Page 1 of 14

Participatory Surveying and Monitoring in Lao PDR: A Starting Point for Collaborative Management of Protected Areas

Robert Steinmetz World Wide Fund for Nature/Thailand Program Office Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract

Protected area managers often view local communities as a threat to biodiversity and inimical conservation efforts. This is reflected in the definition of "local participation" that is applied, and the limited role designated for local people in the management of a protected area. Only after research information is analyzed and processed are villagers asked to participate, and then usually in predetermined ways. This paper describes an alternative approach to assessing and monitoring biodiversity, and illuminating opportunities for its conservation, that has been developed by the WWF/ Thailand Program Office, which is working with the staff and local people of four protected areas in southern Lao PDR. The process begins with a Participatory Biodiversity Assessment (PBA) which focused on local ecological knowledge and practices, and helps reveal details of wildlife-habitat relationships and the diversity of habitat types. Subsequent ecological surveys are informed by, and follow the PBA. The data that emerge are used to uncover points of intersection, where local interests and existing patterns of land or resource use converge with protected area priorities. Surveys are followed by returning results to local communities using graphic posters and maps, and allowing local interpretations of data to help advance a mutual understanding of the issues that face the protected area. This approach facilitates positive relationships with local people while establishing a process for integration of local ecological knowledge, and ecological monitoring of key species of large mammals and birds. This paper argues that the approach establishes a basis for PA collaborative management in a broader sense by using initial surveys as the starting point from which information emerges that is owned and used by local people and protected area officials in informing management decisions.

Introduction

The concepts of collaborative, or participatory management, although not fully embraced or willfully accepted by some, are on the conservation agenda in many countries. Protected area managers and advisors have been compelled to accommodate the idea of participation due to repeated failures of an ideology of protected area management predicated on the urban ideal of "wilderness preservation". This trend has led to one of increased awareness of the social, economic, environmental, and cultural costs to local and indigenous peoples who have, in numerous cases struggled against what amounts to expropriation of their resources in the name of conservation. The acceptance of local involvement in protected area management has been assisted by the timely demise of the "equilibrium paradigm" in ecological science (Meffe et al 1997). This model promoted the idea that natural systems exist in a fragile, static, and carefully balanced state that only the depravations of man could upset. This scientific and popular misconception has hindered an understanding of disturbance processes and change in the maintenance of and biodiversity, and has prevented an unbiased perception of the ecological role of humans and their relationship with the landscape (Robinson 1993).

Although it is now accepted that conservation planning must account for human presence (Meffe et al 1997), there are conflicting notions regarding the role of local communities in this process. To some, villagers are an accepted reality - but essentially regarded as the enemy of the protected area (PA) - to be planned around, perhaps through economic incentives to bribe them into changing their resource use patterns or behavior. This approach leads to management in which local participation is limited to receiving development interventions and environmental education. An alternative approach, currently being implemented in four PA's in southern Lao PDR, emphasizes local involvement in a different way.

Background

The Lao protected area system was established in 1993, and currently there are 20 national PA's (also referred Page 2 of 14

to as National Biodiversity Conservation Areas) under varying degrees of management. The Forest Management and Conservation Program (FOMACOP), funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), was started in 1995 to assist the establishment of management in four PA's in southern Lao: Xe Pian, Dong Phou Vieng, Khammouan Limestone and Xe Sap. The WWF/Thailand Program Office was brought in to survey the social and biological features of those PAs, provide baseline information from which management decisions could be made, and establish the framework for a participatory monitoring system.

In the Southeast Asian context, the protected areas in Lao PDR are a special case. From the inception of the PA system in 1993, the Lao government has clearly stated that communities must be included in the management of protected areas. Though many Department of officials and PA staff believe that their jobs would be easier if they could simply relocate Lao villagers, most accept this option as unethical and impractical. By not declaring local people illegal squatters in newly established PA's, the government paved a path towards more sustainable conservation of both biodiversity and culture.

Experience throughout the region has revealed that in most cases, enabling local people's involvement is arguably the most crucial aspect of PA management (McNeely 1996). That involvement will take different forms, but it still must be based upon a common understanding of the circumstances of a particular PA. The approach presented in this paper presents a way to achieve this.

It must be recognized that the opportunity to initiate this type of approach has been made possible largely due to an enabling policy environment. In addition, important legal issues, such as land tenure, which Lao policy does not ensure for local people in PA's are not discussed in this paper. Ultimately, the legal instruments that emerge in Lao PDR could have great influence on the amount or quality of participation by local people. There must be efforts at the national level to maintain (or establish) positive and realistic conservation policies.

A Participatory Approach

Traditionally, outside researchers and PA staff study the biological values of protected areas and use the results and interpretations to form a foundation for management decisions. Local people are inevitably left out of the more important parts of the process, including what information is being collected and why, and its interpretation and use. From the outset, an uneven relationship is established or reinforced, and the potential for incorporation of local knowledge and experience in data collection, interpretation and application is ignored.

The participatory approach being implemented in Lao PDR intends to avoid these shortcomings. It requires the acceptance of a few simple yet crucial premises. The first is the belief that the concept of participatory management can only be realized when it ceases to be seen as the final step in the process of establishing management in the PA, but rather as the mindset from which everything else follows. Participatory management starts "today", not after a whole range of activities have created it. Observations of the relationship of inhabitants to the resources of the PA reveal that villagers are already acting as de facto managers; to ignore this is to set the stage for failure when outsiders attempt to impose their own systems.

