Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

Policy analysis

More than just a (red) list: Over a decade of using South Africa's threatened T
ecosystems in policy and practice
⁎
Emily Anne Bottsa, Andrew Skownob,c, , Amanda Driverc, Stephen Holnessd, Kristal Mazee,
Tammy Smithc, Fahiema Danielsc, Philip Desmetd, Kerry Sinkc,d, Mark Bothaf, Jeanne Nelg,h,
Jeffrey Manuelc
a
Independent consultant, South Africa
b
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa
c
South African National Biodiversity Institute, South Africa
d
Nelson Mandela University, South Africa
e
South African National Parks, South Africa
f
Conservation Strategy, Tactics and Insight, South Africa
g
Wageningen Environmental Research, the Netherlands
h
Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the stated applications of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) is to influence government policy and
Biodiversity indicators decision-making. We share 15 years' experience in integrating an independently developed indicator of eco-
Biodiversity targets system threat status into government policies and practice. South Africa's ecosystem threat status indicator was
Ecosystem risk assessment conceptualised in the early 2000s and progressed from a project-based indicator to listing of threatened eco-
Environmental Impact Assessment
systems in terms of national legislation in 2011. We show the range of applications of the indicator, from its use
Spatial planning
Red List of Ecosystems
as a headline indicator in the National Biodiversity Assessment to its role as a direct trigger for Environmental
RLE Impact Assessment. The strong link between threatened ecosystems and systematic conservation planning in
Science-policy interface South Africa also enabled ecosystem threat status to inform multi-sectoral development planning and decision-
South Africa making. We show how bridging products, data availability, persistent mainstreaming and stakeholder engage-
Systematic conservation planning ment have encouraged the use of the indicator in government policy. The advantages and disadvantages of
Threatened ecosystems legislative listing are shared. Sound scientific foundations, combined with pragmatism, have provided a policy-
Threshold relevant tool for focussing management on threatened ecosystems. We make active recommendations that will
facilitate the policy uptake of the IUCN RLE in other countries.

1. Introduction
Biodiversity indicators have been gaining attention due to an in-
creasing need for action to slow global losses of biodiversity, including
species and ecosystems (Nicholson et al., 2012; Tittensor et al., 2014;
Geijzendorffer et al., 2016). Biodiversity indicators are metrics, based
on verifiable data, that convey the state of biodiversity in a way that is
relevant to decision-making (Addison et al., 2018). The International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2014 adopted the cate-
gories and criteria for the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) as the global
standard for ecosystem risk assessment (Bland et al., 2017). Indicators
in general, and the IUCN RLE in particular, aim to: i) improve general
awareness and gain public attention about biodiversity loss; ii) provide
a measure for international reporting requirements (e.g. Aichi Biodi-
versity Targets); iii) monitor and evaluate conservation actions; and iv)
inform government policy and decision-making (Nicholson et al., 2012;
Keith et al., 2013; Geijzendorffer et al., 2016; Keith et al., 2015;
Nicholson et al., 2015; Tanentzap et al., 2017; Bland et al., 2019).
While use of indicators for international reporting is relatively more
straightforward (Nicholson et al., 2012), their use to inform govern-
ment policy has been slower to develop, and evidence for policy ap-
plications of the IUCN RLE is only recent (Bland et al., 2019). There are,

⁎
Corresponding author at: South Africa National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, Rhodes Drive, Newlands, Cape Town, South Africa.
E-mail addresses: emily.rsa@gmail.com (E.A. Botts), a.skowno@sanbi.org.za (A. Skowno), m.driver@sanbi.org.za (A. Driver),
holness@mandela.ac.za (S. Holness), kristal.maze@sanparks.org (K. Maze), t.smith@sanbi.org.za (T. Smith), f.daniels@sanbi.org.za (F. Daniels),
drphil@ecosolgis.com (P. Desmet), k.sink@sanbi.org.za (K. Sink), mark@ecological.co.za (M. Botha), jeanne.nel@wur.nl (J. Nel),
j.manuel@sanbi.org.za (J. Manuel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108559
Received 29 November 2019; Received in revised form 19 March 2020; Accepted 31 March 2020
Available online 11 May 2020
0006-3207/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.A. Botts, et al.
however, a range of opportunities for the IUCN RLE to be incorporated
into policy, including through economic, regulatory, informational and
preventative policy instruments (Alaniz et al., 2019).
The development of biodiversity indicators that are intended to
influence decision-making involves communication across the challen-
ging knowledge-action boundary (Cook et al., 2013; Game et al., 2015).
This requires a reciprocal relationship between decision-makers com-
mitted to evidence-based policy (Carroll et al., 2017) and conservation
scientists delivering policy-relevant science (Cook et al., 2013; Game
et al., 2015). For science to be effective in the policy arena, it must be
founded on trustworthy methodology (credible), be relevant to specific
decision-making processes (salient) and consider decision-makers'
needs (legitimate) (Cook et al., 2013). Even when these ideals are met,
integrating science into policy is complex and depends on a host of
socio-political factors and a degree of opportunism (Geijzendorffer
et al., 2016). Therefore, information on how and where indicators have
already been successfully incorporated into policy is useful when ap-
plying new indicators.
South Africa was one of several countries to independently develop
indicators of ecosystem threat status prior to the IUCN RLE (Keith et al.,
2015; www.iucnrle.org). These indicators met a recognised need for an
indicator similar to the IUCN Red List of Species that could identify risk
for higher-levels of biodiversity organisation such as ecological com-
munities (Noss, 1990; Rodríguez et al., 2007; Keith et al., 2013; Bland
et al., 2017). The numbers of species, including those undescribed, and
the level of data needed to assess individual species, made red-listing of
species piecemeal rather than comprehensive (Rodríguez et al., 2007).
