COMMUNITY FOREST MONITORING: Experiences from the Chico

COMMUNITY
FOREST
MONITORING
Experiences from the Chico Mendes
Extractive Reserve, Acre-Brazil
1
About the Sinal Verde Project
Acknowledgements
The Sinal Verde Project aimed to incentivise the
participation of local residents from the Chico Mendes
Extractive Reserve in forest monitoring activities. This
project was implemented with communities and through a
partnership between:
Firstly, the authors wish to thank the community
monitoring team of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve,
and all the families who participated in the interviews.
•
The Institute for Climate Change and Regulation of
Environmental Services (IMC) of the state of Acre, a key
instrument in the implementation of the state’s System
of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA);
•
The Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity
Conservation (ICMBio), a federal institution responsible
for administrating conservation units in Brazil;
•
The Centre for Amazonian Workers (CTA), a
non-governmental organization with extensive
experience working with extractivist communities in
the Chico Mendes reserve;
•
The Global Canopy Programme (GCP), an Oxford-based
tropical forest think-tank focused on accelerating the
world’s transition to a deforestation-free economy.
We thank the associations in the reserve (Association of
Residents and Producers of the Chico Mendes Reserve in
Brasileia and Epitaciolândia – AMOPREBE; Association
of Residents and Producers of the Chico Mendes Reserve
in Xapuri – AMOPREX; Association of Residents and
Producers of the Chico Mendes Reserve in Assis Brasil
– AMOPREAB; Association of Residents and Producers
of the Chico Mendes Reserve in Sena Madureira –
AMOPRESEMA; Association of Residents and Producers
of the Chico Mendes Reserve in Rio Branco and Capixaba –
AMOPRECARB) and members of the Management Council
of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.
We’d like to thank the individuals from IMC, ICMBio, CTA
and the Environmental Services Development Company
(CDSA) who supported this project along the way, in
particular Magaly Medeiros, Pavel Ježek, Maria José
Albuquerque and Adelar Jesus de Alcantar.
To find out more about GCP’s community monitoring
work, visit www.forestcompass.org or write to
[email protected]
Special thanks to Jon Parsons and other GCP staff and
consultants, for their support developing and implementing
this project.
Citation
Finally, we’d also like recognise and thank the financial
support of the Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation (NORAD).
Lead author: David Sabogal
Contributing authors: Stoney Nascimento, Luis Meneses
Please cite as:
Sabogal, D. et al. 2015. Community-based forest monitoring:
experiences from the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.
Global Canopy Programme: Oxford.
Cover photo: © iStock.com/luoman
Partners:
2
Funder:
Table of contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Impact & lessons learned ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
General results ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.1Forest conservation and sustainable development in the state of Acre, Brazil .......................................................................... 6
1.2 Monitoring and participation requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.Community forest monitoring in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve .......................... 8
2.1 Monitoring framework .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Capacity building ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Use of technology .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Sampling size ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
3.Results & discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Community wellbeing .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Economic development ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 16
3.3 Forest governance ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
4.Impacts & next steps .................................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
4.2Challenges .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
4.3Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Acronyms & abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 22
References ............................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3
Executive summary
In the Amazon region, forest monitoring systems
are fundamental components for understanding the
effectiveness and impact of conservation investments,
and efforts to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation (REDD+). They are also important
instruments to help the development and implementation of
socio-environmental safeguards and standards.
Today, a number of different initiatives and monitoring
methodologies exist that seek to meet the information
requirements for understanding the complexity of
tropical forests. The participation of local communities
in monitoring, known as community or participatory
monitoring, is increasingly recognised worldwide as a
cost-effective model for collecting relevant information
and observations on forests to strengthen natural resource
management and governance. Community monitoring is
a model which can also incorporate traditional knowledge
systems, generate local capacity-building and learning
opportunities, and promote increased community
ownership of forest conservation strategies.
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the
Government of the State of Acre, through the Institute for
Climate Change and Regulation of Environmental Services
(IMC), to implement a pilot community monitoring project
in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve to guarantee
its effective integration into other monitoring systems.
Throughout 2014-2015 this initiative, called Sinal Verde,
created an in situ participatory monitoring system
using digital technologies to address local and external
information needs.
The project successfully generated data on social, economic
and environmental issues, and carried out an independent
impact assessment of various environmental programmes
and public policies aimed at fostering sustainable livelihood
alternatives among local communities in the reserve. By
generating such information, this initiative sought to create
synergies between different actors and scales of governance
to support the co-management model of the reserve, and
4
likewise guide policies and strategies within the System
of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA) of Acre,
with a specific focus on social and environmental safeguard
framework.
Impact & lessons learned
• T
he participation of community stakeholders
in periodic and systematic monitoring activities
can generate significant flows of information;
which can help to understand the impact and
effectiveness of REDD+ programmes and
incentives, and ensure compliance with social
and environmental safeguards;
• C
ommunity monitoring systems can generate
information exchanges, promote greater
participation in decision making, and increase
the alignment of management strategies;
• B
alancing the needs and interests of local and
governmental actors is essential to ensure the
relevance of information and the sustainability
of monitoring;
• M
onitoring by community members, of drivers
of deforestation and land use for example, is
difficult and limited when low levels of social
cohesion and conflict over resource use exist;
• A
mong the advantages of using technology
in monitoring is the collection of a variety
of geo-referenced data (e.g. text, audio and
pictures) with increased accuracy and speed
in analysis and sharing. However, there is
a difficulty in generating results that are
accessible and easily understood among all
audiences.