The second premise recognizes that local people are the human assets of the PA, upon which the conservation of biodiversity depends. Although some local activities may threaten biodiversity, local peoples' presence also has beneficial sides, and presents conservation opportunities. Their knowledge of and historical ecological perspective provide insights into processes taking place in these environments, and are invaluable for collecting, interpreting and understanding biological data. Their existing practices, institutions and beliefs may provide a basis for, and help inform conservation initiatives.

The requirement becomes then, not to "create" local people's involvement by writing them into management plans devised by outsiders, but rather to see where outsiders can fit into the local social-economic and cultural processes already occurring. Management planning must integrate both community and PA concerns, but through the process suggested, one may discover points of intersection, where existing local practices converge with PA priorities. These intersections can be the starting points for management interventions, because they start with what already exists, and build from there, thus following paths of least resistance. In this context, surveys should not be seen simply as a means to extract information, but rather as the first step in developing a working relationship.

One of the first tasks in PA management are surveys to develop a knowledge base about two major elements - local people and biodiversity - and where and how these elements interact.

These surveys are where local participation began in Lao, and were separated into two complementary Page 3 of 14

phases. First, was a Participatory Biodiversity Assessment - this facilitated and informed the second phase - the ecological surveys. Elements of the process are described below, and their relationships depicted in Figure 1.

Initial PBA and ecological surveys start the process. Establishing ecological monitoring systems is one initial form of conservation agreement and management action; more refined or species/areas specific conservation agreements are more likely after a number of cycles of the process have occurred.

Figure 1: Process and components of the survey and participatory monitoring approach implemented in Lao PDR

Participatory Biodiversity Assessment

The Participatory Biodiversity Assessment (PBA) involves local people in discussions about habitats, wildlife and ecology, resource and land use, and cultural factors affecting these issues. The PBA mindset regards them as local naturalists and experts, and is the first step for creating positive relationships between PA personnel and community members. The PBA process also serves as on-the-job training for PA staff, as they observe and participate in the use of the requisite social and technical skills. The PBA, although referred to here by a new acronym, is nothing revolutionary. It is not a new formula for engendering participation. Essentially, it simply means taking time to learn from local people, and brings tools together to accomplish this more systematically. Most importantly, the PBA is set within a process designed to build partnerships with local people, spotlight opportunities for conservation initiatives, and maximize cooperation in management decision making.

PBA goals

The main goals of the PBA are to:

 Develop a more complete understanding of ecosystems, including local knowledge of ecological communities, wildlife habitats, and wildlife-habitat relationships which helps inform the subsequent ecological surveys, as well as future research and monitoring efforts;

 Develop an understanding of the nature and extent of local resource use and agriculture, local or traditional conservation practices, and spiritual aspects of local involvement with the area; Page 4 of 14

 Establish a positive, respectful, and participatory relationship between local people, PA staff, government officials and outsiders; and  Train and build awareness of the PA staff.

Information Objectives

The information objectives of the PBA are twofold:

1. Status/Biodiversity values of the PA - This is accomplished through observation, habitat inspection and research into local knowledge on the following topics:

 Structure and composition of ecological communities and wildlife habitats  Structure and composition of the landscape mosaic comprising the PA  Presence, absence, and relative abundance of wildlife species in and between habitats and regions within the PA  Abundance and location of critical wildlife resources  Wildlife-habitat relationships, including effects of season and other factors on wildlife distribution, abundance and movement patterns  Trends and changes among the species and communities of the PA  Ecological processes, disturbance regime and historical ecological perspective  Local taxonomy and classification of habitats, forest types and animals

2. Local people/Resource use - Local interaction with the PA including actual and potential impacts, as well as opportunities for conservation inherent in local beliefs and practices, such as:

 Basic socioeconomic data  Resource use (inventory, intensity, spatial and temporal aspects)  Community history  Local resource management  Forest perceptions, attitudes, spiritual aspects of human-environment relationship  Beliefs, patterns of behavior related to conservation

Methodology

The PBA methodology relies on tools of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) that are adapted focus more on information regarding the biodiversity of the area and local ecological knowledge. The details of PBA tools and their use is not covered in this paper but the range of techniques are briefly listed below. Their uses are not necessarily exclusive from each other; for example semi-structured discussions usually accompany mapping and forest walks. Techniques are listed roughly in chronological order of their use, and by importance. Level I tools form the basis of PBA work, and build an information base which can be augmented and refined through further use of the same tools, or addition of more time-consuming methods of Levels II and III.

Level I

 Participatory mapping, both village area and larger regional scale, which explores landscape level attributes.  Semi-structured discussions with local naturalists, experts, and hunters.  Listing of wildlife species present.  Use of pictures and photos of mammals, birds, and fish.  Listing of habitat types.  Forest walks and habitat investigation with local people.  Observation of village activities and resource use

Level II

 Linguistic interpretation of local languages to elicit information about wildlife, ecology and cultural beliefs. This will include the creation of a glossary of local terms for wildlife, habitats, ecological communities, topographical features and place names. Attention should be given to local language concerning ecology, conservation practices, cultural and spiritual beliefs and perceptions of nature.  Ranking of wildlife species relative abundance, done by taxonomic groups.  Ranking of historical trends in wildlife species abundance. Page 5 of 14

Level III - these require the most time

 Ranking of seasonal habitat-wildlife relationships.  Ranking of fish presence, absence, seasonal occurrence, and migratory patterns (in different watersheds).  Ranking of village resource use.  Seasonal calendar of resource use.  Resource comparison between economic, subsistence and historical use.

