EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Benguela Current Convention Project Number: EHB/2016/02

STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH

DELIVERABLE 3.1 Linkages Between Ecosystem Services Indicators - Updated report including workshop inputs

Prepared for: Benguela Current Convention (BCC) – Secretariat Swakopmund, Namibia

Prepared by: Rhodes University

May 2017

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 1

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Contributers Samantha Petersen – Rhodes University Ken Findlay – Cape Peninsula University of Technology Margit Wilhelm – University of Namibia Dietlinde Nakwaya – University of Namibia Carmen Santos – Agostinho Neto University Nicola Downey Breedt – Rhodes University Peter Britz – Rhodes University

Acknowledgement

This project of the Benguela Current Convention’s Ecosystem-Based Management Programme is made possible by generous support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 2

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Through the Benguela Current Commission (BCC) and other legal instruments, Angola, Namibia and South Africa committed to the sustainable use of the ocean ecosystem. A key challenge of the BCC is the building of ecosystem governance institutions to implement a sustainable development approach which integrates both the human and ecological dimensions of the ecosystem. This requires effective monitoring of ecosystem health by appropriate institutions using suitable indicators – both ecological and socio-economic. The present ‘Discussion Document’ forms part of a BBC project entitled “Strengthen Capacity to Monitor Ecosystem Health’ and presents an overview of ‘ecosystem services’ concepts and methodologies with a synopsis of the ‘Ocean’ and ‘Blue’ Economies of Angola, Namibia and South Africa. The report is intended to inform discussions at the three- national awareness raising workshops. The workshop outputs and recommendations will be incorporated into a final report on ecosystem services and monitoring in the BCLME.

Modern ocean governance requires information on the ecological, social and economic dimensions of the ecosystem and a measure of their relative value for decision support. The process of valuing ecosystem services requires an understanding of the interconnections among human well-being, ecosystem processes and functions, and economic production and consumption processes at multiple time and space scales. Whilst “ocean economy” includes all of the goods and services generated from the ocean space, the “blue economy” term is taken to mean the environmentally sustainable economic growth and its resultant wellbeing derived from the ocean.

Humans generate significant benefits (both market and non-market value goods and services) directly or indirectly from both terrestrial and ocean ecosystems and ecosystem function (the so-called “ecosystem services”) that are considered essential to human welfare, including well-being, health, security, livelihoods and even survival. Ecosystem services describe how humans are both linked to and dependant on nature, and impacts on systems compromise ecosystem service delivery. For example, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that sixty per cent of the evaluated ecosystem services were being used unsustainably, with major implications for future development and poverty alleviation. Optimisation of services is consequently important, as is the ensuring of the integrity of ocean health and ecosystem function from which these services and benefits arise.

Ecosystem service benefits may be broadly categorised as: ● Provisioning services – the market benefits produced by, in or on an ecosystem and generating value in the economy through both private and public sector components. ● Regulatory services – the non-market ecological services of ecosystems in environmental regulation including earth-system and local system services that differ by scale. Earth System services are active on global scales (thus transcending individual ecosystems), while local system services occur at individual ecosystem scales, and ● Cultural services – the non-market and often symbolic benefits that people obtain from their environment through non-market recreational aesthetic, spiritual, traditional and benefaction benefits.

There are numerous current efforts aimed at making the concept of ecosystem services (and biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES)) operational and linking them with decision-making including at intergovernmental, sub-global, regional, national and local levels and across government, non-governmental and commercial or business platforms. However, as a relatively new and emergent discipline ecosystem service evaluation is fraught with confusion in the definitions, typologies, and terminologies within the ecosystem service framework. An objective of the present project is to brief environmental managers and stakeholders in the BCC member states on the current approaches to evaluating ecosystem health and discuss how best to implement practical approaches to monitoring.

Frameworks for measuring ecosystem health include the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE), the Ocean Health Index and the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment suggested that measures of well-being arising from ecosystem services include security (personal safety, security of resources, and security from disasters), basic material of a good life (adequate livelihoods, sufficient food, shelter and access to goods); health (strength, feeling well and access to clean air and water); good social relations (social

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 3

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

cohesion, mutual respect and ability to help others) and freedom of choice and action. It is clear that many of these cannot be measured through national income metrics within the Systems of National Accounts (SNA) framework, yet the size and growth of national economies as defined by GDP, which remains the key benchmark of a nations success despite ignoring important societal and environmental economic components. Ecosystem services clearly have both market and non-market contributions to human benefits and value can accrue to individuals as private goods or to the broader society as public goods. Provisioning services typically result in private goods, whereas many regulating and cultural services are of a public goods nature. Many ecosystem services are public goods (non-rival and non-excludable) or common pool resources (rival and non-excludable), and are very difficult to quantify in terms of their value to society and therefore in decision making. The appropriate valuation approaches for ecosystem services consequently vary by the type of ecosystem service, as these contribute to human benefits and well-being in different ways.

Valuation Of Provisioning (Market Value) Ecosystem Services. Provisioning services include consumptive goods extracted from an ecosystem and the provision of non- consumptive services (such as marketed whale watching or scuba diving or other non-consumptive utilisation) which generates an economic value. A major challenge in ecosystem services evaluation is to assess the relative contribution of the natural capital stock. For example, the value of a fishery is dependent on the value of the landed product which is going to be dependent in turn on the fish stock (the natural capital), the fishing effort provided by the fishing fleet (the built capital) and the knowledge and experience of the fishers (the human capital). New approaches to the valuation of provisioning services such as the United Nations System of Ecosystem Accounting are described.

Valuation Of Regulatory And Cultural Ecosystem (Non-Market) Services. Regulating and cultural services support both private goods and services and broader public services (societal well-being). Public goods and services are often requires the application of non-market valuation methods. Such methods often develop price by proxy methods or surrogate pricing.

Ecosystem Service Evaluation In The Ecosystem Approach To Ocean Governance The valuation of ecosystem services can have many potential uses across multiple temporal and spatial scales and including: • Raising awareness and interest; • National income and well-being accounts that are not fully covered within the current sysem of national accounts (SNA) metrics such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP); • Specific policy analyses and regional use planning (i.e. In trade-off analyses); • Payment for ecosystem services; • Full cost accounting; and • Common asset trusts.

Whilst almost all of these uses have value in different ecosystem service evaluation components in the Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Governance, two Ecosystem Service evaluation processes are critical in the Ocean Governance framework namely 1) Ecosystem Service Evaluation for Trade-offs between competitive sectors or industries (including the environment) in Ocean Governance and 2) Ecosystem accounting frameworks.

There appear to be very few case studies of ecosystem service evaluations in ocean governance and decision- making, possibly because marine systems offer a challenge for trade-offs across services for a number of reasons including the general absence of property rights and the non-market process in their use; fragmented governance, expanding and emerging uses, which may contribute to crowding in limited ocean space.

Ecosystem accounting is a novel and emergent discipline which integrates ecological and biophysical data to identify and monitor changes in ecosystems and the relationship of any identified changes to economic and human activity in the form of ecosystem service flows. An ecosystem accounting frame work, the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is being tested by the United Nations and partner countries for incorporation into the System of National Accounts. South Africa is one of seven pilot countries and have embarked on experimental ecosystem accounting.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 4

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

The Way Forward For The BCC It is clear that a holistic approach to ecosystem health monitoring is still at a concept stage and that the BCC countries will need to work together to establish a harmonised system for monitoring ecosystem health, which is used over to time to track trends. To achieve this, the following actions will be required

● Knowledge and Awareness. Promote an understanding of ecosystem services concepts amongst ecosystem management institutions. ● Ecosystem Services and Linkages. Define ecosystem services and the associated interactions – between users and between users and the environment. Marine spatial planning indicates where interactions occur. ● Integrating an Ecosystem Services Approach into Ecosystem Management. Integrate the monitoring and measuring of ecosystem services into ecosystem management ● Ecosystem Evaluation. Perform regular Ecosystem Services evaluations. ● Environmental-Economic Accounting. Implement the UN Statistical Division (UNSD) approved the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Central Framework (SEEA-CF) to align with the System of National Accounts (SNA) used in the compilation of national GDP metrics. ● Decision Support Tools. Incorporate an ecosystem services approach and decision support tools into ocean governance. E.g. the use of an activity Compatibility Matrix to define where conflicts occur and weigh decisions based on objective economic, ecological and social criteria. ● Knowledge Gaps. Identify of knowledge gaps ● Institutional Capacity Building. Building of institutional capacity for the implementation of ecosystem based management including capacity to monitor ecosystem health and the ecosystem services that they provide.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 5

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

CONTENTS

1 Towards sustainable ecosystem governance 8 2 Ocean governance context 10 2.1 Ocean Governance and Policy Frameworks 10 2.2 Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management 10 2.2.1 Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management 11 2.2.2 Management frameworks 11 2.2.2.1 Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals 11 2.2.2.2 2050 Africa Integrated Maritime Strategy 11 2.2.2.3 2063 AU Agenda 12 2.2.2.4 National commitments towards the Ecosystem Approach 12 2.2.2.4.1 Angola 12 2.2.2.4.2 Namibia 13 2.2.2.4.3 South Africa 15 3 The Benguela Current Convention Seascape 16 3.1 Biophysical description 16 3.2 Biodiversity 17 3.3 Diversity of people and cultures 17 4 Ecosystem services to society 19 4.1 What is a healthy ocean? 22 4.2 What frameworks exist to evaluate ecosystem health? 22 4.3 What indicators exist to monitor ecosystem health? 25 4.4 Introduction 27 4.4.1 Ecosystem Services in oceans economy 27 4.4.2 Global Expansion of Oceans Economies and Potential Conflicts 28 4.4.3 Ocean Governance / Governance of Conflicts 28 4.4.4 Trade-offs and Synergies in Ecosystem Service Planning 29 4.5 Angola 31 4.5.1 The Angolan Ocean Economy 31 4.5.2 Fishing 31 4.5.3 Aquaculture 33 4.5.4 Mining, Oil and Gas 34 4.5.5 Recreational fishing 36 4.5.6 Transport and Harbours 36 4.6 Namibia 36 4.6.1 The Namibian Ocean Economy 36 4.6.2 Fishing 37

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 6

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

4.6.3 Aquaculture 40 4.6.4 Coastal development (Sowman et al., 2011): 41 4.6.5 Transport and harbours 41 4.6.6 Marine Mining 42 4.6.7 Coastal tourism (including recreational fishing) 43 4.7 South Africa and Operation Phakisa’s “Unlocking of the Ocean Economy” 44 4.7.1 Fishing 45 4.7.2 Aquaculture 48 4.7.3 Coastal development 50 4.7.4 Communication, transport and harbours 50 4.7.5 Marine Mining, Oil and Gas 51 4.7.6 Tourism (including recreational fishing) 54 5 Valuation and monitoring of ecosystem services 57 5.1 Valuation of provisioning (market value) ecosystem services. 58 5.2 Valuation of regulatory and cultural ecosystem (non-market) services. 58 5.2.1 Payment of resource rents 58 5.2.2 Payment for ecosystem services (PES) 58 5.2.3 Revealed and stated preference methods see Liu et al. (2010) 58 5.2.4 Remediation value 59 5.2.5 Replacement value 59 5.3 Ecosystem Service Evaluation in the Ecosystem Approach to Ocean Governance 59 5.3.1 Ecosystem Service Evaluation for Trade-offs between competitive sectors or industries (including the environment) in Ocean Governance 59 5.3.2 Ecosystem accounting frame works 60 6 The way forward for the BCC 62 7 References 63

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 7

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

1 TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM GOVERNANCE

The Benguela Current Convention (BCC) is the first intergovernmental Convention in the world to be based on the Large Marine Ecosystem concept of ocean governance, a clear move towards managing transboundary resources at the larger ecosystem level (rather than at the national level) and balancing human needs with conservation imperatives.

The key challenge of this project is building ecosystem governance institutions to implement a sustainable development approach which integrates both the human and ecological dimensions of the ecosystem. This requires effective monitoring of ecosystem health by appropriate institutions using suitable indicators – both ecological and socio-economic.

Although the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) strategic action plan (SAP) is well understood and supported within the scientific communities, the general lack of stakeholder awareness within government agencies, industry and the public sector presents a barrier to long-term integration and success of the regional BCC goals. Mechanisms for increasing the fundamental understanding and involvement in stakeholder communities are thus required. The awareness and buy-in of these stakeholders as participants and custodians of the region’s resources is an essential first step for the BCC’s ability to integrate and communicate the scientific, management and societal information of ocean governance in a meaningful way.

As the traditional form of ecosystem environmental management is fragmented and sectoral, the building of improved, effective and interactive stakeholder engagement into the management of the BCLME goods and services is required in order to enforce the Convention and implement the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). To this end, the building and strengthening of stakeholder representative institutions and the fostering of closer partnerships and collaboration with the private sector and those communities which are dependent on marine ecosystem services is critical to establishing effective ecosystem-based ocean governance and management.

The BCC mission includes both ecosystem monitoring and support to its member states to achieve inclusive economic growth which is ecologically sustainable. Guidance is required to support the member states to promote the development of the Blue Economy in a sustainable and equitable manner as part of a strong and realistic ocean governance strategy. Interventions by the BCC with the member countries are thus required to strengthen inter-sectoral coordination and ecosystem monitoring to achieve integrated ocean governance based on informed and coordinated decision making. This requires:

● Support for Member States in developing capacity within their marine research institutions both to monitor ecosystem health and within ocean governance frameworks. Awareness raising of the BCC ‘place-based’ ecosystem approach to ocean governance and sensitization of stakeholders of the value and benefits of maintaining ecosystem health, and therefore the provision of ecosystem services. ● Effective and interactive stakeholder engagement for the strengthening of the required partnerships which can ensure long-term sustainability of BCC management activities. ● Partnering with research institutions and industry on ecosystem monitoring and assessment leading to more appropriate self-regulatory operational practices and buy into key decisions. ● Regional compatibility of ecosystem monitoring programmes, to include appropriate indicators of human wellbeing (food security, poverty, livelihoods, etc.) to enhance the LME-wide monitoring programme. ● Community-level interventions in particular on gender and youth empowerment within ocean governance frameworks. ● Quantification of ecosystem goods and services and their linkages to enable realistic Economic Valuation and regional Cost-Benefit Analysis to inform decision making. ● National stakeholder engagement fora established that promote interactions and inclusive management discussions at country level among government, private sector, NGO, community-based organisation, academia and partners on policy and institutional strengthening and improvement. ● Stakeholder Briefing documents prepared and circulated widely on the role of BCC and the issues and concerns surrounding the BCLME as well as the economic importance and long-term sustainability of its goods and services (including a description of the potential impacts and effects of oil, gas and mining

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 8

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

exploration and extraction), coastal community and private sector engagement opportunities and examples.

● The present project is understood within the context of the BCC five-year SAP to be a first step in the roll out of the integrated ecosystem approach to ocean governance.. The key objective is to further the implementation of Ecosystem Based Ocean Governance by raising awareness of the value of ecosystem services and their linkages, and supporting the Member States to develop the appropriate capacity within their marine research institutions to monitor ecosystem health. This requires a more integrated, participative and regional approach to monitoring ecosystem health including ecological, social and economic indicators.

The present report presents an overview of ‘ecosystem services’ concepts and methodologies with a synopsis of the ‘Ocean’ and ‘Blue’ Economies of Angola, Namibia and South Africa. The report is intended to inform discussions at the three national awareness raising workshops. The workshop outputs and recommendations will be incorporated into a final report on ecosystem services and monitoring in the BCLME.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 9

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

2 OCEAN GOVERNANCE CONTEXT

Modern ocean governance is based on the ‘sustainable development’ approach which embeds social and economic systems within ecological systems which it recognises as foundational and therefore integrates the ecological, social and economic dimensions (Figure 1). Effective governance thus requires information on all three dimensions and a measure of their relative value for decision support. The process of valuing ecosystem services requires an understanding of the interconnections among human well-being, ecosystem processes and functions, and economic production and consumption processes at multiple time and space scales.

Figure 1. The ecosystem approach views social and economic systems as part of the ecosystem.

2.1 OCEAN GOVERNANCE AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS

There is a growing recognition of the ecological, economic and social dependence of sustainable human welfare on the ocean and coastal regions and an acknowledgement of the value of the marketed and non-marketed components of marine natural capital in this dependence (Costanza et al., 1999). The need to value ecosystem goods services has led to concepts such as the ‘ocean economy’ and ‘blue economy’ (Box 1).

Box 1. The Distinction Between the ‘Ocean Economy’ and ‘Blue Economy’

Whilst “ocean economy” includes all of the goods and services generated from the ocean space, the “blue economy” term is taken to mean the environmentally sustainable economic growth and its resultant wellbeing derived from the ocean (UNEP et al., 2012; EIU, 2015). The blue economy is consequently considered to mirror a terrestrial green economy within the oceans and coastal areas. In this model the classical economic growth metric of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is supplemented by the state of the natural capital form which benefits flow, and a measure of the distribution of the derived benefits to human welfare over time (Costanza, 2014). Environmental sustainability, sustainable economic growth and social equity and wellbeing are consequently all seen as integral pillars of a blue economy.

2.2 INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT

The ecosystem approach (EA), otherwise referred to as the ecosystem-based-approach (EBA) or ecosystem- based management (EBM) approach) has become globally acknowledged as the primary framework for the

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 10

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

management of sustainable development (and biodiversity and ecosystem services) in the coastal and ocean environment. Defined by the CBD as ‘‘a strategy for the integrated management of land, water, and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way’’ and OSPAR and HELCOM as “a comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity” (Douvere, 2008), the EA focuses on ecosystem functions and processes, benefits that flow from ecosystem services and inter-sectoral management. In a global review of the EA the CBD identified barriers and challenges that are restricting ecosystem-based management (CBD, 2007) and identified the need for spatial and temporal aspects of ecosystem-based management. The ecosystem approach is very similar to the ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM) approach adopted by most countries.

2.2.1 Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management Since the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, signatory countries, which include Namibia and South Africa, are required to implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAF). An EAF, which takes ecological relationships between species (harvested or not) into consideration and balances the diverse needs and values of all who use, enjoy or depend on the ocean now and in the future, is now accepted as the preferred approach to managing fisheries.

2.2.2 Management frameworks The Ecosystem Approach has led to the development of a new generation of governance management frameworks at global, regional and national level.

2.2.2.1 Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) developed the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) drawing on the previous Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 2000. Included in the 17 UN SDGs, the SDG on Oceans and Seas (SDG 14) was adopted to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.’ (UNECA, 2016).

Costanza et al. (2016) argue the need for aggregate metrics of human and ecosystem well-being to replace the growth in GDP and link the development of new national economic metrics to the 17 SDGs as the global blue economy concept is interlinked with the majority of the SDGs in a variety of ways. Sustainable Development Goal 14 gives substance to the imperative to ‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources’ (Box 2).

In order to give effect to the implementation of the SDG’s, ocean governance frameworks need to be redefined to be based on sustainable ecosystem use. This requires the measuring and monitoring of ecosystem goods and services. In particular, the value of the supporting ‘blue economy’ natural capital needs to be valued.

2.2.2.2 2050 Africa Integrated Maritime Strategy

The African Union (AU) has played a significant role in developing and implementing a Blue Economy strategy in the African region through their 2050 Africa Integrated Maritime Strategy (AU, 2012), which introduces the Blue Economy as the “new frontier of African Renaissance.”

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 11

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Box 2. Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources

Goal 14 targets: 14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution

14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans

14.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels

14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics

14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information

14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation

14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism

14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries 14.b Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets 14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want

2.2.2.3 2063 AU Agenda

Africa’s Blue Economy is at the centre of the AU’s Agenda 2063 which defines the blue economy as “a sustainable and equitable economic growth driven by oceans, seas, lakes, rivers and floodplains and draws on the ocean resources to potentially drive Africa's transformation in terms of Agenda 2063 and the UN SDGs.

2.2.2.4 National commitments towards the Ecosystem Approach

2.2.2.4.1 Angola The Government of Angola has declared that the priority for the country is the development of sustainable

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 12

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

marine artisanal fisheries and aquaculture in inland water bodies. The Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) system of Angola has recently been reinforced with the installation and entry into duty of a dedicated Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).

Legal instruments and commitments towards sustainable ecosystem use include: ● Benguela Current Convention which commits Angola to the sustainable use to the Benguela ecosystem. ● Law on Aquatic Biological Resources (Law 6-A/04), which replaced the previous Legislation on fisheries (Law 20/92). General Regulations on Fisheries (D.R. n. 70) and the regulations on Fishing Rights and Licensing (D.R. n 65), Fisheries Research (D.R. n. 66), and Aquaculture (D.R. n. 67) approved in 2005 (ACP Fish II, 2017). ● The main policy document is Fisheries Master Plan 2006-2010 aiming at defining the key management measures for the sector for increasing and improving the production taking into account the sustainability of the resources (FAO, 2011). ● Since December 1990, Angola is a Party to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Since March 2006, the country is a Party to the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement (FAO 2011).

2.2.2.4.2 Namibia

Namibia is a signatory to the Benguela Current Convention which commits the country to the sustainable use of the Benguela ecosystem in partnership with South Africa and Angola. The Benguela Current Convention’s Strategic Action Programme guides the implementation of the convention.

Under the theme: Sustainable Development for Namibia’s Prosperity; The Ministry of Economic Planning, with the support of the United Nations in Namibia launched the Domestication of Sustainable Development Goals and Africa Agenda 2063. The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Economic Planning and the UN Resident Coordinator to Namibia, led a panel discussion, followed by an interactive session with the audience. The private sector, civil society, academia, representatives from the EU and many other development partners came out in numbers, and participated actively throughout the discourse. The launch was broadcast live on National Radio, and eight community radio stations from different regions around the country reported live in their respective vernaculars. The Sustainable Development Goals were designed to address root causes of poverty and the universal need for development that works for all. Each of the 17 goals has 169 targets, of which those targets have 230 indicators. The implementation of Agenda 2063 will be carried out through five Ten-Year Implementation Plans, which are to be integrated into National Development Plans alongside the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The Namibian Government is committed towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Specific to fisheries are: MDG 1: The contribution of fisheries to employment and food security. MDG 7: Environmental protection and conservation of fisheries and marine resources (IMLT, 2008).

Vision 2030 and five term NDP are in place in Namibia on the usage of natural resources. Vision 2030 was crafted during the NDP 2 period and NDP 3 is therefore the first post Vision 2030 medium term 5-year development plan, with (NDP 1) running from 1995 to the year 2000, whereas Second National Development Plan (NDP 2) took force from 2001 to 2006 and the Third National Development Plan (NDP 3) from 2007 to 2011 and NDP 4 2012-2016.

Vision 2013 suggests a potential growth within the marine resources sector by 2030. Some of the specific points are: an increase in exports of high value fish products to overseas markets; more efficient trade and improved export markets to landlocked countries within SADC and expansion of mariculture activities.

