Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group (UBCEG)

Overview 2006 – 2009

Compiled by Garth Mortimer and Rudolph Röscher

1. What was the situation before the initiative? (The problem)

The Upper Breede River Valley area, situated in the Western Cape, extends from
Rawsonville in the South to Tulbagh in the North; approximately 1 000km². This is a
high value wine farming area, which also produces fruit, dairy products and grain. The
area also includes exceptionally rich biodiversity.

The following were the main problems:

1. Commercial farmers only make use of seasonal labour for 7 months of the year
which creates thousands of jobs but the rest of the year there is no other job
opportunities to ensure a continuous income to households. This caused not only
economical problems but also social problems in the community.

2. Service delivery to the farming communities in the rural areas from government
was ineffective; i.e. access to funding to create job opportunities and information
to obtain knowledge on how government can support their livelihoods.

3. There was no coordination between different government departments i.e.

funding and implementation of projects; and the slow processing of development
applications which had a direct influence on the local economy. This was the
result of no collective vision and common goal by the different spheres of
government.

4. Farmers are under increasing pressure to intensify their agricultural outputs to

meet rising food demands, and have responded by expanding the area under
cultivation and increasing usage of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and water.
The result is a landscape that is buckling under the pressure of its limited natural
resources. Several illegal developments took place and were worsened by the
uncoordinated development planning of the different departments that were not
communicating with each other.

5. The youth were not involved in any awareness campaign regarding the state of
the environment. Children in the township had no access to commercial farms or
any knowledge of the ecosystem services that is rendered to the larger
community. They had no knowledge about there natural environment that they
are living in.

6. Water quantity and quality: Surface and ground water resources are almost fully
utilized. The degradation of wetlands has caused flooding events and pollution of
surface and ground water from pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer-containing
agricultural runoff has also reduced water quality.

1
 7. Species loss: The Cape is recognized internationally as a Biodiversity Hotspot. It
has the highest known concentration of plant species in the world and 70% of
these species exist nowhere else on Earth. Sadly, the Cape is also recognized
globally as a leading site for species extinctions. Species extinction is not only an
ethical tragedy; it reduces the services provided to humans such as the
pollination of crops, and reduces eco-tourism opportunities and the untapped
horticultural and medicinal value held in our species.

8. Alien infestations: Alien species drive species loss in the Cape by pushing out
native species. Alien plants do further damage by using large amounts of water,
estimated at about 15% of mean annual runoff in the Western Cape. Alien
vegetation also increases the intensity and frequency of fires in the region.

9. Too frequent fires: While fires are a natural occurrence every 10-15 years in the
Cape, and are essential for the natural functioning of the fynbos ecosystem, too
frequent fires lead to species loss, erosion and infrastructure damage resulting in
job losses.

10. Tourism opportunities were under utilized in the valley because of

uncoordinated efforts by individuals and no partnership between private- and
public sector. This had a direct impact on job opportunities that could be created.

11. There was no community buy-in and therefore no contingency in any

initiative/project that government proposed or rolled out. As soon as the project
cycle was finished the situation became as it was before. Individual efforts, to
address this problem, from the different departments were fruitless and the
communities lost their trust. No new entrepreneurs were gained or sustainable
job opportunities created. No ownership was taken by the community to keep the
momentum and maintain the gains. Environmental concerns were seen as a
problem of government and too large to address for the rural community. They
did not see themselves as part of the solution.

These land management problems are soon to be exacerbated by the effects of climate
change. Agriculture in the Western Cape will be significantly impacted by these
changes, largely due to reduced water availability and increased temperatures.
Increased fire frequency and intensity are tipped to be the first climate change impacts
that the Cape will feel, and the uncontrolled spread of alien vegetation will worsen this
problem.

2
2. What were the key benefits resulting from the initiative? (The solution)

The Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group (UBCEG) was established in

recognition of the need for a body to provide cooperative governance to address the
social, economic and environmental challenges in the Upper Breede Region.