The PBA supports ecological surveys

The PBA generates information essential to prepare logistics for subsequent ecological surveys. It identifies knowledgeable and interested villagers (local naturalists) who can join the survey team as guides and consultants. Most importantly the PBA provides a wealth of regional knowledge and better "pre-understanding" of the landscape and ecology of the area. With this information, survey time can be allocated more efficiently and increased attention directed to species habitats or processes previously unconsidered.

Local Ecological Knowledge

Traditional approaches to biological surveying and local participation usually ignore the great potential for integrating local knowledge. This is because:

 Considered "unscientific" by many biologists, local ecological knowledge is usually limited to "provisional" identification of possibly present species. The inclusion of this information into survey design is also considered dangerous by these same people;  Many biologists do not know or have not learned the tools and skills necessary for exchanging information with, and learning from local people; and  Understanding information gathered from villagers has pitfalls for those unaware of the subtle factors regarding language, culture, psychology, cosmology, epistemology, and politics which always influence the nature of questions and perceptions, and the interpretation of answers.

Local inhabitants, through interaction with their landscapes over time, have developed a more refined and detailed understanding of the . Landscape attributes, such as habitat diversity in protected areas, play a crucial role in the regulation of animal populations (MacArther and Wilson 1967; Pickett and White 1985; Saunders et al. 1991). Also, community level diversity is important to the long term stability and functioning of the landscape ecosystem as a whole (Walker 1992). Details of such components of community and landscape ecology are often a prominent domain in local people's ecological knowledge.

Work with local people in Lao has shown that without their input one would have only a rough understanding of the different forest types and wildlife habitats present, or perhaps be overconfident that satellite images and existing maps revealed sufficient detail on which to base plans for survey and monitoring work.

An example from Xe Pian Protected Area located in Champassak and Attapeu Provinces, highlights the importance of integrating local ecological knowledge into survey design. It was known from existing maps and cursory information gathered from local people, that vast tracts of Deciduous Dipterocarp Forest dominated the southern portion of the PA. However, it was only through detailed PBA work that it was learned from the local people of important local variations in the broader forest mosaic defined as Deciduous Dipterocarp Forest. These variations were clear to many local naturalists. As turned out, two of the subtypes, known as Ba-Dong and Song in local terminology, re extensively interspersed among the broader Deciduous Dipterocarp Forest, with significant differences in structure and composition that affected local migrations of wild cattle and perhaps other large mammals (Steinmetz 1997).

After the PBA and Ecological Surveys

The PBA and ecological surveys of the PA's in Lao have generated information about the state of both culture and ecology in the protected area, and have started to specifically identify the following: Page 6 of 14

 Status of wildlife species and ecological communities;  Important areas for wildlife;  Important areas for local resource use, economy and subsistence;  Local traditions, beliefs and practices related to resource management;  Villages which are important in terms of management because of their location, local knowledge, activities in the protected area and enthusiasm towards an active role in PA management; and  Individuals within villages who show aptitude, knowledge and motivation for working together with PA staff and outsiders.

The next steps continue the process described in Figure 1, by which the data generated in the initial surveys have been put to use, and through which further information has been added. In order to begin to make use of the information gathered in the PBA and ecological surveys, it is first necessary to return it to local communities.

Returning the Results

Traditionally, local people are overlooked after surveys are completed - survey information becomes the property of protected area staff and outside advisors who unilaterally use it to inform conservation management and decisions. In contrast, the approach advocated here continues the survey process already started by returning the results to local communities. The benefits for the PA potentially include:

 Better cooperation between local communities and PA staff;  Application of local ecological knowledge to help interpret survey results;  Agreement on conservation priorities and actions; and  Joint decision making based on a common understanding of the situation.

Sustaining conservation initiatives or management actions in the PA depends on reaching agreements with local people, and this can best be accomplished by involving them in analysis of information. Unilateral decisions should be avoided for co-management to succeed.

In the PA's in Lao PDR, ecological survey fieldwork was followed initially by informal meetings in the respective villages that had participated. In these meetings the initial results and observations were presented by researchers, PA staff and local naturalists. This began the involvement of local people in the interpretation of biological information. After survey reports were written, the following steps were used for returning results on a more formal level:

1. Preparation of a summary of the survey results

Ecological survey information was "translated" by the staff (with the assistance of the author) into more easily understood and graphic forms, such as posters, lists, and maps. The translation process increased the staff's understanding of the survey results and ecology of the PA, and improved their information analysis capabilities. Survey information returned to local communities has included:

 Species lists with local names;  Habitat type list with local terms;  Relative abundance of different species between sites;  Photographs of survey activities, birds, animals, forest types and local landscapes; and  Spatial information for forest and habitat types, wildlife sightings, and important areas for wildlife

One of the primary methods for translating results has been creating posters that display pictures or silhouettes of animals - different numbers of pictures/silhouettes indicating differences in relative abundance between sites.

