The process of conserving biodiversity: From planning to evaluating conservation actions on private land in the Cape Lowlands, South Africa

Conservation can be conceptualised as a process of linked phases that contribute to bringing about effective biodiversity protection: (i) a conservation assessment that identifies spatially explicit conservation priorities to provide strategic guidance on where best to invest conservation resources; (ii) a planning phase that takes the spatial priorities forward into implementation processes by setting out a strategy and schedule for undertaking conservation action; (iii) an implementation phase during which conservation interventions are executed; and (iv) an evaluation phase to investigate whether conservation has been successful. In practice, conservation is rarely conducted in this way. The interrelated phases are often undertaken separately, links are neglected, and conservation science to date has focused primarily on the conservation assessment. This has led to the development of highly sophisticated principles and techniques for locating priority conservation areas, but planning and evaluation have received limited research attention: few published studies demonstrate collaborative planning processes that assist with putting conservation assessments into practice, or show on-theground conservation success linked to effective conservation planning and implementation processes. My PhD research aimed to address these knowledge gaps by conducting a conservation assessment and collaborative planning phase that would lead to effective conservation action as determined by an evaluation. The study area was in the critically endangered Cape Lowlands, a conservation priority area in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. The highly transformed agricultural production landscape is mostly privately owned; formal biodiversity protection is low; and remnants of natural vegetation (< 9% is left) harbour an exceptionally diverse flora. Strategic conservation interventions coordinated across the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) provided the overall implementation context in the Cape Lowlands. My research was conducted in this real-world practical situation and addresses the whole conservation process, from assessment to evaluation of conservation actions. I first developed a conservation assessment guided by three key questions: âWhat are feasible, efficient, defensible and efficacious solutions for (i) deriving a surrogate layer that represents biodiversity in a region which is characterised by exceptional plant species richness and endemism ; and (ii) considering the connectivity of natural areas in an ecosystem that is highly transformed, fragmented and largely unprotected?â; and âHow can a selection method be developed for identifying and prioritising key biodiversity areas in a landscape identified as 100% irreplaceable?â To answer these questions I identified feasible, efficient, defensible methods focusing on three key aspects: (i) producing a biodiversity surrogate map of original vegetation cover using two alternative approaches: simple expert mapping and statistical modelling integrating plant species and environmental data; (ii) designing selection units based on vegetation connectivity in a simple technique to include spatial attributes of conservation areas before identifying key biodiversity areas; (iii) developing a prioritisation method based on a simple scoring system and verifying results with MARXAN-selected priority areas. In all vi three cases I found that the simple conservation assessment methods produced suitable outputs for further integration in the assessment and in decision-making during planning. (i) The expert map was as effective as the vegetation model and required fewer resources to be produced since the model relied on resource-intensive species data collection. (ii) In comparison with commonly used cadastre-based units, connectivity-based selection units captured connected vegetation more effectively and area-efficiently in units that served as the basis for priority area selection. (iii) Scoring provided a feasible, defensible mechanism for prioritising key biodiversity areas in the Cape Lowlands where all remaining vegetation has been identified as 100% irreplaceable. The planning phase complemented the assessment. Key guiding questions here were âHow can collaborative planning be used to translate the conservation assessmentâs technical outputs into timebased conservation goals and into useful products for implementation?â and âWhat constitutes effective planning in the conservation process? Through a collaborative scheduling process, I developed timebased conservation goals for action in the Cape Lowlands. This was undertaken in two work sessions with scientists, planners and conservation practitioners from the implementing agency, CapeNature. Scheduling was guided by (i) scoring-derived biodiversity-driven spatial priorities that made intuitive sense to implementers; and (ii) conservation opportunities and constraints (including resources) identified by the practitioners. Scheduling was conducted with reference to the on-going development of a private land conservation strategy for the CFR to be piloted in the Cape Lowlands. The scheduling process was an effective platform for taking spatial priorities from the assessment towards implementation: the discourse-based collaborative planning was constructive and led to consensusbased final products, including a 20-year and 5-year conservation plan setting out spatially explicit goals for conservation interventions in the Cape Lowlands. The main limitation of the process was that resource planning was not integrated explicitly enough to identify realistic goals. This highlighted the importance of integrating detailed resource considerations in future planning. Finally, to address the question âTo what extent has the Cape Lowlands conservation plan been implemented after five years of off-reserve conservation interventions in the region?â I developed a protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of conservation action in the Cape Lowlands. I assessed (i) the extent to which the goals conservation plans produced in the planning phase had been implemented; and (ii) the achievements of incentive-based conservation stewardship interventions on private land in the Cape Lowlands and CFR. Achievements were measured as hectares of vegetation protected through voluntary and legally-binding contractual conservation agreements between landowners and conservation organisations. The evaluation revealed that (i) CapeNatureâs stewardship interventions in the Cape Lowlands focused on priority areas identified in the 5- and 20-year conservation plans, thus demonstrating effective execution of the plans; (ii) private land conservation interventions have been remarkably successful and cost-effective: 68604ha priority vegetation were protected in the CFR under conservation agreements by end 2007, rivalling private land biodiversity conservation in the U.S.A. and Latin America, and more than 8000ha in the critically endangered Cape Lowlands at a cost of R 6.8 vii Million (< 1 million US$). The evaluation identified the long-term financial sustainability of current implementation programmes as the most significant threat to future success in private land conservation interventions in the Cape Lowlands and CFR. There is significant scope to design future monitoring and evaluation systems to measure ecological gains due to specific conservation actions, not done in the Cape Lowlands study, and to tailor approaches to suit specific programme stages. This PhD provides a rare overview of an entire conservation cycle with linked phases that has led to biodiversity protection. The study highlights that an effective long-term process demands significant investment in (i) a diverse (growing) set of skills and expertise to solve complex conservation situations; (ii) time, especially for visible implementation success; and (iii) well-allocated resources (money, time, skills, research attention) across all phases in the conservation process. This is necessary as each phase is needed to achieve the ultimate conservation goal: I show in the Cape Lowlands that a simple conservation assessment with limited funds (R1.8 million over 3 years) can be highly effective in guiding action towards priority areas. Important here is to develop rapid, defensible methods for cost-effective assessments and linking these with in-depth planning processes. Planning and evaluation in the Cape Lowlands were essential connecting phases that continue to support implementation success. In the context of on-going conservation action, planning and evaluation need to become part of a cyclical conservation process geared towards improved practices. I suggest that significantly greater investment in planning and evaluation research is essential to move conservation science forward in fulfilling its fundamental goal of strategically guiding where, when and how to invest optimally in conservation interventions. This will be exceptionally beneficial for undertaking effective conservation interventions and will help to clearly demonstrate the value of the research for conservation practice

