ecosystem guidelines for the savanna biome · biodiversity pattern: the compositional and...

Ecosystem Guidelines for the Savanna biome

i



ii


Document prepared by: CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Editor: Susie Brownlie

Scientific Adviser: Prof Richard Cowling

Terrestrial Ecological Specialist: Prof George Bredenkamp

Aquatic Specialist: Dr Brian Colloty

Social facilitator: Therese Boulle

All maps in this document have been developed by SANBI

Acknowledgements These Ecosystem Guidelines are a collaborative effort, and a multitude of stakeholders have contributed to the contents by means of sharing spatial data and research articles, participating in workshops and discussions, and critically reviewing information.

Credits for photographs are provided in Plate titles

The contributions of all stakeholders, who have contributed either directly or indirectly to the compilation and contents of these Guidelines, is gratefully acknowledged.


iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................iii

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................v

Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview of the Savanna biome ...........................................................................................1

1.2 Need for the Ecosystem Guidelines .....................................................................................2

1.3 Geographic scope of the Ecosystem Guidelines ..................................................................5

1.4 What the Ecosystem Guidelines are ....................................................................................5

1.5 What the Ecosystem Guidelines are not...............................................................................5

1.6 When and How the Ecosystem Guidelines should be used .................................................5

1.7 Who should use the Ecosystem Guidelines .........................................................................6

1.8 Structure of the Ecosystem Guidelines.................................................................................6

Chapter 2: PLANNING for a mosaic of land uses in living landscapes .......................................................7

2.1 Systematic biodiversity planning ..........................................................................................7

2.2 Planning ahead: incorporating biodiversity planning principles in the EIA and land-use planning process ............................................................................................................................10

Chapter 3: ECOSYSTEMS OF THE SAVANNA BIOME ............................................................................18

3.1 Overview of ecosystems and the ecosystem approach ......................................................18

3.2 Ecosystems under pressure ...............................................................................................19

3.3 Defining Ecosystem Groups in the Savanna biome in South Africa ...................................23

Chapter 4: PLANNING FOR AND MANAGING RISKS AND PRESSURES ..................................................25

4.1 Managing impacts in the Savanna biome ...........................................................................35


iv

4.2 Climate change ..................................................................................................................49

4.3 Managing Biodiversity Loss ................................................................................................52

Chapter 5: ECOSYSTEM GUIDELINES ................................................................................................62

5.1 Distribution of Ecosystem Groups of the Savanna Biome ..................................................62

5.2 Notes to consider when using these Ecosystem Guidelines ..............................................82

5.3 Ecosystem Groups of the Savanna biome .........................................................................84

5.3.1 Kalahari Duneveld ............................................................................................................84

5.3.2 Kalahari Bushveld and associated Mountain Bushveld ...............................................95

5.3.3 Central Bushveld and associated Mountain Bushveld ............................................... 107

5.3.4 Mopane Bushveld ........................................................................................................... 123

5.3.5 Arid Lowveld Bushveld and associated Mountain Bushveld ..................................... 134

5.3.6 Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna and associated Mountain Bushveld ........................... 148

5.3.7 Sub-Escarpment Savanna ............................................................................................. 160

5.3.8 Inland Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................... 169

Chapter 6: APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 182

Appendix 1: Geographic extent of the Savanna biome, with Ecosystem Groups and Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) ............................................................................................................... 182

Appendix 2: Overview of Relevant Legislation, Policy, Guidelines and Tools for Biodiversity Management ................................................................................................................................ 190

Appendix 3: Generic Terms of Reference for Ecological Specialists ............................................ 206

Appendix 4: Generic Terms of Reference (ToR) for Aquatic Specialists ...................................... 211

Appendix 5: List of Scientific and Common Names for Species listed in the Ecosystem Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................................... 221

Appendix 6: Data Sources used for Maps in these Ecosystem Guidelines .................................. 227

Chapter 7: REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 228


v

List of Acronyms ARC Agricultural Research Council

BAR Basic Assessment Report

BRP Bioregional Plan

BSP Biodiversity Sector Plan

BZs Buffer Zones

BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information System

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CO2 carbon dioxide

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

Dept. Department

DWA Department of Water Affairs

DWS Department of Water and Sanitation

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

ECBCP Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan

EI Ecological Importance

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIP Environmental Implementation Plan

EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity

EMF Environmental Management Framework

EMP Environmental Management Plan

ES Ecological Sensitivity

ESA Ecological Support Areas

FPA Fire Protection Association

GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS Geographic Information System

GTI GEOTERRAIMAGE


vi

HGM Hydrogeomorphic

HI Habitat Integrity

ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

IDPs Integrated Development Plans

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

Km kilometre

KNP Kruger National Park

KTP Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park

LBSAP Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan

LSU Large stock units

MAP mean annual precipitation

m metre

m.a.s.l metres above sea level

mm millimetres

MTSF Medium Term Strategic Framework

NBA National Biodiversity Assessment

NBF National Biodiversity Framework

NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

NDP National Development Plan 2030. Our Future -make it work

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998)

NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas

NP National Park

NPAES National Protected Area Expansion Strategy

NFSD South Africa National Framework for Sustainable Development

NMBM Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

NSSD1 National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan 1

PA Protected Area

PES Present Ecological State

PGDS Provincial Growth and Development Strategy

REC Recommended Ecological Category

REDz Renewable Energy Development Zones

RLE Red List of Ecosystems

SACAD South African Conservation Areas Database


vii

SAPAD South African Protected Areas Database

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SCC Species of conservation concern

SDF Spatial Development Framework

SDP Spatial Development Plan

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SIPs Strategic Integrated Projects

SPLUMA Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Act No. 16 of 2013)

SWSA Strategic Water Source Areas

TOPS Threatened or Protected Species

ToR Terms of Reference

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

WfW Working for Water

WHC World Heritage Convention

WMA Water Managements Area

WRC Water Research Council

Yr Year


viii

Glossary of Terms Abiotic: Non-living, in this case taken to mean the non-living components of ecosystems (e.g. wind, temperature, geological features, precipitation, and so on)

Avian: birds, as a class of vertebrates

Biodiversity: refers to the diversity of genes, species and ecosystems on Earth, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain this diversity

Biodiversity hotspot: An area characterised by high levels of biodiversity and endemism, and that faces significant threats to biodiversity

Biodiversity offset: Measurable conservation outcome(s) resulting from actions to compensate for residual negative impacts (of a development project) on biodiversity. Biodiversity offsets are the last option in the mitigation hierarchy, and should be considered only after other options have been pursued

Biodiversity pattern: The compositional and structural aspects of biodiversity, at the species and ecosystem level

Biodiversity planning: The process of developing a spatial plan that identifies one or more categories of biodiversity priority area, using the principles and methods of systematic biodiversity planning (see ‘systematic biodiversity planning’).

Biodiversity priority areas: Features in the landscape (or seascape) that are important for conserving a representative sample of ecosystems and species, for maintaining ecological processes, or for the provision of ecosystem services. These are identified using a systematic spatial biodiversity planning process, and include the following categories: Protected Areas, Critically Endangered and Endangered ecosystems, Critical Biodiversity Areas, Ecological Support Areas, Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas, Strategic Water Source Areas, Flagship free-flowing rivers, Priority estuaries, Focus areas for land-based Protected Area expansion, and Focus areas for offshore protection.

Biodiversity Sector Plan: map of biodiversity priority areas (critical biodiversity areas and ecological support areas) accompanied by contextual information, land-use guidelines and supporting GIS information. The map must be produced using the principles and methods of systematic biodiversity planning, in accordance with nationally agreed guidelines. A biodiversity sector plan represents the biodiversity sector’s input to planning and decision making in a range of other sectors. It may, but does not have to be, formally published in the Government Gazette as a bioregional plan.

Biodiversity Stewardship: model for expanding protected areas in which the state conservation authority enters into legal agreements (contracts) with private and communal landowners to protect and manage land in biodiversity priority areas. Different categories of agreement confer varying degrees of protection on the land and hold different benefits for landowners and require different levels of restriction on permissible land uses. In this model, the landowner retains title to the land, and the primary responsibility for management remains with the landowner, with technical advice and assistance provided by the conservation authority

Biodiversity target: Quantitative targets, based on best available science – for ecosystems: that indicate the minimum proportion of each ecosystem type that should remain in a natural or near-natural state (or a good ecological condition) in order to maintain viable representative samples of all ecosystem types and the majority of species associated with them; for species: The minimum number of occurrences or populations that need to be kept extant (ideally with some form of protection) in order to ensure the persistence of the species, or the minimum amount of suitable habitat that needs to be kept in good ecological condition in order to ensure the persistence of a minimum viable population of the species


ix

Biodiversity Threshold(s): A series of thresholds used to assess ecosystem threat status, expressed as a percentage of the original extent of an ecosystem type. The first threshold, for Critically Endangered ecosystems, is equal to the biodiversity target; the second threshold, for Endangered ecosystems, is equal to the biodiversity target plus 15%; and the third threshold, for Vulnerable ecosystems, is usually set at 60%.

Biome: An ecological unit of wide extent, characterised by complexes of plant communities and associated animal communities and ecosystems, and determined mainly by climatic factors and soil types. A biome may extend over large, more or less continuous expanses of land surface, or may exist in smaller, discontinuous patches

Bioregion: terrestrial units defined on the basis of similar biotic and physical features and processes at a regional scale

Bioregional Plan: A biodiversity sector plan that has been published in the Government Gazette in accordance with the NEM: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004), and that has been produced in accordance with nationally agreed Guideline for the preparation and publication of Bioregional Plans as published in the National Biodiversity Framework (Notice No.291, Government Gazette No. 32006, March 2009). They are the biodiversity sector’s input into SDFs, EMFs, SEAs and EIAs. They are based on systematic biodiversity plans developed using best available science, and are intended to inform land-use planning, environmental assessment and natural resource management by a range of sectors whose policies and decisions impact on biodiversity, and to support and streamline environmental decision-making

Biosphere Reserve: a term developed by UNESCO, given to ecosystems plants and animals of unusual scientific and natural interest. The intention is to promote management, research and education in ecosystem conservation. The sustainable use of natural resources is included, e.g. fishing for human consumption in a manner that results in least damage to the ecosystem.

Biotic: Living, in this case taken to mean the living components of ecosystems (e.g. plant and animal species, micro-organisms and so on); also referred to as the ‘biota’ in an ecosystem

Bush encroachment: refers to a decrease in palatable grasses and herbs caused by encroaching, often unpalatable, woody alien species, resulting in a decrease in the carrying capacity of the area

Bush thickening: refers to a decrease in palatable grasses and herbs caused by encroaching, often unpalatable, woody indigenous species, resulting in a decrease in the carrying capacity of the area

Carbon sequestration: A biochemical process through which atmospheric carbon is absorbed and stored by living organisms including plants and soil micro-organisms, and involving the storage of carbon in soils, with the potential to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

CBA Maps: a map of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas based on a systematic biodiversity plan

Climate change: Long term changes in the Earth’s weather patterns, including temperature, wind and rainfall, especially as a result of the increase in temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere resulting from the increased concentration of certain gases (the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’) climate corridors: corridors across the landscape that incorporate sufficient variability and connectivity to allow biota to shift their ranges to adapt to changing conditions with climate change e.g. forest areas, riparian areas) community: a group or association of populations of two or more different species (plants, animals, micro-organisms) occupying the same geographical area and in a particular time

Community: Within an ecosystem, a ‘community’ is a group or association of populations of two or more different species (plants, animals, micro-organisms) occupying the same geographical area and in a particular time

Conservation Area: An area of land or sea that is not protected in terms of the Protected Areas Act but is nevertheless managed as least partly for biodiversity conservation. Because there is no long-term security associated with conservation areas they are not considered a strong form of protection. Conservation areas contribute towards the conservation estate but not the protected area estate.


x

Critical Biodiversity Areas are areas required to meet biodiversity targets for ecosystems, species and ecological processes, determined by a systematic biodiversity plan. They may be terrestrial or aquatic, and are mostly (but not always) in a good ecological state. These areas need to be maintained in a natural or near-natural state, and loss or degradation must be avoided. If these areas were to be modified, biodiversity targets could not be met.

Cultivation: A form of intensive agriculture. Includes field crops and horticulture. Includes dryland and irrigated crops. Can be for commercial or subsistence purpose

Development: A broad socio-economic goal, encompassing social and economic factors

Ecological condition: An assessment of the extent to which the composition, structure and function of an area or biodiversity feature has been modified from a reference condition of natural

Ecological infrastructure: naturally functioning ecosystems that generate or deliver valuable ecosystem services – i.e. nature’s equivalent of built infrastructure. Examples include mountain catchment areas, wetlands and soils

Ecological process: The functions and processes that operate to maintain and generate biodiversity. In order to include ecological processes in a biodiversity plan, their spatial components need to be identified and mapped

Ecological Reserve determination study: The study undertaken to determine Ecological Reserve requirements

Ecological Support Areas: An area that must be maintained in at least fair ecological condition (semi-natural/moderately modified state) in order to support the ecological functioning of a CBA or protected area, or to generate or deliver ecosystem services, or to meet remaining biodiversity targets for ecosystem types or species when it is not possible or no necessary to meet them in natural or near-natural areas. One of five broad categories on a CBA map, and a subset of biodiversity priority areas.

Ecological Water Requirements: This is the quality and quantity of water flowing through a natural stream course that is needed to sustain instream functions and ecosystem integrity at an acceptable level as determined during an EWR study. These then form part of the conditions for managing achievable water quantity and quality conditions as stipulated in the Reserve Template

Ecotone: An ecotone is a transition area between two biomes or vegetation types. It is where two communities meet and integrate. It may be narrow or wide, and it may be local (the zone between a field and forest) or regional (the transition between forest and grassland ecosystems).

EcoStatus is the overall PES or current state of the resource. It represents the totality of the features and characteristics of a river and its riparian areas or wetland that bear upon its ability to support an appropriate natural flora and fauna and its capacity to provide a variety of goods and services. The EcoStatus value is an integrated ecological state made up of a combination of various PES findings from component EcoStatus assessments (such as for invertebrates, fish, riparian vegetation, geomorphology, hydrology and water quality)

Ecosystem: An assemblage of living organisms, the interactions between them and their physical environment.

Ecosystem approach: a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. It attempts to balance biodiversity conservation, resource use, and the level of human activity across the entire landscape

Ecosystem Resillience: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain its functions (biological, chemical, and physical) in the face of disturbance or to recover from external pressures. A climate-resilient ecosystem would retain its functions in the face of climate change. Ecosystem-based adaptation will require measures to maintain the resilience of ecosystems under new climatic conditions, so that they can continue to supply essential services


xi

Ecosystem threshold: the tipping point where ongoing disturbance or change results in an irreversible change in its composition, structure and functioning. Surpassing ecosystem thresholds diminishes the quality and quantity of ecosystem services provided, rapidly reduces the ability of the ecosystem to sustain life, and results in less resilient ecosystems

Ecosystem Services: The benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, including provisioning services (such as food and water), regulating services (such as flood control), cultural services (such as recreational benefits), and supporting services (such as nutrient cycling, carbon storage) that maintain the conditions for life on Earth

Ecosystem Threat Status: a measure of how threatened an ecosystem is, based on how much of the ecosystem’s original area remains intact relative to three different thresholds or ‘tipping points’. These thresholds indicate the points at which it is estimated that the ecosystem would undergo fundamental change, either in terms of biodiversity pattern or ecological processes. Ecosystems are categorised as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Least Threatened.

Endemic: Restricted or exclusive to a particular geographic area and occurring nowhere else. Endemism refers to the occurrence of endemic species

Forbs: herbaceous plants with soft leaves and non-woody stems

Geology: The study of the Earth’s crust and its rock formations

Geophyte: Perennial plant(s) having underground perennating organs such as bulbs, tubers or corms

Habitat: The area or environment occupied by a species or groups of species, due to the particular set of environmental conditions that prevails there

Habitat loss: Conversion of natural habitat in an ecosystem to a land use or land cover class that results in irreversible change in the composition, structure and functional characteristics of the ecosystem concerned

Increaser (grass species)

Indicator species: A species that describes a characteristic or the ecological condition of the environment in which it occurs

Invertebrate: animals without backbones

Keystone species: A species that has a disproportionately large effect on its environment relative to its abundance

Mitigation: Measures to reduce negative impacts on the environment from land-use activities; in terms of climate change, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, and enhance greenhouse gas sinks

National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas: A biodiversity planning project that identified a set of freshwater ecosystem priorities for meeting biodiversity targets for rivers, wetlands and freshwater fish species of special concern.

Persistence: A principle of systematic biodiversity planning, referring to the need to maintain the ecological and evolutionary processes that enable ecosystems and species to persist over time

Plantations: Forestry plantations, almost always of exotic species

Protected Area: An area of land or sea that is protected in terms of the Protected Areas Act and managed mainly for biodiversity conservation.

Present Ecological State: is a term for the current ecological condition of the aquatic resource. This is assessed relative to the deviation from the Reference State. Reference State/Condition is the natural or pre-impacted condition of the system. The reference state is not a static condition, but refers to the natural dynamics (range and rates of change or flux) prior to development. The PES is determined per component - for rivers and wetlands this would be for the drivers: flow,


xii

water quality and geomorphology; and the biotic response indicators: fish, macroinvertebrates, riparian vegetation and diatoms. PES categories for every component would be integrated into an overall PES for the river reach or wetland being investigated. This integrated PES is called the EcoStatus of the reach or wetland

RAMSAR site: a wetland site designated to be of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. The Convention on Wetlands, known as the Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental environmental treaty established in 1971 by UNESCO, and came into force in 1975.

Red List of Species: A publication that provides information on the conservation and threat status of species, based on scientific conservation assessments

Refugia: an area in which a population of organisms can survive through a period of unfavourable conditions

Representation (or representivity): A principle of systematic biodiversity planning that describes the need to maintain a representative sample of species and ecosystems

Reserve: The quantity and quality of water needed to sustain basic human needs and ecosystems (e.g. estuaries, rivers, lakes, groundwater and wetlands) to ensure ecologically sustainable development and utilisation of a water resource. The Ecological Reserve pertains specifically to aquatic ecosystems

Reserve requirements: The quality, quantity and reliability of water needed to satisfy the requirements of basic human needs and the Ecological Reserve (inclusive of instream requirements)

Succulent: plants that have some parts that are more than normally thickened and fleshy, usually to retain water in arid climates or soil conditions

Species of special/conservation concern: Species that have particular ecological, economic or cultural significance, including but not limited to threatened species

Strategic water source area: An area that supplies a disproportionate amount of mean annual runoff to a geographical region of interest. In South Africa, SWSAs are the 8% of the land area that delivers 50% of mean annual run-off

Systematic biodiversity conservation planning: scientific methodology for determining areas of biodiversity importance involving: mapping biodiversity features (such as ecosystems, species, spatial components of ecological processes); mapping a range of information related to these biodiversity features and their condition (such as patterns of land and resource use, existing protected areas); setting quantitative targets for biodiversity features, analysing the information using software linked to GIS; and developing maps that show spatial biodiversity priorities. Systematic biodiversity planning is often called ‘systematic conservation planning’ in the scientific literature.

Termitaria: A nest built by a colony of termites underground, aboveground (usually as a mound), or in a tree

Threatened ecosystems: An ecosystem that has been classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, based on an analysis of ecosystem threat status. A threatened ecosystem has lost, or is losing, vital aspects of its structure, composition or function. The Biodiversity Act makes provision for the Minister of Environmental Affairs, or a provincial MEC of Environmental Affairs, to publish a list of threatened ecosystems

Threatened species: A species that has been classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, based on a conservation assessment (Red List of Species), using a standard set of criteria developed by the IUCN for determining the likelihood of a species becoming extinct. A threatened species faces a high risk of extinction in the near future

Umbrella species: A species selected for making conservation-related decisions as its protection indirectly ensures the protection of many other species

Ungulate: animal with hooves

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview of the Savanna biome

The Savanna biome is the largest biome in South Africa, occupying more than one-third of the country’s surface area (Twine et al., 2003). The biome covers an area of ~399 600 km2, occurring in all provinces other than the Western Cape, and predominates in the northern and eastern sections of the country (see Figure 1).

In South Africa, savanna occurs at altitudes mostly below 1 500 m, extending to 1 800 m on parts of the Highveld, mainly along the southernmost edges of the Central Bushveld. Higher temperatures are therefore experienced in comparison to the Grassland biome which is found in higher altitude areas adjacent to the Savanna biome (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Rainfall varies between 200 (in the west) and 1 350 (at higher altitudes in the east) mm per annum; and is strongly seasonal, with wet summers and dry winters (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006; Low and Rebelo, 1996).

Vegetation of the Savanna biome is characterised by a dynamic and potentially unstable mix of competing tree and grass growth forms determined by a number of interacting factors. Tree biomass can increase or decrease, producing dense woodlands or open grassland communities with scattered trees (Scholes and Archer, 1997).

Plant and large mammal diversity are high in the biome, with more than 5 700 floral species listed. Mammal diversity is well documented and other groups of animals are also well represented.

Figure 1: The nine biomes of South Africa (Vegetation Map of South Africa (VEGMAP), 2018).


2

1.2 Need for the Ecosystem Guidelines

Globally, biodiversity is under significant pressure predominantly from the needs created by a growing population. South Africa is not divorced from this issue, with an average population growth rate of 1.6% (STATS SA, 2018). Poor development planning and lack of implementation of legislation, coupled with the relatively low understanding of how to respond to and/or manage the impacts of climate change, are threatening biodiversity persistence and the ecosystem services that people rely on for health and well-being. A 2011 estimate of the global value of ecosystem services provided to humans was $125 trillion/yr (Costanza et al., 2014). Research shows that human activities are, directly and indirectly, contributing to a decline in the quantity and quality of these services, with major implications for people's livelihoods and wellbeing, particularly the poor (Le Maitre et. al., 2007). The value of functional ecosystems1 to people must not be underestimated.

Savannas are widespread and socio-economically important ecosystems; and are considered to be the most significant ecosystem in Africa for livestock farming (Sankaran et al., 2005; Ward et al., 2005). The Savanna biome supports income generating business such as beef and crop production and tourism; and sustains an estimated rural population of 9.2 million people where indigenous natural resources such as wood, wild herbs, wild fruit and edible insects are used (Twine et al., 2003).

Major pressures to biodiversity in the Savanna biome include intensive agriculture, urban development, mining, and unsustainable harvesting of resources (especially of woody species); amongst others. Careful land-use planning, and effective ecosystem management are critical to allow for responsible and sustainable development that provides socio-economic needs, without compromising the integrity and functionality of the very biodiversity that all citizens need for a safe and healthy existence.

An ecosystem approach to land-use planning is needed that considers biodiversity and provides for socio-economic upliftment. It is important that good decisions are made in the environmental assessment process, particularly through proactive land-use planning to retain key biodiversity assets and the ecosystem services they provide, for current and future generations. These Ecosystem Guidelines are designed to support the reader in assessing land use change proposals and making decisions on how best to sustain and manage biodiversity in the Savanna biome for the long-term benefit of all.

The Ecosystem Guidelines should be used in conjunction with other existing biodiversity plans and guidelines (refer to Appendix 2 for a list of available references). At times, the multitude of plans and guideline documents can be overwhelming, and the distinction between the applications of the different plans is not always clear. Table 1.1 lists some of the key biodiversity tools available for the biodiversity sector, and differentiates between their applications.

1 In these Guidelines, a functional ecosystem refers to an ecosystem, irrespective of its ecological condition, in which ecological processes operate and where the ecosystem is still capable of providing ecosystem services (e.g. erosion protection, water delivery). To determine if an ecosystem is still functional, the reader must identify the physical processes operating (or that would have operated) at the site and on a landscape level, and assess if these are still in place.

Table 1.1: Differentiation between Key Biodiversity Plans and their application2

Tool/Plan Area Application

National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) 2011

http://bgis.sanbi.org/nba/project.asp

Note the NBA is currently under review and will be published in 2019

National

The NBA assesses, monitors and reports on the state of biodiversity in the country which is important to understanding trends and inform policy and decision-making. Genes, species and ecosystems are dealt with across terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, coastal and marine realms. Priority areas and actions are identified (e.g. critically endangered ecosystems and ecosystem protection level, priority estuaries, strategic water source areas (SWSAs), focus areas for land-based protected area expansion, focus areas for offshore protection). Information is available as a set of technical reports for each realm and a summary synthesis report, with accompanying data, maps and metadata. These are publically available on SANBI’s Biodiversity Adviser and BGIS websites. The NBA is a key reference for scientists, consultants, decision-makers etc. and serves as a platform for information sharing in the biodiversity sector. Threatened Ecosystems are referenced in Listing Notice 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

Biodiversity Sector Plans (BSP) / Provincial Conservation Plans / Systematic Biodiversity Plans

Usually developed for a Province, district or metro municipality, but can be for a local municipality

A map of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) and supporting information in the form of land- and resource-use guidelines and GIS data. Maps and information are used in land use planning, and environmental assessment to inform decisions around areas that should ideally be managed for biodiversity conservation and/or compatible land use types (as per the suggested land use guidelines). A BSP is the biodiversity sector’s input into planning and decision-making in a range of other sectors. CBAs and ESAs are incorporated into municipal Spatial Development Framework (SDF) Plans and Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) for forward proactive planning. They can also be used in proactive conservation, for example to prioritise stewardship sites, protected areas expansion, and areas where alien vegetation clearing should be focused.

CBAs and ESAs are frequently referenced in Listing Notice 3 of the EIA Regulations of NEMA.

Bioregional Plans (BRP) Municipal

A BRP is usually developed for a district or metropolitan municipality, but could be developed for a local municipality or group of local municipalities. It represents the biodiversity sector’s input into planning and decision-making in a range of other sectors. A BRP is always based on an underlying systematic biodiversity plan. In order to be published as a BRP, the CBA map must go through a consultation process to ensure it is consistent with other relevant municipal plans and frameworks.

2 The reader must ensure they use the most up to date plans for assessment and decision making, as these will contain current/recent scientific literature and approaches


4

Ecosystem Guidelines Area where the biome occurs

Consult guidelines to understand the characteristics and functioning of biodiversity in the area of interest, and to determine how best to manage biodiversity on a local and landscape scale.

Ecosystem Guidelines to be used in conjunction with above biodiversity tools and plans to guide land use planning, with biodiversity management in mind.

At the time of finalising this document, Ecosystem Guidelines are available for Fynbos, Grassland Albany Thicket and Savanna biomes.

1.3 Geographic scope of the Ecosystem Guidelines

The geographic scope of these Ecosystem Guidelines is defined by the boundary of the Savanna biome, as mapped in the VEGMAP (2018) (refer to Figure 1). The Savanna biome is extensive, ranging from the sub-tropics to meet the Nama-Karoo biome on the central plateau, the Grassland biome at higher altitudes in the east; and spreading down the eastern seaboard interior and valleys where it grades into Albany Thicket in the Eastern Cape (Rutherford et. al., 2006). Savanna forms a mosaic with ecosystems belonging to the Grassland, Nama Karoo, Coastal Vegetation and Albany Thicket biomes. These ecosystems are not isolated from each other and should be managed in an integrated manner.

These Ecosystem Guidelines divide the Savanna biome into 8 Ecosystem Groups, 7 terrestrial and 1 inland aquatic that share similar ecological drivers, characteristics, and have similar management requirements. The geographic distribution of the Savanna biome across municipal boundaries, with an indication of which Ecosystem Groups can be found on a local municipality level is provided in Appendix 1. This document is supported by a spatial dataset with boundaries of each of the Groups. The reader should check the location of their area of interest to determine if the guideline has applicability, and if so, which Ecosystem Group applies.

1.4 What the Ecosystem Guidelines are

ü The Guidelines provide scientifically robust information on the characteristics and functioning of biodiversity within the Savanna biome, and the ecological drivers of the system. The information provides the reader with sufficient background to develop an understanding of the natural landscape and biodiversity they are interacting with.

ü The Guidelines provide best management practice for biodiversity in the Savanna biome, and can be used to guide land use change

ü The Guidelines identify and address biodiversity issues that need to be considered in land use planning and land management

ü The Guidelines identify and describe the major risks, pressures and threats to biodiversity in the Savanna biome. They provide recommendations for management to prevent critical thresholds being exceeded and avoid irreversible change and collapse of the system.

ü The Guidelines can be referred to in the regulatory decision-making process for land use change in the Savanna biome.

1.5 What the Ecosystem Guidelines are not

û The Guidelines are NOT an exhaustive scientific reference work on biodiversity, ecosystem services, EIA, ecosystem management, land-use planning or environmental legislation.

û The Guidelines do NOT provide exhaustive instructions to land-use planners and environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) (or other users). They are not prescriptive ‘how to’ Guidelines and cannot answer all possible questions for all sites. That is, the Guidelines are broad and must be used in combination with site-specific information and/or other available references, where required.

û The Guidelines are NOT a substitute for making site visits or for involving biodiversity (or other) specialists in the environmental assessment process.

1.6 When and How the Ecosystem Guidelines should be used

The Guidelines should be used:


6

• Early in the planning process: These Guidelines should be referred to in the pre-application, screening or feasibility stage of a potential development or activity, to identify important biodiversity issues that need to be considered.

• As a decision support tool for land use change applications: These Guidelines can assist in making informed decisions as to the suitability of the proposed land use change, taking into account potential effects on the receiving environment, and whether biodiversity management has been given adequate consideration.

• In conjunction with applicable legislation3: The application of relevant legislation is one of the underlying principles of these Guidelines.

• In conjunction with other guidelines and tools: The Guidelines provide an indication of available and applicable information and tools on biodiversity and land-use planning. It is important for the reader to check for any updates since this document was published, and to use the most recent and relevant information for the particular site or area.

• With the ‘ecosystem approach’ in mind: The ‘ecosystem approach’4 helps to assess interdependencies between people and nature, identify impacts and risks, and facilitate good decision making.

1.7 Who should use the Ecosystem Guidelines

The Ecosystem Guidelines for the Savanna biome have been developed to provide scientifically defensible and practical information which can be used to make an informed decision on optimum land use and biodiversity management. The Guidelines have application to a wide range of users, from regulatory authorities, to EAPs in the impact assessment process, to private land users and/or commercial operators in the Savanna biome.

Generally, the Guidelines should be of use to all persons or entities whose activities have the potential to impact on the Savanna biome, and/or who may be affected by these activities.

1.8 Structure of the Ecosystem Guidelines Chapter 1: Introduction - overview of the Savanna biome, geographic scope of the Ecosystem Guidelines, and how the Guidelines should be used

Chapter 2: The concept of systematic biodiversity planning, the importance of screening and early identification of biodiversity issues in land use planning, and the EIA process and mitigation hierarchy.

Chapter 3: The ecosystem approach to land use planning and Ecosystem Groups identified within the Savanna biome.

Chapter 4: Risks, pressures and threats to the Savanna biome, and general management measures

Chapter 5: Ecosystem guidelines for Ecosystem Groups identified in the Savanna biome

Chapter 6: Appendices

Chapter 7: References

3 A synopsis of applicable legislation, policies, guidelines and tools that have relevance to environmental management and land use planning is given in Appendix 2. A snapshot of the applicability of each Act, policy and/or guideline is given with a link to where more detail can be accessed.

4 The ecosystem approach is advocated by the Convention on Biological Diversity, recognising that people are an integral part of wider ecosystems and landscapes.

CHAPTER 2: PLANNING FOR A MOSAIC OF LAND USES IN LIVING LANDSCAPES

These Ecosystem Guidelines are focused on biodiversity management beyond the PA network, and are not restricted to threatened ecosystems or protected species identified in terms of the Biodiversity Act. The intention is to look at managing human activities within natural ecosystems in such a way to ensure the sustainability of both.

2.1 Systematic biodiversity planning

The systematic biodiversity planning method is a strategic and scientific approach used to identify geographic biodiversity priority areas. In South Africa, the term ‘systematic biodiversity planning’ (hereinafter referred to as biodiversity planning’) is used instead of ‘systematic conservation planning’ since the intention is to plan for appropriate biodiversity management outside of PAs, and not necessarily formal conservation. Biodiversity management must be focused on these biodiversity priority areas, allowing other forms of intensive land use (intensive agriculture, settlements etc.) to be located elsewhere in the landscape where their impact on biodiversity can be minimised.

Biodiversity planning involves the following steps5:

Step 1. Map available scientific information relating to biodiversity features (e.g. ecosystems, species, and spatial components of ecological processes) and a range of information related to these biodiversity features and their ecological condition.

Step 2. Set quantitative biodiversity targets for the biodiversity features.

Step 3. Undertake a biodiversity assessment using biodiversity planning software linked to GIS.

Step 4. Interpret the biodiversity assessment and use it to generate a Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map that shows spatial biodiversity priorities.

A CBA Map is produced, which is a spatial plan for ecological sustainability indicating where biodiversity priority areas are located within the landscape, including terrestrial and aquatic elements. Priority areas are configured to be spatially efficient, so that targets can be met in the smallest possible area, and to avoid conflict with other land and resource uses where possible. A CBA map includes the following categories:

• PAs provide formal long-term protection for important biodiversity and landscape features. Together with CBAs, PAs ensure that a viable representative sample of all ecosystem types and species can persist. PAs must stay in largely natural ecological condition, which is determined in the management plan required for each area.

• CBA 1 and 2 areas are required to meet biodiversity targets for ecosystems, species and ecological processes. These areas need to be maintained in a natural or near-natural state. If these areas were to be modified, biodiversity targets could not be met. CBA 1 areas are irreplaceable, and CBA 2 areas are optimal.

• ESAs areas must be maintained in at least fair ecological condition (semi-natural/moderately modified state) to support the ecological functioning of a CBA or protected area, or to generate or deliver ecosystem services, or to meet remaining biodiversity targets for ecosystem types or species when it is not possible or not necessary to meet them in natural or near-natural areas. .

5 The reader must refer to SANBI’s Technical Guidelines for CBA Maps - SANBI. 2017. Technical guidelines for CBA Maps: Guidelines for developing a map of Critical Biodiversity Areas & Ecological Support Areas using systematic biodiversity planning. First Edition (Beta Version), June 2017. Compiled by Driver, A., Holness, S. & Daniels, F. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria


8

• Other Natural Areas (ONAs) consist of all those areas in good or fair ecological condition that fall outside the protected area network and have not been identified as CBAs or ESAs.

• No Natural Habitat Remaining (NNRs) are areas in poor ecological condition that have not been identified as CBAs or ESAs. They include all irreversibly modified areas (such as urban or industrial areas and mines), and most severely modified areas (such as cultivated fields and forestry plantations).

A set of land use guidelines are developed for CBAs and ESAs in Biodiversity Sector Plans which give an indication of land-uses that are compatible with maintaining biodiversity in these priority areas. A Bioregional Plan is a Biodiversity Sector Plan that has been subject to a consultative process with municipalities, and that is gazetted in terms of Chapter 3 the Biodiversity Act. A Bioregional Plan must be produced in terms of the ‘Guidelines regarding the determination of bioregions and the preparation of and publication of Bioregional Plans’ under the Biodiversity Act (Notice No. 291, Government Gazette No. 32006, March 2009). CBA Maps therefore form the basis for the biodiversity sector’s input into multi-sectoral planning and decision-making, and are used to guide sustainable development planning in SDFs, IDPs, EMFs, Land Use Schemes, Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs), EIAs, and the environmental authorisation process. Once a BRP is gazetted, it is a legally required to consider it in all future planning by the relevant municipality.

CBA maps are very useful in the environmental assessment process, and must be referred to in the screening stage to identify and describe biodiversity priority areas. These are referenced in Listing Notice 3 of the EIA Regulations in NEMA, and can trigger the need for environmental assessment for different types of land use change.

Biodiversity plans have been developed for all the provinces in the Savanna biome. Bioregional Plans have been developed for some district and metropolitan municipalities, based on these provincial plans and after a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process (refer to Appendix 2). These plans can be accessed via the SANBI BGIS website (http://bgis.sanbi.org/) or from the relevant conservation agency or environmental department. The most recent version must always be confirmed with the relevant authority as they are periodically updated. Depending on the location and extent of the study area, more than one biodiversity plan may need to be referenced as sites may cross administrative boundaries.

2.1.1 Spatial components of ecological processes Biodiversity pattern refers to the compositional and structural aspects of biodiversity, at the genetic, species or ecosystem level. Ecological processes refers to the functions and processes that operate to maintain and generate biodiversity (e.g. the seed dispersal mechanisms that allow the plant species to persist).

Biodiversity pattern and ecological process are inextricably linked: if sufficient habitat is not conserved to ensure that ecological processes are maintained, then biodiversity pattern will be lost in the medium to long term. Both need to be


9

considered during land-use planning processes to ensure that the location of land uses in the broader landscape will not result in irreparable damage or loss of irreplaceable biodiversity.

Ecological processes can be hard to observe in time and space. This makes the task of measuring, quantifying and mapping them difficult. Some ecological processes are represented by spatial components, which are specific environmental features that can be mapped as surrogates of these processes. Spatial components can include physical linkages, boundaries, and gradients in the landscape (e.g. temperature and precipitation gradients, altitudinal changes and contours, soil types and interfaces, vegetation types and ecotones, river corridors and animal migration pathways).

Biodiversity planning recognises two categories of spatial components:

• Spatially fixed components are those with clearly defined physical features in the landscape, such as rocky outcrops or a river corridor.

• Spatially flexible components are those which can persist in various spatial configurations, e.g. migration routes of animals from upland to lowland areas, where there is no single route

If kept relatively intact in well-managed areas of natural or near-natural habitat, spatial components sustain ecological processes. Because they occur at different scales they will require a different amount of natural habitat to ensure their persistence. Mapping these spatial components enables conservation of ecological processes in biodiversity plans by including them in ecological corridors which form part of the network of CBAs and ESAs.

Ecological processes occur at different scales: hydrological processes or animal migration routes operate across large landscapes, whereas other ecological processes, e.g. pollination, operate at far smaller scales. Not all spatial components of ecological processes are therefore reflected in biodiversity plans, given different scales and conservation priorities. In general, it is mostly the large-scale ecological processes, considered important to meet biodiversity targets at the broad biome level that have been mapped in biodiversity plans. Ecological corridors or vegetation boundaries representative of localised and equally important ecological processes within local catchments may not have been mapped. The identification of these important local-scale ecological processes is generally the responsibility of the EAP and/or ecological specialist.

In the land use planning and environmental assessment process, it is important that each area be investigated to determine which areas and spatial components of ecological processes are needed for biodiversity persistence. The absence of a biodiversity plan for the area or the lack of an identified corridor within available plans does not preclude consideration of this aspect. The size of the area, the landscape features, the types of management being applied, and the nature and ecological state of the area must all be considered to conserve ecological processes. Each situation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In line with the objectives of an ecosystem approach, fragmentation of natural areas and creating isolated ‘islands of biodiversity’ must be prevented - fragmentation disrupts the ecological processes needed to maintain functional ecosystems and intact biodiversity. It is important that connectivity between biodiversity in PAs, and biodiversity priority areas outside of the PA network is maintained. CBA maps and biodiversity plans are extremely useful in providing a basis for conneciting areas across the landscape, and maintaining ecological processes that operate at a large scale

2.2 Planning ahead: incorporating biodiversity planning principles in the EIA and land-use planning process

The EIA process has been developed and legislated to manage the impact of development on biodiversity. The emphasis on proactive consideration of biodiversity to prevent ongoing biodiversity loss is a defining principle of international best practice in environmental assessment. The principle can be applied to other planning and decision-making processes that may impact on biodiversity and ecosystems, such as the development of SDFs and EMFs. Determining the context within which a new land use is being proposed allows for a more informed analysis of the need and desirability of a project to be made, both in terms of its ‘fit’ with environmental opportunities and constraints, and its ecological sustainability.

Referring to these Ecosystem Guidelines, and information in biodiversity plans during the initial stages of project planning allows for the early identification of any limitations, risks and impacts, and can help avoid impacts and resolve problems in the formal application process. The timeframes contained within the NEMA EIA Regulations (as amended, 2017), are extremely short for both the Basic Assessment and the Scoping and EIA processes and are designed for the review process rather than assessment (refer to flowcharts of the regulated process given in Figure 2 and Figure 3). Once an application for environmental authorisation is submitted to the competent authority the ‘clock starts ticking’ in terms of the regulated timeframes, and deadlines for submitting reports to the authorities, and their review periods, apply. It is advisable that the involvement of specialists and engagement with the applicable environmental authority, conservation agencies and key biodiversity stakeholders takes place before an application for environmental authorisation is submitted to the competent authority (i.e. at the pre-application or screening phase).

The DEA has developed a national web-based Environmental Screening Tool (to be published in 2019) which is an online map-based platform that when enforced, must be used by EAPs during the screening phase of an EIA to identify environmental sensitivities on the site(s) in question. A screening report is generated, that must be submitted with an application for environmental authorisation in terms of the EIA Regulations under NEMA. The screening report identifies environmental sensitivities, and classifies the environmental sensitivity status of the site in question. The intention of the tool is to identify environmental sensitivities at the start of the application process so that environmental impacts can be avoided as far as possible in development planning and the assessment of alternatives. The Tool can be accessed at https://screening.environment.gov.za/screeningtool.

Draft ‘Procedures to be Followed for the Assessment and Minimum Criteria for Reporting of Identified Environmental Themes in terms of Section 24(5)(a) and (h) of the NEMA (1998) when Applying for Environmental Authorisation’ have also been developed by the DEA for gazetting in 2019. ‘Protocols’ for the various environmental themes outline the methodology to be used in the assessment and reporting of impacts, depending on sensitivity status of the site/area. Protocols have been developed for agriculture, avifauna, biodiversity, noise, defence, civil aviation; and replace the requirements of Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations. General requirements are also provided for undertaking an Initial Site Sensitivity Verification for a site selected on the national web based Environmental Screening tool for which no specific assessment protocol related to any theme has been identified. The purpose of the Protocols is to standardise the approach and methodology used in the assessment of impacts, and to ensure that a comprehensive assessment is done which considers all relevant aspects

The EIA process is often activity- and site-specific which can be at the cost of a broader ecosystem perspective. This can be addressed through the use of biodiversity plans, and comprehensive biodiversity assessments. Guidance on how to plan for and undertake assessments is given below. Generic Terms of Reference (ToR) for terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity specialist studies are provided in Appendix 3 and 4 respectively. These ToR should be used in conjunction with the Savanna biome Ecosystem Guidelines and other available resources to ensure proactive consideration of biodiversity in the pre-application stage of project development and throughout the EIA process.

Six steps for the early identification of biodiversity issues in land use planning:

Step 1: Prepare for the site visit by:

Synthesising relevant and available biodiversity information to determine the sensitivity rating of the site, and if biodiversity priority areas occur (the web-based Environmental Screening Tool must be used here). Read background information in Technical Documents with BSPs and BRPs to understand the reason for identification of an area as a CBA, ESA, or threatened ecosystem. Information can be accessed at http://bgis.sanbi.org/. Should the reader not be able to access web-based information, they must consult the local competent authority for alternative means.

Research characteristic floral species expected in the vegetation type listed for the area. For example, the VEGMAP describes vegetation types across the country, and provides a list of floral species that may be found in the area. Vegetation maps and descriptions may be available at a finer scale in Provincial Biodiversity Plans, BSPs and/or BRPs.

Consult available point locality data for plants, and locality data available for animals at an appropriate scale (depending on the species and their range). Atlases and/or floral and faunal species data listed for the quarter degree square in which the site occurs can be accessed to determine what species and SCCs may be found. Quarter degree square data is at a coarse scale, and may only be useful for large mammals and birds that have big ranges. Determine whether expected floral species need to be flowering or fruiting for identification, and if fauna are migratory as these are important aspects for planning the timing of the site survey. Data can be requested from the competent authority in the area. Plant species lists can be accessed on SANBI’s ‘Plants of southern Africa’ (POSA) site at http://newposa.sanbi.org/ . Plant locality data will be available for areas with high environmental sensitivity status on the Environmental Screening Tool at a fine scale. The confirmed habitat of range restricted and threatened plant species will be mapped for areas with very high environmental sensitivity status.

If wetlands and watercourses are expected, access information on the type of aquatic habitats in the area, how they function, and what their flow requirements are.

Review recent aerial or satellite images (and where possible, historical images to track land-use change) and contour maps to determine the nature of the area, surrounding land-use types, land forms, land cover, drainage patterns, topography, slope etc.

Physical factors are critical drivers of change, and need to be investigated on a landscape level, and in micro-siting. A useful resource is LandType maps developed by the DAFF. The reader starts by identifying where the site is situated in relation to the national LandType map and refers to the detailed information available for the specific land type. A general profile of the area is given, with associated terrain, slope and soil types. This information is key to describing biodiversity change/patchiness/mosaics across an area, and in making decisions on how biodiversity needs to be managed, and what needs to be addressed in rehabilitation. This information should be used as a basis in all biodiversity assessments.

Read Ecosystem Guidelines available for the biome to understand what the ecological drivers of the relevant Ecosystem Group(s) are.

Step 2: Visit the site, and do an initial site sensitivity verification. Refer to the DEA’s Protocols for guidance on the assessment and reporting requirements for consistency of approach. Alternatively, refer to Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations where no Protocols apply. During the site survey, the following aspects must be mapped and described: the extent and status of areas that are irreversibly modified, biodiversity features and ecological processes, and the location of SCCs and special habitats. The ecological condition must be assessed and described, and the reason for the identification and extent of any biodiversity priority areas (e.g. CBAs and ESAs) understood. If a discrepancy is noted between what available data specifies for the area and what is observed on site (e.g. the vegetation type on site does not match the description in VEGMAP), the entity responsible for compiling the data should be alerted. For variances in terrestrial vegetation, the VEGMAP team can be alerted to the problem via their online survey at


12

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeMAbFF3jgbHErPUYD0hiQaTjTkb9KAm5ec2SBQd2jCYG7ooA/viewform or via email to [email protected]

Note that biodiversity plans are generally updated on a 5 year basis. A lot can change on the ground in this time, and the reader therefore needs to consider the current status of biodiversity in the area using a combination of a site assessment, available biodiversity plans and information, and by investigating the land use history of the site. Remote sensing SPOT Images can be obtained from DAFF to assist with mapping current site conditions. The importance of a detailed biodiversity site assessment, in conjunction with available spatial biodiversity tools, cannot be emphasised enough

Step 3: develop a map that shows biodiversity priority areas and other environmentally sensitive areas, and apply required buffers (for example to wetlands, rivers and SCCs). Maintain and accommodate clear vegetation boundaries (i.e. biome boundaries, riverine corridors, soil interfaces, etc.) as open spaces. Overlay the development footprint and ensure that biodiversity priority areas and sensitive areas are avoided. Be sure to check for connectivity on a local- and landscape level, and that sufficient space has been designated for ecological processes to operate.

Step 4: Identify and assess probable impacts of the proposed land use on biodiversity and determine whether, and how, impacts can be avoided by considering all feasible alternatives. Apply the mitigation hierarchy rigorously to biodiversity impacts, ensuring that reasonable and feasible alternatives have been given due consideration and the least impact option has been selected. Refer to the section on impact avoidance and the mitigation hierarchy in the section that follows

Step 5: Identify opportunities to conserve or restore biodiversity.

Step 6: Use biome Ecosystem Guidelines to identify best practice management methods for biodiversity persistence, considering local and larger-scale ecological processes and connectivity. Refer to Chapter 5 for recommendations on the best spatial approaches to take for maintaining functional ecosystems at a landscape scale in the various Ecosystem Groups in the biome.

Figure 2: Synopsis of the application process, with regulated timeframes, for a Basic Assessment in terms of the EIA Regulations (2014, as amended in 2017)


14

Figure 3: Synopsis of the application process, with regulated timeframes, for a Scoping and EIA in terms of the EIA Regulations (2014, as amended in 2017)


15

2.2.1 The mitigation hierarchy The mitigation of negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services is a legal requirement in terms of NEMA. The principles in Section 2 of this Act require that impacts be avoided and, where they cannot altogether be avoided, are minimised and remedied. Figure 4 outlines the mitigation hierarchy, where the priority is always on impact avoidance. Where impacts cannot be avoided, and would result in an unacceptably high negative impact on the biophysical and/or social environment, the activity must not take place. With specific reference to biodiversity, the ‘no go’ option must be selected where a proposed activity would lead to loss of irreplaceable biodiversity and/or irreversible ecological impacts. Where unavoidable impacts are not unacceptably high, mitigation measures must be applied to reduce the significance of the impact to acceptable levels by applying alternatives. After measures to avoid and minimise impacts have been incorporated into the proposal, and where negative impacts remain, rehabilitation measures are applied.

Once the first three groups of measures in the mitigation hierarchy have been adequately and explicitly considered (i.e. avoid, minimize and rehabilitate/ restore), and where the remaining negative impacts on biodiversity and/or ecological infrastructure are of medium to high significance, biodiversity offsets must be considered. Where severe biodiversity impacts are expected to occur, the guiding principle should always be ‘anticipate and prevent’ rather than ‘assess and repair’. Further, biodiversity offsets should only be considered in instances where no other feasible or reasonable alternatives are possible, and if the project has demonstrated (through an independent specialist study) overriding social benefit in the interest of the broader community (rather than individuals). Should the need for biodiversity offsets be identified, a biodiversity offset specialist should be appointed early in the application process (preferably during the pre-application or screening phase), so that the biodiversity offset can be addressed as an integral part of the EIA process. A ‘Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy’ was published (G 40733 No 276) for public comment on 31 March 2017. Provincial Guidelines on biodiversity offsets have been published for the Western Cape (2011, revised 2015) and KwaZulu Natal (2013), and drafted for the Gauteng Province. A best practice guideline for wetland offsets has been published by the Water Research Commission (Macfarlane et. al., 2016); and must be used during the Water Use Licence Application process where offsets are required for residual impacts on wetlands6.

Two case studies where biodiversity offsets were implemented are given below. The first is an example of poor planning, and applying biodiversity offsets too late in the process. The second is an example of successful use of wetland offsets.

6 DWS regulations R267 of 24 March 2017.

Figure 4: Mitigation hierarchy (adapted from Mining and Biodiversity Guideline, DEA et al 2013).

Biodiversity Offset: Case Study 1 (DEA, Discussion on biodiversity offsets, 2015) The World Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape Heritage Site is situated in Limpopo province. The site has unique cultural and biodiversity attributes, and is also located in an area rich in mineral resources, particularly coal.

In 2010, the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) granted Coal of Africa (CoAL) mining rights in the buffer zone of the World Heritage Site, which was earmarked for expansion as part of the Greater Mapungubwe Conservation Transfrontier Area.

CoAL commenced operations without an environmental authorisation. In July 2011 the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) granted environmental authorisation for the mining activities, but included a condition that CoAL enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SANParks and the DEA to develop a Biodiversity Offset Agreement.

As a result of the MOU, the Mapungubwe Biodiversity Offsets Negotiation Committee was established, with the purpose of agreeing on the scope of the offsets in terms of residual impact, offset receiving areas, financial requirements, policy and legal arrangements. In 2013 the Committee announced that CoAL had agreed to an offset amount of R55 million, payable over 25 years (estimated life of the mine). The funds would be used for management and rehabilitation of archaeological sites, for maintaining infrastructure and would create an estimated 349 temporary jobs for local communities.

This offset agreement was met with criticism and the ‘Save Mapungubwe Coalition’ mobilised. Criticisms from the Coalition included the overall process, failure to include Interested and Affected Parties in the negotiation process, lack of clarity regarding how the offset agreement proposed to remedy the residual impacts of mining activities had been developed, concerns relating to the fact that increasing the conservation area of the Mapungubwe National Park and World Heritage Site was not an objective in the agreement, and insufficient guarantees to bind CoAL to the terms of payment and that, by the time the agreement lapsed in 2038, R55 million would represent an insubstantial contribution. Other objections raised include that the offset is being used to substitute for state funding of PAs and to develop infrastructure, therefore undermining the principle of additionality and “like-for-like” exchanges.

Biodiversity Offset: Case Study 2 (DEA, Discussion on biodiversity offsets, 2015) In 2003, Angola Coal applied to mine coal at an open cast colliery (Isibonelo) near Kriel in the Mpumalanga Highveld which would result in a negative impact on a large portion of the Steenkoolspruit wetland. The Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) (now the DMR) and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) (now Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)) would only issue authorisation on condition that AngloCoal offset the impact. The equivalent to what would be destroyed (119 hectares of wetlands) would have to be rehabilitated elsewhere in the catchment. This offset would benefit Kriel Municipality, local communities and farmers. This led to the development of the ‘Isibonelo Wetland Offset Pilot Project’ with the aim of designing and implementing an effective wetland offset.

The selection of suitable offset sites was done with input from the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA). Working for Wetlands (managed by SANBI) assisted with the design and implementation of wetland rehabilitation. This added credibility to the process.

Because the Working for Wetlands is a government public works programme, the rehabilitation process was labour intensive and designed to provide local people with opportunities to develop work skills.

The offset has had a positive social impact on communities impacted by the mine. To date the first phase of the offset has been completed and 45 hectares of wetland have been rehabilitated.

The second phase, covering the remaining 74 hectares has not yet been implemented and is awaiting the finalised agreement between DWS and AngloCoal, 10 years after the commencement of mining activity.

This project highlighted the need for clear, agreed upon guidelines for offset implementation and motivated the development of a nationally applicable guideline for wetland offsets.

CHAPTER 3: ECOSYSTEMS OF THE SAVANNA BIOME 3.1 Overview of ecosystems and the ecosystem approach

Considering the clear benefit of ecosystem services, integrating biodiversity management into the land use management and planning process is key. It makes economic sense to manage ecological infrastructure and keep these natural ecosystems in good ecological condition to ensure ongoing delivery of ecosystem services. Interventions to restore ecological infrastructure are available (e.g. constructing artificial wetlands or removal of alien vegetation), but these are often expensive and time consuming. The focus should therefore be on protection and management to prevent ecosystem collapse.