2. Preparation of mounted and laminated maps

Topographic maps of the entire protected area and periphery have been presented to key villages, along with marker pens. Survey information has been indicated on the map, which is also one medium for recording data in subsequent monitoring activities, such as plotting the locations of species sightings and signs.

The work in Lao has discovered that the existence of the PA's and its boundaries were often unclear or Page 7 of 14

unknown to many local villagers. Using maps of the area assists local people to comprehend the locations of their villages, resource use areas, and territories - in relation to the PA. Existing spatial knowledge regarding the locations of wildlife and their movements is usually localized, but has been expanded regionally through use of maps. For example, villages in southern Xe Pian were familiar with seasonal movements of wild cattle in their region, but knew little about populations in the center of the PA. Discussing survey results and using maps expanded their understanding of the wider picture of the status of these endangered wild cattle.

As a tool in the collaborative process recommended here, maps may increase local people's participation by drawing them (literally, on the map) into the larger picture. Observations from returning results in Khammouan Limestone and Xe Pian PA's indicate that the simple act of drawing a brightly colored star where a village is located may initiate a small, but seminal sense of pride and ownership. These are some of the intangible social aspects of collaborative protected area management that can support and facilitate tangible conservation objectives later.

3. Visit villages and discuss results

The goal of returning results is not simply transmitting information from staff to villagers, but rather eliciting local people's interpretations about what the information means, and how to use it. They have important interpretations, based on local knowledge and an unmatched historical ecological perspective. PA staff involved in the process have learned at least as much as they have transmitted.

Discussing results with local communities has also presented an opportunity to raise Conservation awareness in some cases by describing the status of different species throughout Lao and the region. When set in the process of returning and discussing results, building awareness about key species or other conservation issues becomes more relevant, because the local situation can be compared and contrasted with that of other parts of the PA, the province, nation and region.

Local Interpretation

The greatest potential for integration of local knowledge lies not at the beginning of surveys, but after they are completed. Local people, if given the opportunity to discuss survey findings and observations, often provide interpretations and insights that otherwise may have been missed were the results interpreted solely by staff and advisors. Local ecological knowledge is especially useful for comprehending seasonal effects on wildlife. For example, in Khammouan limestone Protected Area, local people explained how their own pattern of resource use in certain areas, combined with dry season localization of foods for macaques, leads Pig-tailed macaques ( Macaca nemestina ) to inhabit a cliff habitat that, in other seasons, would be the domain of the other macaque in the area - Assamese macaque ( M. assamensis ) (Steinmetz 1998). Dry season surveys had observed this macaque distribution, and the historical ecological perspective of local people provided a hypothesis about what natural and anthropogenic factors might be influencing that distribution. Could this interpretation be wrong? Possibly, but it pinpoints a question which follow-up participatory surveys can address, and through which common understanding will be advanced. As this example showed Khammouan Limestone staff, when local people are involved as partners, there is a greater opportunity to assess and discuss the complex web of factors affecting wildlife, including local people's own activities.

Ecological processes are often the least understood component of biodiversity (Noss 1990), but are crucial to its maintenance. One of the most overlooked aspects of local knowledge is the understanding of change in ecological communities and across landscapes over long time periods. Temporally, outsiders usually catch only a glimpse of an area's biology; which is incomplete without seasonal and historical analysis, possibly leading to incorrect conclusions and informing inappropriate decisions. The depth of analysis that local knowledge can add, through this historical ecological perspective, provides the bridge for linking present day data with past and current ecological processes.

An example from Xe Pian reveals how the incorporation of local knowledge can not only enhance ecological understanding, but also help avoid unnecessary conflicts arising from the unilateral interpretation of survey results by PA management. Surveys and local reports both pointed to the importance of a certain mineral lick complex for larger mammals, especially elephants and gaur. PA staff initially sought to declare it a "core zone" for that reason, off-limits to local people under all circumstances. After encouragement to follow through first with returning of results, PA staff was told by local people that in fact large mammals, for which the lick is important, use the area seasonally. This local interpretation was supported by data from follow-up surveys in the rainy season to explore the question of seasonal use of the licks. Sightings and tracks of wildlife suggested that the most important season for lick use by mammals was the rainy season. This season did not overlap Page 8 of 14

with local peoples' use of the area, which was intensive only in the dry season. Additionally, a core zone centered on the mineral licks would have ignored seasonal movements of the wildlife ostensibly being protected. To have unilaterally declared a core zone - without first returning results, eliciting local interpretation, and seeking mutual understanding through follow-up participatory surveys - would have created an unnecessary conflict with local people. Gaur and elephants in Xe Pian will be best protected through species measures, or special protection within areas which are less important for local people, thus avoiding conflict.

Common Understanding

The sharing of survey results, though more time-consuming than unilateral efforts, will contribute to the lasting success of management interventions. Too often, managers of PA's and their advisors, advocate involving local people only after "all the facts" have been gathered and analyzed. As seen in the example above, unilateral planning without the input of local people may ignore significant ecological information about the wildlife one is trying to protect, while unnecessarily engendering conflict. Also, chances that local people will adhere to imposed rules are less if they have no ownership of the ideas and no input into their application.

