Shop
donate
The Green List: A Framework for Measuring Species Recovery and Conservation Impact

The Green List: A Framework for Measuring Species Recovery and Conservation Impact

 

The Green List: A Framework for Measuring Species Recovery and Conservation Impact

By Dr Samantha Nicholson – senior carnivore scientist, Endangered Wildlife Trust.

Conservation efforts are essential for conserving species, and it is important to focus on how species can recover and thrive over time with such efforts. The IUCN Green Status of Species is a new tool that works alongside the Red List to track species’ recovery and measure the impact of conservation actions. In this article, we’ll explore how the Green Status is helping shape a more optimistic approach to conservation, starting with the lion, which was recently assessed for the first time.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is globally recognised as the standard for assessing the extinction risk of species. However, an optimistic approach to species conservation is also essential, providing a roadmap for recovery and measuring the impact that conservation efforts have had on that species’ status. To complement the Red List, the IUCN Green Status of Species was developed to assess species recovery and the impact of conservation efforts.

The Green Status works alongside the Red List by evaluating how species populations are recovering and tracking the effectiveness of conservation actions. These assessments are crucial, offering a clear measure of recovery and the success of conservation initiatives. While the Red List highlights species that are threatened, the Green Status provides an additional perspective by measuring how much a species has and can recover. This helps identify successful conservation strategies and areas where further efforts are needed. By monitoring a species’ recovery, Green Status assessments allow conservationists to celebrate successes, maintain support for conservation projects, and adjust strategies for better outcomes. They also emphasise the importance of long-term conservation planning to ensure that species not only avoid extinction but also thrive and reach sustainable population levels. Furthermore, the Green Status contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation by emphasising both the prevention of decline and the restoration of species to healthy populations.

In 2024, the lion’s (Panthera leo) Green Status was assessed for the first time. The assessment revealed that the species requires intensified conservation efforts. The lion’s recovery score was 30%, classifying it as “largely depleted.” We broke the indigenous range of the species into ten spatial units – a spatial unity being a distinct geographic area or boundary (Figure 1). The species is most likely absent in two of its ten spatial units, likely viable in one, and present in the remaining seven. This reflects a significant decline from historical levels. While lions may still exist in some areas, their numbers are far lower than before, and they face substantial survival threats.

 

Figure 1. Map of the indigenous range of the Lion delineated into ten spatial units. Current range is based on the latest Red List Assessment (Nicholson et al. 2024): Extant range = Green; Possibly Extant Range = Light Yellow Green. Spatial units are as follows: Light Blue = Indian; Dark Green = Southwest Asia; Dark Blue = North African; Yellow-Green = West African; Pink = Central African; Bright Green = East African; Purple = Tanzanian Northern Mozambique; Red = Southern Central Africa; Blue = Southern Africa; Olive Brown = South African.

 

A key component of the Green List is determining a species’ “Conservation Legacy,” which compares its current Green Score to what it would be if no past conservation efforts had taken place. The lion, despite its depleted state, has a High Conservation Legacy, indicating that without past conservation actions—such as protected areas and legal protections—its population would have declined even further. The species’ conservation dependence is classified as “Medium,” meaning that its long-term survival and recovery rely moderately on continued conservation efforts. While lions may not face immediate extinction without these actions, they would experience significant population declines and escalating threats across their range. Without ongoing conservation measures like protected areas, legal protections, and active management, the lion is expected to be extirpated from three spatial units within the next decade. This highlights the urgent need for sustained conservation efforts to prevent further declines and ensure the species’ survival.

The Green Status evaluation shows that human activities are obstructing the lion’s ecological functionality across its range, with significant declines in many areas and extinction in North Africa and Southwest Asia. However, the assessment also emphasises that conservation efforts have helped prevent the species’ extinction in regions such as West and Southern Central Africa, South Africa, and India. To preserve the remaining populations, intensified conservation actions are critical, especially as human settlements continue to expand across the lion’s habitat.

The Green Status assessment of the lion highlights the critical need for continued and strengthened conservation efforts to safeguard this species. While the lion’s population has dramatically declined and has vanished from parts of its former range, conservation measures such as protected areas and legal safeguards have played a key role in preventing its extinction in certain regions. Despite these successes, the species’ medium conservation dependence suggests that sustained and enhanced actions are crucial for its long-term survival.

