1

Shared interest in gaining clarity: the Wetland Offsets Guideline Collaboration This case study describes the cooperative development of the Wetland Offsets Guideline for South

Africa. In the absence of clear guidance on how to implement wetland offsets, a cooperative effort

emerged around improving transparency, replicability and consistency in the application of offsets.

There was shared interest in gaining clarity in the approach, but the risks of not doing so were slightly

different (albeit connected) for different parties. Loss of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services

was the concern for the biodiversity sector. Uncertainty around how best to design and implement

achievable, adequate wetland offsets posed risks to mining companies’ reputations and social licence

to operate, together with a risk of non-compliance with conditions of authorisation. Lack of consistency

in how offset requirements are determined and written into authorisations was a risk for government.

The case study illustrates the evolution of cooperative effort from something relatively small to

something with national impact. It also points to the importance of flexibility in realigning objectives

to match emerging needs for biodiversity and ecosystem management.

1. CONTEXT Wetland ecosystems cover only about 2.4% of South Africa’s surface area (Driver et al. 2012) but are

an important type of ecological infrastructure, which delivers a range of water-related services to

millions of people. For instance, many wetlands improve water quality, while others help to dissipate

the destructive energy of floodwaters, or are a crucial source of water for people and animals

(particularly in dry periods), and a source of food, medicinal plants and grazing for livestock. Wetlands

also provide habitat for a rich diversity of species that not only support tourism and ecotourism

activities (e.g. bird watching), but are also an important part of global and national biodiversity assets.

South Africa is a Contracting Party of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and 21 wetlands are

currently designated to the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. Wetlands have also

received attention in the prioritisation processes undertaken through national and provincial

Case study

2

systematic biodiversity plans and assessments; and receive further protection under the National

Water Act, through their designation as water resources.

1.1. Pressures on wetland ecosystems and hazards to water security

Wetlands were identified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment as the most threatened

ecosystem type in South Africa: 65% are considered threatened and only 11% of wetlands are

considered well protected (Driver et al. 2012). As ecosystems that connect terrestrial and aquatic

environments, they are sensitive to direct (drainage and conversion for cultivation, over-grazing,

burning, urbanisation, and mining) and indirect impacts (disruption of flow regime affecting the

amount and timing of water flow to wetlands, water abstraction, pollution, erosion in feeder

catchments) (Driver et al. 2012). Although no systematic national survey of wetland loss has been

undertaken, studies in several major catchments have revealed that between 35% and 60% of the

wetlands, and the benefits they provide, have been lost or severely degraded (Kotze et al. 1995). It is

likely that the extent of wetland loss for the country as a whole lies within this range.

Wetland loss and degradation affects the production and delivery of services derived from healthy

wetland ecosystems, such as purification of water or buffering capacity during droughts and floods,

and can exacerbate water quality and supply challenges. This poses a hazard to national water

security. Water supply is already playing a significant part in service delivery protests in South Africa

(Runciman 2013; Water Wheel 2013) and is therefore an important social stability issue. As the

National Planning Commission (NPC) warned in 2011, South Africa has to pay urgent attention to

management of water resources or risk having its development slowed (NPC 2011).

1.2. Driving factors of wetland loss and degradation in the Mpumalanga Highveld There are a range of pressures on wetlands, including agriculture, urban development, dam

construction, and poor grazing management and burning practices. However, coal mining places

particular pressures on wetlands. Wetlands and coal are inseparably linked in that it is generally most

economical to mine shallow coal deposits in low-lying parts of the landscape, where erosion has

stripped off some of the overlying layers of rock. Unfortunately, these parts of the landscape are also

where water tends to be concentrated, and hence where wetlands are most likely found. This is

particularly the case for the largest wetlands, which are in valley-bottoms. In these large wetlands it

is usually not possible to mine the coal using open-cast methods without destroying many hectares of

wetland.

This set of circumstances is especially prevalent in the Mpumalanga Highveld, an area known for

holding the majority of South Africa’s rich coal resources, and a predominantly grassland area with a

high concentration of wetlands and pans (Figure 1). The extent of landscape transformation and

accompanying wetland loss brought about by opencast coal mining in this area presents risks to

downstream users of wetland-associated ecosystem services both presently and in the future.

These impacts on wetlands are a growing concern for government, water users including farmers,

non-governmental organisations, and also for mining companies who have to obtain water use

licences and maintain a social licence to operate (DEA et al.2013). The Mpumalanga Highveld region

was highlighted in the National Development Plan, which cited the “need for capacity to guide water

management approaches and planning in this region to balance between environmental protection,

agriculture, energy requirements and water resources” (NPC 2011).

