National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for South Africa 2016

2016 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for South Africa National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 i Authors (alphabetically): Dave Balfour Stephen Holness James Jackelman Andrew Skowno Acknowledgements: This update of the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) draws heavily on the original NPAES (2008). The authors of the original NPAES are acknowledged for their ongoing contribution to the current revision. Emily Botts and Aimee Ginsburg assisted with editing and formatting the document. The photographs on the cover page are courtesy of James Puttick, Gavin Fordham and Jane Ferraris. Citation: Department of Environmental Affairs (2016) National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy for South Africa 2016. Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa. Version note: This version of the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy for South Africa 2016 has been updated to include the Northern Cape Protected Area Expansion Strategy which was released in 2017. Analyses, maps, tables, discussion and spatial data were updated from the original version of the NPAES to reflect the updated Northern Cape data, but the remainder of the report has been retained. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 ii Table of contents Table of contents ................................................................................................................................ ii List of figures ...................................................................................................................................... iv List of tables ........................................................................................................................................ v Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... vi Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... vii 1. Why a National Protected Area Expansion Strategy? ............................................................. 1 Structure of this document ............................................................................................................. 2 2. The role of protected areas ................................................................................................... 3 What are protected areas? ............................................................................................................. 3 The legal context ............................................................................................................................. 4 Protected areas for biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability ................................. 5 Protected areas for climate change adaptation ............................................................................. 6 Protected areas for land reform and rural livelihoods ................................................................... 6 Protected areas for socio-economic development ......................................................................... 7 3. Progress in implementing the NPAES..................................................................................... 9 New protected areas declared ........................................................................................................ 9 Progress towards achieving protected area targets ..................................................................... 10 Mechanisms of expansion ............................................................................................................ 12 Implementation, resourcing and administration of the NPAES .................................................... 12 4. Protected area targets ........................................................................................................ 14 Calculating protected area targets ............................................................................................... 17 Summary of protected area targets .............................................................................................. 18 Current achievement of targets .................................................................................................... 20 Achievement of marine targets .................................................................................................... 24 Achievement of targets for inland aquatic ecosystems ................................................................ 26 Achievement of terrestrial targets (mainland and Sub-Antarctic) ............................................... 28 5. Priority areas for protected area expansion ......................................................................... 31 Key principles for planning and implementation .......................................................................... 32 Priority areas for protected area expansion ................................................................................. 34 Priority areas in the Eastern Cape ................................................................................................. 36 Priority areas in KwaZulu-Natal .................................................................................................... 37 Priority areas in Mpumalanga ....................................................................................................... 38 Priority areas in Limpopo .............................................................................................................. 39 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 iii Priority areas in Gauteng .............................................................................................................. 40 Priority areas in the North West ................................................................................................... 41 Priority areas in the Free State ..................................................................................................... 43 Priority areas in the Western Cape ............................................................................................... 44 Priority areas in the Northern Cape .............................................................................................. 45 Priority areas in marine ecosystems ............................................................................................. 46 Looking forward: Achievements if the priorities are implemented ............................................. 47 Remaining gaps and revisions of spatial plans .............................................................................. 50 6. Mechanisms for protected area expansion .......................................................................... 51 Acquisition of land ........................................................................................................................ 52 Contract agreements, including biodiversity stewardship ........................................................... 52 Declaration of public or state land ................................................................................................ 53 7. Financing protected area expansion .................................................................................... 54 The Biodiversity Finance Initiative ................................................................................................ 56 8. Implementation of the NPAES ............................................................................................. 57 Who implements the NPAES? ....................................................................................................... 57 Phased implementation of the NPAES .......................................................................................... 58 Action plan for phase 2 of the NPAES implementation ................................................................ 58 9. Information gaps, research priorities and legislative reform priorities .................................. 64 References ........................................................................................................................................ 66 Appendix 1: Protection targets for ecosystems ........................................................................... 69 Appendix 2: Supporting technical notes .................................................................................... 102 Appendix 3: Review of implementation of Phase 1 of the NPAES (2008 – 2014) ......................... 111 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 iv List of figures Figure 1: Protection levels for South African ecosystems ...................................................................................... x Figure 2: Priority areas for protected area expansion in South Africa. ................................................................. xi Figure 3: Protected Area status in South Africa and the Prince Edward Islands at the end of Phase 19. ............. 10 Figure 4: An integrated ecosystem map was created for South Africa. Inserts show the Prince Edward Islands and offshore pelagic ecosystems. ...................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: An integrated ecosystem condition map was created for South Africa. Inserts show the condition of the Prince Edward Islands and offshore pelagic ecosystems. ................................... 17 Figure 6: Current protection levels of South African terrestrial (including Sub-Antarctic ecosystems), river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine (including pelagic) ecosystems. ............................. 24 Figure 7: Current protection levels of marine ecosystems, divided according to biozone. The top left graph shows a summary of the marine (benthic and coastal) ecosystems. .................................. 25 Figure 8: Current protection levels of inland aquatic ecosystems (rivers, wetlands and estuaries). ................... 26 Figure 9: Current protection levels for all mainland terrestrial ecosystems and Sub-Antarctic ecosystems. .................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 10: Current protection levels for terrestrial ecosystems, divided according to biozones. ........................ 29 Figure 11: Current protected areas, areas under negotiation and collated priorities from provinces and protected area agencies. Intact areas of ecosystems where remaining targets are not fully met by the priority areas are indicated.......................................................................................... 35 Figure 12: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Eastern Cape. ....................................................... 36 Figure 13: Priority areas for protected area expansion in KwaZulu-Natal. .......................................................... 37 Figure 14: Priority areas for protected area expansion in Mpumalanga. ............................................................. 38 Figure 15: Priority areas for protected area expansion in Limpopo ..................................................................... 39 Figure 16: Priority areas for protected area expansion in Gauteng. .................................................................... 40 Figure 17: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the North West. ......................................................... 41 Figure 18: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Free State. ........................................................... 43 Figure 19: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Western Cape. ..................................................... 44 Figure 20: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Northern Cape. .................................................... 45 Figure 21: Priority areas for protected area expansion for marine ecosystems. These currently consist of areas under negotiation as part of Operation Phakisa and some other pending MPA declarations. ................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 22: Anticipated protection levels for ecosystems in 20 years should all the priority areas be successfully implemented. ............................................................................................................. 49 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206241 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206242 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206243 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206244 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206244 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206245 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206245 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206246 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206246 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206247 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206247 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206248 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206249 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206249 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206250 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206251 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206251 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206251 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206262 file:///C:/Users/Emily/Documents/NPAES/NPAES%20formatted%20and%20edited%20-%20draft%205.docx%23 Toc444206262 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 v List of tables Table 1: The number and extent of protected areas declared in phase 1, by protected area type. ...................... 9 Table 2: Current status (2014), and progress in phase 1, of representation of terrestrial ecosystem types in the protected area network. All targets are stated as a percentage of the total area. ............. 11 Table 3: Current status (2014) ), and progress in phase 1, of representation of marine areas in the protected area network. All targets are stated as a percentage of the total extent. .................... 11 Table 4: Terrestrial protected area declared (ha) in phase 1, per implementing institution and mechanism of expansion. .............................................................................................................. 12 Table 5: Summary of the percentages required for the long-term protected area targets, Aichi biodiversity targets, 20-year protected area targets and 5-year targets. Full targets for individual ecosystems are given in Appendix 1. ............................................................................. 19 Table 6: Summary of the target areas for ecosystems. Full targets for each ecosystem are given in Appendix 1. ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 7: Summary of the calculated shortfall between the current protected area (PA) extent and the long-term biodiversity target and the 20-year target. ................................................................... 21 Table 8: Categories used for evaluation of ecosystem protection levels. The categories are the same as those applied in the National Biodiversity Assessment. ................................................................ 22 Table 9: Summary of the current number of individual ecosystems within each protection level category, per biozone. ................................................................................................................... 23 Table 10: Summary of the anticipated number of individual ecosystems within each protection level category in 20 years, should the identified priorities be implemented. ........................................ 47 Table 11: Implementation plan for the NPAES 2016, detailing 5-year actions and indicators. ............................ 59 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 vi Acronyms BIOFIN Biodiversity Finance Initiative CBD Convention on Biological Diversity DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries DEA Department of Environmental Affairs EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPWP Extended Public Works Programme FEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area IUCN World Conservation Union KZN KwaZulu-Natal MINMEC A standing intergovernmental body consisting of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and provincial Members of the Executive Council (MECs) MPA Marine Protected Area NBA National Biodiversity Assessment NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas NGO Non-government organisation NPAES National Protected Area Expansion Strategy SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANParks South African National Parks UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 vii Executive summary The National Protected Area Expansion Strategy, first published in 2008 (NPAES 2008)1, presents a 20-year strategy for the expansion of protected areas in South Africa. Provision is made for the review and updating of the NPAES every 5 years. This document (NPAES 2016) represents the first full revision of the NPAES 2008, and the updated strategy for the next 5-years (2016 – 2020). Each new revision of the NPAES refers to a rolling 20 year period, so this revision sets out a future 20-year strategy. The updated NPAES 2016 now includes:  New biodiversity data and newly declared protected areas as well as updated provincial conservation plans and provincial protected area expansion strategies (PAES), to improve the setting of targets and the identification of priority areas for meeting these targets.  A review of the performance of protected area institutions in protected area expansion for the first implementation phase of the NPAES (2008 – 2014)2.  A description of the priority activities, with explicit performance targets, for the second implementation phase (2016 – 2020) of the NPAES. In order to maintain continuity of the NPAES over the 20 years of the strategy, the structure of this document has been maintained using similar formatting to the NPAES 2008. The document has similar sections, but the information has been revised and updated. 1 DEA., 2008. 2 While the first implementation phase should have spanned the years 2008 to 2013, delays in Why a National Protected Area Expansion Strategy? South Africa’s protected area network currently falls far short of representing all ecosystems and maintaining ecological processes. In this context, the goal of the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) is to achieve cost effective protected area expansion for improved ecosystem representation, ecological sustainability and resilience to climate change. The NPAES highlights how we can become more efficient and effective in allocating the scarce human and financial resources available for protected area expansion. It sets protected area targets, maps priority areas for protected area expansion, and makes recommendations on mechanisms to achieve this. The common set of targets and spatial priorities provided by the NPAES enable co-ordination between the many role players involved in protected area expansion. The role of protected areas initiating the review process mean that this review now covers the period 2008 to 2014. The goal of the NPAES is to achieve cost effective protected area expansion for improved ecosystem representation, ecological sustainability and resilience to climate change. It sets protected area targets, maps priority areas for protected area expansion, and makes recommendations on mechanisms to achieve this. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 viii Protected areas are areas of land or sea that are protected by law and managed mainly for biodiversity conservation. Protected areas recognised in the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) are considered protected areas in the NPAES. The Protected Areas Act provides for several categories of protected areas, including special nature reserves, national parks, nature reserves, marine protected areas and protected environments. Protected areas are vital for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation. They also serve as nodes in our ecological infrastructure network, protecting the ecosystems that deliver important ecosystem services to people. This natural infrastructure is largely free, so is often unnoticed or under appreciated, but it is just as important for underpinning human livelihoods and well being as our extensive built infrastructure network and our social infrastructure. South Africa has a unique opportunity to take a global lead in giving protected areas a central role in our climate change response strategy. To achieve this, the biases of the current protected area network are being addressed to ensure more effective inclusion of under represented terrestrial ecosystems, river ecosystems, wetlands, estuaries and marine ecosystems in the national protected area estate. Through the protection and management that protected areas provide for priority ecosystems and catchments, they help to secure the provision of important ecosystem services, such as production of clean water, flood moderation, prevention of erosion, carbon storage, and the aesthetic value of the landscape. Marine protected areas can play a particularly important role in keeping our fisheries sustainable, for example by protecting nursery grounds for commercially important fish species. In this way, protected areas form a valuable network of ecological infrastructure. Protected areas can support rural livelihoods and local economic development. Especially in marginal agricultural areas, conservation related industries have higher economic potential than agricultural activities such as stock farming. The relationship between protected areas and land reform has tended to be a controversial issue, with the focus usually on land claims in existing protected areas. Less attention has been paid to the opportunities for protected area expansion to actively support the land reform agenda and the diversification of rural livelihood options, especially in agriculturally marginal areas. Scope exists for protected area expansion to work in partnership with land reform for mutual benefit, for example through contract agreements that establish nature reserves or other forms of biodiversity stewardship agreement. In such cases, the land remains in the hands of its owners rather than being transferred to a protected area Protected areas can support rural livelihoods and local economic development. Especially in marginal agricultural areas, conservation-related industries have higher economic potential than agricultural activities such as stock farming. Protected areas are vital for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation, serving as nodes in our ecological infrastructure network. South Africa has an opportunity to take a global lead in giving protected areas a central role in our climate change response strategy. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 ix agency. The opportunity exists for local communities, as potentially major landholders through the land reform process, to have full access to the economic opportunities associated with ecotourism. Protected areas are a powerful tool for biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation, but not the only one. The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) gives us a suite of legal tools, such as publishing bioregional plans and listing threatened ecosystems, for conserving the many biodiversity priority areas that lie outside the protected area network. These tools complement the expansion and effective management of the protected area network in pursuit of the overall goals of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Protected area targets Protected area targets are action targets that indicate how much of each ecosystem should be included in protected areas. Targets help to focus protected area expansion on the least protected ecosystems, and provide the basis for assessments of protection level and progress towards a more representative protected area network. The NPAES uses the established biodiversity targets for each ecosystem from the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA)3 as the long-term protected area targets. This ensures that targets are scientifically robust and have an ecological basis, such that no further ecosystems become Critically Endangered, 3 Driver et al., 2012. and that targets and assessment results for the NBA and the NPAES align. The 20-year targets for protected area expansion were determined by proportionally allocating the total area committed to under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi biodiversity targets to the individual ecosystems based on their long-term targets. The targets are set for individual ecosystem types. The major improvements of this revised NPAES 2016 are that in addition to targets for terrestrial vegetation types and broad marine systems, comprehensive targets have now been set for wetlands, rivers, estuaries, specific marine ecosystems, as well as for the terrestrial and marine ecosystems of our Southern Oceans and Sub-Antarctic territories. These targets were set based on a new integrated ecosystem map. Targets can only be met by secured intact habitat. This principle was established in the NPAES 2008 but was previously only partially implemented as only artificial waterbodies were excluded. In the NPAES 2016, we have excluded all poor condition habitats based on a new integrated ecosystem condition map. Targets are currently only evaluated in legally recognised protected areas. However, once other conservation areas are effectively secured, verified and monitored, they may also contribute to meeting targets. The approach taken in the NPAES is that clear principles and a repeatable method are Scope exists for protected area expansion to work in partnership with land reform for mutual benefit, actively supporting the land reform agenda and the diversification of rural livelihoods. Comprehensive targets have now been set for wetlands, rivers, estuaries, specific marine ecosystems, as well as for the terrestrial and marine ecosystems of our Southern Oceans and Sub-Antarctic territories National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 x established for target setting. This ensures easy updates and allows provinces and agencies to calculate compatible targets if they are utilising different or finer scale ecosystem maps. South Africa has 969 distinct ecosystem types, across 26 biozones4. Of these, 201 (21%) are Well Protected, 122 (13%) are Moderately Protected, 286 (30%) are Poorly Protected, and 360 (37%) are Not Protected5. Protection level varies among regions and biozones. Well Protected ecosystems include the Southern Oceans and Sub-Antarctic territories. The protected area targets for these areas are now fully met. Also reasonably protected are coastal and other shallow water systems, although key gaps exist on the West Coast and there are too few no-take areas. The offshore benthic and pelagic ecosystems are almost completely unprotected, although this should soon change with the implementation of Operation Phakisa6. Inland aquatic ecosystems (i.e. rivers, wetlands and estuaries) are extremely poorly represented in the current protected area network, and even many areas that are within reserves are in poor condition. Current protection of terrestrial ecosystems is still insufficient, though good coverage of Forest ecosystems has been achieved. Ecosystems of 4 Biozones are major habitat units. In the terrestrial environment, they are the same as biomes, but the term biozone is used so that equivalent river, wetland and marine habitat units can be included. the Nama-Karoo, Grasslands and Succulent Karoo are not well represented in the current protected area network, while lowland Fynbos and central Savanna ecosystems are also very under-represented. South Africa’s current protected area network thus falls far short of representing all ecosystems. To meet the long-term protected area targets we need to add 413 163km2 to the protected area network, of which 211 896km2 are marine benthic and coastal ecosystems. In addition to this, 212 140km2 of marine pelagic ecosystems needs to be secured, though some of this could be achieved at the same time as benthic and coastal ecosystems as these systems overlap. To reach these long-term targets, 20-year targets have also been set. 255 877km2 need to be added the protected area network over the next 20 years, of which 104 962km2 are marine benthic and coastal ecosystems. Of 5 See Table 8 for an explanation of these categories. 6 DEA, 2014b. Figure 1: Protection levels for South African ecosystems National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 xi the 20 year total, 146 814km2 is required for terrestrial ecosystems, 2 352km2 for wetlands and 1 490km2 for rivers. A separate 104 780km2 is required to meet marine pelagic targets though this may overlap with some of the area required to meet the benthic target. Priority areas for protected area expansion Having set protected area targets, the next step is to determine which geographic areas are the highest priorities for protected area expansion to meet those targets. The NPAES takes the approach that the national role is not to undertake the spatial planning, but rather to set targets, identify key underlying planning principles, collate the provincial and sector priorities, and identify any remaining gaps. The previous NPAES 2008 was forced to establish the spatial priorities nationally as few provinces or agencies had conservation plans and even fewer had specific sets of protected area expansion priorities. This has changed sufficiently to allow a set of priority areas to be built-up from provincial and agency plans. This is an improvement, as detailed planning, scheduling and operational issues are all best dealt with at the provincial and agency level. The revised NPAES 2016 identifies additional priorities only where these do not exist, and also highlights ecosystems where, if fully Figure 2: Priority areas for protected area expansion in South Africa. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 xii implemented, the current set of priorities will not achieve targets. Provinces and agencies are likely to refine, revise and adapt their systematic spatial plans and protected area expansion priorities over time. For this reason, the NPAES highlights some overall principles that should be applied in protected area expansion planning and implementation. The requirement for a systematic, target driven approach that is well integrated across ecosystems and between organisations is emphasised. A comprehensive set of priority areas was compiled based on the priorities identified by provincial and other agencies in their protected area expansion strategies. The NPAES identified additional areas in the Northern Cape where there is a recently approved current protected area expansion strategy. The identified priority areas cover a total area of 190 109km2, in addition to areas currently under negotiation covering 73 610km2 of mostly marine areas. Overall, the set of priorities is well aligned with requirements for improving the representation of most ecosystems over the next 20 years. The number of Well Protected ecosystems is anticipated to more than double, while Not Protected ecosystems will reduce by around 70%. An improvement in coverage is anticipated for 665 ecosystem types, with greatest progress likely in the Grasslands, Succulent Karoo, Savanna, wetlands, rivers and offshore benthic and pelagic ecosystems. However, even if the priorities were to be implemented, no improvement in protection level is expected for 87 ecosystem types. The main areas with ecosystems where no improvement is anticipated are in the Nama Karoo and arid Savanna biozones. Mechanisms for protected area expansion There are three main mechanisms for expanding the land-based protected area network:  Acquisition of land, the traditional way of establishing and expanding protected areas, which involves large upfront costs.  Contract agreements are agreements in which landowners maintain ownership of their land but enter into a contract with a protected area agency in return for protected area status. Provisions in the Protected Areas Act facilitate these agreements. Contract agreements are attractive because they tend to cost protected area agencies less than acquisition, and because by far the largest proportion of land in the priority areas for protected area expansion lies in private hands. Biodiversity stewardship programmes should be strengthened so that more use can be made of contract agreements in the expansion of the protected area network. There are significant potential synergies between biodiversity stewardship programmes, land reform and rural development.  Declaration of public or state land involves reassigning land to a protected area agency from another organ of state. It has limited applicability because only a small proportion of land in the priority Contract agreements are a key mechanism for expanding the protected area network. They are often much more cost effective than acquisition of land, and are used increasingly as part of biodiversity stewardship programmes. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 xiii areas for protected area expansion is public land. Each one of these mechanisms has an important role to play, with contract agreements being used increasingly as part of biodiversity stewardship programmes. Mechanisms for expanding the marine protected area network are more complex and require significant political negotiation processes and the accommodation of conflicting marine activities. Marine spatial planning processes and subsequent incorporation of agreed areas into marine protected areas nevertheless have potential to rapidly improve the representation of marine ecosystems when the process is successfully undertaken. South Africa’s Operation Phakisa is proving to be international best practice in this regard. Mechanisms for securing protected areas specifically focused on inland aquatic ecosystems remain poorly understood. The current process of securing rivers, wetlands and estuaries using the methods used for terrestrial ecosystems has proved largely ineffective. Even when the features are fully incorporated into protected areas, they are still subject to catchment related impacts. Much work remains to understand how to properly secure inland aquatic ecosystems and their associated processes. Implementation of the NPAES The primary implementers of the NPAES are protected area agencies and institutions. These include provincial conservation authorities; South African National Parks (SANParks); the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF); and the Oceans and Coasts Branch of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). Although most agencies have developed institution-specific protected area expansion plans, those that have not need to rapidly do so. Existing plans will require revision and greater alignment with the national strategy, which has been revised for the second phase of the NPAES. DEA (through Working Group 1 of MINMEC) will ensure alignment of the efforts of the multiple agencies involved in protected area expansion. It will also provide a forum for discussing challenges and sharing lessons, and track progress towards meeting protected area targets. Establishing and strengthening provincial biodiversity stewardship programmes is an institutional priority for provincial conservation authorities and for DEA. The NPAES 2016 provides a revised set of implementation targets for phase 2 (2016 – 2020), developed with consideration of the realistic resources available to implementing agencies. Financing protected area expansion Protected area expansion draws on several sources of finance, all of which have an important role to play given the size of the task of achieving protected area targets. These sources include funding from National Treasury and donors (particularly for land acquisition); revenues earned from protected areas; biodiversity-related fiscal reform to facilitate investment and expenditure by National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 xiv private landowners through contract agreements; and strategic implementation of the biodiversity offsets programme. The purchase of land for protected area expansion could arguably be a good national investment in climate change adaptation, but in reality, the cost is prohibitive for protected area agencies. For this reason, this strategy highlights the importance of expansion mechanisms other than land acquisition, particularly contract agreements through the biodiversity stewardship programmes. Fiscal incentives contained in the Revenue Laws Amendment Act (Act 60 of 2008), have the potential to stimulate protected area expansion by making defined conservation management costs and land costs tax deductible for landowners who have entered into specified contractual agreements. Additional biodiversity-related fiscal reform options being explored include reducing the transaction costs associated with land acquisition for protected areas, removing perverse incentives in municipal property rates, and using Expanded Public Works Programme funding as an incentive to encourage landowners to enter into contract agreements. The strategic and efficient use of biodiversity offsets could potentially support the expansion of the protected area network. Priority areas for protected area expansion should be the major receiving sites for offsets, rather than ad hoc and individually identified sites. Careful planning will be necessary to ensure that offsets contribute optimally to protected area expansion and management, and do not place an undue burden on protected area agencies. A key issue is securing ongoing management costs. Innovative financial mechanisms for protected area expansion that could be piloted include a conservation trust fund, and payments for ecosystem services in cases where protected areas contribute to, for example, catchment management and water supply. Information gaps and research priorities A number of information gaps identified in the first phase of the NPAES were filled in this revision. There remain further gaps that should be addressed in future revisions of the NPAES. These include an accurate and up-to date mapping of protected areas and a national spatial data layer on land ownership and tenure. Research priorities include further exploration of the role of protected areas in supporting ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change. Ecologically meaningful biodiversity targets for aquatic ecosystems need to be developed. Exploration of innovative ways to consider land price and opportunity costs in the identification of priority areas for protected area expansion are needed, as well as investigation of the likely costs of different mechanisms for protected area expansion into the future. Also useful would be additional research into the relative income and job creation potential of agriculture compared with protected areas and ecotourism. Finally, pilot projects are needed to evaluate the ways in which biodiversity stewardship agreements can used to support land reform and rural development. The strategic and efficient use of biodiversity offsets could potentially support the expansion of the protected area network. Priority areas for protected area expansion should be the major receiving sites for offsets. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 1 1. Why a National Protected Area Expansion Strategy? The goal of the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) is to achieve cost effective protected area expansion for improved ecosystem representation, ecological sustainability and resilience to climate change. It sets protected area targets, maps priority areas for protected area expansion, and makes recommendations on mechanisms to achieve this. This is particularly important in the context of South Africa’s globally exceptional biodiversity richness on the one hand, and significant financial and human resource constraints on the other. The NPAES is a 20-year strategy with 5-year implementation targets aligned with a 5-year revision cycle. Each new revision of the NPAES refers to a rolling 20-year period, so this revision sets out a future 20-year strategy. The NPAES 2016 reviews the first phase of the NPAES (2008 – 2014) and provides the strategy and implementation plan for the second phase (2016 – 2020). This chapter outlines the importance of the NPAES in enabling co-ordination among many role players towards more efficiently and effectively allocating the limited resources available for protected area expansion. It also sets out the scope of the NPAES and the structure of this strategy. South Africa’s protected area network remains insufficient to conserve biodiversity and ecological processes effectively, or to play its full potential role in providing resilience to the impacts of climate change. This is because of the ad hoc way the protected area network has developed over time, protecting some ecosystems well and others hardly at all. Historically, freshwater, estuarine and offshore marine ecosystems were especially poorly represented in the protected area network although significant steps have been taken recently to improve this situation. The overall goal of the NPAES is to achieve cost effective protected area expansion for improved ecosystem representation, ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation. The NPAES highlights how we can become more efficient and effective in allocating limited resources available for protected area expansion. It sets protected area targets, maps priority areas for protected area expansion, and makes recommendations on mechanisms to achieve this. While the primary roles of the protected area network are representation of all ecosystems, ecological sustainability and climate change resilience, protected areas also deliver significant socio-economic benefits, especially in rural areas, thus contributing to South Africa’s overall development goals. Many role players, public and private, are involved in creating, expanding and managing protected areas in South Africa. The NPAES provides a common set of targets and spatial priorities to guide efforts and enable co ordination. This is particularly important in the context of South Africa’s globally exceptional biodiversity richness on the one hand, and significant financial and human resource constraints on the other. South Africa’s current protected area network in both the terrestrial and the marine environments remains insufficient to conserve biodiversity and ecological processes effectively, or to play its full potential role in providing resilience to the impacts of climate change. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 2 The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) led the development of the NPAES, in consultation with the protected area agencies and other key stakeholders. The need for the development of the NPAES was established in the National Biodiversity Framework7. The NPAES is a 20-year strategy with 5-year implementation targets aligned with a 5-year revision cycle. Each new revision of the NPAES refers to a rolling 20-year period. The NPAES 2016 covers the implementation period 2016 2020 and sets out a future 20-year strategy. The NPAES does not deal with site-scale planning or exactly which sites should be included in the protected area network, nor does it deal with detailed implementation planning for expanding protected areas. All of these are most appropriately done by protected area agencies and institutions, using the NPAES as a guide. Expansion of the protected area network should take place concurrently with efforts to improve biodiversity management effectiveness within existing and new protected areas. This need is not addressed in the NPAES, but requires attention alongside the implementation of the NPAES, particularly in some provincial protected area agencies as well as in the marine protected areas. 7 DEAT., 2008. The NPAES is intended to be used by all those who play, or could play, a role in protected area expansion, including protected area institutions, agencies and managers, conservation non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and funding agencies, policymakers in relevant national departments, municipalities and the private sector. Structure of this document Chapter 2 outlines why protected areas are important and valuable. Chapter 3 reviews progress in implementing the NPAES at the end of the initial phase of implementation. Chapter 4 identifies the protected area targets that should guide the ongoing expansion of the protected area network. Chapter 5 discusses priority areas for protected area expansion. Chapter 6 reviews the main mechanisms available for protected area expansion. Chapter 7 looks at some of the financial issues involved. Chapter 8 describes the key actions and targets for the implementation of the NPAES for the period 2016 – 2020. Chapter 9 highlights information gaps, research needs and identifies key legislative and policy issues that may need attention in order to support protected area expansion efforts. Appendix 1 provides supporting information on the specific ecosystem targets. Appendix 2 explains the technical approach to setting targets in more detail. Appendix 3 provides a more detailed review of the first phase of the NPAES. While the primary roles of the protected area network are representation of all ecosystems, ecological sustainability and climate change resilience, protected areas also deliver significant socio-economic benefits, especially in rural areas, thus contributing to South Africa’s overall development goals. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 3 2. The role of protected areas Protected areas are vital for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation, serving as nodes in our ecological infrastructure network. South Africa has a strong legal context for protected areas and management of biodiversity. This chapter explains the role of protected areas in biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability, in addition to the role they play in climate change adaptation, land reform and rural livelihoods, and socio-economic development. South Africa has an opportunity to be proactive in giving protected areas a central role in our climate change response strategy. To achieve this, the biases of the current protected area network are being addressed to ensure more effective inclusion of under-represented terrestrial ecosystems, river ecosystems, wetlands, estuaries and marine ecosystems in the national protected area estate. Protected areas are vital nodes in South Africa’s ecological infrastructure. Our ecological infrastructure consists of nodes and corridors of natural habitat that provide a range of ecosystem services as well as resilience to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. This natural infrastructure is largely free, so is often unnoticed or under-appreciated, but it is just as important for underpinning human livelihoods and wellbeing as our extensive built infrastructure network and our social infrastructure. In this chapter, we highlight four of the most important contributions of protected areas, some of them only partially realised and all worthy of further attention:  Biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability  Climate change adaptation  Land reform and rural livelihoods  Socio-economic development, including ecosystem services Transfrontier conservation areas, of which there are six shared between South Africa and our neighbouring countries, provide opportunities for scaling up all of the above contributions of protected areas and for strengthening the links between ecological sustainability benefits and socio-economic benefits. What are protected areas? Protected areas are areas of land or sea that are formally protected by law and managed mainly for biodiversity conservation. Only protected areas recognised in the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) are considered to be protected areas in the NPAES. The Protected Areas Act distinguishes between several categories of protected area: special nature reserves, national parks, nature reserves, marine protected areas and protected environments. In addition, it also recognises world heritage sites, specially protected forest areas, and mountain catchment areas. The NPAES uses a narrower definition of protected areas than the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and IUCN, which acknowledge the role of other effective area Protected areas are vital nodes in South Africa’s ecological infrastructure. They help to ensure functional landscapes that provide stable environments for the benefit of human well-being. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 4 based conservation measures in protecting biodiversity. These areas could include conservation areas that are areas of land not formally protected by law but informally protected by the current owners and users and managed at least partly for biodiversity conservation. They can also include a range of other mechanisms such as the intact and conservation zoned areas of UNESCO biospheres, buffers zones on world heritage sites, areas protected by spatial planning laws (e.g. zoning for conservation use), areas protected by conservation servitudes, and in the marine context may include specially zoned fishery management areas. In the absence of legally binding measures that require effective management, these other area-based conservation measures may not provide sufficient protection. For this reason, the NPAES currently only evaluates protected areas. However, once other area based conservation sites have been effectively secured (through legal measures other than the Protected Areas Act), are effectively managed, verified and monitored, then it is anticipated that intact conservation zoned areas under these other measures might also contribute to meeting targets. The legal context The Protected Areas Act is the central piece of legislation for the establishment and management of the protected area network in both the terrestrial and the marine environments. However, other legislation is also relevant, including the World Heritage Convention Act (Act 49 of 1999) for world heritage sites, the National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998) for protected forests, and the Mountain Catchment Areas Act (Act 63 of 1970). In addition, several provinces have their own provincial legislation that deals with protected areas. Protected areas are a powerful tool for conserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change, but not the only one. There are also several other legislative tools relevant to the management of biodiversity in South Africa, the primary among them being the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). The Biodiversity Act provides a suite of legal tools for conserving the many biodiversity priority areas that lie outside the protected area network and for various reasons are likely to remain outside of it. These tools include bioregional plans, biodiversity management plans, listing of threatened or protected ecosystems, listing of threatened or protected species, and regulations on alien and invasive species. In addition to regulatory tools provided by the Biodiversity Act, economic mechanisms such as environmental fiscal reform and payment for ecosystem services are currently being explored and developed in South Africa. The Marine Living Resources Act (Act 18 of 1998) provides for additional mechanisms for biodiversity management over and above marine protected areas, and South Africa is in the process of implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. This wide range of biodiversity management tools complements the expansion and effective management of the protected area network in pursuit of the overall goals of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. The Protected Areas Act is the central piece of legislation for the establishment and management of the protected area network in both the terrestrial and marine environments. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 5 Protected areas for biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability Protected areas are the most secure and effective mechanism for conserving a representative sample of all biodiversity including all ecosystems and species. This is especially important in South Africa because of our globally exceptional levels of biodiversity. Conserving a viable representative sample of biodiversity contributes to ecological resilience and is one of the cornerstones of ecological sustainability. Historically, the protected area network has been biased towards some ecosystems, such as indigenous Forest, mountain Fynbos and lowveld Savanna, and has poorly covered other ecosystems such as Grasslands. Aquatic ecosystems, including rivers, wetlands, estuaries and offshore marine ecosystems, have been especially neglected. South Africa’s protected area network needs to include a representative sample of all ecosystems. How this can be achieved is discussed further in Chapter 4 on protected area targets. The long-term persistence of biodiversity depends not only on conserving a representative sample of biodiversity but also on maintaining a complex set of ecological processes, such as the functioning of river corridors and movement of species between uplands and lowlands. Ecological processes often occur across very large areas and over long periods of time, so they can be difficult to capture in the protected area network. Nevertheless, it is possible to take some ecological processes into account in the design of the protected area network. For protected areas to achieve their full potential contribution to ecological sustainability, they need to include a representative sample of all ecosystems as well as key ecological processes. In recognition of this, the NPAES 2016 includes greater integration of the terrestrial and aquatic environments in the design calculations underpinning the spatial prioritisation of protected area expansion. This is especially important in South Africa where water scarcity means that freshwater ecosystems are under even greater pressure than terrestrial ecosystems. Estuaries can provide a focal point for integrating the design of terrestrial, freshwater and marine protected areas. Ideally, seamless integration is required between terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, inshore and offshore marine protected areas, to maximise the ecological sustainability benefits of protected areas. For protected areas to achieve their full potential contribution to ecological sustainability, they need to include a representative sample of all ecosystems as well as key ecological processes, in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. Ideally, seamless integration is required between terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, inshore and offshore marine protected areas, to maximise the ecological sustainability benefits of protected areas. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 6 Protected areas for climate change adaptation Healthy natural ecosystems can increase resilience to the impacts of climate change, by allowing species to adapt as naturally as possible to the changes. They also buffer human settlements and activities from the impacts of extreme climate events. A sufficient protected area network supports the persistence of biodiversity within the broader landscape and safeguards the long term provision of ecosystem goods and services (such as sufficient clean water, pollination etc.) on which we all depend, especially in the face of stresses such as climate change. Intact ecosystems (i.e. ecosystems which are in a natural or near natural state) withstand stresses better than highly modified and fragmented landscapes, and natural landscapes secured within protected areas are the anchor on which survival of broader ecological systems will depend. This role of protected areas is worthy of greater emphasis in the global debate on climate change adaptation. South Africa has a unique opportunity to take a global lead in giving protected areas a central role in our climate change response strategy. An implication of this is that protected area expansion should prioritise protection of natural connected landscapes. Protected areas need to be expanded to incorporate altitudinal gradients and topographic range, intact river corridors, coastal dunes, and a greater range of microhabitats, in order to conserve the climatic gradients required to give us some leeway for climate change. The ability of species and systems to adapt to climate change will depend on landscapes that are sufficiently connected to allow species to move. Freshwater ecosystems are likely to be particularly hard hit by rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns, and yet healthy, intact freshwater ecosystems are vital for maintaining resilience to climate change and mitigating its impact on human well-being. In the western part of South Africa, which is likely to become dryer, intact rivers and wetlands will help to maintain a consistent supply of water. In portions of the country that are likely to become wetter, intact rivers and wetlands will be important for reducing flood risk and mitigating the impacts of flash floods. This reinforces the importance of including freshwater ecosystems in land based protected areas, and moving towards integrated aquatic and terrestrial design of the protected area network. Protected areas for land reform and rural livelihoods Historically, local communities have often been only minor recipients of benefits generated by protected areas, as in most cases they have not been owners of either the protected area land or the tourist facilities on that land. The opportunity now exists for local communities, as potentially major landholders through the land reform process, to have full access to the economic opportunities Healthy natural ecosystems can increase resilience to the impacts of climate change, by allowing ecosystems and species to adapt as naturally as possible to the changes and by buffering human settlements and activities from the impacts of extreme climate events. South Africa has an opportunity to take a global lead in giving protected areas a central role in our climate change response strategy. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 7 associated with ecotourism. Two good examples of this are Nambiti Private Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal and the !Ae!Hai Kalahari Heritage Park together with the !Xaus Lodge within the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. Scope exists for protected area expansion to work in partnership with land reform for mutual benefit, actively supporting the land reform agenda and the diversification of rural livelihoods. Contract agreements are used increasingly in expansion of the protected area network, and represent opportunities for mutual benefit between landowners, who receive incentives and assistance with management, and protected area agencies. It is important to note that biodiversity stewardship programmes allow for considerable flexibility in the nature of agreements concluded. For example, it is possible for part of the land involved to be formally proclaimed a protected area, and part not. The Richtersveld National Park, the Makuleke section of Kruger National Park and iSimangaliso Wetland Park provide good examples of community ownership of formal protected areas through contract agreements. As discussed in the next section on socio economic development, protected areas often represent the most promising option for economic development in rural regions, providing more jobs than commercial agriculture would. Biodiversity stewardship programmes have now been developed, and are under implementation, in all nine provinces of the country, with the potential to contribute to land reform. Protected areas for socio-economic development Protected areas are important for socio economic development in several ways. They can contribute to rural development and local economic development with immediate benefits to surrounding communities. Protected areas also contribute to the attractiveness of South Africa as a key destination for foreign and national tourists. By providing essential ecosystem services, protected areas safeguard the wellbeing of future generations. Protected areas can be a cornerstone for local economic development, providing immediate socio-economic benefits to surrounding communities, especially if this is an explicit aspect of the management goals of the protected area. Increasingly, there is sensitivity in the design and management of protected areas to the needs of local and regional communities, with protected areas seen not as isolated islands but as part of the socio-economic, as well as the ecological, environment. The DEA’s People and Parks programme is significant in this regard. In many rural regions, ecotourism based on protected areas provides a more viable option for economic development and livelihoods than agriculture, even though agriculture is currently often the main focus for rural socio economic development. As mentioned in the previous section, land reform provides the Scope exists for protected area expansion to work in partnership with land reform for mutual benefit, actively supporting the land reform agenda and the diversification of rural livelihoods. Protected areas can be a cornerstone for local economic development, providing immediate socio-economic benefits to surrounding communities National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 8 opportunity for communities to become landholders in protected areas and to benefit directly from ownership of ecotourism ventures. Especially in marginal agricultural areas, evidence suggests that conservation-related industries (protected areas, ecotourism on private reserves, game farming etc.) may have higher economic potential than agricultural activities such as stock farming. Further research and support for pilot initiatives is required to test this evidence formally and to determine whether these economic trends can be generalised across South Africa. The protected area network forms part of South Africa’s competitive advantage as a nation, creating destinations for nature-based tourism, providing a draw card for international interest and attention, and acting as a unique selling point for Brand South Africa. Our national identity includes the spectacular varied natural environment that is secured through our protected area network. Through the protection and management they provide for priority ecosystems and catchments, protected areas help to secure the ecological infrastructure which supports the provision of important ecosystem services, such as production of clean water, flood moderation, prevention of erosion, carbon storage, and the aesthetic value of the landscape. Mountain catchment areas, in particular, play an important role in safeguarding water supplies. Marine protected areas are vital in sustaining commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries resources. There is increasing evidence globally that the vast majority of fish stocks are fully exploited or overexploited. Fishing pressure continues to threaten marine ecosystems and the cultures and economies that depend on them. Marine protected areas can help to address this by protecting spawning (breeding) stocks of fish species and allowing recovery of overexploited fish species. This results in improved fishing yields outside of marine protected areas through a spillover effect. Often marine protected areas are the only areas in which viable numbers of reproductive fish are found. It is worth noting that no-take marine protected areas or no take zones within marine protected areas, of which there are few in South Africa, play this role most effectively. Finally, by contributing to climate change adaptation and protecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide, the protected area network safeguards the socio-economic well-being of future generations. The costs to future generations of not building and maintaining an effective protected area network are complex to quantify, but we can be sure they are substantial. The protected area network forms part of South Africa’s competitive advantage, creating destinations for nature-based tourism, providing a draw card for international interest and attention, and acting as a unique selling point for Brand South Africa. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 9 3. Progress in implementing the NPAES Measureable progress across a range of indicators was made in implementing the first phase of the NPAES. This chapter highlights the new protected areas that were declared in both the marine and the terrestrial environments, which increased the spatial extent of a range of protected area types. Particularly notable were the expansion efforts in the marine environment, as well as expansion achieved as part of the biodiversity stewardship programme. Progress towards achieving specific ecosystem targets is presented. This chapter also provides a summary of improvements in administering the NPAES and the resources used to do so. This review covers the progress in implementing phase 1 (2008 – 2014) of the NPAES. Area values are reported in hectares in this chapter to correspond with the targets set in NPAES 2008. New protected areas declared Between 2008 and 2014, a total area of 18 943 336ha was added to South Africa’s protected area system through 460 declarations of individual properties (see Table 1 and Figure 3). The largest proportion (>95%) of the area added to the protected area estate was achieved through the declaration of three marine protected areas (MPAs), of which the Prince Edward Island MPA was by far the largest (18 085 137ha). Of the 830 322ha of terrestrial protected areas declared in the first phase, 270 284ha was declared as National Parks, 348 515ha as Nature Reserves, 14 850ha as Forest Nature Reserves and 196 673ha as Protected Environments. Over 561 000ha (67%) of the properties declared as terrestrial protected areas were either privately owned (502 692ha) or under some form of communal tenure (59 175ha). This suggests that the negotiation of formal contractual agreements with landowners and communal rights holders has become the primary tool for protected area expansion efforts in the terrestrial environment. Table 1: The number and extent of protected areas declared in phase 1, by protected area type. Protected area type Number of declarations Area (ha) Terrestrial National Park 325 270 284 Nature Reserve 112 348 515 Protected Environment 12 196 673 Forest Nature Reserve 8 14 850 Terrestrial total 457 830 322 Marine Marine Protected Area 3 18 113 015 Marine total 3 18 113 015 Total 460 18 943 336 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 10 Progress towards achieving protected area targets The progress in achieving phase 1 representation targets8 for terrestrial ecosystem types in the protected area system is summarised in Table 2. When individual ecosystems are considered, the area contributing to meeting ecosystem targets improved from 3.6% to 3.9% of the total terrestrial area. This represents 18% of the phase 1 target. Biozones where good progress was made towards meeting underlying ecosystem representation targets in phase 1 include Forests (129% of the phase 1 target), water bodies (91%) and Albany Thicket (69%). No progress was made however in the Desert 8 This target achievement is measured against the NPAES 2008. These targets are changed in the current NPAES revision. 9 As in NPAES 2008, de facto protected areas are included. These are functioning as protected areas biozone and Indian Ocean Coastal Belt, while limited progress was made in the Nama-Karoo (9%), Savanna (14%) and Grassland (16%). In the marine environment, the declaration of a single MPA in the Prince Edward Island Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) resulted in this area substantially exceeding the phase 1 target. In fact, the long-term target was exceeded by a factor of almost two and the no-take target nearly met (Table 3). In mainland marine systems, two inshore MPAs (278km2) were declared. As a result, the 5 year NPAES inshore target measured in terms of coast length for no-take areas was almost met, with 89% of the phase 1 target being achieved, while 163% of the phase 1 target for but are not formally declared. Formalising their status is critical to ensuring that they continue to contribute to the protected area network. Figure 3: Protected Area status in South Africa and the Prince Edward Islands at the end of Phase 19. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 11 overall inshore protection was met. This placed South Africa in a good position to achieve the full 20-year Marine Inshore targets. Little progress was made towards achieving the marine offshore area targets with the 278km2 being under 1% of the phase 1 target of 52 182 km2. Table 2: Current status (2014), and progress in phase 1, of representation of terrestrial ecosystem types in the protected area network. All targets are stated as a percentage of the total area. Biozone Total area (ha) 20 year target Area in 2008 Effective area10 in 2008 Area in 2014 Effective area 2014 % of phase 1 target met Albany Thicket 2 912 754 10.3 6.2 6 8.7 6.7 69 Azonal vegetation 2 894 983 13.8 7.4 4.9 8.3 5.3 16 Desert 716 565 18.0 22.2 4.7 22.2 4.7 0 Forest 444 371 17.2 30.1 15.9 37.8 16.3 129 Fynbos 8 394 437 14.8 15.1 6.5 20.2 7.3 40 Grassland 31 987 116 13.2 2.8 2.3 3.2 2.7 16 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 1 428 197 13.5 6.4 5.7 6.4 5.7 0 Nama-Karoo 24 827 996 11.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 9 Polar desert 10 825 10.8 100 10.8 100 10.8 N.A. Savanna 39 966 563 10.1 11.4 5.2 11.9 5.4 14 Sub-Antarctic tundra 23 240 10.8 100 10.8 100 10.8 N.A. Succulent Karoo 8 328 395 12.1 5.2 3.5 6.5 4.5 49 Water bodies 67 322 13.0 80.2 12.6 80.3 12.7 91 Total 14 333 600 12.0 6.7 3.6 7.6 3.9 18 Table 3: Current status (2014) ), and progress in phase 1, of representation of marine areas in the protected area network. All targets are stated as a percentage of the total extent. Category Total extent Category 20 year target Status in 2008 Status in 2014 % of phase 1 target met Marine inshore (coastline) 3592km No-take 15 7.9 9.5 89 Total 25 20.6 22.4 163 Marine offshore (mainland EEZ) 1 065 660km2 No-take 15 0.16 0.19 0.7 Total 20 0.4 0.44 0.5 Marine offshore (Prince Edward Islands EEZ) 473 375km2 No-take 15 0 14.4 385 Total 20 0 38.2 764 10 Effective area refers to the area that is contributing to meeting representation targets. This does not imply that these areas don’t have value as there are valid reasons to have areas declared in excess of the minimum representation target. It merely indicates that these areas are in excess of the representation target. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 12 Mechanisms of expansion All three available protected area expansion mechanisms for terrestrial protected areas (contractual agreement, land acquisition and declaration of state owned land) were successfully implemented in phase 1. The breakdown of the extent of the area declared, by implementing agency, using each of the different expansion mechanisms is summarised in Table 4 below. The negotiation and conclusion of contractual agreements with landowners was the predominant protected area expansion mechanism adopted by most of the protected area agencies. During the phase 1 review, protected area institutions reported that a further 1 100 000ha was still under some form of contractual negotiation with landowners for future declaration as protected areas. Implementation, resourcing and administration of the NPAES The implementation of the NPAES is primarily the responsibility of the 12 protected area agencies11. By the end of phase 1, eight (up from only one in 2008) of the 12 protected area agencies had developed, adopted and were implementing an institutionally-based Protected Area Expansion Strategy (PAES) that is closely aligned to the strategic objectives of the NPAES. The remaining agencies – with the exception of DAFF, which has no plans to develop an institutionally-based PAES – were well advanced in preparing these strategies. Expansion plans for the marine environment are well developed, and were recently published as part of Operation Phakisa12. 1112 Table 4: Terrestrial protected area declared (ha) in phase 1, per implementing institution and mechanism of expansion. Institution/province Contractual agreement Donation Purchase Declaration of state owned land Total SANParks 74 012 - 106 663 89 608 270 283 DAFF - - - 14 850 14 850 Eastern Cape 98 119 - - - 98 119 Free State - - - - Gauteng 2 280 1 768 - 20 638 24 686 KwaZulu-Natal 61 068 - - - 61 068 Limpopo - - - - Mpumalanga 102 066 - - - 102 066 Northern Cape 92 486 - - - 92 486 North West - 200 - 32 647 32 847 Western Cape 133 916 - - - 133 916 Total 563 947 1 968 106 663 157 743 830 321 11 The nine provincial agencies, SANParks, DAFF and DEA (Oceans and Coast Branch). 12 DEA, 2014a. The negotiations and conclusion of contractual agreements with landowners was the predominant mechanism for protected area expansion in phase 1. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 13 The institutional capacity to implement the protected area expansion programme is limited, with an estimated total of 28 staff (that are unevenly distributed between institutions) contributing more than 60% of their time to protected area expansion. The reported annual operational budgets for protected area expansion are also highly variable across institutions. It is estimated that a total of R61.75 million was available for protected area expansion efforts during the 2014/2015 financial year. Of this total amount, R34.5 million forms part of the South African National Parks (SANParks) budget and R12 million is set aside for marine protected area expansion, leaving approximately R15 million distributed across the remaining ten protected area institutions. Phase 1 of the NPAES saw a number of legal and administrative developments that advanced protected area expansion. In this regard it is noted that:  The Protected Areas Act was amended to include marine protected areas. 13 DEA., 2009  The process of developing standardised Biodiversity Stewardship Guidelines13 and a national Biodiversity Stewardship Policy was significantly advanced.  Incentives for declaring privately owned and managed protected areas through tax rebates were piloted and further refined  Levels of legislative compliance were improved through the development of the Protected Area Register.  The development of a robust, spatial protected area database, linked to the Protected Area Register.  Guidelines for the declaration of different types of protected areas were published. More information on the review of progress made in phase 1 of the NPAES is given in Appendix 3. Phase 1 of the NPAES saw a number of legal and administrative developments that have advanced protected area expansion. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 14 4. Protected area targets Protected area targets are action targets that indicate how much of each ecosystem should be included in protected areas. They help to focus protected area expansion on the least protected ecosystems, and provide the basis for assessments. The NPAES uses the established biodiversity targets for each ecosystem from the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) as the long-term protected area targets. This ensures that targets are scientifically robust and have an ecological basis, while also ensuring that no further ecosystems become Critically Endangered, and that the NBA and the NPAES are aligned. The 20-year targets are designed to achieve overall CBD Aichi biodiversity targets, while optimally shifting the emphasis onto high biodiversity value ecosystems. Clear principles and a repeatable method are established for target setting, which will enable easy updates and allow provinces and agencies to calculate compatible targets. This chapter presents several major improvements that have been made to the protected area targets in this revision of the NPAES. These include comprehensive targets for wetlands, rivers, estuaries and specific marine ecosystems, as well as terrestrial ecosystem types. A new integrated ecosystem map has been created and ecological condition has been included in the assessment. South Africa’s current protected area network still falls far short of sustaining biodiversity and ecological processes. The current achievement of targets has been evaluated, protection levels are mapped and the extent to which the current protected area network falls short of the targets is presented. Protected area targets are action targets that indicate how much of each ecosystem should be included in protected areas, thus guiding protected area expansion to focus on ecosystems that are least protected.14 Internationally, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to which South Africa is a signatory, commits governments to a range of targets generally known as Aichi biodiversity 14 More information about protected area targets can be found in Technical Note 1 of Appendix 2. 15 CBD, 2010. 16 Biodiversity targets are sometimes called biodiversity thresholds. See Driver et al., 2012 for targets15. Target 11 states that “by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape”. South Africa has a well-established system of systematic biodiversity planning which uses biodiversity targets16 to determine which areas of the landscape and seascape are most explanations the systematic conservation planning approach used in South Africa and details on how biodiversity targets are determined and used in the evaluations of ecosystem protection level. Protected area targets are action targets that indicate how much of each ecosystem should be included in protected areas, this guiding protected area expansion to focus on ecosystems that are least protected. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 15 important for conserving a representative sample of biodiversity pattern (ecosystems and species) and for keeping key ecological processes intact. These targets are used as the basis for national monitoring of Protection Level in the NBA. The system and target values set out in the NBA 2011 are widely used and well-accepted across South Africa, including in the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Assessment (NFEPA) project17, prioritisation for marine protected areas in projects such as the Offshore Marine Protected Area (OMPA) project18, and the National Estuary Biodiversity Plan for South Africa 201219. The same ecosystem targets are used in provincial conservation plans. Biodiversity targets for terrestrial ecosystems in South Africa range from 16% to 36% of the original extent of each ecosystem, with higher targets for more variable and species-rich ecosystems. In the absence of better data, a 20% biodiversity target is used for marine, river, wetland and estuarine systems. The NPAES 2016 retains many core principles established for the NPAES 2008, including:  Long-term protected area targets should align with established biodiversity targets. This means that, in principle, enough of each ecosystem will be protected to ensure that no further ecosystems can become Critically Endangered. It also allows for consistent reporting by the NBA and NPAES.  Targets should be specifically set for each ecosystem. Although for convenience they can be reported for broader units 17 Nel et al., 2011. 18 Sink et al., 2011. 19 Turpie et al., 2012. 20 The CBD targets have changed since NPAES 2008 (from 12%) to 17% for terrestrial areas and 10% for marine systems. such as a biozone, the actual target is set at the ecosystem level.  Over a 20-year period, South Africa should aim to achieve its commitments under the CBD20 even if the convention’s timelines are not adhered to.  The allocation of targets is optimised across ecosystems to reflect differing levels of biodiversity, i.e. increased targets for diverse ecosystems, but reduced targets in those with relatively low diversity, so that overall South Africa will achieve its CBD commitment. Some additional elements have been added in the NPAES 2016. Firstly, and most importantly, targets have now been set for marine, wetland, river and estuarine features at the ecosystem level, in addition to the terrestrial targets. To do this, a new fully integrated ecosystem map was prepared, covering terrestrial, river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems (Figure 4)21. Separate maps for each of these ecosystems were available, but overlaps between ecosystems (for example a terrestrial and river ecosystem) could result in double counting and inaccurate targets. A single integrated map was therefore developed that identified 969 distinct ecosystems in 26 biozones22. 21 More information about the integrated ecosystem map can be found in Technical Note 3 of Appendix 2. 22 Biozones are major habitat units. In the terrestrial environment, they are the same as biomes, but the term biozone is used so that A new, fully integrated ecosystem map was prepared, covering terrestrial, river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 16 The second addition in the NPAES 2016 is that targets can only be met in intact habitat. This principle was established in the NPAES 2008 but was only partially implemented as only artificial waterbodies were excluded at that time. The underlying principle is that areas that are no longer intact (e.g. large dams, roads, rest camps, canalised sections of rivers and plantations of exotic trees) should not contribute to targets even if they are in protected areas. Hence, the preparation of a fully integrated ecosystem condition map was a key activity for the NPAES. This process produced the first ever integrated map of ecosystem condition for South Africa, which identified good, fair and poor condition areas of each ecosystem (Figure 5)23. equivalent river, wetland and marine habitat units can be included. Targets can be met in protected areas and other areas with effective area-based conservation measures. Currently, we only evaluate protected areas, as these are the only areas where biodiversity is currently legally secured. In the future, once other area based conservation mechanisms have been secured effectively (e.g. through having intact natural areas of biospheres strictly zoned for conservation), subject to robust and effective land use controls, and have well-capacitated management authorities, it is anticipated that 23 More information about the integrated condition map can be found in Technical Note 4 of Appendix 2. Targets can only be met in intact habitat. Hence, the first ever integrated map of ecosystem condition was produced for South Africa. Figure 4: An integrated ecosystem map was created for South Africa. Inserts show the Prince Edward Islands and offshore pelagic ecosystems. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 17 the intact and secure areas zoned for conservation under these other measures will also contribute to meeting targets. Calculating protected area targets The NPAES has established a system that sets robust targets, but which can be quickly and easily updated when changes in any of the input elements occur24. In brief, the biodiversity targets for each ecosystem are identified from the NBA, and these are used as the long-term protected area targets. To calculate the 20-year targets, the ratio between the total area required to meet South Africa’s CBD commitments and the total area needed to meet the long-term protected area target is then calculated25. This ratio is used to identify what proportion of the long 24 More information on how targets are calculated can be found in Technical Note 2 of Appendix 2. term target is required over the next 20 years. Based on current values, the 20-year protected area targets for marine ecosystems are 50% of the long-term biodiversity targets, while those for terrestrial ecosystems are 78.63%. Shorter term protected area targets (e.g. 5-year target) are calculated as a portion of the 20-year target. The target setting approach outlined here was applied using the integrated ecosystem map specially created for this strategy, which produced the values reflected in the tables, analyses and appendices of this report, but the same approach can be applied to any other ecosystem map. This allows provinces to use finer scale local ecosystem maps for their target setting and planning processes, 25 This was calculated separately for terrestrial and marine systems. Coastal ecosystems, which have a land component, were treated as terrestrial. Figure 5: An integrated ecosystem condition map was created for South Africa. Inserts show the condition of the Prince Edward Islands and offshore pelagic ecosystems. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 18 while remaining fully compatible with the NPAES approach and required overall target. Summary of protected area targets The final target percentages for the NPAES 2016 are summarized in Table 5. Importantly, the underlying targets are set at the ecosystem level, which are given in detail in Appendix 1. The long-term protected area targets, which are the same as the biodiversity targets, range from 16% to 36% of original extent. The 20-year protected area targets range from 10% to 28.3%, with many systems such as coastal types, wetlands, estuaries and rivers having a target of 15.7%. Table 6 summarizes the total areas required to meet the targets. A total of 574 735km2, of which 363 392km2 is the 20-year target, is required to meet long-term protected area targets for all ecosystems except marine pelagic ecosystems. The long-term target for marine pelagic ecosystems is 214 719 km2, 107 359km2 of which should be protected in the next 20-years. In many cases, targets for pelagic ecosystems and offshore benthic ecosystems could be met by the same protected area as these ecosystems overlap. Fortunately, large areas required to meet many of these targets are already included in existing protected areas. The next section describes the current level of achievement of targets within the current protected area network. 262728 26 78.63% of the biodiversity target for terrestrial ecosystems and 50% for marine ecosystems 27 At least 75% of the Marine Protected Area network should be designated no-take areas. 28 The target for marine pelagic systems is not in addition to offshore benthic targets, as these can be achieved in overlapping areas National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 19 Table 5: Summary of the percentages required for the long-term protected area targets, Aichi biodiversity targets, 20-year protected area targets and 5-year targets. Full targets for individual ecosystems are given in Appendix 1. Category Biozone Long-term protected area target Aichi target 20-year target26 5-year target Marine27 Inner shelf, inshore, offshore benthic 20% 10% 10% 2.5% Marine pelagic28 20% 10% 10% 2.5% Southern Oceans 20% 10% 10% 2.5% Coast types, island, lagoon 20% 17% 15.7% 3.92% Terrestrial All 16 – 36% 17% 12.6 – 28.3% 3.15 – 7.1% Estuaries All 20% 17% 15.7% 3.92% Rivers N.A. 20% 17% 15.7% 3.92% Wetlands N.A. 20% 17% 15.7% 3.92% Table 6: Summary of the target areas for ecosystems. Full targets for each ecosystem are given in Appendix 1. Category Long-term protected area target (km2) Aichi target (km2) 20-year target (km2) 5-year target (km2) Estuary 330 280 259 65 Marine (Benthic and Coastal) 215 281 107 911 107 862 26 966 Coast types 322 273 253 63 Inner Shelf 573 286 286 72 Inshore 856 428 428 107 Island 441 375 347 87 Lagoon 11 9 9 2 Offshore Benthic 213 080 106 540 106 540 26 635 Marine Southern Oceans 94 675 47 338 47 338 11 834 Rivers 2 670 2 270 2 100 525 Sub-Antarctic 69 58 54 13 Sub-Antarctic Polar Desert 22 19 17 4 Sub-Antarctic Tundra 47 40 37 9 Terrestrial 257 671 202 102 20 2604 50 651 Albany Thicket 5 386 4 819 4 235 1 059 Azonal Vegetation 5 149 3 380 4 049 1 012 Desert 2 399 1 225 1 886 472 Forests 1 007 774 792 198 Fynbos 22 213 13 865 17 466 4 366 Grassland 78 270 54 586 61 543 15 386 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 2 747 1 868 2 160 540 Nama-Karoo 50 069 41 811 39 369 9 842 Savanna 71 632 65 575 56 324 14 081 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 20 Succulent Karoo 18 800 14 198 14 782 3 696 Wetlands 4 039 3 433 3 176 794 Grand Total 574 735 363 392 363 392 90 848 Marine pelagic29 214 719 107 359 107 359 26 840 Current achievement of targets 29With protected area targets determined for each ecosystem type, the next step is to evaluate how much of each ecosystem type is already effectively conserved in the protected area network. To do this, we need to combine the ecosystem map (Figure 4), ecosystem condition map (Figure 5) and 29The targets for the marine pelagic systems cannot be added to the offshore benthic targets, as they will often be achieved in overlapping areas. protected area targets. The ecosystem condition map is required to ensure that only intact areas are counted. Table 7 gives a summary of the protected area targets for all ecosystems and evaluates the current protected area network in terms of its achievement of these targets. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 21 Table 7: Summary of the calculated shortfall between the current protected area (PA) extent and the long term biodiversity target and the 20-year target.30 Category Lo n g t e rm p ro te ct e d a re a t a rg e t (k m 2 ) 2 0 y e a r ta rg e t (k m 2 ) C u rr e n t P A e x te n t (k m 2 ) In ta ct a re a s in P A ( k m 2 ) Lo n g t e rm ta rg e t sh o rt fa ll (k m 2 ) 2 0 y e a r ta rg e t sh o rt fa ll (k m 2 ) Estuary 330 259 724 0.3 330 259 Marine (Benthic and Coastal) 215 281 107 862 4 665 4 001 211 896 104 962 Coast types 322 253 282 273 91 47 Inner Shelf 573 286 239 173 400 114 Inshore 856 428 848 678 323 24 Island 441 347 178 117 323 229 Lagoon 11 9 6 6 5 3 Offshore Benthic 213 080 106 540 3 112 2 755 210 753 104 545 Marine Southern Oceans 94 675 47 338 180 862 180 862 0 0 Rivers 2 670 2 100 1 092 871 2 009 1 490 Sub-Antarctic 69 54 343 343 0 0 Sub-Antarctic Polar Desert 22 17 110 110 0 0 Sub-Antarctic Tundra 47 37 233 233 0 0 Terrestrial 257 671 202 604 93 381 89 798 195 793 146 814 Albany Thicket 5 386 4 235 2 533 2 446 2 939 1 971 Azonal Vegetation 5 149 4 049 2 054 1 699 3 720 2 735 Desert 2 399 1 886 1 601 1 596 1 818 1 419 Forests 1 007 792 1 692 1 622 100 50 Fynbos 22 213 17 466 17 031 16 776 12 843 9 658 Grassland 78 270 61 543 11 585 10 015 69 308 52 852 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 2 747 2 160 619 605 2 141 1 554 Nama-Karoo 50 069 39 369 2 674 2 483 47 618 36 946 Savanna 71 632 56 324 48 123 47 105 41 147 29 248 Succulent Karoo 18 800 14 782 5 467 5 451 14 158 10 380 Wetlands 4 039 3 176 1 413 1 139 3 135 2 352 Grand Total 574 735 363 392 282 479 277 016 413 163 255 877 Marine pelagic 214 719 107 359 3 082 2 579 212 140 104 780 The shortfall in terms of achieving the long term protected area targets shows that South Africa’s current protected area network is still inadequate to sustain biodiversity and ecological processes. To meet the long-term 30 Importantly, the actual 20-year shortfall is larger than initial inspection of the targets and current protected areas would suggest because only the intact areas can meet targets and the current protected area extent includes areas which may be in excess of the minimum area required to meet targets for an individual ecosystem. See Appendix 2 for more detail. protected area target we need to add 413 163km2 to the protected area network, of which 211 896km2 should be in protected areas securing marine benthic and coastal ecosystems. An additional amount of National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 22 212 140km2 is needed to secure marine pelagic ecosystems. To meet the 20-year targets, we need to add 255 877km2 to the protected area network. This is made up of 104 962km2 required for marine benthic and coastal ecosystems, 146 814km2 for terrestrial ecosystems, 2 352km2 for wetlands, 1 490km2 for rivers and 259km2 for estuaries. As discussed previously, pelagic ecosystems are dealt with separately and require 104 780km2 to meet the 20-year targets. It is important to remember that the aggregated protected area targets in Table 7 are built up from more detailed ecosystem level targets, which are discussed in the sections that follow. These specific targets are crucial for ensuring that protected area expansion doesn’t just provide more protection for already well-protected ecosystems. The ‘protection level’ of an ecosystem provides a simple way to visualise and understand how well ecosystems are represented in the protected area network. The ecosystem protection level is evaluated using the same methods and categories as the NBA (Table 8). These categories range from ‘Not Protected’, through intermediate categories to ‘Well Protected’. The number of ecosystems in each of these categories are reported per biozone in Table 9 and mapped in Figure 6. Of the 969 distinct ecosystem types, 201 (21%) are Well Protected, 122 (13%) types are Moderately Protected, 286 (30%) ecosystem types are Poorly Protected, while 360 (37%) ecosystem types are Not Protected. The following sections explore the ecosystem protection levels of marine, inland aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem groups in more detail. Table 8: Categories used for evaluation of ecosystem protection levels. The categories are the same as those applied in the National Biodiversity Assessment. Ecosystem protection level category Definition Not Protected An ecosystem type of which no intact area, or only a very small area (less than 5% of the target), is located within the protected area network. Poorly Protected An ecosystem type in which less than half (but more than 5%) of the target is located within the protected area network. Moderately Protected An ecosystem type in which more than half of the target for an ecosystem type is located within the protected area network. Well Protected An ecosystem type in which the full target area falls within the protected area network. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 23 Table 9: Summary of the current number of individual ecosystems within each protection level category, per biozone. Category W e ll P ro te ct e d M o d e ra te ly P ro te ct e d P o o rl y P ro te ct e d N o t P ro te ct e d T o ta l Estuary 3 43 46 Marine (Benthic and Coastal) 23 26 14 46 109 Coast types 12 14 3 3 32 Inner Shelf 1 2 1 4 Inshore 3 5 1 1 10 Island 2 2 Lagoon 1 1 Offshore Benthic 8 5 6 41 60 Marine pelagic 2 14 16 Marine Southern Oceans 1 1 Rivers 37 26 79 69 211 Sub-Antarctic 5 5 Sub-Antarctic Polar Desert 1 1 Sub-Antarctic Tundra 4 4 Terrestrial 111 51 148 135 445 Albany Thicket 5 7 2 14 Azonal Vegetation 8 5 11 12 36 Desert 6 1 8 15 Forests 9 3 12 Fynbos 43 8 41 30 122 Grassland 9 2 37 24 72 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 2 1 3 6 Nama-Karoo 1 5 8 14 Savanna 25 17 30 18 90 Succulent Karoo 10 9 15 30 64 Wetlands 24 19 40 53 136 Grand Total 201 122 286 360 969 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 24 Achievement of marine targets There are very distinct patterns of achievement of protected area targets for marine ecosystems (Figure 7). Coastal ecosystems are generally the best protected of the marine biozones. 273km2 of coastal ecosystems, out of a target of 322km2, has already been protected, with 91km2 still being required to meet the full long-term target and 47km2 to meet the 20-year target (Table 7). Figure 7 shows that 12 coastal ecosystem types (38%) are Well Protected, 14 are Moderately Protected (44%), 3 are Poorly Protected (9%) and 3 are Not Protected (9%). Despite this relatively healthy situation, some important gaps remain. Firstly, the West Coast is very under-protected, with 5 of the Poorly Protected and Not Protected ecosystem types being found here. Secondly, to properly secure marine ecosystems, at least 75% of each ecosystem’s targets should be included into no-take zones. ‘Controlled’ or ‘take’ zones in marine protected areas can actually become nodes for increased exploitation by facilitating fishing access, rather than providing protection. Urgent attention should be given to reducing the impact of recreational fishing activities in the controlled zones within marine protected areas. The current pressure to downgrade some long standing marine protected areas from no-take to ‘controlled’ could undermine recent progress in marine protected area declaration. Figure 6: Current protection levels of South African terrestrial (including Sub-Antarctic ecosystems), river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine (including pelagic) ecosystems. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 25 The remaining shallow water systems (i.e. inner shelf, inshore, island, and lagoon) show variation in terms of current inclusion in the protected area network. Overall, 2 ecosystem types (12%) are Not Protected, 5 types (29%) are Poorly Protected, 7 types (41%) are Moderately Protected and 3 types (18%) are Well Protected (Figure 7). The largest gaps are in the inner shelf and island biozones, where significant additional areas are required, in particular along the West Coast where very few systems have any effective protection. A number of inshore types along the East and South-East Coast have some level of protection, with most of the 3 Well Protected and 5 Moderately Protected Inshore types being found along this coast. The single lagoon ecosystem (Langebaan) is Moderately Protected. For all these ecosystems, a key issue is that even where there is some protection, few of these areas are declared no-take reserves. Figure 7: Current protection levels of marine ecosystems, divided according to biozone. The top left graph shows a summary of the marine (benthic and coastal) ecosystems. 21% 24% 13% 42% Marine (Benthic and Coastal) Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 38% 44% 9% 9% Coast Types Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 18% 41% 29% 12% Inner Shelf, Inshore, Islands & Lagoon Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 14% 8% 10% 68% Offshore Benthic Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 12% 88% Marine Pelagic Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 100% Marine Southern Oceans Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 26 The full target is met for the Southern Oceans, since declaration of the recent marine protected area. In contrast, mainland offshore benthic marine ecosystems currently have almost no protection, with 41 types (68%) categorised as Not Protected (Figure 7). Protection levels of marine pelagic ecosystems are even worse, with protected areas securing only 2% of the 20-year target. This is reflected by the fact that 14 types (88%) are Not Protected with the remaining 2 types (12%) being Poorly Protected. Fortunately, this situation is currently changing with the declaration of marine protected areas through Operation Phakisa. To summarise, the focus for marine protected area expansion in the next five years should be securing the improved protection of marine ecosystems through Operation Phakisa. In addition, significant progress is needed in inshore regions and some coastal regions, particularly along the West Coast. A key issue is declaring sufficient no-take areas to ensure that marine ecosystems are effectively secured against fishing pressure. Otherwise, the benefits of declaring marine protected areas will be undermined. Achievement of targets for inland aquatic ecosystems Unlike in the NPAES 2008, specific targets have now been set for inland aquatic ecosystems (rivers, wetlands and estuaries). All three inland aquatic biozones are very poorly represented in the protected area network (Figure 8), which has a traditional bias towards terrestrial ecosystems. Further, many of the aquatic ecosystems that do occur within protected area boundaries are often in poor condition and are, therefore, not effectively secured. The focus for marine protected area expansion should be on improved protection of marine ecosystems through Operation Phakisa, and on under-protected inshore and coastal regions, particularly along the West Coast. Sufficient no-take areas are needed to effectively secure marine ecosystems. Figure 8: Current protection levels of inland aquatic ecosystems (rivers, wetlands and estuaries). 7% 93% Estuary Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 18% 12% 37% 33% Rivers Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 18% 14% 29% 39% Wetlands Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 27 This is most obvious in estuaries, where even though the current protected area network of 724km2 exceeds the total required to meet targets, there is still a shortfall in actual target achievement (Table 7). This results from two issues. Firstly, although some large estuaries are conserved and targets are exceeded for those types, many ecosystems remain unprotected. Secondly, much of the estuary area within protected areas is in fact in a poor condition due to catchment related impacts and hence does not contribute to meeting targets. Currently, 93% of the 43 estuary types are effectively Not Protected (Figure 8). Overall, 259km2 of additional estuary protection is necessary over the next 20 years. Securing estuaries effectively in the protected area network is going to require both expansion into under-protected types and improved management of estuaries and their catchments. Rivers are very poorly represented within the protected area network, with 69 ecosystem types (33%) being classified as Not Protected, and 79 (37%) as Poorly Protected. The remaining 63 types are fairly evenly spread between Moderately Protected (12%) and Well Protected types (18%). Currently, river ecosystems are well below targets, with only 871km2 both protected and in acceptable condition. In order to secure full representation of rivers, an additional 2 009km2 of river ecosystems is required in the long-term, of which 1 490km2 is needed within 20 years (Table 7). Protection of rivers is particularly important as they represent vital ecological infrastructure for the country, i.e. they are responsible for delivering important ecosystem services to people. As was the case 31 Nel et al., 2011. for estuaries, protection of rivers is not ensured merely by including the river within a protected area, though this is a good starting point. Full protection requires that catchments are effectively managed, that important areas for generating runoff are secured (i.e. South Africa’s Strategic Water Source Areas31), that abstraction is carefully controlled, and that riparian areas and floodplains are maintained. Wetlands are even more poorly represented in the protected area network than river ecosystems. As many as 53 wetland ecosystem types (39%) are Not Protected, with an additional 40 types (29%) being Poorly Protected. Long-term targets are only met for the 24 types (18%) which are Well Protected, with another 19 types (14%) categorised as Moderately Protected. The very poor protection of wetlands is illustrated by the fact that of the 4 039km2 long-term and 3 176km2 20-year targets required, only 1 139km2 is met by wetlands that are both included acceptable condition and in a protected area (Table 7). Consequently, a significant shortfall of 3 135km2 exists in the long-term and 2 352km2 is required over the next 20-years. It is clear that a far more targeted protection effort is required in order that South Africa sufficiently secures its wetlands. As was the case for rivers, wetlands represent key ecological infrastructure, and securing them can maintain important benefits in terms of the delivery of ecosystem services to people. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 28 In summary, inland aquatic ecosystems (rivers, wetlands and estuaries) are very poorly represented in protected areas, and many of the areas that are included are in poor condition. There is a dual challenge to substantially improve the protected area coverage of inland aquatic systems and at the same time secure their functioning. This requires careful management of catchments, securing effective management of key areas such as water source areas, floodplains and riparian areas, as well as improved management of wetlands within current protected areas. Although the challenge is great, the benefits are potentially far greater, as inland aquatic ecosystems are amongst South Africa’s most important ecological infrastructure. Achievement of terrestrial targets (mainland and Sub-Antarctic) Overall, of the 445 mainland terrestrial ecosystem types, 25% are Well Protected, 12% are Moderately Protected, 33% are Poorly Protected and 30% are Not Protected (Figure 9). The overall low levels of protection are emphasised when one examines the actual targets (Table 7). Of the long-term target of 257 671km2 and the 20-year target of 202 604km2, only 93 381km2 is currently included in the protected area network in acceptable condition. This leaves a long-term requirement for 195 793km2, of which 146 814km2 is required over 20-years. This equates to 36 703km2 in 5-years or 7 340km2 per year (i.e. 734 000ha a year). It is clear that South Africa is a long way from having a fully a protected area network that is fully representative of all mainland terrestrial ecosystems In a welcome contrast to the mainland systems, all five Sub-Antarctic terrestrial ecosystem types are fully included in the protected area network. If we examine the individual biozones, it is clear that there is much variation in protection (Figure 10). Forests are by far the best protected, with 9 ecosystem types (75%) being Well Protected and the remaining 3 types (25%) being Moderately Protected. Figure 9: Current protection levels for all mainland terrestrial ecosystems and Sub-Antarctic ecosystems. 25% 12% 33% 30% Terrestrial (Mainland) Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 100% Sub-Antarctic Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected Inland aquatic ecosystems are important ecological infrastructure, but are very poorly represented in protected areas, and many of the areas that are included are in poor condition. There is a dual challenge to substantially improve the protected area coverage of inland aquatic systems and at the same time secure their functioning. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 29 0% 36% 50% 14% Albany Thicket Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 22% 14% 31% 33% Azonal Vegetation Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 40% 0%7% 53% Desert Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 75% 25% 0%0% Forests Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 35% 6%34% 25% Fynbos Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 13% 3% 51% 33% Grassland Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 0% 33% 17% 50% Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 7%0% 36% 57% Nama-Karoo Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 28% 19%33% 20% Savanna Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected 16% 14% 23% 47% Succulent Karoo Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected Figure 10: Current protection levels for terrestrial ecosystems, divided according to biozones. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 30 None of the other terrestrial biozones have similar levels of protection. The Desert biozone has 6 types (40%) categorised as Well Protected, but 8 types (53%) are Not Protected. Effectively, Desert ecosystems in the west and east are well represented, but central types are not. There is a similar situation for Fynbos ecosystems, with 43 types (35%) being Well Protected, but 41 types (34%) remain Poorly Protected and 31 types (25%) are Not Protected. Many mountain and some coastal Fynbos ecosystems are well represented by the protected area network, but lowland and midland types remain very poorly conserved. Savanna has a similar contrast, with 28% Well Protected ecosystem types, but 33% that remain Poorly Protected and 20% are Not Protected. Large Savanna focused protected areas secure the Lowveld and the arid Savannas, but much of the remaining mesic Savanna is very poorly protected. Hence, even in biozones that initially appear relatively well conserved there significant gaps in protection. These poorly represented ecosystems are just as deserving of protection as any other under protected type, and the need to protect them is not reduced by good protection of other ecosystems in their biozone. Overall, the Nama-Karoo is South Africa’s least protected biozone, with 8 types (57%) categorised as Not Protected, and an additional 5 types (36%) remain Poorly Protected. In the past, protection of the Nama-Karoo was not seen as urgent because there were no imminent threats and it appeared that opportunities for protection would be available for the foreseeable future. However, shale gas exploration and production could now potentially foreclose protected area expansion opportunities across much of the Nama-Karoo. This illustrates how protected area expansion efforts should be balanced between securing remaining fragments of already pressured ecosystems, with strategically securing areas before they become fragmented. It is clear that protected area expansion in the Nama Karoo has suddenly become urgent and that opportunities for significant protection at low cost may have already been lost. Grasslands are the second most under represented terrestrial biozone, with 24 types (33%) being classified as Not Protected and 37 types (51%) as Poorly Protected. Few choices exist for meeting protected area targets in Grasslands because of many competing land and resource uses, and there is a need to act quickly to secure remaining options. The Succulent Karoo is in a very similar position to the Grasslands, 30 types (47%) are Not Protected and 15 types (23%) are Poorly Protected. Expansion of protected areas in the remaining under-represented types in the Succulent Karoo is also a priority. In summary, terrestrial biozones show variable levels of protection. Sub-Antarctic ecosystem types are fully protected. Some ecosystems within Forests, Deserts and Savannas have good protection, but other ecosystems in these biozones remain under protected. The most under-protected biozones are the Nama-Karoo, Grasslands and Succulent Karoo. In these biozones it is important to take all opportunities for further protection, as competing land and resource uses continue to expand. Sub-Antarctic ecosystems are fully protected, but the Nama-Karoo, Grassland and Succulent Karoo biozones remain significantly under-represented. Protected area expansion in these biozones is urgent, as competing land and resource uses continue to reduce opportunities for protection. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 31 5. Priority areas for protected area expansion Having set protected area targets, the next step is to determine which geographic areas are the highest priorities for protected area expansion to meet those targets. The NPAES takes the approach that the national role is not to undertake the spatial planning, but rather to set targets, identify key underlying planning principles, collate the provincial and sector priorities, and identify any remaining gaps. The strategy recognizes that detailed planning, scheduling and operational issues are all best dealt with at the provincial and agency level. In the NPAES 2008, spatial priorities had to be established nationally as few provinces or agencies had conservation plans and even fewer had specific sets of protected area expansion priorities. This has changed sufficiently for a set of priority areas to be collated directly from provincial and agency plans. The NPAES 2016 brings together these priorities, and highlights ecosystems where, if fully implemented, the current set of priorities will not achieve targets. The identified priority areas cover a total area of 190 109km2, in addition to areas currently under negotiation covering 73 610km2 of mostly marine areas. The priority areas for each province, as well as for marine systems, are summarized. Overall, the set of priorities is well aligned with requirements for improving the representation of most ecosystems over the next 20 years. The number of Well Protected ecosystems is anticipated to more than double, while Not Protected ecosystems will reduce by around 70%. Assuming effective implementation the priority areas, greatest progress is anticipated in the Grasslands, Succulent Karoo, Savanna, wetlands, rivers and offshore benthic and pelagic ecosystems. Chapter 4 addressed how much intact and functional area of each ecosystem type should be included in the protected area network if it is to be fully representative and play its role in ensuring that no further ecosystems become Critically Endangered. Once targets have been set, the next step is to determine which geographic areas are the highest priorities for protected area expansion to meet those targets. Although the overall aim should be improving the representivity and efficiency of the protected area network, planning needs to take a far wider set of issues into account. These include detailed analysis of important areas for ecosystem processes (e.g. to secure areas against the impacts of climate change), and the identification of key areas of ecological infrastructure that will ensure that protected areas contribute to delivering key ecosystem services to people. Further, implementation prioritisation should reflect operational requirements (e.g. consolidation of protected areas to aid management) and the implementation mechanisms being used (e.g. the use of biodiversity stewardship programmes). When the NPAES 2008 was developed, most provinces did not have systematic conservation plans and even fewer had specified sets of protected area expansion priorities. It was therefore necessary to prioritise at a national level. Little was known about inland aquatic and marine priorities. This situation has changed substantially, with most provinces, agencies and sectors having robust and systematically identified spatial priorities. All terrestrial, freshwater and National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 32 marine areas now have functional protected area expansion strategies (PAES). The national planning approach is therefore no longer necessary or appropriate, and instead the role of the NPAES 2016 is to set targets, review the collated spatial priorities and identify gaps, rather than undertaking its own spatial prioritisation. The NPAES 2016 is therefore collated from the protected area expansion priorities of the individual protected area agencies. The strategy recognises that detailed protected area expansion planning is best dealt with at the provincial and agency level. Many planning issues (e.g. ecosystem service issues, identification of ecological infrastructure, protected area management issues, implementation negotiations, and practicalities of expansion in particular areas) are most effectively dealt with at a sub national level. Hence, the NPAES focuses on the overall principles which should be applied during protected area expansion planning at the agency and provincial level. In this chapter, the priority areas for each province, as well as for marine systems, are summarised in terms of how they were identified, their location, the key biodiversity features, and the key pressures on these priority areas. The anticipated situation in terms of protection levels of terrestrial, river, wetland, estuarine and marine ecosystems is evaluated assuming all the priority areas are successfully implemented. The ecosystems that are not fully addressed by the current set of priority areas are identified. Further, we evaluate the anticipated rate of implementation of priority areas in terms of the current implementation rates from the provinces and agencies. Key principles for planning and implementation It is anticipated that, over time, provinces and agencies will refine, revise and adapt their systematic conservation plans and PAES as implementation is rolled out, landscapes change (e.g. loss of intact habitat), knowledge is improved (e.g. revised ecosystem mapping) and planning processes are improved. The following key principles are intended to guide further protected area expansion planning and implementation, so that robust prioritisation is maintained: Systematic approach: Protected area expansion planning should be closely linked to spatial priorities identified in provincial systematic conservation plans. In other cases, the planning may take place at a broader scale (e.g. for marine systems) or more locally (e.g. systematic expansion planning for a particular protected area). There should be strong alignment with identified Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas (or equivalent categories). In most cases the identified protected area expansion priorities should be a subset of these categories in the applicable systematic conservation plan for an area. Detailed planning is best dealt with at provincial and agency level. Protected area priorities are now available at this level for all terrestrial, freshwater and marine areas. The role of the NPAES 2016 is to collate these priorities and identify gaps, rather than undertaking national prioritisation. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 33 Target driven: Prioritisation should focus on meeting targets for ecosystems. There should be a clear link between national targets and those used in local level planning. This issue is linked to the following two key points on representation and efficiency. Improve representation of all ecosystems: Overall, planning for expansion of a protected area network should strive to improve representation of all ecosystems. It may not be possible, cost-effective or necessary to secure the full target for all ecosystem types through a protected area mechanism. Other effective conservation mechanisms may be more appropriate in some cases (e.g. appropriate zoning or development controls could be used in urban situations). Nevertheless, the starting point should be that all ecosystems should be represented in the protected area network to some extent, and that one should attempt to secure as much of the ecosystem targets in protected areas as is practically possible. Improve efficiency: There are many valid reasons to have a greater portion of an ecosystem protected than the targets require. For example, a protected area may have a significant economic, social or tourism role; it may be necessary to protect some other biodiversity feature (e.g. a key threatened species); or it may be necessary to secure a larger area to protect ecological infrastructure and ensure long-term climate change persistence. For ecosystem types with a limited extent, it may not be effective to only protect a portion of the system. In other instances, significant gains in management efficiency may override representation efficiency. However, the overall aim should be to improve the efficiency of meeting targets. This implies that where targets for an ecosystem have already been met, there needs to be a clear and rational reason for including more of that ecosystem before under-represented ecosystems are addressed. Ecological persistence: Protected areas should secure areas critical for maintaining ecological process. This will ensure that protected areas themselves are able to adapt to climate change and that they contribute to society as a whole adapting to climate change impacts. Key areas include coastal and inland corridors, areas important for hydrological process (e.g. riparian areas), and areas with important altitudinal, climatic and ecological gradients. Ecological infrastructure: Protected area planning should include issues related to the protection of natural areas that deliver critical ecosystem services to people. Ecological infrastructure linked to water-related ecosystem services are particularly critical, e.g. Strategic Water Source Areas. Integrated planning across ecosystem types: Ideally planning should take place across terrestrial, river, wetland and marine systems to ensure that optimal areas are selected that will deliver a complete set of priority areas. Integrated planning for threatened species: Priorities for threatened species should be fully incorporated into the analysis. Alignment between provinces and agencies: Where ecosystems are shared between provinces, or where multiple agencies are active in a province, it is critical that clear communication lines exist and that planning processes are linked. This is necessary to ensure that priorities are aligned. For example, one should ensure that activities are not artificially focused in difficult to implement areas (e.g. where one province has a highly fragmented portion of an ecosystem that would be better protected in an adjacent province), that shared priority areas are consistently dealt with, and that boundary National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 34 areas between biozones (e.g. coastal areas) are sensibly planned. Where a national agency is operating in a portion of a province it should take provincial priorities into account, and conversely, provinces should incorporate the national agency’s priorities. Address receding opportunities: Where limited opportunities exist to secure the last remaining portions of under-represented ecosystems, it is critical that these are prioritised. Although it may not be possible or cost-effective to secure all these areas through protected area expansion, it is important that this decision is made on a rational basis and that alternative mechanisms are used to secure these areas. At the other extreme, there may be some remaining large unfragmented landscapes where opportunities exist to secure protected areas where there are currently fewer competing land and resource uses. These areas should be secured before opportunities are lost. Incorporate issues of opportunity cost: A key issue is that some areas may be very expensive for protected area expansion or difficult to secure, and can absorb a great deal of the protected area expansion effort for not much gain in terms of contributing to biodiversity targets. The balance between securing critical or irreplaceable sites and other sites that may contribute more effectively to meeting targets should be carefully considered. In some cases, it may be better to secure these difficult areas through other conservation mechanisms such as development controls or zoning. Other operational and economic issues: Protected areas need to be manageable, so operational issues need to be taken into account. Similarly, protected areas should contribute to the national, regional and local economy especially through tourism. These are all legitimate reasons for prioritising particular areas for expansion. However, care must be taken to ensure that these issues do not override all the above core principles aimed at securing a representative, ecologically sustainable and efficient reserve network. Overall, protected area agencies should aim for a balanced portfolio of expansion activities which contribute to biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability. They should avoid reinforcing existing biases in the protected area network by not protecting more of the same. Priorities should be clearly defined through a robust systematic planning process. Priority areas for protected area expansion The NPAES 2016 has collated protected area expansion priorities from the provincial and national agencies. These priorities reflect the spatial priorities from provincial and other PAES, or alternatively show the areas that are currently being incorporated into these provincial and agency strategies. Priorities were obtained from, and confirmed with, the various agencies and provinces. Protected areas agencies should aim for a balanced portfolio of expansion activities, which contribute to biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability. They should avoid reinforcing existing biases by not protecting more of the same. Priorities should be clearly defined through a robust systematic planning process. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 35 An overall map of current protected areas, areas under negotiation and collated priorities from provinces and agencies is shown in Figure 11. The identified priority areas cover a total area of 184 190km2, in addition to areas currently under negotiation covering 72 584km2 of mostly marine areas. For comparison, the current protected area network covers a total of approximately 282 479km2, the terrestrial protected areas are 96 610km2 and the Prince Edward Islands marine protected area is 180 862km2. The following sections detail the priority areas for each province and summarise them as follows:  How were the priority areas identified?  Where are the main priority areas?  What are the main biodiversity features?  What are the key pressures on priority areas for protected area expansion? Figure 11: Current protected areas, areas under negotiation and collated priorities from provinces and protected area agencies. Intact areas of ecosystems which are likely to remain severely under protected (i.e. Not or Poorly Protected) after implementation of the negotiated and priority areas are indicated. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 36 Priority areas in the Eastern Cape Figure 12: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Eastern Cape. How were the priority areas identified? The Eastern Cape has a provincial conservation plan32, which had to be significantly updated when the provincial PAES was prepared33. The update included freshwater and estuarine priorities, climate change issues and key gaps in the representation of terrestrial ecosystems. The priority areas represent a finite set of implementation priorities rather than a comprehensive set of areas required to meet all targets. SANParks priorities were fully included into the provincial plan and hence were not added separately in the NPAES. Where are the main priority areas? The main priorities are Pondoland, Qhorha-Manubi, Greater Baviaanskloof, Katberg-Amathole, the East London Coast, the Sunshine Coast, the St Francis region, Mountain Zebra to Camdeboo National Parks, around Addo National Park and the North Eastern Cape interior grasslands. What are the main biodiversity features? Key biodiversity features targeted are the Pondoland Centre of Endemism, the high value montane grasslands and forest mosaics of the Katberg-Amathole, the wetland complexes of Matatiele, remaining pockets of coastal forest and grassland, corridor areas of the Sneeuberg region, and the under-protected and unique grasslands of the Southern Drakensberg. What are the key pressures on priority areas? Agriculture (both commercial and subsistence) is an issue in many of the priority areas, new forestry programs are an issue in the east, while coastal urban 32 Berliner and Desmet, 2007. 33 Skowno et al., 2012. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 37 expansion threatens coastal areas. Mining and infrastructure projects are issues in some areas such as the Pondoland. Priority areas in KwaZulu-Natal Figure 13: Priority areas for protected area expansion in KwaZulu-Natal. How were the priority areas identified? Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife has a well-established and up to date systematic conservation planning system which identifies a comprehensive set of Critical Biodiversity Areas, within which protected area expansion priorities are identified34. Key issues include targeting irreplaceable and under-represented biodiversity features and important landscape corridors. Where are the main priority areas? Most irreplaceable features are in the midland and coastal regions. In addition, there are critical landscape linkages including the Kokstad to Port Edward, Bulwer, Nottingham Road, Glencoe to Umtunzini, and Zululand/Maputaland corridors. What are the main biodiversity features? Key features include the remaining areas of irreplaceable, highly threatened and under-represented Sub-escarpment Grassland, Sub-escarpment Savanna and Indian Ocean Coastal Belt. In addition, key landscape corridors are targeted. The planning process fully incorporates aquatic and species priorities. What are the key pressures on priority areas? Urban residential and commercial expansion in the coastal areas are the key pressures, while commercial and subsistence agriculture are an issue inland. 34 Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2010. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 38 Priority areas in Mpumalanga Figure 14: Priority areas for protected area expansion in Mpumalanga. How were the priority areas identified? Mpumalanga has an up to date and comprehensive systematic conservation plan35, from which a subset of areas was prioritised for the provincial PAES36. The prioritisation focused on meeting biodiversity targets for ecosystems, species and process areas. Key issues were landscape connectivity and securing threatened ecosystems. Where are the main priority areas? Although a very comprehensive set of areas have been identified, the key priority areas are the Loskop-Middelburg region, the Steenkampsberg, Vaalhoek (near Blyde Canyon), Kaapsehoop and Schoemanskloof on the escarpment, the Slaaihoek and Badplaas region and around Wakkerstroom. What are the main biodiversity features? The plan focuses on key corridors, priority intact grasslands, unprotected threatened species, threatened ecosystems and areas with remaining wilderness characteristics. Most priorities are in the Mesic Highveld Grasslands. What are the key pressures on priority areas? Rapid expansion of mining (especially for coal) is the primary threat in the priority areas. In addition, significant pressures exist from commercial and subsistence arable agriculture, and to a lesser extent plantation forestry. 35 Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA), 2014. 36 Lotter, 2015. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 39 Priority areas in Limpopo Figure 15: Priority areas for protected area expansion in Limpopo How were the priority areas identified? The Limpopo Province has a relatively recent provincial systematic conservation plan37 from which a spatially specific provincial protected areas expansion strategy was developed38. The spatial planning already includes SANParks priority areas and hence these were not separately added by the NPAES. Where are the main priority areas? High value sites which are under threat are prioritised, particularly the Haenertsburg-Modjadji area, the Blouberg (and adjacent Makgabeng) and the Nyslvlei (and adjacent Makapan) areas. Further priority areas include the Makuya region, the area around the Wolkberg and the Drakensberg-Strydpoortberge region. In addition, areas with high land-owner willingness (e.g. Waterberg and Soutpansberg), and areas with committed champions for protected area expansion (e.g. Kruger to Canyons Biosphere and areas in the Waterberg Biosphere) are included. What are the main biodiversity features? The priority areas comprehensively target the full range of biodiversity features in the province including under-protected terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, landscape corridors and major areas important for threatened species. 37 Desmet et al., 2013. 38 Desmet et al., 2014. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 40 What are the key pressures on priority areas? Cultivation and land degradation (often associated with former homeland areas) are consistent issues across many of the priority areas, while plantations and mining are locally very significant. Priority areas in Gauteng Figure 16: Priority areas for protected area expansion in Gauteng. How were the priority areas identified? Gauteng province has a clearly delineated set of spatial priorities derived from its provincial systematic conservation plan. The Gauteng Protected Areas Expansion Strategy comprehensively includes the Critical Biodiversity Areas from the Gauteng C-Plan Version 3.339 Where are the main priority areas? Key priority areas include the areas in and around the Cradle of Humankind in the West Rand, the Mesic Highveld Grasslands around Bronkhorstspruit, the Central Bushveld areas around Hammanskraal in the north of the province, and key connection across the south of the province linking Suikerbosrand and Sebokeng. Very few options remain in and around the highly urbanised City of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni Metropolitan areas. What are the main biodiversity features? The full range of important biodiversity features are targeted, including remain areas of threatened ecosystems, irreplaceable and important features. The priorities also include wetlands, rivers and their buffers, important ridges, dolomite areas and climate change corridors. What are the key pressures on priority areas? The key pressure is the expansion of urban areas for a range of residential, commercial and industrial reasons. Mining is also an important pressure, though less so 39 GDARD, 2014. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 41 than urban pressures. Arable commercial agriculture and subsistence agriculture are important in particular areas such as the far north. Priority areas in the North West Figure 17: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the North West. How were the priority areas identified? The North West is currently completing an update on its provincial conservation plan. Critical Biodiversity Areas from this plan, in particular priority areas (i.e. corridors and priority conservation nodes), were selected as the spatial priorities based on discussion with the conservation planners and provincial officials. These areas will be formalised into the revised provincial PAES. Where are the main priority areas? The major spatial priorities areas are the Platinum Heritage Park in the north east of the province, the Highveld Park (around Potchefstroom to Boskop Dam Nature Reserve), the areas around the lower Vaal near SA Lombaard and Bloemhof Dam, Taung, Molemane to Mariko, and the Molopo area. In addition, some important finer scale corridors are prioritised through the few remaining intact linkages in the centre of the province. What are the main biodiversity features? Under-protected ecosystem types, particularly in the Central Bushveld, Arid Highveld Grasslands and Eastern Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems are important biodiversity features. There is a strong focus on improving the landscape connectivity between reserves, with a particular focus on the major connections in the Bushveld areas of the Platinum Heritage Park and the more tenuous remaining river corridors through the Arid Highveld Grasslands. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 42 What are the key pressures on priority areas? Commercial dryland agriculture (especially focused on maize production) is by far the dominant pressure in the province, though mining pressures and subsistence farming are an issue in the north east. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 43 Priority areas in the Free State Figure 18: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Free State. How were the priority areas identified? The Free State is about to finalise its provincial conservation plan and protected areas expansion strategy. The plans are robust and systematic, with a clear focus on improving the representation of under-protected ecosystems. Initial priority areas from the draft provincial PAES were combined with SANParks expansion areas. Where are the main priority areas? Three main geographic themes can be seen. The plan includes a large area of Mesic Highveld Grasslands and Drakensberg Grasslands in the eastern Free State which are important for ecosystem service delivery. There is a central and southern band of priority areas targeting very under-protected Dry Highveld Grasslands, and then a smaller set of areas in the west targeting the upper Nama-Karoo and Eastern Kalahari Bushveld. What are the main biodiversity features? The plan strongly targets threatened and under-protected terrestrial ecosystems, particularly in the grasslands. The remaining intact areas of Endangered and Vulnerable ecosystem types are included in the plan. Freshwater priorities (i.e. FEPA40 rivers and wetlands) are less directly targeted but are nevertheless built into the overall spatial planning process. What are the key pressures on priority areas? The greatest pressure on Free State priority areas is agriculture. Most of this is commercial maize and sunflower production, though in some areas subsistence agriculture is also an issue. Large dams have also had an impact in the past. 40 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas, Nel et al., 2011. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 44 Priority areas in the Western Cape Figure 19: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Western Cape. How were the priority areas identified? CapeNature has a well-established and up to date systematic conservation planning system, which is used to identify Critical Biodiversity areas at a fine scale. Priorities from this planning process were put through a filter based on biodiversity features and operational requirements to identify a subset of priority areas for protected area expansion that are included in their PAES. SANParks priorities around existing national parks were also included. Where are the main priority areas? The priority areas are widely distributed across the province. Key spatial priorities focus on remaining sites in threatened and under-protected lowland Fynbos systems, important climate change adaptation corridors, and consolidating areas around and between key reserves. The main geographical gap in the network is that the Nama-Karoo was largely excluded as it was of lower priority, but this is now changing with the emergence of shale gas exploration. What are the main biodiversity features? The plan targets key gaps in the protected area network. It aims to secure at least one ‘best remaining’ site in each of the province’s most poorly-protected Critically Endangered ecosystems, secure key sites for important species, secure special (unique, under-protected & threatened) freshwater ecosystems in each region and also targets marine, estuarine and coastal features. What are the key pressures on priority areas? Lowland areas are under extreme pressure from urban and agricultural expansion. Agricultural expansion issues include expansion of potatoes, olives, rooibos and vineyards. Importantly, unmanaged Fynbos areas can be rapidly degraded through invasion by alien vegetation and poor fire management. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 45 Priority areas in the Northern Cape Figure 20: Priority areas for protected area expansion in the Northern Cape. How were the priority areas identified? The Northern Cape now has a full Protected Area Expansion Strategy41 developed by the Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation with support from the Department of Environmental Affairs. This is based on an up to date systematic conservation plan for the province42. The PAES priorities, which are used directly, are largely a subset of the Critical Biodiversity Areas from the systematic conservation plan that were identified on implementation priority. SANParks priorities were fully included into the provincial PAES. Where are the main priority areas? The priority areas are in the Succulent Karoo areas of the Namakwa District, Bushmanland, the southern Nama-Karoo as well as in the expansion areas of the existing national parks in the province. What are the main biodiversity features? Succulent Karoo and southern Nama-Karoo priorities, as well as river and wetlands are included. Arid Savanna and some Desert ecosystems are currently not fully included in these of priorities, and these will need to be focussed on after existing priorities have been implemented. 41 Balfour and Holness, 2017. 42 Holness and Oosthuysen, 2016. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 46 What are the key pressures on priority areas? Areas of Bushmanland and Namakwa are under pressure from mining and rapid expansion of renewable energy facilities. Priorities along the Gariep River are under threat from expansion of irrigated agriculture. Climate change impacts are likely to be very significant in this region. Priority areas in marine ecosystems Figure 21: Priority areas for protected area expansion for marine ecosystems. These currently consist of areas under negotiation as part of Operation Phakisa and some other pending MPA declarations. How were the priority areas identified? These are current areas under negotiation for Phase 1 of Operation Phakisa, which aims to proclaim a representative network of MPAs that protects at least 5% of mainland South Africa’s EEZ. The systematically identified priorities were based on assessments for the Offshore Marine Protected Area Project 201143, the West Coast of South Africa44 and assessments associated with the NBA 201145. Further priorities to take the total to 10% will be identified by 2018. Where are the main priority areas? These currently consist of the offshore areas under negotiation as part of Operation Phakisa, as well as MPAs in Algoa Bay, Namaqua, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Western Cape. 43 Sink et al., 2011. 44 Majiedt et al., 2013. 45 Sink et al., 2012. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 47 What are the main biodiversity features? Biodiversity features include under-protected ecosystems, sensitive habitats, and threatened ecosystems and species, as well as key nursery, spawning and feeding areas. What are the key pressures on priority areas? The current priorities were deliberately designed to avoid major competing activities and pressures. Nevertheless, until they are declared the priority areas will still be vulnerable to fishery pressures as well as oil/gas exploration and potential phosphate mining. Looking forward: Achievements if the priorities are implemented This section looks forward to the achievements that could be made in terms of representation of ecosystems if all the areas currently under negotiation and the priority areas are added to the protected area network. Table 10 provides a summary of how the protection levels for all ecosystems could change in 20 years, if the current areas under negotiation and the identified priority areas are implemented. If we assume that these areas are secured, the level of representation of South Africa’s ecosystems will be significantly improved. 46 Table 10: Summary of the anticipated number of individual ecosystems within each protection level category in 20 years, should the identified priorities be implemented. Category W e ll P ro te ct e d M o d e ra te ly P ro te ct e d P o o rl y P ro te ct e d N o t P ro te ct e d T o ta l Estuary 1 3 42 46 Marine (Benthic and Coastal) 58 22 20 9 109 Coast types 22 6 3 1 32 Inner Shelf 2 1 1 4 Inshore 6 3 1 10 Island 1 1 2 Lagoon 1 1 Offshore Benthic 29 10 15 6 60 Marine pelagic 1 3 9 3 16 Marine Southern Oceans 1 1 Rivers 119 33 36 23 211 Sub-Antarctic 5 5 Subantarctic Polar Desert 1 1 Subantarctic Tundra 4 4 Terrestrial 250 88 90 17 445 Albany Thicket 5 6 3 14 Azonal Vegetation 17 9 7 3 36 Desert 14 1 15 Forests 12 12 46 More information can be found in Technical Note 5 of Appendix 2. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 48 Fynbos 59 20 38 5 122 Grassland 37 18 14 3 72 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 3 3 6 Nama-Karoo 3 5 6 14 Savanna 59 18 10 3 90 Succulent Karoo 41 9 12 2 64 Wetlands 72 22 26 16 136 Grand Total 506 169 184 110 969 Should the priorities be implemented, of the 969 distinct ecosystem types, 506 or 52% (compared to the current 201 or 21%) will be Well Protected, and 169 or 17% (compared to the current 122 or 13%) will be Moderately Protected. For the lower categories of protection level, 184 or 19% (compared to the current 286 or 30%) of ecosystem types will be Poorly Protected, while only 110 or 11% (compared to the current 360 or 37%) of ecosystem types will remain Not Protected. The significant improvement in protection levels that is anticipated is evident in Figure 22, which can be compared with the current situation shown in Figure 6. Under this scenario, an additional 305 ecosystem types would move to the Well Protected category, while 232 types improve in protection level by at least one category. A further 128 types would show some increase in protected area coverage but not enough to result in a category change. Based on the priority areas, greatest progress is anticipated in the Grasslands, Succulent Karoo, Savanna, wetlands, rivers and offshore benthic and pelagic ecosystems. It is important to note that the full extent of priority areas is unlikely to be implemented, as these areas will generally include more of an ecosystem than is required to meet targets. Some priority areas may include fine scale sites not suitable for inclusion into a protected area. In addition, when detailed planning takes place, the final implementation footprint may extend beyond the priority area. This is to be expected, and is an inevitable consequence of planning occurring at a broader scale than final implementation. Priority area boundaries should never be literally interpreted as future protected area boundaries. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 49 Figure 22: Anticipated protection levels for ecosystems in 20 years should all the priority areas be successfully implemented. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 50 Remaining gaps and revisions of spatial plans Implementing the current areas under negotiation and priority areas would not improve the situation for 87 ecosystem types. Approximately half of the ecosystems that show no improvement are terrestrial, a quarter are rivers and the remaining types are spread between the other biozones (Figure 22). It is important not to interpret the gap between what can be delivered by securing the spatial priorities and the requirements for fully meeting targets, as reflecting poor or incomplete planning. Different provinces and agencies have used slightly different, but equally valid, planning approaches. This results in some agencies placing a smaller basket of immediate priorities into the priority areas, while others prefer to put a far broader set of areas on the table. This is clearly illustrated by the contrast between the Western Cape, where a very specific set of priority sites which are a small subset of their Critical Biodiversity Areas has been identified and the Free State where the priority areas essentially include the entire set of Critical Biodiversity Areas from the provincial conservation plan. These approaches are different, but each have their advantages. In the case of marine priorities, the gap between what is delivered by the current set of priorities (which have now moved into the ‘negotiated’ category as they have been gazetted) and the full area required to meet targets reflects an ongoing political process. It has been agreed that an additional set of priorities will be identified once the first set of Operation Phakisa priorities have been declared. In time, it will be necessary to repeat the provincial and agency protected area expansion planning processes. This is necessary as implementation of protected area expansion programmes will result in the priority areas needing to be revised. In general, it should be sufficient to revise these plans every five years, but if significant progress is made in a region, then more frequent updates may be required. In particular, it will be necessary to identify a second set of marine priorities once the initial Operation Phakisa priorities have been implemented. Where a number of agencies are active in a province (e.g. a provincial conservation agency and SANParks), it is particularly important that protected area plans are well-aligned. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 51 6. Mechanisms for protected area expansion There are three main mechanisms for expanding the land-based protected area network: Acquisition of land is the traditional way of establishing and expanding protected areas, but involves large upfront costs. Contract agreements are agreements in which landowners maintain ownership of their land but enter into a contract with a protected area agency. They are facilitated by provisions in the Protected Areas Act. They are being used increasingly as part of biodiversity stewardship programmes. Contract agreements are attractive because they tend to cost protected area agencies less than acquisition, and because by far the largest proportion of land in the priority areas is in private hands. Biodiversity stewardship programmes are increasingly recognized as an important mechanism in the expansion of the protected area network. There are significant potential synergies between biodiversity stewardship programmes, land reform and rural development. Declaration of public or state land involves reassigning land to a protected area agency from another organ of state. It has limited applicability because only a small proportion of land in the priority areas for protected area expansion is public land. Expansion of the marine protected area network is more complex and mechanisms for securing protected areas specifically focused on inland aquatic ecosystems are poorly understood. Once priority areas for protected area expansion have been identified, it is necessary to look at mechanisms for expanding the protected area network in those priority areas. There are three main mechanisms for expanding existing land-based protected areas or establishing new ones:  Acquisition of land  Contract agreements, including through biodiversity stewardship programmes  Declaration of state or public land Expansion of the marine protected area network is more complex. Marine protected areas are declared in terms of the Protected Areas Act as amended in June 2014. For offshore marine protected areas no private property rights are involved but there are mining rights, medium- and long-term fishing rights with annual quotas, and rights of access at sea that have to be modified, rescinded or expropriated in order to establish a marine protected area. Mechanisms for achieving this have been developed and are being implemented under Operation Phakisa. Mechanisms for securing protected areas specifically focused on inland aquatic ecosystems are poorly understood. The current process of securing rivers, wetlands and estuaries using the methods used for terrestrial ecosystems has proved largely ineffective, as even when the features are fully incorporated into protected areas, they are still subject to catchment related impacts. Much work remains to understand how to properly secure inland aquatic ecosystems and their associated processes. The focus in this chapter is on mechanisms for expanding the land-based protected area network. Contract agreements are increasingly used, and provincial biodiversity National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 52 stewardship programmes have been strengthened and rolled out to all provinces. Nevertheless, acquisition of land and declaration of public land remain appropriate and important mechanisms for protected area expansion in some circumstances. Each of the three mechanisms is discussed briefly below. Acquisition of land Acquisition of land through purchase is the traditional mechanism for expanding the protected area network. Land is bought by protected area agencies, either for inclusion in existing protected areas or to establish a new protected area. Acquisition is the most secure option for protected area expansion, but also usually the costliest option. Because acquisition is the mechanism that has been used most in the establishment of the land-based protected area network to date, it would be easy to continue to rely on it as the primary mechanism for expanding the protected area network. However, it will not be possible to meet protected area targets using acquisition alone – the cost would simply be too great. Contract agreements, including biodiversity stewardship Contractual arrangements for expanding national parks were made possible by the National Parks Act (Act 57 of 1976) and have been used by SANParks especially from the late 1980s onwards. The Protected Areas Act has made it possible for contract agreements to be used in a wider range of contexts since 2003, including by provincial protected area agencies. In this mechanism, the land concerned remains in private hands with a formal contract between the landowner and a protected area agency. The landowner agrees to restrictions on use of the land and the protected area agency commits to various forms of management assistance. In the most secure cases, restrictions on use of the land are written into the title deed and thus remain in place if the land changes hands. The landowner of such a contractual protected area is eligible for exclusion from property rates in terms of the Municipal Property Rates Act (Act 6 of 2004). Contract agreements in terms of the Protected Areas Act are the most secure of a series of options for agreements with landowners that form part of biodiversity stewardship programmes. The less secure options require fewer restrictions on the part of landowners and come with less ongoing management assistance from the protected area agency. They are also not recognised in terms of the Protected Areas Act and thus do not constitute formal protected areas. These informal conservation areas can be useful as ‘entry-level’ biodiversity stewardship agreements, and may lead over time to more secure contract agreements. Existing conservation areas can also provide a useful starting point for pursuing contract agreements, as long as they fall within important areas for protected area expansion. Following on from the pioneering work of CapeNature, all provincial protected area agencies now have a functional biodiversity stewardship programme. The national biodiversity stewardship policy document is in an advanced stage of development and is intended for publication during this phase of implementation (see Chapter 8). More detail Acquisition of land through purchase is the traditional mechanism for expanding the protected area network. However, it is not possible to meet protected area targets using acquisition alone – the cost would simply be too great. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 53 on biodiversity stewardship is available in the Biodiversity Stewardship Guideline Document47. It is important to note that contract agreements can be used where land is under communal ownership. As discussed in Chapter 2, the Richtersveld National Park, the Makuleke section of Kruger National Park and iSimangaliso Wetland Park provide good examples of community ownership of formal protected areas through contract agreements. Several biodiversity stewardship agreements are in negotiation with communities in other parts of the country. There are significant potential synergies between land reform, contract agreements for protected areas, and biodiversity stewardship programmes. Contractual protected areas can involve substantial costs in the process of negotiating the contract, and require ongoing resources from the protected area agency to support the landowner in managing and auditing the management of the property concerned. Nevertheless, the overall cost of contractual protected areas tends to be substantially less than the cost of acquisition. Thus, so long as there is adequate budget to cover the actual costs of contractual protected areas, they remain an attractive mechanism for protected 47 DEA, 2009. area expansion in many circumstances, especially where land prices are prohibitive. Protected area agencies should develop a basket of incentives that can be offered to landowners in return for entering into contract agreements, over and above the existing exclusion from municipal property rates and the income tax incentives that support the establishment of contractual protected areas (see Chapter 7). Additional incentives that can be combined to suit landowner preferences include, for example, technical and professional planning and operations support, fire management services, assistance with clearing invasive alien plants, advice on sustainable harvesting of natural resources, partnerships in nature based commercial ventures, access to marketing resources, access to expensive game, fencing supply, and enforcement support. Declaration of public or state land Declaration of public or state land involves reassigning the management of public or state land from a national or provincial government department to a protected area agency. Where land in priority areas for protected area expansion is held by the state (for example, the Department of Public Works, DAFF, South African National Defence Force) or by parastatal agencies (for example, ESKOM), this should be identified and where possible management of the land should be assigned to a protected area agency. It is worth noting that this mechanism has limited usefulness as a very small proportion (approximately 4%) of land in the protected area expansion priority areas is held by the state. However, where it is possible to use this mechanism it may be very cost effective Contract agreements involve formal contracts between landowners and protected area agencies, in which the landowner agrees to restrictions on the use of the land and the protected area agency commits to various forms of management assistance. Contract agreements are often much more cost effective than acquisition of land and are used increasingly as part of biodiversity stewardship programmes. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 54 7. Financing protected area expansion Protected area institutions can draw on several sources of funding for, and adopt more cost effective approaches to, the expansion of protected areas. All funding sources will have an important role to play, given the size of the task of achieving the ambitious protected area targets. The following complementary financing mechanisms and implementation approaches should be considered: funding from the national treasury; income from the use of protected areas; private voluntary donations; official donor assistance; biodiversity stewardship and biodiversity offsets. The business case for a national conservation trust fund, with protected area institutions as the principal beneficiaries, needs to be investigated. This conservation trust fund could, through the investment of its capital, generate more stable and predictable income flows to finance protected area expansion and management efforts. The Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN), currently being piloted in South Africa, is intended to develop a more comprehensive national resource mobilisation strategy for biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming efforts across the country, and to improve cost-effectiveness. The outcomes from the BIOFIN project will therefore be extremely relevant to the ongoing pursuit of sustainable financing strategies for protected area expansion. The Sustainable Financing Framework for Management Authorities of State Managed Protected Areas48 highlights that all protected area institutions cite inadequate funding as a significant constraint to their ability to meet their targets for management effectiveness and protected area expansion. With slowing economic growth, and the rising costs of servicing debt, the current levels of national and provincial budget allocations to protected area institutions from the national fiscus are not likely to increase significantly. There is a need to further develop and diversify the sources of income to finance the ongoing costs of protected area expansion, and to continually improve the ability of protected area institutions to more cost-effectively administer the growing protected area estate. 48 DEA, 2015b. Protected area institutions can draw on several sources of funding for, and adopt more cost-effective approaches to, the expansion of protected areas – all of which will have an important role to play, given the size of the task of achieving the ambitious protected area targets. Funding is a significant constraint to the ability of protected area agencies to meet their targets for management effectiveness and protected area expansion. There is a need to develop and diversify the sources of funding to finance the ongoing costs of protected area expansion. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 55 The following complementary financing mechanisms and implementation approaches should be considered: Funding from the National Treasury: Core public sector funding mechanisms for protected area expansion may include budget allocations, conditional grants, Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) funds49, and grants from the Green Fund50. In order to maintain and expand on current levels of funding from the national treasury, protected area institutions will need to demonstrate more effectively the social and economic benefits of public investments in protected area expansion. Income from the use of protected areas: Increasing the income from direct access to, and use of resources in, protected areas – including tourism charges, resource use fees, payment for ecosystem services, and bio prospecting charges – may better enable protected area institutions to cross-subsidise the activities associated with the ongoing expansion of the protected area estate. Private voluntary donations: Private sources of funding – including business and philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), conservation trust funds and private individuals – are an increasingly important source of financing for protected area expansion. There is a growing trend of close collaboration and pooling of resources between protected area agencies, the private sector and NGOs. Notably, this often occurs when linked to the socio 49 Through the Natural Resource Management programmes and Environmental Protection and Infrastructure Programme. Some of this funding is likely to be restricted to initial implementation costs associated with protected area expansion (e.g. fencing and management infrastructure) rather than land costs. 50 Funding from EPWP and the Green Fund may be used as an incentive for the negotiation of economic development of rural communities living in and around protected areas. Official donor assistance: While donor investments are typically short- to medium term and catalytic in nature, bilateral and multilateral donor agencies may provide financial and technical support to land acquisition and contractual negotiations with private and communal landowners. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) are particularly important sources of funding that can be mobilised for supporting protected area expansion efforts. Biodiversity stewardship (contractual agreements): Biodiversity stewardship programmes represent a cost-effective strategy for expanding the protected area estate while avoiding the need for land purchases. In order to make biodiversity stewardship more effective, a number of incentives can be used to support landowners and communities entering into contractual agreements. These include:  Fiscal incentives – economic incentives based on government revenue or expenditure51  Technical and professional advice and support  Management assistance and support  Partnerships in nature-based commercial ventures  Access to marketing resources contractual agreements or as a source of government co-financing for donor funds. 51 For example, recent amendments to the Taxation Laws (March 2015) specifically deal with tax incentives for landowners who have entered into a contractual agreement to declare their land as a protected area. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 56  Public recognition Biodiversity offsets52: South Africa has already implemented a number of biodiversity offsets projects and the DEA, along with some provinces, are in the process of developing guidelines for environmental offsets. Biodiversity offsets hold the potential to shift some of the burden for financing the expansion of protected areas from the national fiscus to the private sector. Biodiversity offsets provide a mechanism to compensate for residual negative impacts on biodiversity after all feasible and reasonable alternatives have been considered during the planning of a proposed development. The biodiversity offset mechanism enables land that was not previously designated as a protected area to be declared and for the management costs to be secured. Priority areas for protected area expansion should be the major receiving sites for offsets, rather than ad hoc and individually identified sites. Careful planning will be necessary to ensure that offsets are efficiently implemented, that they contribute optimally to protected area expansion and management, and do not place an undue burden on protected area agencies. A key issue is securing ongoing management costs. National conservation trust fund: The business case for a national conservation trust fund, with protected area institutions as the principal beneficiaries, needs to be investigated as a means of centralising the function of attracting grants and donations from bilateral and multilateral development agencies and private donors. This conservation trust fund could generate, 52 Biodiversity offsets are intended to address the residual environmental impacts of development that cannot be avoided or effectively mitigated, with the intention of ensuring that the net impact through the investment of its capital, stable and predictable income flows to finance protected area expansion and management programmes. The Biodiversity Finance Initiative The Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN), managed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in partnership with the European Commission and the Governments of Germany and Switzerland, is in the process of being piloted in South Africa (amongst 29 other countries) under the auspices of the DEA. BIOFIN is intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the funding gap for the local implementation of the CBD’s Aichi biodiversity targets – including the expansion of protected areas – and should provide much needed perspective on this issue. BIOFIN also aims to develop a comprehensive national resource mobilisation strategy, and improve cost effectiveness through the mainstreaming of biodiversity into national development and sector planning. The outcomes from the BIOFIN project will therefore be extremely pertinent to the ongoing pursuit of sustainable financing strategies by protected area institutions. of a project on the environment is an environmental benefit, or at least not a net loss. DEA, 2015a. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 57 8. Implementation of the NPAES Protected area agencies, including provincial conservation authorities, SANParks, DAFF and DEA, are the primary implementers of the NPAES. Most of these agencies have developed their own PAES and implementation plans, which are increasingly better aligned with the NPAES targets and priority areas. DEA (through Working Group 1 of MINMEC) will work to ensure better alignment of the efforts of the multiple agencies involved in protected area expansion, will provide a forum for discussing challenges and sharing lessons, and track progress towards meeting protected area targets. A detailed 5-year action plan with annual implementation targets, derived from the provincial plans, has been developed and is presented in this chapter. Who implements the NPAES? Protected area agencies are the primary implementers of the NPAES. These include the provincial conservation authorities (agencies and government departments), SANParks, and the Oceans and Coasts Branch of DEA. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) manages protected areas under the National Forest Act rather than the Protected Areas Act. Thus, although forest reserves contribute to the national efforts to expand protected areas, they do not fall under the same reporting and accountability regimes. Protected area agencies are supported in their implementation of the NPAES by a range of organisations including DEA, the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), National Treasury, provincial environment departments and conservation NGOs. Many protected area agencies have developed, and are implementing, their own agency-specific protected area expansion strategies (PAES). The NPAES and these agency-specific PAESs need to be closely aligned to ensure that the national targets are met through the collective efforts of the individual protected area agencies. With multiple agencies implementing protected area expansion, it is also necessary to ensure a level of co-ordination in monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the strategy. Working Group 1 of MINMEC, is convened by DEA with representation from protected area agencies, SANBI, and relevant national NGOs, and is ideally suited to play a key role in this respect. This will ensure that there is alignment of the efforts of the multiple agencies involved in protected area expansion, will provide a forum for discussing challenges and sharing lessons, and track annual progress towards meeting protected area expansion targets. Protected area agencies are the primary implementers of the NPAES. These include provincial conservation authorities (agencies and government departments), SANParks, DAFF and the Oceans and Coasts Branch of DEA. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 58 Phased implementation of the NPAES The NPAES presents a long-term, 20-year and 5-year strategy for the expansion of protected areas in South Africa. The quantification of the spatial targets for individual ecosystems, and the identification of the priority areas for meeting these long-term, 20-year and 5-year targets, are fully described in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 respectively. The implementation of the NPAES is guided by 5-year targets. The implementation of the 20 year strategy for protected area expansion is thus structured into four implementation phases. Phase 1 of the implementation of the NPAES, – covering the period 2008 – 2014, has now been completed and a brief review of the progress made in protected area expansion is described in Chapter 3. Action plan for phase 2 of the NPAES implementation The implementation plan presented here covers the second phase (2016 – 2020) of the 20-year strategy of the NPAES53. At the national level, the priority activities and targets required to “support and align the efforts of protected area agencies in the ongoing expansion of protected areas, and track progress towards meeting long-term protected area system targets” have been collated into a 5-year action plan. The action plan is presented in Table 11. While the NPAES sets national level targets, the action plan does not deal with the detailed planning and implementation for 53 This action plan was developed at a workshop convened by DEA and to which representatives of all protected area agencies were invited. expanding protected areas at the provincial and local levels. This level of planning and implementation is most appropriately done by the responsible protected area agencies, using the NPAES as an overarching framework to guide local actions. Each protected area institution should continue to update, align and implement their institution-based PAESs to ensure that they will collectively contribute to meeting the national short- and medium term targets contained in the NPAES. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 59 Table 11: Implementation plan for the NPAES 2016, detailing 5-year actions and indicators. Department of Environmental Affairs National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES) 2016 5-year action plan Purpose: Support and align the efforts of protected area agencies in the ongoing expansion of protected areas, and track progress towards meeting long-term protected area system targets 1. Protected area expansion planning Priority action Performance indicator Medium-term targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 1.1 Facilitate the preparation, revision and alignment (strategic, spatial and phasing) of the protected area institution-based54 protected area expansion strategies (PAES) 1.1.1 Number of approved institution-based protected area expansion strategies (of 12) 8 11 11 11 11 1.1.2 Number of institution based protected area expansion strategies that are fully aligned with the NPAES (of 12) 1 6 10 11 11 54 Comprising 12 protected area agencies: SANParks; DAFF, DEA Oceans and Coasts Branch and 9 provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs (including Eastern Cape Parks Board, CapeNature, Ezemvelo-KZN Wildlife, North West Parks and Tourism Board and Mpumalanga Parks Board). National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 60 2. Implementation of the NPAES and institution-based PAES’s Priority action Performance indicator Medium-term targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 2.1 Formally declare new, or extend existing, protected areas as a means of improving the representation of terrestrial and marine ecosystem types 2.2.1 Extent (ha) of additional protected areas (by province) declared in the terrestrial ‘spatial priority areas for protected area expansion’: Eastern Cape 15 000ha 25 013ha (13ha) 55 10 000ha 20 597ha (597ha) 20 000ha (750ha) Free State 8 500ha 8 500ha 8 500ha 8 500ha 8 500ha Gauteng 0ha 0ha 5ha 0ha 0ha KwaZulu-Natal 18 870ha 18 870ha 18 870ha 0ha 18 870ha Limpopo 25 000ha (1 367ha) 25 000ha (4 110ha) 25 000ha 30 000ha 25 000ha Mpumalanga 20 000ha 22 000ha 25 000ha 25 000ha 28 000ha Northern Cape 63 415ha (3 791ha) 55 807ha 21 441ha (4 341ha) 27 000ha (3 000ha) 20 000ha (2 000ha) North West 10 000ha 10 000ha 10 000ha 20 000ha 20 000ha Western Cape 8 000ha 7 000ha 8 181ha (2 181ha) 7 053ha (2 053ha) 5 000ha Annual Total 168 785ha 172 190ha 126 997ha 138 150ha 145 370ha 2.1.2 Extent (ha) of additional marine waters declared as marine protected areas56 0ha 0ha 0ha 193 317ha 5 359 415ha 55 The portion of the protected areas expansion target within each province that is to be declared by SANParks or DAFF is shown in brackets. 56 For the purposes of the action plan, marine waters means waters that form part of the internal waters, territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of South Africa, respectively (refer to sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Maritime Zones Act). The proclamation and administration of marine protected areas fall under the mandate of the Oceans and Coast Branch of DEA. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 61 2.2 Maintain a small core national team of professional staff to support, and build capacity in, under-resourced protected area institutions (in implementing the NPAES and institution-based PAES’s) 2.2.1 Number of administrative, technical and professional staff available to support protected area institutions 8 8 8 8 8 2.3 Finalise and publish the National Biodiversity Stewardship Policy in order to provide guidance on its adoption by protected area institutions as a key mechanism for protected area expansion 2.3.1 Publishing of the National Biodiversity Stewardship Policy Final draft of National Biodiversity Stewardship Policy National Biodiversity Stewardship Policy published - 2.4 Establish and administer a Conservation Trust Fund57, or implement alternative financing mechanisms, in order to co-ordinate income from donations, grants and/or other sources of income (e.g. biodiversity offsets, mitigation credits, etc.) in support of the implementation of the national and institution-based protected area expansion strategies. 2.4.1 Annual income and expenditure of Conservation Trust Fund (or alternative financing mechanism/s) Conservation Trust concept developed and agreed by stakeholders Income: 0 Registration of Conservation Trust: Income: 0 Organisationa l structure of Conservation Trust established Income: 0 Fund-raising started Income: R1-3 million Expenditure: up to R1 million Income: R3 10 million Expenditure: >R1-5 million Conservation Trust concept developed, but not agreed by stakeholders Review of alternative financing mechanisms Implement alternative financing mechanism/s Income: 0 Implement alternative financing mechanism/s Income: R1-3 million Expenditure: up to R1 million Implement alternative financing mechanism/s Income: R3-5 million Expenditure: >R1-2 million 57 While the Conservation Trust Fund may, in future, include support for the costs of acquisition of land or land use rights, the priority of the fund would be to supplement the operating costs associated with the protected area expansion efforts of protected area institutions. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 62 3. Co-operation and co-ordination in protected area expansion Priority action Performance indicator Medium-term targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 3.1 Facilitate the co-ordination of, and co-operation between, protected area institutions in the implementation of the NPAES and institution-based PAESs. 3.1.1 Number of Protected Area Technical Task Team meetings (per annum) 2 2 2 2 2 4. Performance monitoring and reporting Priority action Performance indicator Medium-term targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 4.1 Maintain and update the integrated protected area database 4.1.1 Confidence level in how reliable (number of months since complete update) the integrated protected area database is 6 months 3 months 3 months 3 months 3 months 4.2 Annually review and revise the short-term national and provincial targets for contributing to meeting the milestones under Presidential Outcome 10, Outputs 4.1.1 and 4.1.258 4.2.1 Level of alignment of the annual national and provincial targets with the targets in Priority Action 2.1 of this Action Plan Partially aligned Fully aligned Fully aligned Fully aligned Fully aligned 4.3 Annually report on the progress in the implementation of protected area institution-based PAESs 4.3.1 Number of Strategic Plans (SPs) and Annual Operational Plans (AOPs) - of the 12 protected area institutions including explicit performance targets for protected area expansion 7 9 12 12 12 58 Refer to the Delivery Agreement for Presidential Outcome 10 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 63 4.4 Review and update the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 4.4.1 Progress in reviewing and updating the NPAES - - Performance review of NPAES (Phase 2) First draft of updated NPAES (Phase 3) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 64 9. Information gaps, research priorities and legislative reform priorities Key information gaps for the NPAES include the ongoing development of an accurate spatial layer of existing protected areas and a national spatial data layer on land ownership and tenure. This chapter details a number of research priorities that would help to fill information gaps. Research priorities include further exploration of the role of protected areas in supporting ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change. Ecologically meaningful biodiversity targets for aquatic ecosystems need to be developed. Exploration of innovative ways to consider land price and opportunity costs in the identification of priority areas for protected area expansion are needed, as well as investigation of the likely costs of different mechanisms for protected area expansion into the future. Also useful would be additional research into the relative income and job creation potential of regular agriculture compared with protected areas and ecotourism. Finally, pilot projects are needed to evaluate the ways in which biodiversity stewardship agreements can used to support land reform and rural development. Several information gaps, research needs and legislative reform priorities were adequately addressed during the implementation of phase 1 of the NPAES. Outstanding information gaps that need to be addressed include:  Continual updating and improving spatial information on the distribution of protected areas in the Protected Area Register. This includes verifying protected area boundaries, their proclamation status and management effectiveness. In particular, the privately owned protected areas included in the Protected Area Register but declared under pre-Protected Area Act legislation need to be verified.  The potential inclusion of areas protected by ‘other effective area-based measures’ should be evaluated and potentially included in the assessment of target achievement. Robust criteria need to be set up to ensure that only intact, well managed areas with long-term security of biodiversity are included.  New biodiversity data is routinely being collected but does not always find its way into the planning data sets. More streamlined mechanisms for the inclusion of new biodiversity distribution data into the planning data sets are required.  Mapping and classification of specific marine ecosystems at a finer scale is necessary, especially for vulnerable marine habitats e.g. reefs, sponge beds and kelp forests.  Mapping marine ecological processes, for example spawning and nursery grounds and foraging areas for marine species.  The identification of remaining focus areas (after implementation of Phase 1 of Operation Phakisa) required to meet marine targets is a priority.  The specific biodiversity offset receiving areas which will optimally contribute to protected area expansion need to be identified and agreed on. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 65 Outstanding research priorities that still need to be addressed include:  Further exploration of the role of protected areas in supporting ecosystem based adaptation to climate change.  Research on ecologically meaningful biodiversity targets for marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems.  Innovative ways to consider land price and opportunity costs in the identification of priority areas for protected area expansion.  Strategic use of biodiversity offsets to expand the protected area network and secure its ongoing management costs needs to be investigated. Outstanding legislative reform priorities include:  A need to properly secure the legal status and management of mountain catchment areas. These were declared in terms of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act, which was forestry legislation at that stage falling under the DEA. There is no consensus on the administration of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act and the responsible regulating authority for mountain catchment areas. This is an important matter to resolve given the significant contribution that mountain catchment areas make to protected area targets and the vital role they play in providing ecosystem services.  A need to explore legal and institutional mechanisms for implementing freshwater conservation areas. This will include potential links between the Biodiversity Act and mechanisms provided by the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998), the National Water Resource Strategy and the National Water Resource Classification System. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 66 References Balfour, D. & Holness, S. (2017) Northern Cape Protected Area Expansion Strategy (2017 to 2021). Report compiled for the Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation, Kimberly. Berliner, D. and Desmet, P. (2007) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Technical Report. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, Pretoria. CBD (2010) COP 10 – Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nagoya, Japan 18–29 October 2010. Decision X/2. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011– 2020. United Nations Environment Programme, 2010. DEA (2009) Biodiversity Stewardship Guidelines Document, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. DEA (2008) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for South Africa 2008. Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. DEA (2014a) Phakisa: Fast-tracking Ocean Protection in South Africa Initiative 8 Establishment of an effective and representative MPA network. Technical Report. Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. DEA (2014b) 2013-14 South African National Landcover Dataset, © Geoterraimage - 2014. DEA (2015a) The National Policy on Biodiversity Offsets (Draft). Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. DEA (2015b) Sustainable Financing Framework for Management Authorities of State Managed Protected Areas. DEAT (2008) National Biodiversity Framework for South Africa. Notice 813, Government Gazette No. 32474, 3 August 2009. Desmet, P. G., Holness, S., Skowno, A. & Mphaphuli, D. (2014) Limpopo Protected Area Expansion Strategy Technical Report. Contract Number (EDET/QUT/2371/13). Report for Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET) by ECOSOL GIS. Desmet, P. G., Holness, S., Skowno, A. & Egan, V.T. (2013) Limpopo Conservation Plan v.2: Technical Report. Contract Number EDET/2216/2012. Report for Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET) by ECOSOL GIS. Desmet, P. & Marsh, A., (2008) Namakwa District Biodiversity Sector Plan. Northern cape Province, Conservation International and Botanical Society of South Africa. 187 pp. Driver, A., Desmet, P.G., Rouget, M., Cowling, R.M. & Maze, K., (2003) Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan: biodiversity component technical report. Cape Conservation Unit Report No. CCU, 1(03). Driver, A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.N., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. & Maze, K. (2012) National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 67 biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (2010) KZN Protected Area 20 year Expansion Strategy (2009 - 2028) version 2010 GIS Coverage. Biodiversity Conservation Planning Division, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, P. O. Box 13053, Cascades, Pietermaritzburg, 3202. GDARD (2014): Technical Report for the Gauteng Conservation Plan (Gauteng C-Plan v3.3). Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development: Nature Conservation Directorate. 60 pages. Holness, S. & Oosthuysen, E. 2016. Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Northern Cape: Technical Report. DENC, Springbok. Lotter, M. (2015) Spatial Assessment informing the Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy 20 and 5 year spatial priorities. Mpumalanga Tourism & Parks Agency, Mbombela (Nelspruit). Majiedt, P., Holness, S., Sink, K., Oosthuizen, A. & Chadwick, P. (2013) Systematic Marine Biodiversity Plan for the West Coast of South Africa. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town. Pp 46. MTPA (2014) Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook. Compiled by Lötter M.C., Cadman, M.J. and Lechmere-Oertel R.G. Mpumalanga Tourism & Parks Agency, Mbombela (Nelspruit). 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., Driver, A., Strydom W.F., Maherry, A., Petersen, C., Hill, L., Roux, D.J, Nienaber,S., Van Deventer, H., Swartz, E. & Smith-Adao, L.B. (2011) Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa: Maps to support sustainable development of water resources. Water Research Commission Report No. TT 500/11, Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Sink, K.J., Attwood, C.G., Lombard, A.T., Grantham, H., Leslie, R., Samaai, T., Kerwath, S., Majiedt, P., Fairweather, T., Hutchings, L., van der Lingen, C., Atkinson, L.J., Wilkinson, S., Holness, S., Wolf, T. (2011) Spatial planning to identify focus areas for offshore biodiversity protection in South Africa. Unpublished Report. Cape Town: South African National Biodiversity Institute. Sink, K., Holness, S., Harris, L., Majiedt, P., Atkinson, L., Robinson, T., Kirkman, S., Hutchings, L., Leslie, R., Lamberth, S., Kerwath, S., von der Heyden, S., Lombard, A., Attwood, C., Branch, G., Fairweather, T., Taljaard, S., Weerts, S., Cowley, P., Awad, A., Halpern, B., Grantham, H. & Wolf, T. (2012) National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical Report. Volume 4: Marine and Coastal Component. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Pp 325. Skowno, A., Holness, S., Jackelman, J. & Desmet, P. (2012) Eastern Cape Protected Area Expansion Strategy (ECPAES). Report compiled for the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency, East London. Turpie, J.K., Wilson, G. & Van Niekerk, L. (2012) National Biodiversity Assessment 2011:National Estuary Biodiversity Plan for South Africa. Anchor Environmental Consulting, Cape Town. Report produced for the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the South African National Biodiversity Institute. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 68 Whitfield, A.K. (1992). A characterization of southern African estuarine systems. Southern African Journal of Aquatic Sciences 18: 89-103. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 69 Appendix 1: Protection targets for ecosystems Table A 1: All South African ecosystems, showing their biozones, original area, long-term protection targets (% and km2), current area protected (total area in protected areas (PAs) and intact area in protected areas), and current protection levels (based on full area included in protected areas and actual intact area protected). NP=Not Protected, PP = Poorly Protected, MP= Moderately Protected, WP= Well Protected. See Chapter 4 for category explanations. Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 1 Agulhas Boulder Shore Coast types 18.5 20 3.7 2.9 5.5 5.5 WP WP 2 Agulhas Canyon Offshore Benthic 1119.6 20 223.9 112.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 3 Agulhas Dissipative-Intermediate Sandy Coast Coast types 180.7 20 36.1 28.4 22.8 22.8 MP MP 4 Agulhas Dissipative Sandy Coast Coast types 63.2 20 12.6 9.9 14.6 14.6 WP WP 5 Agulhas Estuarine Shore Coast types 16.5 20 3.3 2.6 2.9 2.9 MP MP 6 Agulhas Exposed Rocky Coast Coast types 116.9 20 23.4 18.4 32.2 29.4 WP WP 7 Agulhas Gravel Inner Shelf Offshore Benthic 1323.9 20 264.8 132.4 58.6 58.6 PP PP 8 Agulhas Gravel Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 1483.7 20 296.7 148.4 7.9 7.9 NP NP 9 Agulhas Gravel Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 1787.4 20 357.5 178.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 10 Agulhas Hard Inner Shelf Offshore Benthic 4309.5 20 861.9 431.0 120.4 116.7 PP PP 11 Agulhas Hard Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 11581.5 20 2316.3 1158.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 12 Agulhas Hard Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 4177.0 20 835.4 417.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 13 Agulhas Inner Shelf Reef Offshore Benthic 44.4 20 8.9 4.4 0.9 0.1 PP NP 14 Agulhas Inshore Gravel Inshore 46.5 20 9.3 4.6 9.2 9.2 MP MP 15 Agulhas Inshore Hard Grounds Inshore 757.0 20 151.4 75.7 123.6 119.2 MP MP 16 Agulhas Inshore Reef Inshore 43.2 20 8.6 4.3 14.6 5.9 WP MP 17 Agulhas Intermediate Sandy Coast Coast types 37.6 20 7.5 5.9 4.6 4.6 MP MP 18 Agulhas Island Island 869.8 20 174.0 136.8 84.2 73.0 PP PP 19 Agulhas Mixed Sediment Inner Shelf Offshore Benthic 628.5 20 125.7 62.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 20 Agulhas Mixed Sediment Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 1308.3 20 261.7 130.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 21 Agulhas Mixed Shore Coast types 264.8 20 53.0 41.6 48.9 45.9 MP MP 22 Agulhas Muddy Inner Shelf Offshore Benthic 2698.6 20 539.7 269.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 23 Agulhas Muddy Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 1785.0 20 357.0 178.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 24 Agulhas Muddy Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 171.0 20 34.2 17.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 25 Agulhas Outer Shelf Reef Offshore Benthic 6.5 20 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 70 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 26 Agulhas Reflective Sandy Coast Coast types 1.3 20 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 MP MP 27 Agulhas Sandy Inner Shelf Offshore Benthic 26280.9 20 5256.2 2628.1 657.3 558.1 PP PP 28 Agulhas Sandy Inshore Inshore 1714.8 20 343.0 171.5 308.5 205.7 MP MP 29 Agulhas Sandy Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 32998.5 20 6599.7 3299.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 30 Agulhas Sandy Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 4073.5 20 814.7 407.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 31 Agulhas Shelf Edge Reef Offshore Benthic 4.0 20 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 32 Agulhas Sheltered Rocky Coast Coast types 16.5 20 3.3 2.6 2.1 2.1 MP MP 33 Agulhas Very Exposed Rocky Coast Coast types 18.5 20 3.7 2.9 2.3 2.2 MP MP 34 Delagoa Sandy Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 646.0 20 129.2 64.6 189.8 189.8 WP WP 35 Delagoa Canyon Offshore Benthic 93.1 20 18.6 9.3 50.5 50.5 WP WP 36 Delagoa Inshore Reef Inshore 71.5 20 14.3 7.2 71.5 71.5 WP WP 37 Delagoa Mixed Shore Coast types 22.5 20 4.5 3.5 22.5 22.5 WP WP 38 Delagoa Sandy Inshore Inshore 105.1 20 21.0 10.5 105.1 105.1 WP WP 39 Delagoa Sandy Shelf Offshore Benthic 293.0 20 58.6 29.3 281.1 281.1 WP WP 40 Delagoa Shelf Edge Reef Offshore Benthic 2.6 20 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.1 WP WP 41 Delagoa Shelf Reef Offshore Benthic 75.5 20 15.1 7.6 75.5 75.5 WP WP 42 Delagoa Very Exposed Rocky Coast Coast types 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 WP WP 43 Harbour Harbour 14.7 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 44 Natal-Delagoa Dissipative-Intermediate Sandy Coast Coast types 86.7 20 17.3 13.6 21.7 21.7 WP WP 45 Natal-Delagoa Dissipative Sandy Coast Coast types 1.2 20 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 WP WP 46 Natal-Delagoa Estuarine Shore Coast types 13.1 20 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.3 MP MP 47 Natal-Delagoa Intermediate Sandy Coast Coast types 111.9 20 22.4 17.6 15.5 15.5 MP MP 48 Natal-Delagoa Reflective Sandy Coast Coast types 26.0 20 5.2 4.1 1.7 1.7 PP PP 49 Natal Boulder Shore Coast types 0.9 20 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 50 Natal Canyon Offshore Benthic 484.6 20 96.9 48.5 66.3 66.3 MP MP 51 Natal Estuarine Shore Coast types 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 WP WP 52 Natal Exposed Rocky Coast Coast types 29.5 20 5.9 4.6 9.8 9.5 WP WP 53 Natal Gravel Shelf Offshore Benthic 1099.0 20 219.8 109.9 194.7 194.7 MP MP 54 Natal Gravel Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 774.6 20 154.9 77.5 127.0 127.0 MP MP 55 Natal Inshore Gravel Inshore 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 71 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 56 Natal Inshore Reef Inshore 246.0 20 49.2 24.6 64.6 46.0 WP MP 57 Natal Mixed Sediment Shelf Offshore Benthic 1.8 20 0.4 0.2 1.8 1.8 WP WP 58 Natal Mixed Sediment Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 29.2 20 5.8 2.9 29.2 29.2 WP WP 59 Natal Mixed Shore Coast types 67.5 20 13.5 10.6 11.9 10.9 MP MP 60 Natal Muddy Inshore Inshore 53.2 20 10.6 5.3 14.5 14.5 WP WP 61 Natal Muddy Shelf Offshore Benthic 503.6 20 100.7 50.4 90.9 90.9 MP MP 62 Natal Muddy Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 61.8 20 12.4 6.2 40.2 40.2 WP WP 63 Natal Sandy Inshore Inshore 1241.1 20 248.2 124.1 136.1 100.5 MP PP 64 Natal Sandy Shelf Offshore Benthic 6370.7 20 1274.1 637.1 408.4 398.7 PP PP 65 Natal Sandy Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 2422.7 20 484.5 242.3 33.4 33.4 PP PP 66 Natal Shelf Edge Reef Offshore Benthic 17.6 20 3.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 67 Natal Shelf Reef Offshore Benthic 524.5 20 104.9 52.5 79.9 71.5 MP MP 68 Natal Very Exposed Rocky Coast Coast types 2.0 20 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 MP MP 69 South Atlantic Abyss Offshore Benthic 67817.6 20 13563.5 6781.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 70 South Atlantic Abyss With Ferro-Manganese Deposits Offshore Benthic 77810.4 20 15562.1 7781.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 71 South Atlantic Lower Bathyal Offshore Benthic 90341.7 20 18068.3 9034.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 72 South Atlantic Upper Bathyal Offshore Benthic 38065.8 20 7613.2 3806.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 73 Southeast Atlantic Seamounts Offshore Benthic 1602.3 20 320.5 160.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 74 Southern Benguela Boulder Shore Coast types 11.4 20 2.3 1.8 4.1 2.9 WP WP 75 Southern Benguela Canyon Offshore Benthic 799.7 20 159.9 80.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 76 Southern Benguela Carbonate Mound Offshore Benthic 1489.1 20 297.8 148.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 77 Southern Benguela Dissipative-Intermediate Sandy Coast Coast types 69.5 20 13.9 10.9 15.9 15.9 WP WP 78 Southern Benguela Dissipative Sandy Coast Coast types 40.8 20 8.2 6.4 11.5 11.5 WP WP 79 Southern Benguela Estuarine Shore Coast types 3.0 20 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 MP MP 80 Southern Benguela Exposed Rocky Coast Coast types 110.0 20 22.0 17.3 13.2 12.3 MP MP 81 Southern Benguela Gravel Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 436.4 20 87.3 43.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 82 Southern Benguela Gravel Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 30.1 20 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 83 Southern Benguela Hard Inner Shelf Inner Shelf 670.6 20 134.1 67.1 59.0 45.0 PP PP 84 Southern Benguela Hard Middle Shelf Offshore Benthic 3667.5 20 733.5 366.8 133.7 4.1 PP NP 85 Southern Benguela Hard Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 10813.4 20 2162.7 1081.3 48.7 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 72 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 86 Southern Benguela Hard Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 4615.3 20 923.1 461.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 87 Southern Benguela Inner Shelf Reef Inner Shelf 10.2 20 2.0 1.0 5.3 1.1 WP MP 88 Southern Benguela Intermediate Sandy Coast Coast types 68.8 20 13.8 10.8 0.5 0.5 NP NP 89 Southern Benguela Island Island 1333.8 20 266.8 209.8 93.4 44.4 PP PP 90 Southern Benguela Lagoon Lagoon 54.4 20 10.9 8.6 6.0 5.9 MP MP 91 Southern Benguela Mixed Coast Coast types 164.7 20 32.9 25.9 12.6 12.5 PP PP 92 Southern Benguela Muddy Inner Shelf Inner Shelf 291.0 20 58.2 29.1 2.2 2.2 NP NP 93 Southern Benguela Muddy Organically Enriched Middle Shelf Offshore Benthic 10332.7 20 2066.5 1033.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 94 Southern Benguela Muddy Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 6134.6 20 1226.9 613.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 95 Southern Benguela Muddy Riverine Influenced Middle Shelf Offshore Benthic 932.4 20 186.5 93.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 96 Southern Benguela Muddy Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 579.6 20 115.9 58.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 97 Southern Benguela Outer Shelf Reef Offshore Benthic 1.6 20 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 98 Southern Benguela Reflective Sandy Coast Coast types 29.6 20 5.9 4.7 0.1 0.1 NP NP 99 Southern Benguela Sandy Inner Shelf Inner Shelf 1891.1 20 378.2 189.1 172.8 124.3 PP PP 100 Southern Benguela Sandy Middle Shelf Offshore Benthic 6318.0 20 1263.6 631.8 222.9 166.3 PP PP 101 Southern Benguela Sandy Outer Shelf Offshore Benthic 57443.4 20 11488.7 5744.3 15.2 15.2 NP NP 102 Southern Benguela Sandy Shelf Edge Offshore Benthic 13542.2 20 2708.4 1354.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 103 Southern Benguela Sheltered Rocky Coast Coast types 6.0 20 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 PP PP 104 Southern Benguela Very exposed Rocky Coast Coast types 8.7 20 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.1 MP MP 105 Southwest Indian Abyss Offshore Benthic 248718.9 20 49743.8 24871.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 106 Southwest Indian Abyss With Ferro Manganese Deposits Offshore Benthic 3416.5 20 683.3 341.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 107 Southwest Indian Lower Bathyal Offshore Benthic 218001.3 20 43600.3 21800.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 108 Southwest Indian Lower Bathyal With Ferro Manganese Deposits Offshore Benthic 6902.1 20 1380.4 690.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 109 Southwest Indian Seamounts Offshore Benthic 3724.9 20 745.0 372.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 110 Southwest Indian Upper Bathyal Offshore Benthic 82678.1 20 16535.6 8267.8 176.3 176.3 NP NP 112 Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 62.1 18 11.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 113 Agter-Sederberg Shrubland Succulent Karoo 932.3 19 177.1 139.3 22.8 22.8 PP PP 114 Agulhas Limestone Fynbos Fynbos 269.9 32 86.4 67.9 27.8 27.4 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 73 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 115 Agulhas Sand Fynbos Fynbos 105.7 32 33.8 26.6 15.3 14.5 PP PP 116 Albany Alluvial Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 488.2 31 151.4 119.0 35.5 27.2 PP PP 117 Albany Broken Veld Nama-Karoo 1599.8 16 256.0 201.3 114.1 113.5 PP PP 118 Albany Coastal Belt Albany Thicket 3202.9 19 608.5 478.5 50.3 40.7 PP PP 119 Albany Dune Strandveld Azonal Vegetation 165.2 20 33.0 26.0 55.3 54.1 WP WP 120 Albertinia Sand Fynbos Fynbos 698.9 32 223.6 175.9 37.4 35.3 PP PP 121 Alexander Bay Coastal Duneveld Desert 16.1 28 4.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 122 Algoa Dune Strandveld Azonal Vegetation 276.9 20 55.4 43.5 19.4 18.8 PP PP 123 Algoa Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 335.1 23 77.1 60.6 5.8 5.0 PP PP 124 Aliwal North Dry Grassland Grassland 6980.2 24 1675.2 1317.2 77.5 58.0 NP NP 125 Amathole Mistbelt Grassland Grassland 156.6 27 42.3 33.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 126 Amathole Montane Grassland Grassland 4344.0 27 1172.9 922.2 116.6 113.3 PP PP 127 Amersfoort Highveld Clay Grassland Grassland 3794.9 27 1024.6 805.7 72.7 54.1 PP PP 128 Andesite Mountain Bushveld Savanna 1965.1 24 471.6 370.8 311.5 298.0 MP MP 129 Anenous Plateau Shrubland Succulent Karoo 237.0 28 66.4 52.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 130 Arid Estuarine Salt Marshes Azonal Vegetation 4.3 24 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 PP PP 131 Atlantis Sand Fynbos Fynbos 691.9 30 207.6 163.2 15.4 15.4 PP PP 132 Auob Duneveld Savanna 2907.0 16 465.1 365.7 1695.2 1695.2 WP WP 133 Barberton Montane Grassland Grassland 1103.9 27 298.1 234.4 416.4 405.3 WP WP 134 Barberton Serpentine Sourveld Savanna 108.2 24 26.0 20.4 26.7 26.1 WP WP 135 Basotho Montane Shrubland Grassland 1763.3 28 493.7 388.2 166.5 162.3 PP PP 136 Baviaanskloof Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 118.8 29 34.5 27.1 75.1 75.1 WP WP 137 Bedford Dry Grassland Grassland 2025.2 23 465.8 366.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 138 Besemkaree Koppies Shrubland Grassland 9557.9 28 2676.2 2104.3 612.9 506.5 PP PP 139 Bhisho Thornveld Savanna 7865.7 25 1966.4 1546.2 10.8 10.7 NP NP 140 Bloemfontein Dry Grassland Grassland 4849.7 24 1163.9 915.2 149.3 80.3 PP PP 141 Bloemfontein Karroid Shrubland Grassland 94.2 28 26.4 20.7 13.5 13.1 MP PP 142 Blombos Strandveld Fynbos 58.8 36 21.2 16.6 12.8 12.7 MP MP 143 Blouputs Karroid Thornveld Nama-Karoo 611.6 21 128.4 101.0 160.8 160.8 WP WP 144 Bokkeveld Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 957.5 29 277.7 218.3 76.4 75.8 PP PP 145 Boland Granite Fynbos Fynbos 516.5 30 155.0 121.8 186.6 172.9 WP WP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 74 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 146 Breede Alluvium Fynbos Fynbos 414.1 30 124.2 97.7 11.5 10.6 PP PP 147 Breede Alluvium Renosterveld Fynbos 421.6 27 113.8 89.5 4.4 4.3 NP NP 148 Breede Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 97.2 30 29.2 22.9 0.1 0.1 NP NP 149 Breede Sand Fynbos Fynbos 93.3 30 28.0 22.0 2.2 1.6 PP PP 150 Breede Shale Fynbos Fynbos 305.7 30 91.7 72.1 93.2 92.5 WP WP 151 Breede Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 1032.0 27 278.6 219.1 61.5 60.4 PP PP 152 Buffels Thicket Albany Thicket 1064.0 19 202.2 159.0 11.1 7.2 PP NP 153 Bushmanland Arid Grassland Nama-Karoo 45450.7 21 9544.7 7504.9 190.3 190.3 NP NP 154 Bushmanland Basin Shrubland Nama-Karoo 34169.4 21 7175.6 5642.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 155 Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubland Succulent Karoo 645.5 34 219.5 172.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 156 Bushmanland Sandy Grassland Nama-Karoo 2301.7 21 483.4 380.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 157 Bushmanland Vloere Azonal Vegetation 1132.1 24 271.7 213.