a detailed stakeholder analysis amongst senior government decision makers. The initial work revealed that the underlying issues is a communication issue – biodiversity is under valued and under funded because people don’t understand what it is, and therefore why it is important to broader society. It also emerged that those communications that do emerge focus on negative messages that do not inspire people to act in a positive way towards biodiversity conservation. It was also found that scientists struggle to communicate simple, clear messages and tend to confuse people about the value of biodiversity to society. In response to this stakeholder analysis, SANBI and DEA developed a national strategy for making the case for biodiversity. This strategy aims to unify the biodiversity sector to speak with a single voice on the value of biodiversity and to demystify the terms “biodiversity” and “protected area” so that people can better understand what they are and why they are important. In doing so, the national strategy aims to make direct links between biodiversity and society and form a clear conceptual link between species, ecosystems and people. This work is being supported by the collection of case studies to provide proof of why increased investment in biodiversity management and protected areas will improve the lives of all South Africans. The national strategy has developed a set of quantitative and qualitative targets. Qualitative targets aim to empower the biodiversity sector with a new language and set of communication tools with which to make the case for biodiversity; to inspire national government departments to take biodiversity and its role in society seriously; and to ensure that municipal governments make biodiversity a key consideration in the their development planning and decision making processes. Quantitative targets include a 30% increase in state funding to the biodiversity sector; significant new job creation in the biodiversity sector; and at least R1 billion of special funds captured by the biodiversity sector.

2

Desmet, P. G., Holness, S., Skowno, A.; Mphaphuli, D. and Ramatsae, M.C. (2014) Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy Technical Report. Contract Number (EDET/QUT/2371/13). Report for Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET) by ECOSOL GIS.


7

Box 4: National Strategy for Making the Case for Biodiversity

7 Conceptual Frameworks to Support Making the Case A number of existing frameworks have proven useful for making the case for biodiversity. These frameworks are all based on the categorisation of ecosystem goods and services captured in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. This assessment divides ecosystem goods and services into four categories, namely: 1. Supporting including nutrient cycling, soil formation, primary production and other supporting functions performed by ecosystems; 2. Regulating including climate regulation, flood regulation, disease regulation, water purification and other regulating functions performed by ecosystems; 3. Provisioning including the provisioning of food, fuel, water, fibre and other ecosystem goods used by people and livestock; and, 4. Cultural including aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational and other cultural functions performed by ecosystems. This categorization of ecosystem goods and services was then linked to various aspects of human well-‐being, including security basic material for a good life; health; good social relations and freedom of choice and action. This framework forms the basis for our understanding of the role of biodiversity in society and forms the backbone of all arguments. This framework outlines the importance of acknowledging both the tangible (provisioning) and intangible (supporting, regulating and cultural) values of ecosystems.


8

Figure 1: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework

Figure 2: A framework for valuing protected areas from Murphree (2004).

Economic and Financial Benefits • Products for subsistence use • Goods and products for market use • A strong foundation on which to build a tourist industry • The ability to attract capital from the private sector and donors (local and international) to generate conservation and economic capital • Job creation • Gene-‐banks for agriculturally important crops and animals

Ecological Benefits • The protection and provision of ecosystem services • Wildlife conservation • The protection and provision of biodiversity and its related benefits • Opportunities to expand scientific knowledge through the provision of sites for observation and experimentation • Protection against the negative effects of climate change

Political Benefits • The maintenance and extension of State authority • The enhancement of the State’s image (locally & globally) as a leader in biodiversity stewardship • Trans-‐boundary cooperation • An opportunity to implement its mandate to develop economically sustainable public private partnerships • A site for interacting with the economic needs of the rural poor

Social and Cultural Benefits • Recreational sites and facilities • Cultural and archaeological heritage protection • Religious heritage protection • Aesthetic values associated with landscapes and natural resources


9

Other frameworks have been developed to expand on this initial work, including the categorisation in 2004 by Murphree3 of the role of protected areas in societies in the process of political and economic transition such as South Africa. Murphree further emphasizes the need to differentiate between the uses and values generated by protected areas, point to the role that protected areas play in both directly providing goods and services and supporting the provision of goods and services in an indirect manner. Murphree outlines four areas of benefit provided by protected areas worth noting in countries with a strong development imperative such as South Africa (Figure 2). Kettunen and ten Brink4 illustrate the most current framework linking ecosystem processes, PA benefits and the valuation of these benefits. It is important to recognise with MTC arguments that whilst economic benefits are relatively easy to quantify in monetary terms, the human well-‐being or welfare or intangible benefits of PAs are often very difficult to express in similar terms. In recognition of the varied role that protected areas play in society, the NPAES highlights four thematic areas particularly useful for the South African context but does not suggest a framework for organising MTC arguments: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability; Climate change resilience; Land reform and rural livelihoods; and, Socio-‐economic development (including ecosystem services).

