gauteng protected area expansion...

Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy

September 2013

Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy

September 2013

SANBI Ref. No.: 1439/2009

Sust. Innov. Ref. No.: SI03

Prepared by

Sustainable Innovations

P O Box 35

NOTTINGHAM ROAD

3280

Tel: 082 804 4412

Fax: 086 575 3802

Email: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The contribution of the following organisations and individuals in the preparation

of this strategy are gratefully acknowledged.

The Project Management Team:

Eleanor McGregor GDARD

Ernest Seamark GDARD

Mpumi Mnci GDARD

Anthea Stephens SANBI

Budu Manaka SANBI

The Peer Review Group:

Brian Morris Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency

Mandy Driver SANBI

Mervyn Lotter Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency

Stephen Holness Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Additional GDARD staff:

Billy Malatji Quinton Joshua

Ian Engelbrecht Siyabonga Buthelezi

Johannes Mohlatshwa Steven Nevhutalu

Nico Grobler Terence Venter

Nthangiseni Tshikimulele Tshepo Laka

Obeid Katumba Willem de Lange

Patrick Duigan

Consultants:

Greg Martindale Sustainable Innovations

Willem de Frey EkoInfo

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

South Africa‟s national protected area system has not been adequately designed to maintain

key ecological processes or to conserve a representative sample of the country‟s biodiversity.

In an effort to address this, a National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES, DEAT

2008) has been developed. The NPAES provides a national framework for the expansion

and consolidation of the protected area system, focussing on priority areas for representation

and persistence of biodiversity. The NPAES identifies the need for the creation of finer-scale

provincial protected area expansion strategies, based on regional and local conservation

imperatives.

The purpose of the Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy (GPAES) is to provide the

framework for protected area expansion in Gauteng over the next 20 years, setting out key

strategies for protected area expansion and identifying spatial priorities and protected area

targets.

The legal context for biodiversi ty conservation

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (No.57 of 2003) forms the

legal basis for protected area expansion in South Africa, as its objectives include provisions

“for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South

Africa‟s biological diversity and its natural landscapes”. The Act sets out the mechanisms for

the declaration of protected areas and the requirements for their management.

The Protected Area Act mandates the MEC of a province, in whose portfolio provincial

protected areas fall, with the power to declare areas as Nature Reserves or Protected

Environments. In Gauteng, the MEC responsible for provincial protected areas is the MEC

for Agriculture and Rural Development. Her mandate for provincial protected areas is thus

devolved from her to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

(GDARD).

The relationship of the NPAES to Gauteng Prov ince

Because the scale of the NPAES is at a national level, it focuses its efforts on intact and un-

fragmented areas, larger than 5,000ha. This excludes highly fragmented and modified

landscapes, which means that much of Gauteng is excluded in determining national spatial

priorities for protected area expansion. For this reason, the NPAES spatial priority layer

within Gauteng was applied prior to the application of the 5,000ha minimum size filter.

Biodiversi ty stewardship in South Africa and Gauteng

In accordance with the NPAES and consistent with other provinces, biodiversity stewardship

will form the primary mechanism for protected area expansion in Gauteng. GDARD and

SANBI have developed a Biodiversity Stewardship Programme modelled on similar initiatives

in other provinces, which is consistent with the national biodiversity stewardship guidelines

(DEA 2009) and the draft biodiversity stewardship policy (DEA 2009). The purpose of the

programme will be to develop partnerships with private landowners to conserve important

biodiversity features in Gauteng.

Much of the biodiversity within Gauteng is

compromised and it is likely that key

ecological processes are under

considerable stress. Unless biodiversity

resources are secured, rates of local

species loss will accelerate and the

ecological integrity of the province will be

greatly undermined

The ecological state of Gauteng

In Gauteng, one vegetation type is completely unprotected (Norite Koppies Bushveld), five

vegetation types are very poorly protected, three are poorly protected, seven are partially

protected and protected area targets have been met for six vegetation types1 As a result,

less than 25% of the protected area targets for vegetation types within Gauteng have been

met and in most instances considerably less than this has been achieved.

General economic development, urbanisation and industrialisation, the demand for housing,

and the development of roads and other infrastructure have led to the loss of a great deal of

natural habitat within Gauteng. As a result, there have been significant reductions in the

original extent of ecologically important areas in the province, and what remains is under

threat from growing developmental pressures. This has led to a number of ecosystems

within Gauteng being placed on the draft national list of threatened ecosystems.

Gauteng has the highest proportion of Critically Endangered ecosystems and the second

highest proportion of Endangered ecosystems, after Mpumalanga. It also has the second

highest proportion of total land listed as threatened, after Mpumalanga, covering an area of

384,000 hectares, which constitutes 23.2% of the province.

Between 1995 and 2009, 229,953ha of natural habitat was lost in Gauteng, which represents

a 13% loss within a 15 year period. Over 56% of the natural habitat in Gauteng has been

lost, leaving only 798,397ha of land in a

natural or semi-natural state. Of the

remaining land that is in a natural or semi-

natural state, much of it is highly fragmented

and subdivided amongst many landowners.

Many of the grassland vegetation types, in

particular, have experienced high rates of

natural habitat loss, resulting in the loss of

considerably more than 50% of their original

extent. Given the rates of habitat loss, which

appear to be increasing, it is likely that

virtually no natural habitat will remain within Gauteng by 2050.

The GPAES twenty-year focus

The following vision has been adopted for the Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy:

Expansion of the protected area system in Gauteng is undertaken in a strategic,

targeted fashion to ensure the persistence of key biodiversity features and

ecological processes within the province.

The focus of protected area expansion within Gauteng will be to:

Secure priority areas of natural or near-natural habitat for representation and

persistence of biodiversity.

Secure water resources and other areas of key ecological functionality to ensure

acceptable standards of ecosystem health and species diversity are maintained.

1 Where protected area targets have been met, it is the result of protection of the vegetation type in another province

outside of Gauteng.

Establish a system of ecological corridors, which will potentially include areas of

degraded habitat that facilitate the movement and dispersal of key species across

Gauteng and between adjoining provinces.

Consider the implications of climate change and how the protected area system can

be designed to allow for its impacts.

The vision describes the desired outcome of the GPAES. In order to realise the vision, a set

of strategic outcomes have been identified.

1) Protected areas within Gauteng are legally secured and appropriate structures are

instituted to ensure that they are effectively managed.

2) 30,800ha and 166,811ha of habitat are formally secured within Gauteng’s protected

area system in five and 20 years respectively.

3) Priority areas for protected area expansion are determined and secured utilising

appropriate spatial tools

4) GDARD is appropriately resourced and enabled to effectively implement the

GPAES.

5) Protected area expansion mechanisms, appropriate to Gauteng, are developed and

implemented in consolidating and expanding the protected area system.

6) Awareness is created around the importance of protected area expansion in

Gauteng and the need to secure key biodiversity features.

7) Monitoring and reporting structures are instituted which enable the effective

implementation of the GPAES.

Protected area expansion targets for Gauteng

The NPAES includes 20-year (2028) and 5-year (2012/13) protected area expansion targets

for South Africa. For Gauteng these targets translate to a 20-year target of 1,668km2 (or

166,800ha) and a five-year target of 380km2 (or 30,800ha), which constitutes 9.2% and 1.7%

of the province respectively. The 20-year targets have been translated for individual

vegetation types, based on the proportion of the vegetation type within Gauteng and the

corresponding pro rata proportion that must be protected within the province to meet the

national protected area target.

In order to meet the NPAES protected area targets, a high proportion of the remaining

natural habitat in several vegetation types must be secured. For example, 60% of the

remaining natural habitat of Eastern Highveld Grassland and 47% of Central Free State

Grassland must be secured. The levels of fragmentation in many of the vegetation types are

such that securing viable protected areas within them may be a challenge. These are

important considerations in determining the spatial priorities and the urgency of securing

them for protected area expansion in Gauteng. In the cases of both Frankfort Highveld

Grassland and Central Free State Grassland, it is necessary to acknowledge that the target

can only be met with great difficulty within Gauteng. It is thus likely that the target may only

be met in another province, such as the Free State, in which sufficient un-fragmented habitat

is available. This will require cooperation between the Gauteng provincial government and

its provincial neighbours.

Table 3.1 Protected area expansion targets, per vegetat ion type for

Gauteng

Vegetation type Remaining extent within

Gauteng

Current area protected

within Gauteng

Gauteng province’s 5-

year PA expansion

target

Gauteng province’s 20-year PA expansion

target

Target percentage of

remaining vegetation

Largest un-transformed

fragment

Andesite Mountain Bushveld 54,921ha 14,684ha 136ha 545ha 1% 11,697ha

Carletonville Dolomite Grassland 109,881ha 12,582ha 5,249ha 20,997ha 19% 35,866ha

Central Free State Grassland 2,255ha 0ha 265ha 1,058ha 47% 356ha

Central Sandy Bushveld 107,970ha 19,326ha 3,034ha 12,134ha 11% 66,388ha

Eastern Highveld Grassland 7,581ha 0ha 1,147ha 4,586ha 60% 543ha

Eastern Temperate Freshwater

Wetlands

11,191ha 1,604ha 354ha 1,417ha 13% 2,471ha

Egoli Granite Grassland 28,226ha 2,778ha 2,361ha 9,445ha 33% 3,426ha

Frankfort Highveld Grassland 174ha 82ha 102ha 407ha 234% 8ha

Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld 58,948ha 1,503ha 1,664ha 6,657ha 11% 36,346ha

Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld 35,954ha 9,092ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 5,942ha

Loskop Mountain Bushveld 33,377ha 4,112ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 11,305ha

Marikana Thornveld 39,719ha 4,752ha 2,524ha 10,097ha 25% 14,437ha

Moot Plains Bushveld 18,607ha 544ha 781ha 3,122ha 17% 7,242ha

Norite Koppies Bushveld 3,141ha 978ha 136ha 544ha 17% 1,244ha

Rand Highveld Grassland 106,059ha 7,089ha 7,294ha 29,174ha 28% 20,340ha

Soweto Highveld Grassland 128,099ha 1,263ha 13,891 55,563ha 43% 8,834ha

Springbokvlakte Thornveld 16,764ha 1,655ha 561ha 2,245ha 13% 7,290ha

Subtropical Freshwater Wetlands 255ha 0ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 51ha

Subtropical Salt Pans 9ha 9ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 9ha

Tsakane Clay Grassland 34,845ha 5,532ha 2,205ha 8,820ha 25% 2,053ha

Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit

Sourveld

423ha 427ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 269ha

TOTAL 798,397ha 88,013ha 41,704ha 166,811ha 21% –

* 0ha is indicated where the national target has already been met

Spatial prior it ies for protected area expansion in Gauteng

Several biodiversity data sources were utilised and interpreted in determining the spatial

priorities for protected area expansion in Gauteng:

The NPAES priority layer, without fragments of land smaller than 5,000ha removed.

The Gauteng C-Plan Version 3, irreplaceability layer.

The draft Threatened Ecosystem layer, showing their remaining extent.

The 2009 land cover layer, focussing on the largest remaining fragments of natural

habitat within each vegetation type.

Protected area expansion efforts within

Gauteng should focus on the largest intact

areas of natural habitat where protected

area targets may be met. It is important

that the concept of urgency be considered

and applied in determining priorities for

protected area expansion in each of the 5-

year Implementation Plans.

The total area identified is 486,740ha, which is considerably larger than the 20-year

protected area target. It is unlikely that all private landowners will agree to have their land

proclaimed as a protected area. Accordingly, all viable areas for protected area expansion

have been identified.

The NPAES describes urgency as the extent to which spatial options for meeting protected

area targets still exist. If there are a number of places within a vegetation type in which a

protected area target may be met, spatial options still exist. However, if very little of the

vegetation type remains intact and the options for securing protected area targets are limited,

then spatial options are limited and protected area expansion is more urgent.

As the NPAES explains, protected area expansion efforts may not necessarily be most

effective in those areas which are the most urgent for meeting protected area targets. If

efforts focus only on such areas, opportunities to secure protected areas where there are

more options may be lost. The most urgent areas are likely to require a great deal of effort to

secure them. Furthermore, in areas that are currently not urgent, the number of options for

meeting protected area targets may be reducing. It may therefore be more effective to

secure areas of high importance but lower

urgency, before their urgency status changes.

In determining the spatial priority areas,

consideration was given to how the protected

area system can be designed to

accommodate climate change. Intact

ecosystems that contain largely un-

fragmented natural habitat are more likely to

be able to withstand stresses such as those

associated with climate change than

ecosystems that are highly modified and fragmented. Accordingly, the focus for protected

area expansion has concentrated on the largest intact fragments within each and across

vegetation types that incorporate the greatest altitudinal gradients and topographical range,

in an effort to conserve climatic gradients that can enable species and ecosystems to adapt

to climate change

An important aspect of climate change adaptation is the maintenance of connectivity within

the landscape to enable the movement of species, as ecological conditions change. In

efforts to ensure connectivity between ecosystems within Gauteng and outside of the

province, the Gauteng C-Plan, Version 3, includes a system of corridors designed to enable

the movement of species in response to climate change and natural migratory patterns.

These corridors and the focus areas for protected area expansion, provide the complete

spatial layer for protected area expansion in Gauteng.

Focus areas for protected area expansion in Gauteng

Insti tutional arrangements for protected area expan sion

Within GDARD, the Nature Conservation Directorate is responsible for protected area

expansion. It is currently responsible for the management of provincial protected areas,

regulation of the use of biodiversity resources through the permit system, and the

development and implementation of a conservation plan for the Province. The Gauteng

Biodiversity Stewardship Unit, which is responsible for the implementation of the Biodiversity

Stewardship Programme, has recently had a dedicated Deputy Director appointed. This

structure acknowledges the importance of biodiversity stewardship in the implementation of

the GPAES and is consistent with biodiversity stewardship programmes in other provinces

such as KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga, which have both created dedicated units within

their provincial structures.

Experience in implementing protected area expansion strategies and biodiversity

stewardship programmes in other provinces has shown that additional capacity is required

within GDARD in the areas of scientific services, provision of extension or stewardship

services and legal expertise. Issues surrounding the need for additional capacity need to be

clarified through the GPAES Implementation Plan (2013/14 – 2018/19).

