Wetland ecosystem protection level

Freshwater (inland aquatic) realm

Nancy Job1 , Andrew Skowno1 , Jock Currie1 , Nacelle Collins2 , Adwoa Awuah1

1. South African National Biodiversity Institute

2. Free State Department of Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs

Published

November 11, 2025

Protected Areas play an important role in conserving representative and healthy functioning wetland ecosystems to ensure the continued existence of species and ecosystem types. However, inland wetland types are severely under-represented and under-protected in South Africa, with nearly 80% of wetland ecosystem types categorised as Poorly Protected or Not Protected.This is driven in part by poor ecosystem condition, as only intact or moderately modified ecosystem extent contributes fully to the ecosystem target.

Add landscape photo. Umgeni Vlei Provincial Nature Reserve and Ramsar site, KwaZulu-Natal (Ⓒ xxxx)

10%
of 82 inland wetland types
Well Protected
5%
of wetland extent
Well Protected

The proportion of South Africa’s total wetland extent under statutory protection (i.e. in categories1 recognised under the Protected Areas Act) at the time of this assessment is x% (930 000 km2). Taking wetland ecological condition into consideration, approximately 5% of inland wetland ecosystem extent is Well Protected, 6% is Moderately Protected, 69% is Poorly Protected and 20% is Not Protected.

According to wetland type, 8 (10%) of inland wetland ecosystem types are Well Protected, 11 (13%) are Moderately Protected, 41 (50%) are Poorly Protected and 22 (27%) are Not Protected. Well Protected wetland ecosystem types are clustered within the Kruger National Park in eastern Mpumalanga, iSimangaliso Wetland Park World Heritage Site on the Maputaland Coastal Plain in KwaZulu-Natal, and across the Western Cape. Well Protected wetland ecosystem types are clustered within the Kruger National Park in eastern Mpumalanga, iSimangaliso Wetland Park World Heritage Site on the Maputaland Coastal Plain in KwaZulu-Natal, and across the Western Cape.

Figure 1. Ecosystem protection level for inland wetland ecosystem types. The inset graph shows percentage and number of ecosystem types per protection level category.
Table 1. Ecosystem protection level and hydrogeomorphological (HGM) type for inland wetland ecosystem types.

In terms of wetland hydrogeomorphic type,depression wetlands have the highest protection level, with 33% of depression wetland types and 37% of depression wetland extent considered to be Well Protected, while only 11% and 10% respectively of floodplain and seep wetland types are considered Well Protected. No unchannelled valley-bottom wetland types are considered to be Well Protected.

Figure 2. Inland wetland ecosystem protection level summarised by hydrogeomorphological (HGM) category, with (a) the percentage of ecosystem types (labelled with their counts) in each protection level category, and (b) the percentage of wetland extent (km2) in each protection level category. ‘Valley-bottom’ represents the ‘Unchannelled valley-bottom’ HGM category.
Table 2. Protection level of inland wetland ecosystem types summarised by HGM category. Note that extent figures have been rounded.
Well Protected Moderately Protected Poorly Protected Not Protected
Depression Count 5 2 12 3
Extent (km2) 277 115 5 548 1 714
Seep Count 2 4 8 7
Extent (km2) 203 423 2 393 1 935
Unchannelled valley-bottom Count 0 3 11 6
Extent (km2) 0 786 2 338 457
Floodplain Count 2 1 10 6
Extent (km2) 928 560 10 316 1 914

Download the data here.

Although there has been positive progress in protecting inland wetland ecosystem types, the national protected area network could be strengthened to encompass a wider representation of South Africa’s inland wetlands and to afford protection to those that are Poorly Protected or Not Protected. Seventeen (20%) out of 82 inland wetland types are both threatened (i.e. Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) and under-protected (Not Protected). They are found on the Highveld, along the eastern escarpment, in the Cape Fold Mountains and the arid Northern Cape.

Figure 3. Highly threatened and under-protected inland wetland ecosystems.

Note that the current wetland ecosystem protection level analysis is built on a robust interim wetland ecosystem typology and an automated WetHealth Level 1 applied at national scale for the first time. However, to ensure the most robust and defensible characterisation of wetland types, the National Wetland Map team is actively refining the typology into more detailed, validated subtypes in collaboration with multiple specialist researchers. This work is ongoing and may result in minor adjustments to wetland types and ecological condition, and an updated assessment in the near future.

South Africa supports 22 primary catchments, named according to a letter of the alphabet e.g. A, X. The primary catchments are further grouped into six Water Management Areas (WMAs). These are the Vaal-Orange, Pongola-Umzimkhulu, Mzimvubu-Tsitsikamma, Limpopo-Olifants, Breede-Olifants, and Inkomati-Usuthu. Each WMA is managed by an established or in process Catchment Management Agency (CMA) which is responsible for overseeing the allocation, protection, and conservation of water resources within their respective areas.

To support the the consideration of biodiversity into emerging Catchment Management Strategies and implementation plans, the NBA headline indicators are presented in Table 1 according the 22 primary catchments, with an indication of which WMA each primary catchment falls within.

Figure 1.1. Ecosystem Protection Level of inland wetlands according to primary catchment and Water Management Area.

Knowing the spatial distribution of wetland ecosystem protection level per catchment as well as the distribution of highly threatened and under-protected wetland ecosystem types can xxx other measures such as xxx. These processes should take into consideration freshwater species ecosystem protection level and threat status, including Key Biodiversity Areas and ideally should be spatially located through a systematic conservation process such as those undertaken for Provincial Biodiversity Sector Plans and the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas.