The ‘ecosystem approach’ is advocated by the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. It attempts to balance biodiversity conservation, resource use, and the level of human activity across the entire landscape.

The ecosystem approach recognises that:

• Humans are an integral part of many ecosystems. Impacts of people on ecosystems, and the interconnectivity of ecosystems, must be recognised and considered in biodiversity management.

• Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing, and management measures should adapt accordingly. • Biodiversity management must be informed by an array of stakeholders with varying expertise at all levels.

Implementation should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level to bring management closer to the ecosystem. All forms of relevant information (scientific, indigenous, local) should be considered in management decisions.

• Ecosystems should be understood and managed in an economic context due to the valuable goods and services many ecosystems provide.

• Ecosystem structure and functioning must be conserved so that ecosystem services can be maintained, and ecosystems must be managed within their functional limits.

A community is a group or association of populations of two or more different species (plants, animals, micro-organisms) occupying the same geographical area at a particular time.

An ecosystem is an assemblage of living organisms, and the interactions between them and their physical environment. It is characterised by its composition (both living and non-living parts), structure (how the parts are arraned in time and space), and ecological processes that maintain and generate biodiversity.

Ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). A more diverse and intact ecosystem will produce better ecosystem services (Harrison et al, 2014), which have social and economic value. Examples include control of pests, pollination, flood attenuation, soil protection and pollination with benefits for food production etc. Broadly speaking, there are four types of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural (refer to Figure 5).

Ecological infrastructure refers to the naturally functioning ecosystems that generate or deliver valuable ecosystem services – they are nature’s equivalent of built infrastructure. Examples include mountain catchment areas, wetlands and soils. Intact ecological infrastructure provides long-term, cost-effective natural solutions to the maintenance and ongoing delivery of vital services to communities (for example intact and functional wetlands attenuate surface water flow in high rainfall conditions, preventing flooding and damage to properties and infrastructure).


19

• A balance, and integration, of the conservation and use of biodiversity is required and a shift away from strictly protected and strictly human-made ecosystems is needed.

• Management at varying spatial and time scales should be applied to meet management objectives

Figure 5: Linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being (Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework for ecosystem services: MEA, 2005)

3.2 Ecosystems under pressure

Ongoing land cover change and habitat loss to meet the needs of a growing population is placing enormous pressure on ecosystems, so that most have been influenced or modified to some extent by human activity. When natural systems are not considered, development can impact on ecological infrastructure and ecosystem services. Current pressures and impacts on biodiversity in the Savanna biome are described in Chapter 4.

3.2.1 Thresholds of change and ecosystem resilience The functioning and resilience of ecosystems is dependent on the relationships amongst species, between species and their abiotic environment, and the physical and chemical interactions taking place. The level of demand placed on an ecosystem to provide services, and the level of disturbance that an ecosystem can withstand, has limits. Ecosystems are


20

dynamic and complex, and different ecosystems have varying levels of resilience. They can be compared to a puzzle with many inter-locking pieces; where it is uncertain how many pieces can be removed before the system collapses.

The ‘threshold’ of an ecosystem is the tipping point where ongoing disturbance or change results in an irreversible change in its composition, structure and function. Surpassing ecosystem thresholds reduces ecosystem resilience, and diminishes the quality and quantity of ecosystem services provided.

The biodiversity target for ecosystems is the minimum proportion of each ecosystem type that needs to be kept in good ecological condition in the long term to maintain viable representative samples of all ecosystem types and the majority of species associated with them

‘Ecosystem Threat Status’ is a term used to indicate how threatened an ecosystem type is.

The method used by the IUCN has been adopted in the current determination of ecosystem threat status in the NBA (to be published in 2019).

‘Ecosystem Protection Level’ is an indicator of how well represented an ecosystem type is in the PA network. Ecosystem types are categorised as well protected, moderately protected, poorly protected or unprotected, based on the proportion of the biodiversity target for each ecosystem type that is included in one or more PAs. Unprotected, poorly protected and moderately protected ecosystem types are collectively referred to as under protected ecosystems.

The NBA (Draft 2018) did an ecosystem assessment and has determined the ecosystem threat status (also referred to as the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE)) and protection level of ecosystem types in South Africa. Categories used in the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems have been adopted and used in the recent assessment. Eight categories are included in the RLE which reflect the remaining amount of the ecosystem type in relation to its biodiversity target. The categories are: Collapsed (CO), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD) and Not Evaluated (NE). The first 6 categories are ordered in decreasing risk of collapse, while the last two (i.e. DD and NE) do not indicate a risk level. CR, EN and VU ecosystems are classified as threatened ecosystems (Bland et. al., 2017). The process (refer to Figure 6) of evaluating the RLE categories (and ecosystem threat status) involves data gathering and analysis, and application of results using 5 criterion. These are:

• Reduction in distribution, and restricted distribution where spatial data on the extent of the various ecosystems is gathered and analysed to determine change in cover between the current extent, and the reference state (1750)

• Environmental degradation: abiotic variables are selected, and collapse thresholds designated. The relative severity and extent of degradation of selected abiotic variables is estimated over time

• Disruption of biotic processes: biotic processes are selected, and their collapse thresholds indicated. The relative severity and extent of disruption of biotic processes is estimated over time.

• A quantitative analysis is done using an appropriate ecosystem model, and the probability of collapse of ecosystems is calculated (and ecosystem threat status determined).

The ecosystem threat status and protection level for the various ecosystem types in the Savanna biome are given under each Ecosystem Group in Chapter 5. Eleven threatened ecosystems have been identified in the Savanna biome, which makes up 3% of the natural remaining habitat in the biome. The Fynbos, Savanna and Grassland biomes have by far the highest actual number of under-protected ecosystems. There are variances in the ecosystem protection level within the Savanna biome, where lowveld savanna types are Well Protected by the Kruger National Park (KNP) and arid savanna types by Kgalagadi Transfrontier Conservation Area, but the central bushveld savanna types (largely in central and western Limpopo) are still Poorly Protected (NBA, Draft 2018).

South Africa’s first List of Threatened Ecosystems was published in terms of the Biodiversity Act in 2011 (G34809, Government Notice 1002, 9 December 2011). The list of threatened ecosystems in terms of the Act will need to be updated


21

based on the NBA 2018 ecosystem threat status revisions. Sites identified as threatened ecosystems on this list can be a trigger for environmental authorisation in terms of the EIA Regulations under NEMA.

The ecosystem approach considers all available and applicable management and conservation measures and resources. The Protected Areas Act provides for statutory PAs that are managed primarily for biodiversity conservation purposes. Of the biomes in South Africa, the Savanna biome has the greatest proportion of its extent in PAs. Examples of PAs within the Savanna biome include the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Mokala National Park, Pilanesberg National Park and the KNP. Development within a PA or within 5 or 10 km of a PA (depending on the type of development and type of PA) can trigger the need for environmental authorisation in terms of the EIA Regulations under NEMA.

Figure 6: Process of evaluating the IUCN Red List of Ecosystem Criteria (Bland et. al., 2017).

.

Figure 7: Protected Areas (NBA 2018) occurring in the Savanna biome.

3.3 Defining Ecosystem Groups in the Savanna biome in South Africa

The Ecosystem Guidelines are founded on the division of the Savanna biome into 8 Ecosystem Groups, 7 terrestrial and 1 aquatic. The designation of the terrestrial Groups is based on South Africa’s 6 bioregions7 that share similar ecological drivers, characteristics, and have similar management requirements. The only exceptions are that the Lowveld Bioregion was divided into Arid Lowveld Bushveld (occurring on lowveld plains) and Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna. Cognisance has also been taken of the extent of the biome as per the VEGMAP (2018).

Mountain bushveld is a group of unique vegetation types occurring across 4 of the 7 terrestrial Ecosystem Groups in the Savanna biome. It is not defined as a separate Ecosystem Group since its geographic distribution is only determined by topography (rather than the gradient of factors that differentiates the other Groups). However, it is distinct from the other vegetation occurring within the Group in which it occurs, and management measures may differ from those for the rest of the Group.

Wetlands and watercourses occurring in association with terrestrial Ecosystem Groups in the Savanna biome are grouped as ‘Inland Aquatic Ecosystems’.

The 8 Ecosystem Groups that will be referred to in these Guidelines are therefore Kalahari Duneveld, Kalahari Bushveld, Central Plains Bushveld, Mopane Bushveld, Arid Lowveld Bushveld, Moist Sour Lowveld Bushveld, Sub-escarpment Savanna and Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (refer to Figure 8). Chapters 5 elaborates on the distribution, characteristics, functioning and management requirements of these Groups.

7 Bioregion in this contect is as per the National biome map and should not be confused with bioregion as defined in Section 41 of the Biodiversity Act

Figure 8: Terrestrial Ecosystem Groups of the Savanna biome.

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR AND MANAGING RISKS AND PRESSURES

The role of people in influencing habitat modification and land degradation is complex, and can be divided into 3 forms of influence:

The primary form is the use of natural resources for productive purposes i.e. for agriculture, natural resource harvesting for fuel, building, minerals, water extraction, etc.

A secondary form is the use of land for purposes that do not directly depend on resource extraction or interference with biotic processes; e.g. settlement, infrastructure and recreation.

A tertiary form comprises the unintended and often remote impacts of activity on land resources; e.g. pollution of surface water and groundwater by industry.

Human influences can also be positive in the form of restoration and other conservation efforts (Hoffman et al., 1999).

Two terms are used to describe, quantify and assess changes to natural habitat, and the resultant ecosystem threat status. These are ‘land cover’ and ‘land use’.

• Land cover data is used to quantify the extent of remaining natural habitat and classify land-uses that can readily be identified from aerial images (e.g. the presence of agricultural croplands and urban settlements).

• Land use is defined as the sequence of operations done to obtain goods and services from the land. It can be characterized by the goods and services obtained, as well as by the particular management interventions undertaken by the land users. Land uses can negatively affect the productivity and condition of land, and its ecological integrity. Land use change (and degradation) is not always detectable from aerial images.

Land use change is one of the biggest pressures leading to land cover change, habitat loss, and degradation. Habitat loss affects ecosystem threat status, and impacts on provisioning of ecosystem goods and services. Land-use pattern provides an important context for understanding land use change and possible degradation, as well as future opportunities for biodiversity and land-use management.

SANBI has developed a land cover-based habitat modification layer in the NBA (2018), primarily using the 1990 and 2013/2014 national land cover products developed by GEOTERRAIMAGE (GTI) in 2015. These products were reclassified and combined into a simple land cover change map, and then refined using additional input data on historical field crop boundaries and artificial waterbodies (Skowno, 2018). This information has been used to determine habitat loss over time (i.e. between the reference state (1750), 1990 and 2014) in different ecosystem types (and biomes), and the predominant land cover types responsible for the loss. The assessment shows that approximately 19% of ecosystems in the Savanna biome has been lost between the reference state (1750) and 2014; with ~2.5% being lost between 1990 and 2014. Croplands account for the predominant land cover type (~10% of the biome), followed by ‘secondary natural’8 (5%) and ‘built up’ (3%) environments (SANBI NBA preliminary data, 2018). Note that that the habitat modification layer is based on a broad distinction of ‘natural’ versus ‘not natural’ areas and does not include the full range of classes from areas in natural state to near-natural (rangelands), fair condition, poor condition (e.g. degraded rangelands or areas with alien invasive plants (AIPs)) to areas where complete conversion of natural habits has occurred (e.g. cropland, built up

8 ‘secondary natural’ areas are those that were classified as ‘natural’ in the 1990 and 2014 Land Cover map, but are in fact old croplands that have been abandoned since the 1960s. While they may resemble natural areas, they are likely to have lost the majority of their native flora and fauna. In the 2018 land cover-based habitat modification analysis, these areas have been classified as ‘secondary natural’


26

areas). Degraded lands are therefore mostly mapped into the ‘natural’ class. Further, livestock rangelands are not included as a land cover class as it is a land use that cannot be distinguished from natural areas in which no livestock occur using Remote Sensing (Skowno, 2018). The habitat modification assessment therefore serves as an indication of relative habitat modification in the Savanna biome, and underestimates biodiversity impacts on the biome as a result of degradation and/or other activities that cannot be detected in land cover mapping using Remote Sensing (e.g. fencing, overgrazing). This could mean there is an under-representation of ecosystem threat status in some ecosystem types.

Figure 9 is a Land Cover Map (2014), showing land cover types in the Savanna biome.

Different land-use activities pose different types and levels of risks/pressures to the Savanna biome with varying impacts and consequences:

• Direct impacts are those impacts directly linked to the project. Intensive agriculture, urban development, industry, and mining may cause a direct risk to savanna ecosystems by clearing of vegetation and habitat fragmentation; resulting in loss of habitat and species, and possibly affecting ecological processes.

• Indirect or secondary impacts are those impacts resulting from the project that may occur beyond or downstream of the boundaries of the project site and/or after the project activity has ceased, and/or through complex impact pathways. Poorly managed agriculture may have indirect impacts on savanna vegetation as a result of overgrazing/over-browsing, inappropriate fire management, and uncontrolled use of pesticides and inorganic fertilisers for example. This may result in land degradation with a change in species composition and diversity, bush encroachment, spread of AIPs, deterioration of soil and water quality, erosion, etc.

• Cumulative impacts are those impacts from the project combined with the impacts from past, existing and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would affect the same biodiversity or natural resources

• Some activities pose higher risks than others - e.g. low-impact developments with sensitive designs and small footprints would require less clearing of vegetation than extensive urban developments; intensive agricultural practices may require more vegetation clearing and higher application rates and dosage of pesticides and fertilisers for mono-culture crop production.

• Activities that impact on the Savanna biome can be site specific, but may have local, regional, national or even global (e.g. climate change) consequences. Clearing savanna vegetation on a site (local activity) that is part of a greater conservation corridor (e.g. a CBA in a provincial biodiversity plan) can impact on regional or national biodiversity targets. Lack of control of AIPs on a farm (local activity) in the catchment area of a river can reduce base flow and impact on a distant town’s water supply scheme (regional impact).

Table 2 identifies types of land uses in the Savanna biome, what pressures or risks these pose to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and their typical impacts. For the purpose of these Ecosystem Guidelines, the land use activities taking place in the Savanna biome have been broadly divided into ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ influences (as per the description above by Hoffman et. al., 1999). The risks and impacts of climate change apply across the land use types and have the potential to impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, reducing ecosystem resilience and the services that functional ecosystems provide to society. The severity of anticipated impacts given in the table is likely to increase when climate change is considered. Climate change is discussed under Section 4.2

Note: Common names are used for fauna and flora in this Chapter. A list of common and scientific names is given in Appendix 5.

Figure 9: National Landcover Map in the Savanna biome (2014).

Table 2: Pressures and Risks on Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems in the Savanna biome, and anticipated impacts

Activity Main Pressures/Risks Impacts

Primary Activities

Subsistence Farming

Keeping livestock Over-grazing, burning veld too frequently or in incorrect season for grazing

Shift in vegetation species composition Loss of topsoil and erosion Burning is often done in the early-season which could break up fuel loads for later fires Bush encroachment (i.e. a decrease in palatable grasses and herbs caused by encroaching, often unpalatable, woody species, resulting in a decrease in the carrying capacity of the area (Ward et al, 2005; Hudack, 1999). Bush encroachment lowers grass production and reduces the grazing capacity of the veld, especially for purposes of cattle production. Grass cover can be reduced between 40 and 90%, depending on the extent of bush encroachment (Hoffman et. al., 1999). Hudack (1999) estimated that bush encroachment in the Savanna biome reduced grazing capacity by up to 50% and has resulted in 1.1 million hectares becoming unusable. Bush encroachment also leads to an increase in transpiration, therefore lowering moisture availability for grasses. Alien invasive vegetation establishment and spread in degraded areas

Crops Clearing vegetation Use of herbicides, pesticides and inorganic fertilisers

Habitat modification, biodiversity loss, Reduction in soil and water quality Impact on biota

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, required for sustainable subsistence farming: Maintaining soil quality, structure and drainage is important for crop production. Functional ecosystems with the correct balance/ratio of trees:grasses is important for sustained and quality grazing for livestock. Managing aquatic ecosystems and water resources for water quality and availability - important for crop irrigation and watering of livestock. Harvesting of flora and fauna Rural Livelihoods Animals for food – e.g. bush meat, edible insects Unsustainable use of plants and animals will lead to loss of species, many of

which are SCCs and keystone species Loss of carnivores (e.g. cheetah and leopard) results in uncontrolled population growth of meso-predators (i.e. black-backed jackal).

Plants for food, cultural use and medicine Wood from trees – energy, building material for fencing, kraals Grass and reeds - thatching grass, brooms, mats


29

Collection of plants and animals for trade in rare and endemic species

Vultures (many of which are critically endangered), are often poisoned by poachers to stop the birds drawing attention to animal carcasses killed during poaching Degradation of natural resources

Animals for food – e.g. bush meat, edible insects Commercial purposes Legal and illegal hunting/poaching of animals

Legal and illegal collection of rare / endemic plants for ornamental trade and medicines

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, required for sustainable resource harvesting: Functional ecosystems with diverse species composition and sustained resource availability are important for continued livelihood provisioning. Commercial cultivation Crops Removal of vegetation for crops - predominant land cover type in the

Savanna biome, accounting for ~10% of natural habitat loss Use of herbicides, pesticides and inorganic fertilisers

Biodiversity loss Water and soil quality deterioration, and impact on biota Disruption of soil profile, and altered drainage patterns, with reduced rehabilitation potential Increased risk of alien invasive vegetation establishment and spread

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, required for commercial cultivation: Maintaining soil quality, structure and drainage is important for crop production. Managing aquatic ecosystems and water resources for water quality and availability - important for crop irrigation. Diverse ecosystems are more resilient to the impacts of climate change, and are less vulnerable to pest infestations. Therefore maintaining ecological corridors in and around crops can act as a buffer and protect crops. Good quality and quantity of water in local resources – needed for irrigation. Plantations

Plantations for commercial forestry occupy a large part of the Moist Lowveld Bushveld and are prominent in the northern parts of the Sub-Escarpment Savanna. Uncommon in the more arid ecosystems of the biome

Removal of vegetation for plantations, which often include a single alien species.

Biodiversity loss Risk of spreading of AIPs to surrounding areas Reduction in stream flow and/or impact on surface/groundwater resources as alien species utilise large volumes of water AIP species present an increased risk of fire occurring unseasonably and burning at higher temperatures than would take place in natural ecosystems

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, related to plantations: Good quality and quantity of water in local resources – plant species in plantations typically require large volumes of water, and can impact on water availability to surrounding natural systems and people if placed incorrectly in the landscape (e.g. in SWSAs). Commercial livestock farming


30

Approximately 84% of biome used for livestock farming, with sheep and cattle being common

Over-stocking of animals, poor land management and over-grazing Illegal hunting and/or poisoning of carnivores (e.g. cheetah, leopard, black-backed jackal, and wild dog) perceived to be ‘damage-causing’ is prevalent on commercial livestock farms to protect livestock Pesticides, herbicides and arboricides are used to control the tree:grass ratio and/or bush encroachment in overgrazed areas

Overgrazing causes land degradation, which is more severe in times of drought. Aerial and basal vegetation cover is reduced, and a shift in vegetation species composition takes place. Can cause mortality of more nutritious perennial grass species (e.g. rooigras), and replacement of long-lived perennial grasses by short-lived non-palatable annual and perennial grasses (Fynn and O’Connor, 2000) and weeds. Reducing the cover and vigour of the grass layer may result in an increase in density of indigenous woody species (i.e. bush encroachment) and spread of alien woody invaders. Degradation of vegetation leads to accelerated soil erosion. Continuous overgrazing eventually results in the loss of biodiversity (although there may be a gain in the number of weedy and pioneer species), and a loss of productivity of the vegetation. When combined with the incorrect application of fire, the undesired results of overgrazing are amplified. Changes to vegetation composition and structure from overstocking make restoration or rehabilitation more difficult to achieve. Loss of carnivores causes uncontrolled population growth of meso-predators (i.e. black-backed jackal). The indiscriminate use of poisons has an impact on all predators and scavengers (mammalian and avian). Pesticides, herbicides and arboricides impact on non-target flora and fauna, and reduces soil and water quality.

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, required for commercial livestock farming: Functional ecosystems with the correct balance/ratio of trees:grasses and an appropriate grass species composition is important for sustained and quality grazing for livestock. Managing aquatic ecosystems and water resources for water quality and availability - important for crop irrigation and watering of livestock Game farming

Commercial game farming has become increasingly popular in the Savanna Biome for hunting and eco-tourism

Overstocking of game species, and poor land management causing overgrazing or over browsing. (depending on game species) Use of fences Keeping extra-limital game species Incorrect application of fire for grazing and/or to control bush encroachment

As above for commercial livestock farming. Additional impacts: Over browsing: Overstocking of browsers can place pressure on indigenous trees and negatively affect their recruitment, especially in fenced areas in smaller game farms and PAs. The activities of elephants and buffalo for example in fenced areas have resulted in dramatic changes in the Savanna biome, where woodlands have been changed into wooded grasslands and grasslands in southern, eastern and central Africa. The most affected tree species due to ringbarking from elephants is knob thorn. The primary cause for low densities of


31

Illegal hunting and/or hunting of predators to protect game Use of pesticides, herbicides and arboricides for grazing and to control bush encroachment Poaching of animals (e.g. white rhinoceros, black rhinoceros, lion, elephant and pangolin)

shepherd’s tree, a keystone species in arid areas of the biome, is the high stocking rates of livestock and game. Keeping extra-limital fauna species: risk of hybridisation and introgression, and deteriorating genetic composition of animals. Fencing: The use of game fencing impacts on the natural movements of animals, contributing to and exacerbating the impacts of overstocking. Fencing may also increase the risk of interbreeding of game species (Trimble and van Aarde, 2014). Electric fencing kills birds and many ground-dwelling species (e.g. pangolin, Southern African python and leguaans) from electrocution. Illegal hunting/poisoning of fauna: loss of species, imbalance in faunal species composition

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, required for game farming: Functional ecosystems with the correct balance/ratio of trees:grasses and an appropriate vegetation species composition is important for sustained and quality grazing and browsing for game species. Managing aquatic ecosystems and water resources for water quality and availability - important for watering of game species. Secondary Activities Urban Development: Built-up areas used for residential and/or commercial and/or industrial activities, associated with cities and towns. Extent of urban settlements varies across the Savanna biome.

Establishment of settlements, and linear infrastructure (e.g. roads, power lines, services) Urbanisation: increasing, especially with high poverty levels where people move to cities for work, and establish in informal settlements often on the urban fringe. Practice urban agriculture (with livestock and crops). Residential expansion into mountain ecosystems (e.g. Gauteng and North-West Province) Industrial development, with associated emissions (air, water). Rural township development with communal grazing land and subsistence agriculture (extensive in Kalahari Bushveld, Central Bushveld, Mopane Bushveld and Arid Lowveld Bushveld Groups) Development in floodplains and / or with insufficient buffers around watercourses

Establishment of settlements: habitat fragmentation, disruption of ecological processes, loss of natural habitat (terrestrial and aquatic), species loss (and sometimes extinction) Urban expansion is one of the primary drivers of natural habitat loss and species extinction (Boon et. al., 2016). Threatened species dependent on specific habitats may be impacted due to urban expansion. An example is the Juliana’s golden mole whose entire habitat of the Bronberg Ridge is at risk of residential creep of the eastern end of Pretoria. Linear development: clearing long strips of vegetation, impacts on ecological processes and creates habitat fragmentation, creates avenues for the spread of alien invasive vegetation, facilitates access to previously inaccessible natural areas. Power lines: impact on birds by electrocution or collision (especially heavy-bodied species e.g. vultures)


32

Increase in hard surfaces and altered hydrological flow (volume and pattern). Generation of effluent, emissions and solid waste. Increased groundwater abstraction to provide potable water to people

Air, water and soil pollution impacting on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems Fauna impacted by vehicle collisions along major roads (e.g. aardwolf and bat-eared foxes) Increased stormwater runoff, and discharge to natural aquatic systems may change hydrological flow patterns and water quality which can impact on the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, and the habitat and physico-chemical properties for aquatic biota. Wetlands are often incorporated into the stormwater management system of developments, and are modified to serve as attenuation/detention ponds. This may change the functioning and characteristics of the wetland (e.g. ephemeral wetlands may change to permanently inundated systems if used as an attenuation pond). If the natural flow requirements of wetlands and watercourses, and the connectivity between these systems and the geohydrological environment is not considered in development planning, they can either dry out or receive too much flow too quickly under high rainfall conditions. Development in floodplains and/or insufficient buffers between hard surfaces and aquatic ecosystems can cause flooding of structures and infrastructure; erosion and increased sediment load (and reduced water quality), burst/leaking sewer lines (which are often placed along watercourses) in high flow conditions, loss of riparian habitat, with altered hydrodynamics and ecosystem functioning. Over-abstraction of groundwater: over-exploitation of the resource, with impacts on natural ecosystems and biota that rely on groundwater.

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, required for sustainable urban settlements: functional aquatic ecosystems (e.g. wetlands) protect settlements and infrastructure from flooding and filter runoff to improve water quality, intact/diverse habitats filter air pollutants and improve air quality which is especially important in cities. Maintaining ecological corridors of well managed biodiversity in cities provides areas for the local community to enjoy for recreational/cultural/spiritual purposes. It makes cities less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change by regulating temperature, controlling pests, providing habitat for pollinators needed or urban agriculture, attenuating floodwaters etc. Mining Opencast, underground, and alluvial mining. Type and extent of mining varies across the Savanna biome

Establishment of mines Emissions Use of water Risk varies according to the type of mining, the scale, duration and extent of mining, the environmental management approach used,

Removal of natural vegetation and habitat destruction (terrestrial and aquatic) resulting in loss and/or degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, fragmentation of habitat, and associated loss of species. In some cases, ecosystems or species could be irreplaceably lost Change to / disruption of ecological processes, sometimes irreversibly (e.g. the breaching of aquitards, changes in the water table and aquifers, disruption of


33

and the ecological condition/biodiversity status of the area being mined. Different stages of mining can have different risks and impacts that vary in significance; increasing in severity as a mining project develops through reconnaissance, to prospecting and then mining. Upon closure, biodiversity impacts may be fully mitigated over time. Alternatively, and depending in part on the adequacy of closure and rehabilitation provisions (including sufficient financial provision) impacts may persist long after mine closure (e.g. acid mine drainage).

species movement patterns, alteration of the local hydrological cycles and permanent alteration of flow) Pollution (including noise and light pollution) and migration of pollutants in air, soils, surface water, and groundwater. In some instances, mining can introduce or release toxic or hazardous chemicals into the ecosystem; some of which may persist long after a mine has closed9 Introduction of AIPs, with an associated increase in fire risk and increased pressure on water resources Changes in demand for, or consumption of, natural resources (either directly or through indirect or induced changes as a consequence of mining activities) (DEA, 2013) Impact on water resources by extraction for mining activities (e.g. in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group). Mines adjacent to PAs impact on buffers and expansion potential (e.g. coal mines in the Mopane Bushveld, in proximity to the KNP). Impact on animal migration patterns/corridors: where numerous small mines are scattered across the landscape (e.g. in Kalahari Duneveld, Kalahari Bushveld, Arid Lowveld Bushveld and Sub-Escarpment Savanna areas), this fragmentation could result in a cumulative impact on migration corridors and other important ecological processes

Ecological Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services provided by terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, related to mining: Good quality and quantity of water in local resources – depending on the type of mining activity, relatively large volumes of water are required. Mining can therefore impact on water availability to surrounding natural systems and people if placed incorrectly in the landscape (e.g. in SWSAs). Renewable Energy Development Development of infrastructure identified as a job driver in the National Development Plan (NDP).

Three REDZs have been identified in the Savanna biome (i.e. in Upington, Vryburg and Kimberley).

Alternative energy projects can create both positive and negative environmental impacts, depending on the location of the activity

9 The South African Mine Water Atlas (2017) is a reference on the vulnerability of water resources in the country to mining. A set of maps have been developed for the mineral provinces in South Africa, and indicate surface and groundwater resources as well as mining and mineral-refining activities. The purpose is to explain the interactions between potential mining activities, surface and groundwater; and to help mining companies, investors, government departments, civil society, and students get a better understanding of the general impact of mining on water resources in different parts of the country (access at http://www.wrc.org.za/programmes/mine-water-atlas/ ).


34

Sixteen Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs) identified to promote fast-tracked development and growth of social and economic infrastructure. Three of these SIPs are energy-related (i.e. SIP 8, 9 and 10). SIP 8 aims at facilitating the implementation of sustainable green energy initiatives. SEA was done: identified Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDZs) and Power Corridors. SEA is also underway for servitudes for a gas pipeline network to support South Africa’s oil and gas sector

Development of renewable energy projects and pipeline supply network in the Savana biome

Modification and/or loss of biodiversity and fragmentation of ecological corridors Wind farms: footprint of individual towers is relative small, however the network of roads and cables/overhead lines between the turbines increases the cumulative loss of habitat, and impact on biodiversity Solar farms: generally have a more dense coverage, but do not span as great an area. Depending on the location and extent of wind farms, impacts on birds and bats are expected. Heavy-bodied bird species that are less able to avoid strikes from moving blades of turbines are most at risk. Bats are killed by collisions with blades and/or from experiencing barotrauma

4.1 Managing impacts in the Savanna biome

4.1.1 Overstocking and overgrazing/over browsing

4.1.1.1 Management of overgrazing/over browsing

An area specific management plan must be developed to address overgrazing or over browsing on livestock and game farms. The following points should be considered in the management plan:

1. The size of the land used: The size of available land for grazing/browsing has relevance to stocking rates, camp rotation (if applicable), and logistics relevant to management (e.g. access, distances between water points, monitoring).

2. The ecological condition, and vegetation biomass and species composition on the property: This will partially inform the stocking density, and the types of animals that can be kept. The overstocking of animals in an already modified landscape will lead to a further decline in the ecosystem function, and therefore a decline in the stocking capacity of the land. Different farms will have different physical features, ecological condition, ecological drivers, management histories etc. and a site specific biodiversity assessment is therefore required to inform the ecological condition and biodiversity of the land.

3. The animals to be stocked in the area and their dietary requirements. 4. The carrying capacity of the land with regards to the animals that are stocked / proposed to be stocked. The

optimum density of animals that can be sustained on the land in relation to environmental conditions must be determined to prevent degradation of forage • Large Herbivore Biomass density guidelines are provided per Ecosystem Group in Chapter 5. These can be used

as a guide, but the appropriate carrying capacity and stocking density of individual areas must be informed by a relevant specialist using site-specific conditions.

• Recovery from overgrazing is limited in drought conditions. • Sloped areas that are overgrazed will generally lead to a decline in primary production (Fynn and O’Connor,

2000). 5. The location of watering points in the landscape. Any artificial watering points should be located outside areas of

intact vegetation. Watering points attract animals and cause concentrated trampling of vegetation. 6. Measures to facilitate resting of forage:

• In communal farming areas, provision should be made to allow periodic resting and recovery of forage. Consideration should be given to using different areas in different conditions or seasons.

• Holistic planned grazing (also known as the Savory approach or Holistic Resource Management) is another option that should be considered to ensure long term forage. This method is a type of time-controlled rotation grazing which uses a goal-setting process to define the future resource base quality of life and the form of production. Tools such as organisms, rest, technology and fire are used (Hawkins, 2017).

7. Fire and burning patterns. Correct fire regimes should be used for the area to maintain the tree-grass ratio and to maintain palatable perennial C4 grass species.

8. The potential to diversify farming activities to improve sustainability. For example, farm-based tourism or eco-tourism could generate additional income

4.1.2 Alien Invasive Plants AIPs refer to those plants occurring in areas where they are not naturally found and which have the potential to spread into and invade the landscape at the expense of indigenous vegetation causing environmental, economic and social harm. AIPs are able to reproduce and spread without the direct assistance of people and the more aggressive invaders can


36

occupy large areas. AIPs impact both terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in the Savanna biome, leading to displacement of indigenous species, habitat modification and an altered hydrological regime. AIPs impact on ecological processes such as hydrological flow, fire regimes, and nutrient cycling. The loss of diversity renders ecosystems less resilient to the impacts of climate change. AIPs also have adverse impacts on land productivity and the provision of ecosystem services to society (Hoffman et. al., 1999), with negative economic implications. Increased use of water by AIPs is a significant risk to water availability for natural ecosystems and for socio-economic use – Hoffman et. al. (1999) estimated that the total additional volume of water used by AIPS compared with the natural vegetation, was 3 300 million m³ of water per year, equivalent to about 6.7% of South Africa’s mean annual runoff. In 2008, the annual economic losses due to AIP invasions in South Africa was estimated as R6.7 billion; however, in the absence of the invasive control programme initiated by Working for Water (WfW), the economic loss was estimated to have been R41.7 billion per year (van Wilgen et al, 2012).

The threats of AIPs are likely to increase in the face of climate change. Climate change is believed to be increasing the amount of woody vegetation growing in grassy plains as a result of increased CO2 levels (Tietjien et al, 2010 in van Rooyen, 2016) which in turn affects the farmers who are dependent on the land for grazing.

Examples of AIPs that pose a serious threat to parts of the Savanna biome include balloon vine, seringa, lantana, Mauritius thorn, castor oil plant, patula pine, and the triffid weed (Rouget et al, 2015). Control of invasive alien species in South Africa through the WfW programme, cost an estimated R 3.2 billion over a period of 15 years (1995 – 2008) and the control of the genera Acacia, Prosopis, Pinus and Eucalyptus has received the most funding (van Wilgen et al. 2012).

4.1.2.1 Management of AIPs

Where AIPs occur in an area, an alien invasive management programme should be put in place. In terms of the ‘duty of care’ principle under Section 28 of NEMA, the onus is on the landowner to initiate and implement the programme (with assistance from a suitable specialist) and control AIPs on his/her property.

Ideally, any control programme for alien vegetation must include the following 3 phases:

• Initial control: drastic reduction of existing population

• Follow-up control: control of seedlings, root suckers and coppice growth

• Maintenance control: sustain low alien plant numbers with annual control

Best practice principles to implement in an alien clearing plan include:

• Clear from the top of a catchment down.

• Clear sparse infestations before dense.

• Do follow-up before new clearing.

• Consider the potential impact on environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands and watercourses, biodiversity priority areas)

• Ad hoc/piecemeal clearing is discouraged

The programme must include post-intervention monitoring to test its success. Successful control of AIPs is generally a long term process, and an adaptive management approach is needed.

Different methods are available to control or eradicate AIPs.

• Manual removal: physical removal by cutting, felling etc., • Chemical control: application of herbicides, and


37

• Biological control: releasing a biological control agent into the area that has been tested and approved for the target species

The choice of method will depend on the species under consideration, and the area where control is to be implemented. WfW guidelines on control methods should be consulted, and the advice of a specialist sought to determine the best method to use.

Manual control alone has had little success on AIPs. Biological control should be used in combination with manual control methods, or on its own, particularly where such control has already had notable success (van Wilgen et al, 2010). Depending on the nature of the receiving environment, some texts recommend that once an area has been cleared of AIPs, it should be control-burnt to promote germination of seeds. The heat from the burn ensures the germination of almost all seeds (Theron, 1978). If the second cohort of trees is cleared and treated before they produce seeds, the success of rehabilitation would be greater as the alien vegetation seedbank would be reduced. However, the risk of fire to surrounding areas must be considered (for example proximity to PAs, settlements) and it will not be suitable in all instances.

Note the following:

• It is the legal responsibility of landowners to control AIPs on their land and prevent them spreading to surrounding areas. Landowners must familiarise themselves with the classification of AIPs on their properties in terms of the Alien and Invasive Species Lists under the Biodiversity Act, and the associated management responsibilities.

• Commercially important AIPs will require a permit to be grown in terms of the Biodiversity Act. A risk assessment will need to be done to determine the possible impact of the species on the surrounding environment as part of the permit application process. The permit holder is responsible to control any spread of the species beyond the boundaries of the property.

• Persons wishing to sell their property must notify, in writing, the presence of AIPS on properties to the DEA and potential purchasers.

Key legislation and guidelines relating to AIP species management includes:

• Section 28 of the NEMA (Act 107 of 1998): the duty of care principle • Biodiversity Act 2004, Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2014. Government Notice: No. 37885. • Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) Alien and Invasive Species Lists, 2016. • Regulations on the management of Listed Alien and Invasive Species under the Biodiversity Act, 2014. Gazette No.

10244. • Guidelines for monitoring, control and eradication plans as required by section 76 of the Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act

No. 10 of 2004) for species listed as invasive in terms of section 70 of this Act (Biodiversity Act Guidelines for Control Plans).

Note: Regulations 15 and 16 concerning problem plants in terms of the CARA have been superseded by the Biodiversity Act - Alien and Invasive Species (Regulations) which became law on 1 October 2014.

The following resources can also be referred to for information regarding AIPs:

Southern Africa Plant Invader Atlas (SAPIA) - SAPIA is the most comprehensive source of data on the distribution of AIPs in South Africa and is available on http://www.agis.agric.za/wip/


38

The WfW operational website at www.wfw.org includes details relating to their progress on controlling AIP species. WfW can also be approached for advice on what control method to use. The DEA and the Extended Public Works Program can also be approached for funding to clear AIPs especially if related to water course and wetland rehabilitation.

SANBI’s Invasive Species Programme: http://www.invasives.org.za/

Photographs of AIPs can be accessed at: https://www.environment.co.za/weeds-invaders-alien-vegetation/alien-invasive-plants-list-for-south-africa.html.

4.1.3 Bush encroachment Bush encroachment is one of the major threats to the structure of ecosystems in the Savanna biome, and the ecosystem services they provide.

Although there is no consensus on the exact cause of bush encroachment, studies show that the main drivers in the Savanna biome include primary factors (i.e. low and high rainfall periods, climate change with increased atmospheric CO2, and soil fertility); and secondary factors (i.e. removal of a diverse indigenous browser element, the replacement of browsers with cattle, changes in the fire regime, and CO2 fertilization) (Ward et. al., 2005; Hudack, 1999, Hoffman et. al., 1999). Thinning or total removal of trees is a common practice in the Savanna biome as it is thought to improve grazing. Thinning of trees opens up vegetation and creates space for woody encroachers.

In mesic Savanna areas, enough soil moisture supports both woody seedling establishment and grass biomass. High levels of grass production provide fuel for fires, and both fire and herbivory (browsing) control woody plant recruitment. Where rainfall exceeds 800 mm per annum, fire alone can limit woody plant recruitment. In arid Savanna, low soil moisture limits the establishment of woody plant seedlings and grass production. Therefore herbivory (mostly browsing by large mammals) is generally the main factor limiting recruitment of seedlings to adults in these areas. Fire can be an important disturbance factor but is usually limited by low fuel levels. Heavy grazing can reduce the competition with grasses and enhance woody seedling establishment by reducing grass sward and increasing soil moisture infiltration (Skowno, 2018).

One hypothesis suggests that if an area has been affected by overgrazing and there is high rainfall, then the probability of tree recruitment (and thus bush encroachment) is considered to be higher because the grass biomass per unit rainfall is reduced, which reduces competition with trees (Ward et. al., 2005). The management implication in this case is that stock numbers should be limited in wet years, not dry years. Semi-arid environments that receive an average of less than 400 mm rainfall per year and that experience higher transpiration rates are believed to be more susceptible to bush thickening due to the fact that there is less of a grassy layer to serve as a fuel load for natural fires to occur and control woody vegetation (Ward, 2005; Safriel, 2009; Archer and Tadross, 2009 in van Rooyen, 2016).

Woody encroaching species (e.g. Vachellia trees) have a C3 photosynthetic pathway which is less efficient than grasses at the current CO2 levels, whilst most of the Savanna grasses have a C4 photosynthetic pathway. However, it is predicted that under elevated CO2 levels associated with climate change, the woody species with C3 pathways will have a higher photosynthetic rate than C4 grasses and will thus outcompete grasses leading to bush encroachment (Ward et. al., 2005). An increase in atmospheric CO2 reduces water stress by improved stomatal conductance and increased moisture availability, promoting seedling establishment and woody plant encroachment (Skowno, 2018).


39

CO2 fertilization (storage of carbon in organs of plants) has been shown to increase under increased atmospheric CO2 combined with conditions where there are frequent fires (i.e. in moister areas of the Savanna biome) and has been shown to favour woody plants. After an initial fire disturbance, woody plants will have a lower relative growth rate than herbaceous plants such as grasses, due to the larger non-photosynthetic stems that the trees will have to rebuild. The woody plants however, build below-ground reserves of carbon and nutrients over time and after successive burns, will undergo rapid regrowth after a fire disturbance. Due to increased CO2 levels associated with climate change and CO2 fertilisation, “super-seedlings” have evolved where younger trees with large root systems and starch reserves grow faster after disturbance. The capacity for trees to resprout after injury is therefore greater. Increased CO2 levels will likely favour trees in these areas and contribute to bush encroachment (Bond and Midgely, 2011).

Examples of woody encroacher species in the Savanna biome include sickle bush, sweet thorn, candle thorn, scented thorn, umbrella thorn, false umbrella thorn, camel thorn, and black thorn. Camphor bush is a common encroacher species in the more arid regions of the biome. See Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3: Examples of bush encroacher species in the Savanna biome

SANBI

Sickle bush Increaser woody species. Food source for stock and game. Termite resistant wood used for fences and utensils. Medicinal value. Source: SANBI.

C3 refers to the Calvin-Benson photosynthetic pathway where photosynthesis only happens in the light phase and carbon dioxide is converted to sugars. The first stable compound is a 3 carbon compound (3 phosphoglyceric acid). The C3 cycle operates in all plants. There is a single carbon dioxide fixation process and the fixation is slower and less efficient than the C4 process.

C4 refers to the Hatch and Slack alternative photosynthetic pathway where photosynthesis only happens during dark phase. The first stable compound is a 4 carbon compound (oxaloacetic acid). Unlike the C3 cycle, the C4 cycle only happens in C4 plants. There are two carbon dioxide fixation processes and the carbon fixation is faster and more efficient than the C3 process.

Plants with the Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) can switch between C3 and C4 processes depending on the amount of sunlight available.


40

Steve Porse (Wikipedia)

Sweet thorn Increaser woody species. Indicator of water in arid areas (long taproot). Pioneer species. Important food source for lesser bushbaby. Good fodder for stock and game. Medicinal uses. Source: SANBI.

SANBI

Candle thorn Increaser woody species. Drought resistant. Reported to be poisonous. Important resource for bees. Source: SANBI.

SANBI

Scented thorn

Increaser woody species. Excellent browsing fodder. Pods are toxic to goats. Used for firewood and fencing. Medicinal use. Drought resistant. Source: SANBI.

SANBI

Umbrella thorn Increaser woody species. Drought tolerant. Used for firewood, furniture, fences. Nutritious pods and leaves, fodder in arid areas. Source: SANBI.

SANBI

Camel thorn Increaser woody species. Pods good fodder for cattle and wild animals. Used as firewood and timber. Source: SANBI.


41

Wikipedia

Black thorn Increaser woody species. Drought-resistant species. Twigs and pods nutritious to livestock and game. Termite-resistant heartwood used as fencing posts and for fuelwood. Bush encroachment of species occurs in Kalahari Plateau Bushveld (pza.sanbi.org). Seed can germinate with little precipitation; grows in open spaces created by bush thinning (Joubert et. al., 2013). Struggles to establish under canopies of mature trees due to competition with nutrients and soil moisture (Smit and Goodman, 1986 in van Rooyen, 2016).

SANBI

Camphor bush

Increaser woody species (Northern Cape). Drought resistant. Browsed during drought periods. Medicinal uses.

4.1.3.1 Management of Bush Encroachment

Where there is evidence of bush encroachment or a risk of it occurring, a bush encroachment management programme must be developed and implemented, with assistance from a suitable specialist. The plan must include monitoring to test its effectiveness.

The following should be considered in the compilation of bush encroachment management programme:

1. The pre-disturbance vegetation structure and composition (i.e. what is the typical biodiversity pattern in a natural ecosystem)? For example, did the area predominantly consist of a stable balance of grasses and trees or were woody species always present in greater numbers?

2. The history of land use type and change of the site to current time – this will help determine what pressures may have led to bush encroachment, and if there were any specific trigger events; as well as how long the area has been encroached

3. The type, number, size and density of woody encroacher species on the site. 4. If possible, determine how long it has taken for the current numbers of encroachers to become established on site?

• Have the numbers increased rapidly in a short time span? • Have the numbers been increasing steadily over a longer time? • The time taken for woody encroachers to establish on site will provide insight into which drivers are resulting in

the establishment of woody vegetation, and what control measures are required (for example, grazing management, fire management).

5. Consider the rainfall conditions of the area and any changes to patterns • What is the average rainfall of the area and current rainfall of the area? • Are drought conditions occurring? • Has the area experienced an increase in rainfall?


42

• Rainfall is one driver responsible for woody species recruitment and encroachment. Seedling recruitment may take place during higher rainfall years, but during drier season the seeds may be dormant. Therefore, if dry conditions are existing and the level of bush encroachment is low, bush encroachment may increase during periods of heavier rainfall if other contributing factors are present (e.g. overgrazing, poor fire management).

6. CO2 fertilisation and fire frequency of the area: young woody species store atmospheric CO2 and use the extra starch and nutrients to resprout after injury (for example by fire). This gives woody encroachers a competitive advantage increasing the bush encroachment problem. Consider manual removal of young bush encroacher species by hand instead of using fire as a control mechanism.

7. What land uses are taking place in the area and how well managed are these? • Has the area been overgrazed by livestock or game? • Are there any browsers in the area, and if so, do they naturally occur there? • What is the carrying capacity of the area? • What is the current stock level? • Have additional watering points been provided in the area? • If applicable, is rotational grazing practised?

Answering these questions will give an indication of the drivers leading to bush encroachment and what management measures to apply. For example, if only grazers are on site, then browsers could be introduced to assist with the suppression of the woody vegetation. The numbers of grazers may also need to be decreased as overgrazing will result in the removal of the herbaceous layer which will give rise to open patches allowing for the establishment of woody seedlings. Overgrazing can also reduce the fuel load, impacting on fire occurrence and intensity.

8. What grasses are on site? • Determine whether the grasses on site are perennial / annual and C4/ C3 species. Most annual alien invasive

grasses in South Africa (and some perennial species) are the C3 type. Indigenous perennial C4 type grasses can, however, outcompete C3 grasses and also act as a suppressive factor over woody seedlings and plants.

9. When last did the area burn? • Apply the correct burning/fire regime applicable to the area as it is important to control bush encroachment. For

example, if the herbaceous vegetation is overgrazed, the fuel load will be reduced and there will be less frequent and less intensive fire to effectively control woody encroachers. If fire is completely removed from the system, then seed production may increase.

• In moister savanna areas, fire could however lead to strengthening the bush encroachers (i.e. through CO2 fertilisation as described above). Consider removal of young bush encroacher species using other management options (i.e. increase browsers, physical removal) instead of using fire as a control mechanism in these environments

10. Assess the restoration potential of the site especially if it falls within a biodiversity priority area. 11. Choose an appropriate method(s) to control the woody vegetation whilst ensuring that damage to the environment

is minimised. • Less intensive control measures should be selected as they result in a better structured Savanna ecosystems

when compared with intense control measures (van Rooyen, 2016). • Implement tree thinning rather than tree clearing to achieve a sustainable woody tree:grass ratio. Thin trees using

manual methods and ensure the correct application of thinning so as not to reduce inter-tree competition. Harvesting of woody species in grassy plains can aid in job creation, generate income from sale of the products and limit the effects of bush encroachment.

• Consider the possibility of introducing browsers that would naturally occur in the area to hinder growth of woody species (Staver and Bond, 2014).


43

• Introduce a rotational grazing system (if not already introduced) and manually remove seedlings and saplings with occasional burning, to control woody encroachers.

• If tree arboricides are used, apply manually on targeted species to ensure non-target species are not adversely affected. Chemical control measures require a five to seven year follow-up treatment (van Rooyen, 2016).

4.1.4 Fire management Under historic natural conditions, fire maintained biodiversity and vegetation structure in the Savanna biome. Applying fire as a management tool to reduce dormancy and stimulate production, or to control bush encroachment, is therefore necessary in some instances, not only for maintaining biodiversity, but also for productivity. However, incorrect seasonality, frequency of burning, type of fire (hot or cool) and in some contexts the exclusion of fire, can lead to undesired changes in species composition, enhancement of bush encroachment, decline in (basal) cover and soil erosion.

The main burning season for controlled burns within the South African Savanna biome is between March and November. For a fire to start and spread, there must be a flammable fuel load, suitable weather conditions, an ignition event, and the fuel bed should be continuous for the fire to spread (Archibald et al, 2008). Fires are therefore a regular occurrence in the Savanna biome due to the dry and warm winters, abundant grass (fuel bed), and the sources of ignition (lightning and humans) (van Wilgen, 2009).

The amount of fuel load present is directly related to the fire prevalence in Savanna ecosystems. Indirect drivers which contribute to the amount of fuel loads in the Savanna include rainfall, soil fertility, tree cover and herbivory (Archibald et. al., 2008). Fuel continuity is determined by the terrain (natural barriers to fire spread), road layout and density, and modified areas in the landscape. Ignition frequency can be determined using average number of lightning strikes, population density and the size of communal land area in the landscape (Archibald et al, 2008).

The coexistence of trees and grasses is a characteristic feature of the Savanna biome. In the arid and semi-arid parts of the biome where annual mean rainfall is less than 650 mm, the co-existence of trees and grasses can be viewed as a stable co-existence because in the drier climate, the roots of the trees seek water in the deeper soil horizons, and the grasses seek water in the surface horizons (van Wilgen, 2009). Areas with a tree density less than 5%, with an average rainfall of 288 mm per annum will have little fire activity (Archibald et al, 2008).

Where mean annual rainfall exceeds 650 mm, the Savannas are considered to be “unstable” as the dominant life forms fluctuate between trees and grasses. It is in these moister Savannas where regular disturbance is required to maintain a co-occurrence of grasses and trees (van Wilgen, 2009). Increased rainfall and soil fertility increases grass production. Tree cover decreases grass biomass. Where tree cover exceeds 40%, the percentage of burnt areas has been found to decline, but this density of tree cover has only been found in systems with more than 800 mm rainfall per annum. Grazing will likely take place in areas with higher soil fertility and the grazer density will depend on the amount of fuel remaining to feed fires (van Wilgen, 2009).

The elimination of fire in areas where mean annual rainfall exceeds 650 mm could lead to dominance by woody vegetation (van Wilgen, 2009), however fire can also reduce the proportion of young trees that mature and result in a large number of small trees (Sebata, 2017). In the relatively arid areas, the lack of moisture will prevent tree layers from reaching closure and therefore elimination of fire will not lead to total dominance of woody vegetation (van Wilgen, 2009). `

Woody biomass dominant in an area could be decreased by the presence of browsers, leading to an increase in grass and a consequent increase of fuel load. However, when grass is dominant, grazers will decrease the fuel load and there will be a subsequent increase in woody species. When overgrazing occurs, bush encroachment becomes an issue.


44

4.1.4.1 Proactive Fire Management

Fire is important for maintaining the structure and distribution of some vegetation types in the Savanna biome, particularly where annual rainfall exceeds 650 mm, in order to maintain the tree:grass ratio, reduce dormancy, stimulate production or to control bush encroachment. Fire is used in biodiversity management to maintain viable populations of natural plant and animal species. Combining fire management with other management options, such as control of woody invasive alien species, bush encroachment, and proactive management of grazing and browsing, is recommended in the moister Savanna areas to maintain biodiversity.

The intensity and frequency of controlled fires should be matched to what would naturally be required for the vegetation type in the specific area, taking into account grazing practices in the area. For example, fire occurrence is rare in the drier Kalahari Duneveld and Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Groups, and fire causes damage to the trees of the Kalahari Duneveld when it does occur. In the Central Bushveld, fire is common in the broad-leaved systems and less common in the fine-leaved systems and can be very dangerous in mountain bushveld. In the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group, the vegetation is considered a fire-climax Savanna and exclusion may lead to dense thicket or shrubland (see Chapter 5 for details).

Woody AIP species and encroacher species should be controlled to prevent unwanted fires. Grazing should be managed to ensure that fuel loads are reduced where required to ensure the tree:grass ratio is maintained. Browsing should be managed to ensure that the savanna vegetation is not stripped away completely in an area, thus making it prone to invasion by grass and woody invasive alien species.

Law governs the management of fire. The National Veld and Forest Fire Act (Act 101 of 1998) specifies the need for landowners to implement at least a 5 m fire break in areas where natural veld adjoins agricultural land or alien thickets. Negligence with regards to fire management has legal implications. Any person that owns and/manages property where fire is a risk must develop a fire management plan, with assistance from a suitable specialist. When compiling a fire management plan, consider the following:

1. Combine fire management with other management options, such as control of woody invasive alien species and proactive management of grazing and browsing.

2. The intensity and frequency of controlled fires should be matched to that which would naturally occur in the type of Savanna vegetation (considering current land use practices and how these may have modified biodiversity in the area).

3. Woody invasive alien species should be controlled to prevent unwanted fires and fires that burn at higher temperatures.

4. Grazing should be managed to ensure that fuel loads are reduced where required. 5. Browsing should be managed to ensure that the desirable woody vegetation is not stripped away completely in an

area, thus making it prone to invasion by alien grass and woody species 6. The intensity and frequency of controlled fires should be matched to the type of Savanna vegetation; regular controlled

fires are required in moist Savanna groups to prevent uncontrolled fires. Controlled fires are not required for management of drier Savanna groups and unwanted fires in these groups should be attended to immediately.

