nw province conservation assessment technical report...

North West Province Biodiversity Conservation Assessment Technical Report

Final Draft For Comments (10th March 2009)

Philip Desmet, Ray Schaller & Andrew Skowno

North West Province Biodiversity Conservation Assessment Technical Report 1

Photo Anuschka Barac Report Title: North West Province Biodiversity Conservation Assessment Technical Report Date: 28 November 2008 Authors & contact details: Dr Phillip Desmet

Independent contractor – Pretoria; Cell: 082 352 2955; Email: [email protected] Ray Schaller

North West Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment – Mafikeng; Cell: 082 375 9934; Email: [email protected] Andrew Skowno

ECOSOL GIS – Port Elizabeth; Cell: 082 774 4613; Email: [email protected] Client: North West Province Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment Principle funding agent: Province Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment (NW-DACE) Citation: Desmet, P., Schaller, R. and Skowno, A. (2008) North West Province Conservation Assessment Technical Report. North West Province

Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment. Mafikeng. October 2008 (Unless otherwise quoted, intellectual property rights for the conceptual content of this report reside with the above authors)


Acknowledgements The completion of this project would not have been possible without the help and support form numerous people. In particular we would like to thank: Tarina Boshoff, Adriaan van Straaten, Tammy Smith and Mikko Jokinen for their support on the project oversight committee. As well as the following for inputs and comments, and sometimes very hard work: Vincent Curruthers, Marissa Coetzee, Ernest Mokwa, Dries Bloem, Constant van Deventer, Erina Otto, Daan Buijs, Anuschka Barac, Gerhard van Dyk, Pieter Nel, Peter Leitner, Richard Newbery, Willen Boshoff, Renier Terblanche, Sarel Cilliers and Henk Bouwman

The NW Province


Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................2 TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................1 1 SUMMARY....................................................................................5 2 BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION ...................................................8

2.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 8 2.2 RELEVANT BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS AND PROJECTS.......................... 8 2.3 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ............................................................... 9

2.3.1 Vegetation Types ................................................................. 9 2.3.2 Expert Mapped Biodiversity Features...................................... 9 2.3.3 Aquatic Features .................................................................16

2.3.3.1 Wetlands and Pans ................................................................ 16 2.3.3.2 Sub-Catchments .................................................................... 16

2.4 LAND COVER .............................................................................19 2.5 LAND COVER CHANGE 1994-2006 ..................................................20 2.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM STATUS...................................................25 2.7 RIVER ECOSYSTEM STATUS............................................................26 2.8 THREATENED ECOSYSTEMS ............................................................32

2.8.1 Why list ecosystems?...........................................................33 2.8.2 How were listed ecosystems identified? .................................33 2.8.3 What are the implications of listing an ecosystem? .................34

3 PROVINCIAL PROTECTED AREA NETWORK GAP ANALYSIS .... 35 3.1 PROTECTION LEVEL .....................................................................36

4 DRIVERS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS ........................................... 38 5 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS (CBAS)................................. 42

5.1 WHAT ARE CBA’S?......................................................................42 5.2 WHAT IS ON THE CBA MAP?..........................................................47 5.3 PUTTING THE CBA MAP TOGETHER ..................................................48 5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE CBA MAP .......................................................49 5.5 DESCRIPTION OF CBA’S FOR THE NW PROVINCE .................................50 5.6 SUMMARY OF GIS SHAPEFILES ........................................................54

5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND-USE PLANNING................................... 58 6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TAKING THE CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FORWARD...................................................................61

6.1 PROVINCIAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN ....................... 61 6.2 BIODIVERSITY SECTOR PLAN ......................................................... 61 6.3 PROVINCIAL PROTECTED AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN............................. 62 6.4 DEVELOPMENT OF PROVINCIAL BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................................. 62 6.5 FINE-SCALE PLANS...................................................................... 63 6.6 BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH AGRICULTURE ................................... 63 6.7 NW PROVINCIAL CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT V2 .............................. 63

7 REFERENCES .............................................................................64 8 APPENDIX 1: GIS METHODS AND TECHNICAL NOTES..............66

8.1 GENERAL ................................................................................. 66 8.2 VEGETATION............................................................................. 66 8.3 LAND COVER ............................................................................. 66 8.4 HILL AND RIDGES....................................................................... 66 8.5 CORRIDORS.............................................................................. 66 8.6 COST LAYERS............................................................................ 67

8.6.1 National-Level Cost Surfaces................................................ 67 8.6.2 Landscape Ecosystem Status (LES) and Critical Biodiversity Corridor Linkages ........................................................................... 70

8.7 AQUATIC FEATURES .................................................................... 74 8.7.1 Wetlands ........................................................................... 74 8.7.2 Pans.................................................................................. 74 8.7.3 Priority sub catchments....................................................... 74 8.7.4 Wetland CBAs .................................................................... 75

8.8 ECOSYSTEM STATUS.................................................................... 75 8.9 PROTECTION LEVEL .................................................................... 75 8.10 SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION ASSESSMENTS AND THE PROVINCIAL CLUZ/MARXAN OR IRREPLACEABILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................... 75

8.10.1 Systematic Conservation Planning Overview...................... 76


8.10.2 Systematic assessment goals............................................78 8.10.3 Planning Domain .............................................................78 8.10.4 Planning Units .................................................................79 8.10.5 Biodiversity Features and Targets .....................................80 8.10.6 Software.........................................................................81 8.10.7 Planning Unit Cost ...........................................................83 8.10.8 Calculating the Boundary Length Modifier ..........................84

9 APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF VEGETATION STATUS .................. 91 10 APPENDIX 3: THREATS WORKSHOP LIST OF PARTICIPANTS . 94 11 APPENDIX 4: SUMMARY OF NW PROVINCE LAND COVER STATISTICS...................................................................................... 95


List of Tables Table 4: A list of biodiversity experts initially identified as part of the

NW Province expert mapping process.......................................10 Table 1: The area covered by higher-level land cover classes in the NW

Province. ................................................................................19 Table 2: A summary of the proportional change in land cover

categories for the NW Province between 1994 and 2006. ..........20 Table 3: A summary of the proportion of total provincial change in land

cover categories broken down per local municipality in the NW Province. ................................................................................21

Table 6: Criteria used to identify threatened terrestrial ecosystems, with thresholds for critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) ecosystems (SANBI 2008). ........................25

Table 5: Percentage of each main stem river type (River Signature) within each Present Ecological State Category (PESC) for the NW province (based on the NSBA river layer). ................................27

Table 7. A summary of the drivers of biodiversity loss in the NW Province as identified by stakeholders. The numbers in parentheses refer to geographic areas where participants felt that a particular threat was greatest or in operation (Figure 17). ......39

Table 8: The conceptual steps followed in developing the CBA categories and the associated land-use guidelines.....................44

Table 9: A framework for linking spatial planning categories (CBAs) to land-use planning and decision-making guidelines based on a set of high-level land biodiversity management objectives. Adapted from the guideline for bioregional plans (Anon 2008). ...............45

Table 10 A summary of the CBA map categories used in relation to the biodiversity-related land management objectives and potential landscape-level biodiversity indicators. .....................................46

Table 11 A summary of the literature consulted when developing the CBA categories for the NW province.........................................49

Table 12 Biodiversity criteria used to define Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in the North West Province. ..........................................50

Table 13: This table summarizes the individual GIS shapefiles and key information field that were unioned to create the NW CBA

coverage. Layers highlighted in pink were excluded from the final CBA map. Layers highlighted in yellow where kept as separate layers and not included in the final CBA shapefile......................54

Table 14: A matrix of recommended land-use activities in relations to the different CBA categegories for the NW Ptovince (adapted from Ferrar & Lotter 2007). .............................................................59

Table 15: Thresholds in % of landscape transformed surrounding a site used to classify the landscape ecosystem status (LES) of points in the landscape. ........................................................................71

Table 16: Radii and area of search windows used to calculate LES. ...71


List of Figures Figure 1: NW Province vegetation map. (key to vegetation types on

following page).......................................................................11 Figure 2: Vegetation types endemic to the NW Province...................13 Figure 3: The complete set of expert mapped features gathered during

this assessment. .....................................................................14 Figure 4: The selected set of expert features included in the CBA map.

