Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas

Kirkman, SP; Mann, BQ; Sink, KJ; Adams, Robyn; Livingstone, T-C; Mann, Judy; Pfaff, Maya C.; Samaai, Toufiek; Bank, MG van der; Williams, Lauren Lyn; Branch, G. M.

doi:10.2989/1814232x.2021.1962975

Cited by 37 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 215 publications

(297 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The biozone map (MEM 2004) can be considered as a precursor to an ecosystem map proper, but nevertheless was used to determine the two headline indicators in South Africa's NBAs: ecosystem threat status and protection level (Skowno et al, 2019). Further advances in data collation and mapping were made (2006-2011) through a project working to identify and support implementation of an ecologically representative offshore marine protected area network (Sink, 2016;Roberson et al, 2017;Kirkman et al, 2021). The MEM 2011 (Sink et al, 2012) was produced through collaborations from 25 organizations facilitated by a series of workshops that were part of the assessment process (2009)(2010)(2011).…”

Section: Evolving Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iterative mapping of marine ecosystems for spatial status assessment, prioritization, and decision support

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

South Africa has taken an iterative approach to marine ecosystem mapping over 18 years that has provided a valuable foundation for ecosystem assessment, planning and decision-making, supporting improved ecosystem-based management and protection. Iterative progress has been made in overcoming challenges faced by developing countries, especially in the inaccessible marine realm. Our aim is to report on the approach to produce and improve a national marine ecosystem map to guide other countries facing similar challenges, and to illustrate the impact of even the simplest ecosystem map. South Africa has produced four map versions, from a rudimentary map of 34 biozones informed by bathymetry data, to the latest version comprising 163 ecosystem types informed by 83 environmental and biodiversity datasets that aligns with the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology. Data were unlocked through academic and industry collaborations; multi-disciplinary, multi-realm and multi-generational networks of practitioners; and targeted research to address key gaps. To advance toward a more transparent, reproducible and data-driven approach, limitations, barriers and opportunities for improvement were identified. Challenges included limited human and data infrastructure capacity to collate, curate and assimilate many data sources, covering a variety of ecosystem components, methods and scales. Five key lessons that are of relevance for others working to advance ecosystem classification and mapping, were distilled. These include (1) the benefits of iterative improvement; (2) the value of fostering relationships among a co-ordinated network of practitioners including early-career researchers; (3) strategically prioritizing and leveraging resources to build and curate key foundational biodiversity datasets and understand drivers of biodiversity pattern; (4) the need for developing, transferring and applying capacity and tools that enhance data quality, analytical workflows and outputs; and (5) the application of new technology and emerging statistical tools to improve the classification and prediction of biodiversity pattern. South Africa’s map of marine ecosystem types has been successfully applied in spatial biodiversity assessment, prioritization to support protected area expansion and marine spatial planning. These successes demonstrate the value of a co-ordinated network of practitioners who continually build an evidence base and iteratively improve ecosystem mapping while simultaneously growing ecological knowledge and informing changing priorities and policy.

show abstract

Section: Evolving Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iterative mapping of marine ecosystems for spatial status assessment, prioritization, and decision support

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Communityconservation conflict often drives unregulated and illegal activity which in turn leads many conservationists and ecologists to call for stricter top-down enforcement (Baynham-Herd et al, 2018) possibly creating an unsustainable positive feedback loop. This is seen in South African protected areas, where priority is given to conserving and monitoring ecology with little insight regarding the translation of ecological processes into social benefits (Kirkman et al, 2021). Often biodiversity monitoring research and reports deliver a message to tighten top-down control with no insight into the social structure around these protected areas as is seen in the recent case of a Dwesa-Cwebe study (Bullock et al, 2021).…”

Section: Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community and Marine Conservation in South Africa: Are We Still Missing the Mark?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in South Africa have a long history with currently 5% of the mainland’s ocean territory protected. The MPAs are celebrated and appreciated for their representative coverage of several habitat types and their ecological benefits. However, the story of correlational coastal community exclusion is not one that is often told in the ‘success’ story of South African MPAs. In this review we describe the history of marine conservation in South Africa and examine how the legislation and motivation has evolved since Apartheid. While legislation provides direction in terms of community inclusion, this is rarely the reality as we explore with five case studies. We go on to discuss how top-down governance continues to exclude communities and suggest key lessons drawn from our case-studies that could lead to a more community-involved approach to the ongoing protection and management of our marine habitats for greater conservation success.

show abstract

“…South Africa is committed to further expansion of its protected areas network toward achieving the 10% target of the CBD's Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, and in the longer term (20 years) to achieve conservation of 20% of its ocean space in protected or conservation areas (DEA, 2016). Unprotected EBSAs or parts of EBSAs provide gaps and opportunities for MPA expansion (Kirkman et al, 2021). In all three countries, the results of the EBSA processes have also become critical and prominent components of the biodiversity sector inputs into MSP.…”

Section: Marine Protected Areas and Integration Into Marine Spatial P...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical Marine Spatial Management of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas: Emerging Lessons From Evidence-Based Planning and Implementation in a Developing-World Context

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying key sites of marine biodiversity value and implementing the required practical spatial management measures is critical for safeguarding marine biodiversity and maintaining essential ecological processes, especially in the face of accelerating global change and expanding ocean economies. Delineating Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) has been catalytic in progressing toward this aim. However, the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME; comprising three developing countries: Angola, Namibia, and South Africa) is one of few places where practical action to secure biodiversity in EBSAs has followed their description. We aim to document the process of moving from biodiversity priority areas to implemented conservation actions, and distil broadly applicable emerging lessons. EBSAs in the BCLME were reviewed using a systematic conservation planning approach, supplemented with expert input. In this data- and knowledge-driven process, the boundaries and descriptions of existing EBSAs were refined, and gaps filled with new EBSAs. The status of 29 EBSAs was assessed by determining the ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of constituent ecosystem types. Also, current human uses and their respective impacts were systematically reviewed per EBSA. Management recommendations were proposed by dividing EBSAs into zones with associated multi-sector sea-use guidelines. Throughout the process, facilitated by a regional cooperation project, there was stakeholder engagement, and national, regional, and international review. BCLME States are currently implementing enhanced EBSA management in their respective marine spatial planning and marine protected area processes, noting that there are different but valid outcomes for securing marine biodiversity in each country. Further, the regional approach allowed for cross-border alignment of priorities and management between countries, as well as pooled expertise, technical support, and capacity development. Although full implementation is still underway, the lessons to date highlight some key factors required for a successful process that could guide similar initiatives elsewhere.

show abstract

Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas

Cited by 37 publications

References 215 publications

Iterative mapping of marine ecosystems for spatial status assessment, prioritization, and decision support

Iterative mapping of marine ecosystems for spatial status assessment, prioritization, and decision support

Community and Marine Conservation in South Africa: Are We Still Missing the Mark?

Practical Marine Spatial Management of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas: Emerging Lessons From Evidence-Based Planning and Implementation in a Developing-World Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About