7. Controlled fires should be implemented in the early dry season in areas with average annual rainfall of more than 600 mm. Research has found that 12 days and 1 month after the last rain is the best time to ignite pre-emptive fires (when fuel moisture content is 120% and relative air humidity is between 12 and 79%) (Maraseni et. al., 2016)

8. Caution must be applied when setting the frequency of fires in Savanna areas which receive higher rainfall. CO2 fertilization in these areas combined with a higher fire frequency can result in thickening of bush encroacher species (Bond and Midgley, 2012)


45

9. Fire management systems should be implemented and should include a feedback process. Feedback should include accurate mapping of burned areas (using GIS and feedback from ground managers), fire types (controlled, uncontrolled), and effects on vegetation.

10. Adaptive management approaches should be adopted which includes setting measurable goals, collecting and collating data, assess evidence, and changing the approach as new understanding is reached (van Wilgen, 2009).

To carry out a burn in the prescribed season, a permit will need to be obtained from the relevant Fire Protection Association (FPA). A general rule is to plan for safe, managed burns and allow for wildfires.

Further information and advice can be obtained from:

• Working on Fire: www.workingonfire.org

• FireWise: www.firewisesa.org.za

• The Local Fire Protection Association.

4.1.5 Fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides Pesticides and herbicides can be beneficial to society as they are designed to control organisms considered harmful, for example, to people, crops, plantations and building structures. However, if used in an uncontrolled manner or in a sensitive environment, the use of pesticides can impact negatively on soils, contaminate surface water and groundwater, and harm non-target species.

A common approach used in the savanna to restore the woody:grass ratio is to apply arboricides to kill woody tree species and increase grass cover, therefore increasing grazing capacity. Arboricides are either applied selectively by hand or non-selectively by aeroplane. Non-target tree species downslope of the area where arboricides are applied are often affected and die.

Caution must be applied to the use of herbicides. Some broad-spectrum herbicides manufactured in South Africa use active ingredients which do not to break down in soil and are only lost through the uptake by plant species, leaching and microbial decomposition. The herbicides therefore have a high potential for groundwater contamination and can persist at soil depths of 600 – 900 mm up to nine years after application (Bezuidenhout et al, 2014).

Insecticides are generally more toxic to fauna than herbicides, and some have been found to be lethal to earthworms and soil arthropods (McLaughlin and Mineau, 1995). Little research has been done to determine the long-term impacts of pesticides on non-target species. Pests are developing resistance to the more popular and relatively safe pesticides in use, suggesting that new products are likely to be introduced in future.

Industrially manufactured fertilizers (i.e. synthetic nitrogen and phosphorus) are commonly added to agricultural land. However, the addition of nitrogen fertilizers disrupts the natural nitrogen cycle and excess nitrogen is lost in the form of nitrates to the atmosphere, or leachates to surface water and groundwater (Matson, 2005). Leachates cause eutrophication (excessive nutrient content) of surface water and contamination of groundwater, which in turn has a negative feedback on agricultural production as well as local and regional ecosystem services. Furthermore, high fertilizer inputs can increase pathogens and pest problems due to the availability of additional nitrogen in the system. Another secondary effect of using artificial rather than natural fertilizers is an increase in the amount of available organic waste (i.e. manure from livestock farms). The latter is a potentially valuable resource (e.g. for composting and natural gas harvesting), however can create pollution risk if not property stored and/or disposed of.

Although modern intensive agriculture has been successful in increasing food production, it has caused extensive environmental damage at all scales. The emphasis on short-term increases in food production could well be at the long-


46

term detriment of essential ecosystem services and life-support systems. That is, the current approach is unsustainable. Growing population rates demand even more increases in food production. Incorporating the protection of ecosystem services into food production systems is critical to ensuring sustainability of natural and agro-ecosystems (Matson et al, 1997). Diversification of crops, use of natural vegetation as buffers to crop producing areas, and using natural fertilizers can help reduce the reliance on heavy pesticide and fertilizer use, and simultaneously increase biodiversity while sustaining ecosystem services.

4.1.5.1 Management of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides

The following should be considered by landowners or farm managers where herbicides, pesticides or inorganic fertilisers are used:

1. Apply fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides with the utmost caution. 2. If herbicides/pesticides are to be used:

• Make use of target-specific herbicides/pesticides only. • Consult an appropriate specialist to ensure selection of the correct herbicide/pesticide, and best method of

application and dose. • Understand how the herbicide/pesticide works, and when its effects should become evident. • Determine if the herbicide/pesticide is suitable for the intended area of application (e.g. some

herbicides/pesticides should not be used in proximity to watercourses). • Avoid indiscriminate aerial spraying at all times, and aerial spraying on windy days.

3. Identify and use less- or non-harmful substances that will provide the same or similar level of control. 4. Enhance the ecological diversity of the land to assist with natural pest control and soil maintenance. Obtain specialist

advice in this respect. 5. Implement rotation of the crop plant with plants that can enrich the soil (i.e. legume types) thereby reducing the amount

of fertilizer input needed. 6. Consider intercropping to increase pest and weed control, thereby reducing the amount of pesticide/herbicide input

needed. 7. Consider successional planting of different crops, each with a different harvest date, to assist with pest control, plant

disease and preventing the domination of a single weed. 8. Investigate using natural organic inputs instead of artificial fertilizers. 9. Investigate and implement methods that can be used to maintain and increase organic matter in soil to assist with

water holding capacity, nutrient availability and carbon sequestration. 10. Buffer the crop with natural vegetation to enhance availability of ecosystem services in the landscape (i.e. natural pest

control, pollination, erosion control)

Note: The manufacturing, distribution, sale, use and advertisement of pesticides are regulated by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Legislation applicable to pesticides and fertilizers includes:

• Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947 (Act No. 36 of 1947) • Agricultural Pest Act, 1983 (Act No 36 of 1983) • Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, (Act No. 108 of 1996) • Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 1965 (Act 101 of 1965) • Hazardous Substances Act, 1973 (Act 15 of 1973) • The Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (FCDA), 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972) • The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), 1993 (Act No. 85 of 1993) • CARA (Act No. 43 of 1983)


47

The following legislation relates to the application of herbicides/pesticides in so far that they ensure the protection of natural resources:

• National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) - makes provision for the protection of water resources, including the prevention of pollution

• Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) • NEMA 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) - provides for cooperative environmental governance by establishing principles

for decision making on matters affecting the environment • The following legislation is applicable to the disposal of waste pesticides and containers:

o Hazardous Substance Act (Act No. 15 of 1973) o Environment Conservation Act. (Act 73 of 1989) o Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) o Waste Act (Act 59 of 1998). o NEMA (Act 107 of 1998).

4.1.6 Harvesting and poaching The direct use of natural resources allows rural households to gather fruit, wood, medicine and other useful materials; generating a supplementary income and potentially providing significant monetary savings. However, the unsustainable use of natural resources is becoming increasingly problematic and management intervention is critical to allow for the continuation of these resources.

Over 2 000 indigenous plant species have documented traditional medicinal uses, and just over a quarter of these are traded annually in the country (Williams et. al., 2013). The majority of plant material is obtained from open access, communal lands in various provinces around the country. These resources are collected without any restrictions and can be for personal use, but most are transported to urban markets where they are sold to traders and traditional healers. Some 656 medicinal plant species are common in trade and many are unsustainably harvested, with 184 species declining due to unsustainable use (Child et. al., 2017).

The past decade has seen the rise of the new emerging threat of international wildlife trafficking syndicates that are beginning to heavily impact on species desired for overseas markets, including black and white rhinoceros and pangolins. Expansion of human settlements, especially in areas bordering PAs has resulted in increased hunting intensity for bushmeat and/or traditional medicine and cultural regalia, as well as increasing the number of animals killed incidentally in snares, which impacts species ranging from African wild dog and leopard to Temminck’s ground pangolin and mountain reedbuck. The mountain reedbuck has experienced significant declines resulting in it being up listed from Vulnerable to Endangered. There has been an increase in the scale of illegal sport hunting with dogs which directly threatens species, such as oribi. The increasing use of leopard skins for cultural ceremonies has resulted in the leopard being uplisted from Least Concern to Vulnerable. Six mammal species have increased in threat status between 2004 and 2016 as a result of direct persecution (Child et al., 2017).

Hunting for bushmeat (springbok, duiker, kudu, gemsbok) mostly occurs nearer the larger towns, but road-based poaching occurs at night too, where kudu and other antelope species are targeted. Pangolin and vultures are valuable in the traditional medicines trade. Indiscriminate use of poisons, shooting, and trapping aimed at carnivores such as black-backed jackal and caracal can lead to losses of non-target carnivores (i.e. mistaken identity when shooting at night, or losses of vultures when feeding on poison-laced meat). With the advent of high-value game farming, large carnivores such as cheetah and leopard are persecuted to protect stock. Vultures (e.g. the white-backed griffon) are targeted for their body parts. Illegal and uncontrolled collecting (even in nature reserves and PAs) of threatened flora species for the


48

horticultural industry (e.g. geophytes, succulents, aloes), but also of other plant species used in the informal medicine trade, poses pressure on biodiversity resources. Wood cutting, primarily for firewood but also for the manufacture of household articles or ornaments, also has an impact on natural resources in the Savanna, which is particularly relevant for keystone tree species such as the camelthorn.

4.1.6.1 Managing Unsustainable Harvesting

When authorities, community environmental groups, scientists or EAPS are working in rural areas to assist with managing the impacts of direct harvesting of resources used mostly for livelihood purposes, consider the following:

1. Engage local communities to determine their use of natural resources and harvesting practices. Collaboratively discuss and consider sustainable harvesting practices and alternatives to direct harvesting of threatened species.

2. Cultivation of medicinal plants in nurseries should be encouraged to relieve the pressure of direct harvesting. Cultural belief systems need to be considered to make this a viable and acceptable alternative.

3. Obtain the relevant permits prior to harvesting any wild species. Permits issued by authorities will include conditions for the control of impacts and include any monitoring requirements.

4. Encourage seed harvesting and propagation of plants (i.e. using cuttings or root material; so-called ‘propagations’) as an alternative to direct harvesting of the parent material (keep in mind that using propagated plants for ceremonial uses may contradict the traditional beliefs of rural people).

5. Encourage establishment of plants in suitable surrounding areas using seeds and propagations. 6. Encourage local nurseries to be established using seeds and propagations. 7. Encourage collection of seeds and root or cuttings from alternating areas, to minimise depletion of any one

resource. 8. Encourage collection of bush encroaching species and invasive alien species (rather than indigenous non-weedy

species) for fuel wood, building or craft materials

4.1.6.2 Managing poaching and poisoning

1. Discourage use of poisons by farmers to control perceived damage-causing animals on the property 2. If damage-causing animals (e.g. bushpigs) are prevalent in the area, then permits should be applied for so that

action can be taken. 3. If a perceived damage-causing animal is a threatened or protected species, then a permit must be applied for to

remove the species 4. Encourage game and livestock farmers to work with conservation organisations, for example the Endangered

Wildlife Trust, instead of taking matters into their own hands. There are many successful programmes where impacts of wild animals on farming practices can be controlled without harming the animal (for example, using bee hives on poles so honey badgers do not destroy the hives)

5. Poison response kits have been used by the EWT to treat surviving animals and to decontaminate the affected sites.

6. Avoid placing carcasses at vulture restaurants that have previously been treated for ticks or tick bite fever, euthenised with pentobarbitone, treated with flunixin, ketoprofen, phenylbutazone or which died following drug immobilizing. If these cannot be avoided, remove liver and kidneys of the carcass (Wildlife poisoning prevention and conflict resolution).

Organisations to assist with poisoning /poaching:

• EWT - https://www.ewt.org.za/ • Anti-Poaching Intelligence Group South Africa – [email protected]


49

• Stop Rhino poaching - http://www.stoprhinopoaching.com/Default.aspx • Wildlife poisoning prevention - http://wildlifepoisoningprevention.co.za/

4.2 Climate change

Climate change induces stress on ecosystems by altering their functional ability and compromising the persistence of individual species (IPCC, 2007c). Climate change is expected to exacerbate existing risks and pressure facing ecosystems. Impacts from farming activities, such as overgrazing and unsustainable harvesting of resources, result in land degradation. The stress placed on land by drought aggravates any existing land degradation processes (i.e. loss of soil fertility, bush encroachment, loss of vegetation) which makes prevailing impacts even more severe (Graw et al, 2017) and ultimately affects the productivity of croplands and range lands. Low-income communal farming households are particularly vulnerable to climate extremes because they depend directly on the land for livelihoods and income (Ngaka, 2012 in Graw et al, 2017).

Climate change is expected to become a major threat in the future. For species to persist, they will need to track climates that they are adapted to by moving through landscapes (which may be modified or fragmented); or where movement is not possible, they will need to adapt in situ. Areas that are modified are generally not conducive to species survival and can create barriers to species movement. PAs provide refuge and protection for species but may not be adequate in the future with changing species distribution, or if the habitat in these areas becomes unsuitable based on changing environmental conditions. To allow for movement of species between PAs, and/or between PAs, conservation areas and biodiversity priority areas; it is important that landscapes are managed to allow species to track changing environmental conditions (Jewitt et al., 2017).

The amount of rainfall received in the Savanna biome shapes the biodiversity pattern and ecological processes of the biome, and it is likely that the impacts of climate change will alter this, but the degree to which the biome will be impacted is uncertain. First-order impacts of climate change in the Savanna biome are expected to be altered rainfall patterns, increased temperatures and stronger winds. Studies by Bond et. al. (2003) and Buitenwerf et. al. (2011) have suggested that the general increase of Savanna trees during more recent times could be a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and carbon fertilisation (as discussed under ‘Bush Encroachment’).

A mix of woody species and grasses is found within the Savanna biome. Most of South Africa’s grass species are of the C4 type, whereas most of the annual alien invasive grasses, and some perennial alien grasses, are the C3 type. C4 grasses are able to use nitrogen more efficiently and are able to outcompete C3 types in undisturbed vegetation. However, increase in atmospheric nitrogen, addition of fertilizers, vegetation clearing and increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will improve the nitrogen-efficiency of C3 grasses and therefore give them an advantage over the indigenous C4 grasses. It is expected that climate change will reduce the ability of indigenous C4 grasses (that evolved with grazing mammals) to block C3 alien grass invasions, leading to an increase of unpalatable C3 perennial grasses, an increase in

What is Climate Change?

Climate change is the natural cycle through which the earth and its atmosphere accommodate changes in the amount of energy received from the sun. The climate naturally goes through warm and cool periods that take hundreds of year to complete a cycle. Temperatre changes also effect rainfall. If these changes take place over centuries, they biosphere is able to adapt. However, human activities and impacts are causing climate change to be too fast. Plants and animals will not be able to adapt fast enough to the predicted rapid rate of change, endangering the entire ecosystem (South African Weather Service).


50

fire frequency and a reduction in overall grazing capacity. A modification whereby landscapes of C4 grasses is replaced by C3 grasses will have major economic implications (Milton, 2004).

4.2.1.1 Planning for Climate Change

A National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy is being finalised for South Africa and acts as a common reference point for climate change adaptation efforts in the country. Provincial and local government authorities have / will put in place climate change adaptation strategies for the areas over which they have jurisdiction, and / or implementation priorities would be reflected in the IDPs. The national disaster management framework is a direct way in which municipalities are empowered to act on climate change and already have existing institutional arrangements; many critical actions required for climate change responses fall within the responsibility of local government.

International best practice promotes the implementation of ecosystem-based adaptation as a key element in climate change response strategies. Ecosystems that are well managed and in a natural or near-natural state are more resilient to the impacts of climate change than degraded or severely modified ecosystems.

Intact and functional Savanna ecosystems can deliver important ecosystem services which can assist with climate change mitigation, for example, through carbon sequestration. They can also help with adaptation to climate change, for example through flood attenuation by wetlands, and delivery of clean water from mountain catchment areas or aquifers. Biodiversity plans available in the Savanna Biome identify CBAs and ESAs that enable the persistence of spatial components of ecological processes. The network of CBAs and ESAs can promote biodiversity conservation and the functioning of ecosystems in current conditions and in the face of climate change.

Common climate-change adaptation recommendations are to maintain natural habitat linkages between existing PAs to retain connectivity in the landscape, and to increase the extent of PAs to meet biodiversity targets. What is important to consider is how best to locate the spatial linkages in the landscape to build ecological resilience to climate change and identify important habitat areas required to maintain floristic diversity in the future. Ecological resilience is built by high levels of biodiversity which would include high levels of response and functional diversity, heterogeneous landscapes, the maintenance of natural disturbance regimes such as fire, and maintaining the capacity for broad-scale responses, such as dispersal, colonization, and migration (Jewitt et. al., 2017).

When developing plans that deal with climate change resilience and biodiversity management, the following should be considered:

1. Determine the target resource needs and vulnerabilities: • Determine what resources in the area are vulnerable to climate change. Understanding why the resources are

vulnerable is a good first step to deciding what management measures can be put in place to reduce the vulnerability.

• Vulnerable resources should be mapped. 2. Identify aspects of the biophysical environment that could enhance resilience to climate change:

• Climatic refugia – these are locations which are considered to be buffered from climate change where biodiversity can retreat to or persist in. Examples are areas with steep ecological gradients where the environment undergoes rapid spatial shifts between, for example, elevation, soil, temperature and rainfall. Wet areas, such as riparian zones and wetlands can act as climate refugia. Areas with micro-climates are another example of climatic refugia and include areas close to water bodies and valleys (Morelli et al, 2016).

• Biological refugia – these include biodiversity hotspots, areas supporting high diversity of species with sufficient habitat to sustain a minimum viable population and promote in situ adaptation; local centres of endemism; and areas with high species richness along ecological gradients.


51

• Available data sources (usually at a regional scale) with climatic and biological refugia areas must be sourced. The EAP or land owner must attempt to incorporate local scale refugia within regional areas/corridors for connectivity.

• Incorporate areas where climatic and biological refugia have been identified through the investigation of climate change impacts on plant communities, into ecological corridors (especially between PAs) to maximise species persistence into the future (Jewitt et. al., 2017).

• Appropriate management measures must be implemented on a case-by-case basis in climatic and biological refugia areas.

• Lower the risk of climate-related disturbances (i.e. floods, fires) and create additional refugia. Land managers (i.e. local authorities, land owners) could for example implement measures to reduce fuel loads of the area to lower the risk of fires (Morelli et. al., 2016).

• If areas identified as important climatic and biological refugia areas are not currently protected, their formal protection should be prioritised (for example through the Protected Areas Act).

3. Enhance regional and local connectivity: • Conserve movement corridors and protect priority corridors (e.g. biodiversity priority areas) for climate-change

adaptation at the landscape scale. • Improve landscape connectivity by creating, maintaining, and/or protecting local-scale ecological corridors in good

ecological condition. • When identifying and delineating ecological corridors and connectivity across the landscape, make sure that these

linkages follow major environmental gradients correlated to plant composition and that drive turnover in species composition across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales (β-diversity) (Jewitt et. al., 2017).

• Ensure that corridors are wide enough to incorporate variations in topography and resulting landforms that provide micro-refugia sites in which species can persist and disperse along with changing climates (Jewitt et. al., 2017).

• The loss of biodiversity and/or restoration of degraded areas must be prioritised in corridors. In areas where habitat has been lost along environmental gradients, homogenisation occurs, resulting in decreased adaptive phenotypic diversity (Freedman et al. 2010 in Jewitt et al., 2017). This may lead to a loss of diversity and reduces the ability of species to persist in changing environments. Protecting environmental gradients therefore protects the genetic diversity needed for adaptation and speciation (Beier and Brost, 2010 in Jewitt et al., 2017), which is important to prevent a dominance of generalist species at the expense of specialist species expected from rapid environmental change (Bowers and Harris, 1994 in Jewitt et al., 2017).

• Corridors must allow for movement of faunal species across the landscape. Fencing, especially in biodiversity priority areas should be permeable

4. Sustain ecological processes and functions: • Increase the resilience of ecosystems through improved management. • Restore biodiversity in degraded ecosystems, including ecological corridors. • Protect areas that are essential for the delivery of ecosystem services (e.g. wetlands and flood plains) from

disturbance. 5. Spatial planning documents that guide city planning and development (e.g. SDFs and EMFs) must be based on a

biodiversity plan which will identify biodiversity priority areas. Resillience to climate change must be considered when developing biodiversity plans and allocating priority areas. Planning of new structures and infrastructure must avoid these areas, and suitable buffers and setbacks must be implemented around important habitats and dynamic process areas.


52

4.3 Managing Biodiversity Loss

The major drivers of biodiversity loss are habitat modification and fragmentation of landscapes, as a result of land use change. Loss of natural habitat is regarded as a greater risk to biodiversity than climate change – habitat modification across the landscape restricts the ability of ecosystems to respond to climate change, placing further pressure on biodiversity persistence. Most land-use activities involve biodiversity loss or impact, to varying degrees. One of the most pervasive changes is the fragmentation of natural ecosystems. Fragmentation severs connectivity between natural or near-natural areas, resulting in isolated islands of biodiversity in the landscape. The implications of fragmentation are disrupted ecological processes, with an ultimate impact on biodiversity persistence.

The edges of remnant biodiversity patches receive more nutrients, experience different microclimatic conditions and are generally more susceptible to invasion by AIPs. This effect in turn results in changes in ecosystem structure and composition, and limits the viability of isolated ecosystems in the long term.

For all the above reasons, securing and connecting intact habitats and biodiversity priority areas, and maintaining ecological processes is critical to managing biodiversity persistence.

4.3.1 Planning for Sustainable Development The following points must be considered when planning and managing sustainable settlements:

1. The mitigation hierarchy discussed in Chapter 2 must be applied early in the planning process of any proposed land use change.

2. Strive for sustainability in planning and development. • New developments should include natural or ‘green’ open spaces, and innovative measures (i.e. green roofs,

water-sensitive urban designs, and water- and energy-efficient technology) • The principle of ‘sustainable community planning’ must be followed, where amenities are within a 500 m walking

distance of living areas. • Focus on the redevelopment of ‘brownfield’ (i.e. already developed, modified) areas rather than the modification

of natural or near-natural areas. • Place development outside of biodiversity priority areas. • Ensure that sufficient buffers are instated around wetlands, watercourses, protected and threatened species, and

PAs • Connect with and maintain ecological corridors on a landscape scale • Consider what ecological processes are needed for biodiversity persistence in open spaces in urban areas, and

make sure that development planning allows these processes to operate • Cluster development in areas of low ecological sensitivity/poor ecological condition, and avoid urban sprawl • Promote densification of development to reduce the physical footprint, and assist with efficient provision of

services • Encourage and assist individual home-owners to generate their own energy and harvest rainwater

3. Promote the practice of urban agriculture. • Urban agriculture can serve as a means to alleviate poverty. • It can contribute to waste reduction by utilising organic waste for compost. • It can contribute to soil conservation, water conservation (i.e. rainwater, recirculation of water in aquaculture, use

of recycled water), improve microclimates (i.e. additional biomass for carbon cycling) and increase urban biodiversity.


53

4. Implement strategies to manage AIPs and attempt to tie them into livelihood strategies (e.g. harvesting AIPs for fuelwood, and selling on local markets).

5. Implement appropriate fire management strategies where required. 6. Consider maintaining open spaces in urban areas in a natural or near-natural condition (i.e. urban parks can have

‘gardens’ of natural biodiversity rather than mowed lawns). 7. Maintain key infrastructure and services such as waste-water treatment systems, reticulation pipes, stormwater

systems, solid waste removal and disposal systems, and electricity infrastructure, to prevent pollution and achieve optimum efficiency in resource use.

8. Consider mandatory recycling and/or composting of wastes at local municipal level and attempt to build these activities into livelihood strategies.

9. Protect and manage ecological infrastructure for provision of ecosystem services, and resilience to climate change.

4.3.2 Planning for restoration and rehabilitation

4.3.2.1 Guidelines for Planning and Implementing Rehabilitation and Ecological Restoration

Understanding the workings of an ecosystem and the interactions of organisms with their environment is central to restoration / rehabilitation. In order to rehabilitate or ecologically restore an area, practices that damage the ecosystem need to be restricted or controlled, and measures to improve ecosystem structure and function must be increased.

Carrying out ecological restoration / rehabilitation at a landscape level will likely result in ecosystems that are self-maintaining, as opposed to taking on such projects in a piecemeal approach (Perrow & Davey, 2002). Landscape-level projects will therefore likely involve public properties and/or a number of landowners, which may make implementation more challenging.

Answering the following questions will help determine the scope, objectives and feasibility of a landscape-scale rehabilitation / ecological restoration programme:

1. What is the ecosystem structure, function and composition of the area? • Establish a benchmark against which ecological restoration can be measured by determining the main ecosystem

attributes that relate to the ecosystem structure, function and composition. Strive to restore all aspects to achieve ecological restoration. Attributes of ecosystem structure and composition could include annual and perennial plant species richness, total plant cover, the total mass of living plant matter above ground, the ratio between regional and local species diversity, keystone species, microbial biomass, and soil biota diversity (Aronson et. al., 1993). These attributes should be recorded in late spring and, if possible, for several successive years. This would need

Restoration is the process of repairing both the structure and functions of the ecosystem to enable degraded, damaged or destroyed habitat to return to its former state or condition.

Ecological Restoration attempts to re-establish the characteristic composition, structure and functions of an ecosystem in its pre-disturbance, natural state. It may involve the active re-establishment of indigenous biodiversity and the creation of suitable conditions to encourage species to return naturally.

Rehabilitation refers to the actions taken to stabilize a terrain so that it can serve a useful purpose (e.g. deliver important ecosystem services). In practice, a rehabilitated area is not expected to be returned to its original condition, and revegetation may entail the establishment only one or a few species. Reclamation is sometimes used synonymously with rehabilitation

Revegetation entails the establishment of one or a few species


54

to be done by an environmental specialist. Attributes of ecosystem function could include nutrient cycling, biomass productivity, soil organic matter, and water cycling. These are important for a functional ecosystem, and provision of ecosystem services.

• Keystone species are those species which are critical to the functioning and structure of an ecosystem. Any attempt to shift a disturbed system towards a pre-disturbance state should involve the careful re-introduction of keystone species where they are absent.

2. What is the underlying problem which requires attention? • Is there species loss, change in species composition, change in the structure or pattern of vegetation, a decline

in ecological condition, or invasion by AIPs? • Is there a change in ecological processes such as fire dynamics, nutrient levels or water resources?

3. What is the cause of the problem? • Has there been removal and/or fragmentation of natural or near-natural vegetation? • Has there been a change in the intensity of land uses or types of land use within the landscape? • Have certain management measures (e.g., fire, AIP control) stopped or changed in the in the landscape? • Have the soil horizons been disturbed, and the water regime affected?

4. What are realistic goals for restoration or rehabilitation? • Would a return to a natural or near-natural ecosystem be feasible or desirable? Or would an improvement in

ecological condition be sufficient? • Can existing species be retained and can further species loss be prevented? • Can the drivers of ecological degradation be slowed and preferably reversed? • Are resources (finances, labour, and equipment) available to invest in restoration work? • Can the ecological condition be improved to a functional ecosystem that provides ecosystem services? The greater the diversity of a plant community, the more resilient it is to change. Indigenous plant diversity tends to decrease when an area is degraded. If only a few species are present on a particular site, restoration measures should encourage a wider variety of indigenous plant species.

5. What method should be used to rehabilitate/restore the area? Different methods can be used to rehabilitate/restore degraded areas. To test what would be most effective in the area, the landowner (with assistance from an environmental specialist) could consider setting up a trial with different ‘plots’ where the various methods are applied. The relative success in each plot can be monitored and used to choose an appropriate method for the area

6. What are the cost implications for achieving the goals? • Determine what restoration/rehabilitation measures are required where (i.e. the spatial solutions). • Determine the actions and related costs for priority interventions, including the costs of materials, labour, any

legal requirements, plus escalation costs. 7. What steps will be required for implementation?

• Set out clear objectives and desired outcomes of rehabilitation/restoration (ecological goals). • Ensure that all key stakeholders support or ‘own’ the proposed interventions (e.g. managers, landholders/land

users and relevant authorities). • Allow for an adaptive management approach, assessing the outcomes of the measures implemented against

intended outcomes, and adjusting management to improve performance.

General guidance on planning and implementing restoration and rehabilitation projects is provided in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: General guidelines for planning and implementing restoration or rehabilitation projects

ü OWNERSHIP Ownership of the restoration/rehabilitation project must be defined at the start of the planning process. Ownership by local stakeholders is key to ensuring efforts are effective and sustainable.

ü OBJECTIVES Define objectives and associated performance targets that can be measured, monitored and evaluated. The objectives will be influenced by the type and cause of degradation, the extent of degradation and the landscape context of the site.

ü DRIVERS Identify key ecological drivers of the affected ecosystem and integrate measures to improve them into the restoration plan.

ü EXPERTISE The design and management of the restoration process must be carried out by a specialist in ecological restoration who is suitably qualified and has a good understanding of the local ecology.

ü COMPARISON Identify a local site which has similar biophysical conditions to the degraded site but where vegetation has not been disturbed. This site can be used as a reference point (benchmark) for planning and monitoring the restoration/rehabilitation of the degraded site.

ü TIMEFRAMES

The restoration/rehabilitation project must allow sufficient time for seed collection, propagation, sowing and planting to take place. The seasonality and/or events that drive change in the ecosystem must be considered. The length of time for the rehabilitation / restoration of the area to be achieved will depend many factors including the climatic and soil conditions, level of degradation at the start of the project, the size of the area requiring management, the effectiveness of the measures put in place, and the timely application of the measures. Different components of the ecosystem may take different amounts of time to regenerate after disturbance – for example, recovery of the woody layer in Kalahari Duneveld and Kalahari Bushveld with the full species component will take longer than 10 years, though pioneers may establish on denuded sites and exist as dense monospecific stands for a long time. However, the herbaceous layer in these ecosystems is event driven (non-equilibrium), and the grass layer may change over short periods of time from almost bare during dry spells (linked with grazing during winter) to well-covered by grass during wetter cycles. Partial recovery of vegetation in moist systems (equilibrium systems) (i.e. Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna and Sub-escarpment Savanna) is possible within 5 to 10 years, provided that rehabilitated areas are not put under additional pressure of intense agriculture or cultivation practices, wood collection or overgrazing.

ü MONITOR Ongoing monitoring of the restoration should take place to measure the success of the intervention with the objectives of the restoration plan.

ü MANAGE Use the results of monitoring and test against performance targets. Correct or adapt interventions to improve restoration/rehabilitation outcomes.

General measures to be applied in any rehabilitation/ restoration activities include:

1. Conserve topsoil. Minimise compaction of topsoil and changes to the soil profile/structure that would alter drainage. Do not handle topsoil when wet; do not move topsoil during rainy season. If soil must be removed, store for as short a period as possible to maximize the viability of seeds in that soil.


56

2. Source plants, seeds and propagations from the local gene pool to avoid introducing external genetic material and the creation of hybrids.

3. Sow seed rather than planting to enhance diversity and minimise the risk of introducing pests and pathogens. Planting is useful, however, to introduce threatened species that do not readily establish from seed.

4. Do not use AIP species in restoration/rehabilitation work. 5. When restoring or rehabilitating natural ecosystem functioning, reinstating surface water flow is an important step.

The temporal variability of the restored flows should match natural variability as far as possible. The flows can be engineered with the guidance of a freshwater ecologist (as relevant) to ensure maximum benefit. The importance of groundwater flow, and the interactions between surface water and underlying geohydrology of the system must be considered and implemented into the restoration/rehabilitation plan.

6. Integrate the rehabilitation/restoration of aquatic ecosystems with that of the surrounding terrestrial landscape so that the upstream and downstream causes of degradation can also be addressed.

Note, that once an ecosystem has been restored, early-warning monitoring systems should be put in place to detect any changes to the established quality control criteria and allow for remedial action to be done.

4.3.3 Threatened and Protected Species Threatened species are those that face a high risk of extinction in the near (or foreseeable) future and have been classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. The classification is based on a scientific conservation assessment (or Red Listing process), using a standardised set of criteria developed by the IUCN for determining the likelihood of a species becoming extinct.

A Red Listed Species is any species that has been assessed according to Red List criteria, whether or not the species is threatened or of conservation concern. IUCN Red List categories for species include Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, and Data Deficient. Additional categories in South Africa are Rare and Critically Rare.

Species of Conservation Concern (SCC): IUCN Red List Definition. Threatened species, and other species of significant conservation importance: Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Near Threatened, Data Deficient. In South Africa, ‘Rare’ and ‘Critically Rare’ categories are added.

Protected species are species which are protected by international, national or provincial legislation. The translocation, hunting, owning, breeding or trading of faunal species is illegal without the applicable permits or licenses in place. Damage or removal of protected floral species and/or their habitat requires a permit issued by the relevant authorities (usually Provincial). Such a permit will only be issued after the collection of relevant field data and an analysis of the impacts associated with the removal.

TOPS-listed Species: Species listed as threatened or protected in terms of Section 56 of the Biodiversity Act. Classified as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or protected.

Lists of protected species published under different Acts, Regulations or Ordinances can be found at:

• List of Threatened or Protected Species published in terms of the Biodiversity Act; • List of protected trees published under the Forest Act; • International conventions (CITES); and • Provincial ordinances.


57

For information on species listed on the Global IUCN Red List, visit: www.iucnredlist.org

To access information about a South African species' IUCN Red List status, CITES Appendix listing or the Biodiversity Act TOPS status visit: http://sibis.sanbi.org

Refer to Appendix 2 for additional resources relating to threatened species

4.3.4 Planning for Animals: Working in Faunal Habitats The habitat requirements of animals must be given careful consideration in environmental assessments and management plans. The different kinds of animals occurring within the Savanna biome have different ecological requirements.

4.3.4.1 Faunal Diversity in the biome

The Savanna biome supports a broad diversity of fauna including herbivores (e.g. impala, common duiker, steenbok, elephant, giraffe, duiker), omnivores (e.g. bushbabies, vervet monkeys, chacma baboons), carnivores (e.g. lion, leopard, cheetah, and wild dog) and detrivores (e.g. lappet-faced vulture). The biome supports numerous birds, amphibians, reptiles, fishes and insects. Animals affect the plants on which they feed, and ultimately, the form of the savanna. On a broad scale, the diversity of trees and large shrub species decreases sharply within an east-west direction across the biome. Termitaria are a common feature of most Savanna types, forming islands with elevated nutrient levels and palatable grasses and are heavily used by herbivores, especially in the dry season (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

Herbivores within the Savanna biome can be divided into those occurring in arid and moist savanna. Arid savanna herbivores include grazers, mixed feeders and browsers, and are less selective feeders than species found in moist Savanna. The biomass of these species declines in areas receiving higher rainfall levels. Elephant, hippopotamus and buffalo are, however, widespread in the moist Savanna areas where rainfall exceeds 1000 mm. Herbivores in moist Savanna consist mostly of highly selective grazers which are widespread. The numbers of carnivores show a positive correlation to the amount of rainfall received, which is linked to the number of herbivores present in the area. The natural populations of mammals in the Savanna biome is therefore related to the limits set by their food resources (East, 1984).

The Savanna biome is home to the largest diversity of hoofed mammals (ungulates) in the world. It has been found that in areas with nutrient-rich soils the biomass of large ungulates is about 20 times more than that on nutrient-poor soils (Fritz and Duncan, 1994). Maintaining soil fertility and limiting erosion is thus key to maintaining the carrying capacity of a landscape with regard to mammals.

Examples of grazers in the Savanna biome include the blue wildebeest, zebra, buffalo, white rhinoceros and warthog. Nguni cattle are also common grazers of the area. Examples of browsers in the Savanna biome include kudu, giraffe, common duiker, klipspringer, bushbuck, nyala and black rhinoceros. Indigenous goats are also common browsers. Impala and elephants have adapted to both grazing and browsing conditions.

A study done on an estimated 1 640 hectares of Savanna in the KNP showed that the exclusion of herbivory affects vegetation composition. An increase in herbaceous vegetation cover was observed in the short term (six years), but in the long term (22 to 41 years), vegetation in areas where herbivores were excluded had an increased woody canopy cover (Asner et al, 2009).


58

4.3.4.2 Faunal Movement and the Need for Corridors

Fauna may require different habitats for feeding, breeding, shelter and accessing water. They need to be able to access these different habitats, adding value to the importance of connectivity of natural environments and considering animal movement patterns in ecological corridors.

When planning corridors required for fauna, consider the following:

1. Landscape-scale movement i.e. the annual or seasonal migration. 2. Local-scale movement i.e. the daily movements to search for food, water, shelter, nesting or breeding sites. 3. Size of the corridor i.e. both the length and width (the longer the corridor the wider it needs to be). 4. Habitat requirements i.e. are there specific interfaces, gradients, forage or niche areas that are required for different

species. 5. Behavioural traits. 6. Land use within corridors and effects on target species. 7. Neighbouring land use/s and associated edge effects on the habitat 8. Management constraints such as roads and fencing.

4.3.4.3 Managing Impacts on Fauna

Where impacts on fauna cannot be avoided or sufficiently minimised as set out in the mitigation hierarchy, the developer (with assistance from the EAP, relevant taxa specialist(s) and an offset specialist) must either find an alternative, lower-impact site for development, or offset the residual negative impacts on faunal species in such a way as to counterbalance loss to the affected population and species. Impacts on the habitat of CR species and local endemic species with highly restricted distributions should be avoided. When threatened or localised endemic species are impacted, the offset must cater explicitly for the habitat needs of the affected species and prevent any change (i.e. increase) in their threat status. A precautionary approach to determining the size of offset must be exercised in cases where highly threatened or vulnerable species are affected (Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy, 2017).

Guidelines to avoid or minimise impacts of proposed land use change on fauna:

1. Access available data (e.g. species lists for quarter degree square areas) and check what fauna are expected to occur in the area. Understand their habitat requirements, and their daily and longer term movement patterns. Determine whether a specialist survey is needed.

2. Consider potential impacts on fauna and their habitats early in the assessment process. 3. Cluster development in disturbed or modified areas to avoid habitat loss 4. Minimise light pollution to avoid disruption of circadian rhythms and seasonal cues, attracting unwanted animals or

scaring off animals. 5. Ensure lighting does not shine into areas of natural or near-natural vegetation. 6. Locate roads between developed areas and natural habitat to act as a fire break. 7. Avoid backing up houses against natural vegetation to prevent disturbance. 8. Design barrier walls and fencing to allow for the passage of small fauna. Avoid solid walls or include regular gaps in

solid walls. Palisade fencing is permeable to most small fauna. 9. Do not place electric fencing strands below 15 cm above ground level. 10. Design drains and canals with angles of less than 45 degrees so they do not act as pitfall traps and animals can

escape from the structures. 11. Swimming pools should be raised or surrounded by walls to prevent accidental drowning of fauna.


59

12. Design roadside curb stones with a gentle gradient, or to be less than 6 cm high, so small animals can move off roads and on to verges.

13. Manage and minimise the impacts of domestic pets. Pay attention to the impacts that some pets (e.g. cats) can have on faunal SCCs in the area.

14. Ensure specialist input is sought regarding the impact of stormwater flow and discharge into natural environments, and on biota in these systems (e.g. discharge of stormwater into wetlands).

15. Relocate target species where their habitat will be converted, and only if permits have been issued by the relevant authority. Fauna must be relocated to similar habitat conducive to their persistence, and where their introduction will not impact on existing biota in the area. Removal of fauna ahead of construction should be done as close to the time of construction as possible to prevent fauna moving back into the affected area.

4.3.4.4 Animal Indicator Species

Available information on specific faunal groups must be considered during the environmental assessment process. However, it is not always feasible to obtain full species lists of the animals occurring on site due to the relatively short timeframes of the EIA process and limited resources.

Faunal distribution lists per quarter degree square can be scanned to determine the likely / expected fauna in the area (e.g. Bird Atlas, Butterfly Atlas). When detailed information is not available, the biodiversity assessment should focus on those species whose presence, absence or abundance can be used to measure faunal diversity or the ecological health of the ecosystem (see examples for the Savanna biome below).

.

Keystone species: Species that plays a unique and critical role in the way an ecosystem functions. The loss of a keystone species from an ecosystem will likely result in the loss of other species, the structure of the ecosystem will change which will alter or limit the functioning of the ecosystem

Examples: lions in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group control largely migratory and resident ungulate populations of gemsbok, and blue wildebeest, both of which are highly selective grazers. Where lions are absent, smaller predators prevail. The camelthorn tree is as a keystone species in Kalahari Duneveld, being a source of forage, and refuge, as well as debris and detritus when it dies and decomposes. Aardvark is a keystone species in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group, as their digging behavior, particularly in areas underlain by harder ground, enables other non-digging species to utilize this refugia, including for their own breeding

Indicator species: The presence and abundance of indicator species serves as a measure of environmental conditions, the overall ecological condition or the state of an ecosystem.

Examples: Bushveld sand quick and silky bushman grass are palatable grasses, and are indicators of good veld for rangeland pasture use. The presence of vultures and scavenging eagles (i.e. tawny eagle and bateleur eagle), are signs of an ecosystem in good ecological condition. The presence of stone flies, dragonflies and damselflies indicates good wate quality in aquatic ecosystems.

Umbrella species: Conserving umbrella species will indirectly result in the conservation of other species that occur in the same habitat. An umbrella species will usually occupy a habitat with a large range and populations of other species will occupy the same area although they are likely to have smaller distributional ranges. The presence of umbrella species indicates an ecosystem that is relatively intact and connected.

Examples: honey badger and aardvark


60

4.3.5 In- and Ex- Situ Conservation The removal of a sub-population and/or species of plants or animals from their natural habitat to artificial environment is referred to as ‘ex-situ conservation’. This is frequently used as a mitigation measure in land use change proposals (especially in the EIA process) where impacts on natural ecosystems, and fauna and flora cannot be avoided. However, there are numerous drawbacks with this practice, and it must not be used as a conservation measure for SCCs. Similarly, translocation of subpopulations is an unacceptable conservation measure.

• Ex situ conservation may result in the erosion of genetic diversity and characteristics of the species and increase its extinction risk in the wild

• Suitable receptor sites may not be available or may be limited.

• Translocations are expensive and are typically not successful. • Even if they are successful, translocated individuals may harm other species in the receiving environment (e.g.

the translocated individuals may transmit pathogens and/or parasites, and translocation may result in rapid changes in the species itself).

• Moving large numbers of individuals can lead to overpopulation and mortality of the species at the receptor site. • AIP species could be introduced at the receptor site/s. • The predator-prey balance could be disrupted at the receptor site/s.

In-situ conservation is vital and should be recommended as the only option for conserving SCCs.

In general, ex-situ conservation for SCCS is not an option available to developers. Ex situ conservation can only be considered in situations where in situ conservation of threatened or protected species is already highly compromised before the land use change takes place (for example in situations where there is extreme habitat fragmentation or severe degradation of the site to the point that there has been a loss of key ecological processes).

4.3.5.1 Search and Rescue of Flora

The translocation of ‘rescued’ plant material generally has a very low success rate and that material can be regarded as lost from the wild with high mortality rates to be expected. Search and rescue is not permitted for threatened plant species. However for non-threatened plants, in instances where avoidance is not feasible, general guidance for search and rescue exercises is given below. Note that permits are required from the relevant authority before any threatened or protected species can be disturbed or removed.

1. The temporary storage of rescued plants in a nursery for future rehabilitation must be avoided if possible as this presents a risk of introducing exotic species and pathogens from nurseries into the wild. It is better to remove plants when they are dormant from the area to be disturbed and replant them immediately.

2. Thorough spatial demarcation of biodiversity priority areas, and other habitats that host threatened and/or protected species, as well as the location of the species during the pre-application and assessment phases should assist in developing a comprehensive understanding of what needs to be relocated.

3. A specialist botanical report must be prepared to provide detailed information regarding the rescue techniques, the preferred season of rescue and replanting, and suitable sites for relocation. This information should be used to appoint a contractor with the necessary skills to carry out the rescue operation.

4. A suitable receptor site must be identified and endorsed by the applicable conservation agency. The receptor site may be a site identified as part of the biodiversity offset, depending on the project in question and whether or not impacts have been avoided as per the mitigation hierarchy.


61

5. If a site will be disturbed and rehabilitated post-disturbance; focus on saving plants that are known to be successfully translocated (e.g. bulbs, succulents and aerial seed banks).

6. Mark bulbs in spring when they are in leaf or have flowers; transplant only once leaves have dried off. 7. Transplant bulbs in autumn (April – May). 8. Sow seed before the first heavy rains. 9. Transplant any other propagated material after the first heavy rains. 10. Prior to disturbance of an area, remove topsoil (at least the upper 150 mm) ideally with additional subsoil (500 mm

depth) during dry conditions. Do not work with wet soils. 11. Identify and avoid or minimise stressors to the relocated plant that would limit the success of its survival 12. Replace topsoil as soon as disturbance in the area is complete, and plan for this to be done before the rainy season. 13. At recently burned sites, rescue seedlings by retaining soil sods (± 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm deep) in trays, or transplant

individual species into nursery bags. 14. Consider the viability of seeds over time. 15. Consider vegetation recruitment via the use of cuttings where possible. 16. Implement a three-year maintenance phase once topsoil/sods are translocated, to control AIPs that may thrive in

response to the disturbance. 17. The best option for rescued plant material is to use it to rehabilitate or restore disturbed sites, or else remove them

permanently to a botanical garden or nursery where continuous management measures can be applied to assist in its survival.

4.3.5.2 Search and Rescue of Animals

When a land-use activity will result in loss of habitat for fauna, the translocation of fauna will not mitigate the loss of natural habitat but could reduce the significance of the negative impacts of the impacting land-use activity. Search and rescue is not permitted for threatened fauna. However for non-threatened fauna, the following recommendations are provided:

1. Search and rescue of non-threatened fauna can be supported if the operations are properly planned and implemented. In all cases, advice from suitable experts should be obtained to inform the search and rescue operation. Note that permits are required from the relevant authority before any threatened or protected species can be disturbed or removed

2. General guidelines for planning of faunal search and rescue operations: • Move the animals to the closest, most suitable natural habitat. The habitat identified may form part of the

biodiversity offset recommended to offset residual impacts. • Ensure that the receptor site consists of an adequate food supply (i.e. vegetation, invertebrates etc. as applicable

to the rescued species) and water to avoid impacting the receptor site. • Suitable refugia for species must be available at the receptor site. • Ensure that breeding sites will be available for the translocated species. • Ensure that the site consists of a suitable number of predators and competitors to assist with population density

control.


62

CHAPTER 5: ECOSYSTEM GUIDELINES

5.1 Distribution of Ecosystem Groups of the Savanna Biome

An understanding of the physical environment is critical to describing local vegetation changes across the Savanna biome. In this biome, there is a significant relationship between vegetation patterns and soil types; however, floristic variation also occurs along rainfall gradients, even where the substrate is similar (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

As discussed in Chapter 3, 8 Ecosystem Groups have been identified for the Savanna biome with Mountain Bushveld regarded as a unique vegetation type occurring across the biome. Table 5.1 and Figure 8 present the Ecosystem Groups and their distribution.

Table 5.1: A summary distribution of the various Ecosystem Groups in the Savanna biome

Distribution Kalahari Duneveld: Restricted to dry landscapes in northern parts of Northern Cape. On plains with fixed parallel or loose dunes that rise 3 - 8 m above the aeolian sandy plains. Kalahari Bushveld: Open tree savanna on plains with deep aeolian sand in NE of Northern Cape and W of North West, extending into the NW of the Free State. Vegetation consists of thornveld and vaalbosveld. Mountain bushveld occurs. Central Bushveld: Flat and gentle undulating plains covering the largest part of Limpopo. Vegetation is typically a mosaic of fine-leaved and broad-leaved bushveld. Mountain bushveld occurs. Mopane Bushveld: Restricted to dry subtropical areas in NE part of SA Savanna Biome. Total dominance of mopane (Colophospermum mopane). Arid Lowveld Bushveld: Restricted to eastern part of the SA Savanna biome and found on plains below and east of the Great Escarpment. Mountain bushveld occurs. Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna: Restricted to lower and middle east-facing slopes of the Great Escarpment. Mountain bushveld occurs. Sub-escarpment Savanna: Narrow, discontinuous belt from north of Pietermaritzburg south-westward to Kouga in Eastern Cape. Vegetation is typically Vachellia-dominated thorny bushveld varying from open woodland with a well-developed grass layer to very dense, thicket-like bushes in the valleys. Inland Aquatic Ecosystems: wetlands and watercourses occur across the biome, and in association with all the above Ecosystem Groups. The types and extent of aquatic ecosystems vary widely, considering the broad spatial scale and geographic positioning of the biome.

Broadly, the Savanna biome can be divided into mesic or broad-leaved savanna, and arid or fine-leaved savanna (Huntley, 1982) with ‘mixed savanna’ occurring as an intermediate between the arid and mesic savanna divisions (Scholes, 1997). Arid savanna generally occurs in areas receiving less than 650 mm mean annual precipitation (MAP) and mesic savanna in areas receiving more than 650 mm MAP (Skowno, 2018). Table 5.2 provides general average annual rainfall figures for the various Ecosystem Groups. The moist savannas correspond to higher lying areas, and occur in the Moist Sour Lowveld and Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Groups. Arid areas correspond to lower lying areas, which extend between the Kalahari Bushveld and Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group.

Note: in this Chapter, the scientific names of plants and animals are used. A list of scientific and common names in given in Appendix 5. The first time the species name appears in the Chapter, it is written in full. Thereafter, the Genus name is abbreviated with the first letter only (for e.g. Vachellia haematoxylon will become V. haematoxylon).


63

Of the seven terrestrial Ecosystem Groups in the Savanna biome, the Sub-Escarpment Savanna and Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna have the highest MAP; while the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group has the lowest MAP. The Lowveld Ecosystem Groups have significantly greater annual potential evaporation. In mesic savanna areas, soil moisture supports both woody seedling establishment and grass biomass. In arid savanna, low soil moisture limits the establishment of woody plant seedlings and grass production.

The Savanna biome occurs at altitudes mostly below 1 500 m but extends to 1 800 m on parts of the Highveld, mainly along the southernmost edges of the Central Bushveld. Higher temperatures are experienced in comparison to the Grassland biome which is found at higher altitudes areas adjacent to the Savanna biome. The Kalahari Duneveld, Kalahari Bushveld and Central Bushveld Ecosystem Groups experience frost and the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group has more than twice as much frost as the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group. The Mopane, Arid Lowveld, Moist Sour Lowveld and Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Groups experience virtually no frost (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

A close relationship exists between soils and vegetation in the Savanna biome and the quality of grass is also closely linked to soil texture. In low rainfall areas, where water is the main growth-limiting factor, physical factors related to rainfall efficiency have a significant influence on vegetation composition. On a local scale, small-scale changes in soil properties play a large role in vegetation pattern and composition. For example, soil crust formation increases runoff, reduces water availability in the soil profile but increases nutrient levels. In cases where swelling clay soils form on basic parent material with higher water retention properties, shallow-rooted grasses would dominate because they are better adapted to root pruning than trees and shrubs. Sandy soils generally have a lower nutrient status, resulting in lower grass production, but can allow for rapid infiltration of rainwater enabling deeper rooted woody plants (Low and Rebelo, 1996; Skowno, 2018). Even under similar rainfall conditions, differences in soil fertility give rise to nutrient-poor savanna (with many properties of mesic savanna) and nutrient-rich savanna (with many properties of arid savanna). The nutrient-poor systems result due to their position on acid crystalline rocks and old erosional surfaces; while nutrient-rich systems are on fine-grained sediments and young surfaces (Scholes and Scholes, 1997 in Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Vegetation in nutrient-poor savanna differs from that in nutrient-rich savanna in larger leaf size, higher root:shoot ratio, lower grass palatability, greater woody biomass, lower herbaceous water use efficiency and a more obvious litter layer (Scholes, 1990a in Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). In nutrient-poor savanna, woody plants deter herbivores using chemicals (tannins, polyphenolics, etc.), while nutrient-rich savanna trees use structural measures (e.g. thorns). Combretaceae and Caesalpiniaceae dominate nutrient-poor savannas, and Mimosaceae dominates nutrient-rich savannas.

Fire and herbivory are important drivers of the Savanna biome maintaining the balance between trees and grasses. Summer rainfall promotes the prevalence of grasses which fuel fires on a near-annual basis. Almost all plant species are fire-adapted, with less than 10% killed by fire (Low and Rebelo, 1996). In areas with low rainfall the woody layer is supressed while fire and grazing keep the grass layer dominant. In areas with rainfall between 400 and 1 000 mm MAP, herbivory and fire control biomass; high levels of grass production provide fuel for fires, and both fire and herbivory (browsing) control woody plant recruitment. Where rainfall exceeds 800 mm MAP, fire alone can limit woody plant recruitment. Historic and natural variation in grazing and browsing by indigenous species in the biome has maintained and enhanced biodiversity. Current variation in utilization by domestic livestock and game farming may positively maintain biodiversity or negatively impact it, depending on management strategies applied by different land managers.

With increased atmospheric CO2 levels, the allocation of extra carbon to roots facilitates recovery after disturbance, promoting the recruitment of woody species. An increase in atmospheric CO2 can reduce water stress by improved stomatal conductance and increased moisture availability, promoting seedling establishment and woody plant encroachment (Skowno, 2018). Climate change predictions are that the Savanna biome will expand into the Grassland biome, and that the Savanna biome will be less severely affected than other biomes further west.


64

Table 5.2 to Table 5.9 provide a summary of the key ecological drivers of each Ecosystem Group. Note that ‘Inland Aquatic Ecosystems’ occur across the biome, and in association with all Ecosystem Groups. Ecological drivers for this Group are discussed under Section 5.3

Table 5.2: Ecological Driver: Climate - Rainfall Ecological Driver: Kalahari

Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Central Bushveld Mopane Bushveld Arid Lowveld Bushveld

Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna

Sub-escarpment Savanna

Climate: Rainfall Very low (~120 – 260 mm per annum), significant annual variability, regular drought.

