ADICIONAL Pierce Et Al Implementação

Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 441–458
www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning:

Interpretation for implementation
Shirley M. Pierce a, Richard M. Cowling a,¤, Andrew T. Knight a,
Amanda T. Lombard a, Mathieu Rouget b, Trevor Wolf a
a
Department of Botany and Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 77000,
Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa
b
Kirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Claremont 7735, South Africa
Received 6 November 2004
Abstract
There is an obvious need to incorporate biodiversity concerns into the policies and practices of sectors that operate outside
protected areas, especially given the widespread devolution of power to local (municipal) authorities regarding land-use decision-
making. Consequently, it is essential that we develop systematic (target-driven) conservation planning products that are both user-
friendly and user-useful for local government oYcials, their consultants and the elected decision makers. Here, we describe a systematic
conservation planning assessment for South Africa’s Subtropical Thicket Biome that considered implementation opportunities and
constraints from the outset by developing – with stakeholders – products (maps and guidelines) that could be readily used for local
government land-use planning. The assessment, with concomitant stakeholder input, developed (i) Megaconservancy Networks, which
are large-scale conservation corridors of multiple ownership that achieve targets principally for biodiversity processes; (ii) conserva-
tion status categories (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, currently not vulnerable) for all biodiversity features, identiWed
on the basis of available extant habitat to achieve conservation targets, and (iii) a conservation priority map which integrates (i) and
(ii). This map was further interpreted for municipal-level decision-makers by way of corresponding guidelines for land-use in each of
the conservation status categories. To improve general awareness of the value of biodiversity and its services, a handbook was
compiled, which also introduced new and impending environmental legislation. Within 18 months of the production of these products,
evidence of the eVective integration, or mainstreaming, of the map and its guidelines into land-use planning has been encouraging.
However, more eVort on increasing awareness of the value of biodiversity and its services among many stakeholder groups is still
required. Nonetheless, our approach of planning for implementation by considering the needs and obligations of end users has already
yielded positive outcomes. We conclude by providing suggestions for further improving our approach.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biodiversity persistence; Biodiversity representation; Implementation; Land-use planning; Mainstreaming; Systematic conservation
planning
1. Introduction et al., 2004), it is now widely accepted that strict protec-

