Final Assessment
CEPF Investment in the
Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Biodiversity
Hotspot2010 – 2016

Table of Contents
1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3

2.

CEPF NICHE AND STRATEGY FOR INVESTMENT ................................................ 5

3.

REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION TEAM ................................................................. 7
3.1. RIT STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................. 7
3.2. RIT AND SECRETARIAT GRANT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................. 8

4.

IMPACT SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 95.

IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................... 10
5.1. COLLABORATION WITH CEPF DONORS AND OTHER FUNDERS .......................................................... 10
5.2. RESOURCE ALLOCATION.................................................................................................... 11
5.3. PORTFOLIO INVESTMENT BY STRATEGIC DIRECTION .................................................................... 146.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION RESULTS ...................................................... 17
6.1. GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES AND CEPF PRIORITY SPECIES ...................................................... 176.2. KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS ................................................................................................. 20
Creation, Expansion and Improved Management of Protected Areas .................................................. 24
Improved Management of Production Landscapes ........................................................................... 27

6.3. CORRIDORS ................................................................................................................. 28

7.

CIVIL SOCIETY STRENGTHENING RESULTS .................................................... 34
7.1. TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED .................................................................................. 34
7.2. TRAINING .................................................................................................................... 35
7.3. ANALYSIS OF CIVIL SOCIETY TRACKING TOOL ........................................................................... 35

8.

HUMAN WELL-BEING RESULTS ....................................................................... 36
8.1. COMMUNITIES BENEFITING ................................................................................................ 36
8.2. GENDER ..................................................................................................................... 38
8.3. LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................... 38

9.

ENABLING CONDITIONS RESULTS .................................................................. 41
9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.

POLICIES SUPPORTING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ................................................................. 41
COMPANIES ADOPTING BIODIVERSITY-FRIENDLY PRACTICES .......................................................... 43
PARTNERSHIPS AND NETWORKS ........................................................................................... 43
LEVERAGING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 44

10. OTHER IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 46
11. PROGRESS TOWARD LONG-TERM CONSERVATION GOALS .............................. 50
12. LESSONS FROM THE PORTFOLIO .................................................................... 50
13. FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 51
Annex 1. Summary Figures .......................................................................................................... 53
Annex 2. Update on Progress Toward Targets in the Portfolio Logical Framework ................................. 57
Annex 3. Contributions to the CEPF Global Indicators ...................................................................... 62
Annex 4. Results per Aichi Targets ................................................................................................ 63
Annex 5. All Awarded Grants, by Country and Start Date ................................................................. 66
Annex 6. Leverage Data for Applicable Grants ................................................................................ 71
Annex 7. Progress Toward Long Term-Goals ................................................................................... 74

2

1. Introduction
This report summarizes the results and lessons from CEPF’s investment in the MaputalandPondoland-Albany Biodiversity Hotspot (MPAH) between 2010-2016 in relation to the goals
established in the Ecosystem Profile of April 2010. The report is based on grantee projectcompletion reports; summarized information as found in Annual Portfolio Overviews and the2013 Mid-Term Assessment; a final stakeholder assessment in Durban, South Africa in
October 2015; and most critically, the expertise of the Regional Implementation Team (RIT)
based on six years of working closely with civil society, government and donors promoting
conservation in the region.
Stretching along roughly 800 miles of the Indian Ocean coast and 200 miles inland to theGreat Escarpment, from Port Elizabeth in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province, norththrough KwaZulu-Natal, further covering much of Swaziland and southern Mozambique(Figure 1), the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot is characterized by an endemic
vegetation type called subtropical thicket. Subtropical thicket – a condensed forest of thorny
trees, shrubs and vines – is an ecosystem driven by elephants, black rhino and Cape buffalo
that trample paths and disperse seeds through their digestive tracks.
The region is named for its three main centers of endemism: Maputaland in the north,typified by lush riverine and estuary habitats, diverse savannah, foothill grasslands anddune forests; Pondoland in the middle, typified by a matrix of forests, grasslands andrushing river valleys; and Albany in the south, typified by thickets and ecotones that shade
into the fynbos of the Cape Floristic and the plants of the Succulent and Nama Karoo
habitats. There are 1,900 endemic plant species in the hotspot, of which 534 are either
Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered per the IUCN Red List. While vertebrate
diversity and endemism are lower than those of plants, they are still remarkable.
Furthermore, the sub-equatorial waters are centers of diversity for sharks, rays, skates andcoastal fish. In addition to the endemic species, the region is also home to the many
charismatic species – lions, elephants, hippos, etc. – that characterize the classic African
safari tourism experience.
The political and cultural landscapes are as varied as the biological diversity. Approximately
18 million people live in the portions of the three countries that fall within hotspot
boundaries. Portuguese-speaking Mozambique, stable after several years of post-colonial
turmoil and with some unusual legacies regarding land ownership from its past socialist
government, is less developed than its neighbors, but is aggressively courting overseas
investment – particularly from China – around its mineral wealth. Swaziland is a monarchy
whose economy and land have been dominated by a relative few corporate, tribal andindividual interests. South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal Province, with the major commercial
center of Durban, is a long-standing center of wealth and development in the country and ishome to globally renowned protected areas. The Eastern Cape Province, on the other hand,
has suffered more from the legacy of apartheid. Comprising the former “homeland”
territories of Siskei and Transkei, the region has high levels of unemployment and a historyof public sector mismanagement.
Similar to many hotspots, Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany suffers from the tensions between
national and local governments seeking to provide economic opportunities for their people
while also conserving the underlying natural capital. Sugarcane and plantation forestry
dominate the agricultural landscape and continue to encroach on key biodiversity areas, as
does urban expansion, both from migrants seeking an escape from rural poverty and fromresort and tourism development along the coast. Mining and fossil fuel exploration are3

always a threat, but now as worrisome, are the discussions around infrastructuredevelopment, such as port construction, to support those efforts.
Figure 1. Map of the Eastern Afromontane Region

4

CEPF’s response to these threats was to engage civil society as a partner in conservation.
Mirroring the political state of the hotspot, the capacity of grassroots groups was low in
Mozambique, Swaziland and the Eastern Cape. Thus, the challenge for CEPF was twofold inthat it wished to conserve biodiversity while also building the capacity of local partners.

2. CEPF Niche and Strategy for Investment
The ecosystem profile for the region was formally approved in April 2010 and the five-year
investment period began in September of that year with the commencement of the Regional
Implementation Team (RIT) grant. The total spending authority for the region was$6,650,000. The original plan was that all grants would be closed by August 2015; however,at the close of Year 4, the RIT and CEPF Secretariat agreed that all core grants would end
by December 2016, with the RIT and a few small grants extending into early 2017. The RIT,
and the formal CEPF investment in the region, ended in March 2017.
The hotspot encompasses 274,000 km2 and, as identified during the ecosystem profilingprocess, contains 72 key biodiversity areas (KBAs) and 12 conservation corridors. The
stakeholders who participated in the profile – led by Conservation International and theSouth African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and including over 150 others fromcivil society, government, and donor agencies – prioritized these KBAs and corridors,considering the limited pool of CEPF funds, the immediacy of need for some locations, andthe fact that some KBAs, like the larger national and provincial parks, are already wellresourced. The result is that CEPF investment was prioritized for 22 KBAs and two corridors
in the hotspot, to be addressed within the context of CEPF’s niche for investment; namely:
supporting civil society in applying innovative approaches to conservation in undercapacitated protected areas, KBAs and corridors, thereby enabling changes in policy andbuilding resilience in the region’s ecosystems and economy to sustain biodiversity in thelong term.
This niche is expressed in five strategic directions, each with an allocation of funding fromthe CEPF Donor Council and subordinate investment priorities, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Strategic Directions, Investment Priorities and Funding Allocation per
Ecosystem Profile
Strategic Direction
1. Strengthen protection
and management inunder-capacitated andemerging protected areasin three priority key
biodiversity areas (KBAs)

2. Expand conservation
areas and improve land
use in 19 key biodiversity
areas through innovative
approaches

Investment Priority
1.1. Support public-private partnerships and civil society
initiatives to enable effective management of marine
protected areas in the Ponto d’Ouro Partial Marine
Reserve in Mozambique and adjacent to the Mkambati
and Dwesa-Cwebe reserves in the Pondoland North
Coast Key Biodiversity Area in South Africa
1.2. Promote innovative approaches to strengthen
protection and management in the Licuati Forests andEastern Swazi Lebombo Key Biodiversity Area in
Mozambique and Swaziland
2.1. Develop and implement innovative approaches toexpand private and communal protected areas,
particularly for habitats underrepresented in the current
protected area network
2.2. Integrate conservation practice into land-reform
agreements to expand conservation management andsustain livelihood opportunities

Funding$800,000$3,000,000

5Strategic Direction

3. Maintain and restore
ecosystem function andintegrity in the Highland
Grasslands and Pondoland
corridors

4. Create an enabling
environment to improveconservation andmanagement of
Maputaland-PondolandAlbany priority sites
5. Provide strategic
leadership and effective
coordination of CEPF
investment through aregional implementation
team

Investment Priority

Funding

3.1. Develop and implement innovative projects that
expand conservation management and benefit people inthreatened catchment, freshwater and estuarine
ecosystems
3.2. Improve implementation of environmental
regulations to maintain functional ecosystem corridors,
particularly rivers and coastal zones
3.3. Support community stewardship initiatives that will
catalyze sustainable financing from local carbon markets
3.4 Improve effectiveness of government-sponsoredlarge-scale natural resource management programs in
the corridors by improving knowledge and support for
implementation
4.1. Expand and strengthen civil society by supporting
training and further educational opportunities for thestaff of civil society organizations in Mozambique andSwaziland
4.2. Establish and strengthen institutional arrangementsthat will increase and coordinate civil society
participation and facilitate lessons sharing to promotelinkages that ensure effective conservation action at a
broad scale
5.1 Build a broad constituency of civil society groups
working across institutional and political boundaries
toward achieving the shared conservation goals of theecosystem profile
Total$1,500,000$650,000$700,000$6,650,000•

From SD 1, the three priority KBAs were Ponto d’Ouro Partial Marine Reserve inMozambique, the Eastern Swazi Lebombo transboundary area in Mozambique andSwaziland and the areas adjacent to the Mkambati and Dwesa-Cwebe reserves in the
Pondoland North Coast of South Africa’s Eastern Cape.

•

From SD 2, of the 19 KBAs, one was in Mozambique: Manhica. The other 18 were in
South Africa: Boston, Ethekwini South, Greater Greytown, Greater Itala,
Hogsback/Stutterheim, Lower Mzimbvubu, Lower Tugela, Midlands, Mistbelt Grasslands,
Mountain Zebra complex, Northern Drakensburg foothills, Northern Eastern Cape,
Pongola-Magudu, Port Elizabeth, Port St. John’s Forest, Southern Drakensburg foothills,
Umzimkulu and Vernon Crooks.

It is important to understand the rationale behind the Strategic Directions. At the time ofwriting of the Ecosystem Profile, the stakeholders explained that in South Africa, inparticular, it was unlikely that any more public land would be designated for protection.
Rather, the need was to improve the management of existing protected areas and mostcritically, promoting the protection of privately held land (either individually or communally)
through the South African legal concept of “stewardship.” It was understood, if any “new”
protected areas were to be created, they would most likely be on private land.
Similarly, the Profile identified 72 KBAs, from which 22 were prioritized, and 12 corridors,
from which two were prioritized. As was the case for other CEPF ecosystem profiles,
prioritization was based on, among other things, perceived need due to lack of funding
and/or imminent threat. Thus, major or well-known protected areas, which are KBAs, were6

not prioritized, whereas under-funded KBAs were. Typically, however, under-funded KBAs
are that way for a reason, beyond mere lack of funds: difficult to reach, limited local
capacity, limited local support for conservation, some underlying institutional issue thatmakes conservation difficult, etc. By design, CEPF chose the more difficult challenges, notthe easier ones.

3. Regional Implementation Team3.1. RIT Structure
The Wildlands Conservation Trust (Wildlands) held the $700,000 grant to serve as theRegional Implementation Team (RIT). At the time of award, Wildlands was a 15-year old
South African NGO with operations based primarily in KwaZulu-Natal. Its headquarters werein Hilton, a suburb of the provincial capital, Pietermaritzburg, in the heart of the hotspot.
Wildlands is a prominent organization in the National Committee of the IUCN and is amember of an executive council of other conservation groups in South Africa (e.g., WWFSouth Africa, Conservation International, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Wildlife andEnvironment Society of South Africa). As a member of these groups, while serving as the
RIT, Wildlands regularly reported to its peers and invited their feedback on proposals andstrategy, ensuring transparency of CEPF investment decisions. As the RIT, Wildlands was
also responsible for managing the small-grants mechanism, which the CEPF Secretariat
issued as a separate grant. The final ceiling was $806,476, from which Wildlands issued 52
grants with a maximum grant size of $20,000.
As the RIT, Wildlands’ scope of work included:
•
•
•
•
•

Coordinating and communicating CEPF investment in the hotspot, including withconstituents (i.e., applicants and grantees from civil society), government
counterparts and other donors.
Building capacity of grantees.
Managing the solicitation process for large grants and assisting with reviews.
Managing the small-grant process, including making awards of grants of less than
$20,000.
Monitoring impact for all large and small grants.

With a fixed budget of $700,000, provided via a grant from the CEPF Secretariat, and therelatively high labor costs of South Africa, the RIT had a lean team, shown in Table 2. At
inception, the program had a team leader, Roelie Kloppers, working with a small-grants
manager, Dumile Tshingana, both based in Hilton, and a coordinator in Maputo, Stuart
Williams. Over time, Kloppers was promoted within the organization and replaced by Kevin
McCann, who had long experience in provincial government agencies working on the formal
South African concept of biodiversity stewardship. Similarly, Tshingana transitioned out of
the organization, to be replaced by Mark Gerard, and Williams was replaced by Bruno
Nhancale. By the mid-point of the program, the coordination role in Mozambique was
effectively taken over by CESVI, an international development NGO with permanent offices
in Maputo.
While Wildlands directly charged only the amount of the time in Table 2, the organizationcommitted to provide all the time necessary for its personnel to fulfill the obligations of the
RIT Terms of Reference. This included the time of marketing and communications support to
the RIT for regular updates on the Wildlands website and via social media; synergies with7

the organization’s fully staffed programs for tree-planting, environmental education,
recycling, event-based fund-raising and geographic information systems; and the time of
the COO (Roelie Kloppers) and Chairman (Andrew Venter), who actively promulgated thegoals of CEPF in the hotspot. The full cost of the level of effort that Wildlands provided far
exceeded the amount of the CEPF grant.
Apart from the programs described above, Wildlands, spurred by its success in managing
CEPF, received a grant from the South African government to manage a “Green Jobs”
program where it placed young people in government-paid internships. As the manager ofthis program, Wildlands was able to direct additional labor to CEPF grantees working directlyin priority locations. Further based on its success with CEPF, Wildlands started its own Blue
Fund grants program, with money it raised from its own donors, to support conservation
work in the coastal areas of the Eastern Cape, virtually co-incident with the Pondoland
priority conservation corridor.
Table 2. RIT Staffing
Name
Kevin McCann

Position

Time

Dates

Team Leader

100%

July 2013 – March 2016

Team Leader

100%

September 2010 – June 2013

Cross-Program Synergy

33%

July 2013 – March 2016

Small-Grants Manager
Small-Grants Manager
Mozambique
Coordinator
Mozambique
Coordinator
Financial Manager
Liaison and Strategy

50%
50%

July 2013 – March 2016
September 2010 – June 2013

20%

January 2012 – December 201215%

September 2010 – December 201120%
5%September 2010 – March 2016
September 2010 – March 2016

Roelie Kloppers
Mark Gerard
Dumile Tshingana
Bruno Nhancale
Stuart Williams
Shanitha SinghAndrew Venter

3.2. RIT and Secretariat Grant Management
The CEPF Secretariat formally received letters of inquiry, and then invited proposals, forlarge grants via its GEM database and GrantWriter proposal system over the life of the
program. The Secretariat and RIT, together, were responsible for the award andmanagement of large grants. The RIT managed solicitations and reporting on small grants
using offline systems out of its offices in Hilton. The program benefited from the continuity
provided by a consistent set of staff from the RIT and one Grant Director over 5.5 years.
As shown in Annex 1, at any given moment, the RIT and Secretariat were managing
multiple active small and large grants. These peaked at 47 active grants in October 2012.

8

4. Impact Summary
The annexes to this report include portfolio impacts in relation to the portfolio logicalframework from the Ecosystem Profile (Annex 2), CEPF’s global indicators (Annex 3) andAichi targets on the Convention on Biodiversity (Annex 4). The summaries below reflect
each of those indicators in ways of interest to varying stakeholders.
Biodiversity Conservation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Number of KBAs in which CEPF-funded activities took place: 27
Number of KBAs with strengthened management: 22
Hectares of existing protected areas under improved management: 751,848
Hectares of new protected area: 289,142
Number of new protected areas formally declared/expanded: 10
Additional hectares of land in the legal process toward formal protection: 256,9431
Hectares of KBAs outside protected areas (production landscapes) under improved
management: 1,080,908
Hectares of degraded land restored: 2,684
Number of globally threatened species with reduced threats: 43

Creation of new protected areas, particularly in South Africa, was never the overarchinggoal, as opposed to using stewardship to “fill gaps” in the existing network. Existing
protected areas (national reserves, provincial reserves, game reserves), particularly
Mozambique’s Maputo Special Reserve, the various reserves along the Lubombo Spine of
KwaZulu-Natal, and Mountain Zebra National Park in the Eastern Cape all benefited fromeither direct intervention, the reduction of threats outside the reserves, or stewardshipefforts that created buffers and corridors.
Strengthening Civil Society
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Number of unique organizations receiving CEPF funds: 60
Of those, the number that are based in one of the countries of the hotspot(local/national grantees): 55
Percent of grant funding received by organizations based in the hotspot (local/national
grantees): 89
Number of projects that created relationships between grantees and other NGOs,
government partners, or private companies: 72
Number of community-based organizations strengthened by grantee activity: 17
Number of networks/partnerships created or strengthened: 26
Number of organizations that showed an increase of greater than 5 points in the scoreon the CEPF Civil Society Tracking Tool: 12

In all, 60 organizations received a total of 91 grants. These organizations formed
relationships, at least for the period of the grant and often longer, with 341 additional
government, non-government and private sector partners. These partnerships, othernetworks and the success of projects themselves led to a leveraging of approximately $16.3
million from CEPF’s investment.

1

As of 2021, the total hectares declared was 562,636, with an additional 194,818 hectares in the process toward
declaration.

9

Human well-being•••

Number of projects with community-based conservation actions: 28
Number of people receiving structured training: 4,640
Number of people receiving permanent jobs or livelihood improvements: 925

Grantees worked in 162 communities across the hotspot. Their work often began withraising the awareness of people of the value of biodiversity conservation, the role that thisplays in ensuring human well-being and the links between people and the environment. As aresult, many grants supported workshops, forums, learning exchanges and field trips, which
improved the awareness of 2,600 adults and 19,744 school children throughout the hotspot.
Enabling conditions•

Number of policies, regulations and guidelines changed or enacted to promote better
management of watersheds, protected areas, or KBAs: 33
Number of companies that adopted biodiversity-friendly practices: 23•

Tourism companies, including hotels, guides and safari services, were the primary private
sector supporters of grantees and their work, seeing the mutual benefit of sustainably
managing KBAs.