Work with local people and regularly returning and discussing results may uncover already existing local "conservation zones," providing the chance to merge PA priorities with local realities, thus providing a smoother start to management activities. Even when local ecological knowledge proves to be inaccurate, the process of mutual learning will hopefully not only adjust these deficiencies, but lead to a common understanding of the circumstances from which sustainable solutions are more likely to emerge. In the PAs where the project is working, surveying and returning results has led to the next step - ecological monitoring.

Ecological Monitoring

Monitoring is often seen as a function of protected area staff or outside researchers. This report recommends that it be part of the collaborative process instead. Local people may not initially assign great importance to systematic monitoring of wildlife populations and their trends, but in fact they naturally perform their own style of qualitative (and sometimes quantitative) monitoring. For example, they perceive changes in habitats and wildlife abundance over historical time or between seasons, and they mentally note this information. Following are methods to tap into this source of information, and use it to advance comprehension of the ecological situation in the PA, and inform management decisions.

What to monitor?

Returning results to local communities in Lao has elicited interpretations about the information, and how the "snapshot" dry season view of wildlife generated by the surveys may change in other seasons. A certain level of mutual agreement and understanding regarding the state of biodiversity and conservation in the PA has emerged through the discussion of the results with local people. Deciding what species or locations to monitor, or choosing which unanswered biological questions to follow up, should emerge through that foundation. This will help ensure that decisions are made through exchange and collaboration, rather than unilaterally.

Experience from Xe Pian and Khammouan Limestone PAs has shown that key species of each PA often figure prominently in the discussion of results. These have included: tiger, elephant, gaur, banteng, serow, langur, gibbon, peafowl, and sarus crane, among others depending on the wildlife community particular to the PA. These are among the very species which the PA's are meant to protect. By reaching an agreement about the species on which to initially focus, local people have become involved in decision making, however seemingly small that decision. Initially, what to monitor is less important than the degree of local involvement and the process in which monitoring is set.

Joint Monitoring Teams

Among the local people living around the PAs are local naturalists i.e. local people knowledgeable about the biodiversity of the area. Through these surveys, capable and interested individuals who fit this description have been identified in the target villages. These people have formed the core of small Joint Monitoring Teams (JMT) to act with PA staff and (at least initially) outside assistance in the field implementation of simple monitoring programs. Page 9 of 14

In Xe Pian PA, local villages chose two or three people, often the same local naturalists who accompanied the ecological surveys, to form the JMT. One village decided to rotate the membership in order to spread the experience to more people. The role of the JMT is simply to accompany PA staff in mutually agreed upon follow up surveys, which might take place once or twice per year.

Follow up surveys with JMT's have initially focused on the status of wildlife or habitats in the same locations as explored in the initial ecological survey, but in different seasons. Also important have been surveys to still unexplored regions of the PAs.

In the future, the JMT's may also help perform more "traditional" enforcement oriented activities, such as patrolling.

In all cases, the JMT members should be paid for their time in the field, not simply for their role as a JMT member. Payment for data and information should be strictly avoided in collaborative management.

Village logbooks and anecdotal information

Local people often regularly observe wildlife or their signs. A wealth of anecdotal information is generated over time, and if recorded systematically in a simple format, would constitute an important form of monitoring in itself. This is the rationale for introducing a village logbook for target villages to record information that can be monitored periodically through PA staff visits. The information collected has been a focal point for discussion between staff and local people.

After results are returned, a limited group of species is chosen for log-book monitoring. These have included four to ten larger birds and mammals (focus species). Information to be recorded includes: species, location, habitat, whether observation was a sighting or a sign, observer and date. A table is drawn into a bound book by staff and local people. Some villages have added additional table headings to more precisely document animal sign. Actual sightings are recorded immediately so that everyone understands how to use the table.

Members of the JMT (if one exists in the particular village) may or may not be involved in recording information, but it is best if one person or a small group maintain responsibility for the book. In villages in Xe Pian and Khammouan Limestone, it was decided that the recorders) would simply note down villagers' observations of the focus species once per month, at monthly village meetings. This requires a minimum of additional work or effort for local people.

"Scientific" vs. "community" monitoring

Some may argue the methods proposed above are less than adequate because: (a) allowing local interpretations and priorities to influence decisions may not address NBCA priorities, and (b) the monitoring approach lacks scientific rigor. These arguments will be briefly addressed.

In the initial stages of PA management in Lao, it is more important that a framework for monitoring be established, one that includes those who may be affected by the findings of that monitoring - local people. If local people can be meaningfully included, and positive reinforcement gained through success of initially simple methods, then both sides may move forward in addressing more difficult or contentious issues. The approach recommended here is intended as much to build trust and understanding, as it is to monitor wildlife. Having that foundation established will help advance PA priorities.

Experiments in Xe Pian PA by the author (Steinmetz, in prep.) indicate that establishing a repeatable sign index, with sufficient precision to track trends, requires more kilometers of "transect distance" than staff can realistically be expected to walk. This is not to say that a sign index, or other replicable monitoring method which can generate precise data, is not worth the effort - simply that a less structured approach is more appropriate initially. Despite these statistical challenges, the community monitoring approach outlined here can provide data sets which can be compared over time and between areas (depending on habitat similarity and other factors). Theoretically, village activities in any one time period represent many hundreds of kilometers of "transect distance" walked, although it would be unrealistic to try and measure this. However, if transacts are used to determine presence/absence or relative abundance, but not absolute numbers or population densities, then transect distance is simply a common denominator of search effort, which could be substituted by other measures of search effort as long as they are replicable. The method suggested here relies on a broad measure of survey effort in units of time, and can be used in two indicators, presented in Table 1.

