Participatory Monitoring in tropical forest management

a review of tools, concepts and lessons learned Kristen Evans and Manuel R. Guariguata

Participatory Monitoring in tropical forest management

a review of tools, concepts and lessons learned

Kristen Evans and Manuel R. Guariguata Evans, Kristen Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management: a review of tools, concepts and lessons learned/by Kristen Evans and Manuel R. Guariguata. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2008.

50p. ISBN: 978-979-1412-63-6

CABI thesaurus: 1. forest management 2. tropical forests 3. participation 4. community involvement 5. participative management 6. rural communities 7. monitoring 8. literature reviews 9. guidelines

© 2008 by CIFOR All rights reserved. Published in 2008 Printed by SUBUR Printing, Jakarta

Published by Center for International Forestry Research Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Bogor Barat 16115, Indonesia Tel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org

Partner institution: The Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation, Switzerland

All photographs by Kristen Evans unless otherwise noted.

2 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Contents

Acknowledgements...... 2 Introduction...... 3 How to use this review...... 4 Methods...... 5 Concepts...... 6 What is participatory monitoring?...... 6 Why monitor? ...... 6 Terms used in participatory monitoring...... 7 Lessons Learned...... 9 Planning and implementing participatory monitoring...... 9 Who participates and how...... 9 Considerations when developing a participatory monitoring program...... 10 Scaling up and networking participatory monitoring programs...... 15 Ensuring long-term sustainability ...... 17 Integrating scientific research with local knowledge and expertise...... 19 Impacts of participatory monitoring ...... 22 Decision-making...... 22 Learning and adaptation...... 24 Building social capital and strengthening local institutions...... 26 Rule enforcement and compliance...... 28 Conclusions: Looking back, looking ahead...... 31 Matrix Table of Case Studies, Methods and Tools...... 34 References...... 45 Appendix A: Keywords searched...... 50 Appendix B: Web sites searched...... 50

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 1 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the following Douglas Sheil (CIFOR, Indonesia), people who gave their time and ideas Mary Stockdale (Canada), Ben and contributed invaluable feedback Vickers (SNV, Vietnam), and Eva as we prepared this publication: Wollenberg (University of Vermont, United States of America). We wish Manuel Bossiere (CIFOR, Indonesia), to thank Neha Pandey, Elena M. Marcus Colchester (Forest Peoples Florian (Costa Rica), Bayuni Shantiko Program, United Kingdom), Carol (Indonesia), and James Hayek Colfer (CIFOR, Indonesia), Peter (Brazil) for searching and compiling Cronkleton (CIFOR, Bolivia), Wil information. We also thank Claire de Jong (CIAS, Japan), Robert Höft Miller for copyediting the final draft. (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada), Anna This publication was externally Lawrence (Environmental Change reviewed by Jane Carter Institute, University of Oxford, (Intercooperation, Switzerland) and United Kingdom), Neha Pandey Bianca Ambrose-Oji (University of (Livelihoods India Group, India), Wales, Bangor, United Kingdom); we Patrick Rossier (Helvetas, Vietnam), are grateful for their useful comments Gustavo Pinelo (Rainforest Alliance, and suggestions for improvement. Guatemala), Nick Salafsky, (Focus on Success, United States of America),

2 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Introduction

Until recently, monitoring in tropical However, participatory monitoring forest management has generally focused programs are not always easy to on evaluating a project’s progress or implement, and they have limitations. For answering a research question, and it instance, they can be more expensive than was usually performed by professional expected (especially when considering managers or scientists. However, in the that local people often bear many costs), past decade, our understanding of the the data might not be useful for scientific importance and role of monitoring has research, and sustainability can be a changed significantly. Now local people challenge when external support stops. are working with professionals to develop and implement monitoring programs There are now well-documented cases together. This collaboration changes the of successful and effective—as well as dynamic of forest management, with unsuccessful and flawed—participatory monitoring assuming a central role by monitoring programs in tropical encouraging local people to ask questions forests throughout the world. Here we about their forest and their forest- review their impacts, challenges, and based livelihoods, think about change shortcomings. We highlight lessons in a systematic way and respond with learned and present recommendations reasoned decision-making. Participatory for future directions. monitoring becomes a mechanism that drives learning, adaptation and This review is not an exhaustive collection improvement—essential elements of of all participatory monitoring research, sustainable tropical forest management. nor is it a comprehensive discussion of every aspect of participatory If properly conducted, participatory monitoring. It is a guide to what we monitoring has distinct benefits: believe are relevant case studies and integrating local knowledge into analyses that will be helpful to scientists, scientific monitoring; building social field practitioners and those looking capital; empowering local people; to explore, understand and implement strengthening local institutions; and participatory monitoring. facilitating decision-making. Participatory monitoring can also lower data collection costs for scientists and institutions.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 3 How to use this review

The review has three main sections. The first section introduces concepts and terms. The second section is a synthesis of the lessons learned, organized along two broad themes: planning and implementing participatory monitoring and the main impacts of participatory monitoring. A brief summary is presented with the corresponding reference. The third section is a matrix table of publications organized by theme: forest management for various objectives, biodiversity conservation and wildlife management, human wellbeing, political processes and institutions, non-timber forest products and ecosystem services. It provides a quick reference guide to specific aspects of participatory monitoring, such as tools, methods and monitoring topics.

4 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Methods

The first step in the development We then polled selected experts by asking of this review was a search of peer- (i) What information about participatory reviewed publications through the monitoring would be most useful to Science Direct, Springer, and Blackwell researchers and field practitioners?, Publishing web-based engines and the and (ii) How should the information ISI Web of Knowledge (see Appendix A: be organized? The general consensus Keywords searched). The second step was a focused selection of case studies, was another web-based search of “grey” including tools and methods, organized literature (project reports, teaching by monitoring subject or by thematic modules, guidebooks, and conference topics. From the pool of publications, proceedings). Regional searches for we then selected the ones with either other less visible publications were also results and lessons learned from field carried out from India, Central America experiences or a relevant conceptual and Brazil. Information was gathered discussion. The literature is relatively from current initiatives and ongoing recent: most publications included in field experiences, as well as step-by-step this review were printed within the guidelines for practical implementation last 10 years, and over 80 per cent of participatory monitoring initiatives were released within the last five years. (see Appendix B: web sites searched). Although our focus is on tropical forests, The literature lists were then compiled a few examples from the temperate zone using EndNote® software; articles were are included where these experiences filtered and selected according to their might translate into the tropical context. relevancy to broad issue categories. While filtering, similar keywords were also used to select relevant literature from the list. In total, 387 publications were compiled.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 5 Concepts

What is participatory monitoring? Monitoring is the systematic gathering and analysis of information in order to gauge if something is changing (CIFOR 2007). Monitoring is more than a one- off assessment; the information must be collected at regular intervals that are appropriate for the subject matter, cost- efficient and not overly burdensome. The “Participatory monitoring shifts information is analyzed, and the results are the emphasis away from externally evaluated and used for decision-making. defined and driven programs and stresses the importance of The term “participatory monitoring” a locally relevant process for applies to monitoring activities that gathering, analyzing, and using the involve local people who may have not information. It means involving received specialist, professional training (groups of) people in aspects of and who have varying skills, expertise, monitoring in which they have societal roles and interests. Participatory not previously been involved monitoring is an ongoing process and creating conditions so that where local forest users systematically they can dictate the focus, means record information about their forest, and rhythm of the learning reflect on it and take management process.” –from Guijt (2007) action in response to what they learn. Monitoring subjects range from timber harvesting and honey production Why monitor? to institutional transparency and community forest enterprise accounting. There are three general reasons to Methods might include vegetation monitor. First, monitoring can help samples, transects, fire calendars, tropical forest managers and users field diaries, community workshops, answer questions or concerns (Cunha rainfall measurements and many more. dos Santos 2002) about issues such

6 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management as sustainable management and Third, monitoring can be a crucial livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, mechanism for enforcing compliance human wellbeing, political processes with important forest management and institutions, and ecosystem services. rules, such as resource access, use, Establishing clear monitoring questions conservation and benefit distribution. is the first step in developing a program, according to Case (1990) in a manual of participatory monitoring in community forestry which presents step-by-step Terms used in guidelines with explanations and illustrations. Local people participate participatory by defining and asking core questions, or—in a less participatory way— monitoring professionals and authorities can define the questions while local people Participatory monitoring can take many supply the data. The questions asked forms. Terminology reflecting the diverse will depend on the management goals. cases, tools and approaches encountered during the review are described below. Second, monitoring not only provides answers to questions about forest • Locally-based monitoring – Danielsen management, but also creates a culture et al. (2005b) describe locally- of questioning. Recent thinking has based monitoring, where local concluded that monitoring is more than people, including communities a way of generating information; it is a and/or local government staff, catalyst for learning processes at the core collect and analyze data. This of adaptive forest management. Colfer contrasts with “professional (2005) discusses how monitoring plays monitoring” by formally trained an integral role in the iterative cycle experts. Approaches range “from of planning, action, assessment and self-monitoring of harvests by learning—a cycle that generates systematic local resource users themselves, progress and adaptation to change to censuses by local rangers, and (Colfer 2005, Guijt 2007). See Figure 1. inventories by amateur naturalists.”

Figure 1: The Worm, adapted from Colfer (2005).