Low (300 mm in the west to 550 mm per annum in the east), significant annual variability, regular drought.

Low (350 to 650 mm per annum - drier north-west to moister south-east gradient). Very dry winters. Significant annual variability. Great seasonal and topographic variation in rainfall in mountain bushveld.

Northern Mopane Bushveld: summer rainfall (300-400 mm per annum), winters very dry Eastern Mopane Bushveld: 400-550 mm per annum. Significant annual variability, droughts and floods.

Northern parts: 450 - 550 mm summer rain per annum; southwards from Swaziland into KwaZulu-Natal, rainfall increases to 550 - 850 mm per annum.

Rainfall varies between 600 and 1350 mm per annum. Generally high but with variation from lower altitudes in west (moister, with transitions to forest) to higher altitude east (drier) linked with significant annual variability.

Summer rainfall (550 to >1000 mm per annum).


66

Table 5.3: Ecological Driver: Climate – Temperature (Average annual temperatures are provided as per the Koppen classification (refer to map below for codes in each Ecosystem Group)

Kalahari Duneveld Warm and dry, with cold winters. BWh – hot dry arid desert climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C

Kalahari Bushveld Warm, with cold winters. BWh – hot dry arid desert climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C (western part of Group) BSh – hot dry semi-arid climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C (northern and southern parts of Group) BSk – Cold dry semi-arid climate with Tann < +18 °C (central and eastern parts of Group)

Central Bushveld Warm, with dry winters. Many species have tropical/subtropical affinity/origin and cannot survive long-lasting or extreme cold winter temperatures and severe frost experienced at high altitudes BSh – hot dry semi-arid climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C (southern, south-western and north- western parts of Group) BSk – Cold, dry semi-arid climate with Tann < +18 °C (eastern, south-eastern, and western parts of Group) CWa – Hot summer; mild temperate with dry winter. Tmax ≥ +22 °C (central from west to eastern parts of Group) CWb – Warm summer; mild temperate with dry winter. Tmax < +22 °C, 4 Tmon ≥ +10 °C (south-eastern part of Group)

Mopane Bushveld Warm. BWh – hot dry arid desert climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C (north- western part of group) BSh – hot dry semi-arid climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C (central and southern part of group)

Arid Lowveld Bushveld

Many species have tropical/subtropical affinity/origin and cannot survive long-lasting or extreme cold winter temperatures and severe frost experienced at high altitudes. CWa – Hot summer; Mild temperate with dry winter. Tmax ≥ +22 °C (mostly western boundary of Group, some central) BSh – hot dry semi-arid climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C (mostly central part of Group, but also in the western section of the southern part of the Group)


Temperature variation from lower lying (warmer) to high altitudes (colder with transitions to grassland). CWa – Hot summer; Mild temperate with dry winter. Tmax ≥ +22 °C (northern and central part of Group) BSh – hot dry semi-arid climate with Tann ≥ +18 °C (central part of Group) Cfb – Warm summer; Mild temperate, fully humid. Tmax < +22 °C, 4 Tmon ≥ +10 °C. (southern part of Group)


Temperature variation from lower lying (warmer) to high altitudes (colder with transitions to grassland). Cfa – Hot summer; Mild temperate, fully humid. Tmax ≥ +22 °C (north-western part of Group) Cfb – Warm summer; Mild temperate, fully humid. Tmax < +22 °C, 4 Tmon ≥ +10 °C. (south-eastern part of Group)

!!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('!

78!

Map of Koppen Climate Classification (By Ali Zifan (Enhanced, modified, and vectorized). - Derived from World Köppen Classification (with authors).svg., CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47085453)

Table 5.4: Ecological Driver: Climate – Frost (Mean number of occurrences (days per annum) of heavy frost ranges provided per Ecosystem Group as per Schulzeand Maharaj, 2007)

Kalahari Duneveld Frequent. 20-40 days per year

Kalahari Bushveld Frequent during dry winters. 20-60 days per year

Central Bushveld Occasional light frost. Mostly less than 20 days per year, but increasing in the southern and central higher lying areas to 20-60.

Mopane Bushveld Mostly frost-free, but may occur in the northern section of the Group (less than 20 days a year)

Arid Lowveld Bushveld Frost-free

Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Frost-free

Sub-escarpment Savanna Frost occurs infrequently during the coldest winter months

Mean number of occurrences of heavy frost in South Africa (Schulzeand Maharaj, 2007).


69

Table 5.5: Ecological Driver: Altitude

Ecological Driver:

Kalahari Duneveld

Kalahari Bushveld

Central Bushveld Mopane Bushveld Arid Lowveld Bushveld Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna


Altitude Ranges from ~ 800 to 1000 m.a.s.l

Ranges from ~ 800 to 1500 m.a.s.l.

Ranges from ~ 800 to 1400 m.a.s.l. Extends to 1 800 m on the southern edges.

Restricted to under 800 m.a.s.l with exception of the mountainous areas.

Restricted to under 800 m.a.s.l in the northern parts and under 450 m.a.s.l in the southern parts.

Ranges from 600 m.a.s.l up to approximately 1100 m.a.s.l

Ranges between 900 and 1300 m.a.s.l rarely closer to the sea.

Topographical Map of South Africa (http://www.eumetrain.org/satmanu/CMs/COL/navmenu.php?page=2.0.0 ).


70

Table 5.6: Ecological Driver: Landform (topography, geology, soils) Kalahari Duneveld Soil type (especially variation in depth - deep on and between dunes, shallow to deep over underlying limestone). Kalahari Bushveld Smaller rocky dolerite hills or ridges occur scattered within the Vaalbosveld. Vaalbosveld occurs in areas with surface limestone or dolomite

and chert covered by shallow aeolian sand. Mountain bushveld: occur on Langeberg, Kuruman and Makhubung hills

Central Bushveld Fine-leaved thornveld: clayey soils derived from igneous rocks such as basalt, norite or dolerite in the southern parts; little water penetration, high water retention. Favours grass layer, trees scattered. Broad-leaved savanna: sandy soils derived from sandstone, granites, gneisses or similar rocks in the northern parts. High water penetration, low water retention, nutrients leached to lower soil layers, favours tree growth. Can also occur in a complex mosaic in slightly undulating granite landscapes (fine-leaved savanna restricted to nutrient rich clayey soils in bottomland situations and broad-leaved savanna to the better-drained leached sandy or gravelly areas on the higher-lying crests).

Mopane Bushveld Lithology and derived soil type, particularly soil depth and rockiness, clay content, drainage regime, variability in nutrients. On the irregular, undulating plains of the northern Mopane Bushveld the soils vary considerably from freely drained sandy soils derived from gneisses, covering most of the area, to the more limited brown to dark clays derived from basalt. Low hills and ridges with shallow, well drained soils occur scattered throughout the area, but particularly along the Limpopo River valley

Arid Lowveld Bushveld Western part - broad-leaved savanna: deep sandy and shallow gravelly, well-drained soils derived from granites, gneisses, sandstones or similar rocks. Eastern parts - fine-leaved thornveld savanna: clayey soils derived from basalt, gabbro and dolerite. Mountain bushveld: rhyolites of the Lebombo mountain range. Can also occur in a complex mosaic in slightly undulating granite landscapes. Here the fine-leaved savanna is restricted to the nutrient rich clayey soils in bottomland situations and broad-leaved savanna to the better-drained leached sandy or gravelly areas on the higher-lying crests in the landscape. Generally, the geology changes from west to east in longitudinal bands that start in the west with granite, and end in basalt and rhyolite, with a narrow stretch of Ecca shales in between. These differences result in different plant communities with different plant species composition

Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Great variability in local habitats due to differences in geology and the resulting complex topography, e.g. varying foot to mid-slopes with different gradients, varying rockiness and soil depth and with shallow or deep valleys

Sub-escarpment Savanna Dominant landscape is rolling hills with valley slopes often with deep east-running valleys and undulating plains above river valleys. Predominant geology includes Beaufort, Ecca and Dwyka Groups of sandstones and shales and intruding dolerite sills. Variety of smaller scale habitats and plant communities in the complex landscape of varying altitude, slopes, geology and a great variety of soil types


71

Table 5.7: Ecological Driver: Grazing

Kalahari Duneveld Sweet veld, palatable, but rainfall limiting – low grazing and stocking capacity Kalahari Bushveld Sweet veld, palatable, but rainfall limiting – low grazing and stocking capacity. Higher productivity than Kalahari Duneveld Central Bushveld Fine-leaved savanna: sweet and palatable, especially in winter. Supports animal production throughout the year.

Broad-leaved savanna: sour grasses avoided in winter and support animal production in summer. Many ecosystems are mixed veld Mopane Bushveld Grasses sweet and palatable and preferred by grazers, particularly in winter, support animal production throughout the year Arid Lowveld Bushveld

Fine-leaved savanna: palatable and preferred by grazers (sweet), particularly in winter, can support animal production throughout the year. Broad-leaved savanna: sour grasses avoided during winter, support animal production mainly in summer. Many of these ecosystems are mixed veld, with particular proportions of sweet and sour grasses. Mountain bushveld: grass layer is mostly scanty with only few grazing antelopes


The high rainfall results in high production of sour grasses that are not grazed during winter


Relatively high rainfall results in high production of sour grasses that have less grazing value during winter


72

Table 5.8: Ecological Driver: Fire


73

Kalahari Duneveld Due to low vegetation cover and low fuel loads, fire is uncommon. However, when very hot conditions occur, the dry grass layer creates a fire hazard, especially after a good rainfall season when there is high annual grass cover Controlled fires are not required as part of land management

Kalahari Bushveld Due to low vegetation cover and low fuel loads, fire is uncommon. However, when very hot conditions occur, the dry grass layer creates fire hazard, especially after a good rainfall season when there is high annual grass cover. Controlled fires not required as part of land management

Central Bushveld Naturally occurring fires are more frequent and more intense in the moister eastern mountains, due to higher grass production and fuel load. Though not excluded, fire is rare on the far western mountains. Fine-leaved savanna: mostly sweetveld, therefore all year grazing occurs, with low biomass and fuel load. Therefore the likelihood and frequency of fires is lower. During high rainfall events, biomass and fuel load increases, and more frequent and more intense fires occur. Controlled fires are required early in the dry season. Broad -leaved savanna: relatively sourer, long-lived bunch grasses occur which are less grazed in winter. Biomass is medium to high (lack of water and nutrients), therefore the likelihood of fire is high, and fire frequency and intensity are medium to high. Controlled fire regime required. Cooler fires - early dry season. Use fire with caution - bush encroachment is possible as a result of frequent burning. Suggested frequency - every 3 years (depending on last burn i.e. accidental or natural)

Mopane Bushveld Where grazing is low the likelihood of fire is high. Where grazing is high, there is less likelihood of fire. Mostly sweetveld, whole year-round grazing, with lower fuel loads and less likelihood of fire. In KNP, production on clay soils derived from basalt is very high under fair rainfall conditions, and grazing pressure is relatively low. Therefore the likelihood and occurrence of fire is high Controlled fires required early in dry season.

Arid Lowveld Bushveld Fine-leaved savanna: Fine-leaved savanna: mostly sweetveld, therefore all year grazing occurs, with low biomass and fuel load. The likelihood and frequency of fires is lower. Broad leaved Savanna: relatively more sour, long-lived bunch grasses, which less grazed in winter. Biomass medium to high (lack of water and nutrients). Fire likelihood high, fire frequency and intensity medium to high. Controlled fire regime required. Use fire with caution - bush encroachment is possible as a result of frequent burning. Burning should take place in the early dry season, using cool fires approximately 12 weeks after last rainfall. Depending on the amount of bush encroacher species, controlled burning should take place every 3 – 5 years


74

Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna High likelihood of fires due to tall, dense grass layer and high fuel loads. Controlled fire regime required. Cooler fires - early dry season. Use fire with caution - bush encroachment is possible as a result of frequent burning. Suggested frequency - every 3 years (depending on last burn i.e. accidental or natural).

Sub-escarpment Savanna High likelihood of fires due to tall, dense grass layer and high fuel loads, particularly on the higher slopes and hilltops. In the valleys with denser woody vegetation, fires are less likely and, when fires occur, they are, less intense. Controlled fire regime required on higher slopes and hilltops. Cooler fires - early dry season. Use fire with caution - bush encroachment is possible as a result of frequent burning. Suggested frequency - every 3 years (depending on last burn i.e. accidental or natural).

Table 5.9 provides a summary of prevalent risks and pressures in the Ecosystem Groups. Impacts of these risks/pressures were discussed in Chapter 4, and are not repeated here. General recommendations for biodiversity management are provided. Several recommendations are common to the biome (and will apply to all Ecosystem Groups). Where this is the case, commonalities are given in the table below (rather than repeating these under each Ecosystem Group in Section 5.3), and specifics are provided under each Ecosystem Group.

Table 5.9: Summary of key risks/pressures and impacts in Ecosystem Groups, and general recommendations

Predominant Risks / Pressures which apply to all or most Ecosystem Groups

Risk/Pressure Ecosystem Group

1. Urban and industrial development and sprawl, especially when this impacts on biodiversity priority areas.

Occurs in all Ecosystem Groups other than Kalahari Duneveld. Extensive areas are used for rural township development (with communal grazing land and subsistence agriculture). Lodge and estate-type developments, and telecommunication towers are more prevalent on mountain ecosystems especially in Central Bushveld. Extensive high density urban and industrial development takes place in the Central Bushveld, especially the southern parts. Residential encroachment on to mountain ecosystems in this group are ever-increasing.

2. Wrong fire regime Can be applicable to all Ecosystem Groups, but less likely in Kalahari Duneveld and Kalahari Bushveld

3. Agriculture (subsistence and commercial cultivated lands and livestock farming):

a. Vegetation clearing. b. Overstocking and inappropriate grazing management

techniques. c. Burning for grazing and/or to control bush

encroachment. d. Application of pesticides, arboricides, herbicides and

fertilisers. e. Change in soil structure and drainage (e.g. through

tilling/ploughing). f. Illegal hunting or poisoning of perceived damage-

causing predators

Central Bushveld: All areas are at risk of overgrazing except the mountain ecosystems in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group which are mostly not overgrazed. Exceptions are parts of the mountains in Sekhukhune land and also parts of the Waterberg and Soutpansberg systems, close to rural residential areas with communal grazing of livestock. Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna: Due to the high rainfall and sour grasses, this Ecosystem Group is not particularly suitable for livestock and therefore in general is not overgrazed, although the veld in the southern-most rural areas (particularly associated with rural residential areas in KwaZulu-Natal) shows signs of overgrazing and a possible decrease in biodiversity. Communal/subsistence farming associated with rural residential/township settlements generally experience significant pressure from overgrazing and are highly denuded. Prevalent in all of the Ecosystem Groups, other than Kalahari Duneveld Central Bushveld: Cultivated areas occur scattered throughout this Ecosystem Group but are particularly concentrated in the southern parts of the Limpopo province. Arid Lowveld Bushveld: Subtropical fruit production

4. Harvesting of flora and fauna for rural livelihoods and commercial purposes

All Ecosystem Groups


76

5. Plantations: Removal of vegetation for plantations, which often include a single alien species

Central Bushveld: Plantations are particularly abundant in the southern parts and west of the Great Escarpment. Mopane Bushveld: Plantations scattered throughout the group. Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna: Plantations present significant risk to biodiversity and water availability due to large cleared areas and alien AIPs. Sub-escarpment Savanna: Plantations occur scattered throughout the area but are particularly prominent in the northern parts.

6. Mining: Opencast, underground, and alluvial mining Kalahari Duneveld, Kalahari Bushveld, Arid Lowveld Bushveld: small mines scattered throughout. Central Bushveld: Large areas of mining Mopane Bushveld: Coal mines, especially close to KNP. Sub-Escarpment Savanna: Mines occur scattered throughout the area but more concentrated in the southern parts.

7. Game Farming: a. Introduction of extra-limital species. b. Fencing. c. Using arboricides/herbicides to remove thicket for

grazing animals. d. Overstocking and over browsing/grazing, especially in

smaller fenced areas e. Incorrect application of fire for grazing and/or to control

bush encroachment f. Illegal hunting or poisoning of perceived problem

predators g. Poaching of animals (e.g. white rhinoceros, black

rhinoceros, lion, elephant and pangolin)

All Ecosystem Groups.

8. Bush encroachment (indigenous woody species). All Ecosystem Groups.


77

9. Invasion by woody AIP species. All Ecosystem Groups. Mopane Bushveld: Alien plant species are rare. Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna: Alien plant species invasion is a definite threat as a result of the commercial plantations in the area. The risk extends beyond commercial plantations to other invasive species from horticulture and gardening (e.g. Lantana and Chromalaena species). Sub-Escarpment Savanna: There are many alien invasive species in this ecosystem that are favoured by high rainfall and mixed agro-forestry typical of many regions

General Recommendations for biodiversity management that apply all Ecosystem Groups

1. Never rely on desktop information only to make decisions on the current biodiversity status and ecological condition on a particular site. Always do a detailed assessment of biodiversity on the site, with the assistance of relevant specialists, where required. The Environmental Screening Tool and Protocols for the various environmental themes developed by DEA (to be gazetted in 2019) can be used to identify the environmental sensitivity of the site and what specialist studies are required and the methodology to be followed in the assessment and reporting of impacts.

2. Areas identified as CBAs and ESAs in biodiversity plans are biodiversity priority areas and must be prioritised for protection or conservation, and/or restoration/rehabilitation. Only compatible land uses should be considered in these areas. Specialist investigations of the site and the surrounding landscape must be done to determine flora and fauna biodiversity, presence of rare and threatened or protected flora and fauna species, and important habitats; as well as ecological corridors to facilitate landscape connectivity with other natural areas beyond the site required for biodiversity persistence.

3. Ecological corridors must be established and maintained between natural areas, especially PAs and other biodiversity priority areas outside of the PA network. Spatial linkages across the landscape between different savanna habitats must be in place and functional. Corridors must be designated and managed to allow for species to track changing environmental conditions and must incorporate climatic and biodiversity refugia. When identifying and delineating ecological corridors and connectivity across the landscape, make sure that these linkages follow major environmental gradients correlated to plant composition and which provides for a diverse species composition across a wide range of spatial (space) and temporal (time) scales. Ensure that corridors are wide enough to incorporate variations in landform and physical processes (Jewitt et al., 2017).

4. Effective management of ecological corridors is essential, especially to prevent the spread of AIPs and to ensure that appropriate fire and grazing regimes can be applied. 5. Land use change should be planned irreversibly modified areas (e.g. on old cultivated fields outside the corridor network) rather than areas in good ecological condition (e.g.

natural areas or rangeland). 6. Do not consider the terrestrial environment in isolation; recognise and consider the relationships between the land, surface water and groundwater environments. 7. Make sure that physical features, micro-habitats and the ‘patchiness’ in the landscape (i.e. a mosaic of different habitats) are regarded as important aspects required for

biodiversity persistence and management.


78

8. Buffer areas around PAs that are designated in Park Management Plans signed by the Minister, and any other recommended buffers around other PAs or conservation areas, biodiversity priority areas, and the location of threatened or protected species, must be given due consideration in land use change proposals.

9. Fire is a key ecological driver in Savanna biome. Under historic natural conditions, fire maintains biodiversity and vegetation structure. Applying fire as a management tool to reduce dormancy and stimulate production or to control bush encroachment is therefore necessary, not only for maintaining biodiversity, but also for productivity. However incorrect seasonality, frequency of burning, type of fire (hot or cool), and even exclusion of fire, leads to undesired changes in species composition, enhancement of bush encroachment, decline in (basal) cover and soil erosion. Correct application and management of fire must be addressed by a qualified specialist on a site-specific basis. General recommendations have been provided in these Guidelines for the different Ecosystem Groups, however they may differ in local conditions depending on a number of factors (as described under Section 4.1.4).

10. Rehabilitation: a. When government funds are made available for rehabilitation, PAs should be prioritised for rehabilitation efforts as there is less chance of conflicting land uses in these

areas in future. Within PAs, the focus should be on areas that are outside of high impact zones (e.g. areas used / accessed by Loxodonta africana.) b. Disrupting soil structure and drainage has significant impact on savanna, and its restoration potential. For this reason, it is important to consider how and where the

land has been disturbed in order to inform the approach to rehabilitation. c. Land Types (terrain / soil information) must be used when deciding what type of rehabilitation action is necessary – sometimes active measures like ripping can create

more damage through disruptions to the soil profile and drainage. d. The impact of pesticides and herbicides on soil quality must be considered in rehabilitation potential to ensure that, if necessary, suitable pesticides are used.

11. The removal and control of invasive alien vegetation must be prioritised. Landowners must get advice from suitable specialists on which AIP species should be targeted, as some are more problematic in certain areas than others. Different species also respond differently to different control methods. The legal responsibilities of landowners for controlling different category species must also be taken into account. Areas in proximity to commercial plantations are particularly at risk of alien plant invasion, and plantation companies should assist landowners in managing invasive alien vegetation on their properties.

12. Resilience to the impacts of climate change must be developed by making sure that ecological corridors are designated and instated, that boundaries between the Savanna and other adjacent biomes and/or mosaic areas are managed, and that climatic and biodiversity refugia are identified and conserved for the persistence of species.

13. Land use guidelines / recommendations given in available biodiversity plans and tools must be consulted and applied early in the land use planning process (refer Appendix 2). Non-negotiables for best-practice biodiversity management common to all Ecosystem Groups10

1. Stocking rates of grazers and browsers must not exceed the carrying capacity of the specific plant communities on a farm/site. Overgrazing/over browsing must be prevented as this leads to impoverished biodiversity and ecosystem productivity (and ultimately has financial implications for the landowner). Grazing capacity is primarily dependent on veld condition and rainfall. Veld condition may vary considerably as a result of management practices over years, not only between farms but even within a particular farm due

10 Note: where these are generic to all Ecosystem Groups, they are not repeated in Section 5.1 under each Group, except where specifics relevant to the area are available


79

to variations in plant species composition driven by ecological factors such as rainfall, geology, topography, soil type, drainage etc. Rainfall may vary from year to year, influencing veld condition and production of fodder. Therefore, grazing capacity and consequently stocking rate for a particular farm should be determined by a professional grassland/pasture scientist or ecologist and this should be regularly monitored and revised and adapted.

2. Local plant communities, ecotypes or ecosystems (i.e. dolines, fossil riverbeds, pans, dune fields), should be distinctly demarcated off to enable specific management treatment to be applied, so that area-based selective utilisation by herbivores is reduced.

3. All special habitats (e.g. watercourses, pans, dambos, vleis, spruits and river systems, hills, ridges and rocky outcrops, and their required buffer zones) must be managed for good ecological condition, and protected from incompatible development to maintain connectivity and protect faunal migration routes

4. Watercourses and wetlands are protected in terms of the National Water Act. Avoid activities that alter hydrological flow, or that impact on freshwater requirements of other users / habitats.

5. Preferably allow only indigenous grazers and browsers on game farms (i.e. avoid the introduction of extra-limital species). 6. No illegal or uncontrolled hunting, poisoning, or collection of live fauna; or plant SCCs must be permitted. Transgressions must be reported immediately to the local

conservation authorities. 7. If bark will be harvested from trees, ensure side branches are removed, or otherwise longitudinal strips are removed. This approach should be communicated to local

communities in environmental education programmes and school syllabi. 8. Old and dead wood for fuel use should be removed in zoned-off blocks where collection is rotated on a 10 year basis to prevent constant removal of wood from the same areas,

thus allowing decomposition of old wood to occur. As an alternative to rotational harvesting, consideration should be given to zoning off certain blocks where no harvesting is permitted, as areas of dead wood provide important habitat.

9. Maintain large areas of natural bushveld that are in fair to good condition, and the mosaic of different plant communities that occur in these areas, to ensure protection of habitats for flora and fauna species.

10. General recommendations for fire management are provided under applicable Ecosystem Groups. However, these must be tested by a specialist that considers site specific conditions in the form of a fire management plan for the local area.

Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk common to all Ecosystem Groups11

1. Prevent fragmentation of large tracts of natural veld. Focus on retaining large, uninterrupted areas of intact habitat to facilitate landscape linkages, minimise edge effects and ensure adequate levels of habitat protection. Taking early action to prevent natural habitat loss and fragmentation must be prioritised as it is more efficient and cost effective than attempting to restore linkages in disconnected landscapes.

11 As per Footnote 10


80

2. Consider land-use guidelines in biodiversity plans applicable to the various Ecosystem Groups, especially where land-use change in CBAs and ESAs is proposed, to determine what types of activities are compatible with biodiversity protection. Allow for protection of CBAs and ESAs to facilitate biodiversity persistence

3. Where neighbouring regions have similar connectivity studies, for example where biodiversity plans have been developed in two neighbouring provinces or municipalities, linkages should be aligned to ensure biological connectivity across administrative boundaries.

4. Ensure co-ordinated grazing and fire management over large regions. 5. Ensure that ecological processes and corridors on local sites are tied into landscape-scale corridors. Make use of CBA maps, which provide for connectivity across the

landscape. Encourage landowners to form conservancies and become involved in stewardship sites where PA status can be attained. Indicators to assess and monitor ecological condition common to all Ecosystem Groups12

1. Veld condition should be monitored at regular intervals and compared with relevant and well managed benchmark sites that have similar vegetation types and habitat conditions.

2. Tree/shrub density in areas prone to bush thickening/encroachment must be monitored. Historic photographs and climate data for the local area can be used to assess change over time. Specific species can be checked in the various Ecosystem Groups – refer to details under each group.

3. Make use of fix point photographs to monitor ecological condition over time. Photographs should be taken annually in the wet and dry season 4. The presence and abundance of weedy/pioneer herbaceous species must be monitored as a sign of land degradation. 5. Monitor selected populations of SCCs. Specific species can be checked in the various Ecosystem Groups – refer to details under each group. 6. Monitor species composition at selected sites and compare to historical information, baseline data, or reference sites in similar ecological conditions to the target sites, to detect

any negative trends. 7. Check for the presence of browse lines which can indicate over browsing. A browse line height of 1.5 m is applicable to Aepyceros melampus and Antidorcas marsupialis, 2 m

for Tragelaphus strepsiceros, and over 4 m for Giraffa camelopardalis. 8. A decline in populations of threatened animals, particularly raptors, can be a sign of ecosystem degradation. 9. The presence of large carnivores (e.g. Acinonyx jubatus, Panthera pardus and Lycaon pictus, are signs of healthy ecosystems, and are symbols of wilderness (although often

perceived as problem animals on game and livestock farms).

10. Monitor erosion along roads in mountain passes

12 As per Footnote 10.


81

11. It is important to monitor the functionality of ecosystems (e.g. carbon sequestration, lichen monitoring). A number of methods can be used to do this, including easy-to-access ‘new generation’ products (e.g. remote sensing), and making use of mass information readily available on the internet. Field measurements of nett primary production can also be done. Remote sensing can be used to detect heterogeneity in the landscape, to indicate ecological change, and detect bush encroachment. Note: while these technologies are available and extremely useful, it takes a fair amount of skill and training to be able to use and apply them.

Biodiversity offsets and/or compensation common to all Ecosystem Groups13:

1. Offsets must never be proposed as a mitigation measure for the destruction of unique and/or irreplaceable habitats; lower impact alternatives that avoid impacts on these areas must be sought.

2. The identification of acceptable offsets for biodiversity loss in spatial planning and EIA applications requires measurement of the residual negative impacts of a proposed activity or development by independent biodiversity specialist(s) and/or an offset specialist, where these impacts would be of medium to high significance, as a first step. The size of offset must be proportional to the size of residual impact. Offsets must counterbalance these residual negative impacts in such a way that biodiversity targets will be met. These must be located in ‘offset receiving areas’, namely biodiversity priority areas (e.g. CBAs, ESAs, PA buffers). They should preferably promote connectivity in the landscape and help to consolidate the PA network.

3. The principle is to replace ‘like’ with ‘like’ or with ‘better’; i.e. offsets must be planned in a similar area to that being lost (i.e. to take place in the same Ecosystem Group), and the ecological condition of the offset receiving area should be in a better condition than that being lost. Biodiversity and/or offset specialists must look for offset areas that would meet this requirement.

4. Where residual negative impacts on savanna in any Ecosystem Group are unavoidable and there are no alternatives to the proposed development (i.e. it is of overriding public importance), then biodiversity offsets should target the securing and protection of core areas of high biodiversity importance in each Ecosystem Group in good ecological condition and provide for their effective management in the long term.

5. An offset area must be secured for conservation purposes (and should preferably be declared as a PA), and it must be managed effectively in the long term. Practical management and financial implications must therefore be given due consideration.

6. Where important ecosystem services and/or ecological infrastructure are impacted, either biodiversity offsets and/ or other forms of acceptable (preferably ‘in kind’) compensation to affected people must be provided.

13 As per Footnote 10

5.2 Notes to consider when using these Ecosystem Guidelines

5.2.1 What are we managing for? The overall management objective of the Ecosystem Guidelines is biodiversity conservation to achieve functional ecosystems and biodiversity persistence. The recommendations are therefore aimed at best practice assessment and biodiversity management, in order to sustain human health, livelihoods and wellbeing in the long term.

Effective management requires an intended outcome or target to be specified. The ultimate goal will be to attain a state (i.e. ecological condition) where biodiversity in an area is representative of its natural or near-natural state, and where the ecological processes required for biodiversity persistence are operating at the required scale. It is not always clear what the natural state would be for an area, especially where a long history of disturbance exists. Also, there are varying opinions on whether we should manage an area based on what it would have been, or what it could feasibly be, considering current land use practices (e.g. where mega-herbivores have been removed and cannot practically be re-introduced, or where development types preclude fire) and broader scale, changing pressures (e.g. climate change).

Generally, biodiversity plans refer to natural/pre-disturbance states of vegetation types as the benchmark. These Ecosystem Guidelines will do the same, however cognisance is taken of current (and future) issues when providing management recommendations.

5.2.2 How do the Guidelines apply in areas of different ecological condition? Different areas may be in different biodiversity states, i.e. some may be in a natural or near-natural ecological condition and functional, others may be modified but still functional and able to provide ecosystem services, while others may be modified and unable to deliver ecosystem services. The current status of an area has relevance to what can practically be achieved when considering what biodiversity management measures to apply. It is therefore critical to do a thorough site / area biodiversity assessment using available desktop information and by means of a site inspection. The reader will then need to consider the management recommendations for the applicable Ecosystem Group, and how they should best be applied to attain the management objective for the site / area.

5.2.3 Step-wise approach to applying information in this chapter A suggested step-wise approach to using the information in this chapter when doing an EIA and/or making decisions on how to best manage the area, is given below:

Step 1 Locate site in relevant Ecosystem Group – use available shapefiles/locality maps of the Ecosystem Groups and locate your erf/farm within the relevant group.

Step 2 Read Appendix 2 of these Guidelines to check what legislation, plans, guidelines, and spatial tools apply to the site and the current/proposed land use

Step 3

Do a desktop screening exercise using the DEA’s online Screening Tool to determine environmental sensitivity of the area. Use this information to check for areas of biodiversity importance and identify any fatal flaws to the proposed land use change and/or current management practices early in the process. This can also help identify what specialists need to be approached to assist with the detailed site assessment in Step 4, and what method should be used in the assessment process

Step 4 Do a site inspection and biodiversity assessment. If you do not have the expertise, consult a specialist ecologist (terrestrial, aquatic - depending on the area). Aspects to cover in the assessment include:

a Determine the biodiversity characteristics / pattern / features:

i Does the site match the description for the area when consulting vegetation maps and reports? Check if there is a reference site in the vicinity that can be used as a benchmark of the natural biodiversity of the particular area.

ii

If not, what is the reason for the difference? Have land use practices caused a change in the original biodiversity, or could it be an issue of scale where local variances are not depicted in available maps and classification systems?


83

b What drivers are required for biodiversity on site to persist (local and regional)? i Are these drivers operating at the site and in the greater area? ii If yes, what measures must be put in place to ensure they continue to operate? iii If no, how can then practically be re-instated?

iv

If not possible to re-instate, what does this mean for biodiversity persistence and management in the medium and long term? i.e. Will the site remain viable and maintain its current biodiversity, or is loss of biodiversity inevitable over time

c

Is the site connected to other natural or near-natural areas and/or is it part of an important ecological corridor in the landscape? Does its biodiversity and ecological processes play a role in maintaining functional ecosystems beyond the site?

d What risks and pressures are currently experienced, and what additional risks / pressures to biodiversity are expected in the future?

i For how long have these risks and pressures been applied to the site/area (ask the landowner, consult historic aerial images)?

ii What are the impacts of the risks / pressures on the receiving ecosystems? iii Can the risks / pressures be removed/stopped or reduced?

iv

If they cannot be removed/stopped or reduced, what does this mean for biodiversity persistence and management in the medium and long term? i.e. Will the site remain viable and maintain its current biodiversity, or is loss of biodiversity inevitable over time?

Step 5 Considering the above steps, determine the biodiversity status/ecological of the site and set a management objective

a Is the biodiversity status/ecological condition: i Intact and functional? ii Modified but still functional? iii Modified and having lost most of its functions? b What is the desired management objective: i Maintain or revert to intact functional savanna.

ii

Allow the ecosystem to be functional and provide important ecosystem services, but not necessarily to return to intact savanna - i.e. where land use change continues but in a manner that does not impact on ecological processes and ecosystem services.

iii Maintain the site in its current condition, accepting that it is degraded. Implement management measures that do not result in further deterioration in its condition, or impact beyond the site boundary.

iv

Reconnect the site with natural or near-natural areas in the wider landscape. Although the site is in poor ecological condition, it plays an important role in connectivity with areas beyond the site and is part of a greater conservation network. Consider what measures must be implemented to rehabilitate/restore biodiversity on site and in potential ecological links or corridors.

.

5.3 Ecosystem Groups of the Savanna biome

5.3.1 Kalahari Duneveld

Figure 10: Locality Map of the distribution of Kalahari Duneveld.

5.3.1.1 General characteristics

The Kalahari Duneveld ecosystems cover 42 972 km2 and are restricted to very dry landscapes in the northern parts of the Northern Cape (Figure 10), on plains with fixed parallel or loose dunes that rise 3 - 8 m above the aeolian sandy plains. The rainfall is characteristically very low, ranging between 120 and 260 mm MAP with significant annual variability and regular drought. Frost is frequent during the dry winters.


85

Plate 1: Red dune sands of the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group (Source: Johan Lochner).

The vegetation is open shrubveld with Vachellia haematoxylon, Senegalia mellifera and Rhigozum trichotomum locally prominent. Scattered Vachellia erioloba and Boscia albitrunca and a scanty field layer with the prominent endemic grass Stipagrostis amabilis on the dune crests are characteristic of Kalahari Duneveld. Other woody tree and shrub species generally found include the woody Grewia flava, Lycium bosciifolium, L. villosum, Boscia foetida, V. luederitzii, Searsia tenuinervis, Terminalia sericea and Lebeckia linearifolia. The field layer is scanty with few perennial grasses (e.g. Aristida meridionals, Stipagrostis obtusa, S. ciliata, Centropodia glauca) and some annual grasses (e.g. Schmidtia kalahariensis).


86

Plate 2: Open shrubveld with scattered trees and a grass field layer in Kalahari Duneveld (Source: George Bredenkamp).

Plate 3: Fixed parallel ridges above sandy plains, with scattered woody trees and shrubs, and an almost absent grass layer. Photo taken in a hot summer month where rainfall has not yet occurred (Source: Johan Lochner).

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

7;$

The veld is regarded as sweet and therefore palatable and can support animals throughout the year. However, due to the low and unpredictable rainfall, the grazing capacity and therefore, stocking rates should be low.

Kalahari Duneveld is comprised of four vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) as listed in the table below with an indication of the ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Table 10: Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) found in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group and their Ecosystem Threat Status and Ecosystem Protection Level (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Kalahari Duneveld Vegetation Types Veg Code Ecosystem Threat Status

Ecosystem Protection Level

Gordonia Duneveld SVkd1 Least Concern Moderately Protected Gordonia Kameeldoring Bushveld SVkd 2 Least Concern Well Protected Auob Duneveld SVkd 3 Least Concern Well Protected Nossob Bushveld SVkd Least Concern Well Protected

Nossob Bushveld is the predominant vegetation type in the Ecosystem Group, comprising more than 75% of the area.

Figure 11: Proportionate composition of vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group.

!"#"$"&% Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity pattern

The typical vegetation structure of woody and herbaceous components and the specific floristic composition of different Kalahari Duneveld ecosystems are the results of an interplay of:

•) Climate, which is the primary factor that drives savanna ecosystems. In Kalahari Duneveld the low rainfall is the important driver.

o) Rainfall: Only 120 - 300 mm MAP, but with annual variability and regular extreme droughts.

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

77$

o) Temperature: The mean annual temperature is ! +18 °C. In winter, the average minimum is -6°C; and in summer the daytime temperature ranges from 34 to 40°C. Due to cold winter temperatures and frequent frost, only frost-hardy perennial plant species or annual ephemeral species can survive.

•) The higher CO2 levels experienced in the historic development of the Savanna biome could bode differently for savannas to the east. Drying out might occur here, and the encroachment of dwarf shrubs (i.e. Nama-Karroid environment) may be expected.

•) Soil type, particularly variation in soil depth from deep on and between dunes, but shallow to deep over underlying limestone. Drainage regimes into pans and of the Nossob and Aoub River and other rivers are also important.

•) Grazing (and browsing): marked differences in historical natural grazing by fauna maintained, and even enhanced, biodiversity. For example, large herds of grazers (e.g. Antidorcas marsupialis, Oryx gazelle, Tragelaphus oryx, Alcelaphus buselaphus and Connochaetes taurinus, and also smaller antelope such as Raphicerus campestris and Sylvicapra grimmer), and browsers (e.g. Tragelaphus strepsiceros). Current variation in utilization by domestic livestock and game animals may maintain biodiversity or negatively impact it, depending on management strategies applied.

•) Fire, which is rare but does occur occasionally, and can cause great damage to the woody layer in these sensitive ecosystems.

•) A keystone predator, Panthera leo is only present in Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park where it controls largely migratory and resident ungulate populations of O. gazelle and C. taurinus, both of which are highly selective grazers. Elsewhere where this large carnivore is absent, smaller predators prevail.

Plate 4: O. gazelle populations are controlled by P. leo, a keystone predator in Kalahari Duneveld (Source: George Bredenkamp).

!"#"$"#% Conservation, land-use pressures and risks

The Ecosystem Group is well protected in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP), with the South African section known as the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, which covers almost 20% of the Kalahari Duneveld. No other protected areas occur (Figure 12).


89

Figure 12: Protected Areas in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group.

Several conservation areas (e.g. the Tswalo Nature Reserve) and some well-managed cattle and game farms, contribute greatly to conservation of Kalahari Duneveld ecosystems. Land use outside PAs includes mainly cattle and game farming, with a definite risk of over-grazing, resulting in veld condition deterioration and decrease in biodiversity. The entire Ecosystem Group is classified as ‘Least Threatened’ in terms of the list of threatened ecosystems published under the Biodiversity Act (2011). CBAs cover 2 917 km2 (6.7%) and ESAs 564 km2 (1.3%) of the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group (Figure 13).


90

Figure 13: CBAs and ESAs occurring in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group.

Based on the habitat modification assessment done as part of the NBA (Skowno et. al., 2019), modification and habitat loss between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 is very low (lowest of all Groups in the Savanna biome). The predominant land cover type is ‘natural’ (Table 11 and Figure 14). All vegetation types have an ecosystem threat status of ‘least concern’ (NBA, Draft 2018). This is likely attributed to the arid nature of the group.

Table 11: Habitat modification between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 of vegetation types in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Kalahari Duneveld Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018)

% decline 1990 – 2040

% decline 1750 – 2014

% decline per year 1990 - 2014

2014 Dominant Land Cover types (exceeds 1% of area)

Gordonia Duneveld 0,023 0,01 0,00042 Natural (99.9%) Gordonia Kameeldoring Bushveld 0,00017 0 0

Natural (99.9%)

Auob Duneveld 0 0 0 Natural (99.9%) Nossob Bushveld 0 0 0 Natural (99.9%)

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

<>$

Figure 14: Extent of habitat modification in vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group (NBA, Draft 2018). Data is presented proportionate to the relative extent of vegetation types in the Group.

!"#"$"'% Main pressures/risks/ threats

• Overgrazing: Overgrazing by livestock is probably the most general and widespread pressure facing Kalahari Duneveld ecosystems, particularly outside PA or conservation areas. Stocking rates of domestic livestock and game that exceed the carrying capacity under the normally dry climatic conditions and variability in rainfall lead quickly to a reduction in grass cover; and changes in species composition (see Plate 5). Thickening of indigenous woody species, particularly Rhigozum trichotomum and Senegalia mellifera are mostly the results of overgrazing. Continuous over-grazing eventually leads to loss of, or change in, biodiversity.

• Wrong fire regime: Due to low vegetation cover and low fuel loads, fire is uncommon in Kalahari Duneveld ecosystems. However, under very hot conditions there is sometimes a fire hazard when the grass layer is dry. This is particularly evident after a good rainfall season and when there is high cover of the annual grass Schmidtia. kalahariensis. Fire in the Kalahari Duneveld causes great damage to the trees in these sensitive ecosystems.

•) Bush thickening and bush encroachment (indigenous woody species): Climate change is expected to favour woody species, mainly due to increased CO2-levels and also higher temperatures. However, a decrease in the cover of the herbaceous layer, often caused by overgrazing and/or incorrect fire regime, may create the space and opportunity for certain indigenous woody species to become established and increase in density to form dense (often impenetrable) stands. Dense stands of particularly R. trichotomum and S. mellifera are found widespread within Kalahari Duneveld. It is expected that this ecosystem is susceptible to invasion of Nama-Karoo type vegetation from the south.

•) Alien Invasive Plants: The alien tree species Prosopis glandulosa is an invader in Kalahari Duneveld and other arid ecosystems in South Africa.


92

• Illegal hunting and trade in threatened and protected fauna species: Illegal and uncontrolled hunting of threatened faunal species (e.g. certain mammals, raptors, reptiles, invertebrates), but also of other fauna; creates pressure on biodiversity resources and ecosystem services. Large carnivores (e.g. Panthera pardus and Acinonyx jubatus) are not welcomed on livestock farms, and are persecuted, resulting in uncontrolled population growth of meso-predators (i.e. Canis mesomelas). The indiscriminate use of poisons aimed mainly at C. mesomelas, has an impact on all predators and scavengers, whether mammalian or avian.

• Illegal collecting, harvesting and trade in rare, threatened and protected flora species, and wood-cutting: Illegal and uncontrolled collecting of rare and threatened flora species (e.g. geophytes, succulents), but also of other plant species used in the informal medicine trade, creates pressure on biodiversity resources. Wood cutting, particularly of the protected tree Vachellia erioloba primarily for firewood but also for the manufacture of household articles or ornaments, also has an impact on natural resources in the savanna. V. erioloba may even be perceived as a keystone species in these ecosystems as they are a source of forage, and refuge, as well as debris and detritus when they die and break down.

• Fragmentation of savanna habitats by residential, industrial, and mining developments: Residential and industrial developments are relatively rare in Kalahari Duneveld. However, several mines, although covering small areas, do occur in the area, particularly in the far eastern part.

• Severely modified areas are limited in Kalahari Duneveld.

• Cultivation and plantations are rare in Kalahari Duneveld

Plate 5: Overgrazing by O. gazelle gemsbok around a watering point in Kalahari Duneveld (Source: George Bredenkamp).

.


93

5.3.1.5 Non-negotiables

• Over-grazing/browsing must be avoided. Based on known rainfall, Large Herbivore Biomass should preferably not exceed ~2 000 kg/km². Specific grazing and browsing capacities must be determined by a specialist. General guidelines can be gleaned from maps produced by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) (Figure 15), but these must be supported by a specialist who looks at local conditions that would impact on sustainable grazing and browsing practices.

• Camps on commercial livestock farms should be developed and managed based on local plant communities, ecotypes or ecosystems (e.g. pans, dune fields), so that rotational grazing can be managed on an ecological basis. Holistic planned grazing (also known as the Savory approach or Holistic Resource Management) should be considered to ensure long term forage.

Figure 15: General guidelines for grazing capacity in the Kalahari Duneveld Ecosystem Group (Source: ARC)

5.3.1.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Kalahari Duneveld

• Designate ‘no go’ areas on sensitive dunes and limit dune driving and recreational pursuits to specific, less vulnerable dunes.


94

5.3.1.7 Critical things to maintain for biodiversity to persist

• Maintain large areas of natural duneveld that are in fair to good condition, and the mosaic of different plant communities that occur in these areas, to ensure protection of habitats for flora and fauna species. The KTP is a good example and benchmark of biodiversity in Kalahari Duneveld ecosystems.

5.3.1.8 Indicators to assess and monitor ecosystem health

• Vegetation in the KTP can be used as a benchmark against which veld condition can be monitored.

• Sengalia mellifera and Rhigozum trichotomum density can be monitored in areas prone to bush encroachment.

• Monitor selected populations of SCC, including rare, threatened and protected species, particularly Boscia albitrunca, Vachellia haematoxylon and V. erioloba.

• Monitor Otocyon megalotis numbers from road-based sightings.

• Monitor possible degradation of vegetation in areas used for recreational dune driving, boarding and surfing.

5.3.1.9 Reversibility of impacts within a period of 5 to 10 years

• Recovery of the woody layer will certainly take longer than 10 years, though pioneers such as S. mellifera and R. trichotomum may establish on denuded sites and may exist as dense monospecific stands for a long time.

• As the herbaceous layer in Kalahari Duneveld ecosystems is event driven (non-equilibrium) the grass layer may change over short periods of time from almost bare during dry spells (linked with grazing during winter) to well-covered by grass during wetter cycles.

5.3.1.10 Acceptable compensation measures or offsets for biodiversity loss

• As per General Guidelines


95

5.3.2 Kalahari Bushveld and associated Mountain Bushveld

Figure 16: Locality Map of the distribution of Kalahari Bushveld, with associated mountain bushveld.


The Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group occurs on extensive plains covered with deep aeolian sand located in the north-eastern part of the Northern Cape, western part of North West and extending into the north-western parts of the Free State (Figure 16). The vegetation consists of Thornveld and Vaalbosveld, a shrubland dominated by Tarchonanthus camphoratus. Smaller rocky dolerite hills or ridges occur scattered within the Vaalbosveld, and mountain bushveld types occur on Langeberg, Kuruman and Makhubung hills.

The rainfall is characteristically low, about 350 mm MAP in the west and ranging to 550 mm MAP in the east, with significant annual variability and regular drought. Frost is frequent during the dry winters.

Grasses are mostly regarded as palatable and preferred by grazers (sweet), and can therefore support animal production throughout the year. However due to the low and unpredictable rainfall, the grazing capacity and therefore stocking rate is low. These ecosystems have higher productivity for animal production than the Kalahari Duneveld.

The vegetation of Kalahari Thornveld is an open tree savanna with Vachellia erioloba prominent and with the shrubs V. hebeclada, Vachellia tortilis, Senegalia mellifera and Grewia flava. Vaalbosveld occurs on areas with surface limestone or dolomite and chert covered by shallow aeolian sand and has a well-developed shrub layer with the not-thorny evergreen T. camphoratus. Other species of Vaalbosveld include the thorny Vachellia species, for example V. tortilis, V. erioloba, V


96

hebeclada, V. hereroensis and S. mellifera. The grass layer in both the Thornveld and Vaalbosveld Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems is well-developed, though seasonally very dry.

Other typical species that are present in Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystems include the woody Vachellia karroo, Terminalia sericea, Ziziphus mucronata, Searsia tenuinervis, S. lancea, Diospyros austro-africana, D. lycioides, Ehretia rigida, Rhigozum obovatum, Gymnosporia buxifolia, Lycium cinereum, Asparagus laricinus and Dichrostachys cinerea. Typical grasses include Anthephora pubescens, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cymbopogon pospischilii, Digitaria eriantha, Eragrostis lehmanniana, E. pallens, Fingerhuthia africana, Schmidtia pappophoroides, Stipagrostis uniplumis, Urochloa panicoides, Eragrostis trichophora and Tragus berteronianus.

Plate 6: Open tree savanna with a well-developed shrub layer in Kalahari Bushveld (Source: George Bredenkamp).

Kalahari Bushveld is comprised of 16 vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) as listed in the table below with an indication of the ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Table 12: Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) found in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group and their Ecosystem Threat Status and Ecosystem Protection Level (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Kalahari Bushveld Vegetation Type

Code Ecosystem Threat Ecosystem Protection Level

Kalahari Thornveld vegetation types: Mafikeng Bushveld SVk 1 Least Concern Not protected Stella Bushveld SVk 2 Least Concern Not protected Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld SVk 3 Vulnerable Poorly Protected Kimberley Thornveld SVk 4 Least Concern Poorly Protected

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

<;$

Schmidtsdrif Thornveld SVk 6 Least Concern Poorly ProtectedMolopo Bushveld SVk 11 Least Concern Poorly ProtectedOlifantshoek Plains Bushveld SVk 13 Least Concern Poorly ProtectedPostmasburg Thornveld SVk 14 Least Concern Not protected Gordonia Plains Shrubveld SVk 16 Least Concern Moderately Protected Kathu Bushveld SVk 12 Least Concern Poorly ProtectedVaalbosveld vegetation types: Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland SVk 5 Least Concern Not protected Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld SVk 7 Least Concern Not protected Kuruman Vaalbosveld SVk 8 Least Concern Not protected Kuruman Thornveld SVk 9 Least Concern Not protected Kalahari Mountain BushveldKoranna-Langeberg Mountain Bushveld SVk 15 Least Concern Poorly ProtectedKuruman Mountain Bushveld SVk 10 Least Concern Not protected

Dominant vegetation types in the Ecosystem Group include Mafikeng Bushveld, Kimberley Thornveld, Molopo Bushveld, and Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld which collectively comprise ~60% of the Group.

Figure 17: Proportionate composition of vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group.


98

5.3.2.2 Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity pattern

The typical vegetation structure of woody and herbaceous components and the specific floristic composition of different Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems are the results of an interplay of:

• Climate, which is the primary factor that drives savanna ecosystems, while rainfall is probably the main driver in Kalahari Bushveld.

o Rainfall: Variation from the drier west (300 mm MAP) to the relatively moister east (550 mm MAP) with significant annual variability and regular extreme droughts.

o Temperature: An arid and semi-arid climate is experienced in the west with an average annual temperature of ≥ +18°C. The temperature gradually cools towards the east of the Group where the annual average temperature drops below 18°C. Temperatures currently range between 22 and 34ºC in the summer and between 2 and 20ºC in winter. Due to cold winter temperatures and frequent frost, only frost hardy perennial plant species or annual ephemeral species can survive. The number of frost days experienced may decline appreciably with climate change.

• Higher CO2 levels experienced in the historic development of the Savanna biome may aggravate bush thickening.

• Soil type, particularly soil depth and underlying limestone and rockiness, drainage regime and soil nutrients determine the occurrence of Vaalbosveld, Thornveld and mountain bushveld across the Group.

• Grazing and browsing, marked differences in historical natural grazing by fauna maintained, and even enhanced, biodiversity. Current variation in utilization by domestic livestock and game animals may maintain biodiversity or negatively impact it, depending on management strategies applied. Grasses are ‘sweet veld and palatable’, however low rainfall is a limiting factor for grazing.

• Fire, Due to low vegetation cover and low fuel loads, fire is uncommon. However, when very hot conditions occur, the dry grass layer creates fire hazard, especially after a good rainfall season when there is high annual grass cover.

5.3.2.3 Conservation, land-use pressures and risks

Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems are protected in the Mokala National Park, as well as in some provincial Nature Reserves (Molopo, Witsand) (see Figure 18). Several conservation areas (e.g. Tswalu Kalahari Reserve) and some well-managed cattle and game farms (Khamab Kalahari Reserve, c 95, 000 ha), contribute greatly to conservation of Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems. Note that no PAs occur within the Kalahari mountain bushveld areas.


99

Figure 18: Protected Areas in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

Land-use outside PAs predominantly includes cattle and game farming, with a definite risk of over-grazing, resulting in veld condition deterioration and a decrease in biodiversity. Extensive areas are used for rural township development, with communal grazing land and subsistence agriculture, resulting in pressure on ecosystems and consequently on biodiversity. Many of these areas are inherited from Bophuthatswana and under the management of Traditional Councils and are highly denuded. Ecological infrastructure at risk includes the tree: grass ratio and soil structure.

‘Vulnerable’ ecosystems (in terms of the list of threatened ecosystems published under the Biodiversity Act (2011) are concentrated in the eastern part of the Ecosystem Group. No threatened ecosystems occur in Kalahari mountain bushveld. The extent of CBAs and ESAs in the Kalahari Bushveld (including the Kalahari mountain bushveld) is exceptionally high (40.5%), emphasising the concern of conservation authorities about the vulnerability of these dry ecosystems, particularly the mountain bushveld (Figure 19).