There is a growing understanding of the full extent of social, ecological and economic costs of wetland

loss and degradation. The rules of the game are changing, with regulators increasingly insisting that

mines avoid and minimise their impacts on wetlands wherever possible, and perform onsite

3

rehabilitation to accommodate unavoidable impacts. In cases where these steps in the mitigation

hierarchy have been exhausted but residual impacts remain that are of acceptable magnitude,

regulators are increasingly turning to offsetting as a mechanism to ensure that development projects

do not result in a net loss of wetland area, biodiversity and ecosystem services. These offsets are

intended to be enduring, measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to

compensate for significant residual impacts on wetlands, in order to achieve ‘No Net Loss’ and

preferably a net gain with respect to the full spectrum of functions and values provided by wetlands.

In response, the practice of wetland offsets began to emerge in South Africa, driven both through

requirements from regulators and through voluntary offset processes by some multinational mining

companies. However, there was no clear and consistent guidance on how to design realistic offsets

that result in optimal outcomes. Determining an offset, and the process of negotiation involved, is a

complex process requiring collaboration between the industry, government regulators and agencies

and bodies that supply scientific and technical input. Without clear guidance or best practice on how

to conduct wetland offsets, the process can leave the various parties involved at loggerheads with

each other, and can result in ineffective offsets. This case study looks at a cooperative effort by

multiple role players to respond to the challenges of conducting wetland offsets.

Figure 1. National wetland map (v3.5.2) overlain by major coal fields (source: Council for Geoscience) and pinpointing the location of Anglo American Thermal Coal’s Isibonelo Colliery in the Kriel area of Mpumalanga province, South Africa.1

2. EVOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COOPERATION The key role players involved in the development of the Wetland Offsets Guideline were Coaltech

Research Association (hereafter Coaltech), the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the

1 National wetland map (v3.5.2 ) is available at http://forums.wetlands.za.net/mapping.htm; major coal fields sourced

from the Council for Geoscience is available at http://www.geoscience.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=447&Itemid=229; and the location of Anglo American Thermal Coal’s Isibonelo Colliery was sourced from http://mapper.infomine.com/?scale=3000000&pid=45325.

4

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS; previously called the Department of Water Affairs, DWA;

and prior to that the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, DWAF), the South African National

Biodiversity Institute (SANBI; through its Grasslands Programme and Working for Wetlands) and the

Water Research Commission (WRC). The evolution of cooperation in this case is described in three

stages.

2.1. Piloting a wetland offset for Isibonelo Colliery Nearly 10 years ago, the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) (now the Department of Mineral

Resources, DMR) and DWAF (now DWS) took a decision to include offset conditions in authorisations

being issued to some mines. One of those mines was the Isibonelo Colliery, an Anglo American

Thermal Coal (hereafter AngloCoal) operation situated in the Kriel area of Mpumalanga (see Figure 1).

In addition to rehabilitating parts of the Steenkoolspruit wetland that the mine would impact,

AngloCoal would have to offset the residual impact of the mining operations on 119 ha of wetlands.

The legal requirement to offset the residual impacts on the wetlands at the Isibonelo Colliery was a

new development and at the time there was no clear guidance on how to implement this requirement

in South Africa. The success of wetland offsets in other countries had been variable and South African

regulators were concerned that the practice of designing and implementing wetland offsets in South

Africa be developed from a solid technical and scientific basis in order to reduce the risk of unintended

outcomes. DWAF in particular wanted the Isibonelo wetland offset to be treated as a pilot project that

would enable the exploration of appropriate design and implementation of wetland offsets firstly, and

secondly of the desirability of embedding wetland offsets as a policy option. DWAF therefore

encouraged AngloCoal to engage with Working for Wetlands and the provincial conservation

authority, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA), to assist in designing the offset.

MTPA could assist with the selection of potentially suitable sites for protection through a wetland

offset and in the ecological assessment thereof. Working for Wetlands could assist AngloCoal with the

design and implementation of wetland rehabilitation to offset the loss of wetlands. Working for

Wetlands, a government public works programme managed by SANBI, is dedicated to the

rehabilitation, protection and sustainable use of wetlands in South Africa. Drawing on their extensive

experience in wetland rehabilitation, their established tools and expertise, Working for Wetlands were

seen by the parties involved as a credible vehicle through which the feasibility of wetland offsets as

an approach to compensating for wetland loss could be tested and demonstrated to the satisfaction

of the regulators involved. This legitimacy was assisted through pre-existing professional relationships

between staff of DWAF and Working for Wetlands, which helped to establish a degree of trust

between these parties. Additionally, DWAF sat on the Working for Wetlands Steering Committee,

enabling them to stay informed about the project as it progressed.

The wetland rehabilitation undertaken as part of the offset at Isibonelo was paid for by AngloCoal but

was managed by Working for Wetlands in the same way it managed its other projects. This meant that

the work was labour intensive, training opportunities were afforded to beneficiaries of the work

opportunities created by the project, and outputs contributed towards the objectives of the Expanded

Public Works Programme. With the rehabilitation of 45 ha of wetlands underway, and the project still

in its early stages, it was awarded a Nedbank Green Mining award in October 2006 and was described

by judges as ‘innovative’, ‘creating a precedent’ and ‘beyond compliance’ (AngloAmerican 2006;

MiningWeekly 2006).

