Seas of Good Hope

 

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

Seas of Good Hope contains a rich diversity and is of special importance for threatened species and habitats. It also supports key life-history stages, notably for some of the threatened species and numerous species of top predators and marine mammals. The EBSA wraps around Cape Point to the southernmost tip of Africa, and thus includes the meeting point of the Agulhas and Benguela Currents.

Click here for the full EBSA description

[Top]

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

Seas of Good Hope is one of the most diverse EBSAs in South Africa, with 34 ecosystem types represented. Consequently, there are many 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: importance for life history stages, importance for threatened species and habitats, and biological diversity. There are many rocky or hard-ground ecosystem types that support fragile habitat-forming species, kelp forests that contribute to the nursery function of the EBSA, islands and bays that support rich communities of top predators, including seabirds, sharks and seals, as well as numerous cetaceans. The EBSA is especially important in providing foraging and breeding sites for these (often threatened) top predators. 

 

Seas of Good Hope proportion of area in each ecological condition category.

 

Seas of Good Hope is heavily utilized, and as a result, is in poor (53%) or fair (46%) ecological condition, with a fraction (1%) still in good ecological condition as a result of the Betty’s Bay MPA. Consequently, the ecosystem types represented here are either Vulnerable (70%) or Near Threatened (30%).

 

 Seas of Good Hope proportion of area in each ecosystem threat status category.

 

Seas of Good Hope proportion of area in a Marine Protected Area (MPA).

 

Proclamation of the Operation Phakisa MPA network did not affect this area because no new MPAs were declared inside the EBSA footprint, and thus it remains at 13% protection. The existing MPAs include Table Mountain National Park that wraps around the False Bay peninsula; Betty’s Bay and Walker Bay MPAs. Most of the ecosystem types represented in this EBSA are either Moderately or Well Protected.

 

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 Boulder Shore	NT	WP	5.3	64.5	30.2
Agulhas Dissipative Intermediate Sandy Shore	LC	WP	49.3	26.7	24.0
Agulhas Dissipative Sandy Shore	NT	WP	38.1	37.7	24.2
Agulhas Exposed Rocky Shore	VU	MP	7.2	29.5	63.3
Agulhas Inner Shelf Mosaic	VU	MP	0.0	23.5	76.5
Agulhas Intermediate Sandy Shore	LC	MP	69.2	23.9	6.9
Agulhas Island	VU	WP	0.0	1.8	98.2
Agulhas Kelp Forest	VU	MP	4.3	22.1	73.7
Agulhas Mid Shelf Mosaic	NT	MP	0.0	36.2	63.7
Agulhas Mixed Shore	NT	MP	5.0	38.0	57.0
Agulhas Reflective Sandy Shore	VU	PP	4.8	54.4	40.8
Agulhas Sheltered Rocky Shore	EN	MP	0.7	5.8	93.6
Agulhas Very Exposed Rocky Shore	VU	MP	12.8	60.7	26.5
Cape Boulder Shore	VU	MP	8.5	56.0	35.5
Cape Exposed Rocky Shore	VU	MP	15.5	61.4	23.1
Cape Island	EN	MP	0.0	0.0	100.0
Cape Kelp Forest	VU	MP	3.8	9.6	86.6
Cape Mixed Shore	VU	MP	15.6	50.1	34.3
Cape Rocky Inner Shelf	VU	MP	0.0	0.8	99.2
Cape Rocky Mid Shelf Mosaic	VU	MP	0.0	2.5	97.5
Cape Sheltered Rocky Shore	EN	PP	0.0	0.0	100.0
Cape Very Exposed Rocky Shore	NT	WP	31.1	66.3	2.5
Cool Temperate Estuarine Lake	EN	PP	69.7	4.9	25.4
Cool Temperate Large Temporarily Closed	CR	PP	12.7	29.0	58.3
Cool Temperate Micro-estuary	NA	NA	60.3	2.9	36.8
Cool Temperate Predominantly Open	EN	NP	0.0	3.7	96.3
Cool Temperate Small Temporarily Closed	EN	WP	41.5	5.1	53.4
False and Walker Bay	VU	MP	0.9	38.8	60.2
Southern Benguela Dissipative Intermediate Sandy Shore	LC	WP	42.2	11.3	46.5
Southern Benguela Dissipative Sandy Shore	LC	WP	84.5	1.8	13.7
Southern Benguela Intermediate Sandy Shore	NT	PP	31.9	66.8	1.3
Southern Benguela Reflective Sandy Shore	EN	MP	41.3	52.8	6.0
Warm Temperate Estuarine Lake	EN	MP	0.0	100.0	0.0
Western Agulhas Outer Shelf Mosaic	VU	NP	0.1	81.8	18.1
Other Features
Breeding and foraging grounds for seals, seabirds, sharks and cetaceans Surf diatom accumulations Colonies of African penguins and seals Spawning area for commercially important fish species