.............................................................................................15 Figure 5: Distribution of wetlands and pans in the NW Province........17 Figure 6: Priority sub-quaternary river catchments in the NW Province.

.............................................................................................18 Figure 7: The proportional contribution of agriculture, mining and

urbanization to the loss of natural vegetation in the NW Province between 1994-2006. ...............................................................20

Figure 8: Extent of transformation in the NW Province (2006). .........22 Figure 9: Land cover change - areas that have been converted from

natural to other uses between 1994 and 2006. .........................23 Figure 10: Growth in non-natural land type categories - Proportion of

total provincial growth per local municipality.............................24 Figure 11: Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation only)...........28 Figure 12: Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and

degradation combined). ..........................................................29 Figure 13: Present ecological state category (PESC) of main stem rivers

in the NW Province (data from NSBA). .....................................30 Figure 14: The provincial Ecosystem Status of main-stem rivers in the

NW Province...........................................................................31 Figure 15: A comparison of the percentage of feature targets achieved

by the existing statutory Protected Area network versus the PA and Conservation Area network combined. ...............................36

Figure 16: Protected areas in the NW Province. ...............................37 Figure 17 (following page): Geographic regions of the province

referred to by the threats workshop participants. ......................40 Figure 18 A conceptual outline of where bioregional plans fit in the

broader set of tools for land use planning and decision making..43 Figure 19: Terrestrial CBAs for the NW Province. .............................55

Figure 20: Aquatic CBAs for the NW Province...................................56 Figure 21: Ecological support areas (ESAs) for the NW Province. ......57 Figure 22: A diagram illustrating the relationship between the

biodiversity sector plan (bioregional plan) and other land use planning tools. ........................................................................61

Figure 23: Landscape Ecosystem Status for North West Province. .....72 Figure 24: Critical biodiversity corridor network linkages...................73 Figure 25. An example of the terrestrial and freshwater planning units

used in this study. ...................................................................80 Figure 26. A summary of the terrestrial biodiversity features and

targets used in the irreplaceability analysis. ..............................81 Figure 27. The cost layer (cost1) used in the MARXAN irreplaceability

analysis. .................................................................................85 Figure 28: MARXAN output where Cost and BLM = 0........................86 Figure 29. MARXAN output where cost = cost1 and BLM = 0. ...........87 Figure 30. MARXAN output where cost = 0 and BLM = 1..................88 Figure 31. Optimised MARXAN conservation score output where scaling

parameters are balanced (cost = cost1 and BLM = 2.15)...........89 Figure 32: C-Plan initial irreplaceability map where Pas and Cas

contribute to targets. Clear areas indicate where targets for features have been achieved therefore irreplaceability=0. .........90


1 Summary

The purpose of this project was to finalize the biodiversity conservation assessment (Version One) for the North West Province which will be used to inform the development of biodiversity sector plans in the province. These biodiversity sector plans can be used to develop bioregional plans, and also be used as the provincial biodiversity sector’s input into the Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs), Environmental Management Frameworks (EMFs), Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. in the province. This report summarizes the results of the biodiversity assessment conducted. Detailed summaries of the analyses performed are contained in the appendices. The NW province is very rapidly approaching a critical threshold (60% natural habitat remaining) in the state of biodiversity within the province. Lack of capacity, resources and biodiversity information, and a significantly under representative protected area network in the province is hampering the province’s ability to effectively manage biodiversity in this rapidly changing landscape. This biodiversity assessment through the development of a critical biodiversity area map for the province is aimed at assisting biodiversity and land use managers and decision makes in this demanding task. The projects objectives were:

• To capacitate DACE in undertaking a Biodiversity Conservation Plan through support of its conservation planning component.

• To create a set of base-line spatial datasets to be used in spatial planning in the Province, i.e. the Biodiversity Conservation Plan. These GIS datasets will form the backbone of the DACE’s Chief Directorate: Environmental Service’s GIS data-mart.

• Assist the department in the analysis of datasets to be used in the conservation planning process

• Assist the department in interpreting the biodiversity conservation assessment results

• Design and assist DACE in undertaking a stakeholder participation programme within the province to gather and disseminate information related to the Biodiversity Conservation Plan

• Advise “the DACE” on how to go about mainstreaming the conservation planning outcomes.

This report:

• This project conducted a conservation assessment and not a comprehensive conservation plan.

• The assessment has simply reported on the state of biodiversity in the province and compiled a critical biodiversity map from the data gathered.

• The recommendations coming out of this study need to be incorporated into a conservation plan for the province in the form a Provincial Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (PBSAP).

• This report also forms the basis, through the map of critical biodiversity areas, for the development of a biodiversity sector plan document in line with SANBI’s guidelines on the development of bioregional plans.

• The report is accompanied by an electronic archive of the spatial data used in this study. Key spatial information layers (protected areas, vegetation types and critical biodiversity areas) will be available on SANBI’s BGIS web site (http://bgis.sanbi.org).

Biodiversity data:

• The province does not have a up and running biodiversity information system. Therefore there is very little biodiversity data with which to conduct a biodiversity assessment.


• Limited expert-mapped information was collected, but the potential of this excellent information resource has not been fully realized.

• There needs to be investment in biodiversity data collection as well as in knowledge management to ensure that this information is accessible to users. Provincial environmental authorities cannot be expected to make informed decision relating to the natural environment in the absence of good or at least some biodiversity data.

• The current conservation assessment is relying very heavily on coarse-scale biodiversity surrogates such as habitat models that have not yet been ground verified. Data limitations need to be kept in mind when applying the information such as the critical biodiversity area map, to on-the-ground land use decision making.

Drivers of biodiversity loss:

• Whilst agriculture, mining and urbanization are viewed as the direct drivers of biodiversity loss in the province, the poor institutional environment and lack of capacity and political will to implement environmental policies and legislation is viewed by stakeholders as the largest threat to biodiversity.

• About 40% of the province’s ecosystems are under severe pressure. Eleven of the 61 vegetation types and fourteen of the 18 river types in the province have been classified as threatened in terms of their ecosystem status. These are high production landscapes characterized by already high levels of transformation.

• Some landscapes experiencing high rates of current transformation are not highlighted as threatened (e.g. Norite koppies). In these relatively intact landscapes options for achieving conservation goals are rapidly retreating. These are priority areas for environmental management and conservation action. These areas are the eastern Bushveld and south eastern grasslands or Platinum Belt and Gold Highway respectively.

• Detailed information on the spatial distribution of key drivers of biodiversity loss such as mining is not available which makes identifying risks in these areas difficult.

Land cover change (or biodiversity loss):

• Approximately 30% of the province has been transformed to other non-natural land uses.

• Over the period 1994 to 2006, the period spanning the first and current land covers, approximately 1% (ca. 100 000 ha) of province was converted from natural to other land uses per year.

• The major driver of this change has been agriculture (73%) with mining only contributing 3% to this change. The remainder (24%) was due to urban expansion.

• At the current rate of habitat loss in 60 years time there will be no natural habitat left in the province.

Protected area network:

• The provincial protected area (PA) network is not representative of the biodiversity in the province. At present only 2.84% of the province is in formal PA’s. Nearly half of the provinces 61 vegetation types do not occur within any protected area. Over the long term this figure will need to be increased approximately ten-fold for the PA network to be representative of the province’s biodiversity and for national targets for vegetation types to be achieved.

• The PA registry for the Province is incomplete. It is important that such a registry be verified and updated regularly, and linked to a PA management effectiveness tool so that the province can better keep track of status of the formal PA network.

Critical biodiversity areas:

• A critical biodiversity area (CBA) map has been developed for the province.


• This CBA map is intended to act as the biodiversity sectors input into multi-sectoral plans and assessments (e.g. SDF, EMF EIA, IDP, etc.).

• The CBA map product is aligned with national standards for bioregional plans in terms of terminology and methods.

• The CBA map has already been integrated into the provincial SDF and is available on SANBI’s BGIS web site (http://bgis.sanbi.org).

