Using biodiversity planning products to measure ...biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/04PUTTF.pdf · Using biodiversity planning products to measure conservation

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!