Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Copyright © 2010 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Lombard, A. T., R. M. Cowling, J. H. J. Vlok, and C. Fabricius. 2010. Designing conservation corridors in production landscapes: assessment methods, implementation issues, and lessons learned. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Research Designing Conservation Corridors in Production Landscapes: Assessment Methods, Implementation Issues, and Lessons Learned 1,2 1,2 2 2 Amanda T. Lombard , Richard M. Cowling , Jan H.J. Vlok , and Christo Fabricius ABSTRACT. Designing broad-scale conservation corridors has become increasingly common as a way of conducting an assessment for achieving targets for the representation and persistence of nature. However, since many of these corridors must traverse agricultural and other production landscapes, planning and implementation are not trivial tasks. Most approaches to conservation assessments in the dynamic world of production landscapes are data-intensive and analytically complex. However, in the real world, donor and other external requirements impose time and budget constraints, and dictate strong stakeholder involvement in the entire planning process. In order to accommodate this, assessments must be rapid, cheap, and the approach and products must be comprehensible and acceptable to stakeholders. Here we describe such an assessment aimed at identifying and implementing a network of conservation corridors in the Gouritz Initiative project domain of South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region hotspot. We used empirical data and expert knowledge to identify a corridor network hypothesized to sustain key ecological and evolutionary processes. We also consulted experts to provide a spatially explicit assessment of the opportunity costs of conservation associated with agriculture, the predominant land use in the region. We used these products to identify categories of land requiring different actions and instruments to achieve conservation goals, thereby moving from the “where” to the “how” of conservation. This information was then fed into the collaborative strategy development process for the Gouritz Initiative. Our discussion emphasizes the lessons that we learnt from undertaking this assessment, particularly lessons regarding the implementation of the planning products. We conclude that at the outset of any planning project, a consensus on the vision must be achieved, a detailed social assessment of appropriate institutions must be undertaken, and a learning organization that practices adaptive comanagement should be established. These institutional and governance requirements are fundamental to successful implementation of conservation-planning products. Key Words: biodiversity processes; conservation corridors; conservation planning; expert knowledge; Gouritz Initiative; implementation; production landscapes INTRODUCTION the maintenance of biodiversity patterns and processes in the long term (Redford and Richter During the past two decades, a great deal of effort 1999, Cowling et al. 2002, Orr 2002). has gone into identifying priority areas for conservation action, but much less effort has been In a similar vein, most conservation assessment expended on identifying which actions are research has focused on targeting the patterns of appropriate where (Knight et al. 2006b, Wilson et nature, principally species and land classes, rather al. 2007). Acquisition of land for strict reservation than the processes that sustain and generate it is not a feasible conservation strategy in most cases (Balmford et al. 1998, Cowling et al. 1999, Pressey (Miller and Hobbs 2002, Rosenzweig 2003), which et al. 2007). However, it is reasonable to assume exacerbates this problem. Indeed, for many parts of that conservation plans underpinned by the the world, particularly in production landscapes, the achievement of broad-scale process targets, for only realistic conservation strategy is to attempt to example, migratory corridors for plants and achieve land use practices that are compatible with animals, are more likely to ensure the long term 1Botany Department, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, 2Sustainability Research Unit, George Campus, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ persistence of wild nature than plans that are based of challenges and opportunities (Bawden et al. entirely on representing pattern features alone 2007). However, local knowledge may be biased by (Chetkiewicz et al. 2006). experience and values, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions (Kress et al. 1998, Maddock Planning for processes in the complex and dynamic and Samways 2000, Cowling et al. 2003b). Other world of production landscapes is the most key challenges associated with local knowledge are commonly encountered situation but also presents its fine-grained resolution and local scope. the most difficulties and is the least researched Scientific knowledge is, however, not immune to (Pressey et al. 2007). Assembling data on processes similar problems (Fabricius et al. 2006). and their spatial surrogates, and on the vast array of relevant socioeconomic factors, is no trivial task Here we report on an assessment aimed at designing (Cowling and Pressey 2003). It is also not trivial to conservation corridors for the Gouritz area of South implement routines to identify priority areas and Africa’s Cape Floristic Region. The assessment was corresponding actions, and to schedule these actions commissioned by the provincial conservation in such a way as to minimize loss of priority habitat. agency, CapeNature, with the intention of Some recent research has made substantial delivering products that could be used to develop a advances on planning in dynamic landscapes conservation strategy for the region, in (Costello and Polasky 2004, Meir et al. 2004, collaboration with stakeholders, under the umbrella Pressey et al. 2004, Polasky et al. 2005, Wilson et of CapeNature’s Gouritz Initiative (GI) project (htt al. 2005). However, the approaches are often very p://www.gouritz.com). It was made clear at the complex, data intensive, and not necessarily outset that the landscape management model for the comprehensible to the land managers and other project was not one of land purchase for the stakeholders tasked with implementing the expansion of the formal protected area system; outcomes of the plan (Barthel et al. 2005, Hein et instead the emphasis was on engaging land owners al. 2006). in stewardship programs that did not disrupt their aspirations to receive economic returns from the use One way of overcoming many of these constraints of their land. Such models are common elsewhere, is to use expert knowledge. Local experts can e.g., biosphere reserves (Olsson et al. 2007), and contribute large amounts of information on International Union for Conservation of Nature biological and socioeconomic phenomena that (IUCN) Category V and VI protected areas (http:// would be hugely expensive and time-consuming to www.iucn.org; Borrini-Feyerabend 1997). assemble in a more formal way (e.g., Bojórquez- Tapia et al. 2003, Martin et al. 2005, Chalmers and Our assessment and planning products were guided Fabricius 2007). Local knowledge is often verbally by an operational model (Fig. 1) previously transferred from one generation to another, which developed by Knight et al. (2006a) and expanded contributes long term information that would be by Cowling et al. (2008). We believe that if a very expensive, if not impossible, to acquire conservation planning process misses any of the through conventional scientific methods (Agrawal steps within this model, it will fail to produce user- and Chhatre 2006). Also, involving local experts in useful products and will fall short of achieving the assessment phase of a conservation planning implementation goals (Pierce et al. 2005, Knight et process assists greatly in achieving their al. 2006b). endorsement of the process, and the prospects for effective implementation are greatly enhanced if This project was funded by the Critical Ecosystem these experts are associated with agencies Partnership Fund (CEPF) through the Cape Action responsible for implementing the planning for People and the Environment Project (C.A.P.E.; outcomes (Olivieri et al. 1995, Hannah et al. 1998, http://www.capeaction.org.za). As with most Dinerstein et al. 2000, Knight et al. 2006b). donor-driven projects, time and funding were in Multiscale adaptive governance is thus promoted, short supply, six months and $43,000, respectively. which leads to resilient institutional arrangements, Consequently, we used existing vegetation and land all keys to the management of common pool use data, and experts from land management resources such as biodiversity (Libel et al. 2006). agencies and academia to identify a network of Social learning takes place when participants share conservation corridors that would accommodate the information and question their assumptions, leading biological processes necessary for the maintenance to more sustainable solutions and greater awareness of wild