First, the continued Presence or absence of focus species, in different locations and over time, can be monitored. Second, by combining numbers of observations and a measure of survey effort such as seasons or Page 10 of 14

"one month periods of (typical) villager activity", an index of relative abundance can be tracked. This is similar to one of the indicators recommended by Wangwacharakul et al. (1996): "Changes in number of sightings of designated species in specified locations for a constant number of informants." Obviously, comparisons must be made with qualifications of how much villager activity took place in an area in a certain month. As many village activities are seasonal, however, same months in different years will often be comparable. Relative to the scarcity of monitoring systems of any kind in the region, that are actually in place in e field, such data would be a significant start.

In Xe Pian Protected Area, after returning of results in Nongkhe Village, discussion cussed on areas that surveys had not previously reached that villagers thought were important to large mammals and endangered water birds. To gather additional information from those areas and coordinate the documentation of local sightings of Wildlife and their signs, the JMT idea was proposed. A JMT was formed and its first task was to survey the selected area, gathering information about habitat diversity, movement and ecology of Gaur ( Bos gaurus ) and Banteng ( Bos Javanicus ), the status of large carnivores and locations of waterholes and mineral licks. They also surveyed the locations of previously unmapped waterholes. Discussions with the village headman and other community members followed, continuing the process of returning results and refining mutual understanding of the local ecosystem.

Table 1: Indicators and methods in a community monitoring system

Indicator Method Monitoring protocol

Presence/absence of focus species Village reports of signs/ sightings Over time: same month season or (possibly in target areas) in defined recorded in log book village activity period, in successive time periods years

Relative abundance of focus Village reports of sign/ sightings and Over time: same month season or search effort, recorded in log book village activity period, in successive years

The survey work and subsequent participatory monitoring activities described so far have been under implementation for less than two years. They have not reached the point of informing voluntary conservation agreements such as species or area protection measures. In Xe Pian PA the process has been in place longest, and further work by PA staff, following up closely with key villages, could potentially see the formation of basic agreements about species and area protection in the near future. It should be kept in mind that follow up surveys and various forms of monitoring which have been initiated are considered to be an initial form of management agreement between PA's and local people. More refined agreements pertaining to individual species, specific critical wildlife habitats, or local resource use practices are more likely to emerge after two or more cycles of the process depicted in Figure 1.

The initiation of co-management described so far has relied upon the use and refinement of information through the process of returning results, eliciting local interpretation, and establishing simple monitoring procedures. As the cultural and ecological data sets become larger and more complete, other types of conservation opportunities may become apparent, through comparison of ecological and cultural information. The following section describes possibilities for using these two types of information in the search for co- management opportunities, with examples from Lao PA's. These possibilities have been recommended to Lao PA staff for follow up study, but to date have not been taken past theoretical application.

Co-management Opportunities

The combination of ecological surveying and PBA work produces two main sets of information. One set is ecological, pertaining to wildlife species and their habitats. The other is related to cultural aspects of local peoples' presence, or human ecology. The PBA starts to uncover traditional resource management systems, rules and restrictions, cultural values, spiritual beliefs, or anything else linked to conservation. The use of this cultural and human ecology information, and its potential link with ecological information will be examined next.

Even though local people may not invoke the term "conservation" verbally, they of- ten maintain traditions, practices, and beliefs related to resource management in which the concept is inherent. Through such existing practices or traditions, linkages may be made to PA conservation Priorities. Local resource management practices may originate from: Page 11 of 14

 Consciously stipulated regulations;  Traditional norms of behavior; and/or  Spiritual practices or beliefs.

Whatever their origin, indigenous conservation practices are important to understand because they provide potential opportunities for collaboration between PA staff and local people. When compared with ecological data, potential points of intersection may be uncovered, whereby local practices converge with PA priorities. If cultural information is overloomiked, or relegated to the "social" sphere of management, opportunities for collaboration which builds on existing practices and simultaneously satisfies both local and PA priorities will be missed. Table 2 presents information about local conservation practices and beliefs that emerged from PBA work with villages around Khammouan Limestone PA. These can be regarded as existing conservation practices, of at least provoke ideas for discussion with local people about how existing practices can be linked to species or habitat protection.

For example, in Khammouan Limestone Protected Area, traditional conservation forests have been established in cliff-side strips of semi-evergreen forest to protect the habitat of villagers' betel ( Piper betel ) vines, the leaves of which are sold and represent an important source of cash income. Ecological survey information has revealed that these areas often overlap with the habitats of Serow ( Capricornus sumatraensis ) and at least three species of primates. This example shows a point of intersection, where local practices, although not ostensibly related to wildlife conservation, converge with PA priorities which include protection of the habitats of endangered primates and Serow.

Besides their immediate conservation value, existing concepts and customs of local conservation forests could be expanded to protect more areas and additional wildlife species.