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 7 • Collaborative monitoring – Collaborative resource monitoring, organized monitoring is “a process of by government entities or conscious information seeking conservation organizations to followed by shared critical analysis improve information collection and to inform collective decisions that community input (Whitelaw et al. affect resource management” 2003). (Guijt 2007). Collaborative monitoring stresses the importance • Joint monitoring – Local people of developing a locally relevant and local authorities engage in process for gathering, analyzing monitoring for enforcement and using information for natural together (Andrianadrasana et resource management; the emphasis al. 2005). This is also known as is shifted away from external multi-party monitoring (Bagby et institutions or professional project al. 2003) and is a way of building managers to focus on the most bridges between local people and important issues to local people. authorities by sharing responsibilities When these monitoring activities (Steinmetz et al. 2006). are linked in an iterative learning cycle, they become the building • Self-monitoring – Local people monitor blocks to collaborative monitoring. their own activities related to natural Guijt (2007) provides a thorough resources (in contrast to monitoring discussion of collaborative the resource itself). Examples monitoring concepts and presents a including hunting or timber selection of 14 articles documenting harvesting (Noss et al. 2005). Self- experiences throughout the world monitoring is particularly useful for in various tropical forest settings. monitoring NTFP extraction and management (Stockdale 2005). • Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity (PAMEB) • Event monitoring – Local people – Participatory monitoring, assess­ record incidents whenever they ment and evaluation of biodiversity occur instead of during planned involves data collection and monitoring activities (such as a analysis performed with and by census or patrol). This type of non-scientists for the purpose of monitoring is appropriate for understanding species or ecosystem more stochastic topics such as fire, diversity (Lawrence and Ambrose- poaching, problem animals and Oji 2001). Lawrence (in press) wildlife mortalities (Stuart-Hill et presents a comprehensive collection al. 2005). of experiences in PAMEB. • Community-based ecosystem monitoring (CBEM) – This is a term for monitoring programs in developed countries that involve local, non-professional volunteers in environmental or natural

8 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Lessons Learned

The following lessons learned, broad themes and conclusion emerged from Battarai (2002) describes how the the review. relationships between researchers and professionals, “outsiders”, to local people, “insiders”, can range from exploitative to collaborative Planning and in participatory monitoring implementing partnerships: participatory “They know nothing; we just use monitoring them as servants or helpers.” This section considers issues around “Of course we know better, but planning and implementing participatory they know the way and location monitoring: Who participates and how? better.” What will be monitored and how? How can a participatory monitoring program “We know better but by asking be developed and scaled up? What are them it will speed up our work; the pitfalls, and how can they possibly they also serve us.” be avoided when implementing future programs? “We undoubtedly know better, but they also know a few things that may help our work.” Who participates and how “They know as [much] as we do, Participatory monitoring is defined by the but their perception is different; way people work together and the roles let us consult each another.” they play in planning and implementing the monitoring program. Local people “They know a few things much bring their time, access to the natural better; let us work together resources and their knowledge. Their because what we study concerns roles can range from solely gathering us all; [the information] belongs information to initiating, developing to everyone.” and driving the monitoring program. Outsiders—researchers, development

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 9 practitioners, non-governmental organi­ be integrated and where an interpretable zations, government authorities— assessment crystallizes”, and indicators naturally have their own objectives, “are any variables or components of which may or may not be in line with the a forest ecosystem or management objectives of local people. Meeting the system that are used to infer the status objectives of both insiders and outsiders of a particular criterion”. However, is among the most difficult challenges opinions differ about the role of C&I (Lawrence and Elphick 2002). The frameworks in participatory monitoring. assistance of outsiders is often necessary The next publications discuss issues to launch a participatory monitoring involving the selection of C&I sets, program, as they have financial resources followed by alternative approaches. and technical expertise. However, programs driven primarily by outsiders There are several approaches to selecting are widely recognized as almost never indicators. One is to apply a framework being sustainable and sometimes ethically of generic C&I sets that have been problematic (Danielson et al. 2005b; developed by professional experts. Ghate and Nagendra 2005; Garcia Colfer et al. (2005) discuss the lessons and Lescuyer 2008). Guijt (1999) learned in implementing this approach points out that in many participatory and conclude that the complexity of monitoring systems, local people’s these C&I sets make it very difficult to roles are often limited solely to data implement participatory monitoring collection: “What distinguishes the more with forest-dependent communities, innovative participatory processes is their as the sets are hard to measure and inclusion of end-users in [participatory require too much professional expertise. monitoring and evaluation] design.” Pokorny et al. in Guijt (2007) discuss their experiences in introducing C&I Considerations when in three forest communities in eastern developing a participatory Amazonia. They report that the communities failed to find relevance in the monitoring program process or understand the objectives of developing C&I. The authors conclude Some monitoring experts advise first that C&I sets are neither appropriate defining trackable indicators before nor very useful for communities. If C&I monitoring gets underway (Case 1990; are to be used, the authors recommend Prabhu et al. 1999). Criteria and selecting a few, very relevant indicators indicator (C&I) frameworks for forest using simple assessment tools. management were developed in the 1990s, primarily for monitoring the Purnomo et al. (2005) provide a case sustainability of industrial, large-scale study of defining C&I sets among timber harvesting at the national level. various stakeholders. They found that the Prabhu et al. (1999) state that criteria indicators selected by various groups— “are the intermediate points to which the timber concessionaires, government information provided by indicators can organizations, non-government organi­

10 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management zations and communities—were quite different. This led the authors to question the utility of generic C&I when local stakeholders cannot reach consensus. The divergence in perspectives on forest sustainability between communities and NGOs was marked: “…the seemingly disparate views between local communities and NGOs raises an important issue with respect to the ability of NGOs to represent, or speak on behalf of, local communities. Careful analysis and good communication between these two groups must be exercised to insure Stuart-Hill et al. (2005) provide that NGOs are adequately representing recommendations for designing a the views and perspectives of the local participatory monitoring system community.” that meets the objectives of managers—not scientists: A second approach involves defining C&I • Separate research from moni- frameworks at the local level. Ritchie toring. et al. (2000) offer a methodology with • Pay attention to building sus- tools to develop context-appropriate tainable monitoring systems C&I that can be operationalized into a rather than obtaining data at all monitoring program with an adaptive costs. learning cycle (Figure 1). The publication • Make a conscious effort to un- includes a guidebook for developing derstand the working environ- C&I frameworks and monitoring plans ment of a resource manager with local communities. The approach so as to realistically assess his is straightforward, user-friendly and capacity to commit to monitor- participatory. ing. • Focus on topics dear to forest Cunha dos Santos (2002) also provides managers. As trust develops the an extensive case study and guidelines scope can gradually be expand- for using both locally and scientifically ed to include other issues, such developed C&I frameworks, based on a as those that help managers to local monitoring program of community identify effective and ineffective timber harvesting in the western Brazilian actions. Amazon. The author begins with a • Develop a service ethic where diagnostic study, followed by a definition managers are the primary ‘cli- of criteria and indicators, through ents’–i.e. do what they want, not participatory mapping, future scenarios, what scientists want. key questions and semi-structured • Build on small successes rather interviews. The author accompanied the than being too ambitious. communities and local partners for two

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 11 timber harvest periods, during which problems soon became apparent: it participants developed a monitoring was difficult to convey the meaning of program to motivate conflict resolution, monitoring and indicators and difficult improve the project implementation and to develop consensus about the meaning facilitate forest certification. of specific indicators. The entire process became bogged down in the process of Many practitioners have found that identifying indicators. They changed starting with C&I frameworks is not their approach to focus on the bigger the best approach when working picture: how to develop monitoring with communities. Over-emphasizing systems that helped local people develop C&I when setting up a participatory sustainable livelihoods and manage their monitoring program can result in an forests sustainably. A process was then externally-driven expert system that is not developed to identify priority issues and focused on local management priorities, develop a plan to resolve and monitor becomes overly complex and cannot those issues. By changing the focus away feasibly be implemented by a community from indicators, monitoring ceased to without external support. Furthermore, be a separate activity and became part the system is less likely to reflect local of a larger process that concentrated on needs (Garcia and Lescuyer 2008). the discussion of issues, reflection and action. Paudel and Ojha in Guijt (2007) describe a research project in Nepal that Instead of starting with a generic C&I initially set out to develop C&I with local framework, another approach is to develop community forest user groups. Several a basic monitoring system, according to

Whitelaw et al. (2003) learned that when developing a volunteer-based monitoring system of forest ecosystems in Canada it was important to: • Secure adequate funding and commitment prior to initiation of monitoring activities. • Provide feedback to volunteers on how their work was contributing to plan- ning and management. • Understand participant motivations and skill level, and match these to the monitoring protocols selected. • Collaborate with organizations already monitoring through partnership de- velopment. • Utilize simple and scientifically tested methodologies. • Incorporate training on monitoring protocols, field supervision and data verification into the design of community-based monitoring. • Establish a “volunteer recognition” program. • Focus on outcomes that serve society by delivering information relevant to policy.

12 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Figure 2: The Collaborative Monitoring Process (adapted from Prabhu [2003]).

Ghate and Nagendra (2005). In a cross- They discuss and negotiate their community comparison of monitoring objectives and visions, agree on how and enforcement programs in India, the they are going to collect information most successful and sustainable system and then they discuss, reflect on and started with a single rule; the community analyze the data. Finally they apply what then decided how to monitor it. At each they learned to their planning, and the meeting the community added more process begins again. See Figure 2 for rules to handle new situations. The a graphical representation of how this authors recommend starting monitoring works. programs with a simple activity and then slowly adding more activities as CIFOR (2007) discusses two aspects of management situations get more complex management that should be examined and issues evolve. This also gives local when developing a monitoring program: people the opportunity to collaborate processes and impacts. Process on the monitoring issues and develop monitoring examines the implementation the program based on their needs. of management actions in order to understand how—and if—they are Prabhu (2003) discusses how to being carried out. Impact monitoring operationalize participatory monitoring. examines the changes resulting from Groups develop a common framework management action. By monitoring for observing the results and impacts of both, the linkage between action and their plans and unexpected outcomes. impact can be established.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 13 Garcia and Lescuyer (2008) review in many cases, decision-making has not participatory monitoring trends and truly been devolved to communities identify problems with programs that while other more powerful stakeholders are both developed and driven by continue to exercise control. Therefore, outside interests. The authors find that if the community has not received full externally developed programs fail to rights and authority over its forest, link monitoring to the concerns of local participatory monitoring remains communities. As a result, the programs divorced from decision-making with little cease to sustain themselves after the possibility of influencing management. funding agency leaves. They point to The authors thus introduce the concept several reasons: low or no built-in profit of “intentional management” (Figure 3), incentive, inadequate focus on what is which occurs when a community formally really important to local people (many convenes and makes decisions about programs focus on ecosystem issues at the management objectives and community expense of socio-economic concerns), needs. The community must be involved and changing institutional agreements in all aspects of the five main elements that might eliminate a program’s of intentional management: resource champion and lead to the monitoring assessment, control, needs analysis, arrangements being abandoned. These monitoring dynamics and negotiation of failures are symptoms of a deeper issue: access and uses.

Figure 3: Components of intentional management of local resources. Unless the communities are directly involved in all five components, chances are that participatory monitoring will fail in the short term. Adapted from Garcia and Lescuyer (2008).