Specific recommendations are made regarding:

• The development of a Provincial biodiversity strategy and action plan that can give effect to the many recommendations made in this report.

• Taking this document forward into a Biodiversity Sector Plan • The need for the development of a provincial Protected Area

Development Plan • Guidelines for the development of a provincial biodiversity

inventory strategy and implementations of a biodiversity information management system (BIMS)

• Recommendations for the roll-out of fine-scale conservation assessments and plans in priority areas to address the data limitations confronted with this assessment

• Building closer relationships with agriculture in the province; and,

• Planning for the next NW Provincial Conservation Assessment Other outcomes of this project:

• There has been significant capacity building of DACE staff during the coarse of this project

• The provincial vegetation map is in digital format and incorporated into the DACE GIS database.

• An integrated wetland layer for the province mapping nearly 12 000 wetlands has been created that incorporates all previous wetland products plus the new land cover.


2 Biodiversity Information

2.1 Background The NW Province has a great diversity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This report does not aim to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of the province’s biodiversity as there are several existing reports that focus specifically on this including the 2008 State of Environment Outlook document and the NW Biodiversity Site Inventory & Database (Strategic Environmental Focus 2003). Instead we focus only on those biodiversity datasets that were used in this assessment. A biodiversity dataset must meet several criteria if it is to be used in a spatial analysis such as this assessment. The data must be: • In an electronic format (e.g. spreadsheet or GIS database) • Spatial (e.g. point, line or polygon coverage) • At an appropriate spatial resolution to be compatible with the scale

at which the assessment is being conducted • Accessible to the people conducting the analyses The NW Province does not have an operational biodiversity information management system (BIMS) and for all intents and purposes, despite the previous studies, there are no existing spatial biodiversity datasets that meet these criteria apart from the provincial vegetation map (Section 2.3.1). For example, the NW Biodiversity Site Inventory & Database contains a comprehensive database of quarter degree-based species records. To date in South Africa no conservation assessment has been able to successfully utilize this information for planning, without first attempting to refine the QDS geo-referencing to near point scale, by interpreting each record’s collection locality description, something beyond the time frame and scope of this project. Additional biodiversity datasets were generated during the course of this project through an expert mapping process (Section 2.3.2) as well

as integration of existing spatial information on distribution of wetlands and pans (Section 2.3.3). The provincial land cover is also discussed here. Whilst land cover is not strictly a biodiversity dataset it is a key information layer in the biodiversity assessment process. Much information can gained on the state of biodiversity in the province as it is directly and inversely proportional to the extent of non-natural land cover types.

2.2 Relevant Biodiversity Assessments and Projects

This is not the first biodiversity assessment to be conducted in the province. There are numerous national, provincial and regional studies that are relevant and complimentary to this study. Wherever possible, relevant ideas, methods, results or datasets from previous studies have been incorporated into this analysis. National context:

• National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Driver et at. 2004) • National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (Jackelman et al.

2008) Provincial context:

• Provincial Assessment to Identify Priority Conservation Areas (K2M 2004)

• Priority Areas for Combined Conservation and Socio-Economic Development Project (Collinson 2004).

• NW Biodiversity Site Inventory & Database Development (Strategic Environmental Focus 2003).

Regional context:


• Pilanesberg-Vaalkop-Borakolalo Corridor Study (Desmet, Egoh and Skowno 2006)

• Taung (Desmet et al. 2006) • Vredefort Dome SEA • Magaliesberg EMF • Crocodile (West) and Marico WMA Freshwater Conservation

Plan CSIR (2006) • Vegetation & Soil of the Madikwe & Pilanesberg Expansion

Areas (Stahlmans & De Wet, 2003) • Gauteng conservation plan

2.3 Biodiversity Features

2.3.1 Vegetation Types This assessment used the provincial vegetation map originally created by George Bredenkamp and published in the NW Biodiversity Site Inventory & Database study (Figure 1). This vegetation map is a refinement of the national vegetation map, therefore provincial vegetation types nest within national types. Despite the original spatial dataset being lost by SEF we were able to re-construct this map from secondary sources. Limited refinement of the map was conducted in terms of neatening edges and adding polygons. There are 61 provincial vegetation types (41 South African vegetation types) with seven considered endemic to the province (Figure 2, Appendix 2: Summary of vegetation status):

• Dwarsberg-Swartruggens Mountain Bushveld • Klerksdorp Thornveld • Norite Koppies Bushveld • Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld • Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld • Vaal Reefs Dolomite Sinkhole Woodland • Western Highveld Sandy Grassland

2.3.2 Expert Mapped Biodiversity Features As part of the NW Province biodiversity assessment an expert mapping process was initiated by NW DACE but not fully completed. Incorporating expert knowledge into systematic conservation assessment is an essential part of the conservation assessment and planning process that is widely used in South Africa. It can serve a number of important functions: • By recording and electronically representing the accumulated

expertise of biologists, an ‘institutional memory’ can be stored, updated and replicated.

• The process serves as a cross reference (and ‘reality check’) to the predominantly data driven, mathematical/mechanistic process of irreplaceability analysis.

• It promotes confidence and credibility in the use of the information system.

• It can provide a rapidly gathered source of biodiversity information especially where no other electronic spatial biodiversity databases exist.

• It provides an opportunity to build relationships between state and scientific institutions.

• It creates opportunities capacity building around “knowing your biodiversity” within state agencies that are tasked with managing this biodiversity.

To begin the process an initial group of biodiversity experts was identified by the Departmental Botanist, Ms. Anuschka Barac, and DACE’s Conservation Planner, Ray Schaller (Table 1). The basic methodology involves interviewing experts and interactively mapping in a GIS, the location and extent of important biodiversity in the province based on their knowledge and experience. Criteria for defining these areas can include:

• Areas with high numbers of endemic species and/or rare and/or endangered species


• Unique or good examples of particular habitats • Ecological support areas or corridors important for maintaining

landscape scale processes • Aesthetic values such as scenic landscapes

Before beginning with expert interviews Ray Schaller gave basic GIS training to Anuschka Barac so that she could perform the expert interviews. Due to time constraints only four experts were interviewed between the 14th to 17th July (Table 1). No interactive mapping was conducted during the interviews and the resultant expert layer was reproduced from the interview notes taken Anuschka Barac.

Table 1: A list of biodiversity experts initially identified as part of the NW Province expert mapping process.

NO. NAME INSTITUTION FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE LOCATED WHERE

1 Richard Newbery NWP&TB Plants/ Reptiles/ Small mammals?

Potchefstroom

2 Renier Terblanche Consultant/ NWU Lepidoptera/ Plants

Potchefstroom

3 Sarel Cilliers NWU Plants Potchefstroom 4 Henk Bouwman NWU Birds Potchefstroom 5 Louis du Preez NWU Amphibians Potchefstroom 6 Avian

Demographic Unit (Bird Atlas)

UCT? Birds Cape Town

7 Alf Sephton DWAF Plants/ Alien invasives

Groot Marico

8 Uno Koekemoer Consultant Fishes Parys 9 Vincent

Carruthers Consultant Plants/

Amphibians Johannesburg

10 George Bredenkamp

University of Pretoria

Vegetation Mapping

Pretoria

11 Lesly Brown UNISA Vegetation Mapping

Johannesburg

12 Craig Whitten Jones

GDACE Reptiles Johannesburg

13 Ian Engelbrecht GDACE Invertebrates Johannesburgh 14 Etienne Marais Indicator Birding Birds Johannesburg

cc 15 Johan Marais Consultant/

Writer Reptiles Johannesburg

16 Dr. Ansie Dippenaar

Invertebrates (Arachnida)

Gauteng

17 Paul Fouche University of Vendor

Fish Limpopo Province

18 Graham Alexander

University of Witwatersrand

Reptiles Johannesburg

Additional expert information for aquatic ecosystems was obtained form the CSIR Croc-Marico study (Smith-Adan et al. 2006). From the complete set of expert information gathered (Figure 3) only a subset of this was incorporated into the CBA map (Figure 4). Only expert mapped features less than 10 000ha in extent were used in compiling the CBA map. Experience for previous studies has shown that small expert features tend to be more accurately mapped. Smaller features also represent rarer features and are thus more important from a conservation perspective. Given the almost total lack of spatial biodiversity databases for conservation planning and biodiversity management in the province the importance of an expert mapping process cannot be stressed enough. The process initiated during this project needs to be continued with greater intensity and the resulted integrated with the province’s BIMS. An initial list of experts was drawn up and is presented here. As an ongoing exercise this list needs to be added to and updated. Given the general lack of biodiversity specialist expertise in South Africa knowing who the relevant experts are; drawing on their expertise especially for capacity building; and, developing better professional relationships with them is essential if our conservation objectives are to be achieved.


