Figure 1. Infrastructure map

GAENP boundary

AllInland - coastal lowlandInland - uplandUpland - coastal lowland

Figure 2. Upland-lowland interfaces

Forest - FynbosGrassland - Forest

Nama Karoo – Fynbos

Grassland – Forest - FynbosGrassland – Fynbos

Thicket – Forest Thicket – Forest - Fynbos

GAENP boundary

Thicket – Fynbos Thicket – Grassland Thicket – Grassland - ForestThicket – Grassland - Forest - Fynbos

Thicket – Grassland - Fynbos Thicket – Nama Karoo Thicket – Nama Karoo - Fynbos Thicket – Nama Karoo - GrasslandThicket – Nama Karoo – Grassland - Fynbos

N

Forest - FynbosGrassland - Forest

Nama Karoo – Fynbos

Grassland – Forest - FynbosGrassland – Fynbos

Thicket – Forest Thicket – Forest - Fynbos

GAENP boundary

Thicket – Fynbos Thicket – Grassland Thicket – Grassland - ForestThicket – Grassland - Forest - Fynbos

Thicket – Grassland - Fynbos Thicket – Nama Karoo Thicket – Nama Karoo - Fynbos Thicket – Nama Karoo - GrasslandThicket – Nama Karoo – Grassland - Fynbos

NN

Figure 3. Biome interfaces

Sundays Basin – Sundays Inland

Sundays Basin – Zuurberg Montain

Zuurberg Montain– Sundays Inland

GAENP boundary

N

Sundays Basin – Sundays Inland

Sundays Basin – Zuurberg Montain

Zuurberg Montain– Sundays Inland

GAENP boundary

Sundays Basin – Sundays Inland

Sundays Basin – Zuurberg Montain

Zuurberg Montain– Sundays Inland

GAENP boundary

NN

Figure 4. Thicket interfaces

GAENP boundary

Riverine Corridors (North/South)

N

GAENP boundary

Riverine Corridors (North/South)

NN

Figure 5. Riverine corridors linking inland and coastal biotas

Riverine corridors (East/West)

GAENP boundary

N

Riverine corridors (East/West)

GAENP boundary

NN

Figure 6. Riverine corridors through mountainous terrain

Figure 7. Algoa dunefield with 500 m buffered inland boundary

GAENP boundaryBuffered dune (500m)

GAENP boundaryBuffered dune (500m)

Figure 8: Algoa dunefield with 2000 m buffered inland boundary

GAENP boundaryDrought refuges

Figure 9. Rainfall gradients as drought refuges in drought-prone habitat

GAENP boundaryAll processes

Figure 10. All ecological and evolutionary processes combined

Figure 11. Current Land use in the planning domain

Natural

Grazed

Agriculture

Settlement

Natural Estuary

Figure 12. The current extent of alien invasive plants

High density

Medium density

Low density

GAENP Boundary

IntactRestorableTransformed

Figure 13. Restorability of the landscape

Figure 14. Composite threat weighting for each land class

Darlington Dam

Medium

High

Future threat weightings

Figure 15. The distribution of grazing threats in the landscape

Darlington Dam

Medium

High

Threat weightings

Low

Figure 16. The distribution of cultivation threats in the landscape

Darlington Dam

Medium

High

Threat weightingsLow

Figure 17. The distribution of potential human settlement-related disturbance in the landscape

Darlington Dam

Medium

High

Threat weightingsLow

Figure 18. The distribution of potential alien threats in the landscape

Darlington Dam

Medium

High

Threat weightings

Low

0 0

5

8

6

7

3 3 3

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

<=10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100

Overall Target as Proportion of Extant Vegetation (%)

Num

ber o

f Lan

d C

lass

es

Figure 19. The percentage of intact area required by each landclass to meet its’ overall target

GAENP boundary

IntactRestorableTransformed

Figure 20 The extent of transformation of the spatially defined landscape processes in the GAENP planning domain

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

14

3

2

56

7 8

GAENP boundary

Existing and earmarked reservesStatutory reservesNon-statutory reservesEarmarked, with fundingEarmarked, without funding

Figure 21. The existing reserve system (both statutory and non-statutory) and land earmarked for purchase within the GAENP planning domain. (Numbers on the map are referred to in the text.)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

