Using biodiversity planning products to measure
conservation success:GreenChoice’s Monitoring & Evaluation Project
Biodiversity Planning ForumMay 2012
Genevieve PenceHeidi Hawkins
Rosanne Stanway
Overview
• GreenChoice M&E project
• Biodiversity metric results 2006 – 2010
• Data sources & issues
• Implications?
• Economic, social & environmental outcomes• Participatory monitoring, field sampling &
mapping
• Biodiversity indicator = set of metrics re: contributions of C.A.P.E. Business & Biodiversity Initiatives to conservation
• Baseline assessment 2006• Post-baseline assessment 2010
GreenChoice M&E project
BBI participation:
280 members1729 cadastres
412,000 ha
Flower Valley Conservation
Trust
Biodiversity & Wine Initiative
Sandveld Biodiversity Best Practice
Potato Project
Right Rooibos
mapped biodiversity metrics• National Vegetation Targets• Listed Threatened Ecosystems• Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs)• Ecological Support Areas (ESAs)• Mountain Catchment Areas (MCAs)• National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas
(FEPA wetlands & free-flowing rivers) • Key climate adaptation corridors
412,010 ha BBI member footprint
~253,480 ha (62%) natural 2006~250,150 ha (61%) natural 2010
2,827 ha lost to transformation892 ha lost to degradation
96 vegetation types
40 Listed Threatened Ecosystems
47% of remaining habitat is Threatened
On average, 13.7% contribution per National veg target achievable within BBIs
But only 0.6% secured at high level and 1.3% at lower level of protection
5,500 ha of intact FEPA wetland (70% of wetland area)
But 30% (2,360 ha) = converted, despite regulatory protection
2010 results
313(11%) 111
(4%)
1247(44%)
1156(41%)
1669(59%)
70(2%)
807(29%)
10(0%)
15(1%)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000H
ecta
res
lost
CR EN VU LT CBA ESA Corr MCA FEPA Total
Biodiversity Metric
Summary of change (loss per metric) 2006-2010
2827(100%)
Average loss per member
Initiative
% of members with
transformation 2006-2010
Minimum area (ha)
transformed by single member
Maximum area (ha)
transformed by single member
Average area (ha)
transformed per member
Flower 63% 0.66 14.8 5.6
Potato 97% 0.20 241.5 42.4
Rooibos 83% 0.15 212.1 40.8
Wine 65% 0.06 60.6 5.6
Total 77% 0.06 241.5 21.3
was one of the largest Swartland Shale Renosterveld (CR) remnants
2006 2010
Business and Biodiversity Initiative (BBI) Member
Initiative / Industry = wineBBI_CODE = BWI_VANZ_27Member name = Vanzylsdamme Total farm ha = 249.79Natural ha = 211Degraded ha = 17.55Transformed (no natural) ha = 21.23Farm number (or portion/farm) = RE/37Surveyor General Code = C04200000000003700000
Biodiversity metric results (2006 conditions)
Critically Endangered (CR) vegetationOriginal ha = 0Natural ha = 0Degraded ha = 0
Endangered (EN) vegetationOriginal ha = 0Natural ha = 0Degraded ha = 0
Vulnerable (VU) vegetationOriginal ha = 0Natural ha = 0Degraded ha = 0
Least Threatened (LT) vegetationOriginal ha = 249.79
Summer grazing in wetland on R365
Coordinates: -32.38734900; 18.72911900; Altitude: 221.0 m;GPS Date: 11/18/2011 10:29:17 AMDirections: To here - From here
Groundtruthed 40 high-priority cadastres
Verify presence & condition of veg types, CBAs, wetlands
& corridors along transect
Result: 2 discrepancies, both re condition &
coincide with change in ownership
Can we use mapped data to measure conservation results?
mapped biodiversity metrics• National Vegetation Targets• Listed Threatened Ecosystems• Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs)• Ecological Support Areas (ESAs)• Mountain Catchment Areas (MCAs)• National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas
(FEPA wetlands & free-flowing rivers) • Key climate adaptation corridors
Can we use mapped data to measure conservation results?
If mapped at right scaleAND only with suitable landcover data
Potential landcover informants
National Landcover (NLC) 2000 Little Karoo landcover Sandveld landcover change projectCFR rate of loss project Area Wide Planning projects~ National field boundary layer~ Overberg Transformation Map~ Fine-Scale Biodiversity Planning projectCity of Cape Town
2006
883 cadastral units covering 168,355 ha (41%) of participating lands edited manually for BBI landcover base
2010
all 1729 cadastral units covering 412,010 ha of participating landsedited manually for transformation since 2006
Little Karoo Landcover
degradation
Manual mapping
Area-wide planning data: fields classified as natural
Manually corrected
National field boundary layer:
missing fields under cloud cover
Can we use mapped data to measure conservation results?
If mapped at right scalewith suitable landcover dataAND manual spot checking &
groundtruthing
Thank you!