14 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Scaling up and as a success story in scaling up. The monitoring program integrates local networking data collection, using a binder and worksheets, into a national monitoring participatory and evaluation database. Its success lies in it being both modular and adaptable; monitoring programs local groups can choose what to monitor—wildlife, hunting, problem Scaling up monitoring programs is incidents—but they always use the possible as long as the methods are same methods as other communities. simple, adaptable and locally relevant. This allows for the information to be If information between different compiled and compared nationally. forests or at different scales needs to be However, the original records never comparable, then a small set of easy-to- leave the community, so the community measure indicators should be selected. always has the information accessible for Furthermore, information needs to be its own purposes. This article details the returned to local communities so that entire Event Book methodology with they may understand the monitoring photographs and examples. program’s relevance and can use the information in their own decision-making Whitelaw et al. (2003) describe efforts (Stuart-Hill et al. 2005). Governments to bring together volunteer monitoring and non-governmental organizations groups throughout Canada to create often look at participatory monitoring as a cost-effective way to implement large-scale monitoring systems by enlisting local volunteers to do the work Bennun et al. (2005) reflect on (Whitelaw et al. 2003). Governments issues related to scaling up and may benefit from lower costs and networking a monitoring program: front-line feedback (Whitelaw et al. • Strong and ongoing coordina- 2003, van Rijsoort and Jinfeng 2005). tion support is needed. In partic- Nonetheless, significant investment is ular, quick and regular feedback, usually needed for local institutional appropriately pitched, is vital for development and capacity-building. maintaining morale and enthu- Furthermore, in developing countries, siasm. It also helps to show how local people do not often have the value is added when data are in- luxury of extra time to volunteer corporated into a larger dataset. for monitoring activities unless the • Institutionalization of the pro- livelihood benefits are obvious. The cess is vital. However, it takes following cases discuss some practical time and active effort. There is considerations, challenges and successes a gap between monitoring start- in creating programs that use local-level ing and meaningful results being monitoring for national-level needs. generated, where it can be hard work to maintain momentum. Stuart-Hill et al. (2005) present the Event Book system from Namibia

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 15 the Canadian Community Monitoring have scaled up to include 10 other Network. Volunteers monitor ecosystem countries. The challenges have been issues such as biodiversity, watersheds significant; institutional development, and land use change. They can extend the for example, is an ongoing process and monitoring programs to social, cultural the network requires constant assistance. and economic issues. The authors argue Furthermore, there have been issues that the benefits of community-based with the reliability and usefulness of monitoring can be spread throughout the data collected by volunteers for the country to greater effect if local conservation management. Nonetheless, programs are networked. They identify the case proves that creating a network of two phases to building a network. The first volunteers interested in environmental involves developing the infrastructure issues and ecosystem health is possible necessary to launch community-based in developing countries, provided there monitoring (CBEM) in a particular is significant institutional support. location. Six related tasks are required: governance analysis, consultation and There are challenges not simply in scaling outreach, identification of champions, up monitoring programs, but in bringing partnership development, fund- the information back to the local level. In raising and selection of an appropriate Nepal, Ojha et al. (2003) analyze what organizational structure for the group is termed “micro-macro monitoring”, or network. Phase two launches CBEM or monitoring at the local level for the and links monitoring activities and data purpose of national decision-making. to decision making. They found that a great deal of data is being collected and sent “upward”, but Bennun et al. (2005) document the little in the way of results is returned to development of a national network the communities. of community-based monitoring of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Africa. Hamilton et al. (2001) worked with There are two types of monitoring 1600 forest user groups (FUGs) in in the IBA network—simple and Nepal to create a user-developed, self- complex—depending on the level of monitoring and evaluation program program development in the community. for local-level forest management that Monitoring topics are organized by the could also generate information for pressure/state/response framework. monitoring at district and regional Indicators include: habitat area, habitat levels. The monitoring programs were quality, populations of bird species called the “FUG Health Check” and for which IBA is listed, agricultural “FUG Planning and Self-evaluation”. intensification/expansion, burning of The program monitored: (i) institutional vegetation, deforestation, recreation/ criteria—how often the FUG meets, the tourism, action plan development, percentage of men, women and different number of conservation staff and castes attending and represented on the volunteers and conservation projects/ committee, and whether there are specific actions implemented. They began plans for the poorest members, among with a pilot project in Kenya and others; (ii) ecological aspects, such as

16 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management simple inventories of specific NTFPs to determine sustainable harvesting volumes; and, (iii) economic aspects— income gained by the FUG (from sales of forest products) and expenditures. The program included creating natural resource maps and social maps, identifying activities to reach the FUG’s ideal vision and prioritizing these through pair- wise ranking, and institutional analysis through Venn diagrams to identify current and ideal links and support from other organizations. A pictorial seasonal calendar was also developed to visualize the forest operational plan, showing the management practices needed to reach the ideal and the periods when harvesting could be allowed. The program successfully created “an adaptive and dynamic learning cycle internalized by its users.” The process of developing their own monitoring program gave users confidence to suggest indicators that represented their own perspectives “Community forestry monitoring and interests. However, the program would benefit from moving away would need to be standardized to from the collection of considerable allow FUGS to be compared with each amounts of broad areas of ‘data’, other at the district and regional level. and instead focus on levels of Furthermore, to gain official recognition strategic analysis related to key of the monitoring results for scientific uncertainties and identified rigor, a minimum set of quantitatively learning questions and indicators measurable indicators would need to be at all levels. Since no detailed established. ‘prescription’ can be made for an effective micro-macro monitoring system, monitoring should be approached as a process of Ensuring long-term learning through joint innovation and reflection, by a cross-section sustainability of institutions at all levels of forest governance.” Maintaining a participatory monitoring program long enough to fulfill its - from Ojha et al. (2003) goals—indefinitely if necessary—is a challenge. In the vast majority of

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 17 Danielsen et al. (2005b) identify six principles that contribute to the sustainability of a locally-based monitoring program without external support: 1. Locally-based monitoring has to identify and respond to the benefits that the community derives from the habitat or population being moni- tored. 2. The benefits to local people participating in monitoring should exceed the costs. 3. Monitoring schemes must ensure that conflicts and politics between government managers and communities do not constrain the involve- ment of local stakeholders in the monitoring process. 4. Monitoring should build on existing traditional institutions and other management structures as much as possible. 5. It is crucial to institutionalize the work at multiple levels, from country- wide policies down to the job descriptions of local government offi- cers. 6. Data should be stored and analyzed locally, even if this means some loss of quality. It should also remain accessible to local people.

cases reviewed, an external organization can be significant and must usually be initiated and maintained the program. borne by an outside agency, once begun, It was not uncommon for the activities some monitoring programs can become to cease once the outside organization self-sustaining. departed, even if the monitoring work was not complete. The key is to keep the Topp-Jorgensen et al. (2005) describe activities as simple and locally appropriate a forest monitoring program in Tanzania as possible. Although the start-up costs that tracked resource extraction and

18 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management disturbance. Local communities were representation and participation. The managing forests through joint initiatives government-organized group had the (in the montane forests) or community- benefit of government support for based forest management (in the dry participatory resource management, but miombo woodlands). A monitoring it lacked autonomy and initiative. The system was needed for allocating traditional management regime enjoyed permits and collecting fees for resource better community support. The very fact use. Groups monitored the management that the traditional regime had existed process, natural resource revenue, many years before the community ecological sustainability, wood extraction forestry program is a testament to its and fire risks. Tools included village success, legitimacy and acceptance. patrols, perceptions interviews, monthly Therefore, traditional governance data reports, regular monitoring meetings structures should be viewed as “building and informal reports. Although external blocks in any modern, development- support was necessary to set up the oriented institutional structure aimed at initial system, the resulting permit system participatory management of community was expected to collect enough fees to resources.” ensure sustainability. The monitoring program was simple, cost-effective, and transparent, requiring minimal training and education. The monitoring activities Integrating scientific also stimulated discussion on natural resource trends and threats at the village research with local level. This case study describes in detail how and when the community monitored knowledge and its management practices, with particular emphasis on transparency, social control expertise and the monitoring system’s economic sustainability. Monitoring systems that involve local people in scientifically-designed projects Sekher (2001) analyzes three have many advantages, such as enriched distinct participatory processes data, lower total costs and a better and organizational structures in chance of being sustained. Some types community forest management. The of information can only be provided by successes and limitations of each local people, such as changes or events structure are discussed in relation to that have occurred over long timeframes, equitable and fair representation of information about traditional use and all community members in decision- community perceptions about the forest. making, accountability, participation, Local people benefit, too, from scientific organizational sustainability and methods, both from the data generated benefit-sharing. The NGO-initiated and the skills transferred by working organization was effective at mobilizing with scientists. They may participate less conservation efforts, but its strategies in analysis than in data collection, but as lacked sustainability because of poor long as the results are clear and openly

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 19 “Because so little ecological knowledge has been generated by the scientific community regarding the basic ecology of even widely used NTFP species, local knowledge regarding management and harvesting is often at the core of creating reliable indicators of sustainability.”

- from Shanley and Stockdale (2008)

discussed, they can make decisions discerning temporal scales. These in turn based upon the results (Carter 1996). generated distinct insights about certain ecological processes that occur slowly Steinmetz et al. (2006) used “wildlife or rarely, such as forest succession and workshops” with hill tribes in Thailand to fires. This information was accessible create timelines of wildlife degradation. to scientists only by collaborating with These timelines identified the reasons communities. for the degradation—such as poaching and subsistence farming—and led to However, monitoring programs that monitoring and enforcement plans being rely on local participation do not always created. Local knowledge contributed to provide sufficiently robust data to be

20 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management useful for scientific research; there may Shanley and Stockdale (2008) describe be problems of accuracy, precision and experiences of documenting traditional perception when non-professionals ecological knowledge in Namibia, engage in scientific activities(Danielsen Brazil and the Philippines, in order et al. 2005b). Case studies confirm that to collect sufficient information for locally based, participatory monitoring the certification of non-timber forest must be simple to be successful: but products. They found that the lack of how simple can the monitoring systems scientific knowledge about NTFPs can be and still maintain scientific validity? be addressed by involving local people in Danielsen et al. (2005b) conclude that experimental design and data collection. there is a major gap in understanding They present various examples where the comparability of data between the knowledge provided by local people scientifically and locally-collected data. was useful to scientists, and their input Based on the few comparisons of in adjusting methods for data collection scientific and local monitoring that proved invaluable. Local people in the have been conducted, the minimum Philippines were involved in developing amount of data to be collected by C&I frameworks for collecting NTFPs local monitoring programs to generate in a pilot project to develop national the same results as scientific methods monitoring standards. The C&I selected appears to be high. The authors are by the participants reflected an interesting doubtful whether local monitoring on holistic perspective on the requirements its own has the ability to detect changes for sustainable management. For in populations, habitats, or patterns of example, their indicators of sustainable resource use of sufficient accuracy and honey production included monitoring precision to serve for scientific decision- water sources, important flowering trees making. They conclude that careful and trees that provided ideal conditions planning is necessary if a monitoring for placing hives. program is to be scientifically valid. The authors provide a six-step framework for planning a participatory monitoring system.

