Monitoring Important Bird Areas in Africa: Towards a Sustainable and Scaleable System

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.

Building African Ecosystem Research Network for sustaining local ecosystem goods and services

“…It could not be based solely on project funds, as LTER is known to be expensive (Tenhinds, 1984;Bennun et al, 2005;Saidi and Pauw, 2010;Joubert and Trollip, 2011). The US LTER and the CERN lasted more than three decades because they were supported by periodic renewed governmental funding (Fu et al, 2010;Robertson et al, 2012).…”

“…Of these sites, 68.0% have more than 1 km 2 and 68.9% were established from 2000 to 2005. Indeed, this time period corresponds to the establishment of BIOTA-AFRICA (Jürgens et al, 2012); the assessment of IBAs (BirdLife International, 2002;Bennun et al, 2005); and the SAEON launch (Joubert and Trollip, 2011). This shows the very little experience of Africa in LTER and justifies the weaknesses and persistent gaps which characterize Africa′s climate information system (Archer et al, 2007), as LTER always includes investigations on biotic and abiotic factors (Lane, 1997;Hobbie et al, 2003;Jürgens et al, 2012;Robertson et al, 2012;Vihervaara et al, 2013).…”

“…Biodiversity conservation is the main concern of any LTER, and 75.7% of the sites were located in biodiversity hotspots or protected areas. The IBAs were identified to ensure the long-term viability of naturally occurring bird populations (BirdLife International, 2002;Bennun et al, 2005). Therefore, they represent the areas of conservation interest because birds are effective biodiversity indicators, as they require various biotas for their lifecycle (Machange et al, 2005;Newman et al, 2007;Hartz et al, 2012;Ogden et al, 2014a;2014b).…”

“…Apart from the INGOs, there are initiatives at both national and regional scales dedicated to the long-term monitoring of biodiversity in Africa. Bennun et al, 2005;Gray and Kalpers, 2005;Joubert and Trollip, 2011;Jürgens et al, 2012;Henschel and Lancaster, 2013).…”

Integrating CBM into Land-Use Based Mitigation Actions Implemented by Local Communities

“…If monitoring is locally relevant it may be more sustainable since valuation of local benefits will promote participation (types III-V) [8]; nevertheless monitoring programs should not rely on this 'low cost' monitoring, since if real local benefits are not enough to cover the participation costs, monitoring will not occur [8,18,21]. Previous research highlights the potential to develop monitoring schemes of types II-III when practices are institutionalised in official organizational and governance schemes to enable the provision of support/feedback by officials and other technical experts (e.g., [8,22]). External support is needed for including CBM into national monitoring systems for REDD+ since, first, this is an external initiative at international level and second, because institutions, skills and infrastructure are usually not in place yet for the interpretation of field data.…”