100


Based on the habitat modification assessment done as part of the NBA (Skowno et. al., 2019), the dominant landcover type within this Ecosystem Group is ‘natural’ (includes rangelands), followed by ‘croplands’ and ‘secondary’ (old croplands). The extent of habitat modification and loss is relatively low in Vaalbosveld and Mountain Bushveld vegetation types, with less than 1% of the latter being modified (see Table 13 and Figure 20). The ecosystem threat status of all vegetation types in the Ecosystem Group is ‘least concern’, other than Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld which is ‘vulnerable’. The latter is used extensively for croplands, and it has a ‘poorly protected’ ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Table 13: Habitat modification between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 of vegetation types in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Kalahari Bushveld Vegetation Type (VEGMAP, 2018)

% decline 1990 – 2040

% decline 1750 – 2014



Kalahari Thornveld vegetation types: Mafikeng Bushveld

6,23 2,99 0,125 Natural (62 %); Cropland (25%); Secondary (10%); Built up (1.9%)

Stella Bushveld 6,23 2,99 0,125

Natural (59 %); Cropland (33%); Secondary (6.6%)

Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld 8,83 4,24 0,18

Natural (49 %); Cropland (38%); Secondary (10%)

Kimberley Thornveld 6,8 3,26 0,14

Natural (73 %); Cropland (18.8%); Secondary (4.9%); Mine (1.2%)

Schmidtsdrif Thornveld 4,33 2,08 0,087

Natural (82 %); Cropland (11%); Secondary (3.7%); Built up (1.2%)

Molopo Bushveld 0,62 0,3 0,0125 Natural (96 %); Secondary (2.2%) Olifantshoek Plains Bushveld 0,19 0,09 0,004

Natural (99 %)

Postmasburg Thornveld 0,93 0,45 0,019

Natural (96 %); Mine (2.9%)

Gordonia Plains Shrubveld 0,0014 0 0

Natural (99 %)

Kathu Bushveld 0,57 0,27 0,01125 Natural (98 %) Vaalbosveld vegetation types: Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland 0,823 0,4 0,017

Natural (97.5 %)

Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld 0,61 0,29 0,01202

Natural (97.6 %)

Kuruman Vaalbosveld 0,81 0,39 0,01625 Natural (95%); Secondary (2.6%) Kuruman Thornveld 2,09 1 0,042 Natural (96.3%); Built up (1.9%) Kalahari Mountain Bushveld Koranna-Langeberg Mountain Bushveld 0,012 0,01 0,00042

Natural (99.8%)

Kuruman Mountain Bushveld 1,118 0,54 0,0225

Natural (98%)

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>=?$

Figure 20: Extent of habitat modification in vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019). Data is presented proportionate to the relative extent of vegetation types in the Group.$

Urban and built-up areas, cultivated areas, plantations, mines and other modified areas together constitute ‘irreversibly modified’ areas as shown in Figure 21. These are concentrated in the eastern parts where the rainfall is higher.


103

Figure 21: Irreversibly modified areas in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

5.3.2.4 Main pressures/risks/ threats

• Overgrazing: Overgrazing is probably the most general and widespread pressure facing Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems, particularly outside PAs or conservation areas. Stocking rates of domestic livestock and game that exceed the carrying capacity under the normally dry climatic conditions and variability in rainfall lead quickly to a reduction in grass cover; and changes in species composition. Thickening of indigenous woody species and accelerated soil erosion are also results of overgrazing. Continuous over-grazing eventually results in loss or change in biodiversity.

• Wrong fire regime: Due to low vegetation cover and low fuel loads, fire is uncommon in Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems. However, under very hot conditions there is often a fire hazard when the grass layer is dry. Applying fire as a management tool is not common practice in these ecosystems, particularly because the sweet grasses provide adequate nutrition and can be grazed during the winter. Incorrect seasonality, frequency of burning, type of fire (hot or cool) could all have negative impacts on savanna vegetation.

• Bush thickening (indigenous woody species) and bush encroachment: Dense stands of particularly Senegalia mellifera, Grewia flava and Tarchonanthus camphoratus, but also other species, are found widespread within Kalahari Bushveld. Discrete blocks can be seen from aerial photographs as these were formed when blocks were part of particular farms that differed in management type.

• Alien invasive plants: Few exotic species threaten these ecosystems, while Prosopis sp. is the most prominent species which tends to invade lower-lying areas.


104

• Illegal hunting and trade in threatened and protected fauna species: Hunting of animals for bushmeat occurs near larger towns (e.g. Antidorcas marsupialis, Sylvicapra grimmer, Tragelaphus strepsiceros, and Oryx gazelle), but road-based poaching at night occurs too. In the latter case, species such as T. strepsiceros are targeted, along with other antelope species (some of which are not threatened on a national level, but they can be locally depleted and undermine sustainable use options for areas). Smutsia temminckii occurs in the area and is threatened mostly by fence-electrification used in game farms. Indiscriminate use of poisons, and shooting and trapping aimed at carnivores such as Canis mesomelas and Caracal caracal, can lead to losses of non-target carnivores (i.e. mistaken identity when shooting at night, or losses of vultures when feeding on poison-laced meat). Since the 1990s, the area has experienced a loss of large carnivores, most notably Acinonyx jubatus but also Panthera pardus and rarely by Lycaon pictus. With the advent of high-value game farming, these species are not tolerated over vast areas. Vultures such as the Gyps africanus may be targeted for their body parts, though reports of poaching are not as frequent as they are in the east of the country. Road kills are also a threat, as can be seen from large numbers of Otocyon megalotis and Proteles cristatus deaths on roads.

• Illegal collecting, harvesting and trade in rare, threatened and protected flora species, and wood-cutting: The TOPS protected species, Harpagophytum spp. is probably the most important plant species utilised for medicinal purposes, and various legal bio-prospecting and utilisation projects might allay the risks of illegal usage. Boscia albitrunca is increasingly being utilised for its nutritional and medicinal uses, and though no clear threat can be seen, the level of harvesting should be monitored.

• Arboricide spraying: as part of rangeland pasture management, herbicides are sprayed over large areas to rid trees in favour of grasslands for grazing animals. Other than the obvious impact on changing the species composition of vegetation and biodiversity loss, impacts of non-target species are expected. Anecdotal evidence suggests fewer fauna in such cleared areas (e.g. birds).

• Fragmentation of habitats by residential, industrial, and mining developments: Growth in mining and associated industrial and residential development as well as the significant need for housing development in urban and rural areas has resulted in the fragmentation of Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems and decline in biodiversity. Some mining areas have natural vegetation that offer refugia for fauna from surrounding farmland (e.g. at Kalgold Mine, where Hyaena brunnea occurs on their properties, not far from the mine dumps).

• Clearing vegetation for agriculture: Fragmentation of Kalahari Bushveld vegetation is caused by ever increasing clearing of vegetation for agricultural purposes (cultivation) in the relatively moister eastern and southern parts, and particularly in areas that can be irrigated from the Vaal, Hartz and Orange Rivers. The ecological processes that maintain the ‘health’ of ecosystems often operate at a large spatial scale. This means that large, contiguous and linked blocks of intact savanna habitat (i.e. ecological corridors) are needed to allow ecological processes such as fire, grazing, dispersal and pollination to operate effectively.


• Based on known rainfall, Large Herbivore Biomass should preferably not exceed about 5 000 kg/km², which is similar to LAU methods that are used. Specific grazing and browsing capacities must be determined by a specialist. General guidelines can be gleaned from maps produced by the ARC (Figure 22), but these must be supported by a specialist that looks at local conditions that would impact on sustainable grazing and browsing practices.

• Keep all hills and ridges systems, including the required buffer zones that occur within the area, in a natural and undisturbed condition to maintain connectivity and protect faunal migration routes.


105

Figure 22: General guidelines for grazing capacity in the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Source: ARC)

5.3.2.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Kalahari Bushveld

• Off-road driving must be permitted only when essential, i.e. in emergencies, and for high-profile animal viewing. Appropriate rehabilitation of damaged areas must be carried out immediately afterwards (i.e. brush packing). No-go areas (i.e. steep slopes, sponges, river banks) must be clearly demarcated, and times when no driving is allowed must be made known (e.g. after rain).


• As per General List of Items.

5.3.2.8 Indicators to assess and monitor ecological condition

• The ratio between increaser/decreaser grass species is an important indicator. In these ecosystems, Schmidtia pappophoroides and Stipagrostis uniplumis are palatable grasses, and they will be seen as indicators of good veld for rangeland pasture use.

• Monitor tree/shrub density in areas prone to bush thickening, especially Sengalia mellifera.

• Monitor Otocyon megalotis numbers from road-based sightings.


106

• Presence of vultures and scavenging eagles (i.e. Aquila rapax and Terathopius ecaudatus), are signs of an ecosystem in good ecological condition as they devour vertebrate carcasses and are normally first to disappear where there is mass poisoning.

• Orycteropus afer can be seen as keystone species in this Group, as their digging behaviour, particularly in areas underlain by harder ground, enables other non-digging species to utilize this refugia, including for their own breeding. Signs of aardvark activity are thus a good sign.

Plate 7: Otocyon megalotis numbers can be monitored as an indicator of ecological condition (Source: Johan Lochner).


• Recovery of the woody layer with a full species complement may take longer than 10 years, as pioneers such as Sengalia mellifera, Dichrostachys cinerea, Vachellia tortilis and Terminalia sericea establish on denuded sites and may exist as dense monospecific stands for a long time.

• As the herbaceous layer of Kalahari Bushveld ecosystems is event driven (non-equilibrium), the grass layer may change over short periods of time from almost bare during dry spells (linked with grazing during winter) to well-covered by grass during wetter cycles.


107


• As per General Guidelines.

5.3.3 Central Bushveld and associated Mountain Bushveld

Figure 23: Locality Map of the distribution of Central Bushveld, with associated mountain bushveld.


The Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group covers 118 560.8 km2 on the flat to gently undulating plains that occupy the largest part of Limpopo Province, and extends west of the Great Escarpment, from the Soutpansberg stretching to the Botswana border in the west. To the south, the Central Bushveld extends into the northern parts of the North West, Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces (Figure 23). Mountain bushveld occupies ~25% of the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

These areas receive summer rainfall varying between 350 and 650 mm per annum. The winters are very dry and light frost occurs occasionally in some areas. Altitudes range from about 800 to 1400 m.a.s.l. At higher latitudes (e.g. in Gauteng) the upper limit before the Savanna biome grades into the Grassland biome is about 1 200 m.a.s.l.

The Central Bushveld vegetation is typically a mosaic of fine-leaved and broad-leaved bushveld occurring on different soil types derived from different lithology. The fine-leaved thornveld savanna is widespread on the more clayey soils derived from igneous rocks such as basalt, norite or dolerite in the southern parts; and broad-leaved savanna on the sandy soils derived from sandstone, granites, gneisses or similar rocks in the northern parts. Fine-leaved and broad-leaved savannas


108

can also occur in a complex mosaic in slightly undulating granite landscapes. Here the fine-leaved savanna is restricted to the nutrient rich clayey soils in bottomland situations and broad-leaved savanna to the better-drained leached sandy or gravelly areas on the higher-lying crests.

The woody layer of fine-leaved savanna is dominated by thorn trees (e.g. Vachellia tortilis, V. nilotica, V. karro, Senegalia mellifera, V. hebeclada and S. nigrescens). Other woody species regularly found in fine-leaved bushveld include V. fleckii, Combretum imberbe, Searsia lancea, Ziziphus mucronata, Combretum hereroense, Euclea undulata, E. crispa, Grewia flava and Diospyros lycioides. The common grasses in fine-leaved savanna include Themeda triandra, Setaria sphacelata, Digitaria eriantha, Heteropogon contortus, Bothriochloa insculpta, Panicum maximum, S. incrassate, Eragrostis curvula, Cymbopogon pospischilii and Elionurus muticus.

The prominent trees in broad-leaved savannas are Combretum apiculatum, C. zeyheri, Terminalia sericea, Burkea africana, Ochna pulchra, Peltophorum africanum and Sclerocarya birrea. Other woody species include S. burkei, S. senegal, S. erubescens, Kirkia acuminata, Commiphora mollis, Dichrostachys cinerea, Vachellia robusta, S. leptodictya, Grewia bicolor, G. monticola and Strychnos pungens. Common grass species include Brachiaria serrata, B. nigropedata, Eragrostis rigidior, Perotis patens, Hyperthelia dissoluta, Panicum maximum, Enneapogon cenchroides, Anthephora pubescens and Schmidtia pappophoroides.

The grass in fine-leaved savanna is mostly regarded as sweet and palatable and preferred by grazers (eutrophic), particularly in winter. It can therefore support animal production throughout the year. In broad-leaved savannas, sour grasses are avoided by grazers during the winter season (i.e. dystrophic), and these savanna ecosystems support animal production mainly in summer. It must be noted that many of these ecosystems are mixed veld, with particular proportions of sweet and sour grasses.

Mountains occur throughout the Central Bushveld Ecosystem. These are represented by larger isolated mountains or mountain ranges or chains and include well known mountain ranges such as the Magaliesberg, Waterberg, Pilanesberg and Soutpansberg. Some mountain ranges with savanna vegetation occur within the grasslands of Gauteng, North West, Mpumalanga and, to a very limited extent, in the Free State. These mountains are included within the Central Bushveld group. The vegetation, species composition and biodiversity of the mountains are different from the adjacent vegetation on the plains. The high diversity of specific habitat types (e.g. different microclimate, aspect, geology, soil types, soil depth, rockiness, slopes, topography, etc.) found on mountains result in high species richness of flora and fauna within relatively small surface areas. Many mountain areas are therefore included in PAs (Pilanesberg, Marakele) and conservation areas, mostly located in areas of poor agricultural potential.

The vegetation and plant species composition of the individual mountain bushveld types differ noticeably, each with a remarkable species richness, making each mountain a unique ecosystem with very high conservation value. The scenic value of the mountains is furthermore of great value to the tourism industry.

Although the ecology, vegetation and species of individual mountains within the Central Bushveld differ markedly from one another, they have several characteristics in common:

• Entirely different plant species composition from that on the adjacent plains.

• Due to complex topography and land form, and differences in geology, slopes, soils rockiness, drainage, and associated vegetation on a particular mountain, great variety in habitats exist for flora and fauna (vertebrate and invertebrate taxa), leading to high biodiversity on that particular mountain. Thus beta, and gamma diversity is high.

• Endemic and rare species (flora and fauna) are often restricted to mountain habitats (particularly the Soutpansberg).

• Aesthetic beauty contributes to the conservation value of mountains, especially where wilderness is endorsed.

• Topography, steep slopes and rockiness cause difficulty for access and for construction of infrastructure. Mountains are therefore not suitable for development. On the contrary, they are highly suitable for conservation and recreation.

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>=<$

Conspicuous woody species in most mountain bushveld areas include Englerophytum magalismontanum, Croton gratissimus Burkea africana, Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, Faurea saligna, Protea caffra, Vitex pooara, Ozoroa paniculosa, Combretum apiculatum, Combretum nelsonii, and Albizia tanganyicensis. The dominant grass in the rocky area is Aristida transvaalensis.

Plate 8: Central Bushveld on the plains (left) and mountain bushveld within the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Source: George Bredenkamp).

Central Bushveld is comprised of 27 vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) as listed in the table below with an indication of the ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Table 14: Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) found in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group and their Ecosystem Threat Status and Ecosystem Protection Level (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Central Bushveld Vegetation Types

Code Ecosystem Threat Status Ecosystem Protection Level

Fine-leaved bushveld Dwaalboom Thornveld SVcb 1 Least Concern Moderately Protected Zeerust Thornveld SVcb 3 Least Concern Poorly Protected Marikana Thornveld SVcb 6 Endangered Poorly Protected Moot Plains Bushveld SVcb 8 Least Concern Poorly Protected Loskop Thornveld SVcb 14 Least Concern Poorly Protected Springbokvlakte Thornveld SVcb 15 Vulnerable Poorly Protected Polokwane Plateau Bushveld SVcb 23 Least Concern Poorly Protected Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld SVcb 27 Endangered Poorly ProtectedLimpopo Sweet Bushveld SVcb 19 Least Concern Poorly Protected Makhado Sweet Bushveld SVcb 20 Least Concern Poorly Protected Broad-leaved bushveld: Central Sandy Bushveld SVcb 12 Least Concern Poorly Protected Western Sandy Bushveld SVcb 16 Least Concern Well Protected Roodeberg Bushveld SVcb 18 Least Concern Poorly Protected Mountain Bushveld Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld SVcb 2 Least Concern Well Protected Dwarsberg- Swartruggens Mountain Bushveld

SVcb 4 Least Concern Poorly Protected

Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld SVcb 5 Least Concern Well Protected

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>>=$

Norite koppies Bushveld SVcb 7 Least Concern Poorly Protected Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld SVcb 9 Least Concern Moderately Protected Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld SVcb 10 Least Concern Poorly Protected Andesite Mountain Bushveld SVcb 11 Least Concern Moderately Protected Loskop Mountain Bushveld SVcb 13 Least Concern Moderately Protected Waterberg Mountain Bushveld SVcb 17 Least Concern Moderately Protected Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld SVcb 21, 22 Least Concern Poorly Protected Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld SVcb 24 Least Concern Poorly Protected Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld SVcb 25 Least Concern Moderately Protected Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld SVcb 26 Least Concern Moderately Protected Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld SVcb 28 Least Concern Poorly Protected

Figure 24: Proportionate composition of vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

Central Sandy Bushveld, Limpopo Sweet Bushveld, Makhado Sweet Bushveld, Springbokvlakte Thornveld, Dwaalboom Thornveld, and Waterberg Mountain Bushveld are the predominant vegetation types in the Ecosystem Group.

.


111

5.3.3.2 Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity pattern

The typical vegetation structure and density of woody and herbaceous components, and the specific floristic composition of different savanna ecosystems, are the results of an interplay of:

• Climate, which is the primary factor that drives Central Bushveld ecosystems.

o Rainfall: Variation on a drier north-west to moister south-east gradient, significant annual variability, occasional extreme droughts.

o Great seasonal variation on particular individual mountains, and also differences due to topographic variation on a particular mountain (e.g. rain shadows) resulting in several plant communities with different plant species composition on a particular mountain.

• Temperature: temperature variation from west to east across the Group, and also due to topography (altitude and slope aspect) on individual mountains drives changes in vegetation composition. The average annual temperature for this group is ≥ +18 °C in the south-west and northwest, < +18°C in the south-east. The central part experiences hot summers with a maximum mean temperature of ≥ +22°C. Many bushveld tree and shrub species, and also some herbaceous species, have a tropical/subtropical affinity/origin. They cannot survive long-lasting or extreme cold winter temperatures, or severe frost experienced at the higher altitudes (above 1200 m) and/or higher latitudes, for example adjacent to the Grassland biome.

• Climate change may benefit woody species because of higher CO2 levels, although drier conditions may be disadvantageous to indigenous forests on the mountains. Higher CO2 levels experienced in the historic development of the Savanna biome, are likely to aggravate issues of bush thickening.

• Lithology and derived soil type, particularly soil depth and rockiness, clay content, drainage regime, and the variability in nutrients influence the distribution of fine- and broad-leaved savanna types across the Group. Clay soils in fine-leaved savanna favour grass, whereas sandy soils in the broad-leaved savanna favour tree growth. The two types can also occur in a complex mosaic in slightly undulating granite landscapes, where fine-leaved savanna is restricted to nutrient rich clayey soils in bottomland situations and broad-leaved savanna to the better-drained leached sandy or gravelly areas on the higher-lying crests

• Grazing, marked differences in historical natural grazing by fauna maintained, and even enhanced, biodiversity. Current variation in utilization by domestic livestock and game animals may maintain biodiversity or negatively impact it, depending on management strategies applied. Grasses in fine-leaved savanna area sweet and palatable, especially in winter and support animal production throughout the year. In broad-leaved savanna, sour grasses are avoided in winter, and animal production is supported in summer. Many ecosystems are mixed veld.

• Fire: Naturally occurring fires are more frequent and more intense in the moister eastern mountains, due to higher grass production and fuel load. Though not excluded, fire is rare on the far western mountains. Fire is particularly dangerous in mountain bushveld, as runaway fires are difficult to contain, given the difficulty in vehicular access and manoeuvrability.

Summary of ecological processes in the Central Bushveld Ecosystems (rainfall 350 - 650 mm MAP, summer rain) Broad-leaved savanna, sandy soil, leached, nutrient poor, e.g. Combretum apiculatum, Combretum zeyheri, Terminalia sericea bushveld on granite, gneiss and quartzite crests: Lower rainfall (<500 mm per annum), high water penetration, low water retention, nutrients leached to lower soil layers, favours tree growth. Grasses sour, unpalatable, lower grazing pressure in winter, biomass medium to high (lack of water and nutrients), fire likelihood high, fire frequency and intensity medium to high. Quick response to rain, production high during summer, rest needed in winter, mainly an equilibrium system. Fine-leaved savanna, clay soil, nutrient rich, e.g. Senegalia nigrescens, Vachellia tortilis, V. nilotica bushveld on basalt, dolerite and granite bottomland: Lower rainfall (<500 mm per annum), little water penetration, high water retention. Favours grass layer, trees scattered. Grass sweet, palatable, high production (high nutrients), high grazing pressure throughout year, biomass and fuel load reduced, fire likelihood lower, lower fire frequency. During high rainfall events, biomass and fuel load higher and more frequent with more intense fires. Quick response to rain, system highly fragile, unstable, event driven (e.g. rain, drought, grazing, fire), mainly a non-equilibrium system. Central Bushveld mountains on sandstone, quartzite: Protea, Faurea, Diplorhynchus, Croton, Englerophytum bushveld: Higher rainfall (>500 mm per annum), high water penetration, low water retention: trees and grasses flourish, dense sour grass. Early season: new grass – high grazing pressure; Late season: nutrient translocation to grass roots, sour grass, unpalatable – lower grazing pressure, high biomass remains with high fire frequency and intensity, following early season: quick response. System stable, Equilibrium system. If drought and overgrazed: degradation beyond threshold with recovery slow


Protected Areas cover ~10% of Central Bushveld, and ~14% of mountain bushveld areas. A further 13.45% of Central Bushveld plains and 32.80% of associated mountain bushveld are included in biosphere reserves (refer to Figure 25). Some well-managed cattle and game farms, covered by vegetation in a fair to good condition, afford additional conservation to the Ecosystem Group.


113

Figure 25: Protected Areas in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

Threatened ecosystems published under the Biodiversity Act (2011) cover 19.76% of the Ecosystem Group. Of this area, 13.05% is in the Central Bushveld plains and 6.71% in the associated mountain bushveld. The extent of CBAs and ESAs in the Group is exceptionally high, making up 69.54% of the total area. Almost 92% of mountain bushveld is part of a CBA or ESA. This implies that biodiversity specialist assessments are essential for land use change in Central Bushveld ecosystems (Figure 26).


114


Development of urban, industrial and residential areas has resulted in large parts of the southern areas of Central Bushveld vegetation being cleared and fragmented. This is particularly evident in Gauteng. Extensive areas throughout the Central Bushveld are used for rural township development with communal grazing land and subsistence agriculture, with resultant pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity. In the moister eastern parts, land use on mountains includes forestry plantations, livestock farming, some agriculture and limited urban and rural residential developments.

In higher rainfall areas in the east, the mountain bushveld is regarded as sour and therefore in general not overgrazed. Difficulty in accessing these areas by livestock also reduces the risk of overgrazing. Exceptions are parts of the mountains in Sekhukhune land and also parts of the Waterberg and Soutpansberg systems, close to rural residential areas with communal grazing of livestock.

Mountainous areas are impacted by landowners and lodge developers who place structures on mountains for their aesthetic beauty. Telecommunication towers which require elevated are also positioned on mountains, where it may not be the structure itself, but the access road that has cumulative impacts. In the city environments of Gauteng and North West Province, residential encroachment on to mountain ecosystems is ever-increasing.

Land use in rural areas, outside PAs or conservation areas, includes cattle and game farming, with a definite risk of over-grazing, resulting in veld condition deterioration and decrease in biodiversity. Cultivated areas occur scattered throughout the Central Bushveld but are particularly concentrated in the southern parts of the Limpopo province.

Plantations are particularly abundant in the southern parts and west of the Great Escarpment.

Mining is an important land use that occurs widely scattered over the Central Bushveld with platinum group metals and coal mining being particularly prominent, although many other mines are also present. The mines have caused


115

modification and disturbance of large areas in different vegetation types within the Central Bushveld and can be considered as a specific biodiversity risk, although some mining areas contain conservation areas within the mine properties.

Urban and built-up areas, cultivated areas, plantations, mines and other modified areas together constitute consolidated ‘irreversibly modified areas’. These are concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of this Ecosystem Group.

Figure 27: Irreversibly modified areas in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

Based on the habitat modification assessment done as part of the NBA (Skowno et. al., 2019), ~26% of the Central Bushveld plains and 3.5% of mountain bushveld, are modified. All vegetation types within the Group are shown to be declining. Extensive modification is occurring in the fine-leaved bushveld (for e.g. predominant land cover types in Marikana Thornveld include natural (38%), built up (19%), secondary (old crop lands) (19%), croplands (18%) and mining (3.5%) The rate of decline in this vegetation type between 1990 and 2014 is 32%)). High rates of modification are also evident in broad-leaved savannas and mountain bushveld vegetation types in the Group (Table 15 and Figure 28). Marikana Thornveld and Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld vegetation types have an ecosystem threat status of ‘endangered’, and Springbokvlakte Thornveld is ‘vulnerable’ (Skowno et. al., 2019). Built-up areas and croplands are the predominant land cover types in these threatened vegetation types.


116

Table 15: Habitat modification between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 of vegetation types in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Central Bushveld Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018)

% decline 1990 – 2040

% decline 1750 – 2014



Fine-leaved bushveld Dwaalboom Thornveld

7,83 3,76 0,157 Natural (79.7%); Cropland (9.2 %); Secondary (6.9%); Built up (1.7%); Erosion (1.2%)

Zeerust Thornveld

7,93 3,81 0,16

Natural (69.8%); Secondary (14.9%); Cropland (7.32 %); Built up (4.3%); Erosion (2.1%)

Marikana Thornveld 32,84 15,76 0,66

Natural (38%); Built up (19.2%); Secondary (19%); Cropland (18.1%); Mine (3.5%)

Moot Plains Bushveld

11,07 5,31 0,22

Natural (67.7%); Cropland (15. 7%); Secondary (8.4%); Built up (4.7%); Plantations (1.1%)

Loskop Thornveld 4,38 2,1 0,088

Natural (59%); Cropland (17.6%); Secondary (18%); Artificial Waterbodies (3.75%)

Springbokvlakte Thornveld 16,85 8,09 0,34

Natural (45.5%); Cropland (36.8%); Secondary (11%); Built up (5.4%)

Polokwane Plateau Bushveld

15,43 7,41 0,31

Natural (58.9%); Cropland (16.9%); Secondary (11%); Built up (10.6%); Erosion (1.6%)

Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld 43,71 20,98 0,87

Natural (48%); Cropland (23%); Built up (14.6%); Secondary (9.3%); Erosion (3.5%)

Limpopo Sweet Bushveld 5,95 2,86 0,12

Natural (90%); Cropland (5.8%); Secondary (2.4%)

Makhado Sweet Bushveld 16,07 7,72 0,32

Natural (64%); Cropland (17.6%); Secondary (12%); Built up (4.9%)

Broad-leaved bushveld: Central Sandy Bushveld

13,28 6,37 0,27 Natural (64.9%); Cropland (16.8%); Secondary (9%); Built up (7.5%)

Western Sandy Bushveld 2,17 1,04 0,043

Natural (92.7%); Secondary (3%); Cropland (2.8%)

Roodeberg Bushveld 7,42 3,56 0,15

Natural (79.9%); Cropland (9.7%); Secondary (7.5%); Built up (2.5%)

Mountain Bushveld Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld 1,43 0,69 0,03 Natural (97.5%); Built up (1.1%) Dwarsberg- Swartruggens Mountain Bushveld 3,36 1,61 0,067

Natural (88.4%); Secondary (3.7%); Cropland (3.2%); Built up (2.3%); Erosion (1.3%)

Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld 1,5 0,72 0,03

Natural (96.3%); Secondary (1.7%)

Norite koppies Bushveld 9,99 4,79 0,2

Natural (86%); Built up (4.1%); Mine (3.4%); Cropland (2.5%); Secondary (2.5%)


117

Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld 6,16 2,95 0,123

Natural (80.6%); Cropland (8.1%); Built up (4.3%); Secondary (5.1%)

Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld 13,5 6,48 0,27

Natural (70.4%); Cropland (9.9%); Secondary (7.8%); Built up (6.7%); Mine (1.7%)

Andesite Mountain Bushveld 8,66 4,15 0,173

Natural (73%); Cropland (14.8%); Secondary (5.5%); Built up (5%)

Loskop Mountain Bushveld 1,76 0,84 0,035

Natural (93.8%); Secondary (2.8%); Built up (1.4%)

Waterberg Mountain Bushveld 1,588 0,76 0,032

Natural (92.9%); Cropland (3.4%); Secondary (3%)

Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld 10,377 4,98 0,2075

Natural (74.7%); Cropland (8.5%); Built up (6.6%); Plantations (5.2%); Secondary (4.5%)

Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld 1,952 0,94 0,039

Natural (90%); Secondary (5%); Built up (2.7%); Cropland (1.7%)

Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld 2,391 1,15 0,048

Natural (93.5%); Cropland (3%); Built up (2%); Secondary (1.3%)

Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld 4,78 2,3 0,096


Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld 12,72 6,1 0,252

Natural (79%); Cropland (9.2%); Built up (5.3%); Secondary (3.4%)

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>>7$

Figure 28: Extent of habitat modification in vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group (NBA, Draft 2018). Data is presented proportionate to the relative extent of vegetation types in the Group

!"#"#"'% Main pressures/risks/threats

•) Overgrazing: Overgrazing is a widespread and significant pressure in the Central Bushveld. When combined with the incorrect application of fire, the undesired results of overgrazing are amplified. In mountain bushveld areas, overgrazing is currently only a problem in some areas (e.g. parts of the mountains in Sekhukhuneland and parts of the Waterberg and Soutpansberg systems, close to rural residential areas with communal grazing of livestock).

•) Wrong fire regime: As fine-leaved central savanna systems are mostly sweet veld, whole year grazing occurs resulting in lower fuel loads and less likelihood of fire. The relatively more sour, long-lived bunch grasses that occur in broad-leaved savanna systems are less grazed in winter and the fuel loads are consequently higher, resulting in higher likelihood of fire. These ecosystem functions should be kept in mind when designing burning programs. On eastern mountains with higher rainfall and sour veld, the high production of biomass and therefore fuel by the dense grass layer, combined with lack of grazing during winter (due to the sour veld), enhance the likelihood of fire.


119

• Bush thickening and bush encroachment (indigenous woody species): Climate change is expected to favour woody species, mainly due to increased CO2 levels and higher temperatures. However, a decrease in the cover of the herbaceous layer, often caused by overgrazing and/or incorrect fire regime, may create the space and opportunity for certain indigenous woody species to become established and increase in density to form dense (often impenetrable) stands. The species composition of the herbaceous layer changes and the cover and productivity decreases accordingly. The resulting lower biomass and fuel load reduces the probability and intensity of fire, which in turn reduces the possibility to kill woody seedlings. This situation is exacerbated if woody alien species invade into the natural savanna vegetation.

• Invasive alien plants: AIP species include Cereus jamacaru and Melia azedarach.

• Illegal hunting and trade in threatened and protected fauna species: Illegal and uncontrolled hunting (even in PAs) of rare and threatened faunal species including certain mammals (e.g. Smutsia temminckii, Atelerix frontalis), reptiles, chameleons, tortoises, and amphibia (e.g. Pyxicephalus spp.), but also of other smaller fauna such as invertebrates, creates pressure on biodiversity resources and ecosystem services. This risk to biodiversity is particularly intense close to urban and peri-urban areas. Game species are poached at night along public access roads in some rural areas (e.g. Aepyceros melampu, Tragelaphus strepsiceros, Cephalophus species), but also larger and more rare antelopes. Large predators such as Acinonyx jubatus occur in the Limpopo valley in the north-east and are heavily persecuted, owing to game farm interests. The numerous high-value game farms result in many electrified-fences, which cause electrification deaths in many ground dwelling species (e.g. S. temminckii, Python natalensis and leguaans). Various flat lizard species occur on the mountains (i.e. Platysaurus. orientalis, P. minor, P. lebomboensis, and P. relictus). Owing to their endemicity, they are targeted by unscrupulous collectors. The stronghold of the national Panthera pardus population outside PAs is in these ecosystems, which are targed for trophy hunting. Unsustainable hunting quotas may threaten this large mammal. P. pardus is also threatened by the bush-meat hunting trade, where they are frequently caught in wire snares set for ungulate species. Less mobile species, such as the Neamblysomus julianae are particularly threatened, as their whole habitat of the Bronberg ridge is at risk of expanding residential areas at the eastern end of Pretoria. This species needs the sandy shelves below the ridges; a fact which should be taken into account by city planners.

• Illegal collecting, harvesting and trade in threatened and protected flora species, and wood-cutting: Illegal and uncontrolled collecting of rare and threatened flora species (e.g. geophytes, succulents, aloes, cycads), but also on other plant species used in the informal medicine trade takes place. Wood cutting, primarily for firewood (all woody species) but also for the manufacture of household articles or ornaments (e.g. Spirostachys africana, Faurea saligna, Burkea africana, and Berchemia zeyheri) occurs. These impacts are higher nearer large towns and cities. In the Magaliesberg area, Aloe peglerae, which is a Bankenveld endemic species, is increasingly sold alongside roadsides in Gauteng. Cycads are found in mountain bushveld systems, and threats from illegal harvesting from the wild are ever present.

• Fragmentation of habitats by residential, industrial, and mining developments: Growth in coal, platinum, and granite mining and associated industrial and residential developments, as well as the enormous need for housing developments in urban and rural areas has resulted in the fragmentation of these ecosystems, and a decline in biodiversity. Mining of “granite” for tombstones and table tops is particularly prominent in the Rustenburg, Brits (Norite Koppies Bushveld) and Sekhukhune areas, while platinum mining often affects mountain ecosystems peripherally. In the city and peri-urban environments of Gauteng and North West Province, residential encroachment on to the mountain ecosystems is increasing.

• Clearing vegetation for cultivation and forestry plantations: Fragmentation of the natural savanna vegetation is caused by ever increasing clearing of vegetation for agricultural purposes (e.g. maize, sunflower, potatoes, citrus, vegetables, watermelon, peanuts and planted pastures). In many cases, old fields lie fallow, and biodiversity in these


120

areas recovers via a mid-successional phase with grassland and sparse Vachellia tree species. Some rangeland managers prefer this intermediate state over the climax-state with Combretum tree species. Fragmentation of natural mountain vegetation in the eastern parts is also caused by increased clearing of vegetation for forestry plantations purposes. Invasion of alien species from forestry plantations into adjacent natural mountain ecosystems is a definite threat.


• Based on known rainfall, Large Herbivore Biomass should preferably not exceed 6000 kg/km², which is similar to LAU methods that are used. Specific grazing and browsing capacities must be determined by a specialist. General guidelines can be gleaned from maps produced by the ARC (Figure 29), but these must be supported by a specialist that looks at local conditions that would impact on sustainable grazing and browsing practices.

• Fire management: Cooler fires are recommended, early in the dry season. However, fire must be used with caution, as bush encroachment is possible as a result of frequent burning. It is suggested that burning is done every 3 years (depending on last accidental or natural burn). Note that these are only general recommendations and fire management plan must have input from a suitable specialist.

• The following areas are identified as environmentally sensitive and must be prioritised for biodiversity management and protection: ridges in Gauteng, Roodepoort, Bronberg, Witwatersberg and Magaliesberg; the Sekukhuneland and Malmani Karst areas across Limpopo and Mpumalanga, clayey plains of the south-eastern parts of Limpopo province; and the extensive network of CBAs and ESAs across the Ecosystem Group.

• Strict regulation of any developments on all mountains, hills and ridges in Gauteng, but also in other provinces should receive high priority, with restrictions built into the EIA processes.

• Restriction and management of off-road driving: relevant to the many private game reserves in particular in the Waterberg mountain region.


121

Figure 29: General guidelines for grazing capacity in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Source: ARC).

5.3.3.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Central Bushveld

• Protection of all mountains, hills and ridges, together with the wetland systems, throughout the Central Bushveld ecosystems.


• As per General list.


• Monitoring veld condition: Good areas to use as a benchmark are the Nylsvley Nature Reserve, and parts of the Marakele National Park as well as the Madikwe Game Reserve.

• The ratio between increaser/decreaser grass species is important. Decreaser and Increaser 1 species should collectively be more than Increaser 2 and 3 species.

• Monitor tree/shrub density in areas prone to bush thickening. The lower-lying areas of the Limpopo valley are especially prone, and Vachellia spp, and Dichrostachys are prominent, while sandy plains are often prone to thickening by Terminalia sp.


122

• Monitor selected populations of SCCs, including threatened and protected species (e.g. Panthera pardus populations, Gyps coprotheres breeding colony sizes and cycads).

• Monitor the status of rare plant localities (e.g. cycads) but ensure that this information is not accessible to members of the public, and confidentiality is assured with a bona fide organisation.


• Recovery of the woody layer may take longer than 10 years, as pioneers such as Dichrostachys cinerea, Vachellia tortilis or Terminalia sericea establish on denuded sites and may exist as dense monospecific stands for a very long time, though this is a natural process under post-disturbance recovery.

• As the herbaceous layer in arid fine-leaved savanna is event driven (non-equilibrium) the grass layer may change over short periods of time from almost bare during dry spells (linked with grazing during winter) to well-covered by (sweet) grass during wetter cycles.

• Broad-leaved savannas are not preferred by grazers during winter and the sourer grass cover is more resilient, but should it crash, it takes much longer to recover.




123

5.3.4 Mopane Bushveld

Figure 30: Locality Map of the distribution of Mopane Bushveld.


The Mopane Bushveld ecosystems are restricted to the dry subtropical areas in the extreme north-eastern part of the South African Savanna biome, on the Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mozambique borders (Figure 30). Two geographical areas are recognised:

• the northern Mopane Bushveld that occurs on the irregular, undulating plains and low hills located north of the Soutpansberg stretching northwards to the Zimbabwe border. Here the summer rainfall varies between 300 and 400 mm MAP, while the winters are very dry.

• the eastern Mopane Bushveld occurs on the lowveld plains and rugged hills located north and east of the Arid Lowveld Bushveld. The southern limit of Mopane Bushveld is close to the Olifants River, with the southern extreme stretching into Mpumalanga. The rainfall in this area is 400 - 550 mm MAP. The largest part of this ecosystem is protected within the northern KNP.

On the irregular, undulating plains of the northern Mopane Bushveld the soils vary considerably from freely drained sandy soils derived from gneisses, covering most of the area, to the more limited brown to dark clays derived from basalt. Low hills and ridges with shallow, well drained soils occur scattered throughout the area, but particularly along the Limpopo River valley.


124

The total dominance of Colophospermum mopane is characteristic of Mopane Bushveld.

Apart from C. mopane, other species typically present in the different Mopane Bushveld ecosystems include the woody Terminalia prunioides, Senegalia nigrescens, Albizia harveyi, Vachellia borleae, Combretum apiculatum, Sclerocarya birrea, S. senegal, Boscia albitrunca, Combretum imberbe, Commiphora glandulosa, Commiphora pyracanthoides, Dalbergia melanoxylon , Sesamothamnus lugardii, Catophractes alexandri and Adansonia digitata

Grasses include Eragrostis rigidior, Brachiaria nigropedata, Schmidtia pappophoroides, Aristida adscensionis, Bothriochloa radicans, Cenchrus ciliaris, Digitaria eriantha, Enneapogon, Eragrostis lehmanniana, and Urochloa mosambicensis.

In the northern Mopane Bushveld, the vegetation varies from open woodland to closed shrubland, all dominated by C. mopane. On basalt with more clayey soils C. mopane is dominant with Terminalia prunioides and S. nigrescens also prominent. On hilly areas with rocky or sandy soils, Combretum apiculatum, T. sericea and Grewia flava occur with the dominant mopane trees.

In the eastern Mopane Bushveld, the vegetation varies from high, moderately closed tree savanna totally dominated by C. mopane, through medium-high shrubby savanna still dominated by C. mopane but with C. apiculatum on less clayey upland soils and with S. nigrescens on more clayey soils in the bottomlands. On hilly areas, T. prunioides is prominent.

On the areas with very clayey dark soils derived from basalt or gabbro the vegetation is low to medium-low shrubland (1 - 2 m tall), totally dominated by dense multi-stemmed C. mopane shrubs. This vegetation is restricted to the KNP. Tall woodlands of mopane occur on deeper soils of either alluvium or those of Karoo-age origin, and contrast with the surrounding Mopane shrubveld.

The herbaceous layer in the Mopane Bushveld ecosystems is often poorly developed in areas with dense C. mopane shrubs but may be well developed where the woody layer is more open.

The grass in Mopane is mostly regarded as sweet and palatable and preferred by grazers, particularly in winter, and can therefore support animal production throughout the year.

The iconic baobab tree, Adansonia digitata, occurs widespread in the Mopane Bushveld ecosystems and is a prominent feature within these landscapes, and is more prevalent in the north.


125

Plate 9: The iconic baobab tree, Adansonia digitata, occurs widely in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Source: George Bredenkamp).

Mopane Bushveld is comprised of 8 vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) as listed in the table below with an indication of the ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019).

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>?:$

Table 16: Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) found in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group and their Ecosystem Threat Status and Ecosystem Protection Level (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Mopane Bushveld Vegetation Types


Musina Mopane Bushveld SVmp 1 Least Concern Moderately Protected Cathedral Mopane Bushveld SVmp 3 Least Concern Well Protected Tsende Mopaneveld SVmp 5 Least Concern Well Protected Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld SVmp 6 Least Concern Well Protected Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld

SVmp 7 Least Concern Well Protected

Limpopo Ridge Bushveld SVmp 2 Least Concern Well Protected Mopane Basalt Shrubland SVmp 4 Least Concern Well Protected Mopane Gabbro Shrubland SVmp 8 Least Concern Well Protected

The dominant vegetation type in the Ecosystem Group is Musina Mopane Bushveld, followed by Tsende Mopaneveld which collectively comprise ~55% of the area.

Figure 31: Proportionate composition of vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

!"#"'"&% Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity pattern

The typical vegetation structure and density of woody and herbaceous components and the specific floristic composition of different savanna ecosystems are the results of an interplay of:

•) Climate, which is the primary factor that drives savanna ecosystems, with rainfall being prominent.


127

o Rainfall: Variation from north (drier 300 - 400 mm MAP) to south (moister 400 - 550 mm MAP), linked with significant annual variability and with droughts and floods.

o Temperature: The Mopane bushveld has a mean annual temperature of ≥ +18 °C, and is restricted to warm frost-free areas.

• Lithology and derived soil type, particularly soil depth and rockiness, clay content, drainage regime, and variability in nutrients. As described under the general characteristics of the Ecosystem Group, changes in topography, geology and soils across the Group effect vegetation species composition.

• Grazing and browsing, the role of Loxodonta africana as a key herbivore is a major ecological driver where they occur.

• Fire: Grazing pressure is related to the likelihood of fires occurring. Where grazing is low the likelihood of fire is high and vice versa. Grasses are mostly sweetveld, with whole year-round grazing. The lower fuel loads result in less likelihood of fire. In KNP, production on clay soils derived from basalt is very high under fair rainfall conditions, and grazing pressure is relatively low. Therefore the likelihood and occurrence of fire is high.


A large part of these ecosystems (35.74%) are protected in the KNP and Mapungubwe National Park (World Heritage Site – 9.84%), and several other Nature Reserves (9.90%) (Figure 32). Almost the entire Mopane Bushveld (>90%) falls within a Biosphere Reserve. Some well-managed cattle and game farms afford additional conservation.

Figure 32: Protected Areas in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group.


128

Threatened ecosystems published under the Biodiversity Act (2011) cover a small area of the Ecosystem Group (0.022%). The extent of CBAs and ESAs is vast, covering 47.4% of the Ecosystem Group (Figure 33).

Figure 33: CBAs and ESAs occurring in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

Development of extensive rural residential areas in the Lowveld and in the old Venda, and associated communal farming and subsistence agriculture has resulted in large areas of Mopane Bushveld vegetation being cleared and fragmented. Plantations occur scattered within the Mopane Bushveld, and the spread of alien plant species used in plantations creates a threat to indigenous vegetation in surrounding natural habitat, as well as water availability. Coal mines are an issue, particularly those established within close proximity to the KNP. Land use outside PAs includes cattle and game farming, with a definite risk of overgrazing, resulting in a deterioration in veld condition and decrease in biodiversity. Mopane Bushveld is a characteristic habitat for Loxodonta africana. There is often contrasting debate on the potential pressure that L. africana can cause if not appropriately managed especially in small fenced areas.

Urban and built-up areas, cultivated areas, plantations, mines and other modified areas together constitute consolidated ‘irreversibly modified areas’ (Figure 34). These constitute 8.7% of the Ecosystem Group.


129

Figure 34: Irreversibly modified areas in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

Based on the habitat modification assessment done as part of the NBA (Skowno et. al., 2019), the dominant land cover type is ‘natural’ areas, which includes rangelands in its definition. Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld, Tsende Mopaneveld and Musina Mopane Bushveld vegetation types have the greatest percentage of modified areas, where croplands occupy 10%, 5% and 3.6% of the respective vegetation type areas. The ecosystem threat status of all vegetation types in the Group is of ‘least concern’, and all have an ecosystem protection level of ‘well protected’ other than Musina Mopane Bushveld which is ‘moderately protected’ (NBA, Draft 2018). Although the overall modification levels in this Ecosystem Group is comparatively low, livestock and game farming can cause degradation if not properly managed. Degradation in rangelands is not reflected in the habitat modification assessment. Impacts on ecological infrastructure may occur, if these land uses are not well managed (e.g. impacts on soil structure and the tree:grass ratio).

Table 17: Habitat modification between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 of vegetation types in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Mopane Bushveld Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018)

% decline 1990 – 2040

% decline 1750 – 2014



Musina Mopane Bushveld 4,93 2,36 0,0983

Natural (91.9%); Cropland (3.6 %); Secondary (1.8%); Erosion (1.6%)

Cathedral Mopane Bushveld 0,011 0,01 0,00042

Natural (99%)

Tsende Mopaneveld 3,82 1,84 0,077

Natural (89%); Cropland (5.6%); Secondary (3.2%); Built up (1.5%)

Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld 7,64 3,67 0,153

Natural (78%); Cropland (10%); Secondary (7.5%); Built up (3%)

Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld

4,84 2,32 0,097

Natural (91.9%); Built up (3.2%); Cropland (2%); Mine (1.4%); Secondary (1.1%)

Limpopo Ridge Bushveld 1,38 0,66 0,028 Natural (97.1%) Mopane Basalt Shrubland 0,023 0,01 0,00042

Natural (99.8%)

Mopane Gabbro Shrubland 0,015 0,01 0,00042

Natural (99.9%)

)

Figure 35: Extent of habitat modification in vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019). Data is presented proportionate to the relative extent of vegetation types in the Group

5.3.4.4 Main pressures/risks/threats

The main pressures and threats particularly to areas outside PAs include:

• Overgrazing: Overgrazing and over browsing is a general and widespread pressure facing Mopane Bushveld ecosystems outside PAs, but also within these areas during drought periods. Browsing is not a threat to C. mopane due to high availability of mopane trees and shrubs, though other tree and shrub species (e.g. Sclerocarya birrea and Adansonia` digitata) are often destroyed by large browsers. Stocking rates of domestic livestock and game that exceed the grazing capacity of the particular vegetation lead to a reduction in aerial and basal vegetation cover; changes in species composition, replacement of nutritious perennial grasses (decreasers) by non-palatable annual grasses (increasers) and weeds. Thickening of indigenous woody species and encroachment of woody invaders and accelerated soil erosion are often results of overgrazing. When combined with the incorrect application of fire, the undesired results of overgrazing are amplified. Too high stocking rates of large animals (e.g. Loxodonta africana, and Sycerus caffer ) in smaller PAs, conservation areas, and game farm areas with fencing has a definite negative effect on vegetation and habitats for other fauna species.

• Wrong fire regime.

• Invasive alien plants: AIP species are rare in the Mopane Bushveld. Examples of AIPs in riparian zones include Lantana camara and Chromolaena odorata, and in the terrestrial environment Opuntia stricta and Parthenium hysterophorus.

• Illegal hunting and trade in threatened and protected fauna species: Illegal and uncontrolled hunting (within and outside of PAs) of Ceratotherium simum, Diceros bicornis, and Loxodonta africana impacts on biodiversity resources and ecosystem services. S. temminckii is increasingly being sought in these areas and is listed in Appendix I on CITES. Persecution of large carnivores such as Panthera pardus, Acinonyx jubatus, Lycaon pictus and Crocuta crocuta is common in the Limpopo valley. Poaching of L. africana is a growing risk in the northern parts of the KNP and could spread.

• Illegal collecting, harvesting and trade in rare, threatened and protected flora species, and wood-cutting

• Fragmentation of habitats by residential, industrial, and mining developments: The significant need for housing in urban and rural areas has resulted in the fragmentation of Mopane Bushveld ecosystems and decline in biodiversity.

• Clearing vegetation for cultivation: Fragmentation of the natural vegetation is caused by the ever-increasing clearing of vegetation for cultivation. In many cases, old fields lie fallow, and biodiversity in these areas recovers via a mid-successional phase with grassland and sparse Vachellia tree species. Some rangeland managers prefer this intermediate state over the climax-state Mopane vegetation.


• Based on known rainfall, Large Herbivore Biomass should preferably not exceed about 5 000 kg/ m², which is similar to LAU methods that are used. Specific grazing and browsing capacities must be determined by a specialist. General guidelines can be gleaned from maps produced by the ARC (Figure 36), but these must be supported by a specialist that looks at local conditions that would impact on sustainable grazing and browsing practices.

• Fire management: Cooler, early season fires are recommended. The recommended frequency is at least 3 years between burns and applied rotationally. Note that these are only general recommendations and a fire management plan must have input from a suitable specialist that considers site specific aspects

• The Limpopo riverine indigenous forest on Greefswald, including areas adjacent to Mapungubwe is an important biodiversity area and would need comprehensive environmental assessment to inform the suitability of any proposed land use change / modification. .


132

Figure 36: General guidelines for grazing capacity in the Mopane Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Source: ARC).

5.3.4.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Mopane Bushveld



• The Limpopo valley is known as a corridor for arid species migrations, i.e. in dry years they penetrate eastward toward KNP and Mozambique, and vice versa. A retraction occurs in wetter cycles.


• The KNP can be used as a good benchmark for monitoring veld condition. The ratio between increaser/decreaser grass species is important, particularly when rangeland pastures are managed.

• Generally, Mopane Bushveld favours browser species over grazers, therefore changes in browser:grazer ratios may indicate changes in biodiversity.

• Monitor selected populations of SCCs (i.e. Loxodonta africana numbers).

• Scavenger abundance (e.g. vultures) are signs of healthy systems.

• Myrmecocichla arnoti is an avian indicator species, confined to Mopane woodland.


133


• Recovery of the woody layer may take much longer than 10 years, as pioneers such as Dichrostachys cinerea and Vachellia tortilis or Terminalia sericea establish on cleared sites and may exist as dense monospecific stands for a long time.

• As the herbaceous layer in Mopane Bushveld is event driven (non-equilibrium) the grass layer may change over short periods of time from almost bare during dry spells (linked with grazing during winter) to well-covered by (sweet) grass during wetter cycles.




134

5.3.5 Arid Lowveld Bushveld and associated Mountain Bushveld

Figure 37: Locality Map of the distribution of Arid Lowveld Bushveld and associated mountain bushveld.


135


The Arid Lowveld Bushveld ecosystems in South Africa are restricted to the eastern part of the Savanna biome and occur on the plains below, and east of the Great Escarpment. These ecosystems stretch from the Zimbabwe border in Limpopo Province, southwards through Mpumalanga, through the eastern part of Swaziland to the northern parts of KwaZulu-Natal, close to Eshowe. The eastern boundary is the Lebombo mountain range, along the border of Mozambique. The ecosystem group extends into the far northern parts in Limpopo Province, west of the Mopane Bushveld (refer to Figure 37).

The northern parts of the Arid Lowveld Bushveld in the KNP area receive 450 - 550 mm of summer rain per annum, however southwards from Swaziland into KwaZulu-Natal, the rainfall increases to 550 - 850 mm MAP. Altitude also varies across the Ecosystem Group – higher altitudes occur in the northern parts ranging between 200 and 800 m.a.s.l., while in the southern parts altitudes vary from 50 m to 400 m.a.s.l.

Three main vegetation types occur on different lithology and soil types. Broad-leaved savanna (occurs in the western part on deep sandy and shallow gravelly, well-drained soils derived from granites, gneisses, sandstones or similar rocks. Fine-leaved thornveld savanna occurs in the eastern part on clayey soils derived from basalt, gabbro and dolerite. Mountain bushveld occurs on the rhyolites of the Lebombo mountain range. In Mpumalanga, much of the Ecosystem Group is located within the KNP.

Fine-leaved and broad-leaved savannas can also occur in a complex mosaic in slightly undulating granite landscapes. Here the fine-leaved savanna is restricted to the nutrient rich clayey soils in bottomland situations and broad-leaved savanna to the better-drained leached sandy or gravelly areas on the higher-lying crests in the landscape.

The woody layer in fine-leaved savanna is dominated by thorny trees and shrubs including Vachellia tortilis, V. nilotica, Senegalia nigrescens and Dalbergia melanoxylon. The field layer contains the grasses Digitaria eriantha, Panicum maximum, P. coloratum, Urochloa mosambicensis, Bothriochloa radicans, Themeda triandra, Cenchrus ciliata, and Heteropogon contortus.

The prominent trees in broad-leaved savannas are Combretum apiculatum, C. zeyheri, Sclerocarya birrea, Terminalia sericea, Strychnos madagascariensis and Pterocarpus rotundifolius. The field layer in broad-leaved savanna is often scanty with the grasses Eragrostis rigidior, Pogonarthria squarrosa, Brachiaria, Digitaria eriantha, Melinis repens, Panicum maximum, Heteropogon contortus, Enneapogon cenchroides, Perotis patens, Schmidtia pappophoroides, Tricholaena monachne and Urochloa mosambicensis. Several forb species occur in the field layer.