5. Implementation
5.1. Collaboration with CEPF Donors and other Funders
CEPF, the RIT and the grantees collaborated directly and indirectly with donors and hostcountry government agencies at multiple levels.
In this hotspot, every individual grantee worked directly with a local counterpart, whether a
district government body or a provincial or national agency. As a condition of grant award,
the RIT and Secretariat required that applicants provide a letter of endorsement from a local
government agency. Collaboration sometimes took the loosest form of cognizance andapproval by the local authority of the grantee activity, but more frequently, involved much
more detailed and robust cooperation with mutual responsibilities.
At a higher level, several of the larger organizations, including Wildlands Conservation Trust(the RIT), as well as WESSA, WWF-South Africa, the Wilderness Foundation, Endangered
Wildlife Trust, Conservation International and the Africa Conservation Trust all purposefully
worked with provincial and national government agencies as part of broader initiatives,effectively mainstreaming the goals of the Ecosystem Profile into government operations.
Beyond CEPF’s donors, the RIT connected with other funders of the broad CEPF mission in
the hotspot, including the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and the
KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provincial governments. Work focused on youth
employment in conservation initiatives, rhino conservation and stewardship of privatelyowned land. Further, across the hotspot, Wildlands ensured that individual grants and theoverall portfolio were aligned with the efforts of national, provincial and local government.
•

Wildlands was [and still is] a member of the national committee of the IUCN, which
was chaired by the Director General of the Department of Environmental Affairs and10included representatives of all national and provincial conservation authorities in the
hotspot. At each meeting, which took place quarterly, Wildlands provided a detailed
report of the CEPF investment. These reports were included in the minutes andcirculated to all IUCN members in South Africa.
•

Wildlands attended all quarterly meetings of the Eastern Cape Implementation
Forum, chaired by the Eastern Cape Department of Environmental Affairs andattended by local and provincial authorities and local representatives of national
government agencies.

•

Wildlands was [and still is] a member of the KZN Provincial Stewardship Coordination
Committee that met quarterly to agree on priorities for stewardship in the province.
The provincial authority, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, only declared stewardship on
properties previously approved by the Committee.

5.2. Resource Allocation
CEPF grant-making formally began with the RIT Grant to the Wildlands Conservation Trust(Wildlands) in September 2010. The grant was for the full amount of Strategic Direction 5:$700,000.
The Secretariat and RIT released calls for Letters of Inquiry to solicit applications for thefour other strategic directions, as shown in Table 3. These included open calls, limited calls,
an open-ended rolling call for small grants, and in three cases, grants by invitation.
Table 3. MPAH Calls for Letters of Inquiry
No.

Release Date

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

4 September 2010
1 November 2010
15 May 2011
Rolling
1 December 2011
Rolling
Rolling
1 June 2012
Rolling
20 April 201328 June 201315 July 2013
7 February 2014
5 May 201412 June 2014

Due Date
15 October 201015 February 201115 June 201131 December 201115 February 2012
31 May 201230 June 2012
24 August 201231 December 2012
1 June 201318 July 2013 (grant by invitation)
2 September 2013
1 March 2014
2 June 2014 (grant by invitation)
20 June 2014 (grant by invitation)
Total

LOIs Received
Large
Small
0
52
36
16
0
2
0
3
38
18
0
5
0
1
20
6
0
3
2
3
1
0
24
0
0
12
1
0
1
0
175
69
244

The RIT and Secretariat reviewed all LOIs. All qualified LOIs were then reviewed by at least
two external reviewers from Wildlands’ professional network of partners and experts ingovernment, NGOs, universities and the private sector. Of the 175 large grant applications,
38 (21.7 percent) received awards. Of the 69 small-grant applications, 52 (75 percent)11

received awards, reflecting the targeted engagement that the RIT undertook with smallerorganizations.
The three large grants awarded on an invitation basis were to:•

CESVI in March 2014 for slightly less than $100,000 to facilitate cooperation among
stakeholders from Mozambique and Swaziland in the Lumbombo-Goba TFCA. CESVI,
as an international NGO with ongoing work in the region, was seen as an impartial
party by the stakeholders.

•

Wildlife Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) in July 2014 for slightly lessthan $70,000 to promote the creation of the Midmar to Albert Falls Biosphere
Reserve. WESSA, as South Africa’s largest membership-based conservation
organization, occupied a position of trust with relevant provincial and national
government authorities and had been invited by them to lead this process.

•WWF South Africa in July 2014 for slightly less than $54,000 to develop the forest
carbon market in the Eastern Cape province, building on the organization’s national
leadership position in carbon credit trading schemes.

As shown in Table 4, in total, the Secretariat and RIT awarded 38 large grants and 52 small
grants through competitive and sole-source processes. (See Annex 1 for a figurative
representation of this same information. Annex 5 lists all awarded grants.)
Table 4. Grant Awards by Strategic Direction
Large Grants
Strategic Direction

Allocation

Small Grants

Total

Count

Obligation

Count

Obligation

Count

Obligation

Percent

1. Emerging Protected
Areas$800,0007$1,032,988

5$83,09712$1,116,085

16.8%

2. Protect KBAs

$3,000,000

21$2,607,858

19$313,02840$2,920,886

43.9%

3. Ecosystem Functioning$1,500,000

6$802,740

12$179,558

18$982,298

14.8%

4. Enabling Environment$650,000

4$696,686

16$230,793

20$927,479

14.0%

5. RIT$700,000

1$700,0000$01$700,000

10.5%$6,850,000

39$5,840,272

52$806,476

91$6,646,748

100%

43%

86%

57%

14%

Total
Percent (without
RIT)

As is discussed below, less funding was committed under Strategic Direction 3 thanoriginally allocated, reflecting over-estimation by the authors of the ecosystem profile of thedemand for such activities and the capacity of CEPF’s core constituent applicants toimplement such work. On the other hand, there were multiple high-quality proposals for
Strategic Directions 1, 2 and 4 that presented achievable results in response to importantneeds.
Not counting the RIT, 86 percent of the funding was disbursed as large grants by the
Secretariat (representing 43 percent of all grants awarded) and 14 percent of the funding
was disbursed as small grants by the RIT (representing 57 percent of all grants awarded).
The median value of awards for the large grants was approximately $106,000 with a median
duration of 21 months. Small grants were capped at $20,000, with over half having an

12amount of $19,000 or more. Small grants, regardless of size, had a median duration of 10
months. Small grants were awarded in the following size ranges:
Table 5. Small Grant Awards by Size Range (USD)
Range
Less than $10,000$10,000 to $18,999$19,000 to $19,999$20,00
Total

Count
12
12
10
18
52

CEPF did not make formal allocations of funding to each country at the time of theecosystem profile, maintaining that the transboundary element of biodiversity conservation
requires responsiveness to need in relation to species, sites and corridors. Nonetheless,
Table 6 shows how many awards were ultimately made in each country, reflecting thenumber of KBAs, priority KBAs and grant-making opportunities existing in each.
Table 6. Grant Awards by Eligible Country
Country
Mozambique
South Africa
Swaziland
Multi-country
Regional
RIT
Total

Large Grants and RIT
Count
Obligation
7$1,006,130
28$3,427,484
1$269,960
1$99,998
1$336,700
1$700,00039$5,840,272

Small Grants
Count
Obligation
4$74,55543$659,996
0$02$28,8553$43,0700$052$806,476

Count
11
71
1
3
4
1
91

Total
Obligation$1,080,685$4,087,480$269,960$128,853$379,770$700,000$6,646,748

The four projects listed as “regional” were for capacity building (South African National
Biodiversity Institute, SANBI) or for creating a network, called “Izele,” among conservation
NGOs (Current Conservation Community Interest). The three “multi-country” projects
worked in the Lubombo TFCA with either two or all three of the countries.
CEPF also tracked individual grants by the “type” of organization receiving the funds, wheretype was characterized as local (i.e., defined as organizations based in the hotspot
countries), or international (i.e., defined as organizations based outside the hotspot
countries), as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. International and Local Grants by Award Type
Type
Local
International
RIT
Total

Large Grants
Count
34
4
1
39

Obligation$4,472,452$667,820$700,000$5,840,272

Small Grants
Count
48
4
0
52

Obligation$760,134$46,3420$806,476

Total
Count
82
8
1
91

Obligation$5,932,586$714,162$700,000$6,646,748

Percent(without RIT)Count Obligation
91%
88%
9%
12%

13

The columns with “count” in Table 7 may be misleading, however, as these sum the numberof grants, as opposed to the number of distinct grantees. CEPF made 91 grant awards to 60
unique organizations. Revising Table 7 by the unique organizational recipients, as opposed
to awards, reveals the following.
Table 8. International and Local Grants by Distinct Recipient
Type

Count

Percent

Local*
International
Total

55
5
60

92%
8%

Obligation(USD)$5,932,586$714,162$6,646,748

Percent89%
11%* Local includes Wildlands, the RIT.
Evident of CEPF’s goal of engaging local civil society in conservation action, 55 organizations
from within the hotspot, including Wildlands, as the RIT, received almost 90 percent ofavailable funds. This reflects the high capacity of South African CSOs to implement CEPF
work and also the relative paucity of interest from relevant international NGOs to undertake
work in southern Mozambique. (See Annex 1 for a figurative representation of this same
information.)

5.3. Portfolio Investment by Strategic Direction
To understand portfolio investment by strategic direction, it is important to reflect on where
the region was in 2009, when the ecosystem profile was initially drafted, and where it wasover the subsequent six years. Much of Mozambique’s economy was supported by bi-lateraland multi-lateral funding, where conservation, if it were to be a relevant topic, had toconsider issues of low capacity and projects supporting livelihoods. In Swaziland, with aconstitutional monarchy with close ties to large agricultural enterprises that controlled large
amounts of land, and a “traditional” model of government-supported protected areas that
excluded local communities, the space for civil society engagement was limited. In South
Africa, the niche for creation of new protected areas was through the formal “stewardship”
process that allows private owners to set aside land. Further, the niche for affecting
corridors and large swaths of production landscape was envisioned to be through influencing
the government’s large-scale “putting-people-to-work” green jobs programs (e.g., Working
for Water, Working for Wetlands and Working on Fire).
Strategic Direction 1: strengthen protection and management in under-capacitatedand emerging protected areas in three priority key biodiversity areas
This Strategic Direction focused on the Ponto d’Ouro and Licuati Forests (both inMozambique), Mkambati/Dwesa-Cwebe (Eastern Cape) and the Eastern Swazi Lebombo(Swaziland) KBAs. Together these areas encompass 650,000 hectares. They merit special
attention within the context of the hotspot because of their low management capacity, their
physical relationship to the surrounding impoverished communities, and in the case of Ponto
d’Ouro and Mkambati, their important seascapes.
In essence, this Strategic Direction highlighted the most challenging places to work in the
hotspot. The southern portion of Mozambique, in particular the Matutuine District that isbounded by Swaziland, South Africa, and the Indian Ocean, faces historical challenges andlooming development threats. The area was largely depopulated during past conflict with
South Africa, with former refugees returning to a landscape dominated by relatively infertile14

sandy soils. Grants needed to focus on economic development, administrative and NGO
coordination, and work that demonstrated that protected areas can be a financial stimulus,
as opposed to a “taking” of land. During the period of CEPF, the pristine coast faced threats
from the expansion of the Maputo port, plans for a rail line connecting the port to interiorcountries, and unsustainable tourism infrastructure along the beach. At the same time,
there was confusion between the three government ministries responsible for two adjoining
protected areas covering 678 square kilometers, the Maputo Spatial Reserve and the Ponto
do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve.
The highlighted KBA in South Africa’s Eastern Cape province is another “forgotten” place, inthe sense that Mkambati/Dwesa-Cwebe suffered from neglect in the challenging social andpolitical context of that province. The area includes 122 (60 percent) of the provinces
identified estuaries, most in good to excellent condition. The KBA lies at the confluence of
two marine biological zones. Competing claims to land, jurisdictional rights, limited public
revenue, a remote location, and poverty and its attendant ills had turned the attention ofconservationists elsewhere. Grants needed to focus on participatory alternative livelihood
efforts, basic training of protected area managers and consideration of innovative
conservation finance mechanisms.
Swaziland, and its Maputaland KBA of Lubombo (and the Licuati portion of the KBA, in
Mozambique), presented its own challenges in the context of the country’s approach toprotected areas. The ridge line of mountains extending north from South Africa along
Swaziland’s eastern border has various state-owned and managed reserves, state-granted
concessions for the management of hunting reserves and communal lands. The Lubombo
Conservancy is both the NGO and the piece of land attempting to connect multiple plots intoa mosaic of conservation.
Strategic Direction 2: expand conservation areas and improve land use in 19 key
biodiversity areas through innovative approaches
The ecosystem profile process identified 18 KBAs in South Africa and one in Mozambiquethat were not part of the current protected areas network. Grants were meant to promote
innovative approaches to expanding private and communal protected areas, expand thearea under improved management, promote sustainable livelihoods and integrateconservation practice into land-reform agreements.
Grants proceeded as originally planned across all but two KBAs – the Vernon Crookes areaof KwaZulu Natal and the Lower Mzimbvubu catchment of the Eastern Cape. In the case of
the former, the KZN government and other stakeholders worked there, obviating the need
for CEPF investment, whereas in the case of the latter, CEPF received no viable proposals
and could find no viable partners. Similarly, grants proceeded well against all the technicalareas envisioned, other than on land reform agreements. As originally planned, grants
would engage in the formal South African process that gives control, and considerable publicresources, to formerly disadvantaged communities to manage large tracts of land. Where
the target was to work on eight such agreements, CEPF worked in two (in the Gumbi
Community and the Kranskop Community), reflecting the challenge of finding trusted
parties to engage in long-running and politically contentious efforts.
In South Africa, conservation agreements are designed within a formalized frameworkendorsed by the national government. In this framework, biodiversity stewardshipagreements are voluntary and cannot be forced upon a landowner/user. Biodiversity
conservation stewardship is about a landowner and users voluntarily agreeing to secure andsustain the natural resources of their land. Formal agreements can be entered into to:15(i) protect important biodiversity; (ii) enable the more sustainable use of natural resources;and (iii) effectively manage threats to natural systems and biodiversity. CEPF’s promotion of
stewardship in Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany was a direct replication of successful similar
CEPF efforts in the Cape Floristic Region and Succulent Karoo Hotspots. Stewardshipagreements addressed agriculture, residential development, grazing, trapping of predatorsand hunting.
Strategic Direction 3: maintain and restore ecosystem function and integrity in theHighland Grasslands and Pondoland corridors
This strategic direction supported corridor-level efforts by focusing on catchments,
estuaries, regulations affecting riparian and coastal zones, carbon markets and engagementof government-sponsored, labor-intensive natural resource management programs. To
some degree, this strategic direction had an “under award” due to overlap with many grants
in Strategic Direction 2, where a grant focused on an individual KBA was contributing tocorridor functioning. There was also “under award” because of the challenge of finding
groups to take on projects with a broad geographic scope with the limited resources of atypical CEPF grant.
Nevertheless, as shown in the Logical Framework, grants addressed the Midmar to Albert
Falls biosphere reserve, the Mzimvubu and Thukela river systems, estuaries in Zinkwazi,
forest carbon schemes on the Wild Coast and both broadscale restoration (i.e., Nsubane,
Kieskammershoek) and local restoration (i.e., Wild Coast dune forests).
Strategic Direction 4: create an enabling environment to improve conservation andmanagement of Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany priority sites
This strategic direction supported grants that strengthened civil society and provided further
educational opportunities for the staff of CSOs in Mozambique and Swaziland. It also
supported grants networking organizations across the hotspot with the goal of ensuring
effective conservation at a broad scale.
An interesting result from this strategic direction is the shape that networks take. There was
one that was explicit: the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) MaputalandPondoland-Albany Hotspot (MPAH) learning network, targeted at all grantees and built onsimilar SANBI schemes from the Succulent Karoo and Cape Floristic Region Hotspots. There
was also support to existing networks that were already promoting CEPF-like goals, such as
the Midland Conservancy Forum, the Wilderness Foundation’s stewardship committee, theFuti Corridor consortium and the Lebombo Conservancy. To some degree, CEPF expected
this during the preparation of the ecosystem profile. On the other hand, there were the“new” networks, such uMzimvubu Catchment Partnership, the KZN rhino owners networkand the region-wide, web-based network called “Izele.” These different networks createdways for stakeholders to learn, replicate and advocate in ways far beyond the scope ofindividual grants.

16

6. Biodiversity Conservation Results
6.1. Globally Threatened Species and CEPF Priority Species
The ecosystem profile identified 615 globally threatened species, including 534 species ofplants, 13 species of mammals, 16 species of birds and 18 species of reptiles. The profile
did not prioritize any species, instead presuming that conservation of sites would imply
conservation of species. Nevertheless, in summary, 33 grants, working at 14 sites, haddirect conservation impacts on 43 species, as shown in Table 9. These included:•Site-based species assessments, such as the work by All Out Africa in the Licuati
KBA of Swaziland, where the foraging habits of white-backed vulture (Gypsafricanus) were studied to improve decision-making by land managers.

•

Species-focused site management, such as the work by Centro Terra Viva
working in Mozambique’s coastal KBA, Ponto d’Ouro. The grantee worked withresidents, hotel owners, tourism operators and the managers of the Maputo Spatial
Reserve to minimize disturbances to the nesting sites of sea turtles.

•

Stewardship for species conservation, such as the work by the Botanical Societyof South Africa (BotSoc), where experts helped landowners identify the range of
threatened flowering plants as the basis for designating areas for formal
conservation.

•

Site-specific, species-specific efforts, in the form of habitat restoration, as
exemplified by the Wild Bird Trust (WBT). Working in the Hogsback KBA of theEastern Cape, WBT installed nest boxes to promote the breeding of the Vulnerable
Cape parrot (Poicephalus robustus) and planted indigenous yellowwood (Podocarpus
latifolius) trees – the national tree of South Africa that is the bird’s preferred home.

•

Protected area expansion through the joining of land units (e.g., national
protected areas, provincial protected areas, private reserves) and creation ofcommunal buffer zones, as exemplified by Space for Elephants. With a focus on
African elephant (Loxodonta africana), which paradoxically, reacts to stress fromliving in too small an area by reproducing faster, Space for Elephants helped remove
fences -literally – between various reserves in the Thanda-Mduna area (Pongola
KBA) of northern KwaZulu Natal.

17

Table 9. Globally Threatened Species Addressed by Grant Recipients
No.

Species Name

Common NameCountry (ies)1

Alepedia amatymbica

South Africa

Mistbelt Grasslands

DargleStewardship site

2

Anhydrophryne rattrayi

South Africa

23

Hogsback-Stutterheim

EWT

Site restoration

3

Anthropoides paradiseus

South Africa

43

Mistbelt Grasslands

Dargle, EWT

Stewardship site

4

Anthus chloris

South Africa

53

NE Cape

BLSA

Species monitoring

5

Artisornis moreaui

Mozambique29

Licuati Forests

BLSA

6

Asclepsias woodii

South Africa

43

7Balearica regulorum

South Africa

33, 428

Brachystelma patraeum

South Africa

42

Mistbelt Grasslands
Lower Tugela,
Midlands
Midlands

9

Bradypodion thamnobates

Tinsel flower
Hogsback chirping
frogBlue crane
Yellow-breasted
pipitLong-billed forest
warbler
Milkweed spp.
Grey-crowned
crane
Plant spp.
Natal Midlands
dwarf chameleon

Site(s)ID
43

South Africa

42

Midlands

10

Bradypterus sylvaticus

Knysna warbler

South Africa

59

Pondoland North Coast11

Bucorvus leadbeateri

South Africa

42

Midlands

12

Bugeranus carunculatus

Southern ground
hornbill
Wattled craneSouth Africa

43

Mistbelt Grasslands

13

Caretta caretta

Loggerhead turtle

Mozambique

61

Ponto do Ouro

Site name(s)14

Cercopithecus mitis

Samango monkey

South Africa

23

Hogsback-Stutterheim

15

Dentrophraz arboreus

Tree hyrax

South Africa

43

Mistbelt Grasslands

16

Dermochelys coriacea

Leatherback turtle

Mozambique

61

Ponto do Ouro17

Diceros bicornis

Black rhino

South Africa

44, 60

Mountain Zebra,
Pongola-Magudu

18
19

Encephalartos ghellinckii
Encephalartos senticosus

Drakensberg cycad
Jozini cycad

South Africa
South Africa

4
18

20

Encephalartus
lebomboensis

Lebombo cycad

South Africa,
Swaziland21

Geokichla guttata

22

Gerbera aurantiaca

23

Gyps africanus

24

Gypsus coprotheres

Spotted groundthrushHilton daisy
White-backed
vultureCape vulture

Grantee(s)DargleBLSA, Zinkwazi,
EWT
BotSocBLSA
WWF-SA
BLSA
Dargle, EWT
CTV
BRC, Wild Bird
Trust
DargleCTVIntervention

Species-focused sitemanagement
Stewardship site
Stewardship site
Stewardship site
Stewardship site
Species-focused sitemanagement
Stewardship site
Stewardship site
Species-focused sitemanagement
Habitat restoration
Stewardship site
Species-focused sitemanagement

BostonItala

Wilderness Fnd.,
ACT, Wildlife Act,SFE
BotSoc, MCT
ACT18, 29Itala, Licuati

ACT, LubomboSouth Africa

33

Lower Tugela

Zinkwazi

Stewardship site

South Africa

42

Midlands

BotSocStewardship site

Swaziland

29

LicuatiAll Out Africa

Species research

South Africa

43, 52

Mistbelt Grasslands,
Northern Eastern Cape

Dargle, E&RS

Stewardship site,
species-focused sitemanagement

PA expansion, local
awareness
Stewardship site
PA management
PA management,
species-focused sitemanagement

18Common NameCountry (ies)

Heteromirafra ruddi
Hirundo atrocaerulea

Rudd’s lark
Blue swallow

South Africa
South Africa

Site(s)
ID
53
42

27

Jubaeopsis caffra

Pondoland palmSouth Africa

32

28

Leptopelis xenodactylus

South Africa

42, 4329

Loxodonta Africana

Long-toed tree
frog
African elephantSouth Africa

60

Mistbelt Grasslands,
Midlands
Pongola-Magudu

30

Lycaon pictus

African wild dog

South Africa

44

Mountain Zebra

31

Merwilla plumbea

Wild squill

South Africa

43

Mistbelt Grasslands

32

Natalobatrachus bonebergi

Natal diving frog

South Africa

59

Pondoland North Coast

WWF-SA

33
34

Neotis denham
Ocotea bullata

Denham’s bustardBlack stinkwood

South Africa
South Africa

43
4DargleBotSoc35

Ourebia ourebi

Oribi antelope

South Africa

42, 4336

Phylica natalensis

Plant species

South Africa

42

Mistbelt Grasslands
BostonMidlands, Mistbelt
Grasslands
Midlands

37

Poicephalus robustus

Cape parrot

South Africa

23

Hogsback-Stutterheim

38
39
40
41
42
43

Pseudobarbus trevelyani
Sandelia bainsii
Senecio dregeanus
Vandijkophrynus amatolicus
Warbergia salutaris
Woodia verruculosa

Border barb
Eastern cape rocky
Plant species
Amathole toad
Pepper-bark tree
Plant species

South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa

23
23
43
23
18
43

Hogsback-Stutterheim
Hogsback-Stutterheim
Mistbelt Grasslands
Hogsback-Stutterheim
Greater Itala complex
Mistbelt Grasslands

No.

