Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018...

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 - comparison with 2011 assessment for provincial agencies

August 2019

Author: Andrew Skowno

Contributors: Maphale Matlala, Jasper Slingsby, Donovan Kirkwood, Domitilla Raimondo, Lize von Staden, Stephen

Holness, Mervyn Lotter, Genevieve Pence, Fahiema Daniels, Amanda Driver, Philip Desmet, Anisha Dayaram

Cite as: Skowno AL, Matlala M, Slingsby J, Kirkwood D, Raimondo DC, von Staden L, Holness SD, Lotter M, Pence G, Daniels F, Driver A, Desmet PG, Dayaram A (2019). Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 - comparison with 2011 assessment for provincial agencies. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

KEY POINTS Ecosystem threat status is a head line indicator in the National Biodiversity Assessment.

In the NBA 2011 the ecosystem threat status indicator for terrestrial ecosystems was linked to the National List of

Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems which appeared in the government gazette in 2011.

Since 2011 there have been significant changes to both the national vegetation map (which includes a wide range

of refinements) and the land cover data (which now includes land cover change between 1990 and 2014).

In addition to the new input data there is a new international ecosystem threats assessment framework developed

by the IUCN, known as the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE). Designed to complement the existing Red List of Species

framework, the IUCN RLE is gaining traction and there are numerous high impact scientific publications focusing on

its concepts and implementation.

South Africa was an early adopter of the IUCN species red listing methodology and is now a global leader in

threatened species work. For the NBA 2018 we have chosen to adopt IUCN RLE methodology.

Although the IUCN RLE and the South African system are very similar in concept and application, there are subtle

differences that, when combined with the differences in the input vegetation and land cover data, result in

substantial differences between the 2018 list of threatened ecosystems and the 2011 list.

In the report below we detail the preliminary results of a 2018 ecosystem threat status assessment using the IUCN

RLE method. We first assessed all 458 terrestrial ecosystem types using national datasets (this is referred to as the

referred as the “core” assessment) and then followed up with “supplementary” assessments for specific ecosystem

types.

Supplimentary assessments are the principal avenue for experts to contribute to the national ecosystem

assessment process. If the threat status of an ecosystem is judged to be too low or too high, and there is evidence

to support this, then a supplementary assessment can be undertaken - using criteria and thresholds contained in

the IUCN RLE framework.

In parallel to the ecosystem threat assessment, we also have the opportunity to identify a new category of

ecosystems for national listing. These “ecosystems of special concern” do not trigger any specific threat status

criteria in the IUCN of South African system, but are potentially of special conservation concern due to endemism,

sensitivity to change, value as ecological infrastructure, ecosystem service delivery or exceptional cultural value.

This has been successfully implemented by SANBIs threatened species unit; who have identified “range restricted

rare species” as an additional category for national reporting (but which are excluded from IUCN listing processes).

This category could also cater for the various special ecosystem listed previously in South Africa using Criteria F of

the 2011 system.

The process and plan for updating the national listing of threatened ecosystems / gazette has not yet been finalized.

As a first step in this process we have produced a provincial level comparison on the NEMBA 2011 list of threatened

ecosystems and the preliminary 2018 Red List of Ecosystems. This will lay the foundation for discussion on the

update of regulations linked to the new list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems.

Ideally the national list of ecosystems would be biennially updated by SANBI based on the latest assessments and

information (as per species), rather than a static list that is gazette for 5-10 years as is currently the situation. SANBIs

policy experts will have to investigate the possibility for this.

https://iucnrle.org/

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 – comparison with 2011 assessment 2

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this report was to provide summary information at a provincial level on the differences and

similarities between the 2011 list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems (referred to as the NEMBA list) and the

2018 National Biodiversity Assessment Red List of Ecosystems (referred to as the NBA RLE). Additional

information detailing the ecosystem assessment approach for the 2018 NBA RLE can be found in Appendix 1.

Appendix 2 contains additional information comparing the South African and the IUCN RLE ecosystem

assessment frameworks.

South Africa is one of several countries to independently develop indicators of ecosystem threat prior to

the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) (Keith et al., 2013a) (www.iucnrle.org). These indicators met a

recognised need for an indicator similar to the IUCN Red List of Species that could identify risk for higher-

levels of biodiversity organisation such as ecological communities (Noss, 1990; Rodríguez et al., 2011; Keith

et al., 2013a; Bland et al., 2017a).

The South African List of Threatened Ecosystems was conceptualised as a national indicator of ecosystem

conservation status in the early 2000s. From its early applications as a project-based indicator, it

progressed into a legislated national listing of threatened terrestrial ecosystems in 2011 (known as the

“2011 NEMBA list”) (RSA, 2011; Botts et al., in review). South Africa has been reporting on the threat status

of its ecosystems for more than a decade, and this information has been used to focus resources on

conservation priorities through a wide range of systematic conservation planning processes and

government policies (Driver et al., 2004, 2012; Botts et al., in review).

For 2018 NBA RLE the ecosystem threat assessments were based on the updated national vegetation map

(version 20.4, 2018) and an ecosystem condition map based primarily on the land cover change data 1990-

2014. The IUCN RLE framework and recommendations (Bland et al., 2017) was applied. Adopting the IUCN

RLE framework has both benefits and drawbacks. Overall, the benefits of international alignment and a

robust conceptual framework were judged to outweigh the drawbacks associated with changing an

established indicator. The frameworks were also shown to yield broadly similar results when using common

input data, leading to a decision by the NBA 2018 Terrestrial Component Reference Group that the IUCN

RLE approach should be adopted for the NBA 2018 and future ecosystem assessments. The gazetted 2011

NEMBA list ecosystems will be updated with the new information as soon as possible.

The goal of this report was to compare the 2011 list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems (NEMAB list) with

the 2018 application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems used in the NBA. The key considerations were a)

the number of ecosystems per threat category, b) the extent of remaining natural habitat that is

categorized as threatened and c) the spatial configuration and geographic differences between the

assessments outcomes.

METHOD & APPROACH

The full methodology and conceptual basis of the IUCN RLE can be found in Appendix 1.

We applied the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) method for the NBA 2018 using a comprehensive

systematic assessment based on IUCN Criteria A&B (criteria linked to spatial configuration and remaining

extent of ecosystems) for all terrestrial ecosystem types (vegetation types). This assessment, referred to as

the “core” assessment, was then supplemented with additional assessments of selected ecosystem types

based on additional data on ecosystem condition including: habitat loss in metropolitan areas (City of Cape

Town and Gauteng), KwaZulu -Natal, the Western Cape and Mpumalanga; degradation in the Albany

Thicket biome and Western Cape; and degradation caused by invasive alien species and overgrazing in

http://www.iucnrle.org/


ecosystem types with restricted distribution ranges. It is envisaged that the preliminary national RLE

resulting from this assessment will be considered as the baseline for the nation, and that it will be updated

as additional information becomes available – to be released biennially. If the threat status of an ecosystem

type is: a) considered an underestimate; or b) if the data used in the assessment is considered inaccurate or

inadequate; or c) if a researcher can develop new datasets to address additional criteria for selected

ecosystems; then further supplementary assessments should be undertaken. The core assessment will be

updated when updated national land cover change data becomes available.

Appendix 2 includes information on the similarities and differences in the IUCN RLE system applied in 2018

and the South African system applied in 2011.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

NBA RLE 2018 results

The first implementation of the IUCN RLE for South African terrestrial ecosystems (458 vegetation types) for

the NBA 2018 resulted in the listing of 35 Critically Endangered, 39 Endangered and 29 Vulnerable

ecosystems (Table 1). While 8% of ecosystem types are Critically Endangered, this amounts to less than 1%

of the extent of remaining natural habitat in South Africa. Endangered ecosystems make up 9% of

ecosystems by type and 3% by extent. Six percent of ecosystems types are Vulnerable, amounting to 4% of

the natural remaining habitat of South Africa (Table 8). The most influential criteria in the RLE assessment

were Criteria B1(i) (restricted distribution & continuing declines in geographic distribution) which

contributed to the listing of 74/103 ecosystem types and Criterion A3 (historical loss of habitat) which

contributed to the listing of 67/103 ecosystem types (Table 9). The supplementary assessment of Criterion

B1 using the threatened species pressures database contributed to the listing of 49/103 ecosystem types,

of which 13 were listed purely due to this criterion. Criterion D (biotic disruption – based on ecosystem

degradation) contributed to the listing of 5/103 ecosystem types.

Table 1. Summary of the assessment outcomes; including the number of ecosystem types per category & proportion of the natural areas remaining per category.

Category (IUCN RLE) Number of

ecosystems Extent of natural

Habitat (km2) Percentage of natural

habitat of SA

Critically Endangered 35 5 905 0.6%

Endangered 39 28 983 3%

Vulnerable 29 42 460 4%

Least Concern 355 882 821 77%

Total for South Africa 458 960 168 100%


Figure 1. IUCN RLE 2018 version 5: Historical extent of threatened ecosystem types

Figure 2. IUCN RLE 2018 version 5: Remaining natural extent of each threatened ecosystem type


Comparing the 2011 NEMBA and 2018 NBA RLE ecosystem threat status results

The 2018 assessment focused on vegetation types (458 units assessed) while the NEMA 2011 assessment

focused on 438 vegetation types and 108 additional “special ecosystems” (a total of 546 ecosystem types

assessed). The inclusion of special ecosystems, which were not conceptually consistent and ranged from

individual forest patches (i.e. on patch of a more widely distributed ecosystem type) to specific locations

which included range of different ecosystem types, represents a substantial difference between the

assessments. These special ecosystems, which were assessed using Criterion F of the South African

framework, do not fit the definition of an ecosystem type provided in the IUCN RLE framework, and are

better described as the outputs of biodiversity ecosystem prioritization processes. The 2018 and future

assessments of terrestrial ecosystems in South Africa will be applied to the ecosystem units described and

delineated in the national vegetation map (as recommended by the Terrestrial Reference Group in

November 2017). This data set is curated and updated regularly by SANBI, and the units described (i.e.

within Mucina and Rutherford 2006, and updates) are consistent with level 4/5 of the global ecosystem

typology that is under development (Keith et al., in prep).

While the exclusion of these special ecosystems in 2018 resulted in fewer threatened ecosystem types

being listed in 2018 when compared to 2011 (103 vs. 225), Critically Endangered and Endangered

ecosystem types cover a similar extent (when considering the natural remaining habitat). This is important

from a regulation point of view as the “footprint” of these two categories have the largest impact on

environmental regulation processes and procedures. Vulnerable ecosystem types covered a substantially

larger area in 2011 than in the 2018 assessment, but the impact of this on regulatory processes in limited.

Differences in the Western Cape are mostly driven by the use of a threatened species focused criteria in the

NEMBA 2011 assessment (SA Criteria D1) (Appendix 2). The 2018 NBA RLE assessment incorporates threats

such as invasive alien species and overgrazing as evidence of ongoing decline only in restricted range

ecosystems (linked to IUCN Criteria B1ii, B2ii).

There are ecosystem types which, based on the new land cover data, are in lower threat category than the

2011 NEMBA assessment. In some cases this represents an improved understanding of the extent of

natural habitat remaining, and in others it may be that the new land cover data is over estimating the

extent of natural habitat. We have implemented numerous adjustments to the land cover change data to

prevent this (i.e. mapping secondary natural areas) but these ecosystems should be investigated further

and supplementary assessments should be undertaken.

Table 2. Comparison of the results of the 2018 Red List of Ecosystems and the 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems. The table includes the number of ecosystem types per category and the proportion of the natural habitat of South Africa within each category. The 2011 assessment included 438 vegetation types and 108 “special ecosystem types” (ranging from forest sub-vegetation units to habitat for threatened animals); the 2018 assessment was applied to an updated vegetation map with 458 units.

Category (IUCN RLE)

2011 2018

Number of ecosystems

Percentage of natural habitat of SA



Critically Endangered 53 <1% 35 <1%

Endangered 64 2% 39 3%

Vulnerable 108 7% 29 4%

Total number of ecosystem assessed

546

458

Some of the special ecosystems listed under SA Criteria F and A2 (forest patches) in the 2011 NEMBA

assessment are no longer listed as threatened, or have been placed in a lower threat category in the 2018

NEBA RLE. These ecosystems are now part of provincial CBA networks and are more appropriately highlighted


through biodiversity prioritization processes rather than threat status assessments. To complement the RLE

we aim to develop an additional list of “ecosystems of special concern”, much like the “species of special

concern” which picks up on endemic, localized or otherwise unique ecosystems in South Africa. The special

forest areas included in the 2011 NEMBA list using SA Criteria F and A2 are a good starting point for such as

list.

The western portion of the Eastern Cape has a number of differences which are driven by changes to the

national vegetation map (specifically adjustments to the Albany Thicket biome), and the inclusion

degradation data, developed by the STEP programme (Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme, 2002-

2004).

Appendix 3 lists each terrestrial ecosystem type assessed in 2018 using the IUCN RLE and included in the

National Biodiversity Assessment, and compares the ecosystem threat status with the 2011 NEMBA listing.

Figure 3. (a) Threatened terrestrial ecosystems published in 2011 (the NEMBA list); (b) the 2018 NBA RLE. The maps are broadly similar with most differences concentrated in the Albany Thicket biome, Grassland biome and Fynbos biome.

Table 3. The 2018 NBA RLE - Provincial breakdown showing the percentage of the natural remaining habitat in each threat category. The number of ecosystems types is shown in parenthesis. Note the provincial stats do not sum to the SA totals since some ecosystem types occur in multiple provinces.

Province (RLE 2018) Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Total Threatened Least Concern

Eastern Cape 0.2% (4) 0.3% (3) 7.1% (11) 7.6% 92.4%

Free State 0% (0) 4.1% (1) 8.1% (4) 12.2% 87.8%

Gauteng 3.1% (1) 9.5% (2) 32.6% (4) 45.2% 54.8%

KwaZulu-Natal 1.4% (2) 18.9% (11) 9.9% (5) 30.2% 69.8%

Limpopo 0.1% (1) 1.3% (2) 3.4% (4) 4.8% 95.2%

Mpumalanga 0% (0) 4.6% (4) 24.7% (5) 29.3% 470.7%

North West 0% (0) 7.7% (3) 4.6% (4) 12.3% 87.7.7%

Northern Cape 0.1% (3) <0.1% (1) 0% (0) 0.1% 99.9%

Western Cape 4.1% (25) 5.6% (20) 0.8% (9) 10.5% 89.5%


Table 4. The 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystem (NEMBA list) - Provincial breakdown showing the percentage of the natural remaining habitat in each threat category. The number of ecosystems is shown in parenthesis. Note the provincial stats do not sum to the SA totals since some ecosystem types occur in multiple provinces.

Province (NEMBA 2011) Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Total Threatened Least Concern

Eastern Cape 0.02% (1) 0.4% (8) 3.2% (10) 3.60% 96.4%

Free State 0% (0) 4.0% (2) 11.4% (7) 15.39% 84.6%

Gauteng 15.6% (10) 11.3% (7) 30.9% (7) 57.79% 42.2%

KwaZulu-Natal 3.0% (19) 2.6% (25) 20.6% (58) 26.22% 73.8%

Limpopo 0.1% (1) 1.2% (5) 5.2% (6) 6.50% 93.5%

Mpumalanga 0.1% (4) 12.3% (14) 34.5% (21) 46.90% 53.1%

North West 2.3% (3) 4.7% (2) 17.6% (9) 24.52% 75.5%

Northern Cape 0% (0) 0.1% (1) 0.3% (4) 0.41% 99.6%

Western Cape 4.9% (21) 1.7% (14) 11.5% (23) 18.09% 81.9% Table 5. Summary of changes in threatened ecosystem listing per province between 2011 NEMBA list and 2018 NBA RLE.

Province Narrative of Changes

Eastern Cape

Threatened ecosystems now cover 8% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, up from 4% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased slightly from 19 to 18. The vast majority of these threatened types are vulnerable. The major contributors to the differences are the use of a new map of Albany Thicket biome ecosystems types and the use of the degradation data from the STEP programme.

Free State

Threatened ecosystems now cover 12% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 15% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased from 9 to 5. The differences are caused by the higher habitat loss thresholds for Endangered and Critically Endangered categories in the IUCN system compared to the South African system.

Gauteng

Threatened ecosystems now cover 45% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 57% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has also decreased from 24 to 7. These decreases are due to the exclusion of SA Criteria F “special” ecosystems which are now captured as priorities within systematic biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas).

KwaZulu-Natal

Threatened ecosystems now cover 30% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, up from 26% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased substantially from 102 to 18 due to the exclusion of a large number of small “special” ecosystems (identified under SA Criterion F) which are now captured as priorities within systematic biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas).

Limpopo

Threatened ecosystems now cover 5% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 7% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased from 12 to 7. The differences are caused by the higher habitat loss thresholds for Endangered and Critically Endangered categories in the IUCN system compared to the South African system.

Mpumalanga

Threatened ecosystems now cover 30% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 47% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased substantially from 39 to 9 due to the exclusion of a large number of small “special” ecosystems (identified under SA Criterion F) which are now captured as priorities within systematic biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas).

North West

Threatened ecosystems now cover 12% of the natural remaining habitat extent of the province, down from 25% estimated in 2011. The number of threatened ecosystem types has decreased from 14 to 7. The differences are caused by the higher habitat loss thresholds for Endangered and Critically Endangered categories in the IUCN system compared to the South African system and the exclusion of some small “special” ecosystems (identified under SA Criterion F) which are now captured as priorities within systematic biodiversity plans (e.g. critical biodiversity areas).

Northern Cape Less than 1% of the natural remaining ecosystem extent of the Province is listed as threatened in both 2018 and 2011 assessments. The number of listed ecosystem types remains the same.

Western Cape

Approximately 10% of the natural remaining ecosystem extent of the Province is listed as threatened in both 2018 and 2011 assessments. The number of ecosystem types listed as threatened has decreased slightly from 58 to 54 due to a refinement in the approach for including threatened species data.


Limitations

The key shortcoming of all of these ecosystem threat status assessments is that we lack appropriate data

on land degradation or biotic disruption of ecosystems. This means that in many regions the ecosystem

assessments will underestimate the risk of collapse. This is dealt with to some degree in the thicket biome;

but in other biomes it is a very challenging problem that will need significant focussed research. One

aspect of degradation that should be possible to map accurately and therefore use in ecosystem

assessment is distribution and abundance on alien invasive species. At least for grasses and woody plants

that reach high abundances and high visibility this certainly seems possible in the near future. Another

challenge is that for many of our ecosystems we do not have a clear model of ecosystem function against

which we can measure biotic disruption or degradation.

A further shortcoming of this assessment is that it relies on data collected in 2013/2014 – which makes it 4

years old. This is not ideal, and as automated and global scale remote sensing becomes more accessible it is

hoped that future assessments will not suffer from this long time delay. As soon as new land cover data

become available (scheduled for 2018 release by the Department of Environmental Affairs) SANBI has set

up a system to automatically update the lists (though there are many steps for which expert validation are

required); the aim is to reduce this time lag to less than one year.

REFERENCES

Bland, L. M., Keith, D. A., Miller, R. M., Rodríguez, J. P., & Murray, N. J. (2017). Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of

Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.1. Gland, Switzerland.

Botts EA, Skowno AL, Driver A, Holness S, Maze, K, Smith T, Daniels F, Desmet PG, Sink K, Botha M, Nel J, Manuel J (in review)

Integration of South Africa’s threatened ecosystems into conservation planning and environmental policy. Biological Conservation

Dayaram, A., L. Powrie, T. Rebelo, and A. Skowno. (2017) Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland 2009 and 2012: A

description of changes from 2006. Bothalia 47:1-10.

Government Gazette. 2011. National list of ecosystems that are threatened or in need of protection. Department of Environmental

Affairs, Government Gazette 34809:1002, 9 December 2011, Pretoria.

Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez-Clark, K. M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., Zambrano-Martínez, S. (2013). Scientific

Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062111

Lloyd, J.W., E.C. van den Berg & A.R. Palmer. 2002. Patterns of transformation and degradation in the Thicket Biome, South Africa.

TERU Report 39, University of Port Elizabeth.

Mucina, L. & M.C. Rutherford. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National

Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Rowland, J. A., Nicholson, E., Murray, N. J., Keith, D. A., Lester, R. E., & Bland, L. M. (2018). Selecting and applying indicators of

ecosystem collapse for risk assessments. Conservation Biology, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13107

Skowno, A. L. (2018) Terrestrial habitat modification change map (1990-2014) for South Africa: a national scale, two timepoint, land

cover derived, map of terrestrial habitat modification - NBA 2018 Technical Report. Pretoria, South Africa.

Thompson, M., Vlok, J., Rouget, M., Hoffman, M. T., Balmford, A., & Cowling, R. M. (2009). Mapping grazing-induced degradation in

a semi-arid environment: A rapid and cost effective approach for assessment and monitoring. Environmental Management, 43(4),

585–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9228-x

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9228-x


Appendix 1. Extract from Chapter 7 of the Terrestrial Realm Report for the NBA

2018

Chapter 7: Skowno, A.L., Matlala, M.S., Kirkwood, D. & Slingsby. J.A. 2019. ‘Chapter 7: Ecosystem Assessments’ in National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 1: Terrestrial Realm. Skowno, A.L., Raimondo, D.C., Poole, C.J., Fizzotti, B. & Slingsby, J.A. (eds.). South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Ecosystem threat status (Red list of Ecosystems) South Africa is one of several countries to independently develop indicators of ecosystem threat prior to the

IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) (Keith et al. 2013)(www.iucnrle.org). These indicators met a recognised

need for an indicator similar to the IUCN Red List of Species that could identify risk for higher-levels of

biodiversity organisation such as ecological communities (Keith et al. 2013; Bland et al. 2017).

The South African List of Threatened Ecosystems was conceptualised as a national indicator of ecosystem

conservation status in the early 2000s. From its early applications as a project-based indicator, it progressed

into a legislated national listing of threatened terrestrial ecosystems (RSA 2011, Botts et al. in review) which

entrenched its use in land use planning and decision making (e.g. through the Environmental Impact

Assessment processes). South Africa has also been reporting on the threat status of its ecosystems for more

than a decade, and using this information to focus scarce resources on conservation priorities through a wide

range of government policies (Driver et al. 2004, 2012; Botts et al. in review).

For the NBA 2018, the ecosystem threat assessments were based on the updated national vegetation map

and new ecosystem condition map (based primarily on the land cover change data). Both the 2011 South

Africa method and the new 2017 IUCN RLE methods were implemented with the aim of comparing and

contrasting the results. Overall, the South African method and the IUCN method were similar, but the

benefits of using the IUCN system (i.e. a stronger scientific evidence base than the South African method,

recognition of the resulting RLE by the IUCN and alignment for with international conventions and

assessment processes) tend to outweigh the drawbacks (i.e. deviating from a locally well-established and

accepted method) (Skowno et al. 2018b). Consequently, the NBA 2018 Terrestrial Reference Group decided

that the IUCN RLE approach should be adopted for the NBA 2018 and that the gazetted list of threatened

ecosystems should be updated with the new information as soon as possible.

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Framework

Background of the IUCN RLE

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is a framework for assessing the risks to ecosystems and identifying where

ecosystems are threatened (Rodríguez et al. 2011). Using the familiar categories from the Red List of Species

(Figure 4), and based on a set of criteria and thresholds developed collaboratively since 2008, the IUCN RLE

was established to ensure that the assessment methods: (i) can be applied systematically across realms and

geographic areas; (ii) are transparent and scientifically rigorous; (iii) are comparable and repeatable; (iv) can

be easily understood by policy makers and the general public; and (v) complement the IUCN Red List of

Threatened Species framework (Rodríguez et al. 2011; Keith et al. 2013; Bland & Keith et al. 2017).

The key concepts and definitions underpinning the RLE have been documented in a number of international

journal publications, notably Nicholson et al. 2009; Rodríguez et al. 2011; Keith et al. 2013, 2015; Bland

et al. 2017b, 2018. There is growing uptake of the IUCN RLE standards (Bland & Keith et al. 2017) with number

of published sub-global assessments (including North America, Philippines, Australia, Colombia, France,

Finland) adopting the RLE approach. Ultimately, national and other sub-global assessments undertaken using

http://www.iucnrle.org/


these international standards will contribute towards establishing a global database of threatened

ecosystems equivalent to the global Red List of Species.

Key Concepts

The goal of the IUCN RLE is to identify ecosystems that are at risk of losing their constituent biodiversity.

While there is substantial evidence that the ecosystem function and services are linked with biodiversity

(Bland & Keith et al. 2017), the relationships between these three facets of ecosystems can be complex.

Consequently, the RLE focusses specifically on risks to biodiversity (Keith et al. 2013). The RLE requires

consistent and clearly defined units of assessments (ecosystem types) that can be delineated spatially, while

at the same time needs to be able to effectively assess risks across widely contrasting ecosystems

(Keith et al. 2013). Vegetation types, in particular, have been suggested as appropriate and consistent units

that represent biodiversity and communities at an appropriate scale for use in the RLE (Keith et al. 2013;

Boitani, Mace & Rondinini 2015). The RLE framework used the concept of ecosystem collapse as the ‘end

point’ of ecosystem decline, this is equivalent to species extinction in the RLS, and is defined operationally as

a ‘transformation of identity, loss of defining abiotic or biotic features and characteristic native biota are no

longer sustained’ (Keith et al. 2013).