Mechanisms for implementing protected area expansion

Biodiversity stewardship, which relies on partnering with private landowners to secure key

biodiversity resources, has been identified as the primary mechanism to expand the

protected area network within Gauteng.

Additional mechanisms, such as offsets and biodiversity set-asides that secure land, whilst

facilitating appropriate forms of development should also be considered. Within spatial

priority areas, identified in the GPAES, such mechanisms should be applied through the

environmental authorisation process and should be stipulated in planning tools such as

EMFs, Bioregional Plans and SDFs.

An innovative approach to planning in spatial priority areas should be adopted by provincial

and local government and the private sector should be engaged in an effort to garner support

for a process that will enable development whilst securing key biodiversity resources. It

should be made clear that spatial priority areas are to be excluded from development but that

opportunities for appropriate forms of development will be supported in areas that are already

transformed and that serve little ecological function. The principles for development within

spatial priority areas should be to:

Ensure that spatial priority areas are secured and excluded from inappropriate forms

of development.

Ensure that appropriate forms of land-use are encouraged in the surrounds of spatial

priority areas in an effort to buffer them from external impacts.

Maintain a connected protected area system in which corridors such as riparian

zones and ridges, which connect spatial priority areas, are appropriately protected.

Encourage appropriate forms of economic development, which meet regional socio-

economic needs and are ecologically sustainable.

Innovative financial mechanisms should be considered within priority spatial areas. Options

that may be considered include the stipulation, through environmental authorisations, of

contributions towards conservation trust funds, established to support the implementation of

the GPAES. This is consistent with the mechanisms identified in the NPAES and is being

considered as part of protected area expansion strategies in other provinces. In examining

options for such funds it has generally been agreed that they be administered by a suitable

NGO to ensure that the funds are spent directly on biodiversity conservation initiatives.

Costs for implementing the GPAES

A detailed five-year budget must be prepared as part of the GPAES five-year Implementation

Plans. In determining an appropriate budget for biodiversity stewardship in Gauteng,

comparisons with Mpumalanga show that the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency

(MTPA) has an annual personnel budget for biodiversity stewardship of approximately R3.2

million and it has identified budgetary requirements for the following aspects of its biodiversity

stewardship programme:

Specialist fees – surveying.

Specialist fees – lodging notarial deeds.

Specialist fees – legal.

Workshops/meetings.

Advertising.

Gazetting.

Consultants/service providers.

The budget for these items is approximately R1 million per year, escalating as the

biodiversity stewardship programme grows. In addition, the MTPA has identified a budget for

land acquisition, in acknowledgement that land may not always be secured through

biodiversity stewardship and that in some circumstances land acquisition may be required.

In Gauteng biodiversity stewardship is likely to be a more complex undertaking than

elsewhere, as it has many more landowners with small landholdings compared to provinces

with fewer landowners with large landholdings. Accordingly, the Gauteng budget for

biodiversity stewardship should be at least comparable with other provinces to allow for the

complexities of undertaking biodiversity stewardship in the province.

Comparison of land acquisit ion vs. biodiversi ty stewardship

Based on the average land price (Rand/ha) for vegetation types that occur within Gauteng,

obtained from SANBI‟s national land price dataset for farm sales in 2005, which was created

from data obtained from the Deeds Office and Surveyor General, the costs of purchasing

land through land acquisition for protected area expansion can be compared with biodiversity

stewardship. Although the costs are considered to be a gross under-estimation they

nevertheless provide a worthwhile comparison.

The average land price (Rand/ha) for vegetation types that occur within Gauteng for 2005

was R15,000/ha and an estimate of R200/ha for biodiversity stewardship was used, which

was double that calculated for Mpumalanga. On this basis, the cost to secure the 166,800ha

20-year protected area target for Gauteng through biodiversity stewardship would be R33.36

million, which compares with a cost of R2 502 million for acquiring the land. This thus

provides sound financial justification for the implementation of the Gauteng Biodiversity

Stewardship Programme.

Conclusion

Gauteng is a small province with immense developmental pressures and challenges. The

rates of modification of the ecosystems within the province have led to the loss of over half of

its natural habitat. If these rates of modification are not arrested, biodiversity in the province

will be irreparably harmed, resulting in significant impacts to the agricultural sector, the loss

of functioning water resources and major impacts to human health and well being. It is vital

that action be taken to secure critical areas of biodiversity in order to ensure that local losses

of species are averted and that the ecological functioning of Gauteng is secured in the future.

This requires a meaningful commitment from government, as less than 1.8% of the land in

Gauteng has been formally protected, specifically for biodiversity protection since 1995.

The Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy identifies the areas in which protected area

expansion efforts should be focussed and provides a number of mechanisms to secure them.

The primary mechanism will be biodiversity stewardship but innovative ways to enlist the

support of land developers should be implemented in an effort to meet demands for land

whilst securing its biodiversity value.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

DEFINTIONS OF KEY TERMS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy 1

1.2 The importance of protected areas 1

2. THE CONTEXT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN GAUTENG 3

2.1 The legislative framework for protected area expansion 3

2.2 Policy framework for protected area expansion 5

2.3 The relationship of the NPAES to Gauteng Province 8

2.4 Biodiversity stewardship in South Africa and Gauteng 9

2.5 The ecological state of Gauteng 11

2.6 The consequences of not implementing the GPAES 20

3. THE GPAES – TWENTY-YEAR FOCUS 21

3.1 The Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy Vision 21

3.2 Twenty-year strategic outcomes 21

3.3 Protected area expansion targets and spatial priorities for Gauteng 22

3.4 Institutional arrangements for protected area expansion 30

3.5 Mechanisms for implementing protected area expansion 33

3.6 Projected costs for implementing the GPAES 37

4. FINANCIAL TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR PROTECTED AREA

EXPANSION 39

4.1 Public Funding 39 4.2 Private Funding 40 4.3 Other sources 41 4.4 Tools for implementing PAES 41

5. INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS 44 6. UPDATE OF GPAES 46

7. CONCLUSION 46

REFERENCES

T H E G A U T E N G P R O T E C T E D A R E A E X PA N S I O N S T R AT E G Y 2

ACRONYMS

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMF Environmental Management Framework

GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

GIS Geographical Information System

GPAES Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy

IDP Integrated Development Plan

MEC Member of the Executive Council

MPAES Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy

NBF National Biodiversity Framework

NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NPAES National Protected Area Expansion Strategy

NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment

PA Protected Area

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SDF Spatial Development Framework

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy focus areas

within Gauteng

7


within Gauteng – no 5,000 ha filter

9

Figure 2.3 Biodiversity stewardship categories 10

Figure 2.4 Levels of protection of vegetation types that occur within

Gauteng

12

Figure 2.5 Formally protected areas within Gauteng (provincial or

municipal nature reserves)

14

Figure 2.6 Gauteng irreplaceability layer (C-Plan Version 3) 15

Figure 2.7 Draft threatened ecosystem layer within Gauteng – original

extent (DEA 2009)

17

Figure 2.8 Draft threatened ecosystem layer within Gauteng – remaining

extent (DEA 2009)

17

Figure 2.9 Proportion of natural habitat loss within Gauteng 19

Figure 3.1 Focus areas for protected area expansion in Gauteng 26

Figure 3.2 Areas of 1,000ha or more that cover a range of elevations 27

Figure 3.3 Focus areas for protected area expansion, incorporating the

system of corridors contained in the Gauteng C-Plan, Version

3

28

Figure 3.4 Priorities may be identified on the basis of importance and

urgency (NPAES 2008)

29

Figure 3.5 GDARD organisational structure as it relates to biodiversity

conservation (SRK 2010)

30

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Levels of protection of vegetation types within Gauteng 13

Table 2.2 Summary statistics for the remaining extent of listed

threatened ecosystems (DEA 2009)

16

Table 2.3 Rates of habitat loss in Gauteng based on 1995 and 2009

landcover data

18

Table 3.1 Protected area expansion targets, per vegetation type for

Gauteng

23

Table 3.2 Suitable protected area expansion mechanisms for Gauteng 35

Table 3.3 Estimated land acquisition prices for protected area

expansion in Gauteng

38

DEFINTIONS OF KEY TERMS

Biodiversity target Explicit habitat and species targets determined through a systematic

biodiversity planning approach that refer to how much (defined as an area)

of each biodiversity feature should be protected to ensure it will persist.

Conservation area Areas set aside for the protection and maintenance of biological (and

heritage) diversity, but are not defined as „protected areas‟ in the National

Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003, as

amended). An example would be an informal conservancy established by a

group of landowners.

Biodiversity set-

aside

The setting aside of a proportion of a site proposed for development,

specifically for biodiversity conservation purposes.

Biodiversity

stewardship

The formal commitment of private landowners to conserve and effectively

manage the biodiversity on their land.

Ecological integrity Means the sum of the biological, physical and chemical components of an

ecosystem, and their interactions which maintain the ecosystem and its

products, functions and attributes.

Ecological

persistence

The maintenance or growth of population numbers of a species which

ensures that the species continues to exist in a given area and does not

decline and become locally extinct over time despite the influence of natural

perturbations..

Ecological resilience The ability of an ecosystem to return to a previous state after a perturbation

initial state without being pushed into a new state in which species are lost

or in which species assemblages and composition is permanently altered.

Ecological stability The ability of an ecosystem to remain stable over small short-lived

disturbances; the ability of an ecosystem to resist changes in species

composition and/or food web dynamics.

Ecologically viable Refers to an area that is capable of supporting and sustaining ecosystem

function and the persistence of species.

Effective

management

Provision of sufficient resources including time, people and funds to achieve

set management goals and objectives.

Extension services Provision of government support services to landowners in efforts to enable

them to manage their land responsibly.

National protected

area system

The national protected area system refers to a group of discrete but

physically separate, (formal) protected areas that collectively, achieve a

national conservation objective.

Natural habitat Habitat containing representative assemblages of plant species, typical of

described vegetation types, which has historically not been ploughed or

transformed in some other way.

Near-natural habitat Habitat containing representative assemblages of plant species, typical of

described vegetation types, which has historically not been ploughed or

transformed in some other way but which may be somewhat degraded, for

example through infestations of invasive plant species or through changes

in species composition as a result of grazing mismanagement.

Offset The protection of an off-site area to compensate for the residual impacts of

a proposed development once an impact management hierarchy of impact

avoidance, minimisation and mitigation has been adhered to.

Perturbation Is any externally imposed change in conditions, usually happening in a short

time period.

Protected area Means any of the protected areas referred to in Section 9 of the

Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003, as

amended). These include Special nature reserves, National Parks, Nature

Reserves, Protected Environments, World Heritage Sites, Marine Protected

Areas, Specially Protected Forest Areas (forest nature reserves, forest

wilderness areas), and Mountain Catchment Areas.

Protected area

target

The area of land that should be represented in the national or a provincial

protected area system by a certain date.

Transformed habitat Areas of previously natural or near-natural habitat that have been

transformed for other land use purposes, resulting in removal of vegetation

cover and alteration of the soil layer. This includes land that has been

ploughed for the purposes of crop production.

Un-fragmented

habitat

Natural habitat that forms an ecologically intact area that is not broken up by

human forms of development such as roads and infrastructure or

agricultural development such as the creation of croplands.


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy

Protected areas are fundamental to effective biodiversity conservation. A system of

protected areas must be representative and effectively secured and managed if biodiversity

is to persist in the long-term. A system of protected areas may also contribute towards the

mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change impacts on biodiversity.

The 2004 National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA, Driver et al. 2005)

demonstrated that South Africa‟s national protected area system has not been adequately

designed to maintain key ecological processes or to conserve a representative sample of

the country‟s biodiversity. The 2006 South Africa Environment Outlook (DEAT 2006)

identified that less than six percent of land in the country is formally protected and 110 out

of 447 vegetation types are not protected at all. In an effort to address this, a National

Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES, DEAT 2008) has been developed. The

purpose of the NPAES is to provide a national framework for the expansion and

consolidation of the protected area system, focussing on priority areas for representation

and persistence of biodiversity.

The NPAES identifies the need for the creation of finer-scale provincial protected area

expansion strategies, based on regional and local conservation imperatives. Within

Gauteng the conservation imperatives are different to those in any other province. Gauteng

is the country‟s smallest but most populous, urbanised and developed province. Much of

the natural habitat within Gauteng has been lost and many of the biodiversity priority areas

within the province are small, highly fragmented and under threat. Consequently it is

hugely challenging to undertake biodiversity conservation initiatives within Gauteng through

the acquisition of large areas of land, which means that strategic partnerships should be

developed between provincial government, the private sector and local government.

The purpose of the Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy (GPAES) is to provide the

framework for protected area expansion in Gauteng over 20 years, setting out key

strategies for protected area expansion and identifying spatial priorities and protected area

targets. A 5-year Implementation Plan will subsequently be developed, which will highlight

how protected area targets will be met for the period 2013/14 to 2018/19.

1.2 The importance of protected areas

South Africa has a remarkable diversity of ecosystems, plant and animal species,

landscapes and sites of archaeological, historical and cultural significance. There is a suite

of tools available to secure the conservation of these features but arguably the most

effective, reliable and secure tools are provided through the establishment of protected

areas. Within urban environments other tools play an important role that can complement

protected areas and these include regional and local planning tools such as Bioregional

Plans, Environmental Management Frameworks and Spatial Development Frameworks, as

well as other innovative tools such as the establishment of green servitudes, in which

environmental covenants over a specific area of a property are written into the property‟s

title deed.

Determining an appropriate value for protected areas is often difficult. This is because

environmental services such as the provision of clean, reliable water flows, productive soils,

pollination of crops, the cycling of nutrients and carbon sequestration are not properly

valued financially. Furthermore many of the values of protected areas are not fully tangible,

they relate to the aesthetics and character of a region and their values are often largely


emotional and psychological. Nonetheless, these values are important to healthy,

functioning landscapes and within an urban context, are an important aspect of the social

fabric of cities. Protected areas and open space in general provide opportunities to escape

the commotion of an urban environment and provide much of the basis for urban recreation

and leisure. This is why spatial development frameworks stipulate a proportion of open

space within their categories of permissible land-use types. Because of the value that

protected areas and open space in general give to the character of a region, their economic

importance includes the value that they give to property prices in their surrounds and their

importance in the social functioning of the societies around them.