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 158 Camdebo Escarpment Thicket Albany Thicket 1961.8 19 372.7 293.1 125.5 120.4 PP PP 159 Canca Limestone Fynbos Fynbos 1113.6 32 356.3 280.2 1.4 1.3 NP NP 160 Cape Coastal Lagoons Wetlands 0.4 24 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 PP PP 161 Cape Estuarine Salt Marshes Azonal Vegetation 6.9 24 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.5 PP PP 162 Cape Flats Dune Strandveld Fynbos 385.7 24 92.6 72.8 32.6 25.3 PP PP 163 Cape Flats Sand Fynbos Fynbos 554.9 30 166.5 130.9 1.2 0.8 NP NP 164 Cape Inland Salt Pans Azonal Vegetation 24.5 24 5.9 4.6 0.2 0.2 NP NP 165 Cape Lowland Alluvial Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 221.1 31 68.6 53.9 3.4 2.1 NP NP 166 Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetlands Azonal Vegetation 48.2 24 11.6 9.1 0.6 0.4 PP NP 167 Cape Seashore Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 226.0 20 45.2 35.5 128.3 126.7 WP WP 168 Cape Vernal Pools Azonal Vegetation 0.0 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 169 Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos Fynbos 84.4 30 25.3 19.9 35.4 30.9 WP WP 170 Carletonville Dolomite Grassland Grassland 9011.0 24 2162.6 1700.5 575.9 539.8 PP PP 171 Cathedral Mopane Bushveld Savanna 273.6 19 52.0 40.9 273.6 273.5 WP WP 172 Cederberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 2515.4 29 729.5 573.6 1411.7 1410.1 WP WP 173 Central Coastal Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 64.3 27 17.4 13.6 42.9 42.6 WP WP 174 Central Free State Grassland Grassland 15566.5 24 3736.0 2937.5 463.6 355.7 PP PP 175 Central Inland Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 97.7 27 26.4 20.7 88.7 88.7 WP WP 176 Central Knersvlakte Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 277.6 28 77.7 61.1 82.8 82.8 WP WP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 75 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 177 Central Mountain Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 1235.8 27 333.7 262.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 178 Central Richtersveld Mountain Shrubland Succulent Karoo 1211.3 28 339.2 266.7 865.4 865.3 WP WP 179 Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 1864.7 27 503.5 395.9 3.1 1.4 NP NP 180 Central Sandy Bushveld Savanna 16927.4 19 3216.2 2528.9 1138.9 1046.1 PP PP 181 Ceres Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 484.6 27 130.8 102.9 4.4 4.0 NP NP 182 Citrusdal Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 36.6 28 10.2 8.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 183 Citrusdal Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 146.6 28 41.1 32.3 4.4 4.3 PP PP 184 Coega Bontveld Albany Thicket 245.5 19 46.7 36.7 41.0 33.6 MP MP 185 Crocodile Gorge Mountain Bushveld Savanna 540.4 24 129.7 102.0 104.1 95.6 MP MP 186 De Hoop Limestone Fynbos Fynbos 663.1 32 212.2 166.9 193.2 193.2 MP MP 187 Delagoa Lowveld Savanna 773.2 19 146.9 115.5 479.2 478.9 WP WP 188 Die Plate Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 128.7 28 36.0 28.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 189 Doringrivier Quartzite Karoo Succulent Karoo 529.0 19 100.5 79.0 0.3 0.3 NP NP 190 Drakensberg-Amathole Afromontane Fynbos Grassland 17.3 27 4.7 3.7 13.3 13.3 WP WP 191 Drakensberg Afroalpine Heathland Grassland 78.3 27 21.1 16.6 54.7 54.7 WP WP 192 Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland Grassland 10638.3 23 2446.8 1923.9 305.2 284.4 PP PP 193 Drakensberg Wetlands Azonal Vegetation 16.8 24 4.0 3.2 8.0 7.6 WP WP 194 Dry Coast Hinterland Grassland Grassland 2934.6 25 733.6 576.9 19.6 19.6 NP NP 195 Dwaalboom Thornveld Savanna 9501.4 19 1805.3 1419.5 1488.7 1397.7 MP MP 196 Dwarsberg-Swartruggens Mountain Bushveld Savanna 2617.4 24 628.2 493.9 34.2 32.7 PP PP 197 East Griqualand Grassland Grassland 8246.2 23 1896.6 1491.3 63.0 61.1 NP NP 198 Eastern Cape Escarpment Thicket Albany Thicket 1277.6 19 242.7 190.9 51.3 50.6 PP PP 199 Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 75.9 27 20.5 16.1 10.0 7.9 PP PP 200 Eastern Free State Clay Grassland Grassland 13663.4 24 3279.2 2578.4 255.9 148.3 PP NP 201 Eastern Free State Sandy Grassland Grassland 11012.3 24 2643.0 2078.1 455.6 336.6 PP PP 202 Eastern Gariep Plains Desert Desert 1586.8 34 539.5 424.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 203 Eastern Gariep Rocky Desert Desert 2584.2 34 878.6 690.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 204 Eastern Highveld Grassland Grassland 12483.4 24 2996.0 2355.7 674.4 481.8 PP PP 205 Eastern Inland Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 107.6 27 29.1 22.8 46.2 46.2 WP WP 206 Eastern Little Karoo Succulent Karoo 1526.2 16 244.2 192.0 2.3 2.3 NP NP 207 Eastern Lower Karoo Nama-Karoo 8239.9 16 1318.4 1036.6 14.8 14.6 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 76 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 208 Eastern Ruens Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 2621.2 27 707.7 556.5 7.4 7.2 NP NP 209 Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands Azonal Vegetation 295.8 24 71.0 55.8 41.0 40.3 MP MP 210 Eastern Upper Karoo Nama-Karoo 49164.9 21 10324.6 8118.2 757.9 589.9 PP PP 211 Eastern Valley Bushveld Savanna 9468.8 25 2367.2 1861.3 15.2 13.1 NP NP 212 Eenriet Plains Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 264.8 28 74.1 58.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 213 Egoli Granite Grassland Grassland 1069.7 24 256.7 201.9 47.9 38.6 PP PP 214 Elgin Shale Fynbos Fynbos 259.1 30 77.7 61.1 59.7 22.9 MP PP 215 Elim Ferricrete Fynbos Fynbos 585.5 30 175.6 138.1 20.4 15.9 PP PP 216 Frankfort Highveld Grassland Grassland 9594.5 24 2302.7 1810.6 44.7 26.1 NP NP 217 Freshwater Lakes Wetlands 14.6 24 3.5 2.8 13.7 0.6 WP PP 218 Fynbos Riparian Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 14.3 31 4.4 3.5 14.1 14.1 WP WP 219 Gabbro Grassy Bushveld Savanna 753.3 19 143.1 112.5 753.3 752.6 WP WP 220 Gamka Karoo Nama-Karoo 20194.5 16 3231.1 2540.6 440.7 440.2 PP PP 221 Gamka Thicket Albany Thicket 1456.7 19 276.8 217.6 179.9 179.0 MP MP 222 Gamtoos Thicket Albany Thicket 836.1 19 158.9 124.9 57.4 56.2 PP PP 223 Garden Route Granite Fynbos Fynbos 408.5 23 94.0 73.9 0.4 0.4 NP NP 224 Garden Route Shale Fynbos Fynbos 515.2 23 118.5 93.2 17.9 15.6 PP PP 225 Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld Savanna 1015.6 24 243.7 191.7 53.0 49.6 PP PP 226 Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld Savanna 15057.9 16 2409.3 1894.4 24.7 23.9 NP NP 227 Goariep Mountain Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 173.6 28 48.6 38.2 173.6 173.6 WP WP 228 Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld Savanna 2007.4 24 481.8 378.8 423.2 413.9 MP MP 229 Gordonia Duneveld Savanna 36652.0 16 5864.3 4611.1 5493.0 5492.9 MP MP 230 Gordonia Kameeldoring Bushveld Savanna 2220.0 16 355.2 279.3 844.4 844.4 WP WP 231 Gordonia Plains Shrubland Savanna 7889.1 16 1262.3 992.5 1105.3 1105.3 MP MP 232 Graafwater Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1308.7 29 379.5 298.4 66.2 65.3 PP PP 233 Granite Lowveld Savanna 15545.1 19 2953.6 2322.4 4971.8 4945.7 WP WP 234 Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld Savanna 323.5 19 61.5 48.3 22.5 22.3 PP PP 235 Great Fish Noorsveld Albany Thicket 624.4 19 118.6 93.3 26.8 26.6 PP PP 236 Great Fish Thicket Albany Thicket 6553.7 19 1245.2 979.1 399.3 398.7 PP PP 237 Greyton Shale Fynbos Fynbos 251.7 30 75.5 59.4 15.5 14.1 PP PP 238 Groot Brak Dune Strandveld Fynbos 170.0 36 61.2 48.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 77 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 239 Groot Thicket Albany Thicket 2424.3 19 460.6 362.2 290.4 288.0 MP MP 240 Grootrivier Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 563.8 23 129.7 102.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 241 Hangklip Sand Fynbos Fynbos 62.2 30 18.7 14.7 18.3 14.9 MP MP 242 Hantam Karoo Succulent Karoo 7666.3 18 1379.9 1085.0 20.8 20.6 NP NP 243 Hantam Plateau Dolerite Renosterveld Fynbos 552.1 27 149.1 117.2 2.4 2.4 NP NP 244 Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1037.1 30 311.1 244.6 922.7 919.5 WP WP 245 Helskloof Canyon Desert Desert 7.8 34 2.7 2.1 5.9 5.9 WP WP 246 Highveld Alluvial Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 4062.4 31 1259.4 990.2 421.8 183.4 PP PP 247 Highveld Salt Pans Azonal Vegetation 4.9 24 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 248 Hopefield Sand Fynbos Fynbos 985.8 30 295.7 232.5 41.2 40.9 PP PP 249 Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 345.0 29 100.1 78.7 0.1 0.1 NP NP 250 Income Sandy Grassland Grassland 4271.1 23 982.4 772.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 251 Ironwood Dry Forest Forests 45.7 36 16.4 12.9 45.5 45.5 WP WP 252 Ithala Quartzite Sourveld Grassland 1045.0 27 282.1 221.9 122.0 121.7 PP PP 253 Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld Savanna 474.0 24 113.8 89.5 107.3 105.9 MP MP 254 Kahams Mountain Desert Desert 593.3 34 201.7 158.6 571.9 571.9 WP WP 255 Kalahari Karroid Shrubland Nama-Karoo 8058.0 21 1692.2 1330.6 11.8 11.8 NP NP 256 Kamiesberg Granite Fynbos Fynbos 35.2 27 9.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 257 Kamiesberg Mountains Shrubland Succulent Karoo 281.5 28 78.8 62.0 1.3 1.3 NP NP 258 Kango Conglomerate Fynbos Fynbos 403.1 27 108.8 85.6 48.1 47.9 PP PP 259 Kango Limestone Renosterveld Fynbos 497.9 29 144.4 113.5 15.5 15.5 PP PP 260 KaNgwane Montane Grassland Grassland 5904.1 24 1417.0 1114.2 127.1 87.0 PP PP 261 Karoo Escarpment Grassland Grassland 8303.6 24 1992.9 1567.0 320.5 320.2 PP PP 262 Kathu Bushveld Savanna 7397.3 16 1183.6 930.6 178.4 178.0 PP PP 263 Kimberley Thornveld Savanna 19256.3 16 3081.0 2422.6 898.2 752.3 PP PP 264 Klawer Sandy Shrubland Succulent Karoo 194.1 29 56.3 44.2 0.1 0.1 NP NP 265 Klerksdorp Thornveld Grassland 3868.1 24 928.3 729.9 107.3 106.0 PP PP 266 Knersvlakte Dolomite Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 50.5 28 14.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 267 Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 1194.4 28 334.4 263.0 335.9 334.7 WP WP 268 Knersvlakte Shale Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 954.0 28 267.1 210.0 60.9 60.9 PP PP 269 Knysna Sand Fynbos Fynbos 148.9 23 34.2 26.9 3.8 3.5 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 78 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 270 Kobee Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 138.5 29 40.2 31.6 0.3 0.3 NP NP 271 Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo Succulent Karoo 4691.2 19 891.3 700.8 13.7 13.5 NP NP 272 Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 890.9 30 267.3 210.1 680.4 671.5 WP WP 273 Koranna-Langeberg Mountain Bushveld Savanna 1626.4 16 260.2 204.6 60.2 60.1 PP PP 274 Kosiesberg Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 620.3 28 173.7 136.6 0.1 0.1 NP NP 275 Kouebokkeveld Alluvium Fynbos Fynbos 167.6 29 48.6 38.2 2.0 1.5 NP NP 276 Kouebokkeveld Shale Fynbos Fynbos 423.2 29 122.7 96.5 75.5 75.2 MP MP 277 Kouga Grassy Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 4095.4 23 942.0 740.6 1035.1 1034.1 WP WP 278 Kouga Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 2384.7 23 548.5 431.3 1069.2 1068.3 WP WP 279 Kowie Thicket Albany Thicket 2137.0 19 406.0 319.3 106.4 102.5 PP PP 280 Kuruman Mountain Bushveld Savanna 4356.2 16 697.0 548.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 281 Kuruman Thornveld Savanna 5745.7 16 919.3 722.9 20.1 20.1 NP NP 282 Kuruman Vaalbosveld Savanna 3867.3 16 618.8 486.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 283 Kwaggarug Mountain Desert Desert 108.8 34 37.0 29.1 108.8 108.6 WP WP 284 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Grassland Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 3988.9 25 997.2 784.1 37.1 36.4 NP NP 285 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Thornveld Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 1074.5 25 268.6 211.2 5.2 5.0 NP NP 286 KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld Grassland 4920.3 23 1131.7 889.8 84.7 67.7 PP PP 287 KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld Savanna 1476.4 25 369.1 290.2 8.2 6.3 NP NP 288 KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld Savanna 1788.3 25 447.1 351.5 2.0 1.9 NP NP 289 Lambert's Bay Strandveld Fynbos 712.7 24 171.1 134.5 0.2 0.2 NP NP 290 Langebaan Dune Strandveld Fynbos 305.8 24 73.4 57.7 175.2 172.8 WP WP 291 Langkloof Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 196.2 29 56.9 44.7 1.2 0.9 NP NP 292 Lebombo Summit Sourveld Savanna 127.1 24 30.5 24.0 1.7 1.2 PP NP 293 Legogote Sour Bushveld Savanna 3460.7 19 657.5 517.0 189.1 120.1 PP PP 294 Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos Fynbos 1999.8 29 579.9 456.0 9.6 8.4 NP NP 295 Lekkersing Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 820.3 28 229.7 180.6 88.5 88.5 PP PP 296 Leolo Summit Sourveld Grassland 20.4 24 4.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 297 Lesotho Highland Basalt Grassland Grassland 3992.3 27 1077.9 847.5 188.9 188.9 PP PP 298 Lesotho Mires Azonal Vegetation 0.7 24 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 PP PP 299 Limpopo Ridge Bushveld Savanna 2727.6 19 518.2 407.5 705.0 703.4 WP WP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 79 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 300 Limpopo Sweet Bushveld Savanna 11865.4 19 2254.4 1772.6 1083.0 1047.3 PP PP 301 Little Karoo Quartz Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 238.5 16 38.2 30.0 9.8 9.8 PP PP 302 Loerie Conglomerate Fynbos Fynbos 217.1 23 49.9 39.3 31.8 31.7 MP MP 303 Loskop Mountain Bushveld Savanna 2024.5 24 485.9 382.0 370.5 357.7 MP MP 304 Loskop Thornveld Savanna 728.8 19 138.5 108.9 87.5 86.3 MP MP 305 Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos Fynbos 34.7 30 10.4 8.2 9.3 4.1 MP PP 306 Low Escarpment Moist Grassland Grassland 1714.1 23 394.2 310.0 53.6 50.2 PP PP 307 Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 459.2 31 142.3 111.9 23.7 21.4 PP PP 308 Lower Gariep Broken Veld Nama-Karoo 4510.7 21 947.2 744.8 154.8 154.7 PP PP 309 Lower Karoo Gwarrieveld Nama-Karoo 1556.2 16 249.0 195.8 2.7 2.7 NP NP 310 Lowveld Riverine Forest Forests 67.7 36 24.4 19.2 49.2 48.9 WP WP 311 Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld Savanna 3083.6 19 585.9 460.7 1068.1 1067.5 WP WP 312 Lydenburg Montane Grassland Grassland 4793.6 24 1150.5 904.6 523.9 466.2 PP PP 313 Lydenburg Thornveld Grassland 1510.5 24 362.5 285.0 147.3 139.1 PP PP 314 Mabela Sandy Grassland Grassland 276.8 23 63.7 50.1 0.7 0.7 NP NP 315 Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld Savanna 969.6 19 184.2 144.9 244.0 243.5 WP WP 316 Mafikeng Bushveld Savanna 14127.3 16 2260.4 1777.3 16.5 6.0 NP NP 317 Makatini Clay Thicket Savanna 318.4 19 60.5 47.6 125.9 125.8 WP WP 318 Makhado Sweet Bushveld Savanna 10017.5 19 1903.3 1496.6 501.4 414.7 PP PP 319 Makuleke Sandy Bushveld Savanna 2040.3 19 387.7 304.8 731.4 730.7 WP WP 320 Malelane Mountain Bushveld Savanna 624.2 24 149.8 117.8 490.4 489.3 WP WP 321 Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld Savanna 679.8 24 163.1 128.3 65.6 65.0 PP PP 322 Mangrove Forest Forests 0.1 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WP MP 323 Maputaland Coastal Belt Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 2069.8 25 517.4 406.9 308.8 300.9 MP MP 324 Maputaland Pallid Sandy Bushveld Savanna 594.5 25 148.6 116.9 91.8 91.6 MP MP 325 Maputaland Wooded Grassland Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 1048.9 25 262.2 206.2 165.6 161.4 MP MP 326 Marikana Thornveld Savanna 2483.2 19 471.8 371.0 27.7 22.5 PP NP 327 Marine Saline Wetlands Azonal Vegetation 2.4 24 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 MP MP 328 Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 1273.6 27 343.9 270.4 74.3 74.3 PP PP 329 Matjiesfontein Shale Fynbos Fynbos 107.1 27 28.9 22.7 31.0 31.0 WP WP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 80 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 330 Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 2080.9 27 561.8 441.8 199.3 199.0 PP PP 331 Midlands Mistbelt Grassland Grassland 6751.6 23 1552.9 1221.0 148.1 82.2 PP PP 332 Moist Coast Hinterland Grassland Grassland 6165.1 25 1541.3 1211.9 8.4 7.8 NP NP 333 Molopo Bushveld Savanna 22575.2 16 3612.0 2840.1 227.0 226.9 PP PP 334 Montagu Shale Fynbos Fynbos 185.0 30 55.5 43.6 7.3 7.2 PP PP 335 Montagu Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 1583.3 27 427.5 336.1 55.8 55.2 PP PP 336 Mooi River Highland Grassland Grassland 2614.5 23 601.3 472.8 106.6 84.7 PP PP 337 Moot Plains Bushveld Savanna 2842.3 19 540.0 424.6 61.5 54.0 PP PP 338 Mopane Basalt Shrubland Savanna 2779.2 19 528.1 415.2 2779.2 2776.4 WP WP 339 Mopane Gabbro Shrubland Savanna 309.4 19 58.8 46.2 309.4 309.3 WP WP 340 Mossel Bay Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 747.0 27 201.7 158.6 1.1 1.1 NP NP 341 Mthatha Moist Grassland Grassland 5144.4 23 1183.2 930.4 1.7 1.6 NP NP 342 Muscadel Riviere Azonal Vegetation 347.4 16 55.6 43.7 0.6 0.5 NP NP 343 Musina Mopane Bushveld Savanna 8717.4 19 1656.3 1302.3 686.3 656.4 PP PP 344 Muzi Palm Veld and Wooded Grassland Savanna 492.2 25 123.1 96.8 34.8 34.8 PP PP 345 Namaqualand Arid Grassland Succulent Karoo 710.2 26 184.7 145.2 150.8 150.8 MP MP 346 Namaqualand Blomveld Succulent Karoo 3758.1 28 1052.3 827.4 46.9 45.5 NP NP 347 Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld Succulent Karoo 991.5 26 257.8 202.7 206.3 206.1 MP MP 348 Namaqualand Granite Renosterveld Fynbos 705.4 27 190.5 149.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 349 Namaqualand Heuweltjieveld Succulent Karoo 2541.0 28 711.5 559.4 241.5 241.4 PP PP 350 Namaqualand Inland Duneveld Succulent Karoo 316.8 26 82.4 64.8 59.6 59.6 MP MP 351 Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland Succulent Karoo 11019.9 28 3085.6 2426.2 445.8 442.0 PP PP 352 Namaqualand Riviere Azonal Vegetation 624.5 24 149.9 117.8 0.5 0.5 NP NP 353 Namaqualand Salt Pans Azonal Vegetation 83.2 24 20.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 354 Namaqualand Sand Fynbos Fynbos 1142.1 29 331.2 260.4 23.2 23.2 PP PP 355 Namaqualand Seashore Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 64.4 26 16.8 13.2 0.2 0.2 NP NP 356 Namaqualand Shale Shrubland Succulent Karoo 674.5 24 161.9 127.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 357 Namaqualand Spinescent Grassland Succulent Karoo 448.5 26 116.6 91.7 17.6 17.4 PP PP 358 Namaqualand Strandveld Succulent Karoo 4228.6 26 1099.4 864.5 252.6 252.5 PP PP 359 Namib Lichen Fields Desert 0.8 36 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 360 Namib Seashore Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 11.7 26 3.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 81 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 361 Nardouw Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 549.9 29 159.5 125.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 362 Ngongoni Veld Savanna 794.9 25 198.7 156.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 363 Nieuwoudtville-Roggeveld Dolerite Renosterveld Fynbos 214.8 27 58.0 45.6 7.0 7.0 PP PP 364 Nieuwoudtville Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 208.6 27 56.3 44.3 0.2 0.2 NP NP 365 Noms Mountain Desert Desert 341.2 34 116.0 91.2 341.2 341.1 WP WP 366 Norite Koppies Bushveld Savanna 256.1 24 61.5 48.3 9.8 9.7 PP PP 367 North Hex Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 389.7 29 113.0 88.9 308.4 307.7 WP WP 368 North Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 330.2 27 89.2 70.1 261.8 261.6 WP WP 369 North Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1015.3 30 304.6 239.5 561.3 559.7 WP WP 370 North Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 874.1 23 201.0 158.1 94.1 93.7 PP PP 371 North Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 318.0 27 85.9 67.5 188.4 188.4 WP WP 372 North Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 529.3 30 158.8 124.9 370.8 369.2 WP WP 373 North Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 862.1 27 232.8 183.0 693.7 693.6 WP WP 374 Northern Afrotemperate Forest Forests 104.3 22 22.9 18.0 50.7 50.3 WP WP 375 Northern Coastal Forest Forests 614.8 18 110.7 87.0 333.3 308.7 WP WP 376 Northern Drakensberg Highland Grassland Grassland 1204.6 27 325.2 255.7 477.1 474.7 WP WP 377 Northern Escarpment Afromontane Fynbos Grassland 9.5 27 2.6 2.0 7.1 7.0 WP WP 378 Northern Escarpment Dolomite Grassland Grassland 928.5 27 250.7 197.1 24.5 22.2 PP PP 379 Northern Escarpment Quartzite Sourveld Grassland 1351.7 27 365.0 287.0 309.4 296.1 MP MP 380 Northern Free State Shrubland Grassland 29.2 28 8.2 6.4 0.5 0.5 PP PP 381 Northern Inland Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 272.8 29 79.1 62.2 209.8 208.7 WP WP 382 Northern Knersvlakte Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 1518.1 28 425.1 334.2 304.3 304.2 MP MP 383 Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland Grassland 6857.4 24 1645.8 1294.0 80.1 72.9 NP NP 384 Northern Lebombo Bushveld Savanna 1312.9 24 315.1 247.8 1305.7 1305.3 WP WP 385 Northern Mistbelt Forest Forests 596.2 22 131.2 103.1 232.5 220.6 WP WP 386 Northern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert Desert 248.0 34 84.3 66.3 1.6 1.6 NP NP 387 Northern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld Succulent Karoo 366.2 28 102.5 80.6 120.8 120.8 WP WP 388 Northern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld Succulent Karoo 555.9 26 144.5 113.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 389 Northern Upper Karoo Nama-Karoo 41345.9 21 8682.6 6827.1 228.4 207.5 NP NP 390 Northern Zululand Mistbelt Grassland Grassland 528.2 23 121.5 95.5 18.1 18.0 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 82 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 391 Northern Zululand Sourveld Savanna 4660.9 19 885.6 696.3 347.4 346.0 PP PP 392 Nossob Bushveld Savanna 745.5 16 119.3 93.8 745.5 745.5 WP WP 393 Nwambyia-Pumbe Sandy Bushveld Savanna 167.3 19 31.8 25.0 167.2 167.2 WP WP 394 Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld Savanna 1958.2 24 470.0 369.5 274.8 268.4 MP MP 395 Olifants Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 494.8 29 143.5 112.8 346.4 343.9 WP WP 396 Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld Savanna 8475.9 16 1356.1 1066.3 99.6 99.5 PP PP 397 Oograbies Plains Sandy Grassland Succulent Karoo 123.3 26 32.1 25.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 398 Overberg Dune Strandveld Fynbos 382.2 36 137.6 108.2 143.1 142.6 WP WP 399 Overberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1115.4 30 334.6 263.1 111.8 111.0 PP PP 400 Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland Grassland 4076.9 24 978.5 769.4 202.6 166.5 PP PP 401 Peninsula Granite Fynbos Fynbos 91.7 30 27.5 21.6 44.0 31.1 WP WP 402 Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 213.6 30 64.1 50.4 202.6 196.3 WP WP 403 Peninsula Shale Fynbos Fynbos 12.5 30 3.8 3.0 7.9 6.5 WP WP 404 Peninsula Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 22.7 26 5.9 4.6 2.8 2.4 PP PP 405 Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld Savanna 2207.6 19 419.5 329.8 1347.4 1345.3 WP WP 406 Piketberg Quartz Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 2.8 26 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 407 Piketberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 418.2 29 121.3 95.4 0.5 0.5 NP NP 408 Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld Savanna 431.4 24 103.5 81.4 415.3 412.0 WP WP 409 Platbakkies Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 982.1 28 275.0 216.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 410 Polokwane Plateau Bushveld Savanna 4411.3 19 838.1 659.0 116.5 110.7 PP PP 411 Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 1271.9 25 318.0 250.0 89.3 88.6 PP PP 412 Postmasburg Thornveld Savanna 920.0 16 147.2 115.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 413 Potberg Ferricrete Fynbos Fynbos 38.7 30 11.6 9.1 2.2 2.1 PP PP 414 Potberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 107.6 30 32.3 25.4 53.1 52.7 WP WP 415 Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld Savanna 870.9 24 209.0 164.3 105.9 105.8 MP MP 416 Pretoriuskop Sour Bushveld Savanna 920.5 19 174.9 137.5 402.1 395.2 WP WP 417 Prince Albert Succulent Karoo Succulent Karoo 2545.6 16 407.3 320.2 60.4 55.9 PP PP 418 Queenstown Thornveld Grassland 3511.3 23 807.6 635.0 28.6 28.0 NP NP 419 Rand Highveld Grassland Grassland 10088.2 24 2421.2 1903.7 169.4 149.6 PP PP 421 Richtersberg Mountain Desert Desert 363.3 34 123.5 97.1 363.3 363.3 WP WP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 83 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 422 Richtersveld Coastal Duneveld Succulent Karoo 488.8 26 127.1 99.9 10.7 10.7 PP PP 423 Richtersveld Red Duneveld Succulent Karoo 547.1 26 142.2 111.8 8.0 8.0 PP PP 424 Richtersveld Sandy Coastal Scorpionstailveld Succulent Karoo 385.4 26 100.2 78.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 425 Richtersveld Sheet Wash Desert Desert 160.2 34 54.5 42.8 160.2 159.9 WP WP 426 Riethuis-Wallekraal Quartz Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 131.5 28 36.8 29.0 60.0 60.0 WP WP 427 Robertson Granite Fynbos Fynbos 16.7 30 5.0 3.9 7.0 7.0 WP WP 428 Robertson Granite Renosterveld Fynbos 18.9 27 5.1 4.0 5.6 5.6 WP WP 429 Robertson Karoo Succulent Karoo 651.7 16 104.3 82.0 19.1 18.3 PP PP 430 Roggeveld Karoo Succulent Karoo 5315.1 18 956.7 752.3 2.1 2.1 NP NP 431 Roggeveld Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 3210.1 27 866.7 681.5 55.7 55.1 PP PP 432 Roodeberg Bushveld Savanna 6442.9 19 1224.1 962.5 633.8 612.0 MP PP 433 Rooiberg Quartz Vygieveld Succulent Karoo 130.2 28 36.4 28.7 61.6 61.5 WP WP 434 Rosyntjieberg Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 51.6 28 14.4 11.4 51.6 51.6 WP WP 435 Ruens Silcrete Renosterveld Fynbos 205.7 27 55.5 43.7 0.3 0.3 NP NP 436 Saldanha Flats Strandveld Fynbos 1598.1 24 383.5 301.6 82.4 81.7 PP PP 437 Saldanha Granite Strandveld Fynbos 280.9 24 67.4 53.0 30.7 29.8 PP PP 438 Saldanha Limestone Strandveld Fynbos 62.7 24 15.0 11.8 9.5 9.4 MP MP 439 Sand Forest Forests 271.4 36 97.7 76.8 118.0 117.8 WP WP 440 Scarp Forest Forests 744.5 22 163.8 128.8 204.6 203.6 WP WP 441 Schmidtsdrif Thornveld Savanna 4922.4 16 787.6 619.3 70.2 53.8 PP PP 442 Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld Savanna 1992.3 16 318.8 250.6 42.2 31.7 PP PP 443 Sekhukhune Montane Grassland Grassland 1335.1 24 320.4 251.9 9.6 7.6 NP NP 444 Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld Savanna 2291.4 24 549.9 432.4 45.6 45.1 PP PP 445 Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld Savanna 2456.0 19 466.6 366.9 32.6 31.8 PP PP 446 Senqu Montane Shrubland Grassland 709.6 28 198.7 156.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 447 South Hex Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 317.2 29 92.0 72.3 288.3 288.0 WP WP 448 South Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 304.3 27 82.2 64.6 216.4 214.9 WP WP 449 South Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1191.3 30 357.4 281.0 909.7 909.3 WP WP 450 South Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1524.9 23 350.7 275.8 527.4 469.6 WP WP 451 South Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 388.8 27 105.0 82.6 193.9 193.9 WP WP 452 South Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 349.2 30 104.8 82.4 270.5 269.7 WP WP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 84 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 453 South Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1081.2 27 291.9 229.5 881.2 881.1 WP WP 454 Southern Afrotemperate Forest Forests 779.4 22 171.5 134.8 431.5 406.0 WP WP 455 Southern Cape Dune Fynbos Fynbos 175.0 36 63.0 49.5 42.6 38.3 MP MP 456 Southern Cape Valley Thicket Albany Thicket 141.2 19 26.8 21.1 1.0 1.0 NP NP 457 Southern Coastal Forest Forests 163.0 21 34.2 26.9 87.0 86.7 WP WP 458 Southern Drakensberg Highland Grassland Grassland 6519.8 27 1760.4 1384.2 606.4 605.9 PP PP 459 Southern Kalahari Mekgacha Azonal Vegetation 1824.3 24 437.8 344.3 313.8 313.3 MP MP 460 Southern Kalahari Salt Pans Azonal Vegetation 135.6 24 32.5 25.6 52.4 52.3 WP WP 461 Southern Karoo Riviere Azonal Vegetation 4676.4 24 1122.3 882.5 104.1 77.1 PP PP 462 Southern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland Grassland 2243.9 23 516.1 405.8 95.0 69.3 PP PP 463 Southern Lebombo Bushveld Savanna 1290.1 24 309.6 243.5 118.7 116.9 PP PP 464 Southern Mistbelt Forest Forests 1163.9 20 232.8 183.0 138.8 132.8 MP MP 465 Southern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert Desert 344.8 34 117.2 92.2 2.5 2.5 NP NP 466 Southern Richtersveld Inselberg Shrubland Succulent Karoo 371.6 28 104.0 81.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 467 Southern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld Succulent Karoo 726.3 28 203.4 159.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 468 Southern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld Succulent Karoo 340.2 26 88.5 69.5 78.7 78.7 MP MP 469 Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld Savanna 4095.2 24 982.8 772.8 151.9 147.2 PP PP 470 Soutpansberg Summit Sourveld Grassland 86.2 24 20.7 16.3 23.2 23.1 WP WP 471 Soweto Highveld Grassland Grassland 14137.3 24 3392.9 2667.8 82.4 53.6 NP NP 472 Springbokvlakte Thornveld Savanna 8663.8 19 1646.1 1294.3 375.8 339.8 PP PP 473 Stella Bushveld Savanna 3150.8 16 504.1 396.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 474 Steytlerville Karoo Succulent Karoo 774.9 16 124.0 97.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 475 Stinkfonteinberge Eastern Apron Shrubland Succulent Karoo 65.9 28 18.4 14.5 65.6 65.6 WP WP 476 Stinkfonteinberge Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 49.8 28 13.9 11.0 49.7 49.7 WP WP 477 Stormberg Plateau Grassland Grassland 2897.4 27 782.3 615.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 478 Strydpoort Summit Sourveld Grassland 267.3 24 64.1 50.4 42.6 42.6 MP MP 479 Subtropical Alluvial Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 591.3 31 183.3 144.1 329.2 300.1 WP WP 480 Subtropical Coastal Lagoons Wetlands 0.3 24 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 481 Subtropical Dune Thicket Azonal Vegetation 17.4 20 3.5 2.7 10.5 10.5 WP WP 482 Subtropical Estuarine Salt Marshes Azonal Vegetation 0.4 24 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 483 Subtropical Freshwater Wetlands Azonal Vegetation 192.4 24 46.2 36.3 29.8 29.1 MP MP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 85 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 484 Subtropical Salt Pans Azonal Vegetation 3.3 24 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.3 PP PP 485 Subtropical Seashore Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 29.6 20 5.9 4.7 16.3 16.2 WP WP 486 Sundays Noorsveld Albany Thicket 1251.6 19 237.8 187.0 250.0 230.2 WP MP 487 Sundays Thicket Albany Thicket 5168.1 19 981.9 772.1 943.0 911.2 MP MP 488 Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 878.4 23 202.0 158.9 140.2 140.2 MP MP 489 Suurberg Shale Fynbos Fynbos 509.5 23 117.2 92.1 203.8 203.8 WP WP 490 Swamp Forest Forests 3.9 35 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 MP MP 491 Swartberg Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 51.0 29 14.8 11.6 51.0 51.0 WP WP 492 Swartberg Shale Fynbos Fynbos 75.1 27 20.3 15.9 8.3 8.2 PP PP 493 Swartberg Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 274.6 29 79.6 62.6 25.7 25.7 PP PP 494 Swartland Alluvium Fynbos Fynbos 452.6 30 135.8 106.8 41.9 40.1 PP PP 495 Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld Fynbos 53.3 26 13.9 10.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 496 Swartland Granite Renosterveld Fynbos 952.9 26 247.8 194.8 5.4 5.3 NP NP 497 Swartland Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 4916.4 26 1278.3 1005.1 42.4 37.0 NP NP 498 Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld Fynbos 101.0 26 26.3 20.6 0.2 0.2 NP NP 499 Swartruggens Quartzite Fynbos Fynbos 1649.5 29 478.3 376.1 163.7 163.7 PP PP 500 Swartruggens Quartzite Karoo Succulent Karoo 547.4 19 104.0 81.8 39.5 39.5 PP PP 501 Swaziland Sour Bushveld Savanna 1289.6 19 245.0 192.7 405.0 390.6 WP WP 502 Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos Fynbos 816.1 30 244.8 192.5 42.3 40.4 PP PP 503 Tanqua Escarpment Shrubland Succulent Karoo 1321.4 19 251.1 197.4 172.3 172.3 MP MP 504 Tanqua Karoo Succulent Karoo 6968.1 19 1323.9 1041.0 779.0 778.6 MP MP 505 Tanqua Wash Riviere Azonal Vegetation 2037.3 19 387.1 304.4 365.4 353.5 MP MP 506 Tarkastad Montane Shrubland Grassland 4201.1 28 1176.3 924.9 81.1 80.2 PP PP 507 Tatasberg Mountain Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 3.3 34 1.1 0.9 3.3 3.3 WP WP 508 Tembe Sandy Bushveld Savanna 1110.8 19 211.1 165.9 177.7 177.6 MP MP 509 Temperate Alluvial Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 297.2 31 92.1 72.4 36.1 13.0 PP PP 510 Thukela Thornveld Savanna 2126.5 25 531.6 418.0 21.5 21.4 NP NP 511 Thukela Valley Bushveld Savanna 2567.5 25 641.9 504.7 12.1 12.1 NP NP 512 Transkei Coastal Belt Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 1532.6 25 383.1 301.3 13.1 12.8 NP NP 513 Tsakane Clay Grassland Grassland 1257.6 24 301.8 237.3 58.6 44.4 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 86 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 514 Tsende Mopaneveld Savanna 5266.1 19 1000.6 786.7 3681.0 3672.5 WP WP 515 Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld Savanna 2807.9 19 533.5 419.5 2223.0 2221.1 WP WP 516 Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 2236.7 23 514.4 404.5 803.9 776.7 WP WP 517 Tsomo Grassland Grassland 5925.2 23 1362.8 1071.6 1.4 1.4 NP NP 518 Tzaneen Sour Bushveld Savanna 3384.0 19 643.0 505.6 131.8 106.2 PP PP 519 uKhahlamba Basalt Grassland Grassland 1329.5 27 359.0 282.3 1056.4 1056.2 WP WP 520 Umdaus Mountains Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 437.8 28 122.6 96.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 521 Uniondale Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 1325.3 29 384.3 302.2 33.3 32.4 PP PP 522 Upper Annisvlakte Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 194.0 28 54.3 42.7 48.3 48.1 MP MP 523 Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation Azonal Vegetation 1495.5 31 463.6 364.5 42.3 34.3 PP PP 524 Upper Karoo Hardeveld Nama-Karoo 11710.7 21 2459.2 1933.7 583.7 583.0 PP PP 525 Vaal-Vet Sandy Grassland Grassland 22322.8 24 5357.5 4212.5 343.4 178.0 PP NP 526 Vaal Reefs Dolomite Sinkhole Woodland Grassland 334.1 24 80.2 63.1 0.3 0.2 NP NP 527 Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland Savanna 1435.8 16 229.7 180.6 81.5 81.3 PP PP 528 Vanrhynsdorp Gannabosveld Succulent Karoo 930.1 28 260.4 204.8 5.2 4.4 NP NP 529 Vanrhynsdorp Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 202.7 27 54.7 43.0 12.3 12.3 PP PP 530 VhaVenda Miombo Savanna 0.3 36 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 531 Vredefort Dome Granite Grassland Grassland 905.2 24 217.3 170.8 3.3 3.3 NP NP 532 Vyftienmyl se Berge Succulent Shrubland Succulent Karoo 18.8 28 5.3 4.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 533 Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland Grassland 3575.5 27 965.4 759.1 302.4 293.5 PP PP 534 Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit Sourveld Grassland 522.9 24 125.5 98.7 129.9 129.6 WP WP 535 Waterberg Mountain Bushveld Savanna 8730.9 24 2095.4 1647.6 1302.6 1280.7 MP MP 536 Western Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 37.8 29 11.0 8.6 37.8 37.8 WP WP 537 Western Bushmanland Klipveld Succulent Karoo 2300.0 18 414.0 325.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 538 Western Coastal Shale Band Vegetation Fynbos 131.9 30 39.6 31.1 96.6 96.5 WP WP 539 Western Free State Clay Grassland Grassland 6469.3 24 1552.6 1220.8 167.7 155.3 PP PP 540 Western Gariep Hills Desert Desert 417.0 28 116.8 91.8 45.2 41.3 PP PP 541 Western Gariep Lowland Desert Desert 242.5 28 67.9 53.4 0.4 0.4 NP NP 542 Western Gariep Plains Desert Desert 193.6 28 54.2 42.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 543 Western Gwarrieveld Succulent Karoo 733.1 16 117.3 92.2 50.1 50.1 PP PP 544 Western Highveld Sandy Grassland Grassland 8435.2 24 2024.5 1591.8 25.8 12.3 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 87 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 546 Western Little Karoo Succulent Karoo 4029.3 16 644.7 506.9 418.6 417.3 MP MP 547 Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld Savanna 1466.8 19 278.7 219.1 294.0 184.5 WP MP 548 Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld Savanna 151.3 19 28.8 22.6 28.1 27.8 MP MP 549 Western Ruens Shale Renosterveld Fynbos 1118.9 27 302.1 237.5 0.8 0.8 NP NP 550 Western Sandy Bushveld Savanna 6434.8 19 1222.6 961.3 1312.9 1283.0 WP WP 551 Western Upper Karoo Nama-Karoo 17030.9 21 3576.5 2812.2 14.0 14.0 NP NP 552 Willowmore Gwarrieveld Succulent Karoo 2288.4 16 366.1 287.9 3.5 3.5 NP NP 553 Winburg Grassy Shrubland Grassland 1549.7 28 433.9 341.2 67.9 65.9 PP PP 554 Winterhoek Sandstone Fynbos Fynbos 1134.9 29 329.1 258.8 923.1 920.6 WP WP 555 Wolkberg Dolomite Grassland Grassland 260.5 27 70.3 55.3 116.1 115.7 WP WP 556 Woodbush Granite Grassland Grassland 334.1 27 90.2 70.9 19.6 16.2 PP PP 557 Xhariep Karroid Grassland Grassland 13141.7 24 3154.0 2480.0 473.5 332.6 PP PP 558 Zastron Moist Grassland Grassland 3468.5 24 832.4 654.5 21.5 15.3 NP NP 559 Zeerust Thornveld Savanna 4044.3 19 768.4 604.2 131.2 119.5 PP PP 560 Zululand Coastal Thornveld Savanna 655.8 19 124.6 98.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 561 Zululand Lowveld Savanna 6838.0 19 1299.2 1021.6 1071.1 1064.0 MP MP 562 1 N F Rivers 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 WP NP 563 1 N L Rivers 49.2 20 9.8 7.7 11.8 10.5 WP WP 564 1 N M Rivers 0.4 20 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 WP WP 565 1 N U Rivers 43.1 20 8.6 6.8 3.6 3.3 PP PP 566 1 P F Rivers 38.5 20 7.7 6.0 9.8 9.4 WP WP 567 1 P L Rivers 114.4 20 22.9 18.0 7.3 7.1 PP PP 568 1 P M Rivers 0.3 20 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 WP WP 569 1 P U Rivers 6.5 20 1.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 PP PP 570 10 N L Rivers 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 571 10 N M Rivers 3.0 20 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.0 WP WP 572 10 N U Rivers 7.7 20 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.4 PP PP 573 10 P L Rivers 66.9 20 13.4 10.5 11.4 10.9 MP MP 574 10 P M Rivers 9.0 20 1.8 1.4 2.8 2.3 WP WP 575 10 P U Rivers 76.0 20 15.2 12.0 13.5 10.6 MP MP 576 11 N F Rivers 3.7 20 0.7 0.6 2.5 0.1 WP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 88 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 577 11 N L Rivers 277.9 20 55.6 43.7 6.8 3.5 PP PP 578 11 N M Rivers 3.8 20 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 PP PP 579 11 N U Rivers 194.9 20 39.0 30.7 5.1 3.6 PP PP 580 11 P F Rivers 282.7 20 56.5 44.5 13.5 4.7 PP PP 581 11 P L Rivers 692.4 20 138.5 108.9 26.3 11.8 PP PP 582 11 P M Rivers 5.5 20 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.3 MP PP 583 11 P U Rivers 172.0 20 34.4 27.1 5.3 3.5 PP PP 585 12 N L Rivers 10.7 20 2.1 1.7 8.4 8.3 WP WP 586 12 N M Rivers 1.3 20 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 PP PP 587 12 N U Rivers 15.7 20 3.1 2.5 5.4 5.3 WP WP 588 12 P F Rivers 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PP PP 589 12 P L Rivers 8.4 20 1.7 1.3 4.4 4.3 WP WP 590 12 P M Rivers 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 591 12 P U Rivers 1.7 20 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 PP PP 593 13 N L Rivers 2.2 20 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 WP WP 594 13 N U Rivers 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 WP NP 595 13 P F Rivers 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 MP MP 596 13 P L Rivers 14.3 20 2.9 2.2 0.7 0.3 PP PP 597 13 P M Rivers 0.3 20 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 598 13 P U Rivers 3.8 20 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 599 14 N F Rivers 0.3 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 600 14 N L Rivers 14.6 20 2.9 2.3 0.7 0.1 PP NP 601 14 N M Rivers 3.2 20 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 602 14 N U Rivers 25.0 20 5.0 3.9 1.5 1.0 PP PP 603 14 P F Rivers 15.9 20 3.2 2.5 2.4 0.1 MP NP 604 14 P L Rivers 201.9 20 40.4 31.8 7.6 2.6 PP PP 605 14 P M Rivers 18.5 20 3.7 2.9 1.0 0.8 PP PP 606 14 P U Rivers 196.8 20 39.4 30.9 4.9 3.7 PP PP 608 15 N L Rivers 26.8 20 5.4 4.2 0.4 0.0 PP NP 609 15 N M Rivers 8.9 20 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 MP MP 610 15 N U Rivers 50.0 20 10.0 7.9 0.3 0.2 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 89 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 611 15 P F Rivers 10.4 20 2.1 1.6 0.6 0.6 PP PP 612 15 P L Rivers 177.4 20 35.5 27.9 1.9 1.5 PP NP 613 15 P M Rivers 39.6 20 7.9 6.2 14.6 14.1 WP WP 614 15 P U Rivers 145.6 20 29.1 22.9 17.8 16.8 MP MP 615 16 N L Rivers 1.7 20 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 616 16 N M Rivers 3.4 20 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 617 16 N U Rivers 10.8 20 2.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 618 16 P F Rivers 8.6 20 1.