Agulhas Bank Nursery Area

 

Data used in the analyses below (ecological condition, threat status, protection, distribution of activities, cumulative pressure from activities) are from the National Biodiversity Assessment 2018: Marine Realm Assessment. See the NBA 2018 website for access to the report.

 

EBSA Status Assessment and Management Recommendations

Ecological Condition, Threat Status, Current Protection and Key Features in the EBSA

Relevant Pressures and Activities (impact, extent) | Management Interventions Needed for the EBSA

Activity Evaluation Per Zone: Zoning Feasibility | Management recommendations for MPAs

Management recommendations for MSP | Research Needs & Future Process

EBSA report download | Back to the SA EBSA status and management home page

 

 

EBSA overview

Agulhas Bank Nursery Area is a key spawning ground and nursery area, and is the centre of abundance for many warm-temperate species, including endemic sparids. It is important for retention of eggs and larvae, recruitment and food provision. This EBSA is recognised particularly for its uniqueness and rarity; importance for life-history stages; and importance for threatened species and habitats.

Click here for the full EBSA description

[Top]

Ecological Condition, Threat Status, Current Protection and Key Features in the EBSA

Agulhas Bank Nursery Area has a myriad of features and ecosystem types that need to be protected for the area to maintain the features and processes that give it its EBSA status. The criteria for which this EBSA ranks highly are: uniqueness and rarity; importance for life-history stages; and importance for threatened species and habitats. There are 20 ecosystem types represented, of which the inner and mid-shelf mosaics (matrix of reefs and soft sediments), rocky shores and rocky shelf ecosystem types contain fragile species that are especially sensitive to damage. Kelp forests also contribute to the nursery function of the EBSA and are sensitive to disturbance, although these can recover relatively quicker than some of the other more fragile and delicate species, such as corals.

 

Agulhas Bank Nursery Area proportion of area in each ecological condition category.

 

Agulhas Bank Nursery Area is largely in good ecological condition (41%), with some portions that are fair (19%). Consequently, the bulk of the offshore extent is either Near Threatened (67%) or Least Concern (15%). However, the inshore areas, especially in the north-eastern portion of the EBSA between Cape Infanta and Mossel Bay, are heavily utilised and in poor ecological condition. The result is that the bays, rocky shores, muddy mid-shelf, kelp forests, reef sand mosaics, sandy inner shelf and some of the estuarine shores in this area are all threatened. Consequently, 18% of the EBSA area comprises threatened ecosystem types that are mostly Critically Endangered (13% of the EBSA extent).

 

Agulhas Bank Nursery Area proportion of area in each ecosystem threat status category.

 

Agulhas Bank Nursery Area proportion of area in a Marine Protected Area (MPA).

 

Protection of features in MPAs has been considerably expanded and strengthened following the proclamation of the Operation Phakisa MPA network, with the EBSA area within reserves increasing by more than an order of magnitude from 2% to 30%. These new MPAs cover the southern extension of the EBSA, south of Cape Infanta where ecological condition is good and ecosystem threat status is Near Threatened or Least Concern, which will proactively avoid those ecosystem types degrading further and becoming threatened. However, many of the threatened features listed above have no protection in the EBSA.

Threat status, protection level and ecological condition of ecosystem types in the EBSA. Other key features are also listed.

