tm 1683 source-to-seasourcetosea.org.za/preproduction/wp-content/uploads/2016/...tm 1683...

TM 1683

Source-to-Sea

River Corridor Restoration for People & Nature

TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

April 2016

TM 1683

Source-to-Sea River Corridor Restoration for People & Nature


Final Report – April 2015

CONTENTS

1 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

2 Ecological Baseline ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Development of the Baseline for Prioritising ................................................................................3

2.2 Biodiversity Value ..........................................................................................................................4

2.3 Social Value ...................................................................................................................................6

2.4 Overall Importance Value .............................................................................................................7

3 Summary of findings and key actions .......................................................................................... 9

3.1 Water Quantity..............................................................................................................................9

3.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................9

3.3 Biodiversity Value ........................................................................................................................10

3.4 Rehabilitation Recommendations ...............................................................................................11

3.5 Social Value and Recreation ........................................................................................................12

4 Towards an Implementation Strategy ....................................................................................... 12

4.1 Vision for Source-to-Sea ..............................................................................................................12

4.2 Catchment Stakeholder Framework for Cooperative Implementation ......................................14

4.2.1 Sand River Catchment Forum (SRCF) ..........................................................................................15

4.2.2 Sand River Operational Working Group ......................................................................................15

4.2.3 Working Together in Ward 62 .....................................................................................................18

4.2.4 City of Cape Town / SANParks Bilateral ......................................................................................18

5 Taking the Vision Forward ........................................................................................................ 19

5.1 BiodiverCities Conference, April 2014 ........................................................................................19

5.2 ICLEI ThinkTank, April 2015 .........................................................................................................19

5.3 Source-to-Sea Website, 2015 ......................................................................................................20

5.4 Development of a Business Plan, 2016 .......................................................................................21

5.5 Looking to the Future ..................................................................................................................22

6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 24

7 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 24

8 References ............................................................................................................................... 24

MAPS, TABLES, GRAPHS & DIAGRAMS

Map 1: Spatial distribution of the aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity categories per sub-catchment

Map 2: Overview of the extent of the recreational pathway system in the Sand River Catchment

Map 3: Summary of main rehabilitation focus areas in the Sand River Catchment

Table 1: Terrestrial Biodiversity Value Ratings

Table 2: Aquatic Biodiversity Value Ratings

Table 3: Social Value Ratings

Table 4: Overall Importance Rating (incorporating aquatic & terrestrial biodiversity importance, and social

importance)

Table 5: Sand River Catchment Operational Working Group – Summary of Implementation Challenges and

Recommendations (Workshop held 25 Jan 2013)

Graph 1: Breakdown of aquatic biodiversity categories per catchment and a summary of the terrestrial and

social ratings.

Graph 2: Overall breakdown of biodiversity & social ratings.

Diagram 1: Pictorial representation of the Source-to-Sea Vision

Diagram 2: Catchment stakeholder matrix clustered by common interest

Diagram 3: Forums contributing to implementation within the Sand River Catchment

Diagram 4: Current implementation status and challenges (April 2016)

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: EcoRehab Matrix for the Sand River Catchment (Excel Spreadsheet)

The Matrix also contains the following information on separate tabs:

Background information utilised to inform the project, including a list of reports referenced and details

of rehabilitation work previously undertaken.

Detailed statistics utilised to determine the Biodiversity Importance values for each sub-catchment

Summary of the main comments stemming from the initial specialist workshop that were considered

during the project and drawing up of the EcoRehab Matrix.

Appendix 2: Princesses Trails Map utilised to determine the Social Value ratings for the EcoRehab Matrix, 2009

Appendix 3: Sand River Operational Working Group, Minutes Jan 2013 to July 2014

Appendix 4: Presentation given at the BiodiverCities conference, April 2014

Appendix 5: “Linking Local, Provincial & National Parks” Workshop Report, March 2014

Appendix 6: Results of the Source-to-Sea ThinkTank, run by ICLEI, April 2015

Appendix 7: Press Article – Peoples Post, 14 April 2015

Appendix 8: Source-to- Sea website snapshot, Current

Appendix 9: Executive Summary: Business Plan, Jan 2016, “Securing ecological infrastructure to enhance the

value of, and returns from the Zandvlei Catchment: A pilot investment plan for the Source to-Sea”

TM 1683 Source-to-Sea (River Corridor Restoration for People and Nature):

Towards the Development of an Integrated Implementation Strategy

Final Report - April 2016

Page 1 of 26

TM 1683

Source-to-Sea River Corridor Restoration for People & Nature


Final Report – April 2015

1 Project Summary

This project, made possible through funding provided by TMF, facilitated a consultative process to provide

stakeholder input towards the development of an Integrated Implementation Strategy for the Source-to-Sea

concept, developed for the Sand River Catchment within the City of Cape Town.

As one of the most important catchments within the City of Cape Town from a biodiversity perspective, a

significant amount of riverine improvement, rehabilitation and maintenance work is being undertaken by the

local authority, parastatals and civil society. This project aimed to align these individual efforts towards a

common vision based on the protection and enhancement of biodiversity within the catchment. It provides some

guidelines as to how, where and what type of work should be undertaken. It is hoped that the through the

project, communication between role-players in the catchment will be improved enabling streamlining of future

on-the-ground implementation.

The objectives of this project and outcomes are discussed below:

Phase 1:

1. Prioritising rehabilitation and conservation work in the Sand River catchment;

Outcome: Each of the 10 Sub-Catchments in the Sand River Catchment were prioritised using statistical

data from City of Cape Town GIS data for aquatic and terrestrial importance. Social ratings were gained

from the Princesses Trails recreational overlay. (See Appendix 2 - A0 Map supplied electronically only

due to the size of the map). This baseline information was then expanded into an EcoRehab Baseline

Matrix (see Appendix 1) which mapped out the catchment from and ecological perspective.

2. Defining a specific vision & target for each identified & prioritised management area;

Outcome: Sub-catchments were rated according to their biodiversity and social importance and goals

were set for each of the sub-catchments once particular threats and opportunities were identified. These

were included in the EcoRehab Baseline Matrix.

Phase 2:

3. Identifying what resources & actions are necessary to achieve these targets in each management area,

taking the form of collaborating with stakeholders to determine the contributions each can make

towards the achievement of these targets;




Page 2 of 26

Outcome: Broad resources in terms of stakeholders at an operational level were identified in the

EcoRehab Baseline Matrix. A Sand River Operational Working Group (see Appendix 3) was then

established to under the auspices of the Sand River Catchment Forum. This platform provided the

opportunity to discuss operational level activities and challenges, funding availability and needs.

Cross pollinisation of ideas and resources helped greatly to maximise rehabilitation and

maintenance work occurring within the catchment. One of the main benefits was the setting of

communication protocols within the group. These have existed and adapted far beyond the

lifespan of the Working Group itself.