More had to be done to achieve the overall target of rehabilitating 119 ha of wetlands to compensate

for the loss of an equivalent area of wetlands to mining in the same catchment. Around this time, the

same division of SANBI that managed Working for Wetlands was also involved in designing a multi-

5

million dollar project, funded by the Global Environment Facility and managed by the United Nations

Development Programme, to mainstream biodiversity into production sectors impacting the

Grassland Biome. The coal mining sector was identified as one of the sectors in which the project,

subsequently called the Grasslands Programme, would work to secure biodiversity management. Part

of this work was therefore designed to support the offset-related work at Isibonelo, in collaboration

with Working for Wetlands. The Isibonelo wetland offset project therefore became a pilot of the

Grasslands Programme, which brought additional capacity and resources to coordinate and support

the parties already involved in implementing the wetland offset (grouping 1 in Figure 2). The pilot

would provide useful lessons on the practical implementation of a wetland offset on a site level, such

as quantifying the number of hectares that could be signed off following rehabilitation, and lessons

for regulators on how to craft suitably specific and achievable offset conditions for inclusion in

licences. While these lessons would contribute to a growing body of experience, the development of

guidelines for wetland offsets was not part of the original work plan for the Grasslands Programme’s

mining component.

As the pilot project progressed however, attention turned to agreeing on the approach to be followed

to rehabilitate the remaining 74 ha required to meet the offset target. At this point, it became

increasingly clear that achieving the desired outcomes would be difficult in the absence of clear,

agreed guidelines on the implementation of offsets. Additionally, wetland offsets would not be

successfully or efficiently implemented if each site was approached on an ad hoc basis. This emerged

as a key lesson from the Isibonelo pilot and a motivating factor for developing a nationally-applicable

guideline for wetland offsets.

2.2. Collaboration around a guideline for wetland offsets In the absence of clear guidance on how to implement wetland offsets, a cooperative effort developed

around improving transparency, replicability and consistency in the application of offsets. Recognising

the opportunity to make a systemic mainstreaming impact rather than working purely at the scale of

a pilot project, the Grasslands Coordination Unit made strategic decisions to realign the focus of part

of the work under the coal mining component to address the emerging need for developing a Wetland

Offsets Guideline. These decisions were made in consultation with the Grasslands Steering Committee

(which included representatives from DWS), SANBI, and other relevant partners. The organisational

structure of the Grasslands Programme, along with its funding and capacity, provided an opportunity

to coordinate the development of such a guideline by drawing on expertise within SANBI and as a

partnership programme with coordinating capacity. In so doing, the Grasslands Programme would in

fact be better able to contribute towards achieving its own strategic objectives with respect to

integrating biodiversity objectives into policy and into good practice around offsets.

In a parallel but not unrelated process to the Isibonelo offset project, individuals in the CSIR helped to

broker a relationship between SANBI and Coaltech. CSIR, a public entity with a mandate to do scientific

and industrial research, had collaborated with SANBI in the development of the National Biodiversity

Assessment amongst other things, and were aware of other wetland-related work SANBI was involved

in through Working for Wetlands and the Grasslands Programme. CSIR had also been involved in

research for Coaltech, a collaborative initiative among major coal mining companies and other

relevant parties2 established to ‘develop technology and apply research findings that will enable the

2 Coaltech is an association incorporated under Section 21 of Companies Act, 1973. Its main shareholders are all the major coal mining companies, such as Anglo Coal, Xstrata Coal, Eskom, Exxaro Coal, Sasol Mining, BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa, and Total Coal, in addition to the CSIR and the Chamber of Mines. Coaltech’s partners in the work it does also include several universities, Department of Mineral Resources, the WRC, and the National Union of Mineworkers amongst others.

6

South African coal industry to remain competitive, sustainable and safe’. The CSIR’s pre-existing

relationships with both Coaltech and SANBI enabled CSIR to identify where there were aligned

interests between these organisations, and facilitate the development of a relationship between

them.

Members of Coaltech had realised that the industry needed to proactively and systematically address

the business risk posed by its impact on wetlands. They were interested in mitigating impacts on

wetlands and concerned that approaches for doing so be applied in a practical and consistent manner

that did not undermine their core business. They had already requested of Coaltech the development

of an atlas of sensitive wetlands and associated landscapes that could be factored into their planning,

thus helping them to avoid and minimise impacts on wetlands of particular importance up front.

