09.03.2012 Seite 1

Necessity and challenges of local involvement

Pedro ConstantinoTechnical advisor GIZ/GFA

Monitoring biodiversity on the groundwith relevance to climate in Brazilian

Protected Areas

09.03.2012 Seite 2

1. Efficiency of Protected Areas in conserving biodiversity

• Regional or national scale

2. Influence of climate change on biodiversity

• Regional or national

3. Biodiversity providing protection to climate

• National, regional, local (?)

Drivers of a national biodiversity monitoring system

Climate

Biodiversity

09.03.2012 Seite 3

09.03.2012 Seite 4

Project Objectives

• Biodiversity monitoring system in Amazonia, Cerrado and Atlantic

Fores to answer:

• Effectiveness of Protected Areas (1)

• Influence of climate on biodiversity (2)

• Implement in 15 + 30 Protected Areas;

• Create conditions to implement in a significant set of Protected

Areas in Brazil;

• Create initial conditions to maintain the monitoring in the long-term;

• Integrate biodiversity and climate databases and information;

• Support initiatives of climate mitigation with in situ monitoring

methodologies and data (3).

09.03.2012 Seite 5

Challenges of large-scale in situ monitoring

• Lessons learned from other monitoring programs:

• Large scale questions to support policy require:

• Standard methodology (common indicators, protocols, and

sample system)

• Data from lots of sites

• Capacity to analyze large scale data and use information

• Implications:

• Based on experts and high-technology

• Large, distant, hard to access areas to external personal

• Very expensive to implement and continue

09.03.2012 Seite 6

Up to 5 days to reach an area

Amazon example

09.03.2012 Seite 7

Necessity to rely on local-based monitoring

• General solution:

• Involvement of local people

• To the government, Protected Area’s staff is “local people”

• Staff large enough to adopt monitoring activities:

• Atlantic Forest – perhaps OK, despite other priorities

• Cerrado – maybe, due to other priorities

• Amazonia – NO

09.03.2012 Seite 8

09.03.2012 Seite 9

Locally-based monitoring

• Protected Area’s staff is “local people”

• Staff large enough to adopt monitoring activities:

• Atlantic Forest – perhaps OK, despite other priorities

• Cerrado – maybe, due to other priorities

• Amazonia – NO

• Hire local people to collect data

Constantino et al. in press – Comparison of local involvement in monitoring in Brazilian

Amazon (RDS Mamiraua, ProBUC, IL Acre) and Namibia Carpivi (Conservancies)

09.03.2012 Seite 10

Locally-based monitoring

Sub-local/individual

work to answer large-

scale questions

Very good to gather data in a

short-term, yet dependent

on large external effort

09.03.2012 Seite 11

Challenges of individually-based monitoring

1. System yet expensive;

2. Social consequences of individual involvement;

3. Usually, no understanding of the process;

4. No furhter/deeper involvement in conservation.

09.03.2012 Seite 12

Alternative: Community-based monitoring

Consider community

level/collective level

work

1. Decreases long-term costs;

2. Socially accepted;

3. Broader involvement and

understanding;

4. More likely to change behavior;

5. Additional information;

6. More likely to continue.

expects

09.03.2012 Seite 13

Challenges of community-based monitoring

1. Local involvement in monitoring is good to quickly answer local

management questions, but too specific � hard to up-scale;

2. Continue local involvement in the monitoring system;

3. Data reliability.

09.03.2012 Seite 14

1. Consider local questions but maintain large-scale ones, using same

methodology;

2. Strong broad capacity building component, not restricted to data

collection;

3. Presence of engaged leadership;

4. A information system locally designed but able to filter to large-

scale;

5. Data evaluation system for quality (different steps – leaders and PA

staff);Local indicators

National indicators - Biomass

Solutions/lessons to community involvement in monitoring

09.03.2012 Seite 15

MMA/ICMBio project

• PA staff is key (coordinate/execute) to monitoring;

• Involve communities where needed;

• Collaborate to initially implement in PAs with good local

arrengements:

• Capacity building and conservation NGOs, state governments...

• General and local indicators;

• Locally independent informatic system to make information useful;

• Comprehensive capacity building component:

• Internal and external to ICMBio

• Create research and education incentives related to local monitoring:

• CAPES, CNPq, ICMBio, MEC, MCT...

• Search for financial sustainbility in the long run:

• Compensation, consessions, PES (ex. Bolsa Verde)...

09.03.2012 Seite 16

Is the community-based monitoring approach useful to REDD+ innitiatives?

Thank you!