In the previous financial year alone, through the UBCEG Partnership, 2790 ha of
endangered habitats have been conserved through CapeNature’s Stewardship
programme; 11686 ha conserved under the Biodiversity and Wine Initiative; R1,
103,244.00 was spent on labour alone to clear 3042 ha of Alien Invasive Plant Species
on private land, 85 farms have received Herbicide assistance to clear invasive alien
plants, 10486 person days PDI employment was created, 578 children from 15 schools
have attended the Junior LandCare camps. 17 Volunteers received training in hosting
Junior LandCare Camps at local schools and 12 farm workers received Nature
Guardianship Training.

Natural resource management is a labour intensive undertaking, with work teams

responsible for maintaining hiking trails and roads, controlling erosion, eradicating and
controlling aliens, erecting firebreaks and providing general maintenance. This
collaborative planning approach has resulted in opportunities for job creation and
training of team leaders as independent contractors, who can sell their services to the
open market.

The impact was measured in terms of employment days created, community

contribution, hectares managed, training days provided, youth participation and funds
leveraged through the collaborative approach.

The UBCEG’s broad membership base has significantly improved communication

between organizations operating within the area. This has facilitated collaborative
planning and effective allocation of resources (funds, equipment and knowledge).
For example, the UBCEG provides a forum where different departments, responsible for
reviewing development applications, can discuss them within the context of the social,
economic and environmental priorities. As a result there is far greater accountability
regarding development planning and the application review process.

Improved coordination between organizations has made possible the formulation of a

list of priorities for action which have broad regional support. When presented to
potential funders these agreed priorities are far more likely to receive approval.

The rural community has seen significant improvements in service delivery, e.g. jobs
were created, youth are involved, alien plants have been cleared resulting in improved
water quality and quantity as well as decreased threat of uncontrolled wildfires.

3
The community took initiative and established the NPO Article 21 Company,
Breedekloof Wine & Tourism, through which they take ownership of funded projects.
This has a direct result in ensuring the sustainability of all initiatives jointly undertaken in
the region.

The UBCEG’s approach to sustainable land management has provided for sustaining
the ecosystem services and livelihood benefits, which are buffered against the pending
impacts of climate change.

Figure 1: The UBCEG has held several very effective farmer field days with a focus on improving
awareness on best practice and a lesson based outcome with regards to issues pertaining to natural
resource management and conservation.

4
3. Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the
stakeholders?

In 2003 the agricultural, conservation and planning departments agreed that it would be
better to undertake a collaborative planning approach to address Sustainable Resource
Conservation needs in the Breede River valley. The objective was to undertake a
participative approach through “LandCare Areawide Planning” in order to identify
Sustainable Resource Conservation needs and optimize agricultural planning and
development.
This allowed both individual and community needs (social, economic and
environmental) to be addressed in the context of the rural landscape while taking into
consideration important features of the natural environment. These needs and spatial
information would then feed back into the Intergraded Development Plan (IDP) through
the (Spatial Development Framework) SDF of the local and district municipalities.
This project, partially funded by a Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) small
grant, was undertaken collaboratively by the LandCare unit of the Department of
Agriculture, CapeNature, the Biodiversity and Wine Initiative and Breedekloof Wine and
Tourism, a Section 21 company representing the producers of the area. The project ran
from 2004 to 2005 and highlighted the need to provide additional capacity for extension
in this area. In 2006 Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) responded
by providing funding for an additional extension post for the broader Upper Breede
River Valley.
As a result by the end of 2006 the Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group
(UBCEG) was established in recognition of the need for a body to provide cooperative
governance in the rural areas of the region since existing interdepartmental forums or
reference groups focused mostly on urban issues.