4. Identifying what additional resources are required to inform future applications for funding to achieve

these set targets.

Outcome: This was partly achieved through the setting up of the Operational Working Group under the

Sand River Catchment Forum. Raising of the profile of the Source-to-Sea vision to allow for the

development of an integrated implementation strategy the project was presented at the

BiodiverCities conference in April 2015. (see Appendix 4 & 5).

The setting of targets in the absence of a driver or champion for implementation was not possible,

but it is hoped that once the Business Plan completed as part of Phase 3 gains acceptance and is

adopted, the City of Cape Town will have all the background information to set informed and

realistic targets.

Phase 3:

5. Although this phase did not form part of the TMF funded work, the overall project aimed to investigate

alternative funding sources to include structuring the overall implementation strategy for the catchment

by defining roles & responsibilities for each of the stakeholders, setting targets & formulating a

monitoring & evaluation protocol to enable accurate tracking & revisiting of targets on a regular basis.

Outcome: Additional funding was made available to complete this phase in subsequent years through

the ICLEI run Urban Natural Assets for Africa Project in 2015. This was achieved through:

1. UNA Africa Cape Town Source to Sea ThinkTank: (See Appendix 6 & 7) The first in a series of two community engagements held in the framework of the project, Urban Natural Assets for Africa Project (UNA Africa), Cape Town, South Africa.

Dates: 26 - 27 March 2015 (9:00 am - 4:00 pm) Venue: Rondevlei Nature Reserve (Day 1) & Alphen Hotel/Diep River (Day 2) Convenor: ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center Sponsor: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) Partners: African Center for Cities, the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI),

GBIF Secretariat and SwedBio at the Stockholm Resilience Centre

2. Set up a website for Source-to-Sea to draw together the elements that is the Source-to-Sea vision and raise the profile of the concept: http://sourcetosea.org.za (see Appendix 8)

3. Detailed Business Plan and costing for implementation. The study titled “Securing ecological infrastructure to enhance the value of, and returns from the Zandvlei Catchment: A pilot investment plan for the Source to-Sea” was undertaken by Jenny Clover towards the end of 2015. (Release of the final report is still pending but the Executive Summary of the Business Plan is provided in Appendix 9).

http://sourcetosea.org.za/




Page 3 of 26

2 Ecological Baseline

A focused workshop comprising experts in the field of biodiversity and catchment management was held on 14

February 2011, to determine a baseline for the project. The panel of specialists with intimate knowledge of the

catchment in attendance at the workshop are listed below with their affiliations and particular area of expertise:

Dr Liz Day (Freshwater ecology)

Sandra and John Fowkes (Metaplan, Biodiversity strategic planning)

Martin Thompson (City of Cape Town – Catchment Management)

Heidi Niewoudt (Working for Wetlands and wetland rehabilitation)

Candice Haskins (City of Cape Town – Water quality)

Dalton Gibbs (City of Cape Town – Biodiversity management)

Louise Stafford (City of Cape Town – Invasive Species and Green Jobs)

Dr Pat Holmes (City of Cape Town – Biodiversity management)

Sandra Hollermann (SANParks, Tokai Section)

Leighan Mossop (SANParks, Silvermine Section)

Facilitators: Mandy Noffke (WESSA, Project management and wetland rehabilitation)

Nancy Job (Mondi Wetlands Project, GIS and freshwater expertise)

Philippa Huntly (WESSA, Wetland and biodiversity knowledge – scribe)

Although the first objective of the project was to prioritise rehabilitation and conservation work in the catchment,

it proved to be very difficult as each of the many stakeholders would prioritise in a different way. The group

therefore followed a different route and rather concentrated on looking at the biodiversity value of each of the

sub-catchments in order to inform future rehabilitation and conservation efforts.

Preparatory work for the workshop to calculate the biodiversity importance ratings for each sub-catchment

included an interrogation of existing reports to ascertain existing data on suggested priorities and any future

proposals for the catchment. Reports consulted included the:

Sand River Catchment Management Plan (2003)

Prinskasteel / Keysers River Management & Rehabilitation Action Plan (2006)

Princess’s Trails project that mapped existing & potential trail linkages in the catchment (2009)

Aquatic Weed Management Plan for the Sand River Catchment (2011)

The City of Cape Town’s GIS biodiversity data, in particular the wetland layer & Biodiversity Network

This information represented in table format, was collated to provide an overall rating of the importance of each

sub-catchment within the Sand River Catchment.

Although Zandvlei was identified as the most important sub-catchment, the workshop agreed that the project

should focus efforts on upstream sub-catchments which ultimately impact Zandvlei, which already has an Estuary

Management Plan in place. It was also agreed that Princessvlei would not be a focus area because the hydrological

link to Zandvlei is not significant, and is also in the process of having a detailed management plan drawn up.

The workshop therefore concentrated on analysing and capturing detailed comments on the remaining 8 sub-

catchments in terms of the broad biodiversity importance ratings extracted from existing reports. This included:




Page 4 of 26

Biodiversity value; identifying important characteristics that will have an impact on catchment

management;

Water Quality & Quantity, identifying any positive or negative inputs affecting the sub-catchment;

Social value, including identifying important historical, recreational or educational sites or activities.

In the little time available at the workshop, an attempt was made at identifying key threats, opportunities &

potential goals that need to be achieved through catchment management interventions. Where possible, broad

priorities & rehabilitation objectives were listed, as well as any known future projects or project ideas. The initial

comments were fleshed out further when the draft workshop notes were circulated in the form of a matrix

spreadsheet. The final EcoRehab Baseline Matrix spreadsheet is attached to this report as Appendix 1.

This was undertaken by utilizing GIS to determine the total area in each sub-catchment categorised on the City of

Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network as having ecological importance, i.e areas listed as CBA (Critical Biodiversity

Areas), CESA (Critical Ecological Support Areas), OESA (Other Ecological Support Area), Protected Areas and Other

Natural Areas as shown in the map below. These areas were separated into terrestrial and wetland areas and

evaluated separately.

Map 1: Spatial distribution of the aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity categories per sub-catchment

(taken from the City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network)




Page 5 of 26

Table 1: Terrestrial Biodiversity Value Ratings

Table 2: Aquatic Biodiversity Value Ratings

Priority Rating of Sub-Catchments in the Source-to-Sea Project Area (Sand River Catchment)Based on Aquatic & Terrestrial Biodiversity (CCT GIS), & Social Importance (Princess's Trail)

Tot Area Import.