Protected areas within Gauteng will play an important role in the protection of biodiversity

within the province, which besides being important to the ecological functioning of the

region will be important in fulfilling both national and international obligations related to

biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, they will be fundamental in maintaining ecological

infrastructure within Gauteng and in shaping the character and aesthetic appeal of the

province as it continues to develop and urbanise.


2. THE CONTEXT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN GAUTENG

2.1 The legis lative framework for protected area expansion

The NPAES identifies several mechanisms for protected area expansion. Key among

these is the negotiation of contractual arrangements with landowners. These will be

undertaken under the auspices of biodiversity stewardship programmes, in which

landowners formally commit to conserve and effectively manage the biodiversity on their

land. This would be implemented through contractual arrangements in which a property or

parts of it would be declared a protected area in terms of the Protected Areas Act.

Biodiversity Stewardship will form a key mechanism for protected area expansion in

Gauteng and the way it is implemented in the province is addressed in detail in Section 2.2

below.

2.1.1 The Protected Areas Act

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (No.57 of 2003) establishes

the legal basis for protected area expansion in South Africa, as its objectives include

provisions “for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of

South Africa‟s biological diversity and its natural landscapes”. The Act sets out the

mechanisms for the declaration of protected areas and the requirements for their

management. Of relevance to biodiversity stewardship:

Section 9 identifies the different types of protected areas, which make up South

Africa‟s protected area system, which include Nature Reserves and Protected

Environments.

Chapter 3 sets out the provisions for the declaration of protected areas and

mandates the minister or MEC with the authority to declare areas as protected

areas (which include Nature Reserves and Protected Environments) by way of

notice in the Government Gazette. With regard to biodiversity stewardship,

Chapter 3 includes the following provisions:

o A Nature Reserve or Protected Environment may only be declared if the

landowner has consented to the declaration by way of a written agreement

with the Minister or the MEC (Sections 23(3) and 28(3)).

o Section 28(2)(b) specifically makes provision for owners of land to take

collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land and to seek legal

recognition therefore through the declaration of their land as a Protected

Environment.

o Once an area has been designated as a Nature Reserve, the terms of the

agreement entered into between the landowner and the MEC are binding

on subsequent owners of the property and the terms of the agreement

must be recorded in a notarial deed and registered against the title deeds

of the property (Section 35(3)).

Chapter 4 sets out the management requirements for protected areas, which

includes terms for assigning the management of a nature reserve or a protected

environment to a suitable person, organisation or organ of state. With respect to

biodiversity stewardship, in most cases the management authority will be the

landowner unless he or she consents to management being undertaken by another

organisation or body.

Section 39 requires that the management authority assigned to a protected area

prepare and submit a management plan to the MEC for approval within 12 months

of the assignment. The objective of the management plan is to ensure the


protection, conservation and management of the protected area concerned in a

manner which is consistent with the objectives of the Act and the purpose for which

it was declared (Section 41(1)).

2.1.2 Relevant provis ions wi th in the Biodivers i ty Act

Section 44 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No.10 of 2004)

makes provision for the establishment of Biodiversity Management Agreements, which may

be entered into between the Minister of the Environment and a person, organisation or

organ of state for the implementation of a biodiversity management plan. Biodiversity

management plans should be aimed at ensuring the long-term survival in nature of a

particular species or ecosystem, which warrants special conservation attention. In terms of

the level of protection that such an agreement affords, a Biodiversity Management

Agreement does not contribute to protected area targets, is considered to have fewer

legally binding provisions than a protected environment or nature reserve and thus is

considered a less desirable tool for securing important biodiversity features.

Chapter 4 of the Biodiversity Act provides for the listing of threatened ecosystems in one of

four categories:

Critically Endangered (CR)

Endangered (EN)

Vulnerable (VU)

Protected.

The purpose of listing threatened ecosystems is to provide for the protection of ecosystems

that are threatened or in need of protection to ensure the maintenance of their ecological

integrity and to ensure that the utilisation of biodiversity within them is managed in an

ecologically sustainable way (Section 51).

The implications of listing an ecosystem include the following (DEA 2009):

Planning related implications, linked to the requirements in the Biodiversity Act for

listed ecosystems to be taken into account in municipal Integrated Development

Plans (IDPs) and Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs).

Environmental authorisation implications, in terms of the National Environmental

Management Act and environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations.

Proactive management implications, in terms of the Biodiversity Act.

Monitoring and reporting implications, in terms of the Biodiversity Act.

This means that an ecosystem‟s threatened status must be taken into account by local

authorities in their planning mechanisms. This requires that efforts be made to avoid

inappropriate types of development within such areas and where possible land uses that

would be compatible with biodiversity conservation, such as provision of open space,

should be located within them.

The environmental authorisation implications mean that, in general, higher levels of

assessment will be required within areas listed as threatened ecosystems and the triggers

for a basic assessment or a full scoping and EIA process will be more stringent than in

areas that are not listed as threatened. This means that the types of development

permissible in such areas should be limited and that environmental authorisations should

not be given to developments that undermine the integrity of threatened ecosystems.


Furthermore, provincial authorities are required to be cognisant of an ecosystem‟s

threatened status in preparing environmental management frameworks (EMFs) and in

providing environmental authorisations for particular developments.

2.1.3 Other lega l mechanisms for securing sensi t i ve habi tat

The principal legislation for the environmental authorisation of development is the National

Environmental Management Act (NEMA, No.107 of 1998). The Act sets out the

requirements for environmental assessment and provides the basis for stipulating

conditions that may be attached to an environmental authorisation. The conditions

stipulated may include measures to protect sensitive biodiversity features at the site of the

development and they may also include measures to offset the residual impact of a

proposed development that cannot be fully mitigated on-site. On-site sensitive biodiversity

features or offsets will typically be secured through the Protected Areas Act or other legal

mechanisms such as the creation of a conservation servitude. Such conditions are

potentially important in a province like Gauteng where a significant proportion of the natural

habitat has been lost and developmental pressures are especially high. There are

increasing examples of on-site conditions being stipulated that require comprehensive

measures for the protection of biodiversity and the use of offsets that may be utilised to

mitigate any residual impacts that cannot be fully mitigated on-site.

Such measures may be fundamentally important in the context of protected area expansion

in Gauteng, where demands for development may be accommodated whilst ensuring the

protection of sensitive biodiversity features and the achievement of protected area targets.

These measures and how they may be applied are discussed in greater detail in Section

3.5.2 below.

2.1.4 The legal mandate for pro tected area expansion

The Protected Area Act mandates the Minister of the Environment or the MEC of a

province, in whose portfolio provincial protected areas in the province fall, with the power to

declare areas as Nature Reserves or Protected Environments. Within Gauteng, the MEC

responsible for provincial protected areas is the MEC for Agriculture and Rural

Development. Her mandate for provincial protected areas is thus devolved from her to the

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). GDARD‟s mandate

includes biodiversity planning and biodiversity conservation outside of protected areas, in

accordance with the Biodiversity Act, which mandates the MEC with responsibility for the

preparation of bioregional plans that are consistent with the guidelines for Bioregional

Plans. Thus the MEC, and through her, GDARD are mandated with the responsibility for

any contractual arrangements which will be entered into with other parties for biodiversity

conservation in terms of the Protected Areas Act and the Biodiversity Act, which includes

biodiversity stewardship agreements with private landowners.

2.2 Policy framework for protected area expansion

The NPAES is one of the priority actions of the National Biodiversity Framework (NBF).

The National Biodiversity Framework is required to be prepared and implemented in terms

of the Biodiversity Act, and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP),

which has been developed as a requirement of South Africa being a signatory of the

Convention on Biological Diversity.


2.2.1 The Nat ional Biodivers i ty St rategy and Act ion Plan

One of the five strategic objectives of the NBSAP, which is particularly relevant to protected

area expansion, is the establishment of a network of protected areas and conservation

areas that “conserves a representative sample of biodiversity and maintains key ecological

processes across the landscape and seascape” (Strategic Objective 5). A number of

outcomes associated with this strategic objective are further relevant, including:

Biodiversity priority areas identified in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment

(NSBA) are refined in provincial, regional and local systematic biodiversity plans.

The protected area network is secured, expanded and managed to ensure that a

representative sample of biodiversity and key ecological processes are conserved.

Biodiversity is effectively managed in key ecological corridors and high priority

fragments of natural habitat across the landscape and seascape.

Under this last outcome, a number of activities are identified that are particularly relevant to

protected area expansion in Gauteng. These include:

Develop, publish and implement biodiversity management plans for threatened

ecosystems in terms of the Biodiversity Act, with private and communal

landowners as key role players.

Build the extension services in conservation agencies to engage more widely with

private and communal landowners

These two activities are consistent with the biodiversity stewardship measures

proposed in the NPAES, which focus efforts particularly on threatened

ecosystems.

Ensuring that threatened ecosystems, ecological corridors and other special

biodiversity features (such as wetlands and ridges) are given appropriate status in

Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs), and are adequately weighed in

decisions about changes in land-use.

SDFs are key landuse planning and decision-making tools of local government,

which may be critical in ensuring the incorporation of biodiversity priorities and

avoiding conflicts between development and biodiversity conservation in a highly

developed province like Gauteng.

Engage with major production sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, mining and

fisheries, in order to implement biodiversity set asides, development offsets and to

enhance operational standards in areas of high biodiversity importance, with

emphasis on long-term persistence of threatened ecosystems and key ecological

processes.

This activity identifies the responsibilities of the private sector, embraces the

concept of offsets and provides the basis for the setting of stringent development

conditions in areas of high biodiversity sensitivity, which are discussed further in

Section 3.5.2 below.

2.2.2 The Nat ional Biodivers i ty Framework

The NBF integrates the findings of the NSBA and NBSAP to focus attention on the

immediate priorities over five years, based on the strategic objectives of the NBSAP. The

NBF prioritises actions for Strategic Objective 5 for the period 2008 to 2012, of which the

following are relevant:


Finalise the 20-year protected area expansion strategy, underpinned by the

national biodiversity targets in the NSBA, refined for biomes and provinces.

Implement Phase 1 of the 20-year protected area expansion strategy.

Establish and strengthen provincial stewardship programmes.

2.2.3 The Nat ional Protected Area Expansion St rategy

The NPAES uses systematic biodiversity planning tools to identify and prioritise focus areas

where protected area expansion will contribute to meeting national biodiversity targets

(Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy focus

areas w ithin Gauteng


These include threatened ecosystems, which form part of the focus for national protected

area expansion. The NPAES provides the strategic framework for the development of

provincial protected area expansion strategies.

The NPAES envisages that the development of provincial protected area expansion

strategies and implementation plans will provide more explicit detail on the:

Identification and prioritisation of areas for expansion.

Preferred expansion mechanisms for these priority areas.

Suite of incentives used to support the preferred expansion mechanisms.

Identification and phasing of activities required to support expansion.

Financing of the expansion programme.

Monitoring and evaluation of expansion progress.

2.3 The relationship of the NPAES to Gauteng Province

Because the scale of the NPAES is at a national level, it focuses its efforts on large intact

and un-fragmented areas that are suitable for the creation or expansion of large protected

areas. Such areas must be larger than 5,000ha, which excludes highly fragmented and

transformed landscapes. Furthermore, the protected area targets of the NPAES are

focused on vegetation types, which may overlook other areas that are important for the

conservation of species. For example, in Gauteng, sensitive environments such as the

caves and karst systems in the north of the province would be excluded.

The NPAES acknowledges these shortcomings, identifying that successfully conserving its

focus areas would not affect the status of 12 currently under-protected vegetation types,

and 10 vegetation types would remain completely unprotected. The reasons for this are

that four of the vegetation types effectively have no remaining intact areas in un-fragmented

landscapes and the remaining vegetation types are either extremely fragmented or occur in

areas of high levels of transformation.

The focus of the NPAES on large intact and un-fragmented areas means that much of

Gauteng is excluded in determining spatial priorities for protected area expansion (Figure

2.1). At a provincial level, it is therefore necessary to take a finer-scale approach, in

determining protected area targets, if valuable biodiversity features are not to be excluded.

For this reason, in developing the GPAES, the NPAES spatial priority layer was used prior

to the application of the 5,000ha minimum size filter (Figure 2.2). This layer was combined

with identified threatened ecosystems and irreplaceability layers in the Gauteng C-Plan

Version 3 within untransformed habitat to form the basis of the spatial priority layer

determined for Gauteng.



within Gauteng – no 5 ,000 ha fi l ter

2.4 Biodiversi ty stewardship in South Africa and Gauteng

In accordance with the NPAES and consistent with protected area expansion efforts in

other provinces, biodiversity stewardship will form a key mechanism for protected area

expansion in Gauteng. GDARD and SANBI have developed a Gauteng Biodiversity

Stewardship Programme modelled on similar initiatives in other provinces, which is

consistent with the national biodiversity stewardship guidelines (DEA 2009) and the draft

biodiversity stewardship policy (DEA 2009). The purpose of the programme will be to


develop partnerships with private landowners to conserve important biodiversity features in

Gauteng.

The Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship Programme has adopted a set of guiding principles

that acknowledge the role of landowners and GDARD in establishing cooperative

partnerships aimed at securing key biodiversity resources. The programme acknowledges

the particular challenges in Gauteng, based around high population densities, high

economic development levels, high levels of land transformation and growing demands for

developable land. It identifies that a particular challenge associated with Gauteng is the

large number of landowners that own relatively small pieces of land. This contrasts with

other provinces where small numbers of landowners own relatively large areas of land,

which means that relatively fewer landowner agreements are required in priority areas in

other provinces. In examining the role of key stakeholders in the implementation of

stewardship within Gauteng, the programme identifies that local municipalities may act as

implementing agents for stewardship initiatives, thereby extending the reach of the

programme.