CoastalForest

InlandForest

MesicThicket

XericThicket

Grassland Fynbos Nama-Karoo

DunePioneer

Riparian Estuarine

Primary land classes

% C

ontr

ibut

ion

to p

atte

rn ta

rget

Statutory reservesNon-statutory reservesEarmarked, with fundingEarmarked, without funding

60%

308%

85%

41%

132%

224%

77%

188%

116%

0%

Figure 22. Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of primary level land classes.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15161718 1920212223 24252627 28 293031 32333435 36 373839 40414243

Land classes

% C

ontr

ibut

ion

to p

atte

rn ta

rget

135%

82%

46%

0%30

8%

0%48

%5%

42%

165%

235%

0%32

%

0% 2%13

5%

0%92

%30

4%

4%11

5%

62%

6%34

%

35%

c18

%11

% 20%

0% 3%

144%

114%

249%

175%

84%

188%

55%

0% 0%

117%

114%

224%

171%

FOREST1. Kaba Forest2. Nonqausa Forest3. Springmount Forest4. Alexandria Bontveld5. Tootabie Forest

MESIC THICKET6. Wycombe Thicket7. Boknes Thicket8. Kromrivier Thicket9. Ncanaga Thicket10 Woody Cape Thicket11. Enon Thicket12. Olienhout Bontveld13. Paterson Bontveld14. Zuney Bontveld15. Congoskraal Bontveld16. Suurkop Bontveld17. Coega Bontveld18. Melkhoutboom Bontveld19. Kruisrivier Bontveld20. Colchester Strandveld

XERIC THICKET21. Kabouga Thicket22. Coerney Spekboomveld23. Vaalfontein Spekboomveld24. Witrug Spekboomveld25. Darlington Noorsveld26. Ann’s Villa Noorsveld27. Addo Bontveld28. Kleinpoort Bontveld29. Wapadskloof Bontveld30. Ongegund Bontveld

GRASSLAND31. Round Hill Sour Grassland32. Modderfontein Shrubby Grassland

FYNBOS33. Zuurberg Proteoid Fynbos34. Spring Vale Grassy Fynbos35. Klein Winterhoek GrassyFynbos36. Klipvlei Asteraceous Fynbos

NAMA KAROO37. Crown Hill Broken Veld38. Wolwefontein Pentziaveld39. Klipfontein Pentziaveld

AZONAL VEGETATION40. Algoa Dunefield41. Kirkwood Riparian Woodland42. Waterford Riparian Woodland43. Sunday’s Salt Marsh

Statutory reservesNon-statutory reservesEarmarked, with fundingEarmarked, without funding

Figure 23 Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of secondary level land classes.

0102030405060708090100

Aar

dvar

k A

ardw

olf

Afri

can

elep

hant

A

frica

n w

ild c

at

Bat

-ear

ed fo

x B

lack

rhin

ocer

os

Bla

ck w

ildeb

eest

B

lack

-bac

ked

jack

al

Blu

e du

iker

B

row

nhy

aena

B

urch

ell’s

zebr

a B

ushb

uck

Bus

hpig

C

ape

buffa

lo

Cap

e cl

awle

ss o

tter

Cap

e fo

x C

ape

mou

ntai

n ze

bra

Car

acal

Cha

cma

babo

on

Che

etah

C

omm

on d

uike

r E

land

G

rey

rheb

ok

Gry

sbok

H

ippo

pota

mus

H

oney

bad

ger

Klip

sprin

ger

Kud

u Le

opar

d Li

on

Mou

ntai

n re

edbu

ck Orib

i P

orcu

pine

R

ed h

arte

bees

t R

eedb

uck

Ser

val

Sm

all s

potte

d ca

t S

potte

dhy

aena

S

potte

d-n

ecke

d ot

ter

Spr

ingb

ok

Ste

enbo

kV

erve

tm

onke

y W

arth

og

Wild

dog

Mammal species

Statutory reservesNon-statutory reservesEarmarked, with fundingEarmarked, without funding

% C

ontr

ibut

ion

to p

atte

rn ta

rget

Figure 24 Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of larger mammals.

Landscape-level classes

% C

ontr

ibut

ion

to p

roce

ss ta

rget

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Biome interfaces

Thicket interfaces

North-south riverine corridors

East-westriverine

corridors

Dunefield + 500 m

Dunefield + 2000 m

Drought refugerainfall gradient

Statutory reservesNon-statutory reservesEarmarked, with fundingEarmarked, without funding

45%48%

51%

61%

82%

64%

37%

Figure 25. Effectiveness of the existing and earmarked reserve system for the protection of landscape level processes.