tion will not secure the persistence of the world’s biodi-
While protected areas form the cornerstone of conser- versity (Miller and Hobbs, 2002; Rosenzweig, 2003). The
vation strategies (Redford and Richter, 1999; Rodrigues burden of conserving biodiversity will fall increasingly on
sectors such as agriculture, forestry, mining and land-use
¤
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +27 42 2980259. planning (Burbidge and Wallace, 1995; Freemark et al.,
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.M. Cowling). 2002; Hutton and Leader-Williams, 2003). In order for
0006-3207/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.04.019
442 S.M. Pierce et al. / Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 441–458
these sectors to play a constructive role in conservation, it In many parts of the world, land-use planning has
is essential that biodiversity concerns be integrated or been devolved to local government agencies that are
mainstreamed into their policies and practices (Cowling expected to consult and involve a wide array of stake-
et al., 2002; MarzluV, 2004). Huntley et al. (in press) holders from diverse sectors in identifying develop-
deWne mainstreaming biodiversity as the “ the integration ment options for their regions. Countries that are
of values and goals relating to the conservation and sus- signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity
tainable use of biodiversity into economic sectors in are compelled to adopt the principles embedded in
order to achieve measurable conservation gains”. Local Agenda 21, namely that local decision-making
Over the past decade, great strides have been made in for integrated development planning (IDP) is demo-
developing and reWning methods of assessment for iden- cratic, and based on the goal of achieving social,
tifying priorities for conservation plans (Margules and economic and environmental sustainability (United
Pressey, 2000; Groves, 2003). However, based on our Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
collective experience in South Africa and Australia, we ment, 1992). South Africa is a signatory to the Con-
have come to believe that the most sophisticated meth- vention, and has devolved all land-use decision
ods of assessment will not achieve conservation goals if making to some 284 local municipalities which encom-
the needs of the implementing organizations and other pass the entire country, and which are responsible for
inheritor stakeholders are not eVectively considered dur- almost all land-use decisions. There are three major
ing the planning process, and if the conservation plan- problems confronting the adoption and implementa-
ning products are not easily understood by these end tion of the environmental sustainability principle of
users (Driver et al., 2003; Knight et al., in press; see also Agenda 21: (i) among local government decision-mak-
Theobald et al., 2000). This study forms part of a larger ers there is a lack of awareness of the importance of
project (the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning planning speciWcally to protect priority areas identi-
Project) (Cowling et al., 2003) designed to overcome Wed through target-based conservation assessment; (ii)
these two shortcomings by adopting the following there is usually a disparity in objectives and, therefore,
approach. Firstly, those stakeholders who will ultimately in structure and content between the scientiWc prod-
inherit the plan, namely government oYcials associated ucts generated by conservation assessments, and those
with land-use planning, agriculture, nature conservation, required for land-use planning (Niämele, 1999;
water aVairs and forestry, communal and freehold land- Theobald et al., 2000; Löfvenhaft et al., 2002), and (iii)
owners, non-governmental organisations, tourism repre- many local government agencies responsible for land-
sentatives and elected representatives, were identiWed use planning, especially in the developing world, lack
(BoshoV and Wilson, 2004). Secondly, these stakeholders the capacity to eVectively integrate biodiversity into
were invited to give input throughout the four-year planning products (Wells and Brandon, 1993;
development of the plan, from inception to the develop- Burbidge and Wallace, 1995; InWeld and Adams, 1999;
ment of the Wnal planning products (Knight et al., 2003). Groves, 2003) and would beneWt from being provided
Thus, these inheritors developed a sense of ownership of with user-useful and user-friendly products (Driver
the project. In this paper, we focus speciWcally on the et al., 2003).
products we developed to meet the needs of the land-use Conservation biologists have made considerable
planning sector, a requirement widely recognised by oth- progress in bridging the gap between conservation
ers in the Weld of conservation planning (Theobald et al., assessment and land-use planning (Saunders et al.,
2000; Stoms, 2001; MarzluV, 2004). Agencies responsible 1995; ?, Pressey, 1998, 1999; Theobald et al., 2000;
for this sector routinely make decisions that result in the Ribaudo et al., 2001). However, systematic conserva-
loss of irreplaceable biodiversity (Pressey, 1999; Groves, tion assessment products, namely a spatially dispersed
2003). In the discipline of land-use planning (including array of sites required to achieve targets (minimum sets)
landscape architecture) there is a long history of concern (e.g. Margules et al., 1988), maps of irreplaceability (e.g.
for biodiversity issues (e.g. McHarg, 1969; Steiner, 2000), Pressey, 1999), and imprecisely demarcated corridors
though the focus has mainly been on the establishment required for the movement of speciWc biota (e.g. Rouget
of greenways (Fábos, 2003) and the maintenance of pro- et al., 2003), are often not helpful to land-use planners
cesses that provide services to urban and exurban com- who have to integrate the concerns of many sectors in a
munities (Beatley and Manning, 1997). Our study seeks spatially explicit product. This is largely because most
to facilitate the integration of outcomes of systematic conservation planning assessments have neglected the
conservation planning into land-use planning policy and instrument(s) required for the implementation process
practice. These outcomes incorporate the spatial infor- (Knight and Cowling, 2003a; Knight et al., in press),
mation on quantitative biodiversity targets (e.g. hectares focussing instead upon the process of identifying prior-
of land classes or occurrences of species) for the long- ity areas for biodiversity. Furthermore, the use of arbi-
term conservation and persistence of biodiversity fea- trary planning units (the spatially-explicit units used
tures (Margules and Pressey, 2000). for displaying the results of conservation assessments)
S.M. Pierce et al. / Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 441–458 443
such as grid cells (a widespread feature of conservation 2. A description of the planning region and planning
assessments) makes integration even more diYcult for context
land-use planners who usually require information for
actual land management units, i.e. they work with cad- 2.1. Planning region
asters. This paper describes a process aimed at over-
coming these problems. The study is underpinned by The planning region, which covers 105 454 km2, is
two assumptions: (i) the conservation of biodiversity centred on the Subtropical Thicket Biome, and straddles
and its services forms the basis of environmental, social the Western and Eastern Cape Provinces of South
and economic sustainability (Orr, 2002a; Dawe and Africa (Fig. 1). Intact habitat covers 72% of the region,
Ryan, 2003; Ekins et al., 2003), (ii) conservation priori- with 16% transformed by agriculture, urbanization,
ties need to be identiWed using the principles of target- aVorestation and alien invasive plants, and 12% has been
based representation and persistence (Margules and severely degraded by overgrazing (Cowling et al., 2003).
Pressey, 2000). Our chief contention is that the conser- The principal form of land-use is the production of live-
vation priorities thus identiWed need to be interpreted stock from natural habitat on freehold farms; communal
in order to be integrated into land-use planning pro- lands, where remittances from city dwellers are the
cesses such as Integrated Development Plans (IDP) and major source of income, occupy less than 10% of the
Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs) (Gelderb- planning region. Approximately 7% of the planning
lom et al., 2002; Cowling and Pressey, 2003; MarzluV, region is included in formal (Type 1) protected areas, i.e.
2004). those underpinned by strong legislation and eVective
The study was conducted in the Subtropical Thicket management (Cowling et al., 2003). Type 2 protected
Biome of South Africa. Our targeted users were land- areas, i.e. those underpinned by weak or non-existent
use planners and elected decision-makers in the region, legislation, comprise 9% of the planning region. Eco-
which encompasses three district municipalities and 30 tourism and wildlife ventures (principally game harvest-
local municipalities. These stakeholders are responsible ing for venison or trophies) on freehold land, are the
for all indicative planning (SDFs), hereafter referred to fastest growing enterprises that are based on the region’s
as forward planning, as well as reactive planning, natural resources (Cowling et al., 2003).
involving decisions in response to applications from
landowners for changes in land-usage. In addition to 2.2. Biodiversity features of the Subtropical Thicket
providing guidelines for these two forms of decision Biome
making, we also make recommendations regarding
opportunities for sustainable development that makes The biodiversity features of the Subtropical Thicket
optimal use of the natural environment and its biodi- Biome are described in detail in Cowling et al. (2003) and
versity, e.g. wildlife ventures and ecotourism. We Vlok et al. (2003). The region is associated with two glob-
describe our approach involving the concurrent pro- ally recognized centres of plant endemism, namely the Lit-
cesses of systematic conservation assessment, which tle Karoo Centre of the Succulent Karoo in the west, and
accounts for stakeholder needs and implementation the Albany Centre in the east (Van Wyk and Smith, 2001).
issues, and the development of products, in particular a The Subtropical Thicket Biome comprises the south-
conservation priority map. With our initial focus on western sector of the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany
the municipal-level, we developed a Mapbook hotspot recognised as a global biodiversity priority by
comprising a conservation priority map for each Conservation International (Steenkamp et al., in press).
municipal area together with a set of guidelines. These
guide both forward spatial planning and reactive deci- 2.3. Planning context: The Subtropical Thicket
sion making, and suggest opportunities for wise land- Ecosystem Planning Project
use. To complement the Mapbook, we compiled a
Handbook for municipal decision makers aimed at The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP)
enhancing understanding and awareness of the services Project was a four-year initiative (July 2000–June 2004)
provided by intact biodiversity, as well as relevant leg- funded by the Global Environment Facility. The overall
islation, both existing and impending. Finally, we dis- aims of the project were: (1) to conduct a systematic
cuss the extent to which we have bridged the gap conservation assessment to identify priority areas that
between conservation assessment and municipal-level would ensure the long-term conservation of the
land-use planning, describe the eVectiveness of the subtropical thicket biota, and (2) to ensure that the
interpretation for purposes of integrating this informa- assessment outcomes were implemented via integrating
tion into land-use planning, and provide a critique of them into the policies and practices of private and public
our approach, so that others might learn from our sector agencies responsible for land-use planning and the
experiences, especially with regard to extending the management and use of natural resources in the plan-
approach to other sectors. ning region. Details on the project are provided by
Fig. 1. The location of the Subtropical Thicket Biome and the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project planning region in South
Africa. Subtropical thicket vegetation is classiWed as “solid” and “mosaic” (see Vlok et al., 2003). Major rivers are shown.
Cowling et al. (2003), Knight et al. (2003) and Pierce The second piece of legislation is the National Envi-
(2003) (all available on http://cpu.uwc.ac.za). ronmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004.
The aim of this act is to provide for the management and
2.4. Institutional and legal issues conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity. Compo-
nents of the act salient to this study are that (i) at the
There are two important pieces of legislation that national and provincial sphere, there is provision for the
have a bearing on the approach adopted for this study. listing of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of
The Wrst is the Local Government Municipal Systems protection, and (ii) for listed ecosystems, the relevant
Act 32 of 2000. The spirit and deed of this act (Anon, municipalities must take into account the need for pro-
1998) are rooted in Local Agenda 21, a product of the tecting such ecosystems in their Integrated Development
1992 Earth Summit, which identiWed local organizations Plans and Spatial Development Frameworks.
and institutions as agents for development, and, along These pieces of legislation are progressive in: (i) rec-
with social and economic issues, identiWed the conserva- ognising categories of endangerment at the ecosystem
tion of the natural environment as a component of sus- level, (ii) integrating biodiversity concerns into develop-
tainable development. In terms of this legislation, local ment planning, and (iii) the devolution of power to local-
(municipal) government must undertake at least every level organizations and institutions. However, at the
Wve years, Integrated Development Plans and Spatial local level, there are serious shortcomings in human
Development Frameworks. This process must be fully capacity to implement this legislation. Prior to the 1994
participatory and uphold the three foundations of social, democratic transition in South Africa, local government
economic and environmental sustainability. Retief and focused entirely on service delivery within urban areas,
Sandham (2001) discuss how existing South African and biodiversity concerns were not their brief. Since that
environmental legislation, geared mainly at national and time, local municipalities have been newly demarcated to
provincial government, can be harnessed to ensure include various urban zones but always to encompass
accommodation of environmental concerns at the local large areas of rural countryside that harbour much
government level. biodiversity, including many high-priority biodiversity
features. Owing to the inequities of the apartheid era, all and Pressey, 2000; Groves, 2003), in that the systematic
municipalities, but especially those in the racially desig- assessment was conceptually and operationally inte-
nated former “homelands” comprising communally- grated into a broader planning framework focussed
owned land, have inherited a large backlog of essential upon the implementation of conservation action. This
services for the high number of impoverished inhabit- increased the likelihood of establishing the prerequisite
ants, operate on tight margins as a result of a small rates conditions essential for assessment outcomes being
base, and have neither the capacity nor the resources to accepted by stakeholders and, therefore, the likelihood
deal eVectively with biodiversity issues. Certain products of successfully securing conservation action.
of this study, namely the guidelines associated with the Third, the framework adopted the now widely
maps, were designed and interpreted speciWcally to assist endorsed ecologically sustainable land management or
all municipal decision-makers in fulWlling their legal and ecosystem approach (e.g. Bunch, 2003) to the conserva-
moral responsibility for safeguarding biodiversity and its tion of landscapes and their component biodiversity
services, and to identify opportunities for sustainable (Knight and Cowling, 2003a). This approach aims to
development. “keep people on the land in living landscapes”, as
opposed to the traditional approach of conservation,
which removes people to create formal protected areas.
3. Conservation assessment for implementation In this way, it aims to ensure that not only are the land-
scapes and biodiversity of the Subtropical Thicket
A STEP Project report provides a detailed description Biome conserved for future generations, but also that
of the conservation assessment, including biodiversity the social and economic systems of the region promote
features, biodiversity targets, land-use opportunities and improved quality of life for its human inhabitants who
constraints, and methods of analysis (Cowling et al., are viewed as stewards for biodiversity.
2003). Rouget et al. (in press) provide additional infor-
mation on the identiWcation of conservation corridors as 3.2. Planning units
the spatial component of Megaconservancy Networks
(see 3.4.1). Here, we provide a brief summary of the plan- The planning region was subdivided into biogeo-
ning framework, methods and outcomes, highlighting graphic divisions of the Subtropical Thicket Biome that
how implementation considerations were integrated are largely aligned with the region’s major primary water
throughout. catchments (Vlok et al., 2003) (Fig. 2). The units of selec-
tion for the conservation assessment, namely the plan-
3.1. Planning framework ning units, were based on cadastral data, ecological and
evolutionary process areas, and include Type 1 protected
The approach adopted for this study was guided by a areas (i.e. protected areas underpinned by strong legisla-
conservation planning framework, developed by Knight tion and enforcement). The use of cadastres, as opposed
and Cowling (2003a). This framework comprises three to arbitrary planning units, enhanced implementation
components, namely: since these are the units that land-use planners routinely
use when making land-use decisions.
(i) empowering individuals and organizations, speciW-
cally the inheritor stakeholders and their associ- 3.3. Biodiversity features and targets
ated implementing organizations mentioned
above, through consultation about their needs and The STEP Project’s conservation assessment, under-
concerns, and accommodating these in the Wnal taken at the 1:100 000 scale, used as biodiversity features
assessment outcomes; 169 vegetation types (of which 112 are thicket types),
(ii) systematic conservation assessment; three wetland types, and Wve spatial surrogates (hereaf-
(iii) securing conservation action through consultation ter components) of ecological and evolutionary pro-
with, and input from inheritor stakeholders. cesses (Table 1). A model was used to determine the
potential distribution and abundance of African ele-
Knight and Cowling (2003a) provide details on the phant (Loxodonta africana) (BoshoV et al., 2001), a spe-
components of the framework; here we wish to make cies used as a surrogate for the wildlife potential of the
only three points. planning region (Rouget et al., in press). Conservation
First, the approach to the conservation assessment targets, which are central to the systematic approach to
was guided by the principles and practices of systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey, 2000),
conservation planning, as articulated in Margules and were set for all biodiversity features used in this study
Pressey (2000). (Table 1). Targets for vegetation types, expressed as a
Second, the framework added signiWcantly to other percentage of the type’s pre-transformation area, were
systematic conservation planning protocols (e.g. Margules set using species-area data derived from phytosociological
Fig. 2. Location of conservation corridors, or Megaconservancy Networks, in the STEP planning region. Each corridor represents the most suitable
route for capturing upland-lowland and macroclimatic gradients within each major drainage basin, and along the dune coast. Corridors integrate
biodiversity patterns and processes and incorporate protected areas, but also avoid land-use pressures. From Rouget et al. (in press).
Table 1
List of biodiversity features considered in the STEP conservation assessment
Feature Description Target Additional references
Habitat types 169 vegetation and 3 wetland types mapped 10–26% of original Desmet and Cowling (2004)
at 1:100 000 (pre-transformation) area
Wildlife suitability Habitat suitability for focal species (elephant) 1000 individuals in BoshoV et al. (2002);
planning region Kerley et al. (2003)
Spatially-Wxed processes Biome interfaces, riverine corridors and sand 100% of extant area Rouget et al. (2003)
movement corridors
Spatially-Xexible processes Upland-lowland and macroclimatic gradients At least one in each
biogeographic region
Details are provided in Cowling et al. (2003).
relevés (Desmet and Cowling, 2004), and ranged from uct structure, format and presentation, and this greatly
10% to 26% (Cowling et al., 2003). Targets for wetland improved the Wnal utility of the product. BoshoV and
and forest types were set as 100% of all remaining habi- Wilson (2004) provide information on the stakeholder
tat, as required by South African legislation. engagement process in the workshops.
3.4. Conservation planning products 3.4.1. Conservation corridors as Megaconservancy

Networks
This study generated three conservation planning Planning for the persistence of biodiversity (Cowling
products, namely Megaconservancy Networks (MCNs) et al., 1999; Rouget et al., 2003) was a key component of
and conservation status categories, which were then the conservation assessment. We accommodated a per-
combined into a conservation priority map for the sistence goal by identifying conservation corridors that
region. The process of production is described below. incorporated major ecological and evolutionary pro-
Note that all products, at various stages of development, cesses, in particular those following major biological
were presented for comment to a range of stakeholders, gradients, as well as a coastal corridor (for details, see
including municipal decision-makers, planners, nature Rouget et al., in press). The planning units used to popu-
conservation oYcials, planning and environmental con- late the six inland and one coastal conservation corri-
sultants, and landowners at a series of workshops, where dors were selected on the basis of subtropical thicket
at least one of the authors was present at any given representation, habitat transformation and degradation,
event. One-on-one interviews were held with key stake- wildlife suitability, irreplaceability of vegetation types
holders in the land-use planning sector to reWne the (Pressey, 1999), existing protected area networks and
maps and guidelines. SigniWcant time and eVort was spe- future land-use pressures (Fig. 2). Thus, the expanded
ciWcally invested in stakeholder collaboration for prod- corridors accommodated implementation issues by
avoiding areas already transformed and vulnerable to then the vegetation type fell into the critically endangered
future transformation, and by incorporating areas that category; where the diVerence between the target and
already enjoy some form of protection or are suitable for extant habitat was 760% of the original extent of the
biodiversity-based tourism and wildlife ventures. These vegetation type, it was categorised as currently not vulner-
conservation corridors covered 24.9% of the planning able. The cutoV of 60% selected those vegetation types
region (ranging from 600 to 5200 km2) and successfully that have a buVer of extant habitat >60% between them-
achieved targets for biological processes and to a lesser selves and the critically endangered category (i.e. the
extent for representation of vegetation types (Rouget amount of extant habitat greatly exceeds the amount
et al., in press). required for the target). The cutoV also selects only those
In order to provide an implementation mechanism vegetation types that have more than half of their habitat
for the expanded corridors, each was named as a speciWc still extant. There is an extensive literature, mainly theory,
Megaconservancy Network (Knight and Cowling, which suggests that above a threshold of 50–70% of intact
2003b) (see Fig. 2). The implementation of ecologically habitat, biodiversity is likely to persist, owing to the main-
sustainable land management in each of these would tenance of ecosystem processes and viable populations of
ensure simultaneously the achievement of biodiversity component species (e.g. Fahrig, 2001; Flather and Bevers,
persistence targets, half of the biodiversity pattern (vege- 2002; Desmet, 2004).
tation type) targets (Rouget et al., in press), and socio- The other two categories (endangered and vulnerable)
economic goals (Knight and Cowling, 2003b). Hence, a were determined by their positions above or below a par-
Megaconservancy Network is a mechanism for achiev- allel threshold line starting at 30% of extant habitat (Fig.
ing ecologically sustainable land management on a con- 3). Research suggests that below a threshold of 20–40%
tiguous patchwork of properties of various tenures and of intact habitat remaining, biodiversity loss accelerates
land-uses, which maximizes landscape heterogeneity and markedly (Andrén, 1994; Fahrig, 2001). The cutoV of
the management of capital Xows (e.g. natural, Wnancial, 30% was half way between the two extreme categories of
social) (Knight and Cowling, 2003b). This can be critically endangered, and currently not vulnerable. Veg-
achieved only if the component properties are managed etation types below the threshold had a buVer of less
in a co-ordinated, co-operative and integrated way. than or equal to 30% between themselves and the criti-
cally endangered category and were considered endan-
3.4.2. Conservation status categories gered, whereas vegetation types above the threshold had
The Megaconservancy Networks, together with Type a buVer of between 30% and 60% between themselves
1 protected areas, do not achieve targets for all of the and the critically endangered category and were consid-
biodiversity features that we used in this study (Rouget ered vulnerable.
et al., in press). Moreover, there is probably much The results of the categorisation of the 172 vegetation
undocumented and undescribed biodiversity in the 75% types (including three wetland types) are shown in Fig. 3.
of the extant habitat of the planning region that falls Nine fell into the critically endangered category, of
outside of these Networks. Here, we present a procedure which seven were thus categorised because they have
to deal with the areas that fall outside of both Megacon- their targets set to all remaining extant habitat owing to
servancy Networks and existing protected areas. It was national legislation: these are the three wetland types
designed to ensure the retention of habitat associated
with priority biodiversity features (in this case, vegeta- 100
tion types). In particular, it aimed to provide a region- 90

Extant as % original extent
wide categorisation of endangerment that would provide 80

land-use decision makers with information enabling 70
them to make decisions that would enhance instead of 60
compromise the achievement of biodiversity targets. 50
Vegetation types were classiWed according to four cate- 40 Critically endangered
gories of endangerment – critically endangered, endan- 30 Endangered
gered, and vulnerable ecosystems, as termed in the 20 Vulnerable
Biodiversity Act, as well as not currently vulnerable. The 10 Currently not vulnerable
method of categorisation was purposely devised to be
0
very simple: it was based on the area of each vegetation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
type required to achieve its biodiversity-based target, and Target as % original extent
the remaining area of its extant habitat, both expressed as
Fig. 3. Categorisation of the 169 vegetation types and three wetland
a percentage of the original (pre-transformation) extent
types in the STEP planning region according to conservation status.
(Fig. 3). The conservation status of a vegetation type was The seven points on the bottom threshold line are the wetland and for-
determined by the diVerence between the target and est types for which targets were set at 100% of all extant habitat, as
extant habitat: where the target was 7 extant habitat, required by South African legislation.
Table 2 and all proclaimed roads (to facilitate site location by

