EASTERN CAPE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PLAN TECHNICAL REPORT

Derek Berliner & Philip Desmet

“Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Land Use Decision- Making in the Eastern Cape Province”

DWAF Project No 2005-012

1 August 2007 Revision 1 (5 September 2005)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report I

Photo by Barry Clark

Report Title; Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report.

Date: 1 August 2007

Authors: Derek Berliner & Dr Phillip Desmet

Contact details; Derek Berliner, Eco-logic Consulting, email: [email protected]. cell: 083 236 7155 Dr Phillip Desmet, email: [email protected], cell: 082 352 2955

Client: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

Principle funding agent: Development Bank of South Africa

Citation: Berliner D. & Desmet P. (2007) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Technical Report. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, Pretoria. 1 August 2007

(Unless otherwise quoted, intellectual property rights for the conceptual content of this report reside with the above authors)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report II

Acknowledgements

The assistance of a large number of people has been essential to the success of this project. In particular, the authors would like to thank the funders of this project, the DBSA and DWAF, Nkosi Quvile (DWAF), Phumla Mzazi (DEDEA), Mandy Driver (SANBI), Julie Clarke (DBSA), Graeme Harrison (formerly DWAF) and members of the Project Steering Committee and Eastern Cape Implementation Committee for Bioregional Programmes.

Our thanks also go to Ally Ashwell, John Allwood, Dave Balfour, Noluthando Bam, Rick Bernard, Roger Bills, Anton Bok, Andre Boshoff, Bill Branch, Mandy Cadman, Jim Cambray, Barry Clark, Willem Coetzer, P. Conradie, Brent Corcoran, Richard Cowling, Mike Coleman, Brenda Daly; Tony Dold, Sizakele Gabula, Bradley Gibbons, Zanele Hartmann, P. Hlubi, David Hoare, Steve Holness, Nancy Job, Theresa Kearney, Richard Lechmere-Oertle, Roy Lubke, Sonwabile Menyelwa, Churchhill Mkwalo, Jorum Mkosana, Jeanne Nel, Henry Nkosi, Gladstone Ntsikwe, Dean Peinke, Gerry Pienaar, Ernest Pringle, Belinda Reyers, Mathieu Rouget, Andrew Skowno, Ayanda Sigwela, S. Soyizwapi, Lala Steyn, Ernst Swarts, Dennis Tweedle, Ann Turner; Jane Turpie, Roger Uys, Mark van Niekerk, Jan Venter, Dirk Versfeld, Jan Vlok, Mike Warren, Lloyd Winggate and all the other stakeholders who contributed to developing the ECBCP in one way or another.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report III Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 AIMS ...... 1 1.3 PRODUCTS...... 2 2 BIODIVERSITY PROFILE AND DESCRIPTIONS...... 3 2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE REGIONAL, NATIONAL AND GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE EASTERN CAPE ...... 3 2.1.1 Regional importance of biodiversity...... 3 2.1.2 National importance...... 3 2.1.2.1 Biomes ...... 3 2.1.2.2 Centres of plant endemism...... 3 2.1.3 Global importance ...... 4 2.2 EASTERN CAPE LAND COVER ...... 6 2.3 ECOSYSTEM STATUS ...... 9 2.3.1 National-level ecosystem status classifications...... 9 2.3.2 Provincial-level ecosystem status classifications ...... 10 2.4 THREATENED SPECIES ...... 16 2.5 PROTECTION LEVELS OF PROVINCIAL ECOSYSTEMS (GAP ANALYSIS) ...... 16 2.5.1 Eastern Cape Protected Areas Coverage ...... 16 2.5.2 Protection Levels of Vegetation Types ...... 20 3 EXISTING SPATIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONSERVATION PLANS...... 22

4 EXPERT MAPPING OF BIODIVERSITY FEATURES...... 24 4.1 OVERVIEW ...... 24 4.2 EXPERT MAPPING METHODOLOGY ...... 24 4.3 EXPERTS AND TAXONOMIC GROUPS...... 25 4.4 RESULTS...... 25 5 LAND AND RESOURCE-USE PRESSURES ...... 28 5.1 BACKGROUND ...... 28 5.2 MODELLING LAND-USE PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY ...... 28 5.3 SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE USE PRESSURE INDEX (SRUPI)...... 29 5.4 DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE...... 30 5.5 AGRICULTURAL AND AFFORESTATION PRESSURE ...... 35 5.5.1 Arability ...... 35 5.5.2 Afforestation ...... 35 5.6 ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDEX...... 36 5.7 AGGREGATED LAND-USE PRESSURE INDEX AND WEIGHTINGS USED ...... 37 5.8 RESOURCE-USE PRESSURES IN THE FRESHWATER AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT...... 41 6 CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE EASTERN CAPE...... 44 6.1 WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?...... 44 6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR SOUTH AFRICA ...... 44 6.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR EASTERN CAPE...... 47 6.4 PROTECTED AREA PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 48 6.4.1 Introduction...... 48 6.4.2 An interim strategy to incorporating climate change into protected area design 48 6.4.3 A systematic approach to incorporating climate change into protected area planning 49 6.5 CONCLUSION ...... 50 7 SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT...... 51 7.1 SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANNING OVERVIEW ...... 51 7.2 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT GOALS ...... 53 7.3 PLANNING DOMAIN ...... 53 7.4 PLANNING UNITS...... 54

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report IV 7.4.1 Terrestrial Planning Units...... 54 7.4.2 Freshwater Planning Units ...... 55 7.4.3 Estuarine Planning Units ...... 56 7.5 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ...... 56 7.5.1 Terrestrial Environment ...... 56 7.5.2 Freshwater Environment...... 57 7.5.3 Estuary Environment ...... 57 7.6 BIODIVERSITY TARGETS ...... 57 7.7 ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION...... 59 7.7.1 Software ...... 59 7.7.2 CLUZ/MARXAN analysis ...... 59 7.7.3 Estuarine analyses ...... 60 7.7.4 Integration of Estuarine, Freshwater and Terrestrial Environments ...... 66 7.7.5 Integration of existing conservation plan and assessment outputs...... 67 7.8 PRINCIPLES FOR LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR DESIGN...... 67 8 MAPPING OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS...... 70 8.1 OVERVIEW ...... 70 8.2 PROTECTED AREAS ...... 75 8.2.1 Statutory protected areas (code: Reserve 1 or R1)...... 75 8.2.2 Non-statutory protected areas (code: Reserve 2 or R2) ...... 75 8.3 TERRESTRIAL CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS LEVEL 1 (CODE: T1) ...... 75 8.3.1 Critically Endangered Ecosystems (SA Vegetation Types)...... 75 8.3.2 Critically Endangered Ecosystems (STEP Vegetation Types) ...... 75 8.3.3 Critically Endangered Ecosystems (Forest patches) ...... 75 8.3.4 Irreplaceable sites (CLUZ/MARXAN analysis)...... 76 8.3.5 Irreplaceable Sites (KZN) ...... 76 8.3.6 Irreplaceable forest clusters ...... 76 8.4 TERRESTRIAL CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS LEVEL 2 (T2)...... 77 8.4.1 Near Irreplaceable Sites (CLUZ/MARXAN) ...... 77 8.4.2 Endangered ecosystems (SA vegetation types)...... 77 8.4.3 Endangered ecosystems (STEP vegetation types)...... 77 8.4.4 Endangered ecosystems (Forest patches) ...... 77 8.4.5 Known important sites for biodiversity (Expert mapped areas)...... 77 8.4.6 Forest clusters...... 77 8.4.7 Coastal buffer...... 78 8.4.8 Ecological corridors (Corridor1)...... 78 8.4.9 Ecological corridors (Corridor2)...... 78 8.5 TERRESTRIAL CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS LEVEL 3 (T3)...... 78 8.6 AQUATIC CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS LEVEL 1 ...... 78 8.6.1 Irreplaceable river sub-catchments (A1)...... 78 8.6.2 Critical wetlands (A1)...... 79 8.6.3 Critical estuaries (E1)...... 79 8.7 AQUATIC CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS LEVEL 2 ...... 79 8.7.1 Supporting river sub-catchments (A2a)...... 79 8.7.2 Migratory river catchments (A2b)...... 79 8.7.3 Important estuaries (E2)...... 79 8.8 AQUATIC CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS LEVEL 3 (A3)...... 79 8.8.1 Critical hydrological primary catchments (3a) ...... 79 8.8.2 Important hydrological primary catchments (3b)...... 79 8.9 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS LEVEL 4 (R4)...... 80 8.9.1 Priority Restoration Areas (4a)...... 80 8.9.2 Rehabilitation Areas (4b) ...... 80 8.10 OTHER MAP CATEGORIES ...... 80 8.11 DATA OMISSIONS, GAPS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 83 9 LAND- USE PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR BIODIVERSITY PERSISTENCE ...... 83 9.1 AIMS ...... 83 9.2 PRINCIPLES ...... 83 9.3 CURRENT APPROACHES...... 84

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report V 9.4 CRITIQUE OF CURRENT APPROACHES ...... 85 9.5 A LAND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES BASED APPROACH TO LAND-USE DECISION MAKING...... 86 9.5.1 Biodiversity Land Management Classes (BLMCs)...... 86 9.5.2 Determining land-uses impacts ...... 87 9.5.3 Recommended permissible land-uses for BLMCs...... 89 9.5.4 Permissible land-use types using terrestrial CBA categories ...... 89 9.6 APPLYING CATCHMENT TRANSFORMATION THRESHOLDS USING AQUATIC PRIORITIES ...... 90 9.7 WHERE ARE THE BIODIVERSITY SENSITIVE CATCHMENTS?...... 93 9.8 WHERE TO PLANT TIMBER SO AS TO MINIMIZE BIODIVERSITY LOSS...... 94 9.9 DISCUSSION...... 95 10 REFERENCES ...... 97

11 APPENDIX A: THREATENED SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE EASTERN CAPE ...... 100 11.1 THREATENED MAMMALS (SOURCE DEAET, 2004)...... 100 11.2 THREATENED BIRDS (SOURCE DEAET, 2004)...... 101 11.3 THREATENED REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS (SOURCE DEAET, 2004)...... 102 12 APPENDIX B: TRANSFORMATION DATA SOURCES ...... 103

13 APPENDIX C: EXPERT MAPPED POLYGON DESCRIPTIONS...... 108 13.1 VEGETATION...... 108 13.2 VEGETATION EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF THREATS ...... 110 13.3 FAUNA ...... 111 14 APPENDIX D: A SUMMARY OF VEGETATION TYPE CONSERVATION STATUS ...... 115

15 APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF DATA DICTIONARY...... 118

16 APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF THE ESTUARY ANALYSIS...... 126

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report VI List of Tables

Table 1: Categories used for the Eastern Cape land cover ...... 6 Table 2: Data sources were used to determine each land cover category considered...... 7 Table 3: Criteria used to determine ecosystem status (from SANBI 2007a)...... 9 Table 4: NSBA threatened ecosystems in the Eastern Cape, (EN = endangered, VU = Vulnerable)...... 10 Table 5: Ecosystem status for forest types occurring in Eastern Cape (Berliner et al., 2006)10 Table 6: List of the threatened vegetation types that occur within the Eastern Cape Province. Ecosystem status is calculated relative to the province and not the global extent of the vegetation type...... 13 Table 7: The numbers of threatened species occurring in Eastern Cape...... 16 Table 8: The following polygons in the NSBA protected area coverage listed as Type 1 protected areas are not recognized by the Eastern Cape Parks Board as such ...... 17 Table 9 provides a list of experts consulted for the various taxonomic groups considered. Mapping facilitators were: Derek Berliner for vegetation hotspots and corridors; Jan Venter and Dean Pienke (both Eastern Cape Parks Board) for birds, fish, invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians, and small mammals...... 25 Table 10: provides a list of experts consulted for the various taxonomic groups considered 25 Table 11: Criteria, indicators and weightings used to determine aggregated land-use pressure index for each planning unit ...... 37 Table 12: DWAF river integrity classes and the corresponding values used in Figure 23. ....42 Table 13: Predicted changes in biomes most impacted by climate change...... 46 Table 14: A summary of the biodiversity features used in the terrestrial systematic analysis57 Table 15: A summary of the biodiversity features used in the fresh water systematic analysis ...... 57 Table 16: Summary of the estuary conservation scores for in the Eastern Cape (note that approximately 20% of the province flows into estuaries that are located in other provinces) ...... 63 Table 17: Categories and criteria used to map critical biodiversity areas in the Eastern Cape...... 71 Table 18: Land use recommended for each biodiversity conservation category as used in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Ferrar & Lotter, 2007)...... 85 Table 19: Six problems associated with using a simple matrix approach to land-use allocation for biodiversity categories. The first four problems are addressed in the sections below...... 85 Table 20: Defining Biodiversity Land Management Classes using Limits to Acceptable Change thresholds for six key lands use impact indicators...... 87 Table 21: Illustration of how land-use types can be evaluated against Limits to Acceptable Change (LAC) indicators...... 88 Table 22: Recommended permissible land uses for each Biodiversity Land Management Class (abbreviations: x = not permitted; 9 = permitted; c = conditional)...... 89 Table 23: Recommended land-use types for each biodiversity mapped category (abbreviations: 9 = permitted, x = not permitted, c = conditional (to environmental authorisation, and catchment transformation thresholds))...... 90 Table 24: Recommended transformation thresholds and permissible mean annual run-off reduction linked to aquatic biodiversity importance classes...... 91 Table 25: A summary of the extent of CBA1, CBA2 and high forestry potential areas in local municipality. Aforestation areas do not take into account existing land-cover (e.g. urban areas or existing plantations) or the existence of CBA 3 or 4 areas where the desired land-use is restoration to a near-natural state...... 94

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report VII List of Figures

Figure 1: Centres and region of plant endemism occurring within the Eastern Cape after Van Wyk & Smith, 2001 ...... 5 Figure 2 (following page): The new land cover for the Eastern Cape combining all existing land cover information sources into a single coverage...... 7 Figure 3: The number of vegetation type that fall into each ecosystem status category using the Provincial level analysis and the comparison of using transformation only vs. combining transformation and degradation...... 11 Figure 4: Eastern Cape vegetation types: percentages degraded and transformed...... 12 Figure 5: Eastern Cape threatened ecosystems excluding degradation in calculations...... 14 Figure 6: Eastern Cape threatened ecosystems including degradation in calculations...... 15 Figure 7: Current extent of protected areas within the Eastern Cape ...... 18 Figure 8: Protection levels of vegetation types...... 19 Figure 9: Protection levels of the different biomes within the province ...... 20 Figure 10 (following page): Proportion of each vegetation type within protected areas...... 20 Figure 11: Planning domains of existing conservation plans overlapping with the Eastern Cape (map from http://bgis.sanbi.org/)...... 23 Figure 12: The size class frequency distribution of the expert mapped polygons mapped....26 Figure 13: Summarized expert mapped polygons for each taxonomic group (refer to Appendix C for further details or refer to GIS shape files)...... 27 Figure 14: Deriving an aggregated land-use pressure index using multi-criteria analysis .....29 Figure 15: Population density expressed as people per hectare ...... 31 Figure 16: Subsistence resource-use pressure index (refer to section 5.3)...... 32 Figure 17: Agricultural potential expressed as an arability index...... 33 Figure 18 Afforestation potential for the province...... 34 Figure 19: Degradation index mapped per sub-quaternary catchment ...... 38 Figure 20: Ecological integrity index mapped for each planning unit ...... 39 Figure 21: Aggregated land-use pressure index ...... 40 Figure 22: The level of sub-catchment transformation and degradation within the Eastern Cape Province...... 42 Figure 23: The relationship between the DWAF quaternary catchment river integrity index and levels of quaternary catchment transformation and degradation...... 43 Figure 24: Modelled changes in extent of biomes under climate change (note decline in grasslands and increase in savanna (including succulent thicket) and almost complete loss of succulent Karoo)...... 45 Figure 25: The planning domain for the systematic assessment ...... 54 Figure 26: An example of the terrestrial, freshwater and estuarine planning units used in this study ...... 55 Figure 27: Frequency distribution of expert polygons in different size classes, and sliding scale for biodiversity targets (expressed as a proportion of area) used for expert polygons in each of these size classes...... 58 Figure 28: Average irreplaceability output for the terrestrial analysis...... 61 Figure 29: Average irreplaceability output for the aquatic analysis ...... 62 Figure 30: Relationship between (1) estuary importance and (2) size of estuaries, and summed reserve scenario score from Turpie and Clark (2007)...... 64 Figure 31: Conservation value classification of Eastern Cape estuaries from Turpie and Clark (2007)...... 65 Figure 32: Integrated ecological corridor network for the province ...... 69 Figure 33 (following page): Terrestrial critical biodiversity areas for the Eastern Cape...... 80 Figure 34 (page after next): Aquatic critical biodiversity areas for the Eastern Cape...... 80 Figure 35: Aggregated values for relative land-use impacts for the grassland biome (after O’Connor, 2005)...... 88 Figure 36: Hypothetical decision flow chart for an afforestation application...... 92

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report VIII Figure 37: Sensitive catchments and recommended transformation thresholds based on aquatic biodiversity priorities (for further explanation of codes see Table 17)...... 93 Figure 38(following page): The extent of areas with a high potential for forestry less critical biodiversity areas 1 and 2 (CBA categories 3 and 4 are not indicated) and existing plantations...... 95

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report IX

Summary

This provincial biodiversity planning project was originally initiated as response to recommendations arising from a Strategic Environmental Assessment study of the northern portion of the Eastern Cape (Water Management Area 12). This area, being an area of exceptional biodiversity, as well as having a high timber and agricultural production potential, epitomises the critical importance of mainstreaming biodiversity into land-use planning.

Currently there are at least 16 separate spatial conservation planning projects intersecting with the province. The aim of this project was to fill in the gap areas and integrate these studies (comprising approximately 40% of the province) into a landscape wide land-use decision support system for all of the Eastern Cape Province.

With seven biomes and three global biodiversity hotspots intersecting the province, the Eastern Cape is internationally recognised for its exceptional biodiversity. However, it currently faces unprecedented pressures from a variety of sources, including unplanned development, urban expansion, agricultural expansion, non sustainable subsistence harvesting, afforestation, and the emerging biofuels industry. Of increasing concern are the impacts that the projected future climate changes will have on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Protected area planning for future biodiversity persistence will need to incorporate the shifts in species distributions predicted to manifest within the next 30 to 50 years.

The socio-economic context is an intrinsic part of biodiversity conservation planning. This is of particular importance in a province that has some of the highest levels of rural poverty in the country, and where the human landscape is often closely associated with critical biodiversity areas. There is thus an urgent obligation for government to promote economic development while ensuring that the values of biodiversity are maintained for both current and future generations. In support of this, this study has been one of its kind in its inclusion of spatial assessments of population pressure and primary resource dependencies within the planning framework.

The key objectives of this study can therefore be summarised as the use of systematic conservation planning to map critical biodiversity areas required for biodiversity persistence and to use this information to inform protected area planning and rural land-use planning.

The approach adopted has the following key points:

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report X • Collation and integration of all available aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity feature data • Irreplaceability analysis using MARXAN conservation planning software (planning units used were 250 ha hexagons). • Inclusion of additional important biodiversity areas identified by other sub-provincial conservation planning projects, such as STEP, Wild Coast, Pondoland, etc. into the identification of critical biodiversity areas. • Extensive use of experts to map biodiversity hotspot areas, known locations of rare and endangered species and macro ecological corridors. • Mapping and design of an extensive ecological corridor network. • Use of sub-quaternary catchments as planning units for the integration of terrestrial priorities with aquatic. • Use of catchment transformation thresholds based on aquatic (river and estuarine) critical biodiversity areas. • Landscape-wide land-use planning guidelines.

Information presentation platforms include a technical report, poster maps, electronic CD ROM map viewer, and a web enabled interactive decision support system (http://www.ecoplanner.co.za/).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report XI 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

This project addresses the urgent need for integrative systematic conservation planning and capacity building for land-use decision making in the Eastern Cape. The natural environment within the province is facing unprecedented pressure from unplanned development, urban expansion, agricultural expansion, mining, illegal holiday cottages, over harvesting of natural resources, biofuel crops and timber plantations. All of these pressures have the potential to rapidly erode the natural resource base, without distributing its potential long-term benefits equitably. In this regard it is of key importance that critical biodiversity areas are scientific identified and priorities for conservation set.

The province is globally recognised for its high biodiversity value, scenic beauty and tourism potential; yet it is also characterized by low employment rates, underdevelopment and rural poverty (National Census 2000). There is thus a joint obligation for government on the one hand to promote rural development poverty alleviation and service delivery and on the other hand to ensure that the rich natural capital of the province is sustainable used and conserved such that both current and future generations may benefit.

The timber and biofuels industry have been identified as land use options with high rural development and poverty alleviation potential for the province (WMA12 SEA). Both of these land uses are characterised as resulting in extensive, widespread and usually irreversible biodiversity loss. This project aims to provide land-use planning decision support that will guide rural development projects of this nature away from critical biodiversity areas, and minimize biodiversity loss that may result from land-use change outside of critical biodiversity areas.

Currently there are a number of regional and national conservation planning initiatives overlapping with the province. These include: NSBA, DWAF Forest Conservation Planning, Wild Coast Conservation Plan, Pondoland Systematic Conservation Plan, STEP, SKEP, C.A.P.E and National Grasslands Biome, and the Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier projects. The aim is to integrate these existing conservation plans and to fill in the ‘gaps areas’, thereby providing a single, user friendly, biodiversity land-use decision support tool for the whole province.

1.2 Aims

The aims of this project are:

• To profile the regional, national and global significance of biodiversity in the Eastern Cape. • To map critical biodiversity areas using both data-driven and expert-informed approaches in accordance with the principles of systematic conservation planning. • To map priority aquatic features (rivers, estuaries, catchments and wetlands). • To describe a classification system for critical biodiversity areas (CBAs). • To map land-use pressures, population pressures and subsistence resource-use dependencies. • To develop guidelines for land- and resource-use planning and decision-making linked to categories on the map. • To illustrate the results in hard copy maps.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 1 • To provide GIS data files. • To develop a user-friendly interactive web based decision support system.

The terms of reference for this project do not specifically require the development of a bioregional plan or bioregional plans for the Eastern Cape Province (to be published in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act); it is, however our intention that the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan will form the foundation for a series of district-level bioregional plans with the province. The contents and approach of this study have made use of the recommendations in the Draft Guideline Regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation and Publication of Bioregional Plans (DEAT & SANBI 2007).

1.3 Products

Typically, products of systematic biodiversity planning are GIS files and hard copy maps showing critical biodiversity areas as well as associated land-use guidelines linked to the maps. To develop these products a number of steps are necessary that can be considered themselves as stand alone products that potentially have use beyond this project.

Products include:

• Map of critical biodiversity areas for the province, including explicit provincial ecological corridors (as well as associated GIS layers). • Landscape-wide land-use planning and decision-making guidelines linked to the map. • Land cover map. • Map of protected areas. • Degradation and land transformation map. • Human population density map. • Subsistence resource use pressure index map. • Land-use pressures map. • Priority areas as mapped by experts. • Rare and threatened species maps. • Description of regionally important ecosystem processes. • Priority water catchments and ecosystem service areas.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 2

2 Biodiversity profile and descriptions

2.1 Overview of the regional, national and global significance of biodiversity in the Eastern Cape

2.1.1 Regional importance of biodiversity

The economic and social importance of biodiversity may not always be fully appreciated. Because of this its value tends to be discounted against short-term economic gain, usually at the expense of biodiversity and ultimately of human beings. Biodiversity underpins all ecosystem goods and services important for human wellbeing. This includes clean water, air, and soil, provision of foods, medicinal plants and building materials.

Biodiversity contributes significantly to rural livelihoods in the Eastern Cape. Direct use value of biodiversity is estimate to contribute between R1600 and R2500 per annum to a rural household, and the value of traditional medicinal plants to the Province’s inhabitants is at least R27 million per annum (DEAET 2004).

Economic benefits derived from biodiversity can also be seen in the burgeoning game farming and ecotourism industry within the province. The natural diversity and scenic beauty of the Province provides valuable products for the ecotourism and wildlife industry with potential to generate considerable economic revenue from private and state-owned nature reserves, game farms and hunting lodges. With over 300 game farms in the Eastern Cape (DEAET 2004), the economic value of game farming is well recognized: for example game farming and associated activities, generated a total gross income of R118 million during 2000/2001 in the Eastern Cape, and the annual Eastern Cape game auction realized R6.2 million in wildlife revenues in 2003 (Sims-Castley, 2002).Tourism and fisheries make an additional substantial contribution to the province’s economy, and all of these resources depend directly on biodiversity (DEAET, 2004).

2.1.2 National importance

2.1.2.1 Biomes

The Eastern Cape shows the highest biome diversity of any province, with no less than seven biomes. These include: Forest (2% of total area), Fynbos (6% of total area), Grassland (39% of total area), Nama Karoo (26% of total area), Savanna (10% of total area), Succulent Karoo (0.01% of total area); and Thicket (17% of total area).

2.1.2.2 Centres of plant endemism

The Eastern Cape is unique among provinces in that it overlaps with three centres of endemism: the Albany, Drakensberg and Pondoland Centres (Figure 1).

Albany Centre This region, totalling almost 9 million hectares, is dominated by the thorny, spinescent, often succulent bush known as Subtropical Thicket. The region is a melting pot of six of the seven

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 3 biomes found in the Eastern Cape. Predictably, there are many succulent endemic and near endemic plants species in particular belonging to the Mesembryanthemaceae, Crassulaceae, Liliaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Asclepidaceae families (Van Wyk & Smith, 2001). Overall endemicity for the 4 000 species occurring in this centre is estimated at 15% (Anderson and Van Wyk, 1999). Major threats include agriculture, overgrazing, alien invader plants and urban expansion (Cowling and Hilton Taylor 1994).

Pondoland Centre The distribution of this centre is closely correlated with nutrient poor sandstone bedrock. The vegetation of centre is variable and is associated with the grassland, forest and savanna biomes of South Africa. Lamiaceae and Apocynaceae constitute the bulk of species that Van Wyk and Smith (2001) considered endemic or near endemic, but most plant families have endemic species in this centre. Over 8% of the 1500 species recorded for the centre are endemic (Anderson and Van Wyk 1999). The area is under serious threat from poor land-use practices. Cowling and Hilton Taylor (1994) cited 33 species with Red Data status, although this may be much higher by now.