Figure 3: A framework for valuing protected areas from Kettunen and ten Brink (2013).

3

Murphree, M. W. 2004. Who and what are parks for in transitional societies? In: Parks in transition. ed. B. Child, 217–32. London: Earthscan. 4 Kettunen, M. and ten Brink, P (eds.) 2013 The Social and Economic Benefits of Protected Areas: An Assessment Guide. Routledge Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy: Making the Case

10

For the Limpopo MTC we have developed a simple framework around which to organise the arguments in support of PAs that draws on elements of those discussed above. Whist this framework better represents the classification of benefits derived from PAs than the NPAES framework, developing a simple hierarchical framework is not possible as all arguments environmental, economic and social benefits are linked. Thus, there are significant cross-‐linkages between the four quadrants of the Murphree framework. Another major distinction between MTC arguments is the ability to quantify benefits in monetary terms. Developing a business case for PAs requires that at least some of the benefits of PAs be quantified economically. This is especially important where PA development is competing with other economic enterprises for investment capital. For the Limpopo MTC we have organised arguments as follows: 1. Benefits than CANNOT easily be quantified in monetary terms (i.e. intangible or supporting, regulating and cultural values of ecosystems) a. Ecological Benefits including biodiversity conservation, ecological sustainability and climate change resilience b. Social & Cultural Benefits including socio-‐economic development and rural c. Political Benefits including land reform 2. Benefits that can be easily quantified in monetary terms (i.e. tangible or provisioning values of ecosystems) a. Economic & Financial Benefits including rural livelihoods and ecosystem services.

8 The Benefits of Protected Areas in Limpopo 8.1 Ecological Benefits 8.1.1

Biodiversity conservation

The primary objective of the Limpopo PAN is the conservation of biodiversity. The state is constitutionally obligated to maintain a safe and healthy environment for its citizens. Conserving representative examples of all of South Africa’s ecosystems for the benefit of current and future generations is a fundamental obligation of the state. The PAN is the primary mechanism whereby the state achieves this objective. 8.1.2

Ecological sustainability

The Map of Critical Biodiversity Areas developed by the Limpopo Conservation Plan v2 represents a network of natural and near-‐natural areas that collectively achieves the provinces goals for biodiversity representation; maintenance of ecological processes; and, climate change resilience. This network of green space is effectively the minimum area necessary to retain ecologically functional landscapes that are able to deliver the ecological goods and services necessary for human well-‐being and economic prosperity in the province. This is the ecological infrastructure network necessary for society to prosper. PAs are core nodes in this ecological infrastructure network. Within PAs the primary land-‐use management objective is the maintenance and persistence of biodiversity and ecological processes. As such these areas are assured of delivering the maximum ecological service benefits to society both now and indefinitely into the future. They are effectively the only place in the landscape where these benefits are guaranteed. In transitional or production landscapes outside of PAs these benefits are not guaranteed.