(ha) Rating Total Area Importance P. Area P. Area Total Area Importance Paths Importance

CBA1 CBA2 CESA OESA Wetland Rating CBA1B CBA1C CBA1E Other nat CR EN Terrestrial Rating Linear kms Rating

1 KEY Keysers 467 5 3 15 23 7.5 48.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 7

2 WST Westlake 628 9 0 0.5 10 5.5 16 8 0 18 2 0 0 15 35 7 7 9

3 PRS Prinseskasteel 601 8 0 0.5 2 4.5 7 10 0 0 0 0 61 45 106 5 19 5

4 PRK Prinskasteel 836 2 9.5 19 3 1 32.5 5 12 0 0 0 133 239 384 1 47 1

5 GBK Grootboskloof 1023 4 11 4.5 8.5 4 28 7 0 0 0 55 0 113 168 3 28 3

6 SPM Spaanschemat 1014 8 0 0 13.5 1.2 14.7 9 5 83.5 0 3 0 7.5 99 6 17 6

7 UDP Upper Diep 2137 3 0 2.5 21 7.7 31.2 6 0 45 0 25 0 95 165 4 42 2

8 LDP Lower Diep 696 6 0 4 24.5 7.5 36 4 0 15 0 11 0 0 26 8 10 8

9 ZND Zandvlei 1090 1 171 2.5 14 13 200.5 1 0.05 54.5 108 8.5 2 54 227.05 2 26 4

10 PSV Princessvlei 186 7 0 33 6.8 3.5 43.3 3 0 0 25 0 0 0 25 9 3 10

SUM Rating SocialRating x3 Rating x2 Rating x1

KEY Keysers 33 5 2 6 10 20 7

WST Westlake 47 9 8 24 7 14 9 1 Most Important

PRS Prinseskasteel 45 8 10 30 5 10 5 2 Second most important

PRK Prinskasteel 18 2 5 15 1 2 1 3 Third most important

GBK Grootboskloof 30 4 7 21 3 6 3 4 Fourth most important

SPM Spaanschemat 45 8 9 27 6 12 6 5 Fifth most important

UDP Upper Diep 28 3 6 18 4 8 2

LDP Lower Diep 36 6 4 12 8 16 8

ZND Zandvlei 11 1 1 3 2 4 4

PSV Princessvlei 37 7 3 9 9 18 10

Note: Ratings have been weighted - Aquatic biodiversity carries the most weight, social the lowest

Social Value

COLOUR CODES

Biodiversity & Social Low no = high rating

Aquatic TerrestrialOverall Importance

OVERALL IMPORTANCE OF SUB-CATCHMENTS

Aquatic Biodiversity Importance Terrestrial Biodiversity Importance


Tot Area Import.



1 KEY Keysers 467 5 3 15 23 7.5 48.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 7

2 WST Westlake 628 9 0 0.5 10 5.5 16 8 0 18 2 0 0 15 35 7 7 9





7 UDP Upper Diep 2137 3 0 2.5 21 7.7 31.2 6 0 45 0 25 0 95 165 4 42 2

8 LDP Lower Diep 696 6 0 4 24.5 7.5 36 4 0 15 0 11 0 0 26 8 10 8

9 ZND Zandvlei 1090 1 171 2.5 14 13 200.5 1 0.05 54.5 108 8.5 2 54 227.05 2 26 4



KEY Keysers 33 5 2 6 10 20 7







LDP Lower Diep 36 6 4 12 8 16 8




Social Value

COLOUR CODES






Tot Area Import.



1 KEY Keysers 467 5 3 15 23 7.5 48.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 7

2 WST Westlake 628 9 0 0.5 10 5.5 16 8 0 18 2 0 0 15 35 7 7 9





7 UDP Upper Diep 2137 3 0 2.5 21 7.7 31.2 6 0 45 0 25 0 95 165 4 42 2

8 LDP Lower Diep 696 6 0 4 24.5 7.5 36 4 0 15 0 11 0 0 26 8 10 8

9 ZND Zandvlei 1090 1 171 2.5 14 13 200.5 1 0.05 54.5 108 8.5 2 54 227.05 2 26 4



KEY Keysers 33 5 2 6 10 20 7







LDP Lower Diep 36 6 4 12 8 16 8




Social Value

COLOUR CODES








Page 6 of 26

Identifying of the recreational or social value of the sub-catchment of the catchment was based on the work

undertaken in the Princess’s Trails project, provided in Appendix 2. This was quantitatively achieved by measuring

the total length of pathways in the catchment as a measure of recreational use, as shown in the map below.

Further qualitative comments based on local knowledge of the catchment then refined the rating.

Map 2: Overview of the extent of the recreational pathway system in the Sand River Catchment

(taken from the Princess’s Trail project)


Tot Area Import.



1 KEY Keysers 467 5 3 15 23 7.5 48.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 7

2 WST Westlake 628 9 0 0.5 10 5.5 16 8 0 18 2 0 0 15 35 7 7 9





7 UDP Upper Diep 2137 3 0 2.5 21 7.7 31.2 6 0 45 0 25 0 95 165 4 42 2

8 LDP Lower Diep 696 6 0 4 24.5 7.5 36 4 0 15 0 11 0 0 26 8 10 8

9 ZND Zandvlei 1090 1 171 2.5 14 13 200.5 1 0.05 54.5 108 8.5 2 54 227.05 2 26 4



KEY Keysers 33 5 2 6 10 20 7







LDP Lower Diep 36 6 4 12 8 16 8




Social Value

COLOUR CODES






Tot Area Import.



1 KEY Keysers 467 5 3 15 23 7.5 48.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 7

2 WST Westlake 628 9 0 0.5 10 5.5 16 8 0 18 2 0 0 15 35 7 7 9





7 UDP Upper Diep 2137 3 0 2.5 21 7.7 31.2 6 0 45 0 25 0 95 165 4 42 2

8 LDP Lower Diep 696 6 0 4 24.5 7.5 36 4 0 15 0 11 0 0 26 8 10 8

9 ZND Zandvlei 1090 1 171 2.5 14 13 200.5 1 0.05 54.5 108 8.5 2 54 227.05 2 26 4



KEY Keysers 33 5 2 6 10 20 7







LDP Lower Diep 36 6 4 12 8 16 8




Social Value

COLOUR CODES





Table 3: Social Value Ratings




Page 7 of 26

The results of this work ranked the 10 sub-catchments of the Sand River Catchment in terms of biodiversity

importance is illustrated in the graphs and tables below.

Graph 1: Breakdown of aquatic biodiversity categories per catchment and a summary of the

terrestrial and social ratings.

Graph 2: Overall breakdown of biodiversity & social ratings.




Page 8 of 26

TABLE 4: Overall Importance Rating (incorporating aquatic & terrestrial biodiversity importance and social importance)


Tot Area Import.