Drakensberg Centre The southern limit of the Drakensberg mountain range roughly depicts the Eastern Cape section of this centre. It is almost exclusively grassland, occurring at high altitudes and engulfing the greater portion of Lesotho and the higher lying sections of the KZN Drakensberg. Succulent endemicity is 5% and overall endemicity is around 18%. At least four genera are endemic to the region (Van Wyk and Smith, 2001). The endemic or near endemic species are concentrated in the Asclepidaceae and Crassulaceae families.

2.1.3 Global importance

Conservation International (CI) global hotspots programme has identified 34 regions worldwide where 75% of the planet’s most threatened mammals, birds, and amphibians survive within habitat covering just 2.3% of the Earth’s surface. An estimated 50% of all vascular plants and 42% of terrestrial vertebrates exist only in these hotspots. South Africa is one of the few countries to have three global hotspots, each of which overlaps to greater or lesser degree with the Eastern Cape province (refer to Figure 1). The three global biodiversity hotspots are the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany hotspot, the Succulent Karoo hotspot and the Cape Floristic Region.

Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany This is the hotspot that overlaps most extensively with the Eastern Cape, covering more than half of the province. It stretches along the east coast of southern Africa below the Great Escarpment; and is an important centre of plant endemism. The region is floristically, climatologically and geologically complex, with at least three clear foci of high endemism and high diversity in the area, two of which occur almost exclusively within the province (Pondoland and Albany centres). The region’s warm temperate forests are home to nearly 600 tree species, the highest tree richness of any temperate forest on the planet.

The Succulent Karoo A small part of the Succulent Karoo hotspot overlaps with two municipal districts in the South West of the province. This hotspot boasts the richest succulent flora on earth, as well as remarkable endemism in plants, with 69 percent as endemics. Reptiles also show relatively high levels of endemism in the region. It is also one of only two entirely arid hotspots.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 4 Cape Floristic Region Cape Floristic region covers approximately 6% of the province. This hotspot is home to the greatest non-tropical concentration of higher plant species in the world. The region is the only hotspot that encompasses an entire floral kingdom, and holds five of South Africa’s 12 endemic plant families and 160 endemic genera.

Figure 1: Centres and region of plant endemism occurring within the Eastern Cape after Van Wyk & Smith, 2001

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 5 2.2 Eastern Cape Land Cover

A good land cover map is probably the single most important information layer informing a biodiversity plan, possibly even more important than biodiversity information. A land cover map indicates: a) which areas are not available for meeting biodiversity targets, such as urban or cultivated areas; and b) a broad overview of the state of biodiversity or ecosystem health in the province such as through the ‘ecosystem status’ classification.

The object of developing a land cover map for this project was to integrate all available land cover products for the province into a single product with which to conduct further analyses. The following data sources were used:

• DWAF/Working for Water alien infestation tree density • Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve transformation • STEP degradation • ARC Natural Resource Database degraded land • ARC Natural Resource Database irrigated crop lands • ARC Natural Resource Database transformed rangelands • ARC erosion potential • National Land Cover 2000 • National Communities Database • SEA WMA12 land cover

Information from these coverages were integrated into a single raster (100m cell size) land cover (Figure 2) with six land cover categories described in Table 1.

Table 1: Categories used for the Eastern Cape land cover Value Land Cover Area (ha) % of Province Transformation** 1 Natural 12 219 326 72.96 Natural 2 Water Bodies 89 456 0.53 Natural* 3 Urban 515 905 3.08 Transformed 4 Plantation 214 674 1.28 Transformed 5 Cultivation 1 252 542 7.48 Transformed 6 Degraded 2 456 958 14.67 Natural/Transformed * As there is no distinction between natural and artificial water bodies in the land cover classification all water bodies were included. ** For the purposes of calculating the ecosystem status of each vegetation type occurring in the province, each land cover category is classified into natural or transformed. Degradation is a continuum from pristine natural areas through to totally transformed areas. Therefore, degraded areas can be considered as “natural” or as “transformed”.

Table 2 summarises which data sources were used to determine each land cover category considered. Appendix B provides more detailed notes on the datasets used and how they were combined to create the new land cover for the province.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 6 Table 2: Data sources were used to determine each land cover category considered 1 2 3 4 5 6

Source Name Natural* Water Bodies Urban Plantations Cultivation Degraded Not Used Alien Trees Density 3** ARC Erosion Potential 1 ARC NRD Degraded Land 3 ARC NRD Irrigated Crop Lands 1 ARC NRD Transformed Rangelands 1 1 1 Baviaanskloof Transformation Data 1 1 2 1 National Communities Database 7 3 SEA WMA12 Data STEP Transformation Data 1 National Land Cover 2000 1 20 5 14 * Areas not falling into one of the other land cover categories were classified as natural. ** The numbers in each cell represent the number of unique categories within the relevant land cover field within each source dataset that were combined into the new land cover classification.

Advantages of the new land cover map for the province include: • Integrates all available land cover products for the province into one single basic land cover product, more accurate than any single product.

Limitations of using the new land cover map for the province include: • The Water Bodies category includes both natural water bodies (pans, vleis, open water on rivers, etc) as well as man-made water bodies such as dams. • There is no quantitative assessment of classification accuracy; • At best the land cover reflects patterns around 2000 and therefore does not reflect the current state of the province; and, • Degradation is not accurately mapped and what is mapped is probably an underestimate of the true state. The degradation category is a very wide category in terms of physical features on the ground and can include anything from moderately degraded areas such as overgrazed veld through to severely degraded areas such as erosion dongas.

Figure 2 (following page): The new land cover for the Eastern Cape combining all existing land cover information sources into a single coverage.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 7

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 8 2.3 Ecosystem Status

2.3.1 National-level ecosystem status classifications

Section 52 of the Biodiversity Act provides for the listing of threatened ecosystems at both national and provincial level. Ecosystem status classification refers to the likelihood of an ecosystem, in this case defined as the a vegetation type, persisting into the future given the current amount of that ecosystem that has already been transformed to other land uses. Ecosystems that are Critically Endangered, Endangered on Vulnerable can be listed in terms of the Biodiversity Act. For example, Critically Endangered ecosystems are defined in the act as being “ecosystems that have undergone severe degradation of ecological structure, function or composition as a result of human intervention and are subject to an extremely high risk of irreversible transformation”.

Importantly, any land-use change application occurring within an ecosystem listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered will automatically require environmental authorisation.

SANBI have developed a classification system that uses a suite of biodiversity loss indicators or criteria to assign national ecosystem status to South African vegetation types (Table 3). For the provincial level classification for the Eastern Cape only criterion A (Table 3) was used to determine ecosystem status of vegetation types, as thresholds for criteria B-F have not yet been finalised.

Table 3: Criteria used to determine ecosystem status (from SANBI 2007a). Criteria Description CR EN VU A: Irreversible habitat loss Amount of < biodiversity < 60% remains vegetation target + 15% remaining less than remains biodiversity target B: Rate of habitat loss (last 10 Thresholds still to be determined years) C: Limited original geographic Thresholds still to be determined extent AND imminent threat D: Threatened species Thresholds still to be determined association E: Fragmentation Thresholds still to be determined F: Priority site for meeting Thresholds still to be determined biodiversity targets, as identified in a systematic biodiversity plan

There are 435 vegetation types in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) of which 92 occur within the Province. The national ecosystem status for these vegetation types as derived by Rouget et al. (2004) as part of the NBSA process are presented in Table 4. These criteria are slightly different to those presented in Table 3 although conceptually they are the same.

According to the DWAF national forest type classification (Von Maltitz et al., 2003) eight distinct forest types occur within the province. The classification of indigenous forests in South Africa has been done to a finer scale than that for vegetation types as a whole. The ecosystem status of these forest types was assessed by Berliner et al. (2006) using multi-criteria analysis. These are given in Table 5

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 9

Table 4: NSBA threatened ecosystems in the Eastern Cape, (EN = endangered, VU = Vulnerable) Ecosystem Vegetation type status Umtata Moist Grassland EN Albany Alluvial Vegetation EN Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation EN Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld EN Algoa Sandstone Fynbos EN East Griqualand Grassland VU Pondoland-Natal Sandstone Coastal VU Sourveld Eastern Cape Thornveld VU Tsomo Grassland VU

Table 5: Ecosystem status for forest types occurring in Eastern Cape (Berliner et al., 2006) Forest type Ecosystem status Mangrove CR Pondoland Scarp CR Eastern Cape Dune EN Transkei Coastal EN Western Cape Afrotemperate EN Albany Coastal VU Amatole Mistbelt VU Eastern Mistbelt VU

2.3.2 Provincial-level ecosystem status classifications

A provincial level ecosystem status is presented here that differs from the national assessment in two key areas (Figure 3 and Table 6). Firstly, the calculations consider only the extent of a vegetation type that occurs within the province and not the global extent of a vegetation type. From a provincial environmental management perspective the focus is on the state of biodiversity within the province and not in neighbouring provinces. This difference helps identify ecosystems (vegetation types) that are threatened within the province.

Secondly, the provincial-level assessment calculates ecosystem status using transformation only as well as using transformation and degradation combined. The second calculation gives a better picture of where ecosystems are threatened not only by transformation such as urban development or cultivation but also less direct transformation such as soil erosion or invasive alien plants. The inclusion of degradation with transformation has a dramatic effect on ecosystem status classifications. For example, it increases the number of vegetation types classified as critically endangered in the Eastern Cape from two to six, and those classified as endangered from one to seven (Figure 3,Figure 4 , Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 10

Figure 3: The number of vegetation type that fall into each ecosystem status category using the Provincial level analysis and the comparison of using transformation only vs. combining transformation and degradation

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 11 Figure 4: Eastern Cape vegetation types: percentages degraded and transformed

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 12

Table 6: List of the threatened vegetation types that occur within the Eastern Cape Province. Ecosystem status is calculated relative to the province and not the global extent of the vegetation type Ecosystem Status

Vegetation Type Name Biome Vegetation Group Environment % in Province National Target Transformat ion ONLY Transformat ion AND Degradation Garden Route Shale Fynbos 7 Fynbos Fynbos Southeast Centre Terrestrial 23 CR CR Xhariep Karroid Grassland 0 Grassland Highveld Grassland Terrestrial 24 CR CR Mangrove Forest 5 Forest Wetland Forest Wetland 100 CR CR Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld 100 Fynbos Renosterveld Eastern Centre Terrestrial 29 EN CR Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation 82 Fynbos Fynbos Southeast Centre Terrestrial 23 VUL CR Albany Alluvial Vegetation 100 Albany Thickets Alluvial Vegetation Terrestrial 31 VUL EN Algoa Sandstone Fynbos 100 Fynbos Fynbos Southeast Centre Terrestrial 23 VUL EN Umtata Moist Grassland 100 Grassland Sub-Escarpment Grassland Terrestrial 23 VUL EN Midlands Mistbelt Grassland 21 Grassland Sub-Escarpment Grassland Terrestrial 23 VUL EN Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos 66 Fynbos Fynbos Southeast Centre Terrestrial 23 VUL VUL Sundays Noorsveld 100 Albany Thickets Albany Thickets Terrestrial 19 NT CR Basotho Montane Shrubland 1 Grassland Grassland Biome Shrublands Terrestrial 28 NT CR Langkloof Shale Renosterveld 28 Fynbos Renosterveld Eastern Centre Terrestrial 29 NT EN East Griqualand Grassland 74 Grassland Sub-Escarpment Grassland Terrestrial 23 NT EN Ngongoni Veld 29 Savanna Sub-Escarpment Savanna Terrestrial 25 NT EN Buffels Thicket 100 Albany Thickets Albany Thickets Terrestrial 19 NT VUL Sundays Thicket 100 Albany Thickets Albany Thickets Terrestrial 19 NT VUL Camdebo Escarpment Thicket 100 Albany Thickets Albany Thickets Terrestrial 19 NT VUL Tsomo Grassland 100 Grassland Sub-Escarpment Grassland Terrestrial 23 NT VUL Mabela Sandy Grassland 35 Grassland Sub-Escarpment Grassland Terrestrial 23 NT VUL Transkei Coastal Belt 100 Grassland Coastal Grasslands Terrestrial 25 NT VUL Zastron Moist Grassland 35 Grassland Highveld Grassland Terrestrial 24 NT VUL Senqu Montane Shrubland 19 Grassland Grassland Biome Shrublands Terrestrial 28 NT VUL Cape Inland Salt Pans 7 Wetlands Inland Saline Vegetation Wetland 24 NT VUL

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 13 Figure 5: Eastern Cape threatened ecosystems excluding degradation in calculations.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 14 Figure 6: Eastern Cape threatened ecosystems including degradation in calculations.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 15 2.4 Threatened species

The Eastern Cape is in need of a detailed appraisal of the conservation status of all plant and animal taxa. Table 7 below give approximate numbers of threatened species per taxonomic group that occur in the province based on current data. The full list of species provided by experts and the literature are given in the appendices (Section 11).

Table 7: The numbers of threatened species occurring in Eastern Cape. No. Threatened Group Reference species Mammals 19 Friedman and Daly (2004) Reptiles and amphibians 26 Bill Branch (Bayworld) Marius Burger (ADU) Invertebrates 39 Ernest Pringle Fish 17 Willem Coetzer (SA institute of Aquatic Biodiversity) Birds 31 Barnes (2000) Plants 185 SANBI Threatened Species Program

2.5 Protection Levels of Provincial Ecosystems (Gap analysis)

2.5.1 Eastern Cape Protected Areas Coverage

A protected area layer for the province was developed using the following data:

• For statutory or Type 1 protected areas spatial data for reserves was obtained from SANParks (national parks) and Eastern Cape Parks Board (provincial nature reserves). This is current data that supersedes that in the national protected area layer used in the NSBA. • For other protected areas and conservation areas (Type 2 and 3) data was extracted from the NSBA protected area layer. Only unique polygons that did not overlap with Type 1 protected areas were used. From this set, polygons where Name, Type and Category = 0 were excluded. This protected area category includes: State Land, National Heritage Sites, DWAF Forest Areas, Local Authority Nature Reserves, Conservation Areas and Private Nature Reserves. • The Type 1 protected area polygons listed in Table 8 below were also excluded from the final PA coverage as these were not indicated as being protected areas by the relevant statutory organisations.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 16 Table 8: The following polygons in the NSBA protected area coverage listed as Type 1 protected areas are not recognized by the Eastern Cape Parks Board as such Polygon Number Name Type Category Hectares (Sa_pa14_al) 474 Commando Drift Provincial 1 Provincial Nature 13.699 Nature Reserve Reserve 622 Amalinda Nature Reserve 1 Provincial Nature 160.501 Reserve 855 Alexandria Coast Reserve 1 National Park 51.315 West 1038 Kabeljousriver Nature Reserve 1 Provincial Nature 218.706 Reserve 1169 Seekoeirivier Nature Reserve 1 Provincial Nature 111.648 Reserve 1219 Cape St Francis Nature 1 Provincial Nature 96.339 Reserve Reserve

The protected area coverage for the province (Figure 7) is current and accurate for Type 1 protected areas; however, for Type 2 and 3 protected areas this data is dated and has not been verified. Also not all of these protected areas are managed as conservation areas (e.g. DWAF forests or state land). Type 2 and 3 protected areas are presented here as context information and cannot be regarded as contributing to achieving national biodiversity targets until their legislative status and management objectives have been verified.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 17 Figure 7: Current extent of protected areas within the Eastern Cape

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 18 Figure 8: Protection levels of vegetation types

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 19 2.5.2 Protection Levels of Vegetation Types

Protection level is the area of the province that is in formal conservation (Category or Type 1 reserves) and which contributes to achieving national biodiversity targets for South African vegetation types. Protection level is expressed in terms of the percentage of each vegetation type conserved relative to the target for that vegetation type (Figure 8). Only Type 1 protected areas are considered here as contributing to meeting the biodiversity target status of a vegetation type.

Only 4% of the province (compared to 6% nationally, Rouget et al. 2004) is in formal protected areas and this protection is heavily skewed towards the west of the province in the Fynbos and Albany Thicket biomes (Figure 8, Figure 9 and ). Forests are also well represented in protected areas. The north (Nama Karoo) and east (Grassland and Savanna) of the province are hardly represented in protected areas at all.

Significant work still needs to be done before there is a protected area network that is representative of the full range of biodiversity that occurs in the province. Based on the average biodiversity target used for national vegetation types, approximately 20% of the province would need to be represented within formal (Type 1) and other (Type 2 and 3) protected areas for this goal to be achieved.

Figure 9: Protection levels of the different biomes within the province

Figure 10 (following page): Proportion of each vegetation type within protected areas

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 20

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 21 3 Existing Spatial Assessments and Conservation Plans

At the time of completing this report there were 16 completed/on-going spatial conservation plans for the province (Figure 11). These include:

• STEP ( http://cpu.uwc.ac.za/step.htm) • C.A.P.E. (http://www.capeaction.org.za) • SKEP (http://www.skep.org) • Garden Route Initiative • Greater Addo Elephant National Park • Wild Coast (http://bgis.sanbi.org/) • Pondoland (http://bgis.sanbi.org/) • WMA12 SEA • Maloti-Drakensberg (http://bgis.sanbi.org/) • KZN Conservation Plan • Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Area MOSS • Grasslands Programme (http://bgis.sanbi.org/) • National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (http://bgis.sanbi.org/) • Fish to Tsitsikamma fresh water conservation plan (Nel et al. 2006) • Clark et al. 2007 Agulhas marine conservation plan • Turpie & Clark 2007 Estuary conservation plan

Data from all these projects has been used in developing the critical biodiversity areas (see Section 8) identified by this project.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 22

Figure 11: Planning domains of existing conservation plans overlapping with the Eastern Cape (map from http://bgis.sanbi.org/)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 23 4 Expert Mapping of Biodiversity Features

4.1 Overview

The importance of drawing on the benefits of both human experts and computer selection algorithms is well established in conservation planning (Store & Kangas, 2001; Cowling et al., 2003; Strager & Rosenberger, 2006). Similarly, this study made extensive use of expert judgments to map priority biodiversity conservation areas within the Eastern Cape.

The incorporation of expert knowledge into systematic conservation is increasingly seen as an essential part of conservation planning. It can serve a number of important functions. Firstly, by recording and electronically representing the accumulated expertise of biologists, an ‘institutional memory’ can be stored, updated and replicated. Secondly, the process serves as a cross reference (and ‘reality check’) to the predominantly data driven, mathematical/mechanistic process of irreplaceability analysis. Thirdly, it promotes confidence and credibility in the use of the information system.

4.2 Expert mapping methodology

Experts in different taxonomic groups were asked to map biodiversity hotspots (areas of high biodiversity value), such as areas with high numbers of endemic species and locations of rare and endangered species, as well as macro ecological corridors important for maintaining landscape scale processes.

The expert mapping methodology involved several steps including: 1. deciding on what level of detail and what taxonomic groups to map; 2. identifying experts in each group; 3. preparing base maps and overlays for mapping; 4. developing a data form; 5. conducting mapping interviews, either one on one or in small groups; 6. digitizing mapped polygons on overlays; 7. capturing data forms; 8. cleaning and linking the data; 9. Integrating expert mapped points and polygons with systematic conservation assessment.

Experts were identified based on the fact that they were widely recognized as experts within their field. A list of experts was drawn up during a technical stakeholder workshop held in East London. From this global list of experts a short list was drawn up based on a) availability and b) an informal ranking process based on peer recognition of fellow experts (using how many times experts were referred to as key experts by other experts on the global list).

The mapping approach differed from some previous expert mapping approaches for other projects, in that polygons were directly mapped into the GIS using 1:250 000 electronic topographic maps, and that interviews were held one-on-one (or in small groups). This allowed for in-depth interrogation of experts and the rationale behind there selections.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 24 4.3 Experts and taxonomic groups

Table 9 provides a list of experts consulted for the various taxonomic groups considered. Mapping facilitators were: Derek Berliner for vegetation hotspots and corridors; Jan Venter and Dean Pienke (both Eastern Cape Parks Board) for birds, fish, invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians, and small mammals.

Table 10: provides a list of experts consulted for the various taxonomic groups considered Group Area mapped Experts Vegetation hotspots and E Cape excluding Tony Dold; Jan Vlok; David Hoare; Roger Uys corridors STEP and Pondoland Birds All E Cape Andre Boshoff; Bradley Gibbons; Mark van Niekerk; Ann Turner Fish All E Cape Willem Coetzer, Roger Bills, Anton Bok, Jim Cambray, Ernst Swarts, Dennis Tweedle Invertebrates All E Cape Ernest Pringle Reptiles and Amphibians All E Cape Bill Branch Small mammals All E Cape Brenda Daly; Theresa Kearney; Rick Bernard; Lloyd Winggate

4.4 Results

Summarized maps showing expert mapped polygons for each specialist group are provided in Figure 13. Further details of expert mapped polygons are provided in Appendix A and in the GIS shape files to accompany this report. Note that for the vegetation expert mapped polygons from the CSIR’s Pondoland and Wild coast studies are not shown in Figure 13, but have been incorporated within the overall expert mapped layer for the Eastern Cape.

A total of 368 expert areas were mapped for this project ranging in size from a few hectares to over 350 000ha (Figure 12). These expert mapped areas include those specifically captured as part of this project as well as those mapped as part of the CSIR Wildcoast and Pondoland projects. Generally, smaller polygons (<25 000ha) represent better known specific biodiversity features such as forest patches, wetlands or a specific area within a river valley. Larger expert mapped areas (>25 000ha) tend to represent important ecological process-related areas such a biodiversity corridors.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 25

Figure 12: The size class frequency distribution of the expert mapped polygons mapped

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 26

Figure 13: Summarized expert mapped polygons for each taxonomic group (refer to Appendix C for further details or refer to GIS shape files).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 27

5 Land and Resource-Use Pressures

5.1 Background

Pressures on biodiversity are defined here as human-induced activities that result in changes in biodiversity. These may manifest as changes in biodiversity structure (e.g. fragmentation), composition (e.g. species loss), or as changes in ecosystem functioning (e.g. altered hydrology).

Factors resulting in biodiversity loss can considered as proximal (direct) or distal (indirect). Indirect causes are usually systemic in nature and usually have a socio-economic or political origin. For the Eastern Cape, poverty and poor institutional capacity have contributed to poor biodiversity planning and land-use management. However, direct causes of biodiversity loss relate predominantly to various forms of land use that either compete directly with biodiversity (urban development, agriculture and afforestation), or utilise natural resource at non-sustainable levels (overgrazing, over-harvesting).

A range of land use activities pose varying degrees of threat to biodiversity in the Eastern Cape. These include:

• Rural, urban and coastal development; • Mining activities (dune and hard rock mining); • Commercial agriculture (crop production, commercial livestock farming); • Afforestation; • Communal livestock and crop production; • Subsistence resource harvesting (medicinal plants, fire wood, building materials, hunting).

Global climate change is increasingly seen as a very real threat to biodiversity in South Africa. Its implications for conservation planning in the Eastern Cape will be discussed elsewhere in this document.

5.2 Modelling land-use pressures on biodiversity

The Analytical Hierarchy Procedure (Saarty 1994) was used to facilitate the organizing, identification and weighting of multiple criteria that drive land-use pressures. A multi-criteria assessment approach was used to aggregate ratings into an overall land-use pressure index This involved scaling, weighting and scoring of each indicator (see Malczewski 1999 for further details on this approach). The hierarchical layout enables aggregation (into an overall land-use pressure index) or the disaggregation into individual pressures. Values can be expressed for individual planning units, clusters of planning units or for complete water catchments. This is potentially useful given the increasing trend for catchments to be used as land management units. The model is presented in Figure 14.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 28

Figure 14: Deriving an aggregated land-use pressure index using multi-criteria analysis

5.3 Subsistence resource use pressure index (SRUPI)

Low levels of employment and high levels of poverty are associated with a high dependency on natural resources (Rhodes, 2000; Shackleton et al., 2002; Cocks and Dold, 2003; Berliner et al., 2006). In areas of high livelihood reliance on natural resources, particularly in communal areas where indigenous management systems are no longer in place, unregulated resource use can lead to a ‘tragedy of the commons scenario’ (Hardin, 1968). In such cases resources such as fuel wood, bush meat, indigenous trees and shrubs for building materials, and medicinal plants, are used at non-sustainable rates, resulting in resource depletion and erosion of the natural capital. The livelihoods of many rural people in the Eastern Cape are heavily dependent on local resources for survival, partly because of their traditional way of life, but also due to their limited survival options. Many of their basic needs are hence dependent on the continued persistence of local biodiversity (Shackleton et al., 2002; Cocks and Dold, 2003).

Intensive harvesting of wild material is acknowledged as a serious threat to biodiversity in the region. Ninety-three percent of species used as traditional medicines are harvested unsustainably, and 34 of these species have been prioritised for conservation management.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 29 Three of these species are listed in the Red Data List of Southern African Plants (Dold & Cocks 2002). The Forest Biome is the most threatened from over-harvesting followed by the Thicket Biome (Dold & Cocks 2002).

The increased importance of poverty as a cause of biodiversity loss in the province has been exacerbated by the weakening or total collapse of traditional natural resource management institutions in conjunction with increased population densities. For example, many forests have been subjected to over-harvesting due to erosion of traditional authorities’ powers to regulate forest use (DWAF, 2003).

The degree of subsistence pressure on natural resources is dependent on two key factors: the density of people reliant on the resources, and the accessibility of the resource.

Density of people reliant on natural resources per planning unit was approximated by overlaying the national communities spatial data layer with the hexagon planning units grid, and then introducing an adjustment factor for degree of electrification (as approximated from StatsSA 2001 National Census data: household fuel use).The assumption was made that electrified households would make less use of fuel wood and other natural resources than households not supplied with electricity. Refer to Figure 15 for the population density surface of the Eastern Cape. Population numbers were aggregated at 250ha planning unit scale and expressed as people/ha.

The accessibility of the resource base per planning unit was approximated by determining the planning unit’s distance to nearest road and distance to nearest settlement. These were then used to adjust population pressures.

The subsistence resource-use pressure index (for each planning unit) was derived using a weighting and scoring system as described in Figure 14 and Table 11.The spatial distribution of subsistence use pressure across the province has been mapped in Figure 16.

5.4 Development pressure

Development activities including rural and urban housing, informal settlements, coastal resort development, golf estates etc., pose an increasing threat to the biodiversity of the Eastern Cape. Approximately 10-12% of the province is occupied by built-up areas (DEAET, 2004).

There is also increased demand for land to be used for upmarket coastal developments and golf course housing estates (Gerry Pienaar, DEAET, pers com).

Development pressure per planning unit was approximated by determining the distance to the coast, and the distance to the nearest urban settlement.