While there are some conceptual challenges in red-listing ecosystems
(Boitani et al., 2015), it was appreciated that ecosystems are more than
just assemblages of species and that they reflect ecological processes
and habitat structure (Noss, 1990; Hoekstra et al., 2005; Nicholson
et al., 2009). It was also apparent that the scale of human modification
of landscapes was evident at the level of ecosystems (Hoekstra et al.,
2005). South Africa has been using ecosystem types within its estab-
lished systematic conservation planning protocols for many years
(Lombard et al., 2003; Botts et al., 2019) and threat status of these
ecosystem types has been incorporated into conservation prioritisation
and planning for over a decade.
There is currently much international interest in how the IUCN RLE
could be effectively integrated into national policy (Alaniz et al., 2019).
South Africa is one of the few countries with established policy for
ecosystem risk assessment that pre-dates the IUCN RLE (Bland et al.,
2019). In this paper, we give a brief background to how the South
African indicator was developed (providing methodological details in
Appendix A1). We then summarise how the indicator has been in-
crementally integrated into government policy. Finally, in the discus-
sion we broaden the learning achieved from South Africa to make
practical recommendations for the policy uptake of the IUCN RLE that
are relevant to other countries (Table 1).
2. Development of South Africa's indicator of ecosystem threat
status
South Africa's indicator of ecosystem threat status has a 15-year
history. Over a series of developmental stages, the methodology and
input data (Appendix A1) have been successively refined based on
practical experience.
2.1. Origins of the South African indicator of ecosystem threat status
South Africa's indicator of ecosystem threat status was first con-
ceptualised during discussions relating to new biodiversity legislation.
In the early 2000s, recommendations were made that the new law
should make provision for the listing of threatened ecosystems (Botha
et al., 2003; Cowling et al., 2003). These recommendations were taken
up into the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act
2
Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559
Table 1
A summary of lessons and recommendations from the integration of threatened
ecosystems into South African policy and legislation.
Lessons and recommendations
Developing foundational maps of ecosystem types
Standard national classifications and maps of ecosystem types, preferably with a
recognised custodian, provide a strong foundation for ecosystem risk assessment.
Mapping ecosystem types at a fine enough scale to inform site-level decision-
making is ideal, but may not be possible at first and need not be seen as essential.
A seamless national map of ecosystem types integrated across all realms is ideal,
but is unlikely to be achievable in initial iterations, so a separate map per realm is
workable.
Establishing formal update protocols for classifications and maps of ecosystem
types is an ultimate aim.
Addressing data limitations and laying the basis for improvements
There is no need to wait for perfect data; use the best data available and
acknowledge limitations.
Specifying data gaps that need to be filled to strengthen future assessments can
provide direction for the scientific community.
Undertaking the assessment
Comprehensive ecosystem assessment (i.e. covering all ecosystem types) is more
achievable than comprehensive species assessment.
It is useful to conduct trial assessments of the criteria to better understand the data
options, methods and results.
Pragmatic judgement calls about operationalising the criteria may be needed to aid
implementation, but need not compromise scientific integrity.
Presenting the assessment results
Summary statistics drawn from a comprehensive national assessment of ecosystems
can be a powerful reporting tool.
A simple colour-graded map of ecosystem threat status linked to a clear message is
an easily understood communication tool.
Maps of threatened ecosystems and associated data and information should be
conveniently accessible from a recognised data server, for a wide range of users.
Linking to bridging products
Ecosystem risk assessment can provide the basis for a legislated list of threatened
ecosystems which can enhance policy uptake.
Ecosystem threat status can provide a headline indicator that features in national
biodiversity monitoring and reporting.
The list of threatened ecosystems and systematic conservation plans can reinforce
one another if the same underlying spatial datasets are used in both.
Preparing to list under legislation
Should the option of listing threatened ecosystems in terms of legislation exist,
consider both the potential advantages and disadvantages of such a step.
The legal and administrative implications should be thoroughly understood prior
to legislative listing of threatened ecosystems.
Stakeholders who will be involved in implementation should be consulted, to draw
on their practical experience and insight into likely implications.
Once the list is written into law, consistent information and clear communication
should be made readily available for implementers, to ensure regulatory
certainty.
Encouraging policy uptake
A comprehensive assessment of all ecosystem types across the country is easier to
integrate into national policy than piecemeal assessments of individual
ecosystem types.
A spatially explicit list of threatened ecosystems is likely to have greater policy
uptake than a list that is simply descriptive, especially for informing spatial
planning and site-based authorisation processes.
Mainstreaming the list of threatened ecosystems and ensuring its integration in
policy across a range of sectors takes persistence over a long period of time.
Policies and regulations, both in the environmental sector and in sectors whose
activities rely on or impact on ecosystems, should be urged to explicitly mention
threatened ecosystems.
10 of 2004).
The impetus for an ecosystem-based indicator came from con-
servation practitioners, who had existing experience in systematic
conservation planning and established government partnerships. At this
stage, an indicator of ecosystem threat status was largely conceptual, its
proposal based on the fact that similar legal provisions were being
made for the more established IUCN Red List of Species. Nevertheless,
there was rigorous discussion around the rationale for legislative listing
of threatened ecosystems (Botha et al., 2003).
E.A. Botts, et al.
