1

Shared interests for wine and biodiversity This is a case study of a well-established collaboration between wine industry partners, conservation

partners and funders, and farmers (those registered with the Integrated Production of Wine Scheme),

to conserve natural areas of outstanding biodiversity value and to promote sustainable agricultural

practices in the wine industry. Through the WWF-SA Biodiversity and Wine Initiative (BWI) over

130 000 ha in the Cape Floristic Region has been protected and working relationships between

government, private land-owners, catchment agencies and NGOs have been strengthened. In spite of

the high degree of willingness of private landowners, good uptake, awareness and coordination (good

enabling factors), sustainability of the Initiative remains a challenge as does greater private sector

‘ownership’.

1. CONTEXT Much of South Africa’s biodiversity lies outside of existing protected areas. Conversion of natural land

to agriculture is the biggest threat to ecosystems: it has led to high levels of species and habitat loss,

undermining ecosystem functioning and altering nutrient and water flows.

Farmers are major landholders and working with farmers to improve management practices and

conserve biodiversity priority areas within their own landholdings is a major strategy to addressing

biodiversity loss and degradation. This case study looks at cooperation between private, public and

NGO stakeholders to address this issue.

1.1. Biodiversity loss The Cape Floral Kingdom, situated in the Western Cape of South Africa, is the smallest of six floral

kingdoms in the world, a Centre of Endemism and World Heritage Site. It is also a global biodiversity

hotspot, recognised as an area with not only globally significant biodiversity richness but also an area

facing significant threats to this biodiversity.

Case study

Photo: http://www.wine-sa.com/wine-news/biodynamic-wine-farming-biodiversity-perfect-partnership/

2

The area is renowned for its beautiful mountains and coastlines, favourable Mediterranean climate,

fruit farming, fisheries and wine industry. All of which make the Cape region a desirable living and

tourism destination.

1.2. Driving factors of biodiversity loss Biodiversity loss is driven by several factors including climate change, but the more immediate threats

are from agriculture, expansion of urban development and degradation such as spread of invasive

alien plant species, inappropriate fire management and other negative land management practices

(e.g. overgrazing). In the Cape Winelands District, situated within the Cape Floral Kingdom, wine-

farming makes up 65% of the agricultural activity, and is responsible for the conversion of about

103 000 ha of land, and 8.8% of the total employment in the province (Rumble 2012). The wine

industry is an important industry and between 1990 and 2000 in response to a rapidly growing export

market and global demand, there was a 15% increase in vineyard expansion in the Cape Floral Kingdom

(in correlation with the global increase of area under vineyards) (Viers et al. 2013).

This was, and is, of concern to conservationists because of the impact on lowland renosterveld and

fynbos areas in particular. It was essential to involve landowners in the conservation of remaining

biodiversity because 80% of the Cape Floral Kingdom’s remaining natural areas were on private land.

The issue of high biodiversity areas impeding expansion of vineyards through becoming legally

unavailable for production activities was also a concern for the wine industry, together with lack of

water for irrigation, poor water quality, climate change and increasing costs associated with farming.

Cooperation between various role-players in both the biodiversity sector and the wine industry was

needed to tackle the problem of unsustainable rates of biodiversity loss in the region, address the

challenge of conserving biodiversity on privately owned land, while at the same time maintaining

productivity and profitability in the wine industry.

2. EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC PRIVATE COOPERATION IN RESPONSE The evolution of this cooperative effort between wine industry partners, conservation partners and

funders, and farmers was towards more strategic industry-wide efforts to implement sustainable

farming and holistic farm management practices that would be less destructive to biodiversity and

promote improved biodiversity management and conservation on private land.

2.1. The Biodiversity and Wine Initiative “Engagement with the wine industry grew out of an NGO-led research project that indicated the need

for urgent action to stem the loss of fynbos habitats to vineyards” (Cadman et al. 2010). Through

funding from the World Bank’s Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Conservation International and

the Botanical Society of South Africa (BotSoc) an external consultant was hired to develop a concept

and operational model for a Biodiversity and Wine Initiative (hereafter referred to as BWI or the

Initiative) to work with the wine industry in this biodiversity hotspot area. This project concept was

then further developed with envisaged partners, namely CapeNature and wine industry

representatives, such as Wines of South Africa (WOSA1) and the Wine and Spirit Board (WSB). It is

under the Wine and Spirit Board that the industry’s certification of compliance with the voluntary

1 WOSA are a not-for-profit company funded by a levy per litre raised on all bottled natural and sparkling wines exported. It is totally independent of any producer, wholesaling company, or government department, but WOSA is recognised by government as an Export Council whose mandate it is to promote the export of South African wines in key international markets.

3

Integrated Production of Wine (IPW) scheme (environmental standard for production) falls. The

Initiative was launched in 2004 to:

• Assist wine farmers to set aside highly threatened natural areas within their landholdings or

estates through the biodiversity stewardship programme. In so doing this would help to

prevent further loss of critically endangered or highly threatened habitats and species as a

result of wine industry expansion, and would help maintain natural corridors though the

landscape (BWI would work closely with farmers and CapeNature to achieve this).