Criteria and Thresholds

The risk assessment model for the IUCN RLE is illustrated schematically in Figure 36. Declining distributions

(Figure 5-A) and restricted distributions (Figure 5-B) are considered distributional symptoms of decline; and

degradation of abiotic environment (Figure 5-C) and altered biotic function (Figure 5-D) are considered

functional symptoms of decline. It is possible for these mechanisms to interact and produce additional

symptoms of decline (Keith et al. 2013). The mechanisms in the conceptual model (Figure 5) translate into

five rule-based criteria with thresholds for the distributional and functional symptoms. The final threat listing

for each ecosystem is the worst threat category triggered by any of the criteria (i.e. if an ecosystem is listed

CR under any criteria it is listed CR overall, even if it only scores LC or any other category under all other

criteria).

Figure 4. IUCN RLE threat categories, see glossary of terms of definitions. Source: Bland et al. (2017a).

Figure 5. IUCN RLE framework for assessing the risk of ecosystem collapse. Source: Keith et al. (2013).


Implementation of the IUCN RLE for the NBA 2018

We applied the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) method for the NBA 2018 using a comprehensive

systematic assessment based on IUCN Criteria A&B (criteria linked to spatial configuration and remaining

extent of ecosystems) for all terrestrial ecosystem types (vegetation types). This assessment, referred to as

the ‘core’ assessment, was then supplemented with additional assessments of selected ecosystem types

based on additional data on ecosystem condition including: habitat loss in metropolitan areas, KZN, Western

Cape and Mpumalanga; degradation in the Albany Thicket biome and Western Cape; and degradation from

invasive alien species and overgrazing using data extracted from threatened species assessments.

It is envisaged that the preliminary national RLE resulting from this assessment will be considered as the

baseline for the nation, and that it will be updated as additional information becomes available and be

released annually. Given the general lack of appropriate ecosystem condition data available in South Africa

this base line assessment is likely to have underestimated the risk to numerous ecosystem types – especially

those that are threatened by more subtle ecosystem modification than land clearing. If the threat status of

an ecosystem type is: a) considered an underestimate; or b) if the data used in the assessment is considered

inaccurate or inadequate; or c) if a researcher can develop new datasets to address additional criteria for

selected ecosystems; then further supplementary assessments should be undertaken. The core assessment

will be updated when updated national land cover change data becomes available.

Input data

The national land cover change dataset (Chapter 3) and the national vegetation map (Chapter 4) provided

the ecosystem assessment units and the primary ecosystem condition input to the RLE analysis. Additional

land cover data was sourced for Gauteng (2011), City of Cape Town (2017), Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan

Municipality (2015), Mpumalanga (2017), the Western Cape (2016) and KwaZulu-Natal (2011) (Table 6);

these datasets were used to perform supplementary assessments for Criteria A3. The threatened species

database (SANBI, Threatened Species Unit) was used to identify selected limited range ecosystems (Criteria

B) that are experiencing ongoing decline due to habitat loss, overgrazing or invasive plant species. Ecosystem

degradation data for the Albany Thicket biome, Little Karoo region and the Western Cape allowed for a

supplementary assessment of these regions using Criteria D3 (Table 6).

Table 6. Input data sources for the Red List of Ecosystem analysis.

Assessment Dataset Description Reference

All assessments

Terrestrial ecosystem type map

Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland 2018 version 6. Polygon feature geodatabase developed and curated by SANBI.

South African National Biodiversity Institute (2006). The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. and Powrie, L.W. (Editors), Version 2018.6b.

Core assessment: Criteria A3, A2b, B1, B2

National land cover

Land cover change raster developed by SANBI with two timepoints 1990, 2014. Based on national land cover products by GeoTerra Image 2015.

Skowno AL (2018) Terrestrial habitat modification change map (1990-2014) for South Africa: a national scale, two timepoint, land cover derived, map of terrestrial habitat modification - NBA 2018 Technical Report. Pretoria, South Africa. GeoTerraImage (2015) Technical Report: 2013/2014 South African National Land Cover Dataset version 5. Pretoria, 53 pp. GeoTerraImage (2015) Technical Report: 1990 South African National Land Cover Dataset version 5.2. Pretoria, 63 pp.

Supplementary: Criterion A3

City of Cape Town natural vegetation remnants map

2017 Vegetation remnants map produced by City of Cape Town based on remote sensing and in field validation of condition. Provided as a polygon feature geodatabse.

City of Cape Town (2017). Current Indigenous vegetation [Data file]. Retrieved from City of Cape Town Open Data Portal https://web1.capetown.gov.za/web1/opendataportal

Gauteng land cover

A composite raster land cover product that combines very high resolution (2.5m) urban land cover with high resolution (1om) rural land cover for the province.

GeoTerraImage (2011). Gauteng Provincial Land Cover (2009 imagery; 10m raster dataset). http://www.geoterraimage.com/products-landcover.php

https://web1.capetown.gov.za/web1/opendataportal

http://www.geoterraimage.com/products-landcover.php


Assessment Dataset Description Reference

GeoTerraImage (2011). Gauteng Urban Land Cover (2010; 2.5m raster dataset). http://www.geoterraimage.com/products-landcover.php

Nelson Mandel Bay Metro natural areas map

Natural areas map from the municipal bioregional planning process, with combination of desk top and field validated ecological condition. Provided as a polygon shapefile.

Stewart, W.I. and Jorgensen, P.J. 2016. Updating of Systematic Biodiversity Plan and development and publication of Bioregional Plan for the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality: NMBM 2015 Landcover. SRK Consulting, South Africa.

KwaZulu-Natal land cover

2011 provincial raster land cover product (20m resolution) validated by provincial conservation authorities.

Jewitt D, Goodman PS, Erasmus BFN, O’Connor TG, Witkowski ETF (2015) Systematic land cover change in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Implications for biodiversity. South African Journal of Science, 111, 0–9.

Mpumalanga land cover


GeoTerraImage (2018). Mpumalanga Provincial Land Cover (2017 Sentinel 2 imagery; 10m raster dataset).

Western Cape land cover


Pence, G.Q.K. (2017) Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan: Technical Report. Unpublished Report. Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (Cape Nature), Cape Town.

Supplementary assessment: Criteria B1, B2

Ongoing decline - invasive plants and overgrazing

Evidence of ongoing decline for selected limited range ecosystems with very high numbers of threatened plant species – drawn from Red List of Species assessments.

Threatened species database of South Africa (SANBI, Threatened Species Unit).

Supplementary assessment: Criterion D3

Western Cape ecosystem degradation data

2015 provincial raster land cover and ecological condition product (10m resolution) validated by provincial conservation authorities.

Pence, G.Q.K. (2017) Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan: Technical Report. Unpublished Report. Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (Cape Nature), Cape Town.

Albany Thicket biome degradation data

2002 biome-wide Landsat TM 5 based raster ecosystem degradation product (30m). Developed and field validated as part of the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Project (STEP) by the Agricultural Research Council.

Lloyd JW, Van den Berg EC, Palmer AR (2002) Patterns of transformation and degradation in the Thicket Biome, South Africa. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth.

Little Karoo degradation data

2005 MODIS based degradation map of Little Karoo region.

Thompson M, Vlok J, Rouget M, Hoffman MT, Balmford A, Cowling RM (2009) Mapping grazing-induced degradation in a semi-arid environment: A rapid and cost effective approach for assessment and monitoring. Environmental Management, 43, 585–596.

Core assessment

Criteria A2b and A3 – historical and future reductions in geographic range

The ecosystem type data (vegetation map version 2018) and the ecosystem condition data (land cover based)

were cross tabulated within a geographic information system and changes in natural extent from the

reference condition (circa 1750) to 1990 and 2014 were computed for each ecosystem type. The remaining

natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2014 was subtracted from the historical reference extent (circa

1750) and expressed as a percentage of the historical extent; allowing for the application of the thresholds

for Criterion A3 (historical reductions in geographic range). The absolute rate of decline in natural habitat

between 1990 and 2014 (Equation 1) was used to estimate the natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2040

(Equation 2), this projected value was then subtracted from the 1990 extent and expressed as a percentage

of the 1990 extent; allowing for the application of the Criterion A2b (past-present-future reductions in

geographic range).

Equation 1: Absolute Rate of Decline1: 𝐴𝑅𝐷 =𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎1990 − 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎2014

𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟1990 − 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟2014

Equation 2: Natural Extent 2040: 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎2040 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎2014 − (𝐴𝑅𝐷 × (𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟2014 − 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟2040))

1 Absolute Rate of Decline ARD is the term used by the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Guidelines; it is equivalent to rate of habitat loss,

and to rate of reduction in ecosystem extent used in previous chapters. ARD / rate of habitat loss underpin the ecosystem extent indicators discussed in Chapter 1 and 3.


Criteria B1i and B2i – Restricted geographic range

The first step for the assessment under this criterion was to combine the habitat modification data for 2014

with the ecosystem type data to produce an ‘ecosystem remnants’ layer circa 2014. This layer (in geotiff

format) was used to compute the Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and Area of Occupancy (AOO) for each

ecosystem type with the package [redlistr] (Lee & Murray 2017) within the statistical software R (R Core Team

2014). Ecosystem types only qualify for consideration under Criterion B if they are experiencing ongoing

declines in extent or condition (observed or inferred). For the core assessment, an absolute rate of decline

(ARD, Equation 1) threshold of 0.4%/y was used to identify ecosystems qualifying for Criterion B in terms of

ongoing decline. Ecosystems with ARD above this threshold have lost approximately 10% of their natural

remaining extent in the last 25 years. This then allowed for the assessment of Sub-criterion B1 (i) and Sub-

criterion B2 (i) for all qualifying ecosystem types (Table 7).

Supplementary assessments

To complement the core assessment a number of additional datasets were compiled to ensure the ecosystem

risk assessments were based on the best available data. This is a first version of the RLE and going forward

this is an approach that will allow for reassessments of selected ecosystem types as new and improved data

is collected or additional existing data comes to light. The supplementary assessment used Criteria A, B and

D.

Criterion D - Disruption of biotic processes (supplementary)

The Sub Tropical Ecosystem Project (STEP) and Little Karoo (LK) ecosystem degradation datasets (Lloyd, Van

den Berg & Palmer 2002; Rouget et al. 2003; Thompson et al. 2009) were used to assess the ecosystem types

of the Albany Thicket biome and Little Karoo region using Criterion D3 (biotic disruption since 1750) (Table

7). This criterion uses both the severity of disruption (50%, 70% or 90%) and the extent of the disruption

(50%, 70% or 90%) to categorize ecosystems. The STEP and LK degradation class ‘severe’ was considered as

90% severity due to large scale disruption of a wide range of biotic process including vegetation structure,

species composition, richness, biomass (Lloyd, Van den Berg & Palmer 2002; Thompson et al. 2009). The

extent of severely degraded land within in each ecosystem type was expressed as a percentage of the natural

remaining extent and the thresholds as per Table 7 were applied.

Criterion A3 - Historical reductions in geographic range (supplementary)

High resolution and high confidence land cover data exist for certain regions within South Africa including

Gauteng Province, City of Cape Town, Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, Mpumalanga, the Western Cape Province

and KwaZulu-Natal Province (Table 6). The ecosystem type data (vegetation map version 2018) and the high

resolution land cover data were cross tabulated within a geographic information system and changes in

natural extent from the reference condition (circa 1750) were computed for each ecosystem type. The

remaining extent of each ecosystem type was expressed as a percentage of the original extent of the

ecosystem type (circa 1750), allowing for application of Criteria A3 (historical reductions in geographic range).

Criteria B1iii and B2iii – Restricted geographic range (supplementary)

A key challenge in the application of the RLE is the poor availability of spatially explicit ecosystem degradation

data. As a result, the risk of collapse of many ecosystem types may have been underestimated in the core

assessment. A supplementary assessment of Criterion B was undertaken using the threatening processes

data from the Threatened Plant Species Database (SANBI Threatened Species Unit), the most reliable source

of data on functional symptoms of decline in South Africa. For the supplementary assessment of Criterion B,

the qualifying criteria (i.e. evidence of biotic disruption) was a quantitative assessment of threatening

processes listed for the threatened species occurring in each ecosystem type. To do this each threatened


plant species was assigned to an ecosystem type or ecosystem types using their spatial position and

descriptions of preferred habitat (personal communication with SANBI Threatened Species Unit). We then

calculated the number of species per ecosystem type that are threatened by a) poor rangeland management

(over grazing), b) invasive alien species and c) inappropriate fire management. The qualifier for biotic

disruption Criteria B1iii and B2iii in the supplementary assessment was set to: ecosystems that contained >

40 threatened plant species, of which > 60% were threatened due to major biotic disruptions. This is a

preliminary solution while additional data on biotic disruption, severity and extent are collected.

Table 7. full list of IUCN RLE criteria and thresholds (Rodríguez et al. 2011); for the list of criteria used in the South African implementation of the RLE see Table 8.

Table 8. IUCN RLE criteria and thresholds used in the South African assessment 2018.

Criteria & Sub-criteria CR EN VU

Criteria A: Reduced geographic distribution


Sub-criterion A2b - Loss of habitat over a 50 year period including past present and future For the NBA 2018, the absolute rate of decline in natural habitat between 1990 and 2014 (Equation 1) was used to estimate the natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2040 (Equation 2), this projected value was then subtracted from the 1990 extent and expressed as a percentage of the 1990 extent; allowing for the application of the Criterion A2b (past-present-future reductions in geographic range).