The membership of the UBCEG has now expanded considerably, making this a very
powerful forum. The thirteen permanent members now include:
1. National Department of Water Affairs (Working for Water)
2. National Dept. of Agriculture; Forestry and Fisheries
3. National Dept. of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
4. South African National Biodiversity Institute
5. Provincial Dept. of Agriculture (LandCare)
6. Provincial Dept. Environment Affairs and Development Planning
7. CapeNature (provincial conservation agency)
8. Cape Winelands District Municipality
9. Witzenberg Local municipality
10. Breede Valley Local municipality
11. Breedekloof Wine and Tourism (private sector)
12. Biodiversity and Wine Initiative (NGO)
13. Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers (NGO)

5
All members see UBCEG as a way of tapping into an effective local communication
process whereby fiscal and structural delivery constraints can be addressed through
improved capacity and sharing of resources. The UBCEG gives its members the
platform to provide innovative and efficient solutions to common challenges that
government on all spheres are experiencing with regard to effective service delivery to
the people of South Africa and Public Private Partnerships.

Figure 2: Social Practitioner Delegates from Anglo American with members of the UBCEG on a
knowledge exchange to learn from the UBCEG model.

6
4. Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these
questions?

a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative?

Terms of Reference were drafted for the UBCEG in December 2006 with the following
objectives:
1. To build capacity and support each other where our initiatives and
responsibilities overlap.
2. To share knowledge and expertise.
3. Explore areas for collaboration with regard to training, Information sharing,
Communication, Data sharing and management, Strategic planning and
collaborative extension and improved capacity and access to resources.
4. To increase the opportunities to create jobs and give training to PDI’s in order
to reach our common goals to improve sustainable resource management for
the valley.

To achieve these objectives the UBCEG aims to: focus awareness on threats, best
practice and the value of accurate data, collaborative strategic planning and accessing
respective budgets in a way that adds value to the projects.

The UBCEG’s strategy for gaps where landowner willingness is not evident is to
acknowledge that it takes time to build relationships, but through the use of peer
pressure and as a last resort the “big stick” approach can be used to mobilise
communities into action.

The UBCEG further aims to build a robust system of securing voluntary commitment
from the community to take care of the environment; secure funding and implement
projects in priority areas that will:

- ensure sustainability

- encourage ownership by the community

- develop capacity within the community

By using the following “ideal” criteria on a sliding scale the UBCEG will prioritise where
the members will jointly focus its time, funding and energy. Areas that have

 High biodiversity value

 High economic value (Agriculture, forestry, tourism etc).

 High level of community buy-in

 Potential to have a high social impact through job creation and skills
development.

 Long term commitment through farm management plans

7
  Farm according to best practice

 Accurate spatial information

 Sufficient human resources that will ensure continuity, in others word maintaining
the gain.

It was agreed that based on the above criteria the main areas of focus would be:

• Youth Camps - “to create self awareness, sense of place and purpose to the
youth”

• Environmental Awareness and promoting Best Practice with land users

• Invasive Alien Plant Clearing

• Rehabilitation of river riparian zones

• Securing areas

i. of high biodiversity value

ii. that provides critical ecosystem services

The underlying aim is to create an enabling environment whereby the community can
take ownership of managing the threats to the natural environment and agricultural
resources thus ensuring the long term sustainability of the region.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the
chronology?

1. 2004 – 2005: LandCare Areawide planning Slanghoek pilot project

The needs of the community were determined through a process of one on one
meeting’s with landowners as well as through community forums such as the Farmer
Unions and Water Users Associations. This Landowner needs analysis not only focused
on environmental needs but also on the social and economic aspects of the
communities.

Farm scale mapping was undertaken resulting in an agricultural map indicating each
individual farms existing developments and infrastructure, the natural resources
available to the farm and threats to the sustainability of the farm. The landowners also
indicated their intentions for further development. When each of the individual farm
maps were combined into the AreaWide Planning map, we were able to get a better
understanding of the limitations on resources as well as the intense pressure on the
natural environment to sustain these developments.

The Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF) provided funding for a Botanical
Assessment to be undertaken with the desired outcome of identifying the Critical
Biodiversity Areas. A Conservation Priority Map was drawn up with key sites for
conservation identified.
8
With the information gained through the participative process of AreaWide Planning, the
needs of the community could be addressed according to the priorities guided by the
ideal criteria as set out by the UBCEG. Several funding proposals were drafted resulting
in the following:

A project jointly funded by LandCare and the Cape Winelands District Municipality to
construct a pedestrian footpath in the Slanghoek Valley since several fatal accidents
took place on the main road in recent years.