nature in the planning domain. We also used Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Fig. 1. An operational model for mainstreaming conservation planning products for implementation (after Knight et al. 2006a, Cowling et al. 2008). experts to provide a spatially explicit assessment of providers and reviewers. Ecological experts the opportunity costs of conservation associated represented all major biological taxa, as well as the with agriculture, the predominant land use in the different ecosystems within the planning domain. region. We used these products to identify Research and management staff of all local categories of land requiring different actions and conservation agencies and resource agencies, i.e., instruments to achieve conservation goals. This water, farming, forestry, and tourism, were information was then fed into the collaborative involved, as were planners from local government strategy development process for the Gouritz structures. Individuals were chosen based on their region. The discussion emphasizes the lessons that local knowledge, their seniority within their we learnt from undertaking this assessment, lessons organization, their interest in the GI, and their that we believe are highly relevant for the cost- availability to attend workshops. Our independent effective identification and implementation of consultancy team facilitated the workshops. We conservation corridors in production landscapes. attempted to maximize information quality through refinement by producing reports after each workshop and circulating them to participants for METHODS comment. All comments were then worked into revised documents that were compiled and released Participatory process as a draft report to the implementing agency. All comments from the draft report were then fed into During the project, science-based stakeholder the final report, released two months later. At this dialogues (Welp et al. 2006) were used to consult point, an open forum was established, the GI Forum, with stakeholders, who served as both information where all scientific results were presented to Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ members of the public and other affected parties for products. The first was the area identified by the comment. These meetings remain well attended by CAPE Project (Cowling et al. 2003a) as the core for interested and affected parties who welcome the a proposed Gouritz Mega Reserve. The second information sharing process and the opportunity to product was the compilation of all the important comment on the conclusions of researchers. areas delineated on 1:250,000 topographic map sheets at expert workshops at which conservation managers, aquatic biologists, botanists, entomologists, Planning domain ornithologists, zoologists, archaeologists, and land use planners were present. The wide region was The study area falls within the central part of the driven by the aquatic processes and an attempt to Cape Floristic Region hotspot, and much of the area represent entire catchments (Everard 2004). This was identified as a priority for the conservation of broad boundary was refined with a series of finer both biodiversity pattern, e.g., species occurrences, scale boundaries, namely vegetation types, and process, e.g., migration corridors, in an earlier, quaternary catchments, contours, and political broad-scale conservation plan for this hotspot boundaries. This finer scale boundary was then (Cowling et al. 2003a). The area comprises three matched to the closest cadastral, or land parcel, major topo-climatic regions: a coastal plain (0-350 boundary. All spatial data for this project were m), the Cape Folded Belt comprising two east-west managed with a geographic information system parallel mountain ranges (500-2000 m), and the (GIS: ArcInfo ver. 7 and ArcView ver. 3, ESRI, Little Karoo Basin (200-600 m) between the California). mountain ranges (Fig. 2). Rainfall is low: <400 mm per annum in the Little Karoo; 300-600 mm on the coastal plain; and up to 1700 mm in the mountains. Planning units and protected areas The coastal plain supports fynbos and strandveld Planning units are spatial, mapped boundaries used vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford 2006). Along in conservation assessments (Pressey and Logan the coast, economic activity is dominated by resort 1998). They subdivide the landscape into building development, recreational, nature-based land use, blocks, each of which can be quantitatively assessed pasture-raised livestock farming, and indigenous for the biodiversity patterns or processes it contains, vegetation harvesting, e.g., thatch and flowers. Over or forms part of. We used cadastral boundaries as the last century, large areas have become invaded planning units, since this is commonly the unit used by alien trees, predominantly Acacia cyclops. for land purchase or sale. Within the GIS, the Heavier soils support mainly rain-fed agriculture planning domain boundary map and the protected based on cereals and pasture. The rugged mountain area boundaries map were both derived from the landscapes comprise shallow, sandy, and highly planning unit map. Protected areas were divided into infertile soils, unsuitable for cultivation or grazing. two categories (Fig. 2). Type 1 protected areas are The vegetation includes a diversity of species- and owned and run by the state, province, or a local endemic-rich fynbos types. Although much of the authority, and conservation legislation is strong, e. less rugged foothills have been cleared for g., national parks and provincial reserves; Type 2 agriculture, the intact upland landscapes are largely protected areas are on public or private land state owned and managed for nature conservation managed for conservation as well as other land uses, and water production. The Little Karoo Basin is a and conservation legislation is weak or nonexistent, semiarid landscape, broken by koppies and strewn e.g., conservancies and private nature reserves with gravel. The predominant vegetation is (Lombard et al. 2003). Planning unit sizes ranged succulent karoo on the plains, and subtropical from approximately 1-11,000 ha (Type 1 Protected thicket and renosterveld on the koppies (Mucina Areas) and from <1-8351 ha for all other units. and Rutherford 2006). Irrigated agriculture is restricted to riparian areas with access to perennial streams. The area is a major centre of ostrich Biodiversity patterns production. These, and other livestock, have caused extensive degradation of the natural vegetation We used vegetation pattern as a surrogate for (Thompson et al. 2009). biodiversity pattern. The vegetation map was compiled from Cowling and Heijnis (2001) and We delineated the GI planning domain with an area Vlok and Euston-Brown (2002). Sixty-four of 32,693 km² (Fig. 2) by integrating two spatial vegetation types occur in the planning domain, Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Fig. 2. The location of the Gouritz planning domain in South Africa (inset). The enlarged map shows perennial rivers, and existing protected areas (Types 1 and 2) that lie in two east-west axes mainly along the two mountain ranges. Broadly speaking, the Nama-Karoo biome lies to the north of the northern mountain range, and the fynbos biome lies between the southern mountain range and the sea, as well as on the mountains. The Succulent Karoo biome lies mainly between the two mountain ranges, as thicket vegetation tracks most river courses and coastal areas. The forest biome enters the planning domain only in the south-east. thirty of which are endemic to it (Lombard et al. and they are set using biodiversity richness and 2004). endemism data, e.g., species plots. We used the targets developed by Cowling et al. (2003a) and In order to determine the ecosystem status of each Rouget et al. (2006), and these ranged from vegetation type, we calculated its amount of 10-100% of the pretransformation extent. To transformation using LANDSAT TM (Rouget et al. calculate the ecosystem status, we plotted each 2003), and the degree to which its conservation vegetation type against two axes. The X-axis is the target has been met in Type 1 and 2 protected areas. percentage of the target that has already been met Vegetation targets are percentages of the original in Types 1 and 2 protected areas. Hence, a vegetation extent of vegetation types that are required for type with a target of 1000 ha, but with 400 ha already formal protection, in Types 1 and 2 protected areas, under protection, has an X-axis value of 40(%). Any Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ transformation in the protected area does not biodiversity processes (P1-P9) form the conservation contribute to targets. The Y-axis is the percentage corridor network of the planning domain. of remaining untransformed, unprotected vegetation that is required to meet currently unmet targets. Therefore, in the example above, the unmet target Agriculture is 600 ha. Should this be all that is left in an untransformed state of this vegetation type, the Y- Outside Type 1 and 2 protected areas, farming with axis value would be 100(%). Using the position of livestock