Species Name

25
26

Site name(s)NE CapeMidlands
Lower Mzimbvubu

Grantee(s)Intervention

BLSA
BLSA

Species monitoring
Stewardship site
Species-focused sitemanagement

Wild Side
Dargle, BotSoc

Stewardship site

SFE
ACT, Wildlife Act,
Wilderness Fnd
MCT

PA expansion
PA expansion, local
awareness
Stewardship site
Species-focused sitemanagement
Stewardship site
Stewardship site

BLSA, Darge, EWT

Stewardship site

BotSoc
BRC, Wild Bird
Trust
EWT
EWT
DargleBRC
ACT
DargleStewardship site
Habitat restoration
Site restoration
Site restoration
Stewardship site
Habitat restoration
PA management
Stewardship site19

6.2. Key Biodiversity Areas
The ecosystem profile identified 72 KBAs in 2009 using an IUCN methodology from 20072(Langhammer et al. 2007), which at the time, represented “state of the science” withstandards for determining what qualified as a KBA, the documentation required, anddetermination of boundaries. Understanding that allocated funding would not be sufficient towork in all 72 sites, the profiling team then used a qualitative process to prioritize 22 sites
based on criteria such as threat level, number of species, irreplaceability, opportunity forcivil society action, ability to reduce poverty and possibility for replication or innovation.
Figure 2, copied from the Ecosystem Profile, shows the 22 KBAs for reader reference andTable 10 shows grants awarded by KBA.
As noted above, CEPF did not make grants in two of the prioritized KBAs, Vernon Crooks
because the need for funding was filled by the provincial government and the Lower
Mzimbvubu for lack of viable proposals. At the same time, to take advantage ofopportunities that arose during the investment phase, the RIT made small grants with
impacts in five non-priority KBAs:•

Greater Grahamstown: a grant to the Sustainable Seas Trust to empower local
communities by training them to positively exploit the direct links between
conservation and social and economic benefits, in line with Strategic Direction 2 andalso recognizing the need for greater CSO capacity in the Eastern Cape.

•

Hluhluwe-Mkhuze Lowveld: as part of a grant to the Botanical Society to promotestewardship in multiple KBAs.

•

Lower Kei: a grant to WWF-South Africa to train marine protected area managers inthis coastal KBA and from six other protected areas in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu
Natal, including the Mkambati reserve, the focus of Strategic Direction 1.

•

Massingr District: a grant to the Kruger-to-Canyons Biosphere Reserve to replicate
lessons learned from this reserve to others in the hotspot.

•

Mbashe River/Coffee Bay: a grant to Environment Learning and Teaching to provide
environmental educator training for teachers from this KBA and from throughout the
hotspot.

In this region, CEPF understood KBAs in spatial terms, as a site important for the global
persistence of biodiversity. From an administrative standpoint, KBAs can be either formallyprotected areas or they can be areas that are not protected. “Unprotected” KBAs may beconsidered production landscapes; that is, land that is open to development, agriculture,
housing, or any other economic activity. The CEPF approach recognizes that there arepathways for improving conservation outcomes by better managing both protected areasand production landscapes. In this hotspot, in particular, an area can be managed for
productive use, often as a farm or for livestock and game, while also being managed forspecies conservation.

2

Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems.
Langhammer, et al. 2007.

20

Figure 2. Priority KBAs

21

Table 10. Priority and Non-Priority KBAs with Project Interventions
Map
No.3
Priority KBAs
1
4
2
12

ProfileNo.

3

Country

KBA Name

Corridor

Area (Ha)Grantee
Botanical Society
Eco-Pulse
Endangered Wildlife Trust, NCT
Forestry
African Conservation Trust,
Botanical Society
Border Rural Committee, Wild Bird
Trust, Endangered Wildlife Trust
All Out Africa, BirdLife South Africa,
Lubombo Conservancy
None
Zinkwazi Conservancy
Kawuka JDA, ORAM
BirdLife South Africa, Dargle
Conservancy, WESSA
BirdLife South Africa, BotanicalSociety, Dargle Conservancy

South Africa
South Africa

BostonEthekwini SouthKZN Midlands
KZN Coastal Belt

23,38428,032

3

17

South Africa

Greater Greytown Complex

KZN Midlands

53,664

4

18

South Africa

Greater Itala Complex

Highlands Grasslands

91,477

5

23

South Africa

Hogsback/Stutterheim

Amathole-Sneeuberg
Montane Belt

108,699

6

29

Swaziland

Lebombo Transfrontier

231,521

7
8
9

32
33
35

South Africa
South Africa
Mozambique

Licuati Forests and Eastern
Swazi Lebombo
Lower Mzimbvubu
Lower Tugela River Valley
Manhica District

Pondoland
KZN Coastal Belt
Mozambique Coastal Belt

195,152
44,23077,3431042South Africa

Midlands

KZN Midlands

131,60111

43South Africa

Mistbelt Grasslands

KZN Midlands

80,16512

44South Africa

Mountain Zebra NP Complex

1352South Africa

Northern Drakensburg Foothills

Amathole-Sneeuberg
Montane Belt
Highlands Grasslands

1453South Africa

Northern Eastern Cape

Highlands Grasslands

658,4801559South Africa

Pondoland North Coast

Pondoland

172,710

16

60

South Africa

Pongola – Magudu

Zululand

71,953

17
18
19

61
62
63

Mozambique
South Africa
South Africa

Ponto d'Ouro
Port Elizabeth Mosaic
Port St John's Forests

Lebombo Transfrontier
AlbanyPondoland

254,143
37,197
101,891

20

66

South Africa

Southern Drakensburg Foothills

Highlands Grasslands

145,029

21

69

South Africa

Umzimkulu Complex

KZN Midlands

43,29322

70South Africa

Vernon Crooks Corridor

KZN Coastal Belt
Sub-Total

215,212Wilderness Foundation

87,471

Zunckel Environmental Services
BirdLife South Africa, Endangered
Wildlife Trust, Environmental &Rural Solutions
Botanical Society, WESSA, Wild Side
Africa Conservation Trust, Space for
Elephants, Wildlife Act
Centro Terra Viva
WESSA
WESSA, WWF-South Africa
Endangered Wildlife Trust, WWFSouth Africa
Botanical Society, Mabandla
Community TrustNone

20,6152,873,262

These numbers correspond to the Conservation Outcomes “wall map” that CEPF released in conjunction with the Ecosystem Profile.

22

Map
Country
No.3
Non-Priority KBAs
16
South Africa
22South Africa
30South Africa
37
South Africa
38
South Africa

ProfileNo.

KBA Name
Greater Grahamstown
Hluhluwe-Mkhuze Lowveld
Lower Kei
Massingr District/Limpopo
Mbashe River/Coffee Bay

Corridor
AlbanyZululandPondoloand
LimpopoPondoland
Sub-Total
Total

Area (Ha)Grantee

33,78313,00037,41058,71399,204242,110
3,115,372

Sustainable Seas Trust
Botanical Society
WWF-South Africa
Kruger to Canyons
Environment Learning and Teaching

23

Creation, Expansion and Improved Management of Protected Areas
Creation of a protected area is a multi-step, and sometimes multi-year, process particularly
when done through the stewardship methodology. With stewardship in particular, thereasons for this are many, but critically require financial support for the first and last steps:•

When declaring the intention to place land under stewardship, the landowner –whether an individual, a collection of private owners, or a community with formal
collective property rights – commits to cadastral surveys, biological surveys anddrafting of a management plan.

•

While a landowner can bring land through almost all of the steps of stewardship, thefinal step is the responsibility of government. Ultimately, a South African government
agency (e.g., SANParks, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism
Authority) signs the stewardship declaration, and when doing so, is also committingsome amount of responsibility over the land. This is not a cost-neutral step; staterevenue is needed.

CEPF was well-placed to facilitate the first challenge, making grants to undertake many of
the steps and to guide landowners through the process. On the other hand, CEPF was not
well-placed to facilitate the second step; the reality is stewardship declarations can wait for
years on the desks of government officials. Thus, Table 11 groups hectares according towhere they were in the process of formal declaration at the close of the portfolio (December2015) and again, as of July 2021.

24

Table 11.1. Protected Areas Declared and In Process

1
2
3

Map
No.4
4
4
4

Bosch Berg Nature Reserve
Fairview
Ingwehumbe Nature Reserve

Status2015432

Hectares
2015
352
60
1,031

Status2021
4
3
4Hectares
2021
352
60
1,031

BostonBostonBoston4

17Greater Greytown

Nomalanga Nature Reserve

2

2,794

2

2,794

5

18

Greater Itala Complex

Hlomo Hlomo Nature Reserve

2

803

3

803

6

22

Hluhluwe-Mkhuze

2

13,0003

23,000

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

23
23
23
23
23
29
29
29
29
33
33
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
43

Hogsback/Stutterheim
Hogsback/Stutterheim
Hogsback/Stutterheim
Hogsback/Stutterheim
Hogsback/Stutterheim
Licuati-Lebombo
Licuati-Lebombo
Licuati-Lebombo
Licuati-Lebombo
Lower Tugela
Lower Tugela
Midlands
Midlands
Midlands
Midlands
Midlands
Midlands
Midlands
Mistbelt Grasslands

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
2
1
1

644
2,347
1,290
5,700
1,462
11,000
1,000
4,000
3,000
400
120
1,989
40
1,067
1,300
95
277
4,000
800

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
2
1
1

644
2,347
1,290
5,700
1,462
11,000
1,000
4,000
3,000
400
120
1,989
40
1,067
1,300
95
277
4,000
800

26

43

Mistbelt Grasslands

2

700

2

700

27

43

Mistbelt Grasslands

2

100

4

100

28

44

Mountain Zebra NP4268,4284

520,000

29
30

44
52

Mountain Zebra NP
Northern Drakensburg

2
1

13,27145,0002
1

13,27145,000No.

4KBA Name

Protected Area Name

Babanango/Emcakwini Nature
Reserve/Protected Environment
Glenara farm
Grasslands
Rockford Park
Wolfridge Forest Reserve
Woodhouselea farm
MambaneMhlumeni
Private sector
Tikhuba
Nonoti
Princes Grant
Allendale Nature Reserve
Beacon Hill
Dargle Nature Reserve
Fort Nottingham Nature Reserve
James Wakelin Nature Reserve
Snowflake Nature Reserve
Umgeni Biosphere Reserve
Highover Nature Reserve
Ozwathini Protected
Environment
Roelton Nature Reserve
Mountain Zebra Camdeboo
Protected Environment
Mountain Zebra NP expansion
AmaZizi and AmaNgwane

Notes
Declared October 2015
Declared October 2020
Support by Ezemvelo KZN
Wildlife
Gazette publication July2021
Support by German
philanthropist

Declared December 2015
Declared December 2015
Declared December 2015
Declared December 2015
Support by EWTSupport by Ezemvelo KZN
Wildlife
Declared November 2021
Declared March 2016,
SANParks

These numbers correspond to the Conservation Outcomes “wall map” that CEPF released in conjunction with the Ecosystem Profile.

25

No.

Map
No.4

KBA Name

31

53

Northern Eastern Cape

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
45
47
48

53
59
59
59
59
60
63
63
63
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
69

Northern Eastern Cape
Pondoland North Coast
Pondoland North Coast
Pondoland North Coast
Pondoland North Coast
Pongola - Magudu
Port St John's Forests
Port St John's Forests
Port St John's Forests
Southern Drakensburg
Southern Drakensburg
Southern Drakensburg
Southern Drakensburg
Southern Drakensburg
Southern Drakensburg
Southern Drakensburg
Umzimkulu Complex

49

69

Umzimkulu Complex

Protected Area Name
Cedarville Protected
Environment
Matatiele Water Factory
Lambasi
Mtentu Gorge
Nsubane Special Forest Reserve
Red Desert Nature Reserve
Thanda/ Mduna Royal Reserve
ManubiNqabarha
Sebeni
Adjacent to Beaumont
Beaumont Nature Reserve
HebronHebron East
Penny Park
Riverlea
Umgeni Plateau Nature Reserve
Umgano Nature Reserve
Umgano Nature Reserve /Biodiversity Agreement
Total

Status2015

Hectares2015

Status2021

Hectares2021

3

17,125

4

17,125

1
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
2

100,000
8,000
2,000
5,000
209
15,777
996
934
1,742
1,100
1,050
350
350
200
692
824
1,500

2
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
4

49,797
8,000
2,000
5,000
209
15,777
996
934
1,742
1,100
1,050
350
350
200
692
824
1,500

2

2,166

4

2,166

546,085

Notes
Declared May 2015,
ECPTA
Support by ECPTA

Declared December 2015
Declared December 2015

Support by Ezemvelo
Declared December 2015
Support by EWTSupport by EWTSupport by EWTSupport by EWT
Declared December 2015
Declared 2018
Declared 2009, managed
as a unit with Umgano
from 2018757,454

Status 4 = Declared
Status 3 = Awaiting signature
Status 2 = Draft plans complete
Status 1 = Planning and surveys

Table 11.2. Summary Hectares of Protected Areas by Status, 2015 and 2021
2015
2021
Difference

1. Planning and surveys
191,435
91,435-100,000

2. Draft plans complete
48,32379,52031,197

3. Awaiting signature
17,18523,8636,678

4. Declared
289,142562,636
273,494

Total
546,085
757,454
211,369

26

Of note, all the protected areas created or in process were in South Africa, except 19,000
hectares in Swaziland in the Licuati-Lebombo KBA. Also, all protected area creation took
place in priority KBAs, apart from 13,000 hectares in the Hluhluwe-Mkhuze KBA, which as
noted above, was part of a replication effort by the Botanical Society. The protected areas
named above have varying designations under national or provincial law, including nature
reserves, protected environments and forest reserves, but any that are named as declared
are legally protected under the South African National Environment Management Protected
Areas Act.
CEPF grantees also worked in existing protected areas, not to expand them, but to improvetheir conservation effectiveness, either by changing the management systems from within
the area or by reducing threats. To measure this, CEPF encouraged relevant grantees to use
the Protected Area Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), as shown in Table 12.
The METT was used in public protected areas and in two stewardship sites that were
unusual for their level of management and support. Otherwise, it was difficult to convince
private landowners at stewardship sites to use the METT, as they considered the tool not fit
for purpose.
Table 12. Baseline and Final METT Scores
ProfileNo.

Protected Area

10
12
12
12
12
15
16
16
19

Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve
Camdeboo National Park
Mount Camdeboo Private Game Reserve
Mountain Zebra National Park
Plains of Camdeboo Private Nature Reserve
Mkambati Nature Reserve
Somkhanda
Thanda-Mduna Royal Reserve
Dwesa-Cwebe Nature Reserve

Baseline
Year
Score
2012
44
2011
62
2011
50
2011
76
2011
52
2011
52
2011
46
2013
74
2011
41

Final
Year
Score
2014
61
2013
76
2013
58
2013
83
2013
61
2013
65
2015
66
2015
76
2013
55

Change

17
14
8
7
9
13
20
2
14

Improved Management of Production Landscapes
A production landscape is any land or water area that is not formally protected. From abiological standpoint, a production landscape can be split into “production landscapes withhigh biological significance” (i.e., unprotected zones within KBAs) and “production
landscapes with less biological significance” (i.e., areas outside of KBAs). In MaputalandPondoland-Albany, as in much of the world, a major part of conservation necessarily occurs
in production landscapes. During the CEPF investment period, this included better farm land
management (e.g., tillage and fertilization practices in relation to conserving nesting birds),
better livestock grazing land management (e.g., water points and fencing with the goal of
reducing conflicts with predators), promotion of alternative and sustainable livelihoods (e.g.,handicrafts, nature-based tourism), and mobilization of South African “green jobs” activities(e.g., Working for Water, working for Wetlands) toward KBA managements, particularly
removal of invasive plant species.
Certainly, the majority of grants attempted to improve the management of some portion ofa KBA that was not formally protected. The challenge is in determining how much of a KBA
was positively affected by grantee’s intervention. (By example, does removal of 10 hectaresof invasive tree species along a stream corridor improve only 10 hectares, the entire KBA,
or something in between?) The figures in Table 13 are discounted as appropriate.

27

6.3. Corridors
CEPF considers “conservation outcomes” to be protection of species, sites (i.e., KBAs), andthe connective space between sites, called corridors. The ecosystem profile identified 14
corridors in the hotspot and prioritized two of them, the Highlands Grasslands, stretchingalong the escarpment between the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal, and Pondoland, along
the coastal strip of the Eastern Cape between between East London and Port Edward. The
Highlands Grasslands are notable, as their name suggests, for their grasslands, much ofwhich are unprotected and suffer from grazing, and Pondoland is notable for its rolling hills
with savanna, forest, thicket, grasslands, critical estuaries, and four major rivers, theuMtavuna, uMzimkulu, uMzimvubu and Mtentu.

28

Table 13. Production Landscapes (Non-Protected KBA Land and Water) Strengthened
No.

ProfileNo.

