Monitoring important bird areas in Africa: Towards a sustainable and scaleable system

被引:27
作者
Bennun, L
Matiku, P
Mulwa, R
Mwangi, S
Buckley, P
机构
[1] BirdLife Int, Cambridge CB3 0NA, England
[2] Nature Kenya, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
[3] Natl Museums Kenya, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
[4] Royal Soc Protect Birds, Sandy SG19 2DL, Beds, England
关键词
institutionalisation; Kenya; key biodiversity area; locally-based monitoring; participatory monitoring; site support group;
D O I
10.1007/s10531-005-8389-7
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
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 re. ne the process, improve its scientific underpinning, and strengthen the feedback loop from data and analysis to action on the ground.
引用
收藏
页码:2575 / 2590
页数:16
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetlands in Madagascar [J].
Andrianandrasana, HT ;
Randriamahefasoa, J ;
Durbin, J ;
Lewis, RE ;
Ratsimbazafy, JH .
BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2005, 14 (11) :2757-2774
[2]  
ARINAITWE J, 2003, P IBA MON WORKSH NAI
[3]   Measuring the changing state of nature [J].
Balmford, A ;
Green, RE ;
Jenkins, M .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2003, 18 (07) :326-330
[4]  
BENNUN L., 2002, MONITORING IMPORTANT
[5]  
Bennun L, 1999, IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS
[6]   Long-term monitoring and the conservation of tropical wetlands: high ideals and harsh realities [J].
Bennun, LA .
HYDROBIOLOGIA, 2001, 458 (1-3) :9-19
[7]  
*BIRDLIFE INT, 2004, STAT WORLDS BIRDS IN
[8]  
*BIRDLIFE INT, 2004, WORK TOG BIRD PEOPL
[9]   Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locally-based monitoring of protected areas [J].
Danielsen, F ;
Jensen, AE ;
Alviola, PA ;
Balete, DS ;
Mendoza, M ;
Tagtag, A ;
Custodio, C ;
Enghoff, M .
BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2005, 14 (11) :2633-2652
[10]   Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? [J].
Danielsen, F ;
Mendoza, MM ;
Alviola, P ;
Balete, DS ;
Enghoff, M ;
Poulsen, MK ;
Jensen, AE .
ORYX, 2003, 37 (04) :407-409