and cultivated crops are the major land each vegetation type on the graph, we defined five uses in the planning domain. Different types of categories of ecosystem status: (1) critically farming practices were delineated on 1:250,000 endangered, i.e., vegetation types can endure no map sheets at expert workshops attended by further transformation if targets are to be met; (2) members of the Department of Agriculture and endangered, <50% of targets are currently met and nature conservation managers. Each farming >40% of remaining, untransformed land is required practice was assigned to one of five classes with to meet targets; (3) vulnerable, <50% of targets are respect to its income generation potential, ranging met and <40% of remaining, untransformed land is from high to very low. This information will allow required to meet targets; (4) least threatened, >50% future conservation plans to identify farms that are of targets are met and <40% of remaining, likely to benefit from conservation incentives, and untransformed land is required to meet targets; and farms that would incur too much of an opportunity (5) monitoring, targets are currently met. This cost if current lucrative farming practices were approach is similar to the one used to list threatened stopped. ecosystems under the South African Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act). Implementation categories Using biodiversity pattern and process information, Biodiversity processes and corridors and farming income generation potential maps, we plotted each planning unit on a graph, and assigned Processes for the planning domain were mapped at it to an implementation category of one to five based a scale of 1:250,000 at the expert workshops on its position on the graph. Planning units with previously mentioned. We used vegetation maps similar biodiversity values and farming income and geomorphic characteristic maps to spatially potentials were thus allocated to particular delineate nine processes, using simple cartographic implementation categories that have a suite of overlay (Table 1). Geomorphic characteristics actions and instruments available to them to achieve included quartz patches (Driver et al. 2003), conservation goals, for example, purchase for altitude, and rivers. No modeling techniques such conservation, biodiversity agreements, megaconservancy as least cost path analyses were used because we networks, community projects, and biodiversity did not consider trade-offs against other land uses projects (see Table 2). in the corridor design. These trade-offs were considered in a following step where implementation Although these implementation categories are categories were assigned. appropriate for most of the planning domain, the coastline is severely threatened by coastal Once biodiversity processes had been matched to developments, e.g., urbanization, golf developments, vegetation or landform boundaries, final process polo fields. We have not included a separate analysis boundaries were matched to the closest planning for this region because the X-axis would measure unit boundary. Although only one broad aquatic the nonfarming income derived from these process was identified (P1 – the north-south Gouritz developments. A separate analysis is currently River corridor), all aquatic processes were a major being conducted for the coastline at provincial level, determinant in the planning domain definition. with extensive stakeholder input (Garden Route These processes are linked to river and wetland Initiative, http://www.gri.org.za). Given the diffic- systems, and we attempted to represent entire ulties encountered in integrating outputs of different catchments, where possible, as well as examples of biodiversity plans undertaken for the same region, both inland and coastal river systems. The other the decision was made to exclude the area of overlap eight processes (P2 - P9) are all terrestrial and are from the current analysis. described in detail in Lombard et al. (2004). These Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Table 1. Nine broad-scale biodiversity processes, and their spatial surrogates, in the Gouritz planning domain. All spatial boundaries were matched to the closest planning unit boundary. The processes form the corridor network. Further details can be obtained from Lombard et al. (2004). Process Spatial component Method of Primary GIS layers identification P1 Migration and exchange across macroclimatic gradients between Riverine corridors All planning units Rivers inland and coastal biotas, north and south biotas, and upland- that intersect with lowland biotas, providing dispersal opportunities in the event of the North-South environmental change; maintenance of fresh water flow, water Gouritz River quality and quantity, flood control, and estuarine integrity main stem, and its two sources in the north, the Dwyka and Gamka Rivers P2 Geographic diversification of plant and animal lineages; Macroclimatic The west-east Vegetation types and migration of biota, especially far-ranging animals such as birds gradients of west- corridor across the Altitude data P4 and leopards; maintenance of natural fire regimes (many fynbos east mountain mountain fynbos species are fire-driven); generation and maintenance of chains complex perennial fresh water for the lowlands (the mountains are vegetation types, important water catchment regions to retain surface and along the northern underground water sources) mountain chain (P2), and southern mountain chain (P4) P3 Geographic and ecological diversification of plant and animal Quartz patches and Delineated on base Quartz patches lineages (there is a high turnover of species within and among associated maps at expert (Driver at al. 2003) these heterogeneous patches); seed dispersal (quartz patches and succulent workshops associated succulent vegetation are hotspots of botanical vegetation diversity and occur as stepping-stones along a northwest to southeast gradient in the western Little Karoo, providing a gradient of changing species - they are not continuous, but are linked to one another via processes such as seed dispersal, for example, by leopard tortoises) P5 Maintenance of dispersal and diversification of the distinctive Coastal corridors Coastal vegetation Coastline coastal biota, most of which are restricted to this narrow, linear types within a two Vegetation types zone; inland movement of marine sands and associated soil km coastal development within coastal dunes and sand movement corridors; corridor from the maintenance of plant succession processes associated with the west to the east of primary dune systems; coastal wetlands performing flood the planning control and water filtration thereby enhancing estuarine domain. integrity; intact coastal regions provide protection against storm events and sea-level rise in response to global warming P6 Representation of the biological gradients, i.e., north-south, Thicket corridors The Gouritz-Little Vegetation types upland-lowland, and east-west macroclimatic gradients, within Karoo the biogeographically distinct Gouritz water catchment (intact Megaconservancy gradients promote the long-term maintenance of ecological and Network (Rouget evolutionary processes such as migration, diversification, and et al. 2006). adaptation to climate change along drainage basins that support thicket vegetation). P7 Plant and animal dispersal associated with the biodiversity of the Koppies and Western area: Vegetation types Renosterveld of the coastal forelands (this is not catered for in associated plant vegetation Geology types any of the other corridors - the vegetation of the region is highly species boundaries. fragmented, mainly by wheat fields, but many small patches Eastern area: remain along the hilltops and these enable seasonal migration of geological some fauna and act as important refugia for geophytes and small boundaries succulent plants, many of which are highly localized endemics) (con'd) Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ P8 Seasonal movement patterns of pollinators (Cape sugarbirds and Proteaceous and Proteaceous and Vegetation types orangebreasted sunbirds are specialist pollinators of the Protea Ericacaeous Ericacaeous Altitude data and Erica species, respectively, and track seasonal flowering fynbos pollinator fynbos of uplands patterns) migration routes and lowlands P9 Plant and animal dispersal associated with the biodiversity of the Lowland Lowland and Vegetation types lowlands; disturbance created by, for example, grysbok and vegetation coastal vegetation, Rivers bushbuck movement and feeding, and by molerats tunnelling – and vegetation these processes are important for the regeneration of fynbos associated with plants; pollination by, for example, nectarivores, which need to east-west bands of be able to fly across ecologically intact areas. geology, and north-south gradients along river courses. Projects all remaining untransformed land is required to meet targets. Five vegetation types have an endangered Owing to the crosscutting nature of competing land status, and as many as 30 are vulnerable; eleven of uses, institutional responsibilities, as