Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation‐relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context‐specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development.

No abstract

No abstract

Systematic conservation planning is intended to inform spatially explicit decision making. Doing so requires that it be integrated into complex regulatory and governance processes, and there are limited instances where this has been achieved effectively. South Africa is a global leader in the application of conservation plans, the outputs of which are widely used for spatial planning and decision making in many spheres of government. We aimed to determine how conservation planning in the country progressed from theory to implementation, and to identify practical actions that enabled this transition, by assessing temporal trends in the characteristics of conservation plans (1990–2017, n = 94). Since 2010 conservation planning has entered an operational period characterized by government leadership of plans, administrative rather than ecological planning domains, decreasing size of planning units, increasing emphasis on end‐user products, and scheduled revision of plans. Key actions that enabled this progression include transitioning leadership of plans from scientists to practitioners, building capacity within implementing agencies, creating opportunities to integrate plans in legislative processes, establishing a strong community of practice, adopting implementation‐focused methods, and balancing standardization with innovation. Learning from this model will allow other countries, particularly those with a similar megadiverse, developing context, to operationalize conservation planning into spatial planning and decision making.

The improved representation of freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and associated data was a key component of the 2018 National Biodiversity Assessment, and is an essential step in enhancing defensible land use planning and decision making. This paper reports on the enhancement of the National Wetland Map (NWM) version 5 for South Africa and other data layers associated with the South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems. Detail is provided on (i) the extent of wetlands mapped in NWM5, compared to previous versions of the NWMs; (ii) the improved extent of inland wetlands mapped in focus areas in NWM5 relative to NWM4; (iii) the type of cover associated with the wetlands (inundated, vegetated or arid); (iv) the ecotone between rivers and estuaries; and (v) level of confidence for the inland wetlands in terms of how well the extent and hydrogeomorphic units were captured for each sub-quaternary catchment of South Africa. A total of 4 596 509 ha (3.8% of South Africa) of inland aquatic ecosystems and artificial wetlands have now been mapped, with NWM5 delineating 23% more inland wetlands (2 650 509 ha or 2.2% of SA) compared with NWM4. The estuarine functional zone, which encapsulates all estuarine processes, and associated habitats and biota, was refined for 290 systems totalling 200 739 ha, with the addition of 42 micro-estuaries totalling 340 ha. Nearly 600 000 ha (0.5% of SA) of artificial wetlands were mapped in SA. Inland wetlands are predominantly palustrine (55%), with some arid (34%) and a few inundated systems (11%). Ecotones between rivers and estuaries, ecotones where biota and processes continuously vary from freshwater to estuarine, formed a small fraction (<1.5%) of river total extent (164 018 km). Most inland wetlands (~70%) had a low confidence ranking for designation of extent and typing, because they were not mapped by a wetland specialist and not verified in the field. Future improvements of the map should be focused on catchment-based improvements, particularly in strategic water-source areas, areas of high development pressure and those with low confidence designation.