General results from the Chico Mendes
Extractive Reserve1
67% of households raise cattle, 71% of these
for beef, and 29% for milk production
80% of households state they are aware of the
rules of the reserve’s Land Use Plan
Pink Cedar (Cedrela odorata), Jitó (Guarea
trichilioides), and Amarelão (Aspidosperma
vargasii) are the most targeted timber species
75% of households (colocações2) currently
have land conflicts with neighbours
21% of households collect rubber (Hevea
brasiliensis), with a concentration in the
municipality of Xapuri
10% of households are involved in fish farming,
65% are aware of the state’s aquaculture
programme, yet only 5% of those participate
(receive benefits)
172 land invasions were recorded, of these
41% were linked to hunting
70% of households agreed they valued
standing forests as opposed to cleared forest
lands
84% think that climate change is happening,
with increasing temperatures noted as the
most observed change
89 % of households have not benefited from
vaccination campaigns in the reserve
86% of schools in the reserve lack
transportation services, and 82% lack access
to electricity
77% of households are aware of the Bolsa
Verde programme3, yet only 16% participate
(receive the incentive)
28% of households have purchased the plot
(colocação) they live in
1
2
3
Based on sampling described in Table 3. Percentages refer to total number of households, with the exception of the results on educational services.
Colocações are household plots, historically subdivisions of larger rubber plantations in the reserve.
The Bolsa Verde programme is a PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) scheme of R$ 300.00/quarter.
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Forest conservation and
sustainable development in the state
of Acre, Brazil
With 86% of its original forest cover still intact (Government
of Acre 2006), the state of Acre in Brazil has been
implementing an array of environmental policies and
programmes as part of its Environmental Services Incentive
System (SISA) aimed at safeguarding its forests.
Within the SISA framework are a number of conservation
and sustainable livelihood initiatives, as well as a pioneering
jurisdictional REDD+4 mechanism (ISA Carbon5). Acre
has also developed a jurisdictional safeguard framework
consisting of criteria, indicators and monitoring
mechanisms, in line with REDD+ SES standards6, to avoid
and mitigate implementational risks (IMC 2013; WWF
2013).
A large part of Acre’s forests are distributed within
protected areas (see Figure 2), among these, conservation
units for sustainable use, such as extractive reserves
(RESEXs). Extractive reserves represent 16.5% of the state
territory (totalling 2,704,334 hectares) and are strategic
areas within the national and state system of conservation
units (SNUC & SENUC) for implementing policies aimed at
curbing deforestation, protecting biodiversity, maintaining
ecosystem services, and respecting social and cultural
diversity.
Market pressures and agricultural expansion in the Amazon
region are increasingly influencing livelihood and land use
patterns among the population living within these protected
areas, yet there is currently little understanding of the
dynamics of rural development within these extractive
reserves and their alignment with REDD+ strategies.
Extractive reserves7, seeking to reconcile conservation and
sustainable development objectives, are therefore important
case studies for understanding the effectiveness and equity
of state and federal conservation and sustainable production
incentives in Acre.
Box 1. System of Incentives for
Environmental Services (SISA), in the state
of Acre
The System of Incentives for Environmental Services
(SISA), created by Law No. 2308 on October 22,
2010, is a pioneering initiative that promotes actions
for conservation, recovery, and the increase of various
environmental services in the state, through planning,
regulation, monitoring, and the registry of emissions.
The SISA system has several programmes that seek the
conservation of forest assets, improvement of livelihoods
through increased productivity and income generation, and
the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services.
Among these, is the Incentives Program for Environmental
Services - Forest Carbon (ISA Carbon), which is developing
a jurisdictional scale REDD+ mechanism in the state,
based on the trading of carbon credits (Duchelle et al.
2014).
Brazil
Figure 1. Conservation units for sustainable use
in Acre, Brazil
Acre
Brazil
Chico Mendes
Extractive Reserve
Peru
4
5
6
7
6
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus sustainable forest management, conservation, recovery, and enhancement of carbon stocks.
Carbon Environmental Incentive System programme.
The REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards for Acre were developed with the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) and CARE International.
Extractive reserves are a protected area category that fall under Conservation Units for Sustainable Use.
Bolivia
1.2 Monitoring and participation
requirements
Strengthening forest monitoring tools and establishing
safeguards information systems are key components to
understanding the efficacy, effectiveness and equity of
conservation models such as Extractive Reserves, and the
wider environmental policies and investments, like SISA,
targeting these spaces.
Existing tools for monitoring forest cover and fires in
the state, such as Acre’s Central Unit for GIS and Remote
Sensing (UCEGEO) and the PRODES system of the National
Institute for Space Research (INPE), are generating
data on Acre’s forests. However, there is still a need for
developing other complementary monitoring tools in order
to understand local dynamics of land use and livelihoods,
where forest loss is happening, carbon stocks and flows, and
the socio-environmental impacts of interventions. These
bottom-up information flows are essential to calibrating8 the
understanding of the effectiveness of REDD+ strategies and
compliance with safeguards in the Amazon.
In this context, community, or participatory, forest
monitoring (see Box 2) is increasingly acknowledged as a
cost-effective9 method for gathering relevant and detailed
information and observations, to strengthen natural resource
management and forest governance efforts in protected
areas. Such models can also be important in generating local
capacity and increasing ownership of forest conservation
strategies by local communities.
Box 2. What is community monitoring?
Community10 or participatory monitoring is a diverse
model that can be broadly defined by local or community
participation. However, this participation also varies
in form and intensity. In some cases, local people
participate only in the data collection, whereas other
models can involve communities in other important steps
within a monitoring system, such as defining monitoring
themes and indicators, analysing data, etc. The level
of participation involved, has therefore been a way to
categorize and generate a typology of different community
monitoring models (Danielsen et al. 2009).