well as these have no protection in Types 1 and 2 protected ecological processes in the planning domain, it is areas. A further five vegetation types have status = essential that all land management practices in the least threatened, and 20 have their targets met in area embrace the goal of ecologically sustainable existing Type 1 and 2 protected areas, status = land management. To facilitate this, under the monitoring. Details of the vegetation types in each umbrella of the GI we developed a suite of projects. category are given in Lombard et al. (2004). For each project, we identified broad and fine scale biodiversity patterns and processes that need to be addressed, and how they should be addressed, as well as land use pressures that need to be mitigated, Biodiversity processes (corridor network) opportunities that exist, and the institutions and communities that need to be involved. We Figure 4 spatially represents the corridor network developed a total of 60 projects, which are spatially defined by the broad-scale processes listed in Table explicit and are described in detail in Lombard et 1. Many of the corridors overlap spatially, with a al. (2004). maximum overlap = four. The protection and transformation statistics of the entire planning domain, and the corridors only, are shown in Figure RESULTS 5. Although 20% of the planning domain is protected by Type 1 and 2 protected areas, 69% has Biodiversity patterns (ecosystem status) reversible transformation, mainly natural grazing, and 11% is irreversibly transformed. This Figure 3a shows the ecosystem status of vegetation transformation lies mainly on the coastal plain. types within the entire planning domain, and Figure Within the corridors, 30% falls within Types 1 and 3b maps the ecosystem status of vegetation types 2 protected areas, 61% has reversible transformation, within the corridor network only. In general, the and 9% is irreversibly transformed. low lying vegetation types are more transformed, owing to fertile coastal and valley soils, and also The nine corridors identified in this study represent have less protection, whereas the mountain fynbos 58% of the planning domain, 60 of its 64 vegetation vegetation has little transformation because it is less types, and 87% of the total area of Types 1 and 2 arable, and a lot of protection because there are no protected areas. Almost one third (30%) of the competing land uses. The ecosystem status of corridor network falls within Types 1 and 2 vegetation types thus improves with altitude and the protected areas, which meet planning domain inverse of soil depth. The four critically endangered targets for 16 vegetation types. Of the other 44 vegetation types can tolerate no more transformation; vegetation types that occur in the corridor network, Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Table 2. Description of the land use types within the five implementation categories defined in Fig. 7, and proposed actions and instruments to achieve conservation outcomes in each of these categories. Implementation category Description Proposed actions and instruments Implementing agencies 1 Land is of high biodiversity and low farming value, and • Purchase for conservation (area is only • Statutory conservation should be secured for formal conservation, e.g., type 1 623 km² – or 2.1% of planning domain) agencies or 2 protected areas. Restoration may be required. 2 Land is of high biodiversity and high farming value. • Biodiversity agreements such as • Local conservation Many farms are adjacent to rivers and use these for CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme agency irrigation. This land use is difficult to change, but those • Management plans drawn up by • National Department of parts of the farm far away from the rivers often contain agricultural extension officers Agriculture untransformed areas. Preliminary discussions indicate a • Environmental branding of farming • Land owners high willingness among farmers to have this products, e.g., wines untransformed land managed by conservation agencies, • Reduction of biodiversity losses on for example, alien plant removal. cultivated land where possible, e.g., vegetation plots for “critical” vegetation types 3 Land is of lower biodiversity and low farming value. • Conservancy formation in • Local conservation Most of the planning domain is grazed and falls into this megaconservancy networks (Knight and agency category. Actions must be diverse and can include a Cowling 2003) • National Department of mixture of land use changes, protection, or biodiversity • Biodiversity agreements Agriculture agreements. Opportunity costs for farmers will be low, • Community projects, especially for • National Department of and alternative land use practices, e.g., game farming poorer areas Water Affairs and instead of small stock grazing, may be financially Forestry beneficial. • Land owners • Other national institution 4 Land is of lower biodiversity and high farming value. • Proceed as for Category 2 above, but as a lower priority with respect to both timing and effort. 5 Identify any biodiversity patterns or processes of • Projects, e.g., alien eradication, • Gouritz Initiative concern, and ensure these are dealt with by projects. reduction of pollutants into rivers 32 can meet their outstanding targets in currently ecosystems are given a threat status under the untransformed, unprotected land within the National Environmental Management Biodiversity corridors alone. This emphasizes the important role Act – NEMBA, http://www.environment.gov.za). of the corridors in meeting pattern targets. However, the emphasis in this study was on broad-scale We understand that many finer scale processes processes, because a focus on pattern conservation operate both within the corridors and between them. alone could foreclose on options for maintaining Owing to the large areas over which these corridors broad-scale processes, e.g., fences stop animal operate, they are in danger of becoming fragmented movement and some bird pollinators will not fly and interrupted by anthropogenic activities, e.g., across transformed land. Nevertheless, we advocate expanding irrigated agriculture and fence that the methods used here should be augmented construction. This in turn would lead to the with pattern studies, and South Africa currently has breakdown of finer scale processes, e.g., seed a legal framework in place to deal with the issue of dispersal by localized vertebrates. Consequently, habitat loss outside of protected areas, i.e., we believe that the corridors form an ecological Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Fig. 3. The ecosystem status of each of the 64 vegetation types in the planning domain. In (a), the number of vegetation types in each category is listed in the legend. Note that 20 vegetation types meet their targets in protected areas (status = Monitoring), and thus all fall on the same, single symbol. Values are assigned to ecosystem status as follows: critically endangered = 4, endangered = 3, vulnerable = 2, least threatened = 1 and monitoring = 0. These values are used to calculate the biodiversity value in Figure 7a. Below, Fig. (b) shows the distribution of the ecosystem status of vegetation types within the corridor network only. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Fig. 4. The corridor network developed for the Gouritz planning domain. Corridors are defined by nine broad-scale biodiversity processes (P1-9), matched to the closest planning unit boundary. Note that P9, i.e., lowland vegetation and finer-scale processes, occurs at scales finer than can be plotted in this figure. framework upon which the ecological health of the dairy, lucerne, or alfalfa, fruit and hops, whereas Gouritz planning domain depends, and that they 36% receives a low income from livestock farming need to be integrated into provincial and regional practices, including ostriches grazing on dry lands. planning frameworks before they become too compromised to function effectively. Implementation categories Agriculture Table 2 describes the possible conservation actions Farming practices within the corridor network and instruments that can be used to achieve include grazing, mostly in the Succulent Karoo ecological sustainability within the corridor between the mountain ranges, and dry land wheat, network, and indeed within all agricultural mainly on the coastal plain. Irrigated cultivation is landscapes in the planning domain. The table should limited to the watercourses and their associated be viewed in conjunction with Figure 7. Table 2 is alluvial soils because of the low rainfall. The by no means exhaustive, but serves to demonstrate income that is potentially generated from the that different actions and instruments are required different farming practices within the corridors is to achieve sustainable land use practices, depending mostly low (Fig. 6). Only 5% of the corridor area on what the biodiversity values are, and what the has higher income farming practices, as a result of competing land uses are. If one can map and value Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Fig. 5. The percentage areas