Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
CONTRIBUTORS
This report was compiled and edited by Jeanne Nel, Sarah Davies, Inge Kotze,
Caroline Gelderblom, Brian van Wilgen, Lucille Schonegevel, Simon Hughes of the
CSIR, Graham Kerley, Richard Cowling, Andre Boshoff of TERU.
Dirk Roux (CSIR), Helen Barber-James, Jim Cambray, Ferdi de Moor (Albany
Museum) compiled the Freshwater subcomponent of the Aquatic contract and Brent
Newman (IECM), Eileen Campbell, Norbert Klages, Christopher Mcquaid, Warwick
Sauer, Eckart Schumann, Russell Shone, Malcolm Smale, and Tris Woolridge
compiled the Marine subcomponent of this contract. These inputs have been
integrated into this report in order to produce a final integrated terrestrial and aquatic
conservation plan.
Queries on the report may be directed to:
Jeanne Nel
Tel: 021 888 2484
Inge Kotze
or
jnel@csir.co.za
Tel: 021 888 2626
ikotze@csir.co.za
Page i
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the following people for their assistance in preparing
data for this report, namely: Mandy Lombard, for her invaluable time and guidance in
developing the C-Plan; Mike Knight, Guy Castley and Jill Gordon from SANParks for
their invaluable insights and assistance at workshops; Laurence Kruger and
Christopher Sykes for undertaking the field mapping; David le Maitre of CSIR for his
contribution to the development of the alien threat modelling; and to Mathieu Rouget
and Rebecca Castley-Simms for their assistance and advise with GIS related issues;
and Sharon Wilson for her assistance in data manipulation. A special thanks to Bob
Pressey for his pioneering efforts in systematic and strategic conservation planning.
Page ii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This final report provides an overview of the terrestrial and aquatic conservation
planning module of the Greater Addo Elephant National Park Conservation Project
(GAENP). It builds on two earlier interim reports, which presented the spatial
framework and initial analyses, and includes the information provided by the aquatic
(freshwater and marine) component. The end product is an integrated conservation
plan and recommendations for its implementation. The structure of this report follows
the systematic steps used in the conservation planning process.
Patterns of biodiversity
Biodiversity pattern was mapped as 43 distinct land classes within 5 biomes – forest,
thicket, grassland, fynbos and Nama Karoo. The thicket biome is the largest biome
represented within the GAENP planning domain, covering 69 % of the total area. The
other biomes are relatively small, with forest occupying 10 %, Nama Karoo, 7 %,
fynbos, 5 %, and grassland, 5 %. In addition, 44 medium to large1 mammal species
were identified as either occurring in the planning domain, or as being suitable for reintroduction. These include megaherbivores such as elephant, black rhino, and
hippopotamus.
Processes that maintain biodiversity
A total of 15 important ecological processes were identified to further guide the
establishment of targets. These included: the retention of sufficient area to allow
evolutionary processes to continue and for species to persist and diversify in the face
of climatic change; the retention of corridors to allow for species exchange and
migration; the maintenance of sand movement; the maintenance of fire patterns; and
sufficient area to accommodate mobile species in areas of unpredictable and
unevenly distributed rainfall. The retention of viable populations of mammals was
included to ensure that key processes such as herbivory, the impact of large
1
Hereafter referred to as larger mammals.
Page iii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
mammals on plant and ecosystem structure, seed dispersal, and nutrient cycling
continue to operate, and support the persistence of other vertebrate and invertebrate
fauna.
Threats to biodiversity persistence
The analysis of threats has two components: an evaluation of the extent of current
land transformation and the development of an explicit framework for predicting
future transformation. Four types of land transformation were identified as the most
important spatial threats in the planning domain. These were agriculture (which was
separated into grazing and cultivation), human settlement-related impact, invasive
alien plants and mining. Several land classes are currently in very good condition
with little or no transformation. This is particularly true of the higher lying vegetation in
the centre of the planning domain. However, several lowland land classes are
severely impacted by over-grazing or development by formal agriculture.