The two primary legal instruments governing marine fisheries are: 1. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone of Namibia Act (no. 3 of 1990); 2. Marine Resource Act (no. 27 of 2000). 3. The Namibia’s Marine Resources Policy - Towards Responsible Development of the Fisheries Sector (revised in 2004).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 13

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Management and development of fisheries in Namibia is the responsibility of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). MFMR’s Mission Statement is: “To strengthen Namibia’s position as a leading fishing nation and to contribute towards the achievement of our economic, social and conservation goals for the benefit of all Namibians”. Since independence, policy for the sector has been, and continues to be, driven by the following key document: Towards Responsible Development of the Fisheries Sector (1991, revised 2004).

Namibia is also an FAO member state and has developed and implemented the National plan of action for the management of fishing capacity (NPOA-capacity). NPOA is in support of the FAO International Plan of Action for the management of fishing capacity (the IPOA-capacity). This commitment is explicitly recognised in section 6.2.1 of Namibia’s Marine Resources Policy - Towards Responsible Development of the Fisheries Sector (as revised in 2004).

At Independence, the Government proclaimed a 200 nm zone (EEZ) in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. The Marine Resources Act (2000) and Regulations Relating to the Exploitation of Marine Resources (2001, as amended) provide the basic legal framework for management and regulation of the marine fisheries sector. This Act was developed in the late nineties, following Namibia’s accession to various international fisheries conventions, agreements and arrangements, which prompted a revision of the Sea Fisheries Act (1992). The Act sets forth the details of a rights-based management system.

The UNCBD (United Nations Convention on Biodiversity): Namibia is party and ratified the convention on biodiversity in 1995. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) thrives for the protection of marine resources under its chapter 6. The NBSAP (Strategic objective VI) of Namibia calls for the full and informed involvement of all Namibians in its implementation. It appears to be most evident in the implementation of Sustainable Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Management in Namibia (MET, 2010).

A coastal management policy white paper (SEAs) for the entire coastal region and environmental management plans are at various stages of development with the full involvement of local communities, local municipalities, regional councils and line ministries. Namibia has realised that an integrated approach is needed to counter the impact of these threats on the coastal zone, which contains some of Namibia’s most sensitive ecosystems and biodiversity-rich environments.

The Ministries of: Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), Environment and Tourism, Land Reform and Rural and Urban Development with coordination and assistance provided by the BCC (Benguela Current Convention) and NACOMA (Namibian Coast Conservation and Management) projects have set in motion the process of conserving biodiversity in the context of these different threats. In recent years the areas and numbers of terrestrial and marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance under effective management have increased, and biodiversity conservation has been incorporated into planning, policy, institutions and investments at national, regional and local levels.

The MFMR of Namibia co-operates with the following regional and international fisheries organisations: 1. Southern African Development Community (SADC). The SADC Protocol on Fisheries aim to promote responsible and sustainable use of the living aquatic resources and aquatic ecosystems within the SADC region. 2. INFOPECHE: In 2001 Namibia signed a cooperation agreement with this International Fisheries Marketing Advisory Body to establish an INFOPECHE Unit in Namibia’s capital, Windhoek. This Unit provides information and technical assistance in fish trade, marketing, processing and new innovations to INFOPECHE member states. 3. South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO): establishes a management regime for conservation and sustainable utilisation of fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other sedentary species in the high seas portion of FAO Statistical Area 47, but excluding those sedentary species that are subject to the fishery jurisdiction of coastal States and also tuna and tuna-like species because these fall under the jurisdiction of ICCAT. Namibia is host to the SEAFO Secretariat. 4. International Commission for The Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT): The rapid development of a thriving domestic tuna fishery provided the impetus for Namibia to join ICCAT in 1999, becoming the 28th member of the Commission. 5. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR): As a member of CCAMLR, Namibia is committed to the management and conservation of the marine resources of the

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 14

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Antarctic. 6. Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC): Namibia became the 129th member of the IOC became on 25 April 2001. The IOC is an important facilitator of international oceanographic research programmes and Namibia is involved in its various training, technical assistance and research activities. 7. The ministerial Conference on Fisheries cooperation among African states bordering The Atlantic (COMHAFAT-ATLAFCO)

2.2.2.4.3 South Africa ● Benguela Current Commission ● The National Development Plan (NDP) highlights the need for change to enable sustainable development in South Africa. It calls on the country to: ❖ Protect the natural environment in all respects, leaving subsequent generations with an endowment of at least equal value. ❖ Enhance the resilience of people and the economy to climate change. ❖ Extract mineral wealth to generate the resources to raise living standards, skills and infrastructure in a sustainable manner. ❖ Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency.

The NDP proposes three measures to protect the country’s natural resources: • An environmental management framework. Developments that have serious environmental or social effects need to be offset by support for improvements in related areas. • A target for the amount of land and oceans under protection (presently about 7.9 million hectares of land, 848km of coastline and 4 172km2 of ocean are protected). • A set of indicators for natural resources, accompanied by publication of annual reports on the health of identified resources to inform policy.

Chapter 1 of the NDP (Policy Making In a Complex Environment) highlights the fact that the “global economy is entering a period of "ecological deficit", as natural capital (ground water, marine life, terrestrial biodiversity, crop land and grazing) is being degraded, destroyed, or depleted faster than it can be replenished. Waste and carbon-equivalent emissions per capita are climbing faster every year in an ecosystem with finite limits. The political challenge in the next two decades will be to develop policies and regulatory initiatives that prompt improved resource management and deliver substantial clean-technology industries. This will include policies that help people cope with new risks during the transition, adapting management to protect livelihoods and threatened natural environments, while transforming energy systems”.

Chapter 3 of the NDP (Key Drivers of Change) highlights Green economy. “The United Nations Environmental Programme defines the green economy as “a system of economic activities related to the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that result in improved human well- being over the long term, while not exposing future generations to significant environmental risks and ecological scarcities”. Although it doesn’t explicitly mention the blue economy it is taken to be a subset of the green economy.

Similarly to the NDP, Outcome 10 highlights the global environmental crisis and the fact that “sustainable development and efforts to mitigate climate changes and/or adapt to its impacts, have a mutually beneficial relationship”. Outcome 10 lists four critical problems: ● Water is unsustainably used and the quality and quantity of water is in decline.

● Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepare strategies to cope with projected climate change impacts and reverse the rising trend in relation to the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.

● Proper and better management of the environment.

● Protection of our biodiversity.

Relevant output under Outcome 10 include: Output 3: Sustainable Environmental Management and Output 4: Protetcted Biodiversity

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 15

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

3 THE BENGUELA CURRENT CONVENTION SEASCAPE

3.1 BIOPHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

The Benguela system is one of the four major eastern boundary upwelling systems of the world. In the south, the Benguela Current interacts with the warm Agulhas Current, and in the north with the Angola Current (UNEP, 2005). The major oceanographic features of the Benguela system have been identified and listed by Hutchings et al. (2009). They are, from north to south (taken directly from Hutchings et al., 2009):

● a northern boundary near the Congo River plume that separates the tropical Gulf of Guinea from the subtropical Angola system; ● the Angola Current, which flows southward along the narrow shelf of Angola as an extension of the south equatorial counter-current, that forms the northern boundary of the wind-driven upwelling system at the Angola-Benguela front at ~17°S; ● the coastline orientation is roughly N–S between Cape Frio and Cape Agulhas, but curves to the north- east from 16°S to 12°S, before bending westward again at Benguela in Angola. Three major embayments occur at Lobito (12°S), Walvis Bay (23°S) and St Helena Bay (32°S). The orientation changes radically at 34°S between Cape Point and Cape Agulhas from N–S to E–W; ● the major wind-driven Benguela upwelling zone is located between Cape Agulhas and Cape Frio; ● the very powerful upwelling at Lüderitz (26°S) with strong winds, high offshore advection and strong turbulent mixing serves to partially separate the northern and southern Benguela regions, with further subtropical boundary regions in Angola and on the Agulhas Bank; ● a combination of shelf width and coastal topography creates a number of discrete upwelling centres. These, combined with the passage of low pressure systems south of the continent and the formation of a coastally trapped low pressure cell in the lower atmosphere and its southward movement against the escarpment, produce strongly pulsed three-dimensional upwelling at 3–10 day intervals particularly in the southern Benguela. This is crucial for driving short-term variability in plankton development and fish recruitment; ● cool productive water occurs in a narrow band from Cape Agulhas to Cape Frio, broadening at the Angola-Benguela front; ● on the eastern Agulhas Bank cool productive water surfaces where the Agulhas Current diverges from the coast at 26°E and on the central Bank (22°E) where the cool ridge is manifest as a shallow doming of isotherms; ● at the southern boundary, the Agulhas Current flows along the shelf break of the broad Agulhas Bank towards the west and while most of the 60–80 Sv current flow retroflects back into the south Indian Ocean, some warm saline water flows northwards into the South Atlantic in jets, filaments and large eddies (Agulhas Rings), some of which impact on the shelf ecosystem and ● offshore the broad South Atlantic gyre forms an ill-defined outer boundary of the Benguela upwelling system where Atlantic surface water, sun-warmed upwelled water and water of Agulhas Current and Agulhas Bank origin mix in complex eddies and filaments.

The many estuaries along the Benguela coastal region provide important nursery areas for many fish stocks, some of which are shared between the coastal countries of this region (UNEP, 2005). Five estuaries are considered to be of particular transboundary significance: the Berg River Estuary (South Africa), the Olifants River Estuary (South Africa), the Orange River Mouth (South Africa and Namibia), the Cunene River Mouth (Namibia and Angola), and the Cuanza River Mouth (Angola) (UNEP, 2005). Coastal lagoons in the Benguela region support large numbers of migratory birds, which use these lagoons as feeding grounds during their non- breeding seasons (UNEP, 2005). Important lagoons, as noted by UNEP (2005), include Langebaan Lagoon (South Africa), Sandwich Harbour and Walvis Bay Lagoon (Namibia), and Baia dos Tigres and the Luanda Lagoon (Angola). Two major transboundary river systems identified within the region are the Cunene River, which runs along the national border between Namibia and Angola, and the Orange-Vaal drainage system (UNEP, 2005). Open shoreline (frontal) mangroves are rare along the West African coast due to the absence of fringing reefs and the resultant high energy exposure at most locations (Saenger and Bellan, 1995). Mangroves in this region are largely associated with estuaries and lagoons (Saenger and Bellan, 1995). Six indigenous mangrove species occur along the West African coast, although none of these are endemic (Saenger and Bellan, 1995). The Angolan estuary of the Rio Longa (10°18'S) represents the southern limit of extensive mangrove vegetation on the African coast of the Atlantic (Saenger and Bellan, 1995). The coastal plain of the NW Namibian margin between Torra Bay (20°20ˈS) and the Hoarusib River (19°S) contains the 2000 km2 Skeleton Coast, which forms part of the northern Namib Sand Sea (Krapf et al., 2003). The Skeleton

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 16

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Coast forms a prominent NNW trending dune belt which is approximately 165 km long, 6–22 km wide and comprises of dunes up to 50 m high (Krapf et al, 2003). These are some of the world’s largest sand dunes.

3.2 BIODIVERSITY

An analysis of rocky shore invertebrate communities revealed five major zoogeographic regions on the coast of southern Africa, with the West Coast being decisively split into two major provinces (Cunene River to Luderitz, and Luderitz to Cape Point) with Luderitz marking the juncture (Emanuel et al., 1992). Zoogeographic studies of sandy shores and studies of surf-zone phytoplankton also indicate a clear boundary at Luderitz (Emanuel et al. 1992). The Namibian–Angolan border (17°S) marks the approximate biogeographical transition zone between the cool–temperate biota of the Benguela and those of the more subtropical Angolan region to the north (Emanuel et al., 1992). Species richness in the Benguela appears to be associated with deeper water, although depth dependent species richness varies among the three countries: off Namibia, species richness was found to consistently increase up to a depth of 400 m after which it declined slightly; off Angola, richness showed two peaks with depth, a minor peak at shallower depth followed by a second larger peak in deeper water; a similar depth dependent pattern of richness to Angola, though peaking at different depths, was observed off South Africa (Kirkman et al, 2013). Kirkman et al. (2013) found most species richness hotspot areas corresponded to the furthest offshore extent of sampling, more or less at the shelf break, and coldspot areas of relatively low species richness corresponded to the inshore areas. They report that this relationship was not consistent throughout the study domain, however, with a reversal of this trend observed in part of central Angola and the presence of hotspot areas at intermediate depths in the south of Namibia and the north of South Africa. Only in Namibia was there a clear increase in species richness with decreasing temperature (Kirkman et al., 2013). Although the relationship between temperature and species diversity was less apparent off Angola and South Africa, generally, hotspot areas were associated with colder bottom temperatures and coldspots with warmer bottom temperatures (Kirkman et al., 2013).

Cape fur seal colonies are distributed around 3000 km of coastline from Algoa Bay (south coast of South Africa) to Cape Frio in northern Namibia (Griffiths et al., 2005). Although there is no evidence that they breed further north, seals have been recorded in Angolan waters up to about 650 km north of the Cunene River (Griffiths et al., 2005). About 90% of the population is found on the west coast, taking advantage of the rich fisheries of the Benguela ecosystem (Griffiths et al., 2005). There is a rich diversity of seabirds in the Benguela system, including 15 species that breed in the region (8 endemic) and about 60 species that visit it (Ryan and Rose 1985 in Griffiths et al., 2005). Cetacean species known to occur over the continental shelf in the Benguela region, are the southern right whales (Eubalaena australis), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), and the inshore stock of Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni) (Griffiths et al., 2005). The Benguela region is also home to an abundance of pelagic and demersal fish species supporting large commercial fisheries (described in detail in later sections).

3.3 DIVERSITY OF PEOPLE AND CULTURES

Griffiths et al. (2005) conducted a review of the historical overview of human activities in the Benguela and documented their effects on marine animal life. As reported by these authors, the evidence for a human presence on the shores of the Benguela dates from the Early Stone Age (1–0.5 million yr before present (BP), but systematic exploitation of marine resources appears only to have commenced during the last interglacial period (120,000 yr BP), and marine resources soon became integrated into a hunter-gathering economy. The pre-colonial exploitation of marine animals consisted mainly of the collection of molluscs and crustaceans combined with some hunting, but mostly scavenging (Griffiths et al, 2005). Species scavenged included washed up seabirds, Cape fur seals and whales (Griffiths et al., 2005). Fishing was also practiced using gorges and fishhooks made out of bone, wooden spears, reed baskets, and nets, and stone traps (Griffiths et al., 2005). Prior to the arrival of European settlers, recorded exploitation of cetaceans in the region was confined to the utilisation of stranded whales and dolphins for food and other materials (Griffiths et al., 2005). A few coastal dolphins were killed by native peoples wading out from the shore but it is unlikely that any of these activities adversely impacted the populations (Griffiths et al., 2005). With this region of the southern African coast been so sparsely populated, only a few nomadic populations roaming the coastline until the late 19th century used marine resources extensively (see Roux and Shannon, 2004). There is no evidence that indigenous populations were ever engaged in artisanal fisheries, and the first large-scale exploitation of marine resources in this region began after the arrival of Europeans (Roux and Shannon, 2004). Today, artisanal fishing is of immense importance to the people of Angola, with about half of all people earning their living in the fisheries sector being

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 17

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

active in the artisanal fishery, and fish being the main source of household food during the ‘good fishing’ or cold season (Sowman et al., 2011). Artisanal fishing is of lesser importance along the west coast of South Africa, and is virtually non-existent along the Namibian coast.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 18

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

4 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO SOCIETY

Humans generate significant benefits (both market and non-market value goods and services) directly or indirectly from both terrestrial and ocean ecosystems and ecosystem function (the so-called “ecosystem services”) that are considered essential to human welfare, including well-being, health, security, livelihoods and even survival (Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; TEEB, 2010; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Kildow and McIlgorm, 2010; Palumbi et al., 2009). Ecosystem services describes how humans are both linked to and dependant on nature, and impacts on systems compromise ecosystem service delivery. Redford and Adams (2009) suggest that the concept of ecosystem services is increasingly structuring the way conservationists think. Optimisation of services is consequently important, as is the ensuring of the integrity of ocean health and ecosystem function from which these services and benefits arise. Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) for example, noted that a key aspect of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was the finding that sixty per cent of the evaluated ecosystem services were being used unsustainably, with major implications for future development and poverty alleviation.

Cork et al. (2001) trace the development of the “ecosystem services” concept to use of the term ‘environmental services’ in the 1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems report (SCEP, 1970). Holdren and Ehrlich (1974) refined the services proposed in the SCEP report as ‘public service functions of the global environment’, which Westman (1977) later reduced to ‘nature’s services’ which developed into the term ‘ecosystem services’ used by Ehrlich and others in the early 1980s (Mooney and Ehrlich, 1997). Re-introduced by Costanza et al. (1997) and Daily (1997) in the mid to late 1990s, the ecosystem services concept has grown rapidly in the academic research and management policy arenas, gaining significant traction in 2005, with the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report in 2010 (TEEB, 2010). Nassl and Löffler (2015) report that despite the ecosystems service concept gaining such traction among in the research and management communities, multi-faceted and recurrent objections were also raised, including the anthropocentric and monetary valuation foci (e.g. Sagoff, 2008; Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011) and concern of the promotion of exploitation and commodification of nature. (Nassl and Löffler, 2015). Furthermore, biases in outcomes have been questioned (Sagoff, 2002; McCauley, 2006).

Ecosystem service benefits may be categorised (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011) and are recognized by the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, 2013 – after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) as: ● Provisioning services – the market benefits produced by, in or on an ecosystem and generating value in the economy through both private and public sector components. ● Regulatory services – the non-market ecological services of ecosystems in environmental regulation including earth-system and local system services that differ by scale. Earth System services are active on global scales (thus transcending individual ecosystems), while local system services occur at individual ecosystem scales, and ● Cultural services – the non-market and often symbolic benefits that people obtain from their environment through non-market recreational aesthetic, spiritual, traditional and benefaction benefits.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 19

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Figure 2. The categories of ‘ecosystem services’.

In more recent years CICES have developed a hierarchical classification system (of Division, Group, Class and Class Type) for each of their provisioning, regulatory and cultural ecosystem service categories (or Sections). Functioning ecosystem integrity drives those supporting ecosystem services which form the bases of the regulating, provisioning and cultural ecosystem services that are of such crucial importance for human wellbeing and survival. Such supporting services are defined by CICES as “the underpinning structures and processes that ultimately give rise to ecosystem services”, and are not considered in the final ecosystem services that are transferred to human benefit. The support services ecological processes and ecosystem structures exist regardless of whether humans benefit from them – human involvement is therefore a necessary component of final ecosystem services (Spangenberg et al., 2014; Nassl and Löffler, 2015). Examples of other ecosystem service classification systems include the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), the National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) and Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the USA (Lee and Lautenbach, 2016).

Over and above these ecosystem services, there are a number of other resource-use services (such as non- renewable extraction) which although are not dependent on functioning ecosystems, have the potential to impact support service provision, and consequently the provision of ecosystem services. Such services are considered environmental rather than ecosystem services.

One aspect of the above definition of ecosystem services is that ecosystem services have positive values for human society and therefore not all ecosystem functions are therefore regarded as services. In fact there are a number of system processes such as fire, drought, or floods that have negative values for human society despite their value in ecosystem function (McCauley, 2006). Such negative values do not appear to be accounted in ecosystem service evaluation.

Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) and Potschin and Haines-Young (2011) developed the ‘ecosystem service cascade” model (Figure 3) which Nassl and Löffler (2015) identify as very useful for the allocation and definition of ecosystem generation and delivery. The model makes a distinction between ecological structures and processes generated by living organisms and the benefits that are eventually derived in a “production line” of cascadic links. As an example, they note that vegetation (a landscape or ecological structure) may allow the slowing of the passage of surface water (a function) potentially modifying the extent of flooding (which may be of benefit utility to humans as a service depending upon whether ‘flood control’ is considered a benefit or of value. They note that the ‘function’ term indicates the system’s capacity to provide a service that is potentially useful to humans. Furthermore, ecosystem services requires the presence of people (human capital), their communities (social capital) and their built environment (built capital) for the generation of benefits to people from the natural capital.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 20

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Figure 3. Flows of services from supporting to final ecosystem goods and services (benefits to human well-being). After Potschin and Haines-Young (2011).

However, ecosystem services also only include the final services from which people benefit. For example, as noted by Banzhaf and Boyd (2005) water quality for human consumption would be evaluated a final ecosystem service, while its value in the provision of a freshwater fishery resource would be as a support service, and not be considered as a final ecosystem service value. Ecosystem services are consequently defined by human activities and needs, so that Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) have postulated that it is difficult to define any overarching checklist of services that ecosystems support and that examples of services in the literature require contextualisation as to their role in the ‘final product’ produced or consumed. They note further that other ways of categorising ecosystem services are likely to emerge. Costanza (2014) classified ecosystem services by their spatial characteristics ranging from global to proximal services and that locations of production and consumption may differ (for example flood regulation services may be “consumed” some distance from “production”).

There are numerous current efforts aimed at making the concept of ecosystem services (and biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES)) operational and linking them with decision-making including at intergovernmental, sub-global, regional, national and local levels and across government, non-governmental and commercial or business platforms. However, as a relatively new and emergent discipline ecosystem service evaluation is fraught with confusion in the definitions, typologies, and terminologies within the ecosystem service framework (see Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Wallace, 2007; Costanza, 2008; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010 and Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011).

Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the annual value of global ecological benefits at US $33 trillion, while Costanza et al. (2014) increased this estimate of global ecosystem provisioning services to between $125–145 trillion a year.

Key examples of ocean ecosystem services include: Securing food: Approximately 128 million tonnes of fish for consumption was produced in 2010. Small-scale fisheries in particular are vital to food and nutrition security and poverty alleviation. Enabling income and employment: When all aspects of fisheries are taken into account, including packaging, boat construction and maintenance, fisheries support the livelihoods of an estimated 660–820 million people. Providing habitats: Estuaries, mangroves, seagrass beds and kelp forests are home to a large variety of species and in many cases provide refuge for vulnerable life history stages. Protecting coasts: Coastal dune systems, coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds reduce coastal erosion, provide protection from floods, stabilise land by trapping sediments and buffer land from storms. Regulating climate: Marine ecosystems play an important role in climate regulation due to their ability to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 21

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Enabling recreation: Coastal tourism provides a livelihood for many coastal communities. It relies on pristine beaches, clean water, healthy ecosystems and abundant wildlife. Catalysing innovation: Marine life provides a huge variety of creative “technology” that inspires innovations in engineering from swimsuits to oil-tankers. Providing medicine: Many new pharmacological compounds have been discovered in marine ecosystems. Cycling services: Re-mineralization and nutrient cycling are indispensable to life. Mangroves, salt marshes and sea grass beds are important habitats for cycling nutrients and filtering water of pollutants.

4.1 WHAT IS A HEALTHY OCEAN?

There is a lack of a shared definition of what exactly ‘health’ means. Some may argue that a healthy ocean is in pristine condition. Others propose “A healthy ocean sustainably delivers a range of benefits to people now and in the future. Any ecosystem processes or service contributing to the maintenance of healthy ecosystems and human well-being can therefore be considered ‘valuable’ to humans” (Halpern et al 2012).