In accordance with stewardship in other areas, the Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship

Programme has four categories for potential stewardship sites (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3 Biodiversi ty stewardship categor ies

As increasing levels of legal protection are conferred to a site, increasing levels of

stewardship support are provided by GDARD. Increasing levels of legal protection are

conferred in the following order:

1) Conservation Area – an informal, flexible category that can apply to individual or

multiple properties, which does not include a legally binding agreement with

GDARD.

2) Biodiversity Agreement – a formalised agreement of five to 10 years between the

landowner and GDARD, supported by a management plan, in which the land is

managed to meet certain agreed-upon conservation objectives.

3) Protected Environment – a flexible legal mechanism that allows landowners and

GDARD to take collective action to conserve biodiversity through a formal


agreement, supported by a management plan, which establishes requirements for

conservation but does not preclude production on the land.

4) Nature Reserve – this category is reserved for sites with exceptionally high

biodiversity in which restrictions, lodged against the property‟s title deeds, are

imposed in terms of permissible development and activities.

The procedure for implementing biodiversity stewardship at the site-level involves the

identification of potential stewardship sites, followed by six sequential phases of site

engagement:

1) Initiation of landowner interactions.

2) Obtain landowners permission to proceed with step 3.

3) Site assessment and review.

4) Contract negotiation, draft management plan development and internal approval.

5) Formal proclamation (Protected Environment and Nature Reserve only).

6) Site support, monitoring and auditing.

At the same time that agreements are being negotiated, the development of a management

plan begins. Management plans are mandatory for all biodiversity stewardship categories

except Conservation Areas. Management plans set out the management objectives,

provide a framework for their achievement and assign responsibility for management

actions.

2.5 The ecological state of Gauteng

2.5.1 Levels of protec t ion wi th in the province

Within Gauteng vegetation types of the grassland and savanna biomes are represented

together with three azonal wetland types (Mucina and Rutherford 2006). At a national level,

most of the vegetation types, particularly those within the grassland biome, are very poorly

protected and within Gauteng the levels of natural habitat loss within these vegetation types

are generally high.

Protected area targets constitute the proportion of a vegetation type that must be protected

in order to ensure its adequate representivity and persistence. Such targets vary between

approximately 15-25% of the original extent of a vegetation type. Levels of protection relate

to the achievement of protected area targets for particular vegetation types. Very few of the

protected area targets for the vegetation types in Gauteng have been met and most of the

vegetation types are completely inadequately protected.

The protection level categories presented in Figure 2.4, below, are defined as follows:

Completely unprotected No formal protection

Very poorly protected Under 5% of PA target met

Poorly protected 5% to under 25% of PA target met

Partially protected 25% to under 100% of PA target met

Targets met Targets fully met


Figure 2.4 Levels of protect ion of vegetation types w ithin Gauteng

In Gauteng, one vegetation type, Frankfort Highveld Grassland may be considered to be

completely unprotected, eight vegetation types are very poorly protected, six are poorly

protected, two are partially protected and the protected area targets have been met for

three vegetation types2 (Table 2.1). The implications of this is that the levels of protection

2 Where protected area targets have been met, it is the result of protection of the vegetation type in another province

outside of Gauteng.


of vegetation types within Gauteng are in general poor to very poor with only a small

fraction of partial or complete target achievement.

Table 2.1 Levels of protection of vegetat ion type s that occur w ithin

Gauteng

Vegetation type Protected area target (%)

Percentage of area conserved

Protection status

Andesite Mountain Bushveld 24% 6.8% Poorly protected

Carletonville Dolomite Grassland 24% 1.8% Poorly protected

Central Free State Grassland 24% 0.8% Very poorly protected

Central Sandy Bushveld 19% 2.4% Poorly protected

Eastern Highveld Grassland 24% 0.003% Very poorly protected


Wetlands

24% 4.6% Poorly protected

Egoli Granite Grassland 24% 2.5% Poorly protected

Frankfort Highveld Grassland 24% >0% Completely unprotected

Gauteng Shale Mountain

Bushveld

24% 0.4% Very poorly protected

Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld 24% 22.1% Partially protected

Loskop Mountain Bushveld 24% 14.5% Partially protected

Marikana Thornveld 19% 0.7% Very poorly protected

Moot Plains Bushveld 19% 13% Poorly protected

Norite Koppies Bushveld 24% 0% Very poorly protected

Rand Highveld Grassland 24% 0.009% Very poorly protected

Soweto Highveld Grassland 24% 0.002% Very poorly protected

Springbokvlakte Thornveld 19% 1% Very poorly protected

Subtropical Freshwater Wetlands 24% 40-50% Targets met

Subtropical Salt Pans 24% 42% Targets met

Tsakane Clay Grassland 24% 1.5% Poorly protected


Sourveld

24% 27.2% Targets met

2.5.2 The pro tected area system wi th in Gauteng

Within Gauteng, there are a number of categories of conserved areas but only a few are

considered to be statutorily protected. The categories of conserved area include bird

sanctuaries, natural heritage sites and the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site.

Protected areas that may be considered statutorily protected include municipal and

provincial nature reserves, although in many instances these may also not have been

formally proclaimed (Figure 2.5).

Although the Cradle of Humankind is a formally proclaimed World Heritage Site, it is a

cultural site that has been proclaimed on the basis of its palaeontological features. This

does not restrict any forms of development on the basis of biodiversity conservation.


Figure 2.5 Formally protected areas w ithin Gauteng (provincial or

municipal nature reserves)

In comparison with Figure 2.5, previous version of the Gauteng C-Plan included a number

of areas that were not formally proclaimed protected areas such as South African National

Defence Force properties within its categories of Reserved Areas. This was misleading, as

these areas were not statutorily protected but were merely protected by the nature of their

land use, as in the case of the defence force land. These uses may change in the future

without due consideration to the protected area value of the land.


Figure 2.6 Gauteng irreplaceabi l i ty layer (C -Plan Version 3)

In examining the Gauteng C-Plan, it must be noted that, in many instances, areas that have

been identified as being of high ecological significance do not fall within or nearby to any

formally protected areas or areas identified as “Protected Areas” (Figure 2.6).


2.5.3 Threatened ecosystems wi th in Gauteng

Much of the original natural habitat within ecologically important areas has been lost,

resulting in significant reductions of their original extent, and they are under threat from

growing developmental pressures. This means that these areas are at risk of further loss of

natural habitat and fragmentation. As a result, a number of ecosystems within Gauteng

have been placed on the draft national list of threatened ecosystem (DEA 2009). Figure

2.7 provides a depiction of the original extent of the threatened ecosystems and Figure 2.8

provides a depiction of their remaining extent, demonstrating the levels of habitat loss that

have occurred within these ecosystems. The majority of the critically endangered

ecosystems are within the grassland biome but most of the province, with the exception of

a relatively large area in the north that is within the savanna biome, is under some form of

threat.

It is interesting to compare the proportions of the province that have been listed as

threatened with other provinces in the country (Table 2.1).

Table 2.2 Summary stat istics for the remaining extent of l is ted threatened

ecosystems (DEA 2009)

Critically Endangered

Endangered Vulnerable Total

000 ha % 000 ha % 000 ha % 000 ha %

Eastern Cape 4 0.0 51 0.3 588 3.5 643 3.8

Free State 2 0.0 383 3.0 1,049 8.1 1,433 11.0

Gauteng 99 6.0 95 5.8 189 11.4 384 23.2

KZN 224 2.4 464 5.0 1,164 12.5 1,852 19.9

Limpopo 9 0.1 123 1.0 536 4.3 668 5.3

Mpumalanga 6 0.1 634 8.3 2,226 29.1 2,866 37.5

Northern Cape 0 0.0 35 0.1 109 0.3 144 0.4

North West 186 1.8 452 4.3 1,309 12.3 1,947 18.3

Western Cape 374 2.9 154 1.2 1,083 8.4 1,611 12.5

South Africa 903 0.7 2,392 2.0 8,252 6.8 11,547 9.5

Gauteng has the highest proportion of Critically Endangered ecosystems and the second

highest proportion of Endangered ecosystems, after Mpumalanga. It also has the second

highest proportion of total land listed as threatened, after Mpumalanga, covering an area of

384,000 hectares, which constitutes 23.2% of the province. This provides a clear indication

of the levels of threat within Gauteng and the potential for considerable further land

transformation and loss of biodiversity integrity.


Figure 2.7 Draft threatened ecosystem layer w ithin Gauteng

– original extent (DEA 2009)

Figure 2.8 Draft threatened ecosystem layer w ithin

Gauteng – remaining extent (DEA 2009)


2.5.4 Rates of natural habi ta t loss wi th in Gauteng

There are a number of pressures and challenges on the priority areas, identified for

protected area expansion in Gauteng. The main pressures are associated with rates of

development within the province, related to demand for housing, the development of roads

and other infrastructure, and general economic development, urbanisation and

industrialisation. These pressures have led to the loss of a great deal of natural habitat

within Gauteng. Comparisons between 1995 and 2009 landcover data provide an

indication of the rates of natural habitat loss within the province (Table 2.2). Although some

of the changes may be accounted for by improvements in mapping techniques,

comparisons generally show highly increased rates of habitat loss between 1995 and 2009.

Table 2.3 Rates of habitat loss in Gauteng based on 1995 and 2009

landcover data

Vegetation type Area within Gauteng

Proportion of habitat lost in

1995

Proportion of habitat lost in

2009

Percentage habitat lost

between 1995 and 2009

Andesite Mountain Bushveld 72,856ha 13% 25% -12%

Carletonville Dolomite Grassland 264,580ha 41% 58% -17%

Central Free State Grassland 8,290ha 18% 73% -55%

Central Sandy Bushveld 182,693ha 24% 41% -17%

Eastern Highveld Grassland 35,196ha 70% 78% -8%


Wetlands

14,514ha 20% 23% -3%

Egoli Granite Grassland 109,251ha 68% 74% -6%

Frankfort Highveld Grassland 3,186ha 1% 95% -94%

Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld 85,495ha 21% 31% -10%

Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld 51,454ha 27% 30% -3%

Loskop Mountain Bushveld 35,223ha 1% 5% -4%

Marikana Thornveld 101,699ha 48% 61% -13%

Moot Plains Bushveld 40,249ha 49% 54% -5%

Norite Koppies Bushveld 4,138ha 17% 24% -7%

Rand Highveld Grassland 246,595ha 42% 57% -15%

Soweto Highveld Grassland 424,758ha 61% 70% -9%

Springbokvlakte Thornveld 28,751ha 23% 42% -19%

Subtropical Freshwater Wetlands 295ha 6% 14% 8%

Subtropical Salt Pans 9ha 0% 0% 0%

Tsakane Clay Grassland 107,342ha 46% 68% -22%


Sourveld

427ha 0% 1% -1%

TOTAL 1,817,001 43% 56% -13%


Between 1995 and 2009 229,953ha of natural habitat was transformed for the purposes of

other land use. This represents a loss of 13% of natural habitat within a 15 year period. As

a result, over 56% of the natural habitat in Gauteng has been lost, leaving only 798,397ha

of land in a natural or semi-natural state (Figure 2.9). Of the remaining land that is in a

natural or semi-natural state, much of it is highly fragmented and subdivided amongst many

landowners. Many of the grassland vegetation types, in particular, have experienced high

rates of natural habitat loss, resulting in the loss of considerably more than 50% of their

original extent. Given the rates of habitat loss, which appear to be increasing, it is likely

that virtually no natural habitat will remain within Gauteng by 2050.

Figure 2.9 Proport ion of natural habitat loss w ithin Gauteng


The opportunities to secure natural habitat for protected area expansion within the province

are limited and such land that falls within a Level 1 priority area, as defined in Section 3.3.2

below, is likely to be highly fragmented. As a result, consideration must be given to the role

of degraded or semi-degraded natural habitat in the areas that surround priority areas of

pristine natural habitat. In some instances, it may be desirable to secure degraded or even

transformed land to act as buffers next to areas of natural habitat and to maintain the

connectivity between areas of natural habitat.

2.6 The consequences of not implementing the GPAES

The description of the ecological state of Gauteng provides a stark picture of a province in

which a great deal of natural habitat has been lost and what remains is highly fragmented

and under considerable threat from growing developmental pressures. Much of the

biodiversity within Gauteng is compromised and it is likely that key ecological processes

such as the functioning of water resources, the maintenance of productive soils, pollination

and nutrient cycling are under considerable stress. It is clear that unless a great deal of

effort is put into implementing the GPAES and securing key biodiversity resources, rates of

local species loss will accelerate and the ecological integrity of the province will be greatly

undermined.


3. THE GPAES – TWENTY-YEAR FOCUS

3.1 The Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy Vision

The following vision has been adopted for the Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy:

Expansion of the protected area system in Gauteng is undertaken in a strategic,

targeted fashion to ensure the persistence of key biodiversity features and

ecological processes within the province.

In an effort to achieve this vision, the GPAES provides a strategic framework for the

coordination of protected area expansion efforts. A fundamental principle of protected area

expansion efforts is that they must contribute towards meeting the biodiversity targets of the

Gauteng C-Plan and other systematic assessments such as the NSBA. Not all biodiversity

targets will however be secured within protected areas. For example, it may not be

appropriate to secure areas where natural habitat has been lost, such as croplands, which

provide forage for threatened species at certain times of the year, within protected areas.

Efforts in these areas may be more appropriately dealt with through biodiversity

management agreements for the species concerned or through local planning mechanisms

that prevent changes of land-use. The focus of protected area expansion within Gauteng

will be to:

Secure priority areas of natural or near-natural habitat for representation and

persistence of biodiversity.

Secure water resources and other areas of key ecological functionality to ensure

acceptable standards of ecosystem health and species diversity are.

Establish a system of ecological corridors, which will potentially include areas of

degraded habitat that facilitate the movement and dispersal of key species across

Gauteng and between adjoining provinces.

Consider the implications of climate change and how the protected area system

can be designed to allow for its impacts.

3.2 Twenty-year strategic outcomes

The vision describes the desired outcome of the GPAES. In order to realise the vision, a

set of strategic outcomes have been identified.