Figure 1: NW Province vegetation map. (key to vegetation types on following page)


Figure 2: Vegetation types endemic to the NW Province.


Figure 3: The complete set of expert mapped features gathered during this assessment.


Figure 4: The selected set of expert features included in the CBA map.


2.3.3 Aquatic Features

2.3.3.1 Wetlands and Pans

There is no single complete wetland and pan layer for the NW Province. As part of this project we integrated several available sources of wetland information into a single wetland layer for the province. The 2008 land cover produced by GeoTerraImage included natural water bodies, wetland vegetation, artificial water, dry pans, and sewage as classes. All these classes except the sewage class were used as the starting point for creating a wetland layer. Due to high resolution of the land cover many wetland features were fragmented and various GIS techniques were used to “smooth” and aggregate the raster layer into polygon objects or features (described in the GIS methodology in Section 8.7). The wetland and pan layer compiled as part of this project represents the most up to date and comprehensive wetland coverage for the province (Figure 5). There are a total of 11949 wetland features mapped comprising 5345 wetlands (125 451ha) and 6604 pans (50 306ha). Additionally, no information on the ecological status or health of the wetlands is available. To develop a proxy for the PES category used for rivers we applied the technique described by Amis et al. (in press) in which the level of terrestrial transformation/degradation immediately surrounding a wetland was used as a proxy of wetland health. Each wetland feature was buffered by 500m and the percentage transformation in each of the buffered areas was calculated. Wetlands with low levels of transformation in their buffer zone are assumed to be in a better ecological state that wetlands with high levels of transformation. This ecological state analysis was used to categorise wetlands into critical and important wetlands for the CBA map.

Wetlands in better ecological state are priorities for conservation and land use management.

2.3.3.2 Sub-Catchments

Priority sub-catchments (i.e. sub-quaternary catchments) in the NW province were extracted from the national sub-catchment prioritization analysis done by Jeanne Nel as part of the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES, Jackelman et al. 2008). To improve the connectivity between high priority sub-catchments, additional sub-catchments that aligned with the provincial terrestrial biodiversity corridor network were selected (Figure 6). The sub-catchment layer used in this study was that developed by the CSIR (J. Nel pers comm.). No province-specific sub-quaternary catchment layer was developed as part of this assessment.


Figure 5: Distribution of wetlands and pans in the NW Province.


Figure 6: Priority sub-quaternary river catchments in the NW Province.


2.4 Land Cover Land cover is one of the most important information layers used in a conservation assessment. As transformed areas are generally considered to have no or very little biodiversity value a land cover map tells us how much biodiversity is left and where this is located. There is generally a good inverse relationship between levels of transformation in a landscape and biodiversity intactness (e.g. Scholes and Biggs 2005). In the absence of any actual biodiversity data we can still make inferences about the state of the natural environment based purely on the land cover. For example, the ecosystem status index for South African vegetation types is such an index. Therefore an up-to-date representation of current land-cover is of key importance to the conservation and planning fraternity in the province, who require a detailed land cover map to help inform decisions on land use. Ultimately this layer is critical in developing a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity in the province. This project used the latest NW Province land cover created by GeoTerraImage (GeoTerraImage 2008) from 2005-2006 SPOT5 imagery. The provincial Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment contracted GeoTerraImage (GTI) Pty Ltd to generate a GIS compatible land cover dataset of the whole of the North West Province based on single-date, 10m resolution, multi-spectral SPOT5 image dataset, acquired in late 2005 – early 2006. The land cover classification is compatible in terms of information content with the South African National Land-Cover Classification Scheme (SANS 1977) and the FAO Land-Cover Classification Scheme (LCCS) nomenclature. The final land-cover database is suitable for 1:30,000 / 1:40,000 or coarser digital mapping applications based on a theoretical 0.1 ha minimum mapping unit for landscape feature identification, as and where such features are spectrally discernable on the satellite imagery.

Various formats of the same land-cover dataset are supplied, in order to facilitate alternate use of simplified land-cover legends, as well as comparisons to previous NLC2000 and NLC94 National Land-Cover products. Land cover statistics with respect to the area of the province occupied by the different land classes are summarized in Appendix 4: Summary of NW Province Land Cover Statistics. Just less than 30% of the province has been transformed from natural ecosystems to other land uses.

Table 2: The area covered by higher-level land cover classes in the NW Province.

Transformation Status

Area (ha) % Level-1

Area (ha) %

Untransformed 7495386 70.2 Tree 525389 4.9 Bush 1298023 12.2 Shrub 2119484 19.9 Grass 3284711 30.8 Water (natural) 57853 0.5 Wetlands 207373 1.9 Natural non-

vegetated 36151 0.3

Transformed 3133540 29.5 Improved grass 2715 0 Plantation 31509 0.3 Artifical non-

vegetated 488262 4.6

Cultivated 2226979 20.9 Built-up 308282 2.9 Mines 42197 0.4 Cloud obscured (i.e. No data)

24519 0.3 Cloud obscured 24520 0.2

Total area 10653447 100 10653447 100


2.5 Land Cover Change 1994-2006 The updated land cover afforded a good opportunity to examine the extent and patterns of land cover change between the 1994, 2001 and 2006 land covers. Land cover change analysis did not form part of the TOR for this project, however, we felt that as the information was available we would include some of the headline results in this report to stress the importance of this conservation assessment as well as the recommendations made in this report. Ray Schaller performed the GIS analysis of matching and comparing the three land covers, and joining the attribute tables. In due coarse he will write a full report summarizing the results of the analysis. Just some preliminary results are report here. Due to inherent limitations in the various land covers used in the analysis the figures reported here are not 100% accurate, however, the main findings of the analyses are unlikely to change significantly with further refinement of the calculations. Between 1994 and 2006 about 1% (approx. 106 000 ha./year) of the total NW Province was converted to non-natural land uses. At this rate of conversion there will be no natural vegetation left in the NW Province within 60 years! Agriculture through the conversion of veld to cultivation accounted for about 73% of this change over the time period whilst mining has only contributed about 3% of this change (Figure 7). Whilst there is a definite concentration of transformation taking place in the east of the province in the Platinum Belt and the Golden Highway, and generally close to Gauteng, there is significant loss of natural habitat taking place across the entire province (Figure 9). The highest levels of transformation are taking place in the Maize Belt (Figure 10). The Tswaing Municipality which comprises mostly Western Highveld Sandy Grassland (Critically Endangered) shows the highest levels of transformation. (Figure 10, Table 4)

Table 3: A summary of the proportional change in land cover categories for the NW Province between 1994 and 2006.

Land Cover Category 1

99

4 (

ha)

20

06

(h

a)

19

94

(%

)

20

06

(%

)

% C

han

ge

Rat

e of

Ch

ange

Cultivated 2045000 2782975 19.2 26.1 35.9 0.58 Mines 18300 50150 0.2 0.5 150.0 0.03 Natural 8420275 7115375 79.1 66.8 -15.5 -1.03 No Data 18350 0.0 0.2 Plantations 30550 0.0 0.3 Urban 135525 382500 1.3 3.6 176.9 0.19 Water Bodies 15325 59775 0.1 0.6 500.0 0.04 Wetlands 13650 208400 0.1 2.0 1900.0 0.16 Grand Total 10648075 10648075 100.0 100.0

Figure 7: The proportional contribution of agriculture, mining and


urbanization to the loss of natural vegetation in the NW Province between 1994-2006.

Table 4: A summary of the proportion of total provincial change in land cover categories broken down per local municipality in the NW Province.

