3.2 Sustainable development
3.2.2 South African legislative framework
3.2.2.1 Biodiversity stewardship
The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) developed the biodiversity stewardship programme for managing biodiversity outside state-owned Protected Areas (Ferrar and Lötter, 2007). The aim was to increase the size of Protected Areas in a cost-effective manner for government (Driver et al., 2012). Despite being a relatively new programme, Adams et al. (2012) assert that the biodiversity stewardship programme is progressively becoming common within the South African context of biodiversity conservation. The NEMA through NEMPAA and NEMBA provide legislative
framework for establishing and implementing the biodiversity stewardship programme (Cadman et al., 2010).
Biodiversity stewardship is a concept derived from the principle of stewardship, which refers to custodianship, guardianship, managing, overseeing and caring for property as well as people (Melatjie, undated). It refers to a management system in which the state entrusts the management of biodiversity to private and communal landowners (Melatjie, undated; Reeves and Marom, 2009).
Driver et al. (2012: 5) assert that in a biodiversity stewardship programme “conservation authorities enter into contract agreements with landowners who retain title to the land and are recognised as the management authority of the protected area. Biodiversity stewardship ensures sustainable management of biodiversity for present and future generations by providing a legal framework for engaging landowners and users in conservation efforts with prospects of benefits (Reeves and Marom, 2009). Further Ferrar and Lötter (2007), state that biodiversity stewardship acknowledges landowners and users as stewards for land and biodiversity. Thus, the state “recognises the value of biodiversity on private land and the conservation role that private land owners can play in helping to meet provincial biodiversity targets” (Ferrar and Lötter, 2007: 4). In addition, private and communal landowners agree to manage biodiversity in order to secure sustainable supply of ecosystem services (SANBI, 2009). Biodiversity stewardship manages biodiversity to ensure ecosystem health, which in turn enhances community resilience and ability to adapt to climate change (Chapin III et al., 2009).
By doing so, conservation agencies achieve their objectives of conservation and expanding Protected Areas while the landowners accrue economic benefits and technical assistance in managing biodiversity (Ashwell et al., 2006; SANBI, 2013). Table 3.3 presents a summary of the principles of biodiversity stewardship, some of which have already been discussed.
Table 3.3: Principles of biodiversity stewardship (Adapted: Cadman et al., 2010: 77) Biodiversity is the
bottom line
Decisions on conservation investment must be defensible and based on the biodiversity importance of the land (drawing on systematic biodiversity plans and science-based site assessments), not on ownership, political affiliation or economic status.
Site security In order to maximise use of the state’s limited resources and guarantee on- going conservation, land of high biodiversity importance must be secured through formal agreements and legal contracts. Every effort should be made to implement the most secure biodiversity stewardship category appropriate to the biodiversity importance of the site.
Voluntary commitment
Landowners or communities cannot be forced to enter into biodiversity stewardship agreements with a conservation authority; the decision to enter into the agreement must be voluntary, but may be based on extensive consultation and negotiation.
Landowner-focused extension
Proactive extension services are essential to secure buy-in from landowners, and biodiversity stewardship agreements must be backed up by resources and capacity to provide on-going extension support to inform and support landowners.
Acknowledging
people’s needs Biodiversity stewardship can only be effective if the needs, motivations and expectations of those who own, live on and work on the land are clearly understood, and efforts are made to meet their needs.
Building co- operation
In landscape-scale conservation management, strong partnerships based on mutual trust are needed across property boundaries (for example, for clearing invasive alien plants or flood mitigation), involving the state, conservation authorities, NGOs, private and communal landowners.
Monitoring of implementation
On-going monitoring is important not only to determine the effectiveness of the programme in reaching set goals, but also to justify the resources used by conservation authorities for the programme, and to motivate for the provision of incentives.
According to Ferrar and Lötter (2007), landowners involved in biodiversity stewardship through nature reserves and Protected Areas benefit through rates remission. Thus, biodiversity stewardship provides “financial incentives for conservation on private lands” (Adams et al., 2012: 44). Figure 3.2 provides an overview of the biodiversity stewardship model used in South Africa.