4.2 WHAT FRAMEWORKS EXIST TO EVALUATE ECOSYSTEM HEALTH?

4.2.1. IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE)

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) is premised on the ability of ecosystems to support life. RLE is a set of categories and criteria for assessing the risks to ecosystems and focusses on where ecosystems are threatened. It specifically focusses on analysing risks to biodiversity for supporting conservation, resource use and management decision making. The RLE will assess the status of marine ecosystems in addition to other ecosystem types. A global ecosystem classification system will be developed in the process. RLE MODEL The RLE has eight categories: Collapsed (CO), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD), & Not Evaluated (NE). The first 6 categories are ordered in decreasing risks of collapse. The Categories DD or NE do not reflect a level of risk. The categories CR, EN or VU indicate threatened ecosystems and are defined by quantitative criteria. These categories are arranged from less to greater risk. CR, EN or VU are complemented by several qualitatively defined categories that accommodate: Near Threatened (NT) that almost meet the criteria for Vulnerable; Least Concern (LC) that meet none of the criteria for Vulnerable;

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 22

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Data Deficient (DD) for which too few data exist to apply any criterion; and Not Evaluated (NE) that have not been assessed. Symptoms of ecosystem collapse are caused by a variety of threatening processes, these risks can be measured. The RLE uses five criteria to assess risks to ecosystems and each of them measures groups of symptoms and identifies the link between the symptoms to the risk that an ecosystem will collapse. Two criteria are based on spatial symptoms of ecosystem collapse: the rates of decline in distribution (A), and the degree to which the distribution is restricted (B). Two criteria are based on functional symptoms of ecosystem collapse: the rate and extent of environmental degradation (C), and the rate and extent of disruption of biotic processes and interactions (D). The fifth criterion examines the integration of several threats and symptoms into a framework to produce quantitative estimates of the risk of collapse (E). RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS Identify the area of assessment by describing the ecosystem. Describing the unit(s) of assessment begins with a compilation of all available information about the ecosystem types within the scope of the assessment. The description of ecosystem types for a risk assessment process must include their characteristic native biota physical environment salient processes and interactions and spatial distribution. If there is data available, then use all five criteria in your analysis. The overall risk status of the ecosystem type is assigned as the highest category of risk obtained through any criterion. The criteria assess declines over four specified time frames: the recent past, the present, the future, and the historical past. The categories of risk are delimited by thresholds, and are based on theoretical and practical considerations. The purpose of these thresholds is to rank ecosystems in informative categories of risk, rather than estimate precise probabilities of collapse.

4.2.2. Ocean Health Index (oceanhealthindex.org)

The Ocean Health Index, is an index which measures the global state of the world’s oceans and considers ocean health as a function of ten widely held public goals ranging from ecological aspects such as biodiversity and carbon storage, to economic aspects such as livelihoods, tourism, fishing etc. to social aspects such as food, clean water and a sense of place.

The Ocean Health Index integrates: • Human connections with ocean ecosystems • Provides a composite measure (a single no). Of health combining different ecosystem services and their interactions • Requires explicit, transparent targets (reference points) to be identified and implemented

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 23

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

The Index endorses sustainability and values both conservation and extractive use. As such for each goal both the current status and direction of change is considered in the score and integrate ecological and social data. Each goal score is calculated along four dimensions i.e. current status, recent trend, existing pressures, and expected resilience in the near-term based on current management actions. A detailed description of each goal full methodology is available (Halpern et al. 2012). The index focuses on the near-term (approximately 5 years) rather than longer-term because this is most relevant to policy makers utilising the index.

10 Goals of the Ocean Health Index:

1. Food provision from sustainably harvested or cultured stocks 2. Artisanal fishing opportunities for local communities from sustainable practices 3. Natural products, including pharmaceuticals and decorative materials that are sustainably extracted 4. Carbon storage in coastal habitats 5. Coastal protection from inundation and erosion 6. Sense of place from culturally valued iconic species, habitats, and landscapes 7. Livelihoods and economies from coastal and ocean--- dependent communities 8. Tourism and recreation opportunities 9. Clean waters and beaches for aesthetic and health values 10. Biodiversity of species and habitats

By way of example - The aim of the food goal is to maximise the sustainable harvest of seafood from wild capture and mariculture. The country is rewarded for maximising sustainable seafood provided and penalised for unsustainable practices and under harvest. Mariculture and wild caught are tracked separately but combined after each is weighted by the proportion of the total yield to contributes to food provision.

This index has been applied to 221 countries and territories, including the Antarctic region, and 15 sections of the high seas is calculated using existing global data. The only country in the BCLME where the index has been applied is South Africa. South Africa was ranked 42 out of the 221 countries evaluated to date and scored an overall score of 75 (out of 100). The global average was 60 (36 to 86). The near-term future state of South Africa is estimated at roughly 2% compared to a global estimate of ~ 6%. The estimate of future state is a function of 4 dimensions: Status, Pressures and Resilience components and 5-year trend of Status components.

4.2.3. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 24

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was called for by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000. Initiated in 2001, the objective of the MA was to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being. The MA has involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings, contained in five technical volumes and six synthesis reports, provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide (such as clean water, food, forest products, flood control, and natural resources) and the options to restore, conserve or enhance the sustainable use of ecosystems. Until the MA’s impacts are fully evaluated, it is still too early to determine whether such an exercise should be repeated in the future.

The conceptual framework for the MA places human well-being as the central focus for assessment, while recognizing that biodiversity and ecosystems also have intrinsic value and that people take decisions concerning ecosystems based on considerations of well-being as well as intrinsic value. it places ecosystems and the environment in a central role in the effort to reach development goals. The MA conceptual framework assumes that a dynamic interaction exists between people and ecosystems, with the changing human condition serving to both directly and indirectly drive change in ecosystems and with changes in ecosystems causing changes in human well-being. At the same time, many other factors independent of the environment change the human condition, and many natural forces are influencing ecosystems.

An important feature of the MA conceptual framework is its multiscale structure, which is depicted in the conceptual framework by the three geographic scales (local, regional, global) and two time scales (short term, long term). The MA sub-global assessments use the MA conceptual framework; examine conditions, scenarios, and response options; and agree to a set of criteria concerning peer-review, data handling, stakeholder involvement, and intellectual property rights.

4.3 WHAT INDICATORS EXIST TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH?

Ecosystem indicators have been widely used to assess the status of ecosystems (Butchart et al 2010, Bundy et al 2012, Layke et al 2012, Vackar et al 2012, Shin and Shannon 2010, Shannon et al 2010, Coll et al 2016). Below is a summary of three systems developed for the purpose of assessing ecosystem health.

4.3.1. IndiSeas (www.indiseas.org) - Indicators for the Seas - this is a collaborative international Working Group that has undertaken comparative assessments of ecosystem impacts of fishing across the globe. Key to this initiative is the involvement of local ecosystem experts in interpreting ecological, environmental and human dimension indicators in the global context of fishing. A time series of these indicators exists for the Southern Benguela but not for the Northern Benguela. This is a key gap and should be considered for future research priorities. It would also be useful to disaggregate data to a finer spatial scale of sub-regions within each of the Northern and Southern Benguela systems. This may prove useful in identifying spatial-specific impacts and sensitivities in terms of fishing effects on ecosystem structure and function, and ultimately on ecosystem health in the BCC.

IndiSeas have developed three types of indicators namely a) Ecological indicators which reflect the ecological and biodiversity status of marine ecosystems and the effect of fishing on ecosystem function, b) climate and

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 25

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

environmental indicators such as sea surface temperature (SST) and Chlorophylla and c) human dimension indicators. The latter is based on the assumption that the overall goal of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management is to achieve lasting benefits of fisheries to society, IndiSeas selected a suite of indicators to provide evidence in support of this by evaluating the following 4 sub-goals:

1. Effectiveness and efficiency of fisheries management 2. Quality of governance- is a measure of how well the ecosystem is being governed 3. Contribution of fisheries to broader society - is a measure of the overall benefits that fisheries can bring to the wider society. Here we use measures of the economic and social contributions of fisheries to society, including the contribution of fisheries to food security. 4. Wellbeing and resilience of fisher communities - wellbeing essentially refers to living standards of fishers (materially, in terms of their relations with others, and their perception of quality of life) and resilience is the ability of fisher communities to respond to, and recover from change.

Figure: Results of IndiSeas indicators for the Southern Benguela compiled by Dr Lynne Shannon and Dr Dawit Yemane.

4.3.2. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES) (http://www.ipbes.net/)

Chapter 2 of The IPBES Global Assessment asks the following questions: What is the status of and trends in nature, nature’s benefits to people and indirect and direct drivers of change? In response the IPBES brought together a group of about twenty core "lead authors" to consider the status and trends in nature, the contributions of ecosystems (terrestrial, marine, freshwater) to people, and what drives nature and its contributions to people. This provides a synthesis across systems and regions to establish general patterns and trends across 18 biomes. The next phase is to develop a set of indicators which can be useful in measuring these trends. It would be of interest to the BCC to take note of this as it develops.

4.3.3. United Nations World Ocean Assessment (http://www.worldoceanassessment.org/).

This is a process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment including socio- economic aspects. It was developed to provide a sound, scientific basis for decisions at a global and regional level. In 2004, the UN General Assembly set up a process to review environmental, social and economic aspects. This is the regular process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the Marine Environment including socioeconomic aspects. The first output of this process was the first global integrated assessment of the marine environment, named the “World Ocean Assessment I”. This report was approved by the UN GA in 2015 and can be downloaded off the website http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/Summary.pdf. The first assessment is made up of 7 parts: 1. Provides a summary

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 26

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

2. Sets the context of the assessment 3. Assesses major ecosystem services other than provisioning services 4. Assesses the cross cutting issue of food security and food safety 5. Assesses other human activities in the marine environment 6. Assesses marine biodiversity 7. Overall assessment – considers the cumulative effect on the ocean and the overall benefits derived.

4.4 INTRODUCTION

Earth’s expanding human population (now estimated at 7.4 billion people) and its associated accelerated consumption of finite resources since the mid 20th century (recognised as the Great Acceleration concept of Steffen et al., 2007) has led to nations and regions turning to new economic opportunities to foster the economic growth required to meet societal needs, including food and energy security. As part of these economic growth opportunities, nations and regions around the globe are expanding their ocean economies, those goods and service benefits which humans obtain from the ocean space. Ocean ecosystems provide considerable market and non-market goods and services which benefit human populations (Kathijotes, 2013; Pinto et al., 2015; White et al., 2012). Such goods and services (or at minimum the market – value ecosystem and environmental service activities or sectors) are increasingly being categorised as “the ocean economy” (Berkes et al., 2006).

Many coastal countries or regional communities have estimated their ocean economy accounts which generally range from 1% to 5% of national GDP. It should be noted that the ocean economy terminology varies around the world with countries or regions using the terms “ocean economy”, “ocean industry”, “marine economy”, “marine industry”, “marine activity”, and “maritime sector”. Furthermore, the scope of the term “ocean economy” may differ considerably by region; Seo Park (2014) identifies that many authors include only the private and public sector market components within their valuations of national oceans economies (e.g. Zhao et al., 2014; Colgan, 2013, Morrissey and O’Donoghue, 2013; Pugh and Skinner, 1996) excluding the immediate non-market value components. Furthermore, the extent of the “ocean economy” basket differs by region in terms of both the inclusion of downstream economic activities (e.g. fish processing and other trickle down effects) and the extent of land-based coastal economic activities that are included through the definition of the geographic extent of the coastal region.

Whilst the term “ocean economy” includes all of the goods and services generated from the ocean space, the term “blue economy” is taken to mean the environmentally sustainable economic growth and its resultant wellbeing derived from the ocean (Kaczynski, 2011; Kathijotes, 2012, 2013) and the blue economy promotes the same desired outcome as the Rio +20 Green Economy initiative – “improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” (UNEP, 2013). The blue economy is consequently considered to mirror a terrestrial green economy within the oceans and coastal areas (EIU, 2015). The Government of Australia defines that “a blue economy is one in which our ocean ecosystems bring economic and social benefits that are efficient, equitable and sustainable” (Govt. of Australia, 2013). Kubiszewski et al. (2013) note that GDP is the most commonly used indicator of a country’s overall economic performance (Marcuss and Kane, 2007; McCulla and Smith, 2007), yet measures only one aspect of the economy—marketed economic activity. In a “blue economy” model the classical economic growth metric of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) needs to be supplemented by both an evaluation of the natural capital (from which the GDP benefits, goods and services are derived), and a measure of the distribution of the system- derived benefits to human wellbeing over time (Costanza, 2014). RIS (2015) notes that as a sub-set of the economy, the blue economy covers all ocean related activities including direct and indirect supporting activities required for functioning of these economic sectors, while adjusting to the costs of environmental damage and ecological imbalance caused due to exploitation of ocean resources for consumption.

Compounding the situation, certain authors (e.g. appear to use the term “blue economy” to interchangeably with “oceans economy” without any acknowledgement of the ecosystem-based approach inherent within the “blue economy” concept. Over and above the confusion in ecosystem service terminology and typologies, there consequently appears to be considerable differences in scope, terminologies and typologies with respect to the ocean economy and blue economy concepts.

4.4.1 Ecosystem Services in oceans economy There are obvious overlaps between the ecosystem service and ocean economy arenas with the coastal and

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 27

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

ocean region (the marine and maritime domain) contributing considerable ecosystem services and benefits in each of the ecosystem service categories, including provisioning services (e.g. fisheries); regulatory services (CO2 absorption or climate regulation) and cultural services (e.g. non-market recreation, aesthetic, benefact or spiritual values). Benefit services such as mining are not dependent on functioning ecosystems (although may have considerable potential to impact such service generation) and are consequently considered environmental rather than ecosystem services. Inherent within this differentiation is that ecosystem services are dependent and functioning ecosystems are consequently dependent on ocean health and integrity and the impacting of these compromise further ecosystem service provision through positive reinforcement.

4.4.2 Global Expansion of Oceans Economies and Potential Conflicts The global expansion of oceans economies is advancing at an accelerated pace through both the growth of existing and traditional sectors of the ocean economy and through the emergence of new economic sectors as oceans exploration, research and operational technologies advance. In particular expansion of what have historically been terrestrial dominated sectors in food and energy security are seeing emergent expansion into the seascape as nations turn to aquaculture and energy security (both in terms of the hydrocarbon exploration and production and in the wind and ocean (wave and tidal) energy sectors).

Whilst the seascape is viewed as expansive in terms of potential space for the expansion of ocean economies, the potential acreage for many ocean economy sectors is limited to the relatively shallow continental shelf edge and coastal regions of national Exclusive Economic Zones. There is consequently considerable potential for conflict within expanding ocean economies, conflict that is either inter-sectoral (user – user) conflict as sectors compete for limited ocean acreage or user-environment as the human resource-use footprint expands (Cicin- Sain and Knecht, 1998). Such user-environment conflict often manifests through one or more of the five major ocean impact categories: ● Unsustainable extraction of marine resources, ● Pollution from marine and land-based sources, ● Impacts of alien invasive species, ● Ocean acidification and climate change impacts, ● Physical alteration and destruction of marine habitat.

The challenges of the management of these ocean economy externalities are compounded by the facts that a) the majority of the world’s oceans (the High Seas) are global commons and b) many of the global environmental externalities that affect the oceans (for example ocean warming, acidification or sea-level rise) are trans- boundary in nature, so that ocean resource use, management measures and conservation are directly dependent on international legislation, and right issues and responsibilities resulting in a high degree of required international cooperation. Furthermore, it should be noted that ocean impacts may arise from terrestrial or atmospheric economic externalities so that there may be some spatial and temporal distancing between the resource use and its associated externalities.

It should be noted that the user-user and user – environment conflict model can be greatly simplified by the adequate inclusion of the environment as a user category. For example the establishment of MPAs, EBSAs, Important Bird Areas (IBAs), Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs), or environmentally significant areas (ESAs) that adequately provide protection for ecosystem service flows and associated support services within and arising from the environment consolidates the model into a simpler user-user conflict model.

4.4.3 Ocean Governance / Governance of Conflicts Demands for goods and services from a marine area usually exceed its capacity to meet these demands simultaneously. Considerable pressure is consequently applied to ocean ecosystems so that expanding oceans economies require ocean governance to mitigate conflict or any decline in ocean health. Whilst there are numerous definitions of governance in the literature, Turton et al. (2007) noted that the term governance has in recent years been widely used to describe a suite of initiatives, including “concerted or directed actions and behaviours, structural elements, institutional settings, legal or statutory instruments and idealised participative or collaborative processes” and that these typologies have resulted in “considerable confusion about the underlying meaning and purpose of governance as a process and, in particular, good governance as a product”. Turton et al. (2007) evaluate numerous definitions of governance and propose a definition of resource-use governance as:

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 28

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

“The process of informed decision-making that enables trade-offs between competing users of a given resource so as to balance protection with beneficial use in such a way as to mitigate conflict, enhance equity, ensure sustainability and hold officials accountable.’

Of particular importance in this definition is the hinging of governance on a) an informed process and b) on trade off analyses and its positioning within EBM management principles. Costanza et al. (1999) put forward their ‘Lisbon principles’ of sustainable governance (responsibility, scale-matching, precaution, adaptive management, full cost allocation, and participation) as core guidelines for sustainable ocean governance models.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and Ecosystem Service Evaluation The spatial zoning, planning and governance of ocean resource-use is becoming increasingly prevalent (Douvere, 2008). Other authors (Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Douvere and Ehler, 2009) note that a sustainable ocean economy requires cross-sectoral development planning and advocate Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) as an appropriate management tool with which to manage both spatial and temporal conflict. As noted above, Ocean Governance is centred on trade off analyses that are required where there are spatial conflicts in resource use. Ecosystem-based management is largely location or area based in its focus on particular ecosystems and the range of activities and associated conflict that are affecting it and consequently MSP forms a critical component in the identification of conflict areas. Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has consequently long been understood as an important emergent tool in Ocean Governance over the last 15 years (Douvere, 2008).

Originally initiated in the development of Marine Protected Areas, MSP has more recently been applied to the management of multiple use of, and conflict in, marine space, and the need to conserve biodiversity. Douvere (2008) noted that (as with terminologies and typologies of both ecosystem services and ocean economies), the scope and terminology of MSP has not been clearly defined, but noted that MSP meets a number of the spatial requirements of the ecosystem approach to management, including: ● Addressing the heterogeneity of marine ecosystems in a practical manner. ● Focussing on influencing the behaviour of humans and their activities over time. ● Providing access to and an analytical framework for, new and previously inaccessible scientific information. (e.g. remote sensing, tracking technologies, and global positioning technologies) ● Identification of conflicts and compatibilities across human uses ● Advancing single-sector management toward an integrative decision making process. Douvere (2008) and Douvere and Ehler (2011) define the MSP process as “analysing and allocating parts of three-dimensional marine spaces to specific uses, to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through the political process” or “a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process” respectively.

As noted by Costanza (2014) all decisions that involve trade-offs involve valuation, either implicitly or explicitly, and that ecosystems and their services are valued every time a decision involving trade-offs of them are made. This means that while MSP is critical to the identification of where conflicts occur, trade-off analyses to inform the mitigation of user-user or user environment conflicts are dependent on evaluation of ecosystem services (where there is user – user conflict and the environment is considered as a spatial user in terms of MPAs or EBSAs) or the evaluation of ecosystem service flows in relation to ecosystem assets (as extent or condition of the ecosystem).

Nelson et al. (2009) identified two paradigms for assessing ecosystem services in policy decisions: Firstly, researchers use broad-scale assessments of multiple services to extrapolate values that are based on habitat types, to entire regions or the entire planet (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997; Troy and Wilson, 2006; Turner et al., 2007) in a “benefits transfer” approach where values are transferred across systems. Secondly, the production of a single service in a small area is modelled with an “ecological production function” of service provision dependence on local ecological variables (e.g. Kaiser and Roumasset, 2002; Ricketts et al., 2004), including market and non-market valuation methods to evaluate the service. Nelson et al. (2009) note that approaches that combine both the rigor of the small-scale studies with the breadth of broad-scale assessments are required. 4.4.4 Trade-offs and Synergies in Ecosystem Service Planning The governance of ocean conflict arising from multiple ecosystem services centres on trade-offs. Single systems provide multiple benefits to humans within a basket of ecosystem services, and Lee and Lautenbach (2016)

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 29

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

state that functional trade-off decisions drive the availability of derived goods and services. A detailed understanding of multifunctionality of the full ecosystem service basket is consequently crucial to maximise human benefit form ecosystems (Cork et al., 2001; Tallis and Polasky, 2009).

Interactions between pairs of ecosystem services (which may occur different scales or across different social ecological systems) can be divided into three categories ‘trade-off’, ‘synergy’, and ‘no-effect’, where after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) the term ‘trade-off’ defines the negative response of one service to an increase in the second service, synergistic services are those that complement each other in win-win interactions (for example tourism and recreation), while no effect interactions are self-explanatory. Trade-offs incur the loss of one value for the gain in another and are consequently compromises of values in situations of incompatible use. Rodriguez et al. (2006) argue that trade-offs in ecosystem services occur across three – spatial, temporal and reversibility – axes, where reversibility defines the potential resilience of the service to resume once the competing use has terminated. Ecosystem service trade-offs result as management choices made by humans. Such choices may considerably alter the basket of services provided by an ecosystem, particularly that those non-market services are often taken for granted and the externalities of the trade-off decisions on such services are not include in the decision-making process.

How then do ecosystem service planners (ocean and coastal managers) optimise competing resource uses through management, particularly if economic, environmental and social criteria need to be incorporated into the decision-making process. Many of the non-market provisioning, regulatory and cultural services contribute to the true economic rent of the system, but are valued in non-monetary (physical or abstract terms) and are complex to evaluate due to different cultural or individual values. Common valuation metrics become critical in the process, as they provide a common metric through which trade-offs can be assessed.

Lester et al. (2013) provide a conceptual framework for ecosystem service trade-off analysis based on production theory, a branch of microeconomics that deals with the production (as opposed to the consumption) side of the economy to ensure the sustainable and efficient delivery of multiple interacting services including in trade-off, synergy and no effect interactions, Production theory evaluates the relationships between input and output as production functions models that translate the structure and functioning of ecosystems into the provision of ecosystem services. Graph axes correspond with levels of interacting ecosystem services and graph points identify production of each service under various management options. Plotting of multiple management options provides a frontier of Paretto efficient management options where each service cannot be increased without cost to the other service (thus optimising service delivery). Lester et al. (2013) identify six different trade-offs under this model including non-interacting services, direct trade-offs, convex trade-off, concave trade-offs, non-monotonic concave trade-offs and “backward S” trade-offs.

A number of “off the shelf” packages (such as such as the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services (InVEST); Marxan with Zones or Multiscale Integrated Earth System Models (MIMES) and its associated Marine Integrated Decision Analysis System (MIDAS) framework) allow for the development of alternative scenarios. Although they do not provide the “right” solutions or answers, both scenario planning and multi-criteria analyses allow for the evaluation and comparison of alternative options and are viewed as important components of the decision-making processes.