The vulnerability of land classes to threats arising from further grazing, ongoing
conversion to agriculture, further human settlement, potential mining, and invasion by
alien plants was assessed. The analysis predicted that 29 of 43 land classes (67 %)
in the planning domain would experience a high level of threat from agriculture,
mining, alien invasive plants or human settlement-related impacts. As might have
been expected, lower levels of threat are found in the rugged, higher lying areas in
the centre of the planning domain.
Targets for biodiversity conservation
Three types of biodiversity targets were set to ensure the persistence of biodiversity
pattern and process in the GAENP: land class targets, targets for larger mammal
species, and process targets.
Targets for land classes were set on the basis of spatial heterogeneity, and on the
levels of threat that each land class faces. A baseline pattern target of 10 % of the
Pre-European area of homogenous land classes, and 20 % for heterogeneous land
classes, was adopted. These targets were increased by up to 30 % where land
Page iv
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
classes faced significant threats. The overall targets for eight land classes
(Alexandria Bontveld, Boknes Thicket, Zuney Bontveld and Congoskraal Bontveld,
Vaalfontein Spekboomveld, Witrug Spekboomveld and Addo Bontveld and
Ongegund Bontveld) exceed the area of intact habitat available, and restoration will
be necessary to augment the available areas and to meet the required target.
The baseline target for was set at 50 individuals per mammal species, which would
ensure that demographic processes are taking place, and reduce the chance that
demographic events will lead to extinction. This target was increased to 200
individuals for rare and threatened species, and species with important disease-free
status, as this is the hypothetical population size required to reduce inbreeding
depression and genetic drift. Five threatened mammals are unable to reach their
targets of 200 (aardvark, brown hyaena, honey badger, lion, wild dog) within the
planning domain. A further five (leopard, serval, hippopotamus, cheetah and black
wildebeest) are not even able to achieve a population of 50 within the planning
domain and will consequently require metapopulation management or an expansion
of the planning domain.
Targets were also set to ensure that vital ecosystem processes continue to operate
in future. Although large areas are required to achieve process targets, many
processes overlap and occur in relatively intact areas.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing reserve system
The existing statutory reserves cover 19 % of the GAENP planning domain. In terms
of pattern, they reach conservation targets for only three of the 10 primary land
classes (Inland Forest, Fynbos and Dune Pioneer). The addition of non-statutory
reserves and land earmarked for reserves increases this to five and leaves only one
primary land class, namely, estuarine, completely unprotected. It is however
important to remember that there is considerable variation in the level of protection of
secondary land classes within each primary category and consequently only nine of
the 43 secondary land classes are adequately protected within existing statutory
reserves. When non-statutory reserves and land earmarked for addition to the
Page v
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
existing reserve are included, the number of land classes that would be adequately
protected increases to 17. Therefore, it is clear that the conservation of biodiversity
pattern will need to be explicitly addressed by future land purchases.
Seventeen mammal species would not be adequately protected within existing
statutory reserves. Two of these species (Caracal and Small spotted cat) could be
adequately protected if non-statutory reserves and earmarked land are included.
Attention should be given to metapopulation management of the following species:
aardvark, brown hyena, hippo, honey badger, leopard, lion, serval and wild dog.
The existing statutory reserve system performs well in protecting over 20% of each
process, with the exception of the drought refuges in drought-prone habitat; this
process is 25% protected if non-statutory reserves are taken into consideration.
Earmarked land would play an important role in improving the conservation status of
thicket interfaces, the north-south riverine corridors and the Algoa Dunefield, which
needs to be managed as a contiguous unit.
Selection of additional conservation areas
A systematic process was followed in which all terrestrial and aquatic information was
entered into databases for analysis by a GIS-based software (C-Plan). Various
options for achieving the conservation targets were mapped by calculating the
contribution of each planning unit towards achieving the conservation targets (which
is a measure of the irreplaceability of each planning unit). This information was then
used to select a suite of planning units that together would meet the agreed
conservation targets.