[Top]

 

Relevant Pressures and Activities (impact, extent)

• There are 19 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: linefishing and small pelagic fishing. These activities cover most of the EBSA, and will need to be well managed in order to protect the foraging resources that support the top predators, the latter of which is fundamental to the area being recognised as an EBSA. For both fishing activities, the footprint is split approximately equally between the Conservation and Impact Management Zones, with a slightly larger portion in the Impact Management Zone.
• Twelve of the 19 pressures each comprise <1% of the EBSA pressure profile, and a further four comprise <4%, including: west coast rock lobster harvesting, alien invasive species, squid fishing, tuna pole fishing, coastal disturbance, wastewater discharge, kelp harvesting, coastal development, recreational shore angling, abalone harvesting, ports and harbours, inshore trawling, subsistence harvesting, beach seining, naval dumping (ammunition), and mining (prospecting and mining).
• Activities in South Africa that are not present in this EBSA include: benthic (hake) longlining, dredge spoil dumping, gillnetting, mariculture, mean annual runoff reduction, midwater trawling, oil and gas (exploration and production), oyster harvesting, pelagic longlining, prawn trawling, shark netting, south coast rock lobster harvesting, and offshore trawling.

​

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 coastal disturbance to mining (prospecting and mining) 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.  It also includes four MPAs that are wholly or partially within the EBSA: Table Mountain MPA; Helderberg MPA; Betty’s Bay MPA; and Walker Bay Whale Sanctuary MPA. The activities permitted within these MPAs are not considered as part of the EBSA management recommendations because these are as per their respective gazetted regulations.

Table Mountain National Park MPA (proclaimed 2004)	https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/264310.pdf
Helderberg (proclaimed 1991, revised 2000)	https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/gazetted_notices/mlra_marineprotected_areasdeclaration_g21948rg6978gen1429.pdf
Betty’s Bay (proclaimed 1981, revised 2000)	https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/gazetted_notices/mlra_marineprotected_areasdeclaration_g21948rg6978gen1429.pdf
Walker Bay Whale Sanctuary MPA (proclaimed 2001)	https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MPA-Walker-Bay-Whale-Sanctuary.pdf

 

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

[To be updated]

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.

There are numerous coastal activities in this EBSA that each comprise a notable proportion of their respective national footprints because the area has a high coastal population density and the coast is heavily utilised relative to its use in many other parts of the country. These activities contribute very little to the overall impact on the EBSA because they are generally confined to discrete areas along the shore or in shallow waters. Nevertheless, they still need careful management given their cumulative impacts on coastal biodiversity, which is important in this area.