In conclusion, it should be noted that, these are largely neo-classical economic evaluations of the contributions of the ocean economy to GDP, and while important, they do not consider the ecosystem services provided by non-market activities.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 30

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

4.5 ANGOLA

4.5.1 The Angolan Ocean Economy The Republic of Angola is located on the west coast of Africa and is the northernmost country of the BCLME region. The country is richly endowed with natural resources, including a variety of mineral deposits in particular oil and diamonds, and a highly productive marine ecosystem. Combined; maritime activities such as fishing, mining and transport, storage and communication make up some 45-50% of the GDP (Table 1).

Table 1. The contribution of resources and activities to the GDP of Angola

Resources and Activities contribution to GDP 2010 2014 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 6.0 5.4 of which fishing 1.4 1.1 Mining and quarrying 44.4 39.4 of which oil 43.5 38.5 Manufacturing 4.0 4.1 Electricity, gas and water 0.8 0.7 Construction 8.8 10.4 Wholesale and retail trade; Repair of vehicles household goods; Restaurants and hotels 8.7 7.1 Transport, storage and communication 4.2 4.4 Finance, real estate and business services 4.6 3.6 Public administration and defense 10.7 17.6 Other services 7.7 7.4 Gross domestic product at basic prices / factor cost 100 100 Source: Data from domestic authorities in http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/country-notes/angola.

4.5.2 Fishing The fisheries sector is the third-most important industry in Angola, after oil and mining. Although representing only 1.7%1 of the GDP (2012), it provides nearly half of the animal protein of the country and contributes to food security and livelihoods in the coastal region in particular. Following the civil unrest in Angola, a large number of people have migrated to the coastal areas, and some 29% of the population lives within 100 km of the coastline (http://earthtrends.wri.org). Marine fisheries account for more than 70% of the estimated Angolan total fish production, with the main marine resources being small pelagic fish (mostly sardinellas and horse mackerels), crustaceans, demersal finfish, tuna and tuna-like species, cephalopods and molluscs1.

Industrial fisheries (Main information source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles-The Republic of Angola) The industrial fishery was active before independence and was dominated by foreign vessels and foreign nationals (Fielding et al., 2005). It was based mainly on the capture of small pelagic species and a large fishmeal industry supplied by purse-seine fleets was established in the 1950s (Fielding et al., 2005). Since independence and the cessation of civil hostilities, offshore industrial fisheries have been gradually re-established. However, as of 2004, foreign owned vessels are not permitted to fish in Angolan waters and hence leasing and joint ventures between foreigners and Angolan enterprises has become the custom. Foreign vessels known to fish in Angolan waters originate from China, Japan, South Korea, Nigeria, Russia, Spain and Namibia, with the majority of joint ventures being between Angolan and Japanese or Spanish companies. The industrial fishery (made up of ~150 vessels) land pelagic fish (horse mackerel, sardinella, tuna), shrimp, deep sea red crab, lobster and a variety of demersal fish, controlling some 70% of TACs for Angolan waters. High value species are primarily the target of these fisheries. The shrimp fishery in particular is export-oriented, representing an important source of foreign exchange for the country. Other main marine exports are high quality gamba and crab. Second-grade products tend to be sold locally, although small quantities may also be exported. The international market for Angola’s fish products is wide, and includes Africa (Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Africa, and Namibia), Asia (China and Japan) and Europe (Portugal and Spain). Most of the catch that is destined for exports is either frozen on board or landed fresh and frozen or processed at one of the few land- based processing plants, and subsequently exported in freezer containers. Industrial and semi-industrial fishing vessels unload their catch and take on board supplies at Luanda, Kwanza Sul, Benguela or Namibe, choosing where to land depending on the expected fish price. Generally, about 70 % of the fish catch is landed in Luanda. The value of fish exports from Angola to the international markets was USD 13.5 million in 2010.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 31

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Artisanal fisheries (Main information source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles-The Republic of Angola) There is a large marine artisanal fishing fleet in Angola, with about half of all people earning their living in the fisheries sector being active in the artisanal fishery. According to survey data from the Institute for the Development of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture (IPA), total artisanal catches in 2010 exceeded 102 000 tonnes. Between 1995 and 2011, estimated average fish consumption per capita per year increased from 13 kg to between 15.7-17.3 kg (Sowman et al., 2011). This is well above fish consumption in other Sub-Saharan countries and the recommended 14 kg by the World Health Organisation (Sowman et al., 2011). Fish is reported as the main source of household food during the ‘good fishing’ or cold season (Sowman et al., 2011). Artisanal fishers catch several species such as small pelagic shoaling fish, groupers, snappers, seabreams, croakers and spiny lobsters. With artisanal fishers following the fish along the shore, there is no fixed place for offloading catches, but some 190 localities have been recorded as main landing areas. Once fish is landed it is divided between the group of fishers. There is generally a lively trade in these areas, with fishers selling their catch to wholesalers (often women) who buy small quantities of catch. The wholesalers transport the fish to nearby local fish markets where it is sold fresh, or processed by drying, salting, or smoking; after which it can be transported to fish markets in villages, or to larger towns and cities. All the artisanal catch is sold in domestic markets, with none being exported. Demand for fish is higher than the domestic industry can supply, and Angola depends on fish imports to meet the local demand.

As reported by Sowman et al. (2011), fish price fluctuates constantly and is affected by: ● the abundance of different fish species: the more abundant the fish the lower the prices (e.g. if industrial boats harvested and sold horse mackerel in the morning, by the time artisanal fishers wanted to sell in the afternoon, prices were down); ● the species harvested: more desirable species (e.g. grouper, corvina, prago, sole and sego) fetched better prices than sardines for instance (thus while a 200 kg catch of grouper was ‘good’ a similar weight catch of sardines was not). In addition, the more desirable species are also preferred fresh, whereas others are preferred dried or salted (ray, shark, catfish) and these sold at lower prices; ● availability of freezing facilities: if available fishers were not under pressure to sell immediately and gave fishers greater bargaining power versus outside traders; ● type of markets (see below); ● the price of fuel and the US$ exchange rate. Fishers however reported that there was resistance from traders for fish prices to be adjusted upwards accordingly.

Markets affect prices and incomes according to: ● proximity to outside markets and availability of transport: whether fisher folk have to or are able to travel to different markets or whether outside traders come to the settlements to buy fish affects transport costs and thus incomes; ● type/ affluence of markets: local buyers have low purchasing power so the sale of high value species (e.g. lobster and other crustaceous) depended on outside buyers. Outside traders only buy according to their own markets.

Stock status and Management Stock assessments indicate that the marine resources base is denser in the Southern waters of Angola, where the cold Benguela current meets tropical waters (ADF, 2002). These higher fish densities in the south are comprised mostly of small pelagic fish (ADF, 2002). According to the FAO Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profile for Angola, most fish stocks are currently estimated to be fully or overexploited, the most notable exception being the sardinella stocks which are considered to be slightly underexploited. The stock of Cunene horse mackerel, the main food fish for Angolans, is currently estimated to be severely overexploited. In response, the Government of Angola has imposed very strict management rules, and the local supply of horse mackerel was strongly reduced. The Government has since authorized the import of large amounts of horse mackerel at low tariffs to reduce the pressure on stocks and increase supply on the domestic market.

Fisheries in Angola are generally well managed and, as summarized by Fielding et al. (2005), involve a number of measures: ● Every year the Institute of Fisheries Research of the Fisheries Ministry, through data from scientific cruises and with statistical support, assesses the biomass of the main commercial species and proposes to the Fisheries Minister the TACs and other appropriate conservation measures. ● Based on the advice of the Council, the Fisheries Minister determines the quotas for the different fishing

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 32

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

species, committing the National Directorate of Fisheries (Direcção Nacional das Pescas) to license the industrial and semi-industrial fishing vessels and committing the Institute of Artisanal Fisheries (Instituto da Pesca Artesanal) to license the artisanal fishing vessels. Priority in licencing is given to the national vessels. The remaining licenses are negotiated with the mixed and foreign fleets. The licencing of foreign fleets requires association with national partners, with the exception of licenses granted under inter-governmental agreements. ● The National Directorate of Surveillance (Direcção Nacional de Fiscalização) is responsible for the enforcement of fishing legislation, the control of fishing vessels and gear used, and the norkelling of fish catches. ● Assessments of pelagic stocks are done by acoustic surveys and ground truthing trawls undertaken every year. Pelagic species (sardines, sardinellas and horse mackerel) are all assessed separately and a separate TAC calculated for each species. The biomass of all other pelagic species, such as the Carangids and Scombrids are estimated as a basket of species. Demersal stocks are assessed by swept area methods. Individual species biomass is calculated from fish densities integrated over the three main survey regions and the proportional composition of each species in the catch. A TAC is calculated by determining an optimum biomass and a TAC is set according to the estimated current biomass level (constant fishing mortality strategy). An amount of 150 000 tons is removed from the total biomass estimate as a precautionary approach before the TAC estimated. TACs are calculated for: o Corvina (Croaker) o Garoupa (Groupers) o Dentex (Sparids) o Grunts (Grunters) o Two hake species o Marionga (Big eye grunt) o Mixed basket of rest of pelagics o Camarao (Prawns – Parapenaeus longirostrus and Gamba – Erasteus varidensis)

● The industrial and semi-industrial fishing vessels have to supply data and statistical information about their catches, filling in the appropriate forms within established deadlines. The Office of Studies and Planning (Gabinete de Estudos e Planeamento) is responsible for the data processing. The artisanal fleet data, collected in different beaches under a defined sampling system is processed by the IPA, which uses the ArtFish software, supplied by FAO.

Further measures used to manage the artisanal fisheries include (Sowman et al., 2011): ● Census: These are carried out every 2 years (since 1996) by IPA provincial offices gathering data on the numbers and types of vessels, number of fishers, fishing gear, processing facilities and other socio- economic data. ● Annual fishing licences: These are issued by IPA provincial offices yearly. There are licences’ exemptions granted for up to 5 years if investments on land (not specified) are undertaken. ● Fishing restrictions: Restrictions may be applied to particular species whose harvest may be determined to be unsustainable; ● Regulations for fisheries infringements: Infringement fines vary between the annual costs of a licence to double that amount together with seizure of catches; (Reference: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles- The Republic of Angola)

4.5.3 Aquaculture According to the FAO Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profile for the Republic of Angola, aquaculture production is modest with an estimated 450 tonnes (2012) of production, and is mostly limited to the culture of Nile tilapia and local catfish species. Tilapia and catfish are mostly produced for local consumption. Both Britz (2006) and Sowman et al. (2011) reported that over the period 2003-2006 (during which a number of BCLME studies were conducted and reported on), mariculture activities along the Angolan coast were virtually non- existent, unless one considers the housing and fattening of wild lobsters practiced by some marine artisanal fishers.

Mariculture potential, however, has been assessed in four of the coastal provinces, namely Luanda, Bengo, Kuanza do Sul and Benguela, and in 2009 it was reported that the Ministry of Fisheries would be spending around USD 40 million in the construction of a National Aquaculture School (in the inland Malanje province),

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 33

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

and that the cultivation of fish would start by late 2010 (Sowman et al., 2011). As Sowman et al. (2011) state, it is not clear from this report whether the project would be extended to mariculture, a feasible option as a number of sites were identified as having mariculture potential during the aforementioned assessment (Britz, 2006): ● Província de Luanda: Praia do Santiago, Enseada do Caíolo ● Província do Bengo: Baía do Suto, Enseada de São Brás ● Província do Kwanza Sul: Enseada do Quicombo, Baía do Porto Amboím ● Província de Benguela: Praia da Catumbela, Baía da Caotinha, Baía Farta, Ponta da Equimina, Baía dos Elefantes

Mariculture potential in Angola, as summarized by Britz (2006) ● Trials with mussels (Perna perna) were conducted in Lobito Bay by the Mission for the Bioceanological Study of Fishing in Angola (MBFA) from 1970 to 1972. The study showed that it took six to seven months to rear mussels to commercial size. ● Experiments were also undertaken on the culture of oysters at Santiago Beach, prior to independence, with promising results. ● After independence, further growth trials with mussels were carried out by the Institute for Marine Research (IIM) at the Sangano Beach and in Suto Bay in 1990/1991, and confirmed that it was possible to harvest two crops of Perna a year. ● Growth rates of the Mytilus species were slower and this species yielded only one crop a year. ● In 1991, experiments by IIM were undertaken in collaboration with North Korean scientists to rear the Angolan prawn species Penaeus kerathurus and Penaeus duorarum under captive conditions. ● A biological study was also carried out on two species of lobster, namely Panulirus regis and the Scyllarides herklotsii.

Aquaculture policy in Angola, as summarized by Britz (2006) The policy is based on accepted international guidelines and protocols and is designed to facilitate the sustainable and responsible development of aquaculture for the social and economic benefit of all Angolans. Important elements of this policy are: ● Freshwater and marine aquaculture is to be managed under a single policy and legislative framework. ● The Angolan aquaculture policy incorporates the obligations of the SADC aquaculture protocol. ● The Ministry of Fisheries is the lead authority governing aquaculture in Angola. The Ministry of Fisheries, through the Marine Research Institute (IIM) will take charge of aquaculture policy deployment strategies, regulation, sector promotion, facilitation of development, guidance of research, extension and support. In this regard the Ministry of Fisheries will play a key role in the formation of producer organisations and the dissemination of aquaculture technologies to expand this sector in a responsible and environmentally sensitive manner to the ultimate advantage of all Angolans. Of specific interest will be the promotion of communal -, micro -, small – and medium aquaculture enterprises developed by Angolan citizens and the integration thereof with traditional and alternative fisheries. ● The development of marine aquaculture is to be primarily private sector driven, with technical support from IIM. ● An aquaculture right is to be defined in law – in terms of the draft “Act on Aquatic Biological Resources”.

4.5.4 Mining, Oil and Gas Mining (Information source: www.hellenicshippingnews.com) Diamond mining in Angola began more than a century ago, only grinding to a halt during the civil unrest between 1975 and 2002. Since 2003, development of the mining industry, particularly diamond mining, has been a main priority for the government in a bid to diversify the economy away from oils. Growing at an average rate of 5.3% a year, Angola’s mining industry is expected to be worth $7.5 billion in 2018. Although iron ore, copper and phosphate mining are also significant, with Angola being the world’s fourth largest diamond producer by quantity and value, diamond mining is and will continue to be the main contributor to growth.

Economic contribution of diamond mining (Information source: www.hellenicshippingnews.com) In 2014 diamond production reached a record 10 million carats, generating a revenue of $1.6 billion, with production made up of both industrial (8.75 million carats) and artisanal (934,500 carats) sectors.

A joint venture between companies from Angola, Russia, Brazil and Israel (known as SMC) is responsible for more than 75% of all diamond production in Angola. It operates the Catoca mine in the province of Lunda Sul, which is world’s fourth-largest diamond mine by reserves. While production at Catoca was expected to expand

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 34

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

6% in 2015, SMC is also exploring for gems at other sites. The company also has a majority stake in concessions in Luemba, Gango, Quitúbia, Luangue, Vulege, Tcháfua and Luaxe.

Aside from SMC, Angola also partners in the Sociedade Mineira de Chitotolo, which operates the Chitotolo mine in Lunda Norte Province. While cheaper kimberlite diamonds are mined at Catoca, the Chitotolo Mining Company (in which other local companies are also shareholders) extracts diamonds from alluvial deposits that fetch a much higher price. Catoca’s diamonds are valued at around $80 per carat, with diamonds from other alluvial mines such as Chitotolo being worth between $250 and $300 per carat.

Since the introduction of the new Mining Code in 2011, established to attract foreign investment and boost exploration for diamonds and other minerals, interest in Angola’s mineral potential has increased. This new law ensures greater protection for investors, and exploration and commercialization rights are granted under one license. In addition, State participation has been reduced from 50% to 10%, and royalties and taxes to be paid to the government also reduced.

The utilization of mineral resources has helped lower Angola’s dependency on oil, however the mining industry still only accounts for 5% of GDP (in 2015). The government is aware that a truly diversified and dynamic economy cannot rely solely on oil and raw minerals. Adding value to mineral resources by setting up local processing facilities is key in the government’s economic diversification agenda. However, inefficiency and the lack of skilled and capable local workforce holds the industrial sector back. This is being addressed by education development and investment in the youth and in infrastructure such as roads, railways, ports and airports.

Oil and Gas Oil was first discovered in Angola in 1955 but did not take off until the 1960s when Cabinda Gulf Oil, now Chevron, discovered the massive reserves off the coast of the northern province of Cabinda (Ramos, 2011). By 1973, oil had overtaken coffee as Angola’s principal export (Ramos, 2011). Today Angola is the second largest producer of oil in Sub-Saharan Africa and dominates the Benguela region’s oil and gas industry (BCC, 2013). The economy is almost entirely dependent on oil production, and over the past five years, oil accounted for 40% of GDP, nearly 75% of fiscal revenues and 95% of export earnings (www.africaneconomicoutlook.org). Angola produces a light sweet crude oil containing low volumes of sulphur, ideal for producing derivatives like gasoline, kerosene and high quality diesel (Ramos, 2011). The countries oil industry however is dominated by the upstream sector (exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas), with the downstream sector (refining and distribution of products derived from crude oil) remaining underdeveloped (Ramos, 2011). As such, the majority of Angola’s crude oil is primarily destined for export, with China being the biggest importer (~43%), followed by the US (Ramos, 2011). Angola consumes about 74,000 barrels a day (Ramos, 2011).

With the economy being almost entirely dependent on oil production, the 2014 drop in oil prices has been a major blow, and has also impacted the entire marine services sector. Marine operators in Angola are reducing their activities, leading to a lower amount of services needed and fewer vessels supporting oil and gas activities are navigating Angolan waters (http://www.theoilandgasyear.com/articles/angolas-nautical-needs/). The drop in oil price has also resulted in national budget cuts, rising inflation linked to Angola’s depreciating currency and the economies reliance on imports, and increased costs of living (Engebretsen, 2015). In the capital Luanda, price levels rose by 1.4% from just September to October of 2015, rising by almost 13% compared to the same period in 2014 (Engebretsen, 2015). With the current depressed oil prices, it is recognized that fisheries and other maritime sectors need to improve their performance to balance and diversify the Angolan ocean economy (https://www.international-climate- initiative.com/en/news/article/angola%E2%80%99s_ocean_economy_planning_for_more_than_oil/).

Oil operations and Environmental policies, as summarized by Ramos (2011) ● In Angola, the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the protection of the environment, including the development and implementation of environmental policies, the most important of which is the 1998 General Environmental Law. This law provides the framework for all environmental legislation and regulations in Angola – along with key international sustainable development declarations – and establishes principles for the prevention and mitigation of pollution. However, in relation to environmental protection from oil activities, responsibility rests with the Ministry of Petroleum (Minpet), which regulates oil and gas exploration and production activities in collaboration with Sonangol. Minpet is mandated to monitor and inspect oil operations and can impose infractions and penalties for pollution and other illegal activities. Minpet’s authority to protect the environment rests mainly within the aforementioned 2004 Petroleum Activities Law.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 35

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

● Prior to the start of any oil activities, companies need to conduct a study of all possible environmental impacts – called an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Ministry of Environment reviews and provides comments on the EIA and advises the Ministry of Petroleum on the acceptability of proposed projects. The Ministry of Petroleum gives the final approval to the EIA, and then issues an Environmental License. EIA legislation is the most detailed and specific of all environmental legislation in Angola. The law also mandates that there is a public consultation process on the EIA.

4.5.5 Recreational fishing Angola is perceived to be one of the best recreational fishing destinations in West Africa (Belhabib and Divovich, 2014) and there has been increasing interest in Angola as illustrated by the growing number of foreign recreational fishers visiting the country (Potts et al., 2009). Records from as early as 1974 indicate recreational fishing in Angola dates back to the Portuguese colonial period, only being disrupted during periods of civil war (Belhabib and Divovich, 2014). Before independence, foreign visitors were mostly Portuguese, whereas today South Africans make up the majority of recreational fishers visiting Angola’s shores. This is also reflected in the species targeted: recreational catches included sailfish and sharks before independence and shifted to leerfish, kob and shad after the civil war (Belhabib and Divovich, 2014). The characteristics and contribution of a developing recreational fishery to the local, regional and national economy of Angola were evaluated in 2006 by Potts et al. (2009). The study found annual total harvest of the three targeted species (leerfish, kob and shad) to be 576 fish with a total mass of 2221.6 kg. The total contribution of this recreational fishery to the local economy was US$ 1007 per harvested fish and US$ 243 per harvested kg. This equated to a contribution to the local, regional and national economies of US$ 151 685, US$ 44 767 and US$ 344 364 respectively. The authors found the recreational fishery made a major contribution to the economy of the southern Angolan region. Despite the contribution to the national economy being relatively small compared with the local contribution, it was observed that this recreational fishery is locally important considering the low population density and general absence of other formal sector employment opportunities in the region. The authors also noted that while there was no comparative economic information for other fisheries, the contribution of US$ 1007 per fish and US$ 243 per kg was unlikely to be matched by the artisanal or semi-commercial fisheries in southern Angola. A comparison of per fish price of silver kob with Namibian recreational (US$ 8.1) and commercial (US$ 3.0) fisheries; and per kg price in the South African recreational (US$ 52.4) fishery, shows the Angolan price to be considerably higher.

4.5.6 Transport and Harbours (Taken directly from https://www.export.gov/article?id=Angola-Marine-Technology) Angola holds tremendous potential for maritime transportation and fisheries development. Angola’s main port in the capital of Luanda handles more than 70 percent of the country’s imports. The second largest port located in Lobito offers intermodal connections to the railway network toward neighbouring Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Recent upgrades of the existing Luanda and Lobito sea ports have improved the capacity of these ports through construction works and installation of heavy equipment. Of the 15 sea port facilities in Angola, only 4 are operational, handling some 4.3 million tons of cargo: ● Luanda port, managed by the Luanda Port Authority, with an annual capacity of 1135 vessels and 11,166 TEU ton, handles more than 75 percent of imports and exports, excluding oil and crude. Port infrastructure includes 5 terminals, each with their own specific purpose. The Luanda port is adjacent to the Luanda Railway (CFL). ● Lobito port, the second largest port of the country is adjacent to the Benguela Rail Services. ● Cabinda port is situated in the enclave of Cabinda in the northern reaches of the country and services primarily the oil and gas industry that dominates business activities in the province. ● Namibe port is close to Namibia and is the main landing site for fisheries in the region. Its development benefited from Japanese government assistance, and the port remains a focal point of Japans development interest in Angola.

4.6 NAMIBIA

4.6.1 The Namibian Ocean Economy

Namibia’s coastal / marine ecosystem is characterized by the cold Benguela current, which produces a nutrient- rich upwelling system. It is a highly productive system which supports some of the highest concentrations of

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 36

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

marine life in the world. It has multiple habitats including the littoral, shelf and abyssal zones, islands, lagoons and estuaries (MET, 2010).