Collaboration with SANBI, Working for Wetlands and the Grasslands Programme offered Coaltech and

its members an opportunity to access wetland information, be involved in research that would guide

best practice, and contribute to the development of guidelines that would have real implications for

coal mining, biodiversity and water-related ecosystem services. One of the agreed focal areas of the

resulting joint three year project established between Coaltech, the CSIR and SANBI was support for

the development of a technical guideline on wetland offsets.

Coaltech brought to the collaboration funding, technical expertise, as well as the channel through

which to gain input from and the perspectives of major mining houses, which would be important to

getting broad industry support for the Guideline. Coaltech funding supplemented the Grasslands

Programme funding for work on the Wetland Offsets Guideline, allowing this to be taken further than

would have been possible with solely the Grasslands funding. It also supported other wetland-related

work requested by Coaltech members, such as the development of the aforementioned atlas that

would ultimately be called the Decision support tool for identifying high-risk wetlands and related

landscape features for coal mining in the Highveld of Mpumalanga (hereafter referred to as the Atlas).

As the Coaltech-CSIR-SANBI partnership began to gain momentum, it attracted the interest of the

WRC. Again, pre-existing relationships between individuals in these organisations enabled the

identification of mutual areas of interest and potential collaboration. The WRC had previously jointly

funded with Working for Wetlands, the development of a suite of tools for wetland assessment and

rehabilitation, including WET-Health and WET-EcoServices3. These tools were relevant to the accurate

assessment of wetlands and in identifying suitable sites for offsets. WRC were also already a partner

organisation to the SANBI Grasslands Programme, having funded early research in the design phase

of the Programme. The WRC’s flexibility to fund applied research in support of its mandate to generate

new knowledge and promote purposeful water research in South Africa enabled the WRC to

contribute co-funding to further the wetland-related work beyond what was originally anticipated and

helped deepen the quality of research being undertaken through the Coaltech partnership.

These key role-players came together with shared interest in developing a guideline for wetland

offsets (grouping 2 in Figure 2). SANBI’s convening power, coordinated through the Grasslands

Programme, helped to bring together public and private sector parties in the development of a

guideline that would be produced as a SANBI technical guideline and which would hold legitimacy in

the eyes of government and the private sector.

3 The WET-Health tool guides the measurement of the health of wetlands and quantification of benefits of specific rehabilitation interventions. The WET-EcoServices tool guides the semi-quantitative identification of ecosystem services delivered by individual wetlands.

7

Financial commitments of participants were formalised through bi-lateral agreements and sub-

contracting. Bi-lateral commitments, rather than more complex multi-party agreements, were viewed

favourably by Coaltech as a way of keeping things simple, limiting financial risk, and enabling project

work to begin without delays that might have arisen had more complicated partnership agreements

been sought. Decision-making was structured through a steering committee, jointly appointed by

cooperating parties to coordinate decisions and actions related to the project. The Coaltech surface

environment steering committee was the platform used for this purpose. The committee met every

two months, and its members included SANBI, CSIR, DWS and Coaltech members (including mining

industry experts). This committee was important for facilitating communication between participants.

It was used to provide support and guidance in the process of developing the Guideline, facilitating

the review of the draft Guideline, examining a large number of test cases, and negotiating agreement

around contentious issues (especially on the offset ratios and calculator). The development of the

Guideline itself was championed by the SANBI Grasslands Programme’s Coal Mining Coordinator who

worked with cooperating parties to develop a cohesive final product. It was the Coordinator’s

responsibility to write and coordinate inputs on the content of the Guideline, and adaptively manage

unforeseen factors to keep the project progressing.

A critical role played by industry was testing the implementability of the Guidelines, through their

application to real world situations. In the process, the practicality of some elements of the Guideline

was shown to be limited, which prompted the drafting team to refine and further develop these

elements. As a result of this field testing and consultation (through Coaltech internal processes,

SANBI’s networks and formal DWS stakeholder engagement), the Guideline progressed through ten

drafts before the document was considered to be of suitable coherence and quality for finalisation.

2.3. Towards a legal requirement – scaling up Experience from the Isibonelo pilot and the broader work of Working for Wetlands was scaled up into

the technical guideline that could apply to wetland offsets on a national scale. As an intended SANBI

technical guideline developed in partnership with the coal mining industry, there was already good

buy-in to the product and indications that it would be taken up by the industry. The SANBI Grasslands

Programme Coal Mining Coordinator was receiving requests for the Guideline from mining companies

while it was still in draft form.

Early in the process of developing the Guideline, SANBI approached DWS with a request to become

more centrally involved in steering the evolution of the contents of the Guideline, in order to ensure

that the document accurately reflected the requirements of one of the key regulators. DWS was also

requested to consider becoming the custodian of the Guideline. While government endorsement of

such a Guideline is not always necessary for good industry uptake and is often hard to achieve, it was

seen as indispensable for this particular process. As the process of developing the technical guideline

continued, the DWS officials involved agreed to recommend its formal adoption by the Department.