1) Protected areas within Gauteng are legally secured and appropriate structures are

instituted to ensure that they are effectively managed.

The status of existing protected areas within Gauteng must be determined to ensure

that they are all accurately defined, mapped, and formally proclaimed. The

administration of these areas must be reviewed to determine if they are being

effectively managed. This will enable a proper understanding of their contribution

towards protected area targets.

2) In order to establish a fully representative protected areas system, 30,800ha and

166,800ha of habitat are formally secured within Gauteng in five and 20 years

respectively..

In order for Gauteng to meet its five- and 20-year targets for contribution to the

National Protected Area Expansion Strategy, protected area targets have been set for

individual vegetation types within the province. Collectively these targets make up the


166,800ha that must be formally protected within the province within the next 20

years.

3) Priority areas for protected area expansion are determined and secured utilising

appropriate spatial tools

The Gauteng C-Plan is the primary tool within the province that can provide explicit

biodiversity targets and identify spatial priorities to ensure the persistence of

biodiversity. In addition other tools and data such as land cover, threatened

ecosystem layers and bioregional plans may be utilised to further inform the

determination of spatial priorities. As the Gauteng C-Plan is updated, spatial priorities

within the province can be re-evaluated and updated. This will enable each 5-year

implementation plan to focus on priority properties to be targeted for protected area

expansion within priority spatial areas.

4) GDARD is appropriately resourced and enabled to effectively implement the GPAES.

GDARD will be responsible for the expansion of protected areas within Gauteng.

Structures must be established within GDARD and resources must be committed to

enable its Biodiversity Stewardship Programme to be effectively implemented. This

will ensure that protected area expansion efforts are coordinated across the province

and that GDARD has adequate capacity to implement the GPAES.

5) Protected area expansion mechanisms, appropriate to Gauteng, are developed and

implemented in consolidating and expanding the protected area system.

The primary mechanism for protected area expansion in Gauteng will be biodiversity

stewardship. Given the pressures on land within the province, other opportunities to

secure land through such mechanisms as the environmental authorisation process

must be considered and implemented.

6) Awareness is created around the importance of protected area expansion in Gauteng

and the need to secure key biodiversity features.

The importance of protected area expansion for meeting biodiversity targets and

maintaining ecological processes within Gauteng must be communicated to key

stakeholders within government and the private sector, and to the broader public, as

their support will be vital to the success of the GPAES.

7) Monitoring and reporting structures are instituted which enable the effective

implementation of the GPAES.

Monitoring and reporting mechanisms, measured against the national and provincial

protected area expansion targets, will be developed. The achievement of biodiversity

objectives will be evaluated and periodically reported on.

3.3 Protected area expansion targets and spatia l pr iori t ies for

Gauteng

3.3.1 Protected area expansion targets for Gauteng

The NPAES includes 20-year (2028) and 5-year (2012/13) protected area expansion

targets for South Africa. Initially for Gauteng, the NPAES 20-year target was 1,518km2 but

the area of Gauteng was increased with the addition of the Merafong region. Accordingly,

the protected area targets have been adjusted proportionally in those vegetation types that


have increased in extent within the province. Accordingly, the 20year-target for Gauteng is

1,668km2 (or 166,800ha) and the 5-year target is 380km

2 (or 38,000ha), which constitutes

9.2% and 1.7% of the province respectively. The 20-year targets have been translated for

individual vegetation types, based on the proportion of the vegetation type within Gauteng

and the corresponding pro rata proportion that must be protected within the province to

meet the national protected area target (Table 3.1). Protected area targets of zero hectares

are shown for some of the vegetation types, as the national protected area target has

already been met within the particular vegetation type, outside of Gauteng.

Table 3.1 Protected area expansion targets, per vegetat ion type for

Gauteng

Vegetation type Original extent within

Gauteng

Remaining extent within

Gauteng

Gauteng province’s 5-year portion

of the NPAES target

Gauteng province’s

20-year portion of the NPAES target

Target percentage of

remaining vegetation

Largest un-transformed

fragment

Andesite Mountain Bushveld 72,856ha 54,921ha 136ha 545ha 1% 11,697ha

Carletonville Dolomite Grassland 264,580ha 109,881ha 5,249ha 20,997ha 19% 35,866ha

Central Free State Grassland 8,290ha 2,255ha 265ha 1,058ha 47% 356ha

Central Sandy Bushveld 182,693ha 107,970ha 3,034ha 12,134ha 11% 66,388ha

Eastern Highveld Grassland 35,196ha 7,581ha 1,147ha 4,586ha 60% 543ha


Wetlands

14,514ha 11,191ha 354ha 1,417ha 13% 2,471ha

Egoli Granite Grassland 109,251ha 28,226ha 2,361ha 9,445ha 33% 3,426ha

Frankfort Highveld Grassland 3,186ha 174ha 102ha 407ha 234% 8ha

Gauteng Shale Mountain

Bushveld

85,495ha 58,948ha 1,664ha 6,657ha 11% 36,346ha

Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld 51,455ha 35,954ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 5,942ha

Loskop Mountain Bushveld 35,223ha 33,377ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 11,305ha

Marikana Thornveld 101,699ha 39,719ha 2,524ha 10,097ha 25% 14,437ha

Moot Plains Bushveld 40,249ha 18,607ha 781ha 3,122ha 17% 7,242ha

Norite Koppies Bushveld 4,138ha 3,141ha 136ha 544ha 17% 1,244ha

Rand Highveld Grassland 246,595ha 106,059ha 7,294ha 29,174ha 28% 20,340ha

Soweto Highveld Grassland 424,758ha 128,099ha 13,891ha 55,563ha 43% 8,834ha

Springbokvlakte Thornveld 28,751ha 16,764ha 561ha 2,245ha 13% 7,290ha

Subtropical Freshwater Wetlands 295ha 255ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 51ha

Subtropical Salt Pans 9ha 9ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 9ha

Tsakane Clay Grassland 107,342ha 34,845ha 2,205ha 8,820ha 25% 2,053ha


Sourveld

427ha 423ha 0ha* 0ha* 0% 269ha

TOTAL 1,817,002 798,397ha 41,704ha 166,811ha 21% –

* 0ha is indicated where the national target has already been met outside of Gauteng

In examining the national protected area targets for Gauteng, it is significant to note that a

high proportion of the remaining natural habitat in several vegetation types must be secured


if the protected area targets are to be met. For example, 60% of the remaining natural

habitat of Eastern Highveld Grassland and 47% of Central Free State Grassland must be

secured to meet the NPAES protected area targets. In the case of Frankfort Highveld

Grassland, the NPAES protected area target cannot be met as it exceeds the amount of

remaining natural vegetation left in Gauteng. Furthermore, the levels of fragmentation in

many of the vegetation types are such that securing viable protected areas within them may

be a challenge. For example, the largest remaining fragment of Frankfort Highveld

Grassland within Gauteng is just eight hectares and the largest fragment of Central Free

State Grassland is just 356 hectares. These are important considerations in determining

the spatial priorities and the urgency of securing them for protected area expansion in

Gauteng. In the cases of both Frankfort Highveld Grassland and Central Free State

Grassland, it is necessary to acknowledge that the target can only be met with great

difficulty within Gauteng. It is thus likely that the target may only be met in another

province, such as the Free State, in which sufficient un-fragmented habitat is available.

This will require cooperation between the Gauteng provincial government and its provincial

neighbours. This is an issue that must be specifically addressed within each of the GPAES

five-year implementation plans.

3.3.2 Spat ia l pr ior i t ies for protected area expansion in Gauteng

There are a number of data sources and tools that may be utilised to determine spatial

priorities for protected area expansion in Gauteng. Issues associated with the spatial scale

in which the NPAES spatial priority layer was developed have been overcome by using the

GIS layer which was generated prior to removing fragments of land less than 5,000ha in

extent. The Gauteng C-Plan, Version 3, prepared through a systematic biodiversity

planning approach, is able to identify the gaps in the protected area system relative to

biodiversity priorities in the province, which highlights the provincial conservation priorities

for achieving biodiversity targets for various biodiversity features represented in the

province.

Several biodiversity data sources were utilised and interpreted in determining the spatial

priorities for protected area expansion in Gauteng:

The NPAES spatial priority layer, without removing fragments of land smaller than

5,000ha removed.

The Gauteng C-Plan Version 3, irreplaceability layer.

The draft Threatened Ecosystem layer, showing the remaining extent of threatened

ecosystems.

The 2009 land cover layer, focussing on the largest remaining fragments of natural

or near-natural habitat within each vegetation type.

These were used to establish the spatial priority areas that will guide the GPAES to achieve

the provincial and national protected area expansion targets over the next 20 years.


In prioritising the GPAES spatial layer, the following categories have been adopted:

Level 1 The largest intact areas in which the C-Plan Version 3 irreplaceability layer,

NPAES spatial priority layer and threatened ecosystem layer overlap in areas

of natural habitat.

Level 2 The largest intact areas in which two of the three layers overlap in areas of

natural habitat.

Level 3 The largest intact areas within one of the three layers in areas of natural

habitat.

It should be noted that although the largest intact areas within vegetation types has formed

the basis for the focus areas identified, the primary aim of this has been to meet the

protected area targets set. This does not preclude the creation of protected areas that

encompass more than one vegetation type. The most desirable protected areas will be

large intact areas of natural habitat that cover a range of altitudes and topographies, which

encompass a variety of vegetation types.

The total area for the three priority levels is 344,190ha. A considerably larger area has

been selected than the 20-year protected area target of 166,800ha, as it is unlikely that all

private landowners in Gauteng will agree to have their land proclaimed as a protected area

under the Protected Areas Act. Accordingly, all viable areas for protected area expansion

have been identified.

The technical process to identify priority sites for protected area expansion in Gauteng involved the following steps:

Selection of all important and irreplaceable areas within the Gauteng C-Plan Version 3.

Merging the layer with the NPAES spatial priority layer, prior to the removal of fragments of land smaller than 5,000ha.

Merging of the layer with the Threatened Ecosystem layer for Gauteng, showing the remaining extent of threatened ecosystems.

Removing all transformed habitat, as identified in the 2009 Land Cover layer, focussing on the largest remaining fragments within each vegetation type.

o This was achieved by selecting all fragments greater than 400ha in extent.

o In vegetation types in which there were less than three 400ha fragments, the three largest fragments were selected.


Figure 3.1 Focus areas for protected area expansion in Gauteng


3.3.3 Adaptat ion to c l imate change

In determining the focus areas for protected area expansion in Gauteng, consideration has

been given to how the protected area system can be designed to accommodate climate

change. In general intact ecosystems that contain largely un-fragmented natural or near-

natural habitat are more likely to be able to withstand stresses such as those associated

with climate change than ecosystems that are highly modified and fragmented.

Accordingly, focus areas for protected area expansion have concentrated on the largest

intact fragments within and across vegetation types that incorporate the greatest altitudinal

gradients and topographical range, in an effort to conserve climatic gradients that can

enable species and ecosystems to adapt to climate change (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Areas of 1 ,000ha or more that cover a range of e levations

An important aspect of climate change adaptation is the maintenance of connectivity within

the landscape to enable the movement of species, as ecological conditions change. In


efforts to ensure connectivity between ecosystems within Gauteng and outside of the

province, the Gauteng C-Plan, Version 3, includes a system of corridors designed to enable

the movement of species in response to climate change and to enable natural migratory

patterns. These corridors are depicted in Figure 3.3, which provides the complete spatial

layer for protected area expansion in Gauteng.

Figure 3.3 Focus areas for PA expansion, incorporat ing the system of

corr idors contained in the Gauteng C -Plan, Version 3


3.3.4 Urgency of securing areas

Given the demands for land in Gauteng and the pressures that exist on its natural habitat, it

must be determined where efforts to secure land are most urgently required. Figure 3.4

(NPAES 2008) illustrates the relationship between the importance of an area and the

urgency required to secure it.

Figure 3.4 Prior it ies may be identi f ied on the basis of importance

and urgency (NPAES 2008)

The NPAES describes urgency as the extent to which spatial options for meeting protected

area targets still exist. If there are a number of places within a vegetation type in which

targets may be met, spatial options still exist. However, if very little of the vegetation type

remains intact and the options for securing protected area targets are limited, then spatial

options are limited and protected area expansion is more urgent. In areas in which

developmental pressures are high, usually linked to expanding urbanisation, there are likely

to be few large intact areas of natural habitat where protected area targets may be met and

the urgency of protected area expansion is high. In such areas, it is important to secure the

last remaining areas suitable for meeting protected area targets whilst they still exist.

As the NPAES explains, protected area expansion efforts may not necessarily be most

effective in those areas which are the most important and urgent for meeting protected area

targets. If efforts focus only on those areas that are important and urgent, opportunities to

secure protected areas where there are more options may be lost. The most urgent areas

are likely to be problematic to secure, which may lead to a great deal of effort being wasted

in securing them. Furthermore, in areas that are currently not urgent, the number of

options for meeting protected area targets may be reducing. It may therefore be more

effective to secure areas of high importance but lower urgency, before opportunities for

development of significant and viable reserves is lost as a result of growing developmental

pressures.


As the landscape becomes more fragmented, the ability to create relatively large protected

areas is lost. It is important to focus efforts on the creation of viable large protected areas

within vegetation types that are currently the most intact. This does not mean that the most

urgent areas should be ignored but it must be acknowledged that efforts in these areas

need to be focussed, taking into account the resources and levels of effort required to

secure them. As the NPAES identifies, other tools for biodiversity conservation, such as

bioregional plans and listing of threatened ecosystems, are particularly important in areas

of high importance and urgency and may be more effective in terms of expenditure of

resources and effort in securing their biodiversity values.

Protected area expansion efforts within Gauteng should therefore focus on the largest

intact areas of natural habitat where protected area targets may be met. It is particularly

important that this concept of importance and urgency be considered and applied in

determining priorities for protected area expansion in each of the 5-year Implementation

Plans that will be developed for protected area expansion in the province.