Sheil and Lawrence (2004) discuss the issues of training local para-taxonomists to assist scientists in collecting information for biodiversity research and conservation. Local para-taxonomists can be more effective communicators of conservation and biodiversity values to local leaders than foreign experts. Furthermore, their roles in the community can give researchers access to information that would otherwise be unobtainable.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 21 Impacts of participatory monitoring months, the community established a Decision-making watershed protection area. Monitoring birds had more gradual impacts— Participatory monitoring can create leading to local protection measures spaces and opportunities for more and an increase in local development inclusive, better-informed decision- of eco-tourism over a period of nine making. The following articles years—because the benefits were not provide examples where monitoring immediately perceived. led to concrete decision-making and management actions. Steinmetz et al. (2006) discuss how a joint monitoring program in the Thung Becker et al. (2005) present a case in Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary in montane Ecuador where community- western Thailand, adjacent to Myanmar, based monitoring fog capture by cloud helped to build bridges between local forest vegetation alerted local people Karen hill tribes and nature preserve to the importance of forest ecosystem authorities who historically mistrusted services such as moisture retention and each other. Conservation specialists watershed integrity. By being involved in initiated a series of wildlife workshops, monitoring bird populations, local people including wildlife status assessment, learned about local bird species and their impact assessment, and conservation conservation status, became familiar with planning, which all resulted in a joint the potential of ecotourism and began monitoring program of large mammals. to integrate biodiversity conservation The workshops prompted villagers into sustainable development planning to recognize population declines of in their community. There were three local species due to over-hunting significant management impacts: local and poaching. They also agreed to people voted to create a reserve to protect monitor the menus of local restaurants their watershed; the site was nominated responsible for creating the demand for an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Birdlife poached meat and create joint patrols International; and monitoring created of poaching hotspots within the park. local awareness of ecosystem services. Villagers designated “wildlife recovery The linkage between monitoring and zones” to provide a refuge for ungulates livelihoods determined how quickly and primates. Since being established, management action was taken. For the zones have received increased instance, monitoring fog capture quickly publicity, management attention and stimulated forest management decisions patrols, and there are fewer reports because the impact on livelihoods from of either subsistence or commercial losing water was immediate; within two hunting in the area. Communication

22 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management between villages and local officials has participation and bonding between its also improved; officials now frequently members and facilitated critical reflection attend quarterly village meetings that in turn generated important about managing protected areas. Joint management decisions. monitoring worked where past attempts to control local over-hunting had failed. Shanley and Gaia (2002) describe an NTFP monitoring project in the Anil (2004) presents an innovative Brazilian Amazon that provided tool (participatory 3-dimensional important information to local people modeling or P3DM) for transforming about the economic value of their forest. landscape information into a format Local rural unions were concerned that that communities can monitor to farmers were selling timber for low prices make management decisions. P3DM with little information about the trees’ is an interactive tool that facilitates the NTFP value. They asked researchers gathering of information and turning to work with community members it into a 3-dimensional map of natural to monitor consumption of NTFPs resource management areas. The map in order to better understand their serves as a powerful monitoring tool economic value and their importance to that is always present for community local livelihoods. Community research members to observe and contribute assistants completed ecological data more information as their landscape sheets with headings showing pictures transforms. Armed with the visual of animals or fruits that families hunted, and geographic information provided harvested and consumed. Families simply by P3DM, a community at Sasatgre, had to check beneath the picture to Meghalaya, India improved local show what they had consumed that day.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 23 Then they calculated the value of their As the process evolved, the questions consumption. The value of bushmeat became more politically value-laden consumed by a single household topped and complex. The authors learned that US $1000, underscoring the economic as stakeholders’ capacities evolve, the importance of maintaining the forest’s monitoring program needs to adapt to ecological health, in dramatic comparison answer their new questions. The process to the small sums received for selling helped to institutionalize a culture of timber. The census of fruit trees accountability and transparency that revealed that there were far fewer piquiá did not exist before; for instance, when trees (Caryocar spp.), an important fruit an oil palm plantation wanted to use for consumption, than the local people community land, the refusal was based believed. Communities responded by on majority sentiment, not a decision by implementing stricter bans on logging, local elites. bans on felling fruit trees and setting up forest reserves. Lawrence et al. (2006) discuss a biodiversity monitoring program in Nepal that integrated a participatory action research approach with monitoring. By Learning and starting the project with a participatory monitoring process, questions were adaptation asked and information needs identified that led to new research processes being Each monitoring cycle provides an integrated into forest management. opportunity for learning and reflection. The communities monitored many The following publications explain forest aspects, including forest quality, the linkage between monitoring and useful plant species, birds, wild animals, learning, and present case studies where management activities and compliance monitoring facilitated learning and led to with rules and procedures. Methods management action. included group discussion, forest walks and resource maps. The identification of Kusumanto in Guijt (2007) discusses biodiversity indicators launched learning a case where a participatory monitoring cycles and stimulated research questions program in Indonesia was developed as and experimentation by users, for a way of linking monitoring to learning instance about silvicultural techniques and advancing forest governance in or the value of local plants. Jambi, Sumatra. The participatory monitoring program focused on Hartanto et al. (2002) present a three local governance mechanisms: participatory monitoring plan for the election committee, community community forestry programs and meetings, and information dissemination community development in the throughout the community. Monitoring Philippines that was structured to began with simple technical questions, facilitate learning and adaptation. They such as “How do we ensure that use the C&I framework to identify people vote in the correct districts?” indicators, followed by scenario exercises.

24 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management The indicators fell into four categories: “By generating data, people forest management, organization, become conscious of underlying incomes and education. They conclude problems, for example perceived that monitoring was a key element of the or actual over-hunting of a certain learning process since local communities species…Reflection processes can and stakeholders were able to observe lead to preliminary management the impacts of their own practices. action that can be consolidated in an adaptive management Noss et al. (2005) discuss a hunting process…Communal decision- self-monitoring program by indigenous making is the key, participatory groups in Bolivia. Hunters voluntarily methods provide the inputs and collected data on their own activities framework for discussion, and and the impacts by recording their detailed scientific information practices on data sheets and collecting with sophisticated analyses may specimen samples from hunted animals not be essential, as long as we (skulls, jawbones, stomach contents, utilize information with which fetuses). Community monitors assisted resource managers and assistants the hunters in recording data through are familiar and confident.” line transect surveys and drive counts. Self-monitoring stimulated awareness of - from Noss et al. (2005) changes, group discussion and trust in the data collection process. The authors conclude, however, that monitoring game populations, even with volunteer participation, can be time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, accuracy in terms of short-term population fluctuations is a problem. The authors also touch on how local people can use scientific monitoring to test traditional beliefs about sustainable wildlife management.

Roy (2004) discusses how participatory vegetation monitoring (PVM) has proven to be an effective tool in India for blending traditional knowledge with modern know-how to identify problems, encourage discussion and make decisions. The PVM process includes assessing the vegetation status of existing and regenerated natural forests and plantations, assessing how knowledge of vegetation status influences local

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 25 institutions and economic activities, and and biological scientists. Over time, monitoring how people are implementing interest in shared learning and trust has findings to improve the function of grown as well as interest among the institutions, forest condition and income monitors in more systematized resource level. First villagers meet and share monitoring, demonstrating that NTFP experiences about forest management, monitoring can create opportunities for including the changes in vegetation, community-based collaboration with reasons for monitoring and the need for scientists. participation. Next they learn methods for measuring changes in trees, shrubs and herb species. Finally the participants, including the community members and Building social capital foresters, develop a proposal and plan of action based on their findings. In one and strengthening village, through monitoring, villagers discovered that 70 per cent of their local institutions acacia and eucalyptus trees had their bark peeled to create straps for carrying Participatory monitoring programs firewood. This resulted in stunted or have been found to strengthen local dead trees. The community therefore institutions and communities. The sought out other materials to replace the following articles describe these results tree bark. in greater detail.

Bagby et al. (2003) describe a Andrianadrasana et al. (2005) mushroom multi-party monitoring discuss a wetlands joint monitoring program in the Pacific Northwest of the plan in Madagascar and the impact on United States. High international prices transparency and good governance. of matsutake mushrooms were increasing Community members and local harvesting pressure by commercial government authorities monitored collectors, who were primarily recent lemurs, water birds, fish catches, immigrants from Cambodia, Laos marshes, hunting and burned areas. and Latin America. The multi-party They used field methods, such as monitoring sought to integrate observations along transects by canoe in harvesters’ knowledge, experience and zones villagers indicated as important, concerns into grassroots and institutional observations along fixed transects by decision-making processes to resolve canoe, identifying species, weighing and the growing problems. The activities measuring fish caught from the first by harvesters and public officials three groups arriving at the shore for included public campground meetings each different fishing method and some and ongoing, focused reflection among methods involving GPS-based mapping. project partners. Early in the project, The plan improved cooperation and the necessary trust and rapport for communication between community collaboration did not exist among the members and local government harvesters, community-based partners authorities. It provided an opportunity

26 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management for government agents to clarify the quizzes, competitions and press events. laws and regulations to local people, The program found a high correlation and increase mutual trust. It improved between the level of knowledge and transparency and accountability by positive environmental management. government agents in fisheries control These activities created general interest because communities were more aware and momentum in the monitoring of the activities of local officials. program that has helped its sustainability. The program ensured that all parties, including government and community Cronkleton et al. in Guijt (2007) members, knew if fishing regulations discuss how a wage-labor monitoring or marsh burning restrictions had been program in community-managed forests breached. The monitoring activities in Bolivia served as a mechanism for were a non-confrontational way of introducing the concept of monitoring indirectly enforcing rules; marsh burning into communities where this was decreased when the monitoring program previously little understood. Two was initiated because villagers were communities had been harvesting timber afraid of getting caught. There were also through government-approved forest enforcement actions that resulted: agents management plans; community members confiscated more illegal boats and nets. received wages based on their days of Leaders and politicians made speeches work. The communities were greatly during the public monitoring meetings interested in monitoring wages and in support of sustainable management; ensuring that wages were paid correctly as a result, they received more public and fairly because there were complaints pressure to comply with their public that the accountant and community stance. The wetlands monitoring program leaders were mismanaging funds. In a was combined with a public education series of public meetings, community campaign through environmental leaders met with community members