As future custodian of the Guideline, DWS became a central driver of the form and content of the

Guideline. This resulted in shifting the biodiversity focus of the technical guideline to focus on

accommodating water resource management more explicitly (in line with DWS requirements as the

central regulatory authority).

There had already been significant industry involvement in the development of the Guideline, and as

a result, the key sticking points and potential fatal flaws were more likely to have already been

identified and addressed. This was beneficial as cooperating parties, including industry, were more

amenable to the Guideline becoming a government-endorsed document. Additionally, the required

DWS process of intra-governmental and stakeholder consultation preceding formal endorsement

8

would be less arduous than if the Guideline had not been developed through a cross-sectoral

cooperative effort. At the end of 2014 when this case study was written, the process of the Wetland

Offsets Guideline being formally endorsed by DWS is still ongoing.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of key role players in this case study and the different groupings of co-operators that help to explain the evolution of cooperative effort in this case.

3. OUTCOMES OF COOPERATIVE EFFORT The pilot at Isibonelo Colliery has not yet been finalised. The first phase (covering 45 ha) towards the

rehabilitation of 119 ha has been completed, but the second phase covering the remaining 74 ha is

still subject to agreements being finalized by the DWS and AngloCoal. Nonetheless, the first phase

served an important purpose in surfacing broader fundamental methodological and policy issues that

required attention from regulators and the community of practice, and in so doing highlighted the

need for consistent guidance on how to implement offsets. For example, methods and benchmarks

for quantifying the number of hectares adequately rehabilitated required much discussion between

DWS, AngloCoal and technical experts. It became clear through the Isibonelo case that, without such

guidance, future wetland offsets will be handicapped by ad hoc approaches that slow progress, limit

the quality of outcomes and open the process to potential abuse. It is therefore perhaps fitting that

isibonelo is an isiZulu word meaning ‘example’.

The pilot therefore contributed to, and helped catalyse, the development of a guideline for wetland

offsets (scaling up), and lessons learnt through this pilot have been taken into other offsets and

cooperative efforts around wetland offsets in other areas (replication). Additionally, the project was

designed in a way that provided work and opportunities for people from surrounding communities to

develop work skills (Working for Wetlands 2007).

The primary output of the cooperative effort is the development of draft Wetland Offsets Guideline

that helps to provide clarity where there was uncertainty before. Although still in draft form, the

Guideline is already in strong demand by industry with almost all major coal mining companies

requesting the document. The Executive Director of Coaltech feels that there was good alignment of

goals, both amongst Coaltech’s members and between the partners because “all were aware of the

common purpose they are working on”. He adds that the collaboration has gone wider than initially

anticipated and created an awareness that is beneficial to all.

While the Guideline was driven by the urgent need for consistent guidance for wetland offsets in the

mining sector, they are applicable to any activity that may result in the unavoidable, residual loss of

wetlands. This wider relevance is an emerging outcome with potential benefits for stemming the rate

of loss of South Africa’s wetlands. It is also influencing other biodiversity offset policy. For instance,

SANBI is assisting DEA to develop a policy framework for biodiversity offsets and, incorporated in this,

9

could be some of the lessons learned during the formulation of the Wetland Offsets Guideline. The

Guideline may thereby ultimately be nested within this policy framework in addition to its proposed

formal recognition under the National Water Act. The key advantage of these institutional homes is

that the Guideline would not stand alone and would be applicable to regulatory processes under a

range of legislation.

Box 1. Wetland Offsets: a best-practice guideline for South Africa

The Wetland Offsets: a best-practice guideline for South Africa (SANBI and DWS 2014) covers the following:

The legal framework and policy principles: describing national and international

standards and guidelines on offsets, the South African legal context and existing policies,

strategies and guidelines for offsets in South Africa, and other legislative issues including

roles and responsibilities of the various parties.

Assessing impacts on wetlands in order to identify wetland offset requirements:

describing in detail how to calculate the size and value of the offset, including assessing

offset requirements for water resources and ecosystem services, ecosystem

conservation and species of special concern, as well as the complex system of calculating

hectare equivalents.

Assessing offset receiving sites for water resources and ecosystem services: describing

the process for identifying the receiving site/s (where the offset is to happen),

assessment of the site in terms of requirements for water resources and ecosystem

services, ecosystem conservation and species of special concern, and adjustment of the

offset contribution to account for increased offset security and implementation risk.

Implementing a wetland offset: describing the planning and implementation requirements necessary for an offset in

order to ensure that specific offset requirements are met. It deals with standard requirements for any wetland offsets,

how to compile a wetland offset report, how to develop of a wetland offset management plan, how to develop a

monitoring plan and its submission, review and approval, the implementation and monitoring of the plan and finally,

verification and sign-off procedures.