of different land uses in the entire Gouritz planning domain, and in the corridor network only. Types 1 and 2 protected areas are described in the text. Type 3 protected areas include game farms, state land, or proposed conservation areas. biodiversity and these land uses, one can adopt more DISCUSSION effective conservation strategies. The aim of our study was to design conservation Owing to time and budget constraints, this study corridors in a region dominated by production was not able to undertake a full assessment of landscapes. Previous experience, however, has opportunity costs and was limited to estimating shown that systematic conservation planning farming income generation potential. Further methods and products need to be embedded in an studies could benefit from data generated by Egoh operational model if they are to be implemented et al. (2010), who made considerable progress with effectively (Knight et al. 2006b). The model in valuing ecosystem services in the area. Figure 1 demonstrates that a conservation corridor design is simply the product of step one, the biophysical assessment (Knight et al. 2006a). The ultimate goal of the planning process should be the Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Fig. 6. The distribution of farming income generation potential within the corridor network. establishment of a robust learning institution scale (X-axis, Fig. 1), served to inform and involve (Turner and Berkes 2006) that practices adaptive all major stakeholders in the region (left-hand Y- governance (Folke 2007), and is able to implement axis, Fig. 1), and set goals for representation of conservation planning products in its region of biodiversity patterns and processes (right-hand Y- governance. Mindful of this goal from the outset, axis, Fig. 1). we embedded our research within the GI and attempted to apply the model to our study. Below Our focus on using experts to delineate processes we discuss the phases of the model and how we and agricultural potential was driven by project time addressed them. and budget constraints. It took only a few days of expert workshops to derive a great deal of spatially explicit information, and was extremely cost The assessment phase efficient. It also served to engender buy-in from all the regional and local authorities and implementation We conducted both biophysical and social agencies, all of whom attended the workshops; both assessments for the planning region. The researchers and managers were present. Despite the biophysical assessments used both empirical data, possible biases that experts can bring to a planning i.e., vegetation pattern maps, and expert data, i.e., process, we believe that the wide coverage of areas biodiversity processes, whereas the social of expertise and institutional interests encompassed assessments used expert knowledge only, to by the experts mitigates most of these biases. The categorize farming practices by level of income diversity of knowledge systems involved in the derived. Both of these assessments were regional in planning process provides part of the foundation for Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ building the institutional resilience (Gadgil et al. al. 2004 for these additional products). As the model 2003, Olsson et al. 2006) and the social capital in Figure 1 illustrates, these products moved us from (Pretty 2002) required for comanagement. the assessment phase into the planning phase by serving as inputs for strategy development, and As is typical with these kinds of (donor-) funded addressed finer landscape scales than the regional projects, insufficient resources and time were assessments. allocated for adequate biophysical and social assessments. Our biophysical assessment benefited Implementation strategy from the availability of many previous spatial research outputs, but no appropriate socioeconomic The implementation strategy was quite simple: information was available to feed into our social CapeNature was the institution that had assessment. In addition, because the project funding commissioned the project and they were the lead was allocated to only one implementing agency, an implementing agency. Only CapeNature was thus institutional assessment was not part of the project’s mandated and funded to implement the planning terms of reference. Consequently, we conducted products and recommendations, which were only a rudimentary social assessment, and were developed for their specific needs and management unable to address land values such as rural structures. Later is this discussion, we outline the livelihoods, attachment to land, etc. disadvantages of this implementation strategy. To date, however, the planning products have The strategy development phase guided at least five key actions within GI planning domain: (1) CapeNature uses the corridor design for Planning products guiding protected area expansion and stewardship programs; (2) the Department of Agriculture has We considered both the opportunities and aligned their alien-clearing program with our constraints in developing an implementation recommendations; (3) the regional municipality has strategy for the planning domain (Fig. 7a). This incorporated our products in their revised Spatial strategy delivered a series of products that Development Framework; (4) the report has addressed both the “where” and the “how” of stimulated further interest in developing finer scale conservation actions, because a major stumbling restoration projects in Spekboomveld and block in mainstreaming conservation assessment Gannaveld, as mentioned in public media such as products is the lack of practical recommendations Farmers Weekly/Landbouweekblad magazine and on “how” to implement effective conservation on local radio; and (5) our study has led to the actions (Knight et al. 2006a), or framed another formation of the Little Karoo Study Group, which way, how to spend limited resources (see Wilson et is an informal network of researchers that responds al. 2007). For example, Figure 7a shows that only to research needs identified by the GI Forum 3.5% of the corridor network is recommended for (Reyers et al. 2009). direct purchase by conservation organizations, while other actions and instruments are required for We recommend that future studies expand on our the remaining network (Table 2). products by undertaking cost-benefit analyses, where land use cost efficiency = expected benefits Our products included: (1) a map of implementation divided by costs (see Polasky et al. 2005, Naidoo categories (Fig. 7b) with an accompanying table and Ricketts 2006, Wilson et al. 2006, Murdoch et (Table 2) of the actions and instruments that can be al. 2007). Current analyses by Herling et al. (2009) used to achieve conservation outcomes in the have already shown the true costs associated with corridor; (2) a map of protected area consolidation, the unsustainable practice of ostrich farming in the linking existing protected areas within the corridor planning domain. network; (3) a map of management units with area- specific details on ecological process management, consolidation opportunities, tourism opportunities, The mainstreaming phase and land use pressures, both inside and outside the corridor network; and (4) a series of 60 area-specific Mainstreaming involves the internalization of projects addressing sustainable land use practices conservation planning products into the policies and within the whole planning domain (see Lombard et practices of sectors that deal with land and water Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Fig. 7. The allocation of planning units to five implementation categories (a). The Y-axis is the biodiversity value of the planning unit, and incorporates a pattern and a process component, i.e. biodiversity value = ecosystem status value (from Fig. 3) + number of corridors (from Fig. 4). Both values range from 0-4 therefore the maximum value is 8, and processes and patterns contribute equally. The X-axis gives the potential farming income from Fig. 6. Individual planning units are not shown on the graph, but their areas within the entire planning domain have been summed. Sums in parentheses reflect areas inside the corridor network only. The distribution of implementation categories within the corridor network is shown in (b). Note that category 5 does not occur within the corridor network at all. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ use planning (Cowling 2005). Experience in South At the advent of the project, however, CapeNature Africa has shown that products of conservation was the only institution willing to facilitate the planning assessments are more likely to be project, and the DoA was crippled by a restructuring mainstreamed into legislative frameworks if they process. As the project gained momentum, are simple, transparent, user-useful, and user- CapeNature took dedicated ownership of the project friendly (Pierce et al. 2002, Petersen and Huntley and were reluctant to hand it over to another agency. 