Area of extant (non-transformeda) habitat in categories of diVerent users), impacted or irreversibly transformed areas (to
conservation status in the STEP planning region
provide visual context for the endangerment categories),
Land class Symbol km2 % of planning regionb protected areas (Type 1 only), the location of Megacon-
Type 1 protected areas 7222 8.1 servancy Networks (termed ‘Network’) and the spatial
Critically endangeredc I 17 931 20.2 components of Wxed processes (termed ‘Process area’).
Endangered II 1388 1.6
Copies of these maps, along with the geographical infor-
Vulnerable III 7388 8.3
Currently not vulnerable IV 54 798 61.8 mation systems (GIS) data, for the entire planning
a region and for each of the region’s 30 municipalities, can
That is, excluding areas transformed by urbanization, agriculture,
aVorestation and dense stands of invasive alien plants. be downloaded from the website of the Conservation
b
Extant habitat only. Planning Unit of Cape Nature, formerly the Western
c
Includes six vegetation types, three wetland types, spatially-Wxed Cape Nature Conservation Board: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za.
process components and the seven Megaconservancy Networks
(MCNs).
3.5. Interpretation for municipal-level decision-makers
and the four forest types. For the other two, targets 3.5.1. The STEP mapbook
could not be achieved owing to extensive transforma- We facilitated interpretation by twinning the conser-
tion. Fourteen vegetation types fell into the endangered vation priority map with a corresponding set of
category. The vulnerable category included 35 vegeta- guidelines designed speciWcally for municipal-level deci-
tion types, and 114 vegetation types were categorised as sion-makers (Table 3). We termed this product the STEP
currently not vulnerable. Mapbook, which was produced to assist municipalities
We also categorised as critically endangered all extant in integrating biodiversity into land-use decisions
habitat associated with the spatially Wxed process com- (Pierce, 2003).
ponents (Table 1) and the seven Megaconservancy Net- These guidelines provide, for each category of endan-
works. The rationale for this was the need to retain all germent (Fig. 4), recommendations for reactive land-use
extant habitat associated with these features in order to decisions and for the forward planning required by Spa-
ensure the long term persistence of biodiversity in the tial Development Frameworks. The guidelines were
planning region (Cowling et al., 1999), and to contribute developed by one of us (SMP) in wide consultation with
to targets for vegetation types through biodiversity- conservation experts and key stakeholders in the land-
friendly management regimes. Overall, the critically use planning sector, by iterative reWnement through one-
endangered category (outside of Type 1 protected areas) on-one interviews and in workshops. Table 3 provides an
comprised about 20% of the planning region (Table 2), example of the guidelines for the two extreme categories,
of which 15 638 km2 (87.5%) encompassed Megaconser- namely currently not vulnerable and critically endan-
vancy Networks, 1206 km2 (6.7%) the spatially Wxed pro- gered. The complete set of guidelines can be downloaded
cess components, and 1044 km2 (5.9%) the nine from the website of the Conservation Planning Unit of
vegetation types where the targets exceeded or equalled Cape Nature: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za.
available habitat. The guidelines are explicit and should ultimately be
supported by regulations drafted for the Biodiversity
3.4.3. Conservation priority maps Act. Thus, in critically endangered areas (including
The next challenge was to merge the Megaconser- Megaconservancy Networks and Process areas), the
vancy Networks and conservation status information recommendation is for no further loss of habitat and
into a single map that could be readily used by land-use no impacts that would result in the loss of biodiversity
decision-makers at all spheres of government (national, (Table 3). These areas, however, also oVer forward-
provincial and municipal), as well as by consultants, who planning opportunities, such as low-impact ecotourism.
regularly undertake work for government agencies. On the other hand, the guidelines recommend that
Many assessments fail to be eVectively implemented high-impact activities or developments should be
owing to poor or inappropriate product design (Theo- located in currently not vulnerable areas. Thus, the
bald et al., 2000; Driver et al., 2003). Therefore, two of us guidelines provide a basis for ensuring biodiversity-
(SMP and TW) devoted a great deal of eVort, including friendly development via both reactive and forward
workshop and one-on-one interactions with key stake- planning.
holders in the land-use planning sector, to identify the Each of the 30 local municipalities within the plan-
appropriate format and colour scheme for what we ning region was presented with a Mapbook, comprising
termed the “STEP conservation priority map”. a series of large-format maps (1:100 000) covering their
Fig. 4 shows the conservation priority map for: (a) the area of jurisdiction, and a table of guidelines. The district
entire planning region, and (b) a single municipality. municipalities received Mapbook compilations compris-
Note that the maps include cadastral boundaries, rivers ing all the local municipal areas within their domain.
Fig. 4. Conservation priority maps of (a) the entire STEP planning region and (b) the Kouga Municipality.
3.5.2. The STEP Handbook by additional interpretive material. Furthermore, with

We believed that the outcomes of the conservation the enactment of more stringent municipal and environ-
assessment in the planning region needed to be supported mental legislation, it became apparent that land-use
450
S.M. Pierce et al. / Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 441–458
Table 3
Guidelines to assist municipal decision-makers and consultants in fulWlling their legal and other obligations to the natural environment
Category Brief description General rule Procedures for municipalities (Reactive Restrictions on activities Opportunities for activities (Forward
decisions) (Forward spatial planning) spatial planning)
Currently not vulnerable Ecosystems which cover Depending on other 1. Proposed disturbance or 1. Proposed disturbance or Depending on constraints (such as
most of their original factors, this category developments should preferably developments should avoidance of spoiling scenery or
extent and which are can withstand loss of take place on impacted areas.a preferably take place on wilderness, or infra-structure
mostly intact, healthy natural habitat 2. In response to an application for portions which have already limitations), this category can
and functioning a non-listed activity which will have undergone disturbance or withstand loss of or disturbance to
severe or large-scale disturbance on impactsa rather than on natural areas. Subject to these
a relatively undisturbed site portions that are undisturbed. constraints, this category may be
(non-impacted), the municipality 2. In general, this category can suitable for a wide range of activities
should Wrst seek the opinion of the withstand loss of or (e.g. extensive urban development,
local conservation organization. disturbance to natural areas cultivation, tourist accommodation,
3. For a proposed “listed activity”, through human activities and ecotourism, game faming).
EIAb authorisation is required by law. developments.
Critically endangered Ecosystems whose Under no 1. As a rule, no further loss of natural No further loss of natural This category may be suitable for
original extent has been circumstances can this area and no further impactsa should be area and no further impacts eco-friendly, nature-based activities
so reduced that they are category withstand allowed. should be allowed. Any with almost no impactsa such as
under threat of collapse further loss of 2. The municipality should require an disturbance of this category responsible ecotourism (hiking trails,
or disappearance. natural habitat on-site investigationc to verify the site’s should be allowed only on etc.). In those areas which have
Included here are condition relative to impactsa and its condition that there are net undergone severe impactsa, there are
special ecosystems such categorization. gains for the natural opportunities for Integrated
as wetlands and 2a. If the site has been severely impacteda, environment (e.g. in the Development Planning (IDP)
indigenous forests and is assessed as critically endangered, portion which will remain restorationd projects, via poverty
then the municipality should recommend undeveloped), restorationd relief funding.
restorationd of the portion of land which and proclamation and
will remain undeveloped, and its management as a protected
proclamation and management as a area.
protected area.
2b. If the site is relatively undisturbed,
with medium to low impactsa, and is
veriWed as critically endangered, then
the municipality should request a
Special EIA.e
3. For a proposed “listed activity”
that by law requires EIAb authorisation,
the municipality should recommend a
special EIA.e
Only two sample rows are given here; omitted are rows for vulnerable, endangered, Networks (MCNs), Process areas, protected areas and impacted (transformed) areas (adapted from Pierce, 2003).
a
Impacts may be evaluated according to: (1) type of impact (e.g. urban development, cultivation, alien invasive plants, overgrazing); (2) extent of impact (degree of fragmentation); and (3) severity
of impact (e.g. density of alien invasive plants, degree of overgrazing). Category (e.g. currently not vulnerable, Network, Process area) should be considered together with evaluation of impacts in
order to make appropriate recommendation.
b
EIA D environmental impact assessment. The law requires that before municipal decision-makers may allow certain “listed activities” in their area, they must Wrst receive the necessary EIA
authorisation from the relevant government department, which has to be arranged by the applicant. See Pierce (2003) (Appendix 1, Annexure 2) for further details on EIAs and “listed
S.M. Pierce et al. / Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 441–458