For example, many villages in Table 2 maintain conservation forests for resource or spiritual reasons. Ban Vieng in particular also maintains a protected cave which in turn preserves the dry season habitat and breeding population of economically important fish. The concepts inherent in these local practices - protection of habitat and wildlife populations - could potentially be expanded to include locations or species not presently covered. The important point is that the underlying conservation concepts are already present and being applied; conditions that will enhance their relevance to future conservation priorities.

As seen in the examples above, combining ecological and cultural information may help direct management efforts by providing windows of opportunity in which existing practices converge with wildlife or habitat protection. Another way to look at points of intersection between these two sets of information is to find where they specifically do not converge. This may be an important approach in situations where local resource use patterns are seen as a threat to wildlife or habitats. Opportunities to initiate management actions may exist in those zones where wildlife values are high, but importance to the local economy or subsistence is low. Instead of focussing on locations of obvious importance to both wildlife and people, the approach suggested here starts with "easier" areas, where establishing voluntary agreements or other forms of management action will be less contentious. The intention is not to ignore conservation urgency in other, more "difficult" areas, but simply to initiate positive collaboration upon which management of these areas will depend in the future.

Table 2: Local conservation practices and beliefs: potential co-management opportunities in Khammouan Limestone Protected Area

Village Conservation practice/Belief

Phin  Spirit Protectors in limestone areas

Nakhu  Community Forests established to ensure wood supply and wildlife habitat. "Dong Houay Dua" - established 20 years ago. "Dong Tham Pha" established 10 Years. Hunting and forest product collection allowed. Timber cutting restricted.

Sanak  Long tradition (over 100 years) of conservation of semi-evergreen forest (SEF) along limestone cliffs. This " betel-leaf forest " (called "Dong Tin Pha Nak") used mainly to provide habitat for betel-leaf vines (Piper betel) which require moisture and shade for optimal health and productivity. The SEF provides these conditions. Leaves sold in market.  Sacred Spirit Forest , about 10 ha., where village Protector Spirit resides.  Two sacred caves with restrictions on behavior and resource use in their vicinity.  Buddhist days twice per month - no fishing, no killing of other animals allowed

Bouamlou  Sacred Spirit Forest exists Page 12 of 14

 Betel-leaf Protected Forest along bases of cliffs - similar to Sanak above.

Houana  Betel-leaf Protected Forest

Na Heub  Sacred Spirit Forest to south of village, called "Pa Nam Tieng, " about three km 2. No agriculture allowed; other uses allowed. Unclear about hunting restrictions.  Buddhist day restrictions on digging, hunting, tree cutting.

Nathan  Village initiated community Conservation Forest four-five years ago, inside Kouan Nong limestone area.  Spirit Forest

 Village initiated Conservation Forest (complete with sign) four-five years ago, about 4 ha. Restrictions on tree cutting; timber use must be approved by village leaders.  Spirit Forest - no cutting or clearing Other uses allowed.

Xong  Spirit and Conservation Forest area in Kouan Khum, follows cultural traditions. Cutting must be approved by village leaders, and livestock sacrifice required. Hunting and collection allowed. Some village rituals conducted here.

Vieng  Two areas with village initiated Conservation Forests in Kouan Houay Sai, and Kouan Paew Kom this is quite mature forest and extensive, roughly estimated at 600 ha. Protected status now for 10 years. Timber use must be approved by village leaders. Hunting and other uses allowed Reasons given for protection (a) "preserve forest for future generations" (b) "protect wood supply" (c) "protect wildlife habitat"  Spirit Forest exists which contains sacred cave called "Tham Sao". All activities and disturbance in area prohibited. Cave is home to protected fish population said to be very large, and only caught when cave waters overflow in the rainy season.

Source: Steinmetz (1998)

Table 3 compares the importance of different zones in Xe Pian PA to wildlife and local people. It appears that initial conservation actions in "easy" areas, such as the Bong Gaderll mineral lick complex, where wildlife values are high but its importance to local people is minimal, may develop positive examples of collaboration. Returning of results and discussion of voluntary agreements about protection measures in these "easy" areas, may be a smoother option than simply attempting to curtail local resource use in sites that are important to communities. Voluntary agreements limiting hunting in Bong Gaderll would be one management option for PA staff and local people to discuss. The possibility of extending such agreements to areas more important for local hunters, such as Bong Kalen (a more "difficult" area) in Table 3, will be more likely when positive examples are already in place, such as for Bong Gaderll (an "easy" area).

The success and sustainability of changes in resource use patterns will be more certain if a cooperative framework has been established, and practice in participatory management has been gained. More "difficult" areas or topics may initially be addressed through additional JMT surveys on habitats, species or resource use. Even where common conclusions do not emerge, the trust built will enable compromises to be more easily reached and implemented.

Table 3: Priority conservation areas and associated human activities in Xe Pian PA

DDF=Dry Dipterocarp Forest, MDF=Mixed Deciduous Forest, SEF = Semi-evergreen Forest.