The grass in fine-leaved savanna is mostly regarded as palatable and preferred by grazers (sweet), particularly in winter and can therefore support animal production throughout the year. In broad-leaved savannas sour grasses are avoided during the winter season and these savanna ecosystems support animal production mainly in summer. It must be noted that many of these ecosystems are “mixed” veld, with particular proportions of sweet and sour grasses.

The mountain bushveld typically has bush patches dominated by Androstachys johnsonii, while the succulent tree Euphorbia confinalis is locally prominent. The grass layer in this dry ecosystem is mostly scanty and is grazed by only a few antelopes.

Arid Lowveld Bushveld is comprised of 19 vegetation types across the 3 broad types discussed above (VEGMAP, 2018) as listed in the table below with an indication of the ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Table 18: Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) found in the Arid Lowveld Ecosystem Group and their Ecosystem Threat Status and Ecosystem Protection Level (Skowno et. al., 2019

Arid Lowveld Bushveld Vegetation Type Code Ecosystem Threat Status


Broad-leaved savanna Makuleke Sandy Bushveld SVl 1 Least Concern Well Protected Nwambyia Pumbe Sandy Bushveld SVl 2 Least Concern Well Protected Granite Lowveld SVl 3 Least Concern Well Protected Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld SVl 7 Least Concern Poorly Protected Tembe Sandy Bushveld SVl 18 Least Concern Moderately Protected Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld SVl 19 Near threatened Well Protected Maputaland Pallid Sandy Bushveld SVI 26 Least Concern Moderately Protected Muzi Palmveld and Wooded grassland SVI 27 Critically Endangered Poorly Protected Thukela Valley Bushveld SVs1 Least Concern Not protected Fine-leaved savanna Delagoa Lowveld SVl 4 Least Concern Moderately Protected Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld SVl 5 Least Concern Well Protected Gabbro Grassy Bushveld SVl 6 Least Concern Well Protected Western Maputaland clay Bushveld SVl 20 Endangered Moderately Protected Makatini Clay Thicket SVl 21 Least Concern Well Protected Zululand Lowveld SVl 23 Least Concern Moderately Protected Zululand Coastal Thornveld SVl 24 Critically Endangered Not protected Mountain Bushveld on the Lebombo mountains Northern Lebombo Bushveld SVl 15 Least Concern Well Protected Southern Lebombo Bushveld SVl 16 Least Concern Poorly Protected Lebombo Summit Sour veld SVl 17 Endangered Not protected

The predominant vegetation type is Granite Lowveld, followed by Zululand Lowveld collectively comprising almost 60% of the Ecosystem Group.

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>8;$

Figure 38: Proportionate composition of vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

!"#"!"&% Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity pattern

The typical vegetation structure, density of woody and herbaceous components, and the specific floristic composition of this Ecosystem Group are the results of an interplay of:

•) Climate, which is the primary factor that drives savanna ecosystems.

o) Rainfall: Variation from west from the foot of the Great Escarpment (moister) to east at the Lebombo mountains (drier), and south (moister) to north (drier) linked with significant annual variability and with occasional extreme droughts and floods.

o) Temperature: The Arid lowveld bushveld has hot summers and dry winters. Temperatures range from 16 to 25ºC in winter. During the summer months temperatures range from 23 to 33º C. Many bushveld tree and shrub species, and also some herbaceous species, have a subtropical affinity/origin. They cannot survive long-lasting or extreme cold winter temperatures and the severe frost experienced at the higher altitudes and/or higher latitudes of, for example the Grassland biome. Arid Lowveld Bushveld is restricted to under 800 m.a.s.l. in the northern parts and under 450 m.a.s.l. in the southern parts.

•) Lithology and derived soil type, particularly soil depth and rockiness, clay content, drainage regime, and variability in nutrients. Generally, the geology changes from west to east in longitudinal bands that start in the west with granite, and end


138

in basalt and rhyolite, with a narrow stretch of Ecca shales in between. These differences result in different plant communities with different plant species composition.

• Grazing and browsing: The KNP could be regarded as an example of a well-managed conservation area with appropriate stocking rates of several game species.

• Fire: Fine-leaved savanna are mostly sweetveld, therefore all year grazing occurs, with low biomass and fuel load. The likelihood and frequency of fires is therefore lower. The relatively more sour, long-lived bunch grasses of the broad-leaved savanna are less grazed in winter. Biomass is medium to high (lack of water and nutrients). The likelihood of fire is high, and fire frequency and intensity medium to high.


About 17.96% of the Arid Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group is protected in the KNP, and a further 9.0% in Nature Reserves (Figure 39). Other conservation areas include biosphere reserves and Ramsar sites. Some well-managed cattle and game farms afford additional conservation.

Threatened ecosystems published under the Biodiversity Act (2011) cover 5.29% of the Ecosystem Group, and occur mostly in the southern parts, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal. CBAs and ESAs cover 35% of Arid Lowveld Bushveld, and are predominant in the northern parts of the Ecosystem Group (Figure 40).

The dominant land cover type in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld is natural (includes rangelands), followed closely by cropland and built up lands. Land use outside PAs includes cattle and game farming, with a risk of overgrazing, resulting in veld condition deterioration and decrease in biodiversity. Development of urban and extensive sub-urban and rural residential areas and associated communal farming and subsistence agriculture has resulted in large areas of vegetation in the Group being cleared and severely fragmented. This creates a definite land-use pressure and high risk for biodiversity conservation. Some commercial farming occurs, including cattle and game farms, and some cultivation, particularly subtropical fruit production. Plantations are rare in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld, becoming more abundant to the east in Moist Lowveld Bushveld. Small mines occur scattered throughout the area. Poaching of game, particularly animals such as Loxodonta africana, Ceratotherium simum and Diceros bicornis in the KNP, is a definite risk.

Urban and built-up areas, cultivated areas, plantations, mines and other modified areas together constitute consolidated irreversibly modified areas. These areas cover 25.96% of Arid Lowveld Bushveld (Figure 41).


139

Figure 39: Protected Areas in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group.


140

Figure 40: CBAs and ESAs occurring in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group.


141

Figure 41: Irreversibly modified areas in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group.


142

The habitat modification assessment done as part of the NBA (Skowno et. al., 2019) provides the following indication of modification experienced in the Ecosystem Group. With the exception of Nwambyia Pumbe Sandy Bushveld (broad leaved savanna), Gabbro Grassy Bushveld (fine leaved savanna) and Northern Lebombo Bushveld (mountain bushveld) which collectively cover 4.1% of the Ecosystem Group, all vegetation types have been modified to varying degrees (see Table 19).

High levels of modification have taken place in Zulu Coastal Thornveld (28% natural areas remaining, predominant land cover type croplands and built up areas), Lebombo Summit Sour Veld (33.9% natural areas remaining, predominant land cover type croplands and built-up areas), Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld (42% natural areas remaining, predominant land cover type croplands), Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld (57.6% natural areas remaining, predominant land cover type built up areas), and Muzi Palmveld and Wooded Grassland (76.5% natural areas remaining, predominant land cover type built up areas and croplands). The ecosystem threat status of these vegetation types is as follows (Skowno et. al., 2019):

• Zulu Coastal Thornveld: critically endangered

• Lebombo Summit Sour Veld: endangered

• Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld: endangered

• Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld: near threatened

• Muzi Palmveld and Wooded Grassland: critically endangered

The high levels of modification of vegetation types in this Ecosystem Group highlight the urgent need for management intervention to prevent ecosystem collapse.

Table 19: Habitat modification between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 of vegetation types in the Central Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Arid Lowveld Bushveld Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018)

% decline 1990 – 2040

% decline 1750 – 2014



Broad-leaved savanna Makuleke Sandy Bushveld

11,795 5,66 0,24 Natural (76.8%); Cropland (13%); Secondary (2.9%); Built up (6%)

Nwambyia Pumbe Sandy Bushveld 0 0 0

Natural (99.9%)

Granite Lowveld 7,84 3,76 0,16

Natural (76%); Cropland (13.9%); Built up (5%); Secondary (3.7%)

Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld 3,07 1,48 0,062

Natural (89.3%); Cropland (2.5%); Secondary (3.8%); Built up (4%)

Tembe Sandy Bushveld

10,52 5,05 0,21

Natural (78.7%); Built up (9.2%); Cropland (8.2%) Secondary (3.3%);

Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld 19,88 9,54 0,4

Natural (57.6%); Built up (31.8%); Cropland (8.2%); Secondary (2.2%)

Maputaland Pallid Sandy Bushveld 11,5 5,53 0,23


Muzi Palmveld and Wooded Grassland 21,8 10,45 0,44

Natural (76.5%); Built up (11.1%); Cropland (5.7%); Plantations (3.9%); Secondary (2.6%)


143

Thukela Valley Bushveld

6,5 3,13 0,13

Natural (73.6%); Secondary (9.9%); Cropland (9%); Built up (5%); Erosion (1.5%)

Fine-leaved savanna Delagoa Lowveld

5,23 2,51 0,10 Natural (72.6%); Cropland (25.2%); Secondary (1.1%)

Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld 7,21 3,46 0,14

Natural (83.8%); Cropland (14.3%)

Gabbro Grassy Bushveld 0,12 0,06 0,0025 Natural (99.7%) Western Maputaland clay Bushveld

43,22 20,8 0,87

Natural (42%); Cropland (32%); Built up (11%); Artificial Waterbodies (7%); Secondary (6.9%)

Makatini Clay Thicket 10,58 5,09 0,21

Natural (82%); Built up (5.6%) Cropland (9.2%); Secondary (2.9%)

Zululand Lowveld 9,61 4,61 0,19

Natural (68%); Cropland (17.6%); Secondary (8.2%); Built up (5.4%)

Zululand Coastal Thornveld 33,57 16,11 0,67

Cropland (36.5%); Natural (28%); Built up (22%); Secondary (11.5%)

Mountain Bushveld on the Lebombo mountains Northern Lebombo Bushveld 0,09 0,04 0,0017

Natural (99%)

Southern Lebombo Bushveld 4,76 2,29 0,095


Lebombo Summit Sour Veld 41,7 19,72 0,822


$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>@@$

Figure 42: Extent of habitat modification in vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019). Data is presented proportionate to the relative extent of vegetation types in the Group.

!"#"!"'% Main pressures/risks/threats

The main pressures and threats, particularly to areas outside the PAs (e.g. KNP and other larger conserved areas) are:

•) Overgrazing: Overgrazing and over browsing is a general and widespread pressure facing Arid Lowveld ecosystems outside PAs. When combined with the incorrect application of fire, the undesired results of overgrazing are amplified.

•) Wrong fire regime.

•) Bush encroachment


145

• Alien invasive plant species: There are a number of AIP species that particularly follow the many river systems e.g. Lantana camara Chromolaena odorata, Ricinus communis, Sesbania punicea, and Melia azedarach. Parthenium hysterophorus is rapidly decreasing availability of grazing areas due to its allelopathic properties, and if cows graze on this species they become unfit for consumption.

• Illegal hunting and trade in rare, threatened and protected fauna species: Illegal and uncontrolled hunting (within and outside PAs) of rare and threatened faunal species, but also other fauna, creates pressure on biodiversity resources and ecosystem services. This risk to biodiversity is particularly intense close to urban and peri-urban areas. Poaching of the two-rhinoceros species, C. simum and D. bicornis is unprecedented. The use of Smutsia temminckii for traditional medicine has increased in the area.

• Illegal collecting, harvesting and trade in rare, threatened and protected flora species and wood-cutting: Illegal and uncontrolled collecting (within and outside PAs) of rare and threatened flora species (e.g. Warburgia salutaris, Siphonochilus aethiopicus, geophytes, orchids, succulents, and aloes), but also other plant species used in the informal medicine trade, puts pressure on biodiversity resources. Wood cutting, primarily for firewood but also for the manufacture of household articles or ornaments, also has an impact on natural resources in the savanna.

• Fragmentation of habitats by residential, industrial, and mining developments: The significant need for housing development in urban and rural areas has resulted in the fragmentation of Arid Lowveld savanna ecosystems and decline in biodiversity.

• Clearing vegetation for cultivation: Fragmentation of the natural Arid Lowveld Bushveld vegetation is also caused by increased clearing of vegetation for cultivation, particularly for growing subtropical fruit and sugarcane.


• Based on known rainfall, Large Herbivore Biomass should preferably not exceed about 6 500 kg/km², which is similar to LAU methods that are used. General guidelines can be gleaned from maps produced by the ARC (Figure 43) but these must be supported by a specialist that looks at local conditions that would impact on sustainable grazing and browsing practices.

• Fire management: Burning should take place in the early dry season, using cool fires approximately 12 weeks after last rainfall. Depending on the amount of bush encroacher species, controlled burning should take place every 3 – 5 years. Note that these are only general recommendations and a fire management plan must have input from a suitable specialist that considers site specific aspects.

• Restriction and management of off-road driving must be implemented to prevent erosion and degradation. This is especially important in areas with steep slopes, and along river banks or ‘sponge’ areas.

.


146

Figure 43: General guidelines for grazing capacity in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group (Source: ARC).


147

5.3.5.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Arid Lowveld Bushveld





• Locally, seep-lines, in the catena of the granite landscapes, should be free of bush thickening, and have good grass and sedge cover.

• Given the keystone role that Loxodonta africana perform, and the debate over surplus numbers and their impact on the receiving environment, monitoring of their numbers and effects on ecosystems is crucial.


• Recovery of the woody layer may take longer than 10 years, as pioneers such as Dichrostachys cinerea and Vachellia tortilis or Terminalia sericea establish on denuded sites and may exist as dense monospecific stands for a long time.

• As the herbaceous layer in arid fine-leaved savanna is event driven (non-equilibrium) the grass layer may change over short periods of time from almost bare during dry spells (linked with grazing during winter) to well-covered by (sweet) grass during wetter cycles. Broad-leaved savanna on the contrary is not preferred by grazers during winter and the more sour grass cover is more resilient, but should it crash it takes much longer to recover.




148

5.3.6 Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna and associated Mountain Bushveld

Figure 44: Locality Map of the distribution of Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna and associated Mountain Bushveld.


149


Moist Sour Lowveld is restricted to the lower and middle east-facing slopes of the Great Escarpment, from 600 m.a.s.l. up to approximately 1100 m.a.s.l., and where rainfall varies between 600 and 1350 mm per annum. These ecosystems are located on a north-south stretching line from Tzaneen in the north (Limpopo Province), via Blyde River to Nelspruit and Barberton (Mpumalanga) and southwards through Swaziland to Nkandla in KwaZulu-Natal (Figure 44). The Moist Sour Lowveld Ecosystem Group merges eastwards into the Arid Lowveld Bushveld at lower altitudes and westwards into the Grassland biome at higher altitudes. Indigenous forests occur in the moist valleys, particularly at higher altitudes.

This is a relatively small Ecosystem Group, with an area of 19 351 km2. The woody layer varies from open to dense, often with a mixture of several tall trees and many shrub species (e.g. Pterocarpus angolensis, Parinari curatellifolia, Sclerocarya birrea, Albizia versicolor, Piliostigma thonningii, Bauhinia galpinii, Senegalia ataxacantha, S. caffra, Trichilia emetica, Erythrina latissima, Faurea rochetiana, Vachellia sieberiana, Ficus burkei, Heteropyxis natalensis and Combretum zeyheri.

The grass layer is mostly wiry, hard, and sour, with the tall-growing grasses Hyperthelia dissoluta, Cymbopogon spp, and Hyparrhenia spp. dominant.

Ten vegetation types occur in the Group, with 5 being Mountain Bushveld types (VEGMAP, 2018), as listed in the table below with an indication of the ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Table 20: Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) found in the Moist Sour Lowveld Ecosystem Group and their Ecosystem Threat Status and Ecosystem Protection Level (Skowno et. al., 2019

Moist Sour Lowveld Vegetation Types


Moist Sour Lowveld Bushveld

Tzaneen Sour Bushveld SVl 8 Near threatened Poorly Protected

Legogote Sour Bushveld SVl 9 Endangered Poorly Protected

Pretoriuskop Sour Bushveld SVl 10 Least Concern Well Protected

Swaziland Sour Bushveld SVl 14 Least Concern Poorly Protected

Northern Zululand Sourveld SVl 22 Least Concern Poorly Protected

Mountain Bushveld types

Malelane Mountain Bushveld SVl 11 Least Concern Well Protected

Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld SVl 12 Least Concern Moderately Protected

Barberton Serpentine Sourveld SVl 13 Least Concern Well Protected

Crocodile Gorge Mountain Bushveld SVI 27 Least Concern Moderately Protected Vhavenda Miombo SVcb22 Least Concern Well Protected

Predominant vegetation types are Northern Zululand Sourveld, Swaziland Sour Bushveld, Legogote Sour Bushveld, and Tzaneen Sour Bushveld (VEGMAP, 2018).

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>9=$

Figure 45: Proportionate composition of vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Moist Sour Lowveld Bushveld Ecosystem Group.

!"#"("&% Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function, pattern and structure

The typical vegetation structure and density of woody and herbaceous components and the specific floristic composition of the Ecosystem Group are the results of interplay of:

•) Climate is the primary factor that drives savanna ecosystems, with rainfall being all important.

o) Rainfall: Generally high but with variation from lower altitudes in west (moister, with transitions to indigenous forest) to higher altitude east (drier), linked with significant annual variability.

o) Temperature variation from lower lying (warmer) to high altitudes (colder with transitions to grassland). The moist sour lowveld experiences hot (Tmax ! +22 °C) to mild (Tmax < +22 °C, 4 Tmon ! +10 °C) summers, and the central parts experience high annual temperatures (Tann ! +18 °C).

•) A significant increase in woody vegetation has already been observed in this Ecosystem Group. The expected climate change and higher CO2 levels may further benefit the woody species, though drier conditions may be disadvantageous to indigenous forests.

•) Great variability in local habitats due to differences in geology and the resulting complex topography (i.e. varying foot to mid-slopes with different gradients, varying rockiness and soil depth and with shallow or deep valleys).

•) Fire. High likelihood of fires due to tall, dense grass layer and high fuel loads.


151


Protected Areas in Moist Sour Lowveld Bushveld are few, covering ~10.56% of the Ecosystem Group. Some examples include the Blyde River Canyon and Lekgameetse Nature Reserve (Figure 46). Although 42.07% of the mountains in the Ecosystem Group are protected, this area is only 1 754.9 km2. Conservation areas consist mostly of a biosphere reserve, portions of which may overlap with some of the PAs.

Threatened ecosystems published under the Biodiversity Act (2011) cover 42.08% of the Ecosystem Group. CBAs and ESAs are widespread, covering 45.11% of the Group (Figure 47).

Dominant land-use includes cultivation, with both subsistence farming and cultivation of subtropical fruit on a commercial basis; as well as plantations and urban and rural residential developments. Communal farming and subsistence agriculture has resulted in large areas being cleared and severely fragmented. Commercial forestry plantations presents a significant risk to biodiversity, not only due to large cleared areas for plantations, but also due to the threat of AIP species on biodiversity in surrounding areas, and water availability. Due to the high rainfall and sour grasses, the area is not particularly suitable for livestock and therefore in general is not overgrazed, though the veld in the southern-most rural areas shows signs of overgrazing. The likelihood of fire is also high because of high fuel loads. Very few mines are found in this area. The higher elevation areas below the Escarpment are less at risk of land use change, owing to inaccessibility.

Plate 10: The high production of sour grasses that are not grazed in winter in Moist Sour Lowveld results in a high likelihood of fire (Source: George Bredenkamp)

Urban and built-up areas, cultivated areas, plantations, mines and other modified areas together constitute consolidated irreversibly modified areas. Collectively these constitute 36.18% of the Ecosystem Group (Figure 48).


152

Figure 46: Protected Areas in the Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Ecosystem Group.


153

Figure 47: CBAs and ESAs occurring in the Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Ecosystem Group.


154

Figure 48: Irreversibly modified areas in the Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Ecosystem Group.


155

Based on the habitat modification assessment done as part of the NBA (Skowno et. al., 2019), nearly 40% of the Ecosystem Group is modified. All vegetation types within the Group are shown to be declining, with Tzaneen Sour Bushveld and Legogote Sour Bushveld having the greatest percentage in decline between the reference state and 2014. A large proportion of the Group is used for plantations, particularly in Legogote Sour Bushveld (where plantation land cover exceeds natural land use), as well as in Barberton Serpentine Sourveld. A large proportion of the group has also been modified from cropland and built up land cover (Table 21 and Figure 49). Overall, the extent of modification in the Group is high and suitable management measures to control AIPs, protect soil structure and prevent further fragmentation is necessary to ensure biodiversity persistence and provision of ecosystem services in this area. The ecosystem threat status of Tzaneen Sour Bushveld and Legogote Sour Bushveld is ‘near threatened’ and ‘endangered’ respectively. Table 21: Habitat modification between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 of vegetation types in the Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Moist Sour Lowveld Vegetation Types

% decline 1990 – 2040

% decline 1750 – 2014



Moist Sour Lowveld Bushveld Tzaneen Sour Bushveld

19,03 9,13 0,38 Natural (53.33%); Cropland (21.99 %); Built up (9.4%); Secondary (7.36%); Plantation (6.8%)

Legogote Sour Bushveld 22,33 10,71 0,45

Natural (33.51%); Plantation (35.65%); Secondary (10.6%); Cropland (12.5 %); Built up (6.82%)

Pretoriuskop Sour Bushveld 10,62 5,1 0,21


Swaziland Sour Bushveld 3,67 1,76 0,07

Natural (77.13%); Cropland (18.12%); Secondary (2.1%); Built up (1.8%)

Northern Zululand Sourveld

6,82 3,27 0,14

Natural (72.2%); Cropland (12.06%); Built up (5.9%); Secondary (7.7%); Plantation (1.7%)

Mountain Bushveld types Malelane Mountain Bushveld 3,09 1,48 0,062

Natural (95.5%); Built up (1.6%)

Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld 6,50 3,12 0,13

Natural (79.5%); Cropland (9.2%); Plantation (4.3); Secondary (4.8%); Built up (3.02%)

Barberton Serpentine Sourveld 6,20 2,97 0,12

Natural (67.47%); Cropland (9.12%); Plantation (17.14); Secondary (5.2%)

Crocodile Gorge Mountain Bushveld 2,54 1,22 0,051

Natural (80.89%); Built up (7.06%) Cropland (5.3%); Secondary (5.4%)

Vhavenda Miombo 0,59 0,28 0,012

Natural (94.10%); Cropland (2.6%) Built up (1.8%); Secondary (1.3%)

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>9:$

Figure 49: Extent of habitat modification in vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019). Data is presented proportionate to the relative extent of vegetation types in the Group

!"#"("'% Main pressures/risks/threats

•) Overgrazing: Overgrazing is currently a problem in the southern-most areas, particularly associated with rural residential areas in KwaZulu-Natal. When combined with the incorrect application of fire, the undesired results of overgrazing are amplified.

•) Wrong fire regime: The high production of biomass and therefore fuel by the tall and dense grass layer enhances the likelihood of fire. Under historic natural conditions, fire maintained biodiversity and vegetation structure. Applying fire as a management tool to reduce dormancy and stimulate production or to control bush encroachment is therefore necessary, not only for maintaining biodiversity, but also for fodder for livestock. However, incorrect seasonality, frequency of burning, type of fire (hot or cool) and even exclusion of fire, can lead to undesired changes in species composition, enhancement of bush encroachment decline in (basal) cover and soil erosion.

•) Bush thickening and bush encroachment: Climate change is expected to favour woody species, mainly due to increased CO2 levels and also higher temperatures. Incorrect application of fire enhances the likelihood of bush encroachment. With progressively wetter years, parts of this ecosystem may develop into forest.

•) AIP species: AIP invasion is a definite threat in Moist Sour Lowveld Bushveld as a result of commercial plantations in the area. It is not only woody species that invade the natural vegetation, but other weed species that occur abundantly in and adjacent to plantations. Examples of AIPs already found in the Group are Acacia mearnsii, Acacia dealbata, Acacia melanoxylon, Jacaranda mimosifolia, Solanum mauritianum, Chromolaena odorata, and Lantana camara.


157

• Illegal hunting and trade in threatened and protected fauna species: Illegal and uncontrolled hunting of threatened faunal species (e.g. Panthera pardus) takes place. Bush-meat hunting of antelope (e.g. Tragelaphus strepsiceros, Aepyceros melampus, and Tragelaphus scriptus) and smaller species (e.g. Cephalophus species), areas also occurs.

• Illegal collecting, harvesting and trade in rare, threatened and protected flora species, and wood-cutting: Illegal and uncontrolled collecting of cycads. Warburgia salutaris, is the most at risk from over-utilisation for wood harvesting, and strongholds of this species exist in the more wooded parts below the Escarpment.

• Fragmentation of Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna habitats by residential, industrial, and mining developments: The significant need for housing development in urban and rural areas has resulted in fragmentation of Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna ecosystems and decline in biodiversity.

• Clearing vegetation for cultivation and plantations.


• Prevent overgrazing: Based on known rainfall, Large Herbivore Biomass should preferably not exceed about 6 500 kg/km², which is similar to LAU methods that are used. General guidelines can be gleaned from maps produced by the ARC (Figure 50) but these must be supported by a specialist that looks at local conditions that would impact on sustainable grazing and browsing practices.

• Prevent the spread of AIPs from plantations to surrounding areas, prioritising watercourses.

• Fire management: Controlled fire regime required. Cooler fires should be applied early dry season. Fire must be used with caution, as bush encroachment is possible as a result of frequent burning. A suggested burning frequency is every 3 years (depending on last accidental or natural burn that took place). Note that these are general recommendations only, and a site specific fire management plan must be done by a specialist that considers local conditions. Data and results from Pretoriuskop and Napi burn-plots in KNP can be applied in burning programmes. Too frequent fires will lead to structural homogenisation of soil surface, particularly on soils derived from basalt; and can also damage woody layer and lead to an increase in small tree dominance (Edwards et. al., 2012).


158

Figure 50: General guidelines for grazing capacity in the Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna Ecosystem Group (ARC).


159

5.3.6.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Moist Sour Lowveld

Savanna

• Forestry plantation companies should endeavour to commit to plantation-free zones in areas of biodiversity importance to allow natural ecosystems to persist in corridors between plantations. These should co-incide with CBAs and ESAs in the biodiversity plans, and landscape-scale ecological corridors

• Restore ancient migration routes of ungulates, from the Arid Lowveld to Escarpment, potentially through the current Kruger-to-Canyons Biosphere Reserve initiative.


• Maintain large areas of natural vegetation that are in fair to good condition, and the mosaic of different plant communities which occur in these areas, to ensure protection of habitats for flora and fauna species. Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna often merges with Arid Lowveld Bushveld at lower altitudes, with indigenous forest in some valleys, and grassland at higher altitudes. Biodiversity management must focus on incorporating the interfaces of these vegetation type boundaries into PAs or conservation areas, and landscape-scale ecological corridors.


• Monitor vegetation regularly at various localities within different vegetation types and compare with specifically chosen benchmarks. Large trees (e.g. Pterocarpus angolensis, Trichelia emetica, Ekebergia capensis, and P. curatellifolia) are of specific interest in these Moist Sour Lowveld Savanna ecosystems.

• Monitor tree/shrub density in areas for early detection of possible bush thickening and also encroachment AIPs.

• Monitor selected populations of SCCs (e.g. all cycad species).


• Partial recovery of vegetation in these moist systems (equilibrium systems) is possible within 5 to 10 years, provided that rehabilitated areas are not put under additional pressure by agriculture practices, wood collection or overgrazing.

• Recovery to the original “climax” vegetation will take much longer.




160

5.3.7 Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Figure 51: Locality Map of the distribution of Sub-Escarpment Savanna.


Sub-Escarpment Savanna occurs as a narrow, discontinuous belt from north of Pietermaritzburg in KwaZulu-Natal south-westwards to Kouga in the Eastern Cape. This is an inland ecosystem, situated between the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt and the Sub-Escarpment Grassland, east of and below the Great Escarpment. This vegetation reaches the coast in the vicinity of Buffalo City and Nelson Mandela Bay (Figure 51).

The dominant landscape is rolling hills with valley slopes often with deep east-running valleys and undulating plains above river valleys. The vegetation is typically Vachellia- and Aloe marlothii-dominated thorny bushveld varying from open woodland with a well-developed grass layer to very dense thicket-like bushes in the valleys. The predominant geology includes Beaufort, Ecca and Dwyka Groups of sandstones and shales and intruding dolerite sills. Sub-Escarpment Savanna ecosystems mostly occur at an altitude of between 900 and 1300 m.a.s.l, rarely closer to the sea, where the summer rainfall is 550 to >1000 mm MAP. Frost occurs infrequently during the coldest winter months.

Vegetation types span a variety of smaller scale habitats and plant communities in the complex landscape of varying altitude, slopes, geology and a great variety of soil types. The woody layer varies from open to dense, often with several tall trees and many shrub species. Characteristic trees and shrubs include Vachellia sieberiana, V. natalitia, V. tortilis, V. karroo, V. robusta, Cussonia spicata, Dais cotinifolia, Erythrina latissimi, Ziziphus mucronata, Buddleja saligna, Clerodendrum glabrum, Euclea crispa, Heteromorpha arborescens, Searsia rehmanniana, and S. lucida.

$!"#$%$&'()*+,-'.,/'$)0#1)&2')3454//4)6,#('$

>:>$

The field layer is often dominated by tall-growing grass, particularly Hyparrhenia species and locally Aristida junciformis. Other abundant grasses include Panicum maximum, Themeda triandra, Eragrostis curvula, Tristachya leucothrix, Digitaria eriantha, Elionurus muticus, Heteropogon contortus, and Setaria sphacelate.

Sub-Escarpment Savanna is comprised of 7 vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) as listed in the table below with an indication of the ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Table 22: Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018) found in the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group and their Ecosystem Threat Status and Ecosystem Protection Level (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Sub-Escarpment Savanna Vegetation Types

Code Ecosystem Threat Status


Thukela Thornveld SVs 2 Least Concern Poorly Protected KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld SVs 3 Least Concern Not Protected Ngongoni Veld SVs 4 Vulnerable Not Protected KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld SVs 5 Endangered Not Protected Eastern Valley Bushveld SVs 6 Least Concern Not Protected Bhisho Thornveld SVs 7 Least Concern Not Protected South Eastern Coastal Thornveld SVs 8 Least Concern Poorly Protected

Predominant vegetation types are Eastern Valley Bushveld and Bhisho Thornveld.

Figure 52: Proportionate composition of vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group.

The relatively high rainfall results in high production of sour grasses that have less grazing value during winter and the likelihood of fire is high, particularly on the higher slopes and hilltops. In the valleys with denser woody vegetation the grass layer is more open and fire less likely and when it occurs, less intense.

Gulley erosion is prominent in the south, a result of poor land management, and many areas may be degraded beyond reversibility.


162

5.3.7.2 Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function, pattern and structure

The typical vegetation structure and density of woody and herbaceous components and the specific floristic composition of the different ecosystems are the results of the interplay of:

• Climate, which is the primary factor that drives savanna ecosystems, where rainfall is important.

o Rainfall: Generally high but with significant annual variability.

o Temperature variation from lower lying (warmer) (Tmax ≥ +22°C) to high altitudes (colder with transitions to grassland) (Tmax < +22°C, 4 Tmon ≥ +10°C).

• Climate change may benefit the woody species because of higher CO2 levels.

• Great variability in local habitats due to the complex topography, resulting from differences in the lithology (sandstones, shale and dolerite).

• Fire. High likelihood of fires due to tall, dense grass layer and high fuel loads, particularly on the higher slopes and hilltops. In the valleys with denser woody vegetation, fires are less likely and, when fires occur, they are, less intense. Some opinions (Edwards, 1967 and Camp, 1999) include that the woody component increased over the last decades due to lack of fire.


Protected Areas are few, small and scattered, covering only 0.46% of the Ecosystem Group (e.g. a small part of the AENP and Weenen Nature Reserve) (Figure 53).

Threatened ecosystems published under the Biodiversity Act (2011) cover 14% of the Ecosystem Group. CBAs and ESAs occur in large areas in Sub-Escarpment Savanna, covering 60.51% of the Ecosystem Group (Figure 54).

Land use includes livestock farming and cultivation, often of a communal and subsistence nature, particularly with in association with widely spread rural residential developments. In extensive areas, particularly in the southern parts, overgrazing is evident, leading to a very short, lawn-like grass layer and definite decrease in biodiversity. Communal farming and subsistence agriculture throughout the area has resulted in large areas being cleared and fragmented. Plantations occur scattered throughout the Ecosystem Group, but are particularly prominent in the northern parts, resulting in further fragmentation and creating potential for invasion by AIP species (e.g. Acacia mearnsii and A. dealbata). Mines occur scattered throughout the area but are more concentrated in the southern parts.

Urban and built-up areas, cultivated areas, plantations, mines and other modified areas together constitute consolidated irreversibly modified areas, which constitute ~35% of the Ecosystem Group (Figure 55).


163

Figure 53: Protected Areas in the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group.


164

Figure 54: CBAs and ESAs occurring in the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group.


165

Figure 55: Irreversibly modified areas in the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group.

Based on the habitat modification assessment done as part of the NBA (Skowno et. al., 2019), all vegetation types within this Group are shown to be declining and extensive modification has taken place. Of all the Ecosystem Groups in the Savanna biome, Sub-Escarpment Savanna has the highest level of modification, followed closely by the Moist Sour Lowveld Ecosystem Group.

KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld (which covers 6.97% of the Ecosystem Group) is the most modified vegetation type in the entire Savanna biome, with only 15.86% natural land cover remaining due to a high proportion used mostly for cropland and plantations (Table 23 and Figure 56). The ecosystem threat status of this vegetation type is ‘endangered’, and Ngongoni Veld is ‘vulnerable’ (Skowno et. al., 2019).

Table 23: Habitat modification between 1750 (reference state) and 2014 of vegetation types in the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019)

Sub-Escarpment Savanna Vegetation Types

% decline 1990 – 2040

% decline 1750 – 2014



Thukela Thornveld 6,52 3,13 0,130

Natural (74.6%); Secondary (10.3%); Cropland (7.0%); Built up (6.2%); Erosion (1.2%)

KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld 9,78 4,69 0,2


Ngongoni Veld 14,54 6,98 0,29


KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld

48,8 23,42 0,98

Natural (15.86%); Cropland (36.44%); Plantation (24%); Built up (14.68%); Secondary (8.6%)

Eastern Valley Bushveld 4,45 2,14 0,089

Natural (70.32%); Secondary (13.4%); Cropland (8.6%); Built up (6.76%);

Bhisho Thornveld 11,66 5,6 0,23

Natural (63.53%); Cropland (16.1%); Secondary (8.7%); Built up (10.52%);

South Eastern Coastal Thornveld

12,23 5,6 0,23

Natural (60.75%); Cropland (21.14%); Secondary (8.7%); Built up (7.78%); Plantation (1.17%);

Figure 56: Extent of habitat modification in vegetation types (VEGMAP, 2018) in the Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group (Skowno et. al., 2019). Data is presented proportionate to the relative extent of vegetation types in the Group.


167


• Overgrazing: Overgrazing is currently a major problem associated with rural residential areas, with typical pastoralism occurring. Continuous overgrazing results in considerable changes in species composition, loss of biodiversity, loss of productivity of the vegetation, and reduction in quantity and quality of livestock products. When combined with the incorrect application of fire, the undesired results of overgrazing are amplified.

• Wrong fire regime: The high production of biomass and therefore fuel by the tall and dense grass layer enhances the likelihood of fire. Under historic natural conditions, fire maintained biodiversity and vegetation structure. Applying fire as a management tool to reduce dormancy and stimulate production or to control bush encroachment is therefore necessary, not only for maintaining biodiversity, but also for fodder for livestock. However, incorrect seasonality, frequency of burning, type of fire (hot or cool) and even exclusion of fire leads to undesired changes in species composition, enhancement of bush encroachment, a decline in (basal) cover and soil erosion. It seems the vegetation is a fire-climax savanna, maintained by fire, as exclusion of it might lead to dense thicket or shrubland. Many areas are so overgrazed that there is simply not enough fuel to carry fires.

• Bush thickening and bush encroachment: Climate change is expected to favour woody species, mainly due to increased CO2 levels and also higher temperatures.

• AIPs: There are many alien AIP species in this Group that are favoured by high rainfall and mixed agro-forestry typical of many areas.

• Illegal hunting and trade in threatened and protected fauna species.

• Illegal collecting, harvesting and trade in rare, threatened and protected flora species, and wood-cutting: Many cycads occur which are highly threatened by illegal harvesting from the wild.

• Fragmentation by residential, industrial, and mining developments.

• Clearing vegetation for cultivation and plantations.


• Based on known rainfall, Large Herbivore Biomass should preferably not exceed about 6 500 kg/km², which is similar to LAU methods that are used. General guidelines can be gleaned from maps produced by the ARC, but these must be supported by a specialist that looks at local conditions that would impact on sustainable grazing and browsing practices (Figure 57).

• Fire management: Controlled fire regime required on higher slopes and hilltops. Cooler fires early dry season should be applied. Fire as a management tool must be used with caution, as bush encroachment is possible as a result of frequent burning. The suggested burning frequency is every 3 years (depending on the last accidental or natural burn in the area). Note that these are general recommendations, and a site specified fire management plan must be done by a specialist that considers local conditions.


168

Figure 57: General guidelines for grazing capacity in the Sub-escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Group (ARC).

5.3.7.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Sub-escarpment Savanna



• Maintain large areas of natural bushveld that are in fair to good condition, and the mosaic of different plant communities that occur in these areas, to ensure protection of habitats for flora and fauna species. Conservation or protection of large areas that include transitions between the Sub-escarpment Savanna ecosystems and grassland, thicket and coastal vegetation must be incorporated into CBAs, ESAs, and landscape-scale ecological corridors.


• Monitor vegetation regularly at various localities within different vegetation types and compare with specifically chosen benchmarks. Large trees are of specific interest in these Sub-escarpment Savanna ecosystems.

• Monitor selected populations of SCCs, including threatened, rare and protected species (e.g. Vitellariopsis dispar, Aloe prinslooi, Orbea woodii, Encephalartos cerinus, E. msinganus, Euphorbia pseudocactus, Gasteria thukelensis and Ceropegia cycniflora.


169

• Monitor the extent of gully and rill erosion.


• Partial recovery of vegetation in these relatively moist systems (equilibrium systems) is possible within 5 to 10 years, provided that rehabilitated areas are not put under additional pressure by agriculture practices, wood collection or overgrazing.

• Recovery to the original “climax” vegetation may take much longer.



5.3.8 Inland Aquatic Ecosystems


Inland freshwater aquatic ecosystems located within the Savanna biome are widely varying in type and extent, a factor of the spatial scale and geographic positioning of the biome, coupled to the fact that the biome ranges from warm temperate to tropical coastal regions and extends into warm dry inland areas across a wide variety of landscape settings; namely valley floors, slopes, plains and or benches.

Inland aquatic ecosystems are classified based on their hydrological processes or responses and geomorphological features. This Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach of classifying wetlands (Ollis et al., 2013) has been widely adopted on a national level. Currently SANBI and the CSIR are updating the National Wetland Inventory as part of the NBA updates. Van Deventer et al. (2018) have classified known rives and wetlands into the various HGM units. The HGM approach also then allows for the identification of key hydrological process, related to ecological function over time, which can then be related to past/present land use, impact identification and conservation needs or requirements.

Based on the available spatial data (South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (SAIIAE - Wetland Inventory Version 5.2), the following natural aquatic freshwater ecosystems are found in the Savanna biome:

• Rivers and streams

• Floodplain wetland

• Channelled Valley Bottom Wetlands

• Unchannelled Valley Bottom Wetlands

• Wetland flats

• Pans / Depressions

Where more detailed information is available, several subunits are included in the database and those found in the biome, include:

• Springs

• Seeps

• Peatlands


170

• Oxbow lakes

With regard watercourses (rivers and streams), the Savanna biome covers 7 of the 9 Water Managements Areas (WMAs) of South Africa, and are defined by the catchments of major rivers or water resources. These WMAs are as follows:

• Orange

• Vaal

• Limpopo

• Olifants

• Inkomati-Usuthu

• Pongola-Mtamvuna

• Mzimvubu-Tsitsikamma

Importantly the biome covers significant portions of the Limpopo and Olifants catchments, and contains 60% of the defined river Ecoregions within the country.

5.3.8.2 Key ecological drivers maintaining ecosystem function, pattern and structure

Climate (rainfall and temperate), catchment geomorphology and geology (including soils) are the key ecological drivers within inland waterbodies and wetlands. The manner in which these act or interact is described below:

• Climate: Ambient temperature, precipitation, evaporation, solar radiation and the duration and direction of winds have a direct impact on the temporal and spatial availability of water to the ecosystem.

• Catchment geomorphology: The landscape setting of an aquatic ecosystem is defined by the topographical shape of the catchment influenced by the following factors:

o Change in altitude (i.e. cooler ambient temperatures are expected at higher altitudes).

o The diversity of aquatic ecosystems and wetland types is related the changes in relief or shape of a catchment.

o Slope form and gradient determines if the catchment is convex or concave and in turn determines where soil moisture will accumulate, such as at the foot of a slope.

• Geology: The underlying catchment geology impacts on the types of soils or sediment that are formed and the resultant soil chemistry (i.e. acidic or nutrient rich).

• Landscape scale drivers exert an influence over the form and functioning of inland aquatic systems, as follows (Snaddon et. al., 2016):

o Substrate (soils/sediment): Catchment geomorphology and geology have a strong influence over the type, depth, degree of wetness, and chemistry of the substrate within an inland aquatic system. Wetlands, and the lower reaches of most rivers, tend to have substrata with a coarse to fine texture (sand, silt, clay), while the upper and middle reaches of rivers tend to have unconsolidated, rocky substrata such as boulders, cobbles, pebbles and gravel. Substrate type, in turn, influences the vegetation and faunal composition within rivers, wetlands and open waterbodies, and the biological functions they can perform. Natural processes of erosion and deposition are amongst the most important processes forming and shaping wetlands and rivers. In this


171

regard, special mention must be made of peat which is found in a number of regions associated with floodplain systems in Gauteng, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal for instance:

§ Peat or Organic soils, are defined as those with an organic carbon content of more than 10%, and typically develop under conditions of nearly continuous saturation, and this is an important component of the substrate. Peat (defined as “accumulated material comprising at least 30% dry mass of dead organic matter”) is rare in South Africa, largely due to the relatively warm and dry climate that speeds up the breakdown of organic material and so prevents the formation of peat. Twenty known peatlands occur in the Savanna biome and play a crucial role in flood attenuation, trapping sediment and slowing down water flow.

o Water sources and hydrological regime: The form and functioning of an inland aquatic ecosystem are influenced by the source and amount of water flowing into, through and out of that system. Wetlands, rivers and open waterbodies essentially evolve as a result of a surplus of water at or near the ground surface. Water can enter an aquatic system from a river upstream, from diffuse surface or overland runoff from the catchment, or as lateral subsurface seepage (also referred to as interflow) through the surrounding soils. Some aquatic ecosystems may be wholly or partially groundwater-fed.

§ The hydrological regime (i.e. the timing, frequency, magnitude and duration of baseflow or floods) of flowing systems such as rivers, or the hydroperiod (i.e. the timing and duration of saturation or inundation) of standing systems such as wetlands and open waterbodies, directly affects their physical, chemical and biological characteristics and overall functioning. For example, the flushing out of accumulated fine sediments is essential for maintaining the shape of the river channel. Similarly, the frequency and duration of inundation and saturation of a wetland will determine its soil morphology and chemistry (for example, level of oxygenation, build-up of carbon and nutrient cycling), and, thus, will also determine the types of vegetation growing within the wetland.

o Water quality: Along with water sources and the hydrological regime, water quality is a major driver of ecosystem functioning in aquatic ecosystems. These ecosystems act as ‘sinks’ for the accumulation of materials mobilized and transported within the catchment, either through natural processes or human activities. Inland aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to land-use practices throughout the catchment that may have an impact on the quality of either surface or subsurface water. It is important to protect the health of inland aquatic ecosystems from the risks of water quality impairment, and to ensure that these systems continue to provide critically important water quality-related ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling, primary production) and habitat for biotic communities.

o Biota and biological processes: All of the drivers described above play a role in determining the form and functioning of inland aquatic systems, and in shaping the biotic communities and processes characterising each ecosystem. Vegetation strongly influences geomorphological processes by slowing down water flow and capturing sediment, and in determining the chemistry of the water draining the catchment.

§ Aquatic organisms (biota) occur in the zone where conditions are optimal for productivity. For example, plant species that prefer saturated soil conditions year-round will be found in the permanently saturated or inundated zone of a wetland, whereas those that prefer seasonally saturated conditions will occur around the edges of the wettest zone, or only in seasonally saturated wetlands. The kinds of plants occurring in each zone provide visual evidence of wetland presence, even enabling wetland assessors to delineate the permanent, seasonal and temporary zones within a wetland. In rivers, plants and animals occur in the optimal biotope, which is a combination of habitat (mainly substrate and water depth) and flow type (fast or slow).


172

§ Some of the biological processes that may influence the form and functioning of inland aquatic systems include nutrient cycling, evapotranspiration, decomposition, succession, primary productivity, grazing, predation and competition. For example, some plant species such as Typha capensis and Phragmites australis grow particularly well in permanent waterbodies, especially where there is some nutrient enrichment. These species outcompete an often more diverse community of plants (such as sedges and restios) that would naturally occur in the wetland or stream, leading to mono-specific stands that inhibit the free flow of water.


Inland aquatic ecosystems in the Savanna biome, as with all the other biomes, are generally highly threatened ecosystems, with most being assessed as Critically Endangered (in Gauteng, Limpopo and Mpumalanga), while the coastal regions range from Endangered to Vulnerable (Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal) (Nel et al. 2004).

Based on the PES rating information on a subquaternary basis for the country (DWS, 2014), most of the biome’s mountain streams, upper foothill rivers and wetlands in mountain catchments are in a good ecological condition (PES = largely Natural to Moderately Modified). However, coupled to an increase in development (towns, cities, industry, mining and agriculture), when moving into the lower-lying inland ecosystems, pressures have resulted in the mainstem systems being degraded (i.e. most were rated as Largely Modified). Rivers and wetlands near mining areas and large industrial cities were rated as ‘Seriously modified’ or ‘Critically / Extremely modified’. This is where the loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions is extensive, and modifications have reached a critical level (i.e. the system has been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota). In the worst instances the basic ecosystem functions have been destroyed and the changes are irreversible, a result of either over abstraction, canalization or excessive water quality changes.

Furthermore, the PES assessment (DWS, 2014) highlighted that afforestation, agriculture (land use and water quality/quantity impacts), habitat fragmentation (dams and weirs), bush encroachment, loss of riparian continuity, and invasive plants and fish, were also significant pressures within the inland systems.

Table 24: Description of A – F Ecological Categories based on Kleynhans et. al., (1999).

ECOLOGICAL CATEGORY ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

A Unmodified, natural. Protected systems; relatively untouched by human hands; no discharges or impoundments allowed

B Largely natural with few modifications. A small change in natural habitats and biota may have taken place but the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged.

Some human-related disturbance, but mostly of low impact potential

C Moderately modified. Loss and change of natural habitat and biota have occurred, but the basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged.

Multiple disturbances associated with need for socio-economic development, e.g. impoundment, habitat modification and water quality degradation D Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and

basic ecosystem functions has occurred.

E Seriously modified. The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions is extensive.

Often characterized by high human densities or extensive resource


173

ECOLOGICAL CATEGORY ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

F

Critically / Extremely modified. Modifications have reached a critical level and the system has been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worst instances the basic ecosystem functions have been destroyed and the changes are irreversible.

exploitation. Management intervention is needed to improve health, e.g. to restore flow patterns, river habitats or water quality


Inland aquatic systems receive runoff, which not only includes water but also sediment and pollutants from the surrounding landscape, and are thus particularly sensitive to activities in the catchment, even those operating some distance away. Poor and/or inappropriate land-use practices within the catchment of an inland aquatic system are largely responsible for the deterioration or loss of freshwater habitat and/or freshwater biodiversity. Inland aquatic ecosystems are also particularly vulnerable to climate change, as this leads to long-term changes in the hydrological regimes of surface and groundwater, temperature regimes and ultimately the biota associated with these systems. Wetlands are especially sensitive to climate change as they are delicately balanced between terrestrial and aquatic influences, where species may already find refuge from desiccation.

Generally, deterioration in the overall health of rivers, wetlands and open waterbodies occurs when the key ‘ecological drivers’ are compromised, and this manifests as a loss or change of habitat and/or biodiversity. Specifically, the main pressures and threats in the Savanna inland aquatic ecosystems are:

• Changes in natural disturbance regimes: This includes alterations to the natural frequency or severity of bush encroachment, flooding, erosion, sedimentation and grazing within inland aquatic ecosystems and their catchments.

• Land-use change and development: Land uses such as agriculture, mining or the establishment of urban infrastructure result in catchment hardening, excavation, loss of organic-rich soils and the drainage and infilling of wetlands, rivers and floodplains.

• Invasive alien plants and animals: The presence of invasive alien species can have severe impacts on locally indigenous aquatic flora and fauna, and can upset the natural balance of an inland aquatic system. Invasive alien trees in particular can result in large-scale changes to river and wetland ecosystems, altering the flow regime and promoting down-cutting, channelisation and severe erosion.

• Pollution and changes in water quality: Pollution from both point and non-point sources may cause salinisation (i.e. an increase in the concentration of dissolved salts), nutrient enrichment and alkalinisation (i.e. an increase in the pH, leading to a decrease in the acidity). Excessive and/or inappropriate use of fertilisers, herbicides and/or pesticides is particularly problematic, as is the discharge of mining effluents directly or indirectly into inland aquatic systems (and leachate to groundwater).

• Changes in the flow regime: This occurs in flowing-water systems such as rivers and riverine wetlands, as a result of practices such as water abstraction, diversion of flows, inter-basin water transfers, impoundment, canalisation, channelisation, irrigation, and poorly managed stormwater flows.

• Changes in inundation or saturation patterns: This happens in wetlands and open waterbodies such as lakes and dams, because of changes within the ecosystem itself or due to activities in the catchment that affect runoff patterns.


174

• Changes in groundwater quality or quantity: The quality or quantity of groundwater is affected by over-use or inappropriate use or land-based practices, such as the infiltration of sewage effluent or other contaminated waste from surface sources into the groundwater, or intensive irrigation, or the kinds of impacts that could result from mining.

• Changes in the sediment regime: The amount of sediment entering or leaving inland aquatic ecosystems can be affected by changes in the natural cycles of erosion or deposition within the ecosystem (or its catchment), as a result of activities such as poor ploughing practices that lead to the constant mobilisation of sediments.

• Fragmentation is caused by a loss of connectivity between:

o different parts of an inland aquatic system (e.g. the loss of upstream-downstream linkages through poor planning of roads, pipelines etc.).

o geographically separate systems that were hydrologically or biologically connected in their natural state.

o between inland aquatic systems and the adjacent/surrounding terrestrial ecosystems (for e.g. from extensive clearing of natural vegetation within the catchment, or from the construction of levees in a watercourse).

• Encroachment into inland aquatic systems and/or their buffers: Activities such as infilling and excavation, inappropriate grazing (too close to, or overgrazing in wetlands, riparian edges, floodplains), and removal of naturally-occurring indigenous vegetation (directly, such as occurs for the cultivation of crops or plantations, or indirectly, as a result of desiccation, for example) lead to degradation in many inland aquatic ecosystems.

• Over-exploitation of biota in inland aquatic systems: Over-exploitation of riparian trees, wetland plants, and indigenous fish, for subsistence or commercial use, represents a significant pressure in many inland aquatic ecosystems.


All rivers, wetlands and open waterbodies have some ecological importance or value. This may not necessarily be for the conservation or maintenance of biodiversity pattern and/or ecological processes, but in terms of functional value and the provision of ecosystem services. For example, inland aquatic ecosystems generally provide water retention capacity, which is an important function in the catchment.

• The hydrological regime and water quality of a river, wetland or open waterbody must be adequate to maintain the ecosystem in a desired or attainable condition.

• No further degradation should be permitted in inland aquatic ecosystems that are designated as being of moderate to high conservation importance, as assessed by an appropriate specialist.

• All inland aquatic ecosystems must be appropriately buffered. Buffers must be provided for, such that they:

o are adequate for the protection of the ecosystem from the pressures identified above.

o maintain the ecosystem in a desired or attainable ecological condition.

o allow for future rehabilitation or restoration.

• Human activities that will impact directly (e.g. encroachment) or indirectly (e.g. diffuse pollution) on a river, wetland or open waterbody, and/or its buffer, must be assessed by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist, and the ecosystems ground-truthed as part of any land-use change application, environmental assessment or licensing process both under NEMA and the National Water Act..

Previously no accepted aquatic buffers distances were provided by the national or provincial authorities and until such a system was developed, it was typically recommended that a 50 m buffer be set for all-natural wetlands. More recently a buffer model system described by Macfarlane et. al., (2017) for rivers, estuaries and wetlands has been developed. These


175

buffer models are based on the condition of the waterbody, the state of the remainder of the site/catchment, coupled to the type of development that is being proposed, as well as the proposed alteration of hydrological flows. Based on the information known, a site specific buffer model (Excel-based spreadsheet) systems provides a buffer distance for the construction and operational phases of a proposed land use change, and a final buffer distance. Simply stated, the greater the potential impact near an intact system, the larger the proposed buffer distance will be. This method has been widely accepted by a number of authorities and is becoming a requirement for inclusion in aquatic specialist assessments.