Mining activities Mining for heavy metals along the Wild Coast poses a potential threat to biodiversity through fragmentation of coastal habitats, heavy disturbance, and improved access by people to remote areas which can lead to an increased trade in bio-products and damage to fish breeding areas such as estuaries. The inland districts are not rich in commercial minerals, although, in places mining of limestone and high-quality kaolin has left visually unattractive quarries. Because mining occurs in a very small number of planning units, it was not included within the overall land-use pressure index.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 30 Figure 15: Population density expressed as people per hectare

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 31 Figure 16: Subsistence resource-use pressure index (refer to section 5.3).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 32 Figure 17: Agricultural potential expressed as an arability index.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 33 Figure 18 Afforestation potential for the province.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 34 5.5 Agricultural and afforestation pressure

5.5.1 Arability

Relatively large areas of parts of the Eastern Cape have already been converted to dry land cropping (in particular in the thicket biome). Areas with soils, topography and climate suitable for dry land cropping are particularly vulnerable. The demand for low input cost crop production is on the increase. Two sources are evident, firstly, increase population pressure and poverty in rural areas is likely to lead to an increase in land being used for subsistence crop production such as maize.

The second factor, potentially far more destructive to biodiversity than the first, comes from the emerging demand from the biofuels industry. On 14 February 2007, at a national biofuels strategy meeting in Buffalo City, the Eastern Cape Provincial Biofuels Task Team stated their plans to use 500 000 hectares of tribal land, ideal for traditional crop farming, and convert it to an intensive monoculture using Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

Irrigation cropping, i.e. providing water to water-short land, will significantly change both the agricultural potential and natural ecology of the effected area. The method of irrigation profoundly affects the vulnerability of the land to erosion. Because irrigated land is wetter, it is less able to absorb rainfall, and runoff will therefore be higher. Irrigation can have a direct impact on wetlands by either changing the hydrological conditions or by reducing water quality in downstream areas. An index of the vulnerability of planning units to both dry land cropping and irrigation was derived from the national Department of Agriculture’s land capability classification system data set (Figure 17, Schoeman et al., 2000).

5.5.2 Afforestation

The impacts of plantation forestry on biodiversity and hydrology are well documented. There is the view that plantation forestry can be used as a vehicle for socio-economic development in the province. While this form of land use can be economically feasible, it does have significant impacts on the socio/economic/cultural as well as the environmental systems.

Afforestation not only totally replaces the natural vegetation; it also has significant impact on the surrounding area, particularly downstream of the catchments. It thus affects both ecosystem pattern and ecological processes in catchments. Because trees use more water than the natural vegetation which they typically replace, less water is made available to the river systems to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems. Particularly vulnerable are the ecologically sensitive estuaries of the Eastern Cape. Plantations also dry up small springs and streams that are often important in providing for basic human needs (particularly in the dry season, in many rural areas that are without running water services).

Forestry is listed as a ‘stream flow reduction activity’ by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and as such, all applications must receive a licence to ‘use water’ for the growing of trees. The critical biodiversity areas identified in this study will need to be integrated within this licensing procedure.

The Eastern Cape is the only province in the country where large areas are still available for

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 35 afforestation. Studies for the Wild Coast SDI estimated that about 120 000 ha in the former Transkei could be suitable for the establishment of plantations. Areas in the province that are particularly suitable are the Umtata-Kokstad-Ugie triangle, and Maclear and Ugie districts. The DWAF-SFR initiative is currently engaged in assessing, per quaternary catchment, how much water is still available for timber planting by small-scale black growers (both individuals and communities) in the Eastern Cape. The aim is to afforest 15 000 ha per annum for the next ten years (Mike Warren, DWAF, pers. comm.).

Systematic conservation planning is an essential to facilitate the identification of potential afforestation sites that would have the lowest biodiversity costs

Suitability of planning units to afforestation was determined using the suitability layer as derived for the afforestation potential for the province (Fractal Forests 2007). Refer to Figure 18.

5.6 Ecological integrity index

Ecological integrity relates to the ecological health of ecosystems. It is a measure of how ‘biologically intact’ the planning unit is. Although we measure it at the level of the 250 ha planning unit, it really is a measure of the health of the ecosystem. Ecosystems that have been highly transformed will have compromised ecological functionality. It is a a particularly useful indicator for conservation planning, as it relates to a) the ability of a planning unit to provide ecosystem goods and services such as fresh water, flood attenuations, medicinal plants etc.; b) the resilience (ability to resist) to ecosystems changes such as may occur from alien organism, or climate change; and, c) the connectivity of the planning unit to allow movement of plants and animals.

Important measures of ecological integrity that can be spatially represented are transformation and degradation. While transformation can be measured directly from National Land Cover data, degradation is difficult to measure directly. Measurable surrogates for degradation include alien infestation (as mapped using by experts, for Working for Water) and erosion potential. Erosion potential was mapped by the Department of Agriculture using an adapted version of the universal soil loss model (includes variables such as soil type and slope); adjusted to include green biomass cover as measured though the NDVI index. For many parts of the Eastern Cape, areas predicted to have high soil erosion potential are likely to be already degraded, particularly if accompanied by a high population pressure index (see section 4.2.2.1).

Indicators used to measure ecological integrity index include: • Degree of alien infestation • Transformation at the planning unit (PU) scale • Transformation of the quaternary catchments that the PU occurs in • Degradation index of the PU • Degradation of the quaternary catchments that the PU occurs in.

This indicator of Ecosystem integrity relates to the health and thus the functionality of the ecosystem and not necessary changes in vegetation composition. While degradation may be indicative of low ecosystem integrity, ecological integrity cannot be seen as equating with degradation. Some areas may have a high degradation index due to vegetation compositional and structural change, but this does not necessary imply vegetation loss or soil erosion and hence a low ecological integrity index (for example, expert mapping reveals areas that were

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 36 once succulent thicket, but that have been degraded to karroid grasslands, or the increase in unpalatable forage species, and bush encroachment).

Ecological integrity index mapped for each planning unit is shown in Figure 20.

5.7 Aggregated land-use pressure index and weightings used

For each of the four land-use pressures considered, surrogate indicators were identified that could be modelled using available GIS data sets. Because indicators differ in their relative importance or contribution to overall land-use pressure, a differential weighting system was used to enable multiple criteria aggregation. The Analytical Hierarchy Procedure software model Decision Analysis (Zhu & Liu, 2005) was used to calculate relative importance weightings using the input of technical experts (Table 11, Figure 21).

Table 11: Criteria, indicators and weightings used to determine aggregated land-use pressure index for each planning unit Criteria Indicators Weighting Subsistence resource use Population density 0.090 Pop density of neighbours 0.038 Electrification 0.017 Electrification of neighbours 0.017 Distance to settlement 0.088 Development pressure Distance to coast 5km 0.063 Distance to coast 1km 0.188 Agricultural and Agricultural potential 0.167 afforestation pressure Afforestation potential 0.083 Ecological Integrity index Transformation PU 0.115 Transformation QC 0.059 Degraded PU 0.035 Degradation Sub QC 0.016 Alien infestation 0.026

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 37 Figure 19: Degradation index mapped per sub-quaternary catchment

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 38 Figure 20: Ecological integrity index mapped for each planning unit

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 39 Figure 21: Aggregated land-use pressure index

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 40 5.8 Resource-use pressures in the freshwater aquatic environment

In this project we have not attempted to develop a layer of resource pressure for fresh water systems. In stead we assume that there is a relationship between catchment transformation and river integrity and which acts as a an after the fact proxy for resource-use pressure.

There is a demonstrated relationship between catchment integrity and river health. River integrity can be negatively affected by land-use within the catchment such as urban and rural settlements, cropping, plantations and degradation (i.e. loss of vegetation cover leading to increased rates of runoff and erosion). Such land-uses lead to changes in river channel characteristics (e.g. sedimentation, canalisation, flood plain extent and modification of riparian vegetation) as well as water quality through effluent and agricultural run-off, changes in flow regimes and reduced flow due to water abstraction.

Other studies have found a good relationship between catchment land-cover characteristics and river health (Snyder et al. 2005; Amis et al. IN PRESS). In an attempt to relate the DWAF quaternary catchment catchment-integrity values to sub-quaternary catchment used for planning purposes in this study, we examined the relationship between quaternary catchment integrity indices and levels of transformation and degradation within these catchments. We found a very poor relationship between these variables (Figure 23). A possible reason for this lack of relationship could be that quaternary catchment integrity in the Eastern Cape is influenced largely by inter-basin water transfers leading to permanent river flow in previously seasonal rivers. This has a significant impact on river integrity, but cannot be predicted by land-cover (Jeanne Nel pers. comm.).

For the conservation planning analyses presented here, the extent of catchment transformation and degradation was used as a cost value with the understanding that this is a proxy for catchment and river integrity. This is despite the apparent lack of relationship demonstrated here, but we anticipate that further more comprehensive analyses will concur with the trends noted in Snyder et al. (2005) and Amis et al. (IN PRESS).

Nel et al. (2006) have estimated that river integrity begins to be significantly affected once transformation within a catchment exceeds 25%. This threshold has important implications for setting upper levels of catchment transformation within the land-use planning context especially with regard permissible levels of land-cover change in priority catchments for freshwater and estuarine biodiversity (see Section 9.6). Using this threshold as a cut-off to assess the state of rivers in the province, approximately 60% of sub-catchments within the province fall below this threshold meaning that 40% are in an undesirable state with about 25% in a highly undesirable state (>50% of catchment is transformed or degraded) (Figure 22).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 41

Figure 22: The level of sub-catchment transformation and degradation within the Eastern Cape Province.

Table 12: DWAF river integrity classes and the corresponding values used in Figure 23.

River Integrity Class Value CLASS A: UNMODIFIED, NATURAL 1 CLASS B: LARGELY NATURAL 2 CLASS C: MODERATELY MODIFIED 3 CLASS D: LARGELY MODIFIED 4 CLASS E - F: NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CLASS 5

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 42

Figure 23: The relationship between the DWAF quaternary catchment river integrity index and levels of quaternary catchment transformation and degradation.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 43

6 Climate change and biodiversity in the Eastern Cape

6.1 What is climate change?

Despite the fact that the issue of climate change was not included within the original brief of this contract, the critical importance of this issue to conservation planning makes it difficult to exclude. Here we provide a brief overview of its relevance to conservation planning in the province. Information presented here is the result of a literature review, expert interview1 and the outputs of a workshop on climate change and conservation planning (part of the 2007 Society for Conservation Biology meeting held in Port Elisabeth).

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and demands an urgent global response. All countries will be affected. The most vulnerable are the poorest countries whose populations will be impacted the earliest and the most, even though they have contributed least to the causes of climate change (Stern Review 2006).

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases such as methane are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture.

The predicted effects of global warming are many and various, both for the environment and for human life. These effects include sea level rise, impacts on agriculture, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and the spread of disease. In some cases, the effects may already be being experienced, although it is difficult to attribute specific natural phenomena to long-term global warming.

Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish. Similarly, changes in timing of life patterns, such as annual migration dates, may alter regional predator-prey balance.

6.2 Implications for South Africa

Rutherford et al. (1999) used bioclimatic modelling to assess vulnerability and adaptation of plant biodiversity for South African vegetation biomes. The study predicted that the area hospitable to the country’s biomes is likely to shrink to about 38 - 55% of their current area. The largest losses are expected to occur in the western, central and northern parts of the country (Figure 24).

1 G.F. Midgley. Climate Change Research Group, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X7, Claremont 7735, Cape Town, South Africa

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 44

Figure 24: Modelled changes in extent of biomes under climate change (note decline in grasslands and increase in savanna (including succulent thicket) and almost complete loss of succulent Karoo)

Predicted changes to the biomes likely to be most effected by climate change are summarized in Table 13 below.

Higher temperatures are predicted over the whole of South Africa. January temperatures are expected to increase most in the central interior and the Northern Cape (by 2.5 - 4.5°C by 2050) and least at the coast (0.5 - 1.0°C). Summer rainfall is expected to decrease by between 5% in the northern regions and as much as 25% in the Eastern and Western Cape.

The majority of the 16 centres of endemism studies show significant deterioration of bioclimatic conditions. Most are expected to experience conditions completely unlike those experienced at present.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 45 Table 13: Predicted changes in biomes most impacted by climate chchange

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 46

6.3 Implications for Eastern Cape

Predictions for eastern half of the country do not appear to be as drastic as the western half, although there is considerable uncertainty as to the timing and magnitude of impacts. What is certain is increased temperature, increase in unpredictability of rainfall regimes and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is likely to lead to the following:

• Decline in the grassland biome and increase in savanna and thicket biomes (Rutherford et al., 1999) • Increase in crop failures, in particularly for marginal areas, for example subsistence maize production (NBSAPS). • Increased population pressure on natural resources. • Increased bush encroachment into productive grasslands (Bond et al., 20003) • Change in distributions of many species (Midgley et al., 2003) • Species with narrow distribution ranges and without access to altitudinal corridors particularly vulnerable to extinction. • Increased threat from woody alien species. • Sea level rise will impact heavily on all coastal vegetation, particularly where transformation will prevent species movement inland.

Bond et al., (2003) suggested that changes in atmospheric CO2 might also affect sapling growth rates therefore potentially influencing tree densities in savannas. The faster growth rates of tree saplings enable then to get to fire resistant sizes much quicker, further exacerbating the potential for bush encroachment.

Higher levels of atmospheric carbon and reduced levels of frost are expected to encourage tree growth and an expansion of the savanna biome into the grassland biome. Although the fynbos biome is not expected to contract much in terms of area, many species are likely to be lost, due to more frequent and more intense fires, and loss of animal species important for pollination and seed dispersal.

The mountainous areas may provide refuges for some species, if they are able to migrate to new areas. Species composition is likely to change across all biomes, leading to major structural vegetation changes, especially in the grassland biome. The impact of climate change is likely to be compounded by loss, fragmentation and degradation of natural habitat, which constricts the movement of species, and may mean that areas that would have been suitable for species to migrate into under changing climatic conditions are unable to support such shifts.

Vulnerability of the commercial forestry sector, although sensitive to climate change, is moderate as the industry is well resourced and research is already underway to select cultivars and genetic hybrids able to withstand the hotter, drier conditions. However, it is expected that as the distribution of optimum planting areas for commercial forestry changes, the competition for land and water between the forestry industry and other users, such as agriculture and conservation, will increase.

Marginal areas of maize production might well fail, especially for resource-poor farmers unable to adapt rapidly.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 47

6.4 Protected area planning for climate change

6.4.1 Introduction

Climate change will affect the distribution of many species and ecosystems. Protected area planning for future biodiversity persistence will need to incorporate shifts predicted to manifest within the next 30 to 50 years. There is a need to create new protected areas in order to provide full coverage of species in there current and future ranges. The current protected area network in the Eastern Cape falls well short of representing contemporary biodiversity pattern and ecological processes; this gap can be expected to widen under climate change.

Projected future rapid climate change could soon become a more looming concern, especially when occurring together with other already well-established stressors, particularly habitat destruction. During rapid climatic changes in the past, species showed differential movements, rather than shifting together as is often suggested. Such differential movement could result in disruption of ecosystem connectedness, leading to disintegration of communities and species associations (Hannah et. al., 2002).

In theory, when climate change causes unfavourable conditions, species will persist only if they can colonize new areas. However, in some cases their dispersal abilities may be very limited. Ecological corridors may also vary in there ability to support species movements. For example, movement of plant species in a corridor may be dependent on soil type changes across altitudinal corridors.

The key question that needs to be asked is: how robust will a protected area network be under climate change, if its design was intended to represent only contemporary biodiversity pattern and ecological processes?

To address this, we recommend that a pragmatic two stage strategy be used to incorporate climate change into protected area network design for the Eastern Cape. The first stage is an interim strategy that aims to maximize opportunities for future protected area design with emphasis on biodiversity-friendly land-use planning and threat mitigation. The second stage describes a systematic strategy that will incorporate climate change into protected area network design; this requires improved understanding of climate change impacts at local scales.

6.4.2 An interim strategy to incorporating climate change into protected area design

This strategy acknowledges that detailed information and understanding of climate change in the Eastern Cape is not yet available, but that important interim measures aiming to prevent biodiversity loss in critical biodiversity areas be implemented. This will also ensure that options for future conservation areas and corridors are kept open. This interim strategy relies on a number of heuristics that include:

• Appropriate land-use planning within the matrix (between protected areas). The ability of species to exist and traverse the matrix becomes critical as climate change-driven range shifts occur. As changing conditions or extreme events alter vegetation in protected areas, the matrix may contain the only available habitat (either spatially or temporally) for some species. Predicting when the matrix would come into play is fraught with

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 48 uncertainties, so one of the best strategies is to maximize biodiversity-friendly land uses in the matrix, including the option to revert human-orientated land uses to natural habitat. (Hannah & Salm, 2003).

• Threat management. Impacts of climate change will be exacerbated by other land-use threats such as invasive aliens, pollution and habitat fragmentation.

• Mitigation management. For example, using fire disturbance regimes to mitigate bush encroachment into grasslands that is believed to be occurring under current elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.

• Avoid stressing water catchments and sensitive estuaries through excessive water abstraction.

• Off-reserve conservation agreements. Conservation managers can prepare for the future need for the matrix habitat by preparing conservation agreements with landholders outside protected areas.

• Using ‘rules of thumb’ for protected area expansion. To reduce boundary length, Marxan tends to clump selected planning units around existing protected areas. Where alternative options exist for purchase of conservation land parcels around protected areas, choose land that is most likely to increase the protected area’s reserve altitudinal gradient, north-south axis (for large protected areas) and the cooler south aspect over warmer north-facing slopes. Aim to promote topographic and soil type heterogeneity as far as possible.

• Design corridors to mitigate fragmentation effects and to maintain connectivity between critical biodiversity areas. Ensure coastal-inland ecological corridors when selecting corridors specifically for plant dispersal. Try to locate them in areas with broadly similar soil types.

• Promote land uses that do not reduce the resilience of ecosystems and catchments to adapt to change such as game farming; stock farming that maintains natural pastures; organic agriculture; and, avoidance of extensive monocultures or developments that create barriers to species movement.

6.4.3 A systematic approach to incorporating climate change into protected area planning

A systematic approach requires a comprehensive understanding of regional climatic change impacts, in particular future range changes of species and ecosystems. To systematically incorporate climate change into protected area planning, the following steps are recommended.

• Translate biome level climate models applicable to the regional scale for the Eastern Cape. Current models predict shifts at the biome level (see section 6.2), but because national vegetation types are used as the key biodiversity planning surrogate, changes need to be predicted at the scale of vegetation type.

• Bioclimatic envelope modelling for selected species. Climate envelopes represent the conditions under which populations of a species currently persist. Future distributions are

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 49 estimated by assuming that current envelopes are retained and can be projected for future climate scenarios. Because not all species distribution can be modeled, focus should be on endemic species as well as key-stone species from selected functional groups.

• Use the future predicted distribution of key indicator species under climate change scenarios as “pseudo species” that can be included as a targeted feature for Marxan when selecting planning units for representivity (Hannah & Salm, 2003).

• Select additional protected areas essential for protecting key species that have shifted their range under climate change scenario.

• Design corridors based on current and projected distributions of vegetation types.

• Assess the connectivity functionality of selected corridors for allowing species movements. This will include levels and types of transformation and variability of soil type within corridors. Corridors that are predicted to become transformed, or that have a soil types that are significantly different from source areas, will be less effective in promoting dispersal. This will also help to identify redundant corridors.

6.5 Conclusion

Detailed information regarding regional climate change predictions and associated impacts on species range changes for the Eastern Cape are not yet available. Nevertheless important interim measures to prevent foreclosing future conservation options under predicted climate change scenarios need urgent implementation. Essentially this places heavy reliance on good land-use planning as well as biodiversity impact mitigation measures.

The incorporating of climate change into protected area planning emphasizes the importance of an iterative approach to conservation planning. A philosophy of adaptive management needs to be incorporated at all stages of conservation planning. This will require the establishment of a protected area network monitoring programme that can act as a feedback loop enabling the re- evaluation of protected area network design and conservation goal-setting at three to five year intervals.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 50

7 Systematic Conservation Assessment

This section discusses the systematic conservation assessment that was conducted as part of this project. The objective of this assessment was to identify, at the provincial scale, critical biodiversity areas within the Eastern Cape.

The objective of any systematic assessment is to examine and articulate options for conserving biodiversity with respect to achieving a set of agreed biodiversity targets within a landscape context of alternative and often competing land-uses. The conservation targets aim to (a) create a region-wide protected area network that is representative of the region’s biodiversity and (b) retain key ecological processes and ecosystem functioning so that biodiversity and key ecosystem services are able to persist.

Within the Eastern Cape, this conservation assessment was conducted against the backdrop of numerous previous and ongoing conservation assessment studies (see Section 3). The challenge here has been to integrate the outputs from these studies into this study in a manner that does not contradict or ignore these studies.

7.1 Systematic Conservation Planning Overview

The location of protected areas in the world has been influenced to a large extent by political, economic and aesthetic factors, rather than by trying to conserve a representative sample of biodiversity. This has resulted in protected area networks that under-represent many elements of biodiversity. Moreover, the design of most protected area networks has not taken into account the conservation of important ecological processes and long-term persistence of biodiversity.

The science of biodiversity conservation planning is concerned with finding the solutions to at least four problems: (i) identifying suitable surrogates or indicators of biodiversity; (ii) the place prioritization problem: selection of priority areas for conservation action; (iii) the viability problem: design of protected area networks for biodiversity persistence; and, (iv) the multiple constraint synchronization problem: biodiversity conservation within context of multiple competing land uses (Sarkar and Margules 2002).

The aims of systematic conservation planning and assessments as exemplified in South Africa are:

• To identify priority (or critical) biodiversity areas; • To identify and prioritise areas for the creation of protected area networks that are representative of the biodiversity of a province or region, and that are ecologically sustainable; • To spatially evaluate land-use pressures in relation to biodiversity; and • To provide recommendations for land-use planning with regard to biodiversity.

In short, systematic conservation planning attempts to identify priority areas for biodiversity conservation or retention (i.e. keeping natural production landscapes natural), taking into account (1) vulnerabilities and competing land-uses; (2) patterns of biodiversity distribution (the principle of representation); and, (3) the ecological and evolutionary processes that sustain these patterns (the principle of persistence).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 51 Systematic conservation planning is underpinned by a number of defining principles that set this approach apart from previous approaches. Systematic conservation planning is:

• Data-driven. Systematic approaches typically require integration of different datasets. • Goal-directed. The areas selected by systematic techniques reflect the explicit goals of the exercise. These goals are expressed as quantitative targets for each of the natural features being considered. • Efficient. The aim is to achieve conservation goals at minimum cost (cost may be measured as opportunity costs for other land uses). • Explicit, transparent and repeatable. The results of systematic selection analyses can be explained in terms of data, goals and the selection rules. • Flexible. Systematic approaches allow for alternative conservation scenarios where options exist.

For further discussion on systematic conservation planning see Cowling 1999; Margules & Pressey, 2000; Driver et al., 2003; and Berliner et al. 2006.

Resources for conservation are often limited, and conservation may be competing with other forms of land use. This is particularly so in developing countries like South Africa which are characterised by high levels of rural poverty, and where rural communities may rely directly on natural resources for their survival. There is a general need to develop conservation landscapes that promote the maintenance of biodiversity whilst maximising or improving the livelihoods and economic opportunities of local people. Conservation planning is a dynamic field with recent trends emphasising: a) increased need for the efficiency and optimisation of protected area networks within prevailing socio-economic context; and, b) recognition of the importance of identifying ecological corridors, particularly within the context of global climate change. This context has been fundamental in guiding our approach to this project.

The process of undertaking a systematic assessment can be characterised by a number of generic steps (Margules and Pressey 2000; Driver et al. 2003). The steps followed by the systematic assessment in this project can be summarised as follows:

1. Compile spatial datasets on biodiversity for the planning region drawing on both existing quantitative datasets and expert mapped information; 2. Compile spatial datasets on current land cover and land use as well as potential use. 3. Identify biodiversity features (e.g. species, habitats, vegetation units, etc.) for inclusion in the assessment and set biodiversity targets for these features; 4. Identify suitable planning units at an appropriate scale; 5. Review existing protected area coverage; 6. Look at options for achieving the biodiversity targets using dedicated conservation planning software that assess the irreplaceability or likelihood that the biodiversity features within a planning unit will need to be conserved or retained in order to the meet the targets set. 7. Identify possible protected area and ecological corridor networks by combining the irreplaceability assessment with outputs from existing conservation plans and the expert assessment of where these should be located.

The advantage of the systematic approach is that it is able to integrate a wide array of biodiversity information into providing a simple statistic (irreplaceability) of what options there are for achieving biodiversity targets. Using quantitative biodiversity targets has very clear advantages as they provide an explicit measure against which to assess the state or progress of conservation action.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 52

A recent trend in conservation planning in South Africa has been the integration of terrestrial and aquatic environments in the systematic assessment in order to promote a more integrated approach to conservation planning. However, patterns of biodiversity distribution and ecological processes within the terrestrial and aquatic environments differ considerably, making it difficult to integrate both terrestrial and aquatic features into a single assessment. The approach taken in this study follows existing methodologies developed for the Mpumalanga and KZN provincial conservation plans where analyses of the two environments were conducted separately and in series so that the results of the first analysis informed the outputs of the second.

In this study three environments are considered in the systematic assessment: terrestrial, freshwater, and estuarine. For the terrestrial and freshwater environments, assessments were conducted from first principles for the whole province; however, for the estuarine environment the results of the recently complete study by Turpie and Clark (2007) were adapted for use here. Integration of results of the three assessments is discussed in Section 7.7.4 after the discussion on the parameterisation of the three separate assessments.

7.2 Systematic assessment goals

This systematic assessment has two primary goals:

• To integrate existing studies and available biodiversity data to identify those areas of the landscape that are definitely required to meet conservation targets (viz. critical biodiversity areas). These are areas that are (a) areas important for biodiversity (i.e. many biodiversity features occur there or have rare and/or endemic features) and/or (b) contain features that elsewhere have been transformed to the extent that these sites represent the last remaining examples of these features. The objective of this assessment is not to design an optimal protected area network for the province. This has implications for the assessment process or methodology as this process stops at the generation of the “irreplaceability map”. (Taking this map of options forward to select optimal sites to meet targets (protected area design) and then prioritise those sites for implementation has not been done.) • To identify a landscape-level network of biodiversity corridors that integrates terrestrial, freshwater and estuarine assessments as well as existing mapped biodiversity corridors.

