Misalignment in conservation planning products with reference to forest classification in Nelson Mandela Bay

Abigail Kamineth2012 Biodiversity Planning Forum

Skukuza, Kruger National Park

• INTRODUCTION

• FOREST DISTRIBUTION AND CLASSIFICATION AT DIFFERENT SCALES

• HIGLIGHTING CONFLICTING ISSUES

• CASE STUDY: WESTERN COASTAL VILLAGES OF THE METRO

• CONCLUSION

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

The Environment is in Your Hands

INTRODUCTION

• NMBM: developed a Conservation Assessment and Plan (NMB MOSS),

– soon to be gazetted as a bioregional plan

• Successfully negotiated into our planning tools, e.g. SDF.

• There is growing awareness and consideration of the plan by various sectors within the

municipality, e.g. infrastructure, housing, town planning etc.

• However, DAFF’s opinion is that the plan does not adequately protect forest as defined in

the National Forest Act (1998)

• Implication:-

– future success of the implementation of the NMB MOSS; and the

– strengthening of co-operative governance relationships.

FOREST DISTRIBUTION AND CLASSIFICATION AT DIFFERENT SCALES

• Various classification systems that apply to forest classification and conservation in the NMBM:

– Mucina and Rutherford (2006) : National Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho

and Swaziland

– Delineation of Forest Patches: Derek Berliner (2005)

– Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Plan (2003)

– Nelson Mandela Bay MOSS Plan (2009)

– DAFF’s detailed analysis of forest types within Nelson Mandela Bay (2012)

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) and Derek Berliner (2005)classifications

• Broad vegetation units were mapped at a 1:1000 000 scale

• The following forest types are applicable in the metro:-

– Southern Coastal Forest Patches

– Albany Coastal Belt

– Southern Afrotemperate forest

– Cape Seashore Vegetation

• Berliner’s forest patches were absorbed into the National Vegetation Map

National Vegetation Map (2006)

Delineation of forest patches (2005

Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Plan (2003) Classification

• Vegetation types were identified at a 1 :250 000 scale• The following STEP vegetation types conserve forest :

– Zuurberg Forest Thicket– Zuurberg Afromontane Forest – Van Stadens Forest Thicket– Thornhill Forest and Thornveld– Alexandria Indian Ocean Forest– Sardinia Forest Thicket – Alexandria Secondary Mosaic – Algoa Dune Thicket

• These vegetation types range from solid forests, to mosaic thicket forest types, to dune thickets with forest elements

• Although the forest occurs over a relatively similar areas in the metro the classification differs on a finer scale – This affects its distribution and the setting of targets

STEP Vegetation Types (2003)

NMB MOSS Vegetation Classification (2009)

NMBMOSS (2009) Classification

• 10 NMB MOSS vegetation types conserve solid and mosaic forest types:-

– Busy Park Indian Ocean Forest, Baakens Forest Thicket, Chelsea Forest Thicket Mosaic, Kragga Kamma Indian Ocean Forest, Van stadens Forest Thicket, Van Stadens Afromontane Indian Ocean Forest, Sardinia Bay Forest Thicket, Subtropical Thicket, Dune Fynbos types, etc.

• Vegetation types range from:-

– solid forest, – solid thicket with forest elements , – a mixture of forest species within Thicket bush clumps, located within a fynbos

matrix

• The same classification system utilized in the STEP process was used in the NMB MOSS

NMBMOSS (2009) Classification

• The extent of vegetation types, together with a suite of other variables was

utilized to develop conservation targets and to delineate the CBA network

DAFF Forest Types (2012) and NMB MOSS CBAs

DAFF Forest Types (2012)

• The extents of forest was mapped at a scale finer than the NMB MOSS• Don’t differentiate between successional forest and solid forest – all protected

as a natural forest• This is the key difference in classification systems• DAFF Forest types that conserve forest within the NMBM:-

– Southern Coastal Forest Patches – Albany Coastal Belt – Southern Afrotemperate forest– Cape Seashore Vegetation

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DAFF AND NMB MOSS CLASSIFICATIONS

• DAFF: identifies successional forests as forests that are protected in terms of

the NFA

• NMB MOSS and STEP sometimes regard these as mosaic vegetation types

• E.g. A mosaic vegetation type in the NMB MOSS Plan may or may not be

incorporated in the CBA network, however their may be patches of forest within

these mosaics that are protected under the NFA.

• This has implications for land use planning and decision making processes

CONFLICTING ISSUES

• Conservation planning products classify forests differently in the NMBM

– We recognize that classifications won’t align where scales are different

– The way vegetation is classified has an impact on the identification of ecosystem status and conservation

targets, and eventually the development of the CBA network

– Land use planning implications within the metro

• DAFF’s mandate in terms of the National Forest Act (1998) is to protect all natural forest types save exceptional

circumstances

• NMBM’s Mandate is to adopt a systematic approach to prioritizing areas for conservation (NEM Biodiversity Act (No. 10

of 2004) Sections 47, 48, 99 and 100 and the Guideline regarding the Determination of bioregions and the

preparation and Publication of Bioregional Plans (DEAT, 2008)

• The key difference is the NMBM is required to conserve a representative proportion of biodiversity while the NFA

protects all forest.

CASE STUDY: WESTERN COASTAL VILLAGES OF THE METRO

CASE STUDY: WESTERN COASTAL VILLAGES OF THE METRO

Applicable land use planning guide : Rural land use management policy:-

– coastal village within urban edge

– allows for higher density development

– Majority of the properties are zoned for Residential Zone 1

• Rural Development Policy advocates the following in terms of residential development:-

– A density of 15-20 dwelling units per hectare for dwelling houses, and a minimum erf of 1200 m2

– Second dwelling may be considered on properties larger than 2000m2 - no sectional title alienation permitted

• NFA will protect forest in this area irrespective of policy recommendations

CASE STUDY: WESTERN COASTAL VILLAGES OF THE METRO

• Most of the properties do not form part of the CBA and CES (NMBMOSS)

network – hence development can occur but in a sustainable manner

• NFA provisions advocates that natural forests must not be destroyed, save in

exceptional circumstances

– DAFF will not allow permit residential development of any nature within the forests,

unless development occurs within a permanently transformed area.

Coastal village and NMB MOSS CBAs

DAFF Forest Types (2012) and NMB MOSS CBAs

CASE STUDY: WESTERN COASTAL VILLAGES OF THE METRO

• The implication of disparities in the NMB MOSS and the application of the NFA

is that the development potential of properties advocated in the SDF and

consequent NMBM policies cannot be realized.

CONCLUSION

• This conflict in classification of forest vegetation, the setting of conservation

targets as well as mandates by different spheres of government weakens the

implementation of the NMBM’s Conservation Assessment and Plan (NMB

MOSS).

• Further challenges include:-

– aligning the plan with NMBM’s planning instruments (SDF); and in the

– strengthening of co-operative governance relationships where forest conservation is

concerned.