Table 2.
Description of the final eight qualitative water related EI intervention typologies in the Berg River and Breede River catchments, South Africa
| Variable | Typology | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| Name | DEA NRM Specialisedd | Local Government | Provincial/State Government (Environment Dept) | Provincial/State Government (Agriculture Dept)e | Water Sector | Collaborative Agriculture and Waterf | Environmental NGO | Landowner/Conservancy |
| Code | S | LG | EPSG | APSG | WS | CAW | ENGO | LC |
| Projects |
S.1 DEA_WoF_Berg (i) S.2 DEA_WoF_Riviers (i) |
LG.1 CWDM_BRD LG.2 CoCT_Wemm LG.3 SLM_Wemm LG.4 CWDM_Pniel LG.5 BVLM_Mol LG.6 BVLM_Kwagg LG.7 SLM_Purg LG.8 SLM_MontR |
EPSG.1 CN_Berg (i) EPSG.2 DEADP_Berg (ii) EPSG.3 CN_Breede (i) EPSG.4 CN_Riviers (i) EPSG.5 DEADP_Breede (ii) EPSG.6 DEADP_WSFWS (ii) |
APSG.1 DoA_Riviers (i) |
WS.1 WUA/CMA_UpBreede WS.2 WUA/CMA_CentBreede WS.3 ZWUA_Vyeboom WS.4 ZWUA_Zonderend |
CAW.1 LandCare_Breede CAW.2 WWF_Breede CAW.3 LandCare_Holsloot |
ENGO.1 TWT_Berg |
LC.1 Boschendal (ii) LC.2 GSC_Berg (i) |
| Lead organisation/actors | Working on Fire (WoF) (i) & Working for Wetlands (WfWet) (ii) | District, Local and Metropolitan Municipalities |
Two sub-groups in DEA&DP: (i) Provincial conservation body (CapeNature); (ii) Directorate Pollution Management |
Two sub-groups in DoA: (i) Sustainable Resource Management; (ii) Original LandCare-led approach |
Various Water User Associations (WUAs) and the Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency (BGCMA) | Various Water User Associations (WUAs) and the Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency (BGCMA) | Environmental NGO | Private landowners in two sub-groups: (i) Conservancy; (ii) individual farm |
| Funding source (main) | Entirely National Treasury through DEA NRM | Primarily National Treasury through DEA NRM Working for Water (WfW) |
CapeNature (i): National Treasury through DEA NRM (WfW) and DEA&DP; Pollution Management (ii): DEA&DP with landowner contributions |
Sustainable Resource Management (SRM) (i): National Disaster Risk Reduction, LandCare, and provincial grant to DoA; LandCare (ii): National LandCare and Catchment Management Agency | National Treasury through DEA NRM (WfW) and water user levies administered by the BGCMA | National Treasury through DEA NRM (WfW) and water user levies administered by the BGCMA | Primarily National Treasury through the DEA NRM (WfW) | Conservancy (i): primarily National Treasury through DEA NRM (WfW); Farm (ii): Self-funded |
| Land owner | Public & private | Public |
CapeNature: Public land (conserved); Pollution Mgt: public & private |
SRM: public, linked to agricultural land; LandCare: Public & private linked to agricultural land | Public & private | Public & private linked to agricultural land | Public & private | Private |
| EI Type | Areas difficult to access: high-altitude catchments (WoF) and wetlands (WfWet) | Conserved mountain catchments and riparian zones |
CapeNature: conserved mountain catchments and riparian zones; Pollution Mgt: mainly riparian zones (rehabilitation) |
SRM: Riparian zones (river stabilisation, use of engineered structures e.g. groynes); LandCare: catchments and riparian zones linked to agricultural land | Riparian zones and wetlands | Riparian zones and wetlands linked to agricultural land | Mountain catchments and riparian zones | Catchments (uncultivated land) and riparian zones linked to agricultural land |
| Budget | Costs are higher per unit area IAPs cleared than for non-specialised EI interventions | Standard as per the DEA NRM programme | Standard as per the DEA NRM programme | SRM: Costs are very high in comparison with solely nature-based interventions; LandCare: Standard costs | Standard as per the DEA NRM programme | Standard budgets although slightly higher than usual | Standard as per the DEA NRM programme | Conservancy: Standard as per the DEA NRM programme; Farm: as per farm practice |
| Partnerships | Low | Low | Some | Several | Some | Several | Several | Conservancy: several; Farm: some |