≥ 80% ≥ 50% ≥ 30%

Sub-criterion A3 – Historical loss of habitat (since ~1750) For the NBA 2018, the remaining natural extent of each ecosystem type in 2014 was subtracted from the historical reference extent (circa 1750) and expressed as a percentage of the historical extent; allowing for the application of the thresholds for Criterion A3 (historical reductions in geographic range). Equivalent supplementary assessments utilised higher resolution land cover products available for KwaZulu-Natal province, Mpumalanga province, Western Cape province and three large metropolitan areas.

≥ 90% ≥ 70% ≥ 50%

Criteria B: Restricted distribution & continuing declines in geographic distribution

Sub-criterion B1 (i) - Extent of a minimum convex polygon (km2) enclosing all

occurrences (EOO) & an observed or inferred continuing decline in spatial extent. For the NBA 2018, the absolute rate of habitat loss was used to identify ecosystems with significant ongoing decline in the extent of natural habitat (> 0.4%/y). Supplementary assessments used expert input and the threatened species database to identify restricted distribution ecosystems with very high levels of biotic disruption from over grazing, invasive species and poor fire management - B1(iii).

≤ 2 000 km2 ≤ 20 000

km2

≤ 50 000

km2

Sub-criterion B2 (i) - The number of 10×10 km grid cells occupied (AOO) & an observed or inferred continuing decline in spatial extent. For the NBA 2018, the absolute rate of habitat loss was used to identify ecosystems with significant ongoing decline in the extent of natural habitat (> 0.4%/y). Supplementary assessments used expert input and the threatened species database to identify restricted distribution ecosystems with very high levels of biotic disruption from over grazing, invasive species and poor fire management - B2(iii).

≤ 2 ≤ 20 ≤ 50

Criteria D: Disruption of biotic processes or interactions

Sub-criterion D3 – Disruption of biotic processes, since 1750, based on change in a biotic variable affecting a fraction of the extent of the ecosystem and with relative severity, as indicated by the table on the right. For the NBA 2018, ecosystem degradation data from the Albany Thicket biome and Little Karoo region were used. The severely degraded class in these datasets was considered to be ≥ 90% severity, the extent of severe degradation was expressed as a percentage of the remaining habitat circa 2014.

Relative severity (%)

Ext

ent (

%)

≥ 90 ≥ 70 ≥ 50

≥ 90 CR EN VU

≥ 70 EN VU

≥ 50 VU

Results of the ecosystem threat assessment

The first implementation of the IUCN RLE for South African terrestrial ecosystems (458 vegetation types) for

the NBA 2018 resulted in the listing of 35 Critically Endangered, 39 Endangered and 29 Vulnerable ecosystems

(Table 9) (Figure 6). While eight percent of ecosystem types are Critically Endangered, this amounts to less

than one percent of the extent of natural remaining habitat in South Africa. Endangered ecosystems make

up 8.5% of ecosystems by type and 3% by extent remaining. Vulnerable ecosystems make up 6.3% of

ecosystem by type, amounting to 4% of the natural remaining habitat of South Africa (Table 9) (Figure 7). The

most influential criterion in the RLE assessment was Criterion B1 (restricted distribution & continuing declines

in geographic distribution) which contributed to the listing of 53/103 ecosystem types and Criterion A3

(historical loss of habitat) which contributed to the listing of 28/103 ecosystem types. The supplementary

assessment of Criterion B1 (iii) using the threatened species pressures database contributed to the listing of

25/103 ecosystem types, of which 12 were listed purely due to this criterion. Criterion D3 (biotic disruption

– based on ecosystem degradation) resulted in the listing of only one (Vulnerable) ecosystem type.

Table 9. Summary of the assessment outcomes; including the number of ecosystem types per category & proportion of the natural areas remaining per category.

Category (IUCN RLE) Number of ecosystems

Extent of natural Habitat (km2)

Percentage of natural remaining habitat of SA


Critically Endangered 35 5 904 0.6%

Endangered 39 28 982 3%

Vulnerable 29 42 459 4.4%

Least Concern 355 882 820 92%

Total for South Africa 458 960 167 100%

Figure 6. Map showing the distribution of threatened ecosystems according to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. The map shows the historical extent of the ecosystem types (based on the National Vegetation Map 2018). The inset graph shows the percentage of ecosystem types that falls within each threat category.

Results per biome

The Fynbos biome has the highest number of threatened ecosystems types (53), followed by Grassland (21)

and Savanna (11) and these make up 20%, 24% and 3% of the natural remaining habitat of the biome

respectively (Figure 8, Table 10). Of the six of the ecosystems types making up the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt

biome, 4 are threatened and 62% of the natural habitat remaining in the biome is threatened. The arid

regions of the country have less threatened ecosystems (by type and by remaining extent); the Succulent

Karoo has two threatened ecosystems (amounting to 0.2% of the natural habitat) and the Nama-Karoo has

no threatened ecosystems. The full terrestrial threatened ecosystem database, including information on land

cover change and the RLE criteria for each ecosystem type, is available online on the Biodiversity GIS website

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


Figure 7. Map showing the natural remaining extent (circa 2014) of threatened ecosystems according to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. The inset graph shows the percentage of the total natural habitat remaining in South Africa (960 167 km2) that falls within each threat category.

Table 10. Percentage natural remaining habitat within each IUCN RLE threat category, listed per biome. The number of ecosystem types per threat category, per biome is shown in parenthesis.

Biome Critically

Endangered Endangered Vulnerable

Threatened Ecosystem Types (CR, EN, VU)

Least Concern

Total

Albany Thicket 0.6% (3) - 17% (3) 18% (6) 82% (38) (44)

Desert - 0.03% (1) - 0.03% (1) 99% (14) (15)

Forests - - 3% (1) % (1) 97% (11) (12)

Fynbos 8% (25) 10% (18) 2% (10) 20% (53) 80% (69) (122)

Grassland 0.2% (2) 7% (18) 13% (11) 21% (21) 79% (52) (73)

Indian Ocean Coastal Belt

- 51% (3) 11% (1) 62% (4) 38% (2) (6)

Nama-Karoo - - - - 100% (13) (13)

Savanna 0.2% (2) 1% (6) 2% (3) 3% (11) 97% (80) (91)

Succulent Karoo 0.2% (2) - - 0.2% (2) 99% (62) (64)

Azonal Vegetation 0.003% (1) 3% (3) - 3% (4) 97% (14) (18)

Total 0.6% (35) 2.9% (39) 4.3% (29) 7.8% (103) 92% (355) (458)


Figure 8. Threatened ecosystem types per biome, showing (a) the percentage of ecosystem types per biome that fall within each threat category, and (b) the percentage of the total natural habitat remaining in each biome that falls within each threat category (Critically Endangered – CR; Endangered – EN; Vulnerable – VU; Least Concern – LC).

Provincial summary

Threatened ecosystems are not evenly distributed across South Africa’s provinces. While a large proportion

of the remaining natural habitat in Gauteng (45%), KwaZulu-Natal (30%) and Mpumalanga (30%) is

threatened, a much smaller percentage is listed as Critically Endangered (3%, 1% and 0% respectively) (Figure

9, Table 11). This pattern is mirrored in Limpopo, Free State, Eastern Cape and North West provinces. The

Western Cape has a slightly different pattern with Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable

ecosystem types are being more even in terms of extent. The results of the ecosystem assessment are closely

linked to the land cover change patterns of the provinces. The high population density of Gauteng, and high

agriculture potential and high population density of KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga are the drivers of the

high rates of habitat loss. Despite the high number of threatened ecosystems in the Western Cape (54), linked

to high ecosystem diversity of the Fynbos biome, only 11% of the natural remaining ecosystem extent of the

province is threatened.

Table 11. Table showing the percentage of the natural remaining habitat in each province that falls with each IUCN RLE category; in parenthesis is the number of ecosystem types per category per province (note these do not sum to a national number of threatened ecosystems as ecosystem types cross provincial boundaries.

Province Critically Endangered

Endangered Vulnerable Threatened Ecosystem Types

Least Concern

Total

Eastern Cape 0.2% (4) 0.3% (3) 7% (11) 8% (18) 92% (83) (101)

Free State - 4% (1) 8% (4) 12% (5) 88% (30) (35)

Gauteng 3% (1) 10% (2) 33% (4) 45% (7) 55% (8) (15)

KwaZulu-Natal 1% (2) 19% (11) 10% (5) 30% (18) 70% (38) (56) Limpopo 0.1% (1) 1% (2) 3% (4) 5% (7) 95% (44) (51) Mpumalanga - 5% (4) 25% (5) 30% (9) 71% (43) (52)

North West - 8% (3) 5% (4) 12% (7) 88% (27) (34)

Northern Cape 0.1% (3) 0.2% (1) - 0.1% (4) 99% (115) (119)

Western Cape 4% (25) 6% (20) 1% (9) 11% (54) 90% (112) (166)


Figure 9. Threatened ecosystems per province, showing (a) the percentage of ecosystem types per province that fall within each threat category, and (b) the percentage of the total natural habitat remaining in each province that falls within each threat category (Critically Endangered – CR; Endangered – EN; Vulnerable – VU; Least Concern – LC).

Ecosystem threat status trends

The IUCN RLE methodology relies heavily on land cover change data (which inform Criteria A2b, A3, B1 and

B2). The two time point data available in South Africa are well suited to the RLE assessment but do not allow

for a complete application of the RLE to the earlier time points (a retrospective analysis). A partial application

of the RLE to the 1990 time point is possible, but it would be restricted to Criteria A3 (historical loss of habitat)

only. The national land cover of South Africa is due for an update in 2018, and on the release of this data the

RLE will be updated. This will then lay the foundation for a Red List Index for Ecosystems, which will track

changes in ecosystem threat status over time. As such, this RLE for South Africa represents a new baseline

for threatened ecosystems.

A direct comparison of this 2018 RLE analysis with the 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial

Ecosystems (RSA 2011) is of limited utility (Table 12). The input datasets have changed (i.e. a new vegetation

map, and new land cover data have been used), the input data have expanded (i.e. there is land cover change

data available for the first time, unlocking many dormant criteria), and the threat assessment methodology

has changed [i.e. the IUCN RLE framework and guidelines (Bland & Keith et al. 2017) have been released, and

the NBA 2018 utilises this framework]. Changes in ecosystem status between 2011 and 2018 could then be

attributed to any one or a combination of these factors.

Table 12. Comparison of the results of the 2018 Red List of Ecosystems and the 2011 National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems [note: the methods and input data were not the same at each time point, so this does not represent a trend analysis]. The table includes the number of ecosystem types per category and the proportion of the natural habitat of South Africa within each category. The 2011 assessment included 438 vegetation types and 108 ‘special ecosystem types’; the 2018 assessment was applied to an updated vegetation map with 458 units.

Category (IUCN RLE)

2011 2018





Critically Endangered 53 1% 35 0.6%

Endangered 64 2% 39 3%

Vulnerable 108 7% 29 4.4%


Ecosystems of special concern

The IUCN RLE is a risk assessment framework for

consistently identifying ecosystems that are at risk of

collapse. Since the RLE is designed to be applied across

realms and across the globe, there are certain local

ecosystems that do not meet the thresholds for the

threat categories but are considered ‘of special

concern’ for a number of reasons. This concept has

been successfully applied to the Red List of Species in

South Africa, including range restricted rare species of

the mountainous regions in particular. For the NBA

2018, all Forest ecosystem types (which, in South

Africa are naturally rare, of limited extent and highly

fragmented) are classified as ecosystem of special

concern (Figure 10). Dedicated legislation is in place to

protect natural forests in South Africa (e.g. National

Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998)), and assigning these

ecosystems to the category Ecosystems of Special

Concern highlights this need for protection without interfering with the risk assessment framework of the

IUCN RLE. This does not prevent the listing of threatened Forest ecosystem types if the IUCN RLE criteria are

met, and additional data on forest condition (using forest resource assessments for example) is a

conservation priority. In future assessments, special ecosystem types in other biomes will be considered

based on factors such as exceptional species diversity and restricted range / endemism.

Ecosystem threat status limitations

The key shortcoming of all of these ecosystem threat status assessments in the terrestrial realm is that we

lack appropriate data on ecosystem condition, land degradation and biotic disruption of ecosystems. This

means that in many regions the baseline ecosystem assessment reported here will underestimate the risk of

collapse. We have reasonable confidence that the ecosystems that are listed as threatened are genuinely at

risk of collapse – but there are many ecosystems that are at risk that which are not on currently listed as

threatened – purely as a result of lack of data. Some (outdated) data is available for the thicket biome, but

in other biomes it is a very challenging problem that will need significant focussed research. One aspect of

degradation that should be possible to map accurately, and therefore use in ecosystem assessment, is

distribution and abundance of alien invasive species. For woody plants that reach high abundances and high

visibility, this certainly seems possible in the near future. Another challenge is that for many of the ecosystem

types there is no clear model of ecosystem function against which we can measure biotic disruption or

degradation. This makes calibrating models of ecosystem condition difficult.