Namibia is one of the few dryland countries in the world with major identified biodiversity hotspots, including the marine environment. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilisation has been highlighted as one of the major areas of addressing poverty alleviation in Namibia (MET, 2014a).

Tourism, agriculture, fisheries and mining form the basis of the Namibian economy and most of Namibia’s exports are minerals, agricultural products and fish (NSA, 2013). About 70 % of Namibia’s population depends on the natural resources for their income, and other vital needs. This means Namibia’s economy relies almost exclusively on its natural resources, of which marine and coastal goods and services form a vital part. Mining, fisheries and agriculture (including aquaculture) account for 30 % of Namibia’s GDP and 85 % of exports (MET, 2014a) and make up 31 % of the total labour force (NPC, 2015). Travel and tourism (directly and indirectly) accounted for 20.5 % of the GDP in 2011 (WTTC, 2012).

4.6.2 Fishing Namibia’s marine fisheries sector is almost exclusively commercial. The commercial fisheries sector consist of about 338 fishing right holders with 256 licensed vessels in 2012 (MFMR, 2013) catching 20+ commercially exploited species, of which 8 are regulated by total allowable catch (TAC) limits (FAO, 2007). The total landings of Namibian fishing sector for 2014/2015 were 481,298 tonnes, which generated an export revenue (mainly horse mackerel and hake – fish and fish products) of N$10,000 million during the 2015/2016 season. This is a 43 % increase from the previous financial year of 2014/2015 (Anon, 2016). Fish and crustaceans make up about 13 % of Namibia’s total exports (NSA, 2013) and contribute about 3.9 % of the GDP. The marine fisheries sector remains is the second largest earner of foreign currency after mining and the third largest contributor to the GDP after agriculture and mining (MFMR, 2013). The fishing industry provided employment to 14,823 people in 2014, which is 0.7 % of Namibia’s population (NPC, 2015).

Namibia has two ports at which fish is landed, Walvis Bay in central Namibia and Luderitz in the South. Because of the strategic location in terms of fisheries grounds and location, most processing plants (about 30) are in Walvis Bay. About 85 % of Namibia’s fisheries product exports are processed in Namibia (FAO, 2007).

The demersal fishery targets mainly hake and monkfish, and catches sole, snoek and kingklip as non-quota / bycatch species. The mid-water trawlers target horse mackerel, the purse-seiners target sardine, juvenile horse mackerel and anchovy. The large pelagic fishery consists of a main bait boat fleet targeting tuna (albacore, bigeye and yellowfin). The pelagic longline fleet targets swordfish and blue and shortfin mako sharks. The lineboat fleet targets snoek (also catch silver kob and West Coast Steenbras). Other major commercial fisheries include rock lobster fishing, deep-sea red crab fishing. Horse mackerel and hake make up the majority of commercial exports. Red-eye, panga, John Dory, angelfish, catfishes, squid, cardinal fish, Cape gurnard, grenadier, Jacopever, chub mackerel, octopus and mullet are also caught as non-target or bycatch and have some export value (ATLAFCO, 2012). Apart from fish and crustaceans, fur seals and seaweeds (Gracilaria spp.) are also harvested commercially in Namibia.

Cape fur seals The coastal environment also supports the use of the Cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus) for tourism and consumptive harvest. Seals occur all along the Namibian coast and aggregate at colonies on the shore and on islands, the biggest being at Cape Cross, Wolf Bay and Atlas Bay. The population in Namibia was estimated to be around 900,000 in 1992/3, but this population underwent a crash in 1994 and 1995 due to an adverse effect on food supply caused by the Benguela El Niño phenomenon. Considering about a third of the population was lost, 2001 estimates were at 450,000 to 500,000 individuals.

About 20,000 pups and 4,000 adult males are harvested each year in Namibia, with the total number varying between 17,000 in 1991 and 72,000 in 2000. In recent years TACs have been maintained at levels of around 60,000 to 70,000, but harvests have been consistently lower than the TAC.

Commercial Fisheries (ATLAFCO, 2012; MFMR, 2013; NSA, 2013; Table 2) ● Annual turnover was about N$ 10 billion in 2015/2016 ● Contributes about 3.9 % to the Namibian GDP (in 2012)

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 37

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

● Provides employment for about 15,000 people (41 % of these are employed on-board vessels of which 68 % are Namibian; the rest in onshore processing of which most are Namibian)

Table 2. Namibia’s wild capture fisheries. All values for production and value are for 2012 (NSA, 2013; MFMR, 2013) and for employment for 2009 (Chiripanhura and Teweldemedhin, 2016).

Sector Production (tons) Direct Employment (number of people) Horse mackerel 286,934 1,029 Hake 145,931 8,956 Sardine / Pilchard 25,259 1,361 Monkfish 10,763 350 Rock Lobster 118 455 Deep Sea Red Crab 2,795 81 Tuna 2,586 593 Kingklip (non-target, no TAC) 4,140 Other (incl. bycatch species) 34,338 Total fish and crustaceans 512,746 12,825 Fur seals 57,880 (numbers) 20

Recreational sub-sector (FAO, 2015) The Namibian coast is a haven for recreational activities, especially during the month of December. A recent survey conducted by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources revealed that half of the anglers are Namibians and the rest are from the SADC region. The survey also indicated that the majority (84 percent) of the anglers were males and the rest females. 79 % of the anglers engaged in beach angling, 13 % in rock angling and 4 % in ski boat fishing. Overall the effort applied by the recreational fishery is very low compared with that of the commercial linefish subsector. The main species targeted by the recreational anglers are kob (36 %), steenbras (28 %) and galjoen (25 %) (Barnes et al., 2002; estimates from 97/98 Kirchner et al., 2000).

A total expenditure in accommodation, fishing materials and equipment and fuel of about USD 45 million was reported for this subsector in 2011. Recreational anglers are by regulation required possess a permit, which is sold by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources at a monthly price of USD 1.4. Through the sale of permits the Ministry has generated around USD 300 000 in 2011.

By law fishing for recreational purposes is only allowed in: • Terrace Bay and Torra Bay; • From the Ugab river to Walvis Bay; • Pelican point to Sandwich Harbour; • From southern limits of Diaz Point to Grosse Bucht; • From Pomona Island to the Orange River.

Approximately 8,271 marine shore anglers (12 % belonging to angling clubs) in Namibia per annum spending a mean of N$ 3,400 per angler per year (Barnes et al., 2002; estimates from 97/98 Kirchner et al., 2000). This added up to a mean annual income to Namibia of N$115,681 on angling alone. Total direct expenditure of anglers in Namibia ranged between N$ 23 and 31 million. The total fish caught by the recreational sector was estimated at 1049 t in 97/98. The Namibian recreational shore-angling fishery is much smaller than that of South Africa, but fishing success is much higher in Namibia. The recreational shore fishery contributes between 3 and 4 % of the value added in the Namibian fishery sector. Recreational shore-angling provides direct employment for about 270 people (Barnes and Alberts, 2008).

Marine artisanal fisheries Traditional artisanal fisheries do not exist in Namibia because of the rough seas, inaccessible coastline and difficult living conditions along Namibia’s coastline. For this reason, artisanal fisheries are not officially recognised in terms of fishing licenses in Namibia. However, there is a growing number of shore-anglers that could be described as artisanal, mainly in Henties Bay, Swakopmund and Terrace Bay (150 altogether). They collect bait on site and catch mostly galjoen (Barnes and Alberts, 2008). These are low-income fishers, who usually purchase a recreational fishing licence, and sometimes fish part-time with other sources of income, but for mostly as their sole source of income. They use the catch for their own consumption, but also some of their catch is sold to fishing companies, or privately, which usually provides a substantial income for such fishers and

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 38

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

often support a household of up to 6 people (Likius, 2015).

The total annual catch of this fishery was estimated at <150 t for 2003 and total annual sales of about $ 1 million (Fielding et al., 2006).

The stock status of Namibian marine resources (Kirchner et al., 2012): Underexploited ● Round herring

Optimally Exploited ● Horse mackerel ● Monkfish ● Deep sea red crab ● Fur seals

Overexploited and recovering ● Hakes (shallow-water and deep-water) ● Anchovy ● Silver kob ● Rock lobster ● Silver kob

Stressed / Depleted ● Sardine ● Orange Roughy

Note: swordfish, tuna and sharks are highly migratory and therefore assessments for South Africa (Atlantic Ocean) are the same as for Namibia.

Other biological marine resources harvested on a small scale (Barnes and Alberts, 2008): Seaweed Seaweed, predominantly kelp, is harvested at a number of locations. Production in 2003 was 288 tonnes, representing a decline of 36 % from 500 in 2002.

Guano Guano production takes place on some of the offshore islands, where it is periodically scraped from seabird colonies, mainly Cape gannet (Morus capensis) and cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae). Hampton (2003) reported that about 1,000 t per year could be harvested sustainably, mostly from Ichaboe Island. Artificial guano platforms owned by two different companies exist at Cape Cross, and comprise two sites with a total combined extent of 8 ha), Swakopmund (4 ha), and Walvis Bay (1.7 ha). In 2002, harvests from artificial platforms – which are of a higher quality than those from islands – amounted to about 1,600 t.

Shells Fielding et al. (2006) provided some information on informal collecting of beach-cast sea shells carried out by women in the Swakopmund area. Mussel shells (Mytilidae) are collected to be cut and ground, made into necklaces and sold inland. This appears to be a year-round occupation for unemployed women, who collect about 15 kg of shells per trip. The number of collectors involved is not known.

The small, informal sea-shell harvesting activities also involve a ‘sump’ extractive activity, which does not directly affect mussel populations. There is probably some potential for localised depletion of sea shells if the activity expands significantly. An expanded extraction industry would be self-regulating, and there is likely to be significant potential for expansion.

Freshwater subsistence fisheries (FAO, 2007; ATLAFCO, 2012) Namibia has no large freshwater bodies suitable for commercial fisheries exploitation. However, Namibia has small-scale freshwater fisheries, primarily in the north-eastern (Caprivi) region. By its nature, these fisheries are labour-intensive with a low catch-per-unit-effort. Most of the catch is consumed by the fishers and very little is sold outside of communities and markets.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 39

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

The total freshwater fish catch is estimated at 2,000 tons per year (catfish, bream, tiger fish), of which only 247 t are exported (to Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia). The total annual revenue for this is N$ 1.8 million (about 0.02 % of the marine fisheries sector).

Although these fisheries contribute little to Namibia’s economy, they support a large subsistence-based population. About 50 % of the rural population live in the northern regions of Namibia and derive food, income and informal employment from inland fish resources (including aquaculture).

In 2007, perennial rivers providing > 1 million hectares of flood-plain wetlands were estimated to have a fisheries potential of 2,800 tonnes per year (mostly tilapias and catfish) worth N$ 22 million.

4.6.3 Aquaculture Marine species cultured in Namibia (mariculture) are: Seaweed (Gracilaria verricosa), abalone (Haliotis midae), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) and oysters (Crassostrea gigas and Ostrea edulis), and the fish species silver kob and yellowtail.

Inland freshwater aquaculture is important in the less arid areas of Namibia, e.g. the Caprivi and Okavango regions in north-eastern Namibia and the Omusati, Kunene and Oshana regions in the north-western Namibia. All aquaculture establishments throughout Namibia currently undertake commercial freshwater aquaculture of tilapia (Oreochromis andersonii) and catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Inland aquaculture includes on-land facilities and utilizes ponds, tanks, and enclosures that depend on the culturists for maintenance of water quality, food supply, and waste removal.

Altogether the licences to mariculture and inland aquaculture in Namibia numbered 21 in 2010 and in 2011, 200 Namibian people were directly employed by the aquaculture industry (ATLAFCO, 2012). The commercial mariculture industry in Namibia had an estimated total production of tonnes in 2008 worth about N$19.5 million, while the freshwater production (of tilapia and catfish together) was about 17 tonnes worth about N$ 0.1 million in 2012 (MFMR, 2013) (Table 3).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 40

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Table 3. Namibian mariculture (2008, MFMR, 2016) and aquaculture (2012, MFMR, 2013) production and value.

Value Species Production (tons) (N$ million) Seaweed 132 0.79 Abalone 3.6 1.35 Oysters 434 17.36 Total Marine 569.6 19.50 Tilapia 35.7 Catfish 1.26 Total Freshwater 16.96 0.122

4.6.4 Coastal development (Sowman et al., 2011): The Namibian coastline is very sparsely populated. Human settlement along the coast is limited to around 100,000 people or 6.5 % of national population. Settlement is confined to four main centres, Walvis Bay (main port, hub of fishing industry), Swakopmund (regional centre, major tourist destination and closest large settlement to the booming uranium industry), Henties Bay (popular tourist destination, and also close to the uranium mining hub), Lüderitz (major fishing port, tourist destination and close to mining activities) and Oranjemund (diamond mining hub). Many people living in these coastal communities are dependent on living marine resources either directly or indirectly as a part of their livelihoods. Most of these are employed as either as crew members on board commercial fishing vessels or on the shore in various fish processing facilities.

Unlike Luderitz and Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, with its population of about 35,000 people has always had an economy that was focused on tourism and the Uranium Mines, and not on fishing. The marine resources of the Namibian coast are thus critical to any government development strategy because they help create employment, provide food security and combat poverty for a significant proportion of the population. However, despite the highly rated fisheries management record of the Namibian government, it is clear that the marine resources have very limited room for expansion and in most cases, require a reduction in both catch and fishing effort.

About 75 % of Namibia’s coast is either National Park (in the north) or “Sperrgebiet”, closed for diamond mining previously and declared as a national park since 2008 (in the south). This leaves a very small area for coastal development (at present). Since the coastline is very straight, steep and harsh, only two harbours exist along the whole Namibian coast. Nonetheless in the area of Swakopmund and Walvis Bay (central Namibian coast), exponential development has taken place. An influx of population to the coast has been spurred on by the opening of two large Uranium mines in the Erongo Region for which new employees live in the town of Swakopmund.

All coastal towns are situated adjacent to national parks, and sensitive marine environments. New developments along the coast, on the highwater mark, especially between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay are a great threat to the coastal and marine biodiversity.

4.6.5 Transport and harbours Maritime Trade Since Namibia exports most of its minerals, fisheries, and agricultural products, and imports most of its manufactured goods, maritime trade plays a vital role in Namibia’s economy. Total imports (N$60,152 million) and exports (N$44,909 million) contribute 41 % of Namibia’s GDP (NSA, 2013).

Ports and harbours (Russel and Wolf, 2012; IHO, 2013). Even though Namibia only has two natural harbours and ports, (Walvis Bay and Luderitz), the Walvis Bay is strategically situated and the harbour is a major trading port to other SADC countries and African countries. Walvis Bay is growing in the Africa Ports stature and it is currently the first port of call for certain carriers to the

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 41

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Africa region from South America, Europe and the Far East. Walvis Bay Corridors shipped about 63,000 tonnes of cargo in January 2012 (roughly 756,000 t pa). Walvis Bay is a hub port for African west coast trade carried by MAERSK, OACL, CMA and MOL where the volume of containers handled in the port has peaked at 340,000 TEU containers in 2012/13. As at end of January 2012, Namport employed a total number of 763 staff members. More than 1,000 vehicles are entering or leaving the Port of Walvis Bay per month.

The offshore supply, rig and shipping industry is catered for with three floating docks for ship and rig repair facilities at Walvis Bay. Average number of calls of tourist cruise liners at Walvis Bay and Luderitz is 10 per year. The coastal focal points for leisure cruising are Luderitz, Walvis Bay and Swakopmund (Mole) with about 18 commercial craft of between 15 and 20 m length.

Most Namibian fishing vessels are based in Walvis Bay, with a smaller number as well as the Rock lobster Industry based at Luderitz.

The emerging mariculture industry is developing both in the Walvis Bay area and in the Luderitz bay area. The Port of Lüderitz caters for southern Namibia and provides access to markets in the Northern Cape of South Africa.

Namibia’s major port Walvis Bay lies adjacent to the Walvis Bay Lagoon Ramsar Site, already has a Local 21 environmental management initiative in place, and it is necessary for the other towns to follow suit.

Currently, Walvis Bay Port is expanding in a N$ 3.5 billion project including a new tanker berth project. This project is envisaged to create another separate entrance channel into the new port area, officially named “Walvis Bay SADC Gateway port”. which caters for: 1. Marine (port operations including marine pilots, port control, and tug operations) 2. Bulk and Breakbulk (cargo such as fuel, fish, sulphur, and general cargo) 3. Container Terminal (containerised cargo) 4. Syncrolift (a dry dock facility) 5. Engineering (port engineering including growth, statutory, and maintenance projects) 6. Technical (technical services supporting the port).

4.6.6 Marine Mining Salt Salt production takes place in Walvis Bay, Swakopmund and at Cape Cross with two companies involved producing about 700,000 t, 75,000 t and 30,000 t of salt per year for the three areas, respectively and 805,000 t in total. It provides employment for about 230 people and contributes about N$ 6 million of gross national income (Barnes and Alberts, 2008).

Marine diamond mining Diamond production in Namibia takes place onshore and offshore in the Sperrgebiet coastal zone around Lüderitz all the way to the Orange River. It provides a gross national income of N$2,231 million and provides direct employment for about 28,000 people (Barnes and Alberts, 2008).

Onshore mining by the Namdeb Diamond Corporation takes place mainly at Elizabeth Bay and north of Oranjemund on a 100km stretch of shoreline, 3 km wide. The shore gravels are extracted from above the high tide mark all the way up to 20 m below sea level.

In the German colonial era onshore mining took place south of Lüderitz on the surface deposits of the shore. The relics are still visible, which provides potential for historical tourism (Barnes and Alberts, 2008). During the 1980s and early 1990s, some mining took place at several sites in the Skeleton Coast Park (Toscanini, Terrace Bay, Möwe Bay and Rocky Point). None of these historical mining sites benefited from any environmental care, however.

Offshore mining takes place along the whole coast. This involves dredging up of the benthic layer, and after extraction re-depositing most of the gravel back into the sea.

The impact from diamond mining on biodiversity and biological productivity has been described to be on the sessile intertidal and benthic species (Barnes and Alberts, 2008).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 42

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Natural oil and gas exploration (BCC, 2017): Namibia has a fledgling oil and gas production industry and it is likely that the country has more gas than oil potential. To date, 14 wells have been drilled offshore, including seven in the productive Kudu gas field. The National Petroleum Corporation of Namibia (NAMCOR) and the electricity utility (NamPower) have been jointly mandated by the Namibian government to pursue the development of the Kudu Gas-to-Power project in a bid to meet Namibia's growing demand for electricity.

4.6.7 Coastal tourism (including recreational fishing) Overall, 1,320,062 foreign visitors, classified as “tourists” visited Namibia in 2014 (MET, 2014b). Tourists are attracted to Namibia mainly for its national parks and pristine nature, making Namibia’s tourism activities almost exclusively “eco-tourism”. Travel and tourism (directly and indirectly) accounted for 14.9 % of the GDP (N$18,424.8 million) and directly about 3% of the GDP in 2014. It directly supported 24,000 jobs (4.5 % of the total employment of Namibia) and in total (directly and indirectly) supported 102,500 jobs (19.2 % of Namibia’s total employment) in 2014. For both these categories is ranks first in Africa (WTTC, 2015). The Namibian tourism industry is the fastest growing sector of the Namibian economy (MET, 2014a), and in terms of growth stands at position 29 in the world ranking (out of 184 countries) and first in Africa (WTTC, 2015).

Key eco-tourism activities National Parks (MET, 2010; Smith, 2012) The Sperrgebiet, proclaimed as a national park in 2008 (now named Tsau //Khaeb), is one of the most important conservation areas in the world (one of the top 34 biodiversity hotspots). It covers the Succulent Karoo Ecosystem, which has the highest diversity of succulent flora in the world (SPAN, 2008). The Tsau //Khaeb itself contains ±1,050 plant species, 25 % of the Namibia’s flora on 3 % of the country’s surface, 35 coastal and marine bird species, 60 wetland bird species, and 120 terrestrial bird species, 80 terrestrial and 38 marine mammal species, 100 reptile species and 16 frog species. Marine mammal species include about 600,000 Cape fur seals, which is 50 % of the world’s population. It also contains many insects and other invertebrates, of which probably 90 % are undescribed.

With the proclamation of the Sperrgebiet in 2008, 70 % of the park was declared as a no-mining zone, and it was agreed that new infrastructures would not be built, but rather that the existing four urban areas surrounding the park, Lüderitz, Rosh Pinah, Oranjemund and Aus, will play an important role as tourist hubs for the park.

With the proclamation of Tsau //Khaeb and the upgrading National West Coast Recreational Area to national park status (Dorob National Park) in 2010, the entire Namibian coastline is now protected through a network of national parks. Namibia is the only continental country globally to have the whole coastline protected as a national park. This covers 107,540 km2 and is the sixth largest terrestrial protected area in the world and the largest in Africa. This includes: 76 % of the Namib Desert Biome, 3 % of the Nama Karoo Biome, 85 % of the Succulent Karoo Biome, 99 % of the Coastal Biome, three Ramsar Sites (Walvis Bay Lagoon, Sandwich Harbour and the Orange River Mouth), 8 Important Bird Areas (Kunene river mouth, Cape Cross lagoon, Namib Naukluft National Park, Mile 4 Saltworks, 30 km beach (Walvis Bay to Swakopmund), Sandwich harbour and the Sperrgebiet) and two Important Plant Areas (IPAs) covering the lichen fields in the central coastal area and the Sperrgebiet.

Ramsar sites: The Walvis Bay Wetland is considered the most important coastal wetland in southern Africa and third in Africa. It comprises the lagoon – a shallow, sheltered wetland with > 40 wetland bird species, the mudflats, shoreline, salt pans and sewage ponds. These wetlands support 70,000-100,000 birds in winter and ≤250,000 in spring and summer. This is about 1 % of the world’s population of water birds, 65-70 % of chestnut- banded plovers, 70 % of greater flamingos, 65 % of lesser flamingos and 40 % of black-necked grebes. The coastal area (450 birds per km) has the highest linear count of any coast in southern Africa (Bethune et al., 2007).

Sandwich Harbour, about 60 km south of Walvis Bay, covers 16,500 ha. It is protected within the Namib-Naukluft Park. Its shallow lagoon, salt marsh and intertidal mudflats also support a high diversity and sometimes higher number of wetland birds (175,000 mainly waders, terns, pelicans and flamingos) (Bethune et al., 2007).

Dunes

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 43

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Dune-boarding, quad biking and guided and self-guided 4x4 trips through the dunes are a popular tourist activity in Namibia, unique to this coast. Quad bike activities in the dune belt take two forms. Firstly, there are the quad bike tour operators (two firms). These operators provide their facilities and equipment (quad bikes) and guides to incoming tour operators as facilitators and to the general public, (those who don’t own their own quad bikes). Secondly, there are the activities of the general public (holidaymakers), owning their own quad bikes and driving up and down the dunes unguided. The first of the two types generates income and jobs. Based on the data obtained from Dare Devil Adventures Quad Bike Operators (M Campbell, 2008, pers. comm.) the estimated average number of quad bike tours per day is 200 at an estimated average rate of N$280/per ride (guided) at 365 operation days. The estimated total gross turnover per year amounts to N$20.4 million and the likely annual contribution to the national income is some N$9.6 million. The number of permanent employees amounted to eight people (2008) of which two people are in management and six are guides. In the high season from April to November six more guides are employed, their wages amount to approximately N$6,000 per month based on the basic salary and the tips from clients. Unguided holidaymakers on their bikes threaten the safety of guided tours, dune boards. No official statistics of the number of accidents are available but, there are at least several incidents each year, and some of them are fatal.

