Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp 2633–2652 | Cite as

Does Monitoring Matter? A Quantitative Assessment of Management Decisions from Locally-based Monitoring of Protected Areas

  • Finn Danielsen
  • Arne E. Jensen
  • Phillip A. Alviola
  • Danilo S. Balete
  • Marlynn Mendoza
  • Anson Tagtag
  • Carlo Custodio
  • Martin Enghoff
Article

Abstract

Biodiversity monitoring is criticized for being insufficiently relevant to the needs of managers and ineffective in integrating information into decision-making. We examined conservation management interventions resulting from 2½ years of monitoring by 97 rangers and 350 community volunteers over 1 million hectares of Philippine protected areas. Before this monitoring scheme was established, there was little collaboration between local people and park authorities, and park monitoring was restricted to assessments of the quantity of extracted timber. As a result of the scheme, 156 interventions were undertaken in terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems. In total 98% of these interventions were meaningful and justified, 47% targeted the three most serious threats to biodiversity at the site, and 90% were implemented without external support, suggesting that the interventions were relevant and could be sustained over time at the local level. The mean time from sampling to decision-making was only 97 days, probably because 82% of the interventions were initiated by the same people and institutions that had compiled the underlying data, bypassing potential government bureaucracy. Many of the interventions were jointly undertaken by community members and the management authorities or consisted of local bylaws in support of park management. As a result of the monitoring, indigenous resource use regulation schemes were re-established with government recognition in several parks. The monitoring led to more diversified and realistic management responses on the part of the authorities, including a more socially acceptable and effective approach to enforcement. Of the four field monitoring techniques used, the most participatory one generated more interventions aimed at ensuring a continued resource supply for local communities (χ23 = 69.1, p <0.01). Although this suggests that the interest of community members is associated with their possibilities to influence the flow of ecosystem goods and services, the 156 interventions targeted, directly or indirectly, all known globally threatened species of mammals, birds and butterflies in the parks.