2.2. Sub-national application
An indicator of ecosystem threat status was first tested at sub-na-
tional level by the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (Cowling
et al., 2003). Vegetation types were already being used as surrogate
units for ecosystem types in systematic conservation planning (Lombard
et al., 2003). A method was developed to set ecosystem-specific con-
servation targets based on species-area curves (Desmet and Cowling,
2004, Appendix A1). A single criterion was used to assess ecosystem
threat status, based on the proportion of intact vegetation remaining,
relative to a series of thresholds (Appendix A1). Vegetation types with
less remaining area than required to achieve their conservation targets
were considered Critically Endangered (CR), as below this target, spe-
cies representation would be compromised. Thresholds for Endangered
(EN) and Vulnerable (VU) were loosely aligned with theoretical eco-
system fragmentation thresholds (Pierce et al., 2005; Desmet, 2018;
Appendix A1). This initial criterion is conceptually equivalent to cri-
terion A3 (historical loss of habitat) in the IUCN RLE framework, but
the thresholds, though similar, are ecosystem specific.
Sub-national application was a testing ground for the indicator. It
was an opportunity to debate the assessment methodology, develop
technical skills, and explore feasible data sources. These early appli-
cations highlighted the synergies between systematic conservation
planning and ecosystem risk assessment. Both conservation planning
and ecosystem assessment could use the same input maps of ecosystem
types and the same conservation targets (Table 1). As a result, CR
ecosystems are, by definition, identified as priorities in systematic
conservation plans, and EN ecosystems are also included among the
portfolio of conservation priorities.
2.3. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004
In 2004, ecosystem threat status was assessed nationally for the first
time in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) (Driver
et al., 2005). The NSBA had a strong focus on developing products that
would clearly convey the state of the country's biodiversity to policy-
makers (Reyers et al., 2007). Ecosystem threat status was selected as a
headline indicator, along with ecosystem protection level (an indicator
of how much of each ecosystem type falls within formal protected
areas) (Driver et al., 2005). One of the primary reasons for focussing on
ecosystems was that in a megadiverse country, species risk assessments
were unlikely to be comprehensive, whereas it was possible for an
ecosystem assessment to be conducted systematically for all ecosystem
types across the country (Table 1).
Again, a single criterion was used to assess ecosystem threat status,
but the thresholds were modified (Driver et al., 2005; Reyers et al.,
2007; Appendix A1). The assessment for the terrestrial realm used ac-
cepted national vegetation types as ecosystem types (Appendix A1).
This approach was then extended to rivers, estuaries and the marine
realm, where concepts and thresholds were broadly equivalent, but
broad-scale input maps were newly developed, and in some cases were
largely expert-based (Driver et al., 2005, Appendix A1).
The NSBA provided proof-of-concept for assessing threatened eco-
systems at a national scale. It showed that it was possible to mean-
ingfully assess ecosystems across the country despite data limitations.
Even though some of the data were admittedly coarse-scale, the results
proved to be a useful assessment of the relative threat to ecosystems. It
also highlighted the value of a systematic assessment across all eco-
system types, allowing for the reporting of summary statistics at a na-
tional level, as well as comparisons between realms and biomes. For
example, it revealed that ecosystems of the Forest, Fynbos and
Grassland biomes were relatively more threatened than other terrestrial
biomes (Driver et al., 2005). Ecosystem threat status became one of the
most popular products of the NSBA, not least due to the visual power of
a simple map linked to a clear message (as in Fig. 1b, Table 1, Reyers
et al., 2007).
3
Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559
2.4. List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems
An extensive consultation process was conducted to develop the first
list of threatened ecosystems under the Biodiversity Act. Through a
series of expert and stakeholder workshops (2006–2009) consensus was
reached on six assessment criteria and associated thresholds (Appendix
A1). Two of the six criteria were left dormant since suitable data were
lacking at the time. The South African framework and IUCN RLE both
take the IUCN Red List of Species as a conceptual departure point and
consequently have many similar criteria, such as historical and ongoing
habitat loss or degradation, and rate of loss. Principal differences are
that the size of ‘limited extent’ is substantially smaller in the South
African framework, and it also includes a criterion that allows for in-
clusion of ecosystems prioritised in systematic conservation plans
(Appendix A1).
Based on the criteria that could be implemented, the List of
Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems was officially published in 2011
(RSA, 2011). The initial list was limited to terrestrial ecosystems, since
the published National Vegetation Map provided an agreed set of na-
tional terrestrial ecosystem types (Appendix A1). While the science
remained central, this stage of development revealed the fundamental
importance of stakeholder consultation, including ecologists, con-
servation practitioners, and government officials. Stakeholders working
within government, who would be tasked with implementation,
brought a constant awareness of the possible consequences of the listing
(Table 1). Testing of the criteria was done to ensure that the outcomes
would be implementable. Adjustments were made to some thresholds
so as to reduce possible administrative burden (e.g. requiring many
onerous permitting applications and authorisations) and thereby
strengthen uptake (Table 1).
2.5. National Biodiversity Assessment
The NSBA 2004 was updated in the National Biodiversity
Assessment (NBA) of 2011 (Driver et al., 2012) and 2018 (Skowno
et al., 2019) (Appendix A1). In the NBA 2018, the decision was made to
transition to the IUCN RLE framework, which had recently been fina-
lised, with full adoption in the terrestrial realm, and progress towards
alignment in the aquatic realms (Skowno et al., 2019, Appendix A1).
Adoption of the internationally accepted IUCN RLE framework will
strengthen the credibility of threatened ecosystems in national pro-
cesses and allow for national-level reporting on a host of international
processes. Updated classification systems and maps were used to assess
ecosystem threat status in the terrestrial, marine, estuarine, and inland
aquatic realms (Appendix A1). For the first time, all of these maps were
seamlessly aligned into a single integrated map of ecosystem types
(Fig. 1a; Harris et al., 2019; Skowno et al., 2019).