‘Nature positive’ must incorporate, not undermine, the mitigation hierarchy

For the concept of nature positive to succeed as the lodestar for international action on biodiversity conservation, it must build upon lessons learned from the application of the mitigation hierarchy — or risk becoming mere greenwash

Aligning ecological compensation policies with the Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity

Increasingly, government and corporate policies on ecological compensation (e.g., offsetting) are requiring “net gain” outcomes for biodiversity. This presents an opportunity to align development with the United Nations Conven-tion on Biological Diversity Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) proposed ambition for overall biodiversity recovery. In this perspective, we describe three conditions that should be accounted for in net gain policy to align outcomes with biodiversity recovery goals: namely, a requirement for residual losses from development to be compensated for by (1) absolute gains,which are (2) scaled to the achievement of explicit biodiversity targets, where(3) gains are demonstrably feasible. We show that few current policies meet these conditions, which risks undermining efforts to achieve the proposed Post-2020 GBF milestones and goals, as well as other jurisdictional policy imperatives to halt and reverse biodiversity decline. To guide future decision-making, we provide a supporting decision tree outlining net gain compensation feasibility

Global no net loss of natural ecosystems

A global goal of no net loss of natural ecosystems or better has recently been proposed, but such a goal would require equitable translation to country-level contributions. Given the wide variation in ecosystem depletion, these could vary from net gain (for countries where restoration is needed), to managed net loss (in rare circumstances where natural ecosystems remain extensive and human development imperative is greatest). National contributions and international support for implementation also must consider non-area targets factors such as the capacity to conserve and the imperative for human development

'Nature positive' must incorporate, not undermine, the mitigation hierarchy

For the concept of nature positive to succeed as the lodestar for international action on biodiversity conservation, it must build upon lessons learned from the application of the mitigation hierarchy — or risk becoming mere greenwash

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals.