A further shortcoming of this assessment is that it relies heavily on land cover data collected in 2013/2014,

making the data over three years old. This is not ideal and, as automated and global scale remote sensing

becomes more accessible, it is hoped that future assessments will not suffer from this long time delay. As

soon as new land cover data become available (scheduled for 2018 release by the Department of

Environmental Affairs) SANBI has set up a system to automatically update the baseline RLE (though there are

many steps for which expert validation are required). The aim is to reduce this time lag to less than one year.

Figure 10. Ecosystem of special concern. Forest ecosystem types that are not considered threatened under the IUCN RLE framework but warrant special protection and monitoring.


Ecosystem types with distribution ranges beyond South Africa’s borders

Assessing an ecosystem type across a portion of its global range would result in a partial RLE assessment that

may not reflect the true risk of collapse for the ecosystem. The vegetation map that forms the basis of the

Red List of Ecosystems for South Africa also covers the neighbouring countries of Lesotho and Swaziland. As

a result, ecosystem types that are distributed across these particular international boundaries can be

considered to have been assessed comprehensively. For neighbouring countries such as Namibia, Botswana,

Zimbabwe and Mozambique, no comparable vegetation maps exist, and types that cross these borders

cannot be assessed across their full range at present. For the most part, however, the terrestrial ecosystem

types that occur can only in South Africa and can be considered endemic (406/458 types [89%] are endemic),

and the RLE presented above thus represents an ecosystem-wide assessment for the majority of types.

There are six terrestrial ecosystem types that are listed as Threatened but are likely to occur extensively

outside of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Table 13). Of these threatened and non-endemic types that

extend beyond the borders of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, three fall into the Savanna biome, two in

the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt and one Forest biome. Efforts are underway to align vegetation maps across

national boundaries in southern Africa, and when this is achieved these “cross border” units will be

comprehensively assessed.

Table 13. Non-endemic ecosystem types included in the Red List of Ecosystems – these types are only partially assessed and their extent and condition outside of South Africa needs to be determined before a final assessment of their status can be made.

Ecosystem type Biome RLE Status

Lebombo Summit Sourveld Savanna Endangered

Lowveld Riverine Forest Forests Vulnerable

Maputaland Coastal Belt Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Endangered

Maputaland Wooded Grassland Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Endangered

Muzi Palm Veld and Wooded Grassland Savanna Critically Endangered

Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld Savanna Endangered


Appendix 2. Comparison of 2011 methods and RLE methods employed in 2018

Table A2-1.The criteria used in the testing phase for the NBA Terrestrial Ecosystem Threat status Assessment.

Criteria Description IUCN RLE version 2

SA 2011 NEMBA

IUCN A2b Projected extent remaining (2040) based on rate of decline between 1990 and 2014

IUCN A3core, Extent remaining at most recent time point (2014) (based on national land cover)

IUCN A3city Extent remaining at most recent time point (2014) (based on fine scale city land cover for Cape Town, PE, Durban, Gauteng)

IUCN A3kzn Extent remaining at most recent time point (2011) (based on KZN land cover)

IUCN B1_10 Limited extent (EOO) with 0.4% / y rate of decline qualifier (2000, 20 000 and 50 000 km2 thresholds)

IUCN B2_10 Limited distribution (AOO) with 0.4% / y rate of decline qualifier (2000, 20 000 and 50 000 km2 thresholds)

IUCN D3degsev

Extent severely degraded based on STEP and Little Karoo and Western Cape Fine Scale Plans degradation data

IUCN B1ThrSp Limited extent (EOO) with strong evidence of ongoing decline and degradation based on threatened species database (>40 threatened species where >30% of these species are threatened by ongoing degradation)

SA A1 Extent remaining at most recent time point (based on national land cover and using biodiversity targets as thresholds)

SA A2 Land degradation: not considered for most ecosystems in 2011. Considered for selected forest ecosystems based on expert workshops in 2011

forest only

SA B Projected extent remaining (2040) (based on rate of decline between 1990 and 2014 and using biodiversity targets as thresholds) (not considered in NEMBA list)

SA C Limited extent applied without qualifier of decline in 2011 SA D1 Number of threatened species per ecosystem type

SA F Special ecosystems and Critical Biodiversity Areas


Table A2-2. Illustration of the similarities of the IUCN RLE framework and South African Threatened Ecosystem Listing framework.


Appendix 3. List of terrestrial ecosystem types assessed in 2018 compared with 2011 NEMBA list

Name_2018 RLE_2018 BasisRLE2018 Compare2018_2011

NAME_ 2011 NEMBA_2011

BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared

Other NEMBA listed types occuring

Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld LC no change Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld LC 100% 372.05

Agter-Sederberg Shrubland LC no change Agter-Sederberg Shrubland LC 99% 917.33

Agulhas Limestone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Agulhas Limestone Fynbos VU D1 99% 291.02

Agulhas Sand Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Agulhas Sand Fynbos EN A1 89% 219.62

Albany Alluvial Vegetation EN B1 no change Albany Alluvial Vegetation EN A1 87% 570.02

Albany Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem type

new type NEW 100% 14.60

Albany Bontveld LC new ecosystem type


Albany Broken Veld LC no change Albany Broken Veld LC 100% 742.69

Albany Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Albany Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Albertinia Sand Fynbos LC A3 lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Albertinia Sand Fynbos VU A1 99% 514.94

Alexander Bay Coastal Duneveld EN A3 higher threat category - habitat loss

Alexander Bay Coastal Duneveld LC 97% 16.54

Algoa Sandstone Fynbos CR B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Algoa Sandstone Fynbos VU A1 98% 337.84

Aliwal North Dry Grassland LC no change Aliwal North Dry Grassland LC 100% 7162.51

Amathole Mistbelt Grassland LC no change Amathole Mistbelt Grassland LC 100% 158.33

Amathole Montane Grassland LC no change Amathole Montane Grassland LC 100% 5021.77

Amersfoort Highveld Clay Grassland LC no change Amersfoort Highveld Clay Grassland LC 97% 3823.78

Andesite Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Andesite Mountain Bushveld LC 84% 1688.28 Witwatersberg Skeerpoort Mountain Bushveld,EN,F,'4% & Klipriver Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'4% & Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'3% & Bronberg Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'3%

Anenous Plateau Shrubland LC no change Anenous Plateau Shrubland LC 100% 241.77

Atlantis Sand Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv, B1thrsp_ovgr lower threat category - threatened species method

Atlantis Sand Fynbos CR D1 99% 680.13

Auob Duneveld LC no change Auob Duneveld LC 100% 2898.60




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Barberton Montane Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Barberton Montane Grassland LC 49% 631.93 Barberton Mountainlands,VU,F,'45% & Kaalrug Mountainlands,VU,F,'6% & Noordkaap Greenstone Bushveld,EN,F,'15% & Barberton Mountainlands,VU,F,'13%

Barberton Serpentine Sourveld LC no change Barberton Serpentine Sourveld LC 69% 75.85

Basotho Montane Shrubland LC no change Basotho Montane Shrubland LC 100% 3458.79

Baviaans Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Baviaanskloof Shale Renosterveld LC no change Baviaanskloof Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 118.72

Bedford Dry Grassland LC no change Bedford Dry Grassland LC 100% 1433.83

Besemkaree Koppies Shrubland LC no change Besemkaree Koppies Shrubland LC 100% 9676.45

Bethelsdorp Bontveld VU A3CITY new ecosystem type


Bhisho Thornveld LC no change Bhisho Thornveld LC 100% 7757.77

Bloemfontein Dry Grassland LC A3 lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Bloemfontein Dry Grassland VU A1 99% 4905.24

Bloemfontein Karroid Shrubland LC no change Bloemfontein Karroid Shrubland LC 100% 80.38

Blombos Strandveld LC no change Blombos Strandveld LC 100% 20.77

Blouputs Karroid Thornveld LC no change Blouputs Karroid Thornveld LC 100% 607.46

Bokkeveld Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat category - threatened species method

Bokkeveld Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 86% 869.17

Boland Granite Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Boland Granite Fynbos VU D1 93% 488.48

Breede Alluvium Fynbos EN B1,B2,B1thrsp_inv no change Breede Alluvium Fynbos EN A1 100% 499.64

Breede Alluvium Renosterveld EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Breede Alluvium Renosterveld VU A1 99% 493.70

Breede Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Breede Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 97.51

Breede Sand Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Breede Sand Fynbos VU A1 94% 92.19

Breede Shale Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Breede Shale Fynbos LC 100% 317.45

Breede Shale Renosterveld EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Breede Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 1046.60

Buffels Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem type





BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Buffels Valley Thicket CR B1 new ecosystem type


Bushmanland Arid Grassland LC no change Bushmanland Arid Grassland LC 100% 41250.64

Bushmanland Basin Shrubland LC no change Bushmanland Basin Shrubland LC 100% 41250.75

Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubland LC no change Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubland LC 100% 817.72

Bushmanland Sandy Grassland LC no change Bushmanland Sandy Grassland LC 100% 2677.15

Bushmanland Vloere LC no change Bushmanland Vloere LC 100% 5176.93

Canca Limestone Fynbos LC no change Canca Limestone Fynbos LC 100% 779.23

Cape Flats Dune Strandveld EN B1,B2,B1thrsp_inv no change Cape Flats Dune Strandveld EN D1 93% 375.94

Cape Flats Sand Fynbos CR B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr no change Cape Flats Sand Fynbos CR A1 & D1 92% 512.46

Cape Lowland Alluvial Vegetation EN B1 lower threat category - IUCN thresholds and map changes

Cape Lowland Alluvial Vegetation CR A1 97% 340.20

Cape Seashore Vegetation LC no change Cape Seashore Vegetation LC 98% 216.29

Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos VU A3 no change Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos VU A1 84% 70.83

Carletonville Dolomite Grassland LC no change Carletonville Dolomite Grassland LC 92% 8480.13

Cathedral Mopane Bushveld LC no change Cathedral Mopane Bushveld LC 100% 277.06

Cederberg Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat category - threatened species method

Cederberg Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 82% 2069.37

Central Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Central Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC 100% 62.85

Central Free State Grassland LC no change Central Free State Grassland LC 100% 15994.08

Central Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Central Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC 100% 97.87

Central Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC no change Central Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC 100% 129.89

Central Mountain Shale Renosterveld LC no change Central Mountain Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 1236.51

Central Richtersveld Mountain Shrubland LC no change Central Richtersveld Mountain Shrubland LC 100% 1200.38

Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A3WC no change Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A1 99% 2008.03

Central Sandy Bushveld LC no change Central Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 17201.65

Ceres Shale Renosterveld VU A3,A3WC no change Ceres Shale Renosterveld VU A1 100% 490.70

Citrusdal Shale Renosterveld CR B1 new ecosystem type


Citrusdal Vygieveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion D ecosystem extent and map changes

Citrusdal Vygieveld LC 42% 77.01 Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos,VU,A1&D1,'58%

Crocodile Gorge Mountain Bushveld LC new ecosystem type - includes some Criterion F ecosystem extent

new type NEW 91% 490.35 Croc Gorge Granite Mountainlands,VU,F,'9%

Crossroads Grassland Thicket LC new ecosystem type


De Hoop Limestone Fynbos LC no change De Hoop Limestone Fynbos LC 100% 689.47




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Delagoa Lowveld LC no change Delagoa Lowveld LC 99% 2698.74

Die Plate Succulent Shrubland LC no change Die Plate Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 127.56

Doringrivier Quartzite Karoo LC no change Doringrivier Quartzite Karoo LC 77% 416.94

Doubledrift Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Drakensberg Afroalpine Heathland LC no change Drakensberg Afroalpine Heathland LC 100% 2830.78

Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland LC 94% 10246.86 Swartberg/Franklin Vlei/Kokstad Ridge and Wetlands,VU,F,'2%

Drakensberg-Amathole Afromontane Fynbos LC no change Drakensberg-Amathole Afromontane Fynbos

LC 100% 21.62

Dry Coast Hinterland Grassland VU A3 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent and map changes

new type NEW 2% 47.00 Ngongoni Veld,VU,A1,'89% & New Hanover Plateau,CR,F,'4%

Dwaalboom Thornveld LC no change Dwaalboom Thornveld LC 100% 9670.45

Dwarsberg-Swartruggens Mountain Bushveld LC no change Dwarsberg-Swartruggens Mountain Bushveld

LC 100% 2646.84

East Griqualand Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

East Griqualand Grassland LC 96% 8419.19 Swartberg/Franklin Vlei/Kokstad Ridge and Wetlands,VU,F,'3%

Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation EN B1B2 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Eastern Coastal Shale Band Vegetation VU A1 95% 74.09

Eastern Free State Clay Grassland VU A3B1 no change Eastern Free State Clay Grassland VU A1 93% 13976.30

Eastern Free State Sandy Grassland LC A3 no change Eastern Free State Sandy Grassland LC 100% 14237.75