The successive assessments in 2004, 2011 and 2018 provided on-
going impetus for the improvement in data. In each assessment, data
gaps were deliberately identified and strategically addressed during the
intervening years (Table 1). For example, the coarse map of marine
ecosystem types from the first NSBA has since been considerably im-
proved using increasingly accurate and fine-scale bathymetry, remote
sensing, seabed, and biological survey data (Appendix A1). Over the
years, increasingly standardised data update protocols have emerged
for maps of ecosystem types, with formalised expert committees to
ensure that refinements are transparent and scientifically-grounded
(Table 1, Dayaram et al., 2019).
3. Integrating ecosystem threat status into policy and planning
South Africa's threatened ecosystems have been increasingly in-
tegrated into legislation, policy, planning and management (Fig. 1;
Table A2). This was achieved through ongoing mainstreaming efforts
focussed around three bridging products: systematic conservation plans
(Botts et al., 2019; Nel et al., 2016), the legislated list of threatened
E.A. Botts, et al. Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559

Fig. 1. The process of integrating risk assessment of ecosystems into policy showing (a) mapping ecosystem types and their condition; (b) identifying threatened
ecosystems (in this case showing the most recent South African threatened ecosystems; Skowno et al., 2019, Appendix A1); (c) feeding these into systematic
conservation plans, legal listing and national biodiversity assessment; and (d) integrating the products across a range of policy processes. Table items in grey text
summarise the South African policy instruments that explicitly reference threatened ecosystems (details are provided in Table A2). Weight of lines indicates strength
of the linkages.

ecosystems, and the National Biodiversity Assessment (Fig. 1c). Use of are afforded an array of defensive and protective actions against further
threatened ecosystems now ranges from laws intended to regulate threat.
specific activities, through forward-looking spatial plans, to monitoring
and reporting, and even voluntary use within the private sector
(Fig. 1d). Through these avenues, ecosystems facing serious pressure

4
E.A. Botts, et al.
3.1. Environmental authorisation
In many countries, a primary instrument to inform decision-making
on the environmental consequences of development projects is
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Integrating an indicator of
ecosystem threat status into EIA processes ensures that due considera-
tion is given to mitigating negative impacts on threatened ecosystems at
the site-level. In South Africa, EIA regulations state that conversion of
habitat within CR or EN ecosystems triggers the requirement for an EIA
(Fig. 1d; Table A2). If residual impact remains, threatened ecosystems
can also be used to determine biodiversity offset requirements. South
African biodiversity offset policies set high ratios for threatened eco-
systems, requiring for example an offset as large as 30 times the area
impacted in a CR ecosystem (Table A2). Such measures compel thor-
ough application of the mitigation hierarchy, in which impacts are
preferably avoided or minimised and, only where this is impossible, are
offset in a manner that contributes meaningfully to the protection of the
ecosystem type that is impacted (Brownlie et al., 2017).
In addition to EIAs, there are numerous other permitting and li-
censing processes through which development may be regulated, such
as mining, agricultural and water-use authorisations. In South Africa,
even where threatened ecosystems are not directly mentioned in these
regulations, they often still form part of the ‘best available evidence’
that must be consulted (RSA, 2011, Table A2). Many best-practice
guidelines and administrative protocols regularly include threatened
ecosystems in decision-making (Table A2). For example, the govern-
ment-endorsed Mining and Biodiversity Guideline identifies CR and EN
ecosystems as falling within the category of “highest biodiversity im-
portance/highest risk to mining” (Table A2). A systematic and spatially
explicit list of threatened ecosystems, mapped at a fine enough scale to
be applied in site-level decisions, provides other sectors with a con-
venient dataset through which to incorporate environmental sensitivity
into their own regulatory processes (Table 1).
3.2. Multi-sectoral spatial planning
Multi-sectoral spatial planning refers broadly to the intended future
distribution of people and development, integrated from the priorities
of many different sectors. Threatened ecosystems can be afforded more
strategic consideration if they are included in such plans. Rather than
the reactive stance of environmental authorisation, this proactive ap-
proach allows appropriate uses for threatened ecosystems to be de-
termined, and then incorporated alongside other development prio-
rities. In South Africa, threatened ecosystems most directly influence
spatial planning through the legal requirement that municipalities must
take threatened ecosystems into account in their integrated develop-
ment plans (Fig. 1c; Table A2).
A less direct way of incorporating threatened ecosystems into spa-
tial planning is through systematic conservation planning (Fig. 1c),
whereby threatened ecosystems are included together with other bio-
diversity features to identify an efficient and representative set of
spatial priorities. This allows the biodiversity sector to present a single
contribution to multi-sectoral spatial plans. In South Africa, methodo-
logical links between threatened ecosystems and systematic conserva-
tion planning ensure that CR and EN ecosystems are identified as
priorities. Provision is made for conservation plans to be formalised as
legal instruments known as Bioregional Plans (Table A2). However,
even where these have not yet been formally published, conservation
plans have been increasingly operationalised into government through
a number of mainstreaming actions that have facilitated their uptake
(Botts et al., 2019).
Threatened ecosystems may also be incorporated into Strategic
Environmental Assessments for future large infrastructure develop-
ments, which can thereby consider threatened ecosystems at earlier
stages of planning. An example is the South African SEA for renewable
energy infrastructure (Table A2).