These models have, in many cases, tried to incorporate
traditional knowledge systems and gather data relevant
to understanding natural resource use and community
wellbeing, among many other themes. Recently, digital
technologies, such as mobile smartphone devices, have
been integrated into monitoring methods to improve
the accuracy and speed of data collection and analysis.
Despite some key challenges, the use of technology in
monitoring can serve as a valuable tool to align data
generated at the local level, with other methodologies and
monitoring scales.
For more information, please visit: forestcompass.org
© GCP
The community forest monitoring project in the Chico
Mendes Extractive Reserve demonstrates the potential of
local monitoring models in generating important information
for improving resource management structures in protected
areas, and for wider forest governance and safeguards
requirements in the state of Acre.
Figure 2. Community monitor from North Rupununi, Guyana
8
9
10
The UCEGEO precision is 0.5 ha. Fragments within degraded and deforested areas are smaller and are not identified, which can infer the general sum of deforestation - monitoring can
be a way to verify deforestation and degradation in loco (see: Pratihast et al 2014).
Results from Danielsen et al. 2013 show that forests can be monitored by communities with the same accuracy as scientists.
Communities are heterogeneous, with differing opinions, needs, and access to power.
7
2. Community forest monitoring in the
Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
The Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve is located in the
southeast of Acre, and covers a total area of 970,550
hectares overlapping the municipalities of Assis Brasil,
Brasiléia, Xapuri, Capixaba, Rio Branco and Sena Madureira
(see Figures 1 & 8)11. The reserve is inhabited by a rural
population of about 2,000 families12 (roughly 10,000
people), living from the extraction of different forest
products (such as Brazil nuts, rubber, hunting, fishing), as
well as small-scale agriculture. In recent years however,
livestock and unsustainable timber harvesting have
contributed to a growing loss of forest cover13.
In an effort to understand local livelihood dynamics in the
reserve and address existing information gaps on the impact
of conservation policies, a community monitoring project
was piloted using smartphone technology.
2.1 Monitoring framework
The project was initiated in November 2013 through a series
of consultations with various community, government and
civil society stakeholders working or interested in the Chico
Mendes Extractive Reserve. The monitoring framework
used was developed in workshops with community
representatives, the reserve’s management council, and
project partners14 seeking to understand priority issues and
indicators, whilst balancing local and external monitoring
needs.
The final framework is composed of three thematic areas
with corresponding indicators:
(1) Economic development;
The objectives of the project were fourfold:
(2) Community wellbeing;
(1)Build local monitoring capacity and generate
awareness and learning opportunities among
community members;
(3) Forest governance.
(2)Strengthen the reserve’s co-management model;
(3)Inform the development and implementation of
environmental policies and safeguards related to
Acre’s SISA programme;
Following this structure, the methodology was developed by
the technical team together with the project’s community
monitors, firstly trying to understand the feasibility of a
community monitoring model in generating the necessary
information, and then to guide and contextualize the
questions that would supplement the indicators.
© David Sabogal
(4)Develop best practice on the use of technological
tools in community forest monitoring models.
Figure 3. A community monitor and her family in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
11
12
13
14
8
The reserve is divided further into seringais (rubber plantations), remnant land demarcations from the rubber boom in the early 1900s. Within each seringal are colocações, or household
plots of varying size.
The census SEMA/ICMBio registered 1,766 family units in the reserve in 2009.
Around 11% of the reserve has been deforested (ICMbio): http://d3nehc6yl9qzo4.cloudfront.net/downloads/guia_resex_chicomendes.pdf
State government actors (IMC, SEMA, CDSA), federal government actors (ICMbio, UFAC), civil society organization (CTA), etc.
Table 1. Community monitoring framework
Forest governance
Community wellbeing
Economic development
Theme
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Indicator
Forest-based production
15
Quantity and frequency of extraction (annual & monthly);
species targeted; commercialisation and price range; type
and scale of operation; existence of management plan;
access to production subsidies and policies.
Agricultural production
Frequency of new farm plots; vegetation cover and
area (ha) of plots; types of crops cultivated; percentage
commercialised; agricultural techniques and inputs.
Livestock production19
Type and number of animals; commercialisation; derived
products; access to public policies.
Access to public services
Knowledge/awareness of services; perception about quality of
service; number of participants/beneficiaries.
Education
Number of schools and location; average number of students
and gender representation; modes of access; types of
services and existing infrastructure in the schools.
Health care
Perception of disease incidence; location and number of
health units; frequency of visits/use of health units; family
medical expenses.
Water use and quality
Frequency and number of families treating water for
consumption; number and type of activities performed with
water; water storage type.
Access to infrastructure
Location, number and types of barriers to access.
Management effectiveness
Participation in community management meetings21;
awareness/knowledge of, and perspectives about,
management tools/plans22.
18
Settlement dynamics
Frequency, occurrence, type26 and location of land invasion
and conflicts; years of permanent residence in the reserve;
frequency of relocation; land tenure status; awareness of
land boundaries.
Local environmental perceptions
Awareness and comprehension of environmental issues/
themes; perceptions about climate change and forest value.
Impact of public policies27
Knowledge, access/participation and perceptions of different
policies or programmes.
Relevance
Livelihoods16
Rights of use17
Drivers of deforestation and
forest degradation
Co-benefit generation20
Basic social rights
Benefit sharing23
Free, prior and informed
consent (FPIC)24
Good governance &
participation25
Rubber (CVP, natural latex, FDL); nuts (processed); Açaí; traditional and commercial hunting and fishing; wood charcoal; timber extraction.
