Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 - comparison with 2011 assessment for provincial agencies

August 2019

Author: Andrew Skowno

Contributors: Maphale Matlala, Jasper Slingsby, Donovan Kirkwood, Domitilla Raimondo, Lize von Staden, Stephen Holness, Mervyn Lotter, Genevieve Pence, Fahiema Daniels, Amanda Driver, Philip Desmet, Anisha Dayaram

Cite as: Skowno AL, Matlala M, Slingsby J, Kirkwood D, Raimondo DC, von Staden L, Holness SD, Lotter M, Pence G, Daniels F, Driver A, Desmet PG, Dayaram A (2019). Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 - comparison with 2011 assessment for provincial agencies. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

KEY POINTS  Ecosystem threat status is a head line indicator in the National Biodiversity Assessment.  In the NBA 2011 the ecosystem threat status indicator for terrestrial ecosystems was linked to the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems which appeared in the government gazette in 2011.  Since 2011 there have been significant changes to both the national vegetation map (which includes a wide range of refinements) and the land cover data (which now includes land cover change between 1990 and 2014).  In addition to the new input data there is a new international ecosystem threats assessment framework developed by the IUCN, known as the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE). Designed to complement the existing Red List of Species framework, the IUCN RLE is gaining traction and there are numerous high impact scientific publications focusing on its concepts and implementation.  South Africa was an early adopter of the IUCN species red listing methodology and is now a global leader in threatened species work. For the NBA 2018 we have chosen to adopt IUCN RLE methodology.  Although the IUCN RLE and the South African system are very similar in concept and application, there are subtle differences that, when combined with the differences in the input vegetation and land cover data, result in substantial differences between the 2018 list of threatened ecosystems and the 2011 list.  In the report below we detail the preliminary results of a 2018 ecosystem threat status assessment using the IUCN RLE method. We first assessed all 458 terrestrial ecosystem types using national datasets (this is referred to as the referred as the “core” assessment) and then followed up with “supplementary” assessments for specific ecosystem types.  Supplimentary assessments are the principal avenue for experts to contribute to the national ecosystem assessment process. If the threat status of an ecosystem is judged to be too low or too high, and there is evidence to support this, then a supplementary assessment can be undertaken - using criteria and thresholds contained in the IUCN RLE framework.  In parallel to the ecosystem threat assessment, we also have the opportunity to identify a new category of ecosystems for national listing. These “ecosystems of special concern” do not trigger any specific threat status criteria in the IUCN of South African system, but are potentially of special conservation concern due to endemism, sensitivity to change, value as ecological infrastructure, ecosystem service delivery or exceptional cultural value. This has been successfully implemented by SANBIs threatened species unit; who have identified “range restricted rare species” as an additional category for national reporting (but which are excluded from IUCN listing processes). This category could also cater for the various special ecosystem listed previously in South Africa using Criteria F of the 2011 system.  The process and plan for updating the national listing of threatened ecosystems / gazette has not yet been finalized. As a first step in this process we have produced a provincial level comparison on the NEMBA 2011 list of threatened ecosystems and the preliminary 2018 Red List of Ecosystems. This will lay the foundation for discussion on the update of regulations linked to the new list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems.  Ideally the national list of ecosystems would be biennially updated by SANBI based on the latest assessments and information (as per species), rather than a static list that is gazette for 5-10 years as is currently the situation. SANBIs policy experts will have to investigate the possibility for this. INTRODUCTION

The objective of this report was to provide summary information at a provincial level on the differences and similarities between the 2011 list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems (referred to as the NEMBA list) and the 2018 National Biodiversity Assessment Red List of Ecosystems (referred to as the NBA RLE). Additional information detailing the ecosystem assessment approach for the 2018 NBA RLE can be found in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains additional information comparing the South African and the IUCN RLE ecosystem assessment frameworks.

South Africa is one of several countries to independently develop indicators of ecosystem threat prior to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) (Keith et al., 2013a) (www.iucnrle.org). These indicators met a recognised need for an indicator similar to the IUCN Red List of Species that could identify risk for higher- levels of biodiversity organisation such as ecological communities (Noss, 1990; Rodríguez et al., 2011; Keith et al., 2013a; Bland et al., 2017a). The South African List of Threatened Ecosystems was conceptualised as a national indicator of ecosystem conservation status in the early 2000s. From its early applications as a project-based indicator, it progressed into a legislated national listing of threatened terrestrial ecosystems in 2011 (known as the “2011 NEMBA list”) (RSA, 2011; Botts et al., in review). South Africa has been reporting on the threat status of its ecosystems for more than a decade, and this information has been used to focus resources on conservation priorities through a wide range of systematic conservation planning processes and government policies (Driver et al., 2004, 2012; Botts et al., in review). For 2018 NBA RLE the ecosystem threat assessments were based on the updated national vegetation map (version 20.4, 2018) and an ecosystem condition map based primarily on the land cover change data 1990- 2014. The IUCN RLE framework and recommendations (Bland et al., 2017) was applied. Adopting the IUCN RLE framework has both benefits and drawbacks. Overall, the benefits of international alignment and a robust conceptual framework were judged to outweigh the drawbacks associated with changing an established indicator. The frameworks were also shown to yield broadly similar results when using common input data, leading to a decision by the NBA 2018 Terrestrial Component Reference Group that the IUCN RLE approach should be adopted for the NBA 2018 and future ecosystem assessments. The gazetted 2011 NEMBA list ecosystems will be updated with the new information as soon as possible. The goal of this report was to compare the 2011 list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems (NEMAB list) with the 2018 application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems used in the NBA. The key considerations were a) the number of ecosystems per threat category, b) the extent of remaining natural habitat that is categorized as threatened and c) the spatial configuration and geographic differences between the assessments outcomes.

METHOD & APPROACH

The full methodology and conceptual basis of the IUCN RLE can be found in Appendix 1. We applied the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) method for the NBA 2018 using a comprehensive systematic assessment based on IUCN Criteria A&B (criteria linked to spatial configuration and remaining extent of ecosystems) for all terrestrial ecosystem types (vegetation types). This assessment, referred to as the “core” assessment, was then supplemented with additional assessments of selected ecosystem types based on additional data on ecosystem condition including: habitat loss in metropolitan areas (City of Cape Town and Gauteng), KwaZulu -Natal, the Western Cape and Mpumalanga; degradation in the Albany Thicket biome and Western Cape; and degradation caused by invasive alien species and overgrazing in Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 2 ecosystem types with restricted distribution ranges. It is envisaged that the preliminary national RLE resulting from this assessment will be considered as the baseline for the nation, and that it will be updated as additional information becomes available – to be released biennially. If the threat status of an ecosystem type is: a) considered an underestimate; or b) if the data used in the assessment is considered inaccurate or inadequate; or c) if a researcher can develop new datasets to address additional criteria for selected ecosystems; then further supplementary assessments should be undertaken. The core assessment will be updated when updated national land cover change data becomes available. Appendix 2 includes information on the similarities and differences in the IUCN RLE system applied in 2018 and the South African system applied in 2011.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

NBA RLE 2018 results The first implementation of the IUCN RLE for South African terrestrial ecosystems (458 vegetation types) for the NBA 2018 resulted in the listing of 35 Critically Endangered, 39 Endangered and 29 Vulnerable ecosystems (Table 1). While 8% of ecosystem types are Critically Endangered, this amounts to less than 1% of the extent of remaining natural habitat in South Africa. Endangered ecosystems make up 9% of ecosystems by type and 3% by extent. Six percent of ecosystems types are Vulnerable, amounting to 4% of the natural remaining habitat of South Africa (Table 8). The most influential criteria in the RLE assessment were Criteria B1(i) (restricted distribution & continuing declines in geographic distribution) which contributed to the listing of 74/103 ecosystem types and Criterion A3 (historical loss of habitat) which contributed to the listing of 67/103 ecosystem types (Table 9). The supplementary assessment of Criterion B1 using the threatened species pressures database contributed to the listing of 49/103 ecosystem types, of which 13 were listed purely due to this criterion. Criterion D (biotic disruption – based on ecosystem degradation) contributed to the listing of 5/103 ecosystem types.

Table 1. Summary of the assessment outcomes; including the number of ecosystem types per category & proportion of the natural areas remaining per category.

Number of Extent of natural Percentage of natural Category (IUCN RLE) ecosystems Habitat (km2) habitat of SA Critically Endangered 35 5 905 0.6% Endangered 39 28 983 3% Vulnerable 29 42 460 4% Least Concern 355 882 821 77% Total for South Africa 458 960 168 100%

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 3

Figure 1. IUCN RLE 2018 version 5: Historical extent of threatened ecosystem types

Figure 2. IUCN RLE 2018 version 5: Remaining natural extent of each threatened ecosystem type

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 4 Comparing the 2011 NEMBA and 2018 NBA RLE ecosystem threat status results The 2018 assessment focused on vegetation types (458 units assessed) while the NEMA 2011 assessment focused on 438 vegetation types and 108 additional “special ecosystems” (a total of 546 ecosystem types assessed). The inclusion of special ecosystems, which were not conceptually consistent and ranged from individual forest patches (i.e. on patch of a more widely distributed ecosystem type) to specific locations which included range of different ecosystem types, represents a substantial difference between the assessments. These special ecosystems, which were assessed using Criterion F of the South African framework, do not fit the definition of an ecosystem type provided in the IUCN RLE framework, and are better described as the outputs of biodiversity ecosystem prioritization processes. The 2018 and future assessments of terrestrial ecosystems in South Africa will be applied to the ecosystem units described and delineated in the national vegetation map (as recommended by the Terrestrial Reference Group in November 2017). This data set is curated and updated regularly by SANBI, and the units described (i.e. within Mucina and Rutherford 2006, and updates) are consistent with level 4/5 of the global ecosystem typology that is under development (Keith et al., in prep).

While the exclusion of these special ecosystems in 2018 resulted in fewer threatened ecosystem types being listed in 2018 when compared to 2011 (103 vs. 225), Critically Endangered and Endangered ecosystem types cover a similar extent (when considering the natural remaining habitat). This is important from a regulation point of view as the “footprint” of these two categories have the largest impact on environmental regulation processes and procedures. Vulnerable ecosystem types covered a substantially larger area in 2011 than in the 2018 assessment, but the impact of this on regulatory processes in limited.

Differences in the Western Cape are mostly driven by the use of a threatened species focused criteria in the NEMBA 2011 assessment (SA Criteria D1) (Appendix 2). The 2018 NBA RLE assessment incorporates threats such as invasive alien species and overgrazing as evidence of ongoing decline only in restricted range ecosystems (linked to IUCN Criteria B1ii, B2ii).

There are ecosystem types which, based on the new land cover data, are in lower threat category than the 2011 NEMBA assessment. In some cases this represents an improved understanding of the extent of natural habitat remaining, and in others it may be that the new land cover data is over estimating the extent of natural habitat. We have implemented numerous adjustments to the land cover change data to prevent this (i.e. mapping secondary natural areas) but these ecosystems should be investigated further and supplementary assessments should be undertaken.

Table 2. Comparison of the results of the 2018 Red List of Ecosystems and the 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems. The table includes the number of ecosystem types per category and the proportion of the natural habitat of South Africa within each category. The 2011 assessment included 438 vegetation types and 108 “special ecosystem types” (ranging from forest sub-vegetation units to habitat for threatened animals); the 2018 assessment was applied to an updated vegetation map with 458 units.

2011 2018 Category (IUCN RLE) Number of Percentage of natural Number of Percentage of natural ecosystems habitat of SA ecosystems habitat of SA Critically Endangered 53 <1% 35 <1% Endangered 64 2% 39 3% Vulnerable 108 7% 29 4% Total number of ecosystem 546 458 assessed

Some of the special ecosystems listed under SA Criteria F and A2 (forest patches) in the 2011 NEMBA assessment are no longer listed as threatened, or have been placed in a lower threat category in the 2018 NEBA RLE. These ecosystems are now part of provincial CBA networks and are more appropriately highlighted Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 5 through biodiversity prioritization processes rather than threat status assessments. To complement the RLE we aim to develop an additional list of “ecosystems of special concern”, much like the “species of special concern” which picks up on endemic, localized or otherwise unique ecosystems in South Africa. The special forest areas included in the 2011 NEMBA list using SA Criteria F and A2 are a good starting point for such as list.

The western portion of the Eastern Cape has a number of differences which are driven by changes to the national vegetation map (specifically adjustments to the Albany Thicket biome), and the inclusion degradation data, developed by the STEP programme (Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme, 2002- 2004).

Appendix 3 lists each terrestrial ecosystem type assessed in 2018 using the IUCN RLE and included in the National Biodiversity Assessment, and compares the ecosystem threat status with the 2011 NEMBA listing.

Figure 3. (a) Threatened terrestrial ecosystems published in 2011 (the NEMBA list); (b) the 2018 NBA RLE. The maps are broadly similar with most differences concentrated in the Albany Thicket biome, Grassland biome and Fynbos biome.

