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

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