KBA and Place Name

Hectares

Grantee and Intervention

2

1
3
3

Boston: Boston View
Greater Greytown: Kranskop
Greater Greytown: Kranskop

834
5,297
4,234

3

3

Greater Greytown: Ozwathini

7,000

4
6

4
5
5

Greater Itala: Hlomo hlomo farm
Hogsback/Stutterheim: Cata region
Hogsback/Stutterheim: Communal areas in Amathole

200
50
2,000

7

5

Hogsback/Stutterheim: Hogsback region

90

8

5

Hogsback/Stutterheim: Hogsback region

94

9

6

9,000

10

6

50,000

Lubombo Conservancy improved management of
buffer zones within TFCA

11

6

55,000

Kuwuka JDA promoted CBNRM and livelihoods

12

16

8
8
8
8
8

Easter Swazi Lebombo: Goba
Easter Swazi Lebombo: Mhlumeni-Goba-UsuthuTembe-Futi
Easter Swazi Lebombo: Tinonganine community it
borders with Licuati Forest Reserve
Lower Tugela: Blythdale Coastal Resort
Lower Tugela: Mabengu Forest
Lower Tugela: Nonoti Estuary
Lower Tugela: Peter Saville property
Lower Tugela: Zinkwazi Estuary

BRC promoted CBNRM and grazing in seven villages
EWT engagement to improve pine plantation
management
EWT upper catchment rehabilitation through removalof alien black wattle trees
CESVI promoted CBNRM and livelihoods

17

8

Lower Tugela: Zinkwazi region

6,000

18

10

Midlands: Gartmore

430

19

10

Midlands: 11 conservancies in the Midlands

120,000

20

10
10
11
11

Midlands: Greater uMngeni Biosphere Reserve
Midlands: Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve
Mistbelt Grasslands: Brigadoon Farm
Mistbelt Grasslands: Tillietudlem

230,000
900
1,600
1,928

1

5

13
14
15

21
22
23

375
600
138
250
205

BotSoc brokered stewardship agreement
EWT AmaBomvu land claim CBNRM/grazing plan
EWT AmaHlongwa land CBNRM/grazing plan
NCT Forestry fire and grazing management and alienplant control on grasslands
NCT Forestry brokered stewardship agreement
BRC restoration (alien plant control, reforestation)

ZBC brokered stewardship agreement
ZBC brokered stewardship agreement
SAAMBR promoted estuary management plan
ZBC brokered stewardship agreement
SAAMBR promoted estuary management plan
ZBC engagement to improve management of sugar
cane plantations (SusFarMS programme)
Dargle brokered stewardship agreement
Dargle facilitated creation of Midlands Conservancies
Forum and coordinated management
WESSA biosphere reserve management plan
GRAA protected area buffer zone management plan
WWF-SA brokered stewardship agreement
BLSA brokered stewardship agreement

29

No.

Profile
No.

24

12

25

12

26

12

27

13

28

KBA and Place Name

Mountain Zebra NP: Mount Camdeboo Private Nature
Reserve
Mountain Zebra NP: Plains of Camdeboo Private
Nature Reserve
Mountain Zebra NP: Property associated with
Mountain Zebra Camdeboo Protected Environment

Hectares

Grantee and Intervention

14,000Wilderness Foundation promoted private reserve
management

8,827

Wilderness Foundation promoted private reserve
management

2,928

Wilderness Foundation promoted private reserve
management

Northern Drakensburg Foothills: Upper uThukela

45,000Wilderness Action Group brokered stewardshipagreement

14

Northern Eastern Cape: Buffer surrounding
Ongeluksnek Nature Reserve

20,000E&RS facilitated rangeland restoration and directionof Working for Water teams

29

14

Northern Eastern Cape: Matatiele

15,000E&RS promoted improved grazing land managementon communal property

30

14Northern Eastern Cape: Motseng Communal Property
Area

2,800

E&RS supported communal property association
strengthening and grazing plan

31

14Northern Eastern Cape: Upper uMzimvubu catchment

14,50032

15Pondoland North Coast: Mngazana estuary

224

33

15

Pondoland North Coast: Ntsubane forest complex

4,661

34

15

Pondoland North Coast: Dedeni site

5,000

35

16

Pongola-Magudu: Gumbi Tribal lands

11,00036

16Pongola-Magudu: Phinda Private Reserve

23,000Conservation International promoted improving
grazing land management
Fieldwork promoted “canoe trail” tourism program
WESSA promoted community-based forest
management
WESSA promoted mapping and community-based
forest management
Wildlife Act community awareness and education for
better buffer zone management and poaching control
Space for Elephants promoted corridor and fencing
removal37

16

Pongola-Magudu: Zimanga, Madwaleni,
Esikhuthwaneni, KwaDlakuse

14,393

ACT promoted stewardship agreements

38

16

Pongola-Magudu: Zululand Rhino Reserve

24,00039

17Ponto d’Ouro: Futi corridor

68,80040

17Ponto d’Ouro: Futi corridor

84,959Space for Elephants promoted corridor and fencing
removalCESVI promoted CBNRM in eleven communities
ORAM improved community rights to land, CESVI
promoted CBNRM in eleven communities, LUPA fire
management and wastewater control

41

17Port Elizabeth Mosaic: Nelson Mandela Bay
Municipality

195,412WESSA facilitated Nelson Mandela Bay Bioregional
Plan and Environmental Management Framework

30

No.

Profile
No.

42

17

Southern Drakensburg Foothills: KwaZulu-Natalstewardship sites

870

EWT brokered agreements for improved burning
regimes43

18

Southern Drakensburg Foothills: partner sites

275

44

20

Southern Drakensburg Foothills: The Shelter

1,000

45

20

Umzimkulu Complex: Mabandla community land

7,734

46

20

Massingr District/Limpopo (KBA Map No. 37)

300

47

None

Highlands Grasslands Corridor

20,000EWT environmental goods and services monitoringsites for improved farm management
BotSoc brokered stewardship agreement
Mabandla Community Trust training of rangers andland managers
Kruger to Canyons promoted Maruleng and Bushbuck
Ridge CBNRMSANBI facilitation to target public “green jobs”
programs toward grasslands restoration

KBA and Place Name

Hectares

Total

Grantee and Intervention

1,080,908

31

While 18 grants explicitly addressed Strategic Direction 3 on corridors, the RIT coordinatedmultiple grantees across the four strategic directions to collectively work on corridor-levelissues across several corridors. The examples below epitomize these efforts, with two
focused on rivers and two focused on wildlife.
Working in the Highlands Grasslands, the Wildlife and Environment Society of South
Africa (WESSA) engaged the KZN provincial government, several municipalities, major
corporations and landowner groups to promote the creation of a biosphere reserve along theuMngeni River, and its tributaries, between Midmar Dam and Albert Falls Dam (Figure 3). By
placing large tracts of grasslands and riparian forest under integrated management,
multiple species of plants, birds, reptiles and freshwater fish can be conserved while stillallowing for major economic activity.
Figure 3. Greater uMngeni Biosphere Reserve

In a similar vein, Conservation International (CI), Environment and Rural Solutions(E&RS) and several public and non-government partners created the Upper uMzimvubu
Catchment Partnership to create a riparian link between the Highlands and Pondoland
corridors. The uMzimvubu is one of the last major undammed rivers in South Africa. The
grantees created the institutional links to foster a water-based payment for ecosystemservices scheme while also promoting widespread changes to grazing in the highlands,
building on CI’s experience marketing “biodiversity friendly” red meat in the Succulent
Karoo and Cape Floristic Region Hotspots.

32

Conversely, the Space for Elephants Foundation (SEF) continued a long-running effort
to allow for the free movement large mammals across the Zululand and Lebombo
Transfrontier corridors. Spread across the border region among KZN, Swaziland andMozambique, there are several well-managed provincial parks as well as “high end” private
reserves catering to the luxury safari tourism market. Interspersed among these arecommunity reserves lacking management capacity and large cattle and game estates. SEF,
along with Wildlife Act, the Africa Conservation Trust, Wildlands (the RIT) and others
promoted the removal of fences. To convince the owners/operators of well-managed plots
to do so required improving the management ability of communal tracts, particularly tominimize the threat of poaching of rhinos.
The Wilderness Foundation targeted the area between and surrounding two nationalparks, Camdeboo and Mountain Zebra (part of the Amathole-Sneeuberg corridor), as shownin Figure 4. The distance between the two parks is roughly 50 miles and the total area
shown is approximately 550,000 hectares. The Wilderness Foundation worked with the stateagency responsible for management of the parks, South Africa National Park (SANParks),
the owners of two private nature reserves and one private game reserve, and over one
hundred private ranch and farm owners to promote the concept of fence removal, allowing
iconic rangeland species to move between the parks. Moving stewardship plot by
stewardship plot, the work involved agreements on grazing, veterinary measures and“predator safe” livestock management.
Figure 4. Mountain Zebra Complex

33

7. Civil Society Strengthening Results
7.1. Types of Organizations Supported
As shown in Table 18 (Section 5.2) CEPF supported 60 unique organizations via 91 grant
agreements. This table shows the division of funding of these direct recipients (i.e., large
grants awarded by the CEPF Secretariat and small grants awarded by the RIT) by
international versus local. Of the various ways to categorize and understand theseorganizations, the following are noteworthy:•

Within South Africa, 12 grantees could be called “leaders,” among the largest andhighest capacity environmental organizations in the country, let alone the hotspot,
several with nationwide operations. These include groups like the Endangered
Wildlife Trust, the country’s oldest conservation organization, and WESSA, thecountry’s largest membership-based group, plus provincial leaders (Wildlands
Conservation Trust, African Conservation Trust), groups with international
associations that ensure high standards (WWF-SA, BirdLife SA, Wilderness
Foundation), and groups with government support (SANBI, Peace Parks Foundation,
Southern African Wildlife College).

•

Parallel to the above point, reflecting the high capacity of organizations in South
Africa, the only grant to a major international NGO in that country was toConservation International, which increasingly ran its operation in the country as adomestic group (as evidenced by its eligibility to source money from the South
African government). The only other international grant recipient for work in South
Africa, via a small grant, was the University of Kent (United Kingdom), whichtransitioned its work to a British NGO, Current Conservation Community Interest, topromote online networking and learning. Similarly, in Mozambique, there were only
two international recipients, CESVI and VIDA, both of which promoted community
development in the Matutuine District. In both countries, international groups
received grants because they provided unique skills or offered global experience thatwas needed in the hotspot.

•

Sixteen grantees could be categorized as community-based organizations, groups
based in a particular region, with staff from that region, with a mission ofcommitment to that place.

•Six grantees had a form of private incorporation, as opposed to being registered as a
not-for-profit organization, reflecting the diversity of services available in South
Africa, with an economy that allows small private companies to work on a fee-forservice basis in some cases, while still working toward the greater good on a grantbasis.

•

Thirty-nine organizations could be categorized as small or new to working with aninternational donor with the contractual complexity of CEPF, reflecting CEPF’s goal ofbuilding the capacity of civil society, at large.

34

7.2. Training
Training of individuals is distinct from capacity building for organizations. Training, theimparting of skills to individuals to improve their ability at a particular task, can beunderstood in multiple ways.
•

Training given by grant recipients to stakeholders; for example: NCT Forestry
trained stakeholders in sustainable forest management to gain Forest StewardshipCouncil certification. This type of training is captured in Section 8 (Human WellBeing), but the total is over 2,500 people.

•

Training undertaken by any of the 60 grantees themselves, to improve their own
abilities to implement their projects or manage their organizations. Fifteen suchgroups did so explicitly, such as the three people from the Mabandla Community
Trust who had business and financial management training to better run their CBO
and the several organizations working in Matutuine, Mozambique, which under theleadership of CESVI, had a joint training on project administration. In total, 42 staff
from recipient NGOs had explicit project or organizational management training. Thisis captured by the organizations themselves in their Civil Society Tracking Tools,
discussed in Section 7.3, below.

7.3. Analysis of Civil Society Tracking Tool
Midway through the investment period, to monitor the impact of grants on theorganizational capacity of CSOs, CEPF introduced to the hotspot its Civil Society Tracking
Tool (CSTT): a self-assessment tool by which organizations could score themselves at the
beginning and end of a grant along five dimensions of capacity: human resources, finances,management, strategy and delivery.
Initial (baseline) and final CSTTs were completed by 22 organizations. The relatively low
number reflects the facts that the tool was introduced after many grants had alreadystarted, and that there were several South African grantees with very high capacity forwhich the tool did not appear appropriate. Nevertheless, reviewing baseline and final scoresfrom these 22 organizations shows:•

Ten organizations (45 percent) remained relatively stable; no change in their scoreor an increase of less than five points.

•

Twelve organizations (55 percent) saw a notable increase in their capacity, apurposeful improvement on the scoring criteria over the period of CEPF engagement,
showing a score increase across multiple dimensions of three or more points.

•

Of organizations with a notable increase, the four with the lowest starting baseline
scores had score increases of over 20 percent.

Figure 5 shows the median baseline and final scores across the five dimensions for the 22
organizations. Median is used instead of average to mute extreme individual increases anddecreases.

35

Figure 5. Median Baseline and Final CSTT Scores

Figure 5 reflects the fact that, in general, recipients became stronger in management
systems and strategic planning during the period of CEPF engagement, perhaps (but notnecessarily) due to the Secretariat and RIT focusing on proposals, logical frameworks, andoffice and field operations with those groups.
The CSTT did not necessarily capture the transformation that occurred for someorganizations coincident with their CEPF grants. Notable examples include:•

The Dargle Conservancy, which represented 10 private landowners at the beginningof its grant, created the Midlands Conservancy Forum, a collection of six separate
conservancies with over 50 owners. Dargle acted as the leader of the Forum andrepresented these stewardship sites in provincial meetings. In effect, Dargle
transformed from, essentially, a neighborhood association to a leader on the topic ofstewardship in KwaZulu Natal.

•

The Lubombo Conservancy of Swaziland, which used CEPF assistance to“professionalize” itself from a collection of like-minded leaders of private gamereserves and a CBO into a formal operation capable of participating in a consortium
proposal for a GEF full-sized grant.

8. Human Well-being Results
8.1. Communities Benefiting
Virtually any grant focused on strengthening management of a KBA involved community
engagement. More fundamentally, grantees had to make strengthening management of a
KBA in the interest of the surrounding communities. CEPF required all grantees working incommunities to have letters of endorsement from local authorities and from communitybased partners prior to project award. Extensive consultation was critical to securecommunity understanding, support and ownership of initiatives.

36Thirty-seven organizations implementing 55 grants worked in 180 unique communities
positively affecting over 1,300,000 people. The challenge with statements such as these,
however, is the range in size of a community, which can include something as small as arural village with a handful of households to an urban settlement with tens of thousands ofpeople. Thus, these results are considered from quantitative and qualitative perspectives, tobetter understand the nature of grantees’ work.
Six organizations worked with 10 or more communities. Notable examples included:
WESSA, which benefited 16 villages, home to 9,000 people, in the Nsubane Forests on the
coast of Eastern Cape province. The communities living in this area are historicallydisadvantaged, having lost formal tenure rights during the apartheid era, while also facing
the challenges of being in a remote location. WESSA facilitated securing of forest use rights
so that the communities could sustainably harvest forest products. In a similar example
from Mozambique, Kuwuka worked with 10 villages, home to 14,000 people in Matutuine
district, building capacity in sustainable livelihoods (e.g., beekeeping, home gardens for thesale of high value fruits and vegetables), enabling them to better manage their land, a KBA,
for conservation.
On the other hand, there were groups that benefited only a handful of “communities,” but inso doing, benefited a large number of people. By example, the Mabandla Community Trust,working in the Southern Drakensburg Foothills KBA, trained rangers and improved the
management of protected areas above a town of 22,000 people, limiting overgrazing andspread of invasive tree species, thereby limiting erosion and landslides and ensuring local
water supply. Similarly, the Space for Elephants foundation, working in Pongola-Magudu,
improved the rights of the Mdletshe and Mandlakazi communities, with a combined 200,000
people. These communities each have trust rights to land surrounding private and provincial
game reserves in northern KwaZulu-Natal. Space for Elephants’ work creates greater
tourism and wildlife management revenue for the trusts, which use those funds for various
community development activities.
The majority of communities with which grantees worked were either part of a subsistence
economy, small landowners, or otherwise in a disadvantaged economic situation. The
benefits received by the 180 communities included increased access to clean water, energy,
food security, resilience to the impacts of climate change, or some other sort of ecosystemservice, and increased access to public services, land tenure, recognition of traditional
governance structure, or engagement in governance processes. Of the 55 projects, almost
all entailed strengthening the role of communities in governance processes, and the many
that improved watershed management yielded improved water supply, in theory.
An important focus of community engagement was via school-based education. Elevenorganizations reached 19,744 primary and secondary school students through:•••Detailed, multi-part, school-based curricula by groups like Wildlife ACT for Gumbi
communities surrounding the Somkhanda communal reserve.
Special school sessions with events, like “turtle awareness day” by Centro Terra Viva
in Matutuine, Mozambique, “water day” by Environmental & Rural Solutions (E&RS)
with schools in the Upper uMzimvubu.
Field trips, like those conducted by the Seven Seas Trust, with trips by various
secondary school students in the Eastern Cape to reserves like Addo ElephantNational Park37

8.2. Gender
Gender was not an explicit focus of the MPAH portfolio, nor was it highlighted by CEPF for
tracking during the period of investment. Thus, there is limited data on this from grantee
reports.
However, gender has long been a focus of community development work in South Africa,
and in all three countries, grantees focused on improving the lives of women and girls as
the beneficiaries of projects, or in ensuring equity in outcomes by gender. South Africa isparticularly diligent, through its “putting people to work” labor programs of employing
women equally as men for any and all positions, and this served as a model for grantees.
Thus, it was common for the many grantees that engaged community members in invasive
alien plant clearing – like the Border Rural Committee, E&RS, WESSA, EWT – to have both
men and women on chainsaw crews. Grantees also ensured that alternative income
projects, designed to incentivize households not to gain their incomes from destructive
resource use, provided incomes to both men and women. By example, WWF South Africa,
working in the Pondoland North Coast KBA, in the Flagstaff-Lusikisiki area), to provide analternative to wood harvesting and charcoal production, trained 24 men in beekeeping, 24
women in sewing, and 11 men and 10 women as community rangers.

8.3. Livelihood Improvements
Improvement of local livelihoods was not highlighted in the investment priorities in thisregion. Nonetheless, CEPF has a global goal of improving human well-being, recognizingthat conservation without local economic development overlooks poverty as a driver of
threats to biodiversity. Further, any conservation program in South Africa, in particular, that
ignores job creation risks dismissal by political leaders for being irrelevant to the majority of
constituents.
As a result, CEPF made grants that allowed individuals and households to:•••

Increase their knowledge, through structured training, such that they were more
employable or better able to make a living.
Increase their income through some form of employment or enterprise.
Increase their agricultural productivity.

Recognizing that the first of the bullets above, on training, is only an intermediate step toan improved livelihood, it was still a vital component of grantees’ work. Grantees trained
beneficiaries, including community members, students, the staff of partner government
agencies (e.g., rangers, park authorities), and elected representatives of local government
so they could implement the interventions. The table below shows a rough typology of the
topics in which CEPF grantees trained beneficiaries. In total, including the capacity building
grants named in Section 7, 48 grants provided some form of stakeholder training.

38

Table 14. Beneficiaries by Primary Type of Training
Topic

Men

Women

Agriculture
Beekeeping
Communications
Community Engagement
Construction
Environmental Economics
Food Security/Nutrition
Handicrafts
HealthHospitality
Invasive Species Removal
Legal rights
Livestock
Nurseries
Organizational Management
Rangers
Recycling
Site Management
Small Enterprise
Species Management
Teacher Training
Total

137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
81
13
0
0
49
288

190
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
159
9
11
0
184
562

Sex not
Specified
76
28
2
241
32
89
0
69
40
21
238
33
290
47
37
60
0
2,096
25
214
152
3,790

Total
403
28
2
241
32
89
9
69
40
21
238
33
290
47
40
65
240
2,118
36
214
385
4,640

As Table 14 shows, 65 percent of beneficiaries (3,049 people) were trained in some form ofland management: improved agriculture, invasive species removal, livestock management
and sustainable use or conservation of sites. This is key to the better management of key
biodiversity areas, whether the land is formally protected or used as a “production
landscape.” Prime examples of this are from WESSA, which trained 470 people from 13
villages in better management of the Ntusbane communal forests of Port St. Johns, andfrom the Southern African Wildlife College, which trained 400 people from seven villages
along the border of KwaZulu Natal, Mozambique and Swaziland. While several grantees
provided training in “typical” or expected topics for a biodiversity conservation program(e.g., species management, ranger training, community engagement), several grantees
responded to grantee requests or filled a different niche. For example, WWF-South Africa,
ORAM, WESSA and NCT Forestry all provided training in HIV prevention and basic first aid;
LUPA trained people in proper waste management to avoid damaging coastal forests; andthe Treverton Trust trained teachers to lead environmental curricula.
Grantees also enabled stakeholders to increase their incomes through the types of incomessources listed in the table below. The table reflects the work of 26 projects that either led topermanent livelihood improvements or created temporary employment opportunities forbeneficiaries, not including employment of grantee personnel.