Principle 3, criterion 3.1 d: checklist of the SISA’s social and environmental safeguards monitoring manual (IMC 2013).
Principle 1, criterion.1, of the checklist.
Shifting & perennial (e.g. fruit) agriculture.
Cattle, small animal husbandry (e.g. poultry), aquaculture.
Principle 2, criterion 2.1 of checklist.
Management council, Associations, Community representative bodies and households.
Community Development Plan, Management Plan, Land Use Plan.
Principle 2, criterion 2.1 of the checklist.
Principle 1, criterion 1.3 of the checklist.
Principle 4, criterion 4.1, 4.2, 4.3; Principle 6.
For hunting, nut and timber extraction, fishing, pasture and farming.
Programmes include: Pequenos Animais; Florestas Plantadas; Piscicultura; Subsidio da borracha; PGPM; PNAE; PAA; Bolsas; Credito Habitação; Energia (Luz para todos, e solar).
9
Table 2. Allocation of monitors by municipalities in the
Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
The community monitors received a monthly payment
incentive of R$ 300.00, to cover 10 days of training and
monitoring tasks. The allocation of monitors within the
reserve followed of demographic criteria (see Table 2), and
individual monitoring areas were then agreed within each
municipality.
Population (No.
families29)
Community
monitors 30
Xapuri
2,825 (626)
12
Brasileia &
Epitaciolândia
3,008 (664)
13
Assis Brasil
1,411 (275)
6
Sena Madureira
324 (54)
3
Capixaba &
Rio Branco
652 (147)
6
© GCP
Each monitor participated in a total of 11 training workshops
that covered data collection methodologies, the use of
smartphones and digital questionnaire forms, interview
and communication techniques. All monitors participated
in the elaboration of questionnaires, data verification, and
outreach and reporting activities in their communities.
Municipality
Figures 4, 5, & 6. Technological training and area-defining with community members
28
29
30
10
AMOPRESENA, AMOPRECARB, AMOPREX, AMOPREB and AMOPREAB.
Based on the SEMA/ICMBio census of 2009, that registered 1,766 households in the reserve.
The final number of trained monitors was 36.
© GCP
After a recruitment process (consisting of written
applications and interviews) led by the associations28
in conjunction with partner institutions, a team of 40
community monitors (30 men and 10 women) aged 18-38
years from the reserve, were selected to participate in the
project.
A management team conducted training workshops,
undertook monthly outreach activities, developed digital
questionnaire forms with community guidance, and
performed the analysis and part of the data reporting to the
management council and other government stakeholders.
© GCP
2.2 Capacity building
2.3 Use of technology31
Smartphone devices (Samsung Galaxy X Cover 232 and
an open access application developed by Google, called
Open Data Kit (ODK)33, were used for data collection. This
application has a user-friendly interface that allows digital
questionnaires to be created to capture text, photographs,
audio recordings and GPS data.
Microsoft Excel was used to create tailored digital
questionnaire forms, which were then transferred to a
digital platform called Smap34. This software was then used
to manage the digital forms.
Figure 7. Technology-based monitoring system used in the project
1.
2.
Participatory questionnaire
development
Creation and management of
digital forms (Excel & Smap)
The upload and download of the digital forms to and from
the phones was done using a Tp link device that generated a
local WiFi connection without using the internet.
Smap was also used to visualise and undertake initial data
processing. Data was also exported in different formats
(spreadsheets and shape files) for further analysis and
visualisation using Excel, ArcGIS and Google Maps Engine.
3.
4.
Digital form transfer
using WiFi (Tp link)
Off-line data
collection (ODK)
Data was backed-up on local hard drives and stored online
using Dropbox. Smap software installed on a local computer,
but accessible online, allowed multiple access points to the
digital forms and data.
The use of digital technologies has potential in local, as
well as more comprehensive monitoring efforts. Among the
advantages, is the collection of a variety of geo-referenced
data (e.g. text, audio and photo), instantly and with a higher
precision35. Another important attribute is the speed in
which digital information can be shared and analysed,
which helps maintain relevance and applicability of data sets
for different end-users.
5.
6.
Data transfers from phone
using WiFi (Tp link)
Data processing and analysis
(Excel, Smap, ArcGIS,
Google Maps Engine)
2.4 Sampling
From March 2014 to February 2015, 56 seringais36 were
visited covering an average of 25% of the households in
the reserve. A total of 6,169 digital forms were completed
throughout this period, based on observations and
structured interviews with households within the reserve.
31
32
33
34
35
36
7.
8.
Cloud storage
(Dropbox)
Data sharing and
reporting results
This methodology was adapted from experiences among Makushi indigenous communities in Guyana. For more information visit: http://forestcompass.org/how/resources/case-studyreport-community-based-monitoring-systems-redd-guyana
It is important to consider whether phones are waterproof and have sufficient memory for storing data collected.
www.opendatakit.org
http://www.smap.com.au/
Digital forms can reduce the number of errors by eliminating transcription.
A subdivision within each municipality based on remnant rubber plantation boundaries in the reserve.
11
Figure 8. Data points recorded in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
Legend:
Observations/households interviewed
Table 3. Monitoring cycles and sampling
Collection period
Data source
N° forms
(households37)
Suficiência
amostral
Impact of public policies
Interviews
931 (53%)
3%
Settlement dynamics
Interviews
931 (53%)
3%
Observations
637
n/a
Local environmental
perceptions
Interviews
326 (18%)
5%
Education and health
Observations;
Interviews
8938; 719
3%
Water use and quality
Interviews
699 (40%)
3%
Forest-based production
Interviews
722 (41%)
3%
Forest management
effectiveness
Interviews
660 (37%)
5%
Agricultural production
Interviews
539 (31%)
4%
Project evaluation
Interviews
389 (22%)
5%
Monitoring themes
2014
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
2015
A
S
O
N
Access to infrastructure
37
38
12
Considering the census in 2009 by SEMA/ICMBio that registered 1,766 households in the reserve.