The first step was to select all existing statutory reserves, which together covered
19% of the planning domain. The second step was to select all the spatially explicit
processes. This land hungry step required a further 56% of the planning domain and
consequently limited the available conservation options. The third step was to include
all rivers that had been identified as priorities in the freshwater analysis. Since many
rivers had already been included as part of previous selections, this only required a
Page vi
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
further 4 % of the planning domain. The fourth step involved the incorporation of the
boundaries of the proposed marine protected area, which were defined in the marine
conservation plan. The fifth step was to ensure the inclusion of processes whose
exact location was highly flexible (e.g. large patches of fire prone vegetation to
maintain natural fire regimes, and linkages between coastal and inland biota). At this
stage only five land classes and three mammals were not adequately protected in the
hypothetical reserve system. The sixth and final stage focused on the selection of
land to meet the targets for these land classes and mammals. Target achievement
was thus increased to over 90% for each of these remaining features. This final step
required an additional 6% of the planning domain, bringing the total percentage of the
planning domain required to 84%.
The outcome of this analysis is a spatially explicit conservation plan for achieving the
agreed conservation targets. As is discussed in greater detail later this is only one of
many alternatives and should be refined during the implementation of the
conservation plan.
Future research and monitoring supporting the implementation of the
conservation plan
The conservation plan should be viewed as a dynamic tool, and needs to be
supported by a programme addressing both immediate research priorities and the
development of a long-term monitoring programme to assess progress towards the
achievement of conservation targets. Immediate research priorities include a
projects, which are designed to support the process of refinement and maintenance
of the conservation planning framework:
 Two projects focussing on refinement of the C-Plan Database for both the
terrestrial and aquatic environments, and the development of methods (using
thresholds of potential concern) for monitoring implementation.
 A project that aims to develop capacity within SANParks to integrate this new
information into the C-Plan Database, and to use it for ongoing evaluation of the
alternative options available for meeting the agreed conservation targets.
Page vii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
 A project focussing on developing appropriate management options for
implementation, recognizing that some priority areas may best be managed as
part of a statutory park while others may be best addressed through off-reserve
conservation.
These short-term projects need to be supported by the initiation of two long-term
programmes. The first focuses on the curation and management of the conservation
planning database, and the second on the establishment of a monitoring programme
to evaluate progress towards conservation goals.
Both of these sets of projects have been included in an application to the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) for funding to support the initial development of the
GAENP. An additional group of projects were identified as priorities within this
conservation planning exercise but were excluded from the GEF budget application
in order to keep the budget requirements within reasonable bounds. These additional
projects will require alternative sources of funding.
Prioritisation for implementation
The implementation of conservation plans is inevitably an incremental process.
Consequently, ongoing loss of biodiversity may impact areas earmarked for
conservation. In order to prevent the loss of areas of high conservation value, and to
minimize the extent to which conservation targets are compromised before they are
achieved, a prioritised schedule for implementation was drawn up. The basis of this
prioritisation was an evaluation of the relative irreplaceability 2 and vulnerability3 of
each site.
Conclusions and the way forward
It is important to remember that the outputs of this analysis represent just one of
several options for achieving conservation targets. The choice of which alternative to
implement may well be determined by other considerations such as social and
2
The contribution that the planning unit makes to the achievement of the full range of conservation targets
specified
3 A measure of the future threat for the planning unit.
Page viii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
economic sustainability. The outputs of the analysis should not replace expert
knowledge but should be used as to support a better decision-making process. The
C-Plan analysis merely indicates which areas are important, but does not make
recommendations as to which management models may be appropriate for
implementation. Thus many areas selected to achieve conservation targets may be
most appropriately managed using off-reserve conservation measures. Deciding on
appropriate forms of conservation management for each selected property is
therefore an important part of implementation
Successful implementation is ultimately dependent on developing strong stakeholder
support supported by policies, legislation and socio-economic incentives, which can
bring biodiversity conservation into local land use planning processes.
It is hoped that the conservation plan will provide a strong impetus for the formation
of public and private partnerships in the GAENP planning domain. Implementation of
such a plan would need to give close consideration to the institutional and financial
arrangements for the management of the area, as well as the socio-economic
development of the area through nature-based tourism - generating economic
activity, creating jobs and offering an alternative form of land utilisation that is
ecologically and economically viable.