As human development increasingly impacts lion habitats, it is essential to not only protect existing conservation areas but also to actively manage and expand them. Additionally, increasing funding and support for Conservation organisations working in the field is vital to ensure that these efforts are effectively implemented and scaled. Conservation organisations provide expertise, conduct vital research, and mobilize local communities, all of which are crucial for species recovery. Without these resources, vital conservation work may struggle to achieve lasting results. The Green Status approach is a powerful tool for measuring progress and identifying areas where further action is needed. Ultimately, the lion’s future underscores the importance of long-term commitment, adequate funding, and global collaboration in protecting biodiversity for future generations.

 

Nicholson, S., Aebischer, T., Asfaw, T., Bauer, H., Becker, M., Bertola, L., Breitenmoser, U., Carlton, E., Fraticelli, C., Henschel, P., Hunter, L., Laguardia, A., Loveridge, A., Ndiaye, M., Roy, S., Sogbohossou, E., Scott, C., Strampelli, P. & Venkataraman, M. 2024. Panthera leo (Green Status assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2024: e.T15951A1595120251. Accessed on 31 March 2025.

 

See the Lion Red List page here
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
A new sand frog discovered in Mozambique

A new sand frog discovered in Mozambique

 

New Species Discovery: Sand Frog Adds to Mozambique’s Biodiversity

Eleanor Momberg (Communications manager, Endangered Wildlife Trust)

An Endangered Wildlife Trust ecologist recently joined two other South African researchers to confirm the discovery of a new sand frog species in the genus Tomopterna in Mozambique’s Banhine National Park.

A small collection of frogs from inland of Beira, Mozambique, in December 1991 included two specimens of Tomopterna that differed morphologically and genetically from all previously known species. In subsequent years a series of Tomopterna specimens was collected from Banhine National Park. Genetic results indicated that the Banhine specimens were genetically closely related to those collected near Beira, and that these sequences differed substantially from all previously sequenced Tomopterna species.

In findings published in ZOOTAXA, EWT ecologist Darren Pietersen, North West University’s Alan Channing and the SA Medical Research Council’s Abeda Dawood describe this new frog species, which they name Tomopterna banhinensis after the type locality, as a species that can be distinguished from all other described species of sand frogs by several characters.

These include that the males grow to a maximum size of 43 mm, that all individuals have two pairs of divided tubercles under the first finger, more than three phalanges free of webbing on the fourth toe, a continuous glandular ridge below the tympanum, a distinct tympanic membrane, the nostrils being situated closer to the snout tip than to the eye, the absence of an outer metatarsal tubercle, the presence of small dorsal warts, the absence of (or only weak) vomerine teeth, and barring on the limbs.

This description adds a further amphibian to the list of Mozambican frogs, which has increased significantly in recent years.

According to the published research, there are presently 18 recognised species within the genus Tomopterna.

The research shows that the species of sand frogs are very similar in overall morphology, no doubt the reason why so many cryptic species were unrecognised, or synonymised with the Cryptic Sand Frog (T. cryptotis) – which was believed to be a single widespread taxon.

Sand frogs are widely distributed in sub-Saharan Africa, excluding the rainforests of central Africa. They are usually found on sandy soils, although the Eastern Beaded Sand Frog (T. pulchra) and Natal Sand Frog (Tomopterna natalensis) are prone to inhabit more rocky habitats.

While this species is presently only known from Banhine National Park and the area around Beira in Mozambique, it is likely to be more widespread than present records suggest, occurring widely across the Mozambique plain, possibly including extreme south-eastern Zimbabwe (specifically Gonarezhou National Park), to which the sandveld and drainage systems of Banhine National Park are linked.

The research paper states that the discovery of many cryptic sand frog species using DNA sequencing suggests that there are more frog species waiting to be described. Sand frog species often occur sympatrically, but the high diversity of Tomopterna, up to five species, on the coastal plain of Mozambique is remarkable.

 

Research published by:

ALAN CHANNING1, DARREN W. PIETERSEN2,3 & ABEDA DAWOOD4
1Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.
2Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield 0028, South Africa.
3Endangered Wildlife Trust, Plot 27 & 28 Austin Road, Glen Austin AH, Midrand 1685, South Africa
4Division of Research Capacity Development, South African Medical Research Council, Private Bag X385, Pretoria 0001, South Africa.

