biodiversity assessment of the kannaland and oudtshoorn

Compiled By:

Andrew Skowno, Dr Stephen Holness & Dr Philip Desmet

Date: 31st August 2010

DEADP REPORT Number: LB07/2008a

Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland

and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and

Eden District Management Area (Uniondale)

Final Report

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 i

Report Title: Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden

District Management Area (Uniondale)

Date: 31st August 2010

Authors & contact details: Andrew Skowno (corresponding author)

ECOSOL GIS – 21 Neapolis, Pier Street, South End, Port Elizabeth 6001

Cell: 082 774 4613; Email: [email protected]

Dr Stephen Holness

Private Consultant , Port Elizabeth; Cell: 082 887 3735; Email: [email protected]

Dr Phillip Desmet

Private Consultant, Pretoria; Cell: 082 352 2955; Email: [email protected]

Client: Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Contact

Mellisa Naiker (021) 483 2885

Principle funding agent: Western Cape Provincial Government

Citation: Skowno, A.L., Holness, S.D. and P.G. Desmet (2010) Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland

and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area

(Uniondale). DEADP Report LB07/2008a, 65 pages.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Mellisa Naiker and the rest of the project steering committee. In particular

Donovan Kirkwood, Jeff Manual and Kerry Maree for providing technical and input and

advice. Thanks to Jan Vlok, Anna Lise Vlok, and John Gallo for expert biodiversity, and

planning input and helpful comments on draft manuscript.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 ii

Figure 1. Context map of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... v Objectives and Deliverables from the TOR .................................................................................................. vi

1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

2 BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Habitat Types .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Nationally Listed Threatened Ecosystems ....................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Priorities identified in other conservation assessments within, or overlapping into, the planning domain.................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.4 Existing data on species and biodiversity features ...................................................................... 6 2.2.5 Aquatic Features ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 ECOLOGICAL PROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Areas of potential importance in climate change adaptation ............................................... 8 2.3.3 Existing corridors from Gouritz Initiative ............................................................................................ 8

2.4 ALIGNMENT WITH ADJACENT CONSERVATION PLANS ......................................................................................... 9 2.5 LAND COVER ................................................................................................................................................. 10 2.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM STATUS ...................................................................................................................... 12

3 PROTECTED AREA NETWORK GAP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 15

3.1 PROTECTION LEVEL AND URGENCY ................................................................................................................. 18

4 RETENTION AND RESTORATION OF BIODIVERSITY ....................................................................................... 20

5 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS ........................................................................................................................ 23

5.1 WHAT ARE CBAS? ......................................................................................................................................... 23 5.2 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS CATEGORIES ................................................................................................... 24 5.3 PLANNING APPROACH.................................................................................................................................... 24 5.4 DESCRIPTION OF CBA‟S FOR THE KANNALAND MUNICIPALITY, OUDTSHOORN MUNICIPALITY AND EDEN

DISTRICT MANAGEMENT AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 27

6 LAND-USE GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................................... 30

6.1 DESIRED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................ 30 6.2 RECOMMENDED BIODIVERSITY-COMPATIBLE LAND-USE GUIDELINES ................................................................ 30 6.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES................................................ 32 6.4 LAND-USE ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 35

7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 39

8 APPENDIX 1: GIS METHODS AND TECHNICAL NOTES ................................................................................. 41

8.1 PLANNING DOMAIN ....................................................................................................................................... 41 8.2 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 8.3 TABLE SHOWING COLOURS USED IN THE CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREA MAP .................................................... 42 8.4 PROTECTED AREAS LAYER ................................................................................................................................ 42 8.5 LAND COVER MODEL ...................................................................................................................................... 42 8.6 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ................................................................................................................................... 43

8.6.1 Habitat model ...................................................................................................................................... 43 8.6.2 Nationally listed threatened ecosystems ...................................................................................... 44 8.6.3 Special plant species .......................................................................................................................... 44 8.6.4 Forest patches ...................................................................................................................................... 44 8.6.5 Quartz patches .................................................................................................................................... 44 8.6.6 Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Expert areas ........................................................................................ 45 8.6.7 John Gallo Expert areas ( including inputs from Jan Vlok) ...................................................... 45

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 iv

8.6.8 Priority areas from the STEP and SKEP Conservation Assessments.......................................... 45 8.6.9 Succulent Karoo Priorities .................................................................................................................. 45 8.6.10 Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas ...... 46 8.6.11 East Cape Priorities ......................................................................................................................... 46

8.7 AQUATIC FEATURES ............................................................................................................................................ 46 8.7.1 Priority Rivers and Catchments ........................................................................................................ 46 8.7.2 Additional rivers .................................................................................................................................... 46 8.7.3 Wetlands and pans ............................................................................................................................. 47

8.8 ECOSYSTEM STATUS ............................................................................................................................................ 47 8.9 PROTECTION LEVEL AND URGENCY .................................................................................................................... 47 8.10 CLIMATE CHANGE AND CORRIDORS ................................................................................................................ 47

8.10.1 High priority unfragmented landscapes................................................................................... 47 8.10.2 Riparian corridors ............................................................................................................................ 47 8.10.3 Topographic variability.................................................................................................................. 48 8.10.4 South-facing slopes ........................................................................................................................ 48 8.10.5 Kloof model ...................................................................................................................................... 49 8.10.6 Existing corridors from the Gouritz Initiative.............................................................................. 49 8.10.7 Alignment with adjacent conservation plans......................................................................... 49

8.11 NON-BIODIVERSITY ALIGNMENT LAYERS ...................................................................................................... 50 8.11.1 Important Natural Viewsheds ...................................................................................................... 50

8.12 COST LAYERS ................................................................................................................................................. 50 8.12.1 Landcover model ........................................................................................................................... 50

8.13 RESTORATION / REHABILITATION MODEL ...................................................................................................... 50 8.14 TECHNICAL METHODS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 50

8.14.1 Planning Units ................................................................................................................................... 50 8.14.2 Biodiversity Features and Targets ............................................................................................... 50 8.14.3 Software methods........................................................................................................................... 50 8.14.4 Planning Unit Cost ........................................................................................................................... 50 8.14.5 Ecological Support Areas ............................................................................................................. 51 8.14.6 CBA Lookup Table .......................................................................................................................... 51

9 APPENDIX 2: ECOSYSTEM STATUS FOR HABITAT UNITS IN THE PLANNING DOMAIN

List of Figures Figure 1. Context map of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District

Management Area.

Figure 2. Habitat units mapped by Vlok et al. (2005), showing the Little Karoo Region mapped and

the municipal areas on which this assessment is focussed . 235 distinct habitat units were identified

in the three Municipal areas covered by this report, out of a total of 369 mapped for the region.

Figure 3. Biomes represented in the planning domain following Vlok et al. (2005) classification.

Figure 4. Seven NEMBA listed threatened ecosystems found in the planning domain. Based on the

South African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

Figure 5. Priorities areas identified by other conservation assessments.

Figure 6. Biodiversity rich areas and threatened species distributions identified by other projects.

Figure 7. Aquatic features used in the assessment included sensitive wetlands and pans, based on

Cape Nature (Shaw 2007) and NFPA wetlands (Nel et al. in prep); priority sub-quaternary river

catchments and river reaches , based on NFPA data, where FEPA are priority areas and FESA are

support areas (Nel et al. in prep); additional order 2 and above rivers buffered by 100m.

Figure 8. Features representing ecological processes, landscape connectivity and climate change

adaptation.

Figure 9. Biodiversity Corridors Developed for the Gouritz Region by Lombard et al. 2004

Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas identified by other recent projects adjacent to the planning

domain; including the Central Karoo District, Eastern Cape Provincial Plan, CAPE Fine Scale plans

for Hessequa and Mossel Bay, and Garden Route Initiative.

Figure 11. Land cover map of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden

District Management Area. No natural (Transformed) class includes, cultivation, mining, rural and

urban development, high density alien, plantations, roads and railways. Degradation class includes

severely degraded areas mapped by Thompson et al. (2005).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 v

Figure 12. Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and degradation combined). Due to the high

levels of transformation and degradation 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 are

Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types are described in the planning are

by Vlok et al. 2005.

Figure 13. Protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden

District Management Area. A small portion of the Garden Route National Park is represented, ten

Western Cape Provincial Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve and four Mountain

Catchment Areas. Seven Cape Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private

conservation areas. (provincial reserves, national parks, mountain catchment areas and

contracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered formal PAs in protection status

calculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs).

Figure 14. Habitat Protection Levels in the planning domain. A habitat is considered partially

protected if 25-100% of its target is met in protected areas; poorly protected if 5-25% of target met;

very poorly protected < 5% target met. If More than 100% of target is met in PA it is considered

protected (target met). If none of the habitat occurs in PA then it is considered completely

unprotected (Table 4).

Figure 15. Habitat Protection urgency in the planning domain. A habitat is considered critically

urgent if insufficient habitat remains to achieve its PA target.; high urgency if > 50% of remaining

habitat is required; moderate urgency if 25-50% of remaining habitat is required; low urgency if <

25% of remaining habitat is required to meet PA targets. (Table 4).

Figure 16. Map extracted from Forsyth et al. (2008) to illustrate the available tools for responsible

land management in the region; specifically the recommended stocking rates for Ostriches in the

various habitats of the region .


land management in the region; specifically the spekboom thicket restoration potential of habitats

in the region.

Figure 18. Important tourism view sheds identified in the region by Reyers et al.( 2009).

Figure 19. The outputs on the initial MARXAN runs were used to identify the highest priority network

of Critical Biodiversity Areas. These include both irreplaceable sites (i.e. areas where there is no

choice) as well as significant “best design” areas which are not the only options but represent an

efficient and ecologically coherent network of optimal sites.

Figure 20. Critical Biodiversity Areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and

Eden District Management Area.

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of extent of Biomes in the Planning Domain, Note Vlok Et al. 2005 biome

definitions followed not SA vegetation map definitions

Table 2. The area covered by level one and level 2 land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn

Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area.

Table 3. The percentage coverage of level one land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn


Table 4. Summary table of number of vegetation types found in each Ecosystem Status Class

Table 5. Criteria used to identify threatened terrestrial ecosystems, with thresholds for critically

endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) ecosystems (SANBI 2008).

Table 6. Summary table of protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality

and Eden District Management Area

Table 7. Summary table of Habitat Protection Levels and Habitat Protection Urgency

Table 8. Criteria used to define the CBA map categories (Figure 17)

Table 9. Biodiversity criteria used to define Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in the Kannaland,

Oudtshoorn Municipalities and DMA04.

Table 10. Desired Management Objective per mapped category

Table 11. Recommended biodiversity-compatible land use guidelines matrix

Table 12. Land-use activity definitions adopted from the provincial Rural Land Use Planning and

Management Guidelines (in preparation).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 vi

Objectives and Deliverables from the TOR

Objective

The identification of biodiversity features and areas where conservation compatible

land-use practices are required in order to meet nationally accepted targets for

pattern and process.

To provide a realistic picture of patterns of transformation by assessing degradation.

To produce a conservation plan that is efficiently designed and will meet biodiversity

targets in a spatial configuration that avoids conflict with non-conservation

compatible land-use.

Project Deliverables linked to his Report

Map A: Biodiversity priority map(s) for Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Municipality and

for Eden District Municipal Areas;

Land and resource use guidelines linked to the biodiversity features displayed in

Map A;

Management recommendations for priority ecosystems identified in Map ;

Development of map A must conform closely to the methodology & work-plan

developed in phase I of the project;

A detailed report documenting the methodology and techniques used;

The report is accompanied by an electronic archive of the spatial data used in this

study. Key spatial information layers (protected areas, vegetation types and critical

biodiversity areas) will be available on SANBI‟s BGIS web site (http://bgis.sanbi.org).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 1

1 Introduction and Summary

The Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area

together make up the bulk of what is known as the Little Karoo Region. Although the Fynbos

Biome is well represented in the mountainous areas of the region it is the prominence of the

Succulent Karoo Biome that makes the region unique in the Western Cape Province.

Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area have

benefited from the ground breaking conservation planning projects that focused on the CFR in

2000 (CAPE 2000), and more recent CEPF and World Bank funded biodiversity planning

focussed on the Gouritz Corridor and Little Karoo Region. However, a fine scale or medium

scale Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) map has to date not been produced.

In an attempt to fill this gap in biodiversity planning the Department of Environmental Affairs

and Development Planning (DEADP) in conjunction with the Eden District Municipality

commissioned this biodiversity assessment of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn

Municipality, and Eden District Management Area to inform Spatial Development Frameworks

(SDFs), Biodiversity Sector plans, Environmental Management Frameworks (EMFs), Strategic

Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. This

biodiversity assessment, through the development of a critical biodiversity area (CBA) map for

the district, is aimed at assisting biodiversity and land use managers and decision makers in this

demanding task. This report summarizes the results of the biodiversity assessment conducted.

Details of the analyses performed are contained in the appendices.

Biodiversity data: The habitat map developed by Vlok et al. (2005) was used in this assessment. In total 235

habitat types were delineated in the planning domain;

Expert mapping available for the region included the areas of special botanical interest

collected in the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Project, and ecological process related corridors

from the Gouritz Initiative;

Areas of special biodiversity interest were obtained from various sources including Cape

Nature, CREW, Little Karoo Study Group and Gouritz Initiative;

Priority conservation areas and critical biodiversity areas identified by other projects were

incorporated into the analysis where possible. All CBA outputs from this study were aligned

with outputs from adjoining studies to aid in implementation;

Existing aquatic biodiversity data from NFEPA and other sources was combined for the

analysis; and

Additional process related features were modeled from the landscape, describing areas

likely to be important in terms of climate change adaptation and connectivity.

Land cover data: This project developed a simplified land cover based on existing land cover maps for the

region developed by Kirkwood et al. (2010) and Thompson et al. (2005); and

According to the model, the majority of the district is still natural vegetation (76%), while 10%

is transformed by cultivation, mining, dams and urbanization, and 14 % can be considered

degraded.

Ecosystem status and threats: Agriculture and urbanization are likely to be the principal drivers of biodiversity loss in the

district, at present about 23% of the district‟s ecosystems are transformed or degraded. No

information on agricultural developments and urban development was obtained; and

Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation in specific areas of the planning

domain 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are

Vulnerable.

Protected area network:


At present 19% of the planning domain is in formal Protected Areas. Approximately a third

of the regions 235 vegetation types do not occur within any protected area, and a third are

fully protected. The lowland and succulent Karoo habitat types in particular are poorly

conserved compared to the Fynbos habitats. Cape Nature‟s Biodiversity stewardship

Programme is active in the region with 12,459 Ha of private land under some form of legal

conservation stewardship agreement.

Critical biodiversity areas: The biodiversity assessment for the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and

Eden District Management Area is designed to identify an efficient set of Critical Biodiversity

Areas ( and Ecological Support Areas) that meet the targets for the underlying biodiversity

features in as small an area as possible and in areas with least conflict with other activities.

Of fundamental importance is that these areas are identified in a configuration that

deliberately facilitates the functioning of ecological processes (both currently and in the

face of climate change) which are required to ensure that the biodiversity features persist in

the long term;

A critical biodiversity area (CBA) map has been developed for the planning domain.

This CBA map is intended to act as the biodiversity sector‟s input into multi-sectoral plans

and assessments (e.g. SDF, EMF EIA, IDP, etc.);

The CBA map product is aligned with national standards for bioregional plans in terms of

terminology and methods;

The CBA map should be integrated into the Eden district SDF, and the Kannaland and

Oudtshoorn Local SDFs; and

Land use guidelines have been developed for each CBA category and aligned with land

use categories commonly used in SDFs.

Data availability: All maps, report and data will be made available on SANBI‟s Biodiversity GIS web site

(http://bgis.sanbi.org).


2 Biodiversity Information

2.1 Background A biodiversity dataset must meet several criteria if it is to be used in a spatial analysis such as this

assessment. The data must be:

In an electronic format (e.g. spreadsheet or GIS database);

Spatial (e.g. point, line or polygon coverage);

At an appropriate spatial resolution to be compatible with the scale at which the assessment is

being conducted; and

Accessible to the people conducting the analyses

Region-wide biodiversity assessment and planning projects always face the problem of lack of

suitable biodiversity data that is (a) geo-referenced; (b) is of relevant spatial resolution such as

point locality data; and (c) that covers the majority of the planning domain.

The Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area do not

have an operational biodiversity information management system (BIMS). There are, however, quite

few high quality spatial biodiversity datasets that partially or completely cover the region. These

range from Vlok et al.‟s (2005) excellent habitat map, to recent analyses by the Little Karoo study

Group (Gallo et al. 2010), all of which are discussed in detail below.

Some new biodiversity process surrogate datasets were generated during the course of this project

through spatial modelling, basic expert mapping, as well as integration of existing spatial

information on habitat types, wetlands and pans, rivers and catchments.

The land cover for the region and selected sensitive viewsheds are also discussed here. Whilst these

are not biodiversity datasets land cover is a key information layer in the biodiversity assessment

process, and sensitive viewsheds are included to align outcomes with areas important for tourism as

an ecological service.

2.2 Biodiversity Features The Little Karoo region, in which the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden

District Management Area fall, has some excellent biodiversity planning layers developed over the

last few years. In addition to utilising these layers, incorporating expert knowledge into systematic

conservation assessment is also an essential part of the conservation assessment and planning

process that is widely used in South Africa. It can serve a number of important functions; the

process serves as a cross reference to the predominantly data driven, mathematical/mechanistic

process of irreplaceability analysis; it promotes confidence and credibility in the use of the

information system; it can provide a rapidly gathered source of biodiversity information especially

where no other electronic spatial biodiversity databases exist.

2.2.1 Habitat Types

The conservation planning process made use of the finescale vegetation map produced

by Jan Vlok (Vlok et al. 2005). This high quality vegetation map is based on a combination of

extensive field surveys during 2004, the subdivision of landscape into topo-geomorphic units

hand drawn on 1:50 000 LandSat images and additional remote sensing interpretation. A

hierarchical classification system was used with vegetation units, nested within habitats which

are nested within biomes. In transformed areas, the pre-transformation vegetation was

estimated and mapped based on surrounding vegetation and remaining patches. 235

vegetation types are found within the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and

Eden District Management Area (Uniondale) of the Little Karoo.

Targets were based on those defined for the Little Karoo study region using a systematic

approach (Vlok & Reyers Unpublished). Each target was derived using the slope of the species-

area curve (Desmet & Cowling 2004). This benefited habitats with greater species heterogeneity.


The percentage of species targeted for conservation was set at 75%. The targets were rescaled

so that the target range was 16-34% as per the national standard.

From a biome perspective (following Vlok et al. 2005) the planning domain has large areas of

Fynbos (mostly mountains areas), thicket and thicket mosaics, Succulent Karoo, Renosterveld,

and riverine habitats. (Table 1 and Figure 3)

Table 1. Summary of extent of Biomes in the Planning Domain, Note Vlok et al. 2005 biome

definitions followed not SA vegetation map definitions.

Figure 2. Habitat units mapped by Vlok et al. (2005), showing the Little Karoo Region mapped and

the municipal areas on which this assessment is focussed . 235 distinct habitat units were identified

in the three Municipal areas covered by this report, out of a total of 369 mapped for the region.

BIOME Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD

FYNBOS 89,313 101,793 157,395 348,502

RENOSTERVELD 8,444 15,758 91,582 115,784

SUCCULENT KAROO 121,497 34,358 17,218 173,074

THICKET 215,202 164,288 98,652 478,142

AQUATIC/RIVERINE 40,992 37,159 51,781 129,933

Total 475,449 353,357 416,629 1,245,435


Figure 3. Biomes represented in the planning domain following Vlok et al. (2005) classification.

2.2.2 Nationally Listed Threatened Ecosystems

Vegetation types that will be listed as threatened under NEMBA were obtained from SANBI. The

boundaries of these units are based on the National Vegetation Map (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Seven NEMBA listed threatened ecosystems found in the planning domain. Based on the

South African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

2.2.3 Priorities identified in other conservation assessments within, or

overlapping into, the planning domain

Priorities and CBA‟s identified in plans that covered all or part of the planning domain were

incorporated where appropriate (Figure 3); these included the following products: Leslie Hill

Succulent Karoo Priorities (Desmet 2006); John Gallo‟s Succulent Karoo priority reserve and

stewardship areas tool (Gallo et al. 2010); Garden Route Initiative (Holness et al. 2010, Vromans

et al. 2010) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Berliner and Desmet 2008); STEP

(Cowling et al. 2003) and SKEP (Driver et al. 2003) priorities (Figure 5).


2.2.4 Existing data on species and biodiversity features

Existing spatial information on biodiversity “hot spots” and threatened species was included in

the analysis, including (Figure 5): Expert plant areas based on expert consultations from Leslie Hill

Succulent Karoo Project (Desmet 2006); Quartz patches and Forest Patches mapped by experts

for Cape Nature (Kirkwood pers com); CREW and Cape Nature Database of Critically

endangered, endangered and vulnerable plant species (Kirkwood pers com)(Figure 6).

Figure 5. Priorities areas identified by other conservation assessments

Figure 6. Biodiversity rich areas and threatened species distributions identified by other projects

2.2.5 Aquatic Features

2.2.5.1 Priority Rivers and Catchments

Outputs of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area assessment (NFEPA) which is currently

being completed (Nel et al. in prep) were incorporated. This project identifies the most important

rivers, river catchment and wetlands for meeting freshwater biodiversity targets and conserving

ecological processes.


The project identified Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) which are the freshwater

equivalent of a Critical Biodiversity Area, and Freshwater Ecosystem Support Areas (FESAs) which

are the freshwater equivalent of Ecological Support Areas. These are identified at a national scale

and require some finescaling before they can be incorporated into a Critical Biodiversity Area

map.

2.2.5.2 Wetlands and Pans

The sensitive wetland layer compiled by Cape Nature (Shaw 2007) was combined with NFEPA

wetland layer (Nel et al. in prep) was used as the basis for analysis. To address ecological status or

health of the wetlands. We applied the technique described by Amis (2009) in which the level of

terrestrial transformation/degradation immediately surrounding a wetland was used as a proxy of

wetland health. Each wetland feature was buffered by 500m and the percentage transformation

and degradation in each of the buffered areas was calculated. Wetlands with low levels of

transformation in their buffer zone are assumed to be in a better ecological state that wetlands

with high levels of transformation. This ecological state analysis was used to categorize wetlands

into critical and important wetlands for the CBA map. Wetlands that are in a better ecological

state are priorities for conservation and land use management (Figure 7).

2.2.5.3 Additional Rivers

From a process perspective, it is not just the nationally selected rivers which are important. A river

buffer layer developed by Don Kirkwood which buffered the larger (above 2nd order) 1:50 000

rivers by 100m and the smaller rivers by 30m was included as a compulsory part of the Ecological

Support Area layer in the second conservation run.

Figure 7. Aquatic features used in the assessment included sensitive wetlands and pans, based on

Cape Nature (Shaw 2007) and NFPA wetlands (Nel et al. in prep); priority sub-quaternary river

catchments and river reaches , based on NFPA data, where FEPA are priority areas and FESA are

support areas (Nel et al. in prep); additional order 2 and above rivers buffered by 100m.

2.3 Ecological Process New ecological process layers were developed for the planning domain based on methodologies

applied in the National Protected Areas Assessment but applied at a finer scale. These include

identification of optimal ecological corridors and the identification of areas likely to provide climate

change resilience (Figure 8). Specific areas that were identified include:


2.3.1 Connectivity

High priority areas in unfragmented landscapes were identified to enhance landscape

connectivity. The National Protected Areas Expansion Conservation Assessment (Holness 2008)

identified high priority unfragmented areas that if protected would contribute most to meeting

national terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets. The areas identified are all over 5000ha in

size. Every attempt should be made to avoid an activity that results in the fragmentation of these

areas. River corridors represent important linkages across the landscape, particularly in arid and

poorly differentiated habitats. In addition to the other river and aquatic features included in the

plan, it was important to ensure that all major riparian corridor areas were included to ensure that

the linkages important for climate change adaptation were protected.

2.3.2 Areas of potential importance in climate change adaptation

Climate change resilience areas: Modelled approaches were used to identify areas of potential

importance for promoting climate change resilience in the landscape (Figure 8). These modelled

layers include:

Kloofs, which provide important connectivity and provide both temperature and moisture

refuges;

South facing slopes, which similar to kloofs provide refuge habitats;

Topographically diverse areas, which contain important altitudinal and climatic gradients

which are important for climate change adaptation as well as ensuring a range of micro-

climates are protected; and

Riverine corridors, which provide important connectivity in extensive arid environments,

were identified.

Details on the modelling of these features can be found in Appendix 1.

Figure 8. Features representing ecological processes, landscape connectivity and climate

change adaptation.

2.3.3 Existing corridors from Gouritz Initiative

The Gouritz Initiative developed a set of priority process areas to support long term ecological

processes in the region. These identified areas included the STEP Megaconservancy Network,

identified mountain corridors and the core Gouritz north-south corridor. These identified areas

included the STEP Megaconservancy Network, identified mountain corridors, quartz patches,

connectivity areas important for nectavores, and the core Gouritz north-south corridor. These

components of the Gouritz plan were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and were included

into the MARXAN run with a 60% target (Lombard et al. 2004)(Figure 9).


Figure 9. Biodiversity Corridors Developed for the Gouritz Region by Lombard et al. 2004.

2.4 Alignment with adjacent conservation plans Corridors are worthless if the don‟t go anywhere. Fortunately, conservation plans have been

undertaken for almost all the areas surrounding the Little Karoo (Figure 10). Priority corridors and

adjacent CBA areas were collated from the adjacent 6 systematic conservation plans:

• Central Karoo District FSBP (Skowno et al. 2009);

• Winelands DMA FSBP (Skowno et al. 2009);

• Hessequa FSBP (Pence et al. 2010);

• Mosselbay FSBP (Pence et al. 2010);

• Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas (Holness et al. 2010); and

• East Cape Province (Berliner and Desmet 2008)

Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas identified by other recent projects adjacent to the planning

domain; including the Central Karoo District, Eastern Cape Provincial Plan, CAPE Fine Scale plans

for Hessequa and Mossel Bay, and Garden Route Initiative.


2.5 Land Cover Land cover is one of the most important information layers used in a conservation assessment. As

transformed areas are generally considered to have very little biodiversity value, a land cover map

tells us how much biodiversity is left and where this is located. There is generally a good inverse

relationship between levels of transformation in a landscape and biodiversity intactness (e.g.

Scholes and Biggs, 2005). In the absence of any actual biodiversity data we can still make

inferences about the state of the natural environment based purely on the land cover. The

ecosystem status index for South African vegetation types is such an index. Therefore an up-to-date

representation of current land-cover is of key importance to the conservation and planning

fraternity in the district, who require a detailed land cover map to help inform decisions on land

use. Ultimately this layer is critical in developing a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity in the

district (Figure 11).

This project developed a simplified land cover based on a land cover map put together by

Kirkwood et al. (2010) as part of the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework (which in turn was based

on Thompson et al. 2005). The land cover used in the analyses includes the Chief Directorate

Surveys and Mapping 1:50 000 series roads, railways and built up areas buffered by 10-200m; the

Western Cape fields layer developed by Geo Terra Image for National Department of Agriculture

(based on the SPOT5 2006 series) (Table 2).

Land cover statistics with respect to the area of the target municipalities occupied by the different

land classes are summarized in Table 1. Just over 10% of the planning area has been transformed

from natural ecosystems to other land uses, and just over 14% has been severely degraded (Table

3).

Table 2: The area covered by level one and level 2 land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn


Table 3: The percentage coverage of level one land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn


Landcover (Hectares) Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD

Level 1 Level 2

Natural 380,884 251,232 320,205 952,320

Natural Natural 118,886 133,629 217,416 469,931

Natural Near Natural - AIP 18,199 17,882 11,028 47,108

Natural Near Natural - Mod Degr 243,798 99,721 91,761 435,280

Natural Unknown - - 0 0

No Natural 21,795 41,092 57,925 120,812

No Natural No Natural Agric 17,279 34,962 53,584 105,826

No Natural No Natural Dam 775 1,261 934 2,970

No Natural No Natural Urban 668 2,010 368 3,045

No Natural No Natural - Other 3,074 2,859 3,039 8,972

Degraded 72,770 61,033 38,499 172,302

Grand Total 475,449 353,357 416,629 1,245,435

Land Cover (%) Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD

Natural 80 71 77 76

No Natural 5 12 14 10

Degraded 15 17 9 14

Grand Total 100 100 100 100


Figure 11. Land cover map of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area. No natural (Transformed)

class includes, cultivation, mining, rural and urban development, high density alien, plantations, roads and railways. Degradation class includes

severely degraded areas mapped by Thompson et al. (2005).


2.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Status Ecosystem status classification refers to the likelihood of an ecosystem, in this case defined as a

vegetation type, persisting into the future given the current amount of that ecosystem that has

already been transformed to other land uses

SANBI has developed a classification system that uses a suite of biodiversity loss indicators or criteria

to assign national ecosystem status to South African vegetation types. For the district level

classification for the Central Karoo District only criterion A (Table 5) was used to determine

ecosystem status of vegetation types. For criteria B to F the district level analyses have not been

done yet.

The ecosystem status and protection level calculations presented here differ from the national

assessment in three key areas. Firstly, the calculations consider only the extent of a vegetation type

that occurs within the Little Karoo region (defined by Vlok et al. 2005 - refer to Appendix 8.1 for

details) and not the national extent of a vegetation type. From a municipal environmental

management perspective the focus is on the state of biodiversity within the three municipal areas

and not in neighbouring municipalities. Secondly, this assessment calculates ecosystem status using

transformation and severe degradation combined (Figure 12). Finally, smaller vegetation units,

specifically mapped in the region are used in this analysis not the SA vegetation units. This gives a

better picture of where ecosystems are threatened as it includes areas that are in the process of

undergoing transformation. Degradation here includes only severe degradation such as soil erosion

and reduction in cover but does not include components of degradation such as species shifts due

to overgrazing, alien species or bush encroachment (Thompson et al. 2005).

Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation in the planning domain 12 habitat types

are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types

are described in the Municipal planning area by Vlok et al. (2005).

Note: The vegetation map produced by Vlok et al. (2005) covers a larger area than the municipal

planning domain used in this report (see point 8.1 in Appendix 1). The larger Little Karoo Planning

Domain includes 371 vegetation Units compared to the 235 habitat units in the smaller Municipal

Planning Domain on which this report is focussed. However, all ecosystem status calculations and

protection level calculations were based on the larger Little Karoo PD. This is standard practise in

biodiversity assessment s and ensures that the entire extent of each habitat unit is considered in the

calculation of Ecosystem statistics (Table 4) (Appendix 1).

Table 4. Summary table of number of vegetation types found in each Ecosystem Status Class

Municipality Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD

Ecosystem status

(# Vegetation units)

Critically Endangered 8 6 4 12

Endangered 10 6 2 13

Vulnerable 11 9 6 19

Least Threatened 125 62 51 191

Total Number 154 83 63 235


Table 5: Criteria used to identify threatened terrestrial ecosystems, with thresholds for critically

endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) ecosystems (SANBI 2008).

Criterion CR EN VU

A1: Irreversible loss of natural

habitat

Remaining natural

habitat ≤

biodiversity target

Remaining natural

habitat ≤

(biodiversity target +

15%)

Remaining natural

habitat ≤ 60% of

original area of

ecosystem

A2: Ecosystem degradation

and loss of integrity*

≥ 60% of ecosystem

significantly

degraded


significantly

degraded


significantly

degraded

B: Rate of loss of natural

habitat**

C: Limited extent and

imminent threat*

-- Ecosystem extent ≤ 3

000ha, and imminent

threat

Ecosystem extent ≤ 6

000ha, and

imminent threat

D1: Threatened plant species

associations

≥ 80 threatened

Red Data List plant

species

≥ 60 threatened Red

Data List plant

species

≥ 40 threatened Red

Data List plant

species

D2: Threatened animal species

associations**

E: Priority areas for meeting

explicit biodiversity targets as

defined in a systematic

biodiversity plan

Very high

irreplaceability and

high threat

Very high


medium threat

Very high


low threat

F: Fragmentation** * Because of data constraints, Criteria A2 and C have been applied to forests but not to other vegetation

types. ** Because of data constraints, Criteria B and D2 are dormant at this stage and thresholds have not

been set for these criteria. Further testing of Criterion F is needed to determine whether it is a workable criterion

for terrestrial ecosystems.