Visits and interviews in education centres in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.
D
J
F
Table 4. Project implementation schedule
Participation39
Low
Medium
Activity
Duration
Developing the
monitoring framework.
Participatory recruitment
of monitors 40 based on
capacity and profile41.
Training monitors
through 11 workshops
(on monitoring themes,
technology, interview
methods and logistics).
Community
communication on
monitoring activities,
results and next steps.
Nov. 2013 – Jan. 2014;
Sep. 2014
Dec. 2013 – Jan. 2014
Mar. 2014 – Dec. 2014
Mar. 2014 – Feb. 2015
• A “before and after” evaluation must be made to
understand the availability and commitment of each
applicant.
•P
eriodic capacity assessments are important to inform
the training process, and standardise knowledge and skills
among monitors.
•F
ostering knowledge exchanges between monitors is also
crucial in training; along with the availability of capacitybuilding materials (e.g. PDF files on smartphones).
• It is key, to have informative documents (e.g. printed
brochures and PDFs saved on phones), as well as monitors
informed and confident about questions and answers
related to the project.
•C
ommunity participation is paramount for developing and
defining monitoring methodology.
Data analysis and
visualisation using
Smap, Excel & ArcGIS.
Data sharing with
different stakeholders.
• It is also important to understand the limits of
participatory monitoring methodologies (e.g. monitoring
deforestation in contested land-use areas) and review the
monitoring framework based on that.
•T
he dissemination of information is fundamental to
building local support and avoiding misunderstandings of
monitoring objectives.
Mar. 2014 – Dec. 2014
(Monthly)
Reporting of results in
20 different meetings.
•B
alancing local and external monitoring needs, interests,
and priorities is necessary to maintain relevance and align
results to existing initiatives at different scales.
• Selection must be made by the community bodies, based
on the profile defined with partner institutions.
Data collection based on
digital forms (ODK) and
smartphones.
39
40
41
Comments
High
•G
eoreferenced data can provide insights on the spatial
distribution of monitoring activities as well as track
performance of monitors.
• It is necessary to understand the compatibility of the
results (i.e. data format), to allow integration with other
existing data sets.
•P
rocessing and analysis requires time because of the
variety of audiences, and must be verified by community
stakeholders.
• Information requirements vary at different levels of
management – federal and state governments, NGOs, and
communities – which in turn demand different reporting
formats to meet their needs.
Sep. 2014 – Nov. 2014;
Feb. 2015 – Apr. 2015
• It is criticaal for community members to participate in
reporting, to ensure ownership and local endorsement of
monitoring model.
• It is important to establish data sharing agreements
between communities and stakeholders, so that data
rights are respected and local ownership is maintained.
Participation of community members (leaders, monitors, etc.) in the different activities performed.
AMOPRESENA, AMOPRECARB, AMOPREX, AMOPREB and AMOPREAB.
Education, physical aptitude, local knowledge, leadership, character of voluntariness, time available, etc.
13
3. Results & discussion
3.1 Community wellbeing
A series of reports (available on www.forestcompass.
org) have been produced based on the monitoring
framework developed by the project (see Table 1). These
were distributed to stakeholders across multiple scales of
governance and discussed in participatory meetings and
workshops at various stages throughout the project.
In response to local needs identified in the development of
the monitoring framework, an assessment of basic services
such as water, health and education42 was undertaken. This
sought to improve understanding about perceptions of
quality, the use of these services, and the condition of the
roads related to accessing them.
The results presented here serve to highlight the importance
of community monitoring in meeting the information
needs that exist within, and outside of, the Chico Mendes
Extractive Reserve.
The provision of these basic services can be an important
wellbeing indicator relevant to the strategies that seek
to generate social co-benefits. Within SISA’s social
and environmental safeguards policy43, measuring the
socioeconomic impacts and changes in the wellbeing of
forest populations is essential to understand the success of
programmes.
Results box 1. Water use in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
Among the 719 households interviewed, there is a significant
percentage (39%) that does not treat their drinking water;
those who do use chlorine or bleach. While it is difficult to
define the correlation between diseases related to water and
lack of water treatment, results in the graph below point to
the issue of health problems linked to the consumption of
untreated drinking water.
The main sources of water in the Chico Mendes Extractive
Reserve are creeks and water holes. Water is stored mostly in
buckets and tanks, and the majority of residents (58%) use
it for small livestock. A percentage of the population uses
it for a variety of livelihood activities, with 27% using it for
20
401% for fish
60farming. 80
agriculture,014% for livestock,
and
% Households interviewd
Figure 9. Water treatment and the occurrence of diarrhoea in the reserve
100
100
80
80
% Treating water
prior to consumption
60
60
% Identify diarrhoea as
a health problem
40
40
20
20
Assis Brasil
Epitaciolandia
Brasileia
Rio Branco
Capixaba
Sena Madureira
Xapuri
42%
62%
36%
61%
77%
56%
33%
28%
82%
27%
Another important and interesting result is that 66% of
households interviewed do not consider water as a factor
related to health problems, which indicates a lack of
awareness about the risks.