39

Table 15. Beneficiaries Receiving Cash Benefits by Source

Type of Work
Agriculture and livestock
Alien plant clearing
Beekeeping and honey production
Construction
Handicraft production and sale
Micro enterpriseRangers
Tourism / hospitality / guideWildlife monitoring

ProjectRelated
Temporary
Employment
0
1,310
0
32
1
103
37
7
51
1,541

Permanent Jobs
or Livelihood
Improvements
582
0
84
104
150
0
5
0
925

Total
582
1,310
84
32
105
253
37
12
51
2,466

Examples of these grants include:
•

•

•

•

•
•

•

•

Agriculture: Conservation International, working in the upper uMzimvubu in andaround Matatiele in the Eastern Cape, helped cattle owners institute sustainablegrazing plans that ensure they can get a premium for “biodiversity friendly” meat,
while Voluntariado International para o Desenvolvimento Africano (VIDA) helped 150
households establish home gardens to produce high-value fruits and vegetables for
sale.
Alien plant clearing: the ten projects in South Africa that leveraged inputs from the
Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) to clear river-choking gum tree species
from KBAs. Environment & Rural Solutions, alone, because of its area management
plans and partnerships, was able to get the EPWP to support the employment of 850
people for periods of 1-3 months.
Beekeeping: in southern Mozambique, the Association for Community Development(LUPA) and Associacao Rural de Ajuda Mutua (ORAM) together provided the training
and inputs to 57 people who established beekeeping or honey production operations
that were still functional the completion of the overall portfolio.
Construction: the African Safari Lodge Foundation, working in Mozambique’s
coastal KBA, Ponto d’Ouro, received funding from multiple international donors toestablish an “eco-lodge.” In the process, 32 people received training andemployment in construction using “green” building techniques.
Handicrafts: WESSA, working in the Nsubane Forest, provided training and material
inputs for 49 people to produce handicrafts and sewn clothing and decorative cloths
to offset the “loss” of income from the illegal collection of forest products.
Microenterprise: the Kruger2Canyon group used the South African “tree-preneur”
model to support the establishment of 150 micro-enterprises. In this model, in
exchange for tending household nurseries (with indigenous tree species bound for
the Limpopo KBA), individuals were given training and inputs to start enterprises of
their own interest.
Rangers: the Game Rangers Association of Africa placed three rangers in temporary
positions on stewardship sites in KwaZulu-Natal, ensuring good management of
newly established protected areas and increasing the employability of these people
at larger reserves.
Tourism: the Lubombo Conservancy in Swaziland trained four guides and ensured
their employment at the community-owned lodge, while FieldWork trained andensured the employment of five people as guides on the “canoe trail” along South
Africa’s Wild Coast.

40

•Wildlife monitoring: Wildlife ACT trained three people and ensured theiremployment as rhino monitors for reintroduced animals in the Somkhanda
community reserve.

9. Enabling Conditions Results
9.1. Policies Supporting Biodiversity Conservation
Investment Priority 3.2 of the ecosystem profile was to “improve implementation ofenvironmental regulations to maintain functional ecosystem corridors, particularly rivers andcoastal zones.” In all, 25 grants helped promote and pass area development plans,
regulations, and guidelines to improve KBA and corridor management. As in other hotspots,
CSOs consulted with local communities and land managers, engaged scientists to provide
expert input, and drafted documents for review by communities, government agencies andelected leaders. In many cases, the crucial role of the grantee was to “shepherd” documents
through the process to conclusion, with formal signing and enactment.
Table 16 divides the results of grants into three categories. Regional plans are a form ofpolicy, formally enacted to establish how land will be used. More broadly, there were also
inputs into national biosphere reserve and REDD+ strategies that inform spending andactions by national and provincial agencies. Regulations are legally binding statements ofallowable actions in designated spaces or regarding designated species. Guidelines are a
supporting framework. While not legally binding, they are part of the implementing rulesthat make policies and regulations come into effect. Noteworthy work by the grantees
includes the following:•

The Lubombo Conservancy (Swaziland) and WESSA, in Nelson Mandela Bay,promoted adoption of area-wide management and development plans. Such plans
ensured the integration of protected areas with use areas to ensure corridor
functioning. In the case of the Lubombo Conservancy, working in Swaziland, thisinvolved the planning of a “mosaic” of different land units across a broadly “wild”
landscape: Swazi national parks, private game and hunting reserves, communallyowned protected lands, communally owned use lands, and corporately managed
sugarcane estates with protected buffer zones. On the other hand, WESSA wasworking in a truly urban landscape, the large city of Nelson Mandela Bay, which
strikingly, is at the confluence of different biomes (the Albany region of endemism
and the Cape Floristic region), which yields unique floral diversity. WESSA worked
with city planners to ensure good management of the protected Baakens Valley Parkand the Swartkops River which runs through it.

•

NCT Forestry, a cooperative based in KwaZulu-Natal, worked with rural landowners
on the Ozwathini Plateau. The landowners wanted to manage their land sustainably
while making use of their forests, over which they had legal use rights. The
community wanted to sell their timber with Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
certification, and thus at a premium price. NCT Forestry helped the community
negotiate with the FSC to enable their communally owned timber to meetcertification requirements. This relied on the passing of local regulations that ensured
that when timber was harvested per those rules, it would also meet FSC standards.
In other words, the passing of a regulation ensured a greater return to thecommunity.

41

Table 16. Policies, Regulations and Guidelines Resulting from Investment by, or Receiving Support from, Grantees
No.
Grantee
Policies – Regional Plans
1
Conservation Int.
2
LUPA
3
Lubombo Conservancy
4
Lubombo Conservancy
5
PMMB Trust
6
WESSA
7
WESSA
8
WESSA
9
WESSA
10 WWF-SA
Regulations
11 Birdlife SA
12 Centro Terra Viva
13 EWT
14 NCT Forestry
15 Peace Parks
16 WESSA
17 WESSA
18 Zinkwazi Conservancy
Guidelines
19 ACT
20 Birdlife SA
21 Centro Terra Viva
22 Conservation Int.
23 Eco-Pulse
24 EWT
25 E&RS
26 GRAA
27 KUWUKA-JDA
28 PMMB Trust
29 SANBI
30 Space for Elephants
31 WESSA
32 WWF-SA
33 WWF-SA

Description
5-year strategy for the Umzimvubu catchment
Environmental Action Plan for Matutuine District
Integrated Development Plan of the Lubombo TFCA
National Protected Area System of Swaziland incorporation of landscape approach
Mpushini/Mkhondini Spatial Development Framework
Nelson Mandela Bay Bioregional Plan
Nelson Mandela Bay Environmental Management FrameworkuMshwathi Municipality Integrated Development Plan
Inputs into the National Biosphere Reserve Strategy
Input into the National REDD+ strategy
House Crow Management Plan (Matutuine district regulation)
Management plan of Ponto do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve (incorporation of turtle habitat)
Amathole Toad management plan
Small grower FSC certification system
Strategic Action Plan for Ndumo Game Reserve
Baakens Valley Reserve Operational Management Plan
Management plan for the Ntsubane forests
Combined management plan for Zinkwazi, Nonoti and Mdlatane Estuaries
Greater Itala elephant excursion plan
Carbon Footprint Management Plan for southern MozambiquePonto do Ouro beach lighting guidelines to minimize disturbance to turtle habitat
Alfred Nzo District Climate Vulnerability Assessment and response strategy
eThekwini Municipality biodiversity offset guidelines
Southern Drakensberg Wattled Crane nest site monitoring and infringement reporting framework
Vulture site management protocol for Ongeluksnek Nature Reserve
Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve management guidelines
Matutuine District development plan alignment to conservation priorities
Mpushini/Mkhondini local area development plan
Guidelines for targeting national “green job” public works programs to focus on KBAs
Thanda-Nduna Royal Reserve elephant management and contraception plan
Safety plan for the Baakens Valley reserve in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality
Guidelines for endorsing property title deeds for biodiversity stewardship sites
Guidelines for invasive plant species clearing by the Working for Water programme42•Centro Terra Viva (CTV), working on the beaches of Ponto do Ouro in southern
Mozambique, wanted to ensure the maintenance of turtle nesting sites. The
surrounding area, with small hotels and restaurants catering to South African
tourists, does have regulations controlling businesses and development. CTV worked
with the businesses and local government to promulgate the use of fewer and lessintense lighting on the beach to minimize disturbances to the animals.

9.2. Companies Adopting Biodiversity-friendly Practices
Engagement of the private sector can take at least three forms. One is in the form of asimple business partner: a grantee is working with a community in a KBA where a major
business (e.g., a sugar cane plantation) is operating. The grantee and community naturally
want to partner with the business to find mutual interests. A second is as a sponsor, wherea company makes a contribution of cash or other resources in the name of corporate social
responsibility (CSR). Business partnerships and CSR are both very valuable and occurred
frequently in this portfolio. For example, Tongaat Hullet, a major agribusiness company withholdings covering important bird areas, agreed to work with BirdLife South Africa to protect
nesting sites, and companies like Stihl (the maker of power equipment) and ADT (thesecurity company) made contributions to WWF-South Africa and to the Africa Safari Lodge
Foundation, respectively. In total, 16 grantees worked with 26 different companies from therealms of agribusiness, banking, engineering, exports, insurance, real estate, retail,security, sports and leisure, and toll road operation, where these companies made tangible
contributions to project success.
Partnerships and CSR are valuable for the life of the grant. However, CEPF’s goal – the thirdform of partnership – is to influence private companies to reform their practices (the way
they operate, produce, harvest, manufacture, package, distribute and sell products) in waysthat mitigate their impacts on biodiversity. In this portfolio, such changes were mostnotable with companies working in the tourism industry. Twenty grantees worked with 23
different tourism operations, including game reserves, hotels, safari operators. Certainly, forthe companies, it is good to market themselves as “green” or as an “eco-lodge” in acompetitive business space. However, the groups that partnered with CEPF grantees went
beyond labels. By example, the Thanda Private Game Reserve (working with grantee Space
for Elephants), Tillietudlem Lodge (working with BirdLife South Africa), and the Plains ofCamdeboo Private Game Reserve (working with the Wild Bird Trust) each made wholesalechanges. They instituted land management practices to conserve threatened species,
removed invasive plants, engaged surrounding communities, and ensured sustainablesourcing of products.

9.3. Partnerships and Networks
CEPF’s approach posits that collaborative action multiplies the power of civil society. Thistakes two related forms: (1) creating or strengthening collaborative approaches between
organizations at a site level or working together for a common purpose (i.e. “partnerships”);
and (2) creating or strengthening more broad reaching “networks” of multiple groups for theexchange of information and experience.
Partnerships were formed between grantees and other NGOs, with CBOs (community
groups), schools, government agencies, and as discussed above, the private sector.
Virtually every grantee created some form of partnership to make its project a success: intotal, 72 projects listed 341 partners, with an average of 4.7 partners per project. Typical of
the partnerships was the work done by the Zinkwazi Beach Residents and Ratepayers
Association. Seeking to improve the management of the coastal dunes and estuaries north43

of Durban, this simply structured group used its intellectual capital and personal connections
at municipal and provincial levels to create partnerships with government agencies, thesugar company, the local historical society, and traditional leaders to create what became
both an organization and a physical conservation space: the Zinkwazi Blythedale
Conservancy. The Conservancy leveraged support from the government for invasive plantremoval and generated commitment from the sugar company to support better
management of cane farms.
CEPF grantees strengthened 17 existing networks and helped create nine new networks.
Many of these were between CEPF grantees working in the same geography – like a river
basin or district – or on the same topic and exist for mutual support, knowledge exchange,
and common advocacy. Site-based groups included groups like the Amathole Catchment
Forum, Lubombo Forum, uMnengeni Catchment Forum and the uMzimvubu Catchment
Partnership Programme. Topic and goal-based networks include the KZN Conservancies
Association and the National Teachers Development Network (to improve environmental
education). A standout from the portfolio occurred in southern Mozambique. Initially, there
was simple coordination between the several grantees and associated actors working in
Matutuine: CESVI, ORAM, LUPA, Kuwuka, Centro Terra Viva, VIDA, BirdLife South Africa,
EcoSol GIS and the Africa Safari Lodge Foundation. This made sense: several groups
working with CEPF funds, all within one Mozambiquan province (Maputo) and within one
district (Matutuine), needed to coordinate and speak with a common voice in relation to thegovernment and community stakeholders. This group then changed and formalized into adevelopment coordination and advisory body that works with communities on area-wideplanning. It continues to advocate for the biodiversity value of a region that is often deprioritized in favor the of the country’s more charismatic mountain forests. It now operates
as a representative of civil society in the transboundary Lubombo (Swaziland) – KZN (South
Africa) – Mozambique region. Lastly, Figure 6 shows links that formed among grantees.

9.4. Leveraging Additional Resources
Annex 6 and Table 17 show that from the approximately $6.6 million allocated by CEPF to
the region, 32 organizations effectively multiplied this by 2.4, to over $16.3 million. Ifanything, grantees undervalued their in-kind contributions in terms of their own of volunteer
labor or from partner communities, and from the use of vehicles and equipment. A fullaccounting of leverage from all 60 recipients would reflect what CEPF has found worldwide:
partners approach this work as a commitment, not as a fee-based contract.
Grantees raised significant amounts from the South African government and domestic publicfunds. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) provided over $6 million of the $7
million in this category, primarily via its “green jobs” programs. By example, CEPF gave two
grants to Environmental & Rural Solutions (E&RS) to improve the management of the upper
uMzimvubu River catchment area. Contemporaneously, E&RS was able to apply to the DEA
Working for Water program, which provided, over three awards, $2,550,000 to employ local
laborers to remove invasive plants and reforest with indigenous trees species.
Also of note is the money raised from the South African private sector. With a large
economy, a national ethic that appreciates the environment, and government incentives toprivate companies to contribute to “green” causes, grantees like the African Safari Lodge
Foundation and Space for Elephants were able to raise money from the tourism industry andmultiple grantees raised money to facilitate the land stewardship process. Similarly,organizations like Conservation International, BirdLife South Africa, and the Endangered
Wildlife Trust leveraged money from retail and supermarkets (e.g., Mr. Price, Massmart),
which also then sold certified products in their stores.

44

Figure 6. Connections between CEPF Grantees

45Grantees also leveraged the support of international public agencies, including CEPF donors.
CESVI, Conservation International, WEST and ORAM collectively leveraged $719,000 fromthe European Union, and the African Conservation Trust, the Botanical Society, theLubombo Conservancy and NCT Forestry collectively leveraged $1.8 million from the GEF.
Table 17. Amount Leveraged by Type of Source
TypeSouth African government and domestic public funds
International public funds
Corporate and private contributions
Philanthropic foundations
Grantee co-funding
Grantee in-kind contributions
Total

Amount$7,095,015$3,877,787$2,494,569$2,272,372$604,628$23,514$16,367,884

10. Other Impacts
The portfolio’s strategic directions and investment priorities (Table 1 and Section 5.3) alignwell with CEPF’s global impact indicators, as discussed in Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9. However,there are other themes and stories that reflect the work and that do not fit so neatly into
these indicators. Portfolio impacts that are not captured by the CEPF global indicators aredescribed here.
Public awareness and education of school children. Improving the management of asite or a species requires many formal measures: management plans, patrols, regulations.
It may also require behavior change by surrounding residents, sometimes throughincentives or disincentives (e.g., fines). A common and basic step, however, is raisingawareness. Communities are more likely to value a place or a resource, and are more likely
to support management efforts, if they understand its importance and their own role inpositive or negative outcomes. It is rarely sufficient, but it matters, particularly in places
where conservationists see rare and threatened species, while community members see
degraded or resource poor coastal shrubs or rocky savannah.
Table 18. Projects with Awareness Goals
Grantee

Topic

CedarvilleConservancy
Centro Terra Viva
Conservation
International
Endangered Wildlife
Trust
ORAM - Associacao
Rural de Ajuda
Mutua
Wildlife ACT

Sustainable grazing’s impact on
stream water quality
Caring for beach nesting sites of sea
turtles“Water Day” events in the uMzimvubu
catchment
Wetlands, grasslands and Wattled
crane conservation
Rights of Matutuine residents per
Mozambique land, forestry andwildlife law
Somkhanda community conservationand sports day

Total

46

Men

Women

Sex not
Specified

Total

-

-

63

63

-

-

728

728

-

-

46

46

-

-

995

995

180

288

-

468

-

-

300

300

180

288

2,132

2,600

Virtually every capacity building (Table 14) and enterprise program (Table 15) run by
grantees included some element of awareness training for the participants, but the six
projects shown in Table 18 had specific awareness-raising activities. These projects spreada message:•••“The place you live is special.”“You have rights.”“You can make a difference in what happens to the land on which you rely.”

A subordinate activity of awareness raising is school-based education programs. South
Africa, in particular, enthusiastically supports changing the knowledge, attitude and practiceof the next generation and its schools welcomed the support of CEPF grantees. Grantees
developed in-class curricula, led in-school programs, and sponsored field trips, as shown in
Table 19.
Table 19. Projects with School-based Education Programs
GranteeCommunity
Organisation
Resource Centre
Endangered Wildlife
Trust
Environmental &Rural Solutions
KZN Crane
Foundation
LUPA
Space for Elephants
Sustainable Seas
Trust
Sustaining the Wild
Coast
Treverton Trust
Wildlife ACT
Wildlife
Environment
Society of South
Africa
Total

Topic

Boys

Girls

Sex not
Specified

Total

National Science Week in-school
events; 6-school field trip to Mtentu

129

141

380

380

-

-

1,000

1,000

-

-

885

885

-

-

200

200

324

248

-

572

1,500

1,500

National Water Day in-school science
experiments and wetlands outings
Wetland day, Water day,
Environment day events; vulture
awareness field trip for 6 schools
Bruntville community school trip tonesting sites
Environment days, recycling
Wildlife and environment days in six
schools
Work in eight secondary schools in
Eastern Cape with field trips toterrestrial and marine reserves
Children’s field trip to COP 17 in
DurbanIn-class lessons in 16 schools
Monthly ecology lessons in five
Gumbi community schools and 4-day
bush camp“Eco-school” program of classwork,
nurseries and waste management inten schools

-

-

659

659

6

2

15

23

-

-

770

770

-

-

335

335

2,473

2,677

8,000

13,150

2,932

3,068

13,744

19,744

Restoration. When preparing the Ecosystem Profile, stakeholders in southern Mozambiqueand the Eastern Cape, in particular, cited the need for restoration – landscape-level removalof invasive species, replanting of indigenous plant species, mitigation of existing
infrastructure or unsustainable practices of the past. In fact, South Africa has national
government-sponsored programs supporting mass-employment efforts for such work (e.g.,
the “Working for Water Programme,” the “Working for Fire Programme,” the “Working for
Wetlands Programme”) that count numbers of people employed and numbers of hectares ofwith invasive species removed or trees planted.

47

CEPF certainly supported this work, but its scope was larger than what most recipients of a$100,000 grant could undertake. Instead, per Investment Priority 3.4, grants attempted to(a) influence the “Working for” programs to target their interventions to KBAs [instead of,perhaps, to an urban setting near many voters], and (b) leverage the human and financial
resources of these programs. Thus, higher capacity groups like Endangered Wildlife Trust,
WESSA, and WWF-South Africa promulgated the KBA approach with the elected
representatives, agency managers, and land managers who ran those programs in eachprovince. (In theory, there is an ideal work location: one of biological importance, close toenough to be practically reached by many people.) At the same time, almost all the KBA
management grants in South Africa were working at least “near” the “Working for”
programs, if not directly with them. By example, as Space for Elephants was working tomerge two protected land units into the Thanda-Nduna Royal Reserve (connecting a private
reserve and an adjacent community reserve), Working for Water was deploying people inthe communal lands to remove invasive species. The end goal of the grantee and thegovernment program were the same: improved management of land area. Space for
Elephants collaborated with Working for Water such that the latter’s teams worked inpriority locations within the reserve.
At the same time, albeit at a smaller scale, 13 projects undertook direct restoration
activities. These projects cleared 2,684 hectares of invasive species (often wattle and gum
tree species that invade streams, decreasing streamflow, out-competing native plants andthe animals that rely on them), planted over 22,000 indigenous trees (often milkwoods andyellowwoods), removed over 10 kilometers of discarded or unused fences and powerlines,
and restored four “dongas” (trenches in hillsides formed after over-grazing and subsequentrain-induced landslides).
Knowledge products. Grantees created long-lasting materials that have value beyond theperiods of their projects, materials that can be used by others across geographies and overtime, including:•

6 “toolkits” on rangeland restoration, rangeland stewardship, sustainable farming,sustainable grazing and burning, measuring changes on ecosystem goods andservices, and “Man and Biosphere” establishment per South African law.