3.4 Insti tutional arrangements for protected area expansion

As discussed in Section 2.1.4 above, GDARD is mandated with protected area expansion

and associated functions, such as biodiversity stewardship, within Gauteng. The

department has a number of responsibilities, including agriculture, veterinary services,

natural resource management, conservation, environmental planning and impact

assessment, and integrated waste management and pollution abatement. In order to carry

out these functions, GDARD is organised into 10 branches, each led by a Chief Director.

The branches are composed of programmes, which in turn comprise a number of sub-

programmes (Figure 3.5).

3.4.1 The Nature Conservat ion Directora te

The directorate responsible for protected area expansion is the Nature Conservation

Directorate (which falls within the Sustainable Use of the Environment Branch). Its core

purpose is to promote the sustainable utilisation and the conservation of biological diversity

in the Gauteng province. This includes the management of provincial protected areas,

regulation of the use of biodiversity resources through the permit system, and the

development and implementation of a conservation plan for the Province.

Figure 3.5 GDARD organisat ional structure as i t relates to

biodiversi ty conservation (SRK 2010)

MEC

HOD

DDG Natural Resource Management

Chief Director Vet Services & SRM

Chief Director Sustainable Use of the Environment

Chief Director Agriculture

Director Nature Conservation


3.4.2 Implementat ion of the Biodivers i ty Stewardship Programme

The implementation and coordination of the GPAES is currently undertaken within the

Nature Conservation Directorate. The functions and responsibilities within the directorate

will be further developed through the GPAES Implementation Plan for the period 2013/14 –

2018/19.

In order to function effectively, the Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship Unit is supported by

other divisions of GDARD, especially the Sustainable Resource Management Directorate,

Corporate Legal Services Directorate, the Technological Services Sub-Directorate, the

Knowledge and Project Management Branch and the Communications Directorate. They

provide legal and scientific input, support to stewardship sites and marketing assistance.

Of particular significance are the Land Care and Expanded Public Works Programme

projects of the Sustainable Resource Management Directorate. These programmes focus

on the development of best practice in natural resource management and the transfer of

knowledge and skills. Activities include burning of firebreaks, alien vegetation control

through the Working for Water Programme, coordination of the Working on Fire and the

Working on Waste Programmes, soil conservation measures to combat natural resource

degradation, rehabilitation of wetlands and awareness and capacity building workshops.

A Biodiversity Stewardship Working Group, comprising senior-level representatives from

GDARD, including those responsible for Technological Services and Bioregional Planning,

Resource Management, Agriculture, Land Care, Expanded Public Works and

Environmental Planning and Impact Assessment, has been established. Other

representatives include municipalities and NGOs implementing biodiversity stewardship,

the SANBI Grasslands Programme Urban Task team and the Department of Environmental

Affairs. The working group meets bi-monthly and is responsible for:

Setting the policy and strategic direction of the programme.

Positioning the programme within GDARD and Gauteng.

Financial management oversight and resourcing requirements.

Human resource issues.

Developing key partnerships.

Endorsing qualifying sites, and significant changes to procedures.

Endorsing the marketing and branding strategy for the programme.

It is anticipated that the structures that have been established for the implementation of the

Biodiversity Stewardship Programme will be utilised in implementing the GPAES.

3.4.3 Further development of the Biodivers i ty Stewardship Programme

The Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship Unit, which is responsible for the implementation of

the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme, has recently had a dedicated Deputy Director

appointed. This structure acknowledges the importance of biodiversity stewardship in the

implementation of the GPAES and is consistent with biodiversity stewardship programmes

in other provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga, which have both created

dedicated units within their provincial structures.

Experience in implementing protected area expansion strategies and biodiversity

stewardship programmes in other provinces has shown that additional capacity is required

within GDARD in the areas of scientific services, provision of extension or stewardship


services and legal expertise. Issues surrounding the need for additional capacity need to

be clarified through the GPAES Implementation Plan (2013/14 – 2018/19).

The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency identified the following institutional

requirements in planning for the implementation of the Mpumalanga Protected Area

Expansion Strategy, which will be relevant in the implementation of the GPAES:

Protected Area

Expansion

Establish a committee to coordinate the process between all the sections within

the agency and give feedback on the progress (this role will be fulfilled by the

Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship Working Group).

Identify willing landowners for inclusion and liaise with Scientific Services on the

biodiversity status of the areas.

Ensue effective reporting on progress of the implementation of the strategy.

Resolve land issues with regard to expansion – e.g. coordination of land owners.

Drive the legal process with regard to the proclamation of the areas.

Drive the management planning process.

Determine financial implications of the expansion process – as a whole.

Monitor market trends of property values in target areas.

Provide continual support to the management committees of the protected areas.

Protected area expansion planning, financing, coordination and consultation.

Pursue the vesting of state land to GDARD.

Scientific

Services

Collect data on which areas are suitable for protected area expansion.

Advice on the suitability of selected areas for proclamation under the Protected

Areas Act – ecological site assessment.

Advise on development of management plans.

Monitor and advise on management effectiveness of protected areas.

Advise on any amendments to the management plans.

Advise/monitor on attainment of goals/objectives of management plans.

Regional

Management

and Existing

Nature Reserves

Identify potential landowners interested in protected area expansion.

Conduct initial assessment of biodiversity value of identified land.

Protected area managers will be responsible for coordinating management

planning, raising awareness about the biodiversity of land, development of

tourism and management infrastructure, implementation and consultation.

Extension

Services

Extension staff should be assisting Regional Managers to identify potential sites

and provide biodiversity extension services.

In the case of GDARD, this should be done in conjunction with the Land Care

and Expanded Public Works Programme projects of the Sustainable Resource

Management Directorate.

Law

Enforcement

Roles must be more clearly defined with regard to PA Expansion and

stewardship.

These staff do engage regularly with landowners to issue permits, etc. and could

assist with Stewardship, but would need to adjust their extension approach.

Governance and

Compliance

Regulatory Services – role in the declaration process.

Legal services – must review contracts and advise CEO/Board


3.4.4 Suppor t ex ternal to GDARD

The support of external partners and key stakeholders will also be critical to the successful

implementation of the GPAES. There will be a need to coordinate and align plans for

protected area expansion with neighbouring provinces and other strategic partners

including DEA, SANBI, local and district municipalities, and conservation, environmental

and development NGOs.

The primary partners for protected area expansion and biodiversity stewardship will be the

various private landowners on whose land the priority biodiversity is located. These

biodiversity priorities will be secured through their willingness to set aside land as protected

areas, and to enter into relevant contractual arrangements to ensure that these biodiversity

priorities receive the appropriate amount of management effort.

3.5 Mechanisms for implementing protected area expansion

3.5.1 Biodivers i ty s tewardship

Biodiversity stewardship has been identified as the primary mechanism to expand the

protected area network within Gauteng. Given the costs of land in the province and a lack

of funding for protected area expansion, it is unlikely that resources will be available to

effectively expand the protected area system through land acquisitions. Accordingly,

biodiversity stewardship, which relies on partnering with private landowners to secure key

biodiversity resources and spatial priority areas, provides the most realistic option to secure

areas of important habitat for biodiversity conservation.

3.5.2 Addi t ional mechanisms for securing land

Given the developmental pressures within Gauteng, innovative mechanisms to secure land,

whilst facilitating appropriate forms of development, should be considered. Mechanisms

such as offsets have become increasingly accepted, as demonstrated by the development

of a national offsets policy, and there are precedents within Gauteng for biodiversity set-

asides, in which a portion of an area approved for development is set-aside for biodiversity

conservation. Within spatial priority areas, identified in the GPAES, such mechanisms

should be applied through the environmental authorisation process and should be

stipulated in planning tools such as EMFs, Bioregional Plans and SDFs.

Within spatial priority areas, as far as possible, all natural or near-natural habitat should be

excluded from development. An innovative approach to planning in these areas should be

adopted by provincial and local government and the private sector should be engaged in an

effort to garner support for a process that will enable development whilst securing key

biodiversity resources. To a large extent, the development of bioregional plans, in

accordance with the Biodiversity Act, provides the mechanism to achieve this. It should be

made clear that spatial priority areas are to be excluded from development but that

opportunities for appropriate forms of development will be supported in areas in which the

natural habitat has already been lost that serve little ecological function. The principles for

development within spatial priority areas should be to:

Ensure that spatial priority areas are secured and excluded from inappropriate

forms of development.

Ensure that appropriate forms of land-use are encouraged in the surrounds of

spatial priority areas in an effort to buffer them from external impacts.

Maintain a connected protected area system in which corridors such as riparian

zones and ridges, which connect spatial priority areas, are appropriately protected.


Encourage appropriate forms of economic development, which meet regional

socio-economic needs and are ecologically sustainable.

The use of biodiversity set-asides and maximum development footprints within a property

must be carefully considered, as it may, in many instances, be possible to enable high

density development on parts of a site whilst protecting the bulk of the land for biodiversity

conservation. The environmental authorisation process may be used to stipulate a

maximum footprint and biodiversity set-aside, and may also stipulate that the developer

proclaim these areas as protected environments or nature reserves. The environmental

authorisation process may also be used to stipulate that the developer engage with the

Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship Programme in this process and that the full costs for the

creation of the protected area be borne by the developer.

Through planning instruments such as IDPs and SDFs, it may be possible to stipulate

conditions that would be imposed for development within GPAES spatial priority areas.

These conditions could be replicated within environmental authorisations, which would

legally compel developers to implement them. Such conditions could include:

A maximum development footprint within GPAES spatial priority areas, the

remainder of which must be managed as a biodiversity set-aside. The proportion

of the set-aside should be based on the biodiversity value and ecological attributes

of the site. If the site contains natural or near-natural habitat that is largely intact,

the following minimum set-aside ratios should be applied:

o Level 1 priority areas – ≥ 95% of the developable area should be set aside

for biodiversity conservation. Such areas must be identified and approved

in plans submitted for environmental authorisation.







A mandatory requirement for offsets within GPAES spatial priority areas. Such

offsets could stipulate ratios, which should be consistent with the ratios set out in

the national offsets policy, currently being developed by DEA and SANBI, and in

the provincial offsets policy being developed by GDARD. The offset ratios applied

should consider the sensitivity of the land in question, based on its priority level,

i.e. whether it is within a level 1, 2 or 3 priority level area.

As the paramount environmental legislation within South Africa, NEMA provides the basis

for all environmental planning, management and decision-making, which must be

considered within the context of its principles (s.2). Critically, this requires that levels of

development do not exceed the point beyond which ecosystem integrity is jeopardised

(NEMA – s.2(4)(a)(vi)). Furthermore, NEMA stipulates that the costs of pollution and

environmental degradation must be fully borne by those responsible for harming the

environment (s.2(4)(p)). These principles form the legal basis for offsets, biodiversity set-

asides, the exclusion of inappropriate land-use within GPAES spatial priority areas and

provide a sound basis for implementing financial mechanisms that ensure the protection of

GPAES spatial priorities.


3.5.3 Innovat ive f inancial mechanisms

Through implementation of the biodiversity stewardship programme, several fiscal incentive

mechanisms already exist for securing land. These include exclusion from property rates in

terms of the Municipal Property Rates Act (No.6 of 2004) if private land is proclaimed as a

nature reserve. Furthermore, following discussion between DEAT and the National

Treasury, the Revenue Laws Amendment Act (No.60 of 2008) allows for deductions from

taxable income for the maintenance costs of protected areas and the capital costs of nature

reserves.

Further innovative financial mechanisms should be considered within priority spatial areas.

Options that may be considered include the stipulation, through environmental

authorisations, of contributions towards conservation trust funds, established to support the

implementation of the GPAES. This is consistent with the mechanisms identified in the

NPAES and is being considered as part of protected area expansion strategies in other

provinces. In examining options for such funds it has generally been agreed that they be

administered by a suitable NGO to ensure that the funds are spent directly on biodiversity

conservation initiatives. Other financial mechanisms that should be considered include a

review of municipal rates in spatial priority areas that make it prohibitive for inappropriate

types of land-use but that encourage appropriate land-uses. This may not be achieved in

the short-term but must be considered over the twenty-year life of the GPAES.

Through planning instruments such as IDPs and SDFs, it may be possible to stipulate

financial conditions, including mandatory contributions to conservation trust funds, which

would be imposed for development within GPAES spatial priority areas. As with offsets and

biodiversity set-asides these conditions could be replicated within environmental

authorisations, which would legally compel developers to implement them. Conditions

could include a mandatory requirement for contributions towards a conservation trust fund,

based on the size of a property, the nature of the land-use proposed and the area of natural

or near-natural habitat within the property

3.5.4 Summary of protected area expansion mechanisms

The NPAES considered several mechanisms for protected area expansion, most of which

may be applied in Gauteng. These were considered, summarised and tabulated in the

Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy (MPAES, 2009). The table produced in

the MPAES has been adapted for Gauteng in Table 3.2 below. It is unlikely that land

acquisition options will be applied in the short-term but they may become more important as

the GPAES is implemented over its 20-year timeframe.

Table 3.2 Suitable protected area expansion mechanisms for Gauteng

Proposed mechanism

Options Issues Details of mechanism

Consolidate

and formalise

existing

protected

area system

National and

provincial

protected areas

National and provincial protected

areas have been proclaimed under

various pieces of legislation.

Investigate status with regard to

proclamation and vesting of all

protected areas.

Conduct an audit of all known

national and provincial protected

areas. Determine status in respect of

old and new legislation. Consider

options for formalisation and

consolidation.


Table 3.2 (cont.)

Proposed mechanism


Consolidate

and formalise

existing

protected

area system

Private nature

reserves

Investigate the status of all private

nature reserves with regard to legal

proclamation.

Conduct audit of all known private

nature reserves. Determine status in

respect of old and new legislation.

Consider options for formalisation

and consolidation.

Cradle of

Humankind World

Heritage site

Investigate status with regard to

these designated areas.

Explore all potential consolidation,

formalisation and expansion

possibilities and apply most suitable

mechanisms.

Land

acquisition:

Through

purchase,

donation, or

transfer.

Some may be

subject to

biodiversity

stewardship

arrangements

instead of

GDARD

taking

ownership

and

management

responsibility.

Fund for land

acquisition

Where sufficient funding is available,

options for the purchase of land for

the purpose of establishing protected

areas or consolidation of existing

protected areas.

Compile detailed implementation

plans for land acquisition and

prioritise these according to criteria.

Consider the option of a conservation

fund, administered by an NGO.

National and

provincial public

works

Fragmented portions of state land in

ownership of these departments

occur within Gauteng.

Identify properties for transfer and

formalise and implement land

acquisition process.

Bequests and

donations

The establishment of protected areas

through donations or from a

deceased estate.

Assess biodiversity value of land and

consider exchange option if

biodiversity value is low.

Land exchange Areas of low biodiversity status can

be exchanged for areas of high

biodiversity. The biodiversity value of

the acquired land should be of higher

value than the exchanged land.

Additional areas may be exchanged

for strategic purposes (e.g. joining

two protected areas).

Formal Policy needs to be

established by GDARD on how this

could be implemented. Specific roles

and responsibilities need to be

confirmed.

Biodiversity

stewardship

South African

National Defence

Force

Undisturbed areas adjacent to but

part of military establishments.

Identify areas to be secured through

biodiversity stewardship. Provide

management support and expertise

in terms of the identified areas.

Public land Portions of land under the control of

municipalities, province and national

departments occur throughout the

province.

Identify areas to be secured through

biodiversity stewardship. Provide

management support and expertise

in terms of the identified areas.

Private land

owners

Potential interest on the part of land

owners to manage their land in

accordance with biodiversity

conservation requirements.

Provide support in proclaiming

suitable areas and stewardship

extension services once they have

been proclaimed.

Existing

conservancies,

natural heritage

sites

Investigate status of all existing

conservancies and natural heritage

sites in the province.




been proclaimed.

Land reform

process

Potential interest on the part of land

claimants to manage in accordance

with biodiversity conservation

requirements.




been proclaimed.


Table 3.2 (cont. )

Proposed mechanism


Development

conditions

Offsets (may form

part of land

acquisition)

The setting aside of land off-site to

compensate for the residual impacts

of a development, on areas of high

biodiversity value, once the

appropriate impact management

hierarchy has been applied.

Develop the mechanism in terms of

the national offsets policy and

relevant environmental legislation.

This is to be considered as a last

option when considering

development applications that would

have a negative impact on the

environment.

Biodiversity set-

asides

The stipulation of a maximum

development footprint, in areas of

high biodiversity value and the

stipulation of strict biodiversity

conservation management

requirements on the remainder of the

land.

Develop the mechanism in terms of

the national offsets policy and

relevant environmental legislation.

This is to be considered as

negotiating mechanism between

developers and authorities in spatial

priority areas where development

pressures are high.

Contributions

towards

conservation trust

funds

The stipulation of funds that must be

contributed towards a trust fund by

developers in areas of high

biodiversity value.

Develop the mechanism in

partnership with a suitable NGO to

provide funds for land acquisition and

to support the Biodiversity

Stewardship Programme.

3.6 Projected costs for implementing the GPAES

3.6.1 Determining operat iona l budgets for protected area expansion

A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared for the proposed protected area expansion

efforts over the 20-year timeframe of the GPAES. A detailed budget must however be

prepared for the GPAES Implementation Plan (2010/11 – 2013/14) and subsequent five-

year implementation plans. The Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship Programme is already

being implemented through GDARD. As the primary mechanism for protected area

expansion, it will thus bear most of the costs in implementing the GPAES. In determining

an appropriate budget for biodiversity stewardship in Gauteng, it should be borne in mind

that Mpumalanga has an annual personnel budget for biodiversity stewardship of

approximately R3.2 million and the MTPA have identified budgetary requirements for the

following aspects of their biodiversity stewardship programme:

Specialist fees – surveying.

Specialist fees – lodging notarial deeds.

Specialist fees – legal.

Workshops/meetings.

Advertising.

Gazetting.

Consultants/service providers.

Their budget for these items is approximately R1 million per year, escalating as the

biodiversity stewardship programme grows. In addition, the MTPA have identified a budget


for land acquisition, in acknowledgement that land may not always be secured through

biodiversity stewardship and that in some circumstances land acquisition may be required.

It should be borne in mind that in Gauteng biodiversity stewardship is likely to be a more

complex undertaking than in provinces like Mpumalanga, as Gauteng has many more

landowners with small landholdings compared to provinces with fewer landowners with

large landholdings. Accordingly, the budget allocated to biodiversity stewardship in

Gauteng should be at least comparable with other provinces like Mpumalanga or KwaZulu-

Natal, if not larger to allow for the complexities of undertaking biodiversity stewardship in

Gauteng.

3.6.2 Comparing biodivers i ty s tewardship wi th land acquis i t ion

A range of land prices may be used to estimate the cost of purchasing land through land

acquisition for protected area expansion. The figures presented below represent the

average land price (Rand/ha) for vegetation types that occur within Gauteng. These figures

were obtained from SANBI‟s national land price dataset for farm sales in 2005, which was

created from data obtained from the Deeds Office and Surveyor General. The costs are

significantly outdated and are considered to a gross underestimate of the cost to purchase

land in Gauteng. Furthermore, the costs are based only on the acquisition of the land and

do not include management costs once the land has been acquired, which is again an

underestimate of the true cost. Nevertheless, in order to provide an indication of the scale

of costs involved, it is worthwhile examining what the cost would be for purchase of all the

land required for protected area expansion in Gauteng (Table 3.3). The average land price

(Rand/ha) for vegetation types that occur within Gauteng for 2005 was calculated at

R15,000/ha.

Table 3.3 Est imated land acquisi t ion prices for protected area

expansion in Gauteng

Five-year target Twenty-year target

Area of land 30,800ha 166,800ha

Land acquisition costs R462 million R2 502 million

Comparative biodiversity stewardship

costs

R6.16 million R33.36 million

The 20-year protected area expansion target for Gauteng is 166,800ha. The cost to secure

this land, based on a value of R15,000/ha would be over R2 502 million. Although this is

considered to be a significant under-estimation, it remains a substantial amount of money.

This highlights the problems of using direct land purchase as a strategy for protected area

expansion in Gauteng.

The costs associated with biodiversity stewardship are expected to be much lower per

hectare. Through the implementation of the MPAES, the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks

Agency, estimate that the costs to secure land, in partnership with landowners will be

approximately R100/ha. Even if this figure is doubled to R200/ha for Gauteng, given the

complexities of undertaking biodiversity stewardship in the province, utilising biodiversity

stewardship, GDARD would be able to achieve the five and 20-year targets of the NPAES

at costs of R6.16 million and R33.36 million respectively, which provides sound financial

justification for the implementation of the Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship Programme.


4. FINANCIAL TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION

This chapter was prepared by Abigail Kamineth.

The National Protected Expansion Areas Strategy (NPAES) provides a national framework

for the expansion and consolidation of the protected area system and identifies the need for

the development of provincial protected area expansion strategies (DEAT, 2009). The

Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy (GPAES) has been developed in response to

this request, providing a framework for protected area expansion in Gauteng over the next

20 years, identifying protected area expansion targets and spatial priorities and identifying

strategies required to fulfil expansion objectives (GPAES ref).

There is no explicit budgetary provision for implementing strategies/mechanisms to achieve

protected area targets in the Gauteng Province. However to achieve ambitious protected

area targets set by the NPAES, the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural

development (GDARD) will have to employ more than one funding source and/ expansion

tool to achieve these. In addition to this, a single tool cannot be assumed to „fit all‟

circumstances equally well, and a degree of variability as to which mechanism is best

suited to individual properties will have to be considered.

The funding sources and PAES tools (some of which is discussed in the previous chapter

and is identified in Table 3.2), identified to support the achievement of PAES objectives, are

as follows:-

4.1 Publ ic funding

4.1.1 Nat ional Funding

The Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) is a national government initiative that

seeks to employ significant numbers of unemployed people in labour intensive sectors such

as infrastructural development and maintenance as well as environmental, cultural, social

and economic programmes. Examples of EPWP Programmes with an environmental focus

includes Working for Water, Working for Wetlands, Working on Fire, Working for Land,

Working for the Coast, etc. These aim to maintain, rehabilitate or restore natural

landscapes.

There is an opportunity for private land owners, within a biodiversity stewardship context, to

be assisted by these environmental public employment programmes, particularly given the

co-management contexts of these agreements. Private landowners who agree to

incorporate land into the protected area network and sign a contractual agreement with

GDARD, should be prioritised in terms of the deployment of EPWP teams to assist with

management related activities (such as alien plant maintenance, wetland rehabilitation, fire

management, restoration of degraded land etc.) on their properties.

GDARD‟s Sustainable Resource Management (SRM) Directorate has Land Care and

Expanded Public Works Programmes which focus on the development of best practice in

natural resource management and the transfer of knowledge and skills. Activities include

burning of firebreaks, alien vegetation control through the Working for Water Programme,

coordination of the Working on Fire and the Working on Waste Programmes, soil

conservation measures to combat natural resource degradation, rehabilitation of wetlands

and awareness and capacity building workshops.


An informal arrangement exists between the GDARD‟s Biodiversity Management and

Sustainable Resource Management Directorates where SRM‟s EPWP teams will assist

with management related activities on GDARD stewardship sites. This relationship will be

formalized as the Stewardship Programme gains momentum in the Gauteng Province.

4 .1 .2 Provinc ia l Funding

Protected Area Agencies receive government funding derived from tax revenue. This

allocation is done in the form of an annual appropriation/grant, divided into recurrent

(operational costs and human resource costs) and capital expenditure components. Some

agencies have utilised the capital component to fund land acquisition (e.g. Eastern Cape

Parks), while the recurrent component has generally been used to fund operational costs

associated with Protected Area expansion, in particular salaries (Purnell et al. 2010). Within

the Gauteng Province, the recurrent allocation only covers salaries and operational costs,

whilst capital expenditure supports infrastructure development within existing nature

reserves. As conservation is the mandate of provincial government, it is necessary that the

appropriate budget allocation is made for the expansion and management of Protected

Areas in Gauteng.

4.1.2.1 Provinc ia l income st reams

There are various funding streams generated from GDARD protected areas, and the sale of

resources from GDARD protected areas (game, accommodation, etc.). Within GDARD,

these monies are deposited into a cost recovery account established to receive monies

from various GDARD income streams (e.g. income made by the Conservation; Veterinary

and Enforcement core functions). There is a possibility to utilise conservation‟s contribution

to the cost recovery account for expansion and consolidation efforts.

4.2 Pr ivate Funding

4.2.1 NGOs and Donors

Many opportunities exist for GDARD to develop partnerships with Non-Government

Organisations (NGOs) such as WESSA, Birdlife SA, EWT, Botanical Society of South

Africa, Wilderness Foundation, etc. and conservation trusts and donors [e.g. Table

Mountain Fund (TMF), Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), Global Environmental

facility (GEF), Conservation International (CI)] to collaborate in fund raising activities that

will facilitate the expansion of the protected area network. Monies that result from fund

raising activities could be deposited into a conservation fund which would be administered

by the NGO partner of the partnership. These monies could be utilised to acquire land of

high biodiversity value. Consolidation processes should be followed to subsequently

declare these areas as nature reserves.

Many examples exist in the conservation sector where this has happened – e.g. Cape

Nature, WWF-SA and the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust collaborated in the expansion of

the Anysberg Nature Reserve. Another example includes the partnership between

Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA), SANBI‟s Grassland Programme and

WWF-SA, which assisted the Luneberg commercial farming community to develop

biodiversity stewardship agreements on their land to secure priority land of significant

biodiversity value.

Partnerships could be established between GDARD and NGOs, where the NGO partner

could be the conduit for funding to support consolidation and legal processes linked to


biodiversity stewardship. These partnerships could raise funds to offer incentives to

landowners that have signed biodiversity stewardship agreements.

There are a number of funders that support biodiversity conservation projects. These are,

amongst others, as follows:

International Funders:

UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme

IUCN Small Grants Programme

The Global Conservation Fund

Critical Partnership Ecosystem Fund (CEPF)

The Darwin Fund

South African Funders

Green Fund

WWF Nedbank Green Trust

Toyota Environmental Activities Grant Programme

4.2.2 Developers

Developers can be a source of capital for the expansion of protected areas by participating

in the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme, as well as biodiversity offsets as a form of

remediation for private developments. These mechanisms will be discussed later in section

4.1 and 4.2”.

4.3 Other sources

It is possible for a conservation fund to be established and administered by an NGO, where

the monies would support the management of protected areas as well as the expansion of

the protected area network. Monies retrieved from the implementation of biodiversity offsets

could also be deposited into this fund and utilized for the above-mentioned purposes.

There are various Biodiversity and Business Approaches that could support protected area

expansion when done in the context of Biodiversity Stewardship. These approaches

encourage competiveness amongst farmers to produce products in an environmentally

sustainable manner. The tools that enable markets for biodiversity compatible products,

include consumer awareness campaigns, eco-labelling and certification systems.

An example of where one of these approaches has been implemented is in the Western

Cape through the Biodiversity and Wine Initiative (BWI), established in 2004 as a

partnership between the conservation sector and wine industry (Cadman et al. 2010). The

initiative aimed to reduce further loss of habitat in threatened fynbos ecosystems and to

contribute towards sustainable wine production. Farmers belonging to this initiative commit

portions of their property under formal protection through biodiversity stewardship

agreements. In return they receive assistance with sustainable land management and with

the development of management plans to satisfy certification requirements for their

produce. These farmers receive recognition as BWI Champions and the BWI label provides

these farmers with a unique selling point in a highly global competitive market.


