National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) 2018: Progress on the Inland Aquatic Component

Heidi van Deventer & Lindie Smith-Adao

2

Lucky draw for images related to wetlands

• Lucky draw prizes– FWL - landscape settings of inland wetlands or rivers

– FWP - people depending on ecosystem services of inland wetlands or rivers

– FWFA - wetland fauna associated with inland wetlands or rivers

– FWFL – wetland flora associated with inland wetlands or rivers

– FWI – impacts on wetlands on inland wetlands or rivers

• Images can be submitted from June 2017 until

1 September 2018.

• National Wetlands Indaba during October 2018.

• https://www.sanbi.org/nba for more information.

3

PROGRESS

Inventory:• Van Deventer, H.; Smith-Adao, L.; Petersen, C.; Mbona, N.; Skowno, A.; Nel, Jeanne

L.2018 Review of available data for a South African Inventory of Inland

Aquatic Ecosystems (SAIIAE). WaterSA, 44(2):184 – 199.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v44i2.05.

• Van Deventer, H.; Smith-Adao, L.; Mbona, N.; Petersen, C.; Skowno, A.; Collins, N.B.; Grenfell, M.; Job, N.; Lötter, M.; Ollis, D.; Scherman, P.; Sieben, E.; Snaddon, K. 2018.

South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems. South African National

Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Report Number: CSIR report number CSIR/NRE/ECOS/IR/2018/0001/A; SANBI report number http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12143/5847 .

Assessment : • Van Deventer, H.; Smith-Adao, L.; Job, N.; Kotze, D.; Genthe, B.; Grundling, A.; Grundling,

P-L.; Impson, D.; Petersen, C.; Robinson, J.; Scherman, P.; Snaddon, K.; Tererai, F.; Van

Rensburg, S. 2018. Assessment of the ecosystem threat status and

ecosystem protection levels of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems for the

National Biodiversity Assessment of 2018. South African National Biodiversity

Institute, Pretoria. DRAFT 1.

√

√

4

South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (SAIIAE) Report

• Technical report

• Compilation of data

• Data sources

• Steps and methods for creating the NWM5

• July 2018 on BGIS

INVENTORY REPORT

NBA 2018 Technical Report for the Inland Aquatic Ecosystems

• Technical report

• Condition assessment of rivers and wetlands

• Headline indicators (ETS & EPL) for rivers and wetlands

• Pressures

• Responses

• Key findings and key messages

• October 2018 SANBI

ASSESSMENTREPORT

5

SAIIAE

• Report

• Excell directory of 1998 and

1999 inventories

• ArcGIS geodatabase (10.3)

(with subtypes)

• ArcGIS layer files

• Other formats will be

facilitated

6

Rivers data set

• 200 955 km of river length mapped in the data set

• 164 018 km of rivers in SA (82%)

– 76 830 mainstem (47%)

– 87 188 tributaries (53%)

• 90% has river ecosystem types and PES

• 10% are ephemeral / episodic

(no PES scores)

7

National Wetland Map version 5 (NWM5)

30 editors

>10 organisations

>R7 million

• NWM5 represents nearly 4 million hectares (ha) of aquatic

ecosystems which cover 3.3% of the surface area of SA

– Includes estuaries, inland wetlands and some river channels

• Inland wetlands

constitute

2.6million ha

(2.2% of SA)

8

Improvements of the NWM5

1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.8% 2.2%

9

Increase in extent per HGM units

10

8 INLAND LAKES (LIMNETIC DEPRESSIONS)

• maximum depth of inundation > 2 m at the average annual

low-water level of an open waterbody

Name Extent (ha)

Barberspan 1 720.6

Chrissiesmeer 1 282.6

De Hoop 949.3

Groenvlei 357.3

Lake Banagher 184.5

Lake Fundzudzi 192.3

Lake Sibayi 8 360.1

Tevredenpan 329.2

Total extent 13 376.0

11

Confidence map and categories

RATING DESCRIPTION

1: LOW NON-WETLAND

SPECIALIST

2: LOW

TO

MEDIUM

EXTENT MAPPED BY

INTERN OR WETLAND

SPECIALIST

3:

MEDIUM

EXTENT AND HGM BY

WETLAND SPECIALIST

4:

MEDIUM

– HIGH

INFIELD VERIFICATION

5: HIGH UNDERSTANDING OF

LIFE CYCLE (> 10 YRS)

(69%)

(24%)

(7%)

(0.04%)

50% omission error,

10% commission error,

scale 1:50 000

<30% omission error,

10% commission error,

scale 1:10 000

12

Artificial wetlands

92 Large dams monitored RS

5 EFZ

5 inland wetlands38%

<2%

60%

13

WETLAND PROBABILITY MAP

Collins, N.B. 2018. Chapter 5: Modelling of probable wetland extent. South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (SAIIAE): Technical Report. FSDESTEA internal report.

WRDM:

• 300% added through external data

• 500% added by wetland probability map

FSDESTEA

14

Key findings and recommendations from the SAIIAE (Inventory Report)

• Most of the inland wetlands map is

at a low (69%) and low-medium

confidence level (24%) = (93%)

• Limnetic depressions (lakes) are

unique and should be considered

for RLE

Urgently improve to

Confidence level 2

15

IUCN threatened status assessment and Red Listing of Ecosystems (RLE)

Bland et al., 2017

Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria

16

River ecosystem types

(b) flow variability

(a) Ecoregions

(c) slope categories

17

River ecosystem type per WMA

• 222 river ecosystem types

• Limpopo WMA highest number of river ecosystem types

No. of river ecosystem types per WMA

18

Building wetland ecosystem types

• Ollis et al., 2013 Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa

• Uncertainty in distinguishing certain HGM types at desktop level: use only depressions, floodplains, seeps and valley-bottom

INLAND

WETLAND

HGM TYPES

√

√

√

√

19

Level 2 WVG vs bioregions of 2018

131 WVG * 7 HGM types = 786 (762)

131 WVG * 4 HGM types = 542 (442)

Wetland vegetation groups (2018)

20

Inland wetland ecosystem types for NBA 2018

37 bioregions * 4 hydrogeomorphic wetland types

= maximum 148 potential ecosystem types

NBA 2018 has 135 inland wetland

ecosystem types

1:9 700 000

BIOREGION

Albany Thicket

Bushmanland Bioregion

Central Bushveld Bioregion

Drakensberg Grassland Bioregion

Dry Highveld Grassland Bioregion

Estuary

East Coast Renosterveld Bioregion

Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Bioregion

Eastern Kalahari Bushveld Bioregion

Eastern Strandveld

Gariep Desert Bioregion

Indian Ocean Coastal Belt

Kalahari Duneveld Bioregion

Karoo Renosterveld Bioregion

Knersvlakte Bioregion

Lower Karoo Bioregion

Lowveld Bioregion

Mesic Highveld Grassland Bioregion

Mopane Bioregion

Namaqualand Cape Shrublands Bioregion

Namaqualand Hardeveld Bioregion

Namaqualand Sandveld Bioregion

Northwest Fynbos Bioregion

Rainshadow Valley Karoo Bioregion

Richtersveld Bioregion

Seashore Vegetation

South Coast Fynbos Bioregion

South Strandveld Bioregion

Southern Fynbos Bioregion

Southern Namib Desert Bioregion

Southwest Fynbos Bioregion

Sub-Escarpment Grassland Bioregion

Sub-Escarpment Savanna Bioregion

Trans-Escarpment Succulent Karoo Bioregion

Upper Karoo Bioregion

West Coast Renosterveld Bioregion

West Strandveld Bioregion

Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Bioregion

21

NBA 2018 ASSESSMENT APPROACH

MAP ECOSYSTEM TYPES

PROPORTION IN GOOD CONDITION AGAINST TARGETS

ECOSYSTEM THREAT

STATUS (ETS)

INLAND AQUATIC

Critically Endangered (CR) ≤ 20% in AB

Endangered (EN) ≤ 35% in AB

Vulnerable (VU)≤ 60% in ABC

Least Threatened (LT) > 60% in ABC

CONDITION CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

A/B Natural/good

C Moderately modified

D/E/F Seriously modified

ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION

LEVEL (EPL)

INLAND AQUATIC

Well protected ≥ 100% of biodiversity

target

Moderately protected 50 – 99%

Poorly protected 5 – 49%

Unprotected <5 %

22

KEY PRESSURES ON INLAND AQUATIC ECOSYTEMS

• Hydrological regime (flow regime)

• Water quality (nutrient, chemical, thermal)

• Land degradation and habitat fragmentation

• Alien invasive species

• Pressures on species

• Climate change

• Collapsing capacity

Q A

Well understood? No

Index available? Some

Monitored? Some

Concerns:

• High levels of uncertainty in

• Extent, magnitude and temporal

variation of pressures

• Extent, magnitude of impacts on

ecosystem/species responses

• Knowledge gaps

• Data deficient

23

Dominant land cover 2013/4 (amended)

24

Present Ecological State (PES

• Rivers uses categories A, B, C, D, E, or F

• Wetlands uses A/B, C or D/E/F

After Kleynhans (2000)

Ecological category Description

A Unmodified, natural

B Largely natural with few modifications. A small change in natural habitats and biota may have taken place

but the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged.

C Moderately-modified. A loss and change of natural habitat and biota have occurred but the basic ecosystem

functions are still predominantly unchanged.

D Largely-modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions have occurred.

E Seriously-modified. The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions are extensive.

F Critically/Extremely-modified. Modifications have reached a critical level and the system has been modified

completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worst instances the basic

ecosystem functions have been destroyed and the changes are irreversible.

25

River PES

• 33% of rivers are in a good condition

26

Modelling inland wetland PES

Criterion Inland Wetland

PES/Condition

No. of

147005

River PES = D, E or F D/E/F 4 883

(3.3%)

Within 500m downstream

of a WWTW

D/E/F 377

(0.3%)

Within 500m of an

aquaculture facility

D/E/F 51

(0.03%)

Where an inland wetland

intersects a road (not

highway) or railway

D/E/F 16 668

(11%)

Burning peatlands (11 listed

by Piet-Louis and Althea)

D/E/F 11

(0.01%)

Where an artificial is within

or directly adjacent of an

inland wetland

C 16 412

(11%)

% Natural land (NBA 2011)

[50, 100, 500m buffers]

>75% natural (A/B)

25 – 75% natural (C )

<25% natural (D/E/F)

108 603

(74%)

27

ETS for rivers

Percentage of river ecosystem

types threatened

% ETS per geomorphical zone (slope)

• The Vaal WMA has an alarming

proportion of critically endangered

ecosystems > 70% of length CR

28

Species assessment (in progress)

*

* In progress

Disaggregation of each taxonomic group threat status for species

making use of freshwater habitats. The proportion of species (%) within

each taxonomic group that are assessed as threatened (CR, EN, VU),

Taxa of Conservation Concern (NT, DD) and Least Concern taxa.

*

29

Protected areas NBA 2011 vs NBA 2018

Protected area Type

NBA 2018

Type

Botanical Garden BotGar

Community Conservation Area NR-Steward

Forest Nature Reserve Formal

Forest Wilderness Area Formal

Local Nature Reserve Formal

Marine Protected Area Formal MPA

Marine Protected Area - No Take Formal MPA

Marine Protected Area PEI Formal MPA

Marine Protected Area PEI - No

Take Formal MPA

Mountain Catchment Area MCA, PNR

National Park Formal

Nature Reserve - stewardship NR-Steward

Nature Reserve (Island) Formal

Private Nature Reserve MCA, PNR

Protected Environment NR-Steward

Provincial Nature Reserve Formal

State Land Formal

Wilderness Area Formal

World Heritage Site Formal

PA for NBA 2011

is very different to

PA for NBA 2018

30

Post-processing steps

Critically Endangered (CR) ≤ 20% in AB

Endangered (EN) ≤ 35% in AB

Poorly protected 5 – 49%

Unprotected <5 %&

• Are any of these within:

– Ramsar site or informal

protected areas

– FEPA or fish sanctuary

– SWSA (sw or gw)

• Evaluate and potentially

recommend updates in

PAES or NFEPA

Thank you

Heidi van Deventer (HvDeventer@csir.co.za)

Drone photograph of Tevredenpan, taken by Anton Linström

WetEarth Pty Ltd, April 2018