The Wetland Offset Guideline are accompanied by the Wetlands Offset Calculator - an Excel spreadsheet that helps the

applicant determine the size of the offset required and assess potential gains for the receiving area in terms of contribution

to wetland functionality targets, ecosystem conservation targets and species conservation targets. It is also a tool that

companies can use in the early planning stages of their mining or other operations, to assess risks involved.

The Guideline is currently available as a SANBI technical document from BGIS website (http://bgis.sanbi.org) or the DWS.

More information is available from John Dini at j.dini@sanbi.org.za

4. DISCUSSION OF COOPERATIVE EFFORTS

The cooperative efforts in this case study grew out of a relatively small project to pilot the

implementation of wetland offsets at the AngloCoal Isibonelo Colliery. The private sector partner’s

involvement was driven by its legal requirement to implement offset measures as a condition of the

licences issued by Department of Mineral Resources (DME at the time) and DWS (DWAF at the time).

However, the collaboration with Working for Wetlands and MTPA initially, and then the SANBI

Grasslands Programme later, went some way beyond minimum compliance when it evolved into a

pilot project for the Grasslands Programme. Other authorisations were being issued with offsets as a

requirement, and it was clear that the cooperative effort around the wetland offset at Isibonelo held

lessons for AngloCoal, other mining companies, regulators, and the biodiversity sector.

10

As the key lesson emerged from the Isibonelo pilot that a guideline for wetland offsets was necessary,

the need for greater clarity around implementation of wetland offsets became a motivating factor, or

shared interest, for an even larger group of parties from private and public entities in the mining,

water and environment sectors. The risk of not developing a guideline was slightly different (albeit

connected) for different parties. Loss of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services was the concern

for the biodiversity sector. Uncertainty around how best to

design and implement achievable, adequate wetland offsets

posed risks to mining companies’ reputations and social licence

to operate, together with a risk of non-compliance with

conditions of authorisation. Lack of consistency in how offset

requirements are determined and written into authorisations

was a risk for government. The development of a guideline for

wetland offsets thus solidified as sufficient justification to

warrant the associated costs and risks involved in cooperation.

The early cooperative effort around Isibonelo built upon trust already established through some

existing relationships between participants, and helped to strengthen inter-party trust that supported

cooperation. The case for cooperation in the collaboration around the Wetland Offsets Guideline

evolved once the shared interest and clear purpose for cooperation formed. It was formalised through

a series of bi-lateral agreements with funding coming from the biodiversity sector (donor funds), coal

mining sector (private sector funds), and water sector (public funds). Decision-making was

coordinated through the jointly appointed Steering Committee, which was important to facilitating

discussion and joint decision-making amongst cooperating parties. Participants highlighted that there

was naturally, on occasion, rigorous debate around certain

issues. However, being able to have this debate with the clear

purpose in mind and understanding the benefit that would be

gained from clarity around wetland offsets (as well as the risks

of not having this clarity), helped to motivate participants to

work together. This reinforces the importance of a platform for

open dialogue highlighted in other literature (Hamann et al.

2011).

Beyond how the cooperative effort was structured and operated, there are several inter-related

factors that appear to have been key to enabling effective cooperation around the Guideline. These

are:

Pre-existing relationships between individuals within the cooperating organisations: These

helped parties identify where interests might be aligned and opportunities might exist for

collaboration. They also meant that there was a degree of established trust and credibility

between various parties that supported cooperation.

Participation of parties serving public or sector-wide

interests and accustomed to working in partnership: Key

cooperating parties, namely Coaltech, CSIR, SANBI,

Working for Wetlands, Grasslands Programme and WRC,

all lead programmes of work that serve the interests of a

broader group. CSIR, SANBI, and WRC are public entities established to undertake research

that benefits society in different ways. Working for Wetlands is a government programme and

the Grasslands Programme was a donor-funded programme, both managed by SANBI with

broader environmental and social benefits. Finally, Coaltech as an industry body represents

the interests of a broad base of the coal mining sector and has a mandate to undertake

Inter-organisation cooperation

is facilitated by effective

structures and processes for

communication, shared

learning and mutual influence.

A case for cooperation emerged

around shared interests of the

mining sector, the biodiversity

sector and regulators in gaining

clarity around the

implementation of a wetland

offsets approach.

Successful cooperative effort

nurtures relationships of trust

that help to enable

cooperation in the future.

11

research that benefits sustainable development in that sector. All these parties have worked

in collaboration with others before and are amenable to piloting or testing innovative

approaches where the benefits are likely but not proven.