4.4 Tools for implementing PAES

4.4.1 Biod ivers i ty Stewardship

Biodiversity Stewardship is an effective way for government to achieve its conservation

mandate by establishing and expanding protected areas through contractual agreements

with private and communal landowners. This allows for connectivity to be maintained

across the landscape, and for ecological corridors to be secured through partnerships with

landowners. Biodiversity Stewardship is the preferred mechanism for protected area

expansion in the Gauteng Province as it is more cost effective than alternate expansion

mechanisms (e.g. land acquisition). Given the high cost of land in the province and a lack of

funding for protected area expansion, it is unlikely that resources will be available to

effectively expand the protected areas via land acquisition. An exercise undertaken,

utilising SANBI‟s national land prices dataset for farm sales in 2005 in the province

demonstrated that land acquisition is significantly more expensive than the implementation

of biodiversity stewardship (exercise based on average property values at the time of

investigation). Even though the study is merely indicative (and not based on pure research

methods or statistics) and the costs are outdated and are considered to be a gross

estimation of the cost purchase land in Gauteng, the vast difference in costs is clear. As

previously discussed in the document, the study showed that the average land price for

vegetation types in Gauteng for 2005 was R15,000/ha. On the other hand, implementation

of MPAES by the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, estimated costs to secure and

co-manage private land at R100/ha . Even if the latter figure were to be doubled, given the

complexities with implementing biodiversity stewardship in Gauteng, the latter approach still

proves to be more cost effective than land acquisition.

Several fiscal support mechanisms are available to landowners that choose to manage

their properties for conservation purposes. The Municipal Property Rates Act (No.6 of

2004) exempts from tax those parts of a special nature reserve, national park or nature

reserve which are not developed or used for commercial, business, agriculture or

residential purposes. This tax rebate supports landowners to place their land under some

form of formal conservation management, which will assist in landscape protection. The

Revenue Laws Amendment Act (No.60 of 2008) allows for deductions from taxable income

for the maintenance costs of protected areas, as well as the capital costs of nature

reserves.

4.4.2 Biod ivers i ty Of fsets

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process described in the National

Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act. 107 of 1998) assesses the impacts of

proposed developments on the biophysical, socioeconomic and heritage environments,

considering reasonable and feasible alternatives. To ensure that development delivers

socio-economic benefits without threatening the viability of the natural systems upon which

development depends, the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity must

be avoided, or where they cannot be avoided, they should be minimised and remedied. In

certain instances it is appropriate to consider biodiversity offsets to compensate for

unavoidable, residual impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Biodiversity offsets

may involve the setting aside and formally protecting an area for biodiversity conservation.

It is important that the “like for like or better” principle is followed, whereby the proposed

offset is similar or in better condition to the habitat that will be lost (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife,

2010). Alternatively, offsets could be implemented in the form of monetary compensation,

where the developer pays a certain amount of monies into a trust fund, which should be

used for the acquisition and management of priority habitat (Purnell et al. 2010). A


disadvantage to this is that there is no agreed upon mechanism to manage financial offsets,

making it difficult to implement.

There are a number of financial benefits of implementing biodiversity offsets as a

mechanism of Protected Area expansion, particularly the smaller investment required by

the agency. This is due to the biodiversity stewardship process being shorter and simpler,

and the applicant carrying most of the costs, including the cost of assessment, drafting of

contracts and management plans, amendment of title deeds, land management and

auditing. The disadvantage is that a guideline on implementing biodiversity offsets for

Gauteng is only available in draft format. Together with the national guideline being

currently developed, this would result in delays that will further prevent implementation.

4.4.3 Land Acquis i t ion

Land acquisition could be undertaken in the following ways:-

1. Land could be offered to GDARD as a donation or a bequest could be offered to

GDARD through a deceased estate;

2. State owned land can be transferred to GDARD according to the Distribution and

Transfer of Certain State Land Act (Act No. 119 of 1993). The Minister and MEC

can consult with the land distribution commissioner requesting the transfer of land

for the purposes of declaration. Alternatively, the Department of Public Works

would declare the important areas as Nature Reserves and assign a management

authority which could be GDARD‟;

3. Areas of low biodiversity value could be exchanged with areas of high biodiversity.

However formal policy needs to be established by GDARD on possible mechanism

of implementation.

4. In all instances an assessment of the land is required to determine the

conservation value and whether the management burden by GDARD is worth

taking on. Consolidation processes should be followed for land donated or

identified for transfer and exchange if the biodiversity value of the property is

significant, the management burden appropriate and necessary funding for

associated costs identified.

4.4.4 Green Servi tudes

Another way of securing priority conservation areas under private ownership is through the

registration of green servitudes against the title deeds of the property. Servitudes are

legally imposed conditions attached to the tittle deeds of properties that may restrict the use

of the property for specific purposes or otherwise could assign the right to use the property

for a particular purpose to an external entity or different property. Green servitudes, also

known as conservation servitudes, conservation easements or conservation covenants, are

servitudes registered against the property to encourage use of a property for conservation

purposes and to prevent incompatible land use practices from degrading biodiversity and

environmental good and services on the servitude land. It also binds the landowner and

servitude holder to certain management actions.


Green servitudes provide a legal mechanism for local municipalities or conservation

agencies to prevent development in certain areas of private land. This allows for

biodiversity to be safeguarded into perpetuity. Title holder may want to remove these

restrictions from the title deeds of their properties but this has proved to be very difficult to

achieve.

Green Servitudes are an important tool for consolidation and expansion purposes as it can

be utilised by municipalities to encourage land owners to register servitudes across portions

of their properties that are set aside and/or identified for conservation purposes.

Municipalities and competent authorities, responsible for EIAs, could include green

servitudes as a condition of approval in land matter approvals and environmental

authorisations respectively.

Conservation servitudes are utilised effectively in the City of Ethekwini where servitudes are

linked to development proposals. Development rights are granted to developers in

exchange for the establishment of servitudes for sensitive portions of private land.

4.4.5 Payment fo r Ecosystem Services

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) are payments to landowners or land users for well-

defined ecosystem services delivered by the landscape they manage, or for land uses that

are likely to secure ecosystem services (Cadman et al 2010). There is added benefit when

PES is implemented as part of a biodiversity stewardship agreement. The ecosystem

service is repaired and secured, and the property or portion of the erf that forms part of the

agreement is consolidated to the local and provincial protected area network. An example

of the implementation of PES within the context of Biodiversity stewardship is the

Leliefontein Stewardship Programme, where communal stock farmers were paid a premium

on the sale of their goats to reduce stocking and improve veld condition. The Wakkerstroom

Stewardship Project is another example where better land management and livelihoods

were achieved through improved agricultural output, grazing management and sustainable

harvesting.

5. INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS


A number of information gaps and research needs have been identified in the development

of the GPAES. This lack of knowledge has the potential to hinder the effective

implementation of the strategy.

Information gaps and research needs are as follows:-

It is important to understand the true spatial extent of formally protected areas within South

Africa as this has bearing on the identification of protected area expansion targets. Targets

are used to facilitate the conservation of a representative proportion of biodiversity.

Currently the accuracy of this information is insufficient. To address this, the Department of

Environmental Affairs (DEA) has engaged provincial departments (Environmental Affairs) in

a process of verifying spatial and boundary information of protected areas in the respective

provinces. GDARD has responded by implementing efforts to address this issue and the

process of verification is an on-going process.


Similarly to the above-mentioned point, the same gap has been identified for conservation

areas not formally protected in terms of the National Environmental Management:

Protected Areas Act (No.57 of 2003) and the Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance

17 of 1967.

CBAs are important tools used in the land use planning and decision making process. The

identification of CBAs are dependent on a number of key information sources - which are

discussed below. To facilitate effective implementation of CBAs it is important that these

layers are accurate:-

The National Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) has identified a list of threated ecosystems,

which are key information sources in the development of CBAs. CBAs are key information

sources that inform / aid in the determination of expansion priorities. Section 54 specifies

that listed ecosystems must be considered during land use planning, i.e. in the

development of IDPs and SDFs. Therefore accurate information on the extent of these

listed ecosystems is required. Where appropriate, GDARD could develop a species specific

management plan which will inform the management of the listed threatened ecosystem in

which it occurs, and be used to advise on biodiversity thresholds for special species and

listed threatened ecosystems.

Wetlands are ecological process areas which provide ecosystem services to communities.

They are therefore important features in the identification of CBAs, rendering accurate

information of their extents and distribution critical. GDARD is developing management

plans for specific wetlands within the Gauteng Province. These plans include updated

delineation information. Future studies should include similar plans for all wetlands in the

province.

The province has existing land cover and cadastral layers that were developed in 2009 on a

coarse scale. CBAs are identified using these layers and hence these may be inaccurately

identified. This has implications for the implementation of CBAs during land use planning

and decision making processes, as conflicting information determined during site specific

assessments may reduce confidence level in the product. There if therefore a need for

GDARD‟s IT Component (GIS Section) to update and map land cover information at a finer

scale.

Another key information source in the development of CBAs is distribution data for

threatened and or protected species. GDARD is undertaking monitoring programmes for

these species (plants, mammals, reptiles, invertebrates, birds and medicinal plants).

Information gained from this process is used to update the threat status of species.

Assessment of protected area effectiveness within protected areas via the Management

Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) is essential in terms of the long term persistence of

these areas. GDARD is currently tracking management effectiveness at all provincial nature

reserves. This monitoring is on-going.

There is a need for a land ownership layer to be developed for the Gauteng Province by

either GDARD‟s IT Component (GIS Section) or by the Gauteng Planning Commission .

This layer is essential in Biodiversity Stewardship implementation and other consolidation

mechanisms undertaken by GDARD.

Existing fiscal mechanisms used in Biodiversity Stewardship agreements are prohibitive in

their current format. There is therefore a need to support the ongoing work of SANBI and


National Treasury in the development of innovative fiscal tools to support these

agreements.

The identification of sustainable funding mechanisms to support the implementation of

Biodiversity Stewardship, particularly since Biodiversity Stewardship is the preferred

mechanism for protected area expansion.

Much effort has gone into supplying capacity for the negotiation of Biodiversity Stewardship

sites within established Biodiversity Stewardship Programmes throughout South Africa.

Biodiversity Stewardship organograms should be improved to supply increasing capacity to

the on-going maintenance of existing Biodiversity Stewardship sites.

Innovative ways to assess land price and opportunity costs in the identification of priority

areas for protected area expansion.

With land in the Gauteng Province being highly subdivided there is a need to understand

how to implement stewardship more practically given small areas of land ownership. Within

this context, practical implementation of Biodiversity Stewradship in GP will consider larger

parcels of land, where sensitive areas are identified through the EIA process and is

targeted for reactive stewardship within the Gauteng Province (i.e. through legally binding

environmental authorisations. etc.).

6. UPDATE OF GPAES


The update of protected area expansion spatial priorities and strategy will be updated in

conjunction with the relevant provincial conservation plan (C-Plan). These products will be

updated on a continuous basis with a revised version of the product made available to all

public users every 5 years.

7. CONCLUSION

Gauteng is a small province with immense developmental pressures and challenges. The

rates of modification of the ecosystems within the province have led to the loss of over half

of its natural habitat. If these rates of modification are not arrested, biodiversity in the

province will be irreparably harmed, resulting in significant impacts to the agricultural

sector, the loss of functioning water resources and major impacts to human health and

wellbeing. It is vital that action be taken to secure critical areas of biodiversity in order to

ensure that local losses of species are averted and that the ecological functioning of

Gauteng is secured in the future.

The Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Strategy identifies the areas in which protected

area expansion efforts should be focussed and provides a number of mechanisms to

secure them. The primary mechanism will be biodiversity stewardship but innovative ways

to enlist the support of land developers should be implemented in an effort to meet

demands for land whilst securing its biodiversity value.

REFERENCES

Cadman, M., Peterson, C., Driver, A., Sekhran, N., Maze, K. and Munzhedi, S. Biodiversity

for Development: South Africa’s landscape approach to conserving biodiversity and

promoting ecosystem resilience. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Department of Environmental Affairs (2009) Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems.

Notice 1477, Government Gazette, Vol.533, No.32689. Pretoria.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. (2006) South Africa Environment

Outlook, a report on the state of the environment. Pretoria.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2008) The National Protected Area

Expansion Strategy 2008-2012. Pretoria.

Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (2009) Biodiversity Stewardship Guideline

Document. Pretoria.

Department of Environmental Affairs (2010) National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy

for South Africa 2008: Priorities for expanding the protected area network for ecological

sustainability and climate change adaptation. Pretoria.

Driver, A., Cowling, R.M. and Maze, K. (2003) Planning for Living Landscapes:

Perspectives and Lessons from South Africa. Washington, DC: Center for Applied

Biodiversity Science at Conservation International; Cape Town: Botanical Society of

South Africa.

Driver, A, Maze, K, Rouget, M, Lombard, AT, Nel, J, Turpie, JK, Cowling, RM, Desmet, P,

Goodman, P, Harris, J, Jonas, Z, Reyers, B, Sink, K & Strauss, T. (2005). National

Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South

Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria.

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. 2010. KZN Protected Area Expansion Strategy and Action Plan

(2009 – 2028). Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife unpublished report, Pietermaritzburg. pp. 1-60.

Goss, H (2008) Demonstrator Toolkit for Integrated Planning (2): The Value of Technology

in Supporting Spatial and Infrastructure Planning, Council for Scientific and Industrial

Research, Built Environment. Pretoria.

Maze, K., Driver, A. and Brownlie, S. (2003) Mining and biodiversity in South Africa: a

discussion paper.

Morris, B. and Corcoran, B. (eds) (2009) Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy

– 2009 to 2028. Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (eds.) (2006). The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Purnell, K., Kirkwood, D. and Maree, K. (2010) Cape Nature Protected Area Expansion

Strategy and Implementation Plan 2010 – 2015. Report complied for Cape Nature,

Cape Town.

Skowno, A., Holness, S., Jackelman, J. and Desmet, P. (2012) Eastern Cape Protected

Area Expansion Strategy (ECPAES). Report complied for the Eastern Cape Parks and

Tourism Agency, East London.


SRK (2010) Gauteng Biodiversity Stewardship: Operations Manual. Gauteng Department of

Agriculture and Rural Development and South African National Biodiversity Institute.

Report No. 405154/3.

SSI Engineers & Environmental Consultants. (2011) Green Servitudes Toolkit: A Green

Servitude Tool that can be applied by municipalities in Gauteng, with special reference

to the City of Johannesburg. Report compiled for the South African National Biodiversity

Institute. Johannesburg.

gauteng protected area expansion...

Documents