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

14

3

2

56

7 8

GAENP boundaryExisting and earmarked reserves

Biome and upland lowland interfacesIntactRestorableTransformed

Figure 26 The distribution of upland-lowland and biome interfaces in relation to the existing and earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text.

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

14

3

2

56 7 8

GAENP boundaryExisting and earmarked reserves

Thicket interfacesIntactRestorableTransformed

Figure 27. The distribution of thicket interfaces in relation to the existing and earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text.

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

14

3

2

56

7 8

GAENP boundaryExisting and earmarked reserves

North South riverine corridorsIntactRestorableTransformed

East West riverine corridorsIntactRestorableTransformed

Figure 28. The distribution of north-south and east-west riverine corridors in relation to the existing and earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text.

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

14

3

2

56

7 8

GAENP boundaryExisting and earmarked reservesBuffered dune (2000m)Buffered dune (500m)

Figure 29. The distribution of sand-movement corridors in relation to the existing and earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text.

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

14

3

2

56

7 8

GAENP boundaryExisting and earmarked reservesDrought refuges

Figure 30. The distribution of drought refuge rainfall gradients in relation to the existing and earmarked reserve system. Numbers on the map are referred to in the text.

Initial ReserveNegotiated ReserveMandatory ReserveExcluded

Site Irreplaceability1 (Totally Irreplaceable)>0.8 - <1>0.6 - 0.8>0.4 - 0.6>0.2 - 0.4 >0 - 0.2IRREPL = 0

Figure 31. Patterns of irreplaceability for achieving land class targets in the GAENP planning domain

Initial ReserveNegotiated ReserveMandatory ReserveExcluded

Site Irreplaceability1 (Totally Irreplaceable)>0.8 - <1>0.6 - 0.8>0.4 - 0.6>0.2 - 0.4 >0 - 0.2IRREPL = 0

Figure 32. Patterns of irreplaceability for achieving mammals targets in the GAENP planning domain

Initial ReserveNegotiated ReserveMandatory ReserveExcluded

Site Irreplaceability1 (Totally Irreplaceable)>0.8 - <1>0.6 - 0.8>0.4 - 0.6>0.2 - 0.4 >0 - 0.2IRREPL = 0

Figure 33. Patterns of irreplaceability for achieving process targets in the GAENP planning domain

Initial ReserveNegotiated ReserveMandatory ReserveExcluded

Site Irreplaceability1 (Totally Irreplaceable)>0.8 - <1>0.6 - 0.8>0.4 - 0.6>0.2 - 0.4 >0 - 0.2IRREPL = 0

Figure 34. Patterns of irreplaceability across the GAENP planning domain after the selection of statutory reserves (Step 1).

Initial ReserveNegotiated ReserveMandatory ReserveExcluded

Site Irreplaceability1 (Totally Irreplaceable)>0.8 - <1>0.6 - 0.8>0.4 - 0.6>0.2 - 0.4 >0 - 0.2IRREPL = 0

Figure 35. Patterns of irreplaceability across the GAENP planning domain after the selection of farm properties containing processes (Step 2).

Initial ReserveNegotiated ReserveMandatory ReserveExcluded

Site Irreplaceability1 (Totally Irreplaceable)>0.8 - <1>0.6 - 0.8>0.4 - 0.6>0.2 - 0.4 >0 - 0.2IRREPL = 0

Figure 36. Patterns of irreplaceability across the GAENP planning domain after the selection of rivers and the GAENP-MPA (Steps 3 and 4).

Initial ReserveNegotiated ReserveMandatory ReserveExcluded

Site Irreplaceability1 (Totally Irreplaceable)>0.8 - <1>0.6 - 0.8>0.4 - 0.6>0.2 - 0.4 >0 - 0.2IRREPL = 0

Figure 37. The notional conservation system for the GAENP planning domain derived from the set of criteria followed in Steps 1-6.

Implementation priority

Vulnerability

Irrep

lace

abili

ty

I

III

II

IV

Figure 38. Irreplaceability-vulnerability graph used to derive implementation priority.

Conservation prioritiesIIIIIV

Figure 39. Map showing implementation priorities within the GAENP planning domain.