Location Habitat Wildlife Values Human Activities

A. North of Huay Kailang DDF mosaic with MDF, SEF, High: Moderate to high: Eastern and Savanna-SEF island Wild cattle most abundant part of area regularly used habitat community exists (tiger, here. Important large by Ban Xot in dry season for leopard, hole). carnivore hole). fishing, reptile capture and some deer hunting

B. Ridge area between MDF-DDF mosaic, SEF with Moderate to high: Important Low to moderate: Low, level East, and Central zones bamboo on ridge and base of for wild cattle. "staging area" of use by Nongkhe villagers, ridge between DDF grass but exact activities still resources and mineral licks uncertain. Villagers interested in conservation here

C. Bong Kalen mineral SEF with wetlands, bamboo High: Heavy seasonal use Moderate: Limited hunting of Page 13 of 14

licks. Central Zone and grass patches. Mineral lick by elephants, wild cattle, certain primates, deer by complex sambar deer, pigs. Tiger Nongkhe and Taong present. villagers. Cool season trapping of ground birds.

D. Bong Garderll mineral SEF with mineral lick complex, High: As above Low: Little human activity lick complex Central- bamboo patches believed to exist. Very south Zone. remote from all villages.

E. Huay Jieng Hieng SEF with many streams, and High: These lick important, Low: Remote from all the stream watershed. scattered small mineral licks. especially for smaller, i.e. habitation Taong and other sambar deer, barking deer, villages visit for fishing in dry pigs. Good habitat for otters, season Limited hunting Asiatic black bear, and during dry season probably Malayan sun bear

Source: Steinmetz (1997)

Conclusion

The WWF-Thailand Program Office, in its ongoing work in Lao PDR, has elaborated the importance of incorporating local people and their knowledge in the assessment of biodiversity and its management. By striving to involve communities in all stages of information collection and analysis, the approach and methods foster a relationship of trust and respect among outsiders, local people, and government staff, while building the social and scientific foundation on which sustainable conservation agreements and management decisions will depend.

Participatory Biodiversity Assessments together with ecological field surveys represent the first stages of collaborative management, and serve to initiate a process of information-sharing which has led to joint management actions like ecological monitoring. The use of village logbooks and joint monitoring teams to monitor focal species is still experimental, but with attention to identified constraints and ingredients for success, can prove to be a sustainable co-management initiative.

The focus on both cultural and ecological data helps to illuminate points of intersection, or the behavioral, physical and psychological domains where existing local practices of resource use or belief come together with protected area priorities.

Starting points towards collaboration such as these may seem inadequate given the urgency and scale of conservation priorities. However, the process described does not necessarily operate in isolation from other protected area management functions, which may be addressed simultaneously. These include land-use planning, mapping and documenting resource management practices, appropriate local development activities, conservation education, provincial ecosystem planning, and outside wildlife trade suppression.

Literature Cited

MacArther, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Bio-geography . Princeton Univ. Press. Princeton, New Jersey.

McNeely, J.A. 1996. Indigenous knowledge and biodiversity: some lessons from Asia. In McNeely, J.A. and Somchevita, S. (eds.), 1996. Biodiversity in Asia: Challenges and Opportunities for the Scientific Community . Proceedings of the 1996 Conference on Biodiversity Activities (15-19 January 1996, Chiang Rai, Thailand). Office of Environmental Policy and Planning. Bangkok. pp. 84-90.

Meffe, G.K., Carroll, C.R. (and contributors). 1997. Principles of . 2 nd ed. Sinauer Assoc., Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology . Vol. 4 (4): pp. 355 -364. Page 14 of 14

Pickett, S.T. and White, P.S. (eds.), 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbances and Patch Dynamics . Academic Press. Orlando, Florida.

Poffenberger, M., McGean, B., Ravindranath, N.H., and Gadgil, M. (eds.), 1992. Field Methods Manual Vol. 1. Diagnostic Tools for Supporting Joint Forest Management Systems . Society for the Promotion of Wastelands Development. New Delhi.

Robinson, J.G. 1993. The limits to caring: sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology . Vol. 7: pp. 20 -28.

Saunders, D., Hobbs, R.J., and Margules, C.R. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology . Vol. 5: pp. 18-32.

Steinmetz, R. 1997. A Survey of Habitats and Mammals in Xe Piane National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Lao, PDR. Unpublished report. World Wide Fund for Nature-Thailand Project Office. Bangkok.

Steinmetz, R. 1998. A Survey of Habitats and Mammals in and around Khammouan limestone National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Lao PDR. Unpublished report. World Wide Fund for Nature-Thailand Project Office. Bangkok.

Walker, B.H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology . Vol. 6(1): pp. 18-23.

Wangwacharakul, V; G. Claridge and R. Mather. 1996. Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation in the Lao PDR: A Discussion Paper. Wildlife and Protected Areas Conservation Program. Midas Agronomics Co. Ltd. Bangkok.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to the staff and local people of Xe Pian, Dong Phou Vieng, Khammouan Limestone, and ve Sap National Biodiversity Conservation Areas, who are in the process of working together towards conservation of all the natural and cultural values that their protected areas contain. The work presented has been facilitated by the Forest Management and Conservation Project (FOMACOP), under the direction of Bouahong Phantanousy (National Project Director), Bouaphan Phantavong (Assistant Project Director), and Bruce Jefferies (Technical Assistant). Thanks to Robert Mather (Director of WWF-Thailand Project Office) and Sejal Worah (WWF Integrated Conservation and Development Coordinator) for review and comments on the paper.