The quad biking and off-road driving is regulated as it may pose a threat to the coastal biodiversity, e.g. the Damara tern (Sterna balanaerum), an endemic bird species to Namibia that breeds along the coastal zone in the Namib dune belts, salt pans and gravel plains in summer. Breeding areas of the Damara tern in the dune belt are fenced off to prohibit people and vehicles from entering the areas.

Breeding activity (larvae, young and eggs) of beetles, spiders and reptiles are also impacted by 4x4 activity and need to be monitored.

Littering of the beaches and the desert due to increasing tourism is a general albeit not a significant problem.

Bird and marine mammal watching (Barnes and Alberts, 2008): Recently, Walvis Bay with its boat and catamaran trips attracts more tourists interested in viewing marine and coastal wildlife in the bay and around the peninsula. Fourteen seabirds breed in Namibia, 11 of them on the protected islands and islets of the marine protected area (MPA). This includes Namibia’s most threatened seabird species: African Penguins (Spheniscus demersus), Cape Gannets (Morus capensis) and Bank Cormorants (Phalacrocorax neglectus). Thirty one species of cetaceans are known to occur in Namibian waters, including the dusky dolphin, minke whale, southern right whale and the killer whale. The heaviside dolphin (Cephalorhynchus heavisidii) is endemic to the Benguela current ecosystem.

The pressure on seals, dolphins and recovering whale populations is increasing with the growing number of boat tour operators. It is necessary to be very careful and vigilant in particular as the Southern Right Whales are slowly recovering from extinction in the Namibian waters. Walvis Bay used to be a major breeding ground for Southern Right Whales before they became extinct through over harvesting in the early 1800s. Another problem is, low flying aircraft ignoring height restriction and no-fly zones over Ramsar sites and Important Bird Areas known for massive populations of shorebirds, flamingos and seabirds, e.g. in Walvis Bay, Sandwich Harbour and the coastline between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay.

4.7 SOUTH AFRICA AND OPERATION PHAKISA’S “UNLOCKING OF THE OCEAN ECONOMY”

The following section of the report is reproduced, with permission, from the recently published “Oceans Facts and Futures Report”, produced by WWF-SA. The report is available for download at: http://awsassets.wwf.org.za/downloads/wwf_oceans_facts_and_futures_report_oct16.pdf

The direct benefits of the coastally derived goods and services in South Africa were estimated to equal approximately 35% of the country’s GDP, although such estimates are dependent on the defined geographical extent of ocean activity or influence within the GGP model (Hosking et al., 2014). However, using the sum of value added analysis of GDP the overall contribution of the ocean sector to the economy is 4.4%. South Africa’s oceans economy has potential to contribute more than R20 billion to the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2019 and at least 1 million jobs by 2033 (DEA website).

This section has largely be informed by a review of the literature undertaken by WWF in 2016 (WWF Report –

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 44

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Oceans: Facts and Futures report). 4.7.1 Fishing South Africa’s commercial fisheries consist of 22 fishing sectors with over 2 900 rights holders and approximately 1 788 vessels. Annual production was reported in 2012 as more than 600 000 tons with a value of R5,8 billion. Employment estimates are that the industry provides direct employment to over 27,000 people and indirectly to a further 100,000 people. A handful of high-value fishing sectors contribute disproportionately to these figures (see Table 4).

South Africa’s wild capture fishery can be separated loosely into three distinct fisher user-groups – commercial, recreational, and small-scale. South African fishing grounds, in turn, can be conceptually separated into “inshore” and “offshore” grounds, although there are some commercial fisheries that straddle the two.

Commercial Fisheries (CLA Report, 2010) ● Annual turnover is approximately US$12 billion or R80 billion ● Contributes 0.5% to the South African GDP (CLA Report, 2010). ● Provides direct and indirect employment to 27,000 and 81,000 people respectively. ● The demersal sector is the most valuable commercial fishery in South Africa and is worth over US$187 million (R1.4 billion) annually (Kashort, 2003).

Small scale fisheries ● There are approximately 147 fishing communities along the South African coastline with an estimated 28,388 fishing households and 29,233 people who are considered to be subsistence fishers (Clark et al., 2002).

Recreational fisheries ● Approximately 750,000 recreational anglers in South Africa (McGrath et al., 1997). ● It is estimated that as of 2007, 2.5 million people participated in South Africa’s recreational fishery (fresh water and marine) with approximately 28,757 fishers affiliated to organised clubs (Leibold and van Zyl, 2008). ● The total economic value of the recreational fishery to the South African economy was estimated to be ZAR 1.6 billion in 2007 (Leibold and van Zyl, 2008). ● The total fish caught by the recreational sector was estimated to be 5600T in 2003, approximately 35% of the total commercial fishery’s catch of linefish, estimated at 16 000T.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 45

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Table 4. South Africa’s most economically valuable wild capture fisheries.

Sector Production (tons) Estimated Value (R, after Direct Employment processing) Abalone 2496 (t) (total) 1,083 million 2,500 (est. including 96 (t) (legal wildcapture 41.6 million (est. legal wildcapture illegal fishery) fishery) fishery) ~2400 (t) (illegal wildcapture 1,092 million (est. illegal wildcapture fishery) fishery) Hake trawl 27,974 (t) 2,871 million 8,300 (as of 2012) (as of 2012) Small pelagics 200,000 (t) 1,550 million 4,360 (as of 2013) (as of 2013) (as of 2013) Squid 8,000 (t) 400 million 2,998 (average as of 2012) (as of 2012) (as of 2012) West Coast Greater than 2450 (t) 530 million (legal fishery only) 4,100 Rock Lobster 1801 (t) (legal fishery) (as of 2013) (as of 2003) ~650+ (t) (illegal fishery)

The Stock Status of South African Marine Resources.

● 9% Underexploited o Anchovy o Hottentot o Round herring o Seaweeds (non-kelp)

● 29% Optimally Exploited o Albacore Tuna (Indian O.) o Bigeye (Indian O.) o Cape hakes (shallow-water and deep-water) o Carpenter o Prawns (deep-water) o Sardine o Seaweeds (kelps) o Sharks – Blue shark o Slinger o Snoek o Squid o Swordfish (Indian) o Yellowtail

● 42% Overexploited o Albacore Tuna (Atlantic O.) o Bigeye (Atlantic O.) o Elf o Prawns (shallow-water) o SCRL o Sharks-Soupfin o Yellowfin Tuna (Atlantic O.) o Yellowfin Tuna (Indian O.) o Abalone o Harders o Red steenbras o Seventy-four o Sharks-Great hammerhead o Sharks-Longfin mako o Sharks-Oceanic whitetip o Silver kob o Southern bluefin (Indian and Atlantic O.)

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 46

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

o WCRL o White Steenbras

● 20% Unknown/Uncertain o Agulhas Sole o Cape horse mackerel o Oysters (KZN) o Oysters (SC) o Patagonian toothfish o Small invertebrates and new fisheries o Sharks – Smoothhound shark o St. Joseph o Swordfish (Atlantic O.) Sources: DAFF 2014; DAFF 2015; ICCAT 2015; IOTC 2015.

Results from the Experimental Economic Accounts of Fisheries (Lehohla, 2015) reveal the following: ● The closing stock for hake increased from 444,000t in 2004 to 617 000t in 2013, an increase of 39% over the 10 years. Total catches increased from 153 684t to 156,076t over the same time period, an increase of 1.6%. ● The closing stock for West Coast Rock Lobster declined from 21 170t in 2004 to 16 661t in 2013, a decline of 21.3% and total catches decreased from 3 632t to 2690t, a decrease of 25.9% over the same time period. ● The closing stock for Abalone declined from 6 096t in 2004 to 3364t in 2013, a decline of 44.8% and total catches decreased from 234t to 95t, a decrease of 59.4% over the same time period. ● The closing stock for Cape Horse Mackerel increased from 444 298t in 2004 to 520,679t in 2013, an increase of 17.2% over the 10 years. Total catches increased from 29 880t to 29 719t over the same time period, an increase of 0.5%. ● The closing stock for South Coast Rock Lobster increased from 1 485t in 2004 to 1 637t in 2013, an increase of 10.2% over the 10 years. Total catches declined from 382t to 342t over the same time period, a decrease of 10.5%.

Seafood trade The best available seafood trade and fisheries catch data indicates that approximately half of the seafood consumed in South Africa during 2010 was imported, and that just over a quarter of fisheries catch in South Africa for 2010 was consumed domestically with the rest being exported, as detailed in the info graphic below (WWF-SA From Boat To Plate Report 2014, DAFF Catch Data 2010, SARS Import/ Export Data, 2010):

Figure 4. South African fisheries production at a glance

Fishing remains the greatest pressure on marine biodiversity (NBA)

● Fishing is a key driver of change in marine and coastal ecosystems and has the highest impact score

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 47

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

in 10 of 13 broad ecosystem groups. ● Key challenges include overexploited resources, substantial and unmanaged bycatch in some sectors, incidental seabird mortalities, habitat damage, concerns around food supply for other species and other ecosystem impacts of fishing. ● Poaching continues to threaten marine biodiversity, resource sustainability and the livelihoods of legitimate fishers. ● The division of the former Marine and Coastal Management branch in the department of Environmental Affairs into a fisheries branch within the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Oceans and Coasts Branch within the Department of Environmental Affairs in 2009 makes the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management more difficult and costly.

4.7.2 Aquaculture Global fish catches have levelled off since the mid-late 90s, and with increasing efficiency being driven by developing technologies in the aquaculture sector, it is likely that future growth in seafood supply will mainly come from aquaculture operations. Aquaculture contributes 43.1% of the total fish production for human consumption globally which equals 70 million tonnes (FAO, 2015) which is valued at US$ 150 348 million. The vast majority of production occurs in Asia (89.1%).

The commercial aquaculture industry in South Africa is still relatively new in comparison to the commercial wild- capture fisheries, however it is steadily increasing with a total production of 4 802.11 tonnes in 2013, which increased by 18% from the total production in 2012 (DAFF, 2015). In 2012 the aquaculture industry only contributed approximately 0.8% to South Africa’s fish production (Operation Phakisa Aquaculture Lab Report, 2014). Trout contributes 31.7%, abalone contributes 30.7% and mussels contribute 23.3% to the total production.

Species cultured in South Africa are: abalone (Haliotis midae), Pacific oyster (Crassostra gigas), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis and Choromytilus meridionalis), dusky kob (Argyrosomus norkelli) and seaweed (Ulva spp. and Gracilaria spp.). Species cultured in the freshwater industry included trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salmo trutta), tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus, Oreochromis niloticus and Oreochromis rendalli), catfish (Clarias gariepinus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), marron crayfish (Cherax tenuimanus), and a number of ornamental species.

There are at least some operational aquaculture farms in all of the provinces in South Africa (DAFF, 2015), however not all farms are producing at a commercially viable scale. The majority of mariculture farms are based in the Western Cape while the majority of freshwater farms are based in Mpulmalanga.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 48

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

1 Freshwater data from 2010.

Figure 5. Map showing distribution of aquaculture farms in South Africa (Taken from Operation Phakisa: Unlocking the Economic Potential of South Africa’s Oceans (2014) Lab Report –Aquaculture).

Contribution to economy The total value of the South African aquaculture industry was estimated at R696 million (based on the sales of aquaculture products) in 2013, with the largest contributor to this value being the abalone industry (most of which is exported) at 76%, followed by trout (most of which is distributed locally) which contributes approximately 16.3% to the total value (DAFF, 2015).

In 2013, 2 831 people were employed by the aquaculture sector, with the majority being employed in the Western Cape (65.2%) with the next province being the Eastern Cape with 14.6 (Table 5).

Table 5. South African Aquaculture production (2013) and value (for human consumption).

Species Number of Production Percentage of Value ZAR Estimated farms (tons) total percentage production contribution to the total value of aquaculture Abalone 20 1469.78 30.61 R529 million 76.01 Finfish 5 122.55 2.55 R6 million 0.88 Mussels 4 1116.14 23.24 R20 million 2.89 Oysters 9 277.23 5.77 R16.9 million 2.39 Total Marine 36 2985.70 62.17 R571.9 million 82.17 Tilapia 97 289.71 6.03 R9.9 million 1.42 Trout 47 1521.70 31.69 R113 million 16.27 Catfish 10 0 0 R0 0 Marron crayfish 1 5 0.10 R1 million 0.14 Total Freshwater 193 1816.41 37.83 123.9 million 17.83 Total Aquaculture 229 4802.11 R696 Million

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 49

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

4.7.3 Coastal development Locally, about 25% of South Africa’s population live within 60 kilometres of the coastline (CLA Report, 2010). South Africa has one of the highest coastal population densities in Africa with approximately 80 people per square kilometre, compared to the average African density of 55 people per square kilometre (DEA 2010, cited in Turpie and Wilson, 2011). The estimated total contribution of coastal resources (without regulatory services) to the South African economy is approximately R57 billion. The direct economic benefits from coastal resources in South Africa are estimated to be approximately 35% of the country’s annual GDP. Direct economic benefits include the marine fishing industry, port and harbour development, and the attractive lifestyles, recreation and tourism opportunities offered by a coastal location. Indirect cost benefits include erosion control provided by coastal features such as dunes and high cliffs which protect the built and natural features along the coast (including roads, buildings and farmlands)from the damaging effects of waves, wind and it allows waste assimilation, detoxification and recycling through coastal wetlands, forests and grasslands. These indirect benefits account for an additional 28% of the country’s GDP.

Coastal development is the greatest pressure on coastal biodiversity ● 17% of South Africa’s coastline has some form of development within 100 m of the shoreline. ● Coastal ecosystems provide key ecosystem services including: o protection from large waves associated with extreme weather events o provision of a reserve supply of sand in the dunes to maintain beaches o water filtration and nutrient cycling o provision of critical nursery areas for important fish species o valuable tourism asset. ● The interacting pressures of coastal development and climate change (coastal squeeze) threaten beaches, dunes, other coastal habitats and their underlying processes. This can disrupt critical ecosystem services. ● Inappropriate coastal development compromises ecosystem services and hampers our ability to adapt to climate change. ● The proportion of the coast at risk of sea-level rise impacts doubles (to 22%) if any type of development within 50 metres of the shore is included, and increases to nearly a third of the national coastline (31%) if this is extended to include any development within 100 metres of the shore. Impacts up to 100 metres inland (cumulative inland erosion 40-100 metres) were shown to occur in erosion hotspots following the March 2007 storm. Thus, there is strong possibility that localised damages of this nature could occur more frequently in the next decade (ibid).

4.7.4 Communication, transport and harbours Communication Globally as of mid-2014 there has been $ 57.2 Billion worth of investment into fibre optic submarine systems, comprising of 1 275 million kilometres of submarine cable (Submarine Industry Cable Report, Issue 2, March 2013).

Maritime Trade ● 95% of South Africa’s trade volume (and 80% by value) is seaborne (Chasomeris, 2005). ● Approximately 12 000 deep sea trading vessels regularly call at South African ports per annum and they carry 98% of the country’s internationally bound cargo. All these vessels are foreign registered and foreign crewed employing 240 000 foreign seafarers. ● South Africa is undisputedly a maritime country. Total imports and exports contribute to 60% of South Africa’s GDP, and 98% of international bound trade is carried by over 12,000 deep sea trading vessels through our waters per annum, around South Africa’s coastline which is one of the longest in the world. While previously we only dealt with tanker business, there are now between 13,000 and 15,000 TEO container vessels routing around the Cape per annum. (BRICS Maritime Forum Report, 24 March 2013) ● R 36 Billion Rand is paid annually to foreign owners and operators to provide shipping services to South Africa.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 50

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Ship Building The South African marine manufacturing industry includes all business involved in the designing, manufacturing, constructing, repairing and or maintenance of vehicles and or components thereof, as well as the management of shipyards, dry docks, marine repair shops and similar enterprises. The industry is very much a part of South Africa’s proud maritime industry. Unfortunately however, the industry is in decline: 50% of boat builders closed down between 2009 -2013; there has been little investment in the modernisation of ship yards since the 1980s; there been a steady decline in ship yards: the dry docks and floating docks are in a state of disrepair, and urgently need maintenance.

Ports and harbours ● South Africa’s commercial ports are important for economic growth and development of the entire southern African region (Chasomeris, 2005). ● In 2002 total port cargo handled was roughly 190 million tons, representing 3.5% of the world sea trade volumes (Chasomeris, 2005). ● South Africa is placed within the top 12 international maritime trading nations. ● The revenue generated from the maritime division was estimated to be US$1.5 billion per annum (R11.2 billion, 2009 Rands, Trade and Industry Chamber, 2007).

South Africa’s ports are: ● Saldanha Bay ● Cape Town ● Mossel Bay ● Port Elizabeth ● Ngqura ● East London ● Durban ● Richards Bay

Cargo through South African ports reveals the following characteristics: 1. Exports volumes are 2.6 times import volumes due to the high share of primary commodities in South Africa’s export trade basket. 2. Coastal shipping is negligible given the geographical distribution of production in South Africa. Coastal transport is not a real modal alternative to land transport. 3. Transshipment traffic is low due to the poorly developed markets on the Eastern and Western coasts of Southern Africa.

4.7.5 Marine Mining, Oil and Gas Oil and gas ● South Africa’s oil and gas deposits are relatively small but its refining and downstream oil sector is developing fast (SA Government, 2011). ● The gas to liquids refinery in Mossel Bay produces 36 000 barrels per day – a crude oil equivalent of 45 000 barrels per day. A total of 45 000 barrels of crude oil a day equates to 16 425 000 barrels per annum. In 2009 the average price for global oil per barrel was US$76, resulting in a total gross output of US$ 1.25 billion (R9.4 billion, 2009 Rands).

Coastal mining ● The coastline of South Africa is mined for heavy metals (titanium and zirconium), mineral sands, and cement and aggregates. ● South Africa is Africa’s main producer of titanium and zirconium, and supplies 30% of world production (Turpie and Wilson, 2011). ● Mining and quarrying in South Africa contributed US$26.4 million or R198 million (9.1%) to GDP in 2009 (StatsSA, 2010). However, it is not known how much of this can be attributable to the coast. ● ‘Other Metal Ores’ represented 2.2% of this or US$6.3 million (R47 million, 2009 Rands).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 51

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Mineral and petroleum extractives Approximately 98% of South Africa’s exclusive economic zone is subject to a right or lease for offshore oil and gas exploration or production1. The Petroleum Agency of South Africa, responsible for the ‘promotion and regulation of offshore exploration and production’ maintains the national database of petroleum exploration and production. This database indicates that the past decade (since 2006) has seen a rapid increase in the application and grant of offshore rights and leases. The offshore oil and gas focus area of Operation Phakisa seeks to support the rapid development of the offshore oil and gas sector by ‘creating an environment that promotes exploration’. A target of the lab is to fast track the drilling of thirty wells in the next ten years and develop infrastructure such as a phased gas pipeline network (RSA, 2014). There have also been an increasing number of applications for unconventional offshore oil and gas activities. PetroSA, for instance, has recently applied for environmental authorisation to undertake hydraulic fracturing in the F-O Gas Field off Mossel Bay. Accordingly, offshore exploration and production is currently unregulated, an untenable situation, aggravated by little available knowledge of potential impacts on the marine ecosystem and existing marine uses, including fishing. Rhino Oil and Gas Exploration South Africa (Pty) Ltd recently applied for an exploration right for inshore oil and gas exploration. The inshore licence block is off the South-West Coast and stretches from Saldanha to Cape Agulhas2. The application is pending.

Figure 6. Map of oil and gas exploration and production rights.

1References: www.petroleumagencysa.com 2

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 52

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Marine diamond mining Marine mineral concession zones were established by the then Department of Minerals and Energy in 1994 on the west coast of South Africa, stretching from the Orange River mouth to Saldanha. Several marine mining companies have been granted prospecting and mining rights in these concession areas. However, the marine diamond mining industry is dominated by De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd., Alexcor Ltd. and Trans Hex Operations (Pty) Ltd. The northern town of Port Nolloth is the centre of South Africa diamond diving industry. Here diamonds are extracted from the ocean floor by divers who pull large suction pipes along the seabed. The origin of the west coasts alluvial diamonds is the orange river. Diamonds can be found between sandwhich Bay in Namibia and Doring Bay in the south and from the marine sands 15km inland to a similar distance out to sea. Large sections of the west coast are inaccessible to the public because they have been secured by the companies that mine alluvial diamonds in the region.

Marine phosphate prospecting The Department of Mineral Resources granted three prospecting rights for marine phosphate to Green Flash Trading 251 and 257 (Pty) Ltd (GFT 251 and 257) and Diamond Fields International Ltd (DFI Ltd, Toronto listed Canadian company) respectively. These rights extend over a considerable portion of South Africa’s exclusive economic zone, together covering more than 150 000 km2 or 10% of the EEZ. The GFT 251 prospecting right covers an area approximately 63 637 km2 located off the West Coast between the Groen River and Cape Town. The GFT 257 prospecting right covers an area of approximately 44 389 km2 located off the Southwest Coast of between Cape Town and Cape Infanta. The DFI Ltd prospecting right was granted in 2014. The prospecting area extends over 47 468 km2 within the Outeniqua Basin, offshore Mossel Bay. According to the Environmental Management Plans prepared by GFT 251 and GFT 257, the prospecting areas for these companies overlap with Critically Endangered Ecosystems and several proposed marine protected areas including Childs Bank, Cape Canyon, Browns Bank Complex, Agulhas Bank Complex, Agulhas Muds and Southwest Indian Seamounts. Furthermore, they directly coincide with several existing fishing grounds in the following fishing sectors: demersal trawl, demersal long-line, pelagic long-line, small pelagic purse seine, tuna pole, traditional line fish and west coast rock lobster. Notably, they overlap with South Africa’s only Marine Stewardship Council accredited fishery, which alone employs 12 000 people and generates approximately R4 billion in revenue annually.

Although a prospecting right does not provide a legal entitlement to a mining right, it provides an expectation that mining will be allowed. If mining were to proceed in the areas currently under prospecting rights in South Africa, it would in all likelihood involve a technology named Trailing Suction Hopper-Dredge (TSHD). TSHD involves dredging sediment from the seafloor at a rapid rate and completely removing a layer of sediment of up to 3 meters deep. Vessels are able to dredge more than 100 000 m2 of sediment per day. A proposed marine phosphate project in Namibia is expected to remove up to 5.5 million tonnes of sediment annually (NMP, 2012). A dredge-head of around 11m wide is dragged on the seafloor which has cutting teeth and water jets that crush hard sediment. The sediment is then suctioned by a tube and all excess water and fine particulates are released back into the water column. This creates a giant plume of sediment, which blankets an area far greater than the mined area, burying and smothering adjacent seabed ecosystems. Preliminary assessments outline potentially considerable and irreversible impacts on marine ecosystems and fishery resources. Potential environmental impacts include: direct destruction of seabed organisms and habitats – the building blocks of marine ecosystems; direct destruction of spawning, breeding and feeding habitats for fish species, many of which are commercially important; the release of hazardous substances such as radioactive materials, methane, hydrogen sulphide and heavy metals locked in the seabed; and reduced light penetration, compromising photosynthesis of marine flora (Currie, 2013; Allsopp, et al. 2013; NZ EPA, 2015; NT EPA, 2012).