2005). Our products were designed with this in mind In addition, suggestions to move the project and were aimed at land use managers from both governance to a provincial or national level were conservation and agricultural backgrounds. barred by C.A.P.E. and CapeNature. Owing to the large area of our planning domain Given the institutional-land use mismatch described (~33,000 km²), and the broad scale over which the above, many of our planning products had no nine corridors operate, we aimed our products at champion, and the implementation of the corridor provincial and district agencies of land use network faced a series of stumbling blocks, starting planning. These span areas of 120,000-170,000 km² with the near collapse of the GI and the disbandment and approximately 10,000 km², respectively. Finer of the Steering Committee. A period of realignment scale products are required for municipal agencies, then began, where the C.A.P.E. Project team which manage land over areas in order of 1000-2000 commissioned an independent review of the GI and km². appointed a small advisory group of seven people, the G7, to identify an institutional model that would be acceptable to all stakeholders. The G7 was The implementation phase chaired by a national nongovernmental organization and funded, again, by the CEPF. The G7 concluded It was at this point of the conservation planning that the Biosphere Reserve concept (UNESCO's process (Fig. 1) that the first major stumbling block Man and the Biosphere Programme, http://www.un was reached. It resulted from a mismatch between esco.org/mab) was the model best suited to the the implementing agency’s mandate, i.e., future development of the GI, and that it should conservation, and the majority private land use in function independently from both CapeNature and the planning domain, i.e., agriculture. The initially the DoA. This recommendation was strongly appointed conservation-implementing agency, supported by the Gouritz Forum and is currently CapeNature, is responsible for only 12% of the being implemented. planning domain, whereas 70% is under livestock management or cultivation (Fig. 5) and thus falls under the mandate of the Department of Agriculture Lessons learned (DoA). We thus argue that a multistakeholder group, with strong input from the DoA, should have A consensus on the vision must be established been tasked with implementing the GI. We also believe that it may have been wiser to use ecosystem Although a steering committee had been constituted services (sensu MA 2005) such as soil conservation to oversee the GI, no real consensus was developed and water security as the focal points of planning regarding the vision for the GI. Different and management (Capistrano et al. 2005), rather stakeholders had different expectations and no than biodiversity value, because the value systems specific, transparent decision was made regarding of most of the landowners are more in tune with the the desired products and their implementation. In value system of the DoA than with CapeNature. addition, the steering committee was chaired by the There also seems to be incongruence between the implementing agency, and this served to further scale of ecosystem management, at the individual entrench the divide between their goals and those farm unit, and the provincial scale of governance. of other stakeholders. Strong leadership, representative To achieve congruence, an additional, finer scale of of all stakeholders, is required to achieve vision governance needs to be introduced as has been consensus and guide implementation. In the event proposed by Bohensky and Lynam (2005) for that vision consensus is not possible, participatory catchment management institutions. processes can provide a forum to express these differences and thus contribute to the design of Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ solutions and instruments that are acceptable to all money could have been saved if adaptive stakeholders. comanagement had been the modus operandi of the learning organization from the outset, if it had been A detailed social assessment of appropriate representative of the major stakeholders in the institutions is required at the outset planning domain, and if a greater effort had been made to establish a strong and representative We believe that a comprehensive social assessment leadership. Although our operational model of organizational and institutional capacity, to incorporated a participatory process, although by no implement the recommendations and products of means exhaustive, elite capture by the implementing the GI, should have been conducted at the outset. agency intervened and disempowered other This would have shown that the implementing stakeholders. We believe that a strong participatory institution needs to be (a) multistakeholder, to process is required right at the outset of similar match the mosaic of land uses, and (b) it needs to projects, where funding agencies identify practice adaptive cooperative governance among appropriate donor recipients in collaboration with different institutions (see Folke et al. 2005). At least all affected stakeholders. as much energy should be devoted to an institutional assessment as is devoted to the biophysical Adaptive comanagement requires a step-wise assessment, and institutions at all scales, national progression from knowledge generation, awareness to local, should be identified, together with their raising, motivation, and action (Fabricius et al. opportunities and constraints regarding the 2007). Incorporation of local expert knowledge and development and implementation of planning the formation of knowledge networks are essential products. These products, in turn, should be first steps in mobilizing stakeholders, but adaptive specifically designed to meet the implementers’ comanagement also requires strong leadership and needs. This requires a detailed understanding of the vision, the development of polycentric institutions day-to-day work of individuals within implementing sensu Libel et al. (2006), high levels of motivation organizations. through tangible incentives, establishing and maintaining links between culture and management, A learning organization should be established and enabling policies (Fabricius et al. 2007). The ‘management’ phase in Knight et al. (2006a) and The overall goal of the GI should have been the Cowling et al. (2008) therefore needs to run in establishment of a social learning organization that parallel to all other phases, with a focus on would enable stakeholders to unlock their mental knowledge generation, trust building, awareness models, or preconceptions, regarding conservation raising, capacity development, and motivation in the GI area, agree on actions desirable for throughout. This on-going process prepares the implementing the conservation strategy, and system for change (Olsson et al. 2004), with respond to feedback from interventions. This did empowerment as an outcome of the process (Berkes not happen. Instead, the implementing agency and 2006). This requires long term, expert facilitation the other stakeholders talked past each other until and institutional development, including conflict disillusionment occurred and the GI all but resolution mechanisms (Folke et al. 2005), collapsed. We reiterate that the implementing implementation of participatory monitoring agency must be one that reflects the value systems systems to assess and track social and ecological of the major land owners, in this case farmers, and change (Armitage et al. 2008), and the involvement if possible, the conservation message should be of all key institutions operating at several spatial framed in a way that resonates with them, for scales (Dietz et al. 2003). Biodiversity and example, soil conservation, farm tourism, etc. ecosystem services are essentially common pool resources and their management will benefit from Adaptive comanagement should be established the inclusion of common property management principles as advocated by Ostrom (2007). During the course of our project, the GI steering committee failed to achieve adaptive comanagement. No attempt was made to ensure that the evaluation of interventions was fed back to the steering committee; consequently, there was no real accountability. We believe that a great deal of Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ CONCLUSION LITERATURE CITED Despite the failures we cite above, by following the Agrawal, A., and A. Chhatre. 2006. Explaining initial steps of the operational model outlined in success on the commons: community forest Figure 1, we produced a series of products that are governance in the Indian Himalaya. World user-friendly and useful for all levels of governance, Development 34(1):149-166. and once the Biosphere Reserve is established, these products will be available for immediate Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. implementation. Expert knowledge was key to 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of developing these products, because of time and learning. Global Environmental Change 18:86-98. budget constraints, and because stakeholders are more likely to endorse products if people they know Balmford, A., G. Mace, and J. R. Ginsberg. 