Local Municipality Cu

ltiv

ated

RA

NK

Cu

ltiv

ated

Min

es

RA

NK

Min

es

Nat

ura

l

RA

NK

Nat

ura

l

Urb

an

RA

NK

Urb

an

Ditsobotla 0.662 4 0.017 7 -0.948 4 0.121 9Greater Taung 0.073 17 0.007 11 -0.312 18 0.135 5Kagisano 0.909 2 0.004 15 -1.093 2 0.131 6Kgetlengrivier 0.152 14 0.007 10 -0.336 16 0.107 11Lekwa-Teemane 0.233 12 0.063 1 -0.463 10 0.034 21Madibeng -0.048 21 0.021 5 -0.262 20 0.22 1Mafikeng 0.05 18 0.009 9 -0.415 13 0.126 8Mamusa 0.258 10 0.035 4 -0.448 11 0.053 20Maquassi Hills 0.491 5 0.035 3 -0.765 5 0.069 18Matlosana 0.285 9 0.015 8 -0.496 9 0.09 14Merafong City 0.144 15 0.003 17 -0.263 19 0.078 16Molopo 0.473 6 0 21 -0.599 6 0.126 7Moretele 0.003 20 0 20 -0.186 21 0.103 12Moses Kotane 0.157 13 0.004 16 -0.425 12 0.15 4Naledi 0.675 3 0.018 6 -1.033 3 0.091 13Potchefstroom 0.241 11 0.002 19 -0.389 14 0.079 15Ramotshere Moiloa 0.115 16 0.007 12 -0.328 17 0.161 3Ratlou 0.454 7 0.005 14 -0.592 7 0.075 17Rustenburg 0.022 19 0.043 2 -0.348 15 0.213 2Tswaing 1.275 1 0.006 13 -1.68 1 0.117 10Ventersdorp 0.426 8 0.003 18 -0.569 8 0.058 19Grand Total 7.05 0.30 -12.0 2.34


Figure 8: Extent of transformation in the NW Province (2006).


Figure 9: Land cover change - areas that have been converted from natural to other uses between 1994 and 2006.


Figure 10: Growth in non-natural land type categories - Proportion of total provincial growth per local municipality.


2.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Status Ecosystem status classification refers to the likelihood of an ecosystem, in this case defined as a vegetation type, persisting into the future given the current amount of that ecosystem that has already been transformed to other land uses. Ecosystems that are Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable can be listed in terms of the Section 52 of the Biodiversity Act as threatened ecosystems at both national and provincial level (see Section 2.8). For example, Critically Endangered ecosystems are defined in the act as being “ecosystems that have undergone severe degradation of ecological structure, function or composition as a result of human intervention and are subject to an extremely high risk of irreversible transformation”. Importantly, any land-use change application occurring within an ecosystem listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered will automatically require environmental authorization. SANBI has developed a classification system that uses a suite of biodiversity loss indicators or criteria to assign national ecosystem status to South African vegetation types. For the provincial level classification for the North West Province only criterion A (Table 5) was used to determine ecosystem status of vegetation types. For criteria B-F, the provincial level analyses have not been done yet. A provincial level ecosystem status is presented here that differs from the national assessment in two key areas. Firstly, the calculations consider only the extent of a vegetation type that occurs within the province and not the global extent of a vegetation type. From a provincial environmental management perspective the focus is on the state of biodiversity within the province and not in neighboring provinces. This difference helps identify ecosystems (vegetation types) that are threatened within the province. Only in cases where less than 5% of the global extent of a vegetation types occurs within a province

is this criteria relaxed, but this does not apply to vegetation types within the NW Province.

Table 5: Criteria used to identify threatened terrestrial ecosystems, with thresholds for critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) ecosystems (SANBI 2008).

Criterion CR EN VU A1: Irreversible loss of natural habitat

Remaining natural habitat ≤ biodiversity target

Remaining natural habitat ≤ (biodiversity target + 15%)

Remaining natural habitat ≤ 60% of original area of ecosystem

A2: Ecosystem degradation and loss of integrity*

≥ 60% of ecosystem significantly degraded



B: Rate of loss of natural habitat**

C: Limited extent and imminent threat*

-- Ecosystem extent ≤ 3 000ha, and imminent threat

Ecosystem extent ≤ 6 000ha, and imminent threat

D1: Threatened plant species associations

≥ 80 threatened Red Data List plant species



D2: Threatened animal species associations**

E: Priority areas for meeting explicit biodiversity targets as defined in a systematic biodiversity plan

Very high irreplaceability and high threat

Very high irreplaceability and medium threat

Very high irreplaceability and low threat

F: Fragmentation** * Because of data constraints, Criteria A2 and C have been applied to forests but not to other vegetation types.


** Because of data constraints, Criteria B and D2 are dormant at this stage and thresholds have not been set for these criteria. Further testing of Criterion F is needed to determine whether it is a workable criterion for terrestrial ecosystems. Secondly, the provincial-level assessment calculates ecosystem status using two methods: transformation only (Figure 11) or transformation and degradation combined (Figure 12). The second calculation gives a better picture of where ecosystems are threatened as it includes areas that are in the process of undergoing transformation. Degradation here is based only on those areas classified in the 2006 land cover as degraded therefore it includes degradation such as soil erosion and “deforestation” in peri-urban areas but does not include components of degradations such as species shifts due to overgrazing, alien species or bush encroachment. Whilst we are aware of the existence of other degradation maps for the province (e.g. ARC erosion national map [J. le Roux pers. comm.]) we did not incorporate these into the analyses as they have not be field verified yet. For the purposes of reporting the second ecosystem status calculation is used (transformation and degradation combined). There is one Critically Endangered and 10 Vulnerable ecosystems in the province: Critically endangered:

• Western Highveld Sandy Grassland Vulnerable:

• Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld • Soweto Highveld Grassland • Moot Plains Bushveld • Rand Highveld Grassland • Vaal-Vet Sandy Grassland • Marikana Thornveld • Vredefort Dome Granite Grassland • Western Sandy Bushveld • Pienaarsrivier Thornveld

• Stella Sparse Woodland (Vryburg Sparse Woodland)

2.7 River Ecosystem Status Ecosystem status of the province’s river systems was calculated using river signatures as the “vegetation type” equivalent and the Present Ecological State category (PESC) as the measure of transformation of river systems (Figure 13). The following thresholds for Ecosystem Status of Rivers based on PESC were used:

•


Table 6: Percentage of each main stem river type (River Signature) within each Present Ecological State Category (PESC) for the NW province (based on the NSBA river layer).

PESC Ecosystem Status River Signature CLASS

B CLASS

C CLASS

D CLASS

E-F RSA NW

Bushveld basin 1 0.0 94.3 5.7 0.0 CE CE Bushveld basin 2 11.6 63.8 24.5 0.0 CE CE Bushveld basin 3 25.6 64.7 9.7 0.0 EN EN Bushveld basin 4 0.0 78.3 21.7 0.0 CE CE Bushveld basin 6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT LT Bushveld basin 7 1.5 98.5 0.0 0.0 CE CE Highveld 1 0.0 66.3 33.7 0.0 CE CE Highveld 2 61.5 0.0 38.5 0.0 LT LT Highveld 3 0.0 33.8 58.3 7.9 CE CE Highveld 4 0.0 2.5 97.5 0.0 CE CE Highveld 6 0.0 81.0 19.0 0.0 CE CE Highveld 7 11.4 88.6 0.0 0.0 CE CE Kalahari basin 7 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 LT LT Limpopo flats 4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 CE CE Lower Vaal & Orange 3 0.0 0.0 75.2 24.8 EN CE Lower Vaal & Orange 4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 CE CE Lower Vaal & Orange 6 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 VU CE Lower Vaal & Orange 7 0.0 74.5 25.5 0.0 EN CE

North West Province Biodiversity Conservation Assessment Technical Report 28 Figure 11: Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation only).


Figure 12: Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and degradation combined).


Figure 13: Present ecological state category (PESC) of main stem rivers in the NW Province (data from NSBA).


Figure 14: The provincial Ecosystem Status of main-stem rivers in the NW Province.