Coastal-offshore mineral sand mining An increasing number of prospecting rights have been applied for and/or granted for offshore heavy mineral sands. In 2004, Richards Bay Minerals was issued a five-year heavy metals prospecting right, in an area on the northern KZN coast, stretching between Richards Bay and Cape St Lucia. The prospecting sought to determine the viability of offshore mining for ilmenite (converted to titania slag and iron), rutile and zircon. If a mining right were granted, Richards Bay Minerals would have implemented a dredge-type system for extraction. In that case, the Oceanographic Research Institute and Wildlife and Environment Society South Africa (WESSA) were concerned that the type of offshore mining that would proceed could lead to ‘undersea trenches and opencast mining operations’ which would significantly disrupt the marine ecosystem and food chain (Carnie, 2012). In 2012, Coastal Phosphate (Pty) Ltd applied for a prospecting right for marine phosphate and potash. The Background Information document indicates that the proposed prospecting area is located offshore from Cape St Francis and covers an area of 1043 km2. In 2012, Fast Pace Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd was granted a

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 53

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

prospecting right for heavy minerals and gemstones in a block centred around the mouth of the Tugela River, offshore and extending northeast of Darnal in KwaZulu-Natal, between 30-70 metres depth contour.

Recently, Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR) applied to expand its coastal mineral sand mining operations (the Tormin Mine) further offshore. On 13 November 2015 DMR granted a prospecting right to ‘MSR’ for garnet, heavy minerals, leucoxene, monazite, rutile and zircon. This right expands the Tormin mine coastal operations further offshore by extending the current operations 10 500ha seawards. This offshore expansion was granted despite significant environmental damage to the coastal environment perpetrated by MSR and intense media criticism and opposition from local communities and civil society.The Environmental Management Programme prepared on behalf of MSR states the prospecting area falls within one of the most threatened habitat types in the southern Benguela. Furthermore the prospecting area is located in close proximity to a Cape fur seal breeding area.

4.7.6 Tourism (including recreational fishing) South Africa is known as an adventure destination, attracting younger, more active foreign tourist searching for diverse experiences and nature holidays that are not offered elsewhere. The coast with sandy beaches with warm and cold water and a myriad of diverse eco-tourism activities, such as snorkelling, scuba diving (including spearfishing), shark diving, whale watching, coastal hiking, bird-watching, game fishing and good surfing conditions makes South Africa the ideal travel destination. More importantly these factors contribute significantly to the overall tourism value.

The gross value of ecotourism in 2009 (which includes adventure tourism, and passive nature based tourism) was calculated by Turpie and Wilson (2011) to be in the region of US$186 million (R1.4 billion), while coastal tourism’s contribution to gross economic output was US$1734 million with a 564 000 jobs. According to the State of the Ocean and Coasts Report 14 (2014) the direct value of marine ecotourism sector to the South African economy was estimated at R400 million and its indirect value (based on an approximate multiplier of five) as more than R2 billion. In 2014, Wynberg and Hauck estimated that the tourism linked to the scenic beauty and recreational opportunities of coastal areas to been estimated at nearly US$30 billion for nature-based and dive tourism in coral reefs.

Key eco-tourism activities Beaches - Beach tourism is a prime tourism sector worldwide, contributing substantially to local economies. - In 2008, the suspension of Blue Flag status of beaches in Durban is estimated to have costs the South African tourism industry, an estimated ZAR 100 million per year (Lucrezi and van der Merwe, 2015). - It is estimated that the Durban beaches with their warm water is some of the most popular beaches in South African. Margate Beach attracts a large volume of tourists, particularly in the summer, bringing as much as ZAR290 million per annum to the province’s economy (Lucrezi and van der Merwe, 2015). - The City of Cape Town Report (2014) reflects that visiting the beach constituted 12% of all foreign visitors activities during their stay in Cape Town, with a total number of visitors were 1569195 of which Europeans consisted of 55,9% closely followed by North and South American (45%, Thornton, 2014). - An average of 12 million local visitors travelled in South Africa during 2010 – 2013. Of the domestic trips taken during 2011, 71% were taken by Africans, 17.7% by Whites, 3.5% by Indians and 7.8% by Coloureds and up to 50% of their activity was spent at the beach (Thornton, 2014). Whale Watching - The boat-based whale watching industry in South Africa generates R62 million (2009) in tourist expenditure and contributes approximately R51 million (2009), to South Africa’s GDP each year. - According to SOE report (DEA 2014), the overall value to the economy of this activity is R105 million. - In 1997, Findlay estimated tourist expenditure on shore-based whale watching was in the order of US$1.5 million (R11 million) per year. More recent estimate put this value at R80 million (SOE Report 14, 2014).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 54

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Table 6. The estimated value of whale-watching (marine ecotourism) to South Africa’s economy in 2013.

Ecotourism Number of Estimated Number Estimated Estimated Estimated sector permits number of of tourists average price direct value of overall value to persons per person sector (million economy employed (ZAR) ZAR) (million ZAR) Land-based 80 400 whale watching Boat-based 23 (16 184 42,812 500 21 105 whale watching active)

White Shark Watching/Cage Diving - In 2009, great white shark diving in the Gansbaai area was found to generate R42 million each year. - In 2013, it was estimated to be around R92 million as a direct value and it is estimated to generate R440 million to the overall economic value.

Table 7. The estimated value of shark cage diving (marine ecotourism) to South Africa’s economy in 2013.

Ecotourism Number of Estimated Number Estimated Estimated Estimated sector permits number of of tourists average price direct value of overall value to persons per person sector (million economy employed (ZAR) ZAR) (million ZAR) White shark 12 (active) 120 61,404 1,500 92 460 cage diving

Tiger Shark and other shark diving - Great white shark diving in the Gansbaai area was found to generate US$5.6 million each year (R42 million, 2009 RandS). - Diving with Tiger sharks on the east coast at Aliwal Shoal was found to have a direct value of R12 405 274 (Dicken and Hosking, 2009) - In 2013 the estimated direct value to the economy was between R11 -14 million, while other shark diving was estimated at R100 million (SOE 2014)

Table 8. The estimated value of shark diving (marine ecotourism) to South Africa’s economy in 2013.

Ecotourism Number of Estimated Number Estimated Estimated Estimated sector permits number of of tourists average price direct value of overall value to persons per person sector (million economy employed (ZAR) ZAR) (million ZAR) Tiger sharks at 13 39 946–1,198 1,651 1–2 11–14 Aliwal Shoal Other shark 18 90 20,000 400–1,200 20 100 diving

Diving and photography - In 2010 Dicken estimated that boat based diving and photographic packages in Pondoland MPA during the sardine run was estimated to have a direct value of R5.4 million (Dicken, 2010). - The 2014 SOE report (DEA 2016) estimated the direct economic value of the eco-filming sector to be R120 million and an overall value to the economy estimated to be R600 million.

Turtle, bird and seal watching - The 2014 SOE report estimated the direct economic value of turtle watching and bird watching to be R3 million and R25 million respectively with an overall value to the economy estimated of R15 million and R125 million. - This activity has direct generated an economic value of R5 million and with an overall value to the economy estimated of R25 million. - The number of visitors to the Simonstown Penguin Colony has increased from 200,000 in the 1998 to approximately 662,000 in 2013 making it the fifth most visited tourist site in Cape Town (Van Zyl, 2014). - The tourist expenditure is estimated at approximately R160 million per annum with 35% of this amount being spent within Simonstown. (Van Zyl, 2014).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 55

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

- A highly significant total of 760 jobs would be associated with it in all parts of Cape Town with a maximum of 290 of these to be found in Simon’s Town and surrounds. - Other key benefits associated with the colony include its contribution to the Cape Town and Simonstown brand, property value enhancement and existence and bequest values. (Van Zyl, 2014).

Sardine Run - The Sardine Run on the east coast of the country was estimated to have direct value of R5.4 million (Dicken, 2010). This value is based on both boat-based diving and photographic packages. - The sardine run no longer only attracts the scientific and filming fraternities but now attracts commercial dive operators with the number of boats increasing from 2 in 2000 to 29 in 2001. Boat-based viewing of the run has also become a lucrative business with the number of boats increasing from 1 in 2000 to 25 in 2001 (Dicken, 2010). - A large majority of the tourists that visit the annual run were foreign visitors, originating from 15 countries with the majority from North America and Britain.

West coast spring flowers - after the winter rains the coastal landscape along the west coast is flooded with colour as the wild flowers make their brief but spectacular annual display. Over 2000 species of daisies and succulent vygies occur on the west coast.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 56

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

5 VALUATION AND MONITORING OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The ocean’s value to human endeavour has long been noted with many countries calculating the values of their oceans economies. However, such valuation has often been based on a contribution to national GDP metrics which as noted by Costanza (2014) measure mainly market transactions and ignores social costs, environmental impacts and income inequality. Such valuations also ignore non-market components of the ecosystem services basket and make no provision for any deterioration in the natural capital from which ecosystem service values flow.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) suggested that measures of well-being arising from ecosystem services include security (personal safety, security of resources, and security from disasters), basic material of a good life (adequate livelihoods, sufficient food, shelter and access to goods); health (strength, feeling well and access to clean air and water); good social relations (social cohesion, mutual respect and ability to help others) and freedom of choice and action. It is clear that many of these cannot be measured through national income metrics within the Systems of National Accounts (SNA) framework, yet the size and growth of national economies as defined by GDP, which remains the key benchmark of a nations success despite ignoring important societal and environmental economic components. Furthermore, there is, as noted above, considerable confusion as to what benefits, goods and services are included in the contribution to ocean economy, as well as what sectors (particularly the upstream and downstream components of industry sectors) or geographic range (in the case off coastal components) need to be included in such evaluations.

Costanza (2014) described the extent of interaction of ecosystem service users, including the degree to which potential users can be excluded from services and categorises these as i) privately owned goods and services that are sold on a market and the associated extent that the owner can regulate access via price (non-excludable to excludable services), and ii) finite goods and services and the extent that one use precludes use by others (non-rival to rival services). Ecosystem services clearly have both market and non-market contributions to human benefits and value can accrue to individuals as private goods or to the broader society as public goods. Provisioning services typically result in private goods, whereas many regulating and cultural services are of a public goods nature. Many ecosystem services are public goods (non-rival and non-excludable) or common pool resources (rival and non-excludable), and are very difficult to quantify in terms of their value to society and therefore in decision making. The appropriate valuation approaches for ecosystem services consequently vary by the type of ecosystem service, as these contribute to human benefits and well-being in different ways.

Liu et al. (2010) adapted a framework of de Groot et al. (2002) for the assessment and valuation of ecosystem services (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Framework for integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem goods and services (from Liu et al. 2010, adapted from de Groot et al. 2002).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 57

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

5.1 VALUATION OF PROVISIONING (MARKET VALUE) ECOSYSTEM SERVICES.

Provisioning services include consumptive goods extracted from an ecosystem and the provision of non- consumptive services (such as marketed whale watching or scuba diving or other non-consumptive utilisation) which generates an economic value. Whilst the evaluation of provisioning services may be based on market value, the harnessing of natural capital as ecosystem services is as noted above dependent on human enterprise (ecosystem service benefits do not flow directly from the natural capital to human welfare without considerable human intervention) so that the interactions of human, social and built capital requires consideration in evaluation of the natural capital benefits. A major challenge in ecosystem services evaluation is consequently to assess the relative contribution of the natural capital stock in this interaction. For example, the value of a fishery is dependent on the value of the landed product which is going to be dependent in turn on the fish stock (the natural capital), the fishing effort provided by the fishing fleet (the built capital) and the knowledge and experience of the fishers (the human capital).

5.2 VALUATION OF REGULATORY AND CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM (NON-MARKET) SERVICES.

Regulating and cultural services support both private goods and services and broader public services (societal well-being) by means of the positive externalities that they generate. Public goods and services are often of a non-excludable and non-rival non-market value and comprise the regulatory and cultural ecosystem services that are considerably more difficult to evaluate as the valuation requires the application of non-market valuation methods. Such methods often develop price by proxy methods or surrogate pricing. 5.2.1 Payment of resource rents Payment of resource rents through excludable licencing or acreage fees places the unit resource rent for such services in the market value arena. It is important that valuation for the payment of ecosystem services is based on the value of the natural capital and excludes other capital utilised in generating the product. For example, the value landed fish should not be used directly as the value for the ecosystem service as these include built and human capital. 5.2.2 Payment for ecosystem services (PES) Payment for ecosystem services (PES) allows for the compensation or incentivisation of land stewards or owners for ecosystem conservation and restoration that allow for increased non-market provisioning, regulatory or cultural ecosystem services and include payments earned through eco-certified production. Four ecosystem services have resulted in payments: biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, watershed protection, and landscape aesthetics and recreation (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002). 5.2.3 Revealed and stated preference methods see Liu et al. (2010) Production function methods estimate the contribution of ecosystem services to production processes in terms of their contribution to the value of the final product being traded on the market.

Hedonic pricing methods analyse how ecosystem services influence the prices paid for market products or assets. For example, hedonic pricing can be used to determine the value of ecosystem services in property pricing (what is the value of a sea view) Hedonic valuation may also identify option values for future alternative services from an ecosystem.

Travel cost methods estimate the value of the ecosystem services based on the amounts that consumers may be willing to pay (in terms of transport costs, travel time, visiting time) for undertaking an activity (and are largely used for evaluating recreational or cultural services).

Averting behaviour methods evaluate the willingness of individuals to avoid undesirable consequences and assume that people will behave so as to avoid an undesirable outcome resulting from ecosystem degradation. Unlike the replacement cost valuation method (see below), this method is based on individual preferences.

Stated preference methods (such as contingent valuation) evaluate people’s preparedness to pay for ecosystem services without observing any transaction. Unlike other valuation methods, they can be used to quantify values of an ecosystem services in monetary terms, although require credible responses.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 58

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

5.2.4 Remediation value While regulatory or cultural services may contribute to private goods which themselves will be encapsulated in the value of provisioning services, the costs of the maintenance of the regulatory or cultural services is generally not incurred by the users of the service and it is only the loss of such services that identify the service values. In cases of loss, the costs of remediation of the basket of services to a level of comparable service level may be proxy for the valuation of such services. 5.2.5 Replacement value Similar to remediation value, the replacement of a single ecosystem service through a treatment process can approximate the service values through the “costs of treatment”. For example, the cost of water purification can provide for the value of a natural wetland providing a water purification service.

5.3 ECOSYSTEM SERVICE EVALUATION IN THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO OCEAN GOVERNANCE

The valuation of ecosystem services can have many potential uses across multiple temporal and spatial scales and Costanza (2014) includes the following potential uses: ● Raising awareness and interest (for example Costanza et al., 1997); ● National income and well-being accounts that are not fully covered within the current SNA metrics; ● Specific policy analyses and regional use planning (i.e. In trade-off analyses); ● Payment for ecosystem services; ● Full cost accounting; and ● Common asset trusts. ● Whilst almost all of these uses have value in different ecosystem service evaluation components in the EA in Ocean Governance, two ES evaluation processes are critical in the Ocean Governance framework, these being evaluation for trade off analyses and evaluation within, and arising from, ecosystem accounting frameworks.

5.3.1 Ecosystem Service Evaluation for Trade-offs between competitive sectors or industries (including the environment) in Ocean Governance As noted above all trade-off analyses inherently centre on evaluation processes. Resolution of the potential conflicts arising from inter-sectoral (user-user) interactions in the ocean space (with the inclusion of the environment as a “user” sector) consequently require a number of step wise processes. 1. The identification of the spatio-temporal interactions between sectors by a Marine Spatial Planning process across temporal scales and ecosystems (through the Basic Spatial Units; aggregated to habitats or ecosystems) 2. The development of a intersectoral compatibility / conflict matrix which through stakeholder engagement identifies the economic, social or environmental conflicts that arise through interactions between sectors. Such a matrix needs to assess the extent to which sectoral interactions are excludable and rival and needs to account for externalities across ecosystem service categories (provisioning, regulatory, cultural or support services). 3. The merging of the spatio-temporal interactions between sectors identified in 1, with the extent of compatibility / conflict identified in 2 to identify spatio-temporal conflicts metrics. 4. The evaluation of the ecosystem services (provisioning, regulatory, cultural or support services) or environmental services that are included within the spatio-temporal conflicts identified in 3. Such an evaluation needs to be carried out through economic, social and environmental lenses to allow for trade- off analyses to be developed. 5. Prioritisation of sectors (including all of the components of the environmental, economic or social sectors) to allow for the maximisation of benefits, goods and services from the environment without compromising environmental integrity, health or support services, through the development and implementation of adequate decision support tools including for example multi criteria decision frameworks and scenario planning) in a detailed trade-off planning and decision making process 6. Continued review and adaptive management of the prioritisation process.

There appear to be very few case studies of ecosystem service evaluations in ocean governance and decision- making, possibly as suggested by Lester et al. (2013) that marine systems offer a challenge for trade-offs across services for a number of reasons including the general absence of property rights and the non-market process in their use; fragmented governance, expanding and emerging uses, which may contribute to crowding in limited

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 59

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

ocean space.

One oft-cited case study is the Massachusetts Ocean case study where a Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES) model was used for a spatially explicit analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs for wind-farm developments and the surrounding areas (Altman et al., 2014; Boumans et al., 2015). In a parallel study, White et al. (2012) investigated the specific trade-offs associated arising from particular configurations of offshore wind turbine pylons. In the MIMES model of Altman et al. (2014) and Boumans et al. (2015) ocean habitat features were characterized using spatial data layers from a variety of sources, whilst human activities, were sourced from stakeholder interactions, and included fishing sectors industrial users (shipping, liquefied natural gas terminals, pipelines, and wind generators) and recreational users (whale watching and recreational fishing). Several scenarios were developed to investigate different management decisions on ecosystem services.

5.3.2 Ecosystem accounting frame works In 2012 the UN Statistical Division (UNSD) approved the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Central Framework (SEEA-CF) to align with the System of National Accounts (SNA) used in the compilation of national GDP metrics, and in 2013 approved the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA) framework (SEEA-EEA, 2013). The SEEA is continually refined by the UNSD. Ecosystem accounting is a novel and emergent discipline which integrates ecological and biophysical data to identify and monitor changes in ecosystems and the relationship of any identified changes to economic and human activity in the form of ecosystem service flows (SEEA EEA, 2013; Edens and Hein, 2013). As with MSP, the ecosystem accounting framework is underpinned by spatial components so that there is some complementarity in MSP and EEA in the trade-offs required for ocean governance. Figure 8 (adapted from the SEEA) describes the relationship between the environment and the economy. South Africa is one of seven pilot countries and have embarked on experimental ecosystem accounting through a partnership between StatsSA and SANBI (Lehohla, 2015).

Figure 8. The relationship between the environment and the economy.

In this framework a distinction is made between ecosystem assets and ecosystem services i.e. ecosystem services flow from ecosystem assets (Figure 9 below).

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 60

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Figure 9. The ecosystem services flow from ecosystem assets.

Determine Environmental Accounting Units Economic units are used for analytical purposes and grouped into industries that undertake similar economic activities and institutional sectors. The stocks in ecosystem accounting are represented by spatial areas, each of which constitutes an ecosystem asset. The statistical units of ecosystem accounting are special areas for which data are collected and statistics applied. Three spatial units are applied: a) Basic Spatial Units (BSUs), b) Ecosystem functional units (sometimes referred to in the SEEA model as Land Cover / Ecosystem Units (LCEU) likely to be based on habitat types) and Ecosystem Accounting Units (EAUs). EAUs are made up of LCEUs which in turn are made up of BSUs.

Measurement of ecosystem assets may be undertaken from from two perspectives (a) ecosystem condition and extent; and (b) ecosystem services including ecosystem assets (as spatial units) in terms of their condition and extent. Ecosystem condition reflects the overall quality of an ecosystem asset in terms of its characteristics. Ecosystem extent refers to the size of an ecosystem asset.

Expected ecosystem service flow is a measure of all future ecosystem service flows from an ecosystem asset for a given basket of ecosystem services and are based on an expected basket of provisioning, regulating and cultural services from an ecosystem asset under its current use.

The ecosystem condition and extent and expected ecosystem service flows are all standing stock metrics at a fixed point in time, usually measured at the beginning and end of the accounting period so that changes in condition, extent and flows may be identified. The accounting process identifies changes in assets over time and seeks to attribute these changes to cause. In ecosystem accounting such changes could arise from both human and natural causes and could range for example from extraction, natural movement and growth (or decline. It is important to note that ecosystem accounting can centre on both physical and monetary accounting. Accounting for disservices and their relationship to ecosystem processes and benefits has not been developed.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 61

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

6 THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE BCC

● Knowledge and Awareness. Promote an understanding of ecosystem services concepts amongst ecosystem management institutions. ● Ecosystem Services and Linkages. Define ecosystem services and the associated interactions – between users and between users and the environment. Marine spatial planning indicates where interactions occur. ● Integrating an Ecosystem Services Approach into Ecosystem Management. Integrate the monitoring and measuring of ecosystem services into ecosystem management ● Ecosystem Evaluation. Perform regular Ecosystem Services evaluations. ● Environmental-Economic Accounting. Implement the UN Statistical Division (UNSD) approved the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Central Framework (SEEA-CF) to align with the System of National Accounts (SNA) used in the compilation of national GDP metrics. ● Decision Support Tools. Incorporate an ecosystem services approach and decision support tools into ocean governance. E.g. the use of an activity Compatibility Matrix to define where conflicts occur and weigh decisions based on objective economic, ecological and social criteria. ● Knowledge Gaps. Identify of knowledge gaps ● Institutional Capacity Building. Building of institutional capacity for the implementation of ecosystem based management including capacity to monitor ecosystem health and the ecosystem services that they provide.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 62

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

7 REFERENCES

ACP FISH II (2017) Angola Country Overview. 10/2/2017 http://acpfish2-eu.org/index.php?page=angola African Development Fund (2002). Appraisal Report: Artisanal fisheries development project-Republic of Angola. ANG/PAAF/2002/01. 48 pp. Altman, I., Boumans, R.M.J., Roman, J., Gopal, S., Kaufman, L. (2014). An ecosystem accounting frame work for marine ecosystem-based management in the Sea. In: Fogarty, M.J., McCarthy, J.J. (Eds.), Marine Ecosystem-based Management. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA: 458 pp. Anon. (2016). Namibia exported fish worth N$10 billion. New Era. 01/03/2016. https://www.newera.com.na/2016/03/01/namibia-exported-fish-worth-n10-billion/ ATLAFCO (The Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean) (2012). Fisheries and Aquaculture industry in Namibia. Series Report no. 2 on the Fisheries and Aquaculture review in the 22 ATLAFCO member countries, October 2012. AU. (2012). 2050 Africa’s Integrated Maritime Strategy (2050 Aim Strategy) African Union, Addis Ababa- Ethiopia. Banzhaf, S. and Boyd, J. (2005). The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index. Discussion Paper 05-22. Resources for the Future, Washington DC. Barnes, J.I. and Alberts, M. (2008). Sustainable natural resource use on the coast of Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper 78: 37 pp. Barnes, J.I., Zeybrandt, F., Kirchner, C.H. and Sakko, A.L. (2002). The economic value of Namibia’s recreational shore fishery: A review. DEA Research Discussion Paper 50: 21 pp. BCC (2013). Press release issued by the Benguela Current Convention 18 March 2013 www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/component/docman/doc.../155-press-kit-3. Belhabib, D. and Divovich, E. (2014). Rich fisheries and poor data: a catch reconstruction for Angola, 1950– 2010. Vancouver (Canada): Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia. Berkes, F., Hughes, T.P., Steneck, R.S., Wilson, J.A., Bellwood, D.R., Crona, B., Folke, C., Gunderson, L.H., Leslie, H.M., Norberg, J. and Nyström, M. (2006). Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science (New York, N.Y.), 311(5767): 1557–1558. Bethune, S., Shaw, D., Roberts, K.S. and The Wetland Working Group of Namibia. (2007). Wetlands of Namibia. John Meinert Printing, Windhoek, Namibia. Boumans, R., Roman, J., Altman, I. and Kaufman, L. (2015). The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosystem Services, 12: 30-41. Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological economics, 63(2): 616-626. Britz, P.J. (2006). A Review of Aquaculture Policy and Institutional Capacity in the BCLME Region with Recommended Regional Policy Options. Report BCLME project LMR/MC/03/01. Development of Responsible Aquaculture Policy for the BCLME Region: 52 pp.