1998. and respect are among the experts driving the The challenges to conservation in a changing world: planning process. However, the GI could have putting processes on the map. Pages 1-28 in G. saved an enormous amount of time and money: if Mace, A. Balmford, and J. R. Ginsberg, editors. the correct institutional model for implementation Conservation in a Changing World. Cambridge had been established at the outset, via a far more University Press, Cambridge, UK. robust participatory process; if a common vision satisfactory to all stakeholders had been Barthel, S., J. Colding, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. established; and if leadership had been responsive 2005. History and local management of a to feedbacks. These institutional and governance biodiversity-rich, urban cultural landscape. Ecology requirements are fundamental to success of any and Society 10(2): 10. [online] URL: http://www.e conservation efforts in production, and indeed cologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art10/. other, land or seascapes. Bawden, R., I. Guijt, and J. Woodhill. 2007. The critical role of civil society in fostering societal Responses to this article can be read online at: learning for a sustainable world. Pages 133-147 in http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ A. Wals, editor. Social learning: towards a responses/ sustainable world. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Berkes, F. 2006. From community-based resource Acknowledgments: management to complex systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 45. [online] URL: http://www.ecolog We are extremely grateful to the many scientists, yandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art45/. managers, and planners who attended our workshops and contributed significantly to Bohensky, E., and T. Lynam. 2005. Evaluating development of planning products. They represented responses in complex adaptive systems: insights on conservation agencies, the Department of water management from the Southern African Agriculture, the Department of Water Affairs and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA). Forestry, the tourism sector, the Council for Ecology and Society 10(1): 11. [online] URL: http: Scientific and Industrial Research, NGOs, //www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art11/. academic institutions, museums, and independent experts. Special thanks to Marina Eilers of the Bojórquez-Tapia, L. A., L. P. Brower, G. Gouritz Initiative for her unending support, and Dr. Castilleja, S. Sánchez-Coló, M. Hernández, W. Anne Lise Schutte-Vlok and Ivan Donian of Calvert, S. Díaz, P. Gómez-Priego, G. Alcantar, CapeNature, who shared their understanding of the E. D. Melgarejo, M. J. Solares, L. Gutiérrez, and biodiversity and management issues within the M. Del Lourdes Juárez. 2003. Mapping expert planning domain. Taniia Strauss and Trevor Wolf knowledge: redesigning the Monarch Butterfly were the other two members of the project team and Biosphere Reserve. Conservation Biology 17:367-379. they assisted at all stages of the project. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund provided supporting Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1997. Beyond fences: grants. seeking social sustainability in conservation. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Kasparek Verlag, Gland, Switzerland. Cowling, R. M., and R. L. Pressey. 2003. Introduction to systematic conservation planning in Capistrano, D., C. Samper, M. Lee, and C. the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservatio- Raudsepp-Hearne. 2005. Ecosystems and human n 122:1-13. well-being: multiscale assessments. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series Volume 4. Island Cowling, R. M., R. L. Pressey, A. T. Lombard, P. Press, Washington D.C., USA. G. Desmet, and A. G. Ellis. 1999. From representation to persistence: requirement for a Chalmers, N., and C. Fabricius. 2007. Expert and sustainable reserve system in the species rich generalist local knowledge about land-cover mediterranean-climate deserts of southern Africa. change on South Africa’s Wild Coast: can local Diversity and Distributions 5:1-21. ecological knowledge add value to science? Ecology and Society 12(1): 10. [online] URL: http: Cowling, R. M., R. L. Pressey, M. Rouget, and A. //www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art10/. T. Lombard. 2003a. A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot - the Cape Floristic Chetkiewicz, C.-L. B., C. C. St. Claire, and M. Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation S. Boyce. 2006. Corridors for conservation: 112:191-216. integrating pattern and process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 37:317-342. Cowling, R. M., R. L. Pressey, R. Simms-Castley, E. Baard, C. Burgers, A. le Roux, and G. Palmer. Costello, C., and S. Polasky. 2004. Dynamic 2003b. The expert or the algorithm? - comparison reserve site selection. Resource and Energy of priority conservation areas identified by park Economics 26:157-174. managers and reserve selection software. Biological Conservation 112:147-167. Cowling, R. M. 2005. The process of mainstreaming: conditions, constraints and prospects. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. Stern. 2003. The Pages 18-25 in C. Petersen, and B. J. Huntley, struggle to govern the commons. Science 302 editors. Mainstreaming biodiversity in production (5652):1907-1912. landscapes. Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C., USA. Dinerstein, E., G. Powell, D. Olson, E. Wikramanayake, R. Abell, C. Loucks, E. Cowling, R. M., B. Egoh, A. T. Knight, P. J. Underwood, T. Allnutt, W. Wittengel, T. Ricketts, O’Farrel, B. Reyers, M. Rouget, D. Roux, A. H. Strand, S. O’Connor, and N. Burgess. 2000. A Welz, and A. Wilhelm-Rechman. 2008. An workbook for conducting biological assessments operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion- services for implementation. Proceedings of the based conservation. Part 1: terrestrial ecoregions. National Academy of Sciences 105(28):9483-9488. Conservation Science Program, WWF-USA, Washington, D.C., USA. Cowling, R. M., and C. E. Heijnis. 2001. The identification of broad habitat units as biodiversity Driver, A., P. Desmet, M. Rouget, R. Cowling, entities for systematic conservation planning in the and K. Maze. 2003. Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Cape Floristic Region. South African Journal of Plan, Biodiversity Component. Technical Report Botany 67:15-38. No. CCU 1/03, Cape Conservation Unit, Botanical Society of South Africa, South Africa. Cowling, R. M., S. M. Pierce, and T. Sandwith. 2002. Conclusions: the fundamentals of mainstreaming Egoh, B. E., B. Reyers, J. Carwardine, M. Bode, biodiversity. Pages 143-153 in S. M. Pierce, R. M. P. J. O'Farrell, K. A. Wilson, H. P. Possingham, Cowling, T. Sandwith, and K. MacKinnon, editors. M. Rouget, W. de Lange, D. M. Richardson, and Mainstreaming biodiversity in development: case R. M. Cowling. 2010. Safeguarding biodiversity studies from South Africa. World Bank, and ecosystem services in the Little Karoo, South Washington, D.C., USA. Africa. Conservation Biology 24(4):1021-1030. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ semiarid system. Restoration Ecology 17 Everard, M. 2004. Investing in sustainable (6):827-836. catchments. Science of the Total Environment 324 (1-3):1-24. Knight, A. T., and R. M. Cowling. 2003. The megaconservancy network concept. Keeping people Fabricius, C., C. Folke, G. Cundill, and L. on the land in living landscapes. Terrestrial Ecology Schultz. 2007. Powerless spectators, coping actors, Research Unit Report No. 45. University of Port and adaptive co-managers: a synthesis of the role Elizabeth, South Africa. [online] URL: http://bgis.s of communities in ecosystem management. anbi.org/STEP/STEP%20MCN%20Concept% Ecology and Society 12(1): 29. [online] URL: http: 20Document.pdf. //www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art29/. Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, and B. M. Fabricius, C., R. J. Scholes, and G. Cundill. 2006. Campbell. 2006a. An operational model for Mobilising knowledge for ecosystem management. implementing conservation action. Conservation Pages 318-324 in W. Reid, F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, Biology 20:408-419. and D. Capistrano, editors. Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in Knight, A. T., A. Driver, R. M. Cowling, K. Maze, ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, P. G. Desmet, A. T. Lombard, M. Rouget, M. A. D.C., USA. Botha, A. F. Boshoff, J. G. Castley, P. S. Goodman, K. Mackinnon, S. M. Pierce, R. Sims- Folke, C. 2007. Social-ecological systems and Castley, W. I. Stewart, and A. Von Hase. 2006b. adaptive governance of the commons. Ecological Designing systematic conservation assessments Research 22:14-15. that promote effective implementation: best practice from South Africa. Conservation Biology Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 20(3):739-750. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Kress, W. J., W. R. Heyer, P. Acevedo, J. Resources 30:441-473. Coddington, D. Cole, T. L. Erwin, B. J. Meggers, M. Pogue, R. W. Thorington, R. P. Vari, M. J. Gadgil, M., P. Olsson, F. Berkes, and C. Folke. Weitzman, and S. H. Weitzman. 