Figure 12: Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and degradation combined). Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation 12 habitat types

are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types are described in the planning are by Vlok et al. 2005.


3 Protected Area Network GAP Analysis Protected areas (PAs) are the primary strategy for ensuring that a representative portion of the

regions biodiversity is conserved as a benchmark for the benefit of current and future generations.

Whilst the long term persistence of biodiversity will require the management of biodiversity both in

PAs and in the surrounding matrix of production landscapes, there are clear national guidelines as

to the proportion of the district‟s surface area that should be under some form of formal

conservation management. Comparing the proportion of the regions biodiversity represented and

targets achieved in the existing PA network to what is recommended in the national guidelines

provides a quantitative measure of the conservation effectiveness of the provincial PA network. This

also gives an indication of the amount of work still required to reach the goal of a fully

representative PA network .

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) defines a „protected

area‟ (PA) as one of the following types: Special Nature Reserves; National Parks; Nature Reserves;

Protected Environments; World Heritage Sites; Marine Protected Areas; Specially Protected Forest

Areas; and Mountain catchment areas. Collectively, the formal terrestrial and marine protected

areas comprise the National Protected Area System (National PAS).

The protected area (PA) layer for the planning domain was based on that used in the National

Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES). To this layer we added the official Biodiversity

Stewardship sites for the region (supplied by CAPE NATURE , A. Vlok pers com) as Formal Pas.

Informal private conservation areas identified by Pasquini (2007) were added as Informal CAs in the

Protected areas context map only and were not considered as CAs in the analysis (Figure 13).

Only Formal Protected Areas and contracted Cape Nature Stewardship sites were considered as

Formal Protected Areas in the analysis. These sites are assumed to contribute to meeting

biodiversity targets, and as such are “hard wired” into the CBA Model as PAs. Informal sites are not

assumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets as there is no guarantee in the long term that

the biodiversity contained in them will be conserved.

Protected Areas (as recognized in the PA act):

Special Nature Reserves;

National Parks;

Provincial Nature Reserves;

Protected Environments;

Contract Nature Reserves; and

Also includes are: World Heritage Sites, Marine Protected Areas, Marine

Conservation Areas, specially protected forests.

Conservation Areas (CAs) non-statutory protected areas not recognized in the PA act:

Biodiversity agreements; and

Conservancies.

Note that this classification does not take into account PA management effectiveness. This

classification relates solely to the legal status of PAs with regards the PA Act.


Table 6: Summary table of protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality

and Eden District Management Area.

A small portion of one national park (Garden Route National Park), ten Western Cape Provincial

Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve, four Mountain Catchment Areas, seven Cape

Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private conservation areas are represented in

the planning domain (provincial reserves, national parks, mountain catchment areas and

contracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered Formal PAs in protection status

calculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs) (Figure 13).

Protected Areas cover 30.4% of the planning domain with 229,4961ha (18.4%) being formal

protected areas and 149,103ha (12%) comprising conservation areas.

Protected Areas (Ha) v2 Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD

Level 1 Level 2

Formal 91,155 69,874 68,468 229,496

National Park 4,383 4,383

Provincial Nature Reserve 17,195 7,553 16,068 40,816

State Forest Nature Reserve 25,666 41,175 21,993 88,834

Wilderness Area 6,132 6,132

Local Authority Nature Reserve 2,770 240 114 3,124

Mountain Catchment Area 34,175 14,774 24,799 73,749

CN Stewardship Site 11,348 1,110 12,459

Informal 82,137 36,215 30,752 149,103

Private Nature Reserve (NPAES) 10,882 1,236 3,137 15,255

Pasquini Private Cons Sites 71,255 34,978 27,615 133,848 Grand Total 173,292 106,088 99,219 378,599


Figure 13: Protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area. A small portion of

the Garden Route National Park is represented, ten Western Cape Provincial Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve and four

Mountain Catchment Areas. Seven Cape Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private conservation areas. (provincial reserves,

national parks, mountain catchment areas and contracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered formal PAs in protection status

calculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs).


3.1 Protection Level and Urgency Protection level is the measurement of how well the existing protected area network conserves the

biodiversity of the district. It is calculated as the percentage biodiversity target achieved by the

protected area network for each vegetation type. Protection urgency is based on irreplaceability

of the remaining unfragmented areas of that vegetation type that are available to meet PA

targets. To do these calculations the vegetation layer for the district was unioned with the

protected areas layers and the proportion of each vegetation type within PAs was summarized

(Table 7, Figures 14 & 15).

Considering Formal Protected Areas only:

89 vegetation types have their targets achieved in the PA network;

27 vegetation type is partially protected, 10 vegetation types are very poorly protected, and 17

are poorly protected; and

92 vegetation types are not represented within the PA network at all.

In summary:

The Protected Areas network covers the Fynbos biome component of the planning very well,

and is under representative of the lowland and succulent Karoo components; and

Conservancies play a vital role in the PA network and the biodiversity stewardship approach of

Cape Nature.

Table 7: Summary table of Habitat Protection Levels and Habitat Protection Urgency

Municipality Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD

Protection level


Completely Unprotected 65 26 19 92

Very Poorly Protected 5 7 5 10

Poorly Protected 7 8 9 17

Partially Protected 18 10 4 27

PA Targets Met 59 32 26 89

Protection urgency


Critically Urgent 5 3 2 7

High Urgency 4 3 2 6

Medium Urgency 19 11 7 27

Low Urgency 67 34 26 106

Fully Protected 59 32 26 89

Total Number 154 83 63 235

Protection Level

categories Description

Completely unprotected No formal protection

Very poorly protected Under 5% of PA target met

Poorly protected 5% - under 25% of target met

Partially protected 25-under 100% of target met

Targets met Targets fully met

Protection Urgency

categories Description

Target met PA target met

Low urgency

0->25% of remaining unfragmented areas required to meet PA

targets

Medium urgency


targets

High urgency


targets

Critically urgent

Insufficient remaining unfragmented areas available to meet PA

targets


Figure 14. Habitat Protection Levels in the planning domain. A habitat is considered partially

protected if 25-100% of its target is met in protected areas; poorly protected if 5-25% of target met;

very poorly protected < 5% target met. If More than 100% of target is met in PA it is considered

protected (target met). If none of the habitat occurs in PA then it is considered completely

unprotected (Table 7).

Figure 15. Habitat Protection urgency in the planning domain. A habitat is considered critically

urgent if insufficient habitat remains to achieve its PA target.; high urgency if > 50% of remaining

habitat is required; moderate urgency if 25-50% of remaining habitat is required; low urgency if <

25% of remaining habitat is required to meet PA targets. (Table 7).


4 Retention and Restoration of Biodiversity Drivers of biodiversity loss can also be referred to as “threats to biodiversity” or simply a site‟s “cost”

or “vulnerability” in relation to identified threats.

Threats to biodiversity are defined here as human-induced or mediated activities that result in the

loss (transformation) or reduction (degradation) of biodiversity pattern and/or processes. The

impacts of threats may manifest as changes in biodiversity structure (e.g. landscape

fragmentation, over grazing, composition (e.g. species loss), or as changes in ecosystem

functioning (e.g. altered hydrology, reduced net primary productivity)

Agriculture and urbanisation are viewed as the direct agents of biodiversity loss and degradation.

The direct impacts on biodiversity due to competing land-uses result in (a) loss of habitat and

landscape fragmentation, and (b) degradation of the natural environment, but their impact could

be significantly mitigated if the institutions responsible for environmental and land-use planning and

management operated and applied the law effectively. Threats to biodiversity in the Little Karoo

were only superficially considered in this assessment. A comprehensive report on the perceptions of

biodiversity threat in the Namakwa District, based on a survey of karoo ecological and livestock

management experts was recently completed (Todd et al. 2009). This report (an extract from which

can be found in Box 1.) is potentially very useful to planners in the Little Karoo region as the land-

use and threats are similar.

Specific threats to biodiversity and potential drivers of biodiversity loss for the region are addressed

in a report entitled “Retention and restoration of the biodiversity of the Little Karoo” by Forsyth, Vlok

and Reyers (2008). Recommendations on wildlife stocking, ostrich farming, fire management and

veld restoration potential for the region are provided in the report. The report, maps and spatial

data is available from the Gouritz initiative web site (www.gouritz.com) and SANBI‟s BIS system

(http://bgis.sanbi.org) (Figure 16 & 17).


land management in the region; specifically the recommended stocking rates for Ostriches in the

various habitats of the region .

http://bgis.sanbi.org/



land management in the region; specifically the spekboom thicket restoration potential of habitats

in the region.

Ecosystem services The Ecosystem services of forage production and carbon storage are addressed in the Forsyth et al.

(2008) report, and a recent study has expanded this in the Little Karoo. Reyers et al. (2009) highlight

the impact of land use change on the following ecosystem services

forage production;

carbon storage;

water flow regulation;

erosion control ; and

tourism view sheds.

This biodiversity assessment, although not aimed at ecosystem services directly, addresses most of

these issues. The NFEPA catchment prioritisation (Nel et al. iIn prep) specifically aims to include

areas important for flow regulation and catchment recharge. Wetlands and riparian areas

highlighted in this assessment as CBA or ESA also specifically address water flow regulation.

Important tourism viewsheds identified by Reyers et al. (2009) have been included in this

assessment as a connectivity layer (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Important tourism view sheds identified in the region by Reyers et al.( 2009).


BOX 1. Perceptions of Biodiversity Threat in the Namakwa District -extract from Todd et al. (2009)

“Of all the commonly reported threats to the biodiversity of the Namakwa District, livestock

grazing is the most pervasive as well as the most pernicious. While mining and cropping are

severe and conspicuous, their extent is limited. Less than 5% of the Namakwa District is

transformed by mining and cropping. Other threats include illegal collection of plants, alien

invasive plants and unsustainable water abstraction, all of which are restricted to certain species

or habitats. The importance of these threats should however not be overlooked because the

impact they have is often severe, resulting in the local extinction of affected species or extensive

transformation of habitats. More than 90% of the Namakwa District is however utilized for livestock

grazing, making this by far the most widespread landuse. Although well managed livestock

grazing is compatible with biodiversity conservation, poor grazing management can lead to

degradation and significant biodiversity loss at the landscape scale. Changes in vegetation

composition associated with grazing are frequently not obvious and as a result, grazing as a

threat to biodiversity is frequently underestimated or overlooked. Furthermore, despite being

reported as a threat to many vegetation types, the actual impact of livestock grazing livestock is

very difficult to quantify at a broad scale and most assessments rely on remote sensing or

anecdotal evidence to gauge grazing threat.

Based on a survey of experts in the field of livestock production, overgrazing was

overwhelmingly identified as the primary threat to biodiversity and ecosystem function in the

region (Figure A). Ploughing was identified as the next most significant threat to biodiversity

with wetland management and game farming also emerging as important threats. Alien

plants were only ranked fifth, perhaps reflecting the positive impact that programs such as

Working for Water have had on the perception of alien plants as a continued threat to

biodiversity. The use of traps for predator management and the use of pesticides and

livestock remedies were identified as the lowest threats.”

“Figure A. Priority ranking of threats to the biodiversity and ecosystem function of the Namakwa

District, as ranked by scientists and conservation officials working in the region. Higher scores

represent greater importance, the maximum potential score is 11. 0123456789 10 Overgrazing

Illegal Ploughing Wetland Mismanagement Game Farming Invasive Plants Infrastructure Erosion

Predator Poisoning Predator Trapping Herbicides & Pesticides Dips & Dosing”

Extracted from : Todd, S., Milton, S. J., Dean, R., Carrick, P. and Meyer, A. (2009). Ecological best

practice livestock production guidelines for the Namakwa District. Report for The Botanical

Society of South Africa by The Karoo Consortium.


5 Critical Biodiversity Areas

5.1 What are CBAs? The Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map aims to guide sustainable development by providing a

synthesis of biodiversity information to decision makers. It serves as the common reference for all

multi-sectoral planning procedures, advising which areas can be lost to development, and which

areas of critical biodiversity value and their support zones should be protected against any

impacts.

The CBA map indicates areas of land as well as aquatic features which must be safeguarded in

their natural state if biodiversity is to persist and ecosystems are to continue functioning. Land in this

category is referred to as a Critical Biodiversity Area. CBAs incorporate: (i) areas that need to be

safeguarded in order to meet national biodiversity thresholds (ii) areas required to ensure the

continued existence and functioning of species and ecosystems, including the delivery of

ecosystem services; and/or (iii) important locations for biodiversity features or rare species.

Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) are supporting zones required to prevent the degradation of

Critical Biodiversity Areas and Protected Areas. An ESA may be an ecological process area that

connects and therefore sustains Critical Biodiversity Areas or a terrestrial feature, e.g. the riparian

habitat surrounding and supporting aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas.

Those areas of natural vegetation identified on the map as Other Natural Areas are sufficiently

extensive at this stage that they may withstand some loss through conversion of their natural state,

and undergo development. It is important to note that in the future, such areas will be increasingly

converted or impacted, and it is possible that they will eventually be reclassified as Critical

Biodiversity Areas. Therefore, in all decision making, the precautionary principle needs to be

applied.

The CBA map identifies areas that have been irreversibly transformed through development (e.g.

urban development, plantation, agriculture). These areas are referred to as No Natural Areas

Remaining. They no longer contribute to the biodiversity of the area. However, there are areas of

land (partially or wholly transformed or degraded land) that have been classified as ESAs or even

CBAs. Although these areas are heavily degraded or transformed, they still play an important role in

supporting ecological processes. This is particularly the case with riparian areas, some key

catchment areas and key pieces of corridors. No further intensification of land-use activities should

be permitted and they should be prioritized for rehabilitation, where possible.


5.2 Critical Biodiversity Areas Categories Criteria defining the CBA map categories are presented in Table 8. These criteria are closely linked

to those used in other plans such as the Garden Route Systematic Biodiversity Plan Report (Holness,

2009).

Table 8: Criteria used to define the CBA map categories (Figure 20) CBA MAP

CATEGORY CRITERIA DEFINING THE CATEGORY

Protected

Areas

Formal Protected Areas

a) Nature Reserves & National Parks (protected by the National Environment Management:

Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003);

b) Forest Nature Reserves (declared in terms of the National Forest Act 84 of 1998).

c) Mountain Catchment Areas (declared in terms of the Mountain Catchment Area Act 63

of 1970); and

d) World Heritage Sites (declared in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act 49 of

1999).

Critical

Biodiversity

Areas

1. Any terrestrial or aquatic area required to meet biodiversity pattern and/or process

thresholds:

a) Any area that is required for meeting pattern thresholds, namely:

Remaining areas of Critically Endangered vegetation types;

Special habitats (areas required to protect special species and habitats);

Listed Ecosystems in terms of the National Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004);

Remaining areas protected by the National Forest Act (84 of 1998); and

High priority river reaches.

b) Any area that is required for meeting process thresholds including:

Ecological corridors;

Areas important for climate change adaptation; and

Riparian corridors.

c) Hydrological process areas (wetlands, priority catchment areas).

d) All 'best design' sites (largest, most intact, least disturbed, connected and/or adjacent) in

terms of meeting pattern and process thresholds. 'Best design' refers to an identified network of

natural sites that meet pattern and process thresholds in all vegetation types in a spatially

efficient and ecologically robust way, and aim to avoid conflict with other activities (e.g.

economic activity) where it is possible to achieve biodiversity thresholds elsewhere.