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 619 16 P L Rivers 379.1 20 75.8 59.6 3.4 1.6 NP NP 620 16 P M Rivers 44.4 20 8.9 7.0 2.0 1.7 PP PP 621 16 P U Rivers 472.6 20 94.5 74.3 4.7 4.2 PP NP 622 17 N M Rivers 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 623 17 N U Rivers 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 624 17 P F Rivers 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 625 17 P L Rivers 157.5 20 31.5 24.8 2.0 1.4 PP NP 626 17 P M Rivers 6.8 20 1.4 1.1 0.2 0.1 PP PP 627 17 P U Rivers 163.4 20 32.7 25.7 3.5 3.1 PP PP 628 18 N F Rivers 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 629 18 N L Rivers 156.7 20 31.3 24.6 2.0 1.3 PP NP 630 18 N M Rivers 37.6 20 7.5 5.9 1.3 1.3 PP PP 631 18 N U Rivers 382.7 20 76.5 60.2 9.2 7.4 PP PP 632 18 P F Rivers 0.6 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 633 18 P L Rivers 414.0 20 82.8 65.1 24.0 20.7 PP PP 634 18 P M Rivers 5.3 20 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 PP NP 635 18 P U Rivers 107.0 20 21.4 16.8 2.0 1.7 PP PP 636 19 N F Rivers 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 WP NP 637 19 N L Rivers 88.6 20 17.7 13.9 4.7 4.4 PP PP 638 19 N M Rivers 27.7 20 5.5 4.4 13.1 11.9 WP WP 639 19 N U Rivers 223.8 20 44.8 35.2 24.0 22.4 MP PP 640 19 P F Rivers 7.0 20 1.4 1.1 0.1 0.1 PP PP 641 19 P L Rivers 301.3 20 60.3 47.4 49.4 39.2 MP MP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 90 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 642 19 P M Rivers 22.5 20 4.5 3.5 13.4 11.9 WP WP 643 19 P U Rivers 136.2 20 27.2 21.4 24.0 21.8 MP MP 644 2 N F Rivers 0.3 20 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 645 2 N L Rivers 4.9 20 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.5 WP WP 646 2 N M Rivers 2.6 20 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 PP PP 647 2 N U Rivers 11.6 20 2.3 1.8 1.2 0.9 MP PP 649 2 P L Rivers 35.6 20 7.1 5.6 7.4 7.3 WP WP 650 2 P M Rivers 0.7 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 651 2 P U Rivers 9.8 20 2.0 1.5 0.4 0.4 PP PP 653 20 N L Rivers 21.6 20 4.3 3.4 0.9 0.8 PP PP 654 20 N M Rivers 2.0 20 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 MP PP 655 20 N U Rivers 36.6 20 7.3 5.8 3.2 2.8 PP PP 656 20 P F Rivers 4.0 20 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 657 20 P L Rivers 55.7 20 11.1 8.8 6.4 5.8 MP MP 658 20 P M Rivers 7.7 20 1.5 1.2 4.6 3.5 WP WP 659 20 P U Rivers 57.1 20 11.4 9.0 19.4 16.9 WP WP 660 21 N F Rivers 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 661 21 N L Rivers 386.8 20 77.4 60.8 8.6 6.5 PP PP 662 21 N M Rivers 28.9 20 5.8 4.5 1.6 1.1 PP PP 663 21 N U Rivers 490.5 20 98.1 77.1 21.1 19.6 PP PP 664 21 P F Rivers 0.3 20 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 MP NP 665 21 P L Rivers 85.8 20 17.2 13.5 8.3 4.7 PP PP 666 21 P M Rivers 0.3 20 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 MP MP 667 21 P U Rivers 11.6 20 2.3 1.8 0.2 0.0 PP NP 668 22 N L Rivers 8.2 20 1.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 669 22 N M Rivers 1.6 20 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 PP NP 670 22 N U Rivers 12.6 20 2.5 2.0 0.1 0.1 NP NP 671 22 P F Rivers 5.9 20 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 672 22 P L Rivers 43.0 20 8.6 6.8 1.9 1.3 PP PP 673 22 P M Rivers 5.9 20 1.2 0.9 4.1 3.8 WP WP 674 22 P U Rivers 15.6 20 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.5 MP MP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 91 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 676 23 N L Rivers 5.4 20 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 677 23 N M Rivers 7.2 20 1.4 1.1 3.3 2.7 WP WP 678 23 N U Rivers 23.9 20 4.8 3.8 1.6 1.5 PP PP 679 23 P F Rivers 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 680 23 P L Rivers 66.8 20 13.4 10.5 3.5 3.4 PP PP 681 23 P M Rivers 19.9 20 4.0 3.1 15.7 15.1 WP WP 682 23 P U Rivers 69.2 20 13.8 10.9 24.7 23.8 WP WP 684 24 N L Rivers 25.8 20 5.2 4.1 0.3 0.3 NP NP 685 24 N M Rivers 4.8 20 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 MP MP 686 24 N U Rivers 23.0 20 4.6 3.6 0.5 0.5 PP PP 687 24 P F Rivers 6.2 20 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.0 PP NP 688 24 P L Rivers 40.3 20 8.1 6.3 0.4 0.4 NP NP 689 24 P M Rivers 4.6 20 0.9 0.7 1.7 1.6 WP WP 690 24 P U Rivers 23.1 20 4.6 3.6 1.0 0.8 PP PP 692 25 N L Rivers 74.4 20 14.9 11.7 8.7 8.7 MP MP 693 25 N M Rivers 3.0 20 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 PP PP 694 25 N U Rivers 75.3 20 15.1 11.8 5.3 5.3 PP PP 695 25 P F Rivers 9.5 20 1.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 696 25 P L Rivers 30.7 20 6.1 4.8 2.5 2.4 PP PP 697 26 N F Rivers 24.9 20 5.0 3.9 5.7 0.0 WP NP 698 26 N L Rivers 941.8 20 188.4 148.1 5.1 2.6 NP NP 699 26 N M Rivers 10.7 20 2.1 1.7 0.5 0.3 PP PP 700 26 N U Rivers 571.1 20 114.2 89.8 5.6 5.1 NP NP 701 26 P F Rivers 196.1 20 39.2 30.8 50.6 5.1 WP PP 702 26 P L Rivers 303.6 20 60.7 47.7 8.6 4.5 PP PP 703 26 P M Rivers 0.5 20 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 WP WP 704 26 P U Rivers 17.5 20 3.5 2.8 0.2 0.2 PP PP 706 27 N L Rivers 68.4 20 13.7 10.8 2.1 2.1 PP PP 707 27 N M Rivers 11.8 20 2.4 1.9 2.9 2.9 WP WP 708 27 N U Rivers 125.9 20 25.2 19.8 16.6 16.6 MP MP 709 28 N L Rivers 16.3 20 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.5 MP MP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 92 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 710 28 N M Rivers 4.2 20 0.8 0.7 2.1 2.1 WP WP 711 28 N U Rivers 72.7 20 14.5 11.4 23.7 23.6 WP WP 712 28 P F Rivers 48.3 20 9.7 7.6 10.0 9.8 WP WP 713 28 P L Rivers 17.5 20 3.5 2.8 1.5 1.5 PP PP 714 28 P U Rivers 3.0 20 0.6 0.5 1.3 1.3 WP WP 715 29 N F Rivers 53.5 20 10.7 8.4 0.6 0.4 PP NP 716 29 N L Rivers 249.9 20 50.0 39.3 0.2 0.0 NP NP 717 29 N M Rivers 0.7 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 718 29 N U Rivers 80.7 20 16.1 12.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 719 29 P F Rivers 74.4 20 14.9 11.7 24.7 0.1 WP NP 720 29 P L Rivers 45.9 20 9.2 7.2 1.5 1.5 PP PP 721 29 P U Rivers 4.3 20 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 722 3 N F Rivers 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 WP NP 723 3 N L Rivers 112.6 20 22.5 17.7 68.2 66.1 WP WP 724 3 N M Rivers 5.6 20 1.1 0.9 1.9 1.8 WP WP 725 3 N U Rivers 78.5 20 15.7 12.3 32.9 32.2 WP WP 726 3 P F Rivers 14.0 20 2.8 2.2 8.7 1.1 WP PP 727 3 P L Rivers 390.6 20 78.1 61.4 151.7 145.9 WP WP 728 3 P M Rivers 5.0 20 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.9 WP MP 729 3 P U Rivers 95.2 20 19.0 15.0 10.7 10.3 MP MP 731 30 N L Rivers 48.5 20 9.7 7.6 0.4 0.4 NP NP 732 30 N M Rivers 0.4 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 PP PP 733 30 N U Rivers 42.6 20 8.5 6.7 0.2 0.2 NP NP 734 31 N M Rivers 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 735 31 N U Rivers 2.2 20 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 736 31 P F Rivers 4.7 20 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 737 31 P L Rivers 214.5 20 42.9 33.7 5.3 4.9 PP PP 738 31 P M Rivers 3.4 20 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 739 31 P U Rivers 171.9 20 34.4 27.0 0.4 0.2 NP NP 741 4 N L Rivers 3.8 20 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.3 WP PP 742 4 N M Rivers 2.1 20 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 93 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 743 4 N U Rivers 11.8 20 2.4 1.9 0.3 0.2 PP PP 745 4 P L Rivers 44.5 20 8.9 7.0 3.0 1.5 PP PP 746 4 P M Rivers 5.3 20 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 MP MP 747 4 P U Rivers 69.6 20 13.9 10.9 4.3 3.7 PP PP 748 5 N L Rivers 9.6 20 1.9 1.5 0.1 0.1 NP NP 749 5 N M Rivers 0.6 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 750 5 N U Rivers 17.6 20 3.5 2.8 1.1 1.1 PP PP 751 5 P L Rivers 11.3 20 2.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 PP PP 752 5 P M Rivers 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 753 5 P U Rivers 10.0 20 2.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 754 6 N L Rivers 4.5 20 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.3 PP PP 755 6 N M Rivers 1.0 20 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 WP WP 756 6 N U Rivers 15.8 20 3.2 2.5 2.3 2.3 MP MP 757 6 P F Rivers 1.4 20 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 WP MP 758 6 P L Rivers 36.8 20 7.4 5.8 5.7 2.7 MP PP 759 6 P M Rivers 1.6 20 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 MP MP 760 6 P U Rivers 39.9 20 8.0 6.3 4.9 4.8 MP MP 761 7 N F Rivers 0.3 20 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 762 7 N L Rivers 13.9 20 2.8 2.2 2.3 2.2 MP MP 763 7 N M Rivers 2.7 20 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 WP WP 764 7 N U Rivers 34.8 20 7.0 5.5 4.3 3.9 MP MP 765 7 P F Rivers 4.7 20 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 MP MP 766 7 P L Rivers 72.8 20 14.6 11.5 1.2 0.7 PP NP 767 7 P M Rivers 1.6 20 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 PP PP 768 7 P U Rivers 53.3 20 10.7 8.4 3.9 3.3 PP PP 769 8 N F Rivers 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 770 8 N L Rivers 78.1 20 15.6 12.3 3.6 2.3 PP PP 771 8 N M Rivers 1.9 20 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 WP WP 772 8 N U Rivers 47.0 20 9.4 7.4 3.2 3.1 PP PP 773 8 P F Rivers 28.6 20 5.7 4.5 5.2 0.9 MP PP 774 8 P L Rivers 164.3 20 32.9 25.8 15.7 9.6 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 94 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 775 8 P M Rivers 1.6 20 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 WP WP 776 8 P U Rivers 55.4 20 11.1 8.7 1.7 0.9 PP PP 777 9 N F Rivers 0.4 20 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 WP WP 778 9 N L Rivers 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 PP PP 779 9 N M Rivers 7.2 20 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.8 MP MP 780 9 N U Rivers 41.4 20 8.3 6.5 1.0 1.0 PP PP 781 9 P F Rivers 1.8 20 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 782 9 P L Rivers 117.3 20 23.5 18.4 13.6 13.2 MP MP 783 9 P M Rivers 8.6 20 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.6 MP PP 784 9 P U Rivers 126.7 20 25.3 19.9 12.9 11.5 MP PP 785 Unknown Wetlands 16.3 20 3.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 MP MP 786 Albany Thicket Bontveld Wetlands 0.3 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 PP PP 787 Albany Thicket Escarpment Wetlands 1.7 20 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 PP PP 788 Albany Thicket Valley Wetlands 159.0 20 31.8 25.0 9.0 7.6 PP PP 789 Central Bushveld Group 1 Wetlands 31.5 20 6.3 5.0 1.5 0.9 PP PP 790 Central Bushveld Group 2 Wetlands 253.4 20 50.7 39.8 39.6 28.5 MP MP 791 Central Bushveld Group 3 Wetlands 131.6 20 26.3 20.7 10.3 9.5 PP PP 792 Central Bushveld Group 4 Wetlands 76.7 20 15.3 12.1 6.4 5.7 PP PP 793 Central Bushveld Group 5 Wetlands 34.5 20 6.9 5.4 0.2 0.2 NP NP 794 Central Bushveld Group 6 Wetlands 6.3 20 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 NP NP 795 Central Bushveld Group 7 Wetlands 19.0 20 3.8 3.0 0.1 0.0 NP NP 796 Central Bushveld Group 8 Wetlands 24.7 20 4.9 3.9 3.3 1.5 MP PP 797 Central Bushveld Group 9 Wetlands 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MP MP 798 Drakensberg Grassland Group 1 Wetlands 26.4 20 5.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 799 Drakensberg Grassland Group 2 Wetlands 25.1 20 5.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 800 Drakensberg Grassland Group 3 Wetlands 13.7 20 2.7 2.2 0.5 0.5 PP PP 801 Drakensberg Grassland Group 4 Wetlands 5.8 20 1.2 0.9 4.1 4.1 WP WP 802 Drakensberg Grassland Group 5 Wetlands 5.1 20 1.0 0.8 1.8 1.7 WP WP 803 Dry Highveld Grassland Group 1 Wetlands 39.5 20 7.9 6.2 0.3 0.2 NP NP 804 Dry Highveld Grassland Group 2 Wetlands 181.6 20 36.3 28.6 16.6 0.9 PP NP 805 Dry Highveld Grassland Group 3 Wetlands 1444.9 20 289.0 227.2 47.9 21.8 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 95 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 806 Dry Highveld Grassland Group 4 Wetlands 200.1 20 40.0 31.5 10.9 7.6 PP PP 807 Dry Highveld Grassland Group 5 Wetlands 357.9 20 71.6 56.3 4.1 2.6 PP NP 808 East Coast Alluvium Renosterveld Wetlands 9.1 20 1.8 1.4 0.6 0.6 PP PP 810 East Coast Shale Renosterveld Wetlands 826.2 20 165.2 129.9 56.3 53.5 PP PP 811 East Coast Silcrete Renosterveld Wetlands 1.9 20 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 812 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Conglomerate Fynbos Wetlands 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 813 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Granite Fynbos Wetlands 21.3 20 4.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 814 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Quartzite Fynbos Wetlands 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MP MP 815 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Sand Fynbos Wetlands 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 816 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Sandstone Fynbos Wetlands 91.8 20 18.4 14.4 14.5 14.4 MP MP 817 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Shale Band Vegetation Wetlands 1.2 20 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 PP PP 818 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Shale Fynbos Wetlands 26.3 20 5.3 4.1 0.5 0.5 PP PP 819 Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld Shale Renosterveld Wetlands 24.3 20 4.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 820 Eastern Kalahari Bushveld Group 1 Wetlands 498.7 20 99.7 78.4 7.7 7.4 PP PP 821 Eastern Kalahari Bushveld Group 2 Wetlands 87.5 20 17.5 13.8 0.8 0.5 NP NP 822 Eastern Kalahari Bushveld Group 3 Wetlands 572.8 20 114.6 90.1 14.7 13.8 PP PP 823 Eastern Kalahari Bushveld Group 4 Wetlands 7.9 20 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 824 Eastern Kalahari Bushveld Group 5 Wetlands 465.3 20 93.1 73.2 2.4 2.4 NP NP 825 Eastern Kalahari Bushveld Group 6 Wetlands 49.9 20 10.0 7.8 2.7 2.7 PP PP 826 Estuarine Wetlands 71.9 20 14.4 11.3 64.9 0.1 WP NP 828 Gariep Desert (Dg) Wetlands 147.0 20 29.4 23.1 32.5 32.4 WP WP 829 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Group 1 Wetlands 1027.2 20 205.4 161.5 390.2 377.4 WP WP 830 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Group 2 Wetlands 38.6 20 7.7 6.1 0.8 0.6 PP PP 831 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Group 3 Wetlands 2.5 20 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 WP WP 832 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Group 4 Wetlands 3.3 20 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 833 Kalahari Duneveld Wetlands 1212.1 20 242.4 190.6 110.7 110.7 PP PP 834 Karoo Dolerite Renosterveld Wetlands 6.1 20 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 835 Karoo Shale Renosterveld Wetlands 19.1 20 3.8 3.0 0.3 0.3 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 96 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 836 Knersvlakte (Skk) Wetlands 72.5 20 14.5 11.4 11.4 11.3 MP MP 837 Lower Nama Karoo Wetlands 44.5 20 8.9 7.0 0.8 0.6 PP PP 838 Lowveld Group 1 Wetlands 21.1 20 4.2 3.3 4.8 0.4 WP PP 839 Lowveld Group 10 Wetlands 181.1 20 36.2 28.5 45.0 45.0 WP WP 840 Lowveld Group 11 Wetlands 238.8 20 47.8 37.6 40.8 40.0 MP MP 841 Lowveld Group 2 Wetlands 3.9 20 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 MP MP 842 Lowveld Group 3 Wetlands 89.1 20 17.8 14.0 19.8 4.6 WP PP 843 Lowveld Group 4 Wetlands 29.5 20 5.9 4.6 15.0 1.0 WP PP 844 Lowveld Group 5 Wetlands 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 WP MP 845 Lowveld Group 6 Wetlands 0.5 20 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 MP NP 846 Lowveld Group 7 Wetlands 37.9 20 7.6 6.0 1.4 0.7 PP PP 847 Lowveld Group 8 Wetlands 5.2 20 1.0 0.8 3.2 1.0 WP MP 848 Lowveld Group 9 Wetlands 48.9 20 9.8 7.7 16.4 9.3 WP MP 849 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 1 Wetlands 115.9 20 23.2 18.2 4.3 3.7 PP PP 850 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 10 Wetlands 0.6 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 851 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 11 Wetlands 0.7 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 852 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 2 Wetlands 415.6 20 83.1 65.4 7.3 5.2 PP PP 853 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3 Wetlands 155.5 20 31.1 24.5 1.8 0.4 PP NP 854 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 4 Wetlands 161.0 20 32.2 25.3 18.7 1.7 MP PP 855 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 5 Wetlands 208.3 20 41.7 32.8 2.7 2.3 PP PP 856 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 6 Wetlands 107.1 20 21.4 16.8 16.1 15.4 MP MP 857 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 7 Wetlands 55.2 20 11.0 8.7 1.8 1.5 PP PP 858 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 8 Wetlands 211.2 20 42.2 33.2 26.5 26.3 MP MP 859 Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 9 Wetlands 12.5 20 2.5 2.0 7.1 6.8 WP WP 860 Mopane Group 1 Wetlands 25.1 20 5.0 3.9 14.4 13.5 WP WP 861 Mopane Group 2 Wetlands 33.4 20 6.7 5.3 13.2 7.9 WP WP 862 Mopane Group 3 Wetlands 25.2 20 5.0 4.0 25.2 18.6 WP WP 863 Mopane Group 4 Wetlands 41.6 20 8.3 6.5 21.4 3.9 WP PP 864 Nama Karoo Bushmanland Wetlands 4764.3 20 952.9 749.2 7.6 7.2 NP NP 865 Namaqualand Cape Shrublands Granite Fynbos Wetlands 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 97 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 866 Namaqualand Cape Shrublands Granite Renosterveld Wetlands 3.4 20 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 867 Namaqualand Cape Shrublands Quartzite Fynbos Wetlands 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WP WP 868 Namaqualand Hardeveld (Skn) Wetlands 153.2 20 30.6 24.1 11.8 11.8 PP PP 869 Namaqualand Sandveld (Sks) Wetlands 43.1 20 8.6 6.8 1.2 1.2 PP PP 870 Northwest Alluvium Fynbos Wetlands 12.6 20 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 871 Northwest Quartzite Fynbos Wetlands 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 PP PP 872 Northwest Sand Fynbos Wetlands 140.2 20 28.0 22.0 3.5 0.1 PP NP 873 Northwest Sandstone Fynbos Wetlands 105.6 20 21.1 16.6 19.2 18.8 MP MP 874 Northwest Shale Band Vegetation Wetlands 2.2 20 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.8 WP WP 875 Northwest Shale Fynbos Wetlands 7.2 20 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 876 Rainshadow Valley Karoo (Skv) Wetlands 98.2 20 19.6 15.4 10.0 9.6 MP PP 877 Richtersveld (Skr) Wetlands 2.8 20 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 878 South Coast Limestone Fynbos Wetlands 56.0 20 11.2 8.8 7.4 7.0 MP MP 879 South Coast Sand Fynbos Wetlands 12.6 20 2.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 PP PP 880 South Strandveld Sand Fynbos Wetlands 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 WP WP 881 South Strandveld Western Strandveld Wetlands 24.5 20 4.9 3.9 0.7 0.7 PP PP 882 Southern Namib Desert (Dn) Wetlands 0.9 20 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 883 Southern Sandstone Fynbos Wetlands 25.4 20 5.1 4.0 12.3 12.3 WP WP 884 Southern Shale Band Vegetation Wetlands 1.7 20 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 WP WP 885 Southern Shale Fynbos Wetlands 1.4 20 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP 886 Southern Silcrete Fynbos Wetlands 25.7 20 5.1 4.0 7.9 7.9 WP WP 887 Southwest Alluvium Fynbos Wetlands 40.4 20 8.1 6.3 9.7 9.3 WP WP 888 Southwest Ferricrete Fynbos Wetlands 213.1 20 42.6 33.5 37.7 37.1 MP MP 889 Southwest Granite Fynbos Wetlands 1.6 20 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.5 WP WP 891 Southwest Sand Fynbos Wetlands 54.5 20 10.9 8.6 6.6 6.4 MP MP 892 Southwest Sandstone Fynbos Wetlands 54.2 20 10.8 8.5 17.4 16.2 WP WP 893 Southwest Shale Band Vegetation Wetlands 0.4 20 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 WP WP 894 Southwest Shale Fynbos Wetlands 26.6 20 5.3 4.2 4.4 3.9 MP MP 895 Soutwest Sand Fynbos Wetlands 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 896 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 1 Wetlands 8.2 20 1.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 98 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 897 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 2 Wetlands 224.7 20 44.9 35.3 0.7 0.6 NP NP 898 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 3 Wetlands 171.4 20 34.3 27.0 1.9 1.5 PP NP 899 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 4 Wetlands 758.0 20 151.6 119.2 7.5 4.6 NP NP 900 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 5 Wetlands 384.9 20 77.0 60.5 28.3 26.6 PP PP 901 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 6 Wetlands 463.5 20 92.7 72.9 0.8 0.1 NP NP 902 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 7 Wetlands 82.0 20 16.4 12.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 903 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 8 Wetlands 11.3 20 2.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 904 Sub-Escarpment Grassland Group 9 Wetlands 2.5 20 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 905 Sub-Escarpment Savanna Wetlands 360.0 20 72.0 56.6 0.5 0.4 NP NP 906 Swamp Forest Wetlands 0.7 20 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 WP WP 907 Trans-Escarpment Succulent Karoo (Skt) Wetlands 98.2 20 19.6 15.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 908 Upper Nama Karoo Wetlands 981.6 20 196.3 154.4 5.1 4.3 NP NP 909 West Coast Alluvium Renosterveld Wetlands 5.3 20 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 910 West Coast Granite Renosterveld Wetlands 6.7 20 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 911 West Coast Shale Renosterveld Wetlands 70.0 20 14.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 912 West Coast Silcrete Renosterveld Wetlands 0.5 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 913 Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Conglomerate Fynbos Wetlands 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 914 Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Limestone Renosterveld Wetlands 0.4 20 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 915 Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Quartzite Fynbos Wetlands 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 916 Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Sandstone Fynbos Wetlands 0.6 20 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 WP WP 917 Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Shale Band Vegetation Wetlands 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 WP WP 918 Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Shale Fynbos Wetlands 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 919 Western Fynbos-Renosterveld Shale Renosterveld Wetlands 20.9 20 4.2 3.3 6.7 5.4 WP WP 920 Western Strandveld Wetlands 41.1 20 8.2 6.5 5.4 5.3 MP MP 922 Cool Temp LargeClosedFreshTurbid Estuary 24.7 20 4.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 923 Cool Temp LargeClosedMixedBlack Estuary 59.9 20 12.0 9.4 7.3 0.0 MP NP 924 Cool Temp LargeClosedMixedClear Estuary 12.2 20 2.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 925 Cool Temp LargeOpenMixedClear Estuary 121.9 20 24.4 19.2 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 99 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 926 Cool Temp MediumClosedFreshBlack Estuary 21.6 20 4.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 927 Cool Temp MediumClosedMixedBlack Estuary 6.1 20 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.0 PP NP 928 Cool Temp MediumClosedMixedClear Estuary 11.7 20 2.3 1.8 0.2 0.0 PP NP 929 Cool Temp MediumClosedMixedTurbid Estuary 5.5 20 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.0 MP NP 930 Cool Temp SmallClosedFreshBlack Estuary 2.2 20 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 MP NP 931 Cool Temp SmallClosedMixedBlack Estuary 1.1 20 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 WP NP 932 Cool Temp SmallOpenFreshBlack Estuary 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WP NP 933 Cool Temp SmallOpenMixedBlack Estuary 3.0 20 0.6 0.5 2.6 0.0 WP NP 935 Subtropical LargeClosedFreshTurbid Estuary 81.4 20 16.3 12.8 42.4 0.0 WP NP 936 Subtropical LargeClosedMixedClear Estuary 60.6 20 12.1 9.5 60.1 0.0 WP NP 937 Subtropical LargeClosedMixedTurbid Estuary 569.1 20 113.8 89.5 513.5 0.0 WP NP 938 Subtropical LargeOpenMarineClear Estuary 35.4 20 7.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 939 Subtropical LargeOpenMarineTurbid Estuary 89.3 20 17.9 14.0 13.1 0.0 MP NP 940 Subtropical LargeOpenMixedClear Estuary 6.1 20 1.2 1.0 1.9 0.0 WP NP 941 Subtropical LargeOpenMixedTurbid Estuary 31.5 20 6.3 5.0 3.8 0.0 MP NP 942 Subtropical MediumClosedFreshTurbid Estuary 12.3 20 2.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 943 Subtropical MediumClosedMixedBlack Estuary 1.8 20 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 944 Subtropical MediumClosedMixedClear Estuary 33.8 20 6.8 5.3 4.9 0.0 MP NP 945 Subtropical MediumClosedMixedTurbid Estuary 16.8 20 3.4 2.6 0.4 0.0 PP NP 946 Subtropical MediumOpenMarineClear Estuary 6.1 20 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 947 Subtropical MediumOpenMixedTurbid Estuary 7.1 20 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.0 MP NP 948 Subtropical SmallClosedFreshBlack Estuary 0.1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WP NP 949 Subtropical SmallClosedMixedBlack Estuary 1.9 20 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 PP NP 950 Subtropical SmallClosedMixedClear Estuary 1.7 20 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 WP NP 951 WarmTemp LargeClosedMarineClear Estuary 2.1 20 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 952 WarmTemp LargeClosedMixedBlack Estuary 43.3 20 8.7 6.8 18.9 0.0 WP NP 953 WarmTemp LargeClosedMixedClear Estuary 7.1 20 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.0 PP NP 954 WarmTemp LargeOpenMarineBlack Estuary 25.1 20 5.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 955 WarmTemp LargeOpenMarineClear Estuary 21.0 20 4.2 3.3 1.0 0.0 PP NP 956 WarmTemp LargeOpenMixedBlack Estuary 50.2 20 10.0 7.9 1.6 0.0 PP NP 957 WarmTemp LargeOpenMixedClear Estuary 142.5 20 28.5 22.4 25.6 0.0 MP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 100 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 958 WarmTemp LargeOpenMixedTurbid Estuary 82.7 20 16.5 13.0 6.5 0.0 PP NP 959 WarmTemp MediumClosedMixedBlack Estuary 18.0 20 3.6 2.8 12.2 0.0 WP NP 960 WarmTemp MediumClosedMixedClear Estuary 21.4 20 4.3 3.4 2.9 0.0 MP NP 961 WarmTemp MediumOpenMixedBlack Estuary 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 962 WarmTemp MediumOpenMixedClear Estuary 5.1 20 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 PP NP 963 WarmTemp MediumOpenMixedTurbid Estuary 2.5 20 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 NP NP 964 WarmTemp SmallClosedFreshBlack Estuary 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 965 WarmTemp SmallClosedMixedBlack Estuary 0.8 20 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 WP PP 966 WarmTemp SmallClosedMixedClear Estuary 1.9 20 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 MP PP 967 WarmTemp SmallOpenFreshBlack Estuary 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 WP PP 968 WarmTemp SmallOpenMixedBlack Estuary 0.2 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 WP NP 969 Southern Oceans Southern Oceans 473375.0 20 94675.0 47337.5 180862.0 180862.0 WP WP 970 Subantarctic Polar Desert Subantarctic Polar Desert 109.9 20 22.0 17.3 109.9 109.9 WP WP 971 Subantarctic Cinder Cones Subantarctic Tundra 9.6 20 1.9 1.5 9.6 9.6 WP WP 972 Subantarctic Coastal Vegetation Subantarctic Tundra 12.1 20 2.4 1.9 12.1 12.1 WP WP 973 Subantarctic Fellfield Subantarctic Tundra 126.9 20 25.4 20.0 126.9 126.9 WP WP 974 Subantarctic Mire-Slope Vegetation Subantarctic Tundra 84.8 20 17.0 13.3 84.8 84.8 WP WP 975 Pelagic Habitat 23 Pelagic 126993.0 20 25398.6 12699.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 976 Pelagic Habitat 7 Pelagic 9830.2 20 1966.0 983.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 977 Pelagic Habitat 10 Pelagic 65294.9 20 13059.0 6529.5 0.0 0.0 NP NP 978 Pelagic Habitat 12 Pelagic 73695.5 20 14739.1 7369.6 0.0 0.0 NP NP 979 Pelagic Habitat 11 Pelagic 97950.6 20 19590.1 9795.1 0.0 0.0 NP NP 980 Pelagic Habitat 2 Pelagic 144107.0 20 28821.4 14410.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP 981 Pelagic Habitat 1 Pelagic 68898.2 20 13779.6 6889.8 410.0 363.9 NP NP 982 Pelagic Habitat 47 Pelagic 54965.9 20 10993.2 5496.6 578.9 206.3 PP NP 983 Pelagic Habitat 9 Pelagic 55908.2 20 11181.6 5590.8 0.0 0.0 NP NP 984 Pelagic Habitat 48 Pelagic 31412.1 20 6282.4 3141.2 95.4 34.1 NP NP 985 Pelagic Habitat 21 Pelagic 59293.1 20 11858.6 5929.3 0.0 0.0 NP NP 986 Pelagic Habitat 41 Pelagic 171579.0 20 34315.8 17157.9 0.0 0.0 NP NP 987 Pelagic Habitat 38 Pelagic 28806.0 20 5761.2 2880.6 1389.8 1389.8 PP PP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 101 Ecosystem number Ecosystem name Biozone Area (km2) Long-term target (%) Long-term target (km2) 20-year target (km2) Area in PA (km2) Intact Area in PA (km2) Protection level Protection level (Intact) 988 Pelagic Habitat 39 Pelagic 30790.3 20 6158.1 3079.0 0.0 0.0 NP NP 989 Pelagic Habitat 40 Pelagic 22603.6 20 4520.7 2260.4 607.9 585.0 PP PP 990 Pelagic Habitat 45 Pelagic 31467.3 20 6293.5 3146.7 0.0 0.0 NP NP National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 102 Appendix 2: Supporting technical notes This appendix provides more detailed background information beyond what could be included in the main document. The key sections covered in the appendix are:  Technical Note 1: More detailed information on the approach and principles used to set targets.  Technical Note 2: The detailed method for calculating targets.  Technical Note 3: Supporting information on the creation of the integrated ecosystem map.  Technical Note 4: Supporting information on the creation of the integrated ecosystem condition map. Technical Note 1: Protected area targets Protected area targets are action targets that indicate how much of each ecosystem should be included in protected areas, thus guiding protected area expansion to focus on ecosystems that are least protected. Internationally, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to which South Africa is a signatory, commits governments to a range of targets generally known as Aichi biodiversity targets. Target 11 states that “by 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes”. The key issues to highlight are that the CBD is very specific about the network needing to be ecologically representative and that the targets need to be met by intact habitat that is ecologically functional and is conserved in protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Further, the flat targets of 17% and 10% are relatively arbitrary, and are politically decided rather than based on ecologically rationale. South Africa has a well-established system of systematic biodiversity planning which uses biodiversity targets to determine which areas of the landscape and seascape are most important for conserving a representative sample of biodiversity pattern (ecosystems and species) and for keeping key ecological processes intact. These targets are used as the basis for national monitoring of Ecosystem Threat Status and Protection Levels in the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA)59. The system, and specific values, of thresholds set out in the NBA is widely used and well-accepted across South Africa. These thresholds are widely used in national systematic biodiversity planning processes such as the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Assessment (NFEPA)60, prioritization for marine protected areas in projects such as the Offshore Marine Protected Area (OMPA) Project 201161, and the National Estuary Biodiversity Plan for South Africa 201262. The same ecosystem targets are used in provincial conservation plans. Biodiversity targets for terrestrial ecosystems in South Africa range from 16% to 36% of the original extent of each ecosystem, with 59 The targets are often called biodiversity thresholds. See Driver et al. 2012 for explanations of the thresholds, the systematic conservation planning approach used in South Africa and details on the biodiversity targets, how they are determined, and how they are used in the evaluations of ecosystem protection level. 60 Nel et al. 2011 61 Sink et al. 2011. 62 Turpie et al. 2012. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 103 higher thresholds for more variable and species-rich ecosystems. In the absence of better data, a 20% biodiversity threshold is used for marine, river, wetland and estuarine systems. The NPAES 2008 set long-term protected area targets equal to the biodiversity targets, so that protected area targets would have an underlying science-basis reflecting the ecological requirements for protecting ecosystems effectively. The long-term goal was to incorporate into the protected area network at least that proportion of each ecosystem required to meet its biodiversity target. For the 20-year target, the biodiversity targets for individual ecosystems were adjusted so that they would cumulatively add up to the CBD target, which was 12% at that time for terrestrial areas. Specific habitat based protected area targets were set for each terrestrial habitat. More general targets, that were not habitat based, were set for marine (20% of which 15% should be no take zones) and coastal systems (25% of the coast length of which 15% should be no-take zones). Although the need for these targets was emphasised in the NPAES 2008, no specific targets could be set for rivers, wetlands or estuaries, as suitable habitat maps were not yet available. There are a number of issues relevant to protected area targets that have emerged since the NPAES 2008:  The international CBD targets have increased to 17% of terrestrial and inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas, and the timelines have been adjusted. Further, there is a far stronger emphasis on the network needing to be ecologically representative and that the targets need to be met by intact habitat that is ecologically functional and is conserved in protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.  The coast length target proved to be very difficult to monitor as the further you zoom into a coastline, the more detail you see and the longer the line is. Also it is important to recognize that natural ecosystems do not consist of a line, but rather consist of areas.  In addition to the maps of terrestrial ecosystem types, we have how good maps of rivers, wetlands, estuaries and marine ecosystems. We need to set targets for these features. Unfortunately, these maps were separately created, with the consequence that one can have different habitat types overlapping (e.g. a terrestrial ecosystem, a specific river type and a wetland could all be mapped at the same site). This is clearly not the case on the ground, but rather is an issue related to our current fragmented approach to ecosystem mapping63 . This means that if one just adds up the individual thresholds for these features that they will artificially inflate the target required 64.  The terrestrial ecosystem map has been updated, with the consequence that areas of specific habitat types have changed. Similarly, both the wetland and marine ecosystem maps have had a series of spatial updates. 63 An integrated habitat map is a key priority for the National Biodiversity Assessment 2018. 64 It has been argued that this does not matter as one would just add all the features together that are found at a site when one is calculating protection levels. However, this could result in falsely targeting sites for protection where the mapped features overlap. There would clearly be no rational ecological argument for this, as in reality only one ecosystem is found at a site. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 104 The NPAES has built on the principles and approach established for the NPAES 2008. The core elements of this approach, which we have retained, are:  In the long term, South Africa’s protected area targets should align with its established biodiversity thresholds. This ensures that, in principle, enough of each ecosystem will be protected to ensure that no further ecosystems can become Critically Endangered as sufficient intact habitat would be secured in the long term to avoid crossing this threshold. Further, alignment of the targets allows for consistent and aligned reporting.  Targets should be specifically set for each ecosystem.  Although overall the long term targets should meet the total CBD commitment, we optimize the allocation across habitats to reflect differing levels of biodiversity, i.e. we increase targets for diverse habitats, but reduce them in relatively low diversity habitats so that the overall commitment in terms of area remains the same. This ensures an optimal biodiversity outcome from our protected area expansion process.  Over a 20-year period, South Africa’s protected area targets should aim to achieve its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity even if the convention’s timelines are not adhered to.  Shorter term targets are calculated as a proportion of the 20-year target i.e. the 5 year target is a quarter of the 20 year target. In addition, the following principles have been added:  Targets should also be set for marine, wetland, river and estuarine features at the ecosystem level.  Targets can be met only by intact habitat. This principle was established in the NPAES 2008 but was only partially implemented as only artificial waterbodies were excluded at that time.  Targets can be met in protected areas and other areas with effective area-based conservation measures. Currently, we only evaluate protected areas, as these are the only areas where biodiversity is currently legally secured. In the future, once other area based conservation mechanisms have been secured effectively (e.g. through having intact natural areas of biospheres strictly zoned for conservation, subject to robust and effective land use controls, and have well-capacitated management authorities), it is anticipated that the intact and secure areas zoned for conservation under these other measures will also contribute to meeting targets.  Targets for features should not be artificially inflated by having falsely overlapping habitat maps.  The approach should be to set out clear principles for target setting, so that when habitat maps inevitably improve, biodiversity targets are refined (e.g. through more detailed biodiversity survey of aquatic habitats), or political commitments change (e.g. a revised CBD target), that it is a minor administrative and GIS task to recalculate the area required. A key element of this is that we need to move away from being fixated by the area measurement of target, which is in fact a secondary calculation, and rather realize that the area required is a function of the percentage of the habitat that is required and the mapped original extent of the feature. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 105 Technical Note 2: Calculating targets Targets are a fundamental building block guiding the design, implementation and evaluation of any protected area network that aims to be fully representative of all biodiversity. As discussed in the main body of the NPAES and in Technical Note One, targets for each ecosystem are a function of the original extent of that ecosystem; the proportion of the ecosystem that needs to be conserved to retain all its key biodiversity pattern and process (i.e. the biodiversity target); the political, administrative and practical considerations of how much to expand the protected area network; and finally, interim targets are influenced by timelines for implementation. All of these elements are however subject to change. For example, additional wetlands could be mapped which changes the original extent, new surveys could result in better biodiversity targets being set, the Aichi biodiversity targets related to CBD commitments could be altered, and finally a protected area expansion strategy may be implemented over a longer period. Therefore, the NPAES has established a system that sets robust targets, but which can be quickly and easily updated when changes in any of the input elements occurs. Ideally, it should be a minor GIS and administrative task to recalculate the required target. The target calculation is undertaken for each ecosystem65 using the following steps: 1. Identify the appropriate biodiversity target percentage to use for the ecosystem in question66. These currently range from 16 to 36% for terrestrial ecosystems, with a 20% target used for other ecosystems. The appropriate biodiversity threshold for each ecosystem is published in the latest National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA). Should the biodiversity thresholds, as published in the NBA change (e.g. as a result of research which improves our knowledge of the portion of a specific ecosystem which needs to be kept intact to conserve all its biodiversity elements), this change should also be applied to the NPAES. This percentage value should be used as the long term protected area target. Securing this area in effectively managed protected areas will in theory ensure that no further ecosystems will become Critically Endangered, though obviously this opportunity has already been lost for many systems. Aligning the values also allows for robust and consistent assessment, and full alignment between the NPAES and the NBA. 2. Calculate the required area to secure the long-term protected area target. This is achieved by calculating the area of the ecosystem on an appropriate map, and multiplying this by the long term protected area target percentage. 