Several projects were written to create job opportunities to PDI’s, especially to address
the need of seasonal workers to have an income throughout the year. This was
achieved through Alien invasive plant clearing projects that was initiated with funds from
CapeNature and LandCare, river protection works funded by LandCare and the
rehabilitation of an eroded 4x4 route.

Development & Conservation threats were identified for individual areas and spatially
reflected in maps. This enabled development planning officials to make a more informed
decision during development applications.

2. July 2006: Appointment of Stewardship Extension Officer to negotiate the priority

biodiversity habitats into Contract Nature Reserves declared under Section 23 of the
Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003).

3. December 2006: Formal establishment of the Co-operative Governance Group

(UBCEG)

4. December 2006 to present: Strengthening of partnerships through quarterly meetings

and collaborative strategic planning of projects in prioritized areas.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome?

The main obstacles encountered were the community’s negative perceptions and
historical bad relationships with government departments. This was mainly the result of
ineffective service delivery that was experienced by the community which was caused
by capacity constraints within the Government Departments.

The community raised concerns around the following:

1. Who will bare the cost of managing conservation areas i.e. Invasive Alien Plant
clearing, fencing, etc?
2. Lack of capacity / budget within Agricultural- and Environmental Departments &
CapeNature to implement strategies. Lack of capacity within Environmental
Departments to approve or disapprove new developments applications.
3. If a landowner was not allowed to develop virgin veld the result would be:
• The loss in use and value of existing infrastructure that has been created for
further development of the farm. (Dams, irrigation pipelines, etc.)

9
 • Competing in the international market – to survive we need to enlarge our current
turnover and therefore our agricultural surface area.
• Very high cost to buy a new farm – Virgin land that may be developed (with
water) cost at average R40 000 / ha.
• A loss of income for the owner (+/- R13000/ha) as well as for his labour (+/-
R7500/ha) vs. the income of veldt R0/ha.
• Loss of job opportunities for unschooled labour (+/- 1 permanent employment /
4ha).
• Devaluation of land – bank loans based on security that land value offers. This is
confirmed by the Municipality Property Evaluation values in 2004: Irrigated
Agricultural Land – R40 000/ha vs. Veldt R500/ha
• A negative ROD for applications to plough is seen as “Enforced Conservation” or
“Green” expropriation of farms that has been in families for generations.

These concerns and challenges are being addressed through the participative nature of
the UBCEG’s activities, and by engaging with the issues on the ground through
awareness campaigns and informative field days and workshops to find solutions and
agreement on the way forward with the community.

Capacity issues within the government departments have been addressed mainly
through the collaborative process whereby support is given in areas where
responsibilities overlap, work is not duplicated by different departments and resources
are better allocated and shared based on the agreed priorities of the UBCEG.
Opportunities have also been created to improve individual capacities through sharing
of knowledge and expertise. Attending the quarterly UBCEG meetings are an excellent
way for junior officials and interns to get to grips with issues and learn from the
expertise of the Group.

d. What resources were used for the initiative?

Initial cost to get started:

1. R60,000.00: Salary of LandCare Official to implement AreaWide Planning

2. R60,000.00: Salary of CapeNature Official to implement AreaWide Planning
3. R58, 000.00: CEPF – Botanical Assessment
4. R20,000.00: Macro Plan Town Planners Funded GIS component for AreaWide
Planning
5. R110, 000.00: TMF(WWF-SA) / CapeNature provided further funding and
support to the GIS component for AreaWide Planning.

A total of R308, 000.00 was used in the initial process of AreaWide planning, mapping;
community needs analysis and environmental assessments which resulted in the
establishment of the UBCEG.