Page ix
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Biodiversity (or Biological Diversity) encompasses all species of plants, animals and
micro-organisms, and the ecosystems and habitats of which they are part. It is an
umbrella term for the degree of nature’s variety, including both the number and
frequency of ecosystems, species, or genes in a given assemblage. It is usually
considered at three different scales: genetic diversity, species diversity, and
ecosystem diversity. There are three ways of measuring how species diversity is
distributed in the landscape:
alpha diversity: the number of species in relatively small-sized areas, usually
comprising samples that encompass only one assemblage or community; the
diversity within a site, or sampling area; the number of species per unit area;
local diversity;
beta diversity: the change in species composition from site to site; species
turnover;
gamma diversity: the turnover of species between similar habitats along
geographical gradients.
Biodiversity feature: An attribute of the terrestrial or aquatic environment that is
used in developing the conservation framework. In this project the key biodiversity
features used were land classes, larger mammals and biodiversity processes.
Biological pattern: See Biodiversity.
Biological processes: See Ecological and evolutionary processes.
C-Plan: GIS based conservation planning software designed to act as a decision
support tool it it maps the options for achieving an explicit conservation goal in a
region, and allows users to decide which areas should be placed under some form of
conservation management, accepts and displays these decisions, and then lays out
the new pattern of options that results.
Page x
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
Diversification: The evolutionary development of diversity.
Ecological processes: Processes such as fire, migration, pollination and herbivory,
which maintain the functional properties of healthy ecosystems.
Evolutionary processes: Processes such as hybridisation and diversification of
species along environmental gradients.
Intact land: Land that is presently unaffected by major anthropogenic transformation.
Irreplaceability: Irreplaceability is a measure, varying from zero to one, assigned to
an area (planning unit) that reflects the importance of that area, in the context of the
planning domain, for the achievement of regional conservation targets (Ferrier et al.
2000). A map of irreplaceability values is, therefore, a map of options: in areas of
high irreplaceability, all (most) intact habitat is required to achieve targets; in areas of
low irreplaceability, there is greater flexibility in the array of available sites required to
meet the target.
Metadata: A data dictionary that provides information about data and includes details
such as the date and manner in which the data was collected; in this project,
metadata is provided for spatial data layers.
Metapopulation: A group of populations linked by migration; isolated populations
can be linked through management interventions to simulate exchange between
natural metapopulations.
Planning domain: The planning domain is the total area used in the conservation
planning for the expansion of the existing conservation land holdings in the region. It
has two components: (a) Kerley and Boshoff (1997) proposed GANP boundary,
modified by SANParks; (b) to ensure that the planning process considers a full range
of possibilities for expansion, the proposed GAENP area was buffered by a
Page xi
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
surrounding 5 km-wide strip; the buffered area was then refined to the nearest farm
boundary, including farms with 50 % or more of their area within the buffer, and
excluding farms that fell mostly outside the buffer. In this report, “planning domain”
and “GAENP” are used interchangeably.
Planning Unit: The unit of selection used in the development of the spatial
conservation framework. In this project, farms or cadastral boundaries were used as
the basic selection units and were sometimes subdivided according to the presence
of biodiversity features.
Pre-European: This term refers to the state of the planning domain prior to the major
anthropogenic land transformation that was associated with the arrival of European
colonisers (e.g. through the development of technology-based pastoralism and
agriculture). Transformation on a landscape scale did occur, though on a less
intensive scale, through the land management techniques practised by indigenous
peoples (e.g. management of grazing areas through burning).
Restorable land: Land that has been transformed to some extent but is still in good
enough condition to be cost-effectively restored within a reasonable time period.
Spatial heterogeneity: The variety of biotic and/or abiotic habitats in the landscape,
or the variety of microhabitats within a habitat type.
Page xii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
Targets: Consist of two components:
Baseline target: A percentage of the Pre-European area of each land class
targeted for conservation.
Retention targets: A weighting for each land class to reflect its vulnerability to
further transformation.
Transformed Land: Land that has been transformed to such an extent that it will be
extremely costly and time consuming to rehabilitate, and even then, it is dubious
whether it will recover to its original state.
Vulnerability: A measure of the future threat faced by a planning unit.
Page xiii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
ABBREVIATIONS
CAPE: Cape Action Plan for the Environment, a strategy and action plan drawn up
for the conservation of the Cape Floral Region.
CES: Coastal Environmental Services.
