Intersection of ecosystem threat status and protection levels

Marine realm

Kerry J. Sink1, 2 , Natasha A. Besseling1 , Luther A. Adams1, 3 , Jock C. Currie1

1. South African National Biodiversity Institute

2. Nelson Mandela University

3. Rhodes University

Published

December 5, 2025

Of South Africa’s 163 marine ecosystem types, 27 (17%) are both highly threatened and under-protected. Threatened and under-protected ecosystem types are candidates for improved protection through MPA expansion or other spatial management measures that could be recognised as Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs). In addition to expansion of protection of these ecosystem types, it is important to improve ecosystem condition through flow restoration, alleviation of pressures and improved ecosystem management.

Cape Sheltered Rocky Shore is Endangered and Not Protected. (© Kerry Sink)

The headline indicators of the NBA provide information on the pressures faced by species and ecosystems and on the progress made in protecting them. Combining the indicators provides an additional perspective on the status of marine ecosystems. There are 27 marine ecosystem types that are both highly threatened and under-protected (Figure 1; Table 1).

Figure 1. Threatened and under-protected marine ecosystem types.
Table 1. Table showing protection levels and threat status categories for the highly threatened and underprotected ecosystem types.
Threat status Not Protected Poorly Protected
Critically Endangered Orange Cone Inner Shelf Mud Reef Mosaic
Critically Endangered Agulhas Muddy Mid Shelf
Critically Endangered Browns Bank Rocky Shelf Edge
Critically Endangered Cape Bay
Endangered Cape Lower Canyon
Endangered Cape Sheltered Rocky Shore
Endangered KZN Bight Mid Shelf Reef Complex
Endangered Orange Cone Muddy Mid Shelf
Endangered St Helena Bay
Endangered Durnford Inner Shelf Reef Complex
Endangered Trafalgar Reef Complex
Endangered Agulhas Sheltered Rocky Shore
Endangered Namaqua Exposed Rocky Shore
Endangered Namaqua Sheltered Rocky Shore
Endangered Namaqua Very Exposed Rocky Shore
Endangered Agulhas Reflective Sandy Shore
Endangered Southern Benguela Reflective Sandy Shore
Endangered KZN Bight Deep Shelf Edge
Endangered KZN Bight Mid Shelf Mosaic
Endangered Southern KZN Inner Shelf Mosaic
Endangered KZN Bight Sandy Inner Shelf
Endangered Southern Benguela Muddy Shelf Edge
Endangered Western Agulhas Bay
Endangered Cape Upper Canyon
Endangered False and Walker Bay
Endangered Cape Mixed Shore
Endangered Namaqua Mixed Shore

The highest priorities are the Critically Endangered Orange Cone Inner Shelf Mud Reef Mosaic which is Not Protected and the five ecosystem types that are both Endangered and Not Protected (Table 2). This includes the Orange Cone Muddy Mid Shelf, Cape Lower Canyon, St Helena Bay, Cape Sheltered Rocky Shore and the KZN Bight Mid Shelf Reef Complex. Three ecosystem types are Critically Endangered and Poorly Protected; the Agulhas Muddy Mid Shelf, Browns Bank Rocky Shelf Edge and Cape Bay. Endangered and Poorly Protected ecosystem types include several shore types in the Namaqua, Cape and Agulhas Regions, False and Walker Bay, Western Agulhas Bays, two ecosystem types on the southern KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) shelf and four ecosystem types in the KZN Bight.

Table 2. Table summarising protection levels across different threat status categories for marine ecosystem types.
Not Protected Poorly Protected Moderately Protected Well Protected Total
Critically Endangered 1 3 2 0 6
Endangered 5 18 7 1 31
Vulnerable 2 12 17 5 36
Near Threatened 3 7 6 3 19
Least Concern 16 16 16 23 71
Total (n) 27 56 48 32 163

Threatened and under-protected ecosystem types are candidates for improved protection through MPA expansion or other spatial management measures that could be recognised as OECMs. In addition to expansion of protection, it is important to improve ecosystem condition through strategic alleviation of pressures such as restoration of freshwater flow to the marine environment and improved ecosystem management. Improved bycatch management (priority action 5) and diversified measures to protect bathers from sharks using non-lethal measures (Improvements in shark control measures) could help improve ecosystem condition in KwaZulu-Natal.

The KwaZulu Natal Bight Mid Shelf Reef Complex is considered Endangered and Not Protected. Increased research to improve reef classification, mapping and assessment is recommended in this area. (© ACEP Spatial Solutions Project, Kerry Sink)

Under protected, but Least Concern ecosystem types are also candidates for improved protection. Such ecosystems types may not be currently experiencing serious pressure or decline in ecological condition, but are perhaps easier targets for protection through MPA’s or OECM’s. For example, the Namaqua Muddy Sands, is a distinct ecosystem type that is currently not represented in South Africa’s conservation estate. Improved spatial planning can help find the best area to protect this ecosystem type, by considering other habitat and species priorities. This ecosystem types hosts Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs)1.

Namaqua Muddy Sands is Least Concern but Not Protected. This ecosystem type needs to be represented in South Africa’s MPA network and there are options in terms of sites for protection with most area in good ecological condition. The VME indicator species (Suberites dandelenae) occurs in high numbers in this ecosystem type and habitat with high densities of this species should be prioritised for protection. (© South African Environmental Observation Network)

There is good progress in evaluating the ecological, socio-economic and governance effectiveness of South Africa’s MPAs2–5, which reveal gaps in participation, cultural heritage protection and governance limiting progress in protection. Lessons from the 2019 Marine Protected Area expansion are important for future expansion efforts.

Agulhas Inner Shelf Reef is Least Concern and Well Protected. This reef is protected within the Tsitstikamma MPA. (© Geoff Spiby)

Acknowledgements

We thank all contributors as reflected in the Ecosystem Threat Status and Protection Level pages.

Technical documentation

GitLab repositories

References

1. Franken, M. 2025. A systematic approach to the identification, mapping and spatial prioritisation of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in South Africa.
2. Kirkman, S. et al. 2021. Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas. African Journal of Marine Science 43: 389–412. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2021.1962975
3. Mann-Lang, J. et al. 2021. Social and economic effects of marine protected areas in South Africa, with recommendations for future assessments. African Journal of Marine Science 43: 367–387. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2021.1961166
4. Kirkman, S. et al. 2023. The road towards effective governance and management of marine protected areas in South Africa: evolving policies, paradigms and processes. African Journal of Marine Science 45: 63–86. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2023.2203186
5. Sink, K.J. et al. 2023. SeaPeople: Improving participation in ocean protection and conservation efforts. Co-design workshop report for the emerging SeaPeople collective, 12 december 2023. Cape Town, South Africa.