Ecological

Support Area

Supporting zone required to prevent degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Protected

Areas.

a) Areas required to prevent degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and formal Protected

Areas;

b) Remaining catchment and other process areas that are required to prevent degradation

of Critical Biodiversity Areas and formal Protected Areas; and

c) Areas that are already transformed or degraded, but which are currently or potentially still

important for supporting ecological processes e.g. transformed or alien plant infested

areas that have transformed or degraded the natural buffer area of a wetland or river.

These areas are a focus for rehabilitation rather than the intensification of land uses.

Other Natural

Areas

Natural areas not included in the above categories.

No Natural

Areas

Remaining

These areas include cultivated areas (intensive agriculture), afforested areas (plantation

forestry), mined areas, urban areas, infrastructure, dams and areas under coastal

development.

Source Reference: Holness, 2009

5.3 Planning approach The biodiversity assessment for the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden

District Management Area is designed to identify an efficient set of Critical Biodiversity Areas (and

Ecological Support Areas) that meet the targets for the underlying biodiversity features in as small

an area as possible and in areas with least conflict with other activities. Of fundamental

importance is that these areas are identified in a configuration that deliberately facilitates the


functioning of ecological processes (both currently and in the face of climate change) which are

required to ensure that the biodiversity features persist in the long term.

A two step optimization approach to systematic conservation planning was undertaken making

use of MARXAN. This approach has the advantage of allowing an efficient network to be identified

(i.e. one which uses the least possible space to achieve its targets and also minimizes cost to other

sectors) as well as to promote the identification of a network which is sensible from an ecological

point of view (the approach strongly favours connected and adjacent areas, and allows

preferential meeting of targets in priority catchments and areas important for climate change

resilience) (Figure 19). For details on the methods used refer to Appendix 1.

Figure 19. The outputs on the initial MARXAN runs were used to identify the highest priority network

of Critical Biodiversity Areas. These include both irreplaceable sites (i.e. areas where there is no

choice) as well as significant “best design” areas which are not the only options but represent an

efficient and ecologically coherent network of optimal sites.


Figure 20. Critical Biodiversity Areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area.


5.4 Description of CBA’s for the Kannaland Municipality,

Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management

Area

Table 9. Biodiversity criteria used to define Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in the Kannaland,

Oudtshoorn Municipalities and DMA04 (Figure 20).

Category

Name Description of

biodiversity features

used to define CBA

category

Shp File Name

Terrestrial

Features

Habitat map Base habitat map of

235 terrestrial habitats

mapped by Vlok et al.

(2005).

LK_Region_veg_Ecostat

us.shp

Special species CR EN and VU plant

locations from the

CREW and DK

datasets buffered by

250m

Combined_rares_1.shp

Nationally Listed

threatened

ecosystems

Remaining extent of

EN and VU vegetation

types listed under

NEMBA as threatened.

Threatened_veg_clippe

d_to_natural.shp

Leslie Hill Expert

areas

Identified expert

features from the

Succulent Karoo

assessment

undertaken for the

Leslie Hill Trust

Leslie_Hill_expert_areas_

1.shp

Quartz patches Quartz patches from

DK dataset

Quartz _1.shp

Forest Forest habitat from DK

dataset

Forest_1.shp

Aquatic

features

High priority river

reaches

Identified high priority

river catchments from

the NFEPA assessment

(Nel et al. In prep)

Rivers_1.shp

High priority

catchments

Identified high priority

river reaches from the

NFEPA assessment (Nel

et al. In prep)

Catch_1.shp

Sensitive

wetlands

Sensitive wetlands

from the Cape Nature

assessment and

NFEPA

Wetlands_notclipped_1.

shp

Riparian

corridors

Variable width

buffered corridors

along major rivers in

the Little Karoo.

All_Riparian_corridors_1.

shp

Climate

change and

connectivity

High priority

unfragmented

landscapes

High priority

unfragmented areas

identified within the

NPAES conservation

assessment. The study

identified the largest,

most intact areas for

High_priority_

unfragmented_

landscapes_1.shp


Category

Name Description of


used to define CBA

category

Shp File Name

meeting national

pattern and process

targets.

High

topographic

variability

Areas of potential

climate change

resilience and climate

refuges based on a

multi-scale modelled

assessment of

landscapes of high

topographic diversity.

These areas also

include important

altitude gradients.

High_topo_variability_1.s

hp

Kloofs Modelled layer of

kloofs which are

important refuge

habitats

Kloofs_1.shp

Gouritz Corridors Climate Change

connectivity corridors

developed by

Lombard et al. 2004

for Gouritz Initiative

Gouritz_all_1.shp

South Facing

Slopes

Modelled layer of

south facing slopes

which represent areas

of climate change

resilience due to

probable lower

temperatures and

higher moisture levels.

Large_southernslopes_1.

shp

Related climate

change layers

and inputs

o Riparian

corridors (see

above)

o River reaches

(see above)

o Marxan

analysis which

favours areas

with high

variety of

habitats

Priorities

from other

conservatio

n plans

Priority areas

from SKEP

Identified high

irreplaceability priority

areas from the SKEP

assessment

StepSkep_1.shp

Priority areas

from STEP

Identified pattern and

process priority areas

from the STEP

assessment

StepSkep_1.shp

Succulent Karoo

priorities

(Desmet 2006)

Priority areas from the

Leslie Hill Succulent

Karoo assessment

Leslie_hill_1.shp

Succulent Karoo

Priorities (Gallo

Priority areas from the

Leslie Hill Succulent

Gallo _1.shp


Category

Name Description of


used to define CBA

category

Shp File Name

et al. 2010) Karoo assessment by

Gallo et al. (2010)

East Cape

Priorities

Priority subcatchments

from the Eastern Cape

Biodiversity assessment

where these extend

into the Little Karoo

Ec_priorities_1.shp

Alignment

with

adjacent

conservatio

n plans

Corridor linkages

to adjacent

plans

Identified CBA areas in

the adjacent 6

conservation plans:

o Central Karoo

o Cape

Winelands

DMA

o Hessequa FSBP

o Mossel Bay

FSBP

o Garden Route

Initiative

o East Cape

Province BCP

LK_Region_ProtectedAr

eas.shp


6 Land-use Guidelines

6.1 Desired Management Objective The Desired Management Objective refers to the ecological state that a parcel of land or

aquatic ecosystem should be maintained in (Table 10). It guides the identification of

appropriate land or resource use activities and management guidelines. Only land-use

activities or resource use levels that are compatible with maintaining the Desired

Management Objective should be encouraged.

The Desired Management Objective refers to both biodiversity pattern and/or ecological

processes. In formally Protected Areas and Critical Biodiversity Areas, it is important to

maintain both biodiversity pattern and ecological processes, whilst in Ecological Support

Areas it is important to maintain ecological processes only.

Table 10. Desired Management Objective per mapped category

CBA Map

Category: Formal

Protected

Areas

Critical

Biodiversity

Areas

Ecological

Support Areas

Other Natural Areas

No Natural Areas

Remaining

Desired

Managemen

t Objective:

Maintain natural land.

Rehabilitate degraded to

natural or near natural

and manage for no

further degradation.

Maintain

ecological

processes

Sustainable

Management within

general rural land use

principles

Favoured areas for

development.

Sustainable

Management

within general rural

land use principles

6.2 Recommended Biodiversity-compatible Land-use

Guidelines For the biodiversity priority areas, namely formal Protected Areas, Critical Biodiversity Areas

and Ecological Support Areas, the guidelines have been informed by:

(1) the desired management objective (described above); and

(2) the likely impact of land and resource use activities on biodiversity (i.e. the impact on

the receiving environment should guide development) (Table 11).

In Other Natural Areas and No Natural Area Remaining, development guidelines should take

all sectors into consideration and must result in sustainable development. If beyond the urban

edge, guidance should be obtained from the provincial Rural Planning and Management

Guidelines (in preparation) (Table 11).


Table 11. Recommended biodiversity-compatible land use guidelines matrix

KEY: Biodiversity sector land-use recommendations

Yes = Encouraged so long as conditions listed in the rural guidelines are adhered to.

No = Discouraged;

Restricted = Land-use possible so long as the overall desired management objective is maintained,

impacts on biodiversity are mitigated where possible, and conditions listed in the rural guidelines are

adhered to. CBA MAP CATEGORY: →

Formal Protected

Areas

Critical Biodiversity

Areas

Ecological

Support Areas

Other Natural

Areas

No Natural Areas

Remaining

DESIRED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: →

Maintain natural

land. Rehabilitate

degraded to natural

or near natural and

manage for no

further degradation.

Maintain natural

land. Rehabilitate

degraded to

natural or near

natural and

manage for no

further

degradation.

Maintain

ecological

processes

Sustainable

Management

within general

rural land-use

principles

Sustainable

Management

within general

rural land-use

principles.

Favoured areas

for development.

RECOMMENDED PSDF SPATIAL PLANNING

CATEGORY: →

LAND-USE ACTIVITY

Core 1 Core 1 Core 2

Buffer 1 or 2

at the discretion of

Town and

Regional Planners

Intensive

Agriculture and

Settlement

1) CONSERVATION

LAND-USE

GOVERNED BY THE

NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT:

PROTECTED AREAS

ACT AND A

PROTECTED AREA

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Yes Yes

REFER TO THE PROVINCIAL RURAL

LAND-USE PLANNING AND

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR

GUIDANCE IN IDENTIFYING

APPROPRIATE LAND-USE ACTIVITIES

ALWAYS MANAGE FOR SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT WHEN CONSIDERING

LAND and WATER RESOURCE USE

APPLICATIONS IN NATURAL AREAS

2a) AGRICULTURE -HIGH IMPACT : Intensive

Agriculture

(includes forestry plantation and space

extensive agricultural enterprises)

No No

2b) AGRICULTURE - LOW IMPACT: Extensive

Agriculture Restricted Yes

3) HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION Restricted Restricted

4a) RURAL HOUSING:

Low Density Rural Housing (Consolidation

of rural erven for conservation)

Restricted Restricted

4b) RURAL HOUSING:

On-Farm Workers Settlement No Restricted

5a)TOURIST and RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

- LOW IMPACT: Lecture rooms, restrooms,

restaurants, gift shops and outdoor

recreation


5b) TOURIST and RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

- HIGH IMPACT: Golf , polo, and housing

eco-estates

No No

6a) RURAL BUSINESS:

Place Bound Restricted Restricted

6b) RURAL BUSINESS:

Non Place Bound No No

7) RURAL INDUSTRY No No

8) SMALL HOLDINGS

No No

9) COMMUNITY FACILITIES and

INSTITUTIONS No No

10) INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATIONS


11a) SETTLEMENT:

Existing Settlements (Urban Expansion) No No

11b) SETTLEMENT:

New Settlements No No


6.3 Guidelines for the sound management of land and water

resources The land and water resource use management guidelines in the boxes 2 - 4 below can be used to guide

decision making by all parties involved in land-use planning and decision-making e.g. provincial and local

government (as part of the municipal LUMS), landowners, Interested and Affected Parties and developers etc.

BOX 2: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS (CBA)

Minimise loss of any natural habitat.

Minimise further fragmentation of habitat.

If degraded or disturbed lands are identified as components of a landscape corridor, no further

hardening of the surface should be allowed as this poses threats to the functioning of the corridor.

Prioritise as prime candidates for biodiversity offset receiving areas.

Implement management programmes to maintain natural ecological processes; e.g. fire

management in fynbos vegetation types.

Implement regular environmental monitoring and reporting of biodiversity and/or change of land-use

to prevent unauthorized development or degradation by neglect or ignorance. To be carried out by

DEADP, Department of Water Affairs (of DWEA), and the Department of Agriculture (of DAFF).

Prioritise as prime areas for conservation projects or activities and alien clearance programmes etc.

by LandCare, Working for Water, Working for Wetlands, Working for the Coast (CoastCare) and

NGOs.

Implement restoration or rehabilitation programmes in degraded or disturbed sites i.e. an integrated

alien management plan.

Compile Environmental Management Plans, where possible, to include, e.g. alien plant control, fire

management etc.

Prioritise for incorporation into the protected areas network, and for stewardship agreements.

Prioritize for rates rebates by Municipalities (in terms of the Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004).

Use CBA boundaries to demarcate urban edges to limit lateral expansion of urban development

along landscape corridors.

Incorporate CBA into Urban Open Space Systems.

All the management conditions/controls provided in the land use definition tables that correlate to

the recommended land-uses in CBA should be adhered to. These should be further supported by

the Western Cape Provincial Rural Land-Use Planning and Management Guidelines.

Any loss in CBA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBA

Map.

GUIDANCE TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN LAND-USE CHANGE APPLICATIONS IN CBA

(and as part of municipal LUMS)

Land-use activities that are not compatible with a CBA should not be approved or applied for, unless

an adequate biodiversity offset receiving area is identified.

Land-use activities that will result in major loss in natural habitat are incompatible with the Desired

Management Objectives of a CBA.

Subdivision of land likely to result in the loss of natural areas or more intensive use of CBA should be

discouraged.

Where developments are unavoidable in a CBA, some form of conservation agreement or

mechanism should be adopted in the undeveloped areas e.g. formal Protected Area status in terms

of NEMPAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of LUPO) and other conservation areas, such as stewardship

agreements or conservancies. Appropriate biodiversity offset receiving areas must also be identified

to compensate for the CBA loss.

SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Do not permit development within at least 30m of the delineated wetland/estuary boundary or

riparian edge, the 5m contour around estuaries or within the 1:100 year floodline (or higher where

increased flooding has occurred), whichever is the more restrictive. This reduces the incidence or


severity of natural hazards.

The “buffer” may need to be wider than 30m. This should be determined on a case-by-case basis by

a specialist ecologist or hydrologist in consultation with appropriate authorities to reflect site-specific

factors. The approach for determining buffer width should consider the current condition of the

aquatic ecosystem and existing and proposed buffer, as well as the functioning of the system in the

broader landscape, plus an assessment of the impacts to the ecosystem of the existing and

proposed adjacent land-use.

Maintain water quantity, quality and flow regimes as close to natural as possible (desired Eco-status

or Ecological Management Class of A: Natural or B: Largely Natural).

Large-scale groundwater abstraction should be avoided.

Areas that are degraded or disturbed should be rehabilitated through programmes such as Working

for Water, Working for Wetlands, Working for the Coast (Coastcare); and a systematic alien

vegetation (and where possible fish) eradication programme implemented to improve biodiversity

and water supply, especially upstream areas of estuaries and wetlands.

Ensure implementation of the CBA Map and guidelines through Catchment Management Agencies.

BOX 3: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREAS (ESA)

Extensive loss of habitat within ecological process areas should be minimized.

Fragmentation of habitat should be avoided within ecological process areas.

Natural linkages should be maintained and encouraged between ecosystems, e.g. rivers to associated

wetlands.

Maintain ESA to ensure that ecological processes remain intact e.g. hydrological [river] processes and

riparian areas, fire processes, vegetation boundaries which reflect soil interfaces or upland-lowland

interfaces etc.), especially within landscape corridors.

After CBA areas, ESAs should be a secondary focus for rehabilitation, where possible e.g. alien clearing

through an integrated alien management plan.

If degraded, disturbed or agricultural lands are identified as components of a landscape corridor, no

further hardening of the surface should be allowed as this poses threats to the functioning of the corridor.

Avoid intensification of land-use where possible.

In fynbos and fire-prone thicket systems appropriate fire regimes should be maintained.

All the management conditions/controls provided in the land use definition table relating to the

recommended land uses in ESA should be adhered to.

Any loss in ESA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBA Map.

SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

To protect river integrity a minimum buffer of 32m, including all riparian habitat, around rivers in ESA

should be maintained. Where possible, the 1:100 year flood line should be used (or higher in areas that

have experienced increased flooding). This reduces the incidence or severity of natural hazards.

Do not permit infilling, excavation, drainage, hardened surfaces (including buildings and asphalt),

intensive agriculture or any new developments within a wetland and its associated buffer of natural

vegetation (i.e. wetland marginal habitat).

Maintain water quantity, quality and flow regimes as close to natural as possible (desired Eco-status or

Ecological Management Class of A: Natural or B: Largely Natural)

Large-scale groundwater abstraction should be avoided.