• Promote improved agricultural production practices through raising awareness and

pioneering biodiversity best management practice for farmers. This would enhance the

suitability of vineyards as habitat for biodiversity, reduce farming practices that have negative

impacts on biodiversity features both in the vineyards and in surrounding natural areas,

thereby strengthening effective management of surrounding natural areas (BWI would work

closely with the Wine and Spirit Board, using the Integrated Production of Wines scheme as

a building block for improving production practices, and other relevant industry bodies such

as WineTech and VinPro to achieve this).

• Create marketing opportunities for the wine industry by positioning the unique biodiversity

of the Cape Floral Kingdom, and the industry's proactive management of biodiversity, as a

unique selling point to differentiate Brand South Africa to drive awareness, reward and

recognition of producers efforts (BWI would work closely with Wines of South Africa to

achieve this).

The Initiative had strong wine industry support from the beginning in the form of many signatories to

a letter in support of the project concept that was launched by Wines of South Africa at CapeWine

2004. However all of the funding came from the conservation sector donors in the beginning while it

established stronger ties with the wine industry. The BWI launched with the appointment of an

extension officer and some coordination capacity employed by BotSoc (this capacity will be referred

to as the BWI team) (see grouping 1 in Figure 1).

The project concept was aligned with the existing Integrated Production of Wines scheme2 - a

certification scheme that accredits a wine or grape producer with having produced the product in an

environmentally sustainable manner. The Integrated Production of Wines requirements include

guidelines specifying good agricultural practices related to grape production (farm component), as

well as a set of guidelines specifying good manufacturing practices related to wine production (winery

component) and packaging activities (bottling activities). While being a voluntary scheme, it was also

based on legislation that set a bare minimum for the Integrated Production of Wines regulations and

allows for transgressors to be reported to the Department of Agriculture which is then responsible for

prosecution (Vink 2011). This, along with the fact that more than 95% of wine farmers are registered

with the Integrated Production of Wines, meant that there was already industry coordination and an

initial awareness of environmental sustainability. The BWI team therefore used Integrated Production

of Wines registration as a minimum pre-requisite, and carefully selected key opinion leaders and

producers likely to be sympathetic to the conservation cause (this is seen as a key factor in the

Initiative’s initial uptake).

To become a BWI member, farmers had to not only be members of the Integrated Production of Wines

scheme (complying with its requirements), but also had to have at least two hectares of natural

vegetation or restored natural areas on the farm that could be managed to contribute to biodiversity

conservation – a deliberately low entry bar. This required: developing and implementing an

2 Promulgated in 1998 in terms of the Liquor Products Act (No. 60 of 1989).

4

environmental management plan for the whole farm; entering into a formal biodiversity stewardship

agreement with CapeNature, if identified as a critical biodiversity area; validating that all required

legal authorisations (waste water authorisations, water use licence and plough permits) are in place;

and participating in biennial audits by the BWI team to renew membership. Farmers do not pay for

their membership or the extension services they get from the BWI team, but they do take on the

additional costs associated with managing their farms more effectively, such as clearing invasive alien

plant species and fire management.

The BWI team, through its extension officers, worked with interested farmers and industry insiders to

grow the Initiative ensuring that participating landowners understood the legal compliance

obligations of their membership, providing management

guidance and advisory support, and assisting them in

undertaking necessary assessments (e.g. farm

environmental risk self-assessment). The BWI team would

engage with CapeNature (the provincial conservation body)

to do a biodiversity assessment of the natural area. If the

area was of significant biodiversity importance, CapeNature

and the landowner would begin the process of developing

a formal biodiversity stewardship agreement (different

biodiversity stewardship options with CapeNature are listed

in Table 1).

Biodiversity stewardship was a relatively new tool at the

time requiring various role players working together on

legal agreements that were not well tested. As such,

CapeNature held quarterly meetings of the Biodiversity

Stewardship Reference Group, attended by various parties,

including the BWI, to regularly tackle initial teething

problems. Biodiversity stewardship served as an effective

opening point for dialogue, because biodiversity

agreements can be applied to portions of a property. While

allowing landowners to continue to use other parts of their land for production, conservationists could

engage with wine farmers around formally conserving critically important fynbos vegetation on their

farms. It required though, that the landowner develop appropriate management plans for the

stewardship area, including plans for clearing invasive alien plant species, fire management schedules

and the like.

The BWI team and CapeNature support the landowners in meeting the requirements for entering into

a biodiversity stewardship agreement. CapeNature focusses on the biodiversity management and

botanical surveys on the natural areas of the farms while the BWI team’s support also extends to farm-

wide agricultural practices and management of all natural areas contained within the farm,

compliance with the Integrated Production of Wines scheme requirements, correct disposal of waste,

invasive alien species control, fire control, water and energy efficiency, environmental education and

human-wildlife conflict situations. This support is provided by the BWI extension officers who work

one-on-one with farmers: they are available on a daily basis to provide farmers with advice and help

as needed, and they visit every farm at least once a year.