2.8 Threatened Ecosystems This analysis has provided the first provincial-level assessment of threatened ecosystems. The present analysis only covers vegetation types and river systems. However, the guidelines developed by SANBI provide for a number of mechanisms for identifying threatened ecosystems (Table 5). For the purposes of applying and further developing the identification of threatened ecosystems in the province, a summary is provided here of the guidelines developed by SANBI in consultation with stakeholders for listing threatened ecosystems (SANBI 2008). This guideline document provides background information on the listing of threatened or protected ecosystems, including the purpose and rationale for listing ecosystems, the criteria used to identify listed ecosystems, the implications of listing ecosystems, and summary statistics and maps of listed ecosystems. The Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) provides for listing of threatened or protected ecosystems in one of the following categories:

• critically endangered (CR) ecosystems, being ecosystems that have undergone severe degradation of ecological structure, function or composition as a result of human intervention and are subject to an extremely high risk of irreversible transformation;

• endangered (EN) ecosystems, being ecosystems that have undergone degradation of ecological structure, function or composition as a result of human intervention, although they are not critically endangered ecosystems;

• vulnerable (VU) ecosystems, being ecosystems that have a high risk of undergoing significant degradation of ecological structure, function or composition as a result of human intervention, although they are not critically endangered ecosystems or endangered ecosystems;

• protected ecosystems, being ecosystems that are of high conservation value or of high national or provincial importance,

although they are not listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable

All stakeholders in the listing process agreed early on that a phased approach should be taken to listing ecosystems, given the complexity of the process. The current (first) phase of listing deals with threatened ecosystems in the terrestrial environment. Future phases will deal with threatened ecosystems in the freshwater, estuarine and marine environments and with protected ecosystems in all environments. According to the Biodiversity Act, the list of ecosystems must be reviewed at least every five years. Until ecosystems have been listed across all environments, reviews and additions to the list will take place more frequently than every five years. At the request of DEAT, SANBI has led the process of identifying threatened ecosystems to be listed, working in close collaboration with provincial conservation authorities, DEAT, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and relevant experts. All listed ecosystems have been identified based on carefully developed and consistently applied national criteria. There has been strong emphasis on the use of best available science as well as on the realities of implementation, to ensure that the list of threatened ecosystems is both scientifically rigorous and implementable. The Biodiversity Act allows the Minister or an MEC to list ecosystems. The current list consists of national threatened ecosystems identified based on national criteria, and is thus listed by the Minister. A province may develop additional provincial criteria and identify additional ecosystems to be listed by the MEC. However, to avoid confusion this is discouraged until the process of listing national ecosystems has been well established. The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) 2004 included early attempts to identify threatened ecosystems. However, the identification of threatened terrestrial ecosystems for the current phase of listing has been much more detailed and comprehensive, using


additional criteria and data. This means that the list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems presented here supersedes the information regarding terrestrial ecosystem status in the NSBA 2004

2.8.1 Why list ecosystems? The White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity (1997) noted that little attention had historically been paid to protection of ecosystems outside protected areas. This laid the basis for the Biodiversity Act to introduce a suite of new legal tools for biodiversity conservation outside protected areas, including listed threatened or protected ecosystems, listed threatened or protected species, bioregional plans, biodiversity management plans for ecosystems or species, and biodiversity management agreements. The purpose of listing threatened ecosystems is primarily to reduce the rate of ecosystem and species extinction. This includes preventing further degradation and loss of structure, function and composition of threatened ecosystems. The purpose of listing protected ecosystems is primarily to preserve witness sites of exceptionally high conservation value. For both threatened and protected ecosystems, the purpose includes enabling or facilitating proactive management of these ecosystems. It is likely that ecosystem listing will also play a symbolic and awareness-raising role; however, this is not the primary purpose of listing ecosystems. The purpose of listing threatened or protected ecosystems is not to ensure the persistence of landscape-scale ecological processes or to ensure the provision of ecosystem services, even though listing ecosystems may contribute towards these important goals. Bioregional plans published in terms of the Biodiversity Act will identify critical biodiversity areas, which will include threatened ecosystems as well as landscape-scale ecological features (such as ecological corridors and important catchments) which are crucial for biodiversity conservation but which will not be protected through listing of

threatened or protected ecosystems. A Guideline Regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation and Publication of Bioregional Plans was gazetted for public comment in September 2007 and will be finalized during 2008. Biodiversity management plans will be a useful tool for active management of threatened ecosystems. Norms and standards for biodiversity management plans for ecosystems have yet to be developed.

2.8.2 How were listed ecosystems identified? As a starting point, several principles were established for identifying threatened or protected ecosystems:

• The approach must be explicit and repeatable; • The approach must be target-driven and systematic, especially

for threatened ecosystems; • The approach must follow the same logic as the IUCN approach

to listing threatened species, whereby a number of criteria are developed and an ecosystem is listed based on its highest ranking criterion;

• The identification of ecosystems to be listed must be based on scientifically credible, practical and simple criteria, which must translate into spatially explicit identification of ecosystems.

In deciding on the appropriate spatial scale for identifying threatened or protected ecosystems, it was important to consider the purpose and rationale for listing ecosystems as well as the legal implications. These two considerations combined require that listed ecosystems be defined at the local rather than the regional scale. For the current phase of listing, threatened terrestrial ecosystems have been delineated based on one of the following: the South African Vegetation Map, national forest types recognized by DWAF, priority areas identified in a provincial systematic biodiversity plan, or high irreplaceability forests patches or clusters systematically identified by DWAF. For future phases of listing, ecosystems may be identified at a finer spatial scale


than these units, but will not be identified at a broader spatial scale than these units. The development of criteria for identifying threatened terrestrial ecosystems was done through extensive engagement and consultation with provincial conservation authorities, DWAF and relevant experts, and was based on best available science. The criteria and thresholds for critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable ecosystems are summarized in Table 5. If an ecosystem meets any one of the criteria, it should be listed. If an ecosystem meets more than one criterion, it should be listed based on its highest ranking criterion. For example, if an ecosystem meets the threshold for vulnerable on one criterion and the threshold for endangered on another criterion, it should be listed as endangered.

2.8.3 What are the implications of listing an ecosystem?

There are four main types of implications of listing an ecosystem:

• Planning related implications, linked to the requirement in the Biodiversity Act for listed ecosystems to be taken into account in municipal IDPs and SDFs;

• Environmental authorisation implications, in terms of NEMA and EIA regulations;

• Proactive management implications, in terms of the Biodiversity Act;

• Monitoring and reporting implications, in terms of the Biodiversity Act.

The environmental authorisation implications are summarised here. The other implications are discussed in the main document. Subsection 24(2) of NEMA allows for provincial EIA supplementation maps which identify sensitive areas and additional activities that should trigger environmental authorisations in those areas, and “exclusion

areas” where environmental authorisations should not be required. Listed ecosystems should be included as sensitive areas in EIA supplementation maps. The EIA regulations include two lists of activities:

• Activities that require a basic assessment (R386 of 2006) • Activities that require scoping and EIA (R387 of 2006)

Activity 12 in the list of activities that require a basic assessment (R386 of 2006) is: the transformation or removal of indigenous vegetation of 3 hectares or more OR OF ANY SIZE if the transformation or removal would occur within a critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of the Biodiversity Act. In other words the 3 hectare threshold for a basic assessment falls away in a CR or EN ecosystem. The EIA regulations also provide for the development of Environmental Management Frameworks. Listed ecosystems should be incorporated into EMFs, with restrictions on any loss of natural habitat in CR and EN ecosystems. It is important to note that while the original extent of each listed ecosystem has been mapped, a basic assessment report in terms of the EIA regulations is only triggered in remaining natural habitat within each ecosystem and not in portions of the ecosystem where natural habitat has already been irreversibly lost.