•

3 field guides on the Baakens Valley, the indigenous plants of the Zinkwazi region,and the waterbirds of the hotspot.

•

22 different datasets or research papers that provide baselines or informmanagement on individual species (e.g., blue swallow (Hirundo atrocaerulea),
vultures in Ongelsnuk, sea turtles in Ponto do Ouro), sites (e.g., biodiversity
assessments of the Midlands and Mistbelt Grassland), and larger areas (e.g.,threatened bird species of southern Mozambique, the Nonoti estuary of KZN).

•

6 sets of curricula and in-school materials for use by teachers anywhere in South
Africa.

•13 case studies maintained at http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org.

Being present and creating time for wise decisions. CEPF tries to maintain objective
standards for determining if land is under improved management or if an area is protected.
However, sometimes, the grantee’s achievement is not a positive impact, but the avoidance48

of a negative one: “if not for our actions, this place would be lost, or would be one step
closer to being lost.” This is true in at least two different cases in the region.
The area south of Maputo, which supports sand forests and coastal dunes home to several
iconic species, including elephants and marine turtles, has long been targeted fordevelopment, particularly for a deep ocean port and connecting rail lines, as well as forlarger roads connecting the port to the city. The work of the CEPF grantees that formed the
Matutuine consortium, but also that of the Mboza Trust, a small-grant recipient, has been
influential in informing the cost-benefit analyses. The Maputo River flows into Maputo Bay
and forms the eastern border of the Maputo Special Reserve. Standard economic analyses
suggest that a bridge be built across the river, allowing a road to cut across the reserve
directly to the coast. The Mboza Trust and the other grantees argued for the economic
values of an intact landscape. By themselves, Mboza did not create any new protected areas
and did not improve the management of a reserve, but they did cause legislators toincorporate broader safeguards into their planning processes. In a similar way, themembers of the uMzimvubu Upper Catchment Partnership, including Conservation
International and Environment & Rural Solutions, ensured local participation in public
consultations on the development of power stations and dams along the river.
Incremental steps: keeping the work moving and finishing the job. As with theabove discussion on preventing irreversible development, grants sometimes can only
achieve incremental steps. In South Africa, this notion applies to stewardship, a formal
process that can take years. Ultimately, stewardship in South Africa takes privately owned
land (whether by an individual or by a community or tribe) and places it under the domainof the public conservation estate. This involves multiple steps of management planning,stakeholder consultation, and public environmental agency reviews of this work, followed,
ultimately, by formal approval. In KwaZulu-Natal, this approval comes from a Member ofthe Executive Council (MEC), effectively a governor-level position in the province. When the
MEC approves land for stewardship, he or she is making a commitment on the part of theprovince to care for the land; in other words, a commitment of public funds. Even if suchcommitments are small, MECs do not undertake such steps lightly. For a MEC to approve ofstewardship, all prior steps must have been completed correctly. Thus, the work of many of
the grantees working on Strategic Direction 2 on stewardship involved a series ofadministrative steps and reports (public hearings, watershed assessments, management
plans, etc.) that formed part of a longer process to achieve long-term gains. In some cases,a small grant or small effort was enough to finish a long-running process, such as the grantof less than $20,000 to the Game Rangers Association of Africa, which helped formallyprotect 824 hectares of the Umgeni Plateau.
In a similar way, the grant to Associação Rural de Ajuda Mútuato (ORAM) of Mozambique
was about training community members in their land rights, which, by itself, does notequate to improved land management. The history of Mozambique, with a legacy of civil
war, a large internally displaced population and an evolving governance and politics, hascreated an extremely challenging situation regarding land ownership. The approach adopted
by ORAM contrasted with the South African model of stewardship, where land ownership isestablished and the owners must decide whether (and how) to protect it. In Mozambique,the story is, “Whose land is this? I believe it is mine, would like to prove that is the case,and if I am successful, I should be able to protect it.”49

11. Progress Toward Long-term Conservation Goals
CEPF recognizes that its work cannot be completed in the space of five to six years.
Consider the enormity of the effort: conservation of KBAs, and corridors, across large partsof large and diverse countries, through the engagement of civil society, which itself implies
both strong individual CSOs and a strong civil society sector in each country. Still, even if
this is a long-term effort, one can envision a point in the future when civil society cantransition away from CEPF support. CEPF posits that there are five goals and that, when all
are met, civil society will no longer need CEPF support. Those goals relate to conservation
priorities, civil society capacity, financing, the enabling environment and monitoring andresponsiveness. Five goals, each with five criteria, yields a table with 25 criteria, as shownin Annex 7.
One challenge of this construct is that the questions are sometimes difficult to apply basedon the political geography of the hotspot. The hotspot has three countries, and it is notstraightforward to apply certain criteria at the level of the hotspot, which is defined onbiogeographic rather than political lines. It is more meaningful to talk about the enabling
conditions for civil society in South Africa versus Mozambique versus Swaziland. However,that construct, too, can present challenges. MPAH covers two very different provinces inSouth Africa, the relatively high-capacity KZN and the relatively low-capacity Eastern Cape,in a very large and dynamic country with a strong federal government. Measuring progress
toward long-term goals in South Africa might require assessment through all three lenses.
Mozambique is an equally large country in which MPAH covers, effectively, only one
province. The socio-economic challenges in that country, at large, are likely to hold backcivil society for years. There are even trickier discussions in South Africa and Swaziland,
where access to resources and the ability to participate in decision-making is influenced byhistorical legacies.
Using the 25 measures in Annex 7 to guide future work, there are somewhat different
trajectories for the four political regions of the hotspot. Donor support will most likely nolonger be necessary in KZN in as few as 10 years, whereas it could be needed in southern
Mozambique for 20 years or more. The Eastern Cape and Swaziland are in the middle: thefinancial resources are there, but the political, social, and historical challenges are many,
meaning leadership, and decisions over use of funds, will determine the future.

12. Lessons from the Portfolio
CEPF gathered lessons from grantees from their Final Completion Reports, the final
assessment meeting in Durban in October 2015, and consultations with senior-level experts
in the conservation community that advised the RIT throughout the program.
Project clusters. Whether by design or by serendipity, clusters of grants led to mutual
leverage of technical skills, better local engagement and better results. The most notableclusters of grants were in southern Mozambique (with 10 different organizations
implementing 11 grants), in the upper uMzimvubu catchment (with five organizations
implementing seven grants), and on the stewardship grants of the Midlands and Mistbelt
Grasslands (four organizations, six grants).
Communally-owned land. The modern environmental economics toolkit places landownership, and attendant rights, at the center of sustainability. This concept applies equally
to individual and communal owners, but in the latter case, the process can be much more50

involved. Many of the KBAs in KZN and the Eastern Cape are at least partially owned bytrusts (representing communities) or are the subject of land claims by trusts. Executive fiat
could protect these lands, just as was done by the South African government a century ago,creating, once more, issues of the unfair taking of land. Balancing conservation needs withthe lengthy process of resolving land claims is a necessary compromise.
Business planning. Many grants are premised on creating an income stream forcommunities directly from the resource they wish to protect (e.g., an “ecotourism” lodge,
wildlife guide services), or from an “alternative” that reduces human pressure on that
resource (e.g., beekeeping and honey sales). The grantees are often well-versed incommunity consultation, government engagement and environmental management. Theirchallenge, however, is that they are not experts in micro and small enterprise (MSE)
promotion. They make assumptions about the demand for, and value of, the product theywish to sell (e.g., tourist nights in a lodge, jars of honey), do not know how to market that
product in a competitive environment, and do not know how to run a business. Projects
would benefit from having more detailed business plans and from partnerships between the
grantee and MSE experts.

13. Future Directions and Conclusions
Biodiversity hotspots, by definition, are under threat. The overall threat in the MPAH did notabate between 2010 to 2016 and, trends in 2016 were not positive. Looking at these trends,
the stakeholders at the final assessment workshop in Durban and leading NGOs andpartners have all suggested steps for the future.
1. The Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Biodiversity Hotspot is a geographic
amalgamation; a set of places that in combination meet the criteria for a hotspot: anarea with over 1,500 endemic vascular plants that has lost 70 percent of its primarynative vegetation. In terms of biogeography, it is an incredibly important place tofocus conservation funding. However, the “hotspot” concept lacks a certain
resonance and popular understanding, particularly in South Africa. South Africa is an
extraordinarily biodiverse country that has strong national programs targeted atvarious biomes (e.g., the Karoo, the Cape, grasslands), and there are places within
the hotspot that are meaningful in a local political or cultural context, such as theFuti Corridor, which connects a historical elephant migration corridor between
northern KZN and the southeastern coast of Mozambique, and Pondoland and theWild Coast, which is the historical home of Nelson Mandela. It is advisable, going
forward, that programs be designed around existing conservation constructs.
2. South Africa is home to all or part of three hotspots: Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany,
the Cape Floristic region and the Succulent Karoo. There are arguments formaintaining a focus on hotspot and KBA conservation while taking greater advantageof what each country offers. By example, organizations like SANBI, WWF-South
Africa and WESSA, and their associated experts, move frequently across thesehotspots, replicating approaches on stewardship, utilizing the large-scale labor
programs, and engaging the private sector to support innovative “markets” forcarbon, wetlands and water. Looking only at one hotspot (e.g., MPAH) can missnationwide opportunities.
3. Similarly, Mozambique is home to Maputaland and parts of two other hotspots: theEastern Afromontane; and the Coastal Forests of East Africa. Mozambique is51

primarily Portuguese-speaking, unlike its neighboring countries, and civil society inthe country is not as high capacity as elsewhere. From an efficiency standpoint, it iseasier to manage grants around these unique attributes instead of by hotspot.
Furthermore, each of these hotspots has KBAs in need of support. Meanwhile, withsupport from the French government, Mozambique started the BioFund to makeconservation grants, primarily in the country’s most iconic parks. There could beopportunities to extend the BioFund open its programs to other KBAs, regardless ofwhich hotspot they are located in.
4. The MPAH hotspot is defined with a western boundary of 1,800 meters above sea
level, along the South African escarpment. This altitude limit creates a hotspot with aboundary that circumscribes KBAs that extend up mountain slopes, where one
otherwise finds nesting sites of globally threatened birds and the sources of streams
with freshwater biodiversity. Future investments might apply a revised hotspot
boundary definition.
5. Future grant programs need to match the methodology with the investment
priorities. Support for national policy revision, creation of sustainable financing
mechanisms, PES schemes, carbon finance promotion, or strengthening ofMozambiquan civil society writ large require engagements of a broader scope andlonger time frames than is normal for the typical CEPF grantee to undertake. A future
grant program could compartmentalize the stages of such projects short of theirultimate goals.
6. In South Africa and Swaziland, if not Mozambique, the limit of $20,000 for small
grants was too small to attract a diversity of applicants. Costs in South Africa andSwaziland are such that this amount sometimes created small-grant projects with ascope more limited than what was ideal for conservation.
Certainly, these are only suggestions and there are still more options, as described by
CEPF’s many partners in the region who offer the experience and commitment to ensure
long-term success. As this portfolio has shown, with a relatively small amount of money,
civil society can achieve major results. Engaging CSOs in the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany
hotspot on any of the above proposals will be a positive step for biodiversity conservation in
the future.

52Annex 1. Summary Figures
This figure corresponds to Table 4 and shows obligation of funds per strategic direction. The heavy black line shows the
allocated amount. The portfolio dedicated less to corridor/ecosystem function (Strategic Direction 3) than originally planned.

53

This figure corresponds to Table 4 and shows funding by strategic direction. Roughly 17 percent of funding went to Strategic
Direction 1, 44 percent to Strategic Direction 2, 15 percent to Strategic Direction 3, 14 percent to Strategic Direction 4, and10.5 percent to the regional implementation team (Strategic Direction 5).

54

The figure on the left corresponds to Table 7, showing the total dollar value of large and small grants made to local andinternational groups, including the RIT. The figure on the right corresponds to Table 8, showing the number of grants to local(national) organizations versus international organizations.

55

This figure shows the obligation trend of the portfolio from 2010 to 2026.
The green line shows the total dollars obligated rising steadily over time, to close to $6,650,000, with almost all money
obligated by mid-2014. The red line shows the total value of active grants at any time, peaking at over $5.3 million in
November 2012. This line reflects risk—the dollar value commitment of ongoing work. The blue line shows the number of active
grants at any given time, peaking at 47 grants in October 2012. This line reflects workload for the RIT and Secretariat.

56

Annex 2. Update on Progress Toward Targets in the Portfolio Logical Framework
Objective

Targets

Results

At least 40 civil society actors
actively participate inconservation programs guided
by the ecosystem profile

60 unique recipients, 55 of which are based in one of the three
hotspot countries
1,080,908 hectares of KBA outside protected areas (i.e., inproduction landscapes) (Table 13)
Plus

Strengthening the involvement
and effectiveness of civil society
in conservation andmanagement of globally
important biodiversity

546,085 hectares at some stage of formal declaration (Table 11)

1,400,000 hectares of key
biodiversity areas (5% of thehotspot) with strengthened
protection and management,
including at least 300,000
hectares of new protected areas

Consisting of
289,142 hectares of protected areas formally declared
17,185 hectares awaiting signature
48,323 hectares with draft plans complete
191,435 hectares with planning and survey underway
Equals1,626,993 hectares

1,465,000 hectares in production
landscapes managed forbiodiversity conservation orsustainable use

57

1,080,908 hectares of KBA outside protected areas (i.e., inproduction landscapes) (Table 13)

Intermediate Outcomes

Outcome 1:
The conservation status ofunder-capacitated and emerging
protected areas in 3 priority key
biodiversity areas strengthened$800,000Intermediate Indicators

Results
In the targeted KBAs
1. Ponto d’Ouro, Mozambique partnership brokered by African Safari
Lodge Foundation for lodge connecting district, communities, andgrantee Centro Terra Vivo for sand forest, dunes, beach, andcoastal species conservation
2. Consortium brokered by CESVI ONLUS between LUPA, VIDA,
ORAM, Kuwuka, communities, and the district government forsustainable agriculture
3. Lubombo Conservancy for coordinated land management bycommunal land holders, private game lodges, national parks andsugar cane plantations

At least 2 public-private
partnerships and civil society
initiatives supported thatfacilitate planning andimplementation of the Ponto
d’Ouro Partial Marine Reserve,
Lebombo Transfrontier Corridor(both in Mozambique) andprotection of the Mkambati andDwesa-Cwebe reserves in
Pondoland North Coast, South
AfricaIn the 19 KBAs named in Strategic Direction 2
4. Wilderness Foundation partnership in the Mountain Zebra Corridor
with private game lodges, private ranch owners and South Africa
National Parks
5. WESSA partnership in the Midmar-Albert Falls (Umgeni)
Biosphere Reserve with provincial government and numerous
private sector partners and NGOs
6. Zinkwazi-Blythedale conservancy partnership with homeowners,
sugar cane plantations and public land managers
7. Environment and Rural Solutions uMzimvubu Catchment
Partnership with multiple private landowners, NGOs andprovincial government

At least 4 innovative approaches
promoted and strengthened tosafeguard threatened habitats in
the Licuati Forests and Eastern
Swazi Lebombo (in Mozambiqueand Swaziland)

1. BirdLife South Africa birding tourism route in Lubombo-Mboza
2. BirdLife South Africa establishment of Associação Ambiente
Conservação Educação Mozambique
3. CESVI-led consortium to strengthen CSO capacity
4. All Out Africa using turtles and vultures as charismatic species as“pride” species for local awareness58

Intermediate OutcomesIntermediate Indicators

Results
32 projects focused on expanding protected areas; innovative
approaches taken by these included:

Outcome 2:
Conservation areas expanded
and land-use management
improved in 19 priority key
biodiversity areas throughinnovative approaches

1. Biodiversity stewardship mechanisms (12 projects)
2. Piloting stewardship in urban context (WESSA)
3. Upper catchment management (E&RS)
4. Communal land restoration (Wild Bird Trust, Border Rural
Committee, E&RS)
5. Communal timber production (NCT Forestry)
6. Community livelihoods (7 projects)
7. Conservation banking (Eco-Pulse)
8. Ecosystem goods and services monitoring (Endangered Wildlife
Trust/EWT)
9. Estuarine conservation (Zinkwazi, SAAMBR)
10. Use of Protected Area Management Systems and METTs (Game
Rangers Association, Wilderness Foundation)
11. Capacity building for protected areas (9 projects)

At least 20 innovative
approaches developed andimplemented to expand
protected areas on private andcommunal lands, particularly
lands with threatened species
and habitats underrepresented
in the current protected area
network

In formal “land reform” sites as designated by the government
1. Gumbi community (South African Wildlife Community)
2. Kranskop community (EWT)$3,000,000

8 land reform agreements haveintegrated conservation practice
to expand conservation
management and sustain
livelihood opportunities

Integrating conservation on communal land, albeit not formal “landreform” sites
3. Gumbi community (Wildlife Act, Africa Conservation Trust)
4. Ozwathini community (NCT Forestry)
5. Cata community (Border Rural Committee)
6. Nsubane community (WESSA)
7. Ingonyama Trust (Space for Elephants)
8. Hogsback community (Wild Bird Trust)
10 projects across five themes:

Outcome 3:
Maintain and restore ecosystem
function and integrity in theHighland Grasslands andPondoland corridors$1,500,000

15 innovative projects developedand implemented that expand
conservation management andbenefit people in threatened
catchment, freshwater andestuarine ecosystems

59

1. uMngeni River biosphere reserve development (WESSA)
2. Upper catchment management in uMvimzuvu and Thukela river
systems (WWF, CI, ACT, Cedarville Conservancy, Zunckel,
Mabandla Community Trust)
3. Species-based interventions to impact a large area (ACT in Italapark, EWT in Amathole)
4. Estuarine management plans (FieldWork)
5. Freshwater awareness campaigns (Duzi uMngeni Conservation
Trust)

Intermediate Outcomes

Outcome 4:
The capacity for conservationand management of
Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany
priority sites increased$650,000Intermediate Indicators

Results

Environmental regulations have
improved implementation,
leading to maintained functional
ecosystem corridors, particularly
rivers and coastal zones

33 policies, regulations and guidelines (see Table 16)

3 projects instituted to enable
restoration of degraded lands
according to optimal carbon
sequestration and stewardshipplans

1. Carbon restoration: WWF South Africa
2. Catchment restoration: CI
3. Water stewardship: WWF South Africa
4. Biosphere creation: WESSA
5. Restoration: Eco-Logic (grants on “super foods” and tree oils)
6. Land stewardship: 18 projects

Government-sponsored largescale NRM programs have
improved effectiveness in the
Corridors through improved
knowledge and support for
implementation

1. SANBI program of engagement with national government toprioritize NRM funding toward KBAs
2. E&RS (two grants) on Upper uMzimvubu catchment guided
government NRM program
3. WESSA grant guided government NRM in Nsubane
4. BRC grant guided government NRM in Kieskammershoek

50 staff from civil society
organizations in Mozambiqueand Swaziland receive training
and educational opportunities

69 total individuals consisting of 65 from CSOs receiving training in
one of the two countries, 1 from SANBI who attended a training inMozambique so that he could further SANBI’s work in that country,
and 3 from a Swazi CSO that attended the KZN Symposium inSouth Africa

At least one civil society network
established to increase andcoordinate civil society
participation and facilitate
lessons sharing to promotelinkages that ensure effective
conservation action at a broadscale

1. SANBI MPAH Learning Network (Regional)
2. Izele Conservationists Network (Regional)
3. EWT Data Coordination Network (Regional)
4. SAWC Lubombo TFCA Network (three country)
5. Futi Corridor Consortium (Mozambique)
6. Lebombo Conservancy (Swaziland)
7. Midlands Conservancy Forum (KZN)
8. Zinkwazi MPA Steering Committee (KZN)
9. WESSA uMgeni Biosphere (KZN)
10. Rhino Owners Network (KZN)
11. Wilderness Foundation Stewardship Committee (Eastern Cape)
12. Upper uMzimvubu Catchment Partnership (Eastern Cape)
13. Amathole Forum (Eastern Cape)

60

Intermediate Outcomes

Outcome 5:
A regional implementation teamprovides strategic leadership andeffectively coordinates CEPF
investment in the MaputalandPondoland-Albany Hotspot

Intermediate Indicators

Results

100% of groups receiving grants
achieve a satisfactory score on
final performance scorecard

Out of 38 large grants (not counting the RIT), only one
underperformed to such a degree that the project needed to beredesigned to match the capacity of the organization. Out of 52
small grants, only one did not perform as designed, as the grantee
no longer had need of the funds. This gave a total of 98% of grants
with satisfactory performance.