What is biodiversity stewardship?

Biodiversity stewardship is an approach

to entering into agreements with private

and communal landowners to protect

and manage land in biodiversity priority

areas, led by conservation authorities in

South Africa. It recognises landowners as

the custodians of biodiversity on their

land. It is based on voluntary

commitments from landowners, with a

range of different types of biodiversity

stewardship agreements available to

support conservation and sustainable

resource use. Some types of biodiversity

stewardship agreements are formally

declared as protected areas in terms of

the Protected Areas Act, providing long-

term security for the sites involved.

Source:SANBI 2014. Biodiversity stewardship

factsheet.

5

Table 1. Five different types of biodiversity stewardship agreements In

cre

asin

g in

bio

div

ers

ity

imp

ort

ance

, sit

e

secu

rity

, lan

do

wn

er

com

mit

me

nt

and

sta

te

sup

po

rt

Type of agreement

Legal mechanism

Typical contract length

Binding on the property

Binding on the landowner

Nature Reserve

Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003

30-99 years or in perpetuity

Protected area declaration and title deed restriction

Contract agreement

Protected Environment

Minimum of 30 years

Protected area declaration and title deed restriction

Contract agreement

Biodiversity Management Agreement

Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004

5-10 years Not binding Agreement governed by the Biodiversity Act

Biodiversity Agreement

Contract law 5-10 years Not binding Contract agreement

Biodiversity Partnership Areas

Informal agreement

Not binding Not binding

The BWI team also work with the wine industry to gradually, but continually, improve the Integrated

Production of Wines minimum requirements and the Initiative’s own requirements. Farmers or

producers who do not comply with the Integrated Production of Wines requirements can have their

Integrated Production of Wines accreditation suspended. Farmers have 30 days to report plans to

rectify non-compliance (prove corrective action in place), 1 year to rectify the problem and, if they are

a member of BWI, the BWI extension officers are notified and corrective action with respect to natural

areas must form part of their plans (Vink 2011). By 2006, these efforts towards environmental

sustainability on farms and conserving biodiversity in a global biodiversity hotspot were utilised by

Wines of South Africa, the official marketing body of the wine industry, to launch its ‘Variety is in Our

Nature’ slogan – making biodiversity a unique selling point and point of differentiation in its marketing

strategy. In addition to this investment in marketing biodiversity as part of the Brand South Africa, the

wine industry (namely Wines of South Africa, WineTech, and the SA Wine Industry Council) started to

co-fund the BWI with the conservation sector (namely BotSoc and the WWF-SA Nedbank Green Trust).

Wines of South Africa support and flexibility came at critical junctures, allowing the initiative to

continue through staff turnover and funding challenges.

6

Figure 1. 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.

2.2. Industry-wide alliance The BWI was set up as an Initiative with conservation and wine industry support to operate in a way

that offered third party independence and credibility. This meant that BWI project officers would be

employed by the conservation sector to maintain third party independence and credibility, but would

be housed in wine industry structures, namely the SA Wine Industry Council, to facilitate regular

interaction and networking (Cadman et al. 2011). The BWI team, initially employed through BotSoc

(2004 – 2009), and later transferred to the WWF-SA (2009 – present). The SA Wine Industry Council

was meant to provide long-term and overall leadership and collective voice for the wine industry,

however SA Wine Industry Council was closed down in 2010 having not succeeded in fulfilling this

mandate. The BWI team therefore moved back to WWF-SA as an institutional home, with satellite

offices in Stellenbosch, heart of the winelands, and remains regularly engaged with the wine industry

through a new industry-wide alliance that emerged in 2011, called the Sustainable Wines of South

Africa (SWSA).

Figure 2. Schematic of the organisations that make up the Sustainable Wines of South Africa alliance established in 2011

The Sustainable Wines of South Africa is an alliance between Wines of South Africa, Wine and Spirit

Board, Integrated Production of Wines, and BWI and aims to more effectively reflect what the wine

industry does towards sustainable production, which includes efforts towards social, environmental

and economic elements of sustainability throughout its entire value chain from producer to consumer

(see grouping 2 in Figure 1 and Figure 2). Hand in hand with this alliance, came the release of a new

‘Integrity & Sustainability’ seal, which certifies that the wine has been sustainably produced according

to the Integrated Production of Wines guidelines. Each seal has a unique traceable code and Wine and

Spirit Board monitor compliance using independent auditors and farmer self-evaluation

questionnaires. In 2011, more than 60% of the producers were requesting the seal illustrating that

there is support for Integrated Production of Wines (Vink 2011) and that it is seen to be important to

the market. The BWI label, which came prior to this, is an additional and separate label to this seal.

Vink (2011) report the perspective of some producers that the “close working relationship between

BWI and Integrated Production of Wines has helped both initiatives ‘up their game’ over the last few

7

years”. Sustainable Wines of South Africa is intended to provide the platform for illustrating the

traceability and sustainable farming practice requirements that the wine industry feel their export

market was demanding.