11

8.1.3

Water Security

A well-‐designed PAN can contribute to securing the quality and quantity of water supplies. The water provisioning and regulating aspects of ecosystems is a part of ecological sustainability discussed above, however, given the fundamental importance of the availability of quality water to human well-‐being and economic prosperity it is useful in the MTC to highlight the contribution of PAs to water security PAs can protect water catchment area and the intact rivers and wetlands within PAs regulate and clean water thereby improving the quality of the resource for down stream users. Under the current context of diminishing water availability and quality being experienced in South Africa this benefit of PAs may become one of the more compelling arguments in support of PAs. South Africa’s historical water catchment areas show that the water supply benefit of these areas was recognised long before the biodiversity benefit (e.g. mountain catchments of the south-‐western Cape) Box 3: Investing in Ecological Infrastructure Yields Tangeable Benefits for Communities. Partnerships between government, NGO’s and rural communities to restore ecological infrastructure in rural areas does yield tangeable benefits for communities. The “Wise Use Project” based in the Ha-‐Makuya and Mutale villages in the Mutale River catchment of Limpopo has demonstrated that local-‐level investment and custodianship of natural resources is central to the successful restoration, maintenance and benefit-‐sharing of natural resources that underpin rural livlihoods, such as wetlands. A by-‐prodcut of this pilot project was that it helped to build trust within the community around government green infrastructure projects such as Working for Wetlands and the Expanded Public Works Programme. This project demonstrates that central to the long-‐term preservation of ecological infrastructure, of which PAs are a key part, is the role that communities play in managing and sharing in the benefits of these resources. The Blyde River Canyon Study clearly outlines how the socio economic activities currently associated with the forest can be harnessed, incorporated and developed into a symbiotic relationship with the proposed protected area. The forests are currently used to provide a number of services, including: wood for domestic use (building, furniture, crafts, fuel); fauna and flora for domestic and commercial use (food, medicine, hunting, florist trade); and forest-‐scapes are an important site for recreational, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual purposes.

8.1.4

Climate Change Resilience

It is recognised that intact ecosystems (i.e. ecosystems which are in a natural or near-‐natural state) withstand stresses better than highly modified and fragmented landscapes, and offer a buffer to human settlements against extreme events caused by climate change. In addition, healthy ecosystems may assist species to adapt more naturally, thus contributing to their survival and the survival of the ecosystem. Healthy, intact freshwater ecosystems are vital for maintaining resilience to climate change and mitigating its impact on human wellbeing. In the western part of South Africa, which is likely to become dryer, intact rivers and wetlands will help to maintain a consistent supply of water; in the eastern part of the country, which is likely to become wetter, intact rivers and wetlands will be important for reducing flood risk and mitigating the impacts of flash floods. In South Africa we explicitly consider climate change resilience in the planning of PANs and bioregional plans. Inclusion of natural features such as altitudinal gradients, topographic diverse areas, intact river corridors, coastal dune cordons, landscape green corridors and a greater range of


12

micro-‐ecosystems are intended to “climate proof” the PAN. The Limpopo Conservation Plan v2 is an excellent example of a landscape or ecosystem-‐based approach to bioregional planning that explicitly considers climate change resilience in the design of the green landscape.

Box 4: Investing in the Wildlife Economy is a Good Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Investing in the wildlife economy is a good climate change adaptation strategy aimed at promoting food security and rural economies particularly in a province that comprises mostly marginal agricultural land. Indigeneous wildlife are better adapted to local climates and they are more tollerant of marginal agricultural conditions. Already the commercial wildlife ranching industry has transformed 20 million hectares of marginal agricultural land in South Africa into thriving land-‐use operations giving an average returns of R220/ha of economic output, compared to an average R80/ha for conventional livestock farming. We have already recognised that the PAN is central to maintaining the gene-‐pool that is the cornerstone of the wildlife economy. The PAN can also provide the backbone of an economic strategy aimed at adapting the economy of the province to the impacts of climate change.

8.2 Social & Cultural Benefits 8.2.1 • • • •

8.2.2

Rural Development Protected areas provide nodes/platforms for rural development, especially in agriculturally marginal areas (which is much of the country, and often where PAs are located) PAs diversify and multiply rural livelihood options PAs are economically connected as well as ecologically connected to their surrounding context. PAs have an economic footprint in their immediate area. In many cases PAs don’t currently have the capacity to expand their local supply chains, but have the potential to make a much greater contribution to local economic development. This can be seen, for example, in the difference between the economic footprint of profitable National Parks vs. smaller under-‐ capacitated provincial nature reserves. If we invest in management capacity in PAs we can expand their economic footprint and gains. Human Well-‐Being

PAs contribute to the human well being of current and future generations. Protected areas: • • • • •

Are part of our collective heritage as South Africans; Safeguard a healthier future; Are among the things that make us proud of being South African; Are our children’s legacy; and, Safeguard our traditional and modern cultural heritage.