5
Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559
3.3. Protected area expansion
The strongest protection that can be given to threatened ecosystems
is inclusion in the formal protected area network. Protecting ecosystems
most at risk will prevent further destruction and contribute to their
persistence. In South Africa, systematic conservation planning (Fig. 1c)
is used as a basis for protected area expansion strategies, which identify
sites that should be added to the protected area estate over defined
timeframes (Table A2). Through seeking to achieve conservation tar-
gets for representation of all ecosystem types (Appendix A1), systematic
conservation plans inherently incorporate threatened ecosystems,
which thus inform priorities for protected area expansion. The need to
protect threatened ecosystems can be a persuasive motivator for the
declaration of new protected areas, as was the case for the recent de-
claration of 20 new marine protected areas in South Africa (Table A2).
3.4. Monitoring and reporting
One of the fundamental purposes of biodiversity indicators is
monitoring and reporting, and this is one of the more common uses of
an RLE (Nicholson et al., 2012). This is especially relevant if ecosystem
types are systematically and regularly assessed across a country. The
resulting summarised statistics of CR, EN and VU ecosystems are a
powerful reporting tool that draws attention to at-risk ecosystems, their
major threats, and trends in status over time (Table 1). In South Africa,
the NBA has used ecosystem threat status as a headline indicator since
2004. The maps and summarised statistics of threatened ecosystems per
realm and biome from the NBA have been used across many of South
Africa's biodiversity strategies and reports (Fig. 1c; Table A2).
3.5. Proactive ecosystem management
Management plans for individual threatened ecosystems can ad-
dress threatening processes specific to those ecosystems. Identifying an
ecosystem as CR or EN can encourage a wide range of stakeholders to
take action towards improved management. In South Africa, such ac-
tions may be co-ordinated through an official Biodiversity Management
Plan for Ecosystems (Table A2). However, even without formal man-
agement plans, both government and non-governmental organisations
have taken practical action to conserve particular threatened ecosys-
tems. For example, eThekwini Municipality has put in place land-use
planning, regulation, formal protection, property rates incentives, fire
management, rehabilitation, and more, to manage and protect the EN
KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld (Boon et al., 2016).
3.6. Broader voluntary application
Outside of the formal policy environment, the IUCN RLE can be used
in a variety of ways as a planning and decision-support tool (Table A2).
Corporate use of the IUCN Red List of Species to inform supply chain
sustainability planning and project management is an emerging trend
globally (Bennun et al., 2017). Anecdotal evidence in South Africa
shows that ecosystem threat status is used for sustainability planning in
the private sector, and in several eco-certification processes (Fig. 1;
Table A2). Industry has begun to recognise that environmental impacts
constitute business risks that may prompt costly regulatory require-
ments, or create reputational risk with shareholders and consumers
(Addison et al., 2018).
4. Discussion
South Africa's ecosystem threat status indicator has become a well-
established, legislated national indicator of the status of biodiversity.
Below we draw from this national experience to distil lessons pertinent
to adoption and policy uptake of the IUCN RLE globally.
E.A. Botts, et al.
4.1. Balance between scientific robustness and pragmatism
The South African indicator of ecosystem threat status was guided
from the outset by a pragmatic perspective. A stated principle within
the List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems was that “the identifica-
tion of ecosystems to be listed must be based on scientifically credible,
practical and simple criteria” (RSA, 2011). This acknowledges the re-
quirements for policy relevant science: balancing credibility with sal-
ience and legitimacy (Game et al., 2015; Geijzendorffer et al., 2016).
Likewise, the IUCN RLE has rightly given much consideration to bal-
ancing the need for generality, which is essential in a global indicator,
with scientific robustness (Keith et al., 2015).
The South African indicator of ecosystem threat status has always
been based on sound science, but the complexities of science were
sometimes moderated with practical considerations. The best available
data were used, with gaps identified for improvement in future itera-
tions (Table 1). Thresholds were based as far as possible on scientific
principles but were adjusted where necessary in subsequent assess-
ments. Not all the criteria that were developed were used during the
first legislative listing of threatened ecosystems. This concession may
have resulted in underestimation of the number of threatened ecosys-
tems. However, when listing under legislation confidence in the as-
sessment becomes more important, as the onus may be placed on the
conservation authority to justify these listings in a legal process. Thus, it
is better to underestimate than to identify ecosystems as threatened
based on low confidence data.
The indicator was developed to be useful before it was perfected,
and has been refined over several iterative assessments. The relatively
stable community of conservation practitioners maintained a deliber-
ately pragmatic perspective, acknowledging limitations but working
around them, and recognising that improvements would necessarily be
ongoing (Table 1). The same pragmatic use of data and phased im-
plementation will be necessary as South Africa transitions towards
using the IUCN RLE. Refinements to the indicator and the foundational
data mean that trends in ecosystem threat over time cannot be directly
assessed (although refinements could be applied retrospectively if
warranted). It is expected that with the adoption of the IUCN RLE the
indicator of ecosystem threat will stabilise over time, similar to the
IUCN Red List of Species, which was revised several times before sta-
bilising with the current categories and criteria (Mace et al., 2008).
4.2. Benefits and implications of listing in terms of legislation
There are advantages and disadvantages to legislative listing of
threatened ecosystems. A notable disadvantage is that the flexibility of
an ecosystem threat indicator is constrained by legal processes. If used
simply as a monitoring tool, threat status can be updated as frequently
as new data is available. Once the list is written into law, more care
must be taken to ensure sufficient regulatory certainty and consistency
of information provided to the public domain (Table 1). Up-listing or
down-listing an ecosystem due to improved data can complicate reg-
ulatory compliance. The major advantage of a legislated list, based on
criteria that have been accepted through a scientific and stakeholder
participation process, is that threatened ecosystems are taken more
seriously during spatial planning and regulatory processes. Experiences
from Australia, Finland and Norway, where RLE assessments from part
of legislative tools (Bland et al., 2019), corroborate that decision-ma-
kers are empowered to enforce stronger action to prevent impacts on
threatened ecosystems when the lists are legally recognised.