Table 3. The 2018 NBA RLE - Provincial breakdown showing the percentage of the natural remaining habitat in each threat category. The number of ecosystems types is shown in parenthesis. Note the provincial stats do not sum to the SA totals since some ecosystem types occur in multiple provinces. Province (RLE 2018) Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Total Threatened Least Concern Eastern Cape 0.2% (4) 0.3% (3) 7.1% (11) 7.6% 92.4% Free State 0% (0) 4.1% (1) 8.1% (4) 12.2% 87.8% Gauteng 3.1% (1) 9.5% (2) 32.6% (4) 45.2% 54.8% KwaZulu-Natal 1.4% (2) 18.9% (11) 9.9% (5) 30.2% 69.8% Limpopo 0.1% (1) 1.3% (2) 3.4% (4) 4.8% 95.2% Mpumalanga 0% (0) 4.6% (4) 24.7% (5) 29.3% 470.7% North West 0% (0) 7.7% (3) 4.6% (4) 12.3% 87.7.7% Northern Cape 0.1% (3) <0.1% (1) 0% (0) 0.1% 99.9% Western Cape 4.1% (25) 5.6% (20) 0.8% (9) 10.5% 89.5%

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 6 Table 4. The 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystem (NEMBA list) - Provincial breakdown showing the percentage of the natural remaining habitat in each threat category. The number of ecosystems is shown in parenthesis. Note the provincial stats do not sum to the SA totals since some ecosystem types occur in multiple provinces. Province (NEMBA 2011) Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Total Threatened Least Concern Eastern Cape 0.02% (1) 0.4% (8) 3.2% (10) 3.60% 96.4% Free State 0% (0) 4.0% (2) 11.4% (7) 15.39% 84.6% Gauteng 15.6% (10) 11.3% (7) 30.9% (7) 57.79% 42.2% KwaZulu-Natal 3.0% (19) 2.6% (25) 20.6% (58) 26.22% 73.8% Limpopo 0.1% (1) 1.2% (5) 5.2% (6) 6.50% 93.5% Mpumalanga 0.1% (4) 12.3% (14) 34.5% (21) 46.90% 53.1% North West 2.3% (3) 4.7% (2) 17.6% (9) 24.52% 75.5% Northern Cape 0% (0) 0.1% (1) 0.3% (4) 0.41% 99.6% Western Cape 4.9% (21) 1.7% (14) 11.5% (23) 18.09% 81.9%

Table 5. Summary of changes in threatened ecosystem listing per province between 2011 NEMBA list and 2018 NBA RLE. Province Narrative of Changes Threatened ecosystems now cover 8% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, up from 4% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased slightly from 19 to 18. The vast majority of these threatened types are vulnerable. The major contributors to the differences are the use of a new map of Albany Thicket biome ecosystems types and the use of the degradation data from the STEP Eastern Cape programme. Threatened ecosystems now cover 12% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 15% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased from 9 to 5. The differences are caused by the higher habitat loss thresholds for Endangered and Critically Endangered Free State categories in the IUCN system compared to the South African system. Threatened ecosystems now cover 45% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 57% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has also decreased from 24 to 7. These decreases are due to the exclusion of SA Criteria F “special” ecosystems which are now captured as priorities Gauteng within systematic biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas). Threatened ecosystems now cover 30% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, up from 26% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased substantially from 102 to 18 due to the exclusion of a large number of small “special” ecosystems (identified under SA Criterion F) which KwaZulu-Natal are now captured as priorities within systematic biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas). Threatened ecosystems now cover 5% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 7% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased from 12 to 7. The differences are caused by the higher habitat loss thresholds for Endangered and Critically Endangered categories in the Limpopo IUCN system compared to the South African system. Threatened ecosystems now cover 30% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 47% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased substantially from 39 to 9 due to the exclusion of a large number of small “special” ecosystems (identified under SA Criterion F) which Mpumalanga are now captured as priorities within systematic biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas). Threatened ecosystems now cover 12% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 25% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased from 14 to 7. The differences are caused by the higher habitat loss thresholds for Endangered and Critically Endangered categories in the IUCN system compared to the South African system and the exclusion of some small “special” ecosystems (identified under SA Criterion F) which are now captured as priorities within systematic North West biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas). Less than 1% of the natural remaining ecosystem extent of the Province is listed as threatened in both 2018 Northern Cape and 2011 assessments. The number of listed ecosystem types remains the same. Approximately 10% of the natural remaining ecosystem extent of the Province is listed as threatened in both 2018 and 2011 assessments. The number of ecosystem types listed as threatened has decreased slightly Western Cape from 58 to 54 due to a refinement in the approach for including threatened species data.

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 7 Limitations The key shortcoming of all of these ecosystem threat status assessments is that we lack appropriate data on land degradation or biotic disruption of ecosystems. This means that in many regions the ecosystem assessments will underestimate the risk of collapse. This is dealt with to some degree in the thicket biome; but in other biomes it is a very challenging problem that will need significant focussed research. One aspect of degradation that should be possible to map accurately and therefore use in ecosystem assessment is distribution and abundance on alien invasive species. At least for grasses and woody plants that reach high abundances and high visibility this certainly seems possible in the near future. Another challenge is that for many of our ecosystems we do not have a clear model of ecosystem function against which we can measure biotic disruption or degradation. A further shortcoming of this assessment is that it relies on data collected in 2013/2014 – which makes it 4 years old. This is not ideal, and as automated and global scale remote sensing becomes more accessible it is hoped that future assessments will not suffer from this long time delay. As soon as new land cover data become available (scheduled for 2018 release by the Department of Environmental Affairs) SANBI has set up a system to automatically update the lists (though there are many steps for which expert validation are required); the aim is to reduce this time lag to less than one year.

REFERENCES

Bland, L. M., Keith, D. A., Miller, R. M., Rodríguez, J. P., & Murray, N. J. (2017). Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.1. Gland, Switzerland.

Botts EA, Skowno AL, Driver A, Holness S, Maze, K, Smith T, Daniels F, Desmet PG, Sink K, Botha M, Nel J, Manuel J (in review) Integration of South Africa’s threatened ecosystems into conservation planning and environmental policy. Biological Conservation

Dayaram, A., L. Powrie, T. Rebelo, and A. Skowno. (2017) Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland 2009 and 2012: A description of changes from 2006. Bothalia 47:1-10.

Government Gazette. 2011. National list of ecosystems that are threatened or in need of protection. Department of Environmental Affairs, Government Gazette 34809:1002, 9 December 2011, Pretoria.

Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez-Clark, K. M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., Zambrano-Martínez, S. (2013). Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062111

Lloyd, J.W., E.C. van den Berg & A.R. Palmer. 2002. Patterns of transformation and degradation in the Thicket Biome, South Africa. TERU Report 39, University of Port Elizabeth.

Mucina, L. & M.C. Rutherford. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Rowland, J. A., Nicholson, E., Murray, N. J., Keith, D. A., Lester, R. E., & Bland, L. M. (2018). Selecting and applying indicators of ecosystem collapse for risk assessments. Conservation Biology, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13107

Skowno, A. L. (2018) Terrestrial habitat modification change map (1990-2014) for South Africa: a national scale, two timepoint, land cover derived, map of terrestrial habitat modification - NBA 2018 Technical Report. Pretoria, South Africa.

Thompson, M., Vlok, J., Rouget, M., Hoffman, M. T., Balmford, A., & Cowling, R. M. (2009). Mapping grazing-induced degradation in a semi-arid environment: A rapid and cost effective approach for assessment and monitoring. Environmental Management, 43(4), 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9228-x

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 8 Appendix 1. Extract from Chapter 7 of the Terrestrial Realm Report for the NBA 2018

Chapter 7: Skowno, A.L., Matlala, M.S., Kirkwood, D. & Slingsby. J.A. 2019. ‘Chapter 7: Ecosystem Assessments’ in National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 1: Terrestrial Realm. Skowno, A.L., Raimondo, D.C., Poole, C.J., Fizzotti, B. & Slingsby, J.A. (eds.). South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Ecosystem threat status (Red list of Ecosystems) South Africa is one of several countries to independently develop indicators of ecosystem threat prior to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) (Keith et al. 2013)(www.iucnrle.org). These indicators met a recognised need for an indicator similar to the IUCN Red List of Species that could identify risk for higher-levels of biodiversity organisation such as ecological communities (Keith et al. 2013; Bland et al. 2017). The South African List of Threatened Ecosystems was conceptualised as a national indicator of ecosystem conservation status in the early 2000s. From its early applications as a project-based indicator, it progressed into a legislated national listing of threatened terrestrial ecosystems (RSA 2011, Botts et al. in review) which entrenched its use in land use planning and decision making (e.g. through the Environmental Impact Assessment processes). South Africa has also been reporting on the threat status of its ecosystems for more than a decade, and using this information to focus scarce resources on conservation priorities through a wide range of government policies (Driver et al. 2004, 2012; Botts et al. in review). For the NBA 2018, the ecosystem threat assessments were based on the updated national vegetation map and new ecosystem condition map (based primarily on the land cover change data). Both the 2011 South Africa method and the new 2017 IUCN RLE methods were implemented with the aim of comparing and contrasting the results. Overall, the South African method and the IUCN method were similar, but the benefits of using the IUCN system (i.e. a stronger scientific evidence base than the South African method, recognition of the resulting RLE by the IUCN and alignment for with international conventions and assessment processes) tend to outweigh the drawbacks (i.e. deviating from a locally well-established and accepted method) (Skowno et al. 2018b). Consequently, the NBA 2018 Terrestrial Reference Group decided that the IUCN RLE approach should be adopted for the NBA 2018 and that the gazetted list of threatened ecosystems should be updated with the new information as soon as possible.

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Framework

Background of the IUCN RLE The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is a framework for assessing the risks to ecosystems and identifying where ecosystems are threatened (Rodríguez et al. 2011). Using the familiar categories from the Red List of Species (Figure 4), and based on a set of criteria and thresholds developed collaboratively since 2008, the IUCN RLE was established to ensure that the assessment methods: (i) can be applied systematically across realms and geographic areas; (ii) are transparent and scientifically rigorous; (iii) are comparable and repeatable; (iv) can be easily understood by policy makers and the general public; and (v) complement the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species framework (Rodríguez et al. 2011; Keith et al. 2013; Bland & Keith et al. 2017). The key concepts and definitions underpinning the RLE have been documented in a number of international journal publications, notably Nicholson et al. 2009; Rodríguez et al. 2011; Keith et al. 2013, 2015; Bland et al. 2017b, 2018. There is growing uptake of the IUCN RLE standards (Bland & Keith et al. 2017) with number of published sub-global assessments (including North America, Philippines, Australia, Colombia, France, Finland) adopting the RLE approach. Ultimately, national and other sub-global assessments undertaken using

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 9 these international standards will contribute towards establishing a global database of threatened ecosystems equivalent to the global Red List of Species.

Key Concepts The goal of the IUCN RLE is to identify ecosystems that are at risk of losing their constituent biodiversity. While there is substantial evidence that the ecosystem function and services are linked with biodiversity (Bland & Keith et al. 2017), the relationships between these three facets of ecosystems can be complex. Consequently, the RLE focusses specifically on risks to biodiversity (Keith et al. 2013). The RLE requires consistent and clearly defined units of assessments (ecosystem types) that can be delineated spatially, while at the same time needs to be able to effectively assess risks across widely contrasting ecosystems (Keith et al. 2013). Vegetation types, in particular, have been suggested as appropriate and consistent units that represent biodiversity and communities at an appropriate scale for use in the RLE (Keith et al. 2013; Boitani, Mace & Rondinini 2015). The RLE framework used the concept of ecosystem collapse as the ‘end point’ of ecosystem decline, this is equivalent to species extinction in the RLS, and is defined operationally as a ‘transformation of identity, loss of defining abiotic or biotic features and characteristic native biota are no longer sustained’ (Keith et al. 2013).

Figure 4. IUCN RLE threat categories, see glossary of terms of Figure 5. IUCN RLE framework for assessing the risk of definitions. Source: Bland et al. (2017a). ecosystem collapse. Source: Keith et al. (2013).

Criteria and Thresholds The risk assessment model for the IUCN RLE is illustrated schematically in Figure 36. Declining distributions (Figure 5-A) and restricted distributions (Figure 5-B) are considered distributional symptoms of decline; and degradation of abiotic environment (Figure 5-C) and altered biotic function (Figure 5-D) are considered functional symptoms of decline. It is possible for these mechanisms to interact and produce additional symptoms of decline (Keith et al. 2013). The mechanisms in the conceptual model (Figure 5) translate into five rule-based criteria with thresholds for the distributional and functional symptoms. The final threat listing for each ecosystem is the worst threat category triggered by any of the criteria (i.e. if an ecosystem is listed CR under any criteria it is listed CR overall, even if it only scores LC or any other category under all other criteria).

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 10 Implementation of the IUCN RLE for the NBA 2018 We applied the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) method for the NBA 2018 using a comprehensive systematic assessment based on IUCN Criteria A&B (criteria linked to spatial configuration and remaining extent of ecosystems) for all terrestrial ecosystem types (vegetation types). This assessment, referred to as the ‘core’ assessment, was then supplemented with additional assessments of selected ecosystem types based on additional data on ecosystem condition including: habitat loss in metropolitan areas, KZN, Western Cape and Mpumalanga; degradation in the Albany Thicket biome and Western Cape; and degradation from invasive alien species and overgrazing using data extracted from threatened species assessments. It is envisaged that the preliminary national RLE resulting from this assessment will be considered as the baseline for the nation, and that it will be updated as additional information becomes available and be released annually. Given the general lack of appropriate ecosystem condition data available in South Africa this base line assessment is likely to have underestimated the risk to numerous ecosystem types – especially those that are threatened by more subtle ecosystem modification than land clearing. If the threat status of an ecosystem type is: a) considered an underestimate; or b) if the data used in the assessment is considered inaccurate or inadequate; or c) if a researcher can develop new datasets to address additional criteria for selected ecosystems; then further supplementary assessments should be undertaken. The core assessment will be updated when updated national land cover change data becomes available.