7.3 Planning Domain

The planning domain for all three environmental domains in the systematic assessment is the current delimitation of the Eastern Cape Province less the “Matatiele Bite” in the northeast of the province (Figure 25). Clarification on the realignment of the provincial boundary via the Demarcation Board occurred subsequent to the delimitation of the planning domain. This area has, however, been covered by the KZN provincial and Maloti-Drakensberg systematic assessments and is included in this project in the map of critical biodiversity areas. The Mzimkhulu enclave of the old Eastern Cape within KZN is not part of the planning domain or the project’s products as this area has been covered by the KZN provincial assessment.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 53 Figure 25: The planning domain for the systematic assessment

7.4 Planning Units

Planning units are the units for which decisions are made within the systematic assessment context. Decisions are based on the area of occurrence or number of biodiversity features that occur within a planning unit and on how the extent of occurrence of these features contributes to achieving biodiversity targets. All biodiversity information is summarized to the level of planning units and this information provides the input data for the conservation planning software. Planning units can be areas of land, lengths of river or volumes of ocean.

Three independent sets of planning units were generated for this project, specific to the three environmental domains considered.

7.4.1 Terrestrial Planning Units

For the terrestrial environment 250 ha hexagons were used (Figure 26). Hexagons are preferred over square (grid) units as a hexagon, unlike a square, shares an equal border length with all its neighbours making it a better shape for corridor design. Cadastres (i.e. farm portions) were not used as much of the province is still demarcated as tribal areas, which have no cadastral unit equivalent to farm portions. Also cadastres are not equal in area, making comparative analyses between areas of the province difficult. Further, if cadastres are used the irreplaceability analysis tends to be biased in favour of cadastres with larger areas.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 54 The hexagon coverage was combined with the statutory protected area layer to create a terrestrial planning unit layer comprising 65 450 units. The choice of a 250 ha hexagon size was dictated exclusively by limitations imposed by the conservation planning software, which cannot process more than a total of 65 536 planning units. Smaller terrestrial planning units (circa 50 ha) would have been ideal.

7.4.2 Freshwater Planning Units

The freshwater planning units used in this study are based on water catchments and not river segments as in other freshwater planning studies (e.g. Nel et al. 2007). The rationale for using catchments is based on the need for the product of this assessment to relate to land-use management. Ecological integrity of rivers relates strongly to that of their catchments (Amis et al. in press, Snyder et al. 2005). Thus, maintaining rivers within a desired ecological state suitable for contributing to biodiversity targets requires that water and land-use management focus on the whole catchment and not just the river channel.

Figure 26: An example of the terrestrial, freshwater and estuarine planning units used in this study

Sub-quaternary river catchments were generated for the planning domain using the AVSWAT hydrological extension for ArcView (Di Luzio et al. 2004) and the SRTM 90m digital terrain model (Figure 26). Automatically generated catchments were manually refined so that no catchment was larger than 20 000 ha and none smaller than 150 ha (mean size 5 645 ha, STD 3 679 ha). A total of 3 116 sub-quaternary catchments fall within the province compared to 447 DWAF quaternary catchments.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 55 7.4.3 Estuarine Planning Units

Estuarine planning units at two spatial scales were used for the estuarine assessment. At the scale of the actual estuary, polygons representing the extent of the physical estuary were used (refer to Figure 26). These polygons were digitized specifically for this project off Landsat7 satellite imagery (approximately 1:150 000 scale) as no national or provincial coverage exists of the actual extent of estuaries. The estuary polygon is useful for land-use management where management actions or interventions are at the level of the actual estuary.

At the larger spatial scale, where land-use management interventions require a focus on land- use within the whole catchment feeding an estuary, sub-quaternary freshwater planning units were classified into estuary primary catchments. These primary catchments are not the same as primary catchments within the DWAF national catchment classification system. Here each primary catchment has a single sink or estuary with the exception of very small catchments/estuaries where one sub-quaternary unit may contain two or more estuaries and their complete catchments.

The list of estuaries used in this project follows that used in the NSBA and modified by Turpie and Clark (2007).

It should be noted that no project-specific estuarine systematic conservation assessment was conducted. The planning units generated here were used only to add the spatial dimension to the estuarine assessment conducted by Turpie and Clark (2007).

7.5 Biodiversity Features

7.5.1 Terrestrial Environment

A total of 471 biodiversity features were used in the terrestrial assessment. These comprised a combination of systematically mapped features such as South African vegetation types, breeding sites or habitat ranges for species; or, areas known by experts to be important for biodiversity (Table 14).

Beyond the map of SA vegetation types, no other “formal” or curated biodiversity datasets were used in this project as none exist. The systematic datasets gathered for this project were generated through the expert mapping process by capturing individuals’ personal or institutional paper or electronic databases. The lack of a formal biodiversity database for the province is a major limitation when it comes to performing systematic conservation assessment such as this.

The STEP vegetation map was not used as this does not cover the entire planning domain. However, the STEP vegetation type ecosystem status classification was incorporated into the final map of critical biodiversity areas, thereby incorporating pertinent information regarding important areas for biodiversity highlighted by the STEP vegetation map (see Section 8.3.2).

The Maloti-Drakensberg vegetation map was not used in this assessment as it was not ready in time for the analyses; nevertheless the priority areas identified for this region have been included within the final product maps.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 56 Table 14: A summary of the biodiversity features used in the terrestrial systematic analysis CLUZ Total Number Feature Group Type ID of Features SA Vegetation Types 1 96 Birds - Known breeding sites 2 58 Insects – Habitat ranges of rare species 3 38 Mammals – Known breeding sites 4 12 Reptiles and Amphibians -Habitat ranges of rare species 5 14 Important areas for biodiversity – Endemic/rare species, rare habitats, 6 253 local centres of diversity; etc. Grand Total 471

7.5.2 Freshwater Environment

Three biodiversity feature datasets were used for the freshwater environment (Table 15). The DWAF river types (ecoregion level 2) is the basic biodiversity feature layer used in all freshwater systematic studies in South Africa and can be considered as the equivalent of the “SA vegetation type” classification of rivers. Point locality data for Red Data fish species was collected through the expert mapping process (see Section 4); however, this data is based on museum collections and is not typical “expert” data. As river impoundments represent one of the most catastrophic anthropogenic impacts on river ecosystems, the DWAF expert mapped quaternary catchment level migratory or un-impounded river systems (Nel et al. 2007) was included here as a biodiversity feature to be targeted by this assessment.

Table 15: A summary of the biodiversity features used in the fresh water systematic analysis CLUZ Total Number Feature Group Type ID of Features Ecoregions Level 2 ecoregions (not river sections) 1 32 Fish species – Locality data 2 15 Fish species - Barbus anoplus pseudo-species localities 3 10 Migratory/un-impounded quaternary catchments 4 27 Grand Total 84

7.5.3 Estuary Environment

See Turpie and Clark (2007) for details of the biodiversity features used.

7.6 Biodiversity Targets

Biodiversity targets follow conventions used in other systematic planning studies conducted in South Africa as well as SANBI guidelines.

• Terrestrial o South African vegetation types – NSBA targets o Expert mapped areas – sliding scale target related to the size of the mapped area (Figure 27) • Freshwater o Ecoregion level2: 20% of the ecoregion area. This differs to other fresh water

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 57 SCPs that use 20% of the river length in each ecoregion as the target. o Fish locality data (including Barbus anoplus pseudospecies): sliding scale target related to number of mapped occurrences (<15 occurrences = 100% of known localities; <50 occurrences = 50% of known localities; >50 occurrences = 30% of known localities) o Migratory catchments: 100% of catchment (used only to identify corridor network and not critical biodiversity areas) • Estuary o See Turpie and Clark (2007). These included biodiversity features (habitat types, fish and birds) as well as economic value criteria.

Figure 27: Frequency distribution of expert polygons in different size classes, and sliding scale for biodiversity targets (expressed as a proportion of area) used for expert polygons in each of these size classes

When applying biodiversity targets in a systematic assessment a distinction needs to be made between representation and retention targets. Representation targets, the main type of target used in this assessment, are estimates of the minimum amount of area required to represent the full range of biological variety within a feature. These targets represent only the variation of biodiversity, but say nothing about how much area is required to maintain ecological processes necessary for this variety to persist. They are useful for defining an area goal for the creation of a protected area network in the province that is representative of the full range of biodiversity encountered within the province. From a landscape management and biodiversity persistence or ecological process perspective these targets are not sufficient for identifying how much of the natural landscape needs to be retained in order for biodiversity to persist.

Numerous ecological studies (see Desmet 2004) and systematic conservation planning exercises (e.g. CAPE and STEP) demonstrate the requirement for a much larger area of natural landscape to be retained in order for most biodiversity to persist than the area suggested by the representation targets. The national ecosystem status guidelines embody this understanding in

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 58 the determination of the cut-off between “least threatened” vs. “vulnerable” ecosystem status categories. This cut-off has been set at 60% of a vegetation type remaining.

The representation targets used in this study are useful for defining critical biodiversity areas and potentially sites for the creation of a province-wide representative protected area network. Retention targets are not used here unless specifically stated (e.g. migratory catchments). These targets are useful for identifying which landscapes need to be retained in a natural or near-natural state in order to maintain ecological processes (e.g. corridor network) and are used here in part to set an upper area limit on the size of the provincial corridor network, being 60%. Retaining landscapes for conserving ecosystem process versus biodiversity representation can have very different land-use implications. For example, in strict conservation landscapes biodiversity conservation is the primary management objective, whereas in landscapes managed for resting ecosystem processes biodiversity conservation is a management object but not the only one and not necessarily the primary one (see Section 9 on land use guidelines for further discussion).

7.7 Analysis and integration

7.7.1 Software

CLUZ (Smith 2004, http://www.mosaic-conservation.org/cluz/) and MARXAN (Possingham et al. 2000, Ball and Possingham, 2000, http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/index.html) were used to conduct the irreplaceability analyses. CLUZ is an ArcView 8x extension that acts as a user friendly front-end for MARXAN. The key value of using CLUZ/MARXAN to calculate irreplaceability is that it considers adjacency when calculating irreplaceability. Therefore, all else being equal, if two sites are identical in terms of their biodiversity features the site closer to an existing protected area or earmarked site will have a higher irreplaceability value. The influence that adjacency has in determining irreplaceability is determined by the boundary length modifier (BLM) variable in MARXAN.

7.7.2 CLUZ/MARXAN analysis

The primary goal of this assessment was the identification of critical biodiversity areas and not the design of a provincial protected area network. Therefore the biodiversity targets as stated here were used as starting points in the irreplaceability analysis and not as absolute endpoints that needed to be achieved. Critical biodiversity areas can be regarded as those areas that consistently get selected as being required to meet biodiversity targets. This is heavily dependent on what biodiversity targets get set for features. To counteract uncertainty around the exact value of a target, the irreplaceability analysis was repeated five times using the target as stated and then varying this value by plus or minus 5% and 10%. These MARXAN runs were repeated with the BLM on and BLM off to yield a total of ten irreplaceability analyses. The average irreplaceability value for each site was then calculated to give an overall irreplaceability value. Sites that consistently have a high irreplaceability value (i.e. >0.8 or >80%) are highly likely to be mandatory requirements for a representative protected area network and should be considered as critical biodiversity areas as without these sites biodiversity targets will never be achieved.

Cost values used in the MARXAN analysis are discussed in Section 5. For the terrestrial environment the aggregated land-use pressure index was used (Section 5.7) and for the

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 59 freshwater environment percentage sub-quaternary catchment transformed was used as a surrogate for river integrity (Section 5.8). For both analyses the cost values were squared (x2) and cubed (x3) respectively to strongly weight the irreplaceability against areas with high cost values. It should be noted that cost only exerts an influence on irreplaceability where there are options for achieving targets. Where there are no options areas have high irreplaceability irrespective of cost.

The average irreplaceability output for the terrestrial analysis is shown in Figure 28 and the average irreplaceability output for the freshwater analysis shown in Figure 29.

7.7.3 Estuarine analyses

No estuary systematic assessment analyses were conducted as part of this study. Instead the results of the estuary study by Turpie and Clark (2007) were incorporated directly into this study. Turpie and Clark (2007) conducted a conservation assessment of South Africa’s temperate estuaries (Orange to Mdumbe) by exploring ten minimum set scenarios, which varied in terms of the starting conditions between (A) an efficiency set and (B) a consensus set which includes voted sites, and between five cost scenarios ranging from (1) no cost to (5) full costs and benefits (Table 6.9 in Turpie and Clark 2007, see Section 16). In effect the sum of the number of times an estuary is selected in all ten scenario represents the relative importance of that estuary in terms of achieving the target set. Estuaries consistently selected in all scenarios are very important where as estuaries selected only a few times are still important, but have lower priority in terms of protected area creation or management action.

The problem with applying the Turpie and Clark (2007) study in this Eastern Cape assessment is that it did not consider all estuaries in the province. The subtropical northern Wild Coast estuaries were not included in Turpie and Clark (2007). To approximate the results of the Turpie and Clark (2007) study a very crude work-around was developed based on the relationship between the summed reserve scenario value of the Turpie and Clark study and:

1. The overall estuary importance score from the NSBA estuary dataset and updated by Turpie and Clark (Appendix 1 in Turpie and Clark 2007, see Section 16). This score is calculated from the size score, habitat importance score, zonal type rarity score and the updated biodiversity importance score 2. The size of an estuary: as larger estuaries are consistently more important than smaller ones. Biologically, the fauna of smaller estuaries is always a subset of adjacent larger estuaries of the same type (Turpie and Clark 2007).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 60 Figure 28: Average irreplaceability output for the terrestrial analysis

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 61

Figure 29: Average irreplaceability output for the aquatic analysis

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 62

The resultant conservation scores given to the subtropical estuaries are an estimate of the actual value, and may change should a proper systematic study be done. The relationship between estuary importance and the size of estuaries is shown in Figure 30.

The conservation value classification of Eastern Cape estuaries is graphically illustrated in Figure 31.

Table 16: Summary of the estuary conservation scores for in the Eastern Cape (note that approximately 20% of the province flows into estuaries that are located in other provinces) Conservation E Cape E Cape E Cape N Cape W Cape Grand Total Score (Ciskei) (Transkei) 0 14 1 1 16 2 3 1 4 8 4 20 4 34 58 5 1 1 3 5 6 2 1 3 7 1 1 11 1 1 15 8 4 1 1 2 8 9 1 5 6 10 13 3 9 25 Grand Total 57 14 68 1 4 144

The Eastern Cape is unique in that more than half (139 or 54%) of South Africa’s 259 recognised estuaries occur in the province. Based on the analyses conducted by Turpie and Clark (2007) 90% of these estuaries are required to meet the biodiversity targets set, of which 37 (27%) have a conservation score of 8 or above making them suitable candidates for formal protection (Table 16).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 63

Figure 30: Relationship between (1) estuary importance and (2) size of estuaries, and summed reserve scenario score from Turpie and Clark (2007)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 64

Figure 31: Conservation value classification of Eastern Cape estuaries from Turpie and Clark (2007)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 65 7.7.4 Integration of Estuarine, Freshwater and Terrestrial Environments

To date incorporating the three environments into a single multiple-scale planning-unit and target-set analysis has not been achieved. Instead the approach thus far with similar studies has been to conduct analyses separately and use the results from one analysis to inform the other. The principle of the the landscape design framework used in the systematic assessment follows the ecosystem hierarchical approach used in other similar exercises in KZN and Mpumalanga provinces, where the environment (spatial scale) with the least flexibility in terms of conservation options is used to drive the selection of priorities within another environment (spatial scale). For example, in the KZN systematic plan the outputs from the estuary analysis informed the freshwater analysis and these combined outputs informed the terrestrial analysis. In this manner wherever possible (i.e. where there are options for achieving conservation targets) terrestrial priority areas are located in areas that are also freshwater and/or estuarine priorities. This is only possible where there are options for achieving targets, so there are instances where priority areas for none of the environments coincide.

In this Eastern Cape analysis, almost all estuaries have conservation value whether from a strict biodiversity perspective or in terms of goods and services delivered. Therefore, any priority area selected in the freshwater or terrestrial environment would have benefits for estuaries. Consequently the estuary analysis was not used to inform the freshwater and terrestrial analysis in terms of identifying critical biodiversity areas in these environments. The estuary analysis was used, however, in informing the landscape corridor network. The catchments of the highest priority estuaries with medium-sized catchments were used as the template for the corridor network so that where possible freshwater and terrestrial corridor networks were selected in these priority catchments for estuaries rather than in other catchments.

In other systematic conservation plans in South Africa the outputs from the freshwater environment have been used to drive identification of priorities in the terrestrial environment. In the Eastern Cape analysis the terrestrial environment demonstrated less flexibility than the freshwater, and therefore the irreplaceability map for the terrestrial environment was used as the template to drive the identification of freshwater priorities as well as the configuration of the landscape corridor network. The basic philosophy to this approach is that when there are options for achieving targets then choose the sub- catchment that coincides with the higher priority terrestrial area.

The integration approach used here uses the outputs from an analysis in one environment to inform and not dictate the analysis in another. The net result is that where priority areas in different environments coincide then these areas are prioritized first. The process is nonetheless driven by biodiversity targets, so there are still many cases where priorities in one environment have no relationship to priorities in another. Where possible the priorities for all three environments have been incorporated into the corridor network, so at this higher level of organization all are connected. Again the corridor network is driven by design criteria (see following section) so not all priority (or high irreplaceability) areas are necessarily located within the corridor network.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 66

7.7.5 Integration of existing conservation plan and assessment outputs

The rule agreed to by stakeholders for integrating existing assessments into this assessment is that nowhere should the outputs from this study contradict the outputs or recommendations from previous studies. This project is an integrative one and not necessarily intended as a complete re-evaluation of conservation priorities and land-use guidelines. Where ever possible outputs from previous studies have been incorporated directly into the products of this study (see Section 8).

As most of the biodiversity data used in previous studies were also used in this study, the irreplaceability analyses tend to produce similar results and so there is no conflict there. Previous studies as well as the experts involved with this study have also identified numerous landscape corridors. These have been incorporated directly into the corridor design in this project (see Section below).

7.8 Principles for landscape corridor design

The corridor network designed as a product of the systematic assessment conducted here was based on the following set of design criteria or principles agreed to by the stakeholders and experts involved with this project:

1. The corridor network needs to incorporate all existing identified landscape or biodiversity corridors. These include:

• SANParks/Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve: o Mountain Zebra Park view-shed and conservation landscape o Camdeboo Park catchment, view-shed and conservation landscape o Garden Route Initiative coastal corridor Beta v1 o Garden Route Initiative terrestrial corridors Beta v1 o Addo Elephant National Park interface zones October 2005 o Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve landscape threads o SANParks corridor networks (expansion)

• Wild Coast priority areas final

• SEA WMA12 exclusionary areas; o 4km coastal zone o faSCP Priority areas o Sensitive landscapes

• Expert mapped corridors: o Roger Uys o David Hoare o Jan Vlok o Derek Berliner

• STEP: o STEP coastal corridor o STEP mega conservancy networks

2. The corridor network needs to link core conservation landscapes through a province-wide network that covers the complete range of altitudinal and latitudinal zones.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 67

3. The corridor network should where possible incorporate most terrestrial, freshwater and estuarine priority areas.

4. The corridor network should not focus on one component of biodiversity (e.g. succulent thicket) in the design but rather consider all components of biodiversity pattern and ecological process (viz. ecological gradients e.g. forest-grassland, valley-interfluve, coast-Drakensberg, headwater-estuary)

5. Taking into account the landscape ecological principles relating to fragmentation/transformation and ecosystem functioning embodied in the ecosystem status classification, the corridor network should cover approximately 60% of the remaining natural or near-natural areas of the province.

The unit of design for the landscape corridors was the sub-quaternary catchment. Catchments embody many of the principles of the interconnected landscape that the corridor network is endeavouring to conserve. The ultimate design achieves freshwater representation targets and at the same time embodies the design principles presented above.

The integrated ecological corridor network developed for the province is presented in Figure 32.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 68 Figure 32: Integrated ecological corridor network for the province

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 69

8 Mapping of Critical Biodiversity Areas

8.1 Overview

Critical biodiversity areas (CBAs) are terrestrial and aquatic features in the landscape that are critical for conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem functioning (SANBI 2007). These form the key output of the conservation plan. They are used to guide protected area selection and should remain in their natural state as far as possible. Land-use guidelines aim to avoid loss or degradation of natural habitat in critical biodiversity areas (see Section 9).

The broad categories and sub-categories used follow recommendations made in the ‘Guideline Regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation and Publication of Bioregional Plans’ (SANBI 2007). These recommendations were debated and refined by stakeholders during the course of this project. Resulting categories and criteria used are summarised in Table 17. Individual criteria are discussed in the sections that follow. The final terrestrial (Figure 33) and aquatic (Figure 34) critical biodiversity area maps for the province are presented at the end of this section.

Because of the integrative nature of this study, the challenge was to develop a single map of CBAs for the Eastern Cape that represents outputs from the numerous systematic studies that cover various parts of the province. Critical biodiversity areas could be identified based on a number of different criteria or source data. For example, they may be areas identified by MARXAN as having high irreplaceability, STEP priority areas, expert mapped areas, or ecosystems classified as critically endangered. In such cases the highest CBA category always prevails.

A four tier CBA classification system was developed which facilitated the integration of information from this and other conservation assessments, without losing detail about the reasons that qualified the polygons as CBAs (Table 17).

Advanced users are advised to refer to the original studies for more specific details on the data and methodologies used as well as more detailed discussions on the respective projects outputs (see Section 3).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 70 Table 17: Categories and criteria used to map critical biodiversity areas in the Eastern Cape.

CBA Categories CBA Sub- & CBA Field Features used to define category Map Layer Category Name Codes

Conservation Areas Reserve 1 South African National Parks Protected Statutory protected Areas 1 areas Eastern Cape Provincial Nature Reserves Protected Areas 1 Reserve 2 Included, but not reliable as no accepted coverage of private nature Protected Non-statutory reserves, conservancies, etc. available Areas 2 protected areas

Terrestrial Environment Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Level 1 T1 National critically endangered vegetation types (ecosystems): The Amount SA vegetation Critically of remaining intact SA vegetation type is less than representation target. endangered NOTE: The ecosystem status classification used is the provincial level ecosystems classification and includes degradation (see Section 0) T1 STEP critically endangered vegetations types STEP Critically vegetation endangered ecosystems T1 National Forest Assessment critically endangered forest patches Forests Critically patches endangered ecosystems T1 80-100% irreplaceable planning units: Areas definitely required to meet Planning units Irreplaceable sites representation targets for biodiversity features (SA vegetation types, expert mapped areas) T1 KZN C-Plan minset R1 & R2 minset display categories KZN CPlan Irreplaceable sites T1 Important forest clusters: Clusters identified in the forestry planning process Forest clusters Irreplaceable as critical (All forest clusters with IRR>=10 (50%)) forest clusters

Terrestrial CBA Level 2 T2 50-90% irreplaceable sites. This criterion is not included here. By definition No Layer Near irreplaceable this implies all remaining areas of critical and endangered vegetation types, sites and most areas of vulnerable vegetation types not included in T1. This criterion is covered by T2-level ecosystem status T2 Endangered SA vegetation types. The area of intact vegetation remaining SA vegetation Endangered of a vegetation type is within 15% of the set representation target ecosystems Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 71 CBA Categories CBA Sub- & CBA Field Features used to define category Map Layer Category Name Codes T2 Endangered STEP vegetations types STEP Endangered vegetation ecosystems T2 Endangered forest patches Forest patches Endangered ecosystems T2 All expert mapped areas less than 25 000ha in size. Includes expert data Expert areas Known important from this project, STEP birds, SKEP, Wild Coast, Pondoland and marine sites for studies. biodiversity T2 All other Forest Clusters (with 500m buffers) Forest clusters Forest clusters T2 1km coastal buffer (forests are not added to this as these are captured Coastal buffer Coastal buffer elsewhere) Corridor1 Ecological corridors and/or named macro-ecological corridors from existing Corridors 1 Ecological studies (i.e. from STEP, Wild Coast/Pondoland, SEA, etc.) and expert corridors mapped Corridor2 Ecological corridors identified in this project using an Integrated corridor Corridors 2 Ecological design for the whole province that considers all (not only thicket) terrestrial corridors priorities as well as aquatic priorities whilst minimizing conflict with existing production landscapes. Design units are sub-QCs.

Terrestrial CBA Level 3 T3 Vulnerable SA vegetation types SA vegetation Vulnerable ecosystems T3 Vulnerable STEP vegetation types STEP Vulnerable vegetation ecosystems

Aquatic Environments Aquatic CBA Level 1 A1 Irreplaceability river sub-catchments for Eco-region level 2 representation, Sub- Irreplaceable river endemic fish, terrestrial priorities and estuaries. Defined as SubQC’s within Catchments sub-catchments the designed aquatic network that: a) Have IRR>=90% for aquatic features within endangered (>=35% transformed) Eco-regions only. b) Have mean subQC IRR for terrestrial features >=50% A1 Critical wetlands. No information on critical wetlands therefore not included No Layer Critical wetlands at this stage E1 Critical estuaries. Highest importance estuaries (conservation rank of 10) as Estuaries Critical estuaries identified by Turpie 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 72 CBA Categories CBA Sub- & CBA Field Features used to define category Map Layer Category Name Codes

Aquatic CBA Level 2 A2a Important sub-catchments – supporting zone required for preventing Sub- Supporting river degradation of A1 rivers. Require moderate or high protection. Defined as Catchments sub-catchments all remaining areas within the designed river catchment network not in A1 A2b Free flowing rivers/ fish migratory systems. Mapped at the Quaternary Sub- Migratory river catchment level based on data from CSIR/DWAF assessment Catchments catchments E2 All important estuaries not in E1 (Turpie 2007 ranks 4-9) Estuaries Important estuaries

Aquatic CBA Level 3: Primary Catchment Management Areas A3a Hydrological primary catchment management areas for E1 estuaries. Sub- Critical Highest priority management area. Focus on management of activities that Catchments hydrological have a direct impact on the physical estuary (e.g. MAR, erosion, pesticides) primary Limit total transformation of catchment to less than 10%. MAR reduction catchments 15%. A3b Hydrological primary catchment management areas for E2 estuaries. Focus Sub- Important on management of MAR to sustain functioning of important estuaries in Catchments hydrological Zone. Limit total transformation of catchment to less than 15%. MAR primary reduction 25%. catchments

Aquatic and Terrestrial CBA Level 4: Rehabilitation and Restoration Areas 4a Restoration zone primarily intended for returning to a more natural condition No Layer Priority to become a Category 1 for representation Restoration areas

Any of the above Category 1 areas identified as degraded in the EC land- cover 4b Rehabilitation zone primarily intended for returning to a Category 2, which No Layer Rehabilitation may be able to withstand a moderately modified condition as long as it areas restores supporting processes required by Category 1

Any of the above Category 2 or 3 areas identified as degraded in the EC land-cover

Other Map Categories (based on the Eastern Cape land-cover) Natural All remaining natural areas not included in the above terrestrial CBA No Layer Other natural Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 73 CBA Categories CBA Sub- & CBA Field Features used to define category Map Layer Category Name Codes categories areas Degraded Areas estimated to be degraded based on the Eastern Cape land-cover EC Land-cover Significantly classification developed for this project. This is an approximation based on degraded areas available data (alien infestation soil erosion potential, old lands, NLC). These are areas that are unable or unlikely to recover to a near natural state in the medium term (<20 years) without significant management intervention. Transformed Urban and rural settlements EC Land-cover No natural habitat (urban, crop, Crop lands remaining plantation) Forest plantations

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 74 8.2 Protected Areas

8.2.1 Statutory protected areas (code: Reserve 1 or R1)

These are statutory protected conservation areas (also referred to as Type 1 protected areas). They include all South African national parks and Eastern Cape Provincial nature reserves. See Section 2.5.1 for details on the development of the Eastern Cape protected area coverage.