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 27 to review all the wage data together. not have to argue for access to resources. Facilitators taught community members By collecting and analyzing data for the how to read the accounting books and monitoring program, it became clear to double-check their own wages against all members that there were inequalities the ledger. The monitoring program that needed to be addressed. not only created more transparency in managing community resources, but also provided a mechanism for understanding how to set up and Rule enforcement manage a formal monitoring system. The community members continued and compliance to use the wage monitoring system on their own after the facilitators departed. Rule enforcement is a critical component of any natural resource management McDougall et al. in Guijt (2007) system, whether the rules are locally discuss a self-monitoring program developed by communities or adopted at initiated by forest user groups in Nepal. the national level (Ostrom 1990). There is The program facilitated the analysis conclusive evidence that monitoring for of how resources and opportunities rule enforcement is a necessary condition were distributed among forest users of sustainable forest management. by creating a monitoring system that The following articles discuss the allowed local people to understand how role and importance of enforcement everyone was benefiting. The study in natural resource management and compares the community organizational how participatory monitoring can be structures before and after implementing an effective and non-confrontational the monitoring program to analyze its approach to ensuring local compliance. impact on decision-making processes and institutions. The community first Gibson et al. (2004) compare rule established certain criteria to evaluate enforcement and forest condition in its forest-related activities. These 130 forest user groups in 12 countries criteria included, among others, income (temperate and tropical, developed and generation, particularly for the most developing), in order to understand marginalized users. The monitoring how forest quality reflects four factors: activities included a heterogeneity rule enforcement process, social analysis. When the analysis was capital, dependence on the forest completed, it became clear that the forest resource, and whether the group is a user group was not meeting its objectives formal organization. The results were in terms of equitable access to resources clear that rule enforcement and forest and improved income generation. In condition are correlated, regardless of response, users decided to create a social capital, formal organization or bamboo craft enterprise and hired the forest dependence. Rule enforcement, poorest members as staff to improve executed via systematic monitoring and their livelihoods. Monitoring created a sanctions, is a necessary condition for situation where marginalized users did successfully managing communal forests.

28 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Ghate and Nagendra (2005) compare 98 per cent had a positive effect. The three community forest management monitoring system also led to greater structures in India: community- collaboration between park authorities initiated management, NGO-promoted and communities in developing and management, and state-sponsored Joint enforcing resource use rules. The Forest Management (JFM). They used result was a more socially acceptable field-based techniques to analyze forest and effective enforcement regime. condition in three villages under the three Furthermore, indigenous resource use different regimes, and used the results schemes were recognized by government of the forest quality tests as measures authorities. to analyze the effectiveness of the Hoare (2004) three institutional “When sanctions are strictly enforced, presents a case of structures. The they prevent the spread of free-riding institutionalizing authors find that behavior, thereby instilling a sense of a community- the community trust in the community. It is essential to based monitoring with self-initiated provide conditions that facilitate a sense network for fire- community forest of justice and fair play in the participants, prevention and m a n a g e m e n t by ensuring that all individuals who break conflict resolution and the harshest the rules will be sanctioned irrespective in Thailand. penalties for of their position in the community.” Local villages infractions had had regulations the highest quality - from Ghate and Nagendra (2005) and fines against forest. Locally- uncontrolled fires, based monitoring but no method of played a crucial role in rule compliance monitoring and controlling fires. Village with regard to common-pool resources rules could not be enforced because fires and their sustainable management. spread from other villages. In response, village leaders integrated a fire prevention Danielsen et al. (2005a) describe and control scheme. They used village- a participatory monitoring system based monitoring teams, visual fire- implemented in a protected area of the mapping, fire calendars and sketch Philippines. The monitoring scheme maps to monitor forest fires, smoke had four activities: (1) focus group and rule violations. The monitoring discussions with volunteer “community provided a systematic, fair mechanism monitoring groups” of knowledgeable to understand who was responsible for forest product gatherers, hunters and the infractions and fine them according fishers; (2) systematic observations of to agreed rules. The monitoring system wildlife and resource use during regular brought about the formation of Village patrols; (3) fixed point photography of Watershed Networks, established selected hillsides; and, (4) simplified line boundaries for village fire control transect surveys. The authors examined responsibility, and strengthened village the interventions that resulted and their rules on fire management. Infractions impact on conservation and found that decreased dramatically: uncontrolled

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 29 fires reduced from 20 per cent of the of the beehives. The initial monitoring area (before the project started in 1998) approach was not successful: illegal to less than 2 per cent (in 1999 and activities continued because of lack of 2000). Furthermore, the monitoring suitable indicators, lack of community programs facilitated conflict resolution. participation and lack of social control over the village leaders. Honey thefts Van Rijsoort and Jinfeng (2005) continued, sometimes committed by present the case study of a participatory the community leaders themselves and monitoring program focused on blamed on others. Community members enforcement in the buffer zones of felt no ownership of the management nature reserves in communities in plan and saw no incentive to comply Yunnan, China. Monitoring subjects with it. The author introduced a new included wildlife, wildlife damage and approach and participatory methods land use practices. Tools used were by organizing community workshops observations during forest walks, village and facilitating scenarios—a method interviews and market surveys. The for future planning (see Wollenberg program was primarily initiated to control et al. 2000)—and identifying honey unsustainable natural resource extraction production indicators. Based on the by local people. The nascent monitoring indicators, the participants developed a program resulted in an over-emphasis monitoring plan that generated useful on enforcement and focused exclusively information about honey production on restrictions instead of concurrently and guided community members in developing sustainable management selecting locations for the beehives. The practices. However, the joint monitoring community also realized that joint patrols, programs improved relations between comprised of community members villagers and the management staff and forest reserve law enforcement, and improved awareness about were necessary if suspects were to be sustainable use. Communities were identified and apprehended. The patrols also able to use information from had to be frequent and random in order the monitoring programs to justify to catch transgressors. The community their claims for expanded use rights. monitoring program led to increased honey production and fewer forest Kamoto in Guijt (2007) describes reserve violations. a monitoring program by local communities in the Chimaliro Forest Reserve in Malawi to control illegal resource extraction in the forest reserve and monitor honey production. In exchange for rights to hang beehives and collect non-timber forest products, communities were expected to execute regular patrols against timber felling and encroachment. Monitoring also tracked honey production and control

30 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Conclusions: Looking back, looking ahead

Participatory monitoring is a way for the in fact the benefits must outweigh the people who depend on the forest to work costs. Scaling up programs is feasible together towards better management. with careful planning and significant The diverse experiences reviewed here funding for training. Modular programs suggest a new understanding of the allowing for local adaptation can ensure importance of monitoring in forest information is comparable and useful management and the roles of local between communities, and from local people. The main lessons derived from to national scales. Plans should include this review are summarized below. mechanisms for returning results to the community. There are many ways to develop and implement participatory monitoring Participatory monitoring catalyzes programs, and indicators are not social learning and builds social always necessary. Indicators can capital. When locally developed and be useful, but they should be locally properly planned, monitoring creates developed and not overly technical. Some space for reflection and analysis. practitioners have successfully avoided Participatory monitoring can help to indicators altogether and focused instead facilitate community-based decision- on monitoring specific activities, issues making and management action. or rules. Participatory monitoring can also serve as a starting point for engaging local For participatory forest monitoring people to think about sustainable forest programs to be sustainable, management for diverse products and they must be simple to conduct, services. It generates cycles of learning, inexpensive and locally relevant. adaptation and informed decision- Furthermore, participatory monitoring making. It can build social capital and activities should build on existing reduce conflict. Finally, participatory management institutions (village leaders, monitoring may also serve as a necessary forest user group councils), and in component of rule enforcement and turn be institutionalized at the local sustainable management of forests at level. A platform for discussion and the local level. reflection is likewise necessary. Training local participants is also an important There are, however, gaps in our consideration for success. And the knowledge and experience about benefits of the monitoring must be clear; participatory monitoring. In light of

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 31 this review, the areas where future action tools that can be used with minimal is needed include: external input. There is a need to understand how robust these tools are Designing participatory monitoring systems by comparing the results with more where the benefits are clear and outweigh the sophisticated scientific approaches. And costs – While there are many documented we need new tools that take advantage instances of the positive impacts on forest of remote-sensing technologies; many management and forest-livelihoods, it is references in this review identified a need nonetheless true that many participatory for low-cost access to remote sensing monitoring programs cease because the images with enough data resolution to benefits (tangible and non-tangible) to be useful to local communities. those involved are poorly understood, as are the costs (time and/or expenses) Making monitoring work at bigger scales for involved, and the incentives motivating multiple goals – Participatory monitoring participation. How can participatory is clearly effective for local analysis and monitoring programs be designed to decision-making. The challenge lies in ensure there is enough incentive to developing locally-based programs that participate and maintain the system, are also relevant on a larger scale: “scaling particularly when there is no financial up.” Many scientists remain skeptical reward? What style of participation about the validity of local schemes for is likely to be the most successful in detecting trends in populations, habitats those cases where the benefits are not and the provision of goods and services. tangible and are long-term (such as in Few studies compare the scientific biodiversity monitoring)? Although usefulness of local methods. Quantitative there is anecdotal evidence of successful comparisons of the results of locally- cases, an examination of these issues, based and professional monitoring are an analysis of incentives, and the priority areas for future research. development of a cost-benefit analysis tool would contribute greatly to creating Compensation and reward mechanisms – more sustainable monitoring programs. Compensation and reward mechanisms for ecosystem services—ranging from Developing simpler, cheaper, more scientifically habitat and biodiversity conservation robust tools – We have scores of tools to watershed protection and carbon that have been tested in the field: forest fixation—require reliable, cost-efficient walks, participatory mapping, transects, participatory assessment and monitoring event books, scenarios, among others. programs to monitor compliance and However, many of these methods are benefit distribution at the local level. time-consuming and overly dependent on Asquith et al. (2008) provide an outside facilitators and experts. Although example of such monitoring programs they might be useful as initial activities in a Bolivian watershed; this remains an to launch a monitoring program, local important area for future research. people are often unlikely to continue them without external accompaniment Biodiversity – Biodiversity conservation has and funding. There is a need for simple garnered global public support, generated

32 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management policy action and mobilized financial alone was a mechanism for conservation resources for habitat conservation efforts action. For participatory monitoring at the global level (Green et al. 2005). of biodiversity to catalyze forest However, monitoring biodiversity for conservation, local perceptions of the conservation purposes at the local level term biodiversity need to be explicitly and with local people is problematic: it included. Biodiversity indicators must is often expensive, overly technical and be meaningful to local people and to too abstract. The local benefits are not the scientific and global community if clear and the incentives are indirect or participatory biodiversity monitoring vague. During the course of this review programs are to be both relevant and very few case studies were found where sustainable. participatory biodiversity monitoring

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 33 Matrix Table of Case Studies, Methods and Tools

The following table provides a quick reference to locate articles by monitoring topic (what is being monitored) or the methods and tools used in the participatory monitoring activities. The matrix is a subset of the publications discussed in this review, as only those publications that discuss a specific method, tool or application are included. The references are organized under five broad areas: forest management for multiple objectives, biodiversity conservation and wildlife management, human wellbeing, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and ecosystem services.

Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Forest Management for Multiple Objectives A process for Forest fires, smoke, Village-based monitoring Hoare (2004) community and rule violation. teams, visual fire-mapping, fire government calendars, sketch maps. cooperation to reduce the forest fire and smoke problem in Thailand Adaptive Sustainable timber Reflective diagnostic, Cunha dos collaborative harvesting, internal participatory mapping, future Santos (2002) management in evaluation. scenarios, key question, semi- Acre: A case study structured interviews. of the agroextractive project, Porto Dias, Acre, Brazil Analysis of local Sustainable “Who Counts” Matrix for Purnomo et perspectives on management of defining stakeholders, cluster al. (2005) sustainable forest timber. analysis of perceptions for management: an defining indicators, hypothesis Indonesian case measuring. study

34 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Anticipating change: Change, surprises, Scenarios, visioning, pathways, Wollenberg et Scenarios as a tool planning, projections. al. (2000) for adaptive forest management Assessing the Ecology, socio- The team used a participatory McDougall sustainability of economics, action research approach to (2001) community-managed community develop a program for using forests participation. Criteria and Indicators (C&I) as a monitoring tool in an adaptive collaborative approach to forest management. Suggests activities such as two-way discussions (key informant, focus group, others), review of records, visioning, analysis of stakeholder rights using pebble distribution games indicating the intensity and quality of collaboration among groups, and pebble distribution games about rights and means to impose sanctions, to regulate conflict and to define boundary limits. Combining Sustainable Participatory modeling using Mendoza and participatory management of the Co-view modeling program, Prabhu (2005) modeling and multi- timber or other multi-criteria analysis, scenario criteria analysis for resources. development, SWOT analysis. community-based forest management.

Community-based Management Village patrols, perceptions Topp- monitoring of process, natural interviews, monthly data Jorgensen et natural resource use resource revenue, reports, regular monitoring al. (2005) and forest quality in ecological meetings, informal reports. montane forests and sustainability, miombo woodlands wood extraction, of Tanzania fire threat. Collective action Livelihoods, Criteria and Indicators (C&I) Hartanto et al. and learning in organization, forest framework for sustainable (2005) developing a local management, forest management, Visioning monitoring system community from the future scenarios development, methods. All methods are education. workshop based, involving three workshops and several discussion sessions.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 35 Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Ecological criteria Sustainable forest Criteria and Indicators. Sheil et al. and indicators management, (2004) for tropical forest management landscapes: implementation, Challenges in the management search for progress effectiveness. Establishing Ecosystem issues Phase one involves developing Whitelaw et the Canadian initially such the infrastructure necessary al. (2003) Community as biodiversity, to launch community-based Monitoring Network watersheds, land monitoring in a particular use change and community. Phase two launches then extend to community-based monitoring, social, cultural and and links monitoring activities economic issues. and data to decision making. Exploring visions: Forest User-developed self-monitoring Hamilton et Self-monitoring and condition, forest and evaluation tools, social al. (2001) evaluation processes products, group and resource maps, pair-wise within the Nepal- management, ranking, seasonal calendars, UK Community communication, visioning, institutional analysis Forestry Project community through Venn Diagrams. development activities, income- generating activities. Helping village Wage-labor, Village meetings, wage-labor Cronkleton stakeholders monitor transparency, charts, accounting records. et al. in Guijt forest benefits in accounting. (2007) Bolivia Local enforcement Rule enforcement, Specific monitoring approaches Gibson et al. and better forests illegal activity. of the individual sites not (2004) discussed. Links enforcement to forest quality. Participatory Resource use, land Participatory 3-Dimensional Anil (2004) 3-dimensional tenure. Modeling (P3DM) adds a third modeling for dimension to a topographical ecological map which captures and monitoring in integrates people’s knowledge mountainous areas and spatial information (contour lines). A given community actively participates to construct the map, facilitated by mapping experts. and hence derives its name. A P3DM is constructed with locally available material such as rubber sheets, ply board, paints, etc.

36 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Participatory Natural resources, Observation through forest Van Rijsoort resource monitoring wildlife, wildlife walk, village interview, market and Jinfeng as a means for damage, land use. survey. (2005) promoting social change in Yunnan, China Role of monitoring Community Daily patrols. Ghate and in institutional compliance with Nagendra performance: Forest rules, protection (2005) management in of the resource Maharashtra, India from outsiders; forest degradation: grazing, tree felling (by the community or outsiders), charcoal burning, fire damage. The community’s Sustainable forest This practical, clear and Case (1990) toolbox: The idea, management. useful guide is one of the first methods and tools participatory monitoring guides for participatory for forest management and assessment, still one of the best. It offers monitoring and clear definitions, steps and evaluation in suggestions for developing a community forestry monitoring program. Biodiversity Conservation and Wildlife Management A framework Biodiversity on Presents an approach for Green et al. for improved a local, national, developing a biodiversity (2005) monitoring of regional and monitoring program. For biodiversity: global scale for scoping, uses the driver- Response to the compliance with pressure-state-impact-response World Summit the Convention (DPSIR) framework. Can on Sustainable on Biological include any tool in the approach. Development Diversity. Discusses in general how to select the most appropriate technical tool: mapping, satellite, etc. A participatory Mid-sized to Line-transect method on Gaidet et al. counting method to large animal bicycle, stratification method (2003) monitor populations populations, of analysis, using DISTANCE of large mammals species software. in non-protected biodiversity, areas: A case study ungulates. of bicycle counts in the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 37 Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation A simple system Biodiversity, Standardized recording of Danielsen et for monitoring habitat routine observations, fixed point al. (2000) biodiversity in degradation, photographing, line transect protected areas of a ecosystem survey, focus group discussion. developing country degradation, populations of threatened plants and animals, management impacts, benefits to local people. Adaptive value Biodiversity, Group discussion, forest walks, Lawrence et of participatory biodiversity values, resource maps. al. (2006) biodiversity forest quality. monitoring in community forestry Biodiversity Biodiversity Participatory action research Ojha et al. Assessment for management. and learning. Monitoring of on (2003) Whom? Issues, going activity through focus Perspectives and group discussion (sharing/ Lessons from reflection), observation. Community Forestry in Nepal

Collaborating to Populations of Wildlife workshops integrating Steinmetz et Conserve Large large mammals: ranking exercises to develop a al. (2005) Mammals in elephant, tiger, spatially explicit picture of long- Southeast Asia Asian bear, term trends in the abundance of rhinoceros. mammal species and compare species-specific causes for declines. Community- Fog capture, Fog capture, mist nets and Becker et al. based monitoring ecosystem services, strip counts to monitor (2005) of fog capture watershed services, birds, Statview statistics and and biodiversity biodiversity. spreadsheet program. at Loma Alta, Ecuador enhance social capital and institutional cooperation

38 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Cost and efficiency Mammals over Aerial counts plus five ground- Gaidet- of large mammal 200g, biodiversity. based census methods were Draper et al. census techniques: compared: daylight and night (2005) comparison of car counts, bicycle counts, foot methods for a counts and water point counts. participatory approach in a communal area, Zimbabwe Does monitoring Biodiversity, Focus group discussions Danielsen et matter? A ecosystem with volunteer ‘community al. (2005a) quantitative products and monitoring groups’ of assessment of services. particularly knowledgeable management forest product gatherers, decisions from hunters and fishers; systematic locally-based observations of wildlife and monitoring of resource use during regular protected areas patrols (field diary method); fixed-point photography of selected hillsides; simplified line transect surveys. Hunter self- Mammals, hunting, On-going hunter self- Noss et al. monitoring by the biodiversity. monitoring program with (2005) Isoseno-Guaranı´ in voluntary participation: data the Bolivian Chaco sheets, specimens (skulls/ jawbones, stomach contents, fetuses) of hunted animals. Community monitors assist the hunters in recording data: line transect surveys, drive counts, track counts, surveys with trained dogs, hunter catch-per- unit-effort analysis, community discussions. Monitoring Habitat area, Pressure-State-Response Bennun et al. Important Bird habitat quality, monitoring framework. Basic (2005) Areas in Africa, populations of monitoring forms completed towards a sustainable bird species, annually by teams of local and scaleable system agricultural volunteers. Detailed monitoring intensification/ is a more complex, scientifically expansion, forest rigorous process generally degradation, handled by experts. development of action plans, resource use controls/quotas.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 39 Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Participatory Lemurs, water Community methods: Andrianadra- ecological birds, fish catches, environmental quiz, sana et al. monitoring of the marshes, hunting, participatory ecological (2005) Alaotra wetlands in burned areas. monitoring as a competition. Madagascar Field methods: observations along transects by canoe in zones indicated as important by villagers, observations along fixed transects by canoe, Identifying species, weighing and measuring fish caught from the first three fishing groups arriving at the shore for each different fishing method. Participatory NTFPs, vegetation, Village discussions, vegetation Roy (2004) vegetation forest cover, forest plots, household surveys. monitoring: grazing, downed Examples from West trees for wood. Bengal Projects come, Biodiversity, Patrolling, village discussions, Poulsen and projects go: Lessons human activities, joint monitoring logbooks, Luanglath from participatory habitat destruction, monitoring ecologically sensitive (2005) monitoring in key species. sites, fishery monitoring, photo southern Laos points, wildlife trade monitoring and camera traps. Taking stock of Ecosystem A compilation of case studies Lawrence (in nature: Participatory biodiversity, and discussions involving press) biodiversity species various approaches for assessment for biodiversity. participatory biodiversity policy planning and assessment and monitoring. practice.