Input data The national land cover change dataset (Chapter 3) and the national vegetation map (Chapter 4) provided the ecosystem assessment units and the primary ecosystem condition input to the RLE analysis. Additional land cover data was sourced for Gauteng (2011), City of Cape Town (2017), Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (2015), Mpumalanga (2017), the Western Cape (2016) and KwaZulu-Natal (2011) (Table 6); these datasets were used to perform supplementary assessments for Criteria A3. The threatened species database (SANBI, Threatened Species Unit) was used to identify selected limited range ecosystems (Criteria B) that are experiencing ongoing decline due to habitat loss, overgrazing or invasive plant species. Ecosystem degradation data for the Albany Thicket biome, Little Karoo region and the Western Cape allowed for a supplementary assessment of these regions using Criteria D3 (Table 6).

Table 6. Input data sources for the Red List of Ecosystem analysis.

Assessment Dataset Description Reference All Terrestrial Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and South African National Biodiversity Institute (2006). The assessments ecosystem type Swaziland 2018 version 6. Polygon feature Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, map geodatabase developed and curated by SANBI. Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. and Powrie, L.W. (Editors), Version 2018.6b.

Core National land Land cover change raster developed by SANBI with Skowno AL (2018) Terrestrial habitat modification change assessment: cover two timepoints 1990, 2014. Based on national land map (1990-2014) for South Africa: a national scale, two Criteria A3, cover products by GeoTerra Image 2015. timepoint, land cover derived, map of terrestrial habitat A2b, B1, B2 modification - NBA 2018 Technical Report. Pretoria, South Africa. GeoTerraImage (2015) Technical Report: 2013/2014 South African National Land Cover Dataset version 5. Pretoria, 53 pp. GeoTerraImage (2015) Technical Report: 1990 South African National Land Cover Dataset version 5.2. Pretoria, 63 pp. Supplementary: City of Cape Town 2017 Vegetation remnants map produced by City of City of Cape Town (2017). Current Indigenous vegetation Criterion A3 natural vegetation Cape Town based on remote sensing and in field [Data file]. Retrieved from City of Cape Town Open Data remnants map validation of condition. Provided as a polygon Portal feature geodatabse. https://web1.capetown.gov.za/web1/opendataportal Gauteng land A composite raster land cover product that GeoTerraImage (2011). Gauteng Provincial Land Cover cover combines very high resolution (2.5m) urban land (2009 imagery; 10m raster dataset). cover with high resolution (1om) rural land cover for http://www.geoterraimage.com/products-landcover.php the province. Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 11 Assessment Dataset Description Reference GeoTerraImage (2011). Gauteng Urban Land Cover (2010; 2.5m raster dataset). http://www.geoterraimage.com/products-landcover.php Nelson Mandel Natural areas map from the municipal bioregional Stewart, W.I. and Jorgensen, P.J. 2016. Updating of Bay Metro natural planning process, with combination of desk top and Systematic Biodiversity Plan and development and areas map field validated ecological condition. Provided as a publication of Bioregional Plan for the Nelson Mandela polygon shapefile. Bay Municipality: NMBM 2015 Landcover. SRK Consulting, South Africa. KwaZulu-Natal 2011 provincial raster land cover product (20m Jewitt D, Goodman PS, Erasmus BFN, O’Connor TG, land cover resolution) validated by provincial conservation Witkowski ETF (2015) Systematic land cover change in authorities. KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Implications for biodiversity. South African Journal of Science, 111, 0–9. Mpumalanga land 2017 provincial raster land cover product (10m GeoTerraImage (2018). Mpumalanga Provincial Land cover resolution) validated by provincial conservation Cover (2017 Sentinel 2 imagery; 10m raster dataset). authorities. Western Cape 2015 provincial raster land cover product (10m Pence, G.Q.K. (2017) Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial land cover resolution) validated by provincial conservation Plan: Technical Report. Unpublished Report. Western authorities. Cape Nature Conservation Board (Cape Nature), Cape Town. Supplementary Ongoing decline - Evidence of ongoing decline for selected limited Threatened species database of South Africa (SANBI, assessment: invasive plants range ecosystems with very high numbers of Threatened Species Unit). Criteria B1, B2 and overgrazing threatened plant species – drawn from Red List of Species assessments. Supplementary Western Cape 2015 provincial raster land cover and ecological Pence, G.Q.K. (2017) Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial assessment: ecosystem condition product (10m resolution) validated by Plan: Technical Report. Unpublished Report. Western Criterion D3 degradation data provincial conservation authorities. Cape Nature Conservation Board (Cape Nature), Cape Town. Albany Thicket 2002 biome-wide Landsat TM 5 based raster Lloyd JW, Van den Berg EC, Palmer AR (2002) Patterns biome ecosystem degradation product (30m). Developed of transformation and degradation in the Thicket Biome, degradation data and field validated as part of the Subtropical Thicket South Africa. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, Ecosystem Project (STEP) by the Agricultural University of Port Elizabeth.

Research Council. Little Karoo 2005 MODIS based degradation map of Little Karoo Thompson M, Vlok J, Rouget M, Hoffman MT, Balmford degradation data region. A, Cowling RM (2009) Mapping grazing-induced degradation in a semi-arid environment: A rapid and cost effective approach for assessment and monitoring. Environmental Management, 43, 585–596.

Core assessment Criteria A2b and A3 – historical and future reductions in geographic range The ecosystem type data (vegetation map version 2018) and the ecosystem condition data (land cover based) were cross tabulated within a geographic information system and changes in natural extent from the reference condition (circa 1750) to 1990 and 2014 were computed for each ecosystem type. The remaining natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2014 was subtracted from the historical reference extent (circa 1750) and expressed as a percentage of the historical extent; allowing for the application of the thresholds for Criterion A3 (historical reductions in geographic range). The absolute rate of decline in natural habitat between 1990 and 2014 (Equation 1) was used to estimate the natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2040 (Equation 2), this projected value was then subtracted from the 1990 extent and expressed as a percentage of the 1990 extent; allowing for the application of the Criterion A2b (past-present-future reductions in geographic range).

퐴푟푒푎 − 퐴푟푒푎 Equation 1: Absolute Rate of Decline1: 퐴푅퐷 = 1990 2014 푌푒푎푟1990 − 푌푒푎푟2014

Equation 2: Natural Extent 2040: 퐴푟푒푎2040 = 퐴푟푒푎2014 − (퐴푅퐷 × (푌푒푎푟2014 − 푌푒푎푟2040))

1 Absolute Rate of Decline ARD is the term used by the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Guidelines; it is equivalent to rate of habitat loss, and to rate of reduction in ecosystem extent used in previous chapters. ARD / rate of habitat loss underpin the ecosystem extent indicators discussed in Chapter 1 and 3. Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 12 Criteria B1i and B2i – Restricted geographic range The first step for the assessment under this criterion was to combine the habitat modification data for 2014 with the ecosystem type data to produce an ‘ecosystem remnants’ layer circa 2014. This layer (in geotiff format) was used to compute the Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and Area of Occupancy (AOO) for each ecosystem type with the package [redlistr] (Lee & Murray 2017) within the statistical software R (R Core Team 2014). Ecosystem types only qualify for consideration under Criterion B if they are experiencing ongoing declines in extent or condition (observed or inferred). For the core assessment, an absolute rate of decline (ARD, Equation 1) threshold of 0.4%/y was used to identify ecosystems qualifying for Criterion B in terms of ongoing decline. Ecosystems with ARD above this threshold have lost approximately 10% of their natural remaining extent in the last 25 years. This then allowed for the assessment of Sub-criterion B1 (i) and Sub- criterion B2 (i) for all qualifying ecosystem types (Table 7).

Supplementary assessments To complement the core assessment a number of additional datasets were compiled to ensure the ecosystem risk assessments were based on the best available data. This is a first version of the RLE and going forward this is an approach that will allow for reassessments of selected ecosystem types as new and improved data is collected or additional existing data comes to light. The supplementary assessment used Criteria A, B and D. Criterion D - Disruption of biotic processes (supplementary) The Sub Tropical Ecosystem Project (STEP) and Little Karoo (LK) ecosystem degradation datasets (Lloyd, Van den Berg & Palmer 2002; Rouget et al. 2003; Thompson et al. 2009) were used to assess the ecosystem types of the Albany Thicket biome and Little Karoo region using Criterion D3 (biotic disruption since 1750) (Table 7). This criterion uses both the severity of disruption (50%, 70% or 90%) and the extent of the disruption (50%, 70% or 90%) to categorize ecosystems. The STEP and LK degradation class ‘severe’ was considered as 90% severity due to large scale disruption of a wide range of biotic process including vegetation structure, species composition, richness, biomass (Lloyd, Van den Berg & Palmer 2002; Thompson et al. 2009). The extent of severely degraded land within in each ecosystem type was expressed as a percentage of the natural remaining extent and the thresholds as per Table 7 were applied. Criterion A3 - Historical reductions in geographic range (supplementary) High resolution and high confidence land cover data exist for certain regions within South Africa including Gauteng Province, City of Cape Town, Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, Mpumalanga, the Western Cape Province and KwaZulu-Natal Province (Table 6). The ecosystem type data (vegetation map version 2018) and the high resolution land cover data were cross tabulated within a geographic information system and changes in natural extent from the reference condition (circa 1750) were computed for each ecosystem type. The remaining extent of each ecosystem type was expressed as a percentage of the original extent of the ecosystem type (circa 1750), allowing for application of Criteria A3 (historical reductions in geographic range). Criteria B1iii and B2iii – Restricted geographic range (supplementary) A key challenge in the application of the RLE is the poor availability of spatially explicit ecosystem degradation data. As a result, the risk of collapse of many ecosystem types may have been underestimated in the core assessment. A supplementary assessment of Criterion B was undertaken using the threatening processes data from the Threatened Plant Species Database (SANBI Threatened Species Unit), the most reliable source of data on functional symptoms of decline in South Africa. For the supplementary assessment of Criterion B, the qualifying criteria (i.e. evidence of biotic disruption) was a quantitative assessment of threatening processes listed for the threatened species occurring in each ecosystem type. To do this each threatened Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 13 plant species was assigned to an ecosystem type or ecosystem types using their spatial position and descriptions of preferred habitat (personal communication with SANBI Threatened Species Unit). We then calculated the number of species per ecosystem type that are threatened by a) poor rangeland management (over grazing), b) invasive alien species and c) inappropriate fire management. The qualifier for biotic disruption Criteria B1iii and B2iii in the supplementary assessment was set to: ecosystems that contained > 40 threatened plant species, of which > 60% were threatened due to major biotic disruptions. This is a preliminary solution while additional data on biotic disruption, severity and extent are collected.

Table 7. full list of IUCN RLE criteria and thresholds (Rodríguez et al. 2011); for the list of criteria used in the South African implementation of the RLE see Table 8.

Table 8. IUCN RLE criteria and thresholds used in the South African assessment 2018.

Criteria & Sub-criteria CR EN VU Criteria A: Reduced geographic distribution

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 14 Sub-criterion A2b - Loss of habitat over a 50 year period including past present and future ≥ 80% ≥ 50% ≥ 30% For the NBA 2018, the absolute rate of decline in natural habitat between 1990 and 2014 (Equation 1) was used to estimate the natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2040 (Equation 2), this projected value was then subtracted from the 1990 extent and expressed as a percentage of the 1990 extent; allowing for the application of the Criterion A2b (past-present- future reductions in geographic range).

Sub-criterion A3 – Historical loss of habitat (since ~1750) ≥ 90% ≥ 70% ≥ 50% For the NBA 2018, the remaining natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2014 was subtracted from the historical reference extent (circa 1750) and expressed as a percentage of the historical extent; allowing for the application of the thresholds for Criterion A3 (historical reductions in geographic range). Equivalent supplementary assessments utilised higher resolution land cover products available for KwaZulu-Natal province, Mpumalanga province, Western Cape province and three large metropolitan areas. Criteria B: Restricted distribution & continuing declines in geographic distribution Sub-criterion B1 (i) - Extent of a minimum convex polygon (km2) enclosing all ≤ 2 000 km2 ≤ 20 000 ≤ 50 000 occurrences (EOO) & an observed or inferred continuing decline in spatial extent. km2 km2 For the NBA 2018, the absolute rate of habitat loss was used to identify ecosystems with significant ongoing decline in the extent of natural habitat (> 0.4%/y). Supplementary assessments used expert input and the threatened species database to identify restricted distribution ecosystems with very high levels of biotic disruption from over grazing, invasive species and poor fire management - B1(iii).