GAENP: Greater Addo Elephant National Park; the GAENP Conservation Project is
in the planning phase at present.
GANP: Greater Addo National Park, as defined and discussed by Kerley and Boshoff
(1997).
GAENP-MPA: Greater Addo Elephant National Park Marine Protected Area (the
boundaries of this proposed protected area are provided in Part 2 of
CSIR/IECM/Albany Museum 2002).
MHC: Mammal Habitat Class.
MPA: Marine Protected Area
SANParks: South African National Parks Board.
STEP: Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning project, currently developing a
conservation plan for the thicket biome; the STEP footprint includes the GAENP
planning domain.
TERU: Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit.
TPC: Thresholds of Potential Concern.
Page xiv
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contributors ............................................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. ii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iii
Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................... x
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ xiv
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... xv
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... xviii
List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................ xxii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... xix
List of Boxes .......................................................................................................................................... xxi
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.
INTRODUCTION_______________________________________________________ 1
1.1 Background ______________________________________________________ 1
1.2 Approach to Module 1: an overview of systematic conservation planning_______ 5
1.3 Terms of reference for Module 1 ______________________________________ 9
1.4 Purpose and structure of this report __________________________________ 10
CHAPTER 2 : PATTERNS OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE PLANNING
DOMAIN
2.
PATTERNS OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE PLANNING DOMAIN __________________
2.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________
2.1.1 Historical distribution of land classes in the planning domain _________
2.1.2 Historical mammal distributions in the planning domain _____________
12
12
14
17
CHAPTER 3 : PROCESSES THAT MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY
3.
PROCESSES THAT MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY _____________________________
3.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________
3.2 Methods ________________________________________________________
3.2.1 Landscape-level processes ___________________________________
3.2.2 Species-level processes _____________________________________
3.2.3 Population-level processes ___________________________________
3.3 Results and discussion ____________________________________________
3.3.1 Landscape-level processes ___________________________________
3.3.2 Species-level processes _____________________________________
3.3.3 Population-level processes ___________________________________
Page xv
20
20
20
20
28
31
31
31
42
43
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
CHAPTER 4 : THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
4.
THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY ___________________________________________
4.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________
4.2 Current extent of transformation in the planning domain ___________________
4.2.1 Methods __________________________________________________
4.2.2 Results and discussion ______________________________________
4.3 Future threats to biodiversity in the planning domain _____________________
4.3.1 Methods __________________________________________________
4.3.2 Results and discussion ______________________________________
4.4 Summary of threats to primary land classes ____________________________
48
48
48
48
54
60
60
61
71
CHAPTER 5 : TARGETS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
5.
TARGETS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION___________________________
5.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________
5.1.1 The purpose of targets _______________________________________
5.2 Methods ________________________________________________________
5.2.1 Pattern targets _____________________________________________
5.2.2 Targets for landscape-level processes __________________________
5.2.3 Targets for species-level processes _____________________________
5.2.4 Targets for population-level processes __________________________
5.3 Results and discussion ____________________________________________
5.3.1 Pattern targets _____________________________________________
5.3.2 Targets for landscape-level processes __________________________
5.3.3 Targets for population-level processes __________________________
74
74
74
76
76
78
79
79
81
81
87
89
CHAPTER 6 : THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING CONSERVATION
AREAS
6.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING CONSERVATION AREAS _______________ 94
6.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________ 94
6.2 Methods ________________________________________________________ 95
6.2.1 The existing and earmarked reserve system ______________________ 95
6.3 Representation of biodiversity pattern _________________________________ 97
6.3.1 Representation of biodiversity processes ________________________ 97
6.4 Results and discussion ____________________________________________ 98
6.4.1 The existing and potential reserve system ________________________ 98
6.4.2 Representation of biodiversity pattern ___________________________ 99
6.4.3 Representation of biodiversity processes ________________________ 107
6.5 Implications of this analysis for design phase ___________________________ 118
Page xvi
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
CHAPTER 7 : SELECTING ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS
7.