3 Provincial Protected Area Network GAP Analysis Protected areas (PAs) are the primary strategy for ensuring that a representative portion of the province’s biodiversity is conserved as a benchmark for the benefit of current and future generations. Whilst the long term persistence of biodiversity will require the management of biodiversity both in PAs and in the surrounding matrix of production landscapes, there are clear national guidelines as to the proportion of the province’s surface area should be under some form of formal conservation management. Comparing the proportion of the province’s biodiversity represented and targets achieved in the existing PA network to what is recommended in the national guidelines provides a quantitative measure of the conservation effectiveness of the provincial PA network. This also gives an indication of the amount of work still required to reach the goal of a fully representative PA network. The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) defines a ‘protected area’ (PA) as one of the following types: Special Nature Reserves; National Parks; Nature Reserves; Protected Environments; World Heritage Sites; Marine Protected Areas; Specially Protected Forest Areas; and Mountain catchment areas. Collectively, the formal terrestrial and marine protected areas comprise the National Protected Area System (National PAS). The protected area (PA) layer for the province was based on that used in the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES). This layer was reviewed by NW DACE and Parks Board staff and modified as appropriate. The incomplete PA register for the province made this a frustrating and drawn-out task with information on the location and current status of all PA’s based on expert knowledge rather than formal documentation or database. Significant additions that were made to the PA layer notably the Magaliesberg PE, the Leon Taljaard Nature Reserve outside Vryburg and numerous conservancies.

For the classification of PAs according to the PA Act we followed the convention used by the NPAES: Protected Areas (as recognized in the PA act) These include practically everything:

Special Nature Reserves National Parks Provincial Nature Reserves Protected Environments Contract Nature Reserves Also includes are: WHS, MPA, MCA, specially protected forests

Conservation Areas (CAs) not recognized in the PA act:

Biodiversity agreements Conservancies

Note that this classification does not take into account PA management effectiveness. This classification relates solely to the legal status of PAs with regards the PA Act. There are certainly examples of statutory PAs in the NW Province that have no effective management so they are PA in name only. The institution of a METT (management effectiveness tracking tool) in the province would be required and necessary to assess this aspect of PA effectiveness. PAs cover 2.84% of the province with 236 194 ha (2.22% of province) being protected areas and 66 517 ha (0.62% of province) comprising conservation areas. Considering that the average vegetation type target is 20% which would mean that a representative PA network in the province would cover roughly 20% of the province, we can conclude that:


• The current PA network is highly under representative of the province’s biodiversity

• Approximately a 10 fold increase in the size of the PA network is require to meet national obligations.

3.1 Protection Level Protection level is measure of how well the existing protected area network conserves the biodiversity of the province. It is calculated as the percentage biodiversity target achievement by the protected area network for each vegetation type. To do these calculations the vegetation layer for the province was unioned with the protected areas layers and the proportion of each vegetation type within PAs summarized (see Appendix 2). Considering both PAs and CAs (Figure 15): • Eight vegetation types have their targets achieved in the PA

network (Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit Sourveld, Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld, Northern Afrotemperate Forest, Western Sandy Mixed Bushveld, Makwassie Ridge Bushveld, Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld, Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld and Kalahari Alluvia)

• Twenty-seven (45%) vegetation types are not represented within the PA network at all!

• Conservation Areas (i.e. conservancies) play an important role in the PA network and make a significant contribution towards achieving targets.

In summary: • The NW Province PA network is massively under representative of

the provinces biodiversity. • There is a clear need to verify and update the Province’s formal PA

register . • There is also a clear need to implement a METT to assess the

management effectiveness of statutory PA.

• Conservancies play a vital role in the PA network and there is a clear need to implement a formalized stewardship program in the province.

• PA expansion and development in the province cannot happen haphazardly. It requires a dedicated PA expansion plan that draws on the information gathered for this study and that builds on the principles for PA expansion laid down in the NPAES.

Figure 15: A comparison of the percentage of feature targets achieved by the existing statutory Protected Area network versus the PA and Conservation Area network combined.


Figure 16: Protected areas in the NW Province.


4 Drivers of Biodiversity Loss Conservation decision making and action needs to be informed by (a) information on the biodiversity value of sites as well as (b) information on the likelihood of the biodiversity being lost should there be no intervention and the drivers of this loss. Therefore as part of a conservation assessment it is necessary to at least identify what information is available and to assess the relative level of impact posed by these drivers. Drivers of biodiversity loss can also be referred to as “threats to biodiversity” or simply a site’s “cost” or “vulnerability” in relation to identified threats. Threats to biodiversity are defined here as human-induced or mediated activities that result in the loss (transformation) or reduction (degradation) of biodiversity pattern and/or processes. The impacts of threats may manifest as changes in biodiversity structure (e.g. landscape fragmentation, bush encroachment), composition (e.g. species loss), or as changes in ecosystem functioning (e.g. altered hydrology, reduced net primary productivity). Factors resulting in biodiversity loss can be considered as proximal (direct) or distal (indirect). Indirect causes are usually systemic in nature and usually have a socio-economic or political origin. For the NW Province, rapid economic development and poor institutional capacity have contributed to poor biodiversity planning and land-use management. However, direct causes of biodiversity loss relate predominantly to various forms of land use that either compete directly with biodiversity (urban development, agriculture and mining), or utilise natural resource at non-sustainable levels (overgrazing, water abstraction). At a workshop involving stakeholders from the province the range of threats to biodiversity in the province were identified and discussed using a participatory workshop approach. Participants also weighted

each threat category based on their perceived understanding of the importance of addressing the threat in order to conserve biodiversity. Appendix 3 contains a complete list of workshop participants. The outcomes of the threats workshop can be summarised into five broad themes. These are listed here in the order of importance as ranked by workshop participants:

1. Habitat Loss and Landscape Fragmentation [Land-use and Land-use Change Management]

2. Institutional and Enabling Environment 3. Environmental Degradation 4. Poverty/Socio-economic Development 5. Climate Change

Agriculture, mining and urbanisation are viewed as the direct agents of biodiversity loss and degradation; however, participants at the threats workshop overwhelmingly agreed that institutional and enabling environment issues relating to conservation management and land-use and land-use change management were the highest priority drivers of biodiversity loss in the province. The direct impacts on biodiversity due to competing land-uses result in (a) loss of habitat and landscape fragmentation, and (b) degradation of the natural environment, but their impact could be significantly mitigated if the institutions responsible for environmental and land-use planning and management operated and applied the law effectively.


Table 7. A summary of the drivers of biodiversity loss in the NW Province as identified by stakeholders. The numbers in parentheses refer to geographic areas where participants felt that a particular threat was greatest or in operation (Figure 17).

1. Habitat Loss and Landscape Fragmentation [Land-use and Land-use Change Management] Mining

• Diamonds – alluvial terraces and river channels (geographic hotspots: 4, 5, 6)

o Small-scale mining activities o Wetland transformation

• Bushveld Complex pgm, chrome, gold (geographic hotspots: 1, 2, 3) • Slate (geographic hotspots: Marico) • Marble and Lime (geographic hotspots: Ghaap Plateau) • Granite (geographic hotspots: 3 - Norite Hills) • Peat (geographic hotspots: eastern grasslands)

o Wetland transformation o water abstraction

Agricultural Development • Improper agricultural land-use leading to degradation of agricultural

resources: o Ploughing of pans and wetlands o Removal of big trees that are important raptor nesting sites o Cultivation of marginal soils o Sub-division of farm land

• Increased demand for agricultural land: o Demand for biofuels o Irrigation agricultural expansion along river courses leading to

further habitat transformation and unsustainable water demand (area 2)

o Good soils earmarked for further agricultural expansion (area 5)

Urban Development • Conflicting land-use priorities agriculture vs mining vs resettlement vs

biodiversity • Unregulated urban development especially E side of province • Improper use of biodiversity offsets in development planning • Urban sprawl especially on high priority agricultural and biodiversity

land

• Resort and estate (e.g. golf) development • Un-registered waste dumps • Urban areas, fencing and road networks cutting migration

routes/corridors for species leading to landscape fragmentation Rural development

• Unregulated tourism development and pressure • Erosion of natural landscape through unsightly development such as

power-lines Water Catchment Management

• Modification of hydrological flow regimes especially Crocodile and Marico Rivers

• Ground water abstraction e.g. Kalahari centre-pivots impact on water table and dolomitic eyes

• Pollution due to mining, urban and agriculture 2. Institutional and Enabling Environment Institutional Capacity and Enabling Environment