During the legislative listing process, it was important to consider
the various legal and administrative consequences that a listed eco-
system would trigger in terms of restrictions on land-use change or
development activities (Table 1, RSA, 2011). This was essential to
identify potential unintended negative consequences, such as increased
bureaucratic load or excessive development restrictions that would
cause opposition towards the listing process. For these reasons, the
6
Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559
South African VU category has been omitted from triggering EIAs, given
the relatively extensive land area listed as VU. It is acknowledged that
such omission may preclude actions that prevent further decline in
status. However, EIAs are inherently reactive, and there are other
proactive policy tools, such as spatial planning processes, that can
better fill a preventative role.
4.3. Systematic conservation planning as a framework
Since South African threatened ecosystems are so closely linked
with systematic conservation planning, these two spatial planning tools
are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Conservation plans have
been increasingly operationalised into government policy and planning
(Fig. 1c, Botts et al., 2019). Tanentzap et al. (2017) propose that con-
servation prioritisation can provide a framework that links the gath-
ering of biodiversity information, biodiversity reporting and decision-
making. The South African experience supports this, as conservation
planning has helped to take the indicator beyond a reporting tool, to
achieve some of the other aims of biodiversity indicators, including
influencing government policy (Fig. 1d).
Similar links have been found between the IUCN Red List of Species
and conservation planning (Hoffmann et al., 2008). However, there is
greater potential for identifying a comprehensive set of spatial priorities
using ecosystem-level data than with the incomplete species data that is
common in most countries. A valued feature of South Africa's indicator
of ecosystem threat status is that it is systematically assessed across all
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The foundational input layers are
maps of ecosystem types with complete national coverage, supported
by an established national ecosystem classification system. South Afri-
ca's national biodiversity agency took the lead in creating and dis-
seminating these national datasets (Table 1). The complete spatial
coverage of the indicator has been fundamental in achieving nationally-
applicable policy integration across sectors (Table 1).
4.4. Acceptance and integration into policy
The South African indicator has become an oft-quoted measure of
the state of biodiversity in the country, echoing the experience of var-
ious ecosystem threat indicators developed around the world, which
experienced rapid acceptance (Nicholson et al., 2009; Keith et al.,
2015). One reason for this is their similarity to the well-known IUCN
Red List of Species, with aligned naming conventions and colours. It is
intuitive that an increasing severity of threat can be applied to eco-
systems as well as species. In addition, ecosystem threat status can be
visually presented on a single colour-graded map (Table 1). This ease of
presentation and interpretation has encouraged the use of the indicator
for communication and reporting (Reyers et al., 2007), which are
among the more commonly achieved purposes of indicators (Nicholson
et al., 2012; Keith et al., 2015).
In South Africa, the ecosystem threat indicator has gone beyond a
communication tool and has been embedded into policy, planning and
regulation (Fig. 1). This deeper policy integration required ongoing
engagement with legal processes in the country. The development of
new legislation created the opportunity to conceptualise a new biodi-
versity indicator (Botha et al., 2003). Once enacted, the Biodiversity Act
established tools and processes that referenced threatened ecosystems.
However, policy uptake was a gradual process that required persistent
support and capacity building. Thus, the integration of the ecosystem
threat indicator into policy was achieved through the combination of
well-timed opportunities and ongoing mainstreaming efforts.
4.5. Conclusion
According to Keith et al. (2015), the IUCN RLE should “…be judged
by whether it achieves its conservation ends and improves environ-
mental management…”. While direct conservation outcomes are
E.A. Botts, et al.
difficult to measure, the South African indicator of ecosystem threat is
being widely used to inform environmental management and con-
servation, and has been integrated into a range of policies for spatial
planning and decision-making by government. The broad range of
policy applications achieved by the South African indicator provides
other countries with an understanding of the opportunities available to
incorporate threatened ecosystems into policy. We anticipate that such
policy integration will become increasingly widespread as the IUCN
RLE matures into a robust global indicator.
Appendix A1 provides details of the methodology applied during
various stages in the development of the South African indicator of
ecosystem threat, including the full categories and criteria for South
Africa's 2011 List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems. Appendix A2
gives a list of laws, policies and formal guidance that explicitly re-
ference threatened ecosystems in South Africa. Supplementary data to
this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.
2020.108559.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Emily Anne Botts: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - ori-
ginal draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Andrew Skowno:
Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization, Supervision. Amanda Driver: Conceptualization,
Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Stephen Holness:
Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Kristal Maze:
Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Tammy Smith:
Conceptualization, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Project ad-
ministration. Fahiema Daniels: Conceptualization, Writing - review &
editing. Philip Desmet: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Kerry Sink: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Mark
Botha: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Jeanne Nel:
Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Jeffrey Manuel:
Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We thank the community of practice for biodiversity planning in
South Africa, who were instrumental in developing the South African
ecosystem threat indicator and championing its integration into policy.
Special thanks are given to the team who supported SANBI and the
Department of Environmental Affairs during the 2011 process of listing
threatened ecosystems in terms of legislation, including those from the
provincial governments of KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Gauteng,
and the national Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
who were involved in comprehensively testing the criteria. E.A.B was
compensated by SANBI for writing and co-ordinating this paper.
References
Addison, P.F.E., Carbone, G., McCormick, N., 2018. The Development and Use of
Biodiversity Indicators in Business: An Overview. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Alaniz, A.J., Pérez-Quezada, J.F., Gallegiollos, M., Vásquez, A.E., Keith, D.A., 2019.