PAs are the only mechanism that provides long-‐term legal security of our biodiversity and cultural landscapes for future generations. They are the most secure way we have of protecting our exceptional biodiversity and iconic species and landscapes. This knowledge translates into society feeling secure knowing that what is precious to them will be protected into perpetuity. In a world characterised by continual rampant loss of biodiversity and cultural value knowing this translates into a personal feeling of security. Moreover, this also translates into confidence in the state to be able to deliver on its constitutional obligations. All humans have a spiritual connection to nature. Connecting with nature improves human-‐well being. Every single South African should have a first-‐hand experience of enjoying nature in a PA in


13

their lifetime. Wealth should not determine access to PAs. All South African should have the right to access PAs that is within their means. A SANParks case study of kids in parks showed access to PAs had a positive impact on learners. The principal of a Bushbuckridge school ascribes the 30% improvement in matric pass rate on learners participating in a Wilderness Leadership School program located in a PA. 8.2.3

Cultural Heritage

All of South Africa’s cultural groups have cultures that are very strongly linked to nature. Whether they are places in the landscape; species used for food, fuels, muthi or social status; or, simply being in nature, the connection between the individual, the community and sense of self and belonging is mediated by a connect with nature. PAs play an important role in ensuring that this nature remains intact into the future. Protected areas have become important vehicles for supporting cultural identity of many indigenous peoples and local community movements, who have either self-‐declared or worked with governments to develop protected areas to secure traditional lands, lifestyles and protect biodiversity5. 8.2.4

Scientific Research and Education

PAs are ideal locations to conduct scientific research as they represent benchmark sites where our environment functions with minimum interference from humans. Consequently, they are also excellent sites to establish long-‐term environmental monitoring sites. PAs represent what a “natural” world might have looked like historically. By comparing changes to the environment inside and outside PAs it is possible to assess and quantify our impact on our living environment. This same fact of PAs underpins the educational importance of the PAN. The PAN provides current and future generations with a glimpse of what the world may have looked like in a time past. In an increasingly homogenised urban and cultivated world PAs provide society with the only living record of our natural legacy. PAs are living classrooms and laboratories full of learning opportunities.

8.3 Political Benefits 8.3.1

Land reform

Significant local economic development has been recorded where communities share in the benefits of major protected areas. Through the land reform process, local communities can become landowners with full access to the economic opportunities associated with the green economy in landscapes that otherwise generally offer few viable economic opportunities. Good examples exist in South Africa of successful agreements with land claimants, which have had mutually beneficial outcomes (e.g. the Richtersveld National Park, the Makuleke section of Kruger National Park and iSimangaliso Wetland Park). The relationship between protected areas and land reform has tended to be a controversial issue, with the focus usually on land claims in existing protected areas. Less attention has been paid to the opportunities for protected area expansion to actively support the land reform agenda and the diversification of rural livelihood options, especially in agriculturally marginal areas. Scope exists for protected area expansion to work in partnership with land reform for mutual benefit, for example through contract agreements which establish nature reserves or other forms of biodiversity stewardship agreement on land that remains in the hands of its community owners, rather than 5

TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam

Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington. http://www.teebweb.org/our-‐publications/teeb-‐study-‐reports/ecological-‐ and-‐economic-‐foundations/


14

being transferred to a protected area agency. The opportunity exists for local communities, as potentially major landholders through the land reform process, to have greater direct access to the economic opportunities associated with ecotourism and the wildlife economy. Development of PAs in land reform areas can have significant positive environmental and rural livelihoods outcomes. From an MTC argument perspective successfully capitalising on the synergies between PA development, land reform and rural development ultimately has positive political return for the political heads seen to drive these processes where jobs equals votes. 8.3.2

Regional Co-‐operation and Investment

Transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) provide unique opportunities to foster international relationships with neighbouring states catalysing regional cooperation and investment such as giving effect to the principles of NEPAD. TFCAs are especially useful for fostering co-‐management and co-‐ operation around the utilisation of shared natural resources such as water or migratory wildlife.

8.4 Economic & Financial Benefits 8.4.1

Tourism Economy

Our biodiversity assets are one pillar of South Africa’s tourism economy. The Limpopo PAN constitutes the “built infrastructure” for the provincial tourism economy. Tourism is the world’s largest industry, and in South Africa it is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy with some impressive statistics: • • • • • •

In 2011 tourism contributed the same to the South African economy as mining, an estimated 9% to SA’s GDP in 2011. The industry is expected to grow at 4% for the next decade according to the Industrial Development Corporation. Tourism currently provides the same number of direct and indirect jobs as the mining sector. It has been identified in government’s economic strategies as one of the sectors that has the potential to create significant employment. Visitors to SA rate natural areas as the number one attraction SANParks has the most number of beds of any tourist enterprise in South Africa.