Feature	Threat Status	Protection Level	Condition (%)
			Good	Fair	Poor
Ecosystem Types
Agulhas Blues	NT	NP	11.0	81.4	7.7
Agulhas Dissipative Intermediate Sandy Shore	LC	WP	69.8	14.6	15.6
Agulhas Exposed Rocky Shore	VU	MP	17.8	65.7	16.5
Agulhas Inner Shelf Mosaic	VU	MP	39.0	27.7	33.3
Agulhas Intermediate Sandy Shore	LC	MP	79.2	19.3	1.5
Agulhas Kelp Forest	VU	MP	38.4	46.7	14.9
Agulhas Mid Shelf Mosaic	NT	MP	74.1	7.3	18.6
Agulhas Mixed Shore	NT	MP	12.8	73.6	13.6
Agulhas Muddy Mid Shelf	CR	PP	0.4	7.8	91.8
Agulhas Muddy Outer Shelf	NT	PP	49.1	13.5	37.4
Agulhas Rocky Outer Shelf	LC	WP	100.0	0.0	0.0
Agulhas Sandy Inner Shelf	VU	MP	0.0	0.0	100.0
Agulhas Sandy Mid Shelf	NT	MP	35.8	21.1	43.0
Agulhas Sheltered Rocky Shore	EN	MP	1.3	50.6	48.1
Agulhas Very Exposed Rocky Shore	VU	MP	16.5	82.0	1.5
Alphard Bank	LC	WP	100.0	0.0	0.0
Central Agulhas Outer Shelf Mosaic	LC	MP	92.8	7.2	0.0
Warm Temperate Predominantly Open	VU	PP	39.8	8.3	52.0
Warm Temperate Small Temporarily Closed	LC	PP	18.7	79.7	1.6
Western Agulhas Bay	EN	PP	0.0	9.4	90.6
Other Features
Endemic, threatened, and commercially important fish species Stylasterine corals, black corals, gorgonians, wall sponges, and kelp Squid Loggerhead turtles Leatherback turtles

[Top]

 

Relevant Pressures and Activities (impact, extent)

• There are 17 pressures present in this EBSA, of which shipping is the only one that covers the entire EBSA extent and has the highest cumulative pressure profile.
• Key pressures in this EBSA that most directly impact the features for which the EBSA is described include: inshore and offshore trawling, linefishing, small pelagic fishing, and squid fishing. These activities cover discrete portions of the EBSA, and are mostly concentrated in the shallower waters. These activities will need to be managed particularly well in order to protect the fragile benthic biodiversity, nursery habitats, and fish assemblages for which this EBSA is recognised. For most of these pressures, the larger portion of the activity is in the Impact Management Zone.

​

Map of cumulative pressure from all activities in the EBSA and surrounds. Darker reds indicate higher pressure intensity.

 

Pressure (in arbitrary cumulative pressure units, CPUs) summed for each pressure in the EBSA, per proposed EBSA biodiversity zone, ranked left (highest) to right (lowest) by the overall relative importance of pressures in this EBSA. Note that pressures from south coast rock lobster harvesting to recreational shore angling each comprise <1% of the EBSA pressure profile.

[Top]

 

Management Interventions Needed for the EBSA

Improved place-based protection of EBSA features should be pursued. In support of this, the EBSA is divided into a Biodiversity Conservation Zone and an Environmental Impact Management Zone, both comprising several areas within the EBSA. The aim of the Biodiversity Conservation Zone is to secure core areas of key biodiversity features in natural / near-natural ecological condition. Strict place-based biodiversity conservation is thus directed at securing key biodiversity features in a natural or semi-natural state, or as near to this state as possible. Activities or uses that have significant biodiversity impacts are incompatible with the management objective of this zone. If the activity is permitted, it would require alternative Biodiversity Conservation Zones or offsets to be identified. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the activity is Prohibited. Where possible and appropriate, the Biodiversity Conservation Zones should be considered for formal protection e.g., Marine Protected Areas or Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECM). The aim of the Environmental Impact Management Zone is to manage negative impacts on key biodiversity features where strict place-based measures are not practical or not essential. In this zone, the focus is management of impacts on key biodiversity features in a mixed-use area, with the objective to keep biodiversity features in at least a functional state. Activities or uses that have significant biodiversity impacts should be strictly controlled and/or regulated. Within this zone, ideally there should be no increase in the intensity of use or the extent of the footprint of activities that have significant biodiversity impacts. Where possible, biodiversity impacts should be reduced.

As far as possible, the Biodiversity Conservation Zone was designed deliberately to avoid conflicts with existing activities. There are also four MPAs that are wholly or partially within the EBSA: De Hoop MPA; Agulhas Mud MPA; Stilbaai MPA; and Agulhas Bank Complex MPA. Activities permitted within these MPAs are not considered as part of the EBSA management recommendations because these are given as per the respective gazetted regulations of the MPAs, available here: De Hoop MPA; Agulhas Mud MPA; Stilbaai MPA; and Agulhas Bank Complex MPA.