Areas that are degraded or disturbed should be rehabilitated through programmes such as Working for

Water, Working for Wetlands; and a systematic alien vegetation (and where possible fish) eradication

programme implemented to improve biodiversity and water supply, especially upstream areas of

estuaries and wetlands.

Ensure implementation of the CBA Map and guidelines through Catchment Management Agencies.


BOX 4: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS OTHER NATURAL AREAS (ONA)

These are areas that have not been flagged as having critical biodiversity importance. However, it is

possible that they contain important biodiversity features which are worthy of safeguarding, but which

were not identified in the CBA Map, e.g. a previously unidentified rare species on the site.

Developments should attempt to avoid fragmentation of natural habitat.

Developments must still meet the NEMA principles and EIA requirements, including all other planning

procedures (e.g. town and regional planning, water use licensing, agricultural subdivisions and

cultivation).

Proposals should follow all relevant guidelines to minimize the impact of the proposed development.

Any loss in ONA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBA

Map.


6.4 Land-use Activity Definitions Table 12. Land-use activity definitions adopted from the provincial Rural Land Use Planning and

Management Guidelines (in preparation). Where land and resource use applications are processed (e.g.

through EIAs), the land and resource use management guidelines, Section 4.4 on page 34, are

encouraged.

LAND-USE ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS

1. CONSERVATION

This is a land-use activity where conservation is the major objective. Subject to stringent controls the following

biodiversity-compatible land-use activities (i.e. those of very low impact) may be accommodated in Critical

Biodiversity Areas:

1a) Conservation management activities such as alien clearing, research and environmental education.

1b) Low intensity eco-tourism activities such as recreation and tourism (e.g. hiking trails, bird and game watching,

and visitor overnight accommodation) with limited access points.

1c) Sustainable consumptive activities: Harvesting of natural resources (e.g. wild flowers for medicinal, culinary or

commercial use), subject to an Environmental Management Plang (EMP) demonstrating the sustainability of

harvesting.

Assumes the following conditions/controls: These land uses are limited to very low transformation levels for

infrastructure development. Existing infrastructure and transformed areas should be utilized. Environmental

Management Plans are required to ensure appropriate protection of the receiving environment e.g. harvesting

volumes, periods etc. The entire property or a part thereof (depending on the land-use activity above) is under

some form of conservation agreement or mechanism. These mechanisms would include formal Protected Areas

in terms of NEM:PAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance) and other conservation

areas, such as stewardship agreements or conservancies (see Section 2.8 on page 23).

2. AGRICULTURE

2a) Intensive agriculture, including:

- All areas of High Potential and Unique Agricultural Land (HPUAL), together with areas of lower agricultural

potential where particular agricultural practices may themselves contribute to the character of the

environment, the agricultural working landscape or the local economy

Forestry (Timber Production) -

Includes: all timber plantations, mainly Pinus, Eucalyptus & Acacia plant species;

Assumes the following conditions/controls: monoculture of alien timber species with heavy impact on

hydrology and soil erosion and introduction and spread of a variety of the most aggressive alien invasive plants.

Irrigated Crop Cultivation -

Includes: all irrigated crops (vegetables) and irrigated tree crops (orchards);

Assumes the following conditions/controls: intensive production activity with high nutrient and agro-chemical

inputs and often two crops per year [but even just ploughing, with no chemicals etc, results in irreversible loss of

natural habitat].

Dryland Crop Cultivation -

Includes: all tillage cultivation of non-irrigated crops, mostly single-season annuals, but including perennial and

orchard-type tree crops if cultivated with an indigenous grass layer;

Assumes the following conditions/controls: crop production methods that conserve water and protect against

soil erosion; more-or-less limited and responsible use of fertilisers, pesticides and other agrochemicals and

genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

“Nuisance” and space extensive agricultural enterprises (e.g. intensive feed-lots, poultry battery houses) -

Includes: all intensive animal production systems, of domestic or „wild‟ species, that are dependent primarily

on imported foodstuffs and confinement; includes dairy farming and all areas in production support for dairy,

including pastures, fodder and grain crops, much of which is usually irrigated;

Assumes the following conditions/controls: To be located in close proximity to regional routes (including rail) to

facilitate product and requisite (e.g. feed) movement and supply

2b) Extensive agriculture, including extensive livestock or game farming

Includes: livestock or game production and related tourism activities on extensive land portions of natural land

cover. Could include private game reserves, sustainable commercial hunting along with other consumptive and

non-consumptive use of wild natural resources. Private game reserves to be officially protected through various

mechanisms (e.g. NEM:PAA or other conservation agreements – see Section 2.8 on page 23), with strict limits on

the level of development considered acceptable for lodge and other accommodation infrastructure.

Assumes the following conditions/controls: application of minimum size criteria for economic sustainability as

are applied to rangeland livestock farming; strictly limited development for revenue generating purposes such as

intensified tourism or sectional ownership. Stringent management conditions applied, such as –


Faunal specialist to undertake carrying capacity study for game reserves/production.

For game reserves, indigenous species only to be stocked

Environmental Management Plan, including fire management measures, if necessary.

These land uses are limited to very low transformation levels for infrastructure development.

Location of infrastructure either within disturbed/transformed areas and existing buildings, where possible.

3) HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION

Provides tourist/holiday accommodation in rural areas.

(i) B&B Establishment; Backpackers Accommodation; Guesthouse; Boutique Hotel / Lodge;

(ii) Resort

(iii) Camping Sites

Assumes the following conditions/controls: All forms of holiday accommodation are encouraged within

existing structures or on existing disturbed or transformed areas and within close proximity to existing infrastructure

(e.g. roads and electricity). Although encouraged for resort developments too, this is not always possible given

the unique nature of the setting required, which will most likely be place-bound. Most holiday accommodation

should be provided in or adjacent to existing towns and rural settlements, although it can be accommodated in

the rural landscape. However, the form and scale of facilities should be aligned with the character, quality and

environmental sensitivity of the rural landscape. Certain norms (e.g. number of guesthouses or B&B per farm) must

be applied, as per the RLUP&M guidelines.

These land uses are restricted to small footprints and will be subject to the Western Cape Rural Land Use Planning

and Management Guidelines, which restricts the number of new structures etc within the larger landscape and

encourages densification to reduce cumulative impacts. Resort developments are subject to a density norm or

formulae and the resort units are restricted to 120m² footprints in terms of these guidelines.

4) RURAL RESIDENTIAL

4a) Low density rural residential (consolidation of rural erven for conservation)

This land use facilitates residential development rights outside the urban edge, is of a low density and occurs on

extensive pieces of land thereby increasing the size of the conservation area or land under conservation, i.e.

consolidation of the conservation area (area in hectares that is conserved through various mechanisms – see

Section 2.8 on page 20), within the province. The following density norms, in addition to other land use factors,

environmental constraints and strategic context, including the desirability to consolidate erven, shall be used to

establish the maximum number of units permitted on land units outside the urban edge, namely:

- Divide the total extent in hectares of the to-be-consolidated cadastral units by 1000 and multiply the answer by

the number of cadastral units to be consolidated. Refer to the Rural Planning & Development Guidelines (in

prep) if this calculation yields a number of dwelling units that is less than or equal to, or less than one-third more

than, the total number of individual cadastral units to be consolidated.

development for „lifestyle‟ or investment-type recreational ownership such as share-block schemes,

multi-ownership reserves, but only for extensive land portions with limited development (NB: excludes golf

estates or residential eco-estates).

Assumes the following conditions/controls:

Maintenance of a large measure of natural land cover and biodiversity friendly management must be

maintained; the development footprint should be extremely limited in relation to the property size.

Individual footprints to be limited to 250m² with maximum permissible floor space of 120m².

Clustered layout, sensitively placed to limit the transformation impact, development within already transformed

or disturbed areas or use of existing buildings or built on timber piers (this will also ensure corridor linkages

throughout the cadastral);

Sustainable water supply (within the allocated Reserve of the water resource).

Use off grid services (solar power, rainwater harvesting, grey water recycling, urine diversion/enviro- loos) & built

from local recyclable materials.

No formal gardening.

Areas not developed are under some form of agreement or mechanism. These mechanisms would include

formal Protected Areas in terms of NEM:PAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance)

and other conservation areas, such as stewardship agreements or conservancies (see Section 2.8 on page 23).

4b) “On-Farm” Settlement of Farm Workers

This land use includes residences for farm workers and retirees “on-farm” i.e. where housing is

available to farm workers who currently live on the farm and will be living there in future, either due to

personal preference (e.g their tenure rights, rural surroundings, place for retirement, etc.) or because

circumstances require it (e.g. working hours, etc.).


(a) Fragmentationg of agricultural landscape and land for agricultural purposes not being threatened by the

“urbanization” or the rural areas.

(b) Where possible, clustering of units in distinct housing precincts located in visually unobtrusive locations and

existing footprints, but enjoying convenient access to rural access network

5) TOURIST AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Includes a broad range of rural tourist and recreational facilities in support of sustainable rural tourism, rural


businesses and communities, as well as to provide for the rural recreational and leisure needs of urban dwellers,

namely:

5a) Low impact facilities

(i) lecture rooms, restrooms, restaurants, gift shops

(ii) outdoor recreation (e.g. 4x4 trails and hiking trails)

(iii) Non-place bound tourist and recreational activities and facilities (e.g. water parks, paint ball); and

5b) High impact facilities

(iv) Golf Courses, Golf Estates, Polo Fields and Polo Estates (with or without residential component).


Non-place bound tourist and recreational activities and facilities located in or peripheral to existing rural

settlements

Rural tourist and recreational activities and facilities to be linked to a natural setting or feature.


Restricting large-scale recreational developments including a residential component to a location in the

“urban periphery”, allowing for inclusion in the medium-term urban edge

Development outside of ecologically sensitive areas, for example river-beds, wetlands, flood-lines and priority

ecological corridors.

6. RURAL BUSINESS

This land use broadens tourist and visitor demand and strengthens rural and settlement economies. It includes

Rural businesses ranging from a curio-shop in a National Park to a conference venue on a game farm, namely:

6a) Place-bound business -

(i) Farm stall and farm shop

(ii) Restaurant/tavern

(iii) Venue facility (e.g. conference/ wedding)

AND

6b) Non place-bound business e.g. agricultural co-operative, filling station/ petro-port, tourist retail outlet, plant

nursery, hotel/motel, tourism office, commercial kennel.


Farm stall restricted to selling products produced and processed on the farm to the general public, located

either in the farmstead precinct or abutting a tourist route, if present.

Restaurant, tavern and venue facility located within the farmstead precinct.

Non place-bound business located in and peripheral to rural settlements, outside of environmentally sensitive

areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas.


7. RURAL INDUSTRY

This land use accommodates a range of industry types serving rural areas, and include:

7(a) Non place-bound rural industry, for example -

- Manufacturing agricultural requisites such as pallet making, bottle labeling

- Processing of regionally sourced product such as fruit cannery, meat processing plant, abattoir,

- Transport contractors, dairy depots, builder‟s yards; and

- Processing rural sourced products (e.g. pottery manufacturing from kaolin mines)

7(b) Extractive industry which is place-bound given mineral resource i.e. quarrying and mining; including

secondary beneficiation (e.g. cement block manufacturing plants, concrete batch plants, pre-mix asphalt

plants). Includes all strip and opencast mining excavations or quarrying (sand mining); plus the visual, physical

and chemical impacts of these activities, particularly on ground water reserves; all mine waste and refuse dumps,

urban waste sites and landfill sites for whatever purposes.


All non place-bound industry (i.e. rural industry and service trades) to be located in and peripheral to rural

settlements outside of environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas.

Extractive industry to be located at the mineral source within the rural area, and informed by environmental

considerations and post mining rehabilitation.

8. SMALLHOLDINGS

This land use accommodates smaller agricultural properties which may be used for agriculture, but may also be

occupied as places of residence by people who seek a rural lifestyle, and usually includes agriculture, dwelling

house, home occupation.


New smallholding development to be restricted to inside the urban edge.

Minimum smallholding unit size : 8 000m²

Compilation of a Management Plan for new and existing smallholding areas.

9. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS

This land use provides facilities in support of rural community socio-economic development and well-being;

including:

(i) schools, places of assembly, churches

(ii) primary and secondary health care

(iii) institutions requiring a buffer or isolated location (e.g. infectious disease recovery facility)

(iv) institutions requiring an agricultural production location (e.g. agricultural research stations and agricultural


schools).


Facilities located within existing towns and rural settlements; in close proximity to a settlement or located on a

regional route, outside of environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas.

In the absence of public land, establish facilities “on-farm”, utilizing existing farm structures or existing footprints.

Location of facilities to target disturbed areas and areas of low agricultural potential in order to avoid

fragmentation of super-blocks.

10. INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATIONS

This land use accommodates infrastructure installations serving both the urban and rural areas where such

installations include:

(i) Wastewater treatment works, airport, water extraction purification plants, safety and security (e.g. Police

stations); irrigation infrastructure; roads, power lines, railways, pipelines; and

(ii) All substantial impoundments, reservoirs or dams and weirs, with associated pipelines, canals, access roads

and bulk water transfer schemes),


Installations be located on disturbed or low-value agricultural land.

A shared location and/or facility (e.g. police and clinic in a community service centre)

Infrastructure installations requiring a location outside the urban edge be restricted to extensive agricultural

areas peripheral to settlements in close proximity to regional routes to facilitate access and to restrict

fragmentation of the agricultural landscape

Installations in intensive agricultural areas be restricted to essential services (e.g. irrigation infrastructure, safety

and security).

All water-use developments to be subject to the Ecological Reserve.

11. SETTLEMENT

This category includes all human settlements, consisting of the following 2 sub-categories:

(1) Existing settlements (& urban expansion), which include:

Metropolitan areas, cities, larger towns, small towns, villages and hamlets.

It comprises all physical, residential, educational, recreational (e.g. sports facilities, fields, parks), cemeteries,

industrial and business development, including associated infrastructure etc, which are commonly known as

urban land use activities (or the built environment). Existing settlements are frequently under significant pressure to

expand due to in-migration & population increases, which require the provision of housing and services etc

therefore causing urban expansion.


The control of urban expansion through the delineation of an urban edge to prevent urban sprawl.

The delineation process is guided by the provincial urban edge guideline document and informed by a

biodiversity plan, for example: a Critical Biodiversity Area is used to delineate a boundary of the urban edge.

The promotion of compact urban settlements, whilst maintaining an open space system (where possible) that

is informed by a biodiversity plan.

(2) New settlements include areas that will -

(i) Service geographically isolated farming areas (i.e. agri-village)

(ii) Service rural resource exploitation (e.g. mines)

(iii) Proclaim the urban component of existing rural settlements


New Settlements located in the rural area when necessitated by unique circumstances (e.g. servicing of

isolated large infrastructural projects outside the servicing sphere of existing settlements) or in order to proclaim

the urban component of existing rural (i.e. Transformation of Certain Rural Areas) church, forestry or

conservation settlements.


7 References Amis, M.A., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Thuiller, W., Kleynhans, C.J., Day, J. and Nel, J., in press.

Predicting Freshwater Habitat Integrity Using Land Use/Cover Surrogates. WATER SA.

Anon (2001). C-Plan. Conservation Planning Software User Manual forC-PlanVersion 3.06. Armidale,

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Report.

Anon (2008). Guideline regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation and

Publication of Bioregional Plans. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

Ardron, J.A., Possingham, H.P., and Klein, C.J., eds. (2008). Marxan Good Practices Handbook.

External review version, pp 155. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association,

www.pacmara.org, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Ball, I.R. and 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.

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

Cowling, R.M., A.T. Lombard, M. Rouget, G.I.H. Kerley, T. Wolf, R. Sims-Castley, A. Knight, J.H.J. Vlok,

S.M. Pierce, A.F. Boshoff and S.L. Wilson. (2003). A conservation assessment for the

Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth.

