View
1.378
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Effectively monitoring deforestation is a crucial component for the success of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation). In this presentation, Pedro Constantino from GIZ/GFA argues that in Brazilian Protected Areas, where the protected area ‘staff’ are local people, community-based monitoring could reduce the cost of data collection. He then outlines some challenges of this local involvement. Pedro Constantino gave this presentation on 8 March 2012 at a workshop organised by CIFOR, ‘Measurement, Reporting and Verification in Latin American REDD+ Projects’, held in Petropolis, Brazil. Credible baseline setting and accurate and transparent Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of results are key conditions for successful REDD+ projects. The workshop aimed to explore important advances, challenges, pitfalls, and innovations in REDD+ methods — thereby moving towards overcoming barriers to meeting MRV requirements at REDD+ project sites in two of the Amazon’s most important REDD+ candidate countries, Peru and Brazil. For further information about the workshop, please contact Shijo Joseph via s.joseph (at) cgiar.org
Citation preview
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!