Projects and funds leveraged through the UBCEG partnership 2006 - 2009:

1. R 541, 450.00: C.A.P.E. / CapeNature Stewardship Extension Officer

2. R180,000.00: Operational costs
3. R2,300,000.00: Pedestrian footpath for children and agri-tourism

10
 4. R423,000.00: Rehabilitation of the Hoeks River
5. R100,000.00: Rehabilitation of the Badsberg 4X4 Route
6. R300,000.00: Removal of Alien Plants (Slanghoek)
7. R100,000.00: 2005 Alien Clearing ; Breede River
8. R100,000.00: 2006 Alien Clearing ; Olifantsberg
9. R1,100,000.00: 2007 Alien Clearing ; Waaihoeks Mountain (Initial)
10. R120,000.00: 2007 Junior LandCare Breerivier
11. R100,000.00: 2008 Junior LandCare Breerivier
12. R100,000.00: 2008 Junior LandCare Touwsrivier
13. R100,000.00: 2008 Alien Clearing – Olifantsberg
14. R620,000.00: 2008 Alien Clearing ; Waaihoeks Mountain (1st follow-up)
15. R100, 000.00: 2008 LandCare funded Alien Clearing of Klein Berg River
catchment, Tulbagh.
16. R615,000.00: 2009 Alien Clearing ; Waaihoeks Mountain (2nd follow-up)

A total of R6,899,450.00 of project funds have been secured through the UBCEG. Of
these funds, 85% was allocated to the employment of previously disadvantaged
individuals.

5% 3%
8%

R 180,000.00 Operational Costs

R 541,450.00 Employment
R 5,858,000.00 PDI Employment
R 320,000.00 Youth Awareness

85%

Figure 3: Distribution of funds leveraged through the UBCEG partnership 2006 - 2008

11
New Projects identified for 2009/2010:
1. Cape Winelands District Municipality:
R2,700, 000.00 over 3 years for Junior LandCare Camps / Field Days.
R120, 000.00 for accredited training.
R80, 000.00 Youth Environmental Conference.
R900, 000.00 / year for Alien Clearing / resource management.
2. Table Mountain Fund / Pioneer Foods:
R1,500,000.00 – People Working for the Environment
3. R75,000.00: LandCare funded alien clearing of Stewardship Sites
4. R100,000.00: LandCare funded alien clearing of Nekkies Floodplain
5. R100,000.00: LandCare funded alien clearing of Klein Berg River catchment,
Tulbagh
6. R85,000.00: Junior LandCare Breerivier
7. R185,000.00: Junior LandCare Touwsrivier
8. R150,000.00: Alien mapping and Fire Protection Plan

A total of R5, 995,000.00 has been allocated through the UBCEG for further projects
that will have a significant impact on the local community through training interventions,
social and environmental awareness, employment opportunities for previously
disadvantaged individuals and youth camps. Through these interventions the
environment of the Upper Breede River Valley will be greatly impacted, resulting in
improved ecosystem services such as clean water and air, sustainable management of
the regions natural resources that are important to agriculture, and the conservation of
the priority biodiversity areas in the region.

Figure 4: Farm workers receiving certificates after completion of the Nature Guardianship Training, 2008.

12
5. Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?

The answer to why and how other similar groups elsewhere in South Africa would use
the UBCEG methodology lies in how capacity constraints and bad service delivery was
addressed through this new network that was established. A new structure to better
communication and a more effective way to give voice to the people on the ground was
needed; and in doing so influence the decision makers with a bottom up approach;
breaking through the barriers of fiscal and structural constraints. In other words the
person on the ground could make the difference and this was soon experienced by the
community and field officers living and working in the rural landscape.

It was therefore very important that the agenda and format of quarterly meeting minutes
was formulated in such a way that the objectives of the UBCEG are transparent;
transferable and that members could be held accountable. Due to the complexity of
dealing with a number of different institutions, each with its own objectives, and
benefiting from the partnership in different ways; it was first necessary to identify and
agree what the S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-
bound) objectives of the UBCEG were. From this the key indicators that need
monitoring to measure the Groups impact on the Social, Economic and Environmental
aspects on the region for evaluation purposes were extrapolated.