Cowling, R.M. (1999). Planning for persistence –systematic reserve design in southern Africa‟s

succulent Karoo desert. Parks, 9(1), February 1999

Desmet, P.G. (2006) A Strategic Land Acquisition Policy for the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust

(ZA1415). Report for the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust (WWF), Stellenbosch, South Africa

Driver, A, P. Desmet, M. Rouget, R. Cowling and K. Maze. 2003. Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan,

Biodiversity Component, Technical Report. Cape Conservation Unit, Report No. CCU 1/03,

Botanical Society of South Africa.

Driver, A., Cowling, R.M. & Maze, K.E. (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.

Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P.,

Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B. Sink, K. & Strauss, T. 2004. The National Spatial

Biodiversity Assessment. Priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17.

SANBI.

Forsyth, G., Vlok, J. And B. Reyers (2008) Retention and restoration of the biodiversity of the Little

Karoo. CSIR Report No CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2008/0118/C Prepared for: Critical Ecosystem

Partnership Fund.

Gallo, J.A., Lombard, A.T. and Cowling, R.M. (2010) Increasing the impact of systematic

conservation planning: some suggestions, a decision support system framework, and a

precursory model. Submitted to Conservation Biology.

Holness, S.D, Bradshaw, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Garden Route.

Garden Route Initiative, SANParks.

Jackelman, J; Holness, S and Lechmere-Oertel, R (2008). The National Protected Area Expansion

Strategy (NPAES): A Framework for Implementation. Report compiled for South African

National Biodiversity Institute and National Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism,

Pretoria

Lombard, A.T., T. Wolf and N. Cole. 2003. GIS coverages and spatial analyses for the Subtropical

Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port

Elizabeth. TERU Report 42.

Lombard, A.T., Wolf, T. and T. Strauss (2004) GIS Specialist Services, Gouritz Initiative (GI). Prepared

for: Cape Nature

Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405.

Marsh, A, Desmet, P & Oosthuysen, E (2009). Namakwa District Managementity Biodiversity Sector

Plan, Version 2, February 2009. Northern Cape Province Department of Tourism, Environment

& Conservation (DTEC), Directorate: Policy Coordination and Environmental Planning,

Springbok

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., Reyers, B., Van Deventer, H., Smith-Adao, L. 2007. Protected Area

Expansion Strategy: Spatial assessment of river priorities. Final Report. CSIR Report

number CSIR/NRE/ECO/2007/0134/C.

Noss, R.F. (1990). "Indicators for monitoring biodiversity - a hierarchical approach." Conservation

Biology 4(4): 355-364.

Pasquini, L. 2007. Privately –owned lands and biodiversity conservation: analysing the role of Private

Conservation Areas in the Little Karoo, south Africa. University of Sheffield.

Pence, Genevieve Q.K. 2008 (in prep). C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Systematic Conservation Planning

Assessment: Technical Report. Produced for Cape Nature.

Reyers, B., P. J. O‟Farrell, R. M. Cowling, B. N. Egoh, D. C. Le Maitre and J. H. J. Vlok 2009. Ecosystem

services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid

biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society 14(1): 38. [online]

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, M.C., Midgley, G.F., Bond, W.J., Powrie, L.W., Roberts, R. and Allsopp N. (1999). South

African Country Study on Climate Change. Plant Biodiversity:vulnerability and Adaptation

Assessment. NBI.

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

SANBI (2008). Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: General Information. South African Biodiversity

Institute, Pretoria.

Scholes, R.J. & Biggs, R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434, 45-49

Skowno, A.L., Holness, S.D. and P.G. Desmet (2009) Biodiversity Assessment of the Central Karoo

District Managementity. DEADP Report EADP05/2008, 52 pages.

Thompson, M., J. Vlok, R. Cowling, S. Cundill and N. Mundau (2005). A land transformation map for

the Little Karoo. Pretoria, GeoterraImage (Pty) Ltd.

Vlok, J. H. J., R. M. Cowling and T. Wolf. 2005. A vegetation map for the Little Karoo. Unpublished

maps and report for a SKEP project supported by Grant No 1064410304. (Cape Town,

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund)

Vlok, J. And Reyers, B. Unpublished. Methods, Data, and Results for Determining the Representation

Targets of the Little Karoo

Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D., Job, N. and Brown, A.E. 2010. The Garden Route

Biodiversity Sector Plan for the George, Knysna and Bitou Municipalities. Supporting land-use

planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for

sustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. South African National Parks. Knysna.

Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S. D., Job, N. and Brown, A.E. 2010. The Garden Route

Biodiversity Sector Plan for the southern regions of the Kouga and Koukamma Municipalities.

Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and

Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. South

African National Parks. Knysna.


8 Appendix 1: GIS methods and technical notes

8.1 Planning Domain The planning domain for this study includes the whole of the Kannaland Local Municipality,

Oudtshoorn Local Municipality and the Eden District Management Area (DMA04) in which

the town of Uniondale is situated. The latest municipal boundaries (Municipal Demarcation

board 2008) were utilised. Many of the existing plans and data layers for the region follow

the Little Karoo Planning domain defined by Vlok et al. (2005) and refined by Reyers et al.

(2008). The Little Karoo Planning domain extends further west than this assessment and

covers an area of 1,9 million hectares as opposed to the 1,25 million covered by this

assessment (Figure A). Ecosystem Status and Protection level calculations were based on

the larger Little Karoo Planning area and its 371 vegetation units.

Figure A. showing the Little Karoo Planning Domain defined by Vlok et al. (2005) in relation

the planning domain of this study.

8.2 General All GIS analyses and processes were conducted by the authors in ESRI ARCGIS (9.3.1) ,

ARCVIEW (3.2) and IDRISI environments. The projection for all grids and shapefiles was set to

UTM 34 South described below:

Projected Coordinate System: WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_34S

Projection: Transverse_Mercator

False_Easting: 500000.00000000

False_Northing: 10000000.00000000

Central_Meridian: 21.00000000

Scale_Factor: 0.99960000

Latitude_Of_Origin: 0.00000000

Linear Unit: Meter

Geographic Coordinate System: GCS_WGS_1984

Datum: D_WGS_1984

Prime Meridian: Greenwich

Angular Unit: Degree


8.3 Table showing colours used in the Critical Biodiversity

Area Map

CODE NAME SOURCE DESCRIPTION NOTES FOR AV3.x

CBA Critical

biodiversity

area

CAPE Fine-

scale

Green

(67:128:0

RGB)

(hue:saturation:va

lue)

63:255:128

ESA Ecological

support area

Central

Karoo

Olive

(168:168:0

RGB)

PA Protected

area (formal)

CAPE Fine-

scale

Green (1:99:0

RGB) + black

45° , 0.5 lines

85:255:100

CA

Conservation

area

(informal)

Central

Karoo

Olive

(115:115:0

RGB) + black

45°, 0.5 lines

OTHER NAT Other natural

areas

CAPE Fine-

scale

White

TRANS Transformed

or converted

areas

CAPE Fine-

scale

Grey

(178:178:178

RGB)

8.4 Protected areas layer A protected area layer was developed for the planning domain based on existing Cape

Nature Protected Areas data set, Cape Nature Stewardship Sites data set, Informal

Conservation Ares in the NPAES (2008), and Private conservation areas Identified by

Pasquini (2007). Only Formal Protected Areas and contracted Cape Nature Stewardship

sites were considered as Protected Areas in the analysis. These sites are assumed to

contribute to meeting biodiversity targets, and as such are “hard wired” into the CBA Model

as PAs. Informal sites are not assumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets as there

is no guarantee in the long term that the biodiversity contained in them will be conserved.

8.5 Land cover model This project developed a simplified land cover based on a land cover map put together by

Kirkwood et al. (2009) (specifically the land cover designed for ecosystem status

calculations) as part of the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework (which in turn was based

on Thompson et al. 2005). The modifications made in this project include the addition of:

Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping 1:50 000 series data (roads and railways buffered by

15m; dams and quarries un-buffered; built up areas buffered by 100m); and agricultural

fields layer developed by GTI for Department agriculture. Some reclassification was

necessary: The DA fields layer is more accurate than the fields class of the Thompson data

set in delineating actual cultivated areas and old lands. The cultivated Class in this Land

Cover was based solely on the DA field layers. The areas classified as cultivated by

Thompson et al. (2005) that fall outside of the DA fields layer were reclassified as Severely

Degraded. This decision was based on desktop SPOT image investigation. Two levels of land

classification were developed based on Kirkwood et al. (2009)

The Land cover is available as shapefile or 10m resolution TIFF.


8.6 Biodiversity Features

8.6.1 Habitat model

The conservation planning process made use of the finescale vegetation map produced

by Jan Vlok (Vlok et al. 2005). This high quality vegetation map is based on a combination

of extensive field surveys during 2004, the subdivision of landscape into topogeomorphic

units hand drawn on 1:50 000 Landsat images and additional remote sensing interpretation.

A hierarchical classification system was used with vegetation units, nested within habitats

which are nested within biomes. In transformed areas, the pretransformation vegetation

was estimated and mapped based on surrounding vegetation and remaining patches. 235

vegetation types are found within the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and

Eden District Management Area (Uniondale) of the Little Karoo.

Targets were based on those defined for the Little Karoo study region using a systematic

approach (Vlok & Reyers Unpublished). Each target was derived using the slope of the

species-area curve (Desmet & Cowling 2004). This benefited habitats with greater species

heterogeneity. The percentage of species targeted for conservation was set at 75%.. The

targets were rescaled so that the target range was 16-34% as per the national standard.

These are given in the Excel Spreadsheet targets.xls.

A two stage approach to the identification of the priority areas for habitats was used :

1.) Area targets were set based on the original extent of each habitat within the planning

area combined with the percentage target. The available natural areas of each

habitat type were made available for selection. Targets could be not be met for 14

types:

a. Calitzdorp Gravel Apronveld

b. Doornkloof Gannaveld

c. Eensaamheid Renosterveld

d. Elandsvlei Gwarrieveld

e. Gourits Asbos-Gwarrieveld

f. Greylands Apronveld

g. Grootkop Apronveld

h. Kruisrivier Gannaveld

i. Langkloof Renosterveld

j. Oudtshoorn Gannaveld

k. Rooirivier Apronveld

l. Vanwyksdorp Gravel Apronveld

m. Volmoed Gannaveld

n. Witvlakte Arid Spekboomveld

2.) For these vegetation types a second “shadow” feature was added in which included

both natural and degraded areas of that vegetation type. The same target was used

for this feature. Both the original feature (with natural areas only) and the “shadow

feature” (with natural and degraded areas) were included within the analysis. The

consequence of this is that natural areas are always selected first (as they are required

to meet the targets for both the original feature and the “shadow feature”, and that the

additional area required to meet the remaining target would then be met in degraded

areas.

Landcover

Level 1 Level 2

Natural Natural

Near Natural - Alien invasive plants

Near Natural - Moderately Degraded

Unknown

No Natural No Natural Agric

No Natural Dam

No Natural Urban

No Natural - Other

Degraded Severely Degraded


8.6.2 Nationally listed threatened ecosystems

Vegetation types that will be listed at threatened under NEMBA were obtained from SANBI.

The boundaries of these units are based on the National Vegetation Map. These were

trimmed to their remaining untransformed extent and these areas were included as features

in the conservation assessment. For Critically Endangered vegetation types 100% of both

natural and degraded areas were targeted for selection, while for other types only natural

areas were made available and targets were based on the original extent of each

vegetation type within the planning domain:

Name Status Target

%

Eastern Coastal

Shale Band

Vegetation

Vulnerable 27

Eastern Little

Karoo

Vulnerable 16

Kango

Limestone

Renosterveld

Vulnerable 29

Langkloof Shale

Renosterveld

Critically Endangered 100

Montagu Shale

Renosterveld

Vulnerable 29

Muscadel Riviere Critically Endangered 100

8.6.3 Special plant species

Critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable plant species records from Cape

Nature and CREW Databases. The locations of threatened plant species (Critically

Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) were buffered by 250m. Existing datasets

provided by Don Kirkwood and John Gallo were combined with data provided by CREW.

Only Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species were included from the

CREW records, with Data Deficient, Least Concern and “No Status” records being removed.

From the John Gallo datasets (largely derived from CapeNature records), records with “low

level of concern” statuses similar to those listed above were removed from the dataset, as

were records with poor location accuracy (e.g. records tied to “nearest minute”, centroids

of farms etc). The above three datasets were combined, and trimmed to the remaining

natural and degraded area.

Specific species data are not provided in this dataset, as certain elements of the CREW

dataset are potentially sensitive. Should a site be identified as having potential special

species, the CREW dataset should be directly queried to find specific details of the species

concerned.

A 100% target was set for remaining natural areas and degraded areas with potential

special plant species to ensure that these areas all fall within CBAs .

8.6.4 Forest patches

Forest patches from Cape Nature (Kirkwood pers com). An 30% target was used for these

areas to ensure that they were largely included in CBAs without forcing in all small

fragments. This analysis was redundant as all areas were already within existing protected

areas.

8.6.5 Quartz patches

Quartz areas were derived from two datasets. Quartz patches from Cape Nature (Kirkwood

pers com) were combined with the quartz vegetation types from the Little Karoo vegetation


map. These areas were trimmed to their remaining natural extent. Quartz patches are also

included within the areas prioritized by the Gouritz assessment (Lombard et al, 2004).

A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure that they were included in CBAs without

forcing in all fragments.

8.6.6 Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Expert areas

The Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust plant expert survey (Desmet, 2006) contains the results of

a survey of 16 Succulent Karoo plant experts (38 respondents were originally identified and

approached) who were asked to map the most important areas for conservation in the

Succulent Karoo. The survey was conducted in 2005 as part of a study commission by the

WWF to assess conservation priorities in the Succulent Karoo. Criteria for mapping areas

included: Areas rich with endemic plant species or unique habitats; Good representative

area of the general habitats and vegetation of the surrounding area; Area is under threat

from some activity and if not conserved will be lost.

The expert group identified 134 areas within the Succulent Karoo as being important for

conservation covering an area of 1.17 Million hectares or 9.7% of the core Succulent Karoo

biome. The distribution of expert mapped areas is overwhelmingly skewed towards areas in

Namaqualand with only a handful identified in Central Karoo planning domain.

Targets were set based on the original extent of each expert area:

0-1000ha 80% target

1000-5000ha 50% target

5000-10000ha 40% target

10000ha+ 20% target

8.6.7 John Gallo Expert areas ( including inputs from Jan Vlok)

John Gallo recently completed a conservation planning tool and assessment of priority

areas for reserves and stewardship within the Little Karoo (Gallo et al, in press). Expert

identified areas included habitats with high endemism and richness of succulents and

identified priority sites identified by Jan Vlok. Areas above a threshold value of 0.5 were

extracted from the above datasets. These areas were clipped to their remaining natural

extent. A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure that they were included in CBAs

without forcing in all fragments.

8.6.8 Priority areas from the STEP and SKEP Conservation Assessments

Features were extracted from the STEP and SKEP conservation assessments

High irreplaceability areas from the Succulent Karoo assessment (SKEP) were included. A

20% target was used for the CBA run.

Process areas were included from the thicket assessment (STEP). These were the river

and biome process areas. A 20% targets were used fro these features in the CBA run.

The remaining natural extent of these features were included within the conservation

assessment. Low targets were used in the Little Karoo assessment as more modern analyses

were available and the intention was to slightly skew the selection into these areas rather

than forcing selection. Note that components of the STEP assessment such a the Mega

Conservancy Corridors are included via the “Gouritz Priorities” detailed below.

8.6.9 Succulent Karoo Priorities

Priority areas identified within the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust assessment (Desmet, 2006)

were included as features. Any site with a Marxan score of greater than 25 was included. A

30% target was used.


8.6.10 Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support

Areas

Priority areas identified within the Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological

Support Areas assessment process that overlapped into the planning domain were included

(Holness et al, 2010; Vromans et al, 2010a, Vromans et al, 2010b). A target of 30% of these

areas was used.

8.6.11 East Cape Priorities

Priority sub-catchments identified as CBAs within the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Assessment

(Berliner & Desmet, 2007) were included as features where these extended into the CKDM.

A target of 30% of the remaining intact area was used.