 

Read more about our Threatened Amphibians Programme
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Sparking to save small vertebrates

Sparking to save small vertebrates

 

Sparking to save small vertebrates

By Darren Pietersen, EWT Medike Reserve Manager & Ecologist.

Fences are ubiquitous structures, especially in South Africa, but increasingly across Africa. They are used to keep wildlife in (or out, depending on the farmer) of a property. They demarcate land parcels, help to keep livestock and wildlife off of roads, prevent the spread of diseases, and are used for security.

There are also many types of fences – non-electrified fences, game fences, cattle fences, Bonnox fences and, of course, electrified fences.

Electrified fences are mainly used around protected areas to keep wildlife in, thereby minimising human-wildlife conflict. They are also found around game farms to contain animals and keep intruders out. If constructed correctly, fences work really well for their intended purpose. But, there is also a dark side to electrified fences – they are silent killers.

While working for the Endangered Wildlife Trust during his studies Wits University in the mid-2000’s, Andrew Beck examined the impact of electrified fences on wildlife across South Africa. Andrew estimated that in the region of a whopping 30,000 reptiles, predominantly tortoises, are killed on electrified fences in South Africa annually. An earlier study, and several subsequent studies, have similarly highlighted the high toll taken on tortoises by electrified fences, although not quantifying the overall threat.

And it is not just tortoises that are bearing the brunt. It has been long known that pangolins are also affected by electrified fences, but it was not until 2016 that colleagues and I quantified this threat.

Based on available evidence, we estimated that in the region of 1,000 Temminck’s Pangolins are killed by electrified game fences in South Africa annually. And that’s just part of the story, given that there are an increasing number of livestock farmers fitting electrified strands to their fences in attempts to exclude Black-backed Jackal and Caracal from their farms. If we include the mortalities on these livestock fences as well, then around 2,000 Temminck’s Pangolins are killed by electrified fences in South Africa alone every year. That is 20–40 times more Temminck’s Pangolins killed on electrified fences than by trade in South Africa annually.

This is a serious conservation concern, because electrified fences have already resulted in the local population decreases and extinctions of tortoises (and perhaps pangolins) in some regions.

Yet the solution can be bizarrely simple – and cheap. Extensive fieldwork has indicated that by raising the lowest electrified strand to 300 mm above the ground (rather than the 250 mm or lower demanded by most provincial legislation), mortalities of all species can be reduced by up to 95%. Some large, well-established Big-5 reserves such as the Associated Private Nature Reserves raised their lowest electrified strands more than 10 years ago. And not a single pangolin or tortoise mortality has been recorded along these raised sections since. Just as importantly, they recorded no increase in predators or other animals leaving the reserve.

Most provinces have legislation governing the construction of electrified fences, and discussions need to be had with the relevant authorities to get this legislation amended where necessary. A further contributing factor is that the insurance industry apparently also has their own specifications for electrified fences, and if a fence does not meet their standards then a claim for any losses incurred will be denied.

Because one solution will rarely work in all situations, we have also undertaken extensive field trials with partners including Stafix, JVA, Pangolin.Africa, WESSA and The Kalahari Wildlife Project to design smart energisers that can prevent or reduce electrified fence mortalities. We produced two prototypes – a larger unit aimed at the wildlife industry and a smaller unit aimed at livestock farmers. In short, these energisers monitor the current on the electrified wires and have the ability to automatically switch off the current to specified wires for a pre-determined period of time, affording any trapped animal time to extricate itself from the fence. Although the initial results were positive and some farms reported no fence mortalities while running these units, other farmers commented that the system was too complicated, with the result that it was not maintained or used properly. However, the EWT believes that this system does have merit, and hopefully in time a workable, cost-effective version can be designed.

Changing the fence configuration could have inadvertent negative consequences, however. This could include large carnivores (Cheetah and African Wild Dog in particular) leaving reserves, resulting in human-wildlife conflict. There is no point in solving one problem just to create another one, and finding an effective solution that works for all species will require input from the wildlife and livestock industries, species specialists, conservationists, fence manufacturers and fence installers.

Overall, though, the evidence of the threat posed by fences remains and effective solutions are known. Because of this we are working to engage with all relevant role players to try and arrive at a workable solution to protect not only our megafauna and carnivores, but also our smaller species.