Sub-criterion B2 (i) - The number of 10×10 km grid cells occupied (AOO) & an observed ≤ 2 ≤ 20 ≤ 50 or inferred continuing decline in spatial extent. For the NBA 2018, the absolute rate of habitat loss was used to identify ecosystems with significant ongoing decline in the extent of natural habitat (> 0.4%/y). Supplementary assessments used expert input and the threatened species database to identify restricted distribution ecosystems with very high levels of biotic disruption from over grazing, invasive species and poor fire management - B2(iii). Criteria D: Disruption of biotic processes or interactions Sub-criterion D3 – Disruption of biotic processes, since 1750, based on Relative severity (%) change in a biotic variable affecting a fraction of the extent of the ecosystem and with relative severity, as indicated by the table on the right. ≥ 90 ≥ 70 ≥ 50 For the NBA 2018, ecosystem degradation data from the Albany Thicket biome and Little Karoo region were used. The severely degraded class in these datasets ≥ 90 CR EN VU was considered to be ≥ 90% severity, the extent of severe degradation was expressed as a percentage of the remaining habitat circa 2014. ≥ 70 EN VU

Extent (%)Extent ≥ 50 VU

Results of the ecosystem threat assessment The first implementation of the IUCN RLE for South African terrestrial ecosystems (458 vegetation types) for the NBA 2018 resulted in the listing of 35 Critically Endangered, 39 Endangered and 29 Vulnerable ecosystems (Table 9) (Figure 6). While eight percent of ecosystem types are Critically Endangered, this amounts to less than one percent of the extent of natural remaining habitat in South Africa. Endangered ecosystems make up 8.5% of ecosystems by type and 3% by extent remaining. Vulnerable ecosystems make up 6.3% of ecosystem by type, amounting to 4% of the natural remaining habitat of South Africa (Table 9) (Figure 7). The most influential criterion in the RLE assessment was Criterion B1 (restricted distribution & continuing declines in geographic distribution) which contributed to the listing of 53/103 ecosystem types and Criterion A3 (historical loss of habitat) which contributed to the listing of 28/103 ecosystem types. The supplementary assessment of Criterion B1 (iii) using the threatened species pressures database contributed to the listing of 25/103 ecosystem types, of which 12 were listed purely due to this criterion. Criterion D3 (biotic disruption – based on ecosystem degradation) resulted in the listing of only one (Vulnerable) ecosystem type.

Table 9. Summary of the assessment outcomes; including the number of ecosystem types per category & proportion of the natural areas remaining per category.

Number of Extent of natural Percentage of natural Category (IUCN RLE) ecosystems Habitat (km2) remaining habitat of SA Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 15 Critically Endangered 35 5 904 0.6% Endangered 39 28 982 3% Vulnerable 29 42 459 4.4% Least Concern 355 882 820 92% Total for South Africa 458 960 167 100%

Figure 6. Map showing the distribution of threatened ecosystems according to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. The map shows the historical extent of the ecosystem types (based on the National Vegetation Map 2018). The inset graph shows the percentage of ecosystem types that falls within each threat category.

Results per biome The Fynbos biome has the highest number of threatened ecosystems types (53), followed by Grassland (21) and Savanna (11) and these make up 20%, 24% and 3% of the natural remaining habitat of the biome respectively (Figure 8, Table 10). Of the six of the ecosystems types making up the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt biome, 4 are threatened and 62% of the natural habitat remaining in the biome is threatened. The arid regions of the country have less threatened ecosystems (by type and by remaining extent); the Succulent Karoo has two threatened ecosystems (amounting to 0.2% of the natural habitat) and the Nama-Karoo has no threatened ecosystems. The full terrestrial threatened ecosystem database, including information on land cover change and the RLE criteria for each ecosystem type, is available online on the Biodiversity GIS website (http://nba.sanbi.org).

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 16

Figure 7. Map showing the natural remaining extent (circa 2014) of threatened ecosystems according to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. The inset graph shows the percentage of the total natural habitat remaining in South Africa (960 167 km2) that falls within each threat category.

Table 10. Percentage natural remaining habitat within each IUCN RLE threat category, listed per biome. The number of ecosystem types per threat category, per biome is shown in parenthesis.

Critically Threatened Ecosystem Least Biome Endangered Vulnerable Total Endangered Types (CR, EN, VU) Concern Albany Thicket 0.6% (3) - 17% (3) 18% (6) 82% (38) (44) Desert - 0.03% (1) - 0.03% (1) 99% (14) (15) Forests - - 3% (1) % (1) 97% (11) (12) Fynbos 8% (25) 10% (18) 2% (10) 20% (53) 80% (69) (122) Grassland 0.2% (2) 7% (18) 13% (11) 21% (21) 79% (52) (73) Indian Ocean Coastal - 51% (3) 11% (1) 62% (4) 38% (2) (6) Belt Nama-Karoo - - - - 100% (13) (13) Savanna 0.2% (2) 1% (6) 2% (3) 3% (11) 97% (80) (91) Succulent Karoo 0.2% (2) - - 0.2% (2) 99% (62) (64) Azonal Vegetation 0.003% (1) 3% (3) - 3% (4) 97% (14) (18) Total 0.6% (35) 2.9% (39) 4.3% (29) 7.8% (103) 92% (355) (458)

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 17

Figure 8. Threatened ecosystem types per biome, showing (a) the percentage of ecosystem types per biome that fall within each threat category, and (b) the percentage of the total natural habitat remaining in each biome that falls within each threat category (Critically Endangered – CR; Endangered – EN; Vulnerable – VU; Least Concern – LC).

Provincial summary Threatened ecosystems are not evenly distributed across South Africa’s provinces. While a large proportion of the remaining natural habitat in Gauteng (45%), KwaZulu-Natal (30%) and Mpumalanga (30%) is threatened, a much smaller percentage is listed as Critically Endangered (3%, 1% and 0% respectively) (Figure 9, Table 11). This pattern is mirrored in Limpopo, Free State, Eastern Cape and North West provinces. The Western Cape has a slightly different pattern with Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable ecosystem types are being more even in terms of extent. The results of the ecosystem assessment are closely linked to the land cover change patterns of the provinces. The high population density of Gauteng, and high agriculture potential and high population density of KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga are the drivers of the high rates of habitat loss. Despite the high number of threatened ecosystems in the Western Cape (54), linked to high ecosystem diversity of the Fynbos biome, only 11% of the natural remaining ecosystem extent of the province is threatened.

Table 11. Table showing the percentage of the natural remaining habitat in each province that falls with each IUCN RLE category; in parenthesis is the number of ecosystem types per category per province (note these do not sum to a national number of threatened ecosystems as ecosystem types cross provincial boundaries.

Threatened Critically Least Province Endangered Vulnerable Ecosystem Total Endangered Concern Types Eastern Cape 0.2% (4) 0.3% (3) 7% (11) 8% (18) 92% (83) (101) Free State - 4% (1) 8% (4) 12% (5) 88% (30) (35) Gauteng 3% (1) 10% (2) 33% (4) 45% (7) 55% (8) (15) KwaZulu-Natal 1% (2) 19% (11) 10% (5) 30% (18) 70% (38) (56) Limpopo 0.1% (1) 1% (2) 3% (4) 5% (7) 95% (44) (51) Mpumalanga - 5% (4) 25% (5) 30% (9) 71% (43) (52) North West - 8% (3) 5% (4) 12% (7) 88% (27) (34) Northern Cape 0.1% (3) 0.2% (1) - 0.1% (4) 99% (115) (119) Western Cape 4% (25) 6% (20) 1% (9) 11% (54) 90% (112) (166)

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 18

Figure 9. Threatened ecosystems per province, showing (a) the percentage of ecosystem types per province that fall within each threat category, and (b) the percentage of the total natural habitat remaining in each province that falls within each threat category (Critically Endangered – CR; Endangered – EN; Vulnerable – VU; Least Concern – LC).

Ecosystem threat status trends The IUCN RLE methodology relies heavily on land cover change data (which inform Criteria A2b, A3, B1 and B2). The two time point data available in South Africa are well suited to the RLE assessment but do not allow for a complete application of the RLE to the earlier time points (a retrospective analysis). A partial application of the RLE to the 1990 time point is possible, but it would be restricted to Criteria A3 (historical loss of habitat) only. The national land cover of South Africa is due for an update in 2018, and on the release of this data the RLE will be updated. This will then lay the foundation for a Red List Index for Ecosystems, which will track changes in ecosystem threat status over time. As such, this RLE for South Africa represents a new baseline for threatened ecosystems. A direct comparison of this 2018 RLE analysis with the 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems (RSA 2011) is of limited utility (Table 12). The input datasets have changed (i.e. a new vegetation map, and new land cover data have been used), the input data have expanded (i.e. there is land cover change data available for the first time, unlocking many dormant criteria), and the threat assessment methodology has changed [i.e. the IUCN RLE framework and guidelines (Bland & Keith et al. 2017) have been released, and the NBA 2018 utilises this framework]. Changes in ecosystem status between 2011 and 2018 could then be attributed to any one or a combination of these factors.

Table 12. Comparison of the results of the 2018 Red List of Ecosystems and the 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems [note: the methods and input data were not the same at each time point, so this does not represent a trend analysis]. The table includes the number of ecosystem types per category and the proportion of the natural habitat of South Africa within each category. The 2011 assessment included 438 vegetation types and 108 ‘special ecosystem types’; the 2018 assessment was applied to an updated vegetation map with 458 units.

2011 2018 Category (IUCN RLE) Number of Percentage of natural Number of Percentage of natural ecosystems habitat of SA ecosystems habitat of SA Critically Endangered 53 1% 35 0.6% Endangered 64 2% 39 3% Vulnerable 108 7% 29 4.4%

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 19 Ecosystems of special concern The IUCN RLE is a risk assessment framework for consistently identifying ecosystems that are at risk of collapse. Since the RLE is designed to be applied across realms and across the globe, there are certain local ecosystems that do not meet the thresholds for the threat categories but are considered ‘of special concern’ for a number of reasons. This concept has been successfully applied to the Red List of Species in South Africa, including range restricted rare species of the mountainous regions in particular. For the NBA 2018, all Forest ecosystem types (which, in South Africa are naturally rare, of limited extent and highly fragmented) are classified as ecosystem of special concern (Figure 10). Dedicated legislation is in place to Figure 10. Ecosystem of special concern. Forest ecosystem protect natural forests in South Africa (e.g. National types that are not considered threatened under the IUCN RLE Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998)), and assigning these framework but warrant special protection and monitoring. ecosystems to the category Ecosystems of Special Concern highlights this need for protection without interfering with the risk assessment framework of the IUCN RLE. This does not prevent the listing of threatened Forest ecosystem types if the IUCN RLE criteria are met, and additional data on forest condition (using forest resource assessments for example) is a conservation priority. In future assessments, special ecosystem types in other biomes will be considered based on factors such as exceptional species diversity and restricted range / endemism.

Ecosystem threat status limitations The key shortcoming of all of these ecosystem threat status assessments in the terrestrial realm is that we lack appropriate data on ecosystem condition, land degradation and biotic disruption of ecosystems. This means that in many regions the baseline ecosystem assessment reported here will underestimate the risk of collapse. We have reasonable confidence that the ecosystems that are listed as threatened are genuinely at risk of collapse – but there are many ecosystems that are at risk that which are not on currently listed as threatened – purely as a result of lack of data. Some (outdated) data is available for the thicket biome, but in other biomes it is a very challenging problem that will need significant focussed research. One aspect of degradation that should be possible to map accurately, and therefore use in ecosystem assessment, is distribution and abundance of alien invasive species. For woody plants that reach high abundances and high visibility, this certainly seems possible in the near future. Another challenge is that for many of the ecosystem types there is no clear model of ecosystem function against which we can measure biotic disruption or degradation. This makes calibrating models of ecosystem condition difficult. A further shortcoming of this assessment is that it relies heavily on land cover data collected in 2013/2014, making the data over three years old. This is not ideal and, as automated and global scale remote sensing becomes more accessible, it is hoped that future assessments will not suffer from this long time delay. As soon as new land cover data become available (scheduled for 2018 release by the Department of Environmental Affairs) SANBI has set up a system to automatically update the baseline RLE (though there are many steps for which expert validation are required). The aim is to reduce this time lag to less than one year.

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 20 Ecosystem types with distribution ranges beyond South Africa’s borders Assessing an ecosystem type across a portion of its global range would result in a partial RLE assessment that may not reflect the true risk of collapse for the ecosystem. The vegetation map that forms the basis of the Red List of Ecosystems for South Africa also covers the neighbouring countries of Lesotho and Swaziland. As a result, ecosystem types that are distributed across these particular international boundaries can be considered to have been assessed comprehensively. For neighbouring countries such as Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, no comparable vegetation maps exist, and types that cross these borders cannot be assessed across their full range at present. For the most part, however, the terrestrial ecosystem types that occur can only in South Africa and can be considered endemic (406/458 types [89%] are endemic), and the RLE presented above thus represents an ecosystem-wide assessment for the majority of types. There are six terrestrial ecosystem types that are listed as Threatened but are likely to occur extensively outside of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Table 13). Of these threatened and non-endemic types that extend beyond the borders of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, three fall into the Savanna biome, two in the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt and one Forest biome. Efforts are underway to align vegetation maps across national boundaries in southern Africa, and when this is achieved these “cross border” units will be comprehensively assessed.

Table 13. Non-endemic ecosystem types included in the Red List of Ecosystems – these types are only partially assessed and their extent and condition outside of South Africa needs to be determined before a final assessment of their status can be made.

