Parkscape proves that Tokai Park should be restored to Cape Flats Sand Fynbos after plantation harvesting

The attached screenshot is courtesy of Parkscape.
Thanks to those who posted it.
Your contribution is greatly appreciated.

This is a response to a post by Parkscape on 30 September in which they quote a section (section 3.3) from the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Norms and Standards for Biodiversity Management Plans for Ecosystems.

“wrt to Biodiversity Management Plans for Ecosystems (2014). Note the minimum targets and the comment as to what constitutes a degraded system. ‘Natural habitat in a terrestrial ecosystem is considered irreversibly lost if it has been replaced with, for example… forestry plantations…'”

Despite being really hopeful that Parkscape is slowly getting to a point where they understand the need to restore this tract of Critically Endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos, I suppose I have to assume that Parkscape is attempting to use this information to prove that the Tokai Park should not be restored. In fact – it quite clearly shows the reverse. Thank you Parkscape for spotting this information – I had forgotten about this specific document.

The section in question can be found in the NEM:BA Norms and standards for Biodiversity Management Plans for Ecosystems here.

An excerpt from section 3.3 (Should a BMP-E be developed for a severely degraded ecosystem?):

Rehabilitation or restoration may be warranted in the following cases:
– If the ecosystem plays or could play an important role as ecological infrastructure, i.e. producing or delivering valuable ecosystem services to people,
– If the ecosystem plays or could play an important role in ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change,
– If the ecosystem is critically endangered and its biodiversity target can no longer be met (with the proviso that even in such cases it is usually more strategic and cost effective to secure remaining examples or portions of the ecosystem that are in good ecological condition than to restore those that are in poor ecological condition).

So I responded:

Lee Jones Isn’t it fantastic then that at least some of the seed banks under this plantation have survived. Very thrilled!
October 1 at 1:34pm

And then Parkscape responded:

Parkscape Isn’t it just! But would that we all knew exactly what and how much as survived – and that there was more certainty. But with botany being an empirical science, this can’t be established. Instead one will have to “wait and see” – as admitted to by Tony Rebelo to a Parkscape member who did the fynbos walk last week.
Of course, what is there has been degraded by plantations, as per the information from NEMBA above, and we know it’s most certainly not the 20% as recommended by the Minister. In fact, hasn’t the figure of 1% been projected wrt Lower Tokai and 13 – 14% as the total in the Cape Floral Region.

 So – I responded again – after all, what else could I really do other than thank Parkscape publicly for showing so explicitly that this tract of land MUST be restored back to its original, natural, Critically Endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos vegetation type that can be protected within a proclaimed National Park and possibly in future within a World Heritage Site …

OK – I think I am starting to see why you do not appear to accept or understand a whole lot of the issues around the proposed restoration of this invaluable tract of land …

Using the term “empirical science” is pretty much a tautology. Botany, horticulture, conservation, etc. are sciences along the same lines as most (dare I say all?) sciences such as archaeology, palaeontology, geology, forensics, physics, zoology, etc., etc.

All these sciences are consistently striving to learn more and add to knowledge about our universe – no science is (or probably ever will be) ‘complete’. New knowledge and understanding is being added by the day. Of course, there are some who choose to disbelieve the science when it is broached – take the HIV/AIDS dissenters and the Global Climate Change dissenters as examples. Many of these have political and/or personal (and/or other) motives for dissing the science, despite the larger community appreciating the vast body of scientific / empirical evidence supporting the findings – then there is also something called “peer review” which is a fairly rigorous process and helps to ensure that empirical evidence is reflected accurately.

“… wait and see …” Absolutely – Nobody knows precisely what seeds (and other propagules such as rhizomes, bulbs, tubers, etc.) remain viable under the soils within this tract of land. I would hazard a guess that Tony was not “admitting” the fact, but rather that it was a statement – although I can not speak on Tony’s behalf. A statement with which I agree wholeheartedly.

Using these passages from the NEM:BA to dismiss the Tokai restoration potential does not really make sense and in fact strengthens the argument for restoration of the Cape Flats Sand Fynbos – so thank you for posting this.

That restoration potential is possible in this site is abundantly clear from the many species which have emerged – and are emerging – after the decades of afforestation cycles. There are other tracts of land (elsewhere within the Cape Floristic Region and South Africa) that are presently considered to be Critical Conservation Areas and Conservation Support Areas – that are

1) covered with plantations, or

2) agricultural lands (old fields or grazing areas) or

3) have been covered with alien invaders for decades, etc.

but are also earmarked for restoration simply because they:

a) still harbour some natural seed banks and/or

b) make high level conservation sense – e.g. to restore connectivity between lowlands and montane areas, reestablish animal habitat, provide corridors for pollinators,

c) afford the opportunity to restore Endangered Ecosystems, etc., etc.

One of the aspects that has emerged – more clearly in recent decades – is that the larger an area is the greater the probability (a scientific term – indicating likelihood) of improved biodiversity pattern and process (you can google this if you do not understand what that means – but it is fairly well summarised in the Cape Floral Region Protected Areas – World Heritage Site document which I see you have.

Secondly – I don’t understand what you [Parkscape] mean by this though?

“Of course, what is there has been degraded by plantations, as per the information from NEMBA above, and we know it’s most certainly not the 20% as recommended by the Minister. In fact, hasn’t the figure of 1% been projected wrt Lower Tokai and 13 – 14% as the total in the Cape Floral Region.”

But I will give it a whirl …

Cape Flats Sand Fynbos only occurs within in the City of Cape Town – nowhere else on the planet. It is one of a number of Fynbos vegetation types that do occur within the greater area of the City of Cape Town (i.e. City of Cape Town MM, Drakenstein LM and Stellenbosch LM ), but many of the others are montane (found on the mountains and slopes) while Cape Flats Sand Fynbos is found on the lowland plains only.

It is a very clear vegetation type – demarcated by species that are adapted to this very specific geological/pedological habitat within a defined climatic regime.

The original (historical) extent of the vegetation type was roughly 54,000 ha of which between 10-15% remains (the variation here largely depends on the mapping scale at which the remnants are mapped. The bottom line – is that at very least 85% of this specific vegetation type has been permanently transformed and now hosts houses, factories, roads, etc.

The national conservation target for Cape Flats Sand Fynbos is 30% of the original, historical extent – i.e. around 16,200 ha that should be conserved. However, only somewhere between 5,400 (10%) and 8,100 ha (15%) remains untransformed by development. Of this only about 500 ha (one percent of the original historical extent) is formally conserved and protected. Different tiers of government are responsible for gradually securing tracts of land that harbour this vegetation type. The processes and successes are slow – but steady.

I hope this clarifies the situation?

Then I also found this – section 4 of the same document (page 19):

“If the objective of the BMP-E is primarily to manage and maintain the ecosystem concerned in good ecological condition, rather than to restore or rehabilitate the ecosystem, the delineation of the ecosystem is likely to focus on remaining natural or near-natural areas or reaches. The delineation of the ecosystem may include degraded areas if the required management actions need to take place in degraded areas surrounding or adjacent to the remaining natural or near-natural part(s) of the ecosystem. Large areas which are severely degraded or where natural habitat has been rreversibly lost, and which are not the focus of management actions in the BMP-E, will generally be excluded from the delineation of the ecosystem.

If the objective of the BMP-E is primarily to rehabilitate or restore the ecosystem concerned, the delineation of the ecosystem is likely to focus on degraded areas and may include few or no natural or near-natural areas.”

Again, here is a link to the document for anyone who wishes to read a bit more …
https://www.environment.gov.za/…/nemba…

Thanks again for this – most appreciated!