No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. The need for effective global monitoring of biodiversity is clearer than ever, but our measurements remain patchy and inadequate. In the biodiversity-rich tropics, a central problem is the sustainability of monitoring schemes. Locally-based, participatory approaches show promise in overcoming this problem, but may not contribute effectively to monitoring at larger scales. BirdLife International's framework for monitoring Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Africa is designed to be simple, robust and locally-grounded, but to produce scaleable results that can be compiled into national or regional indices. Focusing on key sites for bird conservation, identified according to standard criteria, the framework institutionalises monitoring in site management authorities and Site Support Groups (community-based organisations of local people working for conservation and sustainable development). A small, central monitoring unit co-ordinates the programme nationally, compiles, analyses and manages data, and provides feedback. 'Basic' monitoring (taking place at all sites) involves scoring of state, pressure and response trends using site information submitted on simple forms. 'Detailed' monitoring (taking place at a selected sub-set of sites) involves more intensive measurement of particular variables that relate to site management targets. IBA monitoring is now underway in at least 10 African countries, with implementation of the framework most advanced (thanks to a pilot project) in Kenya. The 2004 IBA monitoring report for Kenya provides extensive information on individual IBAs, plus indices for national trends in state, pressure and response, based on data from 49 out of 60 sites. The experience in Kenya shows that institutionalisation is vital, but takes considerable time and effort; that adequate co-ordination (including timely feedback) is key; and that participatory monitoring has many valuable benefits beyond the data collected. Further work is being undertaken to refine the process, improve its scientific underpinning, and strengthen the feedback loop from data and analysis to action on the ground.

SummaryImportant Bird Areas (IBAs) form a network of priority sites that are critical for the conservation of birds and biodiversity. A standard framework for monitoring IBAs is being implemented by the BirdLife Partnership globally. Scores are assigned on a simple ranked scale for state (condition), pressure (threats) and response (conservation action) at each site, from which IBA indices can be calculated. In Kenya, this scoring system was applied retrospectively using information in the national IBA directory (1999) and subsequent status reports (2004 and 2005). IBA indices for 36 IBAs show that their average condition deteriorated between 1999 and 2005, with the mean state score being between 'unfavourable' and 'near favourable'. Pressures on IBAs showed a slight decline in intensity, especially from 2004 to 2005, coincident with an improvement in management that was reflected in increasing response scores. Compared to unprotected IBAs, officially protected sites had substantially greater conservation responses underway, were subject to marginally lower pressures and tended to be in slightly better condition. Other disaggregations of the data allow comparisons to be made for sites in different habitats, of different size, and managed by different agencies. This national example for Kenya suggests that the BirdLife IBA monitoring framework provides a simple but effective way of tracking trends in the state of IBAs, the pressures upon them, and the responses in place. The system is sensitive enough to detect differences between sites and over time, but simple enough to be implemented with little training and without sophisticated technology. The results provide vital information for managers of individual protected areas, management agencies responsible for suites of sites, and national governments, and can be used to track progress in tackling the global biodiversity crisis.

Bird communities composed of habitat specialists suffer considerable loss of species following disturbance (Ecol. Monogr. 41, 1971, 207-233). Participatory forest management (PFM) aims to ensure local ownership and support for forest conservation. This study determined if forest birds and forest quality in places under PFM is significantly higher than areas without PFM in Arabuko-Sokoke forest. Forest quality data were collected in the PFM and no PFM zones in the Mixed forest (MF) and Cynometra Woodland (CW). Plot-based approach was used to collect vegetation data along 1 km transects at intervals of 1 km sampling twenty transects and 200 plots in each of the study zones. Birds' data were collected using 10-min point-counts along 88, 1 km long transects placed 1-km apart sampling in 30 m radius-plots at intervals of 100 m. Data were collected in 2008 and 2009. The results showed higher measures of forest quality in PFM zones than no PFM zones which showed higher measures of forest disturbance. The results did not show statistical differences in birds' diversity indexes between PFM and no PFM zones indicating that the human-induced disturbance has not reached critical ecological thresholds to affect birds' species diversity. It can be deduced that PFM investment is leading to improved forest management. RésuméLes communautés aviaires composées d'espèces spécialistes d'habitats particuliers soufrent de pertes considérables d'espèces en raison de perturbations (Ecol. Monogr. 41, 1971, 207-233). La Gestion participative des forêts (GPF) vise à garantir l'appropriation et le soutien locaux de la conservation des forêts. Menée dans la forêt d'Arabuko-Sokoke, cette étude a voulu déterminer si les oiseaux forestiers et la qualité de la forêt dans des endroits concernés par une GPF étaient significativement mieux que dans des zones qui ne le sont pas. Les données sur la qualité de la forêt ont été collectées dans des zones avec et sans GPF de la forêt mixte (FM) et de la forêt à Cynometra (FC). On a utilisé une approche par parcelles pour récolter des données sur la végétation le long de transects d'un kilomètre espacés entre eux d'un kilomètre, ce qui représentait au total 20 transects et 200 parcelles dans chaque zone étudiée. Les données sur les oiseaux ont été collectées sur des points de comptage de 10 min situés le long de 88 transects d'un kilomètre de long espacés d'un kilomètre, en échantillonnant des parcelles de 30 m de rayon tous les 100 m. Les données furent collectées en 2008 et 2009. Les résultats montrent que les mesures de qualité forestière faites en zones GPF sont supérieures à celles de zones non GPF qui présentaient des chiffres supérieurs de perturbation forestière. Les résultats ne montrent pas de différences statistiques des indices de diversité des oiseaux entre zones GPF et non GPF, ce qui indique que la perturbation n'a pas atteint les seuils critiques qui pourraient affecter la diversité des espèces d'oiseaux. On peut en déduire que l'investissement dans une GPF conduit à une amélioration de la...