Involvement of legitimate convenors with recognised credibility and a reputation for neutral

facilitation: Coaltech, CSIR, SANBI, Working for Wetlands, Grasslands Programme and WRC,

by the nature of their work had some degree of convening power within their own circles. For

instance, Coaltech could reach coal mining companies and arrange for their review and input

into the Wetland Offsets Guideline because they had recognised legitimacy and credibility in

the coal mining sector. WRC, CSIR and Working for Wetlands all held similar legitimacy and

credibility within their respective spheres of work. SANBI, however, played a particularly

important leadership role in convening the development of the Guideline. This role developed

through early involvement at Isibonelo of Working for Wetlands and the Grasslands

Programme. In addition, as a public entity tasked with providing biodiversity advice and policy

support based on best available science, SANBI had established legitimacy among the public,

social and private sectors. This legitimacy was related to SANBI’s reputation of being able to

work in partnership with public, social and private sector parties, and was strongly linked to

the successful biodiversity mainstreaming partnership programmes it had implemented in the

Western Cape and through the Grasslands Programme. Individuals within SANBI were also

recognised as credible experts with relevant expertise and who had well established networks.

A champion to drive the development of the Guideline: A final enabling factor for the

cohesive cooperative effort around the Guideline was the presence of an individual

committed to coordinating and developing the Guideline. The person who would champion

the Guideline development was appointed through the SANBI Grasslands Programme as the

Coal Mining Coordinator after SANBI-Coaltech relationship was formed. The credibility and

legitimacy held by SANBI, and the programmes it managed, was to some extent passed on to

the Coordinator through this appointment. The relevancy of the Coordinator’s own expertise

and his hard work at building relationships then helped in earning the trust of other

participants. The role of champion was absolutely integral to the final development of the

Guideline, but the success of the person playing this role was strongly linked to the prior

convening roles that SANBI, Working for Wetlands and Grasslands played.

This case study illustrates the evolution of cooperative effort from a site-specific project piloting the

implementation of wetland offsets to a cooperative effort with national impact. The likely beneficial

impact on wetland and associated ecosystems has scaled up from 119 ha in one site, to wetlands

nationally, and even further to influence biodiversity offset policy that will apply to other ecosystems.

Two primary factors appear to have enabled this. The first is related to the aforementioned convening

role played by SANBI, through Working for Wetlands and the Grasslands Programme, and the

legitimacy and credibility that they held in the eyes of the public and private sector partners

established through pre-existing relationships. The second factor is the flexibility displayed by the

Grasslands Programme to be able to rapidly adapt to emerging imperatives. The Grasslands

Coordination Unit were able to strategically respond to the emerging need by turning it into an

opportunity to strengthen the enabling environment for improved management and conservation of

wetland and associated ecosystems (which include various grassland ecosystems). The funding and

capacity held by the Grasslands Coordination Unit was thus unlocked adaptively to facilitate and

coordinate the development of the Guideline. In this way the Grasslands Programme played an

important role in catalysing greater cooperative effort and scaling up of the impact that the

cooperative effort had.

12

5. CONCLUSION There are several lessons that can be drawn from the cooperative effort around the development of

the Wetland Offsets Guideline. The cooperative effort described in this case study evolved over

several years from a specific project at the Isibonelo pilot site, into a broader cooperative effort with

national impact. The nature of cooperation between participants evolved as needs were clarified, and

was enabled by several factors that have relevance to other cases: pre-existing relationships between

parties, participation of parties serving public or sector-wide interests and accustomed to working in

partnership, involvement of legitimate convenors with recognised credibility and a reputation for

neutral facilitation, and a champion to drive the development of the Guideline.

The case study reinforces what has been written about the characteristics of effective convenors: the

credibility of the convening entity or person, including relevant expertise in the issues being

addressed, and being able to facilitate an unbiased process (Dorado and Vas 2003). SANBI and the

Grasslands Programme, with its Coal Mining Coordinator, displayed an ability to facilitate necessary

discussion around key issues, with sensitivity to organisational politics and while maintaining trust

between participants. This was important in a process that involved sharing information and

negotiation around sometimes contentious issues. A well-managed Steering Committee and the use

of an industry-based platform for this were also important. Industry played a critical role in testing the

ease of implementation of the Guideline through its application to real world situations. The Wetland

Offsets Guideline could not have been developed without the commitment of a Coordinator to

champion its actual development. This required significant time and effort on the part of the

Coordinator to delve into technical content, write copy, appeal for assistance, compile comments,

negotiate around sticking points, and motivate and maintain the active involvement of participants.

The importance of this role has also been highlighted in literature about inter-organisational projects

(Dorado and Vas 2003).