1998. Amazonian 2003. Exploring the role of local ecological biodiversity: assessing conservation priorities with knowledge in ecosystem management: three case taxonomic data. Biodiversity and Conservation studies. Pages 189-209 in F. Berkes, J. Colding, and 7:1577-1587. C. Folke, editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and Libel, L., J. M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C Folke, change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, S. Hatfield-Dodds, T. P. Hughes, and J. Wilson. UK. 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Hannah, L., B. Rakotosamimanana, J. Ecology and Society 11(1): 19. [online] URL: http: Ganzhorn, R. A. Mittermeier, S. Olivieri, L. Iyer, //www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/. S. Rajaobelina, J. Hough, F. Andriamialisoa, I. Bowles, and G. Tilken. 1998. Participatory Lombard, A. T., T. Wolf, and N. Cole. 2003. GIS planning, scientific priorities, and landscape coverages and spatial analyses for the Subtropical conservation in Madagascar. Environmental Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project. Conservation 25:30-36. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report No.42, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Hein, L., K. van Koppen, R. de Groot, and E. van Africa. [online] URL: http://bgis.sanbi.org/STEP/S Ierland. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the TEP_GIS_TERU.zip. valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57(2):209-228. Lombard, A. T., T. Wolf, and T. Strauss. 2004. GIS Specialist Services, Gouritz Initiative (GI). Herling, M. C., C. F. Cupido, P. J. O'Farrell, and Report for Western Cape Nature Conservation L. Du Plessis. 2009. The financial costs of Board, South Africa. [online] URL: http://bgis.sanbi. ecologically nonsustainable farming practices in a org/gouritz/Gouritz.pdf. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ functions for matching scales in Kristianstads Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology Ecosystems & human well-being: synthesis report. and Society 12(1): 28. [online] URL: http://www.e Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. cologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/. Maddock, A. H., and M. J. Samways. 2000. Olsson, P., L. Gunderson, S. Carpenter, P. Ryan, Planning for biodiversity conservation based on the L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C. S. Holling. 2006. knowledge of biologists. Biodiversity and Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to Conservation 9:1153-1169. adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 18. [online] URL: http: Martin, T. G., P. M. Kuhnert, K. Mengersen, and //www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/. H. P. Possingham. 2005. The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian Orr, D. W. 2002. Four challenges to sustainability. methods: impact of grazing on birds. Ecological Conservation Biology 16:1457-1460. Applications 15:266-280. Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going Meir, E., S. Andelman, and H. P. Possingham. beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National 2004. Does conservation planning matter in a Academy of Sciences of the United States of America dynamic and uncertain world? Ecology Letters 7:615-622. (PNAS) 104(39):15181-15187. Miller, J. R., and R. J. Hobbs. 2002. Conservation Petersen, C., and B. J. Huntley. 2005. where people live and work. Conservation Biology Mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes. 16:330-337. Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C., USA. Mucina, L., and M. C. Rutherford, editors. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Pierce, S. M., R. M. Cowling, A. T. Knight, A. T. Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Lombard, M. Rouget, and T. Wolf. 2005. Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: interpretation for implementation. Murdoch, W., S. Polasky, K. A. Wilson, H. P. Biological Conservation 125:441-458. Possingham, P. Kareiva, and R. Shaw. 2007. Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Pierce, S. M., R. M. Cowling, T. Sandwith, and Biological Conservation 139:375-388. K. MacKinnon, editors. 2002. Mainstreaming biodiversity in development. Case studies from Naidoo, R., and T. H. Ricketts. 2006. Mapping the South Africa. The World Bank Environment economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Department, Washington, D.C., USA. Biology 4(11):2153-2164. Polasky, S., E. Nelson, E. Lonsdorf, P. Fackler, Olivieri, S., I. Bowles, R. B. Cavalcanti, G. A. B. and A. Starfield. 2005. Conserving species in a Fonseca, R. A. Mittermeier, and C. Rostrom. working landscape: land use with biological and 1995. A participatory approach to biodiversity economic objectives. Ecological Applications 15 conservation: the regional priority setting (4):1387-1401. workshop. Conservation International, Washington D.C., USA. Pressey, R. L., M. Cabeza, M. E. Watts, R. M. Cowling, and K. Wilson. 2007. Conservation Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology Adaptive co-management for building resilience in and Evolution 22(11):583-592. social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1):75-90. Pressey, R. L., and V. S. Logan. 1998. Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence Olsson, P., C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, and L. on actual vs targeted representation of features: a Schulze. 2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive case study in western New South Wales. Biological co-management: creating and maintaining bridging Conservation 85:305-319. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/ Pressey, R. L., M. E. Watts, and T. W. Barrett. Vlok, J. H. J., and D. I. W. Euston-Brown. 2002. 2004. Is maximizing protection the same as The patterns within, and the ecological processes minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as that sustain, the subtropical thicket vegetation in the alternative measures of the effectiveness of planning domain for the Subtropical Thicket proposed reserves. Ecology Letters 7:1035-1046. Ecosystem Planning (STEP) project. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report 40, Nelson Mandela Pretty, J. 2002. People, livelihoods and collective Metropolitan University, South Africa. [online] action in biodiversity management. Pages 61-86 in URL: http://bgis.sanbi.org/STEP/STEP_Biological T. O'Riordan, and S. Stoll-Kleeman, editors. _Survey.zip. Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities: protecting beyond the protected. Cambridge Welp, M., A. de la Vega-Leinert, S. Stoll- University Press, Cambridge, UK. Kleemann, and C. C. Jaeger. 2006. Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Global Redford, K. H., and B. D. Richter. 1999. Environmental Change 16:170-181. Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use. Conservation Biology 13:1246-1256. Wilson, K. A., M. F. McBride, M. Bode, and H. P. Possingham. 2006. Prioritizing global Reyers, B., P. J. O'Farrell, R. M. Cowling, B. N. conservation efforts. Nature 440:337-340. Egoh, D. C. Le Maitre and J. H. J. Vlok. 2009. Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and Wilson, K., R. L. Pressey, A. Newton, M. stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a Burgman, H. Possingham, and C. Weston. 2005. semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into 14(1): 38. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandso conservation planning. Environmental Management ciety.org/vol14/iss1/art38/. 35:527-543. Rosenzweig, M. L. 2003. Reconciliation ecology Wilson, K. A., E. C. Underwood, S. A. Morrison, and the future of species diversity. Oryx K. R. Klausmeyer, W. W. Murdoch, B. Reyers, 37:194-205. G. Wardell-Johnson, P. A. Marquet, P. W. Rundel, M. F. McBride, R. L. Pressey, M. Bode, Rouget, M., R. M. Cowling, A. T. Lombard, A. J. M. Hoekstra, S. J. Andelman, M. Looker, C. T. Knight, and G. I. H. Kerley. 2006. Designing Rondinini, P. Kareiva, M. R. Shaw, and H. P. large-scale conservation corridors for pattern and Possingham. 2007. Conserving biodiversity process. Conservation Biology 20:549-561. efficiently: what to do, where, and when. PLoS Biology 5(9):1850-1861. [online] URL: http://www. Rouget, M., D. M. Richardson, R. M. Cowling, plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal. J. W. Lloyd, and A. T. Lombard. 2003. Current pbio.0050223. patterns of habitat transformation and future threats to biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112:63-85. Thompson, M., J. Vlok, M. Rouget, M. T. Hoffman, A, Balmford, and R. M. Cowling. 2009. Mapping land transformation in a heterogeneous environment: a rapid and cost effective approach for assessment and monitoring. Journal of Environmental Management 43:585-596. Turner, N. J., and F. Berkes. 2006. Coming to understanding: developing conservation through incremental learning in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 34 (4):495-513.
Ecology and Society – Unpaywall
Published: Jan 1, 2010