| Co-funding | Limited | Some |
CapeNature: none; Pollution Mgt: landowners |
SRM: limited; LandCare: landowners | Limited | Multiple from various sources | Some, including landowners | Conservancy: landowners |
| Training | Highly trained and specialised | Standard |
CapeNature: standard; Pollution Mgt: specialised |
SRM: highly trained and specialised; LandCare: standard | Standard | Standard | Standard | Standard |
| Jobs | Permanent or semi-permanent | Short-term, aim to benefit many |
CapeNature: short-term, aim to benefit many; Pollution Mgt: permanent or semi-permanent |
SRM: Permanent; LandCare: some short-term but also longer-term contracts | Permanent or semi-permanent | Focus on longer-term contracts | Focus on longer-term contracts |
Conservancy: Short-term, aim to benefit many; Farm: Permanent |
| Potentially scalable | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Factors of potential for scaling (see bottom of table for explanation) |
(a)a Yes (b)b Yes (c)c Yes |
(a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes |
(a) Yes (CapeNature) (b) No (c) Yes (CapeNature) |
(a) Yes (b) No (c) No |
(a) Yes (b) Yes (potentially) (c) Yes |
(b) No (c) No |
(a) Yes (at micro scale on every well-run farm; can aggregate to macro-scale) (b) Yes (can aggregate nation-wide) |
|
| Current barriers to scaling | DEA NRM annual budget cycles with issues of “stop-start” funding flows and unpredictability of allocations and payment dates from year to year | DEA NRM annual budget cycles with issues of “stop-start” funding flows and unpredictability of allocations and payment dates from year to year |
Provincial programmes not found in this form in other provinces Pollution management programme is very small (human & financial) |
Provincial programmes not found in this form in other provinces SRM river stabilisation only suitable in specific circumstances and not favoured by many proponents of NBS |
BGCMA is one of only two CMAs that are formally established in SA under the National Water Act. Potentially all CMAs could anchor this typology across the country. The stakeholders preferred the similar but more inclusive and collaborative CAW typology. (#6) as having more potential for scaling | BGCMA is one of only two CMAs that are formally established in SA under the National Water Act. Potentially all CMAs could anchor this typology across the country. The stakeholders preferred this typology to the Water Sector typology (#5) as having more potential for scaling | There are limited numbers of environmental NGOs in this space and they are concentrated around larger centres nationwide. They are usually small (human & financial) | There are limited numbers of Conservancies and they are not well distributed spatially. They can play a role but scaling will depend largely on individual farmers/landowners |
The scalability of each typology, the factors of scalability, and some of the barriers to scalability are also indicated, as perceived by the stakeholders
aExisting financial management structures and practices are geared towards large budgets and there is scope to manage significantly larger budgets should large-scale funding from current or new sources become available
bGovernance and financial management structures exist across the country
cThe typology, i.t.o. its prevalent water-related EI interventions, can have a high impact across large spatial scales where restoration is greatly needed
dSince WfWet is sub-contracted by other projects on a needs basis it is not represented directly in the project inventory
eSRM: Driven by government obligations w.r.t the National Water Act and the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act. A highly controlled approach based on engineered interventions. LandCare: Since this typology has transitioned into the Collaborative Agriculture & Water (CAW) typology it is not represented directly in the project inventory (last five years)
fImproved LandCare approach to clearing on agricultural land, now focused on a collaborative landscape approach; two mentoring organisations (LandCare, WWF-SA)