1 KEY Keysers 467 5 3 15 23 7.5 48.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 7

2 WST Westlake 628 9 0 0.5 10 5.5 16 8 0 18 2 0 0 15 35 7 7 9





7 UDP Upper Diep 2137 3 0 2.5 21 7.7 31.2 6 0 45 0 25 0 95 165 4 42 2

8 LDP Lower Diep 696 6 0 4 24.5 7.5 36 4 0 15 0 11 0 0 26 8 10 8

9 ZND Zandvlei 1090 1 171 2.5 14 13 200.5 1 0.05 54.5 108 8.5 2 54 227.05 2 26 4



KEY Keysers 33 5 2 6 10 20 7







LDP Lower Diep 36 6 4 12 8 16 8




Social Value

COLOUR CODES








Page 9 of 26

3 Summary of findings and key actions

Utilising the baseline information provided by the biodiversity and social importance ratings per sub-catchment,

the next phase of the project focused on teasing out more detail for each of these sub-catchments and developing

the EcoRehab Baseline Matrix.

These focus area are:

Water Quantity Water Quality Biodiversity Rehabilitation Recreation

Key Findings:

Abstraction could not be quantified, but was not deemed to be significant

Flooding was identified as an issue in the lower catchment of the Diep River.

Clearing of upper catchment plantations may in time increase the quantity of water in the catchment.

Action:

Determine if rehabilitation interventions can alleviate the frequency or severity of flooding in the

lower Diep River.

Conclusion:

The quantity of water in the Sand Catchment was not highlighted as a significant issue and therefore

should not be a focus of catchment management activities. A watching brief should however be held

with respect to the potential increase of water volumes due to clearing activities in the upper

catchment over time.

Key Findings:

Known point sources of pollution include the light industrial area of Retreat (KEY); and back yard dwellers

in informal housing areas in the Lotus river area (LDP) and Westlake Village (WST).

Farming activities at Dreyersdal and the Constantia Valley were identified as a probable cause of nutrient

enrichment, although no quantifiable data is available.

Sewage overflows into the Pollsmoor dam was also identified as contributing to nutrient loading of the

Westlake stream, as was run off from the Westlake and Steenberg Golf courses. Proliferation of alien

vegetation downstream of Steenberg golf course bears witness to this.

The impact from forestry may contribute significantly to sedimentation of the PRK, GBK and to a lesser

extent the SPM rivers. This is likely to increase as plantations are cleared and erosion protection is not

adequately implemented.

Horse riding and stabling in the Constantia valley may also contribute to nutrient loading in the PRK, GBK

& SPM streams, but to a lesser degree.

Long Term Actions:

CoCT to continue working on finding solutions to the backyard dwellers in informal settlements.

Investigate possible opportunities of incentivizing more ecologically sustainable farming practices the

Constantia Valley. It is felt that the involvement of BWI may be key to this process.




Page 10 of 26

Medium Term Actions:

Investigate the opportunities for using artificial wetlands to address the runoff from these areas

before they enter the rivers. A strong possibility exists at Westlake Village.

To ensure the continued implementation of the early detection protocol for sewage spills at the

Pollsmoor dam, the fomalisation of the protocol should be investigated.

Rehabilitation of the Kirstenhof wetlands below the M3 Highway has the potential to significantly

improve water quality going into Zandvlei and should be a future focus area.

Short Term Actions:

Monitoring of forestry block clearing operations necessary to ensure follow-up rehabilitation is

undertaken when necessary.

Conclusions:

The main water quality issues in the catchment are focused around the Westlake river, but

opportunities for mitigation are available in the sub-catchment. Urban encroachment in the Lower

Diep leave little room for water quality improvement, but focusing efforts around the Mocke

Wetlands and Little Princessvlei may assist to mitigate these impacts.

The impact of farming practices in the valley is not fully understood but it is believed to have a strong

impact on water quality, which will increase as land in the catchment is farmed more intensively.

More ecologically sustainable farming practices may significantly improve water quality in the long-

term.

The role of forestry, as with farming, is not well researched, but monitoring of the plantation removal

is necessary if negative impacts are to be mitigated.

Key Findings:

Cape Flats Sand Fynbos occurs in the PRK and around Princessvlei, while Peninsula Granite Fynbos occurs

in the upper catchments of the PRK, UDP, GBK & WST catchments.

The occurrence of the endangered Western Leopard Toad along portions of every stream in the

catchment, and the Knysna Warbler in De Hell & the upper GBK River is significant, and all habitats in

which these species occur are to be protected and restored where possible. Dreyersdal and Die Oog were

identified as important bird habitats to be protected and improved.

The urban greenbelts make a significant contribution to the maintenance of ecological functioning along

rivers, even though they are constrained by development.

The major threats to ecological functioning include alien vegetation, channelization by annual flood

management activities, littering and dumping in the lower catchment, private gardening of stretches of

river and the water quality impacts related to farming, forestry and informal settlements described above.

Opportunities for rehabilitation projects exist in nodes along all of the rivers in the catchment – these

should form the focus of efforts to improve the biodiversity value to the catchment as a whole.

Key Actions in each sub-catchment:

Focus efforts in rehabilitation nodes listed below: (Listed in order of biodiversity value rating)

PRK: Identify and rehabilitate wetlands in the lower catchment, primarily Soetvlei and adjacent

wetlands.

UDP: Clear alien and undertake timeous gabion repairs where needed.

GBK: Clear aliens and implement additional river rehabilitation projects such as the Neva Road

example.




Page 11 of 26

KEY: Reshape river banks to more gentle gradients where possible in accordance with the Flood

control design guidelines. Design of project to consider security risks associated with the increase of

vegetation cover in the area. The diversion of the Keysers & Westlake Rivers into the Westlake

Wetlands to be investigated further.

LDP: Design & implement rehabilitation plans for the Mocke Wetlands and Little Princessvlei.

PSV: Restore Western Leopard Toad habitat around the vlei.

SPM: Clear aliens and implement additional river rehabilitation projects such as the Neva Road

project. A very long term goal is to investigate the possibility of reinstating a functioning wetland at

the confluence of the SPM, PRK and PRS rivers with the aim of improving water quality. This

confluence area has sufficient land available to achieve such a function and is ideally placed at the

receiving end of almost all of the farming and forestry impacts in the upper catchment.

PRS: Clear aliens and restore greenbelt along stream from Orpen Road to the M3.

WST: Clear aliens in upper catchment (mainly SANDF land). Design & implement a rehabilitation plan

for the Kirstenhof wetlands.

Conclusion:

The main focus areas for biodiversity improvement include those listed as important for water quality

improvement. These include the rehabilitation of the Mocke Wetlands, Little Princessvlei, and the

Kirstenhof Wetlands. The Westlake River was rated as having the lowest biodiversity value of all the

rivers in the catchment, but at the same time it has the greatest potential for rehabilitation and

mitigating downstream impacts.