Keywords

Community-based natural resource management Decision-making Locally-based monitoring Participatory monitoring Philippines Sustainability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrianandrasana, H.T., Randriamahefasoa, J., Durbin, J., Lewis, R.E., Ratsimbazafy, J.H. 2005Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetland in MadagascarBiodivers. Conserv.1427572774Google Scholar
  2. Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A.P., Green, R.E., Mace, G.M. 2005The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insightsPhil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B360221228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barcelona, M.A.D. 2004Let the rural folks do the talking. Focus group discussion as a tool for monitoring biodiversity and resource use in remote barangays of the Northern Sierra Madre Natural ParkCollege of Mass Communication, University of the PhilippinesDiliman, the PhilippinesUnpublished MA thesisGoogle Scholar
  4. Brashares, J.S., Sam, M.K. 2005How much is enough? Estimating the minimum sampling required for effective monitoring of African reservesBiodivers. Conserv.1427092722Google Scholar
  5. Collar, N.J., Mallari, N.A.D., Tabaranza, B.R.,Jr. 1999Threatened Birds of the Philippines. The Haribon Foundation/BirdLife International Red Data BookBookmarkMakati City, The PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  6. Danida,  2000Towards `Best' Practice in Biodiversity Conservation in Southern AfricaRoyal Danish Ministry of Foreign AffairsCopenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  7. Danielsen, F., Balete, D.S., Poulsen, M.K., Enghoff, M., Nozawa, C.M., Jensen, A.E. 2000A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing countryBiodivers. Conserv.916711705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danielsen, F., Treadaway, C.G. 2004Priority conservation areas for butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) in the Philippine islandsAnim. Conserv.77992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A. 2005Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approachesBiodivers. Conserv1425072542Google Scholar
  10. DENR1992National Integrated Protected Area System Act R. A. No. 7586 and Implementing Rules and Regulations DAO 25, Series of 1992DENRPAWB, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  11. DENR2000Guidelines on the Implementation of the Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) in Protected AreasDENRPAWB, ManilaDAO 13, Series of 2000.Google Scholar
  12. DENR2001Adoption of Prescribed Methods in Monitoring BiodiversityDENRPAWB, ManilaDAO 6, Series of 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Fowler, J., Cohen, L. 1988Statistics for OrnithologistsBritish Trust for OrnithologyNorfolk, UKBTO Guide No. 22.Google Scholar
  14. Green, R.E., Balmford, A., Crane, P.R., Mace, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Turner, R.K. 2005A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: Responses to the World Summit on Sustainable DevelopmentConserv. Biol.195665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heaney, L.R., Mallari, N.A.D. 2002A preliminary analysis of current gaps in the protection of threatened Philippine terrestrial mammalsSylvatrop. Techn. J. Phil. Ecos. Nat. Res.102839Google Scholar
  16. Hockley, N.J., Jones, J.P.G., Andriahajaina, F.B., Manica, A., Ranambitsoa, E.H., Randriamboahary, J.A. 2005When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources? Biodivers. Conserv1427952806Google Scholar
  17. IUCN. 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.redlist.org.Google Scholar
  18. Kennedy, R.S., Gonzales, P.C., Dickinson, E.C., Miranda, H.C.,Jr., Fisher, T.H. 2000A guide to the Birds of the PhilippinesOxford University PressOxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Loh, J., Green, R.E., Ricketts, T., Lamoreux, J., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Randers, J. 2005The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversityPhilos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B360289295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mallari, N.A.D., Tabaranza, B.R.,Jr., Crosby, M.J. 2001Key Conservation Sites in the PhilippinesHaribon Foundation, BirdLife InternationalDENR and Bookmark, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  21. NORDECO and DENR.1998aIntegrating Conservation and Development in Protected Area Management in Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, The PhilippinesDENR, Manila and NORDECOCopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  22. NORDECO and DENR.1998bIntegrating Conservation and Development in Protected Area Management in Bataan Natural Park, The PhilippinesDENR, Manila and NORDECOCopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  23. NORDECO and DENR.1998cIntegrating Conservation and Development in Protected Area Management in Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park, The PhilippinesDENR, Manila and NORDECOCopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  24. NORDECO and DENR2002DENR Biodiversity Monitoring System Implementation Results from Eight Protected Areas January 1999–June 2001, The PhilippinesDENRManilaGoogle Scholar
  25. Obura, D.O., Wells, S., Church, J., Horrill, C. 2002Monitoring of fish and fish catches by local fishermen in Kenya and TanzaniaMar. Freshwater Res.53215222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Poulsen, M.K., Luanglath, K. 2005Projects comeprojects go: Lessons from participatory monitoring in southern LaosBiodivers. Conserv1425912610Google Scholar
  27. Roberts, R.L., Donald, P.F., Fischer, I.J. 2005Wordbirds: Developing a web-based data collection system for the global monitoring of bird distribution and abundanceBiodivers. Conserv1428072820Google Scholar
  28. Robertson, D.P., Hull, R.B. 2001Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservationConserv. Biol.15970979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sheil, D. 2001Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: realities, priorities and distractionsConserv. Biol.1511791182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sheil, D., Lawrence, A. 2004Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaborationTrend Ecol. Evol.19634638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson, W.L., White, G.C., Gowan, C. 1998Monitoring Vertebrate PopulationsAcademic PressLondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Topp-Jørgensen, E., Poulsen, M.K., Lund, J.F., Massao, J.F. 2005Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands in Iringa DistrictTanzaniaBiodivers. Conserv1426532677Google Scholar
  33. Uychiaoco, A.J., Arceo, H.O., Green, S.J., De la Cruz, M.T., Gaite, P.A., Aliño, P.M. 2005Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local fishers in the Philippines: tightening the adaptive management cycleBiodivers. Conserv1427752794Google Scholar
  34. Watson, I., Novelly, P. 2004Making the biodiversity monitoring system sustainable: Design issues for large-scale monitoring systemsAustral Ecol.291630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yoccoz, N.G., Nichols, J.D., Boulinier, T. 2001Monitoring of biological diversity in space and timeTrend Ecol. Evol.16446453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Finn Danielsen
    • 1
  • Arne E. Jensen
    • 1
  • Phillip A. Alviola
    • 2
  • Danilo S. Balete
    • 3
  • Marlynn Mendoza
    • 4
  • Anson Tagtag
    • 4
  • Carlo Custodio
    • 4
  • Martin Enghoff
    • 1
  1. 1.NORDECO (Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology)CopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.University of the Philippines Los Baños, LagunaPhilippines
  3. 3.Laksambuhay Foundation, Inc.Los Baños, LagunaPhilippines
  4. 4.Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife CenterQuezon City, Metro ManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations