1 Current, higher level biodiversity objectives common to Park Management Plans (March 2008) that form the basis for identifying monitoring requirements. http://www.koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/downloadSuppFile/991/625
Current status Monitoring is one of the pillars underpinning SANParks’ Strategic Adaptive Management (SAM) approach, where strongly goal-orientated park objective hierarchies are used to link science, monitoring and management (Biggs & Rogers 2003). Monitoring, or ‘regular state-of-the-system measurement’, is pivotal to the success of SAM (Biggs & Rogers 2003). SANParks has a long history of biodiversity monitoring, with several existing biodiversity monitoring projects and activities (Bryden & De Vos 1994; Durrheim 2009). Over 170 current and historical SANParks projects qualify as either monitoring projects or research projects that provide relevant baseline information for monitoring. Together with SANParks scientists, external agencies and researchers have made a significant contribution to this body of work, specifically to understanding ecosystem processes, compiling species inventories and conducting species-specific studies (Bryden & De Vos 1994). These monitoring-relevant projects encompass a spectrum of individual researcher and organisational involvement and data ownership arrangements. In a number of instances, therefore, the data lie with external organisations and are not necessarily effectively integrated into SANParks’ knowledge systems and management processes. In addition, little biodiversity monitoring and reporting (quantitative, rather than score-based) currently occurs at either biodiversity estate (i.e., the full suite of biodiversity and ecosystems under SANParks management), regional or organisational levels (Figure 1). Investment in monitoring has also been unevenly distributed across environments and parks (as has research more generally, Bryden & De Vos 1994). In most instances monitoring projects are designed for specific parks and in a few cases, for park clusters. This, in part, reflects the history of the organisation and the adoption and proclamation of new terrestrial parks and also marine protected areas. Existing monitoring activities have thus developed independently of an integrated organisational monitoring framework, and many of them are not necessarily well linked to park management requirements. Furthermore, few existing monitoring activities are directly linked to management objectives via, for example, specific Thresholds of Potential Concern (TPCs, see Figure 1) (for TPC examples, see Foxcroft 2009 [alien species]; Rogers and O’Keefe 2003 [rivers]; Van Wilgen, Biggs & Potgieter 1998 [fire]). Time series information is also limited to selected taxa (mostly mammals) and specific parks, for example, the Kruger National Park (Du Toit 2003). The alignment between research projects and SANParks’ biodiversity objectives (Table 1) is not always clear, and existing projects do not currently address the full range of biodiversity objectives in park management plans (see also Buckley et al. 2008; Kapos et al. 2008). For example, the rehabilitation of degraded areas is an important management objective in several parks, particularly more recently proclaimed parks (such as fynbos in plantation exit areas in the Garden Route National Park), but it is currently largely not monitored. By contrast, sustainable indigenous forest monitoring in the Garden Route National Park is well developed, and encompasses monitoring natural ecosystem changes and the effects of management activities (Durrheim 2009). The design of a BMS for SANParks must therefore be led by strategic organisational objectives, rather than by existing monitoring activities. Several gaps exist, and stronger alignment with park and organisational objectives is required (Buckley et al. 2008). Motivation for biodiversity monitoring is significantly strengthened when diverse monitoring objectives are placed within a coherent, overarching framework, such as that provided here. In addition to the absence of a strategic monitoring framework for the organisation, the most important reason to date for not implementing the required monitoring programmes has been the severe shortage of resources, both in terms of numbers of people to carry out the fieldwork, as well as a lack of the skills required to carry out extensive biodiversity surveys and associated data analyses (Field et al. 2007). The situation outlined here, while recognised as undesirable, is not uncommon to national protected area systems (e.g., Australia [Buckley et al. 2008] and the United Kingdom [Kapos et al. 2008]). Nonetheless, it provides the principle motivation for the development and implementation of a BMS for SANParks that addresses and prioritises the full range of key biodiversity concerns, conservation, and reporting commitments and obligations across parks, taxa and environments. Sanparks’ biodiversity monitoring system Monitoring systems must be objective driven, and the rationale for a particular monitoring programme can be expressed as a series of multiple, hierarchical objectives (Field et al. 2007). There are many ways of categorising monitoring objectives, for example, by taxon or by threat, by management objective, or by the scale at which the monitoring programme will operate. While there is no universally best way of doing so, grouping monitoring objectives is a critical first step in rationalising the inevitable multitude of monitoring requirements (Regan et al. 2008). Different approaches to categorising monitoring objectives are usually complementary, and two main approaches (described below) were used to guide the design and development of the SANParks BMS and to identify Biodiversity Monitoring Programmes (BMPs) (Figure 2). Firstly, the BMS was primarily designed to encompass the monitoring of key organisational biodiversity management objectives at various scales and across national parks. Table 1 provides a synthesis of the range of higher-level management objectives extracted from SANParks’ Park Management Plans (SANParks 2008). All protected areas managed by SANParks explicitly have biodiversity as a management objective, and most include biodiversity representation, process and sustainability in their objective hierarchies. The similarity of broad objectives across parks means that monitoring programmes may be identified and designed that are applicable to more than a single park. This approach has the following advantages, (1) it provides comparative information on the status of, and trends in, biodiversity across parks, (2) it provides information on the biodiversity estate and facilitates the interpretation of monitoring outcomes within a biome and regional context (Figure 1) and (3) it is more efficient than repeated, parallel investment in the development of monitoring programmes for individual parks. Secondly, the BMS for SANParks must necessarily encompass multiple objectives at different levels and different scales. For example, the following three objectives are hierarchically related, (1) to monitor the effectiveness of SANParks in conserving rare and threatened species (organisational level objective), (2) to monitor changes in the conservation status of species of special concern in the fynbos biome (biodiversity estate/regional level objective) and (3) to monitor changes in the conservation status of bontebok in Bontebok National Park (park level objective) (as shown in Figure 1). These levels (organisational, estate, regional and park) do not necessarily form discrete categories, but do illustrate the hierarchical nature of monitoring needs and objectives (Figure 1). Biodiversity monitoring programmes The SANParks BMS comprises a series of BMPs (Figure 2). A monitoring programme encompasses one or more objectives with a common underlying rationale and usually more than a single measure or indicator (Heink & Kowarik 2010). Together, the set of programmes (i.e. the monitoring system) addresses the broad range of SANParks’ biodiversity monitoring priorities (Figure 3). Ten BMPs have been identified for development and implementation. The identification and selection of these programmes took place at a workshop attended by 20 SANParks scientists in October 2009, following the development and adoption of the Biodiversity Monitoring Framework (2008–2009, presented here) (Figure 2 and Table 2). After discussion of the need to group or categorise monitoring requirements, and the various models and approaches available for doing so, a list of monitoring programmes was compiled by soliciting proposals from all scientists present. This list was then examined and related proposals merged, resulting in a final list of 10 programmes (Table 2). The list was then put to a vote to prioritise the programmes and potentially reduce their number. However, although there were wide-ranging views on the relative priorities of the programmes, there was consensus that, together, the 10 programmes encompass priority monitoring needs within SANParks. The number of programmes to be developed and adopted thus remained 10.
2Biodiversity Monitoring Programmes (BMPs, see Figure 1), the rationale for their selection and the application of information generated by each programme. http://www.koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/downloadSuppFile/991/629
The 10 programmes align strongly with park management objectives and are also strongly interrelated (Figure 3). For example, the Freshwater and Estuarine Systems Programme may rely on the Alien and Invasive Species Programme for alien monitoring in freshwater systems. The Habitat Degradation and Rehabilitation Programme and the Habitat Representation and Persistence Programme may work together, for example, on the impacts of adjacent land use on the park. The Climate and Climate Change Programme, in addition to its value in its own right, has the potential (via collation and reporting of weather and climate data) to support most other programmes. This interrelatedness between programmes, and the explicit integration of their design and outputs, is essential to maximise the knowledge gained and to achieve broader and more robust insights into ecosystem change (Biggs 2003; Buckland et al. 2005; Henry et al. 2008; Nielsen et al. 2009). Indeed, information generated by the BMS is designed to be integrated within and across both parks and programmes. Such integration will not only add value to the BMS, but will also streamline individual programmes and avoid duplication of effort. Although one of the 10 programmes selected is environment-specific (the Freshwater and Estuarine System Programme), terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments are integral to all programmes. Similarly, most programmes are likely to encompass the monitoring of a cross-section of taxa.