 

Find out other ways that we are protecting pangolins
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Taking Flight over the Karoo Vulture Safe Zone: 5 years later

Taking Flight over the Karoo Vulture Safe Zone: 5 years later

 

Taking Flight over the Karoo Vulture Safe Zone: 5 years later

By Danielle du Toit, field officer Birds of Prey, Endangered Wildlife Trust.

Returning Cape Vultures (Gyps coprotheres) to their historic breeding and roosting sites has been a dream of Karoo farmers for many years.

It was through interaction with the Endangered Wildlife Trust that the Karoo Vulture Safe Zone came into being in 2019. The project, which is a practical example of landscape conservation of a species, aims to cover 23,000 square kilometers. It includes three national parks and the largest protected environment in South Africa, the Mountain Zebra Camdeboo Protected Environment. It was implemented in partnership with SANParks, the Mountain Zebra Camdeboo Protected Environment and SANParks Honorary Rangers, and has received seed funding from the Rupert Nature Foundation and further funding from Cennergi and the Charl van der Merwe Trust.

To date, 95 farmers have dedicated their properties to becoming Vulture Safe Zones, creating an area of more than 700,000 ha for vulture conservation. Dedicating or signing up one’s property for a Vulture Safe Zone means that they are committed to reducing, as far as possible, threats to vultures within the confines of land under their ownership.

In creating the Vulture Safe Zone, two options were considered—reintroducing Cape Vultures to the Karoo or creating an area that is safe for the raptors. Unfortunately, reintroduction was not an option at the time due to the exceedingly high cost of physically bringing in the birds and habituating them, without any assurance that they would stay. More importantly, however, was the need to ensure safe breeding, roosting and foraging ranges for them outside of protected areas.

Vultures are referred to as nature’s ‘clean-up crew’, and because of the importance of their role in the ecosystem and the benefit to human health, they are often used as a flagship or umbrella species through which we can conserve biodiversity. By implementing conservation interventions to support the survival of vultures across large areas, we can benefit all species. This includes other birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and even plants.

The need for large areas to be conserved and mitigated of threats as far as possible is integral to the conservation of Cape Vultures due to their characteristically wide-ranging behaviour. Studies and GPS tracking data of fledglings have shown an average maximum distance travelled per day to be well over 250km from their nests. This age group is most likely to fall victim to threats as they are not yet experienced fliers and must compete with adults for food and roosting spaces. This is why having large safe spaces, even if it is a conglomerate of private properties, communal land and protected areas, is so important to the survival of the species.

 

Left: Cape Vulture Sightings. Right: Cape Vultures on nest.

The project focuses on “working with people, mitigating threats, saving vultures”. This can only be achieved through community engagement, landowner buy-in and active mitigation of threats. These initiatives include covering or safe-proofing reservoirs to prevent drowning; changing to less ecologically harmful ways of predator control; removing dangerous chemicals from the property; and reporting wildlife injuries or mortalities caused by electrical infrastructure so that they can be mitigated. Some landowners have moved away from using lead ammunition as the fragments in the entrails or carcasses of animals shot with lead bullets can be harmful to scavenging species. Others have changed the active ingredient in their non-steroidal anti-inflammatory veterinary drugs (NSAIDs) to ensure that carcasses of animals that have been treated prior to their death are not contaminated with drugs that can harm scavenging bird species, like these vultures.

Besides the ecological importance of the Cape Vulture, this area also holds a special place for farmers and residents in the heart of the Karoo. Historically, Cape Vultures roamed the Karoo in large numbers. Many farmers have childhood stories focused solely on them. Whether it be how they would seek out their nests on horseback, climbing up the mountains that hugged the borders of their properties, or how they would simply looked up into the sky in search of a rain cloud and instead found these magnificent birds littering the air in the hundreds, stories are littered with memories of vultures.

The Karoo covers around 400,000 square kilometers of brittle ecosystems. It is an area known for its rich biodiversity with large varieties of plants, birds, insects and mammals that occur naturally on private and public land.

Through the Vulture Safe Zone relationships created between the EWT, private landowners and national parks, the project has been able to bridge the gap between agriculture, tourism and conservation. This promotes a sustainable business model for all sectors and decreases the potential of human-wildlife conflict through targeted conservation measures and holistic approaches.