Funder: Science for Nature and People Partnership Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE170100684) Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT140100516) The Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub Agence Française de Développement Fonds Français pour l'environnement Mondial Mava FoundationFunder: Science for Nature and People Partnership Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT140100516 National Environmental Science Program's Threatened Species Recovery HubMany nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted

Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

The upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting, and adoption of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, represent an opportunity to transform humanity's relationship with nature. Restoring nature while meeting human needs requires a bold vision, including mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in society. We present a framework that could support this: the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. This places the Mitigation Hierarchy for mitigating and compensating the biodiversity impacts of developments (1, avoid; 2, minimize; 3, restore; and 4, offset, toward a target such as "no net loss" of biodiversity) within a broader framing encompassing all conservation actions. We illustrate its application by national governments, sub-national levels (specifically the city of London, a fishery, and Indigenous groups), companies, and individuals. The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy supports the choice of actions to conserve and restore nature, and evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, across sectors and scales. It can guide actions toward a sustainable future for people and nature, supporting the CBD's vision

Why do flowers in Namaqualand close? : Flower closure in relation to the environment and pollen sensitivity to moisture

Namaqualand, South Africa, is a desert system characterised by predictable winter rainfall and mild temperatures. Flowering coincides with the wet season which imposes constraints on pollination success. The wide-spread phenomenon of flower closure in the flora may represent an adaptation for protecting sensitive pollen from damage by moisture (dew, rain). The literature dealing with the subject is sparse and we addressed this gap by investigating patterns of flower closure in relation with environmental variables (potential cues). We also determined the effect of water on pollen in field and laboratory situations. The findings are that air temperature closely reflects moisture levels and is the cue for diurnal patterns in flower closure. Of the abiotic factors tested, it best explains the biological variable of flower temperature which is closely correlated with flower closure. Variation among species in their response to ambient temperature is demonstrated by individual thresholds for flower opening and differing strengths of the relationship. The detrimental effect of moisture on pollen viability emerges in four species (Mesembryanthemaceae, Asteraceae) where exposure to water caused significant pollen damage. Field experiments on two of these species confirm significant damage under natural conditions. Petal closure is the dominant protective mechanism in these plants and effectively prevents losses in reproductive potential caused by moisture. This has evolutionary significance as many Namaqualand species persist via annual recruitment. In two species (Asteraceae) that do not close their petals above inflorescences, pollen viability was retained despite placement in water. They may have a different protective strategy, such as a germination inhibitor, or their pollen could be insensitive to water

SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANNING IN THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION AND SUCCULENT KAROO, SOUTH AFRICA: ENABLING SOUND SPATIAL PLANNING AND IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) and Succulent Karoo are global biodiversity hotspots. The CFR is one of six plant kingdoms worldwide. The CFR and most of the Succulent Karoo lie within South Africa. South Africa has ratified the Biodiversity Convention, and must accordingly safeguard its biodiversity. Environmental assessment (EA) can help to achieve this end. Environmental legislation in South Africa requires EA for activities at project, not strategic level. However, strategic environmental assessment has been mandatory since 2000 for preparing municipal spatial development frameworks (SDFs). By setting targets for ecosystem conservation and providing thresholds of significance, systematic conservation planning can make a significant contribution to the sound preparation of SDFs, and effective EA at planning and project levels. In South Africa, the integration of systematic conservation planning with spatial planning and EA is recent. Based on examples, the main challenges for the future are identified.Systematic conservation planning, environmental assessment