Browsing by Author "Mbopha, Malukhanye Steven"
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemUnlocking and securing Ecological Infrastructure (EI) investments: A review of EI investment models(Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2019-12) Mbopha, Malukhanye Steven; Esler, Karen J.; Marais, Christo; Kleynhans, Theo E.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Agrisciences. Dept. of Conservation Ecology and Entomology.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Ecological Infrastructure (EI) refers to a suite of natural or semi-natural functioning ecosystems that deliver a range of essential services to humankind. Examples of EI are coastal dunes, catchments, wetlands, plant communities (fynbos), and riparian corridors. The Ecosystem Services (ES) supplied by EI are increasingly recognised as key to South Africa's sustainable development future. The term ‘Ecological infrastructure’ emerged as a metaphor to communicate the significance and the role of natural ecosystems in supplying a variety of valuable goods and services to people. Ecological Infrastructure is equally as important as built-infrastructure (for example, roads, dams, buildings) although built infrastructure tends to receive a significantly greater budget allocation for maintenance, unlike EI, which is assumed to be self-sustainable. If EI is underinvested, rapid degradation and threats such as unsustainable veld fire regimes, droughts, climate change, and invasive alien plants will persist in dominating the ecological landscape. The South African government established Natural Resources Management (NRM) programmes to encourage protection, maintenance and restoration of EI. However, the realisation that funding currently dedicated to the maintenance and restoration of EI nationwide is inadequate has led to the need to scale-up and unlock further public and private sector investments to augment ecosystem-based management interventions. The aim of this study was to improve the understanding of ‘Unlocking and Securing Ecological Infrastructure investments’ through a review of international experiences and similar models to NRM. The Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) were conducted at a global scale to provide evidence-based policy advice, and were informed by both peer-reviewed and grey literature. The following objectives were achieved: (1) a review of the developmental needs and drivers behind decisions to invest in Ecological Infrastructure, as well as willingness of private landowners to participate and contribute to Ecological Infrastructure protection and conservation; (2) a review of policy context and institutional support mechanisms used to stimulate collaboration and cooperation between government and private landowners towards Ecological Infrastructure investment; (3) a review of successes, challenges, and failures of implementation of Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES) as a conservation mechanism and; (4) drawing lessons and insights from reported cases of government and private landowner cooperation for South African Ecological Infrastructure investment policy advice. Results suggested that the need to invest is driven by the degradation of Ecological Infrastructure and the urgency to meet environmental and sustainable developmental goals. The willingness of landowners to invest and to participate is stimulated by the use of economic-based policies and compensatory mechanisms. Multi-sector collaborations, commonly known as Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), through public policy support mechanisms (compensation and incentives programmes) were found to be essential institutional arrangements used to protect EI. The review of Agri-Environment Scheme investment models showed that cooperation between the public sector and private landowners through public policy results in better conservation management, particularly when ecological desires and outcomes are prioritised through monitoring and evaluation post conservation interventions. The review of PES revealed strong institutional, social, ecological and least economic/financial successes achieved in the implementation. However, challenges and failures were also experienced in different countries. In general, inclusive stakeholder engagement in PES design and implementation, coupled with effective monitoring and evaluation, results in better socio-economic and ecological delivery. While PES has a better potential to generate funding for Ecosystem Services delivery, it cannot be regarded as a replacement of traditional funding mechanisms. The study contributes to the EI investment research agenda by recommending coordinated efforts to encourage EI investment from both public and private partners. This study further improves understanding of PES design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation in order to inform policy and provide insights required to improve EI investment mechanisms. Recommendations provided will help to secure financial resources, mobilise investments and reform policies. Key lessons learnt will also provide evidence-based advice for policy development and decision-making processes which seek to protect natural ecosystems for present and future generations through Ecological Infrastructure investments. Keywords: Ecological Infrastructure investments, funding mechanisms, partnerships, Payments for Ecosystems Services, economic-based policies, Natural Resources Management, policy advice