Eastern Gariep Plains Desert LC no change Eastern Gariep Plains Desert LC 100% 1217.15

Eastern Gariep Rocky Desert LC no change Eastern Gariep Rocky Desert LC 100% 2092.60

Eastern Gwarrieveld LC new ecosystem type


Eastern Highveld Grassland VU A3,A3CITY,A3MPL,B1 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Eastern Highveld Grassland VU A1 86% 10950.13 Chrissiesmeer Panveld,EN,F,'11% & Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'2%

Eastern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Eastern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC 100% 108.36

Eastern Little Karoo LC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Eastern Little Karoo VU A1 98% 1551.87

Eastern Lower Karoo LC no change Eastern Lower Karoo LC 100% 8321.40

Eastern Ruens Shale Renosterveld EN A2b,A3,A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr

lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Eastern Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A1 100% 2752.31

Eastern Upper Karoo LC no change Eastern Upper Karoo LC 100% 49834.31




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Eastern Valley Bushveld LC no change Eastern Valley Bushveld LC 95% 9638.82

Eenriet Plains Succulent Shrubland LC no change Eenriet Plains Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 260.75

Egoli Granite Grassland CR B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Egoli Granite Grassland EN A1 95% 1034.87 Witwatersberg Skeerpoort Mountain Bushveld,EN,F,'3%

Elands Forest Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Elgin Shale Fynbos CR B1,B1thrsp_inv no change Elgin Shale Fynbos CR A1 99% 277.82

Elim Ferricrete Fynbos EN B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Elim Ferricrete Fynbos CR A1 95% 661.28

Escarpment Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Escarpment Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Escarpment Valley Thicket LC D3STEP new ecosystem type


Fish Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Fish Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Fish Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Frankfort Highveld Grassland LC no change Frankfort Highveld Grassland LC 99% 9830.11

Fynbos Riparian Vegetation LC no change Fynbos Riparian Vegetation LC 99% 18.59

Gabbro Grassy Bushveld LC no change Gabbro Grassy Bushveld LC 100% 760.26

Gamka Arid Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Gamka Karoo LC no change Gamka Karoo LC 100% 20205.97

Gamka Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Garden Route Granite Fynbos CR B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Garden Route Granite Fynbos EN A1 86% 427.37

Garden Route Shale Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Garden Route Shale Fynbos VU A1 97% 549.04

Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld LC 89% 914.83 Witwatersberg Pretoria Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'7% & Witwatersberg Skeerpoort Mountain Bushveld,EN,F,'3%

Geluk Grassland Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld LC no change Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld LC 100% 15481.66

Goariep Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC no change Goariep Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 170.78




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld LC 86% 1737.37 Roodepoort Reef Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'4% & Witwatersberg Skeerpoort Mountain Bushveld,EN,F,'3% & Magaliesberg Pretoria Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'3% & Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'2%

Gordonia Duneveld LC no change Gordonia Duneveld LC 100% 37066.52

Gordonia Kameeldoring Bushveld LC no change Gordonia Kameeldoring Bushveld LC 100% 2242.35

Gordonia Plains Shrubland LC no change Gordonia Plains Shrubland LC 100% 7918.61

Goukamma Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Gouritz Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Graafwater Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Graafwater Sandstone Fynbos LC 80% 1080.42

Grahamstown Grassland Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Granite Lowveld LC no change Granite Lowveld LC 100% 19801.24

Grassridge Bontveld LC new ecosystem type


Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld LC no change Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld LC 100% 323.49

Greyton Shale Fynbos LC A3WC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds and land cover differences

Greyton Shale Fynbos EN A1 99% 265.01

Groot Brak Dune Strandveld VU A3WC,D3WC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Groot Brak Dune Strandveld EN A1 99% 27.85

Grootrivier Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Grootrivier Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 388.82

Hamburg Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Hangklip Sand Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Hangklip Sand Fynbos EN A1 82% 72.69

Hantam Karoo LC no change Hantam Karoo LC 100% 7630.51

Hantam Plateau Dolerite Renosterveld LC no change Hantam Plateau Dolerite Renosterveld LC 100% 578.92

Hartenbos Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem type - includes some Criterion A1 ecosystem extent and map changes

new type NEW 64% 419.21 Albertinia Sand Fynbos,VU,A1,'29%

Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat category - threatened species method

Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 100% 1045.81

Helskloof Canyon Desert LC no change Helskloof Canyon Desert LC 99% 8.14




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Highveld Alluvial Vegetation LC no change Highveld Alluvial Vegetation LC 99% 4646.25

Hopefield Sand Fynbos LC lower threat category - threatened species method

Hopefield Sand Fynbos VU A1&D1 96% 966.11

Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld VU A3,A3CITY lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld EN A1 98% 362.97

Income Sandy Grassland EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Income Sandy Grassland LC 99% 4597.48

Ironwood Dry Forest LC no change Ironwood Dry Forest LC 100% 81.59

Ithala Quartzite Sourveld LC no change Ithala Quartzite Sourveld LC 98% 1514.97

Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld LC 60% 282.11 Kaalrug Mountainlands,VU,F,'30% & Barberton Mountainlands,VU,F,'10%

Kahams Mountain Desert LC no change Kahams Mountain Desert LC 100% 592.13

Kalahari Karroid Shrubland LC no change Kalahari Karroid Shrubland LC 100% 8638.72

Kamiesberg Granite Fynbos LC no change Kamiesberg Granite Fynbos LC 100% 64.82

Kamiesberg Mountains Shrubland LC no change Kamiesberg Mountains Shrubland LC 100% 396.85

Kango Conglomerate Fynbos LC no change Kango Conglomerate Fynbos LC 100% 404.18

Kango Limestone Renosterveld LC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Kango Limestone Renosterveld VU A1 100% 500.30

KaNgwane Montane Grassland LC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

KaNgwane Montane Grassland VU A1 62% 5976.19

Karoo Escarpment Grassland LC no change Karoo Escarpment Grassland LC 100% 8368.42

Kasouga Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Kathu Bushveld LC no change Kathu Bushveld LC 100% 7452.62

Kimberley Thornveld LC no change Kimberley Thornveld LC 100% 19590.86

Klawer Sandy Shrubland CR B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Klawer Sandy Shrubland LC 95% 190.75

Klerksdorp Thornveld LC no change Klerksdorp Thornveld LC 100% 3925.36

Knersvlakte Dolomite Vygieveld LC no change Knersvlakte Dolomite Vygieveld LC 100% 59.54

Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld LC 100% 1319.93

Knersvlakte Shale Vygieveld LC no change Knersvlakte Shale Vygieveld LC 100% 983.47

Knysna Sand Fynbos CR B1 no change Knysna Sand Fynbos CR A1 98% 148.97

Kobee Succulent Shrubland LC new ecosystem type


Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo LC no change Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo LC 100% 4714.50

Koedoeskloof Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem type





BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv no change Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos CR D1 99% 907.41

Koranna-Langeberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Koranna-Langeberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 1620.89

Kosiesberg Succulent Shrubland LC no change Kosiesberg Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 612.15

Kouebokkeveld Alluvium Fynbos CR B1 higher threat category -

Kouebokkeveld Alluvium Fynbos EN A1 99% 178.31

Kouebokkeveld Shale Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Kouebokkeveld Shale Fynbos VU A1 100% 426.09

Kouga Grassy Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Kouga Grassy Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 4051.46

Kouga Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Kouga Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 2402.86

Kuruman Mountain Bushveld LC no change Kuruman Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 4361.68

Kuruman Thornveld LC no change Kuruman Thornveld LC 100% 5801.13

Kuruman Vaalbosveld LC no change Kuruman Vaalbosveld LC 100% 3947.84

Kwaggarug Mountain Desert LC no change Kwaggarug Mountain Desert LC 100% 107.80

KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Grassland EN A2b,A3,A3KZN,B1 lower threat category - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Interior South Coast Grasslands CR F 30% 1258.28 Eshowe Mtunzini Hilly Grasslands,CR,F,'19% & Durban Metropole North Coast Grassland,CR,F,'7% & Interior North Coast Grasslands,CR,F,'7% & Southern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & Interior North Coast Grasslands,CR,F,'3% & Umvoti Valley Complex,CR,F,'2% & Mlazi Gorge,CR,F,'2%

KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Thornveld VU A3 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt VU A1 57% 643.95 Eshowe Mtunzini Hilly Grasslands,CR,F,'18% & Interior South Coast Grasslands,CR,F,'10% & Durban Metropole North Coast Grassland,CR,F,'6%

KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld LC no change KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld LC 97% 5070.37

KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld LC 77% 1174.59 Eshowe Mtunzini Hilly Grasslands,CR,F,'3% & Ixopo Surrounds,VU,F,'2%

KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld EN A3,A3KZN,B1 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld EN A1 60% 1084.62 New Hanover Plateau,CR,F,'11%

Lambert's Bay Strandveld LC no change Lambert's Bay Strandveld LC 73% 259.18

Langebaan Dune Strandveld LC no change Langebaan Dune Strandveld LC 73% 252.27

Langkloof Shale Renosterveld EN A3WC,B1,B2 lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Langkloof Shale Renosterveld CR A1 99% 205.99




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Lebombo Summit Sourveld EN B1,B2 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Lebombo Summit Sourveld VU A1 81% 109.59 Mananga-Lebombo Thornveld,EN,F,'7%

Legogote Sour Bushveld EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Legogote Sour Bushveld VU A1 98% 3488.83

Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos VU A1&D1 73% 1491.30

Lekkersing Succulent Shrubland LC no change Lekkersing Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 836.24

Leolo Summit Sourveld LC no change Leolo Summit Sourveld LC 100% 20.34

Lesotho Highland Basalt Grassland LC no change Lesotho Highland Basalt Grassland LC 100% 20169.35

Limpopo Ridge Bushveld LC no change Limpopo Ridge Bushveld LC 100% 2782.53

Limpopo Sweet Bushveld LC no change Limpopo Sweet Bushveld LC 100% 12020.85

Little Karoo Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Little Karoo Quartz Vygieveld LC 82% 197.71

Loerie Conglomerate Fynbos LC no change Loerie Conglomerate Fynbos LC 100% 211.04

Long Tom Pass Montane Grassland LC A3 new ecosystem type - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

new type NEW 51% 539.34 Mauchesburg Alpine Grasslands,EN,F,'37% & Malmani Karstlands,EN,F,'11%

Loskop Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Loskop Mountain Bushveld LC 86% 1781.78 Loskop Mountainlands,VU,F,'8% & Kraanspoort Mountain Bushveld,EN,F,'3% & Wilge Mountain Bushveld,CR,F,'2%

Loskop Thornveld LC no change Loskop Thornveld LC 100% 759.84

Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos CR A2b,A3CITY,A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr

no change Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos CR A1 83% 29.63

Low Escarpment Moist Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Low Escarpment Moist Grassland LC 91% 1577.55 Nkunzi/Sundays River Grasslands,VU,F,'6%

Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation LC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds and land cover differences

Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation EN A1 83% 726.65

Lower Gariep Broken Veld LC no change Lower Gariep Broken Veld LC 100% 4669.32

Lowveld Riverine Forest VU B2 no change Lowveld Riverine Forest VU 59% 103.52




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld LC no change Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld LC 100% 3154.11

Lydenburg Thornveld LC no change Lydenburg Thornveld LC 95% 1468.74

Mabela Sandy Grassland VU A3,A3KZN higher threat category - habitat loss

Mabela Sandy Grassland LC 84% 412.81

Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld LC no change Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld LC 100% 974.30

Mafikeng Bushveld LC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Mafikeng Bushveld VU A1 100% 14372.80

Makatini Clay Thicket LC no change Makatini Clay Thicket LC 98% 326.90

Makhado Sweet Bushveld LC no change Makhado Sweet Bushveld LC 100% 10110.73

Makuleke Sandy Bushveld LC no change Makuleke Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 2088.24

Malelane Mountain Bushveld LC no change Malelane Mountain Bushveld LC 96% 602.85 Croc Gorge Granite Mountainlands,VU,F,'4%

Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld LC no change Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld LC 99% 658.15

Mangrove Forest LC lower threat category - includes some SA Criterion C and F ecosystem extent

Mangrove Forest EN C 39% 16.60 Kwambonambi Hygrophilous Grasslands,CR,F,'27% & Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4%

Maputaland Coastal Belt EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Maputaland Coastal Belt LC 88% 2077.23 Kwambonambi Hygrophilous Grasslands,CR,F,'6%

Maputaland Pallid Sandy Bushveld LC new ecosystem type


Maputaland Wooded Grassland EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Maputaland Wooded Grassland VU A1 80% 900.61 Kwambonambi Hygrophilous Grasslands,CR,F,'6%

Marikana Thornveld EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Marikana Thornveld VU A1 96% 2439.39

Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 1267.34

Matjiesfontein Shale Fynbos LC no change Matjiesfontein Shale Fynbos LC 100% 106.53

Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld LC no change Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 2095.80