activities”.
c
On-site investigation should involve Wrstly an evaluation of impactsa and then, depending on these Wndings, further assessment by a conservation oYcial or specialist consultant of the
site’s vegetation type/s and categorisation (e.g. critically endangered, Network). This veriWcation is recommended because of the broad-scale (1:100 000) feature mapping used in the STEP
Project.
d
Restoration can involve the permanent removal of invasive alien plants, wetland restoration, and replanting of degraded areas. See Pierce (2003) (Chapter 3, section 1.2) for Wnancing opportuni-
ties.
e
Special EIA here means an EIA which also takes into account: (1) a vegetation survey and categorisation of area according to the deWnitions of the STEP Handbook (Appendix 2); (2) evaluation
of impactsa; (3) permission only for development appropriate to category (e.g. critically endangered, Network); (4) if area is impacted and development is allowed, then recommendations for a net
gain for the ecosystem (i.e. restorationd of the portion of land which will not be developed, and its proclamation and management as a protected area).
451
decision-makers at the municipal-level needed assistance which has undertaken to catalyse and facilitate the
in fulWlling their legal obligations regarding biodiversity implementation of the STEP Project and its products in
conservation and environmental sustainability. the Eastern Cape Province. Furthermore, the STEP
Therefore, the STEP Handbook (Pierce, 2003) was products are being used by South African National
compiled to provide further information to enable land- Parks in the spatial planning for the expansion of the
use decision-makers and private-sector consultants (act- Addo Elephant and Mountain Zebra national parks; by
ing on behalf of public or private sector agents) to make the Department of Water AVairs and Forestry to inform
development decisions and recommendations, respec- their planning activities; and by the Electricity Supply
tively, that do not violate the biodiversity conservation Commission, South Africa’s parastatal power utility
and environmental sustainability principles embodied in company, to inform the location of a major powerline
the Biodiversity and Municipal Acts. across the planning region. The Development Bank of
The Handbook also provides an explanation of the South Africa, which provides institutional and other
conservation assessment in lay terms; information on the support to municipalities, has made compliance with the
value of biodiversity as a prerequisite for sustainability; STEP Project’s conservation plan mandatory for the
legal obligations regarding biodiversity and sustainabil- successful disbursement of loans and grants.
ity; land reform and biodiversity; a guide to environmen-
tal legislation and Environmental Impact Assessment 4.2. Provincial governments
regulations from a planning perspective; and informa-
tion on the recognition of biodiversity features for spe- The STEP products have been adopted by provincial-
cialist consultants. Information on the value of level planners for both the Western Cape and Eastern
biodiversity was illustrated by case studies describing in Cape Provinces for identifying the boundaries of, and
brief the economic importance of plants and animals, the permissible impacts within, the evolving Gouritz and
role of the indigenous pollinator fauna in sustaining the Baviaanskloof mega-reserves, two of the Megaconser-
fruit export industry, water supply and quality, indige- vancy Networks identiWed by the assessment (Fig. 2).
nous knowledge, ecotourism, beach sand replenishment Cape Nature, the conservation organisation for the
and carbon capture, as well as socio-cultural heritage Western Cape Province, has endorsed the use of the
value. STEP products and has made compliance with these a
The STEP Handbook can be downloaded from the default in the compilation of their Spatial Development
website of the Conservation Planning Unit of Cape Frameworks for district and local municipalities within
Nature: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za. the planning region. The Department of Economic
AVairs, Environment and Tourism: Eastern Cape Prov-
ince, the organisation responsible for conservation out-
4. Response of land-use decision-makers to the STEP side of Type 1 protected areas, has used the STEP
products products in compiling the provincial conservation plan,
which will ultimately inform the forthcoming Provincial
The conservation priority map has been generally Growth and Development Plan; this plan will, in turn,
well received by representatives of national, provincial provide a spatially-explicit development guidelines for
and district municipal spheres, and by private consul- all government sectors in that part of the planning
tants working for local municipalities. Owing to funding region that falls within the province. The products were
delays, the program to guide municipal decision-makers incorporated into the Eastern Cape Province’s Strategic
in the use of the STEP Handbook and Mapbooks has Assessment of Biodiversity of 2003 and its State of the
only recently been initiated (October 2004). Acceptance Environment report of 2004.
of the Megaconservancy Network concept has also been Little success, however, has been achieved in engaging
favourable. Below we present an anecdotal account of the formal agriculture sector, especially at provincial
the extent to which the study’s conservation assessment government level, despite involvement of relevant
products, hereafter referred to as STEP products, have oYcials in the process. However, rural landowners have
been incorporated into land-use decision-making thus viewed the Megaconservancy Network concept with
far (see also BoshoV and Wilson, 2004). interest and enthusiasm.
4.1. National government and parastatals 4.3. Local government
The STEP products have been incorporated into the The planning region includes a metropolitan munici-
National Biodiversity and Action Plan of the national pality (the Nelson Mandela Metro comprising three
Department of Environmental AVairs and Tourism and large urban centres) and three district municipalities,
endorsed by the South Africa National Biodiversity each of which includes a number of local municipal
Institute (formerly the National Botanical Institute) areas. OYcials, planners and their consultants are using
the STEP products to inform their spatial planning, but ponent of what is, overall, a complex social planning
to varying degrees. Two district municipalities of the process (Knight et al., in press). Equal eVort is now
Eastern Cape have formally requested their local munic- required in designing products for implementers, illus-
ipalities to comply with the planning guidelines in the trated by, for example, the development of the conserva-
compilation of their Spatial Development Frameworks. tion priority map, the Handbook and Mapbook (Pierce,
Stewart et al. (2004) produced a Wne-scale (1:10 000) 2003), as well as developing an implementation strategy.
assessment for the Nelson Mandela Metro that used the The development of the implementation strategy
STEP Project’s approach to produce a conservation pri- (Knight et al., 2003) took the same amount of time as the
ority map and the same associated guidelines. This prod- systematic assessment, and was fraught with greater
uct has been integrated into land-use decision-making challenges.
for the metro. The approach adopted for the assessment is signiW-
STEP products are also being integrated into plan- cantly diVerent from the approach used for most other
ning for the municipality of the region’s second largest systematic conservation assessments. Notably, we con-
city. Several of the smaller municipalities are using the sidered implementation issues from the outset. Of partic-
products, although this is happening not through the ular importance were the lessons that we learnt from
involvement of municipal oYcials, but instead via con- participating in the assessment for the Cape Action Plan
sultants who are employed by municipalities to prepare for the Environment Project (Cowling and Pressey,
their Spatial Development Frameworks. Feedback from 2003), namely: (i) municipal-level decision-makers are a
these consultants has been very positive and all regard key stakeholder group since it is they who are
the products as user-useful and user-friendly. We know empowered to make far-reaching decisions regarding
of at least two cases where frameworks that used the biodiversity, and (ii) assessment products must be both
STEP products, have directed development away from user-friendly and user-useful: products based on arbi-
priority areas. trary planning units and dynamic and often cryptic bio-
At this stage, an evaluation of the extent to which of diversity values (e.g. maps of irreplaceability) are not
the products have been eVectively integrated or mains- comprehensible to most stakeholders working in the
treamed into municipal decision-making is premature, land-use planning sector (Driver et al., 2003).
and must await the completion of the recently initiated Other factors that inXuenced our approach for this
capacity building and training project based on the assessment and developing its products were the promul-
Handbook and Mapbook. gation of the Municipal and Biodiversity Acts. These
two pieces of legislation provide the principal instru-
ments for ensuring that our assessment products are
5. General discussion being integrated into municipal-level decision-making.
They dictate the sphere of governance that we targeted
Here, we Wrst evaluate the conservation assessment and underpin the conservation status categories that
approach and its products, next we assess the extent to were identiWed for diVerent land classes. Another inXu-
which we have been successful in making these products ence on our approach is the growing armoury of munici-
useful, and Wnally we provide a general critique of our pal-level incentives for conservation on private land,
study and make suggestions for improving future currently being developed to facilitate the retention of
initiatives. natural habitat in priority areas (Botha, 2001). Finally,
successfully implementing ecologically sustainable land
5.1. Evaluation of the conservation assessment for management on freehold land requires an optimal mix
implementation of complementary conservation and land-use instru-
ments (Young et al., 1996). This led us to formulate an
The implementation of conservation action is a nor- explicit land management model, namely the Megacon-
mative process, guided by human values and the conse- servancy Network concept (Knight and Cowling,
quent choices that people make (Callicott et al., 1999; 2003a).
Freyfogle and Newton, 2002). Therefore, in order to
inXuence conservation decisions, conservation biolo- 5.2. Evaluation of conservation status categories
gists need to confront and comprehend the messy world
of institutions, policies and politics (MeVe, 1998), and While there have been other attempts to allocate land