3Principles guiding the development of the SANParks Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) and the Biodiversity Monitoring Programmes (BMPs) that it encompasses. http://www.koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/downloadSuppFile/991/630
Each BMP will be designed to adopt, as far as possible, relevant, common approaches, methods and reporting systems across parks. Information generated by BMPs may be integrated (aggregated and disaggregated) and synthesised for reporting on the biodiversity status of individual parks, park clusters or all parks (Table 3). The system is also flexible, such that new programmes may be identified and introduced over time. The BMPs will be designed following a set of guiding principles (Table 3). These principles were adopted largely to ensure the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and quality of the BMS. The programme design phase will be informed by subject and taxonomic expertise, as well as survey design, sampling design and statistical principles (e.g., Buckland et al. 2005; Elzinga et al. 2001; Field et al. 2007; Lovett et al. 2007) (Table 3). Programmes are intended for medium- to long-term adoption (over several 5-yearly park management plan revision cycles), and must therefore balance priority monitoring needs with logistic feasibility and sustainability. Existing monitoring projects and activities will, wherever feasible and appropriate, be integrated into one or more of the 10 programmes. In addition, where monitoring approaches have been developed and tested, or are widely used elsewhere, these may be adopted. For example, well developed sets of indicators exist for marine protected areas and marine ecosystems (Moloney & Shillington 2007; Pomeroy et al. 2005), as well as in the area of sustainable forest management (Durrheim 2009; DWAF 2005). Established systems such as these may, as appropriate, be adopted or modified for use in SANParks’ BMS. Each BMP will be formally proposed and independently reviewed prior to adoption. Programme proposals will include a description of context and rationale, objectives and methods, research and inventory needs, as well as a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the programme, and the indicators and measures that underpin it. Programme proposals will also include assessments of the capacity and funding requirements necessary to implement them, as well as assessments of relationships, overlaps and linkages between related programmes, and data management protocols. These BMP proposals serve several purposes, (1) they provide a means to solicit input, (2) they provide (in a single document) information that can be accessed readily and referenced, (3) they ensure continuity of implementation with staff changes and (4) they may be used to elicit support for the BMS (Elzinga et al. 2001). Finally, effective data management and reporting is also key to the success of monitoring systems such as this, and data management protocols will be fully integrated into the development of the BMS. Resource needs, capacity building and collaboration The greatest challenge facing conservation-relevant monitoring is balancing the development of appropriate strategies with personnel, time and budget constraints (Buckley et al. 2008; Walker 2009). In fact, the monitoring that is carried out in protected areas has been shown to be more strongly correlated with resource availability than any other factor (Bruner et al. 2001; WWF 2004). As outlined earlier, the assessment of resource and capacity needs will form part of the proposal development process for each BMP. Although existing resources, personnel and infrastructure will be used as far as possible, it is likely that a significant injection of both human and financial resources will be required for the SANParks BMS to be fully and effectively implemented. For example, the capacity for data management that is required by the BMS is far from sufficient to handle data from all 19 national parks. As is commonly the case elsewhere (Kapos et al. 2008), the implementation of biodiversity monitoring in SANParks is constrained by a lack of personnel tasked with and qualified to collect data, to manage and archive data, as well as to analyse and interpret data to inform management. The inadequate state of resources for biodiversity monitoring in SANParks reflects a countrywide shortage of resources, as reported in South Africa’s Fourth National Report to the CBD (DEAT 2009). This report notes a significant shortfall in funds required for the implementation of South Africa’s National Biodiversity Framework, which includes the priority actions of developing national biodiversity research and monitoring strategies, as well as strategies to address the widespread shortage of human capital in the biodiversity sector. Nonetheless, as James, Gaston & Balmford (2001) demonstrated, the cost of investing in conservation is small in comparison with the lost opportunities and environmental degradation in the absence of such investment (e.g., declining water quality, alien species invasion, human health costs of poor air quality). Biodiversity monitoring is essential to ensuring the effectiveness of this investment. A further element critical to the success of the SANParks BMS is the continuation, strengthening and expansion of collaborative relationships with other agencies involved in biodiversity monitoring. This includes, for example, the South African National Biodiversity Institute, national departments, provincial conservation agencies, researchers and research organisations. The use of natural history societies, volunteer groups and citizen scientists in monitoring programmes has been shown to be highly effective, both internationally and in South Africa, with volunteers making significant contributions in this area (Bell et al. 2008; Braschler et al. 2010; Podjed & Mursic 2008). The Honorary Rangers of SANParks is one such example, as are the citizen scientists that contribute to bird monitoring in South Africa and globally (see, e.g. www.adu.org.za). Evaluation, feedback and reporting cycles The approach that will be used to track and evaluate progress in the development and adoption of SANParks’ BMS will be based on the evaluation and monitoring principles set for the organisation (SANParks 2006b). This approach adopts a logical series of steps to measure progress with the implementation of the BMS. It ensures ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the framework and its implementation, and ultimately the organisation’s mandate to enable informed and accountable decision-making through monitoring and analysis (Kapos et al. 2008). As part of this process, the BMS should be regularly reviewed and evaluated, as is the case with park management plans. Conclusion The Biodiversity Monitoring Framework presented here maps the way forward for biodiversity monitoring in SANParks. As such, it is intended to play a significant role in guiding investment in research, monitoring, and resulting policy and management action in national parks for the foreseeable future. Acknowledgements We thank the many members of the SANParks Conservation Services Division that contributed at various stages during the development of this framework, as well as Steven Chown, Dian Spear and Tony Rebelo for discussions and comments. 1.BasY.DevictorV.MoussusJ.P. JiguetF.2008‘Accounting for weather and time-of-day parameters when analysing count data from monitoring programs’1734033416doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9420-6 2.BellS.MarzanoM.CentJ.KobierskaH.PodjedD.VandzinskaiteD. et al.2008‘What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity’1734433454doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9357-9 3.BengisR.G.GrantR.De VosV.2003‘Wildlife diseases and veterinary controls: A savanna ecosystem perspective’J.T. du Toit, K.H. Rogers & H.C. Biggs3493694.BiggsH.C.2003‘Integration of science: successes, challenges, and the future’J.T. du Toit, K.H. Rogers & H.C. Biggs4694875.BiggsH.C.RogersK.H.2003‘An adaptive system to link science, monitoring, and management in practice’J.T. du Toit, K.H. Rogers & H.C. Biggs 59806.BraschlerB.MahoodK.KarenyiN.GastonK.J.ChownS.L.2010‘Realizing a synergy between research and education: how participation in ant monitoring helps raise biodiversity awareness in a resource-poor country’141930doi:10.1007/s10841-009-9221-67.BrunerA.G.GullisonR.E.RiceR.E.Da FonsecaG.A.B.2001‘Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity’291125128doi:10.1126/science.291.5501.125PMid:111415638.BrydenH.B.De VosV.1994‘A scientific bibliography on the national parks of South Africa’suppl19949.BucklandS.T.MagurranA.E.GreenR.E.FewsterR.M.2005‘Monitoring change in biodiversity through composite indices’Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360243254doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1589PMid:15814343PMCid:156946310.BuckleyR.RobinsonJ.CarmodyJ.KingN.2008‘Monitoring for management of conservation and recreation in Australian protected areas’1735893606doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9448-7 11.ButchartS.H.M.WalpoleM.CollenB.van StrienA.ScharlemannJ.P.W.AlmondR.E.A.et al2010‘Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines’32811641168doi:10.1126/science.1187512PMid:2043097112.CareyC.DudleyN.StoltonS.2000Threats to protected areas. Squandering paradise? The importance and vulnerability of the world’s protected areas13.CraigieI.D.BaillieJ.E.M.BalmfordA.CarboneC.CollenB.GreenR.E.HuttonJ.M.2010‘Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas’14322212228doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.007 14.DaszakP.CunninghamA.A.HyattA.D.2000‘Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife – threats to biodiversity and human health’287443449doi:10.1126/science.287.5452.443PMid:10642539 15.2002Environmental Indicators for National State of the Environment Reporting South Africa16.2005 South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan17.2006South African Environment Outlook. A report on the state of the environment18.2008National Protected Area Expansion Strategy19.2009South Africa’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biodiversity20.2005‘Achieving sustainable forest management: The principles, criteria, indicators and standards framework21.2007South Africa’s State of the Forests Report 2004–200622.De VilliersSThiartC2007‘The nutrient status of South African rivers: Concentrations, trends and fluxes from the 1970s to 2005’10334334923.DriverAMazeKLombardA.T.NelJRougetMTurpieJ.K.et al2005‘National spatial biodiversity assessment 2004: Priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa’24.DurrheimG.P.2009‘Monitoring for sustainable forest management in the Garden Route’25.Du ToitJ2003J.T. Du Toit, K.H. Rogers & H.C. BiggsThe Kruger experience: Ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity29230926.Du ToitJ.T.RogersK.H.BiggsH.C.2003The Kruger experience: Ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity27.ElzingaC.L.SalzerD.W.WilloughbyJ.W.GibbsJ.P.2001Monitoring plant and animal populations28.FabriciusC.2004C. Fabricius, E. Koch, H. Magome & S. Turner Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource management in Southern Africa34329.FieldS.A.O’ConnorP.J.TyreA.J.PossinghamH.P.2007‘Making monitoring meaningful’32485491doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2007.01715.x 30.FoxcroftL.C.2009‘Developing thresholds of potential concern for invasive alien species: Hypotheses and concepts’511116doi:10.4102/koedoe.v51i1.15731.FoxcroftL.C.RichardsonD.M.RougetM.MacFadyenS.2009‘Patterns of alien plant distribution at multiple spatial scales in a large national park: implications for ecology, management and monitoring’15367378doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00544.x32.GardnerT.A.BarlowJ.AraujoI.S.Avila-PiresT.C.BonaldoA.B.CostaJ.E.et al.2008‘The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests’1113915033.GastonK.J.1996Biodiversity: A biology of numbers and difference34.GastonK.J.2010‘Valuing common species’327154155doi:10.1126/science.1182818PMid:2005688035.GastonK.J.CharmanK.JacksonS.F.ArmsworthP.R.BonnA.BriersR.A.et al.2006‘The ecological effectiveness of protected areas: The United Kingdom’1327687doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.03.01336.GastonK.J.JacksonS.F.Cantú-SalazarL.Cruz-PiñónG.2008‘The ecological performance of protected areas’3993113doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173529 37.GeldenhuysC.J.1992‘Disjunctions and distribution limits of forest species in the southern Cape’16111338.GoodmanP.S.2003‘Assessing management effectiveness and setting priorities in protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal’53843850doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0843:AMEASP]2.0.CO;2 39.GroblerJ2009Biodiversity monitoring strategy and five-year action planVersion 240.HansenA.J.DeFriesR.2007‘Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands’17974988doi:10.1890/05-1098PMid:1755521241.HeinkU.KowarikI.2010‘What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning’10584593doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.09.00942.HenryP.Y.LengyelSNowickiPJulliardRClobertJČelikTet al.2008‘Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods’1733573382doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9417-143.HockingsM.2003‘Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas’53823832doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0823:SFATEO]2.0.CO;244.HockingsM.LeveringtonFJamesR2006Lockwood, G.L. Worboys & A. KothariManaging protected areas: A global guide63565545.HulmeP.E.2009‘Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization461018doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01600.x46.2009Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, Version 7.0.from http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf. 47.JamesA.GastonK.J.BalmfordA.2001‘Can we afford to conserve biodiversity?’514352doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0043:CWATCB]2.0.CO;2 48.JonesK.E.PatelN.G.LevyM.A.StoreygardA.BalkD.GittlemanJ.L.et al.2008‘Global trends in emerging infectious diseases’451990993doi:10.1038/nature06536PMid:1828819349.KaposV.BalmfordA.AvelingR.BubbP.CareyP.EntwistleA.et al.2008‘Calibrating conservation: New tools for measures of success’1155164doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00025.x50.KnightM.H.2007SANParks State of Biodiversity Report (SoB) Background Sheet: Park Planning & Development51.M.Van ZylC.J.2008‘The economic impact of sport and recreational angling in the Republic of South Africa, 2007’4852.LepetzV.MassotM.SchmellerD.S.ClobertJ.2009‘Biodiversity monitoring: some proposals to adequately study species’ responses to climate change’1831853203doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9636-0 53.LombardA.T.StraussT.HarrisJ.SinkK.AttwoodC.HutchingsL.2004‘Marine Component’, in South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Technical Report, Chapter 454.LovettG.M.BurnsD.A.DriscollC.T.JenkinsJ.C.MitchellM.J.RustadL.et al.2007‘Who needs environmental monitoring?’5253260doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[253:WNEM]2.0.CO;2 55.MaceG.M.DelbaereB.HanskiI.HarrisonJ.A.NovoF.G.PereiraH.M.et al.2005A user’s guide to biodiversity indicators, European Academy of Sciences Advisory Council56.MargulesC.R.GrantC.C.PoonE.DeaconA.MacFadyenS.BiggsH.C.et al.2003A suggested biodiversity survey and monitoring program for Kruger National Park57.McGeochM.A.ButchartS.H.M.SpearD.MaraisE.KleynhansE.J.SymesA.et al.2010‘Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses’1695108doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00633.x58.MidgleyG.F.ChownS.L.KgopeB.S.2007‘Monitoring effects of anthropogenic climate change on ecosystems: A role for systematic ecological observation?’10328228659.MoloneyC.L.ShillingtonF.A.2007‘Progress towards marine ecosystem observing systems in South Africa’10330130560.Naughton-TrevesL.Buck HollandM.BrandonK.2005‘The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods’30219252doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.16450761.NicholsJ.D.WilliamsB.K.2006‘Monitoring for conservation’21668673doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.007 62.NielsenS.E.HaughlandD.L.BayneE.SchieckJ.2009‘Capacity of large-scale, long-term biodiversity monitoring programmes to detect trends in species prevalence’1829612978doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9619-163.NossR.F.1990‘Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach’4355364doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x64.PodjedD.MuršičR.2008‘Dialectical relations between professionals and volunteers in a biodiversity monitoring organisation’1734713483doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9443-z65.PomeroyR.S.WatsonL.M.ParksJ.E.CidG.A.2005‘How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas’48485502doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.05.00466.PringleC.M.CollinsS.L.2004‘Needed: A unified infrastructure to support long-term scientific research on public lands’141821doi:10.1890/03-5106 67.ReganH.M.HierlL.A.FranklinJ.DeutschmanD.H.SchmalbachH.L.WinchellC.S.et al.2008‘Species prioritization for monitoring and management in regional multiple species conservation plans’14462471doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00447.x68.2003National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act57200369.2004National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act10200470.RevengaC.CampbellI.AbellR.De VilliersP.BryerM.2005‘Prospects for monitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets’360397413doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1595PMid:15814353PMCid:156945471.ReyersB.McGeochM.A.2007‘A biodiversity monitoring framework for South Africa: Progress and directions’10329530072.RogersK.H.O’KeefeJ.2003‘River heterogeneity: Ecosystem structure, function and management’J.T. du Toit, K.H. Rogers & H.C. Biggs The Kruger experience: Ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity18921873.2006aSouth African National Parks Coordinated Policy Framework Governing Park Management Planshttp://celtis.sanparks.org/conservation/park_man/cpfjanuary2010.pdf 74.2006bSouth African National Parks Project Management Policy1.2.75.2008South African National Parks Resource Use Policy76.SchulzeG.C.2007‘Atmospheric observations and numerical weather prediction’103318032277.2008South African Statistical Quality Assessment Framework (SASQAF), 1st edn.78.StoltonS.HockingsM.DudleyN.MacKinnonK.WhittenT.LeveringtonF.2007Reporting progress in protected areas: A site level management effectiveness tracking tool, 2nd edn.79.SoberónJ.PetersonA.T.2009‘Monitoring biodiversity loss with primary species-occurrence data: Toward national-level indicators for the 2010 target of the Convention on Biological Diversity’382934doi:10.1579/0044-7447-38.1.2980.SpellerbergI.F.2005Monitoring ecological change, 2nd edn.doi:10.1017/CBO978051161469981.TederT.MooraM.RoosalusteE.ZobelK.PärtelM.KõljalgU.et al.2007‘Monitoring of biological diversity: A common-ground approach’21 313317doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00575.xPMid:1739118182.2003Measuring biodiversity for conservation11/0383.TimkoJ.A.InnesJ.L.2009‘Evaluating ecological integrity in national parks: Case studies from Canada and South Africa’142676688doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.022842008State of the world’s protected areas: An annual review of global conservation progress85.Van JaarsveldA.S.BiggsR.ScholesR.J.BohenskyE.ReyersB.LynamT.et al.2005‘Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: The Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience’360425441doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1594PMid:15814355PMCid:156945186.Van JaarsveldA.S.PauwJ.C.MundreeS.MeceneroS.CoetzeeB.W.T.AlardG.F.2007‘South African Environmental Observation Network: Vision, design and status’10328929487.Van WilgenB.W.BiggsH.C.PotgieterA.L.F.1998‘Fire management and research in the Kruger National Park, with suggestions on the detection of thresholds of potential concern’41698788.Von MaltitzG.P.ShackletonS.E.2004‘Use and management of forests and woodlands in South Africa: Stakeholders, institutions and processes from past to present’M.J. Lawes, H.A.C. Eeley, C.M. Shackleton & B.G.S. Geach10913589.WalkerK.L.2009‘Protected-area monitoring dilemmas: A new tool to assess success’2312941303doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01203.xPMid:1976504090.WalpoleM.AlmondR.E.A.BesançonC.ButchartS.H.M.Campbell-LendrumD.CarrG.M.et al.2009‘Tracking progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target and beyond’32515031504doi:10.1126/science.1175466PMid:1976263091.2004‘Are protected areas working? An analysis of forest protected areas by WWF’