 

Proposed zonation of the EBSA into Conservation (medium green) and Impact Management (light green) Zones. MPAs are overlaid in orange outlines, with the extent within the EBSA given in dark green. Click on each of the zones to view the proposed management recommendations.

 

Protection of features in the rest of the Conservation Zone may require additional Marine Protected Area declaration/expansion. Other effective conservation measures should also be applied via Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) to ensure that the existing activities/uses are appropriately controlled to ensure compatibility of activities with the environmental requirements for achieving the management objectives of the EBSA Biodiversity Conservation and Environmental Impact Management Zones.

Based on the compatibility of sea-use activities with the management objective of each EBSA zone (see table below, from the sea-use guidelines of the National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan), it is recommended for MSP that compatible activities are managed as General activities, which are those that are permitted and regulated by current general rules and legislation. Activities that are conditional are recommended to be managed as Consent activities, which are those that can continue in the zone subject to specific regulations and controls, e.g., to avoid unacceptable impacts on biodiversity features, or to avoid intensification or expansion of impact footprints of uses that are already occurring and where there are no realistic prospects of excluding these activities. Activities that are not compatible are recommended to be Prohibited, where such activities are not allowed or should not be allowed (which may be through industry-specific regulations) because they are incompatible with maintaining the biodiversity objectives of the zone. These recommendations are subject to stakeholder negotiation through the MSP process, recognizing that there will likely need to be significant compromises among sectors. It is emphasized, as noted above, that if activities that are not compatible with the respective EBSA zones are permitted, it would require alternative Biodiversity Conservation Zones or offsets to be identified. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the activity is Prohibited.

 

List of all sea-use activities, grouped by their Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) zones, and scored according to their compatibility with the management objective of the EBSA’s Biodiversity Conservation Zone (i.e., Critical Biodiversity Area, CBA) and Environmental Impact Management Zone (i.e., Ecological Support Area, ESA). Activity compatibility is given as Y = yes, compatible, C = conditional or N = not compatible, with major activities that are present in the EBSA shaded in grey.

There are also some pressures on biodiversity features within the EBSA that originate from activities outside of these EBSA or beyond the jurisdiction of MSP. In support of maintaining the ecological integrity of and benefits delivered by the key biodiversity features, these other activities need to be appropriately managed by complementary initiatives.

 

Recommendations for other activities beyond the jurisdiction of MSP management to support securing key biodiversity features within the EBSA.

[Top]

 

Activity Evaluation Per Zone: Zoning Feasibility

Proposed zonation of the EBSA, with the cumulative intensity footprint of activities within the EBSA (sorted highest to lowest) given relative to the national footprint of those activities to illustrate feasibility of management interventions.

Even though more than half of the country’s inshore trawling takes place within this EBSA, almost all of it falls within the Impact Management Zone where it is recommended to continue in the EBSA as a Consent activity. Offshore trawling is much more limited and is present in only the Impact Management Zone, where it is also recommended to be a Consent activity. Both inshore and offshore trawling are not compatible with the management objectives of the Conservation Zone, and thus are recommended to be Prohibited in this zone. Oyster and abalone harvesting take place in the EBSA, but these activities are not accurately mapped and the proportion of the national footprint within the EBSA is likely much lower than is presented. Notwithstanding, the proposed EBSA zoning does accommodate for both of these harvesting activities in the Conservation and Impact Management Zones, where they are recommended to be Consent activities. Other fishing activities, like commercial and recreational linefishing and small pelagic fishing are also recommended to be Consent activities within both EBSA zones. The same recommendation is given for subsistence harvesting, recreational shore angling and south coast rock lobster harvesting.

Oil and gas (exploration and production) are largely within the Impact Management Zone; this activity is recommended to continue as a Consent activity in both EBSA zones. The other activities that fall within this EBSA are a very small component of their respective national footprints, and are mostly within the Impact Management Zone. These activities are all recommended to continue as Consent activities, with relevant regulations and controls. Shipping is recommended to continue in both the Conservation and Impact Management Zone under current general rules and legislation. Thus, in all cases, the proposed EBSA zonation has no or minimal impact on the national footprint for the listed marine activities.