The main rehabilitation focus areas for each of the sub-catchments is displayed in Infographic 1 below:

Map 3: Summary of main rehabilitation focus areas in the Sand River Catchment




Page 12 of 26

Key Findings:

Expectedly Tokai Park was rated as having the highest recreational use because of the extensive network

of pathways and multi-use capability of the area in the lower plantation.

The greenbelts in the UDP and GBK are also very popular and well utilized as multi-use trails.

Although the established pathway network around Zandvlei is less than other areas in the catchment, the

added dimension of water sports on Zandvlei makes the area the 4th most well utilized.

Princessvlei, although it attracts recreational users, the area is underdeveloped and therefore was not

rated very highly.

One of the most pertinent issues raised with respect to increasing recreational usage in the catchments is

security, irrespective of the area concerned. Another was the potential conflict that might be experienced

between recreational use and restoration when designing future projects.

The areas having the highest environmental education value are again Tokai Park and Zandvlei as the

major recreational draw cards in the catchments. The Westlake River was also highlighted as it has several

schools and the WESSA office from which many training programmes are run. Princessvlei has an

underutilized EE Centre that has future potential for growth.

From a historic perspective, the farming and forestry activities in the Tokai plantation and Constantia

Valley is significant. The SPM River still has remnants of the “Ou Voor” which carried water to various

farms in the area. De Hell has also been recently declared a Provincial Heritage site. Princessvlei’s very

strong link to its Khoisan heritage has made headlines several times in recent history.

Conclusion:

Although there are many areas in the catchment that have heritage value, this aspect has been

underdeveloped and undersold in many respects. More recently this has begun to change as people

are becoming more aware of the value of our heritage.

Action:

Develop an overall plan to develop heritage precincts in the catchment with the intention of linking

them via the trail system as proposed in the “Princess’s Trail” concept.

4 Towards an Implementation Strategy

The vision outlined in the Sand River Catchment Plan is compatible to the Source-to-Sea initiative as it speaks

directly to the 5 main focus areas, as follows:

Water Quantity Water Quality Biodiversity Rehabilitation Recreation

“The Catchment Management Plan aims to ensure acceptable water quality and manage water

quantity so as to support maximum biodiversity and optimise utilisation of river corridors for the

sustained benefit of all users”




Page 13 of 26

Through continued inputs during Phase 3 and the work undertaken through the UNA Africa Project this vision has

been refined to include additional elements that speak more clearly to heritage value, education and economic

empowerment.

The overarching vision of the Source-to-Sea initiative is to:

“Maximize urban natural recreational spaces, restore degraded

natural and open space corridors for healthy ecosystems, develop

eco-heritage, educational, recreational and tourism opportunities

and provide short and long-term local employment opportunities”

This vision is captured very well in one infographic used in many presentations given on the project. It embodies

the essence of people and nature co-existing and thriving in the catchment.

Diagram 1: Pictorial representation of the Source-to-Sea Vision




Page 14 of 26

Stakeholders and role-players within the catchment are varied and complex. Many of these stakeholders are also

implementing a portion of the greater vision in some form or another. Although the main implementers are public

entities, namely SANParks and the City of Cape Town, much valuable work is being carried out by a variety of Civil

Society groups active in the catchment.

The diagram below pictorially represents these stakeholder groupings.

Diagram 2: Catchment stakeholder matrix clustered by common interest

Within this framework several forums or platforms have existed in recent years to enable these stakeholder

groups to meet, share common interests and network.

These groups consisted of the following:

Sand River Catchment Forum: still operational, now called the Zandvlei Catchment Forum

Operational Working Group: functional in 2013 and 2014

Working together in Ward 62: functioned in 2013

The diagram below shows how these groups interacted and where the challenge still lies.




Page 15 of 26

Diagram 3: Forums contributing to implementation within the Sand River Catchment

The Sand River Catchment Forum was first initiated in about 1998 and ran very successfully for many years before

restructuring within the City of Cape Town saw the disbanding of Catchment Forums within the metropole towards

the end of 2005. Civil Society then successfully canvassed for the reactivation of the Sand River Catchment Forum

in 2007, the first meeting of the reconstituted forum was held in July of that year. The forum ran very successfully

under the guidance of Martin Thompson from then until 2014 when catchment forums fell away for a period due

to restructuring within the City of Cape Town. The SRCF was reconvened in November 2015 as the Zandvlei

Catchment Forum and is now under the capable chairmanship of Sandra Fowkes.

The main objective of the Sand River Catchment Forum is to provide a networking and information exchange

platform for interested stakeholders to share ideas, and projects, raise concerns and remain informed about issues

affecting the catchment.

Implementation of projects within the catchment has primarily been achieved through routine work within the

various City and SANParks line departments and Civil Society action, including WESSA. Engagement between these

organs has been, and still is to a large degree, on a project by project basis. In an effort to initiate a platform for

sharing of project resources, the Sand River Operational Working Group was established under the auspices of the

Sand River Catchment Forum. The group’s 18 month lifespan ran from January 2013 to July 2014, by which time

members commitments and job requirements became prohibitive, including the cancellation of the final meeting,

due to be held in October 2014.

The first meeting of the Operational Working Group, held on 25 Jan 2013, was an integrated and productive

workshop attended by most of the implementation roleplayers operating in the catchment. Detailed results of

that workshop are presented in Appendix 3, and is summarised in Table 5 below.




Page 16 of 26

Table 5: Sand River Catchment Operational Working Group – Summary of Implementation Challenges and Recommendations (Workshop held 25 Jan 2013)

Organisation Challenges APO Planning comments Focus Area(s)

Stakeholders report back on organisational APO’s

CCT ISU Structured plan in place for terrestrial & aquatic clearing (APO format presented)

Entire catchment

CCT City Parks Need to respond to ad hoc requests redirects resources from planned work schedule

Maintenance plan has been shared with ISU – good working relationship established. Waiting for input from Ops Working Group.

Clear structured clearing plan in place for Hout Bay in partnership with ISU, not yet developed for Sand.

SANParks Lack of clearing in recent years APO development in progress Lower Tokai

Working for Wetlands Lack of familiarity with the Sand Planning complete for 2013/14 1 additional structure in lower plantation

Revegetation in Westlake River & Prinskasteel

Friends Group Associations Integration with City planning & sometimes slow response times to requests for assistance

Planning dictated by funding received (Grant-in Aid, Rowland & Letta Hill for Grootboskloof, VOB for Spaanschemat & ad hoc donations

Greenbelts in Klaasensbosch, Grootboskloof, De Hell, Spaanschemat, Alphen & Wolwekloof

WESSA Integration with other work being implemented

Lotteries funding restricted to particular sites in the Sand, limited to clearing only.