The bottom line is that tourism, particularly in Limpopo, is a big deal for rural economic development with the potential to provide the economic growth, the foreign exchange and jobs needed to address the countries social prerogative. It has been shown that in many rural regions, ecotourism based on protected areas provides a more viable option for economic development than agriculture, and the spin-‐off effects of tourism have a substantial impact for rural livelihoods. An interesting finding indicates that property on the periphery of protected areas enjoys substantial comparative returns. (The most valuable rural land in the country outside of peri-‐urban development nodes, based on 2005-‐2007 land prices, is found on the boundaries of the Kruger National Park). The 2008 SANParks Economic Impact Assessment study6 set out to determine the economic impact that the 21 South African National Parks have on the South African economy, and found that the parks are making a significant contribution to local economic development. National parks provide an estimated 6,165 direct jobs and contribute R706m directly to the country’s GDP. In addition, substantial spin-‐off effects include an additional 3,644 jobs that could be attributed to indirect impacts, and new business sales estimated at approximately R1.2bn. It was found that well managed national parks contribute to the economic profile of the communities within or around which they 6

http://www.sanparks.org/docs/general/economic_impact_study_sept08.pdf Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy: Making the Case

15

are situated by improving business, stimulating rural development, creating additional job opportunities and improving the value of properties on the periphery. It is also worth noting that the Annual Tourism Report (2005) comments that the Total Foreign Direct Spend in South Africa was R55.9 billion (R28 billion more than gold exports), thus placing tourism in a prime position as one of the key economic drivers. The number of new jobs created in the economy by the tourism sector alone (direct and indirect) grew 3.5% from 1,024,520 in 2004 to 1,059,880 in 2005. While the majority of tourists do not actually visit the parks, the correlation between a growing industry and economy and the need to ensure a sustainable environment cannot be understated. Box 2: Rand for Rand Investment in Travel and Tourism Outperforms Mining in terms of Jobs Creation and Foreign Direct Investment An excellent example of how the availability of public knowledge on a particular subject affects government investment into a sector is the Mining Sector. Public sentiment and public spending currently reflect a strong bias towards thinking that Mining is South Africa’s key economic sector due to the contribution of the mining sector to job creation and foreign direct investment. As a result, the mining sector has received a disproportionate amount of investment from Government. The Government’s current infrastructure spend is aimed primarily at evacuating mineral resources from this country. None of this infrastructre spend is aimed at developing the Green Economy. As a result, the total value of the mining sector on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange (JSE) is currently R1.9 Trillion or roughly 2 5% of the entire market capitalisation. However, if you compare the contribution of mining to job creation and foreign direct investment with an industry that capitalises on South Africa’s green infrastructure, such as tourism the results are remarkable: Indicator for 2012 The direct contribution to GDP The total contribution to GDP Direct jobs Direct and Indirect jobs Total investment Rand invested per direct job created Direct forex earninings Rand Forex earned per Rand invested

1

Mining R263 bn R527 bn 524,632 1,365,892 R1.9 T R3,6 M/job R269 bn 0.14

2

Travel & Tourism R102 bn R315.4 bn 619,500 1,399,500 R52.1 bn R84,100/job 1 R71.7bn 1.37

Rand for rand the tourism industry in South Africa is 40 times more efficient at creating jobs and 10 times more efficient at earning FOREX than the mining sector. Tourism is currently the worlds largest economic sector – worth more than $500 billion per annum. Since 1960 the mining sector in South Africa has consistently shrunk in terms of proportion of the total work-‐force employed. In fact, the secotor has only added 70 000 new jobs in the last decade. Compare this to the wildlife ranching and tourism industries that are currently growing at 4-‐5% per annum, and mining looses it’s appeal as a vehicle for addressing this countries unemployment woes. However, public and political sentiment still remain largely in favor of Mining as opposed to Travel and Tourism? Why? Because people are unaware of the facts and continue to be guided by popular sentiment and political lobbies in favour of Mining.