Ecosystem type Biome RLE Status Lebombo Summit Sourveld Savanna Endangered Lowveld Riverine Forest Forests Vulnerable Maputaland Coastal Belt Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Endangered Maputaland Wooded Grassland Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Endangered Muzi Palm Veld and Wooded Grassland Savanna Critically Endangered Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld Savanna Endangered

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 21 Appendix 2. Comparison of 2011 methods and RLE methods employed in 2018

Table A2-1.The criteria used in the testing phase for the NBA Terrestrial Ecosystem Threat status Assessment.

Criteria Description IUCN RLE SA 2011 NEMBA version 2 IUCN A2b Projected extent remaining (2040) based on rate of decline between 1990 and 2014  IUCN A3core, Extent remaining at most recent time point (2014) (based on national land cover)  IUCN A3city Extent remaining at most recent time point (2014) (based on fine scale city land cover for Cape Town, PE, Durban, Gauteng)  IUCN A3kzn Extent remaining at most recent time point (2011) (based on KZN land cover)  IUCN B1_10 Limited extent (EOO) with 0.4% / y rate of decline qualifier (2000, 20 000 and 50 000 km2 thresholds)  IUCN B2_10 Limited distribution (AOO) with 0.4% / y rate of decline qualifier (2000, 20 000 and 50 000 km2 thresholds)  IUCN Extent severely degraded based on STEP and Little Karoo and Western Cape Fine Scale Plans degradation data  D3degsev IUCN B1ThrSp Limited extent (EOO) with strong evidence of ongoing decline and degradation based on threatened species database (>40 threatened species where >30% of these species are threatened by ongoing  degradation) SA A1 Extent remaining at most recent time point (based on national land cover and using biodiversity targets as thresholds)  SA A2 Land degradation: not considered for most ecosystems in 2011. Considered for selected forest ecosystems based on expert workshops in  forest only 2011 SA B Projected extent remaining (2040) (based on rate of decline between 1990 and 2014 and using biodiversity targets as thresholds) (not considered in NEMBA list) SA C Limited extent applied without qualifier of decline in 2011  SA D1 Number of threatened species per ecosystem type  SA F Special ecosystems and Critical Biodiversity Areas 

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 22 Table A2-2. Illustration of the similarities of the IUCN RLE framework and South African Threatened Ecosystem Listing framework.

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 23 Appendix 3. List of terrestrial ecosystem types assessed in 2018 compared with 2011 NEMBA list

Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld LC no change Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld LC 100% 372.05 Agter-Sederberg Shrubland LC no change Agter-Sederberg Shrubland LC 99% 917.33 Agulhas Limestone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat Agulhas Limestone Fynbos VU D1 99% 291.02 category - threatened species Agulhas Sand Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat Agulhas Sand Fynbos EN A1 89% 219.62 category - threatened species Albany Alluvial Vegetation EN B1 no change Albany Alluvial Vegetation EN A1 87% 570.02 Albany Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 14.60 type Albany Bontveld LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 53.77 type Albany Broken Veld LC no change Albany Broken Veld LC 100% 742.69 Albany Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 729.20 type Albany Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 1175.54 type Albertinia Sand Fynbos LC A3 lower threat Albertinia Sand Fynbos VU A1 99% 514.94 category - IUCN thresholds Alexander Bay Coastal Duneveld EN A3 higher threat Alexander Bay Coastal Duneveld LC 97% 16.54 category - habitat loss Algoa Sandstone Fynbos CR B1 higher threat Algoa Sandstone Fynbos VU A1 98% 337.84 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Aliwal North Dry Grassland LC no change Aliwal North Dry Grassland LC 100% 7162.51 Amathole Mistbelt Grassland LC no change Amathole Mistbelt Grassland LC 100% 158.33 Amathole Montane Grassland LC no change Amathole Montane Grassland LC 100% 5021.77 Amersfoort Highveld Clay Grassland LC no change Amersfoort Highveld Clay Grassland LC 97% 3823.78 Andesite Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Andesite Mountain Bushveld LC 84% 1688.28 Witwatersberg includes some SA Skeerpoort Mountain Criterion F Bushveld,EN,F,'4% & ecosystem Klipriver Highveld extent Grassland,CR,F,'4% & Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'3% & Bronberg Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'3% Anenous Plateau Shrubland LC no change Anenous Plateau Shrubland LC 100% 241.77 Atlantis Sand Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv, B1thrsp_ovgr lower threat Atlantis Sand Fynbos CR D1 99% 680.13 category - threatened species method Auob Duneveld LC no change Auob Duneveld LC 100% 2898.60 Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 24 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Barberton Montane Grassland LC no change - Barberton Montane Grassland LC 49% 631.93 Barberton includes some SA Mountainlands,VU,F,'4 Criterion F 5% & Kaalrug ecosystem Mountainlands,VU,F,'6 extent % & Noordkaap Greenstone Bushveld,EN,F,'15% & Barberton Mountainlands,VU,F,'1 3% Barberton Serpentine Sourveld LC no change Barberton Serpentine Sourveld LC 69% 75.85 Basotho Montane Shrubland LC no change Basotho Montane Shrubland LC 100% 3458.79 Baviaans Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 1077.10 type Baviaanskloof Shale Renosterveld LC no change Baviaanskloof Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 118.72 Bedford Dry Grassland LC no change Bedford Dry Grassland LC 100% 1433.83 Besemkaree Koppies Shrubland LC no change Besemkaree Koppies Shrubland LC 100% 9676.45 Bethelsdorp Bontveld VU A3CITY new ecosystem new type NEW 98% 34.97 type Bhisho Thornveld LC no change Bhisho Thornveld LC 100% 7757.77 Bloemfontein Dry Grassland LC A3 lower threat Bloemfontein Dry Grassland VU A1 99% 4905.24 category - IUCN thresholds Bloemfontein Karroid Shrubland LC no change Bloemfontein Karroid Shrubland LC 100% 80.38 Blombos Strandveld LC no change Blombos Strandveld LC 100% 20.77 Blouputs Karroid Thornveld LC no change Blouputs Karroid Thornveld LC 100% 607.46 Bokkeveld Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat Bokkeveld Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 86% 869.17 category - threatened species method Boland Granite Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat Boland Granite Fynbos VU D1 93% 488.48 category - threatened species Breede Alluvium Fynbos EN B1,B2,B1thrsp_inv no change Breede Alluvium Fynbos EN A1 100% 499.64 Breede Alluvium Renosterveld EN B1 higher threat Breede Alluvium Renosterveld VU A1 99% 493.70 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Breede Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Breede Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 97.51 Breede Sand Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Breede Sand Fynbos VU A1 94% 92.19 Breede Shale Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat Breede Shale Fynbos LC 100% 317.45 category - threatened species Breede Shale Renosterveld EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat Breede Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 1046.60 category - threatened species Buffels Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 386.33 type Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 25 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Buffels Valley Thicket CR B1 new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 215.45 type Bushmanland Arid Grassland LC no change Bushmanland Arid Grassland LC 100% 41250.64 Bushmanland Basin Shrubland LC no change Bushmanland Basin Shrubland LC 100% 41250.75 Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubland LC no change Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubland LC 100% 817.72 Bushmanland Sandy Grassland LC no change Bushmanland Sandy Grassland LC 100% 2677.15 Bushmanland Vloere LC no change Bushmanland Vloere LC 100% 5176.93 Canca Limestone Fynbos LC no change Canca Limestone Fynbos LC 100% 779.23 Cape Flats Dune Strandveld EN B1,B2,B1thrsp_inv no change Cape Flats Dune Strandveld EN D1 93% 375.94 Cape Flats Sand Fynbos CR B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr no change Cape Flats Sand Fynbos CR A1 & D1 92% 512.46

Cape Lowland Alluvial Vegetation EN B1 lower threat Cape Lowland Alluvial Vegetation CR A1 97% 340.20 category - IUCN thresholds and map changes Cape Seashore Vegetation LC no change Cape Seashore Vegetation LC 98% 216.29 Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos VU A3 no change Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos VU A1 84% 70.83 Carletonville Dolomite Grassland LC no change Carletonville Dolomite Grassland LC 92% 8480.13 Cathedral Mopane Bushveld LC no change Cathedral Mopane Bushveld LC 100% 277.06 Cederberg Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat Cederberg Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 82% 2069.37 category - threatened species method Central Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Central Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC 100% 62.85 Central Free State Grassland LC no change Central Free State Grassland LC 100% 15994.08 Central Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Central Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC 100% 97.87 Central Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC no change Central Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC 100% 129.89 Central Mountain Shale Renosterveld LC no change Central Mountain Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 1236.51 Central Richtersveld Mountain Shrubland LC no change Central Richtersveld Mountain Shrubland LC 100% 1200.38 Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A3WC no change Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A1 99% 2008.03 Central Sandy Bushveld LC no change Central Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 17201.65 Ceres Shale Renosterveld VU A3,A3WC no change Ceres Shale Renosterveld VU A1 100% 490.70 Citrusdal Shale Renosterveld CR B1 new ecosystem new type NEW 78% 36.56 type Citrusdal Vygieveld LC no change - Citrusdal Vygieveld LC 42% 77.01 Leipoldtville Sand includes some SA Fynbos,VU,A1&D1,'58 Criterion D % ecosystem extent and map changes Crocodile Gorge Mountain Bushveld LC new ecosystem new type NEW 91% 490.35 Croc Gorge Granite type - includes Mountainlands,VU,F,'9 some Criterion F % ecosystem extent Crossroads Grassland Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 311.18 type De Hoop Limestone Fynbos LC no change De Hoop Limestone Fynbos LC 100% 689.47

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 26 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Delagoa Lowveld LC no change Delagoa Lowveld LC 99% 2698.74 Die Plate Succulent Shrubland LC no change Die Plate Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 127.56 Doringrivier Quartzite Karoo LC no change Doringrivier Quartzite Karoo LC 77% 416.94 Doubledrift Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 2975.97 type Drakensberg Afroalpine Heathland LC no change Drakensberg Afroalpine Heathland LC 100% 2830.78 Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland LC no change - Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland LC 94% 10246.86 Swartberg/Franklin includes some SA Vlei/Kokstad Ridge and Criterion F Wetlands,VU,F,'2% ecosystem extent Drakensberg-Amathole Afromontane Fynbos LC no change Drakensberg-Amathole Afromontane LC 100% 21.62 Fynbos Dry Coast Hinterland Grassland VU A3 no change - new type NEW 2% 47.00 Ngongoni includes some SA Veld,VU,A1,'89% & Criterion F New Hanover ecosystem Plateau,CR,F,'4% extent and map changes Dwaalboom Thornveld LC no change Dwaalboom Thornveld LC 100% 9670.45 Dwarsberg-Swartruggens Mountain Bushveld LC no change Dwarsberg-Swartruggens Mountain LC 100% 2646.84 Bushveld East Griqualand Grassland LC no change - East Griqualand Grassland LC 96% 8419.19 Swartberg/Franklin includes some SA Vlei/Kokstad Ridge and Criterion F Wetlands,VU,F,'3% ecosystem extent Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation EN B1B2 higher threat Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation VU A1 95% 74.09 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Eastern Free State Clay Grassland VU A3B1 no change Eastern Free State Clay Grassland VU A1 93% 13976.30 Eastern Free State Sandy Grassland LC A3 no change Eastern Free State Sandy Grassland LC 100% 14237.75 Eastern Gariep Plains Desert LC no change Eastern Gariep Plains Desert LC 100% 1217.15 Eastern Gariep Rocky Desert LC no change Eastern Gariep Rocky Desert LC 100% 2092.60 Eastern Gwarrieveld LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 2128.90 type Eastern Highveld Grassland VU A3,A3CITY,A3MPL,B1 no change - Eastern Highveld Grassland VU A1 86% 10950.13 Chrissiesmeer includes some SA Panveld,EN,F,'11% & Criterion F Blesbokspruit Highveld ecosystem Grassland,CR,F,'2% extent Eastern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Eastern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC 100% 108.36 Eastern Little Karoo LC lower threat Eastern Little Karoo VU A1 98% 1551.87 category - IUCN thresholds Eastern Lower Karoo LC no change Eastern Lower Karoo LC 100% 8321.40 Eastern Ruens Shale Renosterveld EN A2b,A3,A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ov lower threat Eastern Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A1 100% 2752.31 gr category - IUCN thresholds Eastern Upper Karoo LC no change Eastern Upper Karoo LC 100% 49834.31 Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 27 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Eastern Valley Bushveld LC no change Eastern Valley Bushveld LC 95% 9638.82 Eenriet Plains Succulent Shrubland LC no change Eenriet Plains Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 260.75 Egoli Granite Grassland CR B1 higher threat Egoli Granite Grassland EN A1 95% 1034.87 Witwatersberg category - habitat Skeerpoort Mountain loss and limited Bushveld,EN,F,'3% distribution Elands Forest Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 99% 40.03 type Elgin Shale Fynbos CR B1,B1thrsp_inv no change Elgin Shale Fynbos CR A1 99% 277.82 Elim Ferricrete Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr lower threat Elim Ferricrete Fynbos CR A1 95% 661.28 category - IUCN thresholds Escarpment Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 1239.93 type Escarpment Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 1030.46 type Escarpment Valley Thicket LC D3STEP new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 784.61 type Fish Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 674.04 type Fish Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 241.33 type Fish Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 3596.23 type Frankfort Highveld Grassland LC no change Frankfort Highveld Grassland LC 99% 9830.11 Fynbos Riparian Vegetation LC no change Fynbos Riparian Vegetation LC 99% 18.59 Gabbro Grassy Bushveld LC no change Gabbro Grassy Bushveld LC 100% 760.26 Gamka Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 98% 481.18 type Gamka Karoo LC no change Gamka Karoo LC 100% 20205.97 Gamka Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 99% 166.10 type Garden Route Granite Fynbos CR B1 higher threat Garden Route Granite Fynbos EN A1 86% 427.37 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Garden Route Shale Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Garden Route Shale Fynbos VU A1 97% 549.04 Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld LC 89% 914.83 Witwatersberg includes some SA Pretoria Mountain Criterion F Bushveld,CR,F,'7% & ecosystem Witwatersberg extent Skeerpoort Mountain Bushveld,EN,F,'3% Geluk Grassland Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 30.15 type Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld LC no change Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld LC 100% 15481.66 Goariep Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC no change Goariep Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 170.78

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 28 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld LC 86% 1737.37 Roodepoort Reef includes some SA Mountain Criterion F Bushveld,CR,F,'4% & ecosystem Witwatersberg extent Skeerpoort Mountain Bushveld,EN,F,'3% & Magaliesberg Pretoria Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'3% & Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'2% Gordonia Duneveld LC no change Gordonia Duneveld LC 100% 37066.52 Gordonia Kameeldoring Bushveld LC no change Gordonia Kameeldoring Bushveld LC 100% 2242.35 Gordonia Plains Shrubland LC no change Gordonia Plains Shrubland LC 100% 7918.61 Goukamma Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 91% 83.84 type Gouritz Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 98% 174.15 type Graafwater Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Graafwater Sandstone Fynbos LC 80% 1080.42 Grahamstown Grassland Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 1289.42 type Granite Lowveld LC no change Granite Lowveld LC 100% 19801.24 Grassridge Bontveld LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 245.84 type Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld LC no change Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld LC 100% 323.49 Greyton Shale Fynbos LC A3WC lower threat Greyton Shale Fynbos EN A1 99% 265.01 category - IUCN thresholds and land cover differences Groot Brak Dune Strandveld VU A3WC,D3WC lower threat Groot Brak Dune Strandveld EN A1 99% 27.85 category - IUCN thresholds Grootrivier Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Grootrivier Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 388.82 Hamburg Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 701.00 type Hangklip Sand Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat Hangklip Sand Fynbos EN A1 82% 72.69 category - threatened species Hantam Karoo LC no change Hantam Karoo LC 100% 7630.51 Hantam Plateau Dolerite Renosterveld LC no change Hantam Plateau Dolerite Renosterveld LC 100% 578.92 Hartenbos Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 64% 419.21 Albertinia Sand type - includes Fynbos,VU,A1,'29% some Criterion A1 ecosystem extent and map changes Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 100% 1045.81 category - threatened species method Helskloof Canyon Desert LC no change Helskloof Canyon Desert LC 99% 8.14 Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 29 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Highveld Alluvial Vegetation LC no change Highveld Alluvial Vegetation LC 99% 4646.25 Hopefield Sand Fynbos LC lower threat Hopefield Sand Fynbos VU A1&D1 96% 966.11 category - threatened species method Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld VU A3,A3CITY lower threat Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld EN A1 98% 362.97 category - IUCN thresholds Income Sandy Grassland EN B1 higher threat Income Sandy Grassland LC 99% 4597.48 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Ironwood Dry Forest LC no change Ironwood Dry Forest LC 100% 81.59 Ithala Quartzite Sourveld LC no change Ithala Quartzite Sourveld LC 98% 1514.97 Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld LC 60% 282.11 Kaalrug includes some SA Mountainlands,VU,F,'3 Criterion F 0% & Barberton ecosystem Mountainlands,VU,F,'1 extent 0% Kahams Mountain Desert LC no change Kahams Mountain Desert LC 100% 592.13 Kalahari Karroid Shrubland LC no change Kalahari Karroid Shrubland LC 100% 8638.72 Kamiesberg Granite Fynbos LC no change Kamiesberg Granite Fynbos LC 100% 64.82 Kamiesberg Mountains Shrubland LC no change Kamiesberg Mountains Shrubland LC 100% 396.85 Kango Conglomerate Fynbos LC no change Kango Conglomerate Fynbos LC 100% 404.18 Kango Limestone Renosterveld LC lower threat Kango Limestone Renosterveld VU A1 100% 500.30 category - IUCN thresholds KaNgwane Montane Grassland LC lower threat KaNgwane Montane Grassland VU A1 62% 5976.19 category - IUCN thresholds Karoo Escarpment Grassland LC no change Karoo Escarpment Grassland LC 100% 8368.42 Kasouga Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 307.52 type Kathu Bushveld LC no change Kathu Bushveld LC 100% 7452.62 Kimberley Thornveld LC no change Kimberley Thornveld LC 100% 19590.86 Klawer Sandy Shrubland CR B1 higher threat Klawer Sandy Shrubland LC 95% 190.75 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Klerksdorp Thornveld LC no change Klerksdorp Thornveld LC 100% 3925.36 Knersvlakte Dolomite Vygieveld LC no change Knersvlakte Dolomite Vygieveld LC 100% 59.54 Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld LC 100% 1319.93 Knersvlakte Shale Vygieveld LC no change Knersvlakte Shale Vygieveld LC 100% 983.47 Knysna Sand Fynbos CR B1 no change Knysna Sand Fynbos CR A1 98% 148.97 Kobee Succulent Shrubland LC new ecosystem new type NEW 96% 136.54 type Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo LC no change Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo LC 100% 4714.50 Koedoeskloof Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 59.75 type Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 30 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv no change Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos CR D1 99% 907.41 Koranna-Langeberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Koranna-Langeberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 1620.89 Kosiesberg Succulent Shrubland LC no change Kosiesberg Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 612.15 Kouebokkeveld Alluvium Fynbos CR B1 higher threat Kouebokkeveld Alluvium Fynbos EN A1 99% 178.31 category - Kouebokkeveld Shale Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Kouebokkeveld Shale Fynbos VU A1 100% 426.09 Kouga Grassy Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Kouga Grassy Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 4051.46 Kouga Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Kouga Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 2402.86 Kuruman Mountain Bushveld LC no change Kuruman Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 4361.68 Kuruman Thornveld LC no change Kuruman Thornveld LC 100% 5801.13 Kuruman Vaalbosveld LC no change Kuruman Vaalbosveld LC 100% 3947.84 Kwaggarug Mountain Desert LC no change Kwaggarug Mountain Desert LC 100% 107.80 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Grassland EN A2b,A3,A3KZN,B1 lower threat Interior South Coast Grasslands CR F 30% 1258.28 Eshowe Mtunzini Hilly category - Grasslands,CR,F,'19% includes some SA & Durban Metropole Criterion F North Coast ecosystem extent Grassland,CR,F,'7% & Interior North Coast Grasslands,CR,F,'7% & Southern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & Interior North Coast Grasslands,CR,F,'3% & Umvoti Valley Complex,CR,F,'2% & Mlazi Gorge,CR,F,'2% KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Thornveld VU A3 no change - KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt VU A1 57% 643.95 Eshowe Mtunzini Hilly includes some SA Grasslands,CR,F,'18% Criterion F & Interior South Coast ecosystem Grasslands,CR,F,'10% extent & Durban Metropole North Coast Grassland,CR,F,'6% KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld LC no change KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld LC 97% 5070.37 KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld LC no change - KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld LC 77% 1174.59 Eshowe Mtunzini Hilly includes some SA Grasslands,CR,F,'3% & Criterion F Ixopo ecosystem Surrounds,VU,F,'2% extent KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld EN A3,A3KZN,B1 no change - KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld EN A1 60% 1084.62 New Hanover includes some SA Plateau,CR,F,'11% Criterion F ecosystem extent Lambert's Bay Strandveld LC no change Lambert's Bay Strandveld LC 73% 259.18 Langebaan Dune Strandveld LC no change Langebaan Dune Strandveld LC 73% 252.27 Langkloof Shale Renosterveld EN A3WC,B1,B2 lower threat Langkloof Shale Renosterveld CR A1 99% 205.99 category - IUCN thresholds Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 31 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Lebombo Summit Sourveld EN B1,B2 higher threat Lebombo Summit Sourveld VU A1 81% 109.59 Mananga-Lebombo category - habitat Thornveld,EN,F,'7% loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent Legogote Sour Bushveld EN B1 higher threat Legogote Sour Bushveld VU A1 98% 3488.83 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos EN B1 higher threat Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos VU A1&D1 73% 1491.30 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Lekkersing Succulent Shrubland LC no change Lekkersing Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 836.24 Leolo Summit Sourveld LC no change Leolo Summit Sourveld LC 100% 20.34 Lesotho Highland Basalt Grassland LC no change Lesotho Highland Basalt Grassland LC 100% 20169.35 Limpopo Ridge Bushveld LC no change Limpopo Ridge Bushveld LC 100% 2782.53 Limpopo Sweet Bushveld LC no change Limpopo Sweet Bushveld LC 100% 12020.85 Little Karoo Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Little Karoo Quartz Vygieveld LC 82% 197.71 Loerie Conglomerate Fynbos LC no change Loerie Conglomerate Fynbos LC 100% 211.04 Long Tom Pass Montane Grassland LC A3 new ecosystem new type NEW 51% 539.34 Mauchesburg Alpine type - includes Grasslands,EN,F,'37% some SA Criterion & Malmani F ecosystem Karstlands,EN,F,'11% extent Loskop Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Loskop Mountain Bushveld LC 86% 1781.78 Loskop includes some SA Mountainlands,VU,F,'8 Criterion F % & Kraanspoort ecosystem Mountain extent Bushveld,EN,F,'3% & Wilge Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'2% Loskop Thornveld LC no change Loskop Thornveld LC 100% 759.84 Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos CR A2b,A3CITY,A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp no change Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos CR A1 83% 29.63 _ovgr

Low Escarpment Moist Grassland LC no change - Low Escarpment Moist Grassland LC 91% 1577.55 Nkunzi/Sundays River includes some SA Grasslands,VU,F,'6% Criterion F ecosystem extent Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation LC lower threat Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation EN A1 83% 726.65 category - IUCN thresholds and land cover differences Lower Gariep Broken Veld LC no change Lower Gariep Broken Veld LC 100% 4669.32 Lowveld Riverine Forest VU B2 no change Lowveld Riverine Forest VU 59% 103.52

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 32 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld LC no change Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld LC 100% 3154.11 Lydenburg Thornveld LC no change Lydenburg Thornveld LC 95% 1468.74 Mabela Sandy Grassland VU A3,A3KZN higher threat Mabela Sandy Grassland LC 84% 412.81 category - habitat loss Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld LC no change Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld LC 100% 974.30 Mafikeng Bushveld LC lower threat Mafikeng Bushveld VU A1 100% 14372.80 category - IUCN thresholds Makatini Clay Thicket LC no change Makatini Clay Thicket LC 98% 326.90 Makhado Sweet Bushveld LC no change Makhado Sweet Bushveld LC 100% 10110.73 Makuleke Sandy Bushveld LC no change Makuleke Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 2088.24 Malelane Mountain Bushveld LC no change Malelane Mountain Bushveld LC 96% 602.85 Croc Gorge Granite Mountainlands,VU,F,'4 % Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld LC no change Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld LC 99% 658.15 Mangrove Forest LC lower threat Mangrove Forest EN C 39% 16.60 Kwambonambi category - Hygrophilous includes some SA Grasslands,CR,F,'27% Criterion C and F & Northern Coastal ecosystem extent Grasslands,CR,F,'4% Maputaland Coastal Belt EN B1 higher threat Maputaland Coastal Belt LC 88% 2077.23 Kwambonambi category - habitat Hygrophilous loss and limited Grasslands,CR,F,'6% distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent Maputaland Pallid Sandy Bushveld LC new ecosystem new type NEW 99% 653.88 type Maputaland Wooded Grassland EN B1 higher threat Maputaland Wooded Grassland VU A1 80% 900.61 Kwambonambi category - habitat Hygrophilous loss and limited Grasslands,CR,F,'6% distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent Marikana Thornveld EN B1 higher threat Marikana Thornveld VU A1 96% 2439.39 category - habitat loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 1267.34 Matjiesfontein Shale Fynbos LC no change Matjiesfontein Shale Fynbos LC 100% 106.53 Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld LC no change Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 2095.80