42
43
14
These results provide some understanding about community
wellbeing in the reserve. Such information could orient health
programmes, raise awareness about risks related water
collection, storage and treatment practices, and help identify
households where chlorine distribution could generate positive
health changes.
http://www.ipsamazonia.org.br/metodologia
Principle 3 of the Social and Environmental Safeguards Monitoring Manual (IMC 2013) states that SISA and its programmes must improve and assure the livelihoods in the long term
and the wellbeing of indigenous peoples and local population, with special attention to vulnerable women.
15
© Neil Palmer (CIFOR)
3.2 Economic development
Community perspectives
Acre’s state policy is geared towards sustainable
development based on a “green” economic model closely
aligned with a REDD+ mechanism. In order to relieve
pressures on standing forests from unstainable economic
activities (e.g. extensive cattle rearing), current strategies
plan to boost forest-based production supply chains such as
Brazil nut farming and rubber tapping. They aim to do this
by providing technical assistance, and addressing market
limitations and price signals in areas where such activities
are deeply engrained in local livelihoods, yet uncompetitive,
like in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.
“ Standing; because it’s cooler and
I live from it. I’m not a farmer; I’m a
rubber and Brazil nut extractor, so I
live from it.
”
Do you think that
the forest is worth
more standing or
cut down ?
“
“
With the forest cut down, we can
plant things to eat: manioc, to make
farine; we plant rice. It is where
we raise chickens, where we grow
the bananas that we sell. But with a
standing forest, no one is going to
eat the leaves of the trees.
Data will be needed to understand the economic
performance and sustainability of these incentives
compared to conventional production systems, as well as
how local populations are accessing these policies. In order
to meet these needs, the project gathered qualitative (i.e.
community perspectives) and quantitative data based on
interviews with households in the reserve.
”
Results box 2. Forest-based production (Brazil nuts & rubber)
Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excels) and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis)
are the two main forest products extracted in the reserve.
From a total of 738 household interviews, about 60%
(predominately those from the municipality of Xapuri) consider
Brazil nut harvesting a livelihood activity. Among these
households, the average amount harvested is 172 latas (1
lata = 10 kilograms) or 1720 kilograms per harvest season,
with an average of R$29.50/lata. The price for Brazil nuts
varies between R$16.50 - R$43.25/lata depending on the
municipality, since some households are located closer
to markets and road infrastructure, while others rely on
marreteiros (middlemen) to sell their produce. This ultimately
means that incomes from these harvests differ considerably
within the reserve.
Figure 10. Households harvesting Brazil nuts in the reserve in 2014
Legend:
Households harvesting Brazil nuts
16
Results box 2. Forest-based production (Brazil nuts & rubber)
Mendes Law46. Based on a sample of 931 interviews, 34%
(or 319 families) claimed to be aware of the current rubber
subsidies, with 53% of these (168 households) claiming to
be benefiting or having benefited from these price premiums
in 2014. The graph below shows the distribution of, and
differentiated access to, these subsidies by municipality.
A total of 166 households currently tap rubber (22% of 738
interviewed44), with the municipalities of Assis Brazil and
Xapuri leading in production rates. The majority of these
households (73%) collect natural unprocessed latex, while
19% produce pressed raw rubber blocks – known in Brazil
as Cernambi Virgem Prensado (CVP), and the remaining 8%
produce smoked liquid sheet latex (Folha Defumada Líquida
or FDL45).
Results show the debility of forest-based production activities
and the need to have a clearer understanding of how
households are benefiting from income-generating activities
under current environmental policies.
To further understand rubber production in the reserve,
the project also sought to assess the impact of government
incentives; in particular, current subsidies under the Chico
Figure 11. Households actively rubber tapping and those that access, or have accessed, the rubber subsidy in 2014
52%
Xapuri
44%
Sena Madureira
0%
3%
% Households currently rubber tapping
Rio Branco/
Capixaba
18%
% Households that access, or have accessed, the subsidy
20%
14%
Brasileia/Epita
18%
77%
Assis Brasil
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% Households
0
20
40
Community perspectives
80
60
40
20
44
45
46
80
3.3 Forest governance
Extractive reserves, like Chico Mendes, seek to reconcile
environmental conservation and development goals, and
have put in place measures and management structures to
achieve this.
What are the main conflicts
in your community?
100
60
“
…The guy comes to hunt
with his dogs, they eat, there is
nothing left for us, and the dogs
even scare the other animals
away!
”
In an effort to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of
such conservation models, the project gathered data related
indicators such as participation, local awareness about
management instruments (e.g. rules and plans), and the
perceived value of management institutions and agents in
these reserves. In addition, community members collected
data on the occurrence of land use conflicts and settlement
patterns to assist territorial management in protected areas,
and inform processes at other scales of governance
In comparison, the 2009 census (SEMA/ICMBio) found that 45% of households extracted rubber (801 of 1,766 households).
For more information read: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_a4_report_wild_rubber_web__2_.pdf
Market prices/kilogram: FDL R$ 7.50, CVP R$ 1.50, Latex R$ 3.60; Subsidies/kilogram: FDL R$ 3.50, CVP R$ 1.40, Latex R$ 4.40; Note: these prices vary per region in Acre state.
17
18
© Diego Lourenço Gurgel
Results box 3. Forest governance and reserve management
Current settlement dynamics, in terms of population
dispersion and land use conflicts, are important factors that
impact the management of the reserve. Results from this
project show that over half (54%) of interviewees settled in the
reserve the year of, or before, its creation in 1990. Of a total
of 539 interviews, 35% stated they had changed residence at
least once since moving to the reserve, and up to 26% stated
they bought the plots they currently live on.