A study of the Addo National Park shows that the park produces a significant revenue stream that has considerable spin off effects in the surrounding areas, and that local economic development has benefited largely because of the park. Tourist businesses have provided skills training and education that in turn has improved literacy levels, providing increased access to other employment opportunities. It appears that employees of the park and of related business in general pay their Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy: Making the Case

16

employees a much higher wage than that of the agricultural sector. In addition the number of employed people has significantly improved, estimated to be a 100% increase over the last 5 years. Spin-‐off businesses have also markedly increased and it is estimated in the study that of the 170 businesses in the areas, 150 owe their existence to the park. Survey data indicates that the area is generally much more prosperous since the inception of the park. Unfortunately, GDP contribution does not factor in social and environmental externalities of industries such as labour unrest, occupational diseases, pollution, etc. In Limpopo were the social, environmental and opportunity costs of mining to be fully considered, especially the deferred cost to the state for dealing with these legacies, the tourism industry would far exceed mining in terms of return on invested in measured against any environmental, social and economic indicator. 8.4.2

Wildlife Economy

PAs stimulate the wildlife economy in the form of game farming. This is a rapidly growing and highly profitable agricultural sector in South Africa. It is more labour intensive than conventional stock farming. It is estimated that wildlife farming employs on average 3-‐4 times more people per unit area than conventional stock farming7. The most important benefit PAs provide for the wildlife economy is that they play a key role in maintaining the genetic resource pool on which game ranching depends. Box 3: Biodiversity assets underpin economic growth – an example from the Wildlife Industry In 2012, about 18 200 head of game were traded at 58 game auctions in South Africa generating sales to 1 the value of R960 million . Why are so many animals traded? Ask any livestock farmer or agricultural expert and they will tell you that good genes are central to a viable and healthy livestock enterprise. The quality of trophy and venison production is primarily determined by the quality of genes available in a species gene-‐pool. The responsibility of maintaining an evolutionary viable gene-‐pool for each economically imporant species of indigeneous wildlife ultimately rests within protected areas and the state. The area required to maintain these genetic resources is provided by the provinces through the protected area networks. There are 10 000 registered private game ranchers in South A frica. They manage more than 20 million hectares of land, generate 100 000 permanent jobs and contribute an annual R9 1 billion to South Africa’s GDP. The provincial government needs to give greater recognition to and support for maintaining a natural asset that is the cornerstone of what is one of Limpopo’s most valuable agricultrual resources.

8.4.3

Job Creation

Protected areas create jobs directly through management, tourism enterprises within PAs, and support services outside of PAs in local towns that are service centres for PAs. PAs stimulate and support local small businesses that supply hospitality or infrastructure services. These SMME’s because of their small scale, constraints on availability of financing and skills/technology development are generally excluded from the industrial and mining economies. All larger PAs in South Africa tend to be surrounded by other private or community PAs that also support rural jobs and local service industries. Therefore, PAs play a catalytic role in stimulating a tourism and wildlife economy in rural, and agriculturally and economically marginal areas that ultimately translates into jobs. Government expenditure on ecological infrastructure in and around PAs through extended public works also translates into additional jobs (e.g. see SANParks study 2008). 7

http://www.sawma.co.za/images/Dry_Gert_Full_paper.pdf Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy: Making the Case

17

The quality of jobs in the sector is better than other economic sectors. The PA/tourism/wildlife sector is not characterised by labour unrest or with high incidence of occupational hazards (e.g. TB and silicosis) that significantly reduce the life expectance and quality of life/human well-‐being of industrial and mine workers. It could be argued that workers in the PA and related industries are “happier” than workers in other industries. Box 5: The Price of Land is Related to the Economic Potential of the Land. In South Africa the price of rural land is primarily determined by the economic potential of that land. Rural land near the major urban centres that has the potential to be re-‐zoned for urban development tends to be more expensive reflecting real-‐estate values rather than agricultural potential values. High value agricultural land such as alluvial soils with good irrigation potential can also command very high prices, however, high agricultural potential land is very rare in South Africa. For 90% of the rural landscape livestock farming is the primary agricultural activity, therefore, land prices directly reflect the stocking rate or density at which livestock can be farmed on the veld. Mining potential has a high impact on land price at the site-‐scale, but has no influence over land-‐prices at the regional scale. The only other rural economic activity that influences land prices at the regional scale is the potential for land to support wildlife ranching and, more importantly, the potential to support nature-‐based tourism (i.e. game lodges). The most expensive expensive rural land in South Africa with values in excess of R50 000/ha are located adjacent to the Kruger National Park and these prices are being driven by the wildlife economy (see MAP AT END). These values reflect the economic potential of the land up to 100 times greater than similar veld types currently utilised only for livestock farming. A wildlife-‐based Green Economy in Limpopo with the PAN as the central driver of this change has the potential to transform the economy of the province and deliver the rural job growth (see next box) necessary to sustain rural livlihoods. Rural land prices (2005-‐2007 median sale price R/ha per vegetation type) across South African.