The basic format of the agenda and minutes are transferable as other areas deal with
many of the same issues.

In order to make the initiative sustainable we first secure the buy-in and commitment of
the community. The overarching aim is to create an enabling environment for the
community to take ownership and control of the initiative.

Since the UBCEG started the need for an effective evaluation tool was highlighted
whereby the Group would be able to track the extent to which the partnership objectives
were met, the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the group in the Upper Breede
Region, and to develop a clearer sense of priorities and work more systematically to see
them through. Unless there is a demonstrable impact, it is hard to defend its
implementation and continuation.

Monitoring and evaluation have little value if the organization or project does not act on
the information that comes out of the analysis of data collected. Once we have the
findings, conclusions and recommendations from our monitoring and evaluation
process, we will need to:
• Monitor progress or the lack thereof;
• Report to stakeholders;
• Learn from the overall process;
• Make effective decisions about how to move forward; and, if necessary,
• Deal with resistance to the necessary changes within the UBCEG, or even
among other stakeholders.

13
In the case of the UBCEG the evaluations will be done primarily for the benefit of the
members of the group. It is important however to disseminate the results of such an
evaluation to a broader community to create awareness around what the group is doing
and show where progress has taken place and where problems lie. It is these lessons
learnt and systems that have been developed that make this initiative transferable and
adaptable to be replicated in other areas.

14
6. What are the lessons learned?
The UBCEG has learned and adopted the following eight principals based on Steven
Covey book “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” in its approach to building effective
partnerships and strengthening relationships with its members and the communities of
the Upper Breede River region:

Acknowledge that we are interdependent of each other; to realize that I need the best
thinking of others to join with my own.

Be proactive in your thinking, driven by values not the restriction in the work
environment and circumstances; be resourceful and grasp the initiative.

Begin with the end in mind; visualize the end product, focus on values and principles
you want to establish rather than maintenance of rules and regulations.

Put first things first, based on your priorities, driven by your principles.

Acknowledge that trust is the highest form of human motivation, it takes time and
patience.

Focus on relationships, there is no “quick fix” to have effective relationships; there must
be maturity, the strength of character to maintain them. Build on the emotional bank
account of others through courtesy, kindness, honesty and keeping of commitments.

Clarify expectations; face the differences and work together to arrive at a mutually
agreeable set of expectations.

Seek first to understand, listen with the intent to understand

15
7. Project Summary.

In 2006 the agricultural, conservation and planning departments agreed that it would be
better to undertake a collaborative planning approach to address Sustainable Resource
Conservation needs in the Breede River valley. The objective was to undertake a
participative approach through “LandCare Areawide Planning” in order to identify
Sustainable Resource Conservation needs and optimize agricultural planning and
development.

This allowed both individual and community needs to be addressed in the context of the
rural landscape while taking into consideration important features of the natural
environment. These needs and spatial information then feeds back into the Intergraded
Development Plan (IDP) through the (Spatial Development Framework) SDF of the local
– and district municipalities.

As a result by the end of 2006 the Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group
(UBCEG) was established in recognition of the need for a body to provide cooperative
governance in the rural areas of the region since existing interdepartmental forums or
reference groups focused mostly on urban issues.

The UBCEG recognized the participatory approach that LandCare Areawide Planning
follows and through this approach lays the foundations to:
• Coordinate & direct the local activities and projects of diverse departments who
have overlapping goals;
• Spatially include resource conservation priorities through joint planning and
information sharing into the SDF and IDP;
• successfully produce joint applications for funding support
The increased coordination between organizations has made possible the formulation of
a list of priorities for action which have broad regional support. This includes Junior
LandCare camps; environmental awareness days; clearing of invasive alien plants and
restoration work where needed.

These priorities result in a positive impact on the environment as natural resources and
key biodiversity areas are better managed thereby buffering the ecosystem services
that the agricultural economy relies on against the impending impacts of climate
change. This further results in other social and economic spin offs as managing natural
resources is a labour intensive task therefore creating a number of job opportunities for
previously disadvantaged communities.

16