The key management tools in Chico Mendes are the Land
Use and Management plans for the reserve as a whole, and
locally, the Community Development Plans. Responsible for
implementing these agreements is the Management Council47,
the main decision making body of the reserve, comprised of
community and government institutions (see WWF 2015).
Figure 12. Reserve management structures and perceived effectiveness 48
Management instruments
63% are aware of the Management
Plan; 21% of these think it works
226 interviewees stated they are
aware of the plan; 80% of these
know the rules; 77% agree with
these rules,; 64% think they are
followed
30% know of their community
development plan; 74% say they
participated in developing the plan
Management Plan
Land Use Plan
ICMBio
Associations
62% are not part of any
association
55% think that
ICMBio fulfils it’s
role in the reserve
Community
representative
bodies
49% participate in
meetings, and 47% feel
they are important
Community
households
47% participate in
community gatherings,
and 84 % value them
Community
Development Plans
The project also identified 75 households that currently
have boundary conflicts with their neighbours; and a total
of 172 invasive activities were recorded, of which 41%
were for hunting as the chart indicates (see Figure 13).
In summary, settlement rotation within the reserve, as
well as the presence of conflicts, can interfere with the
implementation of existing management plans. It will
therefore be necessary to raise awareness about the
reserves management plan among new families settling
in the reserve so that all users can effectively contribute
to its sustainable use.
67% feel represented by
the Management Council
Management Council
Figure 13. Types of illegal activities occurring in the
Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
Timber
extraction 8%
Brazil nut harvesting 23%
40
Farming 10%
20
0
Fishing 13%
Hunting 41%
Pasture 5%
0
10
80
60
40
20
47
48
The Chico Mendes Management Council was created on May 22nd, 2003, with the aim of contributing to the implementation and enforcement of management plans and regulations.
All percentages are based on a total of 551 interviews.
19
4. Impacts and next steps
4.1 Opportunities
© GCP
Experiences in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
demonstrate the potential of community-based forest
monitoring models as a tool to generate important
information flows for multiple stakeholders. Locally, such
models can inform decision making about the use and
management of natural resources, and related livelihood
pathways. At a jurisdictional level, it serves as a model
to independently assess the impact and effectiveness of
governance mechanisms within dynamic and remote
areas such as the reserve. Feedback loops created through
monitoring can be used to develop and improve the impact
of environmental policies related to REDD+ in programmes
like SISA, as well as help understand the fulfilment of social
and environmental safeguards, in this case the REDD+
SES standards. It promotes governance, transparency, and
accountability in these initiatives, and contributes to more
equitable benefit sharing.
Figure 14. Trained community monitors of the
Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
Building capacity among local agents has helped create a
new category of skilled labour: the community monitor,
which can be easily replicated in other protected areas
and significantly contribute to the development of
comprehensive forest monitoring systems. Community
monitors have the necessary access, traditional knowledge,
and credibility to carry out data collection, which many
external actors lack. Likewise, community monitors can be
focal points for exchanging and disseminating information,
and in mediating dialogue among different levels and actors.
Such exchanges are necessary in order to catalyse greater
49
20
participation in conservation activities; connecting and
raising awareness among different stakeholders (e.g. forest
communities, and state and federal government) in order to
implement policies such as REDD+.
4.2 Challenges
Despite the demonstrated benefits and opportunities, there
are still challenges related to integration and increasing the
value and use of data, from local monitoring initiatives, by
systems and institutions. In order to be relevant to internal
and external actors, monitoring must generate data that
can be used in various decision-making processes and
levels of governance. The empowerment of communities
and information is key, but remains a challenge because of
barriers in producing information that can be accessible
and easily understood by community members. This is
compounded by a lack of awareness, and institutional
capacity, at the grassroots level. Therefore, building this
capacity further will be essential to embedding community
monitoring results in local practices.
Community monitoring activities also become more difficult
and limited (in terms of access to information), when low
levels of social cohesion and conflicts over the rights to use
forest resources exist. Historical relations with government
agencies in the reserve have generated challenges in data
collection as well. The monitoring of deforestation and land
use change is often related to law enforcement and penalties
applied by authorities; causing resistance and mistrust by
the community members in providing information and
performing such activities.
There are also logistical challenges to be considered
when it comes to data collection and the dissemination of
information in remote areas. The demographic dispersion
and size of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (nearly 1
million hectares), make monitoring a challenge by increasing
not only the costs of transport, but the time required to
perform data collection activities as well. These realities in
turn impact the incentives and capacity to retain monitors
over the long term49.
It is also worth noting that the results generated by the
project are only a snapshot given the sample size and the
period in which data gathering activities happened. It is also
important to add that sensitive questions related to logging
The incentive to participate in the project is marginal (R$ 300.00/month) with high opportunity costs compared to other income-generating activities in the reserve.
and hunting for example, could lead to incomplete or skewed
results because of the suspicion it causes among community
members due to existing plans and regulations about the use
of these forest resources in the reserve.
Furthermore, because this is a pilot and short-term initiative
in Acre, it will be necessary to refine the methodology used,
drawing on the challenges and lessons learned above, if this
model is to be easily replicated.
4.3 Conclusion
Results of this pilot project, as well as a number of initiatives
worldwide (see: forestcompass.org), demonstrate the
potential of community-based forest monitoring. However,
it will be necessary to move forward and align monitoring
methodologies and tools, as well as encourage the creation
of financial mechanisms and institutional mandates, to
enable longevity and the incorporation of these models
into broader monitoring systems and forest conservation
strategies. Current intentions, by the state of Acre through
IMC, to expand and integrate this model within the state’s
SISA programme, show promising pathways for scaling-up
these models.