5.3.8.6 Best spatial approaches to avoid or minimise impacts and risk in Sub-escarpment Savanna

• All inland aquatic ecosystems in the broader sub-catchment should be taken into account in any biodiversity study as part of an environmental assessment. For example, connectivity up- and downstream, between inland aquatic systems, and the associations with the terrestrial landscape must be considered.

• Wetlands and riparian areas should be accurately delineated at a site level using a minimum mapping scale of 1:10 000, as 1:50 000 scale is too coarse. For wetlands, delineation should ideally take place in the wet season, but, if it must be done at other times of the year, a level of confidence in the delineation should be assigned to the results. Nationally approved wetland and riparian zone identification and delineation methodologies should be followed in wetland delineation and identification, to allow comparison between specialist studies. These are set out in the DWS requirements in terms of GN 267 (40713) of March 2017, which have detailed the minimum requirements (Table of Contents) for a wetland / aquatic assessment as well as listed the appropriate delineation manuals / methods provided by them.

• Current national and provincial freshwater maps showing the location and spatial extent of wetlands, give a false sense that detailed and consolidated knowledge exists about the wetlands of any given area. Wherever these maps/datasets are to be used in a desktop manner to inform decision-making beyond the site scale, such as in the case of SEAs and EMFs, a wetland specialist should be consulted. Sufficient ground-truthing should be carried out, and the project area should be kept to a manageable size, so that knowledge about the characteristics of the wetlands can be built, and the spatial datasets reviewed and improved.

• As described above, buffers through the use of a detailed modelling systems have been established for all inland aquatic ecosystems, based on the knowledge that a one size fits all approach is not appropriate (Macfarlane et. al., 2017). Thus the determination of a buffer sizes has taken into account the type, desired ecological condition and likely functions of the ecosystem, together with the spatial requirements of species that are dependent on the ecosystem for all or part of their life cycle, and the nature of the impacts of the proposed land-use activity. Buffers must also accommodate the potential capacity of the site to cope with unexpected events such as fires, potential river migration areas, and other natural processes, as well as not foreclosing on opportunities for future restoration and/or rehabilitation.

• Land-use authorisations should be informed by assessments that adequately describe the key landscape drivers that may be affected by the land-use activity. Inland aquatic systems, particularly wetlands, are maintained by processes that often extend or originate well beyond the protection that can be afforded by a conventional buffer.

• Inland aquatic ecosystems in the broader sub-catchment and the linkages between ecosystems from source to sea (where applicable) should be taken into account in any environmental assessment. For example, the continuation of a particular wetland beyond the project area or site should be acknowledged. The current and historical connectivity up- and downstream and between inland aquatic ecosystems should be taken into consideration, as well as the associations with the surrounding terrestrial landscape.


176


A number of factors must be taken into account in managing inland aquatic ecosystems so that biodiversity can persist or improve over the long term. It is not enough to consider only the area in which a wetland occurs or through which a river flows. Attention must also be paid, at the landscape scale, to maintaining the natural drivers of form and function in these ecosystems, as explained below:

• Natural geomorphological processes (erosion and deposition): Activities or land uses that affect these processes can modify habitat type and trigger knock-on effects such as flooding (for example, as a result of sediment ‘islands’ being formed in the channel, especially if AIPs are present) and wetland drainage (as a result of downcutting/eroding of streams and wetlands). Even seemingly minor alterations can affect geomorphological processes by changing the slope of the river bed or wetland, or the availability and deposition of sediment. Sedimentation may also encourage invasion by AIPs, as the seeds of some alien trees grow well on sand banks formed in channels as a result of upstream erosion. Once established, the trees stabilise these areas resulting in channel shrinkage.

• Natural hydrological regime (flow or hydroperiod): Too-frequent floods result in disturbance levels that exceed recovery potential. Changing a river from a seasonal to a perennial river, or vice versa, results in dramatic changes to riverine biodiversity, with perennial flows in a seasonal ecosystem often promoting invasion by pest species such as Typha capensis.

• Natural water quality: Freshening an aquatic ecosystem (i.e. making it less salty) can have as big an impact as making it too saline, and can result in dominance by nuisance, disturbance-tolerant species, rather than by natural communities adapted to natural water quality conditions. Maintenance of nutrient availability is also critical for biodiversity – changes (usually increases) affect plant competition, with nuisance, often invasive alien species out-competing indigenous ones, resulting in major biodiversity changes.

• Natural physical habitat structure: Most of the changes outlined above also bring about changes in physical habitat, for example by promoting plant growth that invades into previously open water habitat, increasing shading and adding to the rate of production of organic detritus on wetland floors or in riverine pools. Changes in structure of the physical habitat affect habitat quality and availability, and can create conditions that favour alien species at the expense of indigenous ones. This is particularly evident in destabilised river channels where habitat diversity is reduced as a result of erosion and the deposition of loose boulders and cobbles that are not optimal for the establishment of aquatic plants and invertebrates.

• Naturally-occurring biotic communities: Some human activities have a high potential for the accidental or deliberate import of alien or invasive species or even taxa from other catchments that may have a different genetic makeup to those occurring naturally. Imported species may have a competitive advantage over those occurring naturally, leading to a loss of natural biodiversity. Although some naturally-occurring species may be a nuisance to humans (e.g. midges, mosquitoes, bulrushes, reeds), such organisms often play important roles in biodiversity maintenance (e.g. midge larvae feed on wetland sediments, support aquatic invertebrate and fish predators and, when they emerge as adults, birds, bats and insect predators). Maintenance of natural growth forms (e.g. a range of juvenile to mature plant species, providing a range of habitat types, rather than a neatly trimmed lawn) is also important, both from the perspective of habitat type, and to maintain biological processes.

• Biological processes: Natural patterns of succession, productivity, competition and predation are important in biodiversity maintenance. These may be affected by activities or land uses occurring outside of the wetland or river – e.g. loss of habitat for predators or prey of fauna that require aquatic habitats for only part of their life cycles, such as frogs and insects. Changes in habitat types (e.g. as a result of nutrient enrichment) may change competitive interactions between species, resulting in potentially nuisance species (e.g. bulrushes and midges) dominating at the expense of more diverse communities.


177

• Natural ecological and hydrological linkages: Corridors that allow for longitudinal movement up- and down river systems or laterally, between aquatic and terrestrial habitats, may be critical for the long-term survival of the taxa that rely on these migration routes to complete breeding cycles, find food sources or maintain genetic diversity. Maintenance of hydrological connectivity is equally important, allowing for natural surface flows into and out of rivers and wetlands and also allowing infiltration of surface water into areas of recharge that may be important for the maintenance of wetlands or rivers elsewhere


Several aquatic health assessment tools have been developed by the DWS and partners from the early 2000s, to firstly assist with the standardisation of the various approaches but also develop a rating system that is easily understood. These include the following:

Habitat Integrity (HI) or Present Ecological State (PES) Assessments. These assessments, which should be carried out with the involvement of a vegetation specialist, can be used to determine the state of the vegetation surrounding (or in) the aquatic ecosystem, and the physical condition of the riverbank or wetland boundary. A decline in the health of the ecosystem could be indicated by changes in species composition or the absence of particular species, infestation by invasive alien species, signs of accelerated bank erosion or the presence of actively-eroding headcuts, and a decline in vegetation cover in relation to an ecosystem of the same kind that is known to be in a good ecological condition.

The PES of a river represents the extent to which it has changed from the reference or near pristine condition (Category A) towards a highly impacted system where there has been an extensive loss of natural habit and biota, as well as ecosystem functioning (Category E).

The PES scores have been revised for the country and based on the new models, aspects of functional importance as well as direct and indirect impacts have been included (DWS, 2014). The new PES system also incorporates Ecological Importance (EI) and Ecological Sensitivity (ES) separately as opposed to Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) in the old model, although the new model is still heavily centred on rating rivers using broad fish, invertebrate, riparian vegetation and water quality indicators. The Recommended Ecological Category (REC) is still contained within the new models, with the default REC being B, when little or no information is available to assess the system or when only one of the above-mentioned parameters are assessed or the overall PES is rated between a C or D.

The South African Scoring System, Version 5 (SASS 5), which is a system for the rapid bio-assessment of water quality of rivers (using riverine macroinvertebrates) can also be used to monitor water quality in wetlands as long as the water leaving the wetland is assessed.

WET-Health, which is a tool that has been developed for rapid assessment of wetland health based on hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation. Besides providing a replicable and explicit measure of wetland health, the WET-Health system also helps to diagnose the causes of degradation, so that these can be appropriately addressed. The services of an expert who has experience in assessing wetland health must be secured to use WET-Health effectively.

In addition, the River Health Programme, which is managed by the DWS, has a well-established set of indicators for assessing the health of rivers.

The River Health Programme is continuous and rivers that have been assessed include the Buffalo, the Vaal and Orange (in the Free State), Umgeni (in KwaZulu-Natal), Letaba Luvuvhu, Crocodile, Sabie, Sand, and Olifants Rivers (in Mpumalanga).

These assessments make use of various indicators, such as:

• Water chemistry variables as indicators of water quality, particularly nutrients (such as phosphate, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, potassium and sulphate), pH and conductivity levels, but also turbidity and conductivity. Assessments of water


178

quality are complex and must involve a water quality specialist. They may include basic laboratory tests or other techniques that focus on the water itself, or the aquatic macro-invertebrate fauna of the water body (e.g. SASS 5 or WET-Health).

• Algal biomass (as chlorophyll-a) and diversity. The presence or absence of particular species (indicator organisms) can be used to detect species changes in environmental conditions, such as eutrophication, organic enrichment, salinisation or changes in pH.

• Plant diversity and community zonation (changes in zonation and extent indicate changes in moisture levels or water quality).

• The community structure of aquatic invertebrates, and their sensitivity to water quality and habitat changes can provide a time-integrated measure of prevailing conditions in river ecosystems (which is something that analyses of water chemistry cannot do). The absence of particular groups of invertebrates (e.g. dragonflies) can indicate a decline in the health of the ecosystem.

• Soil type, soil moisture and signs of soil erosion.

• Depth to water table, especially in systems that are largely groundwater-fed.

For aquatic ecosystems that have been designated as FEPAs, there are additional indicators that should be used, depending on the specific wetland type. The Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area Implementation Manual must be consulted for more detailed guidelines.

A suitably experienced aquatic specialist should be consulted to conduct any assessment of ecosystem health and to assess relevant baselines (if these are not already established) and determine thresholds of potential concern in respect of each indicator.


This depends on the type of ecosystem, the integrity of the hydrological regime, and the type of impact. Some general guidelines include:

• Impacts on water quantity are probably reversible in the short-term, but may be associated with longer-term indirect and irreversible impacts. Such impacts may include decreases in water availability in the riparian zone leading to death of long-lived riparian trees, or decreased flows and loss of floods leading to sedimentation of the river channel and stabilisation of instream sand bars by vegetation.

• Impacts on water quality are generally reversible in a 5 to 10 year period, assuming that all contamination ceases.

• However, some impacts may be long-term and practically irreversible, such as nutrient enrichment that leads to the domination of a river channel by T. capensis.

• Infestation by AIPs is often reversible if appropriate clearance methods are used, in conjunction with follow-up operations that ensure that the whole catchment has been cleared. If this is not the case, then sites are soon re-invaded by the same or other species. Note, however, that invasion by alien fish and their impacts on indigenous fish populations are difficult to reverse. It should be noted that recovery from alien Acacia tree infestation may take as long as 15 to 20 years if severe channel incision has occurred within these areas (Working for Water Annual report, 2016).


179


Impacts of very high significance (e.g. when the aquatic ecosystem is irreplaceable or particularly vulnerable) cannot be offset, and must be avoided. Impacts of low significance may not need to be offset, but the mitigation hierarchy must still be applied.

The challenge for determining acceptable offsets for inland aquatic ecosystems is that they must contribute to meeting biodiversity objectives (species, communities and ecosystem processes) as well as water resource objectives, as guided by the National Water Act (i.e. National Water Resource Strategy and Resource Directed Measures). Acceptable offsets or compensatory measures are those that adhere to the principle of no effective net loss but preferably a net gain of inland aquatic ecosystem biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Macfarlane et. al. (2014) provides an offset ‘calculator’ that makes use of a clearly defined ‘gains versus losses’ accounting system.

In order to be effective, any biodiversity offset must be explicitly defined and described in all Environmental Authorisations, Water Use Authorisations, and Environmental Management Plans.

In an effort to assist in the due care of wetlands on the municipal level, where most aquatic impacts take place through an increase in urban settlements, the ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability group developed a wetland management guideline for municipalities (2018). The guideline provides detailed means to identify and prioritize wetland management issues within respective municipalities to strengthen the role of local government in protecting valuable aquatic / wetland systems. Noting that value is not only placed on conservation importance or biodiversity value, but also ecosystem services and socio-economic / cultural value (ICLEI Wetland Management Guidelines, 2018). The guideline therefore focuses on providing means to assist the municipality with developing a strategy to earmark wetlands for rehabilitation, methods to monitor outcomes, and where necessary develop offset strategies. These strategies then form part of future Land Use Schemes, SDFs and IDPs. This then serves as a useful resource to guide development on a municipal scale, where impacts on aquatic systems are avoided (rather than having to mitigate down the line by placing development in environmentally sensitive areas

5.3.8.11 Notes on Strategic Water Source Areas

SWSAs are the country’s most important water sources, comprising surface and groundwater supply areas. SWSAs include areas that (a) supply a disproportionate (i.e. relatively large) quantity of mean annual surface water runoff in relation to their size and so are considered nationally important; or (b) have high groundwater recharge and where the groundwater forms a nationally important resource; or (c) areas that meet both criteria (a) and (b).

Surface water areas have high runoff that can support nationally important economic centres; and groundwater areas have high recharge rates and support high levels of groundwater use, often being the sole supply to towns, and supporting nationally important economic centres.

Recently, 22 priority surface water and 37 groundwater source areas have been delineated in the country that capture ~50% mean annual runoff from ~10% of the land. Land use activities can alter water flows and water quality in both surface and groundwater areas. Management / protection needs of these areas have been developed with guidance for sectors that are deemed to create significant impact on SWSAs:

• Plantations: predominantly water quantity impacts

• Agriculture: water quantity and quality impacts

• Mining: water quality impacts

• Alien invasive plants: multiple impacts related to water quality and quantity


180

The intention is for the maps and guidelines to be used in:

• Reactive decision-making on proposed developments

• Proactive planning: National Water Resource Strategy, National Planning, Integrated Development Plans (IDPs), SDFs and zoning schemes

• Proactive conservation and rehabilitation

SWSAs mapped within Savanna biome are shown in Figure. Important groundwater areas occur the Kalahari Bushveld Ecosystem Group (e.g. Kuruman), in various areas in the Central Bushveld (e.g. Polokwane), and in some parts of the Sub-Escarpment (e.g. Mthata). Important surface water areas occur mostly in the Arid Lowveld Bushveld and Sub-escarpment Savanna Ecosystem Groups

Figure 58: Strategic Water Source Areas in the Savanna Biome (CSIR, 2018).

Broad recommendations for these areas are as follows:

Groundwater:

• Avoid activities that would result in over-utilisation of groundwater and/or impact on groundwater recharge in SWSAs. Typical activities may include unsustainable abstraction of groundwater for domestic supply or agriculture use, increase in hard surface in reduced recharge of aquifers etc.


181

• Manage activities in SWSAs to prevent groundwater quality deterioration. Water quality impacts are broadly related to addition of chemical compounds and elements, sedimentation, and water-borne diseases. Maintaining good water quality is integral to the ability of the SWSA to supply groundwater water to the local population/economy, and also the receiving environment and associated biota. Mining and agriculture have the potential to cause pollution via chemicals, pesticides, and fertilisers.

Surface Water:

• Avoid activities that would result in alteration of hydrological flow in Strategic Water Source Areas (SWSAs). Typical activities may include hardening of surfaces and accelerated flow, with resultant erosion and sedimentation; placing hard structures in riparian areas, modification of the bed or banks of rivers, alluvial mining, stormwater management etc.

• Manage activities in SWSAs to prevent water quality deterioration. Water quality impacts are broadly related to addition of chemical compounds and elements, sedimentation, and water-borne diseases. Maintaining good water quality is integral to the ability of the SWSA to supply water to the local population/economy, and also the receiving environment and associated biota. Mining and agriculture have the potential to cause pollution via chemicals, pesticides, and fertilisers. The replacement of natural vegetation with alien vegetation generally leads to soil destabilisation especially in high rainfall, which can cause sedimentation of rivers and streams

CHAPTER 6: APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Geographic extent of the Savanna biome, with Ecosystem Groups and Vegetation Types (VEGMAP, 2018)

Note: The Inland Aquatic Ecosystem Group occurs in every local municipality

Province District Municipality Local Municipality Applicable Ecosystem Groups

Northern Cape General transition with Savanna and Nama Karoo

ZF Mgcawu DM

Dawid Kruiper Kalahari Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Kai ! Garib Kalahari Duneveld

! Kheis Kalahari Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Tsantsabane Kalahari Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Kgatelopele Kalahari Bushveld

Pixley Ka Seme

Siyancuma Kalahari Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Siyathemba Kalahari Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Thembelihle Kalahari Bushveld Renosterberg Kalahari Bushveld

John Taolo Gaetsewe

Joe Morolong Kalahari Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Gamagara Kalahari Duneveld Kalahari Bushveld

Ga-Segonyana Kalahari Bushveld

Frances Baard Dikgatlong Kalahari Bushveld Sol Plaatjie Kalahari Bushveld Magareng Kalahari Bushveld


183

Province District Municipality Local Municipality Applicable Ecosystem Groups Phokwane Kalahari Bushveld

North West General transition with Grassland Biome

Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati

Kaginiso/Molopo Kalahari Bushveld Naledi Kalahari Bushveld Greater Taung Kalahari Bushveld Mamusa Kalahari Bushveld Lekwa-Teemane Kalahari Bushveld

Ngaka Modiri Molema

Ratlou Kalahari Bushveld

Mafikeng Kalahari Bushveld Central Bushveld

Ramotshere Moiloa Kalahari Bushveld Central Bushveld

Ditsobotla Central Bushveld Tswaing Kalahari Bushveld

Dr Kenneth Kaunda Maquassi Hills Kalahari Bushveld City of Matlosana Central Bushveld Ventersdorp / Tlokwe Central Bushveld

Bojanala

Kgetlenrivier Central Bushveld Rustenburg Central Bushveld Madibeng Central Bushveld Moses Kotane Central Bushveld

Moretele Central Bushveld

Free State Savanna occurs in north-western parts; transition with Nama Karoo and Grassland.

Xhariep Letsemeng Kalahari Bushveld

Lejweleputswa Tokologo Kalahari Bushveld Tswelopele Kalahari Bushveld Nala Kalahari Bushveld

Fezile Dabi Moqhaka Central Bushveld Ngwatha Central Bushveld Metsimaholo Central Bushveld


184


Gauteng Grassland is dominant, strips and patches of Savanna occurs.

West Rand Merafong City Central Bushveld Rand West City Central Bushveld Mogale City Central Bushveld

Sedibeng Emfuleni Central Bushveld Midvaal Central Bushveld Lesedi Central Bushveld

Ekurhuleni Ekurhuleni Central Bushveld City of Joburg City of Johannesburg Central Bushveld City of Tshwane City of Tshwane Central Bushveld

Limpopo Almost the entire Limpopo province consists of the Savanna Biome with only small strips of the Grassland found.

Waterberg

Bela Bela Central Bushveld Modi Molle Central Bushveld Thabazimbi Central Bushveld Lephalale Central Bushveld Mogalakwena Central Bushveld

Sekhukhune

Elias Motsoaledi Central Bushveld Ephraim Mogale Central Bushveld Makhuduthamaga Central Bushveld

Greater Tubatse Central Bushveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Capricorn Lepele-Nkumpi

Central Bushveld

Moist Sour Lowveld Polokwane Central Bushveld Molemole Central Bushveld


185


Blouberg Central Bushveld Mopane Bioregion

Mopani

Greater Letaba

Central Bushveld Mopane Bioregion Arid Lowveld Moist sour lowveld

Greater Giyani Mopane Bushveld Arid Lowveld

Greater Tzaneen Central Bushveld Arid Lowveld Mopane Bushveld

Ba-Phalaborwa

Arid Lowveld

Mopane Bioregion

Maruleng

Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld Mopane Bushveld Central Bushveld

Vhembe

Makhado Central Bushveld Moist Sour Lowveld Mopane Bushveld

Thulamela

Central Bushveld Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld Mopane Bushveld

New Mopane Bushveld


186

Province District Municipality Local Municipality Applicable Ecosystem Groups Moist Sour Lowveld Arid Lowveld

Musina

Mopane Bioregion Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld Central Bushveld

Mpumalanga Savanna in the eastern part of Mpumalanga. Province dominated by Grassland.

Gert Sibande Chief Albert Luthuli Moist Sour Lowveld Mkhondo Moist Sour Lowveld Dipaleseng Central Bushveld

Nkangala

Dr JS Moroka Central Bushveld

Thembisile Central Bushveld Emalahleni Central Bushveld Victor Khanye Central Bushveld Steve Tshwete Central Bushveld

Emakhazeni Central Bushveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Ehlanzeni

Bushbuckridge

Central Bushveld Mopane Bushveld Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Thaba Chweu Central Bushveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Mbombela Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Nkomazi Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

KwaZulu Natal Zululand eDumbe Moist Sour Lowveld


187

Province District Municipality Local Municipality Applicable Ecosystem Groups Found in eastern and south-eastern parts of KZN; transitions with Grassland and Eastern Coastal Belt vegetation

Nongoma Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

uPhongolo Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Ulundi Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Abaqulusi Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Umkhanyakude

Umhlabuyalingana Arid Lowveld

Mtubatuba Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Big Five Hlabisa Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Jozini Arid Lowveld

Uthungulu

Mfolozi Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

uMhlathuze Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Nkandla Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld

uMlalazi Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Mthonjaneni Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld Moist Sour Lowveld

Umzinyathi Msinga Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld


188


Umvoti Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld

Nqutu Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld

Endumeni Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Uthukela Alfred Duma Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Arid Lowveld

Inkosi Langalibalele Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld

Ilembe

KwaDukuza Sub-Escarpment Savanna Mandeni Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ndwedwe Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Maphumulo Arid Lowveld Sub-Escarpment Savanna

eThekwini eThekwini Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Ugu

Umdoni Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ray Nkonyeni Sub-Escarpment Savanna uMuziwabantu Sub-Escarpment Savanna Umzumbe Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Umgungundlovu

Mpofana Sub-Escarpment Savanna Arid Lowveld

Richmond Sub-Escarpment Savanna The Msunduzi Sub-Escarpment Savanna uMngeni Sub-Escarpment Savanna uMshwathi Sub-Escarpment Savanna Mkhambathini Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Sisonke Umzimkhulu Sub-Escarpment Savanna Ubuhlebezwe Sub-Escarpment Savanna


189

Province District Municipality Local Municipality Applicable Ecosystem Groups Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma

Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Eastern Cape Occurs in south east of Eastern Cape; transitions with Grassland and Albany Thicket

Joe Gqabi Elundini Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Alfred Nzo Umzimvubu Sub-Escarpment Savanna Mbizana Sub-Escarpment Sa vanna Ntabankulu Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Or Tambo

Ngquza Hill Sub-Escarpment Savanna Port St Johns Sub-Escarpment Savanna Mhlontlo Sub-Escarpment Savanna Nyandeni Sub-Escarpment Savanna King Sabata Dalindyebo Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Chris Hani Intsika Yethu Sub-Escarpment Savanna Enoch Mgijima Sub-Escarpment Savanna Engcobo Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Amathole

Mbhashe Sub-Escarpment Savanna Mnquma Sub-Escarpment Savanna Great Kei Sub-Escarpment Savanna Amahlati Sub-Escarpment Savanna Raymond Mhlaba Sub-Escarpment Savanna Nqgqushwa Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Buffalo City Buffalo City Sub-Escarpment Savanna Nelson Mandela Bay Nelson Mandela Bay Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Cacadu / Sarah Baartman

Ndlambe Sub-Escarpment Savanna Makana Sub-Escarpment Savanna Kouga Sub-Escarpment Savanna Sundays River Valley Sub-Escarpment Savanna

Appendix 2: Overview of Relevant Legislation, Policy, Guidelines and Tools for Biodiversity Management

Constitution of South Africa (1996) Environmental Rights and the need for sustainable development are enshrined in Section 24 of the Constitution:

Section 24. Everyone has the right (a) to an environment that is not harmful to human health or well-being and (b) to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that – (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

Modification to and loss/degradation of biodiversity priority areas would, for example, be in conflict with the Constitutional requirement for ‘ecologically sustainable development’.

Environmental Legislation South Africa is subject to numerous international obligations and commitments. Ratification becomes entrenched in national legislation and informs national priorities and programmes in the country. Examples include the Kyoto Protocol, acceded to by South Africa in 2002. The Protocol aims to reduce air pollution responsible for global warming and requires signatory countries to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions with target percentages and dates. Other examples include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on Wetlands (RAMSAR Convention).

National environmental legislation A list of relevant environmental legislation applicable to land use planning and biodiversity management in South Africa is given below.

Environmental legislation relevant to land-use planning and biodiversity management

National Environmental Management Act and EIA Regulations

National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA)

The NEMA is the framework to enforce Section 24 of the Constitution. The NEMA provides for co-operative environmental governance by establishing principles for decision-making on matters affecting the environment. These principles apply to the actions of all organs of state that may significantly affect the environment. The NEMA is the overarching piece of legislation dealing with environmental matters, from which other Acts that cover specific environments stem (i.e. Specific Environmental Management Acts (SEMAs)). These are inserted below.

EIA Regulations 2014, as amended (GN R 324, GN R 325, GN R. 327) published in terms of NEMA

The EIA process has been developed and legislated to manage the impact of development on the environment. The EIA regulations list activities and identify competent authorities under sections 24(2), 24(5) and 24D of the NEMA, where environmental authorisation is required prior to commencement of that activity.

NEMA Financial Provisioning Regulations 2015 (R1147)

Requires financial provision for management, rehabilitation and remediation of environmental impacts from prospecting, exploration, mining or production operations through the lifespan of such operations and latent or residual environmental impacts that may become known in the future.


191

Specific Environmental Management Acts (SEMA) Developed under NEMA, which means that NEMA and the principles of NEMA apply

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003), as amended, 2014 (‘Protected Areas Act’)

The Protected Areas Act provides for the protection of ecologically viable areas and the establishment of a national register of all protected areas (PAs) and for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards. The types of PAs included: (a) special nature reserves, national parks, nature reserves (including wilderness areas), protected environments; (b) world heritage sites; (c) marine PAs; (d) specially protected forest areas, forest nature reserves and forest wilderness areas declared in terms of the National Forests Act, 1998 and (e) mountain catchment areas declared in terms of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act, 1970. PAs identified in terms of the Protected Areas Act are referred to in the NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations. The Protected Areas Act must be read in conjunction with the Biodiversity Act.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004: ‘Biodiversity Act’)

The Biodiversity Act aims to provide for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of NEMA to give effect to ratified international agreements that are binding on South Africa, and the need to protect the ecosystem as a whole, including species that are not targeted for exploitation. The focus of this legislation is on the preservation of species and ecosystems that are threatened or in need of protection. A person may not carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species without obtaining a permit (issued in terms of Chapter 7 of the Act). The Act provides for biodiversity planning through the development of a National Biodiversity Framework (NBF), BRPs, and Biodiversity Management Plans. The Alien and Invasive Species Lists and Regulations published in terms of the Biodiversity Act are used for the management of Listed Alien and Invasive Species.

National Environmental Management Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008: (‘Waste Act’)

The Waste Act regulates waste management to prevent pollution and ecological degradation and provide for the licensing and control of waste management activities and the remediation of contaminated land.

National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004), as amended, 2014 (‘Air Quality Act’)

The Air Quality Act aims to reform the law regulating air quality, provide reasonable measures for the prevention of pollution and ecological degradation, secure ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and social development, and provide national norms and standards regulating air quality monitoring, management and control by all spheres of government.

Other Relevant legislation

National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998: ‘National Water Act’)

The National Water Act provides the legal framework for the effective and sustainable management of our water resources. The National Water Act recognises that water is a scarce and precious resource and the ultimate goal of water resource management is to achieve the sustainable use of water for the benefit of all South Africans.


192

National Forest Act, 1998 (Act No. 84 of 1998: ‘Forest Act’)

This Act makes provision for sustainable forest management and special measures to protect forests and trees. Specially protected forest areas, forest nature reserves and forest wilderness areas declared in terms of this Act are PAs in terms of the Protected Areas Act.

Mountain Catchment Areas Act, 1970 (Act No. 63 of 1970: ‘Mountain Catchment Areas Act’)

This Act makes provision for the conservation, use, management and control of land situated in mountain catchment areas. Mountain catchment areas declared in terms of this Act are PAs in terms of the Protected Areas Act.

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983: ‘CARA’)

This Act makes provision for the control over the utilization of the natural agricultural resources to promote the conservation of soil, water sources and vegetation.

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No. 28 of 2002: ‘MPRDA’)

This Act is the main piece of legislation governing all stages of the mining and petroleum production process in South Africa. The Act is part of a network of legislation geared towards sustainable development and the conservation and management of South Africa’s biodiversity.

National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999: ‘National Heritage Resources Act’)

The National Heritage Resources Act sets out general principles for governing heritage resources management, including an integrated system for the identification, assessment and management of the heritage resources of South Africa. The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is the national administrative body responsible for the protection of South Africa's cultural heritage. World Heritage Sites are referred to in the EIA Regulations, 2014 and are PAs in terms of the Protected Areas Act.

Provincial environmental legislation The restructuring of spheres of government in the first ten years of democracy and changes to administrative boundaries within South Africa has resulted in Provincial Ordinances being assigned to two or more provinces. New legislation is emerging and may repeal such Ordinances. Amongst other things, Provincial Ordinances list protected and threatened species, and some list PAs – EAPs and others involved in the land use planning and assessment process must make sure they contact the relevant provincial authority to obtain the list of threatened and protected species for the area in which they are working. These species require permits from the relevant authority prior to their disturbance, removal or relocation.

List of provincial environmental legislation listing threatened and protected species relevant to the Savanna biome

Name Administrative boundary

Cape Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance 19 of 1974

Assigned to Eastern Cape / Western Cape / North West / Northern Cape

Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 12 of 1983) Assigned to Gauteng and North West

Boputhatswana Nature Conservation (Act 3 of 1973) Assigned to North West and Free State


193

Free State Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 8 of 1969) Assigned to Free state

Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 15 of 1974) Assigned to KwaZulu Natal

Ciskei Nature Conservation Act (Act 10 of 1987) Assigned to KwaZulu Natal and Eastern Cape

Emerging / Existing Provincial Acts

Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003) In force - Limpopo

Mpumalanga Nature Conservation Act (Act 10 of 1998) In force - Mpumalanga

Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency Act (Act 5 of 2005) In force - Mpumalanga

Gauteng Nature Conservation Bill, 2014 If passed, will repeal Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 12 of 1983) in Gauteng

North West Biodiversity Management Act (Act No. 4 of 2016)

Will repeal the Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 12 of 1983) and Boputhatswana Nature Conservation Act (Act 3 of 1973) in the North West when in force.

Kwazulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management Act (Act No.9 of 1997)

Repeals parts of Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 15 of 1974). In KwaZulu Natal

Overview of key biodiversity strategies and planning tools

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) is a requirement in terms of South Africa's ratification of the CBD in 1995. The NBSAP includes a comprehensive long-term strategy (i.e. 10 years) for the conservation and sustainable use of South Africa's biodiversity, including fifteen-year targets. The development of the NBSAP lays the groundwork for the NBF required in terms of Chapter 3 of the Biodiversity Act. The current NBSAP (2015-2025) is available at:

https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/za/za-nbsap-v2-en.pdf

National Biodiversity Assessment

The purpose of the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) is to assess the state of South Africa’s biodiversity based on best available science, with a view to understanding trends over time and informing policy and decision-making across a range of sectors. The NBA is central to fulfilling the South African National Biodiversity Institute’s (SANBI) mandate to monitor and report regularly on the status of the country’s biodiversity, in terms of the Biodiversity Act. It is closely linked with the National Biodiversity Monitoring Framework which establishes a set of core biodiversity indicators for South Africa. The NBA is led by the SANBI in collaboration with the DEA and several other partner organisations. The NBAs completed to date include the NSBA 2004 and 2011; the NBA 2018 is planned to be published in 2019. The outputs of the NBA includes a number technical reports relating to the terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, marine and coastal environments and a synthesis report. The data layers produced as part of the NBA are also made available on the SANBI Biodiversity Geographic Information System (BGIS) website. These layers are useful informants of biodiversity in all ecosystem types; and can be used to map, describe and assess biodiversity in a given area. Information on the NBA is available at:


194

https://www.sanbi.org/biodiversity/building-knowledge/biodiversity-monitoring-assessment/national-biodiversity-assessment/

Spatial data is available on SANBI’s BGIS site.

National Biodiversity Framework

In terms of Secction 38 of the Biodiversity Act, the Minister must prepare and adopt a NBF to co-ordinate and align the efforts of the many organisations and individuals involved in conserving and managing South Africa's biodiversity, in support of sustainable development. The core of the NBF is a set of 33 Priority Actions which provide an agreed set of priorities to guide the work of the biodiversity sector in South Africa on a 5 year basis. The NBF rests on the NBSAP and NBA. The current (2009) NBF is available at: https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/gazetted_notices/nemba_biodiversityframework_g32474gon813.pdf

Environmental Implementation and Management Plans

Environmental Implementation Plans (EIPs) and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) are required in terms of Chapter 3 of the NEMA.

Every national department listed in Schedule 1 of NEMA that exercises functions which may affect the environment, and every provincial department responsible for environmental affairs, must prepare an EIP within five years of the coming into operation of the National Environmental Management Laws Second Amendment Act, 2013 (Act No 30 of 2013) and at intervals of not more than five years thereafter.

Similarly, every national department listed in Schedule 2 as exercising functions involving the management of the environment must prepare an EMP within five years of the coming into operation of this Act, and at intervals of not more than five years thereafter.

The EIP describes policies, plans and programmes of a department that performs functions that may impact on the environment and how this department’s plans will comply with the NEMA principles and national environmental norms and standards.

The EMP describes functions of a department involving the management of the environment and policies/laws, as well as efforts taken by the department to ensure compliance by other departments, with such environmental policies and laws.

EIPs indicate measures that departments are already implementing or plan to put into place to improve their environmental performance and co-operative governance. EMPs include norms and standards, policies, plans and programmes of the relevant department that are designed to ensure compliance with its policies by other organs of state and persons, as well as priorities regarding compliance with the relevant department's policies by other organs of state and persons.

Strategic Environmental Assessments

Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) were developed to compliment the EIA process, and are used to determine the environmental implications of policies, plans and programmes. SEAs allow the decision-maker to proactively determine the most suitable development type for an area, before development plans are formulated. An SEA can be used to assess a proposed policy, plan or programme that has already been developed; or it can be used to develop, evaluate and modify a policy, plan or programme during its development. This distinction is dependant on the stage in the decision-making process at which the SEA is done and the stakeholders involved. Further, and SEA can have both an


195

advocacy role, where its primary purpose is to identify and describe the environment and its importance, or an integrative role, where the focus is on combining environmental, social and economic considerations. By considering socio-economic and environmental factors, it has the potential to contribute to sustainable development.

Environmental Management Frameworks

An Environmental Management Frameworks (EMF) is a decision support tool, used in the evaluation and review of development applications, and in informing decision-making in the land-use planning process. It is aimed at spatially describing the environmental attributes of a specified geographic area, assessing the attributes in terms of relative sensitivity to development, and guiding environmental decision-making (e.g. in the EIA process). Geographic areas are identified based on environmental attributes in which specified activities may not commence without environmental authorisation (in the case of a sensitive environment), or where specified activities may be excluded from authorisation. Information and maps of the area may be complied, that describe the sensitivity, extent, interrelationship and significance of the attributes. EMFs assist in integrating socio-economic and environmental factors in the planning process by identifying potential conflict areas between sensitive environments and development proposals. On a municipal scale, EMF’s can be incorporated into relevant planning documents such as IDPs and SDFs, ensuring an integrated planning approach is taken in promoting sustainable development.

EMFs within the Savanna biome are listed below. It is possible that other EMFs will be compiled in the biome; therefore before starting any land-use planning, development proposal or environmental assessment, please consult the relevant municipality for the most current version of an EMF.

EMFs that can be accessed on the Internet have sources inserted after the EMF title. Where not available online, EMFs can be requested from the environmental management department in the district or local municipality.

EMFs currently developed within the Savanna biome

Province/District or Local Municipality (LM)

EMF

Gauteng/- Gauteng Provincial EMF, 2014 - replaces all other EMFs in Gauteng with the exception of the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site which is incorporated within the GPEMF. http://www.gauteng.gov.za/government/departments/agriculture-and-rural-development/Environment/Sustainable%20Utilization%20of%20the%20Environment/Gauteng%20Provincial%20Environmental%20Management%20Framework/GPEMF%20Cover.pdf

Gauteng/West Rand

West Rand District Municipality EMF Environmental Management Framework Revision, 2013 http://www.wrdm.gov.za/wrdm/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Final-WRDM-EMF-2013.pdf

Gauteng/ Ekurhuleni Ekurhuleni LM EMF, 2007

Mpumalanga/Gert Sibande Gert Sibande District Municipality EMF, 2012

Mpumalanga/ Dipaleseng Dipaleseng LM EMF, 2011

Mpumalanga/ Msukaligwa Msukaligwa LM EMF, 2011

Mpumalanga/ Chief Albert Luthuli Msukaligwa and Albert Luthuli Local Municipalities, 2011

Mpumalanga/ Emakhazeni Emakhazeni LM EMF, 2009

Mpumalanga/ Mkhondo Mkhondo LM EMF, 2011

North-West/Rustenburg

Rustenburg LM EMF, 2011 http://www.nwpg.gov.za/Agriculture/documents/2016/Environmental%20Policy%20Planning%20and%20Coordination/Rustenburg%20Local%20Municipality%20EMF.PDF

North-West/Tlokwe Tlokwe Local Municipality EMF, 2010 http://www.nwpg.gov.za/Agriculture/documents/2016/Environmental%20Policy%20Planning%20and%20Coordination/Tlokwe%20Local%20Municipality%20EMF.PDF

North-West/Madibeng Madibeng LM EMF, 2009

Free State/Tweselope

Tweselope LM Integrated Environmental Management Plan, 2015 file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Tswelopele_Final%20IEMP%20(12%20June%202015).pdf


197

Limpopo/Waterberg

Waterberg District Municipality EMF Report, 2010 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/waterberg_finalreport.pdf

Limpopo EMF for The Olifants And Letaba Rivers Catchment Areas, 2009 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/olemffinalreport.pdf

KwaZulu Natal/Ilembe

Ilembe District Municipality EMF, 2013 http://www.rhdhv.co.za/media/June-2013/Ilembe%20district%20municipality%20EMF/Environmental%20Management%20Framework%20and%20Strategic%20Environmental%20Management%20Plan.pdf

KwaZulu Natal/ Uthukela

Uthukela District Municipality: EMF Report Status Quo Report: Rivers & Wetlands, 2007 http://www.nemai.co.za/documents/UTDM-EMF/UTDM%20EMF%20-%20dSQ%20Report%20-%20Rivers-Wetlands.pdf

KwaZulu Natal/ Umzinyathi

Umzinyathi District Municipality EMF, Draft 2016 file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/10573%20-%2020160113%20-%20udm%20emf%20sq%20report%20(draft).pdf

KwaZulu Natal/Msunduzi uMsunduzi LM EMF, 2015

Management Tools for Threatened Species, Red Listed Species, TOPS-Listed Species and Protected Species

Useful resources relating to protected / threatened / listed species

Name Description Available at:

The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM.

Provides information on species listed on the Global IUCN Red List. https://www.iucnredlist.org/

IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Provides information on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.

www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001-categories-criteria

IUCN Red List Regional Categories and Criteria.

Provides information on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria at regional levels.

www.iucnredlist.org/documents/reg_guidelines_en.pdf

Red List of South African Plants

Provides up to date information on the national conservation status of South Africa's indigenous plants.

http://redlist.sanbi.org/

Red List of South African Species

Note: at the time of writing these guidelines (February 2019), this is a new website and does not include mammal species as yet.

Provides the most up to date Red List status for South Africa’s indigenous animals

http://speciesstatus.sanbi.org/

Red List of South African Mammals https://www.ewt.org.za/reddata/reddata.html

SANBI Red List of South African Plants: Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. 2009.

Driver, M., Raimondo, D., Maze, K., Pfab, M.F. and Helme, N.A. (2009). Applications of the Red List for conservation practitioners. In: D. Raimondo, L. Von Staden, W. Foden, J.E. Victor, N.A. Helme, R.C. Turner, D.A. Kamundi and P.A. Manyama (eds). Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25:41-52. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria.

Guides EAPs on how botanical specialists should be chosen and when and how botanical surveys should be conducted. Guides botanical specialists on the recommendations that should be made if a species of conservation concern (SCC) is found on a site as well as for the habitat conservation of such species.

To mitigate deleterious edge effects, the guideline notes that a 200 m buffer needs to be instated around a population of an SCC where development is planned. The open space system in the development plan must be sufficient to enable pollinators to operate, and connectivity with natural vegetation in surrounding areas must be promoted.

http://redlist.sanbi.org/eiaguidelines.php

List of Protected Tree Species under the National Forest Act (G 40521, No 1602) 23 December, 2016.

Criteria used to select tree species for inclusion in the protected tree list includes, Red List Status, Keystone Species Value, Sustainability of Use,

https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/1999/04/List-of-protected-tree-species.pdf


199

Name Description Available at:

Cultural / Spiritual Importance and whether a species is already adequately protected by other legislation.

Threatened or protected species regulations published in terms of the Biodiversity Act (G 30568 No 1187) 14 December, 2007; (G 38600, No 255 and No 256) of 2015 (Draft).

The species are listed in terms of section 56 of the Biodiversity Act and are currently categorized as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and protected. The list focuses on species that are threatened by exploitation for human use and/or commercial purposes Use of these species are prohibited without a permit.

2007 TOPS Regulations:

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/gazetted_notices/nemba_criticallyendangered_specieslis_g30568rg8801gon1187.pdf 2015 Draft TOPS Regulations:

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nemba10of2004_topsregulations_0.pdf

Note that the removal and/or disturbance of threatened or protected species is not allowed in the absence of a permit from the relevant competent authority.

Biodiversity Guidelines for Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments applicable to the Savanna biome A list of useful biodiversity-related guidelines for terrestrial and aquatic environments available to those living and working within the Savanna biome are provided below.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Users should check with the relevant Environmental Departments or SANBI to ensure that they are working with the most up-to-date editions of these documents.

Name Available at

EIA-and Biodiversity Related Guidelines Integrated Environmental Management Information Series: Overview of Integrated Environmental Management. DEAT (2004) Overview of Integrated Environmental Management, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 0, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/series0%20_overview.pdf

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act no.107 of 1998): Publication of Public Participation Guideline. 2010.

Department of Environmental Affairs (2010), Public Participation 2010, Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa. ISBN: 978-0-9802694-2-0

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema107of1998_publicparticipationguideline.pdf


200

Name Available at

Guideline on Need and Desirability.

DEA (2017), Guideline on Need and Desirability, Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Pretoria, South Africa

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/needanddesirabilityguideline2017_0.pdf

Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy. Department of Environmental Affairs, National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) GN 276 in GG 40733 of 31 March 2017

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema107of1998_draftnationalbiodiversityoffsetpolicy_gn40733_0.pdf

Generic Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the Development and Expansion of Infrastructure for the Overhead Transmission and Distribution of Electricity. Department of Environmental Affairs. 2018. Generic Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the Development and Expansion of Infrastructure for the Overhead Transmission and Distribution of Electricity. 72 pp.

file:///C:/CEN%20IEM%20UNIT/Useful%20texts/EIA/EMPr/generic_empr_overheadtransmissionanddistribution.pdf

Concise Guideline: Biodiversity offsets in KwaZulu Natal. 2013 www.kznwildlife.com

Guideline for Involving Biodiversity Specialists in EIA Processes. 2005. Brownlie, S. Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 C. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Involving_Biodiversity_Specialists.pdf

Guidance Document on Biodiversity, Impact Assessment and Decision Making in Southern Africa. 2009. Brownlie, S.; Walmsley, B.; and Tarr, P. CBBIA-IAIA Guidance Series. Capacity Building in Biodiversity and Impact Assessment (CBBIA) Project, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), North Dakota, USA.

http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CBBIA-IAIA-Guidance-Document-on-Biodiversity-Impact-Assessment-and-Decision-making-in-SA.pdf

Requirements for Assessing and Mitigating Environmental Impacts of Development Applications. Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency. -

Biodiversity Mainstreaming Toolbox for land-use planning and development in Gauteng.

http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Gauteng-Biodiversity-Mainstreaming-Toolbox_final.pdf


201

Name Available at

SANBI. 2014. Biodiversity Mainstreaming Toolbox for land-use planning and development in Gauteng. Compiled by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. 116 pages GDARD Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 3, 2014 Department Agriculture and Rural Development Gauteng Province. 2014. GDARD requirements for biodiversity assessments, Version 3

http://www.gdard.gpg.gov.za/Services/Documents/2014%20GDARD%20requirements%20for%20biodiversity%20assessments.pdf

Gauteng Ridge Guidelines Michelle Pfab. Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs. Department Policy. Development Guidelines for Ridges. 2001.

http://www.conservancies.org/Downloads/Ridges%20guidelines%20-%20Gauteng.pdf

Guideline: Biodiversity Impact Assessment in KwaZulu Natal Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. February 2013. Guideline: Biodiversity Impact Assessment in KwaZulu Natal, Version 2

http://www.kznwildlife.com/Documents/ekznw_handbookbiodiversityassess_130213_ab.pdf

South Africa’s Bioprospecting, Access and Benefit-Sharing Regulatory Framework: Guidelines for Providers, Users and Regulators. Department of Environmental Affairs. 2012. South Africa’s Bioprospecting, Access and Benefit-Sharing Regulatory Framework: Guidelines for Providers, Users and Regulators. 71 pp.

file:///C:/CEN%20IEM%20UNIT/Useful%20texts/EIA/Guidelines/bioprospecting_regulatory_framework_guideline.pdf

Alien Vegetation Guidelines Monitoring, Control and Eradication Plans. Guidelines for species listed as invasive in terms of section 70 of National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) and as required by section 76 of this Act

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nemba_invasivespecies_controlguideline.pdf

Mining Guidelines Mining and Biodiversity Guideline: Mainstreaming biodiversity into the mining sector. Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Mineral Resources, Chamber of Mines, South African Mining and Biodiversity Forum, and South African National Biodiversity Institute. 2013. Mining and Biodiversity Guideline: Mainstreaming biodiversity into the mining sector. Pretoria. 100 pages. ISBN: 978-0-621-41747-0

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/miningbiodiversity_guidelines2013.pdf

Mining and Impact Guide. 2008.

http://www.gauteng.gov.za/government/departments/agriculture-and-rural-


202

Name Available at

Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Environment and Conservation, Digby Wells and Associates, Growth Lab and The Council for Geoscience, 2008.

development/Documents/All%20Forms/MiningandEnvironmentalImpactGuide.pdf

South African Mine Water Atlas, 2017. Water Research Commission (2017). South African Mine Water Atlas. WRC Project No. K5/2234//3

http://www.wrc.org.za/programmes/mine-water-atlas/

Renewable Energy Guidelines EIA Guideline for Renewable Energy Projects. Department of Environmental Affairs (2015). EIA Guideline for Renewable Energy Projects. Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/EIA_guidelineforrenewableenergyprojects.pdf

Forestry Guidelines Policy Principles and Guidelines for Control of Development Affecting Natural Forests. Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. September 2009.

https://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/ForestryWeb/webapp/Documents/PolicyGuideNaturalForestsDev.pdf

Planning tools and guidelines applicable to watercourses and wetlands

Many planning tools and guidelines related to the identification, classification, and assessment of, and offsetting of impacts on, aquatic ecosystems have been developed. Key planning tools and guidelines (and the ‘Inland Aquatic Ecosystems’ Group in these Ecosystem Guidelines) for use in EIA, are provided below. These must be referred to in conjunction with the Ecosystem Guidelines when wetlands occur in the area in question.

Name / Description Available at: A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland and riparian areas Edition 1. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Updated with amendments in 2008. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 2005.

https://www.solidaridadlibrary.org/en/node/3697

Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland Wetlands M.W. Rountree, H.L. Malan and B.C. Weston (Ed). Fluvius Environment Consultants, University of Cape Town, Department of Water Affairs, Resource Directed Measures. 2013. Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland Wetlands (Version 2.0). WRC Report No. 1788/1/12 ISBN 978-1-4312-0356-7

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/1788-1-13.pdf

WET-Health - a tool that has been developed for rapid assessment of wetland health based on hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation. Besides providing a replicable


203

Name / Description Available at: and explicit measure of wetland health, the WET-Health system also helps to diagnose the causes of degradation, so that these can be appropriately addressed Buffer Zone Guideline for the Determination of Buffer Zones for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries. Macfarlane, D.M. and Bredin, I.P. 2017. Buffer Zone Guidelines for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries Part 1: Technical Manual. WRC Report No TT 715/1/17, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

http://www.wrc.org.za http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/TT%20715-1-17.pdf

Wetland Offsets: A best practice guideline for South Africa. SANBI and Department of Water and Sanitation. D Macfarlane, SD Holness, A von Hase, S Brownlie, JA Dini, V Kilian. 2016. WETLAND OFFSETS: A Best Practice Guideline for South Africa. WRC Report Number TT 660/16. Water Research Commission.

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/TT%20660%20-%20Jo_web.pdf

WET-EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WET-EcoServices is designed for inland palustrine wetlands, i.e. marshes, floodplains, vleis and seeps. It has been developed to help assess the goods and services that individual wetlands provide to allow for more informed planning and decision-making. Marneweck GC, Batchelor AL, Lindley DS and Collins NB, Kotze DC. 2007. WET-EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report No TT 339/09, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/TT%20339-09.pdf

A method for assessing cumulative impacts on wetland functions at the catchment or landscape scale. This tool enables assessment of the effects on wetland functionality of the cumulative impacts of human activities at a landscape scale. It uses two metrics – the land cover change impact metric and the loss of function metric to produce a functional effectiveness score that is translated to functional hectare equivalents. The difference between the functional hectare equivalents of an unimpacted catchment is compared with the current state to assess the cumulative impacts of human activities on wetland functionality. Ellery W; Grenfell,S; Grenfell M; Jaganath C; Malan H; Kotze D. 2010. A method for assessing cumulative impacts on wetland

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/TT437-09%20Conservation%20of%20Water%20Ecosystems.pdf


204

Name / Description Available at: functions at the catchment or landscape scale. WRC Report number TT437/09. Water Research Commission. National wetland vegetation database: classification and analysis of wetlands.

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/1980-1-14.pdf

High Risk Wetlands Atlas: Reference Guide to the Mpumalanga Mining Decision Support Tool. This report serves as a reference guide to the content and use of the High Risk Wetlands Atlas. The report aims to provide the required information for users to install the atlas and access the underlying spatial data, as well as to provide supporting information on the preparation and content of the spatial data. Holness SD; Dini JA; De Klerk A; Oberholster P. 2016. High Risk Wetlands Atlas: Reference Guide to the Mpumalanga Mining Decision Support Tool. WRC Report number TT 659/16. Water Research Commission.

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/TT%20659%20-16.pdf

Development of Decision-Support Tools for Assessment of Wetland Present Ecological Status. Provide interim decision-support tools to assist government agencies and wetland assessors in selecting appropriate wetland PES assessment methods and reporting the results in a transparent and consistent manner DJ Ollis, JA Day, HL Malan, JL Ewart-Smith & NM Job. 2014. Development of Decision-support Tools for Assessment of Wetland Present Ecological Status (PES) Volume 2. Development of a decision-support framework for wetland assessment in South Africa and a decision-support protocol for the rapid assessment of wetland ecological condition. WRC Report No. TT 609/14. Water Research Commission Note: this is in the process of being updated and a

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/TT%20609-14.pdf

CBA Maps, Provincial Biodiversity Plans, BSPs and BRPs currently available within the Savanna biome CBA Maps / Provincial Biodiversity Plans / BSPs Northern Cape. CBA map, 2016 North West BSP, 2015 Free State Terrestrial Biodiversity Plan 2015 Gauteng Conservation Plan (Gauteng C-Plan v3.3), 2011 Limpopo Conservation Plan v2, 2013 Mpumalanga BSP, 2014 KwaZulu-Natal CBA Map, 2012. Durban’s Systematic Conservation Assessment, 2016 KwaDukuza Biodiversity and Open Space Management Plan, 2013 uThungulu District Municipality BSP. Version 1.0., 2014 uMzinyathi District Municipality: BSP, 2014 uMkhanyakude District Municipality: BSP, 2014 uMgungundlovu District Municipality: BSP, 2014. Ugu District Municipality: BSP, Version 1.1. , 2014 Zululand District Municipality: BSP, 2015 UThukela District Municipality: BSP. Version 2., 2015 ILembe District Municipality: BSP. Version 1., 2014 Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan, 2007 Note: the ECBCP is currently under revision and is planned for gazetting in 2019 BRPs West Rand District Municipality Bioregional Plan, 2014 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Bioregional Plan, 2014 Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality BRP, 2015 Mopani District Bioregional Plan, 2016 Waterberg District Bioregional Plan, 2016

Appendix 3: Generic Terms of Reference for Ecological Specialists

Note: Acronyms used in these ToR are explained in the list of acronyms at the front of the book. The references cited in the text are included in the general reference list in Appendix 10.

Introduction

An assessment of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity must be carried out by a suitably qualified and SACNASP registered ecological (or terrestrial/ biodiversity) specialist. The specialist must have no financial or other vested interest in the proposed development.