18

9 LEDETS Mandate LEDET’s mandate as articulated in their strategic development plan already captures many of the MTC arguments discussed above, especially those relating to human well-‐being. Below we have extracted statements from the LEDET Strategic Development Plan and linked them to the MTC thematic categories to demonstrate how many MTC arguments are already present in LEDETS interpretation of their mandate. There is room for growth in the LEDET Strategic Development Plan to better utilise the full range of MTC arguments that support LEDET’s vision. During the next cycle of strategic planning review we strong recommend that the MTC arguments present here especially the framework within which they are presented be incorporated more explicitly into the Strategic Development Plan: MTC Thematic Area Intrinsic Value of Biodiversity

Ecological Goods & Services

Integrated Development Planning

Economic Growth & Job Creation

International Significance

Service Delivery & Revenue Generation Educational Value

Local Government

Water Security

Statement from LEDET Strategic Plan ”Limpopo is rich in biodiversity and has various centres of endemism which are currently under pressure. The development of a conservation plan and environmental management frameworks therefore received attention with the aim to guide future development planning in these areas.” “The Environment provides us with a range of goods and services that are essential for human survival, well-‐being, cultural diversity, and economic prosperity. Human activities are, however, having significant impacts on the environment.” “Challenges like climate change, the lack of integrated planning and development, lack of proper pollution and waste management, and the unlawful trade in/and poaching of our wildlife puts tremendous pressure on our natural resources. It is therefore critical for Limpopo to integrate environmentally responsible actions and programmes into the provincial planning and development agenda.” “The wildlife industry in Limpopo is a major employer and a major economic sector for the province. It must be closely regulated to ensure standards are upheld and that the industry transforms in order to avoid International embarrassment and indeed the collapse of the sector.” “The third UNESCO registered biosphere reserve for the province, Vhembe Biosphere reserve, has been launched and gives our province an added opportunity to rope in all affected and interested parties in the collaborative management of our natural resources.” “Development applications for environmental authorizations were received worth in access of R5 billion; 14 144 wildlife permits were issued; and, 1013 environmental related complaints received were dealt with.” “Environmental awareness and education is therefore seen as an important programme within the environment sector. In Limpopo environmental education, awareness and capacity building programmes are implemented at schools, municipalities and targeted community groups 426 schools through the Schools State of Environment Report, Limpopo Enviro Explorer Youth programme and the Eco-‐schools programme were reached.” “All the provincial local municipalities are now taking part in the Green Municipality Competition which contributes to the Greening Limpopo programme. To further enhance the green agenda, a Climate Change strategy, Green Economy strategy and implementation plan was developed to ensure the lowering of the carbon footprint in Limpopo.” “The province has limited surface and ground water resources. Most of the water management areas are severely stressed and many people still do not have access to the accepted minimum supply of water. Large parts of the province rely on ground water as a source of supply. Water requirements for development (especially agriculture, mining and rural areas) are placing severe stress on the


19

MTC Thematic Area Rural Livelihoods

Eco-‐Tourism Insurance for the future

Statement from LEDET Strategic Plan available water supply.” “The biodiversity of Limpopo is a strategic resource. It provides the livelihood for many rural households which include material for shelter, fire, wood, medicinal plants and food.” “The growing ecotourism industry also relies on the biodiversity of Limpopo.” “With appropriate policies and management the untapped wealth of the province can be converted into sustainable income through activities that capture the value of resource utilization.”