Operationalising the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems in public policy. Conserv. Lett.
2019 (e12665).
Bennun, L., Regan, E.C., Bird, J., van Bochove, J.-W., Katariya, V., Livingstone, S.,
Mitchell, R., Savy, C., Starkey, M., Temple, H., Pilgrim, J.D., 2017. The value of the
IUCN Red List for business decision-making. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12353.
Bland, L.M., Keith, D.A., Miller, R.M., Murray, N.J., Rodríguez, J. (Eds.), 2017. Guidelines
for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version
1.1. IUCN, Gland.
Bland, L.M., Nicholson, E., Miller, R.M., Andrade, A., Carré, A., Etter, A., Ferrer-Paris,
7
Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559
J.R., Herrera, B., Kontula, T., Lindgaard, A., Pliscoff, P., Skowno, A., Valderrábano,
M., Zager, I., Keith, D.A., 2019. Impacts of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems on
conservation policy and practice. Conserv. Lett. 2019 (e12666).
Boitani, L., Mace, G.M., Rondinini, C., 2015. Challenging the scientific foundations for an
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 8, 125–131.
Boon, R., Cockburn, J., Douwes, E., Govender, N., Ground, L., Mclean, C., Roberts, D.,
Rouget, M., Slowtow, R., 2016. Managing a threatened savanna ecosystem (KwaZulu-
Natal Sandstone Sourveld) in an urban biodiversity hotspot: Durban, South Africa.
Bothalia 46, a2112.
Botha, M., Driver, A., Maze, K., 2003. Introducing ecosystem conservation status: BotSoc
contributes to the Biodiversity Bill. Veld & Flora(June 2003).
Botts, E.A., Pence, G., Holness, S., Sink, K., Skowno, A., Driver, A., Harris, L.R., Desmet,
P., Escott, B., Lotter, M., Nel, J., Smith, T., Daniels, F., Sinclair, S., Stewart, W.,
Manuel, J., 2019. Progress through thirty years of conservation planning practice in
South Africa. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13321. Early view online.
Brownlie, S., von Hase, A., Botha, M., Manuel, J., Balmforth, J., Jenner, N., 2017.
Biodiversity offsets in South Africa – challenges and potential solutions. Impact
Assess. Proj. Apprais. 35 (3), 248–256.
Carroll, C., Hartl, B., Goldman, G.T., Rohlf, D.J., Treves, A., Kerr, J.T., Ritchie, E.G.,
Kingsford, R.T., Gibbs, K.E., Maron, M., Watson, J.E.M., 2017. Defending the scien-
tific integrity of conservation-policy processes. Conserv. Biol. 31, 967–975.
Cook, C.N., Mascia, M.B., Schwartz, M.W., Possingham, H.P., Fuller, R.A., 2013.
Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary.
Conserv. Biol. 27, 669–678.
Cowling, R.M., Lombard, A.T., Rouget, M., Kerley, G.I.H., Wolf, T., Sims-Castley, R.,
Knight, A., Vlok, J.H.J., Pierce, S.M., Boshoff, A.F., Wilson, S.L., 2003. A conservation
assessment for the subtropical thicket biome. In: Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit,
Report 43. University of Port Elizabeth.
Dayaram, A., Harris, L., Grobler, B., van der Merwe, S., Rebelo, A., Powrie, L.W., Vlok,
J.H.J., Desmet, P., Qabaqaba, M., Hlahane, K., Skowno, A., 2019. Vegetation map of
South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland 2018: a description of changes since 2006.
Bothalia 49. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v49i1.2452.
Desmet, P., 2018. Using landscape fragmentation thresholds to determine ecological
process targets in systematic conservation plans. Biol. Conserv. 221, 257–260.
Desmet, P., Cowling, R., 2004. Using the species-area relationship to set baseline targets
for conservation. Ecol. Soc. 9 (11 pages).
Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M.,
Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B., Sink, K., Strauss, T., 2005.
National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: priorities for biodiversity conserva-
tion in South Africa. Strelitzia 17.
Driver, A., Sink, KJ., Nel, JN., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt,
PA., Harris, L., Maze, K. (2012) National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: an assess-
ment of South Africa's biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African
National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.
Game, E.T., Schwartz, M.W., Knight, A.T., 2015. Policy relevant conservation science.
Conserv. Lett. 8, 309–311.
Geijzendorffer, I.R., Regan, E.C., Pereira, H.M., Brotons, L., Brummitt, N., Gavish, Y.,
Haase, P., Martin, C.S., Mihoub, J.B., Secades, C., Schmeller, D.S., Stoll, S., Wetzel,
F.T., Walters, M., 2016. Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy re-
porting needs: an essential biodiversity variables perspective. J. Appl. Ecol. 53,
1341–1350.
Harris, L.R., Bessinger, M., Dayaram, A., Holness, S., Kirkman, S., Livingstone, T.C.,
Lombard, A.T., Lück-Vogel, M., Pfaff, M., Sink, K.J., Skowno, A.L., 2019. Advancing
land-sea integration for ecologically meaningful coastal conservation and manage-
ment. Biol. Conserv. 237, 81–89.
Hoekstra, J.M., Boucher, T.M., Ricketts, T.H., Roberts, C., 2005. Confronting a biome
crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol. Lett. 8, 23–29.
Hoffmann, M., Brooks, T.M., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gascon, C., Hawkins, A.F.A., James,
R.E., Hoffmann, M., Brooks, T.M., Da Fonseca, G.A., Gascon, C., Hawkins, A.F.,
James, R.E., Langhammer, P., Mittermeier, R.A., Pilgrim, J.D., Rodrigues, A.S., Silva,
J.M., Silva, J.M.C., 2008. Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endanger.