8.2.2 Non-statutory protected areas (code: Reserve 2 or R2)

Non-statutory or Type 2 protected areas are municipal, private or voluntary conservation areas and do not fall under the relevant national protected area legislation. These areas can make a significant contribution to the wider protected area network in the province; however, their protection status is not guaranteed into perpetuity and therefore they cannot be seen as formally contributing to achieving provincial biodiversity targets.

This layer is included here for information purposes, but as discussed in Section 2.5.1 it is not based on up-to-date data and must not be considered as a reliable reflection of the extent of private nature reserves, conservancies, etc. in the province.

8.3 Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas Level 1 (code: T1)

8.3.1 Critically Endangered Ecosystems (SA Vegetation Types)

National critically endangered vegetation types (ecosystems) are areas where the amount of remaining intact SA vegetation type is less than representation target (see Section 2.3). Without restoration of degraded or transformed areas it will not be possible to achieve the provincial contribution to the nation target for these vegetation types.

Note that the ecosystem status classification used here is the provincial level classification discussed in Section 0 and includes degradation and is calculated relative the provincial extent of a vegetation type and not national extent.

8.3.2 Critically Endangered Ecosystems (STEP Vegetation Types)

These are critically endangered STEP vegetations types based on the analyses done by the STEP project (Cowling et al., 2003) and used in the STEP Handbook (Pierce and Mader, 2006). The STEP project used a finer-scale vegetation classification of subtropical thicket types than that used in the national vegetation map.

In addition, the STEP framework for determining ecosystem status, referred to as conservation status in Cowling et al (2003), differs slightly from that currently recommended by SANBI in that the cut-off between endangered and vulnerable is set at target plus 30% and not target plus plus15% as used in the national classification

8.3.3 Critically Endangered Ecosystems (Forest patches)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 75 These are forest types that are classified as critically endangered by the national forest assessment (Berliner 2007). The layer maps actual forest patches and not the clusters as in section 8.3.3. This ecosystem status classification layer is similar to the previous two but differs in two respects (1) the forest type classification is finer than is the case in the SA vegetation map; and (2) ecosystem status of forests is based on a multiple criteria approach that includes resource-use pressure.

Forest type endangered and vulnerable categories are not mapped under CBA levels 2 and 3 respectively as these are already covered by all remaining forest clusters in CBA level 2 (Section 8.3.6).

8.3.4 Irreplaceable sites (CLUZ/MARXAN analysis)

These are sites (250 ha planning units) that have a greater than 80% probability of being required to meet provincial biodiversity targets. In other words if any of these sites were to be lost (i.e. transformed) it would not be possible to achieve the provincial biodiversity targets and there would be high probability of species or other biodiversity features going extinct within the province or globally.

The selection of these sites is based on the outputs of the systematic conservation assessment (see Section 7) made using GIS-based conservation planning software (CLUZ/MARXAN) to recommend least cost scenarios for achieving biodiversity targets for a set of biodiversity features (SA vegetation types and expert mapped areas). The overall probability of a site being required to achieve a target (or irreplaceability) was based on the average of ten iterations of the planning model using a range of targets (national target, target-5%, target+5%, target-10%, target+10%) and model parameters (BLM on, BLM off).

The outputs of the systematic assessment highlight similar areas to the ecosystem status classification as it uses some of the same data (SA vegetation types and land-cover) to inform the planning process. For example, any area that contains critically endangered vegetation types will be required to meet biodiversity targets (i.e. 100% probability that site will be required or irreplaceability=1). However, the systematic assessment complements the ecosystem status classification by incorporating information on the distribution of other components of biodiversity (e.g. reptiles, invertebrates, birds, etc) as well as considering design (adjacency) and cost (competing land- uses) criteria when estimating a sites irreplaceability. Therefore, where there are options for achieving biodiversity targets (i.e. ecosystem status = vulnerable or least threatened) sites adjacent to existing protected areas or sites further from anthropogenic landscapes will have higher irreplaceability than closer sites. Where there are no options for achieving targets (i.e. ecosystem status = endangered or critically endangered) then all sites will have high irreplaceability irrespective of adjacency or cost.

8.3.5 Irreplaceable Sites (KZN)

These are sites identified in the KwaZulu-Natal systematic conservation plan as having high irreplaceability (minset categories R1 & R2, Goodman, 2004). The KZN assessment follows a similar protocol to that described in Section 7 the major difference being that the planning units are 1000ha squares and not 250ha hexagons as used here.

The rationale for including information from the KZN conservation plan in the Eastern Cape plan is discussed in Section 7.3.

8.3.6 Irreplaceable forest clusters

These are forest clusters identified by Berliner et al. (2006), in the national systematic conservation

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 76 assessment for forests, as having a high probability (>50%) of being required to meet the biodiversity targets set for the forest types.

8.4 Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas Level 2 (T2)

8.4.1 Near Irreplaceable Sites (CLUZ/MARXAN)

These are sites which the conservation planning exercise identified as having a 50-80% probability of being required to achieve the biodiversity targets. This criterion is not used here to identify CBAs as by definition this criterion implies that all remaining areas of critically endangered and endangered vegetation types and most areas of vulnerable vegetation types not identified by 8.3.4 should be highlighted. This criterion is covered by CBA-level 2 criteria for ecosystem status (Section 8.4.2) and expert mapped areas (Section 8.4.5) and therefore it is not necessary to include it here.

8.4.2 Endangered ecosystems (SA vegetation types)

These are South African vegetation types with an ecosystem status classification of endangered (i.e. the area of intact vegetation remaining of a vegetation type is within 15% of the representation target). See Section 2.3 for a description of the ecosystem status categories. Note that the ecosystem status classification used here is the provincial level classification and includes degradation (see Section 0).

8.4.3 Endangered ecosystems (STEP vegetation types)

STEP vegetation types with an ecosystem status classification of endangered (see Section 8.3.2).

8.4.4 Endangered ecosystems (Forest patches)

Forest patches with an ecosystem status classification of endangered as determined by the national forest assessment (Berliner 2007).

8.4.5 Known important sites for biodiversity (Expert mapped areas)

All expert mapped areas for the Eastern Cape less than 25 000 ha in size.

The 25 000 ha cut-off for including expert areas was used for two reasons: • Small expert mapped areas are generally better mapped by experts and indicated a more detailed knowledge of the feature being mapped. • Smaller expert mapped areas tend to reflect specific biodiversity features such as specific forest patches or wetlands whereas large areas tend to indicate process-related features such as potential biodiversity corridors.

The expert mapped important biodiversity areas dataset includes expert data from this project which includes data from the Wild Coast and Pondoland projects (see Section 4) as well as data from the STEP project (important bird areas, Cowling et al 2003) and SKEP projects, and the recent marine study by Clark and Lombard (2007).

8.4.6 Forest clusters

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 77 All remaining forest clusters (forests patches with a 500m buffer) as mapped by the national forest assessment (Berliner et al. 2006).

8.4.7 Coastal buffer

This is a 1km wide strip along the entire coast that broadly defines the extent of the sensitive coastal zone. During the consultation process for this project it was decided to map the coastal zone by buffering the coastline as well as coastal dune cordon forests. Forests were ultimately not included in defining the buffer these are already picked up in the forest cluster layer (See Section 8.3.6).

8.4.8 Ecological corridors (Corridor1)

Ecological corridors and/or named macro-ecological corridors from existing studies. This layer merges mapped biodiversity corridors identified by: • STEP (Cowling et al. 2003) • Wild Coast study (Reyers & Ginsburg 2005b) • Pondloland study (Reyers & Ginsburg 2005a) • WMA12 SEA (CES. 2006) • Garden Route Conservation Plan (data from SANParks) • Greater Addo – Baviaanskloof Conservation Plan (data from SANParks) • Expert mapping as part of this project (see Section 4)

8.4.9 Ecological corridors (Corridor2)

This layer represents a network of ecological corridors identified as part of the systematic conservation assessment (see Section 7). It represents an integrated corridor design in that it considers all terrestrial and aquatic features and biodiversity targets used in the assessment whilst attempting to minimize conflict (cost) with existing production landscapes. Nodes within the corridor network are dictated by existing protected areas and/or identified centres of biodiversity importance within the province. The linkages between nodes (north-south, coast-inland, coastal, escarpment, etc,) were based on recommendations made by the experts consulted as part of this project as well as the existing corridor network (Corridor1) where they aligned with terrestrial and/or freshwater priority (CBA level 1) areas. The design of the corridor network used the sub-catchment planning units developed for the freshwater conservation assessment as these form intuitive ecological units within the landscape.

8.5 Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas Level 3 (T3)

These are vulnerable ecosystems, and include only SA vegetation and STEP vegetation units with a vulnerable ecosystem status classification (see Section 2.3).

8.6 Aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas Level 1

8.6.1 Irreplaceable river sub-catchments (A1)

Irreplaceable river sub-catchments for Ecoregion level 2 representation, endemic fish, terrestrial priorities and estuaries. Defined as subQCs within the designed freshwater network that: a) Have IRR>=90% for freshwater features only within subQCs conteining endangered Eco-regions (i.e. ecoregions with more than 35% transformed). b) Have mean subQC IRR for terrestrial features >=50%.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 78

8.6.2 Critical wetlands (A1)

Critical wetlands. No information on critical wetlands therefore not included at this stage. These should ideally be included in future revisions of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan.

8.6.3 Critical estuaries (E1)

Critical estuaries. Highest importance estuaries (conservation rank of 10) as identified by Turpie and Clark (2007).

8.7 Aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas Level 2

8.7.1 Supporting river sub-catchments (A2a)

Important sub-catchments – supporting zone required for preventing degradation of A1 rivers. Require moderate or high protection. Defined as all remaining areas within the designed river catchment network not in A1.

8.7.2 Migratory river catchments (A2b)

Free flowing rivers / fish migratory systems. Mapped at the quaternary catchment level based on data from CSIR/DWAF assessment.

8.7.3 Important estuaries (E2)

All important estuaries not in E1 (Turpie and Clark, 2007 ranks 4-9).

8.8 Aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas Level 3 (A3)

8.8.1 Critical hydrological primary catchments (3a)

These are hydrological primary catchment management areas for CBA level 1 estuaries and should be the highest priority river and catchment management areas. Focus on management of activities that have a direct impact on the physical estuary (e.g. MAR, erosion, pesticides). Limit total transformation of catchment to less than 10% and mean annual runoff (MAR) reduction to 15%.

8.8.2 Important hydrological primary catchments (3b)

Hydrological primary catchment management areas for E2 estuaries. Focus on management of MAR to sustain functioning of important estuaries in Zone. Limit total transformation of catchment to less than 15% and MAR reduction to 25%.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 79 8.9 Aquatic and Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas Level 4 (R4)

These are rehabilitation and restoration areas associated primarily with returning degraded or transformed areas to a natural or near natural state. Two rehabilitation and restoration CBA categories are recognised here: 4a restoration areas and 4b rehabilitation areas. No specific map layer was developed for these areas; however, they can be identified as any CBA level 1-3 which is also designated as degraded by the land-cover.

8.9.1 Priority Restoration Areas (4a)

These are areas where the primary management objective is restoration of degraded areas to as natural a state as possible, primarily intended to become a CBA level 1 area for biodiversity representation. Any of the above CBA level 1 areas identified as degraded in the EC land-cover fall into this category.

8.9.2 Rehabilitation Areas (4b)

These are areas where the primary management objective is rehabilitation of degraded areas to a moderately modified condition primarily intended for returning to a CBA level 2, which may be able to support ecological processes required by CBA level 1. Any of the above CBA level 2 or 3 areas identified as degraded in the EC land-cover fall into this category.

8.10 Other Map Categories

These are categories derived directly from the Eastern Cape land cover developed for this project and include:

• Natural: All remaining natural areas not included in the above terrestrial CBA categories • Degraded: Areas estimated to be degraded based on the Eastern Cape land-cover classification developed for this project. This is an approximation based on available data (alien infestation, soil erosion potential, old lands, NLC). These are areas that are assumed to be unable or unlikely to recover to a near natural state in the medium term (<20 years) without significant management intervention. • Transformed: Includes urban and rural settlements, crop lands or cultivated fields and forestry plantations. These are areas with little or no natural habitat remaining and which have low or no biodiversity value.

Figure 33 (following page): Terrestrial critical biodiversity areas for the Eastern Cape.

Figure 34 (page after next): Aquatic critical biodiversity areas for the Eastern Cape.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 80

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 81

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 82

8.11 Data Omissions, Gaps and Limitations

The following data or studies were omitted from the map and should be consulted before land-use decisions are made:

• The CBA map should be superseded by fine-scale studies for the two metropolitan areas within the province. MN Metro MOSS is of a much higher resolution and should take precedence. • The East London-Bisho/King Williams Town development corridor should also have a finer scale biodiversity plan. • Accuracy of the CBA map is subject to the accuracy and resolution of the relevant input data layers. This project is a provincial scale study that has used the best available data, however, no land-use decision should ever be taken before verifying the actual situation on the ground following the relevant environmental impact assessment procedures. The land-cover map exerts a strong influence on the resultant map as this tells us where natural habitats are still remaining in the landscape. The user must be aware of the limitations of this map and be aware that in cases the CBA category and recommended land-use may differ to that stated due to different land-cover on the ground relative to that predicted by the land-cover map. Given these limitations, the user must be prepared to interpret the observed situation on the ground within the context of the CBA criteria presented here.

9 Land- use planning guidelines for biodiversity persistence

9.1 Aims

The aim of this section is to provide guidelines for regulating land-use change so as to avoid or minimize biodiversity impacts in critical biodiversity areas (CBAs). The approach is to list land-use types that should or shouldn’t be permitted for each of the biodiversity importance categories and to specify land-use types that are incompatible with the conservation or ecological integrity of CBAs.

For successful implementation it will be necessary that the CBAs identified in this plan are incorporated at all levels of spatial development planning (spatial development frameworks, integrated development plans, and Environmental Management Frameworks), as well as in any provincial maps developed to supplement the NEMA EIA regulations. These maps and guidelines should be referred to in all EIAs and should be consulted in the decision-making process for all land-use authorisations.

This section describes the following: • Biodiversity Land Management Classes and indicators their limits to acceptable change. • Assigning land-use types to BLMCs • Linking BLMCs to biodiversity categories mapped • Ranking typical land-use impacts • Allotting permissible land uses to BLMC classes • Assigning permissible land-use types to biodiversity mapped categories • Recommending transformations thresholds for aquatic biodiversity mapped categories • Applying transformation thresholds to account for cumulative impacts

9.2 Principles

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 83 To ensure biodiversity persistence, ten key principles have underpinned the development of these guidelines:

1. Avoid land use that results in vegetation loss in critical biodiversity areas. 2. Maintain large intact natural patches – try to minimize habitat fragmentation in critical biodiversity areas. 3. Maintain landscape connections (ecological corridors) that connect critical biodiversity areas. 4. Maintain ecological processes at all scales, and avoid or compensate for any effects of land uses on ecological processes. 5. Plan for long-term change and unexpected events, in particular those predicted for global climate change. 6. Plan for cumulative impacts and knock-on effects. 7. Minimize the introduction and spread of alien species. 8. Minimize land-use types that reduce ecological resilience (ability to adapt to change), particularly at the level of water catchments. 9. Implement land use and land management practices that are compatible with the natural potential of the area. 10. Balance opportunity for human and economic development with the requirements for biodiversity persistence.

9.3 Current approaches

Currently conservation planning uses two approaches to restrict land-use in areas important for biodiversity:

• Non-specific guidelines - This is the approach adopted in STEP and CAPE. Specific mention of permissible and non-permissible land-use types is avoided and recommendations are generic, for example: “any further impacts on these areas must be avoided and only biodiversity- friendly activities must be permitted”. While this approach avoids being overly prescriptive, it is less effective as a decision support tool and places a heavier burden of responsibility on decision makers. It also has the potential of being inconsistent, for example definitions of biodiversity-friendly land uses are likely to differ. • Land-use type decision matrix - Specific land-uses are rated as permitted, not permitted or restricted against each biodiversity sensitivity category. This is the approach adopted n the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Ferrar & Lotter, 2007, see Table 18).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 84 Table 18: Land use recommended for each biodiversity conservation category as used in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Ferrar & Lotter, 2007).

9.4 Critique of current approaches

Land-use decision making for biodiversity conservation is complex and involves many caveats that can not be fully represented within a simple matrix. There is a need to assess each land-use type against appropriate objectives and criteria (objectives based decision making).

By way of example consider the case of game farming within a biodiversity sensitive area designated as an ecological corridor: To legally function, game farms require fencing that restricts animal movements, and hence compromises the functionality of the ecological corridor. What is a relatively ‘biodiversity friendly’ form of land-use may in some cases conflict with biodiversity persistence objectives.

In Table 19 a number of difficulties and obstacles to land-use planning are raised and solutions are suggested.

Table 19: Six problems associated with using a simple matrix approach to land-use allocation for biodiversity categories. The first four problems are addressed in the sections below. Problem Suggested solutions 1. Lack of consistency in definitions and Standardize definitions for biodiversity terminology for biodiversity importance importance categories according to SANBI categories Guideline for Bioregional Plans 2. Absence of clear objectives to guide land- Link each biodiversity importance category to use decision making for each biodiversity one of the four Land-use Management importance category Objectives with associated Limits to Acceptable Change indicators 3. Lack of ability to account for cumulative Apply transformation thresholds for: a) impacts of land-use types (the tyranny of terrestrial systems (catchment transformation

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 85 many small decisions made individually) thresholds depending on catchment biodiversity sensitivity category); b) aquatic: use of Mean Annual Run off reduction calculations based on linkage to estuarine importance class. 4. Lack of explicit description of activities (start Develop guidelines that define permissible and up and ongoing) associated with land-use non-permissible activities associated with land- types use types. Link to NEMA listed activities. 5. Clear description of the specific Site-based assessments environmental context that may mitigate or exacerbate land-use impacts 6. Absence of conceptual frameworks to Use of environmental assessment tools such as integrate and trade off biodiversity value with Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEAs) non-biodiversity values (socio-economic, and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) political, cultural-historical etc)

9.5 A land management objectives based approach to land-use decision making

The approach rest on applying three concepts: Biodiversity Land Management Classes; Limits to Acceptable Change; and transformation thresholds. These are defined as follows:

• Biodiversity Land Management Classes (BLMC): describes the desired ecological state that a parcel of land should be kept in. Only land-use types that are compatible with maintaining this designated state should be permitted. The desired ecological state is determined by the biodiversity importance rating (CBA 1 to 4). • Limits to acceptable change: Each BLMC is characterised by permissible levels of change in key ecosystem indicators. • Transformation thresholds: recommended upper limits to the loss of natural vegetation cover per quaternary catchment.

9.5.1 Biodiversity Land Management Classes (BLMCs)

A Biodiversity Land Management Class (BLMC) refers to the desired ecological state that a parcel of land should be kept in so as to ensure biodiversity persistence (designations may be at the scale of habitat patch, landscape or catchment). It can be described using sets of ecosystem condition indicators, referred to as Limits to Acceptable Change indicators (or LACs)2. LAC values are assigned for each BLMC to describe upper limits for the degree of acceptable ecological change or impact that any proposed land-use change may bring about without compromising the designated ecological state.

Although the application of a ‘desired ecological state’ to guide land-use is new, it is in principle close to the concept of river management class that is part of the National Water Resource Classification System.

Four BLMC (at the landscape scale) are used: • Class 1: Natural landscapes: maintain in as natural a state as possible (manage for no biodiversity loss). • Class 2 : Near natural landscapes: maintain in near-natural state with minimal loss in ecosystem integrity and functioning

2 Limits to Acceptable Change, also referred to as Thresholds of Potential Concern (TPCs), were originally used in the context of adaptive management. TPCs are the upper limits of sets of critical ecosystem indicators that are used to trigger management interventions in protected areas (see for example Du Toit & Biggs, 2007). Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 86 • Class 3: Functional landscapes: manage land to maintain basic ecosystem processes despite expecting significant loss in natural vegetation cover, biodiversity maintained in critical patches and ecosystem corridors • Class 4: Production landscapes: manage land to optimize sustainable agricultural production

The three ecosystem integrity indicators described by Noss (1990) are used as benchmarks (these include indicators of ecosystem structure, function and composition) 3. To these we have added an additional criterion relating specifically to degree of human resource extraction.

In Table 20 four BMLCs are defined using Limits to Acceptable Change of six key land-use impact indicators.

Table 20: Defining Biodiversity Land Management Classes using Limits to Acceptable Change thresholds for six key lands use impact indicators. BLMC Permissible Change in Change in Overall change Resource transformation ecosystem species in natural extraction (per land parcel structure composition disturbance (% of Net considered) (fragmentation and dominance regimes (fire, Primary index) hydrology etc) Production per annum) Class 1 0% 0% 0% Little or none < 5% Class 2 0% - 10% 0 to 10% 0 to 5% Some 5 to 30% Class 3 10 to 70% 10 to 50% 5 to 80% Significant > 30% Class 4 70-100% > 50% > 80% Significant Any

9.5.2 Determining land-uses impacts

Impacts of various land uses can be partially predicted using expert opinions; however, variations depending on local environmental conditions and the kinds of activities associated with the land use will all have significant influence on how biodiversity is affected. O’Connor (2005) used expert judgements to rank different land uses types according to their aggregated biodiversity impacts (Figure 35).

A similar approach to O’Connor (2005) has been used in Table 21 showing how any land-use type can be evaluated against the Limits to Acceptable Change indicators.

3 Note that O’Conner (2005) used a similar framework to asses land-use impacts on the grassland biome. Indicators that he used included: landscape composition (habitat types, species, alien plants), landscape structure (transformation, fragmentation), and ecosystem functioning (fire and grazing regimes, biogeochemical processes, hydrological functioning, soil erosion, biotic processes).

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 87 Figure 35: Aggregated values for relative land-use impacts for the grassland biome (after O’Connor, 2005).

Aggregated expert weightings showing relative impact of land uses on grassland biodiversity (O'Conner 2005)

8

6

4

2

relativeimpact (benchmark: conservation) 0

n k m s ry ural ps p ai ti o toc is o o rban ur R D imber U Game cr T ives To ry cr d L nserva D ate g Co ri Ir

Table 21: Illustration of how land-use types can be evaluated against Limits to Acceptable Change (LAC) indicators. LAC Indicators Overall Change in change in Change in species natural Land-use type Loss in ecosystem composition disturbance Degree of vegetation structure and regimes (fire, resource cover (fragmentation dominance hydrology extraction index) (Indicators etc) species Conservation - - - - - Game farming - - + + + Communal livestock + + ++ ++ + Commercial livestock ++ + ++ ++ + ranching Dry land cropping +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Irrigated cropping +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Dairy farming +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Timber ++++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Low density rural ++++ +++ +++ ++ - settlement Low density urban ++++ +++ +++ ++ - settlement Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 88 LAC Indicators Overall Change in change in Change in species natural Land-use type Loss in ecosystem composition disturbance Degree of vegetation structure and regimes (fire, resource cover (fragmentation dominance hydrology extraction index) (Indicators etc) species High density urban ++++ +++ +++ ++ - settlement

9.5.3 Recommended permissible land-uses for BLMCs

Assigning permissible land-use types to each BLMC will facilitate decision making. In Table 22 suggested permissible land-use types for each BLMC are given.

Table 22: Recommended permissible land uses for each Biodiversity Land Management Class (abbreviations: x = not permitted; 9 = permitted; c = conditional).

Land use Biodiversity Land Management Class Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Conservation 9 9 9 9 Game farming x 9 9 9 Communal livestock x 9 9 9 Commercial livestock x x 9 9 ranching Dry land cropping x x c 9 Irrigated cropping x x c 9 Dairy farming x x c 9 Timber x x c 9 Low density rural settlement x x c 9 Low density urban settlement x x c 9 High density urban x x c 9 settlement

9.5.4 Permissible land-use types using terrestrial CBA categories

The assignment of permissible/non-permissible land uses to biodiversity mapped categories has value as a ‘first cut assessment’ to flag land-use change applications that will require further environmental authorisation (these are listed as conditional). Table 23 suggests acceptable, unacceptable and conditional forms of land-use for each biodiversity mapped category.

Table 23 and rules link critical biodiversity areas to land use guidelines for terrestrial and aquatic CBAs. Aquatic guidelines do not specify land use but rather transformation thresholds and permissible mean annual run-off (MAR) reductions.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 89

Table 23: Recommended land-use types for each biodiversity mapped category (abbreviations: 9 = permitted, x = not permitted, c = conditional (to environmental authorisation, and catchment transformation thresholds)).

Biodiversity mapped Type 1 Type 2 Critical Critical Critical Degrad Transfo category protected protected biodiversi biodiver biodivers ed rmed areas areas ty areas 1 sity ity areas areas 2 3 & 4; and Other ecologic natural al areas corridor CBA Code R1 R2 T1 T2, C1, T3 & 4 D TF C2 ONA BLMC 1 1 1 2 2 & 3 4 4 Conservation 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Game farming x c c 9 9 9 9 Communal livestock x x x 9 9 9 9 Commercial livestock x x x x 9 9 9 Dry land cropping x x x x c 9 9 Irrigated cropping x x x x c 9 9 Dairy farming x x x x c 9 9 Timber x x x x c 9 9 Low density rural x x x x c 9 9 settlement Low density urban x x x x c 9 9 settlement High density urban x x x x c 9 9 settlement

9.6 Applying catchment transformation thresholds using aquatic priorities

Transformation results in fragmented landscapes and loss of ecosystem connectivity. It is well documented that when landscapes are transformed beyond certain critical thresholds, ecological processes such as fire and hydrologic cycling show dramatic changes (Andrén, 1994; Fahrig and Merriam, 1994; Fahrig 2001).