10 Building Compelling Arguments in Support of Protected Areas Nationally and in Limpopo we have excellent science telling us where the priority areas are for protected area expansion, incorporating meeting biodiversity targets for terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems as well as climate change resilience. We have a national strategy that is widely endorsed (NPAES), with clear protected area targets. The current LPAES project is aimed at giving effect to the national guideline and is backed by sound quantitative analysis and stakeholder engagement. We estimate that buying all the land required to meet the Limpopo 20-‐year PA target would cost about R15 billion. This is not an exorbitant amount compared to what the government is investing in infrastructure development (In 2014: R1trn over the past five years and R847bn over the next three years) or other large economic developments in this country. It needs to be remembered that this investment will unlock an estimated 40 times more economic benefit for Limpopo compared to if this money was invested in the mining sector! But we don’t even have to buy all the land – there are many other mechanisms we can use (to be explored in the LPAES) such as biodiversity stewardship and offsets provide the opportunity to leverage private investment in this provincial asset. On a relative scale we are talking about a small state investment with multiple spin-‐off benefits for current and future generations. How do we get from just us understanding the importance of the LPAES to the broader government and public in Limpopo understanding this? Making the Case for PAs is not just about compiling a list of arguments and data that demonstrates the importance of PAs to society. This information needs to be translated into a living MTC Strategy that is incorporated into LEDET’s Strategic Development Plan and used by LEDET to build broad-‐ based support for PAs in the province. This support will be essential if the full environmental, social and economic opportunities of Limpopo’s PAN are to be fully realised. Central to the MTC Strategy is the need to translate the essentially qualitative or descriptive arguments listed here into workable economic models. In order to unlock the economic potential of the PAN these arguments have to be developed into viable business cases and economic models for PAN development. How do we build a MTC strategy? What does LEDET need to put in place over the 3-‐year LPAES implementation strategy to help begin to realise the full ecological, economic and social potential of the provincial PAN? Some elements of a MTC Strategy include: 1. Who should LEDET be partnering with?


20

2.

3.

4.

5.

a. A MTC Strategy is applicable to all provinces in South Africa. Many components of the Limpopo MTC Strategy can be applied beyond Limpopo. Working with key partners will spread the workload and ensure messaging is consistent nationally. b. Key partners include SANBI, DEA, South African National Parks, other provincial agencies Identify key or the best MTC arguments to support the LPAES (Figure 4). a. Workshop 1 identified several categories arguments that are most relevant to Limpopo – see Workshop 1 outcomes. b. Arguments can be refined to talk directly to the spatial and thematic priorities identified in the LPAES. Who should LEDET be talking to? (Figure 4) a. Workshop 1 identified a broad range of stakeholders who have an interest in the PAN. b. The pool of potential stakeholder is large therefore, they should be divided into target groups based on, for example, order or priority for engagement (cannot and should not attempt to engage everyone at once); and, nature of support for the LPAES e.g. (administrative enabling, direct financing, co-‐financing or shared value). Developing the numbers. a. We have a good qualitative grasp of the importance of the PAN. This needs to be (1) supported by quantitative financial research, and (2) translated into tools that partners and investors can use to financially plan and implement the LPAES. Messaging – what do we want to tell people? a. It is useful here to have an accepted messaging framework. b. Messaging will be different for different target groups.

Some suggestions for inclusion in the LPAES MTC Strategy from the LPAES Workshop 1 (05-‐03-‐2014) were: •

•

•

The Making the Case for PAs should not be seen as static. Building support for or marketing PAs and developing their role in the Green Economy is an on-‐going process. Therefore MTC should be viewed as a core LEDET activity or process rather than a product such as this report. Research, development and review of the Limpopo MTC should be on-‐going. Therefore, it is recommended that “Making the Case” should be an activity component in the 3-‐5 implementation strategy as well as incorporated into LEDET Biodiversity Section and LTA KPAs. Whilst we have made mostly qualitative arguments here in support of protected areas we need to generate a better understanding of why current protected areas are not delivering the economic benefits promised. As part of the future MTC work program we need to understand the underlying reasons and lessons for the successes and failures in unlocking the economic benefits of protected areas in the province and South Africa. Related to the previous point is developing the institutional (e.g. greater investment in management capacity/effectiveness for our current protected area network) and economic models (e.g. public/private partnerships) necessary to effectively unlock the economic potential of protected areas.

Figure 4 (following pages). Stakeholder derrived outcomes from from the MTC workshop held in Polokwane on 05-03-2014: Task 1 - who is the MTC target audience?, and Task 2 – what are the best MTC arguments in support of PAs?


21


22


23