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Midlands Mistbelt Grassland VU A2b,A3,A3KZN,B1 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Midlands Mistbelt Grassland VU A1 61% 4275.87 Ixopo Surrounds,VU,F,'3% & Pietermaritzburg South,EN,F,'3% & Sihleza,EN,F,'2% & Michaelhouse Grasslands,VU,F,'2% & Eastern Creighton and Donnybrook,VU,F,'2% & Umvoti Vlei and Surrounds,VU,F,'2%

Moist Coast Hinterland Grassland VU A3,A3KZN no change Ngongoni Veld VU A1 92% 5794.41

Molopo Bushveld LC no change Molopo Bushveld LC 100% 22765.29

Mons Ruber Fynbos Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Montagu Shale Fynbos LC no change Montagu Shale Fynbos LC 100% 185.99

Montagu Shale Renosterveld LC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Montagu Shale Renosterveld VU A1 99% 1592.28

Mooi River Highland Grassland EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Mooi River Highland Grassland LC 40% 1156.10 Drakensberg Foothill Wattled Crane Habitat,VU,F,'39% & Fort Nottingham Lowland Grasslands,VU,F,'7% & Mount Gilboa Plateau,VU,F,'4% & Impendle Lowland Grasslands,VU,F,'4% & Impendle Highlands,EN,F,'2% & Warley Commons,VU,F,'2%

Moot Plains Bushveld LC no change Moot Plains Bushveld LC 97% 2809.97

Mopane Basalt Shrubland LC no change Mopane Basalt Shrubland LC 100% 2805.98

Mopane Gabbro Shrubland LC no change Mopane Gabbro Shrubland LC 100% 310.46

Mossel Bay Shale Renosterveld CR B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Mossel Bay Shale Renosterveld EN A1 91% 791.28

Motherwell Karroid Thicket CR B1 new ecosystem type


Mthatha Moist Grassland VU A3 no change Mthatha Moist Grassland VU A1 99% 5248.25

Muscadel Riviere EN A3WC lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Muscadel Riviere CR A1 99% 404.15

Musina Mopane Bushveld LC no change Musina Mopane Bushveld LC 100% 8792.69

Muzi Palm Veld and Wooded Grassland CR B1 new ecosystem type


Namaqualand Arid Grassland LC no change Namaqualand Arid Grassland LC 100% 286.97

Namaqualand Blomveld LC no change Namaqualand Blomveld LC 100% 3107.99

Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld LC no change Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld LC 100% 868.08




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Namaqualand Granite Renosterveld LC no change Namaqualand Granite Renosterveld LC 100% 305.49

Namaqualand Heuweltjie Strandveld LC new ecosystem type


Namaqualand Heuweltjieveld LC no change Namaqualand Heuweltjieveld LC 100% 5040.59

Namaqualand Inland Duneveld LC no change Namaqualand Inland Duneveld LC 100% 917.43

Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland LC no change Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland LC 100% 7582.22

Namaqualand Riviere LC no change Namaqualand Riviere LC 100% 1361.63

Namaqualand Sand Fynbos LC no change Namaqualand Sand Fynbos LC 85% 1109.00

Namaqualand Seashore Vegetation LC no change Namaqualand Seashore Vegetation LC 100% 13.21

Namaqualand Shale Shrubland LC no change Namaqualand Shale Shrubland LC 100% 539.36

Namaqualand Spinescent Grassland LC no change Namaqualand Spinescent Grassland LC 100% 469.92

Namaqualand Strandveld LC no change Namaqualand Strandveld LC 87% 2741.83

Namib Lichen Fields LC no change Namib Lichen Fields LC 100% 1.54

Namib Seashore Vegetation CR A3 higher threat category - habitat loss

Namib Seashore Vegetation VU 50% 3.24

Namib Seashore Vegetation CR A3 higher threat category - habitat loss

Namib Seashore Vegetation VU A1 50% 3.20

Nanaga Savanna Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Nardouw Sandstone Fynbos CR B1 new ecosystem type - includes some SA Crierion D1 ecosystem extent

new type NEW 12% 63.57 Bokkeveld Sandstone Fynbos,VU,D1,'60% & Cederberg Sandstone Fynbos,VU,D1,'29%

Ngongoni Veld VU A3 no change Ngongoni Veld VU A1 98% 789.42

Nieuwoudtville Shale Renosterveld CR B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Nieuwoudtville Shale Renosterveld VU A1 67% 146.30

Nieuwoudtville-Roggeveld Dolerite Renosterveld

LC no change Nieuwoudtville-Roggeveld Dolerite Renosterveld

LC 100% 219.43

Noms Mountain Desert LC no change Noms Mountain Desert LC 100% 335.00

Norite Koppies Bushveld LC no change Norite Koppies Bushveld LC 99% 257.92

North Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 393.85

North Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 332.35

North Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 993.46

North Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 878.18

North Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 318.30

North Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos LC 99% 527.51

North Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change North Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 852.20




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Northern Afrotemperate Forest LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Northern Afrotemperate Forest LC 65% 125.26 Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands,EN,F,'15% & Elandshoogte Mountainlands,VU,F,'3% & Barberton Mountainlands,VU,F,'3% & Low Escarpment Mistbelt Forest,VU,A2,'3% & Dullstroom Plateau Grasslands,EN,F,'2% & Kaapsehoop Quartzite Grasslands,CR,F,'2%

Northern Coastal Forest LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F and A2 ecosystem extent

Northern Coastal Forest LC 38% 256.97 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forest,EN,A2,'15% & Dukuduku/St Lucia Grasslands and Forests,EN,F,'11% & Kwambonambi Dune Forest,CR,F,'7% & Interior South Coast Grasslands,CR,F,'6% & Southern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'5% & Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & Durban Metropole North Coast Grassland,CR,F,'3% & North Coast Dune Forest,CR,F,'2%

Northern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Northern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC 99% 1225.59 Blyde Quartzite Grasslands,EN,F,'62%

Northern Escarpment Afromontane Fynbos LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Northern Escarpment Afromontane Fynbos

LC 36% 3.62 Malmani Karstlands,EN,F,'2%

Northern Escarpment Dolomite Grassland VU A3 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Northern Escarpment Dolomite Grassland VU A1 52% 490.93 Malmani Karstlands,EN,F,'39% & Blyde Quartzite Grasslands,EN,F,'8%

Northern Escarpment Quartzite Sourveld LC no change Northern Escarpment Quartzite Sourveld LC 80% 1095.65 Blyde Quartzite Grasslands,EN,F,'14% & Kaapsehoop Quartzite Grasslands,CR,F,'5%

Northern Free State Shrubland LC no change Northern Free State Shrubland LC 99% 29.67

Northern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Northern Inland Shale Band Vegetation LC 98% 272.53

Northern Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC no change Northern Knersvlakte Vygieveld LC 100% 1673.78




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland LC 91% 6738.31 eMondlo Sandy Moist Grassland,VU,F,'3% & Nkunzi/Sundays River Grasslands,VU,F,'2%

Northern Lebombo Bushveld LC no change Northern Lebombo Bushveld LC 100% 1348.77

Northern Mistbelt Forest LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Northern Mistbelt Forest LC 62% 239.57 Blyde Quartzite Grasslands,EN,F,'13% & Malmani Karstlands,EN,F,'4%

Northern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert LC no change Northern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert

LC 99% 245.46

Northern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC no change Northern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC 100% 327.15

Northern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC no change Northern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC 100% 536.08

Northern Upper Karoo LC no change Northern Upper Karoo LC 100% 42273.50

Northern Zululand Mistbelt Grassland EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Northern Zululand Mistbelt Grassland LC 30% 163.12 Ngome Mistbelt Grassland and Forest,EN,F,'36% & Louwsberg Mistbelt Grassland,VU,F,'9%

Northern Zululand Sourveld LC no change Northern Zululand Sourveld LC 91% 4711.50 Imfolosi Savanna and Sourveld,VU,F,'5% & Black Rhino Range,VU,F,'4%

Nossob Bushveld LC no change Nossob Bushveld LC 100% 762.49

Nwambyia-Pumbe Sandy Bushveld LC no change Nwambyia-Pumbe Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 184.47

Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld LC 84% 1675.70 Sekhukune Norite Bushveld,EN,F,'13% & Malmani Karstlands,EN,F,'2%

Olifants Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Olifants Sandstone Fynbos LC 92% 459.31

Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld LC no change Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld LC 100% 8517.69

Oograbies Plains Sandy Grassland LC no change Oograbies Plains Sandy Grassland LC 100% 123.30

Oudshoorn Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Overberg Dune Strandveld EN B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Overberg Dune Strandveld LC 100% 346.40

Overberg Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat category - threatened species method

Overberg Sandstone Fynbos CR D1 99% 1164.34

Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland VU A1 65% 2741.62 Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands,EN,F,'10%

Peninsula Granite Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv no change Peninsula Granite Fynbos CR A1 87% 79.83




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos EN D1 96% 210.91

Peninsula Shale Fynbos VU A3,A3WC no change Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos VU A1 61% 7.77

Peninsula Shale Renosterveld CR B1thrsp_inv no change Peninsula Shale Renosterveld CR A1 90% 22.70

Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld LC no change Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld LC 100% 2225.56

Piketberg Quartz Succulent Shrubland CR B1,B2 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Piketberg Quartz Succulent Shrubland VU A1 83% 2.37

Piketberg Sandstone Fynbos LC lower threat category - threatened species method

Piketberg Sandstone Fynbos VU D1 93% 395.18

Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 434.99

Platbakkies Succulent Shrubland LC no change Platbakkies Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 653.34

Polokwane Plateau Bushveld LC no change Polokwane Plateau Bushveld LC 100% 4445.12

Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld LC A3 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld

LC 70% 916.18 Oribi-Port Edward Pondoland-Ugu Sourveld,EN,F,'24% & Margate Pondoland-Ugu Sourveld,CR,F,'4%

Postmasburg Thornveld LC no change Postmasburg Thornveld LC 100% 929.23

Potberg Ferricrete Fynbos VU A3 lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Potberg Ferricrete Fynbos EN A1 99% 40.17

Potberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Potberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 107.20

Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld LC 91% 814.78 Malmani Karstlands,EN,F,'9%

Pretoriuskop Sour Bushveld LC no change Pretoriuskop Sour Bushveld LC 100% 939.73

Prince Albert Succulent Karoo LC no change Prince Albert Succulent Karoo LC 100% 2555.22

Queenstown Thornveld LC no change Queenstown Thornveld LC 100% 3606.30

Rand Highveld Grassland VU A3,A3CITY no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Rand Highveld Grassland VU A1 92% 9450.45 Loskop Mountainlands,VU,F,'3% & Stoffberg Mountainlands,EN,F,'2%

Richtersberg Mountain Desert LC no change Richtersberg Mountain Desert LC 100% 360.12

Richtersveld Coastal Duneveld LC no change Richtersveld Coastal Duneveld LC 99% 501.44

Richtersveld Red Duneveld LC no change Richtersveld Red Duneveld LC 100% 566.10

Richtersveld Sandy Coastal Scorpionstailveld LC no change Richtersveld Sandy Coastal Scorpionstailveld

LC 100% 449.06

Richtersveld Sheet Wash Desert LC no change Richtersveld Sheet Wash Desert LC 100% 159.38

Riethuis-Wallekraal Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Riethuis-Wallekraal Quartz Vygieveld LC 100% 136.41

Robertson Granite Fynbos LC no change Robertson Granite Fynbos LC 100% 16.98




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Robertson Granite Renosterveld LC no change Robertson Granite Renosterveld LC 100% 19.23

Robertson Karoo LC no change Robertson Karoo LC 99% 643.77

Roggeveld Karoo LC no change Roggeveld Karoo LC 100% 5357.96

Roggeveld Shale Renosterveld LC no change Roggeveld Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 3217.47

Roodeberg Bushveld LC no change Roodeberg Bushveld LC 100% 6496.37

Rooiberg Quartz Vygieveld LC no change Rooiberg Quartz Vygieveld LC 100% 129.28

Rosyntjieberg Succulent Shrubland LC no change Rosyntjieberg Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 50.55

Ruens Silcrete Renosterveld EN A2b,A3,A3WC,B1,B2,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr

lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Ruens Silcrete Renosterveld CR A1 98% 205.60

Saldanha Flats Strandveld EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Saldanha Flats Strandveld VU A1 38% 618.85

Saldanha Granite Strandveld CR B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr higher threat category - threatened species

Saldanha Granite Strandveld EN A1 64% 192.65

Saldanha Limestone Strandveld CR B1thrsp_ovgr higher threat category - threatened species

Saldanha Limestone Strandveld LC 83% 51.19

Saltaire Karroid Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Sand Forest LC no change Sand Forest LC 93% 247.75

Sardinia Forest Thicket VU A3CITY new ecosystem type


Scarp Forest LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F and A2 ecosystem extent

Scarp Forest LC 42% 436.37 Transkei Coastal Forest,VU,A2,'15% & Eastern Scarp Forest,VU,A2,'6% & Oribi-Port Edward Pondoland-Ugu Sourveld,EN,F,'4% & Nkandla Forests and Grasslands,VU,F,'3% & Ngoye Scarp Forests and Grasslands,CR,F,'3% & Mount Thesiger Forest Complex,EN,F,'3% & Ngome Mistbelt Grassland and Forest,EN,F,'3% & Pondoland Scarp Forest,VU,A2,'2%