40 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation The Event Poaching; predator The Event Book is a Stuart-Hill et Book System: A encounters; rare standardized three-ring binder al. (2005) community-based and endangered with data collection cards. The natural resource animals; fence process has three steps: 1) data monitoring system monitoring; water collection; 2) reporting map from Namibia point monitoring; and monthly reporting chart; 3) flooding and river long-term reporting chart. levels; rainfall; wildlife sighting; trophy hunting; wildlife harvesting; livestock theft; livestock condition; fishing effort; long- term vegetation change; seasonal grass grazing assessment; wildlife re- introductions. Human Wellbeing Collective action Livelihoods, Criteria and Indicators (C&I) Hartanto et al. and learning in organization, forest framework for sustainable forest (2002) developing a local management, management, visioning from the monitoring system community future scenarios methods. All development, methods are workshop based, education. involving three workshops and several discussion sessions. Towards wellbeing in Poverty, wellbeing, Step-by-step guide to several CIFOR (2007) forest communities: spheres of monitoring tools: monitoring A source book for wellbeing (natural, local poverty contexts through local government economic, social, interactive mapping; monitoring political), project household wellbeing through planning, project local indicators. implementation, local government programs. Political Processes and Institutions Learning to monitor Political processes, Village meetings, developing Kusumanto in political processes elections, communication channels, joint Guijt (2007) for fairness in Jambi, communication, analysis. Indonesia transparency, social inclusion.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 41 Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Towards wellbeing in Project Step-by-step guide to CIFOR (2007) forest communities: planning, project monitoring tools: community A source book for implementation, evaluation of local government local government local government programs; communicating (mentioned above) programs, communities’ needs through decision-making. scenario-based planning. Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs) Equitable ecology: Fruit trees, fruit Tree census, worksheets, Shanley and collaborative consumption, workshops, participatory Gaia (2002) learning for local bushmeat research, farmer exchanges, benefit in Amazonia consumption, experimental fruit sales. timber harvesting, hunting. Improving forest Number of hives, Force-field analysis, scenarios, Kamoto in beekeeping through quantity of honey, patrols, village meetings, Guijt (2007) monitoring in income generated, resource assessment, transect Chimaliro, Malawi handling of walks. income and honey, theft of honey, illegal tree felling. Learning to manage NTFPs, ecosystem Preliminary mapping, habitat Ojha and a complex resource: services. mapping and area calculation, Bhattarai A case of NTFP transect walk, determining (2003) assessment in Nepal diameter and clump size distribution, sampling and measurement of clumps, estimation of total clumps (by size class) and stems (by diameter class), projection of population, estimation of sustainable yield, prescribed harvesting techniques, discussion with FUG leaders, participatory mapping, stratification, sampling and plot lay out, measurement, analysis and feedback. Steps to Sustainable NTFP extraction Type of monitoring depends Stockdale and Community- and management. how much the product is at risk (2005) based NTFP from over-harvesting. Methods Management: A include: harvest records, line manual written with transects, regeneration plots, special reference to access to existing records, South & SE Asia household surveys, direct observation in the field, quantitative methods.

42 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Sharing Stewardship Social, cultural, Multi-party field monitoring by Bagby et al. of the Harvest: and environmental harvesters and public officials (2003) dimensions of including public campground Building capacity NTFPs harvesting meetings, and ongoing, focused among low-income in the US Pacific reflection among project Non-Timber Forest Northwest and partners. Product harvesters related land management issues. Objectives are to integrate harvesters’ knowledge, experience, and concerns into grassroots and institutional decision-making processes to improve sustainable management and living conditions for harvesters. Traditional NTFP sustainable Transects, forest walks, C&I, Shanley and knowledge, forest management community-driven inventories. Stockdale management and (2008) certification: A reality check

Ecosystem Services Community- Fog capture, Fog capture, mist nets and Becker et al. based monitoring ecosystem services, strip counts to monitor (2005) of fog capture watershed services, birds, Statview statistics and and biodiversity biodiversity, spreadsheet program. at Loma Alta, changes in bird Ecuador enhance species and their social capital distribution over and institutional time verifying cooperation improvement or deterioration of biodiversity.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 43 Publication Title Monitoring Topic Methods and Tools Citation Does monitoring Biodiversity, Focus group discussions Danielsen et matter? A ecosystem with volunteer ‘community al. (2005a) quantitative products and monitoring groups’ of assessment of services. particularly knowledgeable management forest product gatherers, decisions from hunters and fishers; systematic locally-based observations of wildlife and monitoring of resource use during regular protected areas patrols (field diary method); fixed-point photography of selected hillsides; simplified line transect surveys. Selling two Dry season water Stream flow velocity, water Asquith et al. environmental flows in a forested depth measurements, rainfall (2008) services: In-kind watershed. measurements. payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia.

44 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management institutional cooperation. Biodiversity References and Conservation 14: 2695-2707. Bennun, L., Matiku, P., Mulwa, R.., Mwangi, S., Buckley, P. 2005. Monitoring Important Bird Areas in Africa, towards a sustainable and scaleable Andrianadrasana, H..T., Randriamahefasoa, system. Biodiversity and Conservation J., Durbin, J., Lewis, R..E., 14: 2575–2590. Ratsimbazafy, J.H. 2005. Participatory Carter, J. 1996. Recent approaches ecological monitoring of the Alaotra to participatory forest resource wetlands in Madagascar. Biodiversity assessment. Overseas Development and Conservation 4: 2757–2774. Institute, London, UK. Anil, C.N. 2004. Participatory 3 Dimensional Case, D.D. 1990. The community’s toolbox: Modeling for ecological monitoring in The idea, methods and tools for mountainous areas. ICIMOD/IFAD participatory assessment, monitoring Partnership Programme. and evaluation in community forestry. Asquith, N.M., Vargas, M.T., Wunder, Food and Agriculture Organization of S. 2008. Selling two environmental the United Nations, Rome, Italy. services: In-kind payments for bird Center for International Forestry Research habitat and watershed protection in Los (CIFOR). 2007. Towards wellbeing in Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics. forest communities: A source book DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.014 for local governments. CIFOR, Bogor, Bagby, K., Brown, B., Chapp, S., Hunter, Indonesia. 90 pp. J. 2003. Sharing stewardship of the Colfer, C. 2005. The complex forest: harvest: Building capacity among low- Communities, uncertainty, and adaptive income non-timber forest product collaborative management. Resources harvesters. Pacific West Community for the Future, Washington D.C., USA. Forestry Center, Taylorsville, California, Colfer, C.J.P., Prabhu, R., et al. 2005. From USA. Scientific to Local C&I: An Account Battarai, T. 2002. Process and methods for of CIFOR’s Experience. UNESCO, participatory M&E of biodiversity: A Paris, France. southern reconnaissance. Introduction Cronkleton, P., Keating, R.E., Evans, K. 2007. to theme 3 of the PAMEB workshop: Helping village stakeholders monitor Processes, methods and tools. ETFRN forest benefits in Bolivia.In Negotiated Workshop on Participatory Monitoring learning: Collaborative monitoring in and Evaluation of Biodiversity. forest resource management. Guijt, Environmental Change Institute, I. (ed.). Resources for the Future, University of Oxford, UK. Washington DC, USA. Becker, C.D., Agreda, A., Astudillo, E., Cunha dos Santos, M. 2002. Adaptive Costantino, M., Torres, P. 2005. collaborative management in Acre: A Community-based monitoring of fog case study of the agroextractive project capture and biodiversity at Loma Alta, Porto Dias, Acre, Brazil. Gainesville, Ecuador enhance social capital and Florida, PESACRE/University of Florida/CIFOR. 65 pp.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 45 Danielsen, F., Balete, D.S., Poussen, M.K., Garcia, C.A., and Lescuyer, G. 2008. Enghoff, M., Nozawsa, C.M., Jensen, Monitoring, indicators and community A.E. 2000. A simple system for based forest management in the tropics: monitoring biodiversity in protected pretexts or red herrings? Biodiversity areas of a developing country. and Conservation. Published online 9 Biodiversity and Conservation 9: February 2008. 1671–1705. Ghate, R., and Nagendra, H. 2005. Danielsen, F., Jensen, A.E., Alviola, P.A., Role of monitoring in institutional Balete, D.S., Mendoza, M., Tagtag, A., performance: Forest management in Custodio, C., Enghoff, M. 2005a. Does Maharashtra, India. Conservation and monitoring matter? A quantitative Society 3: 509-532. assessment of management decisions Gibson, C., Williams, J.T., Ostrom, E. 2004. from locally-based monitoring of Local enforcement and better forests. protected areas. Biodiversity and World Development 33: 273-284. Conservation 14: 2633–2652. Green, R.E., Balmford, A., Crane, P.R., Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, Mace, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Turner, D. 2005b. Monitoring matters: R.K. 2005. A framework for improved Examining the potential of locally- monitoring of biodiversity: Response based approaches. Biodiversity and to the World Summit on Sustainable Conservation 14: 2507-2542. Development. Conservation Biology Estrella, M., Blauert, W.J., Campilan, D., 19: 56-65. Gaventa, J., Gonsalves, J., Guijt, Guijt, I. 1999. Participatory monitoring I., Johnson D., Ricafort, R. (eds.) and evaluation for natural resource 2001. Learning from Change: Issues management and research. Socio- and Experiences in Participatory economic Methodologies for Natural Monitoring and Evaluation. Resources Research. Natural Resources International Development Research Institute, Chatham, UK. Center, Canada. Guijt, I. (ed.) 2007. Negotiated learning: Gaidet, N., Fritz, H.., Nyahma, C. 2003. Collaborative monitoring in forest A participatory counting method to resources management. Resources For monitor populations of large mammals the Future, Washington, D.C., USA. in non-protected areas: a case study Hamilton, C., Rai, R.K., Shrestha, R.B., of bicycle counts in the Zambezi Maharian, M., Rasaily, L. and Hood, S. Valley, Zimbabwe. Biodiversity and Exploring visions: Self-monitoring and Conservation 12: 1571–1585. evaluation processes within the Nepal- Gaidet-Drapier, N., Fritz, H., Bourgarel, M., UK Community Forestry Project. Renaud, P., Poilecot, P., Chardonnet, 2001. In Learning from Change: Issues P., Coid, C., Poulet, D., Le Bel, S. 2005. and Experiences in Participatory Cost and efficiency of large mammal Monitoring and Evaluation. Estrella, census techniques: comparison of M. (ed.). International Development methods for a participatory approach Research Center, Canada. in a communal area, Zimbabwe. Hartanto, H., Lorenzo, M.C.B., Frio, A.L. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 2002. Collective action and learning in 735–754. developing a local monitoring system.