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 33 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Midlands Mistbelt Grassland VU A2b,A3,A3KZN,B1 no change - Midlands Mistbelt Grassland VU A1 61% 4275.87 Ixopo includes some SA Surrounds,VU,F,'3% & Criterion F Pietermaritzburg ecosystem South,EN,F,'3% & extent Sihleza,EN,F,'2% & Michaelhouse Grasslands,VU,F,'2% & Eastern Creighton and Donnybrook,VU,F,'2% & Umvoti Vlei and Surrounds,VU,F,'2% Moist Coast Hinterland Grassland VU A3,A3KZN no change Ngongoni Veld VU A1 92% 5794.41 Molopo Bushveld LC no change Molopo Bushveld LC 100% 22765.29 Mons Ruber Fynbos Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 285.62 type Montagu Shale Fynbos LC no change Montagu Shale Fynbos LC 100% 185.99 Montagu Shale Renosterveld LC lower threat Montagu Shale Renosterveld VU A1 99% 1592.28 category - IUCN thresholds Mooi River Highland Grassland EN B1 higher threat Mooi River Highland Grassland LC 40% 1156.10 Drakensberg Foothill category - habitat Wattled Crane loss and limited Habitat,VU,F,'39% & distribution Fort Nottingham Lowland Grasslands,VU,F,'7% & Mount Gilboa Plateau,VU,F,'4% & Impendle Lowland Grasslands,VU,F,'4% & Impendle Highlands,EN,F,'2% & Warley Commons,VU,F,'2% Moot Plains Bushveld LC no change Moot Plains Bushveld LC 97% 2809.97 Mopane Basalt Shrubland LC no change Mopane Basalt Shrubland LC 100% 2805.98 Mopane Gabbro Shrubland LC no change Mopane Gabbro Shrubland LC 100% 310.46 Mossel Bay Shale Renosterveld CR B1 higher threat Mossel Bay Shale Renosterveld EN A1 91% 791.28 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Motherwell Karroid Thicket CR B1 new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 163.10 type Mthatha Moist Grassland VU A3 no change Mthatha Moist Grassland VU A1 99% 5248.25 Muscadel Riviere EN A3WC lower threat Muscadel Riviere CR A1 99% 404.15 category - IUCN thresholds Musina Mopane Bushveld LC no change Musina Mopane Bushveld LC 100% 8792.69 Muzi Palm Veld and Wooded Grassland CR B1 new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 703.35 type Namaqualand Arid Grassland LC no change Namaqualand Arid Grassland LC 100% 286.97 Namaqualand Blomveld LC no change Namaqualand Blomveld LC 100% 3107.99 Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld LC no change Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld LC 100% 868.08 Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 34 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Namaqualand Granite Renosterveld LC no change Namaqualand Granite Renosterveld LC 100% 305.49 Namaqualand Heuweltjie Strandveld LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 838.92 type Namaqualand Heuweltjieveld LC no change Namaqualand Heuweltjieveld LC 100% 5040.59 Namaqualand Inland Duneveld LC no change Namaqualand Inland Duneveld LC 100% 917.43 Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland LC no change Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland LC 100% 7582.22 Namaqualand Riviere LC no change Namaqualand Riviere LC 100% 1361.63 Namaqualand Sand Fynbos LC no change Namaqualand Sand Fynbos LC 85% 1109.00 Namaqualand Seashore Vegetation LC no change Namaqualand Seashore Vegetation LC 100% 13.21 Namaqualand Shale Shrubland LC no change Namaqualand Shale Shrubland LC 100% 539.36 Namaqualand Spinescent Grassland LC no change Namaqualand Spinescent Grassland LC 100% 469.92 Namaqualand Strandveld LC no change Namaqualand Strandveld LC 87% 2741.83 Namib Lichen Fields LC no change Namib Lichen Fields LC 100% 1.54 Namib Seashore Vegetation CR A3 higher threat Namib Seashore Vegetation VU 50% 3.24 category - habitat loss Namib Seashore Vegetation CR A3 higher threat Namib Seashore Vegetation VU A1 50% 3.20 category - habitat loss Nanaga Savanna Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 696.99 type Nardouw Sandstone Fynbos CR B1 new ecosystem new type NEW 12% 63.57 Bokkeveld Sandstone type - includes Fynbos,VU,D1,'60% & some SA Crierion Cederberg Sandstone D1 ecosystem Fynbos,VU,D1,'29% extent Ngongoni Veld VU A3 no change Ngongoni Veld VU A1 98% 789.42 Nieuwoudtville Shale Renosterveld CR B1 higher threat Nieuwoudtville Shale Renosterveld VU A1 67% 146.30 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Nieuwoudtville-Roggeveld Dolerite LC no change Nieuwoudtville-Roggeveld Dolerite LC 100% 219.43 Renosterveld Renosterveld Noms Mountain Desert LC no change Noms Mountain Desert LC 100% 335.00 Norite Koppies Bushveld LC no change Norite Koppies Bushveld LC 99% 257.92 North Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 393.85 North Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 332.35 North Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 993.46 North Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 878.18 North Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 318.30 North Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos LC 99% 527.51 North Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 852.20

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 35 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Northern Afrotemperate Forest LC no change - Northern Afrotemperate Forest LC 65% 125.26 Wakkerstroom/Luneb includes some SA urg Criterion F Grasslands,EN,F,'15% ecosystem & Elandshoogte extent Mountainlands,VU,F,'3 % & Barberton Mountainlands,VU,F,'3 % & Low Escarpment Mistbelt Forest,VU,A2,'3% & Dullstroom Plateau Grasslands,EN,F,'2% & Kaapsehoop Quartzite Grasslands,CR,F,'2% Northern Coastal Forest LC no change - Northern Coastal Forest LC 38% 256.97 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal includes some SA Forest,EN,A2,'15% & Criterion F and A2 Dukuduku/St Lucia ecosystem Grasslands and extent Forests,EN,F,'11% & Kwambonambi Dune Forest,CR,F,'7% & Interior South Coast Grasslands,CR,F,'6% & Southern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'5% & Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & Durban Metropole North Coast Grassland,CR,F,'3% & North Coast Dune Forest,CR,F,'2% Northern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC no change - Northern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC 99% 1225.59 Blyde Quartzite includes some SA Grasslands,EN,F,'62% Criterion F ecosystem extent Northern Escarpment Afromontane Fynbos LC no change - Northern Escarpment Afromontane LC 36% 3.62 Malmani includes some SA Fynbos Karstlands,EN,F,'2% Criterion F ecosystem extent Northern Escarpment Dolomite Grassland VU A3 no change - Northern Escarpment Dolomite Grassland VU A1 52% 490.93 Malmani includes some SA Karstlands,EN,F,'39% Criterion F & Blyde Quartzite ecosystem Grasslands,EN,F,'8% extent Northern Escarpment Quartzite Sourveld LC no change Northern Escarpment Quartzite Sourveld LC 80% 1095.65 Blyde Quartzite Grasslands,EN,F,'14% & Kaapsehoop Quartzite Grasslands,CR,F,'5% Northern Free State Shrubland LC no change Northern Free State Shrubland LC 99% 29.67 Northern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Northern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC 98% 272.53 Northern Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC no change Northern Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC 100% 1673.78

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 36 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland LC no change - Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland LC 91% 6738.31 eMondlo Sandy Moist includes some SA Grassland,VU,F,'3% & Criterion F Nkunzi/Sundays River ecosystem Grasslands,VU,F,'2% extent Northern Lebombo Bushveld LC no change Northern Lebombo Bushveld LC 100% 1348.77 Northern Mistbelt Forest LC no change - Northern Mistbelt Forest LC 62% 239.57 Blyde Quartzite includes some SA Grasslands,EN,F,'13% Criterion F & Malmani ecosystem Karstlands,EN,F,'4% extent Northern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert LC no change Northern Nababiepsberge Mountain LC 99% 245.46 Desert Northern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC no change Northern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC 100% 327.15 Northern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC no change Northern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC 100% 536.08 Northern Upper Karoo LC no change Northern Upper Karoo LC 100% 42273.50 Northern Zululand Mistbelt Grassland EN B1 higher threat Northern Zululand Mistbelt Grassland LC 30% 163.12 Ngome Mistbelt category - habitat Grassland and loss and limited Forest,EN,F,'36% & distribution, Louwsberg Mistbelt includes some SA Grassland,VU,F,'9% Criterion F ecosystem extent Northern Zululand Sourveld LC no change Northern Zululand Sourveld LC 91% 4711.50 Imfolosi Savanna and Sourveld,VU,F,'5% & Black Rhino Range,VU,F,'4% Nossob Bushveld LC no change Nossob Bushveld LC 100% 762.49 Nwambyia-Pumbe Sandy Bushveld LC no change Nwambyia-Pumbe Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 184.47 Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld LC 84% 1675.70 Sekhukune Norite includes some SA Bushveld,EN,F,'13% & Criterion F Malmani ecosystem Karstlands,EN,F,'2% extent Olifants Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Olifants Sandstone Fynbos LC 92% 459.31 Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld LC no change Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld LC 100% 8517.69 Oograbies Plains Sandy Grassland LC no change Oograbies Plains Sandy Grassland LC 100% 123.30 Oudshoorn Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 571.24 type Overberg Dune Strandveld EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat Overberg Dune Strandveld LC 100% 346.40 category - threatened species Overberg Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat Overberg Sandstone Fynbos CR D1 99% 1164.34 category - threatened species method Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland EN B1 higher threat Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland VU A1 65% 2741.62 Wakkerstroom/Luneb category - habitat urg loss and limited Grasslands,EN,F,'10% distribution Peninsula Granite Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv no change Peninsula Granite Fynbos CR A1 87% 79.83 Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 37 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos EN D1 96% 210.91 category - threatened species Peninsula Shale Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos VU A1 61% 7.77 Peninsula Shale Renosterveld CR B1thrsp_inv no change Peninsula Shale Renosterveld CR A1 90% 22.70 Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld LC no change Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld LC 100% 2225.56 Piketberg Quartz Succulent Shrubland CR B1,B2 higher threat Piketberg Quartz Succulent Shrubland VU A1 83% 2.37 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Piketberg Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat Piketberg Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 93% 395.18 category - threatened species method Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 434.99 Platbakkies Succulent Shrubland LC no change Platbakkies Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 653.34 Polokwane Plateau Bushveld LC no change Polokwane Plateau Bushveld LC 100% 4445.12 Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld LC A3 no change - Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal LC 70% 916.18 Oribi-Port Edward includes some SA Sourveld Pondoland-Ugu Criterion F Sourveld,EN,F,'24% & ecosystem Margate Pondoland- extent Ugu Sourveld,CR,F,'4% Postmasburg Thornveld LC no change Postmasburg Thornveld LC 100% 929.23 Potberg Ferricrete Fynbos VU A3 lower threat Potberg Ferricrete Fynbos EN A1 99% 40.17 category - IUCN thresholds Potberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Potberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 107.20 Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld LC 91% 814.78 Malmani includes some SA Karstlands,EN,F,'9% Criterion F ecosystem extent Pretoriuskop Sour Bushveld LC no change Pretoriuskop Sour Bushveld LC 100% 939.73 Prince Albert Succulent Karoo LC no change Prince Albert Succulent Karoo LC 100% 2555.22 Queenstown Thornveld LC no change Queenstown Thornveld LC 100% 3606.30 Rand Highveld Grassland VU A3,A3CITY no change - Rand Highveld Grassland VU A1 92% 9450.45 Loskop includes some SA Mountainlands,VU,F,'3 Criterion F % & Stoffberg ecosystem Mountainlands,EN,F,'2 extent % Richtersberg Mountain Desert LC no change Richtersberg Mountain Desert LC 100% 360.12 Richtersveld Coastal Duneveld LC no change Richtersveld Coastal Duneveld LC 99% 501.44 Richtersveld Red Duneveld LC no change Richtersveld Red Duneveld LC 100% 566.10 Richtersveld Sandy Coastal Scorpionstailveld LC no change Richtersveld Sandy Coastal LC 100% 449.06 Scorpionstailveld Richtersveld Sheet Wash Desert LC no change Richtersveld Sheet Wash Desert LC 100% 159.38 Riethuis-Wallekraal Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Riethuis-Wallekraal Quartz Vygieveld LC 100% 136.41 Robertson Granite Fynbos LC no change Robertson Granite Fynbos LC 100% 16.98 Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 38 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Robertson Granite Renosterveld LC no change Robertson Granite Renosterveld LC 100% 19.23 Robertson Karoo LC no change Robertson Karoo LC 99% 643.77 Roggeveld Karoo LC no change Roggeveld Karoo LC 100% 5357.96 Roggeveld Shale Renosterveld LC no change Roggeveld Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 3217.47 Roodeberg Bushveld LC no change Roodeberg Bushveld LC 100% 6496.37 Rooiberg Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Rooiberg Quartz Vygieveld LC 100% 129.28 Rosyntjieberg Succulent Shrubland LC no change Rosyntjieberg Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 50.55 Ruens Silcrete Renosterveld EN A2b,A3,A3WC,B1,B2,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp lower threat Ruens Silcrete Renosterveld CR A1 98% 205.60 _ovgr category - IUCN thresholds Saldanha Flats Strandveld EN B1 higher threat Saldanha Flats Strandveld VU A1 38% 618.85 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Saldanha Granite Strandveld CR B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr higher threat Saldanha Granite Strandveld EN A1 64% 192.65 category - threatened species Saldanha Limestone Strandveld CR B1thrsp_ovgr higher threat Saldanha Limestone Strandveld LC 83% 51.19 category - threatened species Saltaire Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 910.54 type Sand Forest LC no change Sand Forest LC 93% 247.75 Sardinia Forest Thicket VU A3CITY new ecosystem new type NEW 98% 24.70 type Scarp Forest LC no change - Scarp Forest LC 42% 436.37 Transkei Coastal includes some SA Forest,VU,A2,'15% & Criterion F and A2 Eastern Scarp ecosystem Forest,VU,A2,'6% & extent Oribi-Port Edward Pondoland-Ugu Sourveld,EN,F,'4% & Nkandla Forests and Grasslands,VU,F,'3% & Ngoye Scarp Forests and Grasslands,CR,F,'3% & Mount Thesiger Forest Complex,EN,F,'3% & Ngome Mistbelt Grassland and Forest,EN,F,'3% & Pondoland Scarp Forest,VU,A2,'2% Schmidtsdrif Thornveld LC no change Schmidtsdrif Thornveld LC 100% 5038.85 Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld VU A3 no change Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld VU A1 100% 2024.64 Sekhukhune Montane Grassland LC no change - Sekhukhune Montane Grassland LC 56% 777.81 Sekhukhune includes some SA Mountainlands,EN,F,'4 Criterion F 3%