3. Establish the relationship between the total area required to meet long term protected area target for all ecosystems and the total area committed to politically or administratively. To do this we added up all the areas required to meet long-term protected area targets and divided it by the total area committed to under the CBD (i.e. 17% of inland and 10% for marine 65 The NPAES uses this target setting method on the integrated ecosystem map that was created for this project. However, if the method described above is applied to a different ecosystem map (e.g. a more detailed ecosystem map for a province), the overall outcome will still deliver the required total area to meet national targets. Hence, provinces can use their own maps, and still be confident that if this method is applied that they will be compatible with national requirements. Targets can even be calculated individually for ecosystem maps that are not integrated. The overall alignment with the NPAES will be retained so long as target achievement for individually mapped systems is also separately evaluated. 66 So long as this method is applied in full, even if a province has set its own different biodiversity targets for ecosystem types, the final total requirement will still be compatible with the overall requirement for meeting national protected area targets. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 106 ecosystems). We did the calculation separately for terrestrial and marine systems. As they are mixed systems with terrestrial and marine elements, we treated coastal ecosystems which have a land component as terrestrial. This also ensures better alignment with current planning initiatives. Based on current values, 50% of the long-term biodiversity target is required for all non-coastal marine systems, while 78.63% of the long term biodiversity target is required for all other ecosystems67. 4. Combined the long-term protected area target with the appropriate proportion from point 3 to calculate the 20-year protected area target. 5. Shorter term protected area targets (e.g. a 5-year target) are calculated as a portion of the 20 year target. Technical Note 3: Integrated ecosystem map The preparation of a fully integrated ecosystem map covering terrestrial, river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems was a key activity for the NPAES (Figure A 1). Without the map, accurate targets cannot be set and monitoring of achievement of targets is problematic. Although 67 These percentages can be directly applied to any ecosystem and its biodiversity target on any habitat map for South Africa, so long as the target for that ecosystem is aligned with the target from the NBA. There is no need to recalculate each step if there is no change to the CBD commitment. This allows rapid calculations to be made in provincial PAES assessments where more refined ecosystem maps are used. Figure A 1: An integrated ecosystem map was created for South Africa. The map includes 969 distinct terrestrial, river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems and is mapped for the full extent of South African territory including its EEZ. The inset shows the Prince Edward Islands and their surrounding EEZ. Pelagic offshore ecosystems, which extend over the benthic offshore ecosystems are shown in the second insert. This is the first time an integrated ecosystem map is available for South Africa. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 107 good maps of the individual ecosystem types now exist, these maps were separately created, with the consequence that one can have different habitat types overlapping. We therefore undertook a mapping process to develop an integrated map. We identified 26 biozones68 (which are similar to biomes but are not just applicable in terrestrial units) which include 969 distinct ecosystems. A map showing the biozones is provided in Figure A 2 and a summary of biozones and ecosystems is given in Table A 2. The mapping used the following building blocks:  Terrestrial Ecosystems: The revised 2012 National vegetation map69. There are 450 ecosystem types in 12 biozones. These biozones are very similar to the corresponding terrestrial biome, but will have a reduced area as some portions of the unit will now be mapped as wetlands or rivers.  Wetlands: Natural wetlands included in the 2015 revised national wetland map (4a) were used70. Wetlands were included at the group level, which has 136 distinct ecosystem types. These are all included in 1 biozone as we do not currently have a reliable basis on which to divide these systems.  Coastal and marine types: The integrated coastal and benthic ecosystem maps prepared for the National Biodiversity Assessment 2011 was used as the starting point71. An additional ecosystem was defined for all marine areas in the Southern Oceans which were not previously included in the national map. There are 109 benthic and coastal ecosystem types, 16 pelagic types and 1 Southern Ocean type distributed across 9 biozones.  Estuaries: Estuary types were mapped based on the outlines in the National Estuary map 2012 and the classification in Whitfield (1992). There are 46 estuary ecosystem types in 3 biozones.  Rivers: River ecosystems were based on the NFEPA classification and dataset (Nel et al., 2011). There are 126 distinct ecosystem types. As this map treats rivers as lines with no area, we approximated river areas by buffering rivers based on stream order, with the smallest rivers having a 30m buffer and largest ones 210m. The individual components were integrated into a single map created at a 30m resolution using a simple rule based approach whereby wetlands and estuaries overrode all other layers; rivers overrode terrestrial ecosystems; and terrestrial ecosystems overrode marine and coastal systems. The approach is not ideal, but until the National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 when an integrated ecosystem map is anticipated to be a core product, this map developed for the NPAES is likely to be the best available. 68 The term biozone is used as it is more compatible with the ecosystem classifications in marine and estuarine systems than a biome. For terrestrial systems the concept is identical to a biome, but the actual mapped extent of the terrestrial biozone will be different to its associated biome. This is caused by the fact that an area which was a single biome (e.g. Grasslands) was divided into terrestrial, river and wetland areas. This will clearly reduce the total mapped extent of the Grasslands. 69 Based on the Mucina and Rutherford (2006) vegetation map with some revised units in KwaZulu-Natal, the Western Cape and Mpumalanga. 70 This map is based on the NFEPA wetland dataset (Nel et al., 2011), but has not yet been formally released and does not have an updated reference. 71 The mapping process is described in Sink et al. (2012). Some subsequent refinements of ecosystems near that Orange River mouth were also included. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 108 Table A 2: Summary of the number of different ecosystem types in each category and biozone. Category and biozone Number of Ecosystems Estuary 46 Marine 109 Coast types 32 Inner Shelf 4 Inshore 10 Island 2 Lagoon 1 Offshore Benthic 60 Marine Pelagic 16 Marine Southern Oceans 1 Rivers 211 Sub-Antarctic 5 Sub-Antarctic Polar Desert 1 Sub-Antarctic Tundra 4 Terrestrial 445 Albany Thicket 14 Azonal Vegetation 36 Desert 15 Forests 12 Fynbos 122 Grassland 72 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 6 Nama-Karoo 14 Savanna 90 Succulent Karoo 64 Wetlands 136 Grand Total 969 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 109 Technical Note 4: Integrated ecosystem condition map A second mapping input required for the evaluation of achievement of targets is an ecosystem condition map. The underlying principle is that areas that are no longer intact (e.g. large dams, roads, rest camps, canalized sections of rivers and plantations of exotic trees) should not contribute to targets even if they are in protected areas. Hence, the preparation of a fully integrated ecosystem condition map covering terrestrial, river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems was a key activity for the NPAES. Although good maps of individual ecosystem condition now exist, these maps had not previously been integrated. A map was developed for the NPAES that identified good, fair and poor condition areas of each ecosystem (Figure A 3). The mapping primarily used DEA’s recently released National Land Cover (NLC 2013/2014)72 for inland areas. The 72 land cover or land use classes were each classified as either good (for natural and semi-natural areas), fair (for degraded systems) or poor (for heavily modified systems such as mining, plantation, arable agriculture or urban land uses). For marine ecosystems, estuaries, rivers and wetlands the ecosystem condition maps developed for the respective components of the National Biodiversity Assessment 2011 were used. The layers were used to develop individual 72 DEA, 2014. This dataset is © Geoterraimage (2014). Figure A 2: The 969 ecosystem types mapped in the integrated ecosystem map are divided into 26 biozones. Figure A 3: An integrated ecosystem condition map was created for South Africa. This is the first time an integrated ecosystem condition map is available for South Africa for terrestrial, river, wetland, estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. The condition of Southern Ocean marine ecosystems and Sub-Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems is shown in the first insert, while offshore pelagic condition is shown in the second insert. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 110 condition maps for the areas covered by each ecosystem type. These individual layers were then integrated based on the habitat type present at a site. Finally, if a site was mapped in the new National Land Cover as being in fair or poor condition, this value overrode any other input as it was likely to be more accurate. This process produced the first ever integrated ecosystem condition map for South Africa. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 111 Appendix 3: Review of implementation of Phase 1 of the NPAES (2008 – 2014) The first phase of the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy, covering the period 2008 – 2014, has been completed73. This appendix serves to review the progress made in implementing Phase 1 of the NPAES. This review reports on progress made in: (i) the formal declaration of new areas as protected areas; (ii) the negotiation (but not yet completed) of new areas for declaration as protected areas; (iii) the development of institutionally-based PAES’s; (iv) the implementation of different protected area expansion mechanisms; (v) securing financial and human resources to support protected area expansion efforts; and (vi) the development of the enabling conditions (legal, policy, information management, incentives, cooperative governance) for protected area expansion. Based on the lessons learnt in the implementation of phase 1 of the NPAES, the review further identifies key challenges to protected area expansion that will need to be addressed in phase 2 of the NPAES in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of protected area expansion efforts. 1. New areas declared as protected areas In Phase 1 of the NPAES, a total area of 189 433.36km2 was added to the protected area system, through 460 formal declarations. Over 95% (180 851.37km2) of this total is attributed to the declaration of a single protected area, the Prince Edward Island marine protected area (situated in the Prince Edward Island EEZ). Table A 3 presents a breakdown of the new areas declared as protected areas during the period of review, by protected area type. Table A 3: The number and extent of protected areas declared in Phase 1, by protected area type. Protected area type Number of declarations Area (ha) Terrestrial National Park 325 270 284 Nature Reserve 112 348 515 Protected Environment 12 196 673 Forest Nature Reserve 8 14 850 Terrestrial total 457 830 322 Marine Marine Protected Area 3 18 113 015 Marine total 3 18 113 015 Total 460 18 943 336 In the terrestrial environment, approximately 31% of the area originally targeted for expansion in phase 1 (i.e. 27 000.00km2 or 2.2% of the country’s surface area) was formally declared74. The spatial distribution of the new areas included into the terrestrial protected area system, for the period of review is shown in Figure A 4. 73 The actual timeframe for Phase 1 of the NPAES is 2008-2013. This review of progress was however only initiated at the end of 2014. It was thus considered prudent to include 2014 into the period of review. 74 No specific targets were however set for different protected area types. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 112 75 Of the 830 322ha added to the terrestrial protected area system, over 560 000ha of this was privately owned (502 692ha) or under some form of communal tenure (59 175ha), and declared under a contractual agreement without a change in ownership (Table A 4). This suggests that the negotiation of formal contractual agreements with people who have private or communal land tenure has become the primary tool for protected area expansion in terrestrial habitats (see discussion in section 2). Most protected area agencies, with the exception of Limpopo and Free State, concluded new terrestrial protected area declarations in Phase 1 (see also Table A ). Table A 4: Number and area of terrestrial protected areas declared in Phase 1. Area ownership Number of declarations Area (ha) State land 293 268 455 Communal tenure 2 59 175 Private property 162 502 692 75 At the time that the NPAES (2008) was developed, there were many protected areas that were functioning as de facto protected areas but were not formally declared. These areas were included in national protected area calculations. Formalising their status by declaring them was identified as an important mechanism for protected area expansion – although this did not expand the actual area. De facto protected areas that have been proclaimed are recorded here. Figure A 4: Protected area status in South Africa and Prince the Edward Islands at the end of Phase 1.75 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 113 The NPAES established the important principle of representing each habitat type within the protected area network, and set representation targets for each of South Africa’s terrestrial habitat types76. Table A gives a summary of the NPAES targets for land-based protected areas, and summarizes progress towards meeting them77,78. As only intact areas contribute to meeting representation targets, the new DEA land-cover database was used to evaluate the actual contribution existing and expanded protected areas make by removing impacted areas such as dams, rest camps, roads and fields. For this reason79, the total areas contributing to meeting representation targets for habitats are less than the full area of protected area added. This is particularly the case for Protected Environments which often consist of a mosaic of different land uses. Table A shows that progress towards meeting the targets set in the NPAES has been mixed. When all habitats are considered, the areas effectively contributing to meeting targets improved from 3.6% to 3.9% (based on current protected areas), and will move to 4.2% if additional sites under negotiation are all completed80. Currently, this equates to 18% of the 5-year target and 4.5% of the 20-year target. Should all areas under negotiation be completed, 8.3% of the 20-year target will have been met. Clearly progress towards meeting targets has been slower than the NPAES proposed. Best progress (as measured by the % of the 5-year target met) has been made in the Forest biome, where the area declared exceeds the short term target with 129% of the target being achieved, while good progress was also made in the waterbodies biome and the Albany Thicket biome with 91% and 69% of the 5-year targets being met respectively. No progress was made in the Desert biome and Indian Ocean coastal Belt, and little progress was made in the Nama-Karoo, Savanna and Grassland biomes with only 9%, 14% and 16% respectively of the 5-year targets being met. Two biomes which were not include in the NPAES (2008) (i.e. the Subantarctic Tundra biome and the Polar Desert biome) are both fully protected. 76 Habitat specific representation targets could not be set for freshwater, marine and coastal types in the NPAES in 2008 as no suitable habitat maps existed at that time. These targets are set in NPAES 2016. 77 Detailed data for each individual ecosystem type are given in the Appendix 1. 78 Importantly, there are major differences between the NPAES 2008 spatial data, the current spatial data and the summaries of the areas declared that were submitted by the different protected area agencies. In addition to the landcover related issue, a fundamental issue is that many of the protected areas legally declared during the period 2008 to 2014 were already included as De facto protected areas in the NPAES 2008. We have hence developed a protected area layer specifically for the evaluation of habitat representation that examines the effective extent of protection. The figure in the habitat representation layer cannot be directly compared with the protected area declaration data. 79 This, along with updates on the base protected area data layer, results in the protected area extent reported in the NPAES 2008 differing from the 2008 figures used in the current evaluation. 80 These figures are far smaller than the full extent of the protected network as many Lowveld Savanna, Arid Savanna and Mountain Fynbos types are over-represented in terms of habitat targets. This does not imply that there are not excellent reasons to protect these extra areas (e.g. securing threatened species, protection of areas supplying water, securing habitat for wide-ranging species, protecting full functioning ecosystems, securing the country against climate change, and to support the tourism industry), but merely that these areas are beyond the minimum required habitat representation target. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 114 Target 20 year Baseline (2008) Baseline (2008) effective contribution to targets Additional required to meet 5 year target Additional required to meet 20 year target Declared 2008 to 2014 Current (2014) Current (2014) effective contribution to targets % of 5 year target met % of 20 year target met Additional areas under negotiation Current (2014) plus negotiated areas Current (2014) plus negotiated areas effective contribution to targets % of 20 year target met if all negotiated areas completed Albany Thicket Biome (2912754 ha) 10.3% 298849 (ha) Declared 4.8% (140669 ha) De facto 1.4% (40431 ha) Total 6.2% (181100 ha) 6% (173598 ha) 1.1% (31313 ha) 4.3% (125250 ha) 2.5% (73655 ha) 8.7% (254755 ha) 6.7% (195196 ha) 69% 17.2% 1.5% (45053 ha) 10.3% (299808 ha) 7.2% (208770 ha) 28.1% Azonal Vegetation (2894983 ha) 13.8% 399352 (ha) Declared 6.7% (195356 ha) De facto 0.6% (17822 ha) Total 7.4% (213178 ha) 4.9% (143204 ha) 2.2% (64037 ha) 8.8% (256148 ha) 1% (27861 ha) 8.3% (241040 ha) 5.3% (153376 ha) 15.9% 4% 0.8% (22789 ha) 9.1% (263828 ha) 5.9% (171176 ha) 10.9% Desert Biome (716565 ha) 18% 128768 (ha) Declared 22.2% (158891 ha) De facto 0% (0 ha) Total 22.2% (158891 ha) 4.7% (33354 ha) 3.3% (23854 ha) 13.3% (95414 ha) 0% (0 ha) 22.2% (158891 ha) 4.7% (33354 ha) 0% 0% 0% (0 ha) 22.2% (158891 ha) 4.7% (33354 ha) 0% Forests (444371 ha) 17.2% 76434 (ha) Declared 26.1% (115924 ha) De facto 4% (17859 ha) Total 30.1% (133782 ha) 15.9% (70789 ha) 0.3% (1411 ha) 1.3% (5646 ha) 7.7% (34208 ha) 37.8% (167990 ha) 16.3% (72603 ha) 128.6% 32.1% 0% (220 ha) 37.9% (168210 ha) 16.4% (72737 ha) 34.5% Fynbos Biome (8394437 ha) 14.8% 1239260 (ha) Declared 11.8% (994706 ha) De facto 3.3% (276125 ha) Total 15.1% (1270831 ha) 6.5% (541492 ha) 2.1% (174442 ha) 8.3% (697769 ha) 5.1% (428378 ha) 20.2% (1699209 ha) 7.3% (610721 ha) 39.7% 9.9% 1.2% (104070 ha) 21.5% (1803279 ha) 8.2% (684917 ha) 20.6% Grassland Biome (31987116 ha) 13.2% 4209396 (ha) Declared 2.5% (799194 ha) De facto 0.3% (91625 ha) Total 2.8% (890819 ha) 2.3% (720012 ha) 2.7% (872346 ha) 10.9% (3489384 ha) 0.5% (144873 ha) 3.2% (1035692 ha) 2.7% (858192 ha) 15.8% 4% 0.4% (129499 ha) 3.6% (1165192 ha) 3% (960957 ha) 6.9% Indian Ocean Coastal Belt (1428197 ha) 13.5% 192807 (ha) Declared 5.8% (83192 ha) De facto 0.6% (8394 ha) Total 6.4% (91586 ha) 5.7% (81977 ha) 1.9% (27707 ha) 7.8% (110830 ha) 0% (0 ha) 6.4% (91586 ha) 5.7% (81977 ha) 0% 0% 0% (346 ha) 6.4% (91932 ha) 5.8% (82220 ha) 0.2% Nama-Karoo Biome (24827996 ha) 11% 2729463 (ha) Declared 0.7% (162935 ha) De facto 0.1% (34810 ha) Total 0.8% (197745 ha) 0.8% (190333 ha) 2.6% (634783 ha) 10.2% (2539130 ha) 0.2% (56981 ha) 1% (254726 ha) 1% (245632 ha) 8.7% 2.2% 0.5% (127568 ha) 1.5% (382294 ha) 1.5% (373200 ha) 7.2% Polar Desert Biome (10825 ha) 10.8% 1169 (ha) Declared 100% (10825 ha) De facto 0% (0 ha) Total 100% (10825 ha) 10.8% (1169 ha) 0% (0 ha) 0% (0 ha) 0% (0 ha) 100% (10825 ha) 10.8% (1169 ha) Fully met Fully met 0% (0 ha) 100% (10825 ha) 10.8% (1169 ha) Fully met Savanna Biome (39966563 ha) 10.1% 4036554 (ha) Declared 11% (4410017 ha) De facto 0.4% (151089 ha) Total 11.4% (4561106 ha) 5.2% (2092561 ha) 1.2% (485998 ha) 4.9% (1943994 ha) 0.5% (194223 ha) 11.9% (4755329 ha) 5.4% (2158897 ha) 13.6% 3.4% 0% (19564 ha) 11.9% (4774893 ha) 5.4% (2173070 ha) 4.1% Subantarctic Tundra Biome (23240 ha) 10.8% 2510 (ha) Declared 100% (23240 ha) De facto 0% (0 ha) Total 100% (23240 ha) 10.8% (2510 ha) 0% (0 ha) 0% (0 ha) 0% (0 ha) 100% (23240 ha) 10.8% (2510 ha) Fully met Fully met 0% (0 ha) 100% (23240 ha) 10.8% (2510 ha) Fully met Succulent Karoo Biome (8328395 ha) 12.1% 1010313 (ha) Declared 4.9% (405814 ha) De facto 0.4% (31345 ha) Total 5.2% (437160 ha) 3.5% (288792 ha) 2.2% (180380 ha) 8.7% (721520 ha) 1.3% (107724 ha) 6.5% (544884 ha) 4.5% (376380 ha) 48.6% 12.1% 0.9% (75962 ha) 7.5% (620845 ha) 4.9% (407655 ha) 16.5% Waterbodies (67322 ha) 13% 8725 (ha) Declared 79.8% (53695 ha) De facto 0.5% (313 ha) Total 80.2% (54009 ha) 12.6% (8463 ha) 0.1% (65 ha) 0.4% (262 ha) 0.1% (59 ha) 80.3% (54068 ha) 12.7% (8522 ha) 90.8% 22.5% 1% (661 ha) 81.3% (54729 ha) 12.7% (8523 ha) 22.9% Total (122002763 ha) 12% 14333600 (ha) Declared 6.2% (7554459 ha) De facto 0.5% (669813 ha) Total 6.7% (8224272 ha) 3.6% (4348254 ha) 2.0% (2496337 ha) 8.2% (9985347 ha) 0.9% (1067962 ha) 7.6% (9292234 ha) 3.9% (4798529 ha) 18% 4.5% 0.4% (525732 ha) 8% (9817966 ha) 4.2% (5180260 ha) 8.3% Table A 5: Improvement in representation of terrestrial habitat types in protected areas. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 115 Table A and Table A show that although progress has been slower than anticipated, the expansion has largely been in areas which increase the efficiency and representivity of the protected area network. The NPAES identified 42 focus areas for land-based protected area expansion. Overall 59% (or 662 301ha) of the current expansion took place in these priority focus areas (Figure A 5). Of the current areas under negotiation, a far lower percentage (36% or 200 623ha) are within the priority focus areas. Importantly, as the priority focus areas identified in the NPAES examined only large intact priorities and not fragmented threatened habitats or finer scale provincial priorities, this does not imply that the current expansion outside of the focus areas is poorly located. Nor does it imply that the areas under negotiation are less of a priority. Figure A 5: Focus Areas for the establishment of large protected areas identified in the NPAES 2008. The red areas are those protected areas declared between 2008 – 2014; 59 % of the expansion took place within these focus areas. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 116 Biome Within Focus Areas Outside of Focus Areas Total Within Focus Areas Outside of Focus Areas Total Albany Thicket Biome 34 686 40 502 75 188 8 375 37 804 46 179 Azonal Vegetation 20 088 12 145 32 233 2 788 21 854 24 642 Forests 18 044 18 497 36 541 140 85 225 Fynbos Biome 392 946 46 667 439 613 29 950 95 134 125 084 Grassland Biome 59 678 115 343 175 021 93 019 39 091 132 109 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 484 484 Nama-Karoo Biome 30 769 26 601 57 370 21 406 108 087 129 492 Savanna Biome 30 657 165 999 196 656 12 821 7 990 20 811 Succulent Karoo Biome 75 404 32 408 107 812 32 125 44 246 76 371 Waterbodies 29 30 59 0 663 663 All Biomes 662 301 458 192 1 120 493 200 623 355 437 556 060 Declared 2008-2014 (ha) Under negotiation (ha) Biome Within Focus Areas Outside of Focus Areas Within Focus Areas Outside of Focus Areas Albany Thicket Biome 46 54 18 82 Azonal Vegetation 62 38 11 89 Forests 49 51 62 38 Fynbos Biome 89 11 24 76 Grassland Biome 34 66 70 30 Indian Ocean Coastal Belt 100 Nama-Karoo Biome 54 46 17 83 Savanna Biome 16 84 62 38 Succulent Karoo Biome 70 30 42 58 Waterbodies 49 51 100 All Biomes 59 41 36 64 Declared 2008-2014 (%) Under negotiation ( %) Table A 6: Protected areas declared in Phase 1 and areas currently under negotiation, examined in terms of whether they are inside or outside the priority focus areas for land-based protected area expansion. Summarized by area. Table A 7: Protected areas declared in Phase 1 and areas currently under negotiation, examined in terms of whether they are inside or outside the priority focus areas for land-based protected area expansion. Summarized by percentage. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 117 In the marine environment, the declaration of the marine protected area (MPA) in the Prince Edward Island (PEI) EEZ resulted in marine protected areas far exceeding the short- and long-term NPAES targets (by a factor of 2) for the PEI EEZ. However, during the period of review no offshore MPAs were declared (against a short-term target of 52 500 km2 in the NPAES) for the mainland EEZ and only 2 inshore MPAs (27 878 ha81) were declared, resulting in an under-representation of these habitats in meeting the overall targets for the marine protected area system. The spatial distribution of the new areas included into the marine protected area system for the period of review is shown in Figure A 4. Table A summarizes the progress towards achieving specific NPAES targets in the Marine Inshore and Marine Offshore environments. As no suitable habitat maps existed when the NPAES 2008 was undertaken no habitat specific representation targets were set at that time, and therefore we can only evaluate progress across these environments as a whole. Overall, better progress has been made in the marine environment than in terrestrial areas. In particular, good progress has been made in the marine offshore: Prince Edward Islands EEZ region, where the 20-year no-take target and the overall protected area target have effectively both been met through the declaration of the Prince Edward Islands Marine Protected Area. Progress in the marine inshore and marine offshore (mainland) EEZ environments has not matched that around the Prince Edward Islands. In the marine offshore (mainland) EEZ environment the protected area network was extremely limited in 2008 with only 0.4% of the area being protected (and only 0.16% being no-take). During phase 1 an additional 0.03% of the marine offshore (mainland) EEZ environment was declared of which 0.02% is no-take. This represents under 1% of the 5-year NPAES target. Progress in improving the current representation is likely to be better in phase 2 as significant 81 The NPAES set a short-term target of 88km of coastline for inshore MPAs, but no area-based targets. Baseline (2008) Additional required to meet 5 year target Additional required to meet 20 year target Declared 2008 to 2014 Current (2014) % of 5 year target met % of 20 year target met Additional areas under negotiation Current (2014) plus negotiated areas % of 20 year target met if all negotiated areas completed No-Take 15% (539 km) 7.9% (285 km) 1.8% (64 km) 7.1% (254 km) 1.6% (57 km) 9.5% (341 km) 89.4% 22.4% 0% * (0 km 2 ) 9.5% (341 km) 22.4% Total 25% (898 km) 20.6% (741 km) 1.1% (39 km) 4.3% (157 km) 1.8% (64 km) 22.4% (805 km) 163.4% 40.8% 7.8% (282 km) 30.3% (1087 km) Fully met No-Take 15% (159 849 km 2 ) 0.16% (1 755 km 2 ) 3.7% (39 524 km 2 ) 14.8% (158 094 km 2 ) 0.02% (266 km 2 ) 0.19% (2 021 km 2 ) 0.7% 0.16% 0% * (0 km 2 ) 0.19% (2 021 km 2 ) 0.16% Total 20% (213 132 km 2 ) 0.4% (4 404 km 2 ) 4.9% (52 182 km 2 ) 19.6% (208 728 km 2 ) 0.03% (278 km 2 ) 0.44% (4 682 km 2 ) 0.5% 0.13% 6.2% (66 473 km 2 ) 6.7% (71 155 km 2 ) 32.0% No-Take 15% (71 006 km 2 ) 0% (0 km 2 ) 3.8% (17 751 km 2 ) 15% (71 006 km 2 ) 14.4% (68 364 km 2 ) 14.4% (68 364 km 2 ) 385.1% 96.3% 0% (0 km 2 ) 14.4% (68 364 km 2 ) 96.3% Total 20% (94 675 km 2 ) 0% (0 km 2 ) 5% (23 669 km 2 ) 20% (94 675 km 2 ) 38.2% (180 862 km 2 ) 38.2% (180 862 km 2 ) 764.1% 191.1% 0% (0 km 2 ) 38.2% (180 862 km 2 ) Fully met * Note that it is clear how much no-take area will be declared Target 20 year Marine Inshore (3592 km) Marine offshore: mainland EEZ (1 065 660 km 2 ) Marine offshore: Prince Edward Islands EEZ (473 375 km 2 ) Table A 8: Progress towards achieving NPAES targets in the marine inshore and marine offshore environments. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 118 areas in this environment (representing 6.7% of the area and 32% of the 20-year target) are under negotiation through Operation Phakisa. The 2008 baseline for the marine inshore environment, was 20.6% (741km) having some protection of which 7.9% (285km) was no-take. Eighty nine percent of the phase 1 target for no-take areas was met, while 163% of the 5-year target for overall inshore protection was met. Progress on no-take MPAs has been slower than required and will require specific attention in future phases of the NPAES. 2. Areas still under active negotiation for inclusion into the protected area network (2008 – 2014) The areas still under active negotiation for future declaration as terrestrial protected areas – totaling some 1 180 997ha82 – vary widely between protected area institutions (Figure A 6). 82 This total is indicative only- not all of this area will be successfully negotiated to the point of formal declaration. Figure A 6: Areas under negotiation for terrestrial protected area expansion, by protected area institution (ha). National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 119 The areas still under active negotiation for future declaration as terrestrial protected areas show a clear spatial bias towards private and communally owned land (Figure A 7). 3. Mechanisms for expansion In the terrestrial environment, the conclusion of a contractual agreement between the protected area institution and a landowner or land user (in the case of communal land) was the primary mechanism used to declare new terrestrial protected areas during phase 1 of the NPAES (Table A ). Of the total land incorporated into the terrestrial protected area system, contractual agreements accounted for 68% (563 947ha) of the extent of declared protected areas. Ninety three percent of the area under contractual agreements (522 128ha) was brokered on private and communal land through the biodiversity stewardship programmes. Although the process of formally assigning and declaring state land accounted for 39% of the declarations, the extent of declared protected areas (157 743ha) comprised only 19% of the total expansion in phase 1. SANParks is the only protected area institution which purchased land (106 663ha) for protected area expansion in phase 1. Table A 9: Terrestrial protected area declared in phase 1, by mechanism of expansion. Mechanism of expansion Number of declarations Area (ha) Contractual agreement 164 563 947 Land acquisition (incl. donations) 117 108 631 Declaration of state land 176 157 743 Four protected area institutions formalised the declaration of state owned land that was already being managed as de facto protected areas (but not yet declared), while seven protected area institutions concluded contractual agreements for the declaration of protected areas (Table A ). Of Figure A 7: Area under negotiation for terrestrial protected area expansion, by land tenure. (ha) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 120 the land managed under contractual agreement, 29% (161 810ha) is managed by the state while the remainder is privately managed. Table A 10: Terrestrial protected area declared (ha) in phase 1, by implementing institution and mechanism of expansion. Institution/province Contractual agreement Donation Purchase Declaration of state owned land Total SANParks 74 012 - 106 663 89 608 270 283 DAFF - - - 14 850 14 850 Eastern Cape 98 119 - - - 98 119 Free State - - - - Gauteng 2 280 1 768 - 20 638 24 686 KwaZulu-Natal 61 068 - - - 61 068 Limpopo - - - - Mpumalanga 102 066 - - - 102 066 Northern Cape 92 486 - - - 92 486 North West - 200 - 32 647 32 847 Western Cape 133 916 - - - 133 916 Total 563 947 1 968 106 663 157 743 830 321 All three protected area mechanisms - contractual agreement, land acquisition and declaration of state owned land - were used in the expansion of National Parks and Nature Reserves. Contractual agreements were the only expansion mechanism used in the establishment of Protected Environments, while the declaration of state owned land was the only expansion mechanism used for Forest Nature Reserves (Table A ). Table A 11: Terrestrial protected area declared in phase 1, by protected area type and mechanism of expansion (ha). Protected area type Contractual agreement Land acquisition83 Declaration of state owned land National Park 74 012 106 663 89 608 Nature Reserve 293 262 1 968 53 285 Protected Environment 196 673 - Forest Nature Reserve - - 14 850 In the marine environment, all 181 130.15km2 of protected area expansion took place through the declaration of state territory. 83 Including purchased and donated land. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 121 4. The development of institutionally-based Protected Area Expansion Strategy’s (PAES) (2008 – 2014) In the terrestrial environment, only one protected area institution - CapeNature - had a PAES (in the form of a Biodiversity Stewardship Plan) in 2008. By the end of phase 1 however, eight of the twelve protected area institutions have now developed, adopted and are implementing an institutionally based PAES. These institutionally-based PAES’s are all closely aligned to the strategic objectives of the NPAES, although the implementation phases are not yet fully harmonised (Table A ). Three of the remaining protected area institutions (Free State, Limpopo and Northern Cape) are currently developing or have developed their own PAES’s and are in the process of getting them adopted. Only one protected area institution – DAFF – currently has no plans to develop an institutionally-based PAES and is using the NPAES to guide its priorities for protected area expansion. Table A 12: Status of protected area expansion strategy development, by each of the protected area institutions. Institutional PAES SANP DAFF DEA*84 EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC Developing - N - - Y - - Y - Y - Adopted Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Implementing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Expansion plans for the marine environment are well developed and were recently published as part of Operation Phakisa. The total area targeted for expansion of the MPA network is 64 807.10km2 (covering 21 separate MPAs in the inshore and off-shore mainland EEZ). 5. Resource allocations to PAES (2014) The institutional capacity to implement the protected area expansion programme is limited. An estimate of the human resources85 available (as of end December 2014) for implementing the protected area expansion programme is presented in Table A . Table A 13: Estimated human resources available for implementing the NPAES (as at Dec 2014), by protected area institution. Number of staff SANP DAFF DEA EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC Total >60% of time86 2 0 6 1 0 5 0 2 3 0 3 6 28 <60% of time 5 0 14 5 0 11 6 0 2 4 0 18 65 84 DEA are currently implementing the MPA expansion programme 85 Human resource estimates are inclusive of relevant senior management, stewardship managers, negotiators and facilitators, planners, legal staff, ecologists, technicians and extension staff. 86 Staff availability is broken down into those staff that spend more than 60% of their time on protected area expansion and those who have a role to play but spend less than 60% of their time on the function. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 122 The estimated operational87 budgets for protected area expansion are highly variable (Table A 14). The funding resources for protected area expansion, and the actual performance of the protected area agency in declaring new areas as protected areas, do not show a close correlation which suggests that some agencies are more efficient in expanding their protected areas. Table A 14: Estimated annual budgets available for implementing the NPAES during phase 1. Budget SANP DAFF DEA EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC R (‘000 000) 34.5 3.5 12.0 0.4 1.2 1.9 2.5 0.2 0.45 0.1 2.9 2.1 6. Legal and institutional developments (2008 – 2014) Phase 1 of the NPAES (2008) saw a number of legal and administrative developments aimed at advancing protected area expansion. These include:  The amendment of the Protected Areas Act to include marine protected areas.  The process of developing standardised stewardship guidelines was advanced.  Refinements in the incentives for declaring privately owned and managed protected areas through tax rebates.  Improved levels of legislative compliance through the development of the Protected Area Register.  The advanced development of a protected area database, linked to the Protected Area Register, which is populated with Stats SA-verified data only.  The establishment of a national protected area co-ordination and standardisation forum (the Protected Area Technical Task Team; PATTT), which includes the mandate for protected area expansion.  Publishing guidelines for the declaration of different types of protected areas. 7. Key protected area expansion issues and challenges (2008 – 2014) The review process brought to light a number of key issues and concerns that warrant consideration in the development of an action plan for phase 2 of the NPAES. These include inter alia:  Inadequate funds to increase and sustain the biodiversity stewardship programme: All protected area institutions involved in the biodiversity stewardship programme highlighted the concern that as more areas were being successfully contracted under the biodiversity stewardship programme, the need for maintenance engagements and auditing of these sites increases. This maintenance and auditing function thus requires a greater slice of the current budget as well as increased staff time. Attention needs to be paid to ways of covering the increasing maintenance costs of the biodiversity stewardship programme while maintaining adequate resources to continue with protected area expansion efforts. 87 This includes budgets that institutions have for land purchase. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2016 123  Declining availability of funds for the SANParks land purchase fund: The purchase by SANParks of key land for protected area expansion was possible through the land purchase fund. This fund is dependent on ad hoc grants from DEA to function and these grants have been cut substantially in recent years.  Staff numbers, staff turnover, staff capacity and institutional support: Many protected area institutions raised the need for their agency to better align their staffing (both in terms of numbers and capacity) with the requirements of implementing their institutional PAESs. A range of skills and expertise is required to successfully declare new protected areas, from field-based negotiators to stewardship managers and from legal support to planners and ecologists. Mention was made of the negative effects of high staff turnover and the need for improving the career paths of individuals involved in protected area expansion efforts.  Data and data management: The review has highlighted the widespread need for improved data and data management systems to ensure that the protected area expansion function is being based on reliable, updated and accessible information.  Alignment of the NPAES and institutional level plans: Not all institutional PAES plans are aligned with the national plans. This may result in areas being added to the protected area system which contribute little towards target achievement. The need to promote better alignment between the NPAES and the institutionally-based PAESs has been highlighted.  Legal and administrative barriers: All institutions indicated that administrative (including legal) barriers were one of the major bottlenecks in declaring new protected areas. The need for a task team to identify the major barriers and to seek ways to remove or reduce them was identified as important in taking the protected area expansion programme forward.