reach beyond the biological sciences into economics, class features to categories of endangerment (e.g. Noss
sociology, education and law (Robertson and Hull, et al., 1995; Reyers et al., 2001), this study is the Wrst
2001; Orr, 2002b; Mascia et al., 2003). The discipline of attempt to use, in addition to habitat loss, an explicit and
“conservation planning” is a case in point: overwhelm- defensible biodiversity target in identifying these catego-
ing eVort has been devoted to reWning the scientiWc and ries. Obvious problems with the method are the some-
technological aspects of the systematic assessment com- what arbitrary cutoVs between categories and lack of
consideration of habitat fragmentation status of extant et al., 2002; Groves, 2003; MarzluV, 2004), we know of
features. Thus, a feature in the currently not vulnerable no published examples that have sought, explicitly, to
category could have a high level of anthropogenic habi- bridge the gap between these two sectors. This gap is
tat fragmentation and might better be located in the vul- symptomatic of the pervasive gap that exists between the
nerable category. However, similar overall levels and production of scientiWc information and its provision in
conWgurations of habitat fragmentation may aVect forms useful to those who need it for implementation
diVerent components of the biota diVerently (Collinge, (Hulse et al., 2004). Clearly, if this gap is to be bridged at
2001). Until a clearer picture has emerged on the impacts a much wider scale, the current academic focus upon sys-
of diVerent habitat fragmentation patterns on diVerent tematic assessment methodologies must be re-focussed
biodiversity components, we believe it would be unwise upon implementation issues (Knight et al., in press).
to change this system. We do note, however, that any This study has connected the outcomes of a system-
amount of Wne-tuning is unlikely to change the status of atic conservation assessment with the needs of land-use
critically endangered and endangered features (unpub- planners, resulting in the products that have been
lished data), these being the ones where habitat retention endorsed by planning oYcials and consultants working
is most critical. These thresholds can be reviewed period- in this sector. In particular, they have appreciated the
ically, as provided for by the Biodiversity Act. region-wide depiction of conservation values, the stabil-
ity of the products (at least over the Wve-year planning
5.3. Evaluation of the conservation priority map processes required by the Municipal Act), and the lack
of requirement for GIS and other software capacity for
A major advantage of the conservation priority map routine use. We are quite conWdent that our products
is that it provides information on the priority status of have achieved simultaneously the goals of systematic
features (i.e. vegetation types and ecological and evolu- conservation planning (representation and persistence)
tionary process surrogates), as opposed to individual in a format that is comprehensible and useful for munic-
planning units (e.g. grid squares), for the entire planning ipal-level decision-making. However, additional train-
region. Furthermore, the endangerment status categories ing support will be required in poorly capacitated
are relatively stable over time, unlike in the case of mini- municipalities.
mum set analyses (Margules et al., 1994). The latter
deliver spatially dispersed arrays of priority planning 5.5. Adoption of the products
units that achieve biodiversity targets but provide no
information on the remainder of the planning region. In just eighteen months since their publication, the
Moreover, any given minimum set solution is only one products have been surprisingly well integrated or mains-
of a host of diVerent spatial options for target achieve- treamed into land-use decision-making across the plan-
ment (Balmford, 1998); land-use planners would require ning region, but especially in those organizations that
the appropriate data and software in order to assess the fulWl the prerequisites of adequate organizational and
likely impacts of habitat loss on biodiversity conserva- institutional capacity, eVective non-governmental organi-
tion. While maps of irreplaceability do have the advantage sation involvement, and awareness of the signiWcance of
of providing region-wide information on conservation biodiversity (Cowling et al., 2002). Thus, the adoption of
value (Pressey, 1999), their information is provided for the products has been most eVective in the Nelson Man-
planning units and relatively small changes in the status dela Metro (Stewart et al., 2004), in the municipality of
of particular planning units may result in quite large the region’s second largest city (BuValo City), and in the
changes in the irreplaceability patterns. As is the case of better-capacitated district municipalities (especially in the
minimum set analysis, irreplaceability analysis is Western Cape Province), in national and provincial orga-
dynamic and requires capacitated personnel to eVec- nizations, and amongst consultants.
tively use these tools for land-use planning. Our experi- The major constraints for eVective adoption at the
ence from earlier conservation assessments such as the municipal level are a lack of awareness of the signiW-
Cape Action Plan for the Environment Project (Cowling cance of biodiversity for social and economic sustain-
and Pressey, 2003) indicates land-use planners and other ability, and poor governance and capacity in municipal
stakeholders had great diYculties in comprehending organizations. Because of the high levels of poverty and
dynamic products (Driver et al., 2003). unemployment in our planning region, much greater
emphasis is given to the social and economic pillars of
5.4. Bridging the gap sustainability; generally, biodiversity and the natural
environment concerns are associated with the wealthy
While many have made the plea for improved integra- elite (see Turpie, 2003) and not regarded as a priority.
tion of systematic conservation assessment and land-use Envisaging a healthy biosphere as the foundation for
planning approaches and products (Niämele, 1999; Pres- economic and social well being (Orr, 2002a; Dawe and
sey, 1999; Theobald et al., 2000; Stoms, 2001; Löfvenhaft Ryan, 2003), or even as one of the three equally impor-
tant pillars of sustainability, is certainly not a widely it provides, our conservation planning assessment used
held view amongst municipal oYcials in the planning biodiversity features that emphasized existence rather
region. However, when expressed in terms of clean than use values. Nonetheless, many of the features that
water, suYcient forage for livestock, and a supply of we have targeted are of great value to other sectors with
wild plants for food and medicine, biodiversity and the which alliances should be formed (Johns, 2003), namely
environment have much more meaning for the rural tourism (e.g. sand movement corridors for beach replen-
poor, as revealed in meetings between one of us (SMP) ishment, natural scenery and wildlife), water (mountain
and oYcials and councillors from impoverished and catchments, riverine corridors and wetlands) and agri-
poorly capacitated municipalities. More eVort is culture (habitat for pollinators, grazing resources, cut
required to clarify the signiWcance of biodiversity to Xowers). The conservation of priority natural habitat
human well-being in these municipalities. adjacent to urban areas involves high opportunity costs.
Along with a lack of awareness of biodiversity issues, a However, the retention of such areas provides an oppor-
lack of capacity and poor governance in many municipal- tunity to re-connect the urban poor to biodiversity (Pyle,
ities in the planning region, there are a number of charac- 2003) and maintain unbroken the heritage of indigenous
teristics which are also hindrances to eVective integration knowledge and biodiversity-based tradition that exists
or mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns into land-use amongst rural migrants who now live in urban centres
planning (Smith et al., 2003). The amalgamation of small (e.g. Cocks and Wiersum, 2003).
neighbouring urban municipalities, a skills exodus, large The features that support the services described above
backlogs for social delivery to the very poor, and the can be envisaged as critical natural capital, deWned by
additional burden of servicing expanded rural areas, have Ekins et al. (2003) as “natural capital which is responsi-
placed a huge strain on the new municipal structures ble for important environmental functions and which
(Retief and Sandham, 2001). In most municipalities, cannot be substituted in the provision of these functions
ecosystem services are poorly understood, under sup- by manufactured capital”. We propose that stakeholders
ported and not co-ordinated, and capacity for environ- be involved in identifying and mapping diVerent forms
mental conservation is mostly non-existent. A weak non- of critical natural capital, and also in communicating its
governmental organization sector (at least in conserva- importance for sustainability to government and civil
tion) greatly hinders opportunities for eVective partner- society. While economic assessments of the value of this
ships for achieving environmental sustainability (Wells capital would be welcome, we believe that impassioned
and Brandon, 1993; Steiner et al., 2003). narratives (Johns, 2003), Werce lobbying, eVective social
In order for widespread adoption of the products to marketing and other normative actions are likely to be
occur throughout the planning region, much more atten- more eVective than often dubious monetary values
tion needs to be given to creating more eVective and (Chiesura and De Groot, 2003) in integrating the conser-
accountable governmental and non-governmental orga- vation of these features into land-use planning. Once the
nizations and institutions at the local scale (Burbidge features associated with critical natural capital have
and Wallace, 1995; Brunckhorst, 1998). Hopefully, an been mapped, it will be possible to assess the extent to
increasing awareness and appreciation of the value of which they have achieved the biodiversity-based conser-
biodiversity to material and spiritual well being (Orr, vation targets. Assuming the establishment of eVective
2002b) will be achieved by the capacity building project lobby groups to protect the natural capital features, the
for training municipal oYcials and councilors in the use responsibilities of the conservation sector may shrink
of the STEP Handbook and Mapbook. The project also signiWcantly as a greater slice of the citizenry is mar-
intends to expand the guidelines to incorporate all pro- shalled to protect biodiversity. Moreover, a greater over-
vincial and national government sectors that inXuence all portion of intact habitat may be included in the