Regional Implementation Teamperformance in fulfilling theapproved terms of reference

Highlights of RIT performance included:• Review of 244 letters of inquiry leading to 90 grant awards• Sustainability fostered in Mozambique through creation of aconsortium of local organizations (each receiving grants)
operating under the guidance of CESVI (an Italian NGO)
• Sustainability fostered in Swaziland through strengthening of
Lubombo Conservancy to point where it was eligible to receive
GEF funding
Events sponsored directly by the RIT
1. Mid-Term Assessment, 8-10 April 2013, Pietermaritzburg (KZN)
with 86 participants
2. MPAH Forum, 13-16 October 2014, Mpekweni (Eastern Cape)with 65 participants focusing on biodiversity assets andmaintenance of ecological infrastructure
3. Final Assessment, 13-15 October 2015, Durban (KZN) with 73
participants$700,000
At least two learning exchanges
and/or participatory
assessments hosted anddocumented

Events supported by the RIT and with broad grantee representation
4. KZN Symposium 30 October 2014 with session on biodiversity
stewardship
5. Lubombo Corridor Forum, March 2014
6. Communal grasslands learning exchange, Matatiele, February
2013
7. AmaNgwane – AmaZizi upper Thukele learning exchange, August
2012

61

Annex 3. Contributions to the CEPF Global Indicators
CEPF tracked all grants per multiple measures, including how each grant contributed to
CEPF’s 16 global indicators. Results can change even after grants close and over time,
particularly for hectares protected, which rely on formal declaration. Nonetheless, as of theclose of the portfolio in March 2016, total contributions to CEPF indicators are shown below.
Many of these overlap with the Portfolio Indicators (Annex 2) and are elaborated uponelsewhere.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15
16

Indicator
Pillar: Biodiversity
Number of globally threatened species benefiting from conservation
action (See Table 9)
Number of hectares of Key Biodiversity Areas with improved
management (Annex 2)
Number of hectares of protected areas created and/or expanded (Table
11 and Annex 2)
Number of hectares of production landscapes with strengthened
management of biodiversity (Table 13 and Annex 2)
Number of protected areas with improved management (existing +new) (Table 11)
Pillar: Civil Society
Number of CEPF grantees with improved organizational capacity (out of
22 local organizations)
Number of CEPF grantees with improved understanding of andcommitment to gender issues (out of 60 local and internationalorganizations)
Number of networks and partnerships that have been created and/or
strengthened (existing / new)Pillar: Human Well-Being
Number of people receiving structured training (Table 14)
Number of people receiving non-cash benefits (Table 14)
Number of people receiving cash benefits (Table 15)
Number of projects promoting nature-based solutions to combat
climate change
Amount of carbon dioxide equivalent sequestered in CEPF-supported
natural habitats7
Pillar: Enabling Conditions
Number of laws, regulations and policies with conservation provisions
that have been enacted or amended (Table 16)
Number of sustainable financing mechanisms that are delivering funds
for conservation
Number of companies that adopted biodiversity-friendly practices

5

Result43
1,626,993
289,142
1,080,90849
12
17 / 9
4,640
8265
2,466
446
N/A

18
23

The subset of “people receiving structured training” that participated in trainings on agriculture, beekeeping,handicrafts, livestock, and small enterprise.
6
Annex 5 Projects 54612, 61529, 67094, 55564, 61614, 61510, 61514, 61623, 61888, 59033, 59088, 52586, 52593,
59048, 59053, 59611, 59587, 59663, 52921, 53108, 53679, 59621, 59606, 59784, 59102, 59603, 59783, 59609,
59096, 59591, 57432, 56273, 56066, 61486, 57762, 64000, 64140, 64014, 62948, 64008, 65770, 66378, 66682,
59578
7This indicator is monitored by CEPF at the global level rather than at the level of individual portfolios.

62Annex 4. Results per Aichi Targets
The following table shows the contributions of the CEPF grant portfolio in the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot towards
the targets of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, also
known as the Aichi Targets.
Aichi
TargetDescription

1

Awareness of the values of biodiversity

2

Biodiversity values have been integrated into
national and local development and poverty
reduction strategies

4Plans for sustainable production and consumption

5

Reduction in loss of natural habitat, fragmentation

6
7

Fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants aremanaged and harvested sustainably
Areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry
are managed sustainably

8

Pollution, including from excess nutrients, has beenbrought to levels that are not detrimental

9

Invasive alien species and pathways are identified
and prioritized, priority species are controlled or
eradicatedResultGrantees worked in 180 communities; projects with specificawareness-raising components reached 2,600 adults (Table18) and 19,744 students (Table 19)
6 locations with policies/plans that addressed biodiversity inthe context of development issues (Table 16: Umzimvubu,
Matutuine, Lubombo TFCA, Mpushini/Mkhondini, Nelson
Mandela Bay, uMshwathi)
1,080,908 hectares in 47 sites with production landscapeunder improved management (Table 13)
1,626,993 hectares on KBAs “with strengthened management
and protection” (Table 11, Table 13)
Not applicable
1,080,908 hectares in 47 sites with production landscapeunder improved management (Table 13)
Grant 55311 to the CATA Communal Property Association
installed compost toilets to reduce waste runoff into wetlands
and nesting sites; Grant 59663 to Zinkwazi Beach Residents
and Ratepayers Association reduced runoff from sugarcane
plantations into the Tugela river
15 grants directly worked on removal of invasive plant
species, or otherwise leveraged the labor of “Working for
Water” teams in relevant locations (Annex 5: 52593, 59053,
59611, 59663, 52921, 59606, 59784, 59603, 59609, 59096,
59591, 64018, 64140, 64008, 65770); 2,684 hectares ofinvasive plants removed

63

AichiTargetDescription

11

Improved management of well-connected systems
of protected areas and other effective area-based
conservation measures

12

Prevention of species extinction

14

Ecosystems that provide essential services,
including services related to water, and contributeto health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored
and safeguarded, taking into account the needs ofwomen, indigenous and local communities, and thepoor and vulnerable

15

Ecosystem resilience and the contribution of
biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced,
through conservation and restoration, including
restoration of at least 15 per cent of degradedecosystems, thereby contributing to climatechange mitigation and adaptation and to combating
desertification

Result
1,626,993 hectares on KBAs “with strengthened management
and protection” (Table 11, Table 13) understanding that
CEPF’s focus on KBAs for its conservation outcomes represents
an effective area-based conservation measure; grants on
Lubombo Spine from KZN north to Swaziland, thenencompassing Matutuine constituted a “well-connected
system,” as did the grants in the Mountain Zebra-Camdeboo
corridor
Grants contributed to conservation of 43 species (Table 9)15 grants directly worked on removal of invasive plant
species, or otherwise leveraged the labor of “Working for
Water” teams in relevant locations (Annex 5: 52593, 59053,
59611, 59663, 52921, 59606, 59784, 59603, 59609, 59096,
59591, 64018, 64140, 64008, 65770); 2,684 hectares ofinvasive plants removed
Separately, 14 grants (in 11 locations) supported provision of
essential ecosystem services (59088, 577662, 61514, 52593,
61486, 59784, 59603, 64018, 54967, 64140, 52921, 64008,
59591, 59096)
15 grants directly worked on removal of invasive plant
species, or otherwise leveraged the labor of “Working for
Water” teams in relevant locations (Annex 5: 52593, 59053,
59611, 59663, 52921, 59606, 59784, 59603, 59609, 59096,
59591, 64018, 64140, 64008, 65770); 2,684 hectares ofinvasive plants removed
Separately, 1 grant (65300 to WWF-SA) began the process ofland/forest management procedures for future development ofsale of carbon credits in the Eastern Cape64

AichiTargetDescription

16

Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing
consistent with national legislation

18

Respect for traditional knowledge, innovations andpractices of indigenous and local communities

19

Improvement, sharing, transfer and application ofknowledge, science, technology

ResultGrants contributing to Aichi Target 16 and Target 18 arelargely similar, although not identical. Each grant that
supported local communities (Targe 18) also supported accessand benefit sharing (Target 16), but not all grants that
supported access and benefit sharing were directly related to
local communities.
28 grants (in 22 locations) supported activities that led to
improved access to natural resources and land for sustainable
use (64000, 59088, 57762, 61614, 61514, 59609, 61529,
64911, 61510, 61486, 64044, 55304, 66378, 59603, 64018,
59578, 61623, 54967, 64140, 61888, 59102, 55564, 59587,
65770, 59033, 56066, 64008, 59591)
Grants contributing to Aichi Target 16 and Target 18 arelargely similar, although not identical. Each grant that
supported local communities (Targe 18) also supported accessand benefit sharing (Target 16), but not all grants that
supported access and benefit sharing were directly related to
local communities.
24 grants (in 18 locations) made support for local
communities, built around respect for local practice, theprimary goal of the project (64000, 59088, 57762, 61514,
59609, 64911, 61510, 64044, 55304, 66378, 59603, 64018,
59578, 61623, 54967, 64140, 59102, 55564, 59587, 65770,
59033, 56066, 64008, 59591)
22 site-wide species inventories and assessments, ecosystemassessments and surveys, databases developed for 17
locations65Annex 5. All Awarded Grants, by Country and Start Date
CEPF encourages interested parties to review the CEPF project database for details on any grant discussed in this report,
including summary descriptions of the projects, final completion reports and other information provided by grantees. The tablebelow includes embedded hyperlinks to CEPF’s website for each specific grant.
No.

CEPF ID

Organization

SD

1

57889

Wildlands Conservation Trust

5

Title

Obligated
AmountStart
Date

End Date$700,000

1-Sep-10

31-Mar-16

RIT GRANTSMPAH RITREGIONAL GRANTSSouth African National
Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)SANBI
Current Conservation
Community Interest
Company (CCCIC)
CCCIC

2

52599

4

Developing civil society capacity: planning$19,870

1-Jul-11

31-Aug-11

3

61619

4

Developing civil society capacity: implementation$336,700

1-Sep-1230-Nov-15

4

64774

4

Developing an Online Social Network for Conservationists$20,000

1-May-1430-Nov-14

5

72570

4

Izele, the online social network for conservationists
MOZAMBIQUE$3,2001-Feb-16

31-Mar-16

6

54612

7
8

61529
67094

9

55564

10

61614

11

61525

LUPA – Association forCommunity Development
Centro Terra Viva
Mboza Trust
Voluntariado Internationalpara o Desenvolvimento
Africano
African Safari Lodge
Foundation
Birdlife South Africa

4

Environmental Education in the Futi Corridor$20,000

1-May-1228-Feb-13

1
1

Leatherback and Loggerhead Marine Turtle Conservation
Maputo River Project$48,566$16,676

1-Jun-12
1-Jun-12

31-Aug-13
31-May-144Knowledge and Innovation in the District of Matutuine$17,879

1-Jun-12

31-May-13

1

Ahi Zameni Chemucane Support Project$175,008

1-Jun-1230-Jun-14

4Strengthening Civil Society through Bird Watching Tourism
Reduction of Human Pressure on the Futi Corridor in
Matutuine District$243,768

1-Jul-12

31-Dec-14

12

61510

CESVI ONLUS$249,052

1-Aug-1228-Feb-14

13

61514

14

61623

15

61888

16

57428

Associacao KUWUKA Juventude Desenvolvimento e
Advocacia Ambiental
LUPA
ORAM - Associacao Rural de
Ajuda Mutua
ECOSOL GIS$99,332

1-Sep-12

31-Dec-13$95,927

1-Sep-1228-Feb-14$94,477

1-Sep-1228-Feb-14$20,000

1-Sep-12

31-Aug-13

17
18

59033
59088

Wildlife ACT Fund
African Conservation Trust22$146,182$116,178

1-Mar-11
1-May-1130-Jun-12
31-Dec-12

19

59268

Conservation International

4$16,886

1-May-1130-Jun-12

20

52586

Sustaining the Wild Coast1$19,966

1-May-11

1-Apr-12

1
4
1
1
4

CSO strengthening and community development in Licuáti
Sand Forest
Biodiversity Conservation in the Futi Corridor
Small-Scale Farmers’ Rights in the Use of Land and Other
Natural Resources in the Futi Corridor
Building the Capacity in Spatial Biodiversity Planning
SOUTH AFRICA
Wildlife ACTive Community Conservation Project
Expansion of the Mkuze River Protected Area Network
Embedding Lessons and Leveraging Networks from the CFR
and SK CEPF Experience in MPAH
Community-Based Environmental Management Planningand Livelihoods for the Region North of Mkambati

66

No.

CEPF ID

Organization

SD

21

52593

Cedarville Conservancy

3

22

52583

Community Organisation
Resource Center

2

23

59048

Wilderness Foundation

2

24

59053

25
26
27

52570
52596
59611

Wildlife and Environment
Society of South Africa
Endangered Wildlife Trust
Landmark Foundation Trust
Dargle Conservancy

28

59587

Wild Bird Trust

29

59663

30
31

52921
53108

32

53679

33

59621

BirdLife South Africa

2

34

59606

Botanical Society of South
Africa

2

35

59784

Endangered Wildlife Trust

2

36

59102

37

59603

38

54117

Mabandla Community Trust

3

39
40
41

59783
54102
52590

2
2
2

42

55308

Wilderness Foundation
Treverton Trust
Sustainable Seas Trust
South African Association For
Marine Biological Research

Ongeluksnek: Biodiversity Custodianship throughInnovative 'People and Parks' Cooperation
Umgano Project Mentoring: Environmental Education andTraining of Field Rangers
The Mountain Zebra Wilderness Corridor Partnership
Educator Development in the Greater Midlands Region
Wildlife Conservation Education Initiative2

Nonoti Estuary Biophysical Assessment

43

54747

WWF South Africa

1

44

59609

Border Rural Committee

2

45

59096

WWF South Africa

3

Zinkwazi Beach Residents
and Ratepayers Association
Wilderness Action Group
Peace Parks FoundationGame Rangers Association of
AfricaSpace for Elephants
Foundation
Environmental & Rural
Solutions

Title
Grassland and Ecosystem Function Improvement throughControl of Alien Vegetation and Improved Grazing Practices
Environmental School Awareness Program by ARC (Allianceof Rural Communities)
Promoting Management Effectiveness in Protected Areas in
the Albany, Amathole-Sneeuberg and Pondoland
Conservation Corridors

Obligated
AmountStart
Date

End Date$19,988

1-May-11

1-May-13$20,000

1-May-11

1-Apr-12$160,386

1-Jun-11

31-May-13

2

Nelson Mandela Bay Urban Conservation Programme$186,702

1-Jun-11

31-Dec-13

42
2

GIS and Data Coordination for the MPAH
Landmark Foundations’ Predation Management Manual
Midlands Conservancies Biodiversity Stewardship Initiative
IziKhwenene Project: A Community-Based Conservation
Initiative$18,912$0$154,329

1-Jun-11
1-Jul-11
1-Aug-11

31-May-12
31-Dec-11
30-Jun-14$82,695

1-Aug-11

31-Jul-13

2

Lower Tugela Biodiversity Protection Project$167,335

1-Sep-11

31-May-1422Upper Thukela Community Stewardship Project
Ndumo Intervention Project
Capacity Building and Improved Management in Umgeni
Valley Nature Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal
Protecting KBAs by Expanding and Implementing
Biodiversity Stewardship in the Grassland Areas ofSouthern KZN
Biodiversity Stewardship in Eight Botanically Significant
Sites in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Securing Wetlands and Grasslands in the Southern
Drakensberg Foothills of KwaZulu Natal for the Benefit ofWattled Cranes and Associated Biodiversity$20,000$19,966

1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11

31-Aug-12
31-Mar-12$19,797

1-Dec-1130-Nov-12$77,000

1-Jan-12

31-Dec-13$176,793

1-Jan-12

31-Oct-15$227,394

1-Jan-1230-Sep-15$161,750

1-Jan-12

31-Dec-14$217,428

1-Feb-12

31-Dec-13$19,650

1-Feb-1228-Feb-13$216,690$19,738$15,884

1-Mar-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-1228-Feb-14
28-Feb-13
1-Jun-15$17,879

1-Apr-12

31-May-13$17,935

1-Apr-1230-Jun-12$92,880

1-May-1230-Jun-14$258,712

1-May-1230-Sep-15

2

2

2
2

Lubombo Spine Wildlife Biodiversity Corridor

Introductory Course to Marine Protected Area Managers for
Improving Management of the Wild Coast MPAs
Integrated Conservation in Northern Keiskammahoek
Catchment Stewardship in Upper Umgeni Area: Biodiversity
Stewardship and WWF’s Water Balance Program

67

No.

CEPF ID

Organization

SD

46

54967

Masifukulane Support Group

2

47

55304

Eco-logic Consulting

3

48

59591

Wildlife and Environment
Society of South Africa

2

49

56050

University of Kent

4

50

55311

51

57436

52

57432

KwaZulu-Natal Crane
Foundation

2

53

56273

SANBI

2

54

56066

2

55

56072

Wildlife Act Fund
Duzi uMngeni Conservation
Trust

Hydrological Surveys of the Mpushini/Mkhondini
Biodiversity Area
Expanding the Stewardship Mechanism of the Bill Barnes
Crane and Oribi Nature Reserve and the Forkspring
Conservancy in the KZN Midlands
Supporting Local Community Participation for Conservation
Action in the Pondoland and Albany Hotspots
Wildlife ACT Fund Community Conservation Project3

Mayday for Rivers: The Fellowship

56

57855

Endangered Wildlife Trust

4

57

61486

Conservation International

3

58

57762

African Conservation Trust

2

59

62366

SANBI

3

60

60101

WWF South Africa

4

61

60097

Du Toit, Jeanette

4

62

60093

Treverton Trust

3

63

60576

Sustainability Forum

3

64

63834

Eco-Pulse Consulting cc

2

65
66

60568
60108

Living Lands
All Out Africa

3
1

67

64000

African Conservation Trust

3

CATA Communal Property
Association
Preservation of the Mkondeni
Mpushini Biodiversity

2
3

Title
Natural Ways of Improving Soil Fertility for Homestead
Food Production and Women Capacity Development
Investigation into Natural Wild Grown ‘Super Foods’ with
Economic Potential in Community Conservation Areas of
Pondoland
Collaborative Approach to Nsubane Forest Complex
Management and Sustainable Livelihoods (Wild Coast)
Establishing a Rhino Conservation Learning Network forPrivate and Communal Landowners
Roll-Out of Compost Toilets in Cata

Establishing a New Amphibian Conservation Programmewithin the Endangered Wildlife Trust in South Africa
Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership Programme: Building
Local Institutions and Financial Sustainability
Developing a Plan for Protected Area Expansion andSustainable Communities in the Greater Ithala Complex
Optimizing the Conservation and Social Return on
Investment by Natural Resource Management Programmesof the Department of Environmental Affairs ThroughImproved Planning and Prioritization
Sharing Lessons from the Grasslands Project at the
Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot Forum
Sharing Lessons at the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany
Hostpot Forum
Enviro-Wise Learning
Feasibility Study for the Development Forum's KwaZuluNatal Midlands Green Map
Exploring the Opportunity to Pilot Mitigation Banking in theeThekwini Municipality
Thicket Forum Annual Conference
The Conservation and Study of White-Backed Vultures
Securing the Provision of Ecosystem Services in the
Greater Itala Complex

Obligated
AmountStart
Date

End Date$7,359

1-May-12

31-Oct-12$17,975

15-May-12

15-Dec-12$113,151

1-Jun-1230-Sep-13$5,263

1-Jun-12

31-Oct-12$11,797

1-Jun-1230-May-13$4,605

1-Jul-1230-Sep-13$17,879

1-Jul-1230-Jun-13$20,000

1-Jul-1230-Jun-13$20,000

1-Jul-12

31-Dec-12$4,60530-Aug-12

30-Jun-13$20,000

1-Sep-12

31-Aug-13$301,884

1-Oct-1230-Jun-15$20,000

1-Nov-1228-Feb-13$39,876

1-Apr-13

31-Mar-14$426

1-Apr-1330-Apr-13$859

1-Apr-1330-Apr-13$16,471

1-Apr-1330-Apr-14$8,2351-Aug-13

30-Sep-13$25,000

1-Sep-13

30-Sep-15$8,235$19,665

1-Sep-13
1-Nov-13

31-Dec-13
31-Aug-14$79,1961-Jan-14

30-Sep-15

68

No.