There are also several activities that are largely outside the EBSA but have downstream impacts to the biodiversity within the EBSA, e.g., from mean annual runoff reduction, coastal development, coastal disturbance, and wastewater discharge. The impacts should be managed, but principally fall outside the direct management and zoning of the EBSA. These existing activities are proposed as Consent activities for both EBSA zones, with the exception of wastewater discharge, which is recommended to continue within the Impact Management Zone as a Consent activity, but is recommended to be Prohibited in the Conservation Zone because it is currently not present in that zone. Although these activities originate beyond the EBSA, they should ideally be dealt with in complementary integrated coastal zone management in support of the EBSA. For example, investment in eradicating the alien invasive species could aid in improving the ecological condition of rocky and mixed shores, improving benefits for subsistence and recreational harvesting; and rehabilitation of degraded dunes and formalising access points could support improved habitat for nesting shorebirds, and enhanced benefits for coastal protection during storm surges. Similarly, improved estuary management through development of appropriate freshwater flow requirements, estuarine management plans and wastewater management regulations can improve the ecological condition of the surrounding marine environment, in turn, improving water quality and safe conditions for human recreation.

 

Management recommendations for MPAs

Since the inception of the MARIMSA Project, protection has increased in the EBSA with the declaration of the Agulhas Mud and Agulhas Bank Complex MPAs in 2019. This builds on existing protection already afforded by the De Hoop and Stilbaai MPAs and land-based protected areas in the area. It is recommended that existing management is strengthened in the older MPAs, and that full operationalisation of the new MPAs is implemented, including management plans, resourcing, and adequate staffing and law enforcement. Potential MPA expansion within the EBSA should be explored to ensure that the features for which the EBSA was described receive adequate protection. See Future Process below for more details.

 

Existing and new marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Agulhas Bank Nursery Area EBSA. Land-based protected areas are also shown (from DFFE 2021).

[Top]

Management recommendations for MSP

Developing the biodiversity sector’s input to the national Marine Spatial Planning process

Following the initial management recommendations proposed for Agulhas Bank Nursery Area, outlined above, South Africa iteratively developed a National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan (NCMSBP; Harris et al. 2022a,b) that underpinned the Marine Biodiversity Sector Plan (DFFE 2022). The latter constitutes the biodiversity sector’s input into the national Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) process. The NCMSBP comprises a Map of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas (abbreviated to CBA Map), and a set of sea-use guidelines that indicate activity compatibility with the management objectives of each of the CBA Map categories. These two components form the basis for the proposed biodiversity zones and management recommendations for the Marine Area Plans. EBSAs are an integral part of the NCMSBP, and thus the Biodiversity Sector Plan. Therefore, these products informed the proposed zoning and sea-use guidelines for EBSAs in the MSP process.

 

Schematic diagram illustrating that the National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan will inform the Marine Area Plans through the Marine Biodiversity Sector Plan (DFFE 2022), and will be iteratively updated and refined based on feedback. The process for deriving the sea-use guidelines is also shown, indicating that it is based on an assessment of activity compatibility with the management objective of Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Natural, CBA Restore and Ecological Support Areas (ESAs). Marine Protected Area (MPA) expansion, focussing on CBAs, will also take place in a separate but related process. The outcomes of the Marine Spatial Planning and MPA expansion processes will be incorporated into the Marine Area Plans and will be fed back into future updates of the National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan.

[Top]

Proposed Zones

The proposed biodiversity zones for the EBSA in MSP comprises two types: a Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone; and a Biodiversity Impact Management Zone. The former has three sub-categories: Marine Protected Area; Biodiversity Conservation Area; and Biodiversity Restoration Area. All of these zones and sub-categories are found in Agulhas Bank Nursery Area.