land-use decision-making. protection sphere, since the maintenance of some ser-
vices may require habitat for which biodiversity targets
5.6. General critique and suggestions for improvement have already been achieved.
This brings us to the second major shortcoming of
The overall approach we have adopted for this study our approach. Other than the Megaconservancy Net-
has many shortcomings. Fortunately, planning is an works where connectivity for the maintenance of ecolog-
ongoing activity and Spatial Development Frameworks ical processes is central, in cases where spatial options
must, by law, be repeated every Wve years. Therefore, still exist, our approach is very silent on exactly where
there are many opportunities to improve the conserva- natural habitat should be retained. We recommend
tion assessment products to enable stronger integration (Table 3) that down to a certain threshold, loss of habi-
into municipal land-use planning. Below we provide tat can be tolerated in areas categorized as currently not
some suggestions. vulnerable. Two problems arise. Firstly, this contradicts
While the Handbook was aimed at increasing aware- the land-use planners’ perception towards avoiding
ness of the value of biodiversity for the range of services development in currently “wild” areas; secondly, we are
mute regarding the conWguration of habitat loss and the grateful for the constructive comments from Denis
impacts of progressive habitat fragmentation on the per- Saunders and two reviewers. Thank you to Andre Bos-
sistence of biodiversity (Theobald et al., 1997; Fahrig, hoV, Mark Botha, Jayne Coleman, Mike Coleman, Allan
2001; Flather and Bevers, 2002; Desmet, 2004; see Sec- de Vries, Philip Desmet, Mandy Driver, Sarah Frazee,
tion 5.2). These problems are overcome to a certain Gerhard Gerber, Ben Gericke, Gordon Johnson, Gra-
extent by mapping the spatial components of processes ham Kerley, Kristal Maze, Carel Olivier, Nic Scarr,
required for the maintenance of biodiversity. Mapping Warrick Stewart, Andries Struwig, Annelise Vlok, Jan
of critical natural capital may also ensure the retention Vlok, Amrei von Hase and Sharon Wilson. This study
of tracts of landscape that are larger than areas required was funded by the Global Environment Facility admin-
by the biodiversity targets alone. However, in a perpet- istered by the World Bank, and the Development Bank
ual growth economy, development and, hence, habitat of South Africa. Additional support was provided by
fragmentation, have to occur somewhere. Our recom- Conservation International’s Southern African Hot-
mendation is to locate new development in areas where spots Program, Mazda Wildlife Fund, Nelson Mandela
considerable options remain to achieve targets. We do Metropolitan University and the National Research
acknowledge that more attention must be given to the Foundation (Pretoria).
conWguration of habitat required for target achievement
and biodiversity persistence.
Finally, the process of uptake and application of these References
products by land-use planners requires monitoring. No
such programme is yet in place, although this will form Andrén, H., 1994. EVects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mam-
part of the training project discussed above. We support mals in landscapes with diVerent proportions of suitable habitat: a
the assertion of Theobald et al. (2000) that the ability of review. Oikos 71, 355–366.
implementers to describe the goals of programmes such Anon., 1998. Local Government Information Series: A short guide to
the White Paper on Local Government. Department of Constitu-
as the STEP Project, is an (at least) equally important tional Development, Pretoria.
measure of success of conservation programmes as are Balmford, A., 1998. On hotspots and the use of indicators for reserve
measures of biodiversity features under conservation selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 409.
management. People are, after all, not only the cause of Beatley, T., Manning, K., 1997. The Ecology of Place. Planning for
the need for conservation eVorts, but also the solution. Environment, Economy and Community. Island Press, Washing-
ton, DC.
Ours is a tentative step to bridge the gap between sys- BoshoV, A., Wilson, S., 2004. The STEP stakeholder participation pro-
tematic conservation assessment and land-use planning, gramme: summary, comments and some lessons learned. Terrestrial
and to ensure the integration of our products into land- Ecology Research Unit Report No. 50, University of Port Eliza-
use decision-making. It is much too early to say whether beth, South Africa.
we have been successful, although the products are BoshoV, A.F., Kerley, G.I.H., Cowling, R.M., 2001. A pragmatic
approach to estimating the distributions and spatial requirements
already being used as inputs for land-use planning. of the medium- to large-sized mammals in the Cape Floristic
Given that ongoing habitat loss is the greatest pressure Region. Diversity and Distributions 7, 29–44.
facing biodiversity, our approach represents an attempt BoshoV, A.F., Kerley, G.I.H., Cowling, R.M., 2002. Estimated spatial
to turn the tide by persuading land-use planners to focus requirements of the medium- to large-sized mammals, according to
development away from the areas most in need of con- broad habitat units, in the Cape Floristic Region. African Journal
of Range and Forage Science 19, 29–44.
servation. The land-use guidelines given in the Mapbook Botha, M.A., 2001. Conservation options for farmers and private land-
enable biologically informed decisions to be made owners. The Botanical Society of South Africa, Cape Conservation
regarding retention of habitat and its loss to develop- Unit, Report 01/2001.
ment, and highlight opportunities for biodiversity- Brunckhorst, D.J., 1998. Guest editorial. Creating institutions to ensure
friendly development in priority areas. Thus, they sustainable use of resources. Habitat International 22, 347–354.
Bunch, M.J., 2003. Soft systems methodology and the ecosystem
embody a less conXict-ridden and crisis-centred approach: a system study of the Cooum River and environs in
approach to conservation than is commonly the case Chennai, India. Environmental Management 31, 182–197.
(Redford and Sanjayan, 2003). It is still early in the day, Burbidge, A.A., Wallace, K.J., 1995. Practical methods of conserving bio-
but we believe this will be good news not only for biodi- diversity. In: Bradstock, R.A., Auld, T.D., Keith, D.A., Kingsford,
versity conservation, but also for the people who depend R.T., Lunney, D., Sivertsen, D.P. (Eds.), Conserving Biodiversity:
Threats and Solutions. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney, pp. 11–26.
upon it. Callicott, J.B., Crowder, L.B., Mumford, K., 1999. Current normative
concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology 13, 22–35.
Chiesura, A., De Groot, R., 2003. Critical natural capital: a socio-cul-
Acknowledgements tural perspective. Ecological Economics 44, 219–231.
Cocks, M.L., Wiersum, K.F., 2003. The signiWcance of plant diversity
to rural households in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. For-
We acknowledge with deep appreciation the con- ests, Trees and Livelihoods 13, 39–58.
structive discussions with our colleagues and friends in Collinge, S., 2001. Spatial ecology and biological conservation. Biologi-
the conservation and land-use planning sectors. We are cal Conservation 100, 1–2.
Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., 2003. Introduction to systematic conser- InWeld, M., Adams, W.A., 1999. Institutional sustainability and com-
vation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conserva- munity conservation: a case study from Uganda. Journal of Inter-
tion 122, 1–13. national Development 11, 305–315.
Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Lombard, A.T., Desmet, P.G., Ellis, A.G., Johns, D.M., 2003. Growth, conservation, and the necessity of new alli-
1999. From representation to persistence: requirements for a sus- ances. Conservation Biology 17, 1229–1237.
tainable system of conservation areas in the species rich mediterra- Kerley, G.I.H., Pressey, R.L., Cowling, R.M., BoshoV, A.F., Sims-Cast-
nean-climate desert of southern Africa. Diversity and Distributions ley, R., 2003. Options for the conservation of large- and medium-
5, 51–71. sized mammals in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biologi-
Cowling, R.M., Pierce, S.M., Sandwith, T., 2002. Conclusions: the fun- cal Conservation 112, 169–190.
damentals of mainstreaming biodiversity. In: Pierce, S.M., Cowling, Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., 2003. Conserving South Africa’s “lost”
R.M., Sandwith, T., MacKinnon, K. (Eds.), Mainstreaming Biodi- biome. A framework for securing eVective bioregional conservation
versity in Development: Case Studies from South Africa. World planning in the Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology
Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 143–153. Research Unit Report No. 44, University of Port Elizabeth, South
Cowling, R.M., Lombard, A.T., Rouget, M., Kerley, G.I.H., Wolf, T., Africa. Available from: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za.
Sims-Castley, R., Knight, A.T., Vlok, J.H., Pierce, S.M., BoshoV, Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., 2003. The Megaconservancy Network
A.F., Wilson, S.L., 2003. A conservation assessment for the Sub- concept: “Keeping people on the land in living landscapes”. Terres-
tropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report trial Ecology Research Unit Report No. 45, University of Port Eliz-
No. 43, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Available from: abeth, South Africa. Available from: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za.
http://cpu.uwc.ac.za. Knight, A.T., BoshoV, A.F., Cowling, R.M., Wilson, S.L., 2003. Keep-
Dawe, N.K., Ryan, K.I., 2003. The faulty three-legged-stool model of ing people on the land in living landscapes: a co-operative strategy
sustainable development. Conservation Biology 17, 1458–1460. for conserving landscapes and enhancing livelihoods in the Sub-
Desmet, P.G., 2004. Application of systematic conservation planning in tropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report
the Succulent Karoo Biome of South Africa. Ph.D. thesis, Univer- No. 46, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Available from:
sity of Cape Town. http://cpu.uwc.ac.za.
Desmet, P.G., Cowling, R.M., 2004. Using the species-area relationship Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Campbell, B.M., in press. Planning for
to set baseline targets for conservation. Conservation and Society 9, implementation: an operational framework for conservation plan-
11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art11. ning in production landscapes. Conservation Biology.
Driver, A., Cowling, R.M., Maze, K., 2003. Planning for living land- Löfvenhaft, K., Björn, C., Ihse, M., 2002. Biotope patterns in urban