8.7 Aquatic features

8.7.1 Priority Rivers and Catchments

Outputs of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area assessment (NFEPA) which is

currently being completed (Nel et al, in prep) were incorporated. This project identifies the

most important rivers, river catchment and wetlands for meeting freshwater biodiversity

targets and conserving ecological processes.

The project identified Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) which are the freshwater

equivalent of a Critical Biodiversity Area, and Freshwater Ecosystem Support Areas (FESAs)

which are the freshwater equivalent of Ecological Support Areas. These are identified at a

national scale and require some finescaling before they can be incorporated into a Critical

Biodiversity Area map:

• FEPA priority catchments were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and

this was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with a target of

70%. Any intact FEPA area that was not selected as a CBA in the assessment

was included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to

ensure that the catchment was sufficiently protected.

• FESA support area catchments were trimmed to their remaining natural extent

and this was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with a

target of 30% of original area.

• FEPA priority river reaches and a buffer of 500m on either side were trimmed

to their remaining natural extent and this was included as a feature in the

conservation assessment with a target of 70%. Any intact FEPA river reach

area that was not selected as a CBA in the assessment was included in the

second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure that the

catchment was sufficiently protected.

• FESA support area river reaches and a buffer of 500m on either side were

trimmed to their remaining natural extent and this was included as a feature

in the conservation assessment with a target of 30% of original area. Any

intact FESPA river reach area that was not selected as a CBA in the

assessment was included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological

Support Area to ensure that the catchment was sufficiently protected.

8.7.2 Additional rivers

From a process perspective, it is not just the nationally selected rivers which are important. A

river buffer layer developed by Don Kirkwood which buffered the larger (above 2nd order)

1:50 000 rivers by 100m and the smaller rivers by 30m was included as a compulsory part of

the Ecological Support Area layer in the second conservation run.


8.7.3 Wetlands and pans

Cape Nature sensitive wetlands layer (Shaw 2007) combined with the NFEPA wetland layer

(see above) were clipped to Planning Domain, and a unique ID was assigned to each

wetland. The Wetlands were then buffered by 500m and the percentage transformation

and degradation around each wetland was calculated using zonal statistics (ARCGIS9.2),

this attribute was then joined to the original wetland layer. Wetlands with more than 30% of

their buffer area transformed or degraded were considered to be in a poor ecological

state.

The wetlands were clipped to remaining natural and degraded areas and included as a

feature in the MARXAN run with a target of 30%. Any natural wetland not selected as a CBA

was included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure that

wetlands are sufficiently protected.

8.8 Ecosystem status Ecosystem status calculations are based on a union between the vegetation,

transformation and protected areas layers. A pivot table was used in Excel to calculate per

vegetation type summary statistics of transformation, degradation and protection.

Separate ecosystem status calculations were performed using transformation only and

transformation and degradation together. The Status of the habitat types is summarized in

Appendix 2.

8.9 Protection Level and Urgency Protection level is calculated as the percentage biodiversity target achievement by the

protected area network for each vegetation type. Protection urgency is based on

irreplaceability of the remaining unfragmented areas of that vegetation type that are

available to meet PA targets. The union between vegetation types, transformation and

protected areas described in the ecosystem status methods above was used to calculate

protection summary statistics. (full details for each vegetation type in Appendix 2)

8.10 Climate change and corridors

8.10.1 High priority unfragmented landscapes

Unfragmented areas play an important role in climate change adaptation as they allow

relatively unrestricted movement of species across the landscape, which ensures that they

can adapt naturally to climate change. Further, these large areas represent landscapes

where a range of ecological processes that require extensive areas (e.g. habitat for wide

ranging scavengers such as Brown Hyaena) can either currently operate or where there is

reasonable potential for these processes to be reinstated.

The National Protected Areas Expansion Conservation Assessment (Holness 2008) identified

high priority unfragmented areas that if protected would contribute most to meeting

national terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets. The areas identified are all over

5000ha in size. Every attempt should be made to avoid an activity that results in the

fragmentation of these areas.

A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure preferential selection of other biodiversity

features in these areas without forcing the whole area into the plan.

8.10.2 Riparian corridors

River corridors represent important linkages across the landscape, particularly in arid and

poorly differentiated habitats. In addition to the other river and aquatic features included in

the plan, it was important to ensure that all major riparian corridor areas were included to

ensure that the linkages important for climate change adaptation were protected.


The DWAF 1:500 000 rivers layer was used as the basis for the assessment. Rivers were

buffered as follows:

3rd order and larger rivers 1000m

2nd order rivers 500m

All remaining rivers 250m

All intact natural areas within these riparian corridors were targeted as Critical Biodiversity

Areas with 100% target set. A 100% target for both natural and transformed areas for these

rivers was set for the second run, ie. they were fully included in the Ecological Support Areas

category.

8.10.3 Topographic variability

Areas of potential climate change resilience and climate refuges based on a multi-scale

modeled assessment of landscapes of high topographic diversity. These topographically

diverse areas are important for a number of reasons:

The representation of rare or unique features that are not encountered more

widely in the landscape;

Associated with keystone ecological process features such as inselbergs, cliff

faces, springs and caves;

Are an important refuge habitat in the face of climate change; and

These areas also include important altitude, temperature and moisture

gradients which need to be protected to allow climate change adaptation.

The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model was used as the basis for the assessment.

This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the following method:

The data were filtered at a variety of scales: 7x7, 15x15, 25x25, 45x45 pixels;

A standard deviation was calculated at each scale;

Areas with a top quartile SD at any of these scales were classified as having high

topographic variability; and

A combined multi-scale layer of areas of high topographic variability was produced

by combining these layers. Small areas were removed (>100ha).

A 30% target for these areas was set for the first CBA run, while the remaining unselected

areas were included as Ecological Support Areas if they were not transformed.

8.10.4 South-facing slopes

South facing slopes represent important climate change refuges. These areas are likely to

serve as refuge habitats during period of temperature increase and moisture decrease as

they naturally have lower temperatures and higher moisture levels that the general

landscape.

The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model was used as the basis for the assessment.

This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the following method:

Areas with a south facing aspect were identified using IDRISI modelling tools (aspect

of between 110° and 250°);

Areas of a slope of 10° or greater were identified using IDRISI modelling tools;

These two layers were intersected to identify areas with steep south facing slopes;

The layer was clipped to the remaining natural extent; and

Small areas were removed (>100ha).


A 30% target for these larger intact south facing was set for the first CBA run.

8.10.5 Kloof model

Kloofs are an important habitat for biodiversity for a variety of reasons:

The representation of rare or unique features that are not encountered more widey

in the landscape;

Associated with keystone ecological process features such as springs and caves;

and

Are an important refuge habitat in the face of climate change.

A simplified model was developed for identifying kloofs, which concentrates on finding

steep slopes in close proximity to streams. The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model

was used as the basis for the assessment. This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the

following method:

Areas of a slope of 15° or greater were identified using IDRISI modelling tools;

The larger rivers (above 2nd order) from a river buffer layer developed by Don

Kirkwood which buffered the larger 1:50 000 rivers by 100m, were buffered by an

additional 150m to give a total buffer of 250m on each side of larger rivers. This

footprint which was defined as “close proximity to a river” was imported into IDRISI;

The layers were intersected;

The layer was clipped to the remaining natural extent; and

Small areas were removed (>100ha).

A 30% target for these areas was set for the first CBA run, while the remaining unselected

areas were included as Ecological Support Areas.

8.10.6 Existing corridors from the Gouritz Initiative

The Gouritz Initiative developed a set of priority process areas to support long term

ecological processes in the region. These identified process areas form the backbone of the

process component of the CBA layer, and attempts were made to include this layer as fully

as possible within the constraints of producing an efficient CBA solution. These identified

areas included the STEP Megaconservancy Network, identified mountain corridors,

connecting areas important for nectavores, quartz patch related processes, and the core

Gouritz north-south corridor. These components of the Gouritz plan were trimmed to their

remaining natural extent and were included into the MARXAN run with a 60% target.

Remaining unselected areas were included with a 100% target in the second run (i.e. they

are fully included as Ecological Support Areas).

8.10.7 Alignment with adjacent conservation plans

Corridors are worthless if the don‟t go anywhere. Fortunately, conservation plans have been

undertaken for almost all the areas surrounding the Little Karoo. Priority corridors and

adjacent CBA areas were collated from the adjacent 6 systematic conservation plans:

Central Karoo District FSBP;

Winelands DMA FSBP;

Hessequa FSBP;

Mosselbay FSBP;

Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas; and

East Cape Province Biodiversity Conservation Plan.

The linkages were identified and then included as features in the Little Karoo MARXAN run.

Targets of 80% were set for the linkage areas.


8.11 Non-Biodiversity Alignment layers

8.11.1 Important Natural Viewsheds

The CSIR ecosystem services project developed a viewshed layer of areas within the Little Karoo

that are highly visible from known tourism access routes. High value areas (above a score of 5)

were selected from this layer. These areas were clipped to remaining natural areas to define a

“High visibility natural areas” layer. This was included as a feature in the conservation planning run

with a 30% target to prioritize areas where intact biodiversity may be contributing to tourism in the

area (Reyers et al. 2008).

8.12 Cost Layers

8.12.1 Landcover model

The landcover model was used as part of the cost surface. See 8.14.4

8.13 Restoration / Rehabilitation model Potential thicket restoration areas were generated using STEP (2001) vegetation,

Thompson‟s 2005 landcover and distance to settlements data (CDSM) by CSIR team in CEPF

funded project in 2008 (Forsyth et.al 2008).

8.14 Technical methods used in the assessment

8.14.1 Planning Units

Hexagon planning units of 25ha size were used as the base planning units.

8.14.2 Biodiversity Features and Targets

Targets for habitat types followed Vlok et al. 2005, Reyers et al. 2008 and Gallo et al (in

press) . Targets for other features were set based on those used in other similar plans, as well

as the underlying nature of the feature. For example, remaining natural and degraded

areas of Critically Endangered habitat listed under NEM:BA were given a 100% target to

ensure that they were reflected in the final CBA map, while more notional features such as

high priority quarter degree squares from the SKEP assessment or modelled areas important

for climate change adaptation were given far lower targets to encourage preferential

selection of these areas without forcing them into the plan. High targets were set for

selected priority river catchments and river reaches from the aquatic assessment as these

were required to form the backbone of the conservation design. The targets are detailed in

the individual descriptions of features in the preceding chapter.

8.14.3 Software methods

A similar planning process was used to that of that used in the Central Karoo and Garden

Route to ensure optimal alignment between these adjacent plans and to facilitate user

understanding of these plans. A two step optimization approach to systematic conservation

planning was undertaken making use of MARXAN. This approach has the advantage of

allowing an efficient network to be identified (i.e. one which uses the least possible space to

achieve its targets and also minimizes cost to other sectors) as well as to promote the

identification of a network which is sensible from an ecological point of view (the approach

strongly favours connected and adjacent areas, and allows preferential meeting of targets

in priority catchments and areas important for climate change resilience). MARXAN was

also used to integrate the corridors and selected areas with those CBA and corridor areas

from the adjacent conservation plans.

8.14.4 Planning Unit Cost

A cost surface was prepared based on the integrated transformation and degradation

layer. Highest costs were associated with transformed areas, and lowest costs with natural

areas. Natural areas received a base cost of 1 unit, near natural areas were 3 units,


degraded areas had a cost of 10 units, rural transformed areas (agricultural fields, dams

etc) had a cost of 100 and urban areas a cost of 500 units. These were summarised for the

planning units based on an area weighted mean. In addition, identified stewardship sites

within the Pasquini 2007 protected area layer were discounted by 50% to allow for

preferential selection of these areas.

High costs for not meeting targets (“spf” values) were assigned to features that needed to

be fixed into the plan design while lower costs were associated with features where there

was less risk associated with not fully meeting the targets or where features existed which

needed to guide but not force the conservation planning algorithm.

Remaining extent of biodiversity features (i.e. the area available for selection) were

identified using the transformed classes in the compiled landcover. Degraded areas were

still available for selection for some features such as endangered and critically endangered

habitats but were strongly avoided where possible.

8.14.5 Ecological Support Areas

Ecological Support Areas were then identified by increasing the targets for selected process

features (such as the remaining areas of high priority catchments, riverine corridors and climate

change adaptation areas) to an effective 100%, which forces these areas into the conservation

plan. For this second iteration (in addition to the MARXAN based integration), the exact selected

features were used in the selection.

8.14.6 CBA Lookup Table

It is important that the users of the CBA and ESA layer can quickly and easily identify why a

specific area was selected within the conservation plan. The use of MARXAN as an optimizing

tool invariably means that selected planning units were prioritized on the basis of a range of

underlying features found within the unit. One negative consequence of the methodology is

that it is sometimes difficult to pin-point the specific feature that resulted in the selection of the

planning unit, as all features present will be contributing to meeting targets. Nevertheless, it is

important when dealing with development applications that as good an idea of possible of the

specific features found at a site are known to the person scrutinizing the application. Therefore a

simplified look-up table or layer was created to show at a glance what the major features

present at a site are and hence contributed most to its selection. It should be emphasized that

this table is designed to allow quick and easy understanding of the over-all plan and give a

reasonably robust feature list for a site, and not a comprehensive listing of the specific features.

The shapefile is designed to allow the user to select or query any polygon. The table has the

following fields:

CBA category: This gives the CBA category for the polygon. It indicates whether the

polygon is a Formal Protected Area, a Conservation Area, a Critical Biodiversity Area or an

Ecological Support Area.

Objective: This field outlines the management objective for the land parcel. This relates to

either maintaining ecological patterns or processes.

Habitat: This field indicates areas where the remaining intact habitat within that planning

unit is contributing significantly to targets. Habitats are indicated as contributing to best

design if this was likely to be a major reason why the polygon was selected.

Aquatic features: These are areas where developments should be carefully screened to

ensure no major impact on the rivers, their riparian corridors and wetlands are likely.

Specials: This field indicates if threatened species are likely to occur at the site. Polygons are

indicated as “Potential threatened species” .

Expert: These are areas identified within the various expert layers included in the

conservation plan. Polygons are flagged as having “Potential occurrence of expert

identified special feature” and this will relate to a feature such as a quartz patch, area of

high value for succulents, or a forest.

PlanPriori: These areas are the sites that were identified in other conservation plans as

important. They are likely to include possible important habitats, for example those

identified in the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Assessment. Note that the Gouritz corridors are

indicated in the "Process" category rather than here.


Catch: This indicates priority catchments and are areas where special attention needs to

be given to avoiding major impacts on hydrological processes and aquatic features.

Process: These are all the climate change process, corridor and linkage areas, important

both for links within the district and to adjacent areas. These areas include potential climate

refugia, and are flagged as “Maintain ecological processes and linkages especially for

climate change”.

Threatened: These are threatened habitats listed under NEMBA.

Unfrag: These are important unfragmented areas which potentially contribute significantly

to the climate change resilience of the area. Developments which result in these areas

being fragmented should be avoided.