Species Res. 6, 113–125.
Keith, D.A., Rodríguez, J.P., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A.,
Asmussen, M., Bachman, S., Basset, A., Barrow, E.G., Bishop, M.J., Bonifacio, R.,
Brooks, T.M., Burgman, M.A., Comer, P., Comin, F.A., Essl, F., Faber-Langendoen, D.,
Fairweather, P.G., Holdaway, R.J., Jennings, M., Kingsford, R.T., Lester, R.E.,
MacNally, R., McCarthy, M.A., Moat, J., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Pisanu, P., Poulin,
B., Regan, T.J., Riecken, U., Spalding, M.D., Zambrano-Martıinez, S., 2013. Scientific
foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS One 8, e62111.
Keith, D.A., Rodríguez, J.P., Brooks, T.M., Burgman, M.A., Barrow, E.G., Bland, L., Comer,
P.J., Franklin, J., Link, J., McCarthy, M.A., Miller, R.M., Murray, N.J., Nel, J.,
Nicholson, E., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Regan, T.J., Rodrigues-Clark, K.M., Rouget,
M., Spalding, M.D., 2015. The IUCN red list of ecosystems: motivations, challenges,
and applications. Conserv. Lett. 8, 214–226.
Lombard, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Rebelo, A.G., 2003. Effectiveness of land
classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic
Region. Biol. Conserv. 112, 45–62.
Mace, G.M., Collar, N.J., Gaston, K.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Akçakaya, H.R., Leader-Williams,
N., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Stuart, S.N., 2008. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s
system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1424–1442.
Nel, J.L., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Maherry, A., Snaddon, K., Petersen, C., Smith-
Adao, L.B., Van Deventer, H., Reyers, B., 2016. Knowledge co-production and
boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv. Biol. 30,
176–188.
Nicholson, E., Keith, D.A., Wilcove, D.S., 2009. Assessing the threat status of ecological
communities. Conserv. Biol. 23, 259–274.
E.A. Botts, et al.
Nicholson, E., Collen, B., Barausse, A., Blanchard, J.L., Costelloe, B.T., Sullivan, K.M.,
Underwood, F.M., Burn, R.W., Fritz, S., Jones, J.P., McRae, L., 2012. Making robust
policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators. PLoS One 7, e41128.
Nicholson, E., Regan, T.J., Auld, T.D., Burns, E.L., Chisholm, L.A., English, V., Harris, S.,
Harrison, P., Kingsford, R.T., Leishman, M.R., Metcalfe, D.J., Pisanu, P., Watson, C.J.,
White, M., White, M.D., Williams, R.J., Wilson, B., Keith, D.A., 2015. Towards con-
sistency, rigour and compatibility of risk assessments for ecosystems and ecological
communities. Austral Ecol. 40, 347–363.
Noss, R.F., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv.
Biol. 4, 355–364.
Pierce, S.M., Cowling, R.M., Knight, A.T., Lombard, A.T., Rouget, M., Wolf, T., 2005.
Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: interpretation for
implementation. Biol. Conserv. 125, 441–458.
Republic of South Africa (RSA), 2011. National List of Ecosystems That Are Threatened or
in Need of Protection. (Department of Environmental Affairs, Government Gazette
34809:1002, 9 December 2011, Pretoria).
Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Jonas, A., Cowling, R.M., Driver, A., Maze, K., Desmet, P., 2007.
Developing products for conservation decision-making: lessons from a spatial biodi-
versity assessment for South Africa. Divers. Distrib. 13, 608–619.
Rodríguez, J.P., Balch, J.K., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., 2007. Assessing extinction risk in the
Biological Conservation 246 (2020) 108559
absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems.
Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 183–209.
Skowno, AL., Poole, CJ., Raimondo, DC., Sink, KJ., Van Deventer, H., Van Niekerk, L.,
Harris, LR., Smith-Adao, LB., Tolley, KA., Zengeya, TA., Foden, WB., Midgley, GF. &
Driver, A. (2019) National Biodiversity Assessment 2018: the status of South Africa's
ecosystems and biodiversity. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity
Institute, an entity of the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries,
Pretoria.
Tanentzap, A.J., Walker, S., Theo-Stephens, R.T., 2017. Better practices for reporting on
conservation. Conserv. Lett. 10, 146–152.
Tittensor, D.P., Walpole, M., Hill, S.L., Boyce, D.G., Britten, G.L., Burgess, N.D., Butchart,
S.H., Leadley, P.W., Regan, E.C., Alkemade, R., Baumung, R., Bellard, C., Bouwman,
L., Bowles-Newark, N.J., Chenery, A.M., Cheung, W.W.L., Christensen, V., Cooper,
H.D., Crowther, A.R., Dixon, M.J.R., Galli, A., Gaveau, V., Gregory, R.D., Gutierrez,
N.L., Hirsch, T.L., Höft, R., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Karmann, M., Krug, C.B.,
Leverington, F.J., Loh, J., Lojenga, R.K., Malsch, K., Marques, A., Morgan, D.H.W.,
Mumby, P.J., Newbold, T., Noonan-Mooney, K., Pagad, S.N., Parks, B.C., Pereira,
H.M., Robertson, T., Rondinini, C., Santini, L., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Schindler, S.,
Sumaila, U.R., Teh, L.S.L., van Kolck, J., Visconti, P., Ye, Y., 2014. A mid-term
analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244.