CEPF ID

Organization

SD

68

64007

Endangered Wildlife Trust

2

69

64018

Environmental & Rural
Solutions

2

70

64039

Institute of Natural Resources

2

71

64044

Eco-logic Consulting

3

72

64140

NCT Forestry Co-Operative
Limited

2

73

64014

Zinkwazi Beach Residents
and Ratepayers Association

2

74

62948

BirdLife South Africa

2

75

64008

Wildlife and Environment
Society of South Africa

2

76

66375

77

65656

78

65467

79
80

65300
65770

81

65774

82

66378

83

66381

84

66384

85

66387

86

70652

Fieldwork

3

87

66682

Endangered Wildlife Trust

2

88

59578

Lubombo Conservancy

1

Title
Development of Methodology to Measure Change in
Environmental Goods and Services
Unlocking Maloti Drakensburg Transfrontier Programme
Resources: Expansion of Community Stewardship Areas in
the Upper Mzimvubu Watershed
Support the Selection of Economic Instruments toIncentivize Improved Natural Resources Management inTarget Areas in the Umzimvubu and Umgeni Catchments
The Wildcoast Tree Seed Oils and Dune Forest
Rehabilitation Project
Project Ozwathini: Sustainable Land Use ThroughBiodiversity Stewardship and Forest Certification in a
Community Forestry Setting on Tribal Trust Land
Thukela Marine Protected Area

Obligated
AmountStart
Date

End Date$48,834

1-Jan-14

30-Sep-15$57,644

1-Jan-14

30-Sep-15$20,000

1-Feb-14

31-May-14$20,000

1-Feb-14

28-Feb-15$50,000

1-Mar-14

30-Sep-15$50,000

1-Mar-1430-Jun-15$10,404

1-Mar-14

30-May-15$79,488

1-Apr-14

31-Jul-15$4,384

1-Jun-1430-Nov-14

Endangered Wildlife Trust
Environment Learning andTeaching
Wildlife and Environment
Society of South Africa
WWF South Africa
Wild Bird Trust
Southern African Wildlife
College

4

Monitoring Flagship Birds to Contribute to Improved
Management of Grasslands in the Mzimvubu Catchment
Strengthening Sustainable Land Use Practices,Management and Local Economic Opportunities in the
Ntsubane Forest Complex
Amathole Endangered Species Conservation Plans

4

Educator Development in Environmental Teaching$20,000

1-Jun-14

30-Apr-15

3

Midmar to Albert Falls Biosphere Reserve$69,156

1-Jul-14

31-Oct-15

3
2

Forest Carbon Market Development in the Eastern Cape
iziKhwenene Project$53,916$20,000

1-Jul-14
1-Jul-14

30-Sep-15
31-Dec-14

4Transformation of the Somkhanda Community$20,000

1-Jul-14

1-May-15

Endangered Wildlife Trust

3$19,944

1-Aug-14

31-Jul-15$20,000

1-Aug-14

31-Jul-15$20,000

1-Aug-14

31-Jul-15$19,850

1-Sep-14

31-Jul-15$20,000

1-Sep-14

30-Sep-15$12,325

1-Oct-14

31-Jul-15$269,960

1-Jul-12

31-Oct-15

Kruger to Canyons Biosphere
Region Non-profit Company
Wild Side Environmental
Services Ltd
Zunckel Ecological +Environmental Services

2
43

Community-led Reef Restoration and Blue Economy microenterprises along the Wild Coast of South Africa
Development of a Regional Action Plan for Biodiversity andEcosystem Services
Building Capacity for the Proposed Lambasi Provincial
Reserve and Mtentu Gorge Protected Area
Declaration Agreements for the AmaNgwane and AmaZizi
Community Conservation Areas
Supporting Estuary Management on the Eastern Cape Wild
Coast – Mngazana, Umngazi and Ntafufu
Kranskop Community Conservation Project
SWAZILAND
Improved Management of the Swaziland Lubombo

69

No.

CEPF ID

Organization

89

54504

90

60104

Southern African Wildlife
CollegeAfrica Insights

91

64911

CESVI ONLUS

SD

4
1
1

Title
MULTI-COUNTRY PROJECTS
Determining the Human Capacity Needs for the Lubombo
Transfrontier Conservation and Resource Area
Lubombo TFCA Forum
Decreased Local Human Pressure in the Usuthu-Tembe-Futi
and the Lubombo Conservancy Goba Transfrontier
Conservation Areas of Mozambique and Swaziland

Obligated
AmountStart
Date

End Date$20,000

1-Apr-12

31-Dec-12$8,855

1-Jun-1330-Jun-14$99,998

1-Mar-14

31-Dec-1470Annex 6. Leverage Data for Applicable Grants
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

CEPF ID
59088
59088
59088
64000
64000
64000
61614
61614
61614
61614
61614
59621
59621
59621
61525
59609
59606
59606
59606
59606
61529
61529
61510
61510
59268
59268
61486
61486
61486
61486
61486
64774
59611
59611
59611
59611
63834
63834
57855
59784
59784
59784

Organization
African Conservation Trust
African Conservation Trust
African Conservation Trust
African Conservation Trust
African Conservation Trust
African Conservation Trust
African Safari Lodge Foundation
African Safari Lodge Foundation
African Safari Lodge Foundation
African Safari Lodge Foundation
African Safari Lodge Foundation
Birdlife South Africa
Birdlife South Africa
Birdlife South Africa
Birdlife South Africa
Border Rural Committee
Botanical Society of South Africa
Botanical Society of South Africa
Botanical Society of South Africa
Botanical Society of South Africa
Centro Terra Viva
Centro Terra Viva
CESVI
CESVI
Conservation International
Conservation International
Conservation International
Conservation International
Conservation International
Conservation International
Conservation International
Current Conservation
Dargle Conservancy
Dargle Conservancy
Dargle Conservancy
Dargle Conservancy
Eco-pulse consulting
Eco-pulse consulting
Endangered Wildlife TrustEndangered Wildlife TrustEndangered Wildlife TrustEndangered Wildlife TrustFunderAfrican Conservation Trust
GEF
German Embassy
ACT (co-funding)Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
Kenchaan foundation
Community Dvlpt Fund/Common Foundation
Ford Foundation
French IUCNWorld Bank via MiTUR
Private sector (lodge developers)
SAPPI (SA Rand)
Mr Jack Mitchell (SA Rand)
Mr Price (SA Rand)
Wetlands International
Community Work Programme (SA Rand)
Botanical Society of Southern Africa
SANBI CREWEKZNW
SANBI GEF
Swedish Co-operative Centre
Swiss Cooperation
CESVI
EUROPEAN UNION
Co-funding (CSA)
Hassan Family Foundation
Dept of Env Affairs
European Union
Hansen Family Foundation
Massmart
SWFF
Current Conservation CIC
Green Grant
N3 toll concession
Department of Environmental Affairs
MCF Office bearers (volunteer time)eThekwini Municipality (SA Rand)
Tongaat Hulett (SA Rand)
Amphibian Survival Alliance (SA Rand)
CHEP (SA Rand)
European Union (euros)
Talbot and Talbot (SA Rand)

Type
Co-funding
International public
International public
Co-funding
Government
PrivateFoundation
Foundation
Foundation
International public
PrivateFoundation
PrivatePrivateFoundation
Government
Foundation
Foundation
Government
International publicFoundation
International public
Co-funding
International public
Co-funding
Foundation
Government
International public
PrivatePrivatePrivateCo-funding
Foundation
Foundation
Government
In-kindGovernment
PrivateFoundation
Foundation
International public
PrivateAmount$73,470$73,500$34,000$39,060$57,000$5,000$100,000$400,000$9,500$500,000$1,000,000$44,275$5,537$11,074$2,000$40,183$37,500$5,000$4,800$250,000$41,424$40,920$27,000$23,525$70,000$50,000$3,400,000$245,000$185,000$338,000$500,000$17,800$13,000$30,600$130,000$15,714$19,934$33,223$1,661$2,215$259,167$3,322

71

No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

CEPF ID
66375
66375
66375
66682
59603
59603
64018
64018
70652
66381
59578
59578
59578
59578
59578
59578
61623
61623
54117
64140
64140
64140
61888
61888
61619
62366
62366
65774
59102
59102
59102
60576
54102
59587
59587
59587
59587
59587
59587
66384
59048
59048
59048
59048

Organization
Endangered Wildlife TrustEndangered Wildlife TrustEndangered Wildlife TrustEndangered Wildlife Trust
E&RS
E&RS
E&RS
E&RS
FieldWork
Kruger2Canyons
Lubombo Conservancy
Lubombo Conservancy
Lubombo Conservancy
Lubombo Conservancy
Lubombo Conservancy
Lubombo Conservancy
LUPA
LUPA
Mabandla Community Trust
NCT
NCT
NCT
ORAM
ORAM
SANBI
SANBI
SANBI
SAWC
Space for Elephants
Space for Elephants
Space for Elephants
Sustainability Forum
Treverton Trust
Wild Bird Trust
Wild Bird Trust
Wild Bird Trust
Wild Bird Trust
Wild Bird Trust
Wild Bird Trust
Wild Side
Wilderness Foundation
Wilderness Foundation
Wilderness Foundation
Wilderness Foundation

Funder
Dept. of Environmental Affairs (SA Rand)
European Union (SA Rand)
Rand Merchant Bank (SA Rand)
Mondi
Department of Environmental Affairs (NRM)
Maloti Drakensburg Transfronteir Park
Dept. of Env. Affairs (Land User Incentive)
Department of Environmental Affairs (Land User Incentive)
Dept. of Env. Affairs (Land User Incentive)
Wildlands, DEA NRM, UNDP (SA Rand)
COSPE
GIZ Phase 2 (SA Rand)
GIZ Phase 1 (euros)
Netherlands government (euros)
UNDP GEF
RMI (euros)
CEF
UE
Various grants (SA Rand)
Forest Stewardship Council
Forestry South Africa (SA Rand)
GEF (SA Rand)
ORAM
EU
SANBI (co-funding)South African National Biodiversity InstituteDepartment of Environmental Affairs
GiZ (SA Rand)
Space for Elephants (co-funding)
FD Pascoe (volunteer time)Thanda Private Game Reserve
N3TC (SA Rand)
N3TC (SA Rand)
The Wild Bird Trust (South Africa)
Hans Hoheisen Charitable Trust
National Geographic Society
Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology
Prins Bernhard Natuurfonds (Netherlands)
Abax Foundation
Personal (SA Rand)
Wilderness Foundation (co-funding)Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Board
South African National Parks
Partner private reserves

Type
Government
International public
PrivateFoundation
Government
Government
Government
Government
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
International public
International public
International public
International public
PrivateFoundation
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
International public
Co-funding
International public
Co-funding
Co-funding
Government
International public
Co-funding
In-kindPrivatePrivatePrivateCo-funding
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
PrivateCo-funding
Co-funding
Government
Government
PrivateAmount$191,171$183,666$44,297$16,850$850,000$7,000$700,000$1,000,000$302$110,742$62,000$553,710$56,000$145,600$1,400,000$12,320$20,000$10,000$830,565$40,500$66,445$88,593$25,000$8,400$224,802$4,000$367,900$15,706$8,800$7,800$60,000$33,223$5,537$15,000$26,400$19,800$10,000$20,150$24,800$2,215$5,300$1,220$340$1,290

72

No.
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

CEPF ID
59783
59783
59033
59033
59033
59033
59033
59033

Organization
Wilderness Foundation
Wilderness Foundation
Wildlife ACT
Wildlife ACT
Wildlife ACT
Wildlife ACT
Wildlife ACT
Wildlife ACT

FunderWilderness Foundation (co-funding)South African National Parks
Wildlands Conservation TrustWWF
Zululand Hunters
Gutterman
Jo-Jo
Wild Dog Sports

95

59033

Wildlife ACT

Emvokweni Trust

96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117

65467
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59053
59591
64008
64008
59096
59096
65300
66387

WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WESSA
WWF-South Africa
WWF-South Africa
WWF-South Africa
Zunckel Services

Co-funding (WESSA) (SA Rand)
WESSA
Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers
Lion Roars Foundation
Signature trails
Wilderness Foundation
Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality
Nelson Mandela Bay University
Working for Water
Coca-Cola Fortune
Coca-Cola Fortune
Lion Roars, Dynamic Commodities & Canon EC
Little Walmer Golf Estate
SOV Event 2012
Sunridge residents
Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Board
Community Public Works Programme (SA Rand)
The Blue FundWorking for Water (SA Rand)
Nedbank (SA Rand)
WWF (co-funding)Partners (SA Rand)

Type
Co-funding
Government
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
PrivatePrivatePrivateGovernment/Public
Trust
Co-funding
Co-funding
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
Government
Government
Government
PrivatePrivatePrivatePrivatePrivatePrivateGovernment
Foundation
Foundation
Government
PrivateCo-funding
PrivateTotal

Amount$25,580$68,634$32,600$4,800$5,550
$400
$600
$500
$8,000$10,188$35,563$12,562$1,778$1,571$2,682$109,787$6,349$3,016$15,873$150,159$19,048$1,429
$1,460$1,587$104,166$29,900$20,000$25,515$197,668$20,850$33,223$16,367,88473

Annex 7. Progress Toward Long Term-Goals
Stakeholders at the final assessment workshop were asked to assess whether criterion were fully met, partially met, or not
met. Respondents were pooled by country (Swaziland and Mozambique, understanding the latter to only account for one
province, Maputo, in a very large country) or province (Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal).
Goal

Conservation
Priorities

SpeciesComprehensive global
threat assessments
conducted for all
terrestrial vertebrates,
vascular plants and at
least selectedfreshwater taxa

KBAs
KBAs identified in all
countries andterritories in theregion, covering, at
minimum, terrestrial,
freshwater and coastal
ecosystems

Partially met: Eastern
Cape, KZN, Swaziland

Fully met: KZN,
Swaziland

Not met: Maputo
province

Partially met: Eastern
Cape
Not met: Maputo
province

Criteria
Corridors
Conservation corridors
identified in all partsof the region wherecontiguous natural
habitats extend overscales greater than
individual sites, andrefined using recent
land cover data
Fully met: KZN,
SwazilandPartially met: Eastern
Cape
Not met: Maputo
province

Conservation Plans
Global conservation
priorities incorporated
into national orregional conservationplans or strategies
developed with theparticipation ofmultiple stakeholders
Fully met: KZN
Partially met: Eastern
Cape, Swaziland
Not met: Maputo
province

Best Practices
Best practices for
managing global
conservation priorities(e.g., sustainable
livelihoods projects,
participatory
approaches to park
management, invasive
species control, etc.)
are introduced,
institutionalized, andsustained at CEPF
priority KBAs andcorridors
Partially met: Eastern
Cape, KZN, Swaziland
Not met: Maputo
province

74

Goal

Criteria
Human Resources

Civil Society

Local and national civilsociety groups
collectively possess
technical
competencies ofcritical importance toconservation, on
topics that include
protected areas
management;
conservation
monitoring andanalysis; sustainablefinancing; policy
analysis andinfluence;
environmental
education and media
outreach; and threats
mitigation andadaptation
Partially met: KZN,
SwazilandManagement
Systems/Planning
Local and national civilsociety groups
collectively possess
sufficient institutionaland operational
capacity andstructures to raise
funds for conservationand to ensure theefficient managementof conservation
projects andstrategies
Partially met: KZN,
Swaziland
Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province

Partnerships

Financial Resources

Effective mechanisms
exist for conservationfocused civil society
groups to work in
partnership with one
another, and throughnetworks with local
communities,
governments, theprivate sector, donors,
and other important
stakeholders, inpursuit of common
conservation anddevelopment
objectives

Local civil society
organizations haveaccess to long-term
funding sources tomaintain theconservation results
achieved via CEPF
grants and/or otherinitiatives, throughaccess to new donor
funds, conservationenterprises,
memberships,
endowments, and/or
other funding
mechanisms

Fully met: Eastern
Cape, KZN, Swaziland

Partially met: KZN

Partially met: Maputo
province

Transboundary
Cooperation
In multi-country
hotspots, mechanisms
exist for collaboration
across politicalboundaries at site,
corridor and/or
national scales
Fully met: KZN,
Swaziland, Maputo
Province(Not applicable:
Eastern Cape)Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province, Swaziland

Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province

75

Goal

Sustainable
FinancingCriteria
Public Sector

Civil Society

DonorsLivelihoods

Public sector agencies
responsible forconservation in theregion have acontinued public fundallocation or revenuegenerating ability tooperate effectively

Civil society
organizations engaged
in conservation in theregion have access to
sufficient funding tocontinue their work atcurrent levels

Donors other than
CEPF have committed
to providing sufficient
funds to address
global conservation
priorities in the region

Local stakeholders
affecting theconservation of
biodiversity in theregion have economic
alternatives tounsustainable
exploitation of natural
resources

Partially met: KZN,
Swaziland
Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province
Policy forConservation
Laws exist that provide
incentives for desirable
conservation behavior
and disincentives
against undesirable
behavior

Enabling
Environment

Fully met: Eastern
Cape, KZN
Not met: Maputo
province, Swaziland

Partially met: KZN
Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province, Swaziland
Policy for Civil
SocietyLaws exist that allow
for civil society toengage in the processof public policymaking
and implementation
Fully meet: Eastern
Cape, KZN
Not met: Maputo
province, Swaziland

Partially met: KZN
Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province, Swaziland

Education /Training
Domestic programs
exist that produce
trained environmental
managers at
secondary,undergraduate, andadvanced academic
levelsFully met: KZN
Partially met: Eastern
Cape
Not met: Maputo
province, Swaziland

Partially met: KZN
Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province, Swaziland

Long Term
Mechanisms
Financing mechanisms(e.g., trust funds,
revenue from the saleof carbon credits,etc.) exist and are of
sufficient size to yieldcontinuous long-term
returns for at least thenext 10 years
Not met in any
locationTransparency

Enforcement

Relevant public sector
agencies use
participatory,
accountable, andpublicly reviewableprocesses to makedecisions regarding useof land and natural
resources

Designated authorities
are clearly mandated to
manage the protectedarea system(s) in theregion and conserve
biodiversity outside ofthem, and areempowered to
implement theenforcement continuumof education,
prevention, interdiction,
arrest, and prosecution

Partially met: KZN

Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo province,
Swaziland
Fully met: KZN

Partially met: Eastern
Cape, Swaziland
Not met: Maputo
province

76

Goal

Responsiveness

Biodiversity
Monitoring
Nationwide or regionwide systems are inplace to monitor
status and trends ofthe components of
biodiversity
Fully met: KZN
Partially met: Eastern
Cape, Swaziland
Not met: Maputo
province

Nationwide or regionwide systems are inplace to monitor
status and trends ofthreats to biodiversity

Criteria
Ecosystem Services
Monitoring
Nationwide or regionwide systems are inplace to monitor
status and trends of
ecosystem services

Fully met: KZN

Partially met: KZN

Partially met: Eastern
Cape, Swaziland

Not met: Eastern
Cape, Maputo
province, Swaziland

Threats Monitoring

Not met: Maputo
province

Adaptive
Management
Conservation
organizations andprotected area
management
authorities
demonstrate theability to respondpromptly to emerging
issuesPartially met: KZN,
Eastern Cape,
Swaziland
Not met: Maputo
province

Public Sphere
Conservation issues
are regularly
discussed in the publicsphere, and these
discussions influence
public policy
Fully met: KZN
Partially met: Eastern
Cape
Not met: Maputo
province, Swaziland

77