Table 1.1. Ecosystem Protection Level of inland wetlands according to primary catchment and Water Management Area.

Acknowledgements

References

Note that wetlands are still being mapped and validated within Provincial Nature Reserves around the country.

Figure 2.1. Ecosystem Protection Level of inland wetlands across the provinces of South Africa.

Text

Table 2.1. Ecosystem Protection Level of inland wetlands across the provinces of South Africa.

Acknowledgements

References

6-103.

Text Note that wetlands are still being mapped and validated within National Parks around the country.

MZNP etc for rivers and wetlands it is essential to validate and feedback eg many wetlands are missed, rivers are mis classified and condition needs to be validated.

New grasslands park xxx additional wetlands.

Figure 3.1. National Parks of South Africa

Text

Table 3.1 Ecosystem Protection Level of inland wetlands across National Parks.

Acknowledgements

References

Roux et al, 2006. Mainstreaming freshwater biodiversity.

Prepared by Phumla Mayekiso, Jackie Jay and Nancy Job.

Wetlands of International Importance, designated in accordance with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, are places of globally significant biodiversity and embody South Africa’s commitment to conserve and ensure the wise use of its wetland ecosystems for the benefit of all humanity.

[Landscape photo]

The total area under the Ramsar Convention in South Africa is approximately 300 000 ha or 0.5% of total wetlands in South Africa. Although Ramsar sites range widely from one large wetland to sites with multiple wetlands, occasionally with a broad mix of estuary, river, inland wetland and marine aquatic ecosystems all within one designated site, only inland wetlands are calculated per site for the purposes of this report.

Figure 4.1. Ramsar sites of South Africa

Ramsar wetland sites are provided a level of protection in that they require management plans and are afforded greater protection through higher water allocations through the National Water Act (Chapter 3). The majority (92%) of Ramsar inland wetlands fall within Protected Areas. They amount to 14 133 ha (x%) of the total of inland wetland wetlands within protected area in South Africa and x% of the extent of all inland wetlands. Approximately 936.6 ha (7.4%) of Ramsar inland wetlands do not overlap with the formal protected area network.

Approach to assess this indicator

Ecosystem Protection Level [Harris et al. (in review)] measures the degree to which South Africa’s inland wetland ecosystem types are represented within the protected area [SA govt] network. While previous NBA assessments used a standard 20% target [Roux et al], the current protection level target was adjusted in line with Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, to assess whether 30% of each of the 82 inland wetland ecosystem types falls within a Protected Area [SAPAD]. 

Importantly, the current condition of the wetland is also taken into consideration in the calculation2. At least 30% of each wetland ecosystem type (i.e. the ecosystem target) needs to be in a natural or near natural ecological condition (ecological class A or B) to qualify in the Well Protected category. If this target was not met, the ecosystem was categorised as Moderately Protected.

The four ecosystem protection level indicator classes were calculated as follows: Well Protected: 100% of an inland wetland ecosystem type’s target falls within the Protected Area network; but only wetlands in an A and B condition are considered to contribute; Moderately Protected: 50% to 99% of an inland wetland ecosystem type’s target falls within the Protected Area network; and wetlands in an A and B condition contribute 100%, wetlands in a C and D condition contribute 30%, while E and F condition wetlands contribute only 10%; Poorly Protected: 5% to 49% of an inland wetland ecosystem type’s target falls within the Protected Area network; and A and B condition wetlands contribute 100%, C and D condition wetlands contribute 30%, E and F condition wetlands contribute 10%; Not Protected: less than 5% of a wetland ecosystem type’s target falls within the Protected Area network; and A and B condition wetlands contribute 100%, C and D condition wetlands contribute 30%, E and F condition wetlands contribute 10%.

Note that changes in the results since NBA 2018 reflect modest changes in ecosystem protection level, but are also due to expanded wetland mapping efforts and revised targets and methods to improve alignment globally and among realms in South Africa. In terms of the two key input layers for calculating ecosystem protection level, wetland ecological condition will continue to be reviewed against field-validated WetHealth specialist assessments, and updates to wetland ecosystem type is in process This will continue to be an exciting space for progress in the upcoming years. New results will be posted to this web page at key intervals and communicated to the field of practice. Application of the NBA wetland datasets in EIAs should always be supported by a specialist field assessment and, ideally, fed back to the National Wetland Map team to support the calibration of these datasets.

Acknowledgements

Reviewers of this web page xx

Technical documentation

Code repository: https://github.com/askowno/EPL_wetl

Key Publications:

Harris, L.R., Skowno, A.L., Holness, S.D., Sink, K.J., van Niekerk, L., van Deventer, H., Smith-Adao, L., Job, N., Khatieb, S., Monyeki, M. Indicators for tracking progress in effective, representative ecosystem protection. Conservation Biology, in review. Technical details regarding development of new indicators of effective, representative ecosystem protection and their application in South Africa.

Technical reports:

References

Notes

  1. List of categories↩︎

  2. Ecosystem condition for inland wetland ecosystems was derived through GIS automation of the Level 1A land use impact weightings outlined in WET-Health (MacFarlane et al. 2020). The resulting overall PES score (A to F) per wetland was used in the EPL calculation.↩︎