The project is still in its infancy, but has already seen successes including an increase in sightings, repopulation of historic summer roosts and the willingness and eagerness of people to take part in this project in whichever way they can. The hope remains that through landscape- and farm-level threat mitigation, collaboration with all stakeholders and role players, and a multi-pronged approach driven by robust science and understanding of the species, region and people, the Cape Vultures will once again call the Karoo home.

For more information, please contact the Karoo Vulture Safe Zone Field Officer: Danielle du Toit, email: danielled@ewt.org or Gareth Tate, Birds of Prey Manager at garetht@ewt.org

 

Left: reservoir mitigation – tanks in dams. Right: drowned vulture in Namibia

Raptor protector on powerline

Follow our birds of prey programme
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Roadkill remains a problem along South Africa’s major transport corridors

Roadkill remains a problem along South Africa’s major transport corridors

 

Roadkill remains a problem along South Africa’s major transport corridors

By Thabo Hlatshwayo, Wildlife and Transport Project: senior field officer, Endangered Wildlife Trust.

 

Although monitoring of the ecological impacts of transport infrastructure on biodiversity is still an emerging field of science in South Africa, it remains poorly supported in terms of funding. This is despite the fact that roads are responsible for the massive loss of biodiversity.

To determine the extent of roadkill in South Africa, the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) has been facilitating and supporting various road ecology research since 2011. From the data that we have gathered, it is clear that roadkill is prevalent.

South Africa’s road network covers around 750,000km. Our database on roadkill for the BAKWENA N1/N4, TRAC N4 and N3 toll routes indicates that a total of 8,569 records of wildlife roadkill incidences were reported from the three toll companies combined between 2012 and 2024. This is an increase of 1,565 from the roadkill magnitude reported in 2023, meaning that these animals were victims of roadkill on the toll route in 2024.

This emphasises the need for advancing biodiversity loss accounting in the transportation sector and crafting national transportation policies that are ecologically sustainable and support just transitioning to green transportation in South Africa. Supporting research on understanding how our road systems impact threatened habitats, habitat use and movement by animals is critical.

The construction and operation of transport corridors, such as roads and railways, have a range of both direct and indirect negative impacts on wildlife and natural ecosystems. Clearing natural landscapes for the construction of transport infrastructure causes vegetation cover loss, often leading to degraded landscapes. In the 28 years up to 2008, South Africa reportedly lost 0.12% of its natural vegetation cover per year as a result of massive linear infrastructure development, including transport corridors. Thus, all these contributed to landscape fragmentation, reduced land cover and connectivity loss for wildlife. It is interesting to note that the country’s roads  stretch through sensitive habitats and wildlife hotspots, some of which are home to Threatened Species.

Habitat loss because of fragmentation is a primary threat to terrestrial biodiversity and could drive species extinction as it affects numerous endemic species. The fragmentation of a landscape limits the migration rates of species and its available habitat. Besides affecting migration patterns, it also contributes to inbreeding because species’ behavioural patterns, such as hunting, foraging, breeding and other home range activities have been disrupted. Habitat loss and fragmentation, because of transport corridors, also increases human-wildlife interactions. This leads to human-wildlife conflicts as animals are forced to cross roads for dispersal and migration. This further accelerates biodiversity loss through increased wildlife roadkill incidents, and numerous threatened species suffer the greatest risk from roadkill.

Small-to-medium sized mammals such as Serval, African Striped Weasel, Cape Clawless Otter, Honey Badger, Cape Porcupine, Cape Fox, African Wild Dog, several antelope and mongoose species are the most impacted mammal species. The reptiles that are most affected include Southern African Python, Puff Adder, Leopard Tortoises, Natal-hinged Tortoises, and Monitor Lizards. Among bird species, owls are the most affected, this includes the African Grass Owl, Barn Owl, Spotted-Eagle Owl and Marsh Owl.

 

Genet
Warthog
Various reptiles
Serval
Porcupine

 

However, we do come across incidents that involve large mammals like Hippopotamus and savanna buffalo along the N4, and Greater Kudu along the Bakwena N4 and N4, as well as cows. We have also recorded incidents that involved an Elephant and a Leopard along the R40 and R71 regional roads in Hoedspruit area.