Grootboskloof, Spaanschemat, Lower Tokai, Keysers, Kirstenhof, Princessvlei

Issues Raised Challenges Immediate actions committed to Future actions required

Main problems & recommendations identified during discussions

Communication between partners around planning of projects in the catchment

Organisations have different priorities and plan according to those. Co-ordination between these priorities or projects lacking or not optimal in many cases.

Co-ordinate proactive cross-catchment planning via the structured APO grid presented by ISU.

Partners to provide project detail (type, area, timing & follow-up requirements) on an ongoing basis to ISU to enable the development of a rolling 18 month plan to incorporate various financial years

Overall plan to ensure various projects fit into the overall plans of custodians of land (City /SANParks)

Reporting format on work done to be provided by ISU – partners to report on an ongoing basis.

Ops Working Group to still determine:

Accountability for work (Depts, reps, roles, mandates, priorities)

How stakeholders are informed

Who are major stakeholders

Oversight role of SRCF

What needs to be communicated

How partners communicate

Ops Working group to meet regularly:

Next meeting 11 April

Frequency of meeting still to be determined

Need to respond to ad hoc requests – mostly verbal

Formalize communication between City Parks and partners via recognized entry points (C3 notification)

Communication with the public Volume of unwritten requests problematic

Direct requests to formal channels in place – C3 notifications (service requests)

SROWG to provide feedback to the SRCF on regular basis & to the public (mechanisms to be determined)




Page 17 of 26

Alien management protocols Follow up of cleared areas critical to ensure funds already spent are not wasted

Coordinated overall plan as agreed upon should assist with ensuring follow-up work is scheduled. Projects should not be considered if this cannot be guaranteed within the extended stakeholder group.

Ops Working Group to still develop:

Clear criteria/guidelines on prioritization of work between partners in order to effectively use available resources

Decision-making protocol accommodating re-prioritisation following unexpected events/requests that arise (City Parks)

Lack of clarity on criteria to establish priorities

Gather information that may help to leverage funding (biological priorities etc)

Lack of specialised training / information on clearing practice

Specific problem areas (Porter Estate, Pollsmoor, the Range & a few particular species)

Reinstitute regular river Inspections under the SRCF to assist with identifying issues & setting priorities

Investigate specific opportunities:

Research (e.g. Goats to assist with alien control)

Infrastructure maintenance protocols

Maintenance budgets not planned for in project proposals with assumption that City Parks will continue maintenance but without discussion

Ops Working Group to still develop:

A maintenance plan per river indicating priorities, timing, responsibility

Guideline to apportion & prioritise maintenance tasks (to be led by City Parks)

Guidelines on appropriate materials, infrastructure maintenance requirements to assist project development & costing

Public complaints about state of paths, greenbelts, signage

Direct requests to formal channels in place – C3 notifications (service requests)

Data management protocols Inadequate planning, or recording of progress against APO’s

Records to be lodged centrally with capacity to manage & update information.

Data & GIS layers can be held by ISU – but contributed to by all partners

CCT on-line mapping capacity (linked to the Wetland Atlas) should be available by June 2013

Ops Working Group to still determine:

Long-term scenario of data lodging incorporating alien clearing & infrastructure projects & follow-up

Long-term “housing” and updating of data. Possibility does exist for an intern reporting to Sub-Council 20, possibly even based at Alphen offices

Loss of data when individuals leave positions

Opportunities & benefits of such a collaborative approach

A major resource in the catchment is this group & its passion & ability to raise funds. There is a need to tell the success stories to assist with fundraising.

Access to school & community groups in local projects (more hands on deck, raises profile of projects & further assists with fundraising)

Proactive planning, with backing from the SRCF, should reduce the number of ad hoc requests from the public

Current funding opportunities include: WESSA’s Lotteries funds (alien clearing), Friends Group funding & river warden system, R1.5 Million for EDRR projects, R100 000 from Ward Allocation, ERM could potentially motivate for specific projects, 100 river Wardens currently working in the catchment under ISU.




Page 18 of 24

It was realised at the first meeting of the Working Group that better communication channels were needed, both

between implementing agents carrying out work in the catchment and to the public at large. Through the 18

month lifespan of the Group, much progress was made in streamlining internal communications. Even beyond

the lifespan of the group the communication network established during this time continues to bear fruit.

Some discussions were had around creating a link on the City of Cape Town or Invasives.org websites, but neither

were able to be taken forward. The dedicated Source-to-Sea website developed through later funding from the

UNA Africa Project implemented by ICLEI in 2015 (see Appendix 8) is the start of improving communication to the

public that will become increasingly effective as it becomes a more interactive platform. This is the place to

showcase the success stories within the catchment, and it has made a positive start towards presenting these.

It was also recognised in this early workshop that a need exists for standardised implementation protocols to be

in place. Although these protocols were not developed during the short lifespan of the group, the improved

communication did foster more standardised approaches to the implementation of alien clearing particularly. The

development of these protocols would be beneficial in order to better inform planning and implementation of

future projects.

The housing of available data generated by work in the catchment remains a challenge due to the varied type,

formats, platforms, frequency of collection and lack of a centralised hub within which to store it. The newly

developed website could potentially provide some sort of repository for information, and maintenance of the site

into the future will be undertaken by the City of Cape Town. Collection of spatial data of the different management

authorities is still undertaken independently. The feasibility and methods of collating this data across

organisations needs further investigation.

One of the success stories of this group is the management approach presented in the River Warden programme.

The day-to-day supervision of specific Warden’s work is overseen by Friend Groups, while contractual

arrangements and salaries are carried by the Green Job Unit under their Expanded Public Works Programme. The

initial framework for this cooperation was established within the Operational Working Group and has since

expanded to other river areas in the City.

Almost simultaneously and running for a similar length of time as the Operational Working Group, another

grouping under the guidance of the City of Cape Town Ward 62 Councillor, Liz Brunette, was formed to investigate

the streamlining of Management Plans for Greenbelts. This innovative approach brought together City Parks

Department’s line management, Biodiversity Management and Civil society to kick off a more integrated way of

addressing the overall management of greenbelts in the Contantia area, which primarily falls into the Sand River

Catchment. It was hoped that this platform would provide the opportunity for the aspirations, needs, advice and

resources of Civil Society to be incorporated into the overall management plans for these areas. To some degree

this was successful, but the group was also challenged by individual diaries and the various agendas of the

roleplayers.

Although this forum has existed for some time, its involvement in the Sand River Catchment Forum and

operational concerns within the Catchment was non-existent beyond the knowledge of some of the stakeholder’s

awareness of the Source-to-Sea concept and vision. Only very recently has the concept been brought fully to the

attention of this forum through the involvement of the Major Projects and Programmes division of the City of

Cape Town.




Page 19 of 24

5 Taking the Vision Forward

In recent years the concept and vision for Source-to-Sea has been profiled more broadly and has attracted

additional funding through the ICLEI implemented Urban Natural Assets for Africa Project (UNA Africa). These

project exposure and inputs are briefly described below.

The overall vision and concept of Source-to-Sea was presented by Mandy Noffke at the BiodiverCities Conference

held at Kirstenbosch in April 2014. (see Appendix 4 for the presentation given). It gained much support and

aligned well to work in catchments in other parts of the world. Two field trips were held as part of the conference

lead by Mandy Noffke down the Prinskasteel, and Stephen Granger down the Diep River corridor. The aim of

these field trips was to map out a feasible walking trail through these corridors that linked the source to the sea.

This Conference was part of a greater initiative being undertaken by ICLEI that was exploring the concept of

“Linking Local, Provincial and National Parks”. A workshop, held in March 2014 prior to the BiodiverCities

conference, aimed to explore optimum ways of achieving these links. Both the Kuils River and Prinskasteel

corridors were initially explored. Due to the groundswell of interest, existing networks and amount of information

available and progress towards developing an implementation plan, the Prinskasteel system and Sand River

Catchment was selected as the focus for future work. (The workshop report that also includes post-conference

results is presented in Appendix 5).

This workshop held in March 2015 (see Appendix 6)was part of a project coordinated by ICLEI under the Urban

Biosphere Initiative (URBIS), Urban Natural Assets (UNA) Africa project which aims to support knowledge

exchanges between important stakeholders in cities across the African continent, through capacity development

for local implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

The focus of the UNA Africa project is on biodiversity and ecosystem services in order to conserve nature in cities,

while promoting human well-being and poverty alleviation. Funding from the Swedish International Development

Cooperation Agency (Sida) through SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre facilitated a capacity building initiative

to take place in cities from 4 countries across Sub-Saharan Africa, namely: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Lilongwe,

Malawi; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; and Cape Town – where the focus was on the Source-to- Sea initiative.

Dates: 26 - 27 March 2015 (9:00 am - 4:00 pm)

Venue: Rondevlei Boma, Rondevlei Nature Reserve (Day 1) & Alphen Hotel/Diep River (Day 2)

Convenor: ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center

Sponsor: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)

Partners: African Center for Cities, the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), GBIF Secretariat

and SwedBio at the Stockholm Resilience Centre

The ThinkTank event brought together key actors currently involved in undertaking or supporting work in the

Zandvlei catchment. These included important neighbouring wards, NGOs, City departments and representatives

of recreational users and local landowners. The workshop aimed to inform the 'business case' for the Source-to-

Sea corridor and why it is important. The results of the discussions were to inform the creation of communication

materials that are applicable, inspiring and innovative as possible. It also aimed to provide direction on what

needed to be communicated and to whom.




Page 20 of 24

Focal topics included: What are the biodiversity gems of the area?: Incredible species that spark people’s imaginations.

Cultural/eco-heritage information in the catchment: the stories that inspire and humanise this area.

Why the sustainable management of our city’s river corridor is essential to healthy citizens and a resilient

Cape Town; why we need to look at river catchments as a whole system?

The specific ecosystem services provided by the catchment.

Cultural/social activities along the catchment

Increasing citizen science- connecting with existing programmes/applications.

Who to call when you see something wrong?

How to get involved in local initiatives?

The ThinkTank aimed to look primarily at the marketing aspects and possibilities for the project but the results

and recommendations ended up being much broader by:

producing a renewed vision for the catchment;

strongly reinforcing the need for a driver or champion of the initiative;

highlighting education as a key element that requires more attention, particularly at school level and

through social media and a dedicated website that utilises “citizen friendly” language;

making positive input towards the branding and marketing of the concept;

highlighting the need for community ownership and involvement in all aspects of the initiative and

particularly with the design of any awareness campaigns.

An article appeared in the People Post on 14 April 2015 (see Appendix 7) following the workshop. It presented

the recreational opportunities of the Source-to-Sea initiative through the possibility of having viable walking trails

down river corridors. It spoke directly to the vision of developing river corridors where “water quality and quantity

are managed to support biodiversity while ensuring optimal use of river corridors”. It reported that the

employment of people to achieve the “Source-to-Sea corridor ambitions” was strongly supported by Councillor

Johan van der Merwe, Mayoral Committee Member for Energy, Environment and Spatial Planning.

Using the information and ideas that came out of the ThinkTank, a website was developed by ICLEI thereafter to

package the Source-to-Sea vision and raise the profile of the initiative.

The website not only aims to catalyse the implementation of some of the project objectives but also to act as a

repository for the inspiring work already taking place in the catchment. A place where the success stories can be

told. It aims to raise awareness and brand the Source-to-Sea river corridor initiative by reinforcing it as a

connected catchment in people’s minds.

The hope is that the content will assist in bringing the biodiversity, ecological and recreational services of the area

to life by showcasing them to the residents and neighbouring communities who may not understand all the

wonders and benefits the catchment possesses. The importance of the sustainable use and management is

highlighted along with ways to support and get involved in this process.




Page 21 of 24

A snapshot of the main pages of this website are listed below and provided in Appendix 8.

Home –sketches what a catchment is, provides a map and walking trails.

About us – provides a background to the initiative, why it should be well managed and protected, provides

several resources including previous work undertaken in the catchment, a list of partners that have been

involved over the years, and a short overview of the Forums operating in the catchment.

Catchment treasures – provides details on some of the biodiversity gems to be found in the catchment

Catchment projects – provides a broad mapped overview of the various initiatives that have occurred or

are taking place in the catchment.

Quiz – It even includes an interactive platform that presents a short quiz to test a viewer’s knowledge of

the catchment.

Lastly it has a contact page where people can leave comments or ask questions.

Jenny Clover, through the ICLEI coordinated UNA Africa Project, formulated a Business Plan titled “Securing

ecological infrastructure to enhance the value of, and returns from the Zandvlei Catchment: A pilot investment

plan for the Source-to-Sea”.

It is intended that this pilot interim business and funding plan over a three year period will profile and market the

many opportunities that exist within the Source-to-Sea corridor. This will assist to build the interest and capacity

in relevant City of Cape Town departments, private business, NGOs, funders and research institutes to engage in

developing and supporting ecosystem services supply chains. It is hoped that this in turn stimulates investment

into the Zandvlei Catchment thereby supporting and enhancing the Source-to-Sea vision.

The Business Plan motivates for establishing a discrete and dedicated Project Coordinator, with dedicated

administrative support. It recommends that this post be situated institutionally within the City of Cape Town,

possibly within the Green Jobs Unit, with reporting lines that will include departments involved in catchment

management functions. This position would be responsible for:

Coordinating ecological work, including overseeing a team of river wardens,

Intensively engaging in stakeholder coordination, internally within City line departments and with external

stakeholders

Developing and overseeing awareness raising, communication, education and fundraising.

The budget recommends that a total of R18 Million be spent over the 3 years, with the initial portion of funding

going into the following main activities:

1 Expand & map the multi-use trail system:

Diep River – Kirstenbosch to Princessvlei

Princess’s Trail – Elephants Eye to Princessvlei

R 200 000 for a preliminary feasibility assessment

R 700 000 for comprehensive mapping, made

publically available via a website & apps

2 Improve pedestrian commuter routes by:

Linking Little Princessvlei to Prince George Drive

via Princessvlei

Trails around Princessvlei

R 560 000 for professional fees and physical

earthworks and installation

3 Establish education and awareness programmes R 500 000 for community engagement and school

group awareness raising

4 Develop a communication & branding campaign:

Developing landscaping design guidelines

R 150 000 for landscape architects consultants fees




Page 22 of 24

5 Establish and hold annual events including:

Open air concerts / Night markets

Geocaching / amazing race event

Weekly cycle / runs

Guided tours

R 150 000 for community consultations and

preparation of a detailed budget

The report concludes with an overview of a variety of financial streaming mechanisms including:

Donor funding

Corporate social investment opportunities

Green asset classes

Public-Private partnerships

Volunteer contributions

The Executive summary of this report is provided in Appendix 9 and the intention is to present the Business Case,

key finding and recommendations to Mayco for adoption by the City of Cape Town during the early part of 2016.

The single biggest stumbling block to the realisation of the vision for Source-to-Sea has been the lack of a dedicated

champion or driver for the concept – an owing agency. This was highlighted in the presentation to the

BiodiverCities Conference in April 2014 and again reiterated at the ThinkTank Workshop in April 2015.

Although many groups and sound partnerships have existed over the years and produced incredibly good work,

the coordinated pursuit of the VISION remained elusive due to the lack of an institutional framework under which

to take it forward. The lack of this framework possibly lead to the phasing out of the Operational Working Group

and contributed to the periodic phases under which the Sand River Catchment forum has operated over the years.

The Business and Funding Plan prepared by Jenny Clover clearly recommends that this coordination role be taken

up by the City of Cape Town and provides a blueprint for implementing this recommendation. It is hoped that the

current level of political support the concept currently enjoys, provides the right climate for a presentation to

Mayco in the first half of 2016 to realise the institutional backing that has been lacking thus far.

So in summary what has been achieved thus far is the following:

An Action Plan for rehabilitation and habitat improvement in the Prinskasteel and Keysers Rivers

An ecological baseline in the form of the EcoRehab Baseline Matrix

The foundation of an integrated multi-use trail system in the form of the Princess’s Trail

A strategy and investment plan

Well established and long standing partnerships across the catchment

A well- supported and functioning Catchment Forum

Established projects on the ground being implemented by both Public and Private entities

What is still needed, but currently no longer out of reach:

An institutional framework, which should be provided by the City of Cape Town;

Funding, the co-ordination of which could be driven through the leadership provided by the City of Cape

Town through a process of partnering.




Page 23 of 24

The depiction of where we are and what is still needed has been graphically represented in various presentations

over the years. For the first time the list of what is still needed has been surpassed by the foundation that has

been building through the years.

Diagram 4: Current implementation status and challenges (April 2016)

For any approach to an implementation strategy to be successful it will need to take account of:

The need for different organisations or different sections (silos) of the main agency, the City of Cape Town,

to work together in partnership;

The reality of erratic cooperation between organisations and history of working in silos;

The reality that people and organisations resist change;

The experience of prior agreements between parties being ignored or overturned

Thus the suggested approach to the implementation strategy is to focus on specific projects with clearly defined

actions / tasks, measurable outcomes and clear, realistic timelines. Many of these are presented in Business Plan.

A well established and tested approach invests some time to prepare the partners to work constructively together.

This effectively anticipates potential problems and difficulties; puts in place guidelines for day to day working

relationships; and arranges monitoring that will pick up early warning signs of conflict or problems and sets out

how these can be resolved. This approach is known as “partnering”. Partnering also identifies successes and sets

up ways to recognise and acknowledge these.

Partnering has developed out of the field alternative dispute resolution and aims to reduce the costs to resources

such as time, relationships, and finances by pro-actively anticipating problems and preventing them from

occurring.




Page 24 of 24

6 Conclusion

The Source-to-Sea initiative seems to have has finally taken root and grown into a vision that now enjoys wide

ranging support at both an operational and political level. The concept of a well-functioning ecologically diverse

river corridor safe for people and nature to thrive is no longer such an unobtainable goal. It has taken almost 15

years and varied inputs from many enthusiastic people, in both the public and private sector, to arrive at the point

where the concept has visible traction.

7 Acknowledgements

WESSA, would like to sincerely thank Martin Thompson, previous Chair of the Sand River Catchment Forum, and

all its members for their long‐standing support for this project. Another heartfelt thanks go to the workshop

participants, again Martin Thompson, Candice Haskins, Louise Stafford, Dalton Gibbs, Pat Holmes, Leighan Mossop

(formally SANParks) from the City of Cape Town, Sandra Hollerman of SANParks, Heidi Nieuwoudt of Working for

Wetlands, Sandra and John Fowkes, and Liz Day who gave of their time and expertise to guide the development

of the EcoRehab Baseline that will guide implementation of the Source-to-Sea vision into the future. Thanks must

also go to the Mondi Wetlands Project for funding Nancy Job, who guided the initial thought processes, planning

and statistical analysis and ensured that the project is based on sound ecological principles. Then Alice Ashwell,

and again Sandra and John Fowkes who assisted with the initial workshop to establish the Sand River Operational

Working Group.

More recent funding through ICLEI and the UNA Africa Project is gratefully acknowledged as it has lent weight and credibility to the vision and lifted the project’s profile. These inputs will enable the project to be taken to the next level where it will hopefully enjoy the political support that will make room for directed and coordinated implementation. Funding input and support from TMF and WWF through 2 phases of this project, the first being the Action Plan in

2006, is greatly appreciated and recognised. Without the foresight and backing the vision would not have been

able to reach the audience it needed to enjoy the current level of support it has attracted. We look forward to

being involved in future partnerships embraced by the Source-to-Sea initiative.

8 References

Sand River Catchment Management Plan (2003)

Prinskasteel / Keysers River Management & Rehabilitation Action Plan (2006)

Princess’s Trails project that mapped existing & potential trail linkages in the catchment (2009)

Aquatic Weed Management Plan for the Sand River Catchment (2011)

The City of Cape Town’s GIS biodiversity data, in particular the wetland layer & Biodiversity Network

tm 1683 source-to-seasourcetosea.org.za/preproduction/wp-content/uploads/2016/...tm 1683...

Documents