46 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management International Forestry Review 4: biodiversity monitoring in community 184-195. forestry. Environmental Conservation Hoare, P. 2004. A process for community 33: 325–334. and government cooperation to reduce McDougall, C. 2001. Assessing the the forest fire and smoke problem in Sustainability of Community Managed Thailand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Forests. IDRC Final Technical Report. Environment 104: 35–46. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Kamoto, J. 2007. Improving forest McDougall, C., Khadka, C., Dangol, S. 2007. beekeeping through monitoring in Using monitoring as leverage for equal Chimaliro, Malawi. In Negotiated opportunity in Nepal. In Negotiated learning: Collaborative monitoring in learning: Collaborative monitoring in forest resource management. Guijt, forest resource management. Guijt, I. (ed.). Resources for the Future, I. (ed.). Resources for the Future, Washington DC, USA. Washington DC, USA. Kusumanto, T. 2007. Learning to monitor Mendoza, G.A., and Prabhu, R. 2005. political processes for fairness in Jambi, Combining participatory modeling and Indonesia. In Negotiated learning: multi-criteria analysis for community- Collaborative monitoring in forest based forest management. Forest resource management. Guijt, I. (ed.). Ecology and Management 207: Resources for the Future, Washington 145–156. DC, USA. Noss, A.J., Oetting, I., Leny Cuellar, R. Lawrence, A. (ed.) In press. Taking stock 2005. Hunter self-monitoring by the of nature: Participatory biodiversity Isoseno-Guaranı´ in the Bolivian assessment for policy planning and Chaco. Biodiversity and Conservation practice. University of Cambridge 14: 2679–2693. Press, Cambridge, UK. Ojha, H. and Bhattarai, B. 2003. Learning Lawrence, A., Ambrose-Oji, B. 2001. to manage a complex resource: a Participatory assessment, monitoring case of NTFP assessment in Nepal. and evaluation of biodiversity: The art International Forestry Review 5: and science. A background paper for 118-127. the ETFRN Workshop on Participatory Ojha, H., Paudel, K., Neupane, H. 2003. Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity Assessment for Whom? Biodiversity, 29 December 2001. Issues, Perspectives and Lessons Environmental Change Institute, from Community Forestry in Nepal. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. A Discussion Note. Forest Action, Lawrence, A., and Elphick, M. (eds.) 2002. Kathmandu, Nepal. Policy implications of participatory Ojha, H., Pokharel, B., McDougall, C., biodiversity assessment – summary Paudel, K. 2003. Learning to Govern: report. ETFRN. Policy seminar How to improve monitoring system in convened by the Environmental community forestry in Nepal? Journal Change Institute. Environmental of Forest and Livelihood 2: 23-34. Change Institute, Oxford, UK. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: Lawrence, A., Paudel, K., Barnes, R., Malla, The Evolution of Institutions Y. 2006. Adaptive value of participatory

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 47 for Collective Action. Cambridge Root to Canopy: Regenerating University Press, Cambridge, UK. Forests through Community-State Paudel, K.P., and Ojha, H. 2007. Imposing Partnerships. Winrock International indicators or co-creating meanings India/Commonwealth Forestry in Nepal. In Negotiated learning: Association-India Chapter, New Delhi. Collaborative monitoring in forest Pp. 267-273. resource management. Guijt, I. (ed.). Sekher, M. 2001. Organized participatory Resources for the Future, Washington resource management: insights from DC, USA. community forestry practices in Poulsen, M.K., and Luanglath, K. 2005. India. Forest Policy and Economics 3: Projects come, projects go: lessons from 137-154. participatory monitoring in southern Shanley, P. and Gaia, G.R. 2002. Equitable Laos. Biodiversity and Conservation ecology: collaborative learning for 14: 2591–2610. local benefit in Amazonia. Agricultural Prabhu, R., Colfer, P.J.P., Dudley, R.G. 1999. Systems 73: 83–97. Guidelines for developing, testing, and Shanley, P. and Stockdale, M. 2008. Traditional selecting criteria and indicators for knowledge, forest management, and sustainable forest management. The certification: A reality check. Forests, Criteria and Indicators Toolbox Trees and Livelihoods 18: 55-68. Series No. 1. CIFOR, Bogor, Sheil, D., and Lawrence, A. 2004. Indonesia. Tropical biologists, local people and Prabhu, R. 2003. Developing collaborative conservation: new opportunities for monitoring for adaptive co-management collaboration. Trends in Ecology and of tropical African forests (Contract Evolution 19: 634-638. Number: B7-6201/99-05/FOR). Final Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Johnson, B. 2004. Report for the Period. January 1, 2000- Ecological criteria and indicators for December 31, 2002. CIFOR, Harare, tropical forest landscapes: challenges Zimbabwe. in the search for progress. Ecology and Purnomo, H., Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R. Society 9(1): 7 [online] URL: http:// 2005. Analysis of local perspectives www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/ on sustainable forest management: iss1/art7/. an Indonesian case study. Journal Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W., Seuaturien, of Environmental Management 74: N. 2006. Collaborating to conserve 111–126. large mammals in Southeast Asia. Ritchie, B., McDougall, C., Haggith, M., Conservation Biology 20: 1391–1401. Burford de Oliveira, N. 2000. Criteria Stockdale, M. 2005. Steps to Sustainable and indicators of sustainability in and Community-based NTFP community managed forest landscapes Management: a manual written with — An introductory guide. CIFOR, special reference to South & SE Asia. Bogor, Indonesia. Quezon City, Philippines, NTFP Roy, S.B. 2004. Participatory vegetation Exchange Programme for South and monitoring: Examples from West Southeast Asia. Bengal. In V. K. Bahuguna, K. Mitra, Stuart-Hill, G., Diggle, R., Munali, B., Tagg, D. Capistrano and S. Saigal (Eds.), J., Ward, D. 2005. The Event Book

48 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management System: a community-based natural resource monitoring system from Namibia. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2611–2631. Tiani, A.M., Nguiébouri, J., Diaw, C. 2002. Criteria and indicators as tool for adaptive and collaborative forest management: A guide. Center for International Forestry Research, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Topp-Jorgensen, E., Poulsen, M.K., Lund, J.F., Massao, J.F. 2005. Community- based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands of Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2653–2677. Van Rijsoort, J., and Jinfeng, Z. 2005. Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting social change in Yunnan, China. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2543–2573. Whitelaw, G., Vaughan, H., Craig, V., Atkinson, D. 2003. Establishing the Canadian Community Monitoring Network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88: 409–418. Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., Buck, L. 2000. Anticipating change: Scenarios as a tool for adaptive forest management. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

A review of tools, concepts and lessons learned | 49 Appendix A: Keywords searched Adaptive management Forest monitoring Biodiversity Forest monitoring biodiversity Conservation Forest monitoring conservation Community-based monitoring Forest monitoring local management Community forest management Forest monitoring stakeholder Community forestry Indicators Conservation biodiversity local Local community community Local forest management Conservation biodiversity management Local monitoring forest stakeholder Management Conservation biodiversity people Monitoring Conservation local Non-timber forest products Ecosystem Participatory Ecotourism Participatory monitoring Forest Tools Forest management Appendix B: Web sites searched www.ifcae.org www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/ www.atree.org biodiversity/documents.html www.modelforest.net www.idrc.ca www.eman-rese.ca www.ntfp.org www.cbcrc.org www.recoftc.org www.forestaction.org www.dfid.gov.uk www.fao.org srdis.ciesin.org www.gccbfm.org cifor.cgiar.org www.iisd.org www.fosonline.org www.iucn.org www.catie.ac.cr www.iufro.org www.forest-trends.org www.fecofun.org www.rff.org www.sierrainstitute.us www.rightsandresources.org www.mekonginfo.org

50 | Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) CIFOR is a leading international forestry research organization established in 1993 in response to global concerns about the social, environmental, and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR advances human well-being, environmental conservation, and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries. CIFOR is one of 15 centres within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CIFOR’s headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia. It also has offices in Brazil, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and works in over 30 other countries around the world.

Donors CIFOR receives its major funding from governments, international organizations, private foundations and regional organizations. In 2007, CIFOR received financial support from African Forestry Research Network (AFORNET), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Association Intercooperation Madagascar (AIM), Australia, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Binnacle Family Foundation, Brazil, Canada, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, China, Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), Cordaid, Conservation International Foundation (CIF), Denmark, European Commission, Finland, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Ford Foundation, France, German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Indonesia, Innovative Resource Management (IRM), International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), International Development Research Centre (IDRC), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Italy, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Japan, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), Korea, MacArthur Foundation, Netherlands, Norway, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Peruvian Secretariat for International Cooperation (RSCI), Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Swedish International Biodiversity Programme (SwedBio), Switzerland, Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape, The Tinker Foundation Incorporated, Tropenbos International, Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF), United States, United States Forest Service (USFS), United Kingdom, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Wageningen International, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Bank, World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). In the past decade, understanding of the importance and role of monitoring in tropical forest management has changed significantly. Monitoring is no longer the exclusive purview of forest managers and scientists. Now local people are working with professionals to develop and implement programs together. This collaboration changes the dynamic of forest management, with monitoring assuming a central role by encouraging local people to ask questions about their forest and their forest-based livelihoods, think about change in a systematic way and respond with reasoned decision-making. Participatory monitoring becomes a mechanism that drives learning, adaptation and improvement—essential elements for sustainably managing tropical forests. There are now documented cases of participatory monitoring programs in tropical forests throughout the world. This book reviews recent experiences in participatory monitoring in tropical forest management and summarizes the concepts and lessons learned. It discusses impacts, challenges, and shortcomings of participatory monitoring and presents a matrix of case studies, methods and tools as a quick reference guide. Finally it provides recommendations for future directions in participatory monitoring.