SELECTING ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS ________________________ 120
7.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________ 120
7.2 Methods ________________________________________________________ 122
7.2.1 Preparation of data__________________________________________ 122
7.2.2 Patterns of irreplaceability in the GAENP planning domain ___________ 127
7.2.3 C-Plan design phase ________________________________________ 128
7.3 Results and discussion ____________________________________________ 130
7.3.1 Patterns of irreplaceability in the GAENP planning domain ___________ 130
7.3.2 C-Plan design phase ________________________________________ 134
7.4 Implications of this assessment ______________________________________ 143
CHAPTER 8 : FUTURE RESEARCH AND MONITORING TO SUPPORT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN
8.
FUTURE RESEARCH AND MONITORING TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE CONSERVATION PLAN ____________________________________________ 144
8.1 Immediate research priorities _______________________________________ 145
8.1.1 Update and maintenance of the conservation planning framework _____ 145
8.1.2 Management priorities _______________________________________ 153
8.2 Ongoing research needs ___________________________________________ 156
8.3 Additional projects ________________________________________________ 158
8.4 Summary _______________________________________________________ 162
CHAPTER 9 : IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION ACTION
9.
IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION ACTION _______________________________ 164
9.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________ 164
9.2 Prioritising additional conservation areas selected in C-Plan _______________ 164
9.2.1 Methods __________________________________________________ 165
9.2.2 Results and discussion ______________________________________ 167
9.3 Key implementation issues _________________________________________ 170
9.4 Way forward _____________________________________________________ 171
CHAPTER 10 : REFERENCES
Page xvii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Total Pre-European area of land classes in the planning domain ____________ 16
Table 2.
Mammal habitat classes in the planning domain _________________________ 18
Table 3.
Larger mammal species that could occur in the GAENP ___________________ 19
Table 4.
Key landscape-level processes to be captured in the GAENP planning domain. 29
Table 5:
Processes mediated by larger mammals _______________________________ 44
Table 6.
Land use classification for the GAENP planning domain. __________________ 50
Table 7.
Impact of land transformation on land classes. __________________________ 57
Table 8.
Size of buffers around human-settlement nodes. ________________________ 60
Table 9.
Rules for converting buffered human settlement nodes to threat weightings. ___ 61
Table 10.
Threat weightings per land class _____________________________________ 63
Table 11.
Mean percentage land transformation for each primary land class. __________ 71
Table 12.
Pattern targets derived for land classes. _______________________________ 85
Table 13.
Land classes for which overall pattern targets cannot be met. ______________ 87
Table 14.
Area of transformed land for each process. _____________________________ 90
Table 15.
Overall targets for mammal species. __________________________________ 93
Table 16.
Areas of existing and earmarked reserves, expressed in hectares and percentage
of the GAENP planning domain ______________________________________ 98
Table 17.
Land classes that do not achieve their baseline pattern target within existing
statutory reserves. Highlighted columns indicate land classes where nonstatutory and earmarked reserves increase the percentage conserved sufficiently
to achieve the baseline target. ______________________________________ 104
Table 18.
Contribution of existing and earmarked reserves to mammal population targets
(values indicate numbers of individuals). _______________________________ 105
Table 19.
Mammal species for which population targets were adjusted for the purposes of
C-Plan analysis __________________________________________________ 125
Table 20.
Summary of area requirements of each design step ______________________ 134
Table 21.
Land classes and mammal populations for which overall pattern targets had not
yet been achieved by the end of Step 5 _______________________________ 140
Table 23.
Rules applied for converting land class threat potential to planning unit
vulnerability _____________________________________________________ 165
Table 24.
An example to illustrate the derivation of composite vulnerability from the five
separate vulnerability ratings. See text for further explanation ______________ 166
Page xviii
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Map of the GAENP planning domain showing towns and infrastructure _______ 33
Figure 2.
Upland-lowland interfaces __________________________________________ 33
Figure 3.
Biome interfaces _________________________________________________ 34
Figure 4.
Thicket interfaces _________________________________________________ 35
Figure 5.
Riverine corridors linking inland and coastal biota ________________________ 36
Figure 6.
Riverine corridors through mountainous terrain __________________________ 37
Figure 7.
Algoa Dunefield with 500 m buffered inland boundary ____________________ 38
Figure 8.
Algoa Dunefield with 2000 m buffered inland boundary ___________________ 39
Figure 9.
Rainfall gradients as drought refuges in drought-prone habitat ______________ 40
Figure 10. All ecological and evolutionary processes combined _____________________ 41
Figure 11. Current land use in the planning domain. ______________________________ 51
Figure 12. The current extent of alien invasive plants. _____________________________ 52
Figure 13. Restorability of the landscape. _______________________________________ 53
Figure 14. Composite threat weighting for each land class _________________________ 62
Figure 15. The distribution of potential grazing threats in the landscape _______________ 66
Figure 16. The distribution of potential cultivation threats in the landscape._____________ 67
Figure 17. The distribution of potential human settlement-related impact in the landscape. 68
Figure 18. The distribution of potential alien threats in the landscape. _________________ 70
Figure 19. The percentage of intact area required by each land class to meet its overall
target __________________________________________________________ 84
Figure 20. The extent of transformation of the spatially defined landscape processes in the
GAENP planning domain. __________________________________________ 91
Figure 21. The existing reserve system (both statutory and non-statutory) and land
earmarked for purchase within the GAENP planning domain. (Numbers on the
map are referred to in the text.) ______________________________________ 96
Figure 22. Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of
primary level land classes __________________________________________ 100
Figure 23. Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of
secondary level land classes. _______________________________________ 101
Figure 24. Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of
larger mammals. _________________________________________________ 106
Figure 25. Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of
landscape level processes. _________________________________________ 108
Figure 26. The distribution of upland-lowland and biome interfaces in relation to the existing
and earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text. 110
Figure 27. The distribution of thicket interfaces in relation to the existing and earmarked
reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text. ____________ 112
Page xix
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
Figure 28. The distribution of north-south and east-west riverine corridors in relation to the
existing and earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to
in the text. ______________________________________________________ 114
Figure 29. The distribution of sand-movement corridors in relation to the existing and
earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text. ___ 116
Figure 30. The distribution of drought refuge rainfall gradients in relation to the existing and
earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text. ___ 117
Figure 31. Patterns of irreplaceability for achieving land class targets in the GAENP planning
domain _________________________________________________________ 131
Figure 32. Patterns of irreplaceability for achieving mammals targets in the GAENP planning
domain _________________________________________________________ 132
Figure 33. Patterns of irreplaceability for achieving process targets in the GAENP planning
domain _________________________________________________________ 133
Figure 34. Patterns of irreplaceability across the GAENP planning domain after the selection
of statutory reserves (Step 1). _______________________________________ 135
Figure 35. Patterns of irreplaceability across the GAENP planning domain after the selection
of farm properties containing processes (Step 2). ________________________ 136
Figure 36. Patterns of irreplaceability across the GAENP planning domain after the selection
of rivers and the GAENP-MPA (Steps 3 and 4). _________________________ 138
Figure 37. The notional conservation system for the GAENP planning domain derived from
the set of criteria followed in Steps 1-6. ________________________________ 142
Figure 38. Irreplaceability–vulnerability graph used to derive implementation priority _____ 168
Figure 39. Map showing implementation priorities within the GAENP planning domain. ___ 169
Figure 40. Issues for implementing a conservation plan (Cowling unpubl.) _____________ 170
Page xx
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1. National and global significance of GAENP. _________________________________ 3
Box 2. Goal of the GAENP conservation planning process____________________________ 5
Box 3. Terminology used by C-Plan (C-Plan 2001)_________________________________ 128
Box 4. A potential refinement for selecting areas to meet process targets. ______________ 135
Page xxi
Terrestrial Conservation Planning for the GAENP – Final Report
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
Terms of Reference and Scope of Services
APPENDIX 2:
Metadata
APPENDIX 3.1:
Brief description of land classes and environmental
correlates
APPENDIX 3.2:
Field mapping of land classes and land transformation
APPENDIX 4:
TERU Report No.33: The potential distributions, and
estimated spatial requirements and population sizes, of the
medium- to large- sized mammals.
APPENDIX 5:
A review of the species-, population- and spatially-driven
processes involving the medium- to large-sized mammals.
APPENDIX 6:
Modelling the dispersal of alien invading plant species in
river floodplains
APPENDIX 7:
GIS technical notes for the derivation of the planning unit
data layer
Page xxii