• Political demand for development e.g. for biofuels • Legal loopholes exploited by developers • Lack of political commitment to address biodiversity issues • Conflicting government policies (e.g. agriculture vs biodiversity vs

mining) • Poor cross-sectoral planning framework • Insufficient management and follow-up (legislative) from government

side • Institutional capacity for conservation – 2 departments (MEC’s) both

responsible for conservation with overlapping mandates • Poor institutional funding or poor budgeting for getting necessary

funding from state • Political change leading to uncertainty and instability • Lack of capacity for effective governance • Unqualified and under capacitated agricultural extension officers • Inadequate infrastructure such as sewerage, electricity and water

Public Awareness • Legal ignorance • Lack of information, knowledge and awareness

Knowledge Management • Poor data management • Lack of adequate data sharing framework/platform


• Lack of field survey to ground-truth datasets • Data scattered and not shared or known about • The NW Scientific Forum has not materialised

Protected Area Network • Under representative protected area network • Lack of coherent stewardship program in the province • Ad-hoc approach to the selection and design of new protected areas

3. Environmental Degradation Alien species including

• Exotic fish species • Alien plants (e.g. Prosopis, black wattle, aquatic species) • Extra-limital species (indigenous)

Range management • Bush encroachment • Deforestation for charcoal and firewood • Soil erosion • Overgrazing • Fire management/altered fire regimes

Biological risks • Genetic pollution from GM plants/ selection of “super bugs” • Increase incidence of diseases such as foot and mount and Newcastle

Disease Pollution, Sources of pollutants

• Mining (geographic hotspots: 2, 3, 4, 5) o Acid mine drainage (water) o Smelters (air) o Dust (air)

• Industry (geographic hotspots: 2, 3, 4, 5) • Agriculture (geographic hotspots: 1- 7 especially 5, 6, 7)

o Pesticides and herbicides - toxic chemicals (air, soil and water)

o Fertiliser – eutropification (soil and water) • Household

o Fires (air) o Sewerage (water) o Solid waste management – landfills (soil and water)

Harvesting and Trade in Indigenous Species (incl. Poaching) • Muti-trade/traditional medicinal plants

• Bio-harvesting for western markets such as devils claw • Hunting industry

4. Poverty/Socio-economic Development

• Subsistence resource use pressure (reliance on biodiversity) • HIV/Aids • Urbanisation

5. Climate Change Impacts of climate change:

• Migration of rural populations • Species extinctions and localisation • Increase in natural disasters

Figure 17 (following page): Geographic regions of the province referred to by the threats workshop participants.


1

6

7

56

43

2


5 Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) The term biodiversity refers to genes, species (plants and animals), ecosystems, and landscapes and the ecological and evolutionary processes that allow these elements of biodiversity to persist over time. The North West Province’s biodiversity provides an important basis for economic growth and development, in ways such as providing rangelands that support commercial and subsistence farming, horticulture and agriculture industry based on indigenous species, our tourism industry, aspects of our film industry, commercial and non-commercial medicinal applications of indigenous resources, and provision of clean water. Keeping our biodiversity intact is also vital for ensuring ongoing provision of ecosystem services such as production of clean water through good catchment management, prevention of erosion, carbon storage (to counteract global warming) and clean air. Loss of biodiversity puts aspects of our economy and quality of life at risk and reduces socio-economic options for future generations People are ultimately fully dependent on living, functioning ecosystems and the services they provide. Loss of biodiversity leads to ecosystem degradation and subsequent loss of important services, which tends to harm the rural poor more directly - poor people have limited assets and are more dependent on common property resources for their livelihoods, whilst the wealthy are buffered against loss of ecosystem services by being able to purchase basic necessities and scarce commodities. Our path towards sustainable development, poverty reduction and enhanced human well-being for all, is therefore dependent on how effectively we conserve biodiversity. Effective management of biodiversity does not guarantee sustainable development, but sustainable development is not possible without it. Wise use and management of biodiversity is a cornerstone of sustainable development" (Driver et al. 2005)

The purpose of the critical biodiversity areas (CBA) map and guidelines is to mainstream biodiversity into land-use planning and decision-making by identifying those sites critical for biodiversity persistence. The overall aim is to avoid loss and degradation of natural habitat in critical biodiversity areas (CBAs), whilst managing sustainable development in other natural areas remaining. The CBA map and guidelines provide a common reference point for all decision-makers within the land-use sector, including all stakeholders involved in land-use planning and decision-making processes. Although the CBA maps constitute the best available biodiversity information, they can never replace a site-assessment and are always to be viewed as the biodiversity informant only in the triple bottom line of sustainable development, i.e. social, economic and natural environments" (Vromans, D. C et al. 2008)

5.1 What are CBA’s? Critical biodiversity areas (CBA’s) are terrestrial and aquatic features in the landscape that are critical for retaining biodiversity and supporting continued ecosystem functioning and services (SANBI 2007). These form the key output of a systematic conservation assessment and are the biodiversity sectors inputs into multi-sectoral planning and decision making tools (Figure 18).


Figure 18 A conceptual outline of where bioregional plans fit in the broader set of tools for land use planning and decision making.

The primary purpose of CBA’s is to inform land-use planning and the land-use guidelines attached to CBA’s aim to promote sustainable development by avoiding loss or degradation of important natural habitat and landscapes in these areas and the landscape as a whole. CBA’s can also be used to inform protected area expansion and development plans. The use of CBA’s here follows the definition laid out in the guideline for publishing bioregional plants (Anon, 2008):

• Critical biodiversity areas (CBAs) are areas of the landscape that need to be maintained in a natural or near-natural state in order to ensure the continued existence and functioning of species and ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem services.

In other words, if these areas are not maintained in a natural or near-natural state then biodiversity conservation targets cannot be met. Maintaining an area in a natural state can include a variety of biodiversity-compatible land uses and resource uses.

• Ecological support areas (ESA’s) are areas that are not essential for meeting biodiversity representation targets/thresholds but which nevertheless play an important role in supporting the ecological functioning of critical biodiversity areas and/or in delivering ecosystem services that support socio-economic development, such as water provision, flood mitigation or carbon sequestration. The degree of restriction on land use and resource use in these areas may be lower than that recommended for critical biodiversity areas.

From a land-use planning perspective it is useful to think of the difference between CBAs and ESAs in terms of where in the landscape the biodiversity impact of any land-use activity action is most significant:

• For CBAs the impact on biodiversity of a change in land-use that results in a change from the desired ecological state is most significant locally at the point of impact through the direct loss of a biodiversity feature (e.g. loss of a populations or habitat).

• For ESAs a change from the desired ecological state is most significant elsewhere in the landscape through the indirect loss of biodiversity due to a breakdown, interruption or loss of an ecological process pathway (e.g. removing a corridor results in a population going extinct elsewhere or a new plantation locally, results in a reduction in stream flow at the catchment’s exit which affects downstream biodiversity).


Table 8: The conceptual steps followed in developing the CBA categories and the associated land-use guidelines.

Step Process 1 Set conservation goals

2 Gather information on biodiversity patterns and process (biodiversity information layers or CBA criteria)

3 Define biodiversity conservation targets or thresholds, i.e. spatial requirements necessary to represent and maintain biodiversity into perpetuity

4

Define desired ecological state or land management objectives that relate to the component of biodiversity being targeted (i.e. pattern or process) and the flexibility in the landscape in terms of being able to achieve targets for each component (i.e. irreplaceability)

5 Define CBA categories based on the land management objectives

6 Using the biodiversity information layers, classify the landscape into CBA categories based on thresholds for each criterion.

7 Develop land-use recommendations for each CBA category based on each activities perceived impact on biodiversity patterns and process

The objective of the CBA map is to inform land-use planning and make recommendations as to which parts of the landscape should ideally be retained in a natural state and which parts could potentially be transformed to other land-uses. This recommendation is based on the biodiversity sectors understanding of what constitutes the desired ecological state or land management objective for different CBA categories. These objectives inform how many CBA categories are necessary in a schema and provide a basis for defining criteria and thresholds for assessing and classifying the landscape into CBA categories based on the avail

nw province conservation assessment technical report...

Documents