 

There are four MPAs in this EBSA: Agulhas Mud, De Hoop, Stilbaai, and Agulhas Bank Complex. They are managed according to their respective gazetted management regulations. About half of the remaining Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone is a Biodiversity Conservation Area, where the management objective of this zone is to maintain the sites in natural or near-natural ecological condition. The other remaining half of the Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone comprises a Biodiversity Restoration Area, where the management objective of the zone is to improve the ecological condition of the sites and, in the long term, restore them to a natural / near-natural state, or as near to that state as possible. As a minimum, avoid further deterioration in ecological condition and maintain options for future restoration. The rest of the EBSA is a Biodiversity Impact Management Zone. This is a multi-use area that may already be heavily impacted, but needs to be kept ecologically functional because it is still important for marine biodiversity patterns, ecological processes, and ecosystem services. Therefore, the management objective is to avoid further deterioration in ecological condition.

 

Proposed biodiversity zones for the Agulhas Bank Nursery Area EBSA for South Africa’s Marine Area Plans.

 

Proposed Sea-Use Guidelines

All sea-use activities were listed and evaluated according to their compatibility with the management objective of each of the proposed biodiversity zones. Where various aspects of an activity have a different impact on the environment, these were reflected separately, e.g., impacts from petroleum exploration are different to those from production. Activity compatibility was based largely on the ecosystem-pressure matrix from the NBA 2018 (Sink et al. 2019), which is a matrix of expert-based scores of the functional impact and recovery time for each activity on marine ecosystems (adapted from Halpern et al. 2007). Activities were then classified into those that are Compatible, Not Compatible or have Restricted Compatibility with the management objectives of each proposed biodiversity zone. This classification followed a set of predefined principles that account for the severity and extent of impact, similar to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criterion C3 (Keith et al. 2013). Some exceptions and adjustments were made based on initial discussions as part of the MSP process.

 

Sea-use guidelines for Agulhas Bank Nursery Area. List of all sea-use activities, grouped by their broad sea use and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Zones, and categorised according to their compatibility with the management objective of Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone: Biodiversity Conservation Area (SBCZ: BCA); Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone: Biodiversity Restoration Area (SBCZ: BRA); and the Biodiversity Impact Management Zone (BIMZ). Activity compatibility is given as Y = yes, compatible, R = restricted compatibility, or N = not compatible. Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone: Marine Protected Areas (SBCZ: MPA) are managed according to their gazetted regulations.

 

Proposed management recommendations for activities with each of the different compatibility ratings:

• Compatible: Activities should be allowed and regulated by current general rules. Notwithstanding, there should still be duty of care, possibly requiring monitoring and evaluation programmes, to avoid unintended cumulative impacts to the biodiversity features for which this area is recognised.
• Restricted compatibility: A robust site-specific, context-specific assessment is required to determine the activity compatibility depending on the biodiversity features for which the site was selected. Particularly careful attention would need to be paid in areas containing irreplaceable to near-irreplaceable features where the activity may be more appropriately evaluated as not permitted. The ecosystem types in which the activities take place may also be a consideration as to whether or not the activity should be permitted, for example. Where it is permitted to take place, strict regulations and controls over and above the current general rules and legislation would be required to be put in place to avoid unacceptable impacts on biodiversity features. Examples of such regulations and controls include: exclusions of activities in portions of the zone; avoiding intensification or expansion of current impact footprints; additional gear restrictions; and temporal closures of activities during sensitive periods for biodiversity features.
• Not compatible: The activity should not be permitted to occur in this area because it is not compatible with the management objective. If it is considered to be permitted as part of compromises in MSP negotiations, it would require alternative Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zones and/or offsets to be identified. However, if this is not possible, it is recommended that the activity remains prohibited within the Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone.

[Top]

 

Research Needs

There are no specific research needs for this EBSA in addition to those for all EBSAs.

 

Future Process

There needs to be full operationalisation and practical implementation of the Agulhas Muds MPA and the Agulhas Bank Complex MPA, including management plans, staffing, and resources. There also needs to be full operationalisation and practical implementation of the proposed zoning in the national marine spatial plan, with gazetted management regulations following the proposed management recommendations outlined above. Possible MPA expansion within the EBSA should be explored, with relevant areas included into focus areas that can be considered further in a dedicated MPA expansion process with adequate and meaningful stakeholder engagement. Further alignment between land-based and marine biodiversity priorities should also be strengthened, e.g., through the cross-realm planning in the CoastWise project. This EBSA is also part of a World Heritage Site proposal that is being developed.

 

References

[Top]