scapes: perspectives and lessons from South Africa. Center for areas: a conceptual model integrating biodiversity issues in spatial
Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International and the planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 223–240.
Botanical Society of South Africa, Washington, DC and Cape Town. Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning.
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., De Groot, R., 2003. A Nature 405, 243–253.
framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O., Pressey, R.L., 1988. Selecting networks
natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological Economics 44, of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biological Conserva-
165–185. tion 43, 63–76.
Fábos, J.G., 2003. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O., M.B, 1994. Apparent species turnover,
and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 321– probability of extinction and the selection of nature reserves: a case
342. study of the Ingleborough limestone pavements. Conservation
Fahrig, L., 2001. How much habitat is enough?. Biological Conserva- Biology 8, 398–409.
tion 100, 65–74. MarzluV, J.M., 2004. Fringe conservation: call to action. Conservation
Freemark, K.E., Boutin, C., Keddy, C.J., 2002. Importance of farmland Biology 16, 1175–1176.
habitats for conservation of plant species. Conservation Biology 16, Mascia, M.B., Brosius, J.P., Dobson, T.A., Forbes, B.C., McKean,
399–412. M.A., Turner, N.J., 2003. Conservation and the social sciences.
Flather, C.H., Bevers, M., 2002. Patchy reaction-diVusion and popula- Conservation Biology 17, 649–650.
tion abundance: The relative importance of habitat amount and McHarg, I.L., 1969. Design with Nature. The Natural History Press,
arrangement. American Naturalist 159, 40–56. New York.
Freyfogle, E.T., Newton, J.L., 2002. Putting science into place. Conser- MeVe, G.K., 1998. Conservation biology: into the millennium. Conser-
vation Biology 16, 863–873. vation Biology 10, 916–917.
Gelderblom, C.M., Kruger, D., Cedras, L., Sandwith, T., Audouin, M., Miller, J.R., Hobbs, R.J., 2002. Conservation where people live and
2002. Incorporating conservation priorities into planning guide- work. Conservation Biology 16, 330–337.
lines for the Western Cape. In: Pierce, S.M., Cowling, R.M., Sand- Niämele, J., 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Con-
with, T., MacKinnon, K. (Eds.), Mainstreaming Biodiversity in servation 8, 119–131.
Development: Case Studies from South Africa. World Bank, Noss, R.F., LaRoe III, E.T., Scott, J.M., 1995. Endangered ecosystems
Washington, DC, pp. 129–142. in the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degrada-
Groves, C., 2003. Drafting a Conservation Blueprint. A Practitioner’s tion. Biological report 28, National Biological Service. US Depart-
Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC. ment Interior, Washington, DC.
Hulse, D.W., Branscombe, A., Payne, S.G., 2004. Envisioning alterna- Orr, D.W., 2002a. Four challenges to sustainability. Conservation Biol-
tives: using citizen guidance to map future land and water use. Eco- ogy 16, 1457–1460.
logical Applications 14, 325–341. Orr, D.W., 2002b. The Nature of Design. Ecology, Culture and Human
Huntley, B.J., Peterson, C., Cowling, R.M., Frazee, S., Maze, K., Sand- Intention. Oxford University Press, New York.
with, T., Sekhran, N., in press. Introduction. In: Peterson, C., Hunt- Pierce, S.M., 2003. The STEP Handbook and Mapbook: integrating
ley, B.J. (Eds.), Mainstreaming biodiversity in production sectors the natural environment into land-use decisions at the municipal
and landscapes. South African National Biodiversity Institute, level: towards sustainable development. Terrestrial Ecology
Cape Town. Research Unit Report No. 47, University of Port Elizabeth, South
Hutton, J.M., Leader-Williams, N., 2003. Sustainable use and incen- Africa. Available from: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za.
tive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation inter- Pressey, R.L., 1998. Algorithms, politics and timber: an example of the
ests. Oryx 37, 215–226. role of science in a public, political negotiation process over new
conservation areas in production forests. In: Wills, R.T., Hobbs, T.B., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J.L., Fonseca, G. (Eds.), Hot-
R.J., Fox, M.D. (Eds.), Ecology for Everyone: Communicating spots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered
Ecology to Scientists, the Public and the Politicians. Surrey Beatty ecoregions. Cemex, Mexico City.
and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia, pp. 73–87. Steiner, F., 2000. The Living Landscape. An Ecological Approach to
Pressey, R.L., 1999. Applications of irreplaceability analysis to plan- Landscape Planning. McGraw-Hill, New York.
ning and management problems. Parks 9 (1), 42–51. Steiner, A., Kimball, L.A., Scanton, J., 2003. Global governance for the
Pyle, R.M., 2003. Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx environment and the role of Multilateral Environmental Agree-
37, 206–214. ments in conservation. Oryx 37, 227–237.
Redford, K.H., Richter, B.D., 1999. Conservation of biodiversity in a Stewart, W.I., Cowling, R.M., Martin, A.P., du Preez, D.R., Lombard,
world of use. Conservation Biology 13, 1246–1256. A.T., 2004. A biodiversity conservation assessment and frame-
Redford, K., Sanjayan, M.A., 2003. Retiring Cassandra. Conservation work for the open space system for the Nelson Mandela Metro-
Biology 17, 1473–1474. pole, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biodiversity
Retief, F.P., Sandham, L.A., 2001. Implementation of integrated envi- Conservation Unit, Wildlife and Environment Society, Port Eliz-
ronmental management (IEM) as part of integrated development abeth.
planning (IDP). South African Journal of Environmental Law and Stoms, D.M., 2001. Integrating biodiversity into land-use planning.
Policy 8, 77–94. National Planning Conference of the American Planning Associa-
Reyers, B., Fairbanks, D.H.K., van Jaarsveld, A.S., Thompson, M., tion, March 2001, New Orleans, USA.
2001. South African vegetation priority conservation areas: a Theobald, D.M., Mills, J.R., Hobbs, N.T., 1997. Estimating the cumula-
coarse Wlter approach. Diversity and Distributions 7, 79–95. tive eVects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and
Ribaudo, M.O., Hoag, D.L., Smith, M.E., Heimlich, R., 2001. Environ- Urban Planning 39, 25–36.
mental indices and the politics of the Conservation Reserve Pro- Theobald, D.M., Hobbs, N.T., Bearly, T., Zack, J.A., Shenk, T., Rieb-
gram. Ecological Indicators 1, 11–20. same, W.E., 2000. Incorporating biological information in local
Robertson, D.P., Hull, R.B., 2001. Beyond biology: toward a more pub- land-use decision-making: designing a system for conservation
lic ecology for conservation. Conservation Biology 15, 970–979. planning. Landscape Ecology 15, 35–45.
Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Biotani, L., Brooks, Turpie, J.K., 2003. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa:
T.M., Cowling, R.M., Fishpool, L.D.C., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gas- How interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of
ton, K.J., HoVmann, M., Long, J.S., Marquet, P.A., Pilgrim, J.D., threat inXuence local willingness to pay. Ecological Economics 46,
Pressey, R.L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, 199–216.
L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts, M.E.J., Yan, X.l., 2004. EVectiveness of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992.
the global protected area network in representing species. Nature Convention on biological diversity. In: Proceedings of the United
428, 640–643. Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de
Rosenzweig, M.L., 2003. Reconciliation ecology and the future of spe- Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992. Department of Public Information,
cies diversity. Oryx 37, 194–205. United Nations, New York.
Rouget, M., Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Richardson, D.M., 2003. Van Wyk, A.E., Smith, G.F., 2001. Regions of Floristic Endemism in
Identifying spatial components of ecological and evolutionary pro- Southern Africa. A Review with Emphasis on Succulents. Umdaus
cesses for regional conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Press, HatWeld, South Africa.
Region, South Africa. Diversity and Distributions 9, 191–210. Vlok, J.H.J., Euston-Brown, D.I.W., Cowling, R.M., 2003. Acocks’ Val-
Rouget, M., Cowling, R.M., Lombard, A.T., Knight, A.T., Kerley, ley Bushveld 50 years on: new perspectives on the delimitation,
G.I.H., in press. Designing large-scale conservation corridors for characterisation and origin of thicket vegetation. South African
pattern and process. Conservation Biology. Journal of Botany 69, 27–51.
Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L., Mattiske, E.M. (Eds.), 1995. Nature Con- Wells, M.P., Brandon, K.E., 1993. The principles and practice of buVer
servation 4: the Role of Networks. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping zones and local participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio
Norton, Australia. 22, 157–162.
Smith, R.J., Muir, R.D.J., Walpole, M.J., Balmford, A., Leader-Wil- Young, M.D., Gunningham, N., Elix, J., Lambert, J., Howard, B.,
liams, N., 2003. Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature Grabosky, P., McCrone, E., 1996. Reimbursing the future: an eval-
426, 67–70. uation of motivational voluntary, price-based, property-right, and
Steenkamp, Y., Van Wyk, A.E., Victor, J.E., Hoare, D.B., Dold, A.P., regulatory incentives for the conservation of biodiversity, Part 1.
Cowling, R.M., Smith, G.F., in press. Maputaland-Pondoland- Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 9. Department of the Environment
Albany. In: Mittermeier, R.A., HoVmann, M., Pilgrim, J.D., Brooks, Sport and Territories, Canberra, Australia.

ADICIONAL Pierce Et Al Implementação

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADICIONAL Pierce Et Al Implementação

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADICIONAL Pierce Et Al Implementação

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 441–458

Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning:

Received 6 November 2004

1. Introduction et al., 2004), it is now widely accepted that strict protec-

3.4. Conservation planning products 3.4.1. Conservation corridors as Megaconservancy

tion types). In particular, it aimed to provide a region- 90

wide categorisation of endangerment that would provide 80

Table 2 and all proclaimed roads (to facilitate site location by

3.5.2. The STEP Handbook by additional interpretive material. Furthermore, with

S.M. Pierce et al. / Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 441–458

4.1. National government and parastatals 4.3. Local government

You might also like