Type of agreement Biodiversity stewardship category
Duration
Biodiversity importance Benefits to Landowners Restrictions on land-use Statutory agreements
(under the Protected Areas Act)
Nature Reserves
30+ years, preferably much longer Protected Environments Minimum 30
years Statutory agreements
(under the Biodiversity Act)
*Biodiversity Management Agreements
Minimum 5 years Formal agreements
(under contract law)
Biodiversity Agreements Minimum 5 years Informal, non-contractual
agreements
Conservation Areas No time specifies
*Although the Biodiversity Act makes provision for the establishment of BMAs for species or ecosystems of special concern, these have not yet been piloted.
Figure 3.2: Schematic representation of the biodiversity stewardship model being implemented in South Africa (Adapted: Cadman et al., 2010: 71)
There are four categories of conservation through biodiversity stewardship and include nature reserves, protected environments, biodiversity management agreements, and conservation zones (Republic of South Africa, 2009). As depicted on Figure 3.2, biodiversity importance, benefits to landowners and restrictions on land-use increase from conservation zones to nature reserves (Cadman et al., 2010). However, landowners have the liberty to choose which category to use and can move from one category to the other on the hierarchy depending on the value of biodiversity on land, land tenure and landowner willingness (Cadman et al., 2010; Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, undated). Cadman et al. (2010) highlight ‘conservation zone’ as the lowest category and is adopted on land that has low biodiversity and by landowners not requiring legal commitment to conserve biodiversity. This category warrants low technical support from the respective conservation agency (Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, undated). Cadman et al. (2010) and Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (undated) contrast ‘nature reserve’ category from the ‘conservation zone’ as being a category adopted on land with high and critical biodiversity and because of this, conservation requires a high level of commitment through legally binding agreements. In addition, the ‘nature reserve’ category has the most restrictions on land-use, high incentives, and longest contract duration of at least 30 years (Republic of South Africa, 2009; Cadman et al., 2010). Similarly, the ‘protected environment’ category has quite high conditions but are less than those required for the ‘nature reserve’ category. The ‘protected environment’, however, allows for various land-uses provided the land-uses are consistent with conservation of present biodiversity on the land (Mpumalanga Tourism
and Parks Agency, undated; Republic of South Africa, 2009; Cadman et al., 2010). Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (undated) asserts that unlike the ‘nature reserve’ and ‘protected environment’ categories, the ‘biodiversity agreement’ category has lower contract duration of at least five years. The process of establishing a ‘biodiversity agreement’ is shorter and is provided for in the NEMBA, which makes it the easiest legally binding conservation category to establish (Cadman et al., 2010). As highlighted by Cadman et al. (2010), the four categories of biodiversity stewardship discussed define the biodiversity model used in South Africa.
According to Cadman et al. (2010) biodiversity stewardship is a tool, within the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy, used to achieve increased Protected Areas thereby provides diversity of microhabitats and corridors for biodiversity migration. It is envisaged that such efforts will provide ecological sustainability, which in turn will provide capacity for climate change resilience and adaptation (Cadman et al., 2010). So far, various biodiversity stewardship programmes have been implemented throughout South Africa through provincial conservation institutions and NGOs (Cadman et al., 2010). By 2012, 24 contract Protected Areas were established nationally through the biodiversity stewardship programme which translated into 75 000 hectares of land with 360 000 hectares awaiting proclamation (Driver et al., 2012: 5). As reported by the Climate Action Partnership (undated), Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife had implemented more than 11 stewardship sites by 2011 in KwaZulu-Natal alone. The D’MOSS also acquires land and engages landowners in the conservation of biodiversity falling within their properties using the principles of biodiversity stewardship.
SANBI (2013) asserts that currently, the biodiversity stewardship programme has contributed significantly to achieving provincial protected area targets, which would not have been achieved through conventional Protected Areas alone. As such, the biodiversity stewardship programme has also influenced positively on community development and job creation (Cadman et al., 2010). For instance, the Umgano community stewardship site in KwaZulu-Natal provides jobs and ‘business creation’ opportunities to community members. Nevertheless, the challenge remains that of insufficient personnel on the part of conservation institutions to manage biodiversity stewardship programme sites (Driver et al., 2012).