Key activities taking place in this EBSA include kelp harvesting and west coast lobster harvesting, with more than 50% of the national footprint of these activities inside the EBSA. Abalone harvesting and recreational shore angling are also important activities, with more than 20% of the national footprint of these activities inside the EBSA. All four activities are recommended to continue as Consent activities in both the Conservation and Impact Management Zones. Other activities relating to marine-living-resource extraction include small pelagics fishing, linefishing (commercial and recreational), beach seining and, to a lesser extent (<10% of the national footprint of the respective activities), subsistence harvesting, squid fishing and tuna pole fishing. All these activities are recommended to be Consent activities within both EBSA zones. Inshore trawling is also present, but comprises <0.2% of the national footprint and is present as only a small patch inside Table Mountain National Park MPA, where it is managed in accordance with the MPA regulations.

Dumping ammunition at sea historically occurred within the EBSA, but is no longer an active activity in South Africa. The sites where ammunition was dumped are within both the Conservation and Impact Management Zones where it is listed as a Consent activity. The EBSA includes the major Cape Town Port and several minor harbours within the Conservation and Impact Management Zone. Port and harbour activities should be carefully managed to avoid unacceptable impacts on adjacent Conservation Zones. Particularly, careful management of mariculture operations and ports and harbours are necessary to avoid the introduction of additional alien invasive species. Shipping is recommended to continue in both the Conservation and Impact Management Zone under current general rules and legislation. Thus, in all cases, the 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, recognising that 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

It is recommended that management is strengthened in the existing MPAs in Seas of Good Hope: Table Mountain National Park, Helderberg, Betty’s Bay, and Walker Bay MPas. 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.

 

Marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Seas of Good Hope 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 Seas of Good Hope, 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 Seas of Good Hope.

There are four MPAs in this EBSA: Table Mountain National Park MPA, Helderberg, Betty’s Bay and Walker Bay. It is managed according to the gazetted management regulations for this MPA. A very small part of the 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. A much larger portion 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 Seas of Good Hope 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 Seas of Good Hope. 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 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.

[Top]

References

DFFE, 2021. South African Protected Areas Database (SAPAD). Available at: https://egis.environment.gov.za/protected_and_conservation_areas_database.

DFFE, 2022. Biodiversity Sector Plan: Input for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Cape Town.

Halpern, B.S., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F., Kappel, C.V., 2007. Evaluating and Ranking the Vulnerability of Global Marine Ecosystems to Anthropogenic Threats. Conservation Biology 21, 1301–1315.

Harris, L.R., Holness, S.D., Kirkman, S.P., Sink, K.J., Majiedt, P., Driver, A., 2022. National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan Version 1.2 (Released: 12-04-2022). Nelson Mandela University, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, and South African National Biodiversity Institute, South Africa.

Harris, L.R., Holness, S.D., Kirkman, S.P., Sink, K.J., Majiedt, P., Driver, A., in press. A robust, systematic approach for developing the biodiversity sector’s input for multi-sector Marine Spatial Planning. Ocean & Coastal Management.

Keith, D.A., Rodríguez, J.P., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., Asmussen, M., Bachman, S., Basset, A., Barrow, E.G., Benson, J.S., Bishop, M.J., Bonifacio, R., Brooks, T.M., Burgman, M.A., Comer, P., Comín, F.A., Essl, F., Faber-Langendoen, D., Fairweather, P.G., Holdaway, R.J., Jennings, M., Kingsford, R.T., Lester, R.E., Nally, R.M., McCarthy, M.A., Moat, J., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Pisanu, P., Poulin, B., Regan, T.J., Riecken, U., Spalding, M.D., Zambrano-Martínez, S., 2013. Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8, e62111.

Sink, K.J., Holness, S., Skowno, A.L., Franken, M., Majiedt, P.A., Atkinson, L.J., Bernard, A., Dunga, L.V., Harris, L.R., Kirkman, S.P., Oosthuizen, A., Porter, S., Smit, K., Shannon, L., 2019. Chapter 7: Ecosystem Threat Status, In South African National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 4: Marine Realm. eds K.J. Sink, M.G. van der Bank, P.A. Majiedt, L.R. Harris, L.J. Atkinson, S.P. Kirkman, N. Karenyi. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12143/6372.