Making the biodiversity monitoring system sustainable: Design issues for large‐scale monitoring systems

Abstract

There is strong demand for information about the status of, and trends in, Australia's biodiversity. Almost inevitably, this demand for information has led to demand for a broad-scale monitoring system. However, the decision to embark on a monitoring system should only be made once it has been established that a monitoring system is the optimal way to inform management. We stress the need to invest resources in assessing whether a monitoring system is necessary before committing resources to the design and implementation of the system. Current debate associated with the design of a biodiversity monitoring system has similarities to the debate within the range management profession in the early 1970s. The experience with range monitoring shows that large-scale monitoring systems such as those being proposed will require considerable resources, recurrently expended into the distant future, but with only a limited ability to adapt to new demands. Those involved in any biodiversity monitoring system will need to understand the implications of investing in a long-term monitoring programme. Monitoring sustainability will only be possible if the monitoring system is itself sustainable. We discuss a number of issues that need to be addressed before the system is at all sustainable. These attributes are a mix of biophysical, social and institutional attributes and highlight the view that monitoring systems of the type being suggested comprise an unusual mixture of attributes not found in typical scientific activity. The present paper is not a technical manual, but rather considers some of the design issues associated with designing and implementing large-scale monitoring systems.

A new approach to forest biodiversity monitoring in Canada

“…All the while, they need to ensure that the programs remain scientifically credible, and produce information that is valuable to stakeholders (see discussion above). Further, programs may need to operate for a decade or more before sufficient statistical power to satisfy the needs of stakeholders is achieved (Watson and Novelly, 2004). This means that monitoring programs require considerable investment during their early years when their products are less attractive to stakeholders.…”

“…Sufficient long-term funding, however, ensures that the program can attract and hold quality staff, collect high quality information, and develop effective communication tools (Caughlan and Oakley, 2001). Biodiversity monitoring programs that cannot secure funding that is robust to changing political, economic, and corporate conditions probably should not be initiated (Watson and Novelly, 2004).…”

Developing policy-relevant biodiversity indicators: lessons learnt from case studies in Africa

“…Opportunities at the science-policy interface and the challenge of permanence Unequivocally, all project participants stressed the need to repeat monitoring over time, becoming a permanent process. Assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services are often too costly to be sustained once project funding ends in developing countries (Danielsen et al 2003;Schmeller et al 2017) and elsewhere (Watson and Novelly 2004). Hence, they do not become established monitoring, nor do they inform on policy-relevant trends.…”

Practical advice for implementing long‐term ecosystem monitoring

“…We promote a carefully balanced programme as the key to long‐term sustainability, a monitoring approach that is not too complicated, rigid, or disconnected from programme objectives, or so sparsely measured that the information is not useful. Deciding whether a long‐term monitoring programme is appropriate for specific management or research objectives is not trivial (Watson & Novelly 2004; McDonald‐Madden et al. 2010), but here, we have assumed this decision has been made and the initial scoping process, including the establishment of measurable objectives and priority environmental indicators, has been completed.…”