The case study also points to the importance of flexibility in realigning objectives to match emerging

needs for biodiversity and ecosystem management. While issues around wetland offsets that were

emerging from the early stages of the Isibonelo project informed the project objectives of the coal

mining component of the SANBI Grasslands Programme, the Wetland Offsets Guideline was not

originally part of this work. Flexibility enabled through the adaptive management of the Grasslands

Coordination Unit and its Steering Committee, allowed for a shift from securing hectares to the

emerging need for a Wetland Offsets Guideline. This enabled the cooperative effort to be scaled up

from a pilot project, to a guideline for wetland offsets more broadly, and finally to a nationally

applicable Wetland Offsets Guideline that will inform other policy on biodiversity offsets. Initial

investments by Working for Wetlands and the SANBI Grasslands Programme were supplemented by

the commitments of Coaltech and WRC, enabling the wetland-related work to be taken further than

ever anticipated with the original investment. It has also strengthened working relationships between

participants that will support future cooperative efforts between these parties. Indeed, participants

have continued to collaborate on a range of other wetland-related projects in the coal mining areas

of the Mpumalanga Highveld with funding coming from Coaltech, WRC and DEA (through Working for

Wetlands).

6. REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS AngloAmerican. 2006. Green awards for coal and platinum operations. Posted 18 October 2006.

Accessed on 10 June 2014 at http://angloamerican.com/development/our-performance/awards-

and-recognition/environment/2006-10-18.aspx

13

DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs), DMR (Department of Mineral Resources), Chamber of

Mines, SAMBF (South African Mining and Biodiversity Forum), and SANBI (South African National

Biodiversity Institute). 2013. Mining and Biodiversity Guideline: Mainstreaming biodiversity into

the mining sector. Pretoria. 100 pages.

Dorado, S. and P. Vaz. 2003. Convenors as champions of collaboration in the public sector: a case from

South Africa. Public Administration and Development 23: 141-150.

Driver A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.N., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L.

& Maze, K. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s

biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and

Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

Hamann, R., S. Pienaar, F. Boulogne, and N. Kranz. 2011. What Makes Cross-Sector Partnerships

Successful? A Comparative Case Study Analysis of Diverse Partnership Types in an Emerging

Economy. Investment Climate and Business Environment Research Fund (ICBE-RF) Research report

No 03/11. Dakar, April 2011

Kotze, D.C., Breen, C.M. and Quinn, N. 1995. Wetland losses in South Africa. In: Cowan, G.I. (ed)

Wetlands of South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

MiningWeekly. 2006. Coal- and platinum-miners take lead in 'green mining'. Mining Weekly, 6th

October 2006. Creamer Media (Pty) Ltd. Accessed on 10 June 2014 at

http://www.miningweekly.com/print-version/coal-and-platinumminers-take-lead-in-green-

mining-2006-10-06

NPC (NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, SOUTH AFRICA). 2011. National Development Plan 2030:

Our Future-make it work. National Planning Commission. ISBN: 978-0-621-41180-5. URL:

www.npconline.co.za (Accessed 19 November 2014).

Runciman, C. 2013. A Protest Event Analysis of Community Protests 2004-2013. Presentation to the

Water Research Commission. September 2013.

SANBI and DWS 2014. Wetland offsets: a best-practice guideline for South Africa. South African

National Biodiversity Institute and the Department of Water and Sanitation, Pretoria. First edition.

Water Wheel. 2013. Poor and angry – Research grapples with reasons behind social protests. The

Water Wheel November/December: 14-16. Accessible at

http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/waterb/waterb_v12_n6_a6.pdf

Working for Wetlands. 2007. Project highlights 2006/2006. Website page accessed at

http://wetlands.sanbi.org/resource.php?id=71

Table of acronyms Acronym Full description Acronym Full description

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research DWS Department of Water and Sanitation

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs MTPA Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency

DME Department of Minerals and Energy NPC National Planning Commission

DMR Department of Mineral Resources SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry WRC Water Research Commission

DWA Department of Water Affairs

14

Acknowledgements The compilers of this case study, Aimee Ginsburg, Gail Maytham and Alistair Maytham, would like

thank:

All the respondents for their time, willing help and feedback, and for contributing to the

compilation of this case study: John Dini (SANBI), Johann Beukes (Coaltech), Jo Burgess (WRC),

Arno de Klerk (CSIR), Stephen Holness (SANBI Grasslands Programme), and Wietsche Roets

(DWA).

Anthea Stephens, Tracey Cumming, Kristal Maze, and Kennedy Nemutamvuni at the South

African National Biodiversity Institute for their guidance, input and support.

All participants of workshops held to discuss the lessons being drawn from this and other case

studies.

The opinions expressed and conclusions drawn are those of the compilation team and are not

necessarily shared by all members of the cooperative efforts described.

This case study is part of a set of five cases that forms part of a project aimed at showcasing examples

of public-private cooperative efforts in South Africa that were mainstreaming ecosystem services for

biodiversity and ecosystem management. The project contributes to demonstrating approaches to

using the findings of ecosystem services assessments into policy and decision-making at various scales

in one of the pilot countries of the overarching Project for Ecosystem Services (ProEcoServ). The

ProEcoServ project in South Africa is implemented by the CSIR and SANBI, managed by United Nations

Environment Programme, and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

Submission date: January 2015