In this section, guidance is provided for the drafting of project-specific ToR and can be used by EAPs or ecological specialists. The ToR generally describes the scope of work to be carried out by a terrestrial ecologist or biodiversity specialist.

The steps typically followed for the assessment of terrestrial ecosystems includes:

STEP 1: Description of study area

STEP 2: Identify potentially significant impacts and risks typically associated with the project

STEP 3: Site visit and ground truthing

STEP 4: Recommendations for mitigation

STEP 5: Biodiversity Impact Assessment reporting

STEP 1: DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The report must provide a description of the broader landscape as well as patterns and processes operating in the landscape in order to place the terrestrial ecosystems in context.

The description should aim to provide an understanding on the surrounding landscape (topography, hydrology, gradient, vegetation, soils), how and why the ecosystem(s) came to be there (e.g. natural or anthropogenic) and what processes are occurring in and around the ecosystem that influence its function and form.

Good quality aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area and photographs of the terrestrial ecosystems on the site should be included in the report.

Collation of other potentially relevant biodiversity information available for the surrounding area or, at the very least, quaternary catchment – for example, Reptile Atlas data, Frog Atlas data.

Contact the conservation organisation for a list of threatened or protected species listed for the quarter degree square

The report must include the biodiversity importance of an area in landscape. The biodiversity importance can be determined using available information:

• The NBA. • BRPs and BSPs (and associated CBA maps). • FEPAs and accompanying fine-scale biodiversity plans, • The provincial Protected Area Expansion Strategy (PAES)

Any likely biodiversity risks should be identified using the following:


207

• Areas of international importance: - Ramsar sites, World Heritage Sites, and/or their buffer zones, - UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.

• Biodiversity priority areas identified in biodiversity plans and/or CBA maps, • PAs and/or their buffer zones, • PAES, • FEPAs, • Important climate-adaptation corridors, • Sensitive’ areas in applicable EMFs, • Key ecosystem services (e.g. water catchment areas), and, • Areas prone to flooding or other natural hazards/disasters.

Determine the biodiversity importance of the site, and areas beyond the site that lie within the area of influence of the proposed project. Make use of available information:

• Identify the ecosystem threat status of affected vegetation/areas (refer to the latest version of the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems, and the relevant provincial updated statistics on ecosystem threat status.

• Determine whether or not any threatened species or protected species could be negatively affected.

• Map the location of important bird areas (IBAs) in relation to the site (available from SANBI BGIS)

• Determine if there are unique / sensitive features such as wetlands that could present constraints to development using Google Earth, SPOT or other images.

If an assessment is carried out in support of an environmental authorisation application, it is required that the impact assessment is based on the results of an assessment carried out on the proposed development site as well as alternative sites. The site contextualisation should therefore be carried out for the proposed and alternative sites.

STEP 2: POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND RISKS TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. The nature and scale of the proposed development must be considered. The potentially significant impacts and risks that would typically be associated with the project must be identified.

Impacts should include:

• Direct, ‘footprint’ impacts of the project and associated activities, facilities or infrastructure. • Impacts arising from project inputs and outputs (e.g. water use, changes in surface drainage or

water quality, emissions, effluent, chemicals, solid waste, introduction of invasive species, disturbance such as noise, lights and traffic).

• Indirect impacts (likely to occur in a different place or timeframe, as a result of the main project). • Cumulative impacts – additive (add to similar impacts) or interactive (different impacts combine

to result in a new type of impact).

STEP 3: SITE VISIT AND GROUND TRUTHING

A site visit must be carried out to ground-truth biodiversity information.

Baseline surveys may be required to supplement the information base and inform the assessment.

The site assessment will entail:

• Describing the condition of the ecosystem on the preferred and alternative sites. • Describing levels of degradation and infestation by AIPs, where applicable. • Describing biodiversity priority areas identified on the site(s) and in the wider landscape. • Describing biodiversity patterns and ecological processes within or near the site. • Describing landscape features or habitat types within or near the site. • Mapping biodiversity features identified on site and in the wider landscape. • Carrying out the site visit in the appropriate seasons applicable to the ecosystem being

assessed and in terms of both pattern and ecological process perspectives. • Identifying areas or features off site that could be indirectly impacted by the proposed land use,

for example, groundwater-dependent ecosystems. • Making note of inconsistencies between the NBA / biodiversity plans / CBA maps / FEPA maps

and the ‘on the ground’ situation.

STEP 4: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION

Once the site has been ground truthed, features and areas of biodiversity significance that would be impacted or which may be at risk as a result of the proposed land use, can be identified.

Recommendations for mitigation to inform or influence the proposal must be compiled. Mitigation measures are to address spatial changes and the technology and / or management associated with the proposed development.

Key biodiversity stakeholders (e.g. SANBI, CREW) should be engaged with to clarify or obtain additional biodiversity information.

Tasks associated with recommendations for mitigation:

• All potential impacts (STEP 2) must be taken into account. • The mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, rehabilitate, offset) must be applied. • The desired management objectives for the specific biodiversity areas or features (CBA, ESA, FEPA, PA,

etc) must be determined. The specialist must evaluate whether or not the likely impacts would compromise the desired management objectives of the identified biodiversity.

• Identify areas where any loss of biodiversity will be irreplaceable; this could include jeopardizing the biodiversity targets or where a loss could lead to extinction of species. These areas must be retained and protected, and any potential impacts must be avoided or prevented.

• These areas generally comprise: ü CBAs; ü Critically Endangered ecosystems; ü FEPAs; ü special/unique habitats (that occur locally e.g. quartz patches); ü areas with fixed (rather than flexible) ecological corridors across ecological gradients ü habitat of known Critically Endangered species and/or areas containing biodiversity that

underpins ecosystem services on which there is high dependency and for which there are no substitutes.

• Areas of high importance / sensitivity should be identified where impacts should be avoided or prevented or, where they cannot altogether be avoided, be minimized (e.g. through buffers or setbacks).


209

• These areas include: ü Endangered ecosystems (emphasis should be on avoidance/prevention); ü Vulnerable ecosystems; ü ESAs; ü Habitat of highly threatened species and/or concentrations of threatened species; and, ü Highly dynamic ecosystems (e.g. mobile sand dunes or watercourses).

• Identify areas where any loss of important ecosystem services would be irreversible and could not be substituted or would be extremely expensive to substitute. These include services which people are highly dependent on for livelihoods, health, safety or wellbeing. Examples include water supplies or flood buffers).

• Areas which pose a natural hazard to land-use activities which require development or management setbacks are to be identified.

• Key drivers of the affected ecosystems are to be addressed, for example, addressing the spatial/layout implications if burning is required.

• Areas known for biodiversity importance but are degraded / invaded by alien species and which require rehabilitation/restoration, must be identified. Include areas that could improve connectivity and reduce fragmentation in the landscape.

• Identify areas that would be worthy of protection (i.e. through biodiversity stewardship). • Identify areas where impacts on biodiversity would be of low or negligible significance and where modifying

land uses should be focused. • Biodiversity offsets should be a last resort form of mitigation. Biodiversity offsets should only be considered

once all reasonable and feasible alternatives have been duly considered and where significant negative impacts cannot be avoided. A biodiversity offset specialist should be recommended to design an appropriate and adequate offset in accordance with offset guidelines.

STEP 5: BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORTING Once the ground truthing has taken place and recommendations to mitigate identified potential impacts have been compiled, the findings of the biodiversity assessment are captured in a specialist report.

The following should be included in the specialist report:

• A description of the site visit carried out including the season, and any limitations. • Assumptions and limitations, examples:

- gaps in information; - inability to visit site; and, - inability to do seasonal sampling.

• Description and mapping of areas and features of biodiversity importance and their sensitivity to the proposed development.

• Reporting on whether ground-truthing presented any conflicts or inconsistencies with biodiversity information in biodiversity plans/maps; this is to be supported with evidence i.e. photographs.

• A description of how the Mitigation Hierarchy has been used to avoid / minimize potentially significant impacts that in turn have influenced or shaped the land-use proposal. This should also be done for any reasonable and feasible alternatives.

• Describe the protocol used to assess and evaluate the potential significance of negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and levels of confidence in the assessment.

• For terrestrial CBAs, list reasons why the ecosystem has been identified as a CBA and note if the development is consistent with regards to maintaining the CBA in its current state or achieving rehabilitation. Assess impacts on:

- Species composition, structure of vegetation and indicate extent of site clearing; - Ecosystem threat status; - Subtypes of vegetation; - Overall species and ecosystem diversity on site;


210

- Populations of SCCs; - Ecological functioning and processes; and, - Ecological connectivity.

• A statement of impacts that could not be avoided or reduced sufficiently to ensure that they would be of low or negligible significance.

• A statement of any impacts would be irreversible and lead to loss of irreplaceable biodiversity, or loss of important ecosystem services on which there is high dependency.

• Areas that are not suitable for development and which must be avoided must be highlighted and described. • Map(s) at a meaningful scale (preferably >1:10 000). • Photographs to illustrate the biodiversity implications of the proposed project. • Photographs to illustrate biodiversity implications of the amended proposal (considering recommended area

based measures to avoid and minimize negative impacts). • Description of all recommended measures that must be implemented during project phases (construction,

operational) to avoid, minimise, rehabilitate, and / or compensate/offset biodiversity impacts. • Statement of the required outcomes of these mitigation measures, to be incorporated in the EMPr. • Provide a reasoned opinion, based on the finding of the specialist assessment, regarding the acceptability of

the development and if the development should receive approval, and any conditions to which the statement is subjected.

• Reference to all the sources of biodiversity information used or obtained.


211

Appendix 4: Generic Terms of Reference (ToR) for Aquatic Specialists

Note: The references cited in the text are included in the general reference list in Chapter 7.

Introduction

An assessment of aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity must be carried out by a suitably qualified and SACNASP registered aquatic specialist. Certain tasks will need to be completed, depending on the scope of the study. In this section, guidance is provided for the drafting of project-specific ToR and can be used by EAPS or aquatic specialists.

The steps typically followed for the assessment of aquatic ecosystems includes:

STEP 1: Contextualisation of type of assessment and study area STEP 2: Identification, mapping (delineation) and classification of aquatic ecosystems STEP 3: Assessment of inland aquatic ecosystems STEP 4: Setting of management objectives STEP 5: Monitoring STEP 1: CONTEXTUALISATION OF TYPE OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDY AREA

1. Type of assessment The type of assessment required will determine the level of detail required to be provided by the aquatic specialist. The specialist input may be required for a site scan, an analysis of constraints, an environmental authorisation, a water use license, SEAs or for rehabilitation or restoration of a system.

When an environmental authorisation is required for an activity that is proposed to take place on a site identified as being of “very high sensitivity” for aquatic biodiversity (as per the national web-based environmental screening tool) an Aquatic Biodiversity Impact Assessment must be carried out and a report submitted to the competent authority which details the findings of the assessment. Similarly, should a water use authorisation be required, then an aquatic assessment will be required.

The Table below describes various assessment types and an indication of the steps (1 – 5) that should be carried out by the specialist in order to provide the relevant input.

Assessment Type STEPS

Site scan 1 2 3 4 5

Specialist required to determine whether there is an inland aquatic ecosystem that could be affected by a proposed activity.

ü ü

Constraints analysis 1 2 3 4 5

This entails a rough delineation / mapping of inland aquatic ecosystems and recommended buffers, to show constraints on activities in and around the affected aquatic ecosystems. The specialist may be required to provide an opinion on the suitability of the proposed activities and propose mitigation

ü ü ü


212

measures to reduce the potential negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems to acceptable levels. Constraints analysis generally goes hand-in-hand with a site scan.

Environmental authorisation 1 2 3 4 5

The EIA Regulations promulgated by NEMA specify activities that require environmental authorisation before they may proceed. Authorisation requires carrying out a systematic process of identifying, assessing and reporting on potential environmental impacts associated with an activity. This is done as either a Basic Assessment or as a Scoping and EIA, depending on the type of activity proposed.

ü ü ü ü

Water use authorisation 1 2 3 4 5

The National Water Act regulates a number of consumptive and non-consumptive water uses. Depending on the type and volume of use, these water uses must be registered and/or authorised by the DWS, except if the proposed water use falls within the limits of the permissible water uses set out in Schedule 1 of the National Water Act. Authorisation is obtained either as a Water Use Licence (WUL), or as General Authorisation (GA), if the water use falls within the conditions and limits of a gazetted GA. A WUL requires the determination of the ‘Reserve’ for the relevant catchment.

ü ü ü ü ü

SEA, EMF, river management plan, biodiversity plan, etc. 1 2 3 4 5

These types of studies generally apply to a wider geographical area than those described above and will address broader objectives.

ü ü ü ü

Rehabilitation or restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems 1 2 3 4 5

Specialist input may be required at various levels of the rehabilitation/restoration process. Input could include the definition of objectives, determination of the best method for achieving the objectives, assessment of the condition and importance of the affected ecosystem (both before and after intervention), and in designing a monitoring programme looking at the effectiveness of the intervention.

ü ü ü ü

2. Site Contextualisation The report must provide a description of the broader landscape as well as patterns and processes operating in the landscape in order to place the inland aquatic ecosystems in context. This description should aim towards a better understanding of:

• The surrounding landscape (topography, hydrology, gradient, vegetation, soils);


213

• The landscape position (slope, bench, valley floor, plain) of the ecosystem; • How and why the ecosystem(s) came to be there (e.g. natural or anthropogenic); • The processes occurring in and around the ecosystem that influence its function and form (shape,

extent and type); and, • The implications of rehabilitation, degradation, or loss of the ecosystem.

If an assessment is carried out in support of an environmental authorisation application, it is required that the aquatic impact assessment is based on the results of an assessment carried out on the proposed development site as well as alternative sites. The site contextualisation should therefore be carried out for the proposed and alternative sites.

Site contextualisation could include:

• Good quality aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area; • Photographs of the inland aquatic ecosystems on the site; • Desktop delineation of the boundaries of the sub-catchment of the ecosystem and the surrounding

quaternary catchment; • Examination of 1:50 000 scale topographical maps of the study area; • Examination of recent and historical aerial photographs and/or satellite imagery to gain an

understanding of the land uses on the site and in the surrounding sub-catchment; • Examination of the relief of the site and surrounding areas by referring to the contour lines (at least

20 m intervals) or at least to ‘tilted’ Google Earth 3D imagery of the study area; • Desktop mapping of river reaches up- and downstream of the site, including tributaries; • Mapping the location of FEPA sub-catchments, fish sanctuaries, fish support areas and fish

corridors in relation to the ecosystem on site; • Mapping the location of important wetlands within the sub-catchment of the affected aquatic

ecosystem – this should at least include CBA and ESA wetlands, FEPA wetlands, Ramsar wetlands, and FEPA wetland clusters. Noting that finer scale detail may also be available for specific regions, such as provincial biodiversity plans, as well as waterbody information contained in the National Wetland Inventory curated by SANBI and the CSIR;

• Mapping the location of IBAs in relation to the site; and, • Collation of other potentially relevant biodiversity information available for the surrounding sub-

catchment or, at the very least, quaternary catchment – for example, Protea Atlas data, Frog Atlas data, CWAC data.

Note:

• Sub-catchment map is the River FEPAs map of NFEPA. • Quaternary catchment maps are available from the DWS website. • 1:50 000 scale topographical maps and aerial photographs available from Chief Directorate:

National Geo-spatial Information (CD: NGI). • Satellite imagery is available from, for example, SPOT, Google Earth. • Contour lines at 10 m intervals are available from CD:NGI. • 1:50 000 river line and river area maps are available from CD:NGI. • 1:500 000 rivers maps are available from DEA. • The 1:50 000 river line, river area and 1:500 000 rivers maps are all represented on the NFEPA.

Rivers map, available from SANBI BGIS. • IBAs are available on SANBI BGIS.


214

STEP 2: IDENTIFICATION, MAPPING (DELINEATION) AND CLASSIFICATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

1. Identification and mapping As part of an assessment, the potentially affected inland aquatic ecosystems should be identified and mapped / delineated at an appropriate level of accuracy, based on a number of indicators.

The presence of an inland aquatic ecosystem requires the identification of one or more indicators.

The following are considered indicators of wetland presence (DWA, 2008):

• Terrain Unit – assists to identify those parts of the landscape where a wetland is likely to occur; • Soil Form – identifies soil form as defined by the Soil Classification Working Group (1991); • Soil Wetness – identifies the morphological signatures developed in the soil profile as a result of

prolonged and frequent saturation; and, • Vegetation – identifies hydrophilic (water-loving; either obligate or facultative) vegetation

associated with wetland soils.

The following are considered indicators of the presence of riparian areas:

• Topography associated with the watercourse – a general indicator is the edge of the outer channel bank;

• Vegetation – change in growth form and species composition relative to terrestrial areas; and, • Alluvial soils (relatively recent deposits of sand, mud etc by flowing water) and deposited material

(e.g. vegetation and soil deposits).

The delineation of inland aquatic ecosystem includes confirming the presence of a wetland, open waterbody, river channel or riparian area and approximating the outermost boundary (and extent/length) of the aquatic ecosystem and representing this on a map / aerial image. The level of detail required when delineating inland aquatic systems will depend on the objectives of the study. The scale of mapping and the confidence with which it was undertaken should be reported.

The levels of detail include:

• Desktop mapping – use of current and historical aerial imagery is the best approach, with the next best option being good satellite imagery (i.e. SPOT);

• Desktop mapping with field verification; and, • Delineation in the field.

Field delineation must follow the accepted national protocol and must include:

• A map showing the identified boundary and field data collection points (include at least one point outside aquatic area);

• A report explaining how and when the boundary was determined; • Details of the type and date of imagery used to support the delineation must be included; and,


215

• Ecosystems should preferably be mapped at a scale of at least 1:10 000.

The wet season is the best time of year for determining the presence of inland aquatic ecosystems; this should be motivated to the client (budget, timeframe) and the risks of a dry season site visit also explained. If the project timeframe does not allow for this, this must be stated in the constraints and limitations of the study.

The ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level of the aquatic ecosystem should be included.

2. Classification Make use of the Classification System for Wetlands and Other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa (Ollis et al., 2013) to describe the types of aquatic ecosystems being assessed. The minimum requirement would be a level 4 description of the aquatic ecosystem type, but the typing should preferably include all of the following:

• Level 2: regional setting; using DWS Level 1 ecoregions (particularly for rivers) and/or NFEPA WetVeg groups

• Level 3: landscape unit; e.g. valley floor, slope, plain or bench • Level 4: hydrogeomorphic (HGM) unit; landform (shape and localised setting), hydrological

characteristics (nature of water movement in and out) and hydrodynamics (direction and strength of flow).

• Level 5: hydrological regime; behaviour of water in the wetland or river and, for wetlands, the underlying soil, i.e. duration of saturation/inundation, perenniality of flow for rivers

• Level 6: provides for detail which is useful for understanding the complexity of a system. This may be unfeasible due to budget and/ or timeframe. However, the practitioner should differentiate, where possible, between artificial and natural systems.

An indication of the degree of confidence for the classification must be provided in each case.

STEP 3: ASSESSMENT OF INLAND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

1. Reference and Present Ecological State Reference state - The presumed historical, undisturbed state of an aquatic ecosystem using historical imagery, anecdotal evidence, reports, etc. must be described in the report. The reference state is important because and required for a present ecological state (PES) assessment. An understanding of the drivers of change affecting the system will be required, so that the trajectory of change can be described.

Assessment of present ecological state and importance - The PES of all potentially affected naturally-occurring inland aquatic ecosystems relative to the perceived natural reference state must


216

be determined. PES assessments are not applicable to artificial systems, as there is no natural reference state that can be used as the bench-mark.

• For rivers at a desktop level - the condition of 1:500 000 river reaches can be checked against the NFEPA Rivers layer.

• For field verification of rivers - use DWS’s PES method (applying Ecological Categories A to F). This must be compared to the National PES scores developed by DWS in 2014 available from http://www.dwa.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/eco/peseismodel.aspx. That data also includes Ecological Importance and Ecological Sensitivity ratings per subquaternary catchment

• For wetlands at a desktop level - NFEPA assigned condition can be used, however, in many cases NFEPA modelled conditions, so field verification is strongly recommended.

For field verification of wetlands, the practitioner could use:

• Rapid Level 1 or Comprehensive Level 2 WET-Health (MacFarlane et al., 2009,). The choice is dependent on the type of study (Ecological Categories A to F). Level 2 is recommended when the focus is on one or two wetlands, or for monitoring a system before and after development or rehabilitation.

• The Rapid Wetland-IHI (Index of Habitat Integrity) (DWA, 2007) for floodplain and Valley-Bottom Wetlands.

• DWS’s Resource Directed Measures Rapid PES (DWA, 1999), developed for floodplain wetlands but generally applicable to all wetland types with exception of pans.

A description of the reference state and Present Ecological State should be included in an aquatic biodiversity assessment using the following characteristics:

• Flow and sediment regimes; • Water quality; • Riparian and in stream Habitat; • Morphology (physical structure); • Riparian Vegetation; and, • Biota.

An indication should be given on the confidence level of these assessments.

2. Ecological importance and sensitivity For all potentially affected inland aquatic ecosystems (whether natural or artificial), the ecological/conservation importance should be determined, using appropriate methods. An indication should be given of the confidence level of these assessments.

For rivers, the DWS’s EIS for rivers (DWA, 1999c) should be used. Recently, this has been split into ecological importance (EI) and Ecological Sensitivity (ES), and the information for rating on a national basis can be obtained from http://www.dwa.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/eco/peseismodel.aspx per subquaternary catchment.

For wetlands, the accepted protocols are:


217

• Kotze et. al. (2009) WET-Ecoservices, for the determination of the range of goods and services provided by a wetland.

• The Wetland EIS assessment tool of Rountree and Kotze (2013).

3. Impact assessment and mitigation The practitioner must describe the nature and the status (negative or positive) of the potential impacts. The potential impacts on the hydrological regime, geomorphology, biodiversity and ecological functioning of the aquatic ecosystem must be evaluated. The potential impacts of the proposed activity on the aquatic ecosystem on both the proposed and alternative development sites must be described. Impacts are described in terms of their extent, intensity, and duration.

Other aspects that must be included in the evaluation are:

• Probability of the impact occurring. • Reversibility of the impact. • Irreplaceability of the lost resources/function. • Extent to which the impact can be mitigated. • Confidence in the evaluation. The practitioner must provide the rationale behind the evaluation of impacts and for selecting the preferred site.

When carrying out assessments for proposed developments on aquatic CBA, and the aquatic biodiversity features that have a very high sensitivity rating in terms of the national screening tool, the assessment must include reasons why an aquatic ecosystem has been identified as a CBA and provide a professional opinion on whether the proposed development will be consistent in maintaining the CBA in its present state or in a rehabilitated state.

Significance ratings - The significance of an impact is rated according to extent, intensity, and duration. All impacts must be rated with and without mitigation.

Note: With regards to the extent of the impact, FEPA wetlands / river reaches should be assigned a national level, and CBA systems a regional level.

Cumulative impacts - A cumulative impact is described as one which, in itself, may not be significant, but may become significant when added to the existing impacts and / or potential impacts that may occur as a result of other activities taking place in the area.

Cumulative impacts can be described as additive – adding to other similar impacts – or interactive – where different impacts combine to result in a new type of impact. As for other impacts, the relationship between the impact and the hydrological regime, geomorphology, biodiversity and ecological functioning of the aquatic ecosystem needs to be established.


218

Avoidance and mitigation - All identified potential impacts should be accompanied by a recommendation for either avoiding or mitigating the impact on site. Practical mitigation measures should be included which will minimise negative impacts, enhance beneficial impacts and assist in project design. Practitioners may differentiate between essential and optional mitigation measures. Essential measures must be implemented and therefore change the significance rating once mitigation is in place. Optional mitigation measures are recommended but do not affect the rating.

A monitoring and review programme should be recommended to determine the efficacy of the recommended mitigation measures,

Offsets - Should there be significant residual impacts after avoidance and on-site mitigation measures have been considered and/or incorporated in project development, mitigation off-site as a biodiversity offset can be considered (this applies only to wetlands). Wetland offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse impacts on wetlands. The currently accepted protocol for the determination of appropriate wetland offsets must be consulted.

Wetlands offsets are not appropriate for:

• Wetlands placed in an A or B Ecological Category. • FEPA or CBA wetlands. • Strategic water source areas. • Ramsar sites. • Critically Endangered or Endangered wetland types or wetlands supporting Critically

Endangered or Endangered species. • Wetlands providing critical ecosystem services. • Key features in an RQO assessment. • Wetlands heavily relied upon by human communities.

STEP 4: SETTING OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

1. Recommended Ecological Category and Resource Quality Objectives The Recommended Ecological Category (REC) needs to be determined for potentially affected inland aquatic ecosystems for Water Use Licence Applications (WULAs), including applications for the registration of a General Authorisation, and for most water resource management studies. This is a useful, though not compulsory, exercise for EIA studies too.

Methods for the determination of the Recommended Ecological Category (REC – Categories A to D3) are provided in Kleynhans and Louw (2008) for rivers, and in Rountree and Kotze (2013) for wetlands.

The REC will influence the management objectives or the Resource Quality Objectives (RQOs) set for a particular inland aquatic ecosystem.


219

RQOs need to be set for an inland aquatic ecosystem when reserve determination studies are carried out. RQOs are also required for aquatic impact assessments carried out in CBA and identified as having a high sensitivity rating by the national environmental screening tool.

2. Buffers Activities within 32 m of a watercourse trigger the NEMA EIA regulations. This does not, however, equate to a buffer protecting water resources from human disturbance. A detailed and now accepted buffer model was described for rivers, wetland and estuaries by Macfarlane and Bredin (2017). And is listed by the DWS as a minimum requirement when submitting a wetland assessment (See DWS requirements in terms of GN 267 (40713) of March 2017)

When setting of buffers, the above mentioned models includes amongst others:

• Ecosystem type; • Current PES score; • Ecosystem functioning (provision of ecosystem services/ecological infrastructure); • Spatial requirements of species dependent on the ecosystem for all or part of the life cycle; • Links with other aquatic ecosystems and surrounding land; • Nature of the proposed activity; • Phases of the proposed activity; and, • Potential for rehabilitation and/or restoration.

3. Water Use Authorisation Specialist requirements for both the basic assessment or EIA and the water use authorisation should be combined in one terms of reference to assist with the streamlining of environmental (basic assessment or EIA) and water use authorisation processes and preventing further delays in the water use authorisation process. Reports should however meet the following requirements listed in GN 267 (40713) of March 2017).

STEP 5: MONITORING A monitoring component should be included in an assessment of inland aquatic ecosystems. Monitoring is required for water use license authorisations. Monitoring can measure the responses, drivers or stressors of an ecosystem.

The monitoring programme should address (based on Kotze and Macfarlane, 2014):

• Scope and objectives of monitoring - Define what is to be monitored, why and the appropriate level of monitoring - Budget and time dependant

• Site selection - Carefully select monitoring sites to achieve the objectives of monitoring

• Indicators - Use key indicators in monitoring


220

• Monitoring protocols: - Methods and equipment to be used for monitoring

• Monitoring frequency and responsibilities - How often monitoring is to be repeated - How long monitoring will occur - Who will carry out the monitoring

• Data storage, analysis and reporting - How monitoring data will be stored and analysed - How monitoring data will be reported on - How monitoring data will be made accessible to appropriate individuals, organisations and

government departments. It is recommended that the landowner be provided with a report, in addition to the local or regional conservation authorities

Should monitoring show that the ecosystem is showing little response to mitigation measures in place or showing signs of a stressed system, additional measures should be put in place and the monitoring programme updated based on new measures, and monitoring of the ecosystem continue.

Appendix 5: List of Scientific and Common Names for Species listed in the Ecosystem Guidelines

Indigenous Plant Species List

Scientific Name Common Name A Adansonia digitata baobab Albizia harveyi common false-thorn Albizia tanganyicensis paperbark false-thorn Albizia versicolor large-leaved false-thorn Aloe peglerae Turk’s cap aloe Aloe prinslooi burn aloe Androstachys johnsonii Lebombo ironwood Aristida meridionals giant three-awn Asparagus laricinus cluster-leaved asparagus B Bauhinia galpinii Pride-of-De Kaap Berchemia zeyheri red ivory Boscia albitrunca shepherds tree Boscia foetida stink shepherds tree Buddleja saligna false olive Burkea africana wild seringa C Catophractes alexandri trumpet thorn Ceropegia cycniflora Clerodendrum glabrum tinderwood Colophospermum mopane mopane Combretum apiculatum red bushwillow Combretum hereroense russet-leaved bushwillow Combretum imberbe leadwood Combretum nelsonii Waterberg bushwillow Combretum zeyheri large-fruited bushwillow Commiphora glandulosa tall common corkwood Commiphora mollis velvet corkwood Commiphora pyracanthoides common corkwood Croton gratissimus lavender feverberry Cussonia spicata common cabbage tree D Dais cotinifolia pompon tree Dalbergia melanoxylon zebrawood Dichrostachys cinerea sickle Bush Diospyros austro-africana jackalbush Diospyros lycioides bluebush

Diplorhynchus condylocarpon hornpod E Ehretia rigida puzzle bush Ekebergia capensis cape ash Encephalartos cerinus waxen cycad Encephalartos msinganus Msinga cycad Englerophytum magalismontanum stemfruit


222

Erythrina latissima broad-leaved coral tree Euclea crispa blue guarri Euclea undulata common guarri Euphorbia confinalis Lebombo euphorbia Euphorbia pseudocactus candelabra spurge F Faurea rochetiana broad-leaved beech Faurea saligna boekenhout Faurea saligna boekenhout Ficus burkei common wild fig G Gasteria thukelensis Ellaphie's gasteria Grewia bicolor white raisin Grewia flava velvet raisin bush Grewia monticola silver raisin Gymnosporia buxifolia common spike-thorn H Heteromorpha arborescens parsley tree Heteropyxis natalensis lavender tree K Kirkia acuminata white syringa L Lebeckia linearifolia blue pea bush Lycium bosciifolium slender honeythorn Lycium cinereum small-leaved honeythorn Lycium villosum hairy honeythorn O Ochna pulchra peeling plane Orbea woodii carrion flower Ozoroa paniculosa resin tree P Parinari curatellifolia mobola plum Peltophorum africanum weeping wattle Phragmites australis common reed Piliostigma thonningii camel’s foot Protea caffra common sugarbush Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia kudu berry Pterocarpus angolensis kiaat Pterocarpus rotundifolius round-leaf teak R Rhigozum obovatum Kalahari pomegranate Rhigozum trichotomum driedoring S Sclerocarya birrea marula Searsia lancea karee Searsia leptodictya mountain karee Searsia lucida glossy crowberry Searsia rehmanniana dwarf blunt-leaved crowberry Searsia tenuinervis Kalahari currant Senegalia ataxacantha flame Thorn Senegalia burkei black monkey thorn


223

Senegalia caffra common hook-thorn Senegalia erubescens blue thorn Senegalia mellifera common thorn tree Senegalia nigrescens knob thorn Senegalia senegal slender three-hook thorn Sesamothamnus lugardii Transvaal sesame-bush Siphonochilus aethiopicus wild ginger Spirostachys africana tamboti Strychnos madagascariensis black monkey-orange Strychnos pungens spine-leaved monkey orange T Tarchonanthus camphoratus. camphor bush Terminalia prunioides purple-pod terminalia Terminalia sericea silver cluster-leaf Trichilia emetica Natal mahogany Typha capensis bulrush V Vachellia borleae sticky thorn Vachellia erioloba camelthorn Vachellia fleckii flaky thorn Vachellia haematoxylon grey camelthorn Vachellia hebeclada candle thorn Vachellia hereroensis mountain thorn/ false hook-thorn Vachellia karroo, sweet thorn Vachellia luederitzii false umbrella thorn Vachellia natalitia pale bark sweet thorn Vachellia nilotica scented thorn Vachellia robusta ankle thorn Vachellia sieberiana paper-bark Thorn Vachellia tortilis umbrella thorn Vitellariopsis dispar bush milkwood Vitex pooara pooraberry W Warburgia salutaris pepper-bark tree Z Ziziphus mucronata buffalo thorn Grass Species Scientific Name Common Name A Anthephora pubescens wool grass Aristida adscensionis annual three-awn Aristida junciformis ngongoni grass Aristida transvaalensis rock three-awn B Bothriochloa insculpta pinhole grass Bothriochloa radicans stinking grass Brachiaria nigropedata spotted signal grass Brachiaria serrata velvet signal grass C Cenchrus ciliaris blue buffalo grass Cenchrus ciliate buffel grass


224

Centropodia glauca gha grass Cymbopogon pospischilii narrow-leaved turpentine grass Cymbopogon pospischilii bushveld turpentine grass D Digitaria eriantha common finger grass E Elionurus muticus wire grass Enneapogon cenchroides nine-awned grass Eragrostis curvula weeping love grass Eragrostis lehmanniana Lehmann’s love grass Eragrostis pallens broom love grass Eragrostis rigidior broad curly leaf Eragrostis trichophora hairy love grass F Fingerhuthia africana thimble grass H Heteropogon contortus spear grass Hyperthelia dissoluta yellow thatching grass M Melinis repens Natal red top P Panicum coloratum small buffalo grass Panicum maximum guinea grass/red buffalo grass Perotis patens cat’s tail Pogonarthria squarrosa herringbone grass S Schmidtia kalahariensis Kalahari sour grass Schmidtia pappophoroides bushveld sand quick Setaria incrassate vlei bristle grass Setaria sphacelata common bristle grass Stipagrostis amabilis dune reed Stipagrostis ciliata tall bushman grass Stipagrostis obtuse small bushman grass Stipagrostis uniplumis silky bushman grass T Themeda triandra red grass Tragus berteronianus carrot-seed grass Tricholaena monachne blue-seed grass Tristachya leucothrix hairy trident grass U Urochloa mosambicensis bushveld signal grass Urochloa panicoides garden urochloa

Alien invasive plant species list

Scientific Name Common Name A Acacia dealbata silver wattle Acacia mearnsii black wattle Acacia melanoxylon blackwood C


225

Cardiospermum grandiflorum balloon vine Cereus jamacaru queen of the night cactus Chromolaena odorata paraffin weed J Jacaranda mimosifolia jacaranda L Lantana camara common lantana M Melia azedarach seringa P Parthenium hysterophorus famine weed Prosopis glandulosa honey mesquite S Solanum mauritianum bugweed

Fauna species list

Scientific Name Common Name A Acinonyx jubatus cheetah Aepyceros melampu impala Alcelaphus buselaphus red hartebeest Antidorcas marsupialis springbok Aquila rapax tawny eagle Atelerix frontalis hedgehog C Canis mesomelas black-backed jackal Caracal caracal caracal Cephalophus species bush and common duiker Ceratotherium simum white rhinoceros Connochaetes taurinus blue wildebeest Crocuta crocuta spotted hyaena D Diceros bicornis black rhinoceros E Equus burchellii zebra G Giraffa Camelopardalis giraffe Gyps africanus white-backed griffon Gyps coprotheres Cape griffon H Hyaena brunnea brown hyaena L Loxodonta africanus elephant Lycaon pictus African wild dog N Neamblysomus julianae Juliana’s golden mole O Oreotragus oreotragus klipspringer Oryx gazelle gemsbok Otocyon megalotis bat-eared fox


226

Ourebia ourebi oribi P Panthera leo lion Panthera pardus leopard Phacochoerus aethiopicus warthog Platysaurus lebomboensis Lebombo flat lizard Platysaurus minor Waterberg flat lizard Platysaurus orientalis Sekhukhune flat lizard Platysaurus relictus Soutpansberg flat lizard Proteles cristatus aardwolf Python natalensis Southern African python R Raphicerus campestris steenbok Redunca fulvorufula mountain reedbuck S Smutsia temminckii Temminck’s ground pangolin Sycerus caffer buffalo Sylvicapra grimmer grey duiker T Terathopius ecaudatus bateleur Tragelaphus angasii nyala Tragelaphus oryx eland Tragelaphus scriptus bushbuck Tragelaphus stepsiceros kudu

Appendix 6: Data Sources used for Maps in these Ecosystem Guidelines

Dataset Source Year South African Biomes VEPMAP 2018 SANBI VEGMAP 2018 Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas Various provincial

Downloaded from BGIS SANBI website Various

Modified / Land Cover Mpas: Cultivated, mines, plantations, urban and modified SA_Lcov_2013-14_GTI_utm35n_vs22b.img

Downloaded from BGIS SANBI website 2013-2014

Protected Areas Data provided by SANBI. NBA 2018 SANBI 2018 Threatened Ecosystems Data provided by SANBI. NBA Draft 2018 data SANBI 2018 Grazing Capacity Long-term Grazing Capacity Data (DAFF, 2018) DAFF 2018 National Vegetation Types VEPMAP 2018 SANBI VEGMAP 2018

Chapter 7: REFERENCES Alias, D. and Milton, S. 2003. A collation and overview of research information on Boscia albitrunca (shepherd’s tree) and identification of relevant research gaps to inform protection of the species. Department of Water and Forestry.

Archibald. S., Roy, D.P., van Wilgen. B.W. and Scholes. R. 2008.What lilmits fire? An examination of drivers of burnt area in Southern Africa. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-24862008.01754.x. Global Change Biology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Aronson.J., Floret.C., Le Floch.E., Ovalle.C., Pontainier.R. 1993. Restoration and Rehabilitation of Degraded Ecosystems in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands. A View from the South. Society for Ecological Restoration.

Asner.G.P., Levick. S.R., Kennedy-Bowdoin.T. Knapp.D.E., Emerson.R., Jacobson.J., Colgan.M.S. Martin.R.E. 2009. Large scale impacts of herbivores on the structural diversity of African Savannas. Stanford University. PNAS.

Bond. W.J., Midgley. G.F. Woodward, F.I. 2002. What controls South African vegetation – climate or fire? South African Journal of Botany. Volume 69. Pages 79 – 91. South Africa.

Boon. R., Cockburn., Douwes. E., Govender. N., Ground., McLean.C., Roberts.D., Rouget.M., Slotow.R. 2016. Managing a threatened savanna ecosystem (KwaZulu Natal Sandstone Sourveld) in an urban biodiversity hotspot: Durban, South Africa. African Biodiversity & Consevation. Bothalia.

Bennett. J. and Barrett.H.2007. Rangeland as a Common Property Resource: Contrasting Insights from Communal Areas of Central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Journal of Human Ecology. Vol 35. Pp 97-112. Springer. Coventry.

Bland, L.M,, Keith, D.A., Miller, R.M., Murray, N.J., and Rodrigues, J.P. (eds.). 2017. Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystem Categories and Criteria, Version 1.1. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Ix + 99 pp.

Blaum. N., Seymour.C., Rossmanith. E., Schwager. M & Jeltsch. F. 2008. Changes in arthropod diversity along a land use driven gradient of shrub cover in savanna rangelands: identification of suitable indicators. Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation. 2009. Volume 18. Issue 5. Pages 1187 – 1199. Extracted from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-008-9498-x.

Bond. W.J. Midgley. G.F. 2012. Carbon dioxide and the uneasy interaction of trees and savannah grasses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Volume 367. Pages 601–612. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0182

Buitenwerf. R. Bond. W.J., Stevens.N. Trollope. W.S.W. 2011. Increased tree densities in South African Savannas: >50 years of Data suggests CO2 as a driver

Camp, K. 1999. The bioresource groups of KwaZulu-Natal. Thornveld. Cedara Report No. N/A/99/16. KwaZulu-Natal Dept. of Agriculture, Cedara.

Charles-Dominique.T. Staver A.C. Midgley. G.F. Bond. W.J. 2015. Funcitonal diferrentiaiton of biomes in an Africa savanna / forest mosaic. South African Journal of Botany. Volume 101. Pages 82-90. Science Direct.

Child, M., Davies-Mostert, H. and Raimondo, D. 2017. Mammal Red List 2016. Available at https://www.ewt.org.za/reddata/reddata.html

Choudhary. A & Ahi.J. 2015. Biodiversity of Freshwater insects: A review. The Journal of Engineering and Sciences. Volume 4. Issue 10. Pages 25 – 31. ISSN (e): 2319-1813 ISSN (p): 2319 – 1805

CSIR National Scientific Programmes Unit, CSIR. 1975. Description of the savanna ecosystem project, Nylsvley, South Africa.

Dawies, B.D., Gaylard. A., Asner, G.P. 2017. Megafaunal effects on vegetation structure throughout a densely wooded African landscape. Ecological Applications. Volume 0. Pp 1 – 11. Ecological Society of America.


229

de Lange W.J & van Wilgen B.W. CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment. YEAR. An economic assessment of the contribution of biological control to the management of invasive alien plants and to the protection of ecosystem services in South Africa.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry 2005. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland and riparian areas Edition 1. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Updated with amendments in 2008.

Driver, A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.L., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. & Maze, K. 2011. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. SANBI.

Driver, A.L., Nel, J.L, Snaddon, K., Murray, D.J., Roux, L., Hill, L., Swartz, J., Manuel, J. and Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas WRC report no. 1801/1/11, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

Dye. P., Moses.G., Vilikazi. P., Ndela.R & Royappen.M. 2001. Comparative water use of wattle thickets and indigenous plant communities at riparian sites in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. Environmentek, CSIR. East, R. 1984. Rainfall, soil nutrient status and biomass of large African savanna mammals. African Journal of Ecology. Volume 22. Issue 4. Pages 245 – 270. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1984.tb00700.x/full

Edwards, D. 1967. A plant ecological survey of the Tugela River Basin. Town and Regional Planning Commision, Pietermaritzburg

Edward S. Riddell. E.S., Khan.A., Mau.B., Ngcobo.S., Pasil.J., Pickles.A., Pickles.J., Sithole.A., Lorentz.S.A., Govender.N. 2012. Preliminary assessment of the impact of long-term fire treatments on in situ soil hydrology in the Kruger National Park. Koedoe vol.54 n.1 Pretoria Jan

Foley. J.A., De Fries. R., Asner.G.P., Barford.C., Bonan.G., Carpenter.S.R., Chapin.F.S., Coe.M.T., Daily.G.C., Gibbs.H.K., Helkowski.J.H., Holloway.T., Howard.E.A., Kucharik.C.J., Monfreda.C., Patz.J.A., Prentice.L,C., Ramankutty.N., Snyder.P.K. 2005. Global Consequence of Land Use. Science. Volume 309. Pp 570-574. American Association for the Advancement of Science. New York.

Foxcroft.L.C. & Freitag-Ronaldson. S. 2007. Seven decades of institutional learning: managing alien plant invasions in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Oryx. Volume 2. Pp 160 – 167. Cambridge

Fritz.H & Duncan. P. 1994. On the carrying capacity for large ungulates of African savanna ecosystems.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1994.0052. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/256/1345/77.short.

Fynn.R.W.S &O’Connor. 2000. Effects of stocking rate and rainfall on rangeland dynamics and cattle performance in a semi-arid savanna, South Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 37, Issue 3.

Graw. V., Ghzaryan. G., Dall. K., Gomez.G.D., Abel-Hamid.A., Jordanna.A., Piroska.R., Post. J., Szarzynski.J., W. Y., Dubovyk.O. 2017. Drought Dynamics and Vegetation Productivity in Different Land Management Systems of Eastern Cape, South Africa – A remote Sensing Perspective. Journal of Sustainability. Volume 9. pp 1-19. MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Groves. D.R., Jensen. D.B., Valutis.L.L.,Redford.K.H., ShafferM.L., Jeffrey.M.S.,Baumgartner. J.V., Higgins. J.V.,Beck.M.W., Anderson.M.G.. 2002. Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Putting Conservation Science into Practice: A seven-step framework for developing regional plans to conserve biological diversity, based upon principles of conservation biology and ecology, is being used extensively by the nature conservancy to identify priority areas for conservation. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages 499–512,https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-568(2002)052[0499:PFBCPC]2.0.CO;2.


230

Harrison. P.A., Berry. P.M., Simpson. G., Haslett.j.r., Blicharska M., Bucur.M., Dunford. R/. Egoh. B., Garcia-Llorente.M., Geamana. N., Geertsema.W., Lommelen. E., Meiresonne. L., Turkelboom. F. 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services. Volume 9. Pages 191-203.

Hoffman, M.T., Todd, S., Ntoshona, Z., Turner, S., 1999. Land Degradation in South Africa. National Botanical Institute, CapeTown

Hawkins, H-J. 2017. A global assessment of Holistic Planned Grazing™ compared with season-long, continuous grazing: meta-analysis findings, African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 34:2, 65-75, DOI: 10.2989/10220119.2017.1358213

Hudack. A. 1999. Rangeland mismanagement is South Africa. Failure to apply ecological knowledge. Human Ecology. Volume 27. Issue 1. Pages 55 – 78. Springer.

Huntley, B. 1982. Southern African Savannas. Ecology of tropical savannas. 101-119. 10.1007/978-3-642-68786-0_6.

Jewitt, D., Erasmus, B.F.N., Goodman, P.S., O’Connor, T.G., Hargrove, W.W., Maddalena, D.M., and Witkowski, E.T.F. 2015. Climate-induced change of environmentally defined floristic domains: A conservation based vulnerability framework. Applied Geography Volume 63. Pages 33-42.

Jewitt, D., Goodman, P.S., and Erasmus, B.F.N. 2017. Planning for the Maintenance of Floristic Diversity in the Face of Land Cover and Climate Change. Environmental Management. Volume 59. Pages 792-806.

Joubert. D.F., Smit. G.N., & Hoffman. M.T. 2013. The influence of rainfall, competition and predation on seed production, germination and establishment of an encroaching Acacia in an arid Namibian savanna. Journal of Arid Environments. Volume 91: Pages 7 – 13.

Kirkman. K.P. 2006. Strategic review of the coal mining industry with regard to grasslands biodiversity and identification of opportunities for the development of interventions with the coal industry to address biodiversity. 2006. National Grasslands Biodiversity Programme. SANBI.

Kleynhans C.J., Thirion C. and Moolman J. 2005. A Level 1 Ecoregion Classification System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

Lord.C.P., Strauss. E.G., Toffler.A.M. 2001. Natural Cities: Urban Ecology and the Restoration of Urban Ecosystems. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Low, A.B. and Rebelo, A.G. 1996. Vegetation of South Afirca, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

Maura.A., Ainslie.A., Shackleton. C.2003. Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa. Land use and Livelihoods. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies. School of Government. University of the Western Cape.

Macfarlane. D. and Bredin.I. 2017. Buffer Zone Guidelines for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries. Part 1: Technical Manual. Water Research Commission Report No. TT 715-1-17 2017.

Macfarlane, D., Holness, S.D., von Hase, A., Brownlie, S. and Dini, J., 2014. Wetland offsets: a best-practice guideline for South Africa. South African National Biodiversity Institute and the Department of Water Affairs. Pretoria. 69 pages.

McGeoch, M.A. The verification and application of bioindicators: a case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. Journal of applied Ecology. Volume 39. Issue 4. Pages 661 – 672. 2002. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00743.x/full

Mc Laughlin. A. & Mineau.P. 1995. The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Volume 55. Pp 201 – 212. Canada.


231

Milton. S.J. 2004. Grasses as invasive alien plants in South Africa. South African Journal of Science. Volume 100. Pages 69 – 74. Working for water.

Mittermeier RA, Robles Gil P, HoVman M et al (2004) Hotspots revisited: earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City

Morelli, T.L., Daly.C., Dobrowski.S.Z., Dulen.D.M., Ebersole.J.L., Jackson.S.T., Lundquist.J.D., Millar.C.I. Maher.S.P., Monahan.W.B., Nydick.K.R., Redmond.K.T, Sawyer.S.C., Stock.S., Beissinger.S.R. 2016. Managing Climate Change Refugia for Climate Adaptation. PLOS ONE. DOI: 10. 1371 / journal.prone. 0159909

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Nel, J.L., Driver, A.L., Strydom, W.F., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C., Hill, L., Roux, D.J., Nienaber, S., van Deventer, H., Swartz, E.R., and Smith-Adao, L.B. 2011. Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa: Maps to support sustainable development of water resources. WRC Report No. TT500/11. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

Nel., J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A.L., Hill, L., Funk, N., Swartz, E.R., Sith-Adao, L.B., Downsborough, L., Nienaber, S., and van Deventer, H. 2011. The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) project: Technical Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

NPC (National Planning Commission).2011. National Development Plan 2030: Our Future – Make it Work. National Planning Commission.

Ollis, D., Snaddon, K., Job, N. and Mbona, N. 2013. Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa – USER MANUAL: Inland Systems. SANBI Biodiversity Series: 22. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Penelope J. Mograbi.G., P. & Asner.P., Ed. Witkowski. T. F., Barend F. N. Erasmus , Konrad J. Wessels , Renaud Mathieu and Nicholas R. Vaughn. 2017. Humans and elephants as treefall drivers in African savannas. Ecography 40: 001–011.

Perrow, M.R & Davy, A.J. Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Volume 1: Principles of Restoration. Cambridge University Press, New York.2002

Redford. K.H. & Richter B.D. 1999. Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use. Conservation Biology. Volume 13. Pages 1246 – 1256.

Rouget, M., Hui.C., Renteria.J., Richardson., D.M. & Wilson. J.R.U. 2015. Plant invasions as a biogeographical assay: Vegetation biomes constrain the distribution of invasive alien species assemblages. South African Journal of Botany. Volume 101. Pages 24 – 31. Elsevier.

Rutherford, M.C. and Westfall, R.H. 1986. Biomes of southern Africa – anobjective categorization. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa 54; 1-98.

Sankaran, M., Hanan.P.N., Scholes. R.J., Ratnam.J., Augustine.D.J., Cade. B.S., Gingnoux., Higins. S.I., Le Roux.X., Ludwig. F., Ardo.J., Banyikwa.F., Bronn. A., Bucini. G., Caylor. K.K., Coughenour. M.B., Diouf. A., Ekaya. W., Feral. C.J. February. E.C., Frost. P.G.H., Hiernaux. P., Hrabar. H., Metzger. K.L., Prins. H.H.T., Ringrose. S., Sea.W., Tews. J., Worden. J & Zambatis.N. 2005. Determinants of woody cover in African Savannas. Nature. Volume 438/8. Pages 846 – 849. Nature Publishing Group.

Sankaran, M., Ratnam. J & Hanan. N.P. 2004. Tree-grass coexistence in savannas revisited – insights from an examination of assumptions and mechanisms invoked in existing models. Ecology Letters 7: 480 – 490. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University.


232

Scholes, R.J. and Archer, S.R. 1997. Tree-grass interactions in savannas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 517-544. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.517.

Schulze, R.E. A 2011 Perspecitve on Climate Change and the South African Water Sector. 2011.

Schulze, R.E. and Maharaj, M. 2007. Pinus elliottii Growth Areas and Yield Estimation. In: Schulze, R.E. (Ed). 2007. South African Atlas of Climatology and Agrohydrology. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC Report

Skowno, A.L. 2018. Woody plant encroachment in arid and mesic South African savanna-grasslands: same picture, different story? PhD Thesis, Rhodes University. 114 pp.

Skowno A.L., Raimando, D.C., Poole, C.J, Fizotti, B. (eds) 2019. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 1: Terrestrial Realm. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

Smit, P.J., Izak & Asner, Gregory & Govender, Navashni & Kennedy-Bowdoin, Ty & Knapp, David & Jacobson, James. 2010. Effects of fire on woody vegetation structure in African savanna. Ecological applications: a publication of the Ecological Society of America. 20. 1865-75. 10.1890/09-0929

STATS SA, 2018. Available at http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=11341 Downloaded on 16 January 2019.

Staver. A.C. and Bond.W.J. 2014. Is there a ‘browse trap’? Dynamics of herbivore impacts on trees and grasses in an African savanna. Journal of Ecology. Volume 102, Issue3. Pages 595-602

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC (2007c): Climate change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Report. Cambridge University Press

Trimble M.J. and van Aarde. R.J. 2014. Supporting conservation with biodiversity research in sub-Saharan Africas’ human-modified landscpaes. Biodiversity conservation. DOI 10.1007/s10531-01400716-4.

Twine, W., Moshe, D., Netshiluvhi., Siphugu.V. 2003. Consumptive and direct-use values of savanna bio-resources used by rural households in Mametja, a semi-arid area of Limpopo province, South Africa. South African Journal of Science. Pages 467-473.

van Deventer, H., Smith-Adao, L., Petersen, C., Mbona, N., Skowno, A., Nel, J.L. 2018 Review of available data for a South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (SAIIAE).

Van Rooyen. S.E. 2016. Composition and structure of woody vegetation in thickened and controlled bushveld savanna in the Molopo, South Africa. Dissertation. North West University.

van Wilgen. B.W. 2009. The evolution of fire management practices in savanna protected areas in South Africa. South African Journal of Science. Volume 105. Pages 9 – 10. Centre for Invasion Biology, CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment

Van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth. G.C., Le Maitre. D.C, Wannenburgh.A., Kotze. J.D.F., van den Berg. E., Henderson. L. 2010. An assessment of the effectiveness of a large, national scale invasive plant control strategy in South Africa. Biological Conservation. Volume 148. Issue 1. Pp 28 – 38. Elsevier

Ward, D. 2005. Do we understand the causes of bush encroachment in African Savannas? African Journal of Range and forage science. Volume 22. Issues 2. Taylor & Francis.

Wessels. K.J., Colgan.M.S. Erasmus.B.F.N., Asner.G.P., Twine. W.CE., Mathieu.R., van Aardt.J.A.N., Fisher. J.T. Smit. I.P.J. 2013. Unsustainable fuelwood extraction from South African savannas. Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing Ltd.

Williams, V.L., Victor, J.E. and Crouch, N.R. 2013. Red Listed medicinal plants of South Africa: Status, trends, and assessment challenges. South African Journal of Botany. Vol 86: 23 – 35