Schmidtsdrif Thornveld LC no change Schmidtsdrif Thornveld LC 100% 5038.85

Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld VU A3 no change Schweizer-Reneke Bushveld VU A1 100% 2024.64

Sekhukhune Montane Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F

Sekhukhune Montane Grassland LC 56% 777.81 Sekhukhune Mountainlands,EN,F,'43%




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


ecosystem extent

Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld LC 73% 1682.13 Sekhukhune Mountainlands,EN,F,'25% & Sekhukune Norite Bushveld,EN,F,'3%

Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld LC 98% 2478.04 Sekhukune Norite Bushveld,EN,F,'2%

Senqu Montane Shrubland LC no change Senqu Montane Shrubland LC 100% 3736.87

South Eastern Coastal Thornveld LC new ecosystem type


South Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Hex Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 319.41

South Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Kammanassie Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 304.17

South Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Langeberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1222.71

South Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1569.15

South Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Rooiberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 388.17

South Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos CR B1thrsp_inv higher threat category - threatened species

South Sonderend Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 358.30

South Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC no change South Swartberg Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1084.45

Southern Afrotemperate Forest LC no change Southern Afrotemperate Forest LC 98% 761.40

Southern Cape Dune Fynbos LC no change Southern Cape Dune Fynbos LC 100% 81.28

Southern Coastal Forest LC no change Southern Coastal Forest LC 94% 174.95 Western Cape Milkwood Forest,EN,C,'5%

Southern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC no change Southern Drakensberg Highland Grassland LC 99% 6598.58

Southern Kalahari Mekgacha LC no change Southern Kalahari Mekgacha LC 100% 2181.81

Southern Karoo Riviere LC no change Southern Karoo Riviere LC 100% 5302.69

Southern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution, includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Southern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland LC 78% 1826.15 Eastern Creighton and Donnybrook,VU,F,'3% & Impendle Highlands,EN,F,'3% & Midmar Valley,VU,F,'3%

Southern Lebombo Bushveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Southern Lebombo Bushveld LC 91% 2347.81 Mananga-Lebombo Thornveld,EN,F,'5% & Black Rhino Range,VU,F,'4%

Southern Mistbelt Forest LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Southern Mistbelt Forest LC 74% 784.34 Karkloof Forest Collective,EN,F,'5% & Low Escarpment Mistbelt Forest,VU,A2,'3% & Pietermaritzburg




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


South,EN,F,'2% & Southern Weza State Forest,EN,F,'2% & Sihleza,EN,F,'2%

Southern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Southern Nababiepsberge Mountain Desert

LC 100% 343.20

Southern Namaqualand Quartzite Klipkoppe Shrubland

LC new ecosystem type


Southern Richtersveld Inselberg Shrubland LC no change Southern Richtersveld Inselberg Shrubland LC 100% 365.58

Southern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC no change Southern Richtersveld Scorpionstailveld LC 100% 722.66

Southern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC no change Southern Richtersveld Yellow Duneveld LC 100% 331.40

Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 4146.96

Soutpansberg Summit Sourveld LC no change Soutpansberg Summit Sourveld LC 100% 93.84

Soweto Highveld Grassland VU A3,A3CITY,A3MPL no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Soweto Highveld Grassland VU A1 91% 13329.75 Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'3% & Boesmanspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'3%

Springbokvlakte Thornveld VU A3,A3CITY,A3MPL no change Springbokvlakte Thornveld VU A1 98% 8789.13

St Francis Dune Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Steenkampsberg Montane Grassland LC new ecosystem type - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

new type NEW 62% 2408.43 Dullstroom Plateau Grasslands,EN,F,'29% & Elandshoek Summit Grasslands,VU,F,'4% & Elandshoogte Mountainlands,VU,F,'4%

Stella Bushveld LC no change Stella Bushveld LC 100% 3219.46

Steytlerville Karoo LC no change Steytlerville Karoo LC 100% 793.32

Stinkfonteinberge Eastern Apron Shrubland LC no change Stinkfonteinberge Eastern Apron Shrubland

LC 100% 65.87

Stinkfonteinberge Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Stinkfonteinberge Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 49.03

Stormberg Plateau Grassland LC no change Stormberg Plateau Grassland LC 100% 2964.34

Strydpoort Summit Sourveld LC no change Strydpoort Summit Sourveld LC 100% 268.05

Subtropical Alluvial Vegetation LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Subtropical Alluvial Vegetation LC 86% 1092.31 Kwambonambi Hygrophilous Grasslands,CR,F,'6% & Mapungubwe/Greefswald Riverine Forest,EN,F,'3%

Subtropical Dune Thicket LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Subtropical Dune Thicket LC 84% 10.91 North Coast Dune Forest,CR,F,'11% & Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4%




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Subtropical Seashore Vegetation LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Subtropical Seashore Vegetation LC 85% 23.85 Kwambonambi Dune Forest,CR,F,'7% & Southern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'4% & Northern Coastal Grasslands,CR,F,'3%

Sundays Arid Thicket VU D3STEP new ecosystem type


Sundays Mesic Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Sundays Valley Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 683.22

Suurberg Shale Fynbos LC no change Suurberg Shale Fynbos LC 100% 283.24

Swamp Forest LC lower threat category - includes SA Criterion A2 and C and A2

Swamp Forest VU A2&C 36% 36.53 Kwambonambi Hygrophilous Grasslands,CR,F,'9% & Mangrove Forest,EN,C,'7% & KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forest,EN,A2,'6% & Dukuduku/St Lucia Grasslands and Forests,EN,F,'2% & North Coast Dune Forest,CR,F,'2%

Swartberg Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Swartberg Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 50.83

Swartberg Shale Fynbos LC no change Swartberg Shale Fynbos LC 100% 74.94

Swartberg Shale Renosterveld LC no change Swartberg Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 276.39

Swartland Alluvium Fynbos EN A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Swartland Alluvium Fynbos CR A1 98% 466.05

Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld VU A3WC no change Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld VU A1 98% 61.67

Swartland Granite Renosterveld EN A3,A3CITY,A3WC,B1,B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr

lower threat category - habitat loss

Swartland Granite Renosterveld CR A1 & D1 97% 924.36

Swartland Shale Renosterveld CR A3WC no change Swartland Shale Renosterveld CR A1 & D1 97% 4810.45

Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld CR A3WC no change Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld CR A1 90% 90.57

Swartruggens Quartzite Fynbos LC no change Swartruggens Quartzite Fynbos LC 100% 1645.82

Swartruggens Quartzite Karoo LC no change Swartruggens Quartzite Karoo LC 100% 559.37

Swaziland Sour Bushveld LC no change Swaziland Sour Bushveld LC 99% 4425.58

Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos VU A1 99% 861.77

Tanqua Escarpment Shrubland LC no change Tanqua Escarpment Shrubland LC 100% 1318.36

Tanqua Karoo LC no change Tanqua Karoo LC 100% 6988.31

Tanqua Wash Riviere LC no change Tanqua Wash Riviere LC 100% 2130.08

Tarkastad Montane Shrubland LC no change Tarkastad Montane Shrubland LC 100% 4242.26




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


Tatasberg Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC no change Tatasberg Mountain Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 3.27

Tembe Sandy Bushveld LC no change Tembe Sandy Bushveld LC 98% 1106.23

Thorndale Forest Thicket LC new ecosystem type


Thukela Thornveld LC no change Thukela Thornveld LC 100% 2208.95

Thukela Valley Bushveld LC no change Thukela Valley Bushveld LC 100% 2703.31

Transkei Coastal Belt LC no change Transkei Coastal Belt LC 92% 1524.91

Tsakane Clay Grassland EN B1 no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Tsakane Clay Grassland EN A1 61% 795.38 Klipriver Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'25% & Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland,CR,F,'12% & Deneysville Highveld Grassland,EN,F,'2%

Tsende Mopaneveld LC no change Tsende Mopaneveld LC 100% 5316.76

Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld LC 98% 3487.61 Mananga-Lebombo Thornveld,EN,F,'2%

Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 2294.00

Tsomo Grassland LC no change Tsomo Grassland LC 100% 6136.98

Tzaneen Sour Bushveld LC A3,B1,B2 lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Tzaneen Sour Bushveld VU A1 99% 3365.35

uKhahlamba Basalt Grassland LC no change uKhahlamba Basalt Grassland LC 100% 1346.88

Umdaus Mountains Succulent Shrubland LC no change Umdaus Mountains Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 432.85

Umtiza Forest Thicket CR B1 new ecosystem type


Uniondale Shale Renosterveld LC no change Uniondale Shale Renosterveld LC 100% 1347.31

Upper Annisvlakte Succulent Shrubland LC no change Upper Annisvlakte Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 192.11

Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation LC no change Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation LC 100% 1787.33

Upper Karoo Hardeveld LC no change Upper Karoo Hardeveld LC 100% 11734.30

Vaal Reefs Dolomite Sinkhole Woodland LC no change Vaal Reefs Dolomite Sinkhole Woodland LC 100% 346.24

Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland LC no change Vaalbos Rocky Shrubland LC 100% 1457.82

Vaal-Vet Sandy Grassland EN A3 no change Vaal-Vet Sandy Grassland EN A1 99% 22706.82

Vanrhynsdorp Gannabosveld LC no change Vanrhynsdorp Gannabosveld LC 100% 988.51

Vanrhynsdorp Shale Renosterveld LC no change Vanrhynsdorp Shale Renosterveld LC 86% 178.67

Vanstadens Forest Thicket LC new ecosystem type


VhaVenda Miombo LC no change VhaVenda Miombo LC 100% 0.33

Vredefort Dome Granite Grassland VU A3 no change Vredefort Dome Granite Grassland VU A1 100% 920.28

Vyftienmyl se Berge Succulent Shrubland LC no change Vyftienmyl se Berge Succulent Shrubland LC 100% 18.37

Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F

Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland LC 42% 1569.39 Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands,EN,F,'54%




BasisNEMBA2011

Prc2018type

Km2 shared


ecosystem extent

& Chrissiesmeer Panveld,EN,F,'2%

Waterberg Mountain Bushveld LC no change Waterberg Mountain Bushveld LC 100% 8823.62

Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit Sourveld LC no change Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit Sourveld LC 99% 519.60

Western Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Western Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 37.43

Western Bushmanland Klipveld LC no change Western Bushmanland Klipveld LC 100% 101.77

Western Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC no change Western Coastal Shale Band Vegetation LC 96% 128.73

Western Free State Clay Grassland LC no change Western Free State Clay Grassland LC 100% 7065.10

Western Gariep Hills Desert LC no change Western Gariep Hills Desert LC 98% 409.81

Western Gariep Lowland Desert LC no change Western Gariep Lowland Desert LC 98% 213.47

Western Gariep Plains Desert LC no change Western Gariep Plains Desert LC 100% 139.81

Western Gwarrieveld LC no change Western Gwarrieveld LC 100% 759.87

Western Highveld Sandy Grassland EN A3,B1 lower threat category - IUCN thresholds

Western Highveld Sandy Grassland CR A1 100% 8565.73

Western Lesotho Basalt Shrubland Not Assessed

not within SA Western Lesotho Basalt Shrubland LC 100% 2208.32

Western Little Karoo LC no change Western Little Karoo LC 100% 4106.33

Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld EN B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Western Maputaland Clay Bushveld LC 88% 1449.66

Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld LC B1,B2 no change Western Maputaland Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 152.35

Western Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR B1B1thrsp_inv,B1thrsp_ovgr no change Western Ruens Shale Renosterveld CR A1 100% 1188.53

Western Sandy Bushveld LC no change Western Sandy Bushveld LC 100% 6493.81

Western Upper Karoo LC no change Western Upper Karoo LC 100% 17149.62

Willowmore Gwarrieveld LC no change Willowmore Gwarrieveld LC 100% 2251.45

Winburg Grassy Shrubland LC no change Winburg Grassy Shrubland LC 100% 1567.80

Winterhoek Sandstone Fynbos LC no change Winterhoek Sandstone Fynbos LC 100% 1134.46

Wolkberg Dolomite Grassland LC no change Wolkberg Dolomite Grassland LC 100% 260.60

Woodbush Granite Grassland CR B1 no change Woodbush Granite Grassland CR A1 70% 300.57

Xhariep Karroid Grassland LC no change Xhariep Karroid Grassland LC 100% 13390.89

Zastron Moist Grassland LC no change Zastron Moist Grassland LC 100% 4267.87

Zeerust Thornveld LC no change Zeerust Thornveld LC 100% 4128.08

Zululand Coastal Thornveld CR B1 higher threat category - habitat loss and limited distribution

Zululand Coastal Thornveld LC 100% 694.63

Zululand Lowveld LC no change - includes some SA Criterion F ecosystem extent

Zululand Lowveld LC 76% 6537.13 Black Rhino Range,VU,F,'17% & Imfolosi Savanna and Sourveld,VU,F,'5%


Date post:	20-Nov-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018...

Documents