9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005)


Vegetation Unit

Total

Extent

Natural

Extent

No Natural

Extent

Degraded

Extent

TARGET

(%)

Eco-

Status

Protection

Level

Protection

Urgency

Aardvark Quartz Gannaveld 16 11 0 5 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Adamskraal Gwarrieveld 6,348 5,683 40 625 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Algerynskraal Gannaveld 666 340 106 220 23 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Algerynskraal Gravel Apronveld 644 503 18 123 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Allemorgens Kalkveld 21 21

28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Anysberg Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 755 744 11


Anysberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 4,311 4,311


Anysberg Mesic Proteid Fynbos 586 586


Anysberg Perennial Stream 144 140 0 3 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Anysberg Renosterveld 2,046 1,953 88 5 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Assegaaibosch Arid Spekboomveld 1,548 1,532 14 2 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Attaquas Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,563 1,558 5


Barandas Arid Spekboomveld 13,880 12,249 125 1,506 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Bellair Quartz Apronveld 1,830 1,799 1 30 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Bellair Quartz Gannaveld 1,220 1,149 8 63 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Bergplaas Sandolien-Renosterveld 800 706 19 75 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Bergplaas Waboom-Thicket 3,910 2,552 75 1,283 25 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Biljetsfontein Apronveld 2,178 1,512 281 385 34 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Blossoms Asbos-Gwarrieveld 45,207 15,343 11,972 17,893 25 EN Very Poorly Protected Medium urgency

Boerbonefontein Pruimveld 3,393 2,212 31 1,151 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Boerboonleegte Gannaveld 433 358 10 66 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Bosluiskloof Grassy Fynbos 230 220

9 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Brakrivier Gannaveld 2,456 2,007 102 347 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Brandrivier Renoster-Gwarrieveld 5 5

27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Buffels Arid Spekboomveld 7,514 6,059 40 1,415 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Buffels River & floodplain 7,452 2,456 2,749 2,247 27 EN Partially Protected Medium urgency

Calitzdorp Arid Spekboomveld 6,166 5,960 121 85 22 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Calitzdorp Gannaveld 4,269 1,157 68 3,045 23 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Calitzdorp Gravel Apronveld 9,078 2,994 1,616 4,468 34 CR Poorly Protected High urgency

Calitzdorp Valley Spekboomveld 14,142 10,838 125 3,179 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Cango Renoster-Thicket 32,440 12,901 2,271 17,268 27 EN Very Poorly Protected Medium urgency

Central Swartberg Perennial stream 12,468 9,946 1,446 1,075 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

De Rust Sandolien-Spekboomveld 17,157 13,619 2,483 1,055 27 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

De Vlugt Forest-Waboomveld 862 851 6 5 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

De Vlugt Sandolien-Renosterveld 1,198 637 379 182 26 VU Partially Protected Low urgency

Doornboom Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 2,101 2,062

39 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Doornkloof Gannaveld 34 4 3 27 23 EN PA Target Met Fully protected

Doornkloof Gwarrieveld 2,482 2,165 22 296 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Doornrivier Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 7,059 6,154 596 309 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Doringrivier Arid Proteoid Fynbos 824 824




Vegetation Unit

Total

Extent

Natural

Extent

No Natural

Extent

Degraded

Extent

TARGET

(%)

Eco-

Status

Protection

Level

Protection

Urgency

Doringrivier Waboomveld 1,695 1,693 1 0 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Dwars-in-die-weg Pruimveld 2,452 2,350 14 88 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Dwars-in-die-weg Sandolienveld 6,233 6,081 33 119 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Eastern Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 3,913 3,509


Eastern Swartberg Grassy Fynbos 6,134 6,101


Eastern Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 7,786 7,786


Eensaamheid Renosterveld 7,638 443 6,110 1,085 32 CR PA Target Met Critically urgent

Elandsvlei Gwarrieveld 1,194 107 899 188 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent

E-Langeberg Perennial Stream 199 198 1

27 LT Completely Unprotected Fully protected

Eyerpoort Quartz Apronveld 230 227 3

33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Eyerpoort Quartz Gannaveld 489 458 3 28 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Fouriesberg Renoster-Sandolienveld 9,286 6,922 1,227 1,137 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Fouriesberg Waboomveld 6,482 6,342 78 63 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Gamka River & floodplain 5,727 2,590 2,361 776 27 VU PA Target Met Fully protected

Gamkaberg Grassy Fynbos 602 602


Gamkaberg Sandolienveld 624 471 6 146 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Gamkaberg Waboom-Grassy Fynbos 6,798 6,792 1 5 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Gamkaberg Waboom-Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,145 1,145


Gamkaberg Waboomveld 3,924 3,924


Gamkaskloof Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 378 374


Gamkaskloof Arid Proteoid Fynbos 862 853 8


Gamkaskloof Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 68 65 3


Georgida Arid Spekboomveld 3,420 3,187 100 132 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Gourits Asbos-Gwarrieveld 5,886 1,865 480 3,541 25 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Gouritsrivier River & floodplain 3,911 2,767 244 900 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Gouritsrivier Sandolien-Ruigtewoud 2,712 838 455 1,418 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Greylands Apronveld 6,918 785 697 5,436 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent

Groenefontein Gravel Apronveld 651 411 12 228 34 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Groot River & floodplain 7,478 4,902 923 1,653 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Groot Spekboomveld 161 146 7 9 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Groot Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 38 37 1


Groot Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 19,602 19,579 9 14 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Groot Swartberg perennial stream-north 19 19


Groot Swartberg Subalpine Fynbos 3,604 3,587 9 8 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Groot Swartberg Waboomveld 6,792 6,721 17 54 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Grootkop Apronveld 9,935 1,398 4,055 4,483 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent

Grootkop Arid Spekboomveld 16,275 15,134 553 588 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Grootrivier Gannaveld 2,121 1,215 59 847 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Haarlem Fynbos-Renosterveld 9,203 5,567 2,681 956 31 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Hartbeesvlakte Asbos-Gwarrieveld 348 111 138 99 25 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency



Vegetation Unit

Total

Extent

Natural

Extent

No Natural

Extent

Degraded

Extent

TARGET

(%)

Eco-

Status

Protection

Level

Protection

Urgency

Hartbeesvlakte Fynbos-Spekboomveld 4,820 4,812 1 6 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Hartbeesvlakte Gannaveld 2,514 1,407 48 1,060 23 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Hartbeesvlakte Sandolien-Renosterveld 14,668 13,947 437 284 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Hartbeesvlakte Spekboomveld 5,718 5,262 81 375 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Hermanuskraal Quartz Gannaveld 114 71 8 35 32 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Herold Renoster-Sandolienveld 3,072 1,094 1,710 268 28 EN Poorly Protected Medium urgency

Hondewater Randteveld 569 461 0 108 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kamanassie Arid Proteoid Fynbos 4,762 4,751 9 1 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kamanassie Arid Restioid Fynbos 3,748 3,724 4 19 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kamanassie Grassy Fynbos 6,009 5,897 53 59 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kamanassie Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 9,024 8,976 47 1 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kamanassie northern Perennial Stream 2,497 2,463 28 7 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kamanassie Perennial Stream 3,874 3,642 108 124 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kamanassie Subalpine Fynbos 818 818


Kamanassie Waboomveld 30,003 27,405 1,721 877 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kandelaars Arid Spekboomveld 16,922 16,145 415 363 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kandelaars Gannaveld 1,622 1,096 243 283 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kareebosch Apronveld 1,145 1,066 44 35 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kareebosch Randteveld 2,081 2,035 35 11 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kareevlakte Quartz Gannaveld 556 389 29 138 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Keurbooms River & Perennial Streams 6,974 6,353 367 254 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Keurbosch Arid Spekboomveld 5,259 5,120 22 117 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Keurbosch Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 1,172 1,164 1 7 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Klein Swartberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 2,791 2,785


Klein Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 419 419


Klein Swartberg Grassy Fynbos 6,129 6,121 0 8 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Klein Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 15,372 15,370


Klein Swartberg Perennial Stream 1,335 1,088 198 49 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Klein Swartberg Subalpine Fynbos 849 849


Klein Swartberg Waboomveld 1,530 1,481 23 25 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Klipgat Apronveld 9,738 9,470 125 142 34 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Koeniekuils Apronveld 7 7


Koeniekuils Gannaveld 17,489 11,942 518 5,029 23 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Koenieleegte Randteveld 4,095 3,269 13 813 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Koenieleegte Scholtzbosveld 2,432 799 23 1,610 16 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Kouga Arid Proteoid Fynbos 9,844 9,584 151 109 33 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Kouga Asbos-Renosterveld 1,435 1,284 124 27 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kouga Grassy Fynbos 19,425 19,028 234 163 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kouga Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 25,492 25,197 189 106 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kouga Perennial Stream 8,699 7,209 1,105 385 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected



Vegetation Unit

Total

Extent

Natural

Extent

No Natural

Extent

Degraded

Extent

TARGET

(%)

Eco-

Status

Protection

Level

Protection

Urgency

Kouga Sandolien-Renosterveld 4,793 4,273 397 124 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kouga Subalpine Fynbos 1,355 1,354


Kruisrivier Arid Spekboomveld 3,657 3,279 174 204 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kruisrivier Gannaveld 2,440 457 19 1,964 23 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency

Kruisrivier Renoster-Sandolienveld 3,155 2,206 698 251 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kruisrivier Sandolien-Spekboomveld 3,246 3,059 90 97 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kruisrivier Spekboom-Pruimveld 29,424 27,089 1,103 1,232 24 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Kruisrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 2,505 2,040 247 218 31 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Kruisrivier Waboom-Thicket 5,612 2,728 57 2,827 25 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Kwessie Arid Spekboomveld 1,174 859 10 306 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Ladismith Arid Spekboomveld 11,024 9,353 283 1,388 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Ladismith Fynbos-Sandolienveld 1,255 1,039 3 213 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Ladismith Gannaveld 7,270 3,944 142 3,184 23 VU PA Target Met Fully protected

Ladismith Sandolien-Renosterveld 4,353 3,782 386 186 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Langkloof Renosterveld 5,930 1,480 3,810 640 34 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency

Leeublad Sandolien-Renosterveld 21,703 11,818 7,167 2,719 26 VU Poorly Protected Low urgency

Lemoenshoek Gannaveld 350 102 5 243 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Matjiesrivier Arid Proteoid Fynbos 1,061 1,051


Matjiesrivier Asbos-Renosterveld 2,291 823 1,145 324 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Matjiesrivier Sandolienveld 3,132 2,180 765 188 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Matjiesrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 5,039 4,836


Matjiesvlei Sandolien-Thicket 2,620 2,199 74 348 27 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Meiringspoort Spekboom Thicket 362 356 5 2 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Meiringspoort Waboomveld 1,629 1,596 1 32 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Mistkraal Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 3,110 3,086 3 20 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Mistkraal Gwarrieveld 2,119 2,035 21 63 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Mons Ruber Waboom-Thicket 10,477 8,718 285 1,474 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Nooitgedacht Gwarrieveld 4,399 1,798 47 2,555 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Noukloof Arid Spekboomveld 10,532 9,293 751 488 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Ockertskraal Arid Spekboomveld 32,411 20,221 138 12,052 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Ockertskraal Quartz Apronveld 1,629 1,544 55 30 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Ockertskraal Randteveld 6,493 6,042 36 415 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Olifants River & floodplain 48,227 22,666 14,842 10,719 27 VU Poorly Protected Medium urgency

Opsoek Asbos-Thicket 370 188 49 133 24 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Ortmansgat Randteveld 2,110 1,786 37 287 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Oudtshoorn Gannaveld 9,980 733 6,525 2,722 23 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent

Oudtshoorn Scholtzbosveld 1,623 638 11 974 16 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Outeniqua Perennial Stream 6,012 3,170 1,953 889 28 VU PA Target Met Fully protected

Outeniqua Waboomveld 7,572 5,564 1,253 756 33 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Paardeberg Fynbos-Sandolienveld 2,832 1,759 658 415 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency



Vegetation Unit

Total

Extent

Natural

Extent

No Natural

Extent

Degraded

Extent

TARGET

(%)

Eco-

Status

Protection

Level

Protection

Urgency

Paardeberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 486 486


Paardebont Fynbos-Sandolienveld 1,036 598 183 255 28 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Perdefontein Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 906 890 4 13 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Pietslaagte Apronveld 10,724 8,125 473 2,126 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Pietslaagte Arid Spekboomveld 16,650 15,807 199 643 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Pietslaagte Asbos-Gwarrieveld 17,380 15,536 775 1,068 25 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Plathuis Randteveld 9,905 9,605 33 267 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Poortfontein Randteveld 3,554 2,731 13 810 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Potjiesrivier Waboomveld 14,152 12,315 1,430 407 33 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Prinspoort Arid Gwarrieveld 1,577 1,476 57 44 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Prinspoort Pruimveld 3,203 2,954 78 171 25 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Ratelfontein Gannaveld 732 637 1 94 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Request Quartz Apronveld 49 13 0 36 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Request Quartz Gannaveld 583 469 38 76 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Request Randteveld 1,295 957 7 330 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Rooiberg Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 3,062 3,062


Rooiberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 3,789 3,789


Rooiberg Arid Restioid Fynbos 6,357 6,345 7 6 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Rooiberg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 6,788 6,670 4 114 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Rooiberg Grassy Fynbos 2,219 2,219


Rooiberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 10,033 10,033


Rooiberg Perennial Stream 2,068 2,006 22 40 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Rooiberg Subalpine Fynbos 51 51


Rooiberg Waboomveld 4,946 4,938 8


Rooirivier Apronveld 1,582 452 246 884 34 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency

Rouxpos Gwarrieveld 209 196 1 12 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Rouxpos Randteveld 834 749 5 81 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Saffraanrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 3,409 2,028 497 884 31 VU Poorly Protected Low urgency

Sandberg Arid Restioid Fynbos 6,625 6,564 7 55 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Sandberg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 3,822 3,816 0 5 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Sandkraal Gwarrieveld 2,066 1,944 7 114 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Seweweekspoort Perennial Stream 3,501 2,269 738 494 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Seweweekspoort Waboomveld 1,010 1,001 1 7 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Snyberg Gravel Apronveld 1,866 1,217 180 469 34 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Snyberg Gwarrieveld 1,087 707 118 262 27 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Stompdrift Arid Spekboomveld 9,030 8,312 528 190 26 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Stormberg Randteveld 524 428 1 96 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Swartberg Renosterveld 2,916 2,332 370 215 34 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Tafelberg Renoster-Sandolienveld 6,231 5,625 277 329 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Touws River & floodplain 6,060 3,692 1,014 1,354 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected



Vegetation Unit

Total

Extent

Natural

Extent

No Natural

Extent

Degraded

Extent

TARGET

(%)

Eco-

Status

Protection

Level

Protection

Urgency

Touws River Pruimveld 1,299 1,296 0 2 25 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Touwsberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 2,371 2,357 2 11 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Touwsberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,700 1,700

32 LT Completely Unprotected High urgency

Touwsberg perennial stream 106 96 10

28 LT Completely Unprotected Critically urgent

Touwsfontein Randteveld 2,135 2,066 15 54 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Touwsfontein Scholtzbosveld 1,034 1,008 13 13 16 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Toverwater Sandolien-Spekboomveld 9,793 9,195 88 510 27 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Tsitsikamma Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 18,098 17,896 85 117 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Tsitsikamma Perennial Stream 3,182 2,662 342 178 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Uniondale Asbos-Renosterveld 17,324 8,389 6,607 2,328 27 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Uniondale Waboom-Renosterveld 8,530 5,299 2,264 967 31 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Vaalhoek Arid Spekboomveld 12,399 11,848 121 430 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency

Van Zylsdamme Gannaveld 730 207 306 217 23 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Vanwyksdorp Arid Spekboomveld 4,804 4,313 236 256 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Vanwyksdorp Gravel Apronveld 266 82 28 157 34 CR Partially Protected Medium urgency

Visgat Apronveld 101 95 6


Vlakteplaas Gannaveld 4,102 1,763 1,136 1,203 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Volmoed Arid Spekboomveld 5,535 5,405 9 121 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Volmoed Gannaveld 6,712 1,103 3,853 1,756 23 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency

Voorsorg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 7,689 7,499 76 114 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Vrede Arid Gwarrieveld 1,194 1,194 0


Vrede Randteveld 2,400 2,331 8 61 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Waterval Randteveld 454 190

265 24 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Witberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 2,524 2,524 0


Witberg Waboomveld 7,181 6,876 153 152 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Witvlakte Apronveld 4,267 3,616 61 589 34 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency

Witvlakte Arid Spekboomveld 2,233 238 15 1,980 26 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent

Witvlakte Quartz Gannaveld 979 626 22 332 32 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Woeska Waboomveld 5 4 1

33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency

Zewefontein Arid Gwarrieveld 5,318 5,176 76 66 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Zoar Fynbos-Spekboomveld 7,558 6,170 133 1,256 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Zoar Gwarrieveld 972 291 289 392 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Zorgvliet Apronveld 801 741 49 11 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Zorgvliet Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 951 943 2 5 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Zorgvliet Pruimveld 5,700 5,517 100 82 25 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Totals 1,245,435 952,320 120,812 172,302

biodiversity assessment of the kannaland and oudtshoorn

Documents