Systematic conservation assessment and conservation planning are two distinct fields of conservation science often confused as one and the same. Systematic conservation assessment is the technical, often computer-based, identification of priority areas for conservation. Conservation planning is composed of a systematic conservation assessment coupled with processes for development of an implementation strategy and stakeholder collaboration. The peer-reviewed conservation biology literature abounds with studies analyzing the performance of assessments (e.g., area-selection techniques). This information alone, however can never deliver effective conservation action; it informs conservation planning. Examples of how to translate systematic assessment outputs into knowledge and then use them for "doing" conservation are rare. South Africa has received generous international and domestic funding for regional conservation planning since the mid-1990s. We reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action. These key ingredients include the design of conservation planning processes, skills for conservation assessment teams, collaboration with stakeholders, and interpretation and mainstreaming of products (e.g., maps) for stakeholders. Social learning institutions are critical to the successful operationalization of assessments within broader conservation planning processes and should include not only conservation planners but also diverse interest groups, including rural landowners, politicians, and government employees.

Aim  The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) (Cape Floristic Kingdom) is currently narrowly delimited to include only the relatively mesic Cape fold mountains and adjacent intermontane valleys and coastal plains. We evaluate the floristic support for expanding the delimitation to include the whole winter‐rainfall area (arid and mesic climates) into a Greater CFR. Location  Southern Africa, particularly the south‐western tip. Methods  The initial divisive hierarchical classification analysis twinspan used the presence/absence of vascular plant genera to obtain major floristic groupings in southern Africa. For the more detailed analyses, we scored the flora as present/absent within a set of centres, among which the floristic relationships were investigated (agglomerative methods, upgma and minimum spanning trees). These analyses were conducted with species, genera and families separately. The centres were grouped into five regions. The species richness and endemism was calculated for the centres, regions and combination of regions. The dominant floristic components of each region were sought by calculating the percentage contribution of each family to the flora. Results  The divisive method showed that the winter‐rainfall areas are floristically distinct from the rest of southern Africa. The species‐ and generic‐level analyses revealed five regions: CFR, Karoo Region, Hantam‐Tanqua‐Roggeveld Region, Namaqualand Region and Namib‐Desert Region. The CFR has the highest endemism and richness. However, the combination of the CFR, the Hantam‐Tanqua‐Roggeveld Region and the Namaqualand Region results in a higher total endemism. Combined, these three regions almost match the region delimited by the twinspan analysis, and together constitute the Greater CFR. Main conclusions  The CFR constitutes a valid floristic region. This is evident from the endemism and the distinctive composition of the flora. However, the total endemism is higher for the whole winter‐rainfall area, and this supports the recognition of the larger unit. If floristic regions are to be delimited only on endemism, then the Greater CFR is to be preferred. If floristic regions are delimited on the composition of their floras at family level, then the support for such a grouping is weaker.

Conservation planning has hithertoKey words. Biodiversity conservation, climate mediterranean-climate desert that is very rich in plant change, conservation of pattern and process, persistence, representation, reserve design. species. Firstly, we discuss planning issues salient to

No abstract

We are alarmed by Brooks et al.'s (2004) article, which argues that species are the only valid currency for conservation assessment and makes an impassioned plea for the allocation of the huge resources required to compile accurate and comprehensive species databases for identifying conservation priorities. They seek to discredit the use of land classes as biodiversity features for conservation assessments. Our concerns with Brooks et al. are threefold: (1) there are a number of approaches, ignored by Brooks et al., that demonstrate the efficacy of combining the complementary strengths of available species data with environmental data so as to avoid species falling through the coarse-filter net; (2) the biodiversity features used in conservation assessments depend critically on the goal, spatial scale, level of biodiversity knowledge, and implementation opportunities and constraints associated with a particular planning region; and (3) conservation planners should focus on building the basis for the implementation of conservation action-the ultimate goal of conservation planning-rather than amassing more data on species locality records. We address each of these concerns in turn.Brooks et al. ignore, discount, or misinterpret many of the ways in which land classes and currently available data on species localities can be combined to enhance * * *