© Marina Londres
Information on the state of forests and people, carbon stocks
and flows, biodiversity, and the impacts of conservation
efforts, is increasingly needed. The availability of this
information will be essential to achieving, among other
objectives, efficient and effective forest governance for
REDD+ regimes in Acre, as well as at the national level in
Brazil50.
This community-based forest monitoring experience in the
Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve has sought to demonstrate
the potential for a bottom-up model in generating local data
on indicators of performance, participation, and benefit
sharing; which is important for the effective management
of protected areas and for informing the design and
implementation of REDD+ and its safeguards framework in
the state of Acre.
Figure 15. A resident of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve
50
The implementation of safeguards information systems is a national requirement, in the agreements of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
decision1/CP.16.
21
Acronyms &
abbreviations
References
AMOPREABAssociation of Residents and Producers of the
Chico Mendes Reserve in Assis Brasil
Danielsen, F., T. Adrian, S. Brofeldt, M. van Noordwijk, M. K.
Poulsen, S. Rahayu, E. Rutishauser, I. Theilade, A. Widayati, N.
The An, T. Nguyen Bang, A. Budiman, M. Enghoff, A. E. Jensen,
Y. Kurniawan, Q. Li, Z. Mingxu, D. Schmidt-Vogt, S. Prixa,
V. Thoumtone, Z. Warta, and N. Burgess. 2013. Community
monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities.
Ecology and Society 18(3)
AMOPREBEAssociation of Residents and Producers of
the Chico Mendes Reserve in Brasileia and
Epitaciolândia
AMOPRECARBAssociation of Residents and Producers of
the Chico Mendes Reserve in Rio Branco and
Capixaba
AMOPRESEMAAssociation of Residents and Producers of the
Chico Mendes Reserve in Sena Madureira
AMOPREX Association of Residents and Producers of the
Chico Mendes Reserve in Xapuri
CDSA Environmental Services Development Company
CTA Centre for Amazonian Workers
CVP ernambi Virgem Prensado or pressed raw
C
rubber blocks
FDL Folha Defumada Líquida or smoked liquid latex
sheet
FPICFree, Prior and Informed Consent
GCPGlobal Canopy Programme
ICMBioChico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity
Conservation
IMC Institute for Climate Change and Environmental
Services Regulation
INPE
National Institute for Space Research
ISA-CarbonoEnvironmental Services Incentives – Carbon
programme
NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
ODK
Open Data Kit
PDC Community Development Plan
PRODESAmazon Deforestation Monitoring Program
REDD+Reducing Emissions from Deforestation, Forest
Degradation, Sustainable Forest Management,
Conservation, Restoration and Enhancement of
Carbon Stocks
REDD+ SES
REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards
RESEX
Extractive Reserves
SISA
System of Incentives for Environmental Services
SNUC
National System of Conservation Units
UC Conservation Units
UCEGEOCentral Unit for GIS and Remote Sensing
ZEE Ecological Economic Zoning
22
Danielsen, F. N. D. Burgess, M. Enghoff. Quadro 15.3 Do nível
mundial ao nível local no MRV de REDD+: Ligar abordagens
comunitárias e governamentais. Analise de REDD+: Desafios e
escolhas. A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Suderlin, L. V. Verchot.
2013. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Duchelle, A. E., Greenleaf, M. Mello, D., Fernanda Gebara, M.,
Melo, T. 2014. Acre’s State System of Incentives for Environmental
Services (SISA), Brazil. IN: Sills EO, Atmadja SS, de Sassi C,
Duchelle AE, Kweka DL, Resosudarmo IAP and Sunderlin WD,eds.
2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives
across the globe.Bogorglobe. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Governo do Acre. 2006. Programa Estadual de Zoneamento
Ecológico Econômico, Fase II: Documento Síntese – Escala
1:250.000. Secretaria Estadual de Meio Ambiente (SEMA), Rio
Branco.
IMC, CARE BRASIL, IMAFLORA. 2013. Manual de monitoramento
das salvaguardas socioambientais de REDD+ no SISA. Rio Branco,
Acre, Brasil.
Ministerio do Meio Ambiente - ICMBio, Plano de Utilização da
Reserva Extrativista Chico Mendes. Portaria Nº 60, de 28 de agosto
de 2008 – ICMBio.
Ministerio do Meio Ambiente ICMBio, Plano de Manejo da Reserva
Extrativista Chico Mendes - 2006.
Pratihast, Arun Kumar, Ben DeVries, Valerio Avitabile, Sytze de
Bruin, Lammert Kooistra, Mesfin Tekle and Martin Herold. 2014.
Combining Satellite Data and Community-Based Observations for
Forest Monitoring. Forests, 5, 2464-2489; doi:10.3390/f5102464.
Saraiva Rando, A., M. Nogueira de Azevedo. 2015. Controle social
no sistema estadual de incentivos a serviços ambientais do acre:
relato da experiência de implantação e funcionamento do comitê
local de padrões redes. Santa Cruz do Sul, v. 20, nº 1, p. 108 – 128,
jan./abr. Disponivel.
SEMA. 2010. Diagnóstico Socioeconômico e Cadastro da Reserva
Extrativista Chico Mendes. Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente
do Acre – SEMA.
WWF. 2013. O Sistema de Incentivos por Serviços Ambientais
do Estado do Acre, Brasil: Lições para Políticas, Programas e
Estratégias de REDD Jurisdicional. Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil.
WWF. 2015. Guia informativo da gestão participativa na Reserva
Extrativista Chico Mendes – Acre.
23
© Nanda Melonio