Monitoring wildlife roadkill is the first step in understanding the impacts of roadkill on threatened species. By collecting data on roadkill, we can track mortality rates and distribution patterns of the roadkill of different species (where and to what extent). Studying these elements will expand our understanding of the ecological impacts of road infrastructure and traffic on wildlife movement. These will enable us to scientifically map conservation hotspots and further develop effective mitigation strategies to reduce these threats.

As much as we talk about roadkill becoming a threat to biodiversity, it is important to understand that the landscapes fragmented by road networks that intersect animal habitats are the core drivers for wildlife roadkill incidents across the globe. Changing climatic conditions influence animal movement patterns, causing numerous species to move frequently within their landscapes in search of important ecological resources. In an environment increasingly fragmented by road infrastructure, such movements could potentially result in a deathtrap for animals due to wildlife-vehicle collisions and a lack of connectivity corridors.

The EWT and the N3 Toll Concessionaire (N3TC), Trans African Concessionaire (TRAC) and Bakwena N1/N4 have trialed several roadkill-reduction methods for reducing the negative impacts on roads and highways on biodiversity. The first was to deploy temporary roadside fencing, directing wildlife to cross safely through underpasses such as drainage culverts. Camera traps were installed in several underpass structures that are located within hotspots to monitor whether wildlife used them, and we were excited to see that several mammals did. This includes Serval (Leptailurus serval), the most common animal killed on the N3. These results indicate that underpasses are a promising and cost-friendly alternative for wildlife crossing in a global south country like South Africa.

Preliminary results indicated increasing animal activity and the use of the underpass structures, with more mammal species appearing to use the structures that are retrofitted with mesh fencing; these include Serval, Southern Reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), Cape Clawless Otter (Aonyx capensis), Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis), and Common Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus). When more animals use the underpass structures to cross the highway, animal activity adjacent to the road is reduced; hence, reducing collisions whilst improving road safety.

Because owls and other raptors tend to use signboards and safety barriers along roads to perch on while hunting prey, such as rodents and squirrels, a second roadkill-reduction method has been tested. This has seen the EWT placing raptor perches 100 m from the road to encourage owls and other birds of prey to use these as safer alternatives and to reduce hunts on the roads. Cameras on the owl perches have recorded several birds of prey species using the installed perches for feeding or perching. This includes African Grass, Barn and Spotted Eagle Owls. Our findings showed that the more owls use the installed structures for hunting and feeding, their activity on the road is reduced.

South Africa’s road and rail network is essential for our socio-economic development through travel and tourism, and the transport of food and goods. It is therefore critical that solutions are found to reduce the impact of transport infrastructure on people and wildlife without hindering our transport sector.

Left: Camera Trap at Raptor Perch recording a African grass owl. Right: Black winged Kite Vs Pied Crow recorded at Raptor Perch

 

Modified Culverts for wildlife crossing

Wildlife and Transport Project

  • The EWT is the only African organisation with a dedicated project focusing on transport and wildlife interactions.
  • The project works across South Africa and collaborates on similar projects with colleagues worldwide.
  • Our goal is to reduce the impacts of transport infrastructure on wildlife and vice versa. We focus on improving our understanding of the threats to wildlife from transport activities and infrastructure and identifying solutions suitable to the southern African context.
  • In 2013, the EWT launched a smartphone app called “RoadWatch” – one of the first roadkill reporting apps in the world. To date, almost 30,000 data points have been reported via the app.
  • The Endangered Wildlife Trust’s National Roadkill Database for South Africa shows that mammals are the most commonly-reported roadkill (50%), followed by birds (18%), reptiles (6%), and amphibians (1%), with 24% of species being unidentifiable.
  • Large mammals, such as carnivores and antelope, are likely to cause damage or delays to trains and vehicles. Collisions with animals can be expensive with insurance claims suggesting that approximately R82.5 million is paid yearly against vehicle collisions with wild animals.

Roadkill map of South Africa

The EWT has provided support for a study that has developed a Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework of ecological connectivity in transport sustainability in South Africa. Because of the Framework, steps are being taken to help shape a sustainable transport sector that promotes robust monitoring and mapping of hotspots and the support of a consultation process to formulate policies that promote sustainable land-use planning by considering wildlife needs in green transport infrastructure planning frameworks in South Africa.

Unfortunate incidences involving large mammals

JOIN THE CONVERSATION
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER