1.
Monitoring biodiversity on the ground
with relevance to climate in Brazilian
Protected Areas
Necessity and challenges of local involvement
Pedro Constantino
Technical advisor GIZ/GFA
09.03.2012 Seite 1

2.
Drivers of a national biodiversity monitoring system
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 (?)
Climate
Biodiversity
09.03.2012 Seite 2

3.
09.03.2012 Seite 3

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 4

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 5

6.
Amazon example
Up to 5 days to reach an area
09.03.2012 Seite 6

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 7

8.
09.03.2012 Seite 8

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 9

10.
Locally-based monitoring
Sub-local/individual Very good to gather data in a
work to answer large- short-term, yet dependent
scale questions on large external effort
09.03.2012 Seite 10

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 11

12.
Alternative: Community-based monitoring
1. Decreases long-term costs;
2. Socially accepted;
3. Broader involvement and
Consider community understanding;
expects 4. More likely to change behavior;
level/collective level
work 5. Additional information;
6. More likely to continue.
09.03.2012 Seite 12

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 13

14.
Solutions/lessons to community involvement in
monitoring
1. Consider local questions but maintain large-scale ones, using same
methodology;
2. Strong broad capacity building component, not restricted to data
collection; National indicators - Biomass
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
09.03.2012 Seite 14

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 15

16.
Is the community-based monitoring approach
useful to REDD+ innitiatives?
Thank you!
09.03.2012 Seite 16