Figure 2 illustrates that BWI is firmly part of the sustainable production picture communicated by the

wine industry. Additionally, farmers that cannot meet BWI’s criteria of having at least 2 ha’s of natural

area to contribute to biodiversity conservation, can still achieve recognition for their improved

production practices through the Sustainable Wines of South Africa seal, allowing all producers of the

industry to receive acknowledgement of their environmentally sensitive production practices.

2.3. Layering efforts towards added benefits and good environmental governance Recognising that through these activities the BWI team were supporting good environmental

governance in the agricultural sector, and also through their involvement with CapeNature, the BWI

team were invited by the provincial Department of Agriculture (sub-programme: LandCare3) and

CapeNature to join a meeting to discuss ways in which various actors could strengthen their work, find

overlaps, and share resources and expertise. Along with the Department of Environmental Affairs,

Working for Water, relevant district municipalities, and the Breedekloof Wine and Tourism (BWT;

private sector), it became clear that there was overlap in the areas that they were working.

Coordinating activities among all the relevant authorities in the particular region would save time and

money, and avoid duplicating efforts (Rumble 2012). The Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group

(UBCEG) was therefore formed to improve communication between members, improve capacity on

the ground, and share resources (see grouping 3 in Figure 1). The group would meet quarterly and

function informally with no funding. It would coordinate collaborative projects where it made sense

to do so, helping to add maximum value to landowners practicing good management. These

coordinated project efforts have focused on such issues as clearing invasive alien plants, river

rehabilitation, and even piloting “new ways of approaching the process of applying for environmental

authorisation that seeks to test and demonstrate the convergence between rural economic

development and conservation by undertaking a broad scale environmental assessment”4 (Rumble

2012). Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group membership has since grown to 13 members,

some of whom have been better able to harness additional funding for invasive alien plant clearing,

in particular the Breede Overberg Catchment Management Agency (BOCMA).

BWI remain members of Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group, and wherever possible, overlap

their resources and expertise in support of combined efforts, especially where this helps them deliver

to the BWI members additional support from government through clearing invasive alien plants,

rehabilitating rivers or wetlands and the like. This sort of additional support is important to farmers

for a range of reasons:

3 LandCare, a programme of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to encourage landowners to sustainably use and manage natural resources in such a way as to ‘result in greater productivity, food security, job creation and better quality of life for all’ (LandCare website http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/landcarepage/landcare.htm). 4 “In doing so they hope to identify areas that would be suitable for agricultural expansion and thereby assist farmers with expansion whilst ensuring minimum impact on biodiversity and at the same time promoting the economy of the region. The project aims to address problems in the area such as ploughing of virgin soils and wetlands. Areas of natural vegetation and wetlands in particular, provide important ecological support services that contribute to the long term sustainability of agriculture in an area. Unfortunately farmers undertake unauthorized activities in high biodiversity and conservation worthy areas without applying for authorisation, because of the high cost of application, and the long waiting periods during processing of applications” (Rumble 2012).

8

They would have difficulty in accessing such support from government otherwise;

Rehabilitated wetland and river ecosystems helps prevent erosion and improve water flow

regulation. These important ecological support services contribute to the long term

sustainability of agriculture in an area (Rumble 2012) and help them meet the requirements

of the Integrated Production of Wines scheme and BWI (Vink 2011); and

Removal of invasive alien plant species reduces the intensity (and maybe frequency) of fires,

thereby posing less chance of an uncontrolled fire that threatens vineyards and other farm

infrastructure, and also reducing the possible impact of the smoke taint on the quality of wine

(Morgethal and Lloyd 2009).

The link between wine and tourism, had already been made by Wines of South Africa earlier but

involvement of the Breedekloof Wine and Tourism in Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group

again highlighted the connection. The BWI was “using various business strategies to position the South

African Winelands’ unique biodiversity as a competitive advantage [and point of differentiation]

within a globally oversubscribed wine market, providing participating producers with further

incentives to conserve their natural areas and farm in an environmentally sensitive manner” (Kotze,

2008; words in square brackets added). This included incorporating biodiversity into wine tourism

through: the creation of the world’s first Biodiversity Wine Route called the Green Mountain Eco-route

in the Grabouw-Elgin area, a Great Wine Capitals of the World award, and on individual farms

developing tourism activities such as hikes, interpretation signage (e.g. Waverley Hills, Spier), outdoor

festivals (Breedekloof) and events (e.g. the Delheim – Klapmutskop moonlight hike). In this way, the

BWI and its wine and tourism partners were linking wine, biodiversity conservation, recreation,

ecotourism and education (Kotze 2008). This is opening up further opportunities for added value in

cooperation between the biodiversity, wine and tourism sectors.

3. OUTCOMES Over the ten years since its inception the Biodiversity and Wine Initiative has continued to grow, and

made considerable strides in achieving its objectives with notable achievements to boast as well as

persisting challenges and lessons to learn from.

The BWI team has expanded to a six member team within the WWF-SA, dedicated to providing

extension services to the wine and fruit sectors, with three team members dedicated to the BWI

(including coordination, extension support and farm planning, and communications). The Initiative has

made use of a range of tools across the value chain developed over years with the industry.

The BWI created the first biodiversity-friendly wine label and have enlisted 179 members, 28

champions (farmers who have committed 10 percent or more of their land to conservation) and 17

producer cellars. The label can be used to provide clearly identifiable BWI branding, with a logo

depicting a sugarbird on a protea, on the front of the wine bottle or on the back label and contributes

to a unique selling point for the wine industry.

To date, BWI members and champions have contributed to the protection of over 130 000 ha of

natural area within the landholdings or estates of wine farmers. For every one hectare of planted

vineyards there are currently and additional 1.3 hectares under biodiversity conservation in the Cape

Winelands. These areas have been set aside for conservation through voluntary biodiversity

stewardship arrangements (as per Table 1) ensuring that these natural areas in the winelands are

being more effectively managed to support and enhance biodiversity conservation and healthier,

better functioning ecosystems. This provides a considerable contribution towards biodiversity

conservation, maintaining natural corridors and preventing further loss through wine industry

9

expansion of critically endangered or highly threatened habitats and species. The BWI and its partners

have also helped to create new tourism value in the winelands.

The BWI have worked closely with industry to develop and integrate the biodiversity guidelines within

the wine industry’s Integrated Production of Wines scheme (certification system), which is now used

by about 98% of all farmers. This is important to promoting a minimum benchmark of acceptable

practice across the entire industry and reducing negative farming practices and associated impacts on

biodiversity. Through additional collaborative partnerships such as with Upper Breede Collaborative

Extension Group, Rooiberg Conservancy, Cederberg Conservancy, several organisations have been

able to pool resources for extension support for improved land management. In the last 3 years for

instance, Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group has cleared about 1 500 ha in riparian and

wetland areas along a 40-50 km stretch of the Breede River. This contributes to improved ecosystem

functioning with benefits for biodiversity. The Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency has

played a particularly important role in accessing funding for these activities. Farmers benefit from this

free extension support and the benefits that come from activities such as clearing invasive alien plants,

fire risk reduction activities, or rehabilitating wetlands and riparian zones. These are part of the

incentives offered to BWI farmers, but increasing the number of farmers who benefit and equal

benefits to all participants and regions remains a challenge. According to the BWI team they struggle

to offer the degree of incentives that they would like to farmers. For example, only about 10% of the

top farmers actually benefit from assistance from the Working for Water’s invasive alien plant clearing

project. This extension support is important to promoting and maintaining commitment for

sustainable agricultural practices, particularly in times where the sector is experiencing significant

financial strain and the cost of effective management and restoration is often initially significantly

more than continuing with “business as usual”. Through these activities of the BWI and its partners it

has helped create job opportunities and sustained employment (natural resource management

related jobs) in a sector that has large, unskilled seasonal workforce.

In theory, these efforts to conserve biodiversity and improve environmental governance on farms and

across landscapes, and along the value chain from producer to cellar should have created marketing

opportunities for the wine industry and be a unique selling point to differentiate Brand South Africa.

There is little evidence that being a BWI member or champion leads to more sales or profit, although

in a few select export markets it has helped maintain access to market or shelf space (Sweden, UK

where retailers demand environmental assurance as pre-requisite for buying). BWI receives public

relations and marketing support through a WWF-SA and Woolworths partnership that has increased

their exposure through Woolworths, who have also committed to stock BWI members or champions.

At an international level, there is a sense from various participants that being a BWI member likely

contributes to giving the South African wine industry a stronger bargaining position than some other

countries and helps give them market access where complying with environmental standards in

certain countries (like the EU or America) (Vink 2011).

For BWI members and champions however, who go beyond complying with Integrated Production of

Wines requirements, receiving financial benefits do not appear to be a major driving factor for

involvement of farmers or the wine industry (Vink 2011 findings support this too). Many landowners

involved appear to have a fairly high appreciation for the natural areas on their properties and a well-

developed, intrinsic ‘conservation ethic’. A ‘Champion member’ since 2005 interviewed, commented

that he approached the Initiative for what it could do to help him conserve and restore “a very special

piece of natural land on his farm”, but that he was not concerned about the marketing value of the

BWI and is slightly embarrassed by the appellation of ‘Champion’. However, communication and

10

marketing of the wine industry as sustainable clearly remains an important driving factor for Wines of

South Africa as is evidenced by the recently established Sustainable Wines of South Africa.

4. DISCUSSION OF COOPERATIVE EFFORT The Biodiversity and Wine Initiative was developed with a clearly defined purpose that was developed

in collaboration with wine industry and government partners. Clarity of purpose was enabled by the

initial NGO-led research project and by the significant compatibility of goals across different industry

bodies in improving environmentally-friendly practices or sustainability of wine production (this had

been identified as key element of industry sustainability and was at the forefront of nearly every

industry body’s mission according to Vink 2011). The whole industry appears to be largely geared

towards this as was reflected by: the Wine and Spirit Board certifying compliance with the Integrated

Production of Wines scheme, being widely voluntarily taken up about 98% of farmers voluntary

registered with Integrated Production of Wines, WineTech facilitating supportive research projects

regarding different ‘environmentally-friendly’ practices, and Wines of South Africa marketing

‘environmentally-friendly’ as the wine industry’s generic identity.

This cohesion among industry bodies appears to have been driven by: international market drivers

leading to proactive ‘upgrading’ of the industry in order to get strengthened market access in

international value chains and a competitive advantage over other countries. This was in response to

indications in global markets of a growing demand for environmentally-friendly food choices (since

the 1990’s when Integrated Production of Wines was introduced, other international regulations such

as HACCP, ISO and BRC have emerged also in apparent response to this demand) (van Rooyen et al.

2011, Vink 2011). The BWI was able to slot in by aligning closely with Integrated Production of Wines

and working with a small, relatively well-organised, and self-regulating agricultural sector. This gave

BWI an advantageous springboard from which to work and were afforded good support from the wine

industry from the beginning. As a niche product, the wine commodity also lends itself to a stratagem

of marketing and biodiversity alignment that would appeal to its customers.

BWI’s involvement in Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group was also enabled by compatibility

of goals and common vision of the various participants to address problems such as poor agricultural

service delivery to rural farmers by government, limited coordination between government

departments resulting in ineffective management of water resources, invasive alien plant species,

wildfires and biodiversity. The cooperative platform aimed to try to address some of their collective

challenges and better manage the shared risks that ineffective management posed to people and their

livelihoods by working together to build capacity, support each other, share knowledge and expertise,

and increase opportunities to create jobs (Rumble 2012). Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group

is essentially a learning network for collaborative environmental governance that has operated for the

last 6 years with no funding for participation or coordination, but driven by collective need and mutual

shared benefit of collaboration. The network holds quarterly meetings and is driven by dedicated

leaders who play the role of convenors facilitating collaboration between unaware, unsure or

uncertain agents and smoothing over obstacles along the way. Rumble (2012) isolates several features

of Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group that have enabled this voluntary cooperative effort.

Firstly, the limited area of focus for the network in the Upper Breede area, the close working

relationships that exist between individuals as a result of this and the predominance of one

agricultural sector (wine) in the area. Secondly, the range of compatible and complementary skills that

are brought together in the group through different parties’ involvement enables them to help each

other tackle challenges and build capacity through knowledge sharing. Thirdly, the fact that Upper

Breede Collaborative Extension Group facilitates the alignment of resources and efforts in support of

11

combined objectives around specific projects to achieve greater scale and impact than individual

projects and funds could achieve.

The BWI team’s involvement in the Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group provides one of the

links between the wine industry and government (Breede Overberg Catchment Management Agency,

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Western Cape Department of Environment Affairs

and Development Planning, municipalities). The other is the direct, coordinated relationship between

CapeNature, BWI and landowners. While the BWI is an open-ended agreement of the wine industry

to work together with the conservation sector, this is largely facilitated by a conservation NGO and

cooperation between government and the private sector is limited to servicing the formal CapeNature

biodiversity stewardship agreements on privately owned land and specific projects coordinated under

Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group. The involvement of an international environmental

NGO has remained important for accessing funding, and was a key part of the BWI’s credibility and

independence, particularly in certain export markets.

Funding for the BWI was initially from a conservation sector donor, but then diversified to include

considerable funding from the wine industry, mainly from Wines of South Africa. Wines of South Africa

funded the BWI with an R1 million per year investment for 3 years (2010 – 2012) but this has been cut

considerably (to R100 000 a year) as other aspects of social and ethical sustainability now require

additional attention. Whilst this funding was significant and demonstrated industry’s commitment to

BWI, continued funding and long term financial sustainability remains the number one challenge for

this Initiative. There is a continuous need to spend significant time and resources on fundraising to

maintain the Initiative, to drive continued industry self-regulation and improvement, and to provide

communication and marketing support to motivate sustained commitment from the sector, individual

producers, the market and consumers. WWF-SA provide support in a range of ways, including:

promotional and communication support; programme management and coordination support;

support through the Mazda Wildlife Fund that provides a vehicle used by extension officers; support

through the Table Mountain Fund for a ‘young professional’ to be mentored by the BWI team and who

will assist in delivering extension support to farmers. Funding remains a continual challenge, for the

wine sector as a whole (Integrated Production of Wines also face funding constraints; Vink 2011) in a

depressed financial climate, and inadequate funding does affect the effectiveness of the BWI,

particularly as it grows and therefore needs to service more members (currently already needing to

service one third of the SA wine industry).

The BWI therefore continues to re-assess its funding model. While it will remain dependent on WWF-

SA for fundraising support, the Initiative is currently looking at options to increase funding for its

annual budget in several ways. Firstly, a user pays element is been investigated whereby producers

participation in BWI includes as annual fee for BWI membership sufficient to cover the cost of one

extension officer. BWI have been reluctant to charge farmers because of the financial pressures

already felt by farmers and the significant financial contribution members already make in undertaking

the necessary commitments to altering their production and farm management practices (invasive

alien plant clearing, wetland, river restoration, waste management, soil protection and conservation

and the like). Secondly, BWI continues to negotiate with industry bodies and corporates to secure at

least a third co-investment from other members of the wine industry (such as cellars and distillers,

industry bodies e.g. KWV, Distell) who benefit from the activities of BWI in securing improved viability

and reduced risk within the sector. Lastly, BWI are also engaging with the Tourism and Hospitality

Industries who also benefit and participate in the value chain from the attraction of the protected

areas and associated ecotourism activities developed along the wine route. It is however likely that

12

the biodiversity conservation sector will have to remain a significant part of the funding picture to

maintain and expand conservation gains made to date.

Overall, the spread of rewards and risks is relatively well distributed among collaborators. While WWF-

SA hold greater financial risks and obligations, the wine industry hold fairly significant risks if their

credibility and integrity are called into question. It is apparent that the wine industry has vested

interests in maintaining good compliance and self-regulation with the Integrated Production of Wines

and the BWI, both of which are integrated into the new Integrity & Sustainability seal. The integrity

and credibility of this seal is maintained by Integrated Production of Wines and BWI, which both

require increased funding and extension officers to improve frequency of audits and greater

monitoring and oversight of the sector to maintain the integrity of their work (Vink 2011). Inadequate

auditing could jeopardise the credibility of these initiatives that have taken 10 years or more of

development. BWI has worked closely with the wine industry to develop strong self-regulation

mechanisms, and the Integrated Production of Wines are based on Department of Agriculture,

Forestry and Fisheries legislation that sets a bare minimum for these regulations. However, despite

this self-regulation it remains the responsibility of government to enforce compliance and prosecute

any wrongdoing. If government has insufficient capacity to fulfil this role adequately, this presents a

risk (Vink 2011).

In terms of coordinating decision-making amongst cooperating parties, it is interesting to note how

the mention of individual champions is less prevalent in this case. There have certainly been individual

champions across the breadth of organisations over the past 10 years, but the BWI team as a whole

seem to play the role of convenors, championing the cooperative effort and facilitating

communication and response – working closely with industry champions, engaging on a strategic level

with the Sustainable Wines of South Africa, sharing information, engaging on the ground with farmers,

engaging with government entities, and driving the continual evolution of the partnership with the

wine industry. The BWI team help to facilitate cooperation between government and the private

sector with respect to biodiversity conservation and environmental governance. Evidence that this has

been effectively facilitated through this cooperative effort might be in a recent Pricewaterhouse

Coopers report. Chief executives of wine businesses rank government’s role in effectively protecting

ecosystems and biodiversity highest of all other categories (PwC 2013).

The BWI team have effectively broadened the dialogue with the wine sector from initial discussions

and negotiations in setting up the BWI and around biodiversity stewardship agreements to industry

wide awareness, production practices, branding and marketing (Cadman et al. 2010).

5. CONCLUSIONS This cooperative effort has resulted in a large percentage of land that is better managed within the

winelands, networks of areas in the Cape Floristic Region that are conserved, greater awareness about

biodiversity and related impacts, and pathways for the facilitation of government support to farmers

have been facilitated. What began as a threat to biodiversity and a challenge for a productive wine

industry, has been turned into a unique selling point for the South African wine industry – possible for

a niche product like wine.

There appear to have been political, economic, and legislative factors that contributed to the enabling

environment for partnership and cooperation with the wine industry. The wine industry was already

well organised and had voluntarily developed the Integrated Production of Wines scheme, providing

a springboard from which the BWI could align with industry initiatives and work to improve. The wine

industry and the area of fynbos vegetation of greatest concern is limited to a relatively small area,

13

effectively limiting the scope of area and meaning that was easier to establish social cohesion among

co-operators. It was the view of some interviewees that many of the producers and landowners who

were willing to go beyond complying with the Integrated Production of Wines requirements and join

BWI already had a well-developed ‘conservation ethic’ that strengthened the enabling environment

for cooperation in this case. There was also existing trust between some partners, and over the years,

working in fairly close-knit communities, actors have been able to nurture this. The industry, almost

as a whole, saw a benefit in terms of its marketing and branding, of improving its environmental

standard and a benefit of being involved in the BWI as adding to a unique selling point for SA wines.

The wine industry is also one built on brand association and story-telling and the biodiversity story

supports this. There are likely few other areas or industries in which similar enabling factors would

exist.

Environmental sustainability and social responsibility were seen as important elements for the

industry’s competitiveness between 2000 and 2005, however the industry is now operating within a

more constrained and competitive environment with rising input cost pressures and growing pressure

on providing social and ethical best practice assurance are currently the driving factors for

competitiveness (van Rooyen et al. 2011). The decline in industry funding of the Initiative, in spite of

other supportive signs of good uptake and integration by the wine industry, highlights the challenges

in funding sustained cooperative efforts such as this. Innovative evolution of funding sources related

to the industry is required, but this case indicates that perhaps conservation sector funds will always

be required to support such Initiatives, which are at their essence for long term conservation.

The case of the BWI highlights how difficult it is to maximise incentives to farmers. Also, in spite of

industry self-regulation and the market mechanism for encouraging improved management practices,

funding for capacitated extension officers remains a key constraint – in the BWI, the Integrated

Production of Wines scheme and in government. Support from extension officers is in high demand

but neither farmers, industry nor market players that benefit (such as retailers or Fast-Moving

Consumer Goods companies) have shown a willingness to pay for it5. This support is needed to help

farmers implement good natural resource management that would enable them to comply with the

Integrated Production of Wines Scheme, and/or the BWI, and to identify where there is non-

compliance. BWI have invested in their own extension officers but this has not addressed nor plugged

the need for further extension support nor strengthened capacity in government. This remains a major

challenge and concern for maintaining and supporting better managed landscapes.

Finally, this case is interesting because marketing ‘biodiversity’ was part of the wine industry’s

strategy. Vink (2011) highlighted that some respondents of her interviews thought the concept

complex and unrelated to the quality of wine. However it has enabled Wines of South Africa to create

a picture to identify South African wine with, which also allows a connection to tourism, recreation,

and other benefits of biodiversity. It is also worth reflecting on that the fact that, in Upper Breede

Collaborative Extension Group, it was around maintaining functioning ecosystems (rehabilitated rivers

and wetlands, and clearing invasive alien plant species with benefits to regulating ecosystem services)

that participants, such as Breede Overberg Catchment Management Agency, were able to harness

significant funds.

5 Several private companies and cooperatives fund their own “extension” officers, but these usually promote particular products or services, and don’t pursue the public good.

14

References Cadman, M., Petersen, C., Driver, A., Sekhran, N., Maze, K. and Munzhedzi, S. 2010. Biodiversity for

Development: South Africa’s landscape approach to conserving biodiversity and promoting ecosystem resilience. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Kotze,I. 2008. The Biodiversity and Wine Initiative, South Africa. Pages 340-343 in Section 4.1.8 of Integrating Biodiversity Into Business Strategies: The Biodiversity Accountability Framework. Compiled by J. Houdet. Published by Fondation Pour La Recherche Sur La Biodiversité - ORÉE. ISBN 978-2-9533188-1-4.

Morgenthal, A. and A. Lloyd. 2009. Update on forest fires in Cape Winelands. WOSA online news. Accessible at http://www.wosa.co.za/news_wosa_article.php?id=1145 (accessed 27 June 2014).

PwC (Pricewaterhouse Coopers). 2013. The South African wine industry: Insights survey 2013. PwC document. Accessible at www.pwc.co.za/wine-insights-survey.

Rumble, J. 2012. Collaborative Environmental Governance in Agriculture: A Case-study from the Upper

Breede Valley. Dissertation submitted to the Department of Environmental and Geographical

Science, University of Cape Town, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of

Philosophy in Environmental Management. Available at http://uctscholar.uct.ac.za/R/?func=dbin-

jump-full&object_id=92971&local_base=GEN01 (accessed 15 January 2014).

Theron, K. 2005. Vergelegen at the forefront of biodiversity. WineLand Magazine. Accessible at http://wynboer.co.za/articles/vergelegen-at-the-forefront-of-biodiversity-2 (accessed 27 June 2014).

Van Rooyen, J., D. Esterhuizen and L. Stroebel. 2011. Analyzing the Competitive Performance of the

South African Wine Industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14 (4):

179-200.

Viers, J.H., J.N. Williams, K.A. Nicholas, O. Barbosa, I. Kotze, L. Spence, L.B. Webb, A. Merenlender and

M. Reynolds. 2013. Vinecology: pairing wine with nature. Conservation Letters 00: 1–13.

Vink, E. 2011. Rethinking Conventional Agriculture: The Politics and Practices of ‘Environmentally-Friendly’ Production in the South African Wine Industry.

Table of acronyms Acronym description

BOCMA Breede Overberg Catchment Management Agency

BotSoc Botanical Society of South Africa

BRC British Retail Consortium

BWI Biodiversity and Wine Initiative

BWT Breedekloof Wine and Tourism

CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

CFR Cape Floristic Region

HACCP Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points

IPW Integrated Production of Wine

ISO International Organisation of Standardisation

NGO Non-governmental organisation

SWSA Sustainable Wines of South Africa

UBCEG Upper Breede Collaborative Extension Group

WOSA Wines of South Africa

WSB Wine and Spirit Board

WWF-SA World Wide Fund South Africa

15

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: Inge Kotze and Joan Isham (WWF-SA BWI), Mark Botha (Private

consultant, previously with BotSoc), Garth Mortimer and Kerry Purnell (CapeNature), Rudolf

Roscher (LandCare), Andre Morgenthal (Wines of South Africa).

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: December 2014