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 39 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring ecosystem extent

Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld LC no change - Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld LC 73% 1682.13 Sekhukhune includes some SA Mountainlands,EN,F,'2 Criterion F 5% & Sekhukune ecosystem Norite extent Bushveld,EN,F,'3% Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld EN B1 higher threat Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld LC 98% 2478.04 Sekhukune Norite category - habitat Bushveld,EN,F,'2% loss and limited distribution Senqu Montane Shrubland LC no change Senqu Montane Shrubland LC 100% 3736.87 South Eastern Coastal Thornveld LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 1589.53 type South Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 319.41 South Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 304.17 South Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1222.71 South Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1569.15 South Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 388.17 South Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat South Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 358.30 category - threatened species South Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1084.45 Southern Afrotemperate Forest LC no change Southern Afrotemperate Forest LC 98% 761.40 Southern Cape Dune Fynbos LC no change Southern Cape Dune Fynbos LC 100% 81.28 Southern Coastal Forest LC no change Southern Coastal Forest LC 94% 174.95 Western Cape Milkwood Forest,EN,C,'5% Southern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC no change Southern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC 99% 6598.58 Southern Kalahari Mekgacha LC no change Southern Kalahari Mekgacha LC 100% 2181.81 Southern Karoo Riviere LC no change Southern Karoo Riviere LC 100% 5302.69 Southern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland EN B1 higher threat Southern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland LC 78% 1826.15 Eastern Creighton and category - habitat Donnybrook,VU,F,'3% loss and limited & Impendle distribution, Highlands,EN,F,'3% & includes some SA Midmar Criterion F Valley,VU,F,'3% ecosystem extent Southern Lebombo Bushveld LC no change - Southern Lebombo Bushveld LC 91% 2347.81 Mananga-Lebombo includes some SA Thornveld,EN,F,'5% & Criterion F Black Rhino ecosystem Range,VU,F,'4% extent Southern Mistbelt Forest LC no change - Southern Mistbelt Forest LC 74% 784.34 Karkloof Forest includes some SA Collective,EN,F,'5% & Criterion F Low Escarpment ecosystem Mistbelt extent Forest,VU,A2,'3% & Pietermaritzburg Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 40 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring South,EN,F,'2% & Southern Weza State Forest,EN,F,'2% & Sihleza,EN,F,'2%

Southern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert LC no change - Southern Nababiepsberge Mountain LC 100% 343.20 includes some SA Desert Criterion F ecosystem extent Southern Namaqualand Quartzite Klipkoppe LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 997.15 Shrubland type Southern Richtersveld Inselberg Shrubland LC no change Southern Richtersveld Inselberg Shrubland LC 100% 365.58 Southern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC no change Southern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC 100% 722.66 Southern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC no change Southern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC 100% 331.40 Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 4146.96 Soutpansberg Summit Sourveld LC no change Soutpansberg Summit Sourveld LC 100% 93.84 Soweto Highveld Grassland VU A3,A3CITY,A3MPL no change - Soweto Highveld Grassland VU A1 91% 13329.75 Blesbokspruit Highveld includes some SA Grassland,CR,F,'3% & Criterion F Boesmanspruit ecosystem Highveld extent Grassland,CR,F,'3% Springbokvlakte Thornveld VU A3,A3CITY,A3MPL no change Springbokvlakte Thornveld VU A1 98% 8789.13 St Francis Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 264.21 type Steenkampsberg Montane Grassland LC new ecosystem new type NEW 62% 2408.43 Dullstroom Plateau type - includes Grasslands,EN,F,'29% some SA Criterion & Elandshoek Summit F ecosystem Grasslands,VU,F,'4% & extent Elandshoogte Mountainlands,VU,F,'4 % Stella Bushveld LC no change Stella Bushveld LC 100% 3219.46 Steytlerville Karoo LC no change Steytlerville Karoo LC 100% 793.32 Stinkfonteinberge Eastern Apron Shrubland LC no change Stinkfonteinberge Eastern Apron LC 100% 65.87 Shrubland Stinkfonteinberge Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Stinkfonteinberge Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 49.03 Stormberg Plateau Grassland LC no change Stormberg Plateau Grassland LC 100% 2964.34 Strydpoort Summit Sourveld LC no change Strydpoort Summit Sourveld LC 100% 268.05 Subtropical Alluvial Vegetation LC no change - Subtropical Alluvial Vegetation LC 86% 1092.31 Kwambonambi includes some SA Hygrophilous Criterion F Grasslands,CR,F,'6% & ecosystem Mapungubwe/Greefs extent wald Riverine Forest,EN,F,'3% Subtropical Dune Thicket LC no change - Subtropical Dune Thicket LC 84% 10.91 North Coast Dune includes some SA Forest,CR,F,'11% & Criterion F Northern Coastal ecosystem Grasslands,CR,F,'4% extent

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 41 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Subtropical Seashore Vegetation LC no change - Subtropical Seashore Vegetation LC 85% 23.85 Kwambonambi Dune includes some SA Forest,CR,F,'7% & Criterion F Southern Coastal ecosystem Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & extent Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'3% Sundays Arid Thicket VU D3STEP new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 5646.22 type Sundays Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 578.56 type Sundays Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 1958.48 type Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 683.22 Suurberg Shale Fynbos LC no change Suurberg Shale Fynbos LC 100% 283.24 Swamp Forest LC lower threat Swamp Forest VU A2&C 36% 36.53 Kwambonambi category - Hygrophilous includes SA Grasslands,CR,F,'9% & Criterion A2 and Mangrove C and A2 Forest,EN,C,'7% & KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forest,EN,A2,'6% & Dukuduku/St Lucia Grasslands and Forests,EN,F,'2% & North Coast Dune Forest,CR,F,'2% Swartberg Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Swartberg Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 50.83 Swartberg Shale Fynbos LC no change Swartberg Shale Fynbos LC 100% 74.94 Swartberg Shale Renosterveld LC no change Swartberg Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 276.39 Swartland Alluvium Fynbos EN A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr lower threat Swartland Alluvium Fynbos CR A1 98% 466.05 category - IUCN thresholds Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld VU A3WC no change Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld VU A1 98% 61.67 Swartland Granite Renosterveld EN A3,A3CITY,A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ lower threat Swartland Granite Renosterveld CR A1 & D1 97% 924.36 ovgr category - habitat loss Swartland Shale Renosterveld CR A3WC no change Swartland Shale Renosterveld CR A1 & D1 97% 4810.45 Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld CR A3WC no change Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld CR A1 90% 90.57 Swartruggens Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Swartruggens Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 1645.82 Swartruggens Quartzite Karoo LC no change Swartruggens Quartzite Karoo LC 100% 559.37 Swaziland Sour Bushveld LC no change Swaziland Sour Bushveld LC 99% 4425.58 Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos EN B1 higher threat Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos VU A1 99% 861.77 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Tanqua Escarpment Shrubland LC no change Tanqua Escarpment Shrubland LC 100% 1318.36 Tanqua Karoo LC no change Tanqua Karoo LC 100% 6988.31 Tanqua Wash Riviere LC no change Tanqua Wash Riviere LC 100% 2130.08 Tarkastad Montane Shrubland LC no change Tarkastad Montane Shrubland LC 100% 4242.26

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 42 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring Tatasberg Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC no change Tatasberg Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 3.27 Tembe Sandy Bushveld LC no change Tembe Sandy Bushveld LC 98% 1106.23 Thorndale Forest Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 43.59 type Thukela Thornveld LC no change Thukela Thornveld LC 100% 2208.95 Thukela Valley Bushveld LC no change Thukela Valley Bushveld LC 100% 2703.31 Transkei Coastal Belt LC no change Transkei Coastal Belt LC 92% 1524.91 Tsakane Clay Grassland EN B1 no change - Tsakane Clay Grassland EN A1 61% 795.38 Klipriver Highveld includes some SA Grassland,CR,F,'25% & Criterion F Blesbokspruit Highveld ecosystem Grassland,CR,F,'12% & extent Deneysville Highveld Grassland,EN,F,'2% Tsende Mopaneveld LC no change Tsende Mopaneveld LC 100% 5316.76 Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld LC no change - Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld LC 98% 3487.61 Mananga-Lebombo includes some SA Thornveld,EN,F,'2% Criterion F ecosystem extent Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 2294.00 Tsomo Grassland LC no change Tsomo Grassland LC 100% 6136.98 Tzaneen Sour Bushveld LC A3,B1,B2 lower threat Tzaneen Sour Bushveld VU A1 99% 3365.35 category - IUCN thresholds uKhahlamba Basalt Grassland LC no change uKhahlamba Basalt Grassland LC 100% 1346.88 Umdaus Mountains Succulent Shrubland LC no change Umdaus Mountains Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 432.85 Umtiza Forest Thicket CR B1 new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 27.11 type Uniondale Shale Renosterveld LC no change Uniondale Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 1347.31 Upper Annisvlakte Succulent Shrubland LC no change Upper Annisvlakte Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 192.11 Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation LC no change Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation LC 100% 1787.33 Upper Karoo Hardeveld LC no change Upper Karoo Hardeveld LC 100% 11734.30 Vaal Reefs Dolomite Sinkhole Woodland LC no change Vaal Reefs Dolomite Sinkhole Woodland LC 100% 346.24 Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland LC no change Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland LC 100% 1457.82 Vaal-Vet Sandy Grassland EN A3 no change Vaal-Vet Sandy Grassland EN A1 99% 22706.82 Vanrhynsdorp Gannabosveld LC no change Vanrhynsdorp Gannabosveld LC 100% 988.51 Vanrhynsdorp Shale Renosterveld LC no change Vanrhynsdorp Shale Renosterveld LC 86% 178.67 Vanstadens Forest Thicket LC new ecosystem new type NEW 100% 187.75 type VhaVenda Miombo LC no change VhaVenda Miombo LC 100% 0.33 Vredefort Dome Granite Grassland VU A3 no change Vredefort Dome Granite Grassland VU A1 100% 920.28 Vyftienmyl se Berge Succulent Shrubland LC no change Vyftienmyl se Berge Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 18.37 Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland LC no change - Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland LC 42% 1569.39 Wakkerstroom/Luneb includes some SA urg Criterion F Grasslands,EN,F,'54%

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 43 Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_20 NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_20 BasisNEMBA20 Prc2018ty Km2 Other NEMBA listed 11 11 11 pe shared types occuring ecosystem & Chrissiesmeer extent Panveld,EN,F,'2%

Waterberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Waterberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 8823.62 Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit Sourveld LC no change Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit Sourveld LC 99% 519.60 Western Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Western Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 37.43 Western Bushmanland Klipveld LC no change Western Bushmanland Klipveld LC 100% 101.77 Western Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Western Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC 96% 128.73 Western Free State Clay Grassland LC no change Western Free State Clay Grassland LC 100% 7065.10 Western Gariep Hills Desert LC no change Western Gariep Hills Desert LC 98% 409.81 Western Gariep Lowland Desert LC no change Western Gariep Lowland Desert LC 98% 213.47 Western Gariep Plains Desert LC no change Western Gariep Plains Desert LC 100% 139.81 Western Gwarrieveld LC no change Western Gwarrieveld LC 100% 759.87 Western Highveld Sandy Grassland EN A3,B1 lower threat Western Highveld Sandy Grassland CR A1 100% 8565.73 category - IUCN thresholds Western Lesotho Basalt Shrubland Not not within SA Western Lesotho Basalt Shrubland LC 100% 2208.32 Assessed Western Little Karoo LC no change Western Little Karoo LC 100% 4106.33 Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld EN B1 higher threat Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld LC 88% 1449.66 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld LC B1,B2 no change Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 152.35 Western Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR B1B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr no change Western Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A1 100% 1188.53

Western Sandy Bushveld LC no change Western Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 6493.81 Western Upper Karoo LC no change Western Upper Karoo LC 100% 17149.62 Willowmore Gwarrieveld LC no change Willowmore Gwarrieveld LC 100% 2251.45 Winburg Grassy Shrubland LC no change Winburg Grassy Shrubland LC 100% 1567.80 Winterhoek Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Winterhoek Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1134.46 Wolkberg Dolomite Grassland LC no change Wolkberg Dolomite Grassland LC 100% 260.60 Woodbush Granite Grassland CR B1 no change Woodbush Granite Grassland CR A1 70% 300.57 Xhariep Karroid Grassland LC no change Xhariep Karroid Grassland LC 100% 13390.89 Zastron Moist Grassland LC no change Zastron Moist Grassland LC 100% 4267.87 Zeerust Thornveld LC no change Zeerust Thornveld LC 100% 4128.08 Zululand Coastal Thornveld CR B1 higher threat Zululand Coastal Thornveld LC 100% 694.63 category - habitat loss and limited distribution Zululand Lowveld LC no change - Zululand Lowveld LC 76% 6537.13 Black Rhino includes some SA Range,VU,F,'17% & Criterion F Imfolosi Savanna and ecosystem Sourveld,VU,F,'5% extent

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 44

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 45