Bundy A, Coll M, Shannon LJ and Y-J Shin. 2012..: Global assessments of the status of marine exploited ecosystems and their management: what more is needed?, Current Opinion on Environment Sustainability 4: 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.05.003 Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., and Bruno, J. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164. Chasomeris, M. G. (2005). South Africa’s ports performance: policy, pricing and growth. Department of Economics and Finance, University of Kwa-Zulu Natal. Durban. Chiripanhura, B and Teweldemedhin, M. (2016). An Analysis of the Fishing Industry in Namibia: The Structure, Performance, Challenges, and Prospects for Growth and Diversification. AGRODEP (African Growth

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 63

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

and Development Policy) Modelling Consortium, Working Paper 0021, January 2016. CICES. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R. (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management. Concepts and practices. Island Press. CLA Report. (2010). Coastal Livelihoods Assessment (CLA). Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Project Programme Report. South Africa. Clark, B. M., Hauck, M., Harris, J. M., Salo, K. and Russell, E. (2002). Identification of subsistence fishers, fishing areas, resource use and activities along the South African Coast. South African Journal of Marine Science 24: 425–37. Colgan, C.S. (2013). The ocean economy of the United States. Measurement, distribution and trends. Ocean and Coastal Management. 71: 334-343. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2007). In-depth review of the application of the ecosystem approach. Barriers to the application of the ecosystem approach. In: Proceedings of the 12th meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice. Paris: UNESCO; 2007. Cork, S., Shelton, D., Binning, C. and Parry, R. (2001). A framework for applying the concept of ecosystem services to natural resource management in Australia. Third Australian Stream Management Conference, August 27–29, 2001, Brisbane. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, 141, 350 –2. Costanza, R. (2014). Foreword: The importance of valuing ecosystem services. In Ninan, K.N. (ed.) Valuing Ecosystem Services. Methodological Issues and Case Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK. Costanza, R. Fioramonti, L. and Kubiszewski, I. (2016). The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the dynamics of well- being. The Ecological Society of America. www.frontiersinecology.org. Costanza, R., Andrade, F., Antunes, P., van den Belt, M., Boesch, D., Boersma, D., Catarino, F., Hanna, S., Limburg, K., Low, B. and Molitor, M. (1999). Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans. Ecological economics, 31(2): 171-187. Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K.E., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Roberts, D., De Vogli, R., and Wilkinson, R. (2014). Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505: 283–285. Costanza, Robert; Arge, Ralph; deGroot, Rudolf; Farberk, Stephen; Grasso, Monica; Hannon, Bruce; Limburg, Karin; Naeem, Shahid; Neill, Robert V O; Paruelo, Jose; Raskin, Robert G; and Sutton, P. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(May): 253–260. DAFF.2015. Aquaculture Yearbook - 2014. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Branch: Fisheries; Chief Directorate: Aquaculture and Economic Development. Cape Town. Daily, G. (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press. Washington, DC. De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A. and Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics, 41(3): 393-408. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). (2014). Status of the Marine Resources Report 2014. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Branch: Fisheries, Cape Town. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). (2000). White Paper for Sustainable Development in South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs. 2014. South Africa’s National Coastal Management Programme. Cape Town. Department of Environmental Affairs. State of the Environment for South Africa. http://soer.deat.gov.za/newsDetailPage.aspx?m=66&amid=16320 Dicken, M. L. (2010). Socio-economic aspects of boat-based ecotourism during the sardine run within the Pondoland Marine Protected Area, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science. 32: 405-411.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 64

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Dicken, M. L. and Hosking, S. G. (2009). Socio-economic aspects of the tiger shark diving industry within the Aliwal Shoal Marine Protected Area, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science. 31: 227–232. Diop, S. and Scheren, P.A. (2016). Sustainable oceans and coasts: Lessons learnt from Eastern and Western Africa. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.03.032. Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy, 32(5): 762–771. Douvere, F. and Ehler, C. N. (2009). New perspectives on sea use management: initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 77-88. Douvere, F. and Ehler, C. N. (2011). The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 15: 305-311. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2015). The Blue Economy: Growth, Opportunity and a Sustainable Ocean Economy, Briefing Paper prepared for the World Ocean Summit 2015. Edens, B. and Hein, L. (2013). Towards a consistent approach for ecosystem accounting Ecological Economics 90: 41–52. Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. (2009). Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. Paris: UNESCO. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Page 18. EC, 2012). Emanuel, B. P., Bustamante, R. H., Branch, G. M., Eekhout, S., and Odendaal, F. J. (1992). A zoogeographic and functional approach to the selection of marine reserves on the west coast of South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science, 12(1): 341-354. Engebretsen, R. (2015). How long can Angola hold on with low oil prices? http://africanarguments.org/2015/12/28/how-long-can-angola-hold-on-with-low-oil-prices/ FAO (2011) Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles. The Republic of Angola. 7/02/2017 http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/AGO/en Fielding, P, Cardoso P, Shapi, M and Sowman, M. (2006). Socio-economic baseline survey of coastal communities in the BCLME region – Namibia. BCLME Report compiled by the Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town. Fielding, P., Sowman, M. and Bergh, M. (2005). Overview and analysis of socio-economic and fisheries information to promote the management of artisanal fisheries in the BCLME region-Angola: Final report and recommendations (Angola). Duarte Agostinho, Artisanal Fishing Institute of Angola, Institute for the Development of Artisanal Fisheries, Angola. BCLME Project No. LMR/AFSE/03/01/B. 112 pp. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2007). The Republic of Namibia. General Economic data, 2007. FID / CP / NAM, March 2007. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2015). FAO Global Aquaculture Production database updated to 2013 – Summary information, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4899e.pdf Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 35: 613–628. Government of Australia. (2013). Marine Nation 2025 Marine Science to Support Australia’s Blue Economy, Oceans Policy Science Advisory Group, March. Griffiths, C.L., Van Sittert, L., Best, P.B., Brown, A.C., Clark, B.M., Cook, P.A., Crawford, R.J.M., David, J.H.M., Davies, B.R., Griffiths, M.H. and Hutchings, K. (2005). Impacts of human activities on marine animal life in the Benguela: a historical overview. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev., 42: 303-392. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In Ecosystem Ecology: A new Synthesis: 110 – 139. Halpern BS, Longo C, Hardy D, McLeod KL, Samhouri JF, Katona SK, Kleisner K, Lester SE, O’Leary J, Ranelletti M, Rosenberg AA, Scarborough C, Selig ER, BD Best, Brumbaugh DR, Chapin FS, Crowder LB, Daly KL, Doney SC, Elfes C, Fogarty MJ, Gaines SD, Jacobsen KI, Karrer LB, Leslie HM, Neeley E, Pauly D, Polasky S, Ris D, St Martin K, Stone GS, Sumaila UR and D Zeller. 2012. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620. doi:10.1038/nature11397.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 65

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

Hampton, I. (2003). Harvesting the sea. In: Molloy, F & T Reinikainen. Namibia’s marine environment. Windhoek: Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, pp 31–69. Holdren, J. P. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Human population and the global environment. American Scientist, 62: 282 –92. Hosking, S., Du Preez, D., Kacynsky, V., Hosking, J., Du Preez, M and Haines, R. (2014). The economic contribution of the ocean sector in South Africa. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics 38,2: 65-82. Hutchings, L., Van Der Lingen, C.D., Shannon, L.J., Crawford, R.J.M., Verheye, H.M.S., Bartholomae, C.H., Van der Plas, A.K., Louw, D., Kreiner, A., Ostrowski, M. and Fidel, Q. (2009). The Benguela Current: An ecosystem of four components. Progress in Oceanography, 83(1):15-32. IHO. (2013). IHO and southern Africa and islands hydrographic commission Meeting (SAIHC) meeting Mauritius, September 2013. Country review: Namibia. http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/rhc/SAIHC/SAIHC10/SAIHC10-5.3M_Namibia_National_Report.pdf IMLT. (2008). Socio-Economic Assessment in the Context of Vision 2030 and Millennium Development Goals. Information assessment, Gap analysis and Action Plan. 30 pp. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). (2015). http://www.iotc.org/ International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). (2015). https://www.iccat.int/en/assess.htm IUCN. 2016. An Introduction to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: The Categories and Criteria for Assessing Risks to Ecosystems. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. vi + 14pp. Kaczynski, W.M. (2011). The future of blue economy: lessons for European Union. Foundations of Management, vol. 3, no. 1: 21-32. Kashorte, M. (2003). Moving subsistence fisheries to commercial fisheries in South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Branch: Marine and Coastal Management. Cape Town. Kathijotes, N. (2012). Blue Economy in Coastal Management: An Ecological Perspective. TBTI-CZAP- SEAFDEC “Small-scale fisheries: livelihoods, wellbeing, vulnerability and governance” Thailand. Kathijotes, N. (2013). Keynote: Blue Economy – Environmental and Behavioural Aspects Towards Sustainable Coastal Development. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101: 7–13. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042813020685. Kildow, J.T. and McIlgorm, A. (2010). The importance of estimating the contribution of the oceans to national economies. Mar. Policy 34, 367–374. Kirchner, C.H., Japp, A., Purves, M.G. and Wilkinson, S. (2012). Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem State of the Stock Review, Report No. 2 (2012). Kirchner, C.H., Sakko, A.L. and Barnes, J.I. (2000). An economic valuation of the Namibian recreational shore- angling fishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 22: 17-25. Kirkman, S. P., Yemane, D., Kathena, J., Mafwila, S. K., Nsiangango, S. E., Samaai, T., Axelsen, B., and Singh, L. (2013). Identifying and characterizing demersal fish biodiversity hotspots in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem: relevance in the light of global changes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 943–954. Krapf, C. B., Stollhofen, H., and Stanistreet, I. G. (2003). Contrasting styles of ephemeral river systems and their interaction with dunes of the Skeleton Coast erg (Namibia). Quaternary International, 104(1): 41- 52. Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T., Aylmer, C. (2013). Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecol. Econ. 93: 57–68. Landell-Mills, N. and Porras, I.T. (2002). Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and their Impact on the Poor. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Layke, C., Mapendembeb, A., Brown, C., Walpoleb, M., and Winn, J. (2012). Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: an analysis and next steps. Ecological Indicators

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 66

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

17:77-87. Lee, H. and Lautenbach, S. (2016). A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 66 (2016): 340–351. Lehohla, P (2015) Environmental Economic Accounts Compendium. Statistics South Africa Report Number: 04- 05-20. http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-04-05-20/Report-04-05-202015.pdf. Leibold, M. and van Zyl, C. (2008). The Economic Impact of Sport & Recreational Angling in the Republic of South Africa. Report of Development Strategies International Pty. Ltd. South Africa. Lester, S.E., Costello, C., Halpern, B.S., Gaines, S.D., White, C. and Barth, J.A. (2013). Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Marine Policy. 38: 80–89. Likius, H. (2015). The livelihood status of artisanal fishers of Henties Bay, Namibia Unpublished Honours Project Report, University of Namibia. Liu, S., Costanza, R. Farber, S. and Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1185 (2010): 54–78. Lucrezi, S. and van der Merwe, P. (2015). Beachgoers' awareness and evaluation of the Blue Flag Award in South Africa. Journal of Coastal Research. 31(5): 1129-1140. M. Coll, L.J. Shannon, K.M. Kleisner, M.J. Juan-Jordá, A. Bundy, A.G. Akoglu,D. Banaru, J.L. Boldt, M.F. Borges, A. Cook, I. Diallo, C. Fuj, C. Fox, D. Gascuel,L.J. Gurney, T. Hattab, J.J. Heymans, D. Jouffre, B.R. Knight, S. Kucukavsar,S.I. Large, C. Lynam, A. Machias, K.N. Marshall, H. Masski, H. Ojaveer, C. Piroddi,J. Tam, D. Thiao, M. Thiaw, M.A. Torres, M. Travers-Trolet, K. Tsagarakis,I. Tuck, G.I. van der Meeren, D. Yemanec, S.G. Zador, and Shina, Y.-J. (2016). Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems Ecological Indicators 60: 947– 962 Marcuss, D. and Kane, R.E. (2007). US national income and product statistics born of the Great Depression and World War II. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Survey of Current Business 87 (2): 32–46. McCauley, D.J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature 443: 27–28. McCulla, S.H. and Smith, S. (2007). Measuring the Economy: A Primer on GDP and the National Income and Product Accounts. McGrath, M. D., Horner, C. C. M., Brouwer, S. L., Lamberth, S. J., Mann, B. Q., Sauer, W. H. H. and Erasmus, C. (1997). An economic valuation of the South African linefishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18: 203–211. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current States and Trends. Island Press.Washington, DC. Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). (2010). Namibia’s Draft Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD). August 2010. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/na/na-nr-04-en.pdf Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). (2014a). Namibia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010-2014). March 2014. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/na/na-nr-05-en.pdf Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). (2014b). Republic of Namibia, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Tourist Statistical Report 2014. http://www.namibiatourism.com.na/uploads/file_uploads/MET%20Tourist%20Arrival%20Statistics%20 Report%202014.pdf Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). (2013). Republic of Namibia, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Annual report 2012-2013. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). (2016). Aquaculture production. http://www.mfmr.gov.na/production. Last accessed 14 December 2016. Mooney, H. A. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1997). Ecosystem Services: a fragmentary history. In: Daily, G. C. (Ed.), Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC: 11– 19. Morrissey, K. and O’Donoghue, C. (2013). The role of the marine sector in the Irish national economy: An input-

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 67

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

output analysis. Marine Policy, 37(1): 230–238. Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA). (2013). Profile of Namibia. Facts, figures and other fundamental information. Namibian Marine Phosphate, ‘Sandpiper Project: Proposed Recovery of Phosphate Enriched Sediments from the Marine Mining License Area no. 170 off Walvis Bay, Namibia – Environmental Scoping Report(Final Report, April 2012) Nassl, M and Löffler, J. (2015). Ecosystem services in coupled social–ecological systems: Closing the cycle of service provision and societal feedback. Ambio, 44: 737–749. National Planning Commission (NPC). (2015). Republic of Namibia, Office of the President National Planning Commission 2014/2015 Annual Report. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, R., Chan, K., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H., and Shaw, R. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystems services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1): 4–11. Palumbi, S.R., Sandifer, P.A., Allan, J.D., Beck, M.W., Fautin, D.G., Fogarty, M.J., Halpern, B.S., Incze, L.S., Leong, J.A., Norse, E. and Stachowicz, J.J. (2009). Managing for ocean biodiversity to sustain marine ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(4): 204-211. Pinto, H., Cruz, A.R. and Combe, C. (2015). Cooperation and the emergence of maritime clusters in the Atlantic: Analysis and implications of innovation and human capital for blue growth. Marine Policy, 57(May 2013): 167–177 pp. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.029. Potschin, M.B. and Haines-Young, R.H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 575–594. Potts, W. M., Childs, A. R., Sauer, W. H. H. and Duarte, A. D. C. (2009). Characteristics and economic contribution of a developing recreational fishery in southern Angola. Fisheries management and ecology, 16(1): 14-20. Pugh, D. and Skinner, L. (1996). An analysis of marine-related activities in the UK economy and supporting science and technology. Ramos, M. (2011). Angolas Oil Industry Operations. 42 pp. Redford, K.H. and Adams, W.M. (2009). Payment for Ecosystem Services and the Challenge of Saving Nature. Conservation Biology Volume 23, No. 4, 2009. Republic of South Africa (RSA). (2014). Operation Phakisa: Offshore Oil and Gas Final Lab Report. Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R. and Michener, C. D. (2004). Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(34): 12579-12582. RIS. (2015). Prospects of Blue Economy in the Indian Ocean. Research and Information System for Developing Countries. www.ris.org.in Rodriguez, J.P., Beard Jr., T.D., Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G.S., Cork, S.J., Agard, J., Dob-son, A.P. and Peterson, G.D. (2006). Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 11 (1): 28 pp. Roumasset, JA and Kaiser, B. (2002) Valuing Indirect Ecosystem Services: The Case of Tropical Watersheds. Environment and Development Economics 7(04):701-71. Roux, J. P., and Shannon, L. J. (2004). Ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the northern Benguela: the Namibian experience. African Journal of Marine Science, 26(1): 79-93. Russel, DW and Wolf, R. (2012). Occupational Mapping, Namibian Fishing and Maritime Industry, Phase One Commercial Fishing Industry and Ports and Harbours. Namibia Trading Authority. https://nta.com.na/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Occupational-Mapping-Report-Namibian-Fishing-and- Maritime-Industry.pdf Saenger, P., and Bellan, M. F. (1995). The mangrove vegetation of the Atlantic coast of Africa: a review. Sagoff, M. (2002). On the value of natural ecosystems: The catskills parable. Politics and the Life Sciences 21:

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 68

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

19–25. Sagoff, M. (2008). On the economic value of ecosystem services. Environmental Values 17: 239–257.SCEP 1970). Sarukhán J and J Alcamo. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. A Report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. SEEA-EEA (2013); see United Nations (2013). Seo Park, K. (2014). A study on rebuilding the classification system of the Ocean Economy. Center for the Blue Economy in Monterey Institute of International Studies: Monterey, USA. Shannon, L. J., Coll, M., Yemane, D., Jouffre, D., Neira, S., Bertrand, A., Diaz, E., and Shin, Y-J. (2010). Comparing data-based indicators across upwelling and comparable systems for communicating ecosystem states and trends. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 807–832. Shin, Y-J., and Shannon, L. J. (2010). Using indicators for evaluating, comparing and communicating the ecological status of exploited marine ecosystems. 1. The IndiSeas project. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 686–691. Smith, J.-M. (2012). Sperrgebiet National Park – forging a model for ecotourism. Travel News Namibia, Spring 2012. http://www.travelnewsnamibia.com/featured-stories/sperrgebiet-national-park/#.UJjXAo7AEyE Sowman, M., Cardoso, P., Fielding, P., Hauck, M., Raemaekers, S., Sunde, J. and Schultz, O. (2011). Human dimensions of small-scale fisheries in the BCLME region: An overview: 109 pp. Spangenberg, J.H., C. von Haaren, and J. Settele. (2014). The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecological Economics 104: 22–32. Statistics South Africa. (2010). Gross Domestic Product. www.statssa.gov.za Steffen, W., Crutzen, J. and McNeill, J.R. (2007). The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature? Ambio, 36(8): 614–621. Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN). (2008). The Sperrgebiet: Hidden Treasure of the South. Sandpaper, The Newsletter of the Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN) Project of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Issue 13. Windhoek, Namibia. Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP). (1970). Man’s impact on the global environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Tallis, H., and Polasky, S. (2009). Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1162: 265–283. TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions, and Recommendations of TEEB. www.teeb.org. Thornton. G. (2014). Research on the Monitoring of Trends in Economic Value of Tourism in Cape Town. National Tourism Data Projection and Tourism Enterprise Survey Projection for 2013. Report for the City of Cape Town. Cape Town. Troy, A. and Wilson, M. A. (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics, 60 (2): 435 –49. Turner, W. R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T. M., Costanza, R., Da Fonseca, G. A. and Portela, R. (2007). Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience, 57(10): 868-873. Turpie, J. and Wilson, G. (2011). Cost/benefit assessment of marine and coastal resources in the western Indian Ocean: Mozambique and South Africa. Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Project Report. South Africa. Turton, A. R., Hattingh, J. H., Maree, G. A., Roux, D. J., Claassen, M. and Strydom, W. F. (Eds.). (2007). Governance as a trialogue: Government-Society-Science in transition. Springer Science and Business Media. Available at: http://books.google.fr/books?id=JGppOLgAHT8C. UNECA, 2016. Africa's Blue Economy: A policy handbook by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 69

EHB 2016/02 STRENGTHEN ABILITY TO MONITOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ______

UNEP, FAO, IMO, UNDP, IUCN, GRID-Arendal (2012). Green Economy in a Blue World. ISBN: 978-82-7701- 097-7. UNEP. (2005). Prochazka, K., Davies, B., Griffiths, C., Hara, M., Luyeye, N., O’Toole, M., Bodenstein, J., Probyn, T., Clark, B., Earle, A., Tapscott, C. and R. Hasler. Benguela Current, GIWA Regional assessment 44. University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden. UNEP. (2013). Green Economy Definition. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/AboutGEI/ United Nations (2013). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. Vackar, D., Ten Brink, B., Loh, J., Baillie, J.E.M., and Reyerse,B. (2012). Review of multispecies indices for monitoring human impacts on biodiversity. Ecological Indicators 17:58-67. Wallace, K.J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139: 235–246. Westman, W. E. (1977). How much are Nature’s services worth? Science, 197: 960 –4. White, C., Halpern, B.S. and Kappel, C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109(12): 4696–4701 World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2012). Namibia: The impacts of travel and tourism on jobs and the economy. WTTC. London. United Kingdom. World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2015). Travel and tourism economic impact 2015 Namibia. Zhao, R., Hynes, S. and Shun He, G. (2014). Defining and quantifying China’s ocean economy. Marine Policy, 43: 164–173.

Deliverable 3.2 Discussion Document on Linkages Between Ecosystem Services. February 2017 Page | 70