Critical thresholds are not easy to predict. They vary depending on the type and resilience of the ecosystems, as well as the nature of transformation. For example, transformation can result in varying degrees of fragmentation, and strictly speaking it may be may be more appropriate to use ‘habitat fragmentation thresholds’. However, measures of this are more complicated, and it is therefore appropriate that a precautionary approach be applied to setting transformation thresholds. The goal should be to maintain sufficiently large intact and well-connected habitat patches that support the most area-sensitive indicator, species. Indicator species can include species of special concern such as rare, threatened, keystone, or umbrella species (Fahrig 2002).

A wide range of studies reveal that habitat transformation thresholds vary between 60 to 80 percent of the landscape required to remain as untransformed to ensure persistence of terrestrial ecosystem functioning and to avoid species loss (ELI, 2003; Fahrig, 2001). Setting more precise thresholds will

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 90 depend on the specific context of species and ecosystem sensitivities.

The Eastern Cape is remarkable for its many valuable estuaries, with just over half of all estuaries in the country, with 90% of these considered as national conservation priorities (Turpie and Clark 2007). Because transformed catchments result in loss of instream flow and a decline in water quality (through increased sedimentation and agricultural chemicals run off), it is importance that land-use planning considers the linkages between catchments and important rivers and sensitive estuaries. For this reason transformation thresholds are used to account for the cumulative impacts of land-use change within catchments. Specific thresholds have been recommended based on the aquatic biodiversity importance category of the sub-QC (also assigned to a BLMC). See Table 24.

Table 24: Recommended transformation thresholds and permissible mean annual run-off reduction linked to aquatic biodiversity importance classes. Aquatic biodiversity CBA Code BLMC Transformation Permissible MAR category thresholds (sub reduction QC) Irreplaceable river A1 1 Less than 10% Less than 15% catchments (and all wetlands) Supporting river A2a 2 Less than 15% Less than 25% catchments Migratory river A2b 2 or 3 Less than 15% Less than 25% catchments Priority primary A3a 1 Less than 10% Less than 15% catchments linked to E1 estuaries Priority primary A3b 2 Less than 15% Less than 25% catchments linked to E2 estuaries Priority estuaries E1 1 N/A N/A Important estuaries E2 2 N/A N/A Priority rehabilitation R4a areas Other rehabilitation R4b areas

Catchments transformation thresholds can be used in conjunction with terrestrial land-use planning guidelines. An example is given in the flow chart in Figure 36, where an application for the afforestation of 250 ha is considered. The flow chart asks: a) if the affected area falls within a critical biodiversity area and, b) if the transformation threshold of the sub QC will be exceeded if the application were to be approved.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 91

Figure 36: Hypothetical decision flow chart for an afforestation application.

Application for afforestation of 250 ha

Does area intersect with a CBA ?

Reject Yes No application

Are sub QC transformation thresholds? exceeded

Current sub QC transformation

Yes No

Reject application Consider application

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 92

9.7 Where are the biodiversity sensitive catchments?

Figure 37 below summarises three classes of biodiversity sensitive sub -quaternary catchments. The conservation of these catchments is essential to ensure persistence of aquatic biodiversity, in particular critical rivers and estuarine systems Although many of these catchments may contain terrestrial critical biodiversity areas within them, conservation of these areas alone will be insufficient to ensure persistence of the aquatic systems. Transformation thresholds are used to limit the overall transformation of these catchments; these have been set at three levels of sensitivity.

Figure 37: Sensitive catchments and recommended transformation thresholds based on aquatic biodiversity priorities (for further explanation of codes see Table 17).

Protection Level

Transformation Aquatic CBA Description threshold Codes Less than 10% A1; A3a (or Irreplaceable river catchments; Priority primary E3a) catchments linked to E1 estuaries Less than 15% A2a Supporting river catchments; Priority primary catchments linked to E2 estuaries Less than 20% A2b Migratory river catchments

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 93

9.8 Where to plant timber so as to minimize biodiversity loss?

The province is considered to be one of the last remaining areas in South Africa with large areas of underutilised potential for expansion of the timber growing industry. Expansion targets of 150 000 ha over the next ten years are being considered (WMA12, SEA). Typically, forestry as a land use has a high impact on biodiversity, with significant cumulative and ‘downstream’ impacts. Minimising these impacts will require careful planning that locates plantations outside of biodiversity sensitive areas and catchments and that limits the total extent of land transformation per catchment. This will require application of a four step process (that uses exclusion filters) .These include

Step 1 Select areas with high afforesting potential. Step 2 Remove all critical biodiversity areas 1 and 2 from this selection. Step3 Ensure that all catchments identified in the WMA 12 SEA as ‘water stressed’ catchments are removed. Step4 For remaining areas that overlap with biodiversity sensitive sub-quaternary-catchments, apply transformation thresholds) to calculate upper limits of available land for planting (see section 9.7).

Note that addition socio-economic criteria and filters, that fall outside of the scope of this projects, also need to be considered.

Table 25 provides a summary of the first two steps of this process aggregated at the level of local municipality. Figure 38 maps areas of high forestry potential after removal of critical biodiversity areas 1 and 2.

Table 25: A summary of the extent of CBA1, CBA2 and high forestry potential areas in local municipality. Aforestation areas do not take into account existing land-cover (e.g. urban areas or existing plantations) or the existence of CBA 3 or 4 areas where the desired land-use is restoration to a near-natural state. High Forestry CBA1 CBA2 Potential Local Municipality Name ha % ha % ha % Nelson Mandela Bay Metro(NMA) 27891 14 80766 41 4121 2 ECDMA13 11557 87 0 0 0 0 ECDMA10 107023 8 554335 42 65 0 Umzimvubu Local Municipality(EC442) 24551 10 73649 29 82857 33 Matatiele Local Municipality(EC441) 68542 16 172300 40 66653 15 King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Muni.(EC157) 17008 6 46347 15 59560 20 Mhlontlo Local Municipality(EC156) 26759 9 53989 19 98679 35 Nyandeni Local Municipality(EC155) 11038 4 120667 49 75752 31 Port St Johns Local Municipality(EC154) 32787 25 44258 34 28099 22 Qaukeni Local Municipality(EC153) 50431 20 93940 38 80476 32 Ntabankulu Local Municipality(EC152) 17814 12 46194 32 37463 26 Mbizana Local Municipality(EC151) 36560 15 47003 19 117193 48 Gariep Local Municipality(EC144) 51322 6 424801 48 0 0 Maletswai Local Municipality(EC143) 677 0 164059 38 0 0 Senqu Local Municipality(EC142) 8201 1 425453 58 4722 1 Elundini Local Municipality(EC141) 44373 9 228328 45 150246 30 Sakhisizwe Local Municipality(EC138) 11925 5 104856 47 17645 8 Engcobo Local Municipality(EC137) 25061 11 45233 20 41950 19 Emalahleni Local Municipality(EC136) 1940 1 98488 28 1354 0 Intsika Yethu Local Municipality(EC135) 5278 2 28114 9 40758 13 Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 94 High Forestry CBA1 CBA2 Potential Local Municipality Name ha % ha % ha % Lukanji Local Municipality(EC134) 14329 3 180548 42 58 0 Inkwanca Local Municipality(EC133) 3530 1 196333 55 8 0 Tsolwana Local Municipality(EC132) 24484 4 277297 46 0 0 Inxuba Yethemba Local Municipality(EC131) 71426 6 359184 31 0 0 Nxuba Local Municipality(EC128) 28148 10 158026 58 50 0 Nkonkobe Local Municipality(EC127) 84036 23 114063 31 10501 3 Ngqushwa Local Municipality(EC126) 11065 5 79378 35 0 0 Buffalo City Local Municipality(EC125) 39290 16 74312 29 5664 2 Amahlathi Local Municipality(EC124) 56074 13 146741 34 19724 5 Great Kei Local Municipality(EC123) 24757 14 83957 48 1446 1 Mnquma Local Municipality(EC122) 32864 10 138153 42 41300 13 Mbhashe Local Municipality(EC121) 38304 13 79691 26 41490 14 Kou-Kamma Local Municipality(EC109) 122289 34 98431 28 46108 13 Kouga Local Municipality(EC108) 46748 19 67712 28 21029 9 Baviaans Local Municipality(EC107) 232816 30 377107 49 0 0 Sunday's River Valley Local Municipality(EC106) 145087 41 64254 18 947 0 Ndlambe Local Municipality(EC105) 62736 34 56246 31 96 0 Makana Local Municipality(EC104) 114556 26 210820 48 1 0 Ikwezi Local Municipality(EC103) 14926 3 100763 23 0 0 Blue Crane Route Local Municipality(EC102) 74012 8 419505 43 0 0 Camdeboo Local Municipality(EC101) 60057 8 447960 62 0 0

9.9 Discussion

Land-use decision making for biodiversity persistence is inherently complex, requiring the integration of many environmental considerations within a specific socio-economic context. The consideration of cumulative and downstream impacts of land use change are particularly challenging to apply within the land use planning paradigm

It is recommended that the precautionary principle be applied when assessing both on site and downstream cumulative impacts. This can be done by avoiding land use change in critical biodiversity areas as well as limiting the total extent of catchment land transformation in keeping with the recommendations of this report .

The scientific justification for using transformation thresholds can be found in both landscape ecology studies (that considers the impact of land-use change and fragmentation on terrestrial biodiversity); and from aquatic ecology that considers in-stream flow and water quality reductions associated with catchment transformation.

Figure 38(following page): The extent of areas with a high potential for forestry less critical biodiversity areas 1 and 2 (CBA categories 3 and 4 are not indicated) and existing plantations.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 95

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 96

10 References

Amis, M.A., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Thuiller, W., Kleynhans, C.J., Day, J., Nel, J., in press. Predicting Freshwater Habitat Integrity Using Land Use/Cover Surrogates. WATER SA. Anderson, J. M. and Van Wyk, B. 1999, "Biomes and Hotspots of South Africa," in Towards Gondwana Alive - promoting biodiversiy and stemming the Sixth extinction J. M. Anderson, ed., National Botanical Institute, Pretoria. Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 71:355-366. Ball, I.R., Possingham, H.P., 2000. MARXAN (V1.8.2): Marine Reserve Design Using Spatially Explicit Annealing, a Manual. The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. pp. Barnes, K. N. 2000, The Eskom Red Data Book o Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg. Berliner, D.D., van der Merwe, I., Benn, G., Rouget, M. 2006. Systematic Conservation Planning for the Forest Biome of South Africa: approach, methods and results used for the selection of priority forests. Updated September 2006. Funded by UK DFID for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Bond W.J., Midgley G.F. & Woodward, F.I. (2003) The importance of low atmospheric CO2 and fire in promoting the spread of grasslands and savannas. Global Change Biology 9:973-982 Branch, W. R. 1988, South African Red Data Book - Reptiles and Amphibians FRD, Pretoria. CES. 2006. CES Joint Venture Coastal & Environmental Services. The development of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Zone of Afforestation Potential in the Eastern Cape. prepared for DWAF. Clark, B.M. and Lombard, A.T. (2007) A Marine Conservation Plan For The Agulhas Bioregion: Options And Opportunities For Enhancing The Existing MPA Network. Prepared for: WWF-SA, C.A.P.E., Cape Nature & South African National Parks by Anchor Environmental Consultants CC, Department of Zoology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town. Cocks, M. and Dold, T. 2003, "The Cost of Culture", Veld & Flora pp. 146-149. Cowling R.M. Pressey, R. Sims-Castley, A. le Roux, E. Baard, C.J. Burgers, G. Palmer. 2003. The expert or the algorithm?—comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve selection software. Biological Conservation 112 (2003) 147–167. Cowling, R. M. and Hilton-Taylor, C. 1994, "Patterns of Plant Diversity and Endemism in Southern Africa: An Overview," in Botanical Diversity in Southern Africa B. J. Huntley, ed., National Botanical Institute, Pretoria, pp. 31-52 Cowling, R., Lombard, A., Rouget, M., Kerley, G., Wolf, T., Sims-Castley, R., Knight, A., Vlok, J., Pierce, S., Boshoff, A., Wilson, S., 2003. A conservation assessment for the Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, Port Elizabeth. Report Number 43: 106 pp; Appendices 80 pp. Cowling, RM. 1999. Planning for persistence –systematic reserve design in southern Africa’s succulent Karoo desert. Parks, 9(1), February 1999 Crist, P.J., Kohley,T., Oakleaf, J. 2004. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool. Landscape Ecology. Vol 14. No 1. DEAET, 2004, Strategic Assessment of Biodiversity in the Eastern Cape Dept of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Bisho. Desmet, P., 2004. Designing a Living Landscape for Biodiversity Conservation in the Knersvlakte Region of the Succulent Karoo, South Africa: A Systematic Conservation Planning Approach. Department of Botany. University of Cape Town Cape Town. Di Luzio, M., Srinivasan, R., Arnold, J.G., 2004. A GIS-Coupled Hydrological Model System for the Watershed Assessment of Agricultural Nonpoint and Point Sources of Pollution. Transactions in GIS 8, 113-136. Dold, A. P. and Cocks, M. L. 2002, The Trade in Medicinal Plants in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 98, 589-597. Driver, A, Cowling, RM & Maze, KE. 2003. Planning for living landscapes: Perspectives and lessons from South Africa. Cape Town: Botanical Society of South Africa, Center for Applied Diversity Science and Conservation International Du toit , J & Biggs, H. 2007. Working within thresholds integrating science and management in large terrestrial ecosystems. presentation at Society for Conservation Biologist July 2007 Port Elizabeth. South Africa. DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). 2003. Report on the state of the forest in South Africa. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 97 Pretoria: DWAF. ELI 2003. Environmental Law Institute.Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners. Washington D.C. Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biol. Conservation 100:65-74. Fahrig, L. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: A synthesis. Ecological Applications 12:346-353. Fahrig, L. and, G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations.Con. Bio. 8:50-59. Ferrar, A.A. and Lötter, M.C. 2007. Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Handbook. Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit. Fractal Forest.2007 Suitability of afforestation for Eastern Cape. Mike Howard. Friedman Y. and Daly B. (editors) 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa. Goodman, P., 2004. Planning for the Conservation and Development of Biodiversity in KwaZulu-Natal: Guideline to the use of planning outputs (Incomplete Draft). KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg. 4 pp. Hannah, L and Salm, R. 2003. Protected areas and Climate change. Chapter 12. Climatic Change and Biodiversity: Synergistic Impacts. Edited by Lee Hannah and Thomas Lovejoy. center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International. Hannah, L., Midgley G.F. and Millar, D. 2002. Climate change-integrated conservation strategies. Global Ecology & Biogeography 11, 485–495 Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162, 1243-1248 IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World Conservation Monitoring Center. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Malczewski J.1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, NY. ISBN 0-471-32944-4 Margules, CR & Pressey, RL. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405. Midgley, G.F., Hannah, L., Millar, D., Rutherford, M.C. & Powrie, L.W. (2002) Assessing the vulnerability of species richness to anthropogenic climate change in a biodiversity hotspot. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11, 445–451. Mucina L & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Nel, J.L., Smith-Adao, L., Roux, D.J., Adams, J., Cambray, J.A., de Moor, F.C., Kleynhans, C.J., Kotze, I., Maree, G., J, M., Schonegevel, L.Y., Smith, R.J., Thirion, C., 2006. Conservation Planning for River and Estuarine Biodiversity in the Fish-to-Tsitsikamma Water Management Area. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa. Water Research Commission Report K5/1486: 106 pp. Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4:355-64. O’Connor, T. 2005. National Grasslands Initiative: Identification of Compatible Land uses for maintaining biodiversity Integrity. Prepared for South African National Biodiversity Institute Pierce, S.M., Mader, A.D., 2006. The STEP Handbook. Integrating the natural environment into land-use decisions at the municipal level: towards sustainable development. Centre for Africa Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa, Port Elizabeth. Report number 47 (Second Edition): 146 pp. Possingham, H.P., Ball, I.R., Andelman, S., 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks, in: Ferson, S., Burgman, M. (Eds.), Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, 291-305. Pressey, RL. 1999. Applications of irreplaceability analysis to planning and management problems. Parks, 9(1):42–51 Reyers, B. and Ginsburg A.E. 2005a. Systematic conservation assessment of the Pondoland SEA Focus area CSIR report : ENV-S-C 2005-041 Reyers, B. and Ginsburg A.E. 2005b. Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development project. CSIR Report ENV- S-C 2005-022 Rhodes 2000. Rhodes University, Fort Cox College of Agriculture and Forestry and University of Transkei 2000, A monitoring sysem for community orestry: combining scientific and local knowledge in the Eastern Cape. First interim project report, Rhodes University, Grahamstown. Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Jonas, Z., Desmet, P., Driver, A., Maze, K., Egoh, B. & Cowling, R.M. 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume1: terrestrial component. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute. Rutherford, MC, Midgley, GF, Bond, WJ, Powrie, LW, Roberts, R, Allsopp N. 1999. South African Country Study on Climate Change.Plant Biodiversity:vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment. NBI.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 98 Saaty, T.L. (1994), "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 19- 43. SANBI 2007a. Listing of Threatened or Protected Ecosystems: Update for Working Group 1. Presentations dated 29 March 2007, SANBI, Pretoria. SANBI 2007. Draft Guideline regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation and Publication of Bioregional Plans. March 2007. Prepared by the South African National Biodiversity Institute at the request of the Minister and Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Sarkar, S. and Margules, C. (2002). Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. Journal of Biosciences 27(4): 299-308. Sarkar, S. and Margules, C. (2002). Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. Journal of Biosciences 27(4): 299-308 Shackleton, C. M., S.E.Shackleton, M.Ntshudu, and J.Ntebeza. 2002, The Role and Value of Savannah Non- Timber Forest Products to Rural Households in the Kat River Valley, South Africa Journal of Tropical Forest Products 8(1): 45-65. Sims-Castley, R. 2002, A Preliminary Review of Gross Financial Incomes Generated By Indusries Dependent on Thicket Vegetation. TERU Report No. 37: pp.20, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth. Smith, R.J. (2004). "Conservation Land-Use Zoning (CLUZ) software." Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Canterbury, UK., from http://www.mosaic-conservation.org/cluz. Snyder, M.N., Goetz, S.J., Wright, R.K., 2005. Stream health rankings predicted by satellite derived land cover metrics. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41, 659-677. Stern Review 2006. Report on the Economics of Climate Change, World Development Movement, WWF Store R, and Kangas J. 2001 Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning 55 (2001) 79-93. Strager, M P and Rosenberger, R.S. 2006. Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA Ecological Economics 58 (2006) 79– 92. Turpie, J. and Clark, B. 2007. The Health Status, Conservation Importance, and Economic Value of Temperate South African Estuaries and Development of a Regional Conservation Plan (Draft Report). Anchor Environmental Consultants CC for C.A.P.E. Regional Estuarine Management Programme & Cape Nature. 103 pp. Van Wyk, A & Smith, GF. 2001. Regions of floristic endemism in southern Africa. Pretoria: Umdaus Press. Von Maltitz, GE, Mucina, L, Geldenhuys, CK, Laws, MJ, Eeley, H & Adie, H. 2003. Classification system for South African indigenous forest: An objective classification for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Pretoria: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Environmentek Zhu, X & Liu S. 2005. Decision Analyst Coastal CRC. Based on JavaAHP created by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 99

11 Appendix A: Threatened species occurring in the Eastern Cape

11.1 Threatened mammals (source DEAET, 2004)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 100

11.2 Threatened birds (source DEAET, 2004)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 101

11.3 Threatened Reptiles and amphibians (source DEAET, 2004)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 102

12 Appendix B: Transformation Data Sources

This section lists the datasets that went into compiling the Eastern Cape land-cover used in this project.

Alien Trees Density Field-based expert mapped alien tree species and density Source: DWAF Date: circa.1998 Reference: DC Le Maitre, DC, Versfeld, DB and Chapman, RA (2000) The impact of invading alien plants on surface water resources in South Africa: A preliminary assessment. Water SA 26(3): 397- 408. Available at http://www.wrc.org.za Layer name: nbal_ec Tree Density Land Cover Classification 1 Closed Degraded 2 Dense Degraded 3 Medium Degraded 4 Occasional Natural 5 Rare Natural 6 Scattered Natural 7 Very scattered Natural

Baviaanskloof Transformation Data Land cover mapped from satellite imagery for the BMR planning domain. Source: Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve Project Date: 2007 Reference: N/A Layer name: Trans_Jan07_v1 Trans Land Cover Classification 1 Large Dams Water Bodies 2 Plantations Plantations 3 Regrowth Plantations 4 Transformed Urban and Cultivation

STEP Transformation Data Landsat image interpretation and field-based expert mapping of degradation (overgrazing) Source: BGIS Date: 2002 Reference: Lloyd, J.W., van den Berg, E.C. & Palmer A.R. (2002) Patterns of transformation and degradation in the Thicket Biome, South Africa. TERU Report 39: 86 pp Layer name: STEP_Transformation_gw RESEL Land Cover Classification 1 1 Degraded

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 103 ARC Natural Resource Database The ARC natural Resource Database was recently released and contains a collection of environmental and socio-economic data for the whole of South Africa. This large dataset is viewable and downloadable from http://www.agis.agric.za/agisweb/agis.html or as a CD via the ARC in Pretoria. The following land cover information layers were incorporated into the Eastern Cape land cover:

Degraded Land Mapped polygons based on the 1996 NLC Source: ARC Date: 1996 Reference: Fairbanks D.H.K., Thompson M.W., Vink D.R., Newby T., van den Berg H. and Everard D.A. 2000. The South African land-cover characteristics database: a synopsis of the landscape. South African Journal of Science 96: 69–82. Layer name: Other_DegradeLand TYPE Land Cover Classification 1 Barren Rock Degraded 2 Degraded vegetation Degraded 3 Dongas Degraded

Irrigated Crop Lands Mapped polygons based on the 1996 NLC Source: ARC Date: 1996 Reference: Fairbanks D.H.K., Thompson M.W., Vink D.R., Newby T., van den Berg H. and Everard D.A. 2000. The South African land-cover characteristics database: a synopsis of the landscape. South African Journal of Science 96: 69–82. Layer name: Other_Irrigatedland TYPE Land Cover Classification 1 Irrigated Land Cultivated

Transformed Rangelands Mapped polygons based on the 1996 NLC Source: ARC Date: 1996 Reference: Fairbanks D.H.K., Thompson M.W., Vink D.R., Newby T., van den Berg H. and Everard D.A. 2000. The South African land-cover characteristics database: a synopsis of the landscape. South African Journal of Science 96: 69–82. Layer name: Other_TransformedRangeland TYPE Land Cover Classification 1 Cultivated Cultivated 2 Plantation Plantation 3 Urban Urban

ARC Erosion Potential Modelled soil erosion potential based on soil characteristics, terrain and NDVI. This represents the only province-wide “degradation potential” map that is independent of the NLC. This erosion map is still in the development stage and currently has problems as it does not take into account temporal phenological differences between summer and winter rainfall regions or between different vegetation Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 104 types.

Therefore this map was not used on its own but rather in combination with the degradation categories from other land cover products using the following criteria:

If (ARC Erosion)=”high erosion” AND (NLC)=”degraded”, THEN “degraded” If (ARC Erosion)=”high erosion” AND (ARC degradation)=”degraded”, THEN “degraded”

To determine if a grid cell in the ARC Erosion coverage had “high erosion” potential all values were summarised per South African vegetation type and any cell per vegetation type with a value greater than the mean was considered as having a higher than average probability of being degraded. In this was “degradation” from the ARC Erosion map was estimated relative to a respective vegetation type and not the entire map. Source: ARC Date: 2007 Reference: Layer name: er2int300u35s

National Land Cover 2000 Satellite (Landsat) image interpretation of land cover Source: CSIR Date: 2000 Reference: Thompson, M., van den Berg, H., Newby, T., Hoare, D., 2001. Guideline Procedures For National Land-Cover Mapping And Change Monitoring. Report for Department of Water Affairs and Forestry National Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism by Division of Water, Environment, and Forestry Science (CSIR) and Institute for Soil, Climate and Water (ARC) Pretoria. Layer Name: NLC2000u35s Note that cultivation categories are treated here as “degraded”. Visual inspection of data against 2000 satellite imagery indicated that the ARC cultivation information from 1996 better maps current and recently cultivated lands.

Land Cover DESCRIPTION Classification 1 No data No data 2 Forest (indigenous) Natural 3 Woodland Natural 4 Thicket, Bushland, Bush Clumps, High Fynbos Natural 5 Shrubland and Low Fynbos Natural 6 Herbland Natural 7 Natural Grassland Natural 8 Planted Grassland Degraded 9 Forest Plantations (Eucalyptus spp) Plantation 10 Forest Plantations (Pine spp) Plantation 11 Forest Plantations (Acacia spp) Plantation 12 Forest Plantations (Other / mixed spp) Plantation 13 Forest Plantations (clearfelled) Plantation 14 Waterbodies Water Bodies 15 Wetlands Natural 16 Bare Rock and Soil (natural) Natural 17 Bare Rock and Soil (erosion : dongas / gullies) Degraded 18 Bare Rock and Soil (erosion : sheet) Degraded Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 105 Land Cover DESCRIPTION Classification 19 Degraded Forest & Woodland Degraded 20 Degraded Thicket, Bushland, etc Degraded 21 Degraded Shrubland and Low Fynbos Degraded 22 Degraded Unimproved (natural) Grassland Degraded 23 Cultivated, permanent, commercial, irrigated Degraded 24 Cultivated, permanent, commercial, dryland Degraded 25 Cultivated, permanent, commercial, sugarcane Degraded 26 Cultivated, temporary, commercial, irrigated Degraded 27 Cultivated, temporary, commercial, dryland Degraded 28 Cultivated, temporary, subsistence, dryland Degraded 29 Cultivated, temporary, subsistence, irrigated Degraded 30 Urban / Built-up Urban 31 Urban / Built-up (rural cluster) Urban 32 Urban / Built-up (residential, formal suburbs) Urban 33 Urban / Built-up (residential, flatland) Urban 34 Urban / Built-up (residential, mixed) Urban 35 Urban / Built-up (residential, hostels) Urban 36 Urban / Built-up (residential, formal township) Urban 37 Urban / Built-up (residential, informal township Urban 38 Urban / Built-up (residential, informal squatter camp) Urban 39 Urban / Built-up (smallholdings, forest & woodland à) Urban 40 Urban / Built-up (smallholdings, thicket, bushland à) Urban 41 Urban / Built-up (smallholdings, shrubland à) Urban 42 Urban / Built-up (smallholdings, grassland à) Urban 43 Urban / Built-up, (commercial, mercantile) Urban 44 Urban / Built-up, (commercial, education, health, IT) Urban 45 Urban / Built-up, (industrial / transport : heavy) Urban 46 Urban / Built-up, (industrial / transport : light Urban 47 Mines & Quarries (underground / subsurface mining) Urban 48 Mines & Quarries (surface-based mining) Urban 49 Mines & Quarries (mine tailings, waste dumps) Urban 50 No data No data

National Communities Database Polygon coverage of all previously disadvantaged communities. Source: StatsSA Data: 2001 Reference: Layer Name: Communities_Project DESCRIPTION Land Cover Classification 1 Farming Degraded 2 Metropolitan Area Urban 3 Rural - Dense Village > 5000 Urban 4 Rural - Small Village <= 5000 Degraded 5 Rural Scattered Degraded 6 Service Centres - Mines, Prisons etc. Urban 7 Urban - Formal Town Urban 8 Urban - Former Township Urban

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 106 9 Urban Fringe - Ex-homeland Towns (Formal Urban Towns) 10 Urban Fringe - Informal Settlements Urban

SEA WMA12 Data This data was the same as the National Land Cover 2000 and was not used.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 107

13 Appendix C: Expert mapped polygon descriptions

13.1 Vegetation

Expert name Site name Vegetation description Polygon ID Hotspot, Corridor, or Both A regional or local centre of plant diversity Species restricted to the site Unique habitats / plant community Tony Dold 1 Cala High altitude graslands H y y y Tony Dold 2 Satans neck, Engecobo High altitude graslands H y y y Tony Dold 3 St Albans/Engcobo High altitude graslands H N N N Tony Dold 4 Baziya/Umtata mountains High altitude grasslands H N N N Tony Dold 5 Sterkstroom/Andriesberg High altitude grasslands H N Y Y Tony Dold 6 Windvoegelberge/Cathcart High altitude grasslands H N Y N Tony Dold 7 Elands Berg/Hoggs back area High altitude grasslands H N Y N Tony Dold 8 Katberg, Didima range (just outside High altitude grasslands H maybe y maybe WMA12 area) Tony Dold 9 Pirie/ King Williams town area Albany Coastal belt H maybe Y maybe Tony Dold 10 Charluma/Kiwane High altitude grasslands H maybe Y maybe Tony Dold 11 Biddeford farm/Komgha High altitude grasslands H maybe y maybe Tony Dold 12 All river corridors marked as scenic major river valleys B N maybe Y landscapes in SEA Jan Vlok 13 Albany Coastal belt Albany Coastal belt B Y Y Y Jan Vlok 14 Pirie Forests and High altitude B maybe Y Y grasslands Jan Vlok 15 Kiwane to Pirie corridor Steep gradient from C maybe y maybe Amatola mistbelt grasslands albany coastal grassland types Jan Vlok 16 Drakensberg sensitive belt High altitude grasslands B Y Y Y Jan Vlok 17 Amatola Uplands High altitude grasslands B maybe Y Y Jan Vlok 18 Transkei coastal belt Coastal grasslands and B Y Y Y forest Jan Vlok 19 Port St Johns to Matatiele corridor Steep gradient from B Y Y Y Drakensberg mist belt grasslands to Transkei Coastal Grassland types David Hoare 20 Pondoland-Natal Sandstone Coastal Grasslands on sandstone, H Y Y Y Sourveld high local species richness, plus threatened plus endemic David Hoare 21 Pondoland Scarp forest inside veg Forests B Y Y Y type:Pondoland sandstone ( vmi 204) David Hoare 22 Ngeli High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 23 Ntabankulu High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 24 Ntabanyama High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 25 Ntsizwa High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 26 Mount Currie High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 27 Perde Berg High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 28 Castle Rock High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 29 Jumbla Range High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 108 Expert name Site name Vegetation description Polygon ID Hotspot, Corridor, or Both A regional or local centre of plant diversity Species restricted to the site Unique habitats / plant community David Hoare 30 Mount Hargreaves High altitude grasslands H maybe Y Y David Hoare 31 Amatola Mistbelt High altitude grasslands B maybe Y Y David Hoare 32 Karoo escarpment Mixed grasslands B maybe Y Y mountain karroid veg David Hoare 33 Pondoland 3 zones Pondoland sandstone and H Y associated Roger Uys 34 Drakensberg above 1800m contour High Altitude grassland B Y Y Y Roger Uys 35 Naudes Neck to Uggie High Altitude grasslands ? N N Roger Uys 36 Matatiele to Cedarville Extensive wetland system C N Y Y Roger Uys 37 St Bernards peak High Altitude grasslands H N N N Roger Uys 38 Witteberg to Naudes Nek High altitude grasslands Y Y Y

Vegetation continued…

Polygon Other reasons why conservation Site name Species Notes (RDB, endemic, rare, etc.) ID priority 1 Cala endemic, endangered, species rich Bergeranthus artus, Crocosmia masonorum, Nerine gibsonii 2 Satans neck, endemic, endangered species rich Nerine masoniorum, Crocosmia masonorum, Engcobo 3 St endemic, endangered species rich Bergeranthus katbergensis, Brachystelma barberi, Albans/Engcobo 4 Baziya/Umtata endemic, endangered species rich Phymaspermum erubescens, Barbaretta spp., mountains 5 Sterkstroom/Andri Hugh exposed dolerite dome, with Drimia montana, Asclepias montana, Neohenricia spiculata esberg fossils 6 Windvoegelberge/ Rich in Rock Art Ceropegia macmasteri, Cathcart 7 Elands Berg/Hogs endemic, endangered, species rich Euryops ciliatus, Ectotropis alpinii, back area 8 Katberg, Dididma endemic, endangered, species rich Lotononis trichodes, Helichrysum articolum, Euryopos range ciliatus 9 Pirie/ King Giant Earth worm sources in ground Still undescribed Arctotis spp. Williams town with associated endemic spp, area 10 Chalumna/Kiwane endemic, endangered, species rich Drimia Chalummensis, Bulbine Frutescence var chalummensis, Aspidoglossum Flanalanii 11 Biddeford Kniphofia bruceaea, only known Kniphofia bruceaea farm/Komgha locality (in stream banks) 12 All river corridors Coast to escarpment ecological marked as scenic corridors landscapes in WMA12 SEA 13 Albany Coastal 1) Important biogeographic interface between fynbos and grassland biomes 2) Most river systems belt have small catchments areas (within this Albany coastal belt) but their estuaries are important for marine conservation (nurseries). Highly sensitive to indirect impacts of afforestation (altered water fluctuations and fresh flush to keep mouths open) 14 Pirie links between two corridors 15 Kiwane to Pirie Important migration corridor linking Drakensberg flora with Cape flora; grassland with afromontane corridor forest types. Important upland lowland corridor for grassland, seed eater birds and nectar feeders 16 Drakensberg Very important water catchments area for all river systems in WMA12; Contains many small sensitive belt sensitive wetlands system; Often shallow soils prone to erosion. ;Vegetation sensitive to physical disturbance and altered natural fire regime. Rich in local endemic (see Hillard and Burt, 1987) 17 Amatola Uplands Very important water catchments area for all river systems in WMA12; Contains many small sensitive wetlands system Often shallow soils prone to erosion; Vegetation sensitive to physical disturbance and altered natural fire regime; Rich in local endemics ( See Peter Phillipson,Tony Dold for ref); Interface between Mistbelt Grasslands and mistbelt forest in GD1 often contain unique shrubland

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 109 Polygon Other reasons why conservation Site name Species Notes (RDB, endemic, rare, etc.) ID priority communities 18 Transkei coastal Interesting birds associated with this veg type (speak to Prof Skead); Rich in localized endemic belt plant species Most river systems have small catchments areas but their estuaries are important for marine conservation (nurseries). Highly sensitive to indirect impacts of afforestation (altered water fluctuations and fresh flush to keep mouths open) Recommended land use : no afforestation, low impact grazing, maintain natural fire regimes, no more transformation of existing veg type 19 Port St Johns to Upland lowland corridor between main Drakensberg escarpment and main coastal forest thicket and Matatiele corridor grassland types 20 Pondoland-Natal CI Global Hotspot Sandstone Coastal Sourveld 21 Pondoland Scarp endangered, endemic and very rich in species (species turnover very high between river valleys) forest inside veg type:Pondoland sanstone ( vmi 204) 22 Ngeli endemic, endangered species rich 23 Ntabankulu endemic, endangered species rich 24 Ntabanyama endemic, endangered species rich 25 Ntsizwa endemic, endangered species rich 26 Mount Currie endemic, endangered species rich 27 Perde Berg endemic, endangered species rich 28 Castle Rock endemic, endangered species rich 29 Jumbla Range endemic, endangered species rich 30 Mount Hargreaves endemic, endangered species rich 31 Amatola Mistbelt endemic, endangered species rich, East -West mountain corridor, High spp diversity, eg endemic Helichrysum spp etc 32 Karoo escarpment Endemic spp) eg Merxmelia grasslands (endemic to SA, unique feature of grasslands 33 Pondoland 3 zones 34 Drakensberg little historic utilization (inaccessible above 1800m plus cattle rustling threat) contour 35 Naudes Nek to Includes part of the only example of Lesotho basalt grasslands in SA, one of the two transfrontier Ugie conservation opportunities (Veg type Gd 8) 36 Matatiele to Important area for Ecosystem Cedarville services 37 St Bernards peak Opportunity to buffer a transfrontier conservation area (borders on the Sehlabathebe National Park in Lesotho) 38 Witteberg to Precipitation gradient from karroid to mesic mountain (corridor for evolution?) Naudes Nek

13.2 Vegetation expert assessment of threats

Site name Polygon ID Medicinal plant collecting and subsistence use Mining Commercial grazing Communal grazing Afforestation Commercial agriculture Urban development Disrupted naturalfire regime Alien infestation Others 1 Cala Y N Y Y Y N N 2 Satans neck, Engecobo Y N Y Y Y N Y 3 St Albans/Engcobo Y N N Y Y N Y

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 110 4 Baziya/Umtata mountains Y N N Y Y Y Y 5 Sterkstroom/Andriesberg N N Y N N N N 6 Windvoegelberge/Cathcart N N Y Y N N N 7 Elands Berg/Hogsback area Y N Y N Y N N 8 Katberg, Dididma range (just outside Y N Y N Y N N WMA12 area) 9 Pirie/ King Williams town area Y N N Y Y N Y 10 Chalumna/Kiwane Y N N Y N N Y 11 Biddeford farm/Komgha Y N N N Y N Y 12 All river corridors marked as scenic Y N N Y Y N N landscapes in SEA 13 Albany Coastal belt N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 14 Pirie Y N Y N N Y Y N 15 Kiwane to Pirie corridor Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 16 Drakensberg sensitive belt Y N N N Y N N Y * 17 Amatola Uplands y N Y Y Y N N Y Y * 18 Transkei coastal belt Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 19 Port St Johns to Matatiele corridor Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 20 Pondoland-Natal Sandstone Coastal Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Sourveld 21 Pondoland Scarp forest inside veg Y Y N Y Y N N Y type:Pondoland sanstone ( vmi 204) 22 Ngeli y N N Y Y N N Y 23 Ntabankulu y N N Y Y N N Y 24 Ntabanyama y N N Y Y N N Y 25 Ntsizwa y N N Y Y N N Y 26 Mount Currie y N Y N Y N N Y 27 Perde Berg y N Y N Y N N Y 28 Castle Rock y N Y N Y N N Y 29 Jumbla Range y N Y N Y N N Y 30 Mount Hargreaves y N Y N Y N N Y 31 Amatola Mistbelt y N Y N Y N N Y 32 Karoo escarpment N N Y N N N N N N 33 Pondoland 3 zones Y Y N Y Y Y Y N 34 Drak above 1800m contour N N Y Y Y N Y Y 35 Naudes Neck to Uggie Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y 36 Matatiele to Cedarville N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 37 St Bernards peak N N Y N Y Y Y 38 Witteberg to Naudes Nek

* Area particularly sensitive to altered fire regime, roads, changes in drainage and hydrology regimes associated with afforestation. Afforestation may also cause introduction of alien organisms and pathogens (e.g. Phytophthora fungus spp.) Change in soil drainage leads to decreasing water oxygen and increasing temperature (water stagnation) this promotes conditions for spread of pathogens (indigenous forest particularly sensitive to these impacts).

13.3 Fauna

Expert Species Type Organisation Reference Method Reptiles and Frogs Bill Branch Acontias breviceps Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Bill Branch Afroedura amatolica Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 111 Bill Branch Afroedura tembulica Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Bill Branch Anhdrophryne rattrayi Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Bill Branch Bitis albanica Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Bill Branch Bradipodian caffer Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Bill Branch Bradipodian Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 kentanicum Topo Maps Bill Branch Bradyeodian Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 teaniaboronchroum Topo Maps Bill Branch Chordylus tasmani Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Bill Branch Cryptactities Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 peringuyei Topo Maps Bill Branch Heleophryni hewittii Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Bill Branch Tetradactylus Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 fitzsimonsi Topo Maps Bill Branch Vandijkophrynus Polygon Bayworld None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 amatolicus Topo Maps Mammals Brenda Daly Blue duiker Polygon Endangered * Clipped Forest patches layer Wildlife Trust (DWAF/D. Berliner ) within extent of occurrence layer (Friedman and Daly, 2004) Brenda Daly Oribi Polygon Endangered * Clipped Grassland Biome Wildlife Trust layer (Low and Rebelo, 1996 ) within extent of occurrence layer (Friedman and Daly, 2004) Brenda Daly Samango Monkey Polygon Endangered * Clipped Forest patches layer Wildlife Trust (DWAF/D. Berliner ) within extent of occurrence layer (Friedman and Daly, 2004) Brenda Daly Tree hyrax Polygon Endangered * Clipped Forest patches layer Wildlife Trust (DWAF/D. Berliner ) within extent of occurrence layer (Friedman and Daly, 2004) Brenda Daly White tailed rat Polygon Endangered * Clipped Grassland Biome Wildlife Trust layer (Low and Rebelo, 1996 ) within area of occupancy layer (Friedman and Daly, 2004) Rick Important Bat Roosts Polygon Rhodes None Degree/Minute Data in Excel Bernard/Lloyd University/Amath (Rick Bernard/Lloyd Winggate ola Museum Winggate)converted to point, created 1000 m buffer around polygon Theresa Giant golden mole Polygon Transvaal Transvaal Degree/Minute Data in Excel Kearney Museum Museum (TVL Museum)converted to point, selected forest clusters (DWAF/D. Berliner) according to site names, converted to a layer Birds Bradley Blue Crane Polygon SA Crane None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Gibbons/Mark Working Topo Maps van Niekerk Group(EWT) Andre Boshoff Buffered Cape Polygon Nelson Mandela Dr Andre QDS Data (Andre Boshoff) vultures sites Metropolitan Boshoff converted to point data, University created polygons by linking site name to topographical features (1:250 000 topo maps), created 400 m buffer around polygon (buffer size from MDTP discussion) Mark van Crowned cranes Polygon SA Crane None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Niekerk Working Topo Maps Group(EWT)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 112 Ann Turner Ground Hornbills Polygon SA Ground None QDS Data (Ann Turner), Hornbill Working created polygons by linking Group (EWT) site name to topographical features (1:250 000 topo maps) Mark van Wattled cranes Polygon SA Crane None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Niekerk Working Topo Maps Group(EWT) Fish Willem Coetzer Anguilla bengalensis Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern labiata Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Anguilla bicolor bicolor Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Anguilla marmorata Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Anguilla mossambica Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Barbus amatolicus Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Barbus anoplus Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Barbus trevelyani Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Galaxias zebratus Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Myxus capensis Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Pseudobarbus asper Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Pseudobarbus sp afer Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern forest Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Pseudobarbus sp afer Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern gamtoos Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Pseudobarbus sp afer Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern krom Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Sandelia bainsii Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Sandelia capensis Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Syngnathus Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern watermeyeri Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Willem Coetzer Watermeyereiy Point SA Institute of None Clipped layer with Eastern Aquatic Cape Province layer Biodiversity Invertebrates Ernest Pringle Abantis bicolor Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Acrothyrea Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 rufofemorata Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Aloeides braueri Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Aloeides caffariae Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Aloeides clarki Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 113 Ernest Pringle Aloeides mbuluensis Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Aloeides pallida juno Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Aloeides pallida Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 liversidgei Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Aloeides pringlei Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Aslauga australis Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Cassionnympha Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 camdeboo Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Charaxes ponsoensis Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Chrysoritis braueri Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Chrysoritis bulah Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Chrysoritis lyncurium Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Chrysoritis Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 penningtoni Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Chrysoritis phosphor Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 phosphor Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Chrysoritis pyroeis Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 hersaleki Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Chrysoritis thysbe Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 whitei Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Eudicella trimeni Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Gnophades Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 betsimena diversa Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Ichnostoma Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 fuscipennis Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Ichnostoma Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 leuridipennis Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Ichnostoma pringlei Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Lepidochrypsops Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 bacchus Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Lepidochrypsops Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 poseidon Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Lepidochrypsops Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 southeyae Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Lepidochrypsops Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 victori Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Lolaus aphnaeoides Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Meridioclita capensis Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Metisella syrinx Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Papilio euphranor Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Paralethe Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 dendrophilus albina Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Pseudonympha Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 southeyi southeyi Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Rhinocoeta marais Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Thestor camdeboo Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Thestor Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 compassbergae Topo Maps Ernest Pringle Xiphoscelis Polygon Private None Expert mapping: 1:250 000 sneewbergensis Topo Maps Friedman Y. and Daly B. (editors) 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa.

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 114

14 Appendix D: A Summary of Vegetation Type Conservation Status

Reserve Type

Category 1 Category 2&3 Conservation Status

Vegetation Type Name Biome ECPB SANParks Game Farm State Land National Heritage Site DWAF Forest Area LA Nature Reserve Conservation Area Private Nature Reserve Category 1 Reserves Category 2 & 3 Reserves % Target Achieved (Cat 1 Reserves ONLY) Sundays Noorsveld Albany Thickets 0 23866 1548 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.78 1.22 98.84 Coega Bontveld Albany Thickets 0 3112 0 0 0 0 0 0 935 12.63 3.8 66.5 Groot Thicket Albany Thickets 18701 10103 7499 0 0 0 33 0 931 11.58 3.4 60.97 Sundays Thicket Albany Thickets 2916 49647 10628 1 713 0 1313 6 400 10.04 2.49 52.84 Gamtoos Thicket Albany Thickets 6601 0 825 122 115 0 110 19 52 7.47 1.41 39.34 Great Fish Thicket Albany Thickets 41215 0 29185 0 1542 0 178 0 0 6.1 4.57 32.1 Camdebo Escarpment Thicket Albany Thickets 0 10078 30155 15 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 15.26 26.83 Kowie Thicket Albany Thickets 4588 5798 30235 98 690 38 661 0 193 4.62 14.2 24.32 Eastern Cape Escarpment Thicket Albany Thickets 2804 3118 1334 0 646 273 1119 0 0 4.59 2.61 24.14 Great Fish Noorsveld Albany Thickets 2253 0 20676 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.34 30.69 17.6 Albany Coastal Belt Albany Thickets 836 2739 8788 552 5605 896 725 0 77 1.09 5.1 5.76 Buffels Thicket Albany Thickets 747 0 0 206 0 485 486 0 149 0.66 1.17 3.48 Gamka Thicket Albany Thickets 0 0 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Albany Alluvial Vegetation Albany Thickets 1031 2292 357 780 0 0 330 0 9 5.7 2.53 18.37 Albany Dune Strandveld Albany Thickets 1999 3227 0 0 325 32 8 0 0 30.98 2.16 154.8 Subtropical Seashore Vegetation Albany Thickets 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.76 0 33.8 Subtropical Dune Thicket Albany Thickets 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 14.49 Algoa Dune Strandveld Albany Thickets 136 25 28 54 828 0 828 0 1100 0.57 10.13 2.87 Southern Coastal Forest Forest 507 8225 72 0 50 0 0 0 0 59.12 0.83 147.8 Northern Coastal Forest Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern Afrotemperate Forest Forest 1678 9387 0 179 2 35 112 7 0 67.33 2.04 198.0 Scarp Forest Forest 5487 0 0 7 0 3 0 36 0 15.18 0.13 37.95 Southern Mistbelt Forest Forest 1817 843 364 0 125 5075 1503 0 0 3.63 9.64 12.1

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 115 Eastern Inland Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 4245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.44 0 153.4 North Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kouga Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 85747 0 0 0 1166 4017 418 6 1909 56.3 4.93 244.7 Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 23734 17528 0 1650 764 0 840 0 41 27.28 2.18 118.6 Suurberg Shale Fynbos Fynbos 83 19851 2338 0 0 0 0 0 0 38.74 4.54 168.4 Kouga Grassy Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 97126 0 2592 13 1 141 264 0 3193 24.65 1.57 107.1 Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 305 13549 12751 12 44 0 0 0 0 15.66 14.48 68.09 Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 48 195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 16.52 Loerie Conglomerate Fynbos Fynbos 2000 0 0 0 40 27 540 14 0 9.14 2.84 39.74 Garden Route Shale Fynbos Fynbos 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.43 0 10.57 Algoa Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 263 0 207 0 0 0 318 0 0 0.77 1.54 3.35 Grootrivier Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 0 0 453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 0 Baviaanskloof Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 4887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 41.06 0.17 141.5 Uniondale Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 3152 0 456 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.99 0.72 17.21 Langkloof Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swartberg Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 0 0 1785 0 229 0 0 0 23 0 5.55 0 Southern Cape Dune Fynbos Fynbos 0 0 0 0 518 0 63 0 144 0 7.39 0 Cape Seashore Vegetation Fynbos 844 9052 0 135 53 0 978 0 21 55.89 6.7 279.4 Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Grassland 6616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.11 0 28.44 Sourveld Transkei Coastal Belt Grassland 1771 0 118 36 0 0 0 2309 68 1.09 1.55 4.35 Lesotho Highland Basalt Grassland Grassland 7473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.11 0 7.81 Amatole Montane Grassland Grassland 9196 0 1 0 1023 10533 614 0 0 2.08 2.76 7.71 Southern Drakensberg Highland Grassland Grassland 4279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.74 0 2.76 Stormberg Plateau Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uKhahlamba Basalt Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amatole Mistbelt Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 562 0 0 0 0 3.55 0 Besemkaree Koppies Shrubland Grassland 5901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.63 0 12.97 Tarkastad Montane Shrubland Grassland 3170 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.77 0 2.76 Basotho Montane Shrubland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senqu Montane Shrubland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Xhariep Karroid Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Karoo Escarpment Grassland Grassland 5247 16180 29872 580 0 0 0 0 0 2.69 3.82 11.21 Aliwal North Dry Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zastron Moist Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mabela Sandy Grassland Grassland 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.81 0 3.53 Queenstown Thornveld Grassland 2181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0 2.63 Umtata Moist Grassland Grassland 2054 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0.39 0 1.69 East Griqualand Grassland Grassland 1752 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 0 1.18 Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tsomo Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 419 128 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 116 Midlands Mistbelt Grassland Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedford Dry Grassland Grassland 0 0 2287 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 1.16 0 Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation Nama-karoo 1015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.17 0 13.46 Albany Broken Veld Nama-karoo 0 9469 8731 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.75 5.3 35.92 Eastern Lower Karoo Nama-karoo 0 111 1424 20 0 0 499 0 0 0.01 0.24 0.09 Gamka Karoo Nama-karoo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Karoo Gwarrieveld Nama-karoo 0 0 470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 Eastern Upper Karoo Nama-karoo 29126 8436 3572 106 0 0 0 0 0 2.17 0.21 10.33 Upper Karoo Hardeveld Nama-karoo 0 395 1006 119 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.94 1.57 Eastern Valley Bushveld Savanna 6950 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0.99 0.01 3.97 Bhisho Thornveld Savanna 1095 0 12600 2036 142 1709 122 0 167 0.14 2.1 0.55 Ngongoni Veld Savanna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prince Albert Succulent Karoo Succulent Karoo 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0 Steytlerville Karoo Succulent Karoo 0 0 665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.84 0 Willowmore Gwarrieveld Succulent Karoo 0 0 1935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.03 0 Mangrove Forest Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtropical Estuarine Salt Marshes Wetlands 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.08 0 12.84 Cape Estuarine Salt Marshes Wetlands 0 5 0 292 0 0 477 0 0 0.11 16.75 0.45 Lesotho Mires Wetlands 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.29 0 242.8 Subtropical Coastal Lagoons Wetlands 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.11 0 17.14 Cape Coastal Lagoons Wetlands 13 2 0 2 0 0 68 0 0 1.07 5 4.46 Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 2.89 0 Freshwater Lakes Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetlands Wetlands 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.73 0 Southern Karoo Riviere Wetlands 58 6110 8848 0 0 0 512 0 0 1.94 2.95 8.1 Highveld Salt Pans Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cape Inland Salt Pans Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 117 15 Appendix E: Summary of Data Dictionary

For this draft document only a list of all the data accessed for this project is presented. Highlighted datasets are those that were generated specifically for this project. Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders

Alien Plants (alien infestation 1998EC) nbal_ec_u35s

ARC Erosion er2int300u35s (GRID)

ARC_naturalresourceatlas Drain_EC Other_degradedland_EC Other_irrigatedland_EC Other_Landcapability_EC Other_TransformedRangeland_EC Veg_GrazingCap_EC

Base_provinces: Provinces Provinces_clean

Baviaanskloof Baviaans_Cluster_PA_Feb07 BMR_IPA_v4 BMR_PtherPA_Fef07 BMR_VegMap_v15_ddw Trans_Jan07_v1 Union_Veg15&trans_jan_07 Vegmap_Planning_Domain_clip

Cadastral: Administrative District Administrative District Text Communal Land Communal Land Text District Council District Management Area General Plan General Plan Text Lease Area Local Municipality Magisterial District Magisterial District Text Metropolitan Council Servitude Area Rural Servitude Area Urban Servitude Line Rural Servitude Line Urban Servitude Point Rural Servitude Point Urban Street Name Text Surveyed Erf Surveyed Farm Portion Surveyed Farm Portion West DD Surveyed Parent Farm Surveyed Parent Farm West DD Surveyed Park Surveyed Street Town Allotment Town Allotment Text Unalienated River Bed Unalienated State Land

Census2001: DC_PR_SA DC_SA EA_SA MD_PR_SA MD_SA MN_PR_SA MN_SA MP_SA Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 118 Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders PR_SA SP_SA

Coastline sa_coast_u35s

Communities_EC: Communities

Communities_SA: Census 01_sub place_household*.xls Commtype.mdx Nat_comm Saldst

Cost All_cost.xls All_cost_summary.xls

David Hoare_Pondoland_EIA: Pondoland assessment Pondoland_rdl

DEM dem90u35s (GRID)

EC_boreholes ec_boreholes_dd

EC_shape_files: Cadec2 Demarc_districtmunicp Geolog Im names Nlc Forest Plantations_EC Roads & Powerlines Sadams

Estuaries EC_estuary_poly EC_estuary_subQC

Experts_mapping: Birds Birds (ADU) David_Hoare Fish Invertebrates Jan Vlok Mammals Reptile and Frog layer Roger_Uys Tony_Dold Wildcoast_Pondoland

FishtoTitsikamma_SCP estuaries field_sites pa quaternary riv500k subwma wma

Flora_endemism: Flrlendmsm

Forestry Potential ec forestry climate & soils

Forests: Forest_clusters Cluster_type_dd Forest_patches Forstpatch Forest_patches Forstpatch_all_geowgs_FIN_v3

Geology_SA: Geolog

Graslands_SCP: GIS_data Grass_veg GIS_data - Final Catch_priority Grassland_priorities Priority poly clip Reasons_priority

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 119 Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders GIS_data - Original Cluz_best Ekangalacluz2_dd Enkangala_cplan Enkangala_imp Fw_domain Gp_features Gr_ecostatus Grass_ltype Grass_veg Knz_cplan Mp_ecostatus Rivers_oct05

KZN: c_plan_clip eco_buffer_clip estuary_cplan_clip freeflowingrivers_clip kzn_pa_w31 Kzn_plan_domain_dd kznwateryldw31.tif minset_clip

Magisterial_districts: MD_PR_SA MD_SA MN_PR_SA MN_SA MP_SA

Maloti_Drakensberg_TP: Mdtp planning domain_wgsll MDTP_vegmap biological domain_wdd veg_map_v6_majfilter_clean_lo29

Mpondoland_forest mopondoland_sfa mpondo_gras mpondo_plant mpondoland

Municipal_boundaries: EC NC

NLC NLC_2000 nlc2000u35s (GRID)

NSBA: Estuary Nbsap_estuaries Nbsapest_buffer Nbsapest_catchments Freshwater Geom_prov_master River_cons-_status_dd Marine Bioregions Biozones Depth_brk Depth_strata Eez_poly Marine_protected_areas Shelf_break Terrestrial Carbon_sequestration Escarpment Priority_areas SA_protected_areas dd Veg4_status Wetlands_dd

Overlaping scp_Priority_Expert polygons: Grassland_priorities Priority poly clip Pondo_expert Expert polygons Priority areas SKEP _priorities Skep_geographic_priorities_gw Wildcoast_expert Expert polygons priority areas final

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 120 Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders

Planning_domains: EC municipality dd Grasslands dd Mdtp dd Pondoland dd Wildcoast dd

Planning_Units pu_terrestrial pu_terrestrial_centroids

Pondoland_SCP: Data Catchment integrity Estuarine assessment Expert polygons Planning units Priority areas Priority forests Priority rivers Protected areas Sensitive catchments Suitable forestry Terrestrial domain

Protected_areas: Forstpas National protected areas SA_protected_areas dd

PU_Hexagon250 hex250ha hexagon_relationships commandhexunion electrandhexunion hex_neighbour1.dbf Road_intersect road_hexagon_intersect

Reserves ec_cat1_reserves_ecclip_u35s ec_cat1_reserves_u35s ec_pa_types2&3_utm35s ec_provincial_nr_2007_u35s Eastern_Cape_Reserves

River_catchments: Wc_quaternary

Rivers_subQC_catchments PU_subcatchments PU_subcatchments_featuresToPo1 subqc

Rivers: Eisplit_join_withnotes.xls Hiecoriv River_cons-_status_dd Rivers Sariv-geo_arc Sariv_arc_1 Ecoregions Ecolev1-0704 Ecolev1-0903 Lev2-0105 Ver1scraps Ecoregions1 Ecoregions&hi_ddwgs Ecolev2-0105 Hi_2005 Geo_province_alb25_32_34 SA_geoprov06 Rivers_50000 Catcha_wgs Catchb_wgs Catchc_wgs Catchd_wgsCopy Catche_wgs Catchf_wgs Catchg_wgs Catchh_wgs Catchj_wgs Catchk_wgs Catchl_wgs Catchm_wgs Catchn_wgs

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 121 Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders Catchp_wgs Catchq_wgs Catchr_wgs Catchs_wgs Catcht_wgs Catchu_wgs Catchv_wgs Catchw_wgs Catchx_wgs Rivintegrity_alb25_33_24 Riv_integrity

Roads: Roads50 SA_road SA_roads_dwaf Saroads

Sanbi_vegmap: Biomes_b53 Bioregions_b53 Vegmapb53

Sanparks east cape inputs SANParks data for East Cape Project.doc AENP GRNP MZNP_CNP SANParks

Sea_WMA12: Base Data caBufferedSettlements caDWAFPlantations caDWAFSettlements caEnpatCultivated caEnpatForestry caEnpatNameRivers caEnpatRivers caEnpatRoads caMunicipalities ContextualAreaBnd Cultural DistrictMunicipalities DWAF_landuse Forestry_plantation_merged NetForestryPotential210206 Soilpot

District Municipalities - Alfred Nzo Alfred_Nzo_Buffered_Rivers Alfred_Nzo_catchments Alfred_Nzo_centres_of_endemism Alfred_Nzo_Conservation Alfred_Nzo_Cultivated_Land Alfred_Nzo_DWAF_Plantations Alfred_Nzo_Exclusionary_Vegetation Alfred_Nzo_Forestry Alfred_Nzo_forestry_plantation_merged Alfred_Nzo_Net_Forestry_Potential Alfred_Nzo_Priority_Conservation_Areas Alfred_Nzo_Sens_landscapes Umzimkhulu Umzimkhulu_Buffered_Rivers Umzimkhulu_catchments Umzimkhulu_Conservation Umzimkhulu_Cultivated_land Umzimkhulu_DWAF_Plantations Umzimkhulu_Exclusionary_Vegetation Umzimkhulu_Forestry Umzimkhulu _forestry_plantation_merged Umzimkhulu_Net_Forestry_Potential Umzimvubu Umzimvubu_Buffered_Rivers Umzimvubu_catchments Umzimvubu_centres_of_endemism Umzimvubu_Cultivated_land Umzimvubu_DWAF_Plantations Umzimvubu_Exclusionary_Vegetation

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 122 Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders Umzimvubu_Forestry Umzimvubu_forestry_plantation_merged Umzimvubu_Net_Forestry_Potential Umzimvubu_Priority_Conservation_Areas Umzimvubu_Sens_landscapes Amatole Amatole_4km_coastal_zone Amatole_Buffered_Rivers Amatole_catchments Amatole_Centres_of_Endemism Amatole_Conservation Amatole_Cultivated_land Amatole_DWAF_Plantations Amatole_Exclusionary_Vegetation Amatole_Forestry Amatole_forestry_plantation_merged Amatole_Net_Forestry_Potential Amatole_Sens_landscapes Amatole_step_vulnerable Amatole_Wild_Coast_Planning_Domain Chris Hani Chris_Hani_Buffered_Rivers Chris_Hani_catchments Chris_Hani_Centres_of_Endemism Chris_Hani_Conservation Chris_Hani_Cultivated_land Chris_Hani_DWAF_plantations Chris_Hani_Exclusionary_Vegetation Chris_Hani_Forestry Chris_Hani_forestry_plantation_merged Chris_Hani_Net_Forestry_Potential Chris_Hani_Sens_landscapes O.R.Tambo OR_Tambo_4km_coastal_zone OR_Tambo_Buffered_Rivers OR_Tambo_catchments OR_Tambo_Centres_of_Endemism OR_Tambo_Conservation OR_Tambo_Cultivated_land OR_Tambo_DWAF_Plantations OR_Tambo_DWAF_Settlements OR_Tambo_Exclusionary_Vegetation OR_Tambo_Forestry OR_Tambo_forestry_plantation_merged OR_Tambo_Net_Forestry_Potential OR_Tambo_Priority_Conservation_Areas OR_Tambo_Sens_landscapes OR_Tambo_Wild_Coast_Planning_Domain Mbizana Mbizana_4km_coastal_zone Mbizana_Buffered_Rivers Mbizana_catchments Mbizana_Centres_of_Endemism Mbizana_Conservation Mbizana_Cultivated_land Mbizana_DWAF_Plantations Mbizana_Exclusionary_Vegetation Mbizana_Forestry Mbizana_forestry_plantation_merged Mbizana_Net_Forestry_Potential Mbizana_Priority_Conservation_Areas Mbizana_Sens_landscapes Mbizana_Wild_Coast_Planning_Domain Ntabankulu Ntabankulu_Buffered_Rivers Ntabankulu_catchments Ntabankulu_Conservations Ntabankulu_Cultivated_land Ntabankulu_DWAF_Plantations Ntabankulu_Exclusionary_Vegetation Ntabankulu_Forestry Ntabankulu_forestry_plantation_merged Ntabankulu_Net_Forestry_Potential Ntabankulu_Priority_Conservation_Areas Ntabankulu_Sens_landscapes

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 123 Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders Port St. Johns Port_St_Johns_4km_coastal_zone Port_St_Johns_Buffered_Rivers Port_St_Johns_bufferedSettlements Port_St_Johns_catchments Port_St_Johns_Centres_of_Endemism Port_St_Johns_Conservation Port_St_Johns_Cultivated_land Port_St_Johns_DWAF_landuse Port_St_Johns_DWAF_Plantations Port_St_Johns_Exclusionary_Vegetation Port_St_Johns_Forestry Port_St_Johns_forestry_plantation_merged Port_St_Johns_Net_Forestry_Potential Port_St_Johns_Population Port_St_Johns_Priority_Conservation_Areas Port_St_Johns_Sens_landscapes Port_St_Johns_Wild_Coast_Planning_Domain Quakeni Quakeni_4km_coastal_zone Quakeni_Buffered_Rivers Quakeni_catchments Quakeni_Centres_of_Endemism Quakeni_Conservation Quakeni_Cultivated_land Quakeni_DWAF_Plantations Quakeni_DWAF_Settlements Quakeni_Exclusionary_Vegetation Quakeni_Forestry Quakeni_forestry_plantation_merged Quakeni_Net_Forestry_Potential Quakeni_Priority_Conservation_Areas Quakeni_Sens_landscapes Quakeni_Wild_Coast_Planning_Domain Ukhahlamba - Elundini Elundini_buffered_rivers Elundini_catchments Elundini_Centres_of_Endemism Elundini_Conservation Elundini_Cultivated_lands Elundini_DWAF_Plantations Elundini_DWAF_Settlements Elundini_Exclusionary_vegetation Elundini_Forestry Elundini_Forestry_Plantation_Merged Elundini_Net_Forestry_Potential Elundini_sens_landscapes Exclusionary Zones 4km_coastal_zone caBufferedRivers caEnpatConservation caExclusionaryVegetation faSCPPriorityAreas Sens_landscapes step_vulnerable Precautionary Zones catchmentsWMA12 Endemism_Centres Wild_Coast_Planning_Domain

STEP_SCP: 1 Boundary STEP_Planning_Domain_gw 10 Protected 123 STEP_Protected_Areas_gw 2 Conservation status STEP_Conservation_Status_gw 3 Megaconservancy STEP_Megaconservancy_Networks_gw 4 Process PU STEP_Processes_Planning_Unit_Layer_gw 5 Process NPU STEP_Processes_Non_Planning_Unit_Layer_gw 6 Coastal Corridor STEP_Coastal_Corridor_gw 7 Protected 1 STEP_Protected_Areas_Type1_gw 8 Transformation STEP_Transformation_gw 9 Vegetation STEP_Vegetation_gw Important_bird_areas important_bird_areas_gw Sensitive_wetlands sensitive_wetlands

Topo_250000: 1to250000 1_250000_sgmapsheets

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 124 Folder Name Key Files Root folder, sub-folders

Towns: communities Plc_Name sa_towns_dwaf satowns towns_dwaf_dd

Transformation eclandcover (GRID)

Wetland: National Wetlands Map-Beta Version adwetlyrec_dd (GRID) Sensitive_wetlands sensitive_wetlands

Wild_coast SCP: catchment integrity estuary assessment expert polygons irreplaceability landcover marine domain planning units priority areas priority areas final priority rivers river domain terrestrial domain terrestrial priority grids vegetation Wild_Coast_Planning_Domain

WMA: wma_dwaf

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 125

16 Appendix F: Summary of the estuary analysis

Estuary Name Province Size Habitat Zone_Rarity Biodiversity Importance Health Rehab Rehab Priority Catchment Area (ha) Estuary Area (ha) Cons Score ID (LINE_NO__W) 1 Orange (Gariep) N Cape 100 100 90 98 98.5 Fair Yes 1 40925800 7 7 37 Gourits W Cape 90 60 20 88 75 Good Yes 1 4508700 6 6 51 Keurbooms W Cape 100 90 20 95 88.3 Good Yes 1 127561 7 7 53 Sout (Oos) W Cape 70 50 20 67.5 59.4 Excellent No 0 3343 8 8 54 Groot (Wes) W Cape 70 50 10 83.5 62.4 Good Yes 1 8478 8 8 55 Bloukrans E Cape 70 10 50 63.5 51.4 Excellent No 0 8902 10 10 56 Lottering E Cape 50 10 50 25.5 33.9 Good Yes 3 5318 10 10 57 Elandsbos E Cape 30 10 50 18.5 24.1 Good Yes 3 6141 10 10 58 Storms E Cape 60 10 50 11.5 34.4 Excellent No 0 13292 10 10 59 Elands E Cape 10 10 50 11.5 14.4 Good Yes 3 11785 10 10 60 Groot (Oos) E Cape 10 10 50 11.5 14.4 Good Yes 3 13579 10 10 61 Tsitsikamma E Cape 10 20 10 45.5 21.4 Good Yes 3 18701 2 2 62 Klipdrif E Cape 10 10 10 50.5 20.1 Fair Yes 2 10830 0 0 63 Slang E Cape 10 0 10 11.5 7.9 Poor Yes 3 9348 0 0 64 Krom Oos (Kromme) E Cape 100 90 20 95.5 88.4 Fair Yes 1 101512 9 9 65 Seekoei E Cape 90 80 10 82.5 77.6 Poor Yes 1 22512 8 8 66 Kabeljous E Cape 90 80 10 84.5 78.1 Good Yes 1 26503 8 8 67 Gamtoos E Cape 100 100 20 98.5 91.6 Fair Yes 1 3479265 10 10 68 Van Stadens E Cape 60 30 10 58 47 Good No 0 10922 10 10 69 Maitland E Cape 10 70 10 58 37 Fair Yes 3 10770 8 8 70 Baakens E Cape 0 0 0 0 0 EXTINCT No 0 0 0 0 71 Papkuils E Cape 0 0 0 0 0 EXTINCT No 0 0 0 0 72 Swartkops E Cape 100 100 20 100 92 Fair Yes 1 137663 10 10 73 Coega (Ngcura) E Cape 40 40 10 76.5 46.1 Poor No 0 48041 0 0 74 Sundays E Cape 90 70 20 89 77.8 Good Yes 1 2122164 10 10

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 126 75 Boknes E Cape 60 50 10 72 55.5 Good No 0 10570 4 4 76 Bushmans E Cape 100 60 20 84.5 78.1 Fair Yes 1 277132 10 10 77 Kariega E Cape 90 80 20 97 82.3 Fair Yes 1 65669 10 10 78 Kasuka E Cape 70 70 10 58 61 Excellent No 0 10412 4 4 79 Kowie E Cape 90 80 20 88.5 80.1 Fair Yes 1 75634 4 4 80 Rufane E Cape 10 10 10 57.5 21.9 Fair No 0 3787 0 0 81 Riet E Cape 80 80 10 74.5 71.6 Good No 0 4372 5 5 82 Kleinemond Wes E Cape 80 90 10 71 73.3 Good No 0 10135 4 4 83 Kleinemond Oos E Cape 70 90 10 84 72.5 Good No 0 4636 4 4 84 Klein Palmiet E Cape 10 0 10 12 8 Good No 0 2225 0 0 85 Great Fish E Cape (Ciskei) 100 100 20 98 91.5 Good Yes 1 3020956 10 10 86 Old Womans E Cape (Ciskei) 60 50 10 76 56.5 Good Yes 3 3620 4 4 87 Mpekweni E Cape (Ciskei) 90 100 10 92 85 Good Yes 2 6417 7 7 88 Mtati E Cape (Ciskei) 90 100 10 83 82.8 Excellent No 0 12159 10 10 89 Mgwalana E Cape (Ciskei) 90 100 10 79 81.8 Excellent No 0 19666 6 6 90 Bira E Cape (Ciskei) 80 70 10 84 71.5 Excellent No 0 25333 6 6 91 Gqutywa E Cape (Ciskei) 70 70 10 62 62 Excellent No 0 7527 8 8 94 Blue Krans (Ngcul E Cape (Ciskei) 20 30 10 61 31.8 Fair No 0 0 2 2 95 Mtana E Cape (Ciskei) 50 70 10 62.5 54.1 Excellent No 0 6302 4 4 96 Keiskamma E Cape (Ciskei) 100 100 20 97 91.3 Fair Yes 1 269542 10 10 98 Ngqinisa E Cape (Ciskei) 50 60 10 56 50 Excellent No 0 0 4 4 99 Kiwane E Cape (Ciskei) 60 70 10 53 55.8 Excellent No 0 6751 5 5 100 Tyolomnqa E Cape (Ciskei) 80 60 10 81 68.3 Good Yes 3 41431 4 4 101 Shelbertsstroom E Cape (Ciskei) 10 0 10 25 11.3 Fair Yes 1 0 0 0 102 Lilyvale E Cape 20 10 10 19 16.3 Good No 0 3114 4 4 103 Ross' Creek E Cape 10 0 10 25 11.3 Good No 0 0 0 0 104 Ncera E Cape 60 50 10 50 50 Excellent No 0 9552 4 4 105 Mlele E Cape 20 10 10 19 16.3 Good No 0 0 4 4 106 Mcantsi E Cape 40 20 10 32 30 Poor Yes 2 2660 4 4 107 Gxulu E Cape 70 50 10 71.5 59.4 Fair Yes 1 11290 4 4 108 Goda E Cape 50 30 10 56 42.5 Excellent No 0 4382 10 10 109 Hlozi E Cape 10 10 10 39.5 17.4 Good No 0 4892 0 0 110 Hickman's E Cape 30 10 10 33.5 23.9 Fair Yes 3 0 4 4 113 Buffalo E Cape 80 40 20 64 60 Poor Yes 1 128641 0 114 Blind E Cape 10 10 10 75 26.3 Poor Yes 3 840 0 115 Hlaze E Cape 10 10 10 31.5 15.4 Poor Yes 1 0 2 2 116 Nahoon E Cape 80 60 20 87.5 70.9 Fair Yes 1 58809 2 2

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 127 117 Qinira E Cape 80 70 10 67.5 67.4 Good No 0 7261 4 4 118 Gqunube E Cape 70 50 20 77 61.8 Good Yes 2 65476 4 4 119 Kwelera E Cape 70 60 20 78 64.5 Good Yes 2 38540 4 4 120 Bulura E Cape 70 50 10 57.5 55.9 Poor Yes 2 4191 4 4 121 Cunge E Cape 10 10 10 18.5 12.1 Good No 0 954 0 0 122 Cintsa E Cape 70 50 10 64.5 57.6 Fair Yes 2 4670 4 4 123 Cefane E Cape 80 80 10 60 68 Excellent No 0 3829 4 4 124 Kwenxura E Cape 70 50 10 72.5 59.6 Excellent No 0 14571 7 7 125 Nyara E Cape 50 40 10 48 43 Excellent No 0 3706 4 4 126 Haga-haga E Cape 20 20 10 25.5 20.4 Excellent No 0 5285 4 4 127 Mtendwe E Cape 40 40 10 19 31.8 Excellent No 0 0 4 4 128 Quko E Cape 70 40 10 66.5 55.6 Excellent No 0 14797 8 8 129 Morgan E Cape 60 30 10 58 47 Good Yes 2 4363 0 130 Cwili E Cape 10 10 10 25 13.8 Good Yes 3 0 0 0 131 Great Kei E Cape (Transkei) 100 70 20 83 80.3 Fair Yes 3 2046603 10 10 132 Gxara E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 10 49.5 47.4 Good Yes 3 4212 4 4 133 Ngogwane E Cape (Transkei) 40 30 10 54 38 Fair Yes 3 0 4 4 134 Qolora E Cape (Transkei) 60 90 10 64 63.5 Excellent No 0 7653 8 8 135 Ncizele E Cape (Transkei) 30 10 10 60.5 30.6 Excellent No 0 1661 5 5 136 Kobonqaba E Cape (Transkei) 60 50 20 57.5 52.9 Good Yes 3 32027 5 5 137 Nxaxo/Ngqusi E Cape (Transkei) 90 80 10 87.5 78.9 Excellent No 0 13253 10 10 138 Cebe E Cape (Transkei) 50 40 10 57 45.3 Excellent No 0 3156 4 4 139 Gqunqe E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 10 53 48.3 Excellent No 0 4039 4 4 140 Zalu E Cape (Transkei) 40 20 10 43 32.8 Excellent No 0 0 4 4 141 Ngqwara E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 10 46.5 46.6 Excellent No 0 6250 4 4 142 Sihlontlweni/Gcin E Cape (Transkei) 40 20 10 52.5 35.1 Excellent No 0 0 4 4 143 Qora E Cape (Transkei) 80 70 20 82.5 72.1 Excellent No 0 70637 10 10 144 Jujura E Cape (Transkei) 30 10 10 55.5 29.4 Good Yes 3 8341 2 2 145 Ngadla E Cape (Transkei) 50 30 10 43 39.3 Good Yes 3 1481 9 9 146 Shixini E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 20 64 52 Good Yes 3 31550 5 5 147 Nqabara E Cape (Transkei) 90 70 20 40 65.5 Excellent No 0 65721 4 4 148 Ngoma/Kobule E Cape (Transkei) 40 40 10 19 31.8 Excellent No 0 3454 4 4 149 Mendu E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 10 39 44.8 Excellent No 0 4213 4 4 150 Mbashe E Cape (Transkei) 90 90 30 86 83 Good Yes 3 605058 10 10 151 Ku-Mpenzu E Cape (Transkei) 50 60 10 43.5 46.9 Excellent No 0 617 10 10 152 Ku-Bhula/Mbhanyan E Cape (Transkei) 30 70 10 49.5 42.9 Excellent No 0 4934 10 10 154 Ntlonyane E Cape (Transkei) 70 50 10 56 55.5 Excellent No 0 7522 10 10

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 128 155 Nkanya E Cape (Transkei) 50 50 10 50 46 Excellent No 0 2064 10 10 157 Xora E Cape (Transkei) 90 80 30 82.5 79.6 Excellent No 0 44200 4 4 158 Bulungula E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 10 55.5 48.9 Excellent No 0 4775 4 4 159 Ku-amanzimuzama E Cape (Transkei) 20 20 10 24 20 Excellent No 0 2403 2 2 160 Mncwasa E Cape (Transkei) 60 20 10 66.5 46.6 Excellent No 0 16393 4 4 161 Mpako E Cape (Transkei) 50 30 10 24.5 34.6 Excellent No 0 10449 4 4 162 Nenga E Cape (Transkei) 40 30 10 56 38.5 Good No 0 4382 4 4 163 Mapuzi E Cape (Transkei) 50 30 10 48.5 40.6 Excellent Yes 2 3004 4 4 164 Mtata E Cape (Transkei) 90 90 30 73 79.8 Fair Yes 1 260015 4 4 165 Mdumbi E Cape (Transkei) 80 60 30 72.5 68.1 Excellent No 0 23372 4 4 166 Lwandilana E Cape (Transkei) 40 20 10 30.5 29.6 0 2 2 167 Lwandile E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 10 71.5 52.9 3797 7 7 168 Mtakatye E Cape (Transkei) 90 70 30 56 70.5 49172 9 9 169 Hluleka/Majusini E Cape (Transkei) 50 30 10 24.5 34.6 2333 2 2 170 Mnenu E Cape (Transkei) 80 60 10 44 59 9711 7 7 171 Mtonga E Cape (Transkei) 70 50 10 52.5 54.6 4461 7 7 172 Mpande E Cape (Transkei) 50 30 10 49.5 40.9 0 4 4 173 Sinangwana E Cape (Transkei) 50 30 10 42 39 5519 4 4 174 Mngazana E Cape (Transkei) 100 100 30 92.5 91.1 29440 10 10 175 Mngazi E Cape (Transkei) 50 20 10 76 45 55652 4 4 177 Bulolo E Cape (Transkei) 50 30 10 60 43.5 3312 4 4 178 Mtambane E Cape (Transkei) 40 20 10 41.5 32.4 0 4 4 179 Mzimvubu E Cape (Transkei) 90 90 30 73 79.8 1985772 9 9 180 Ntlupeni E Cape (Transkei) 30 10 10 54 29 2248 4 4 181 Nkodusweni E Cape (Transkei) 70 40 10 49.5 51.4 3430 7 7 182 Mntafufu E Cape (Transkei) 60 70 30 77 63.8 18247 7 7 183 Mzintlava E Cape (Transkei) 60 50 30 50.5 52.1 27096 7 7 184 Mzimpunzi E Cape (Transkei) 30 20 10 51 30.8 2721 4 4 185 Mbotyi E Cape (Transkei) 70 70 10 80 66.5 3936 7 7 186 Mkozi E Cape (Transkei) 30 30 10 73 38.8 5410 4 4 187 Myekane E Cape (Transkei) 20 10 10 26.5 18.1 0 0 0 188 Lupatana E Cape (Transkei) 20 40 10 54 32.5 2872 4 4 189 Mkweni E Cape (Transkei) 30 60 10 59.5 42.9 4750 4 4 190 Msikaba E Cape (Transkei) 50 50 30 76.5 54.6 101942 7 7 192 Mgwegwe E Cape (Transkei) 40 80 10 73 55.3 2865 7 7 193 Mgwetyana E Cape (Transkei) 20 10 10 64.5 27.6 873 4 4 194 Mtentu E Cape (Transkei) 70 80 30 89 73.3 96494 9 9

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 129 195 Sikombe E Cape (Transkei) 40 50 10 46.5 41.1 5746 4 4 196 Kwanyana E Cape (Transkei) 30 10 10 57.5 29.9 0 4 4 198 Mnyameni E Cape (Transkei) 60 40 30 57.5 51.4 18809 7 7 199 Mpahlanyana E Cape (Transkei) 20 10 10 54 25 0 4 4 200 Mpahlane E Cape (Transkei) 30 10 10 55.5 29.4 3534 4 4 201 Mzamba E Cape (Transkei) 80 80 30 90 77.5 50527 9 9 202 Mtentwana E Cape (Transkei) 40 20 10 65.5 38.4 1263 4 4 205 Mtamvuna E Cape (Transkei) 80 50 10 83 66.3 158697 7 7

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report 130