COMMUNITYFORESTMONITORINGExperiences from the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre-Brazil

1

About the Sinal Verde Project

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:

• 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.

To find out more about GCP’s community monitoring work, visit www.forestcompass.org or write to info@globalcanopy.org

Citation

Lead author: David SabogalContributing 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

Acknowledgements

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.

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.

Special thanks to Jon Parsons and other GCP staff and consultants, for their support developing and implementing this project.

Finally, we’d also like recognise and thank the financial support of the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD).

Partners: Funder:

2

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Impact & lessons learned .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

General results ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Forest 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 4.1 Opportunities .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Challenges ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20

4.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Acronyms & abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 22

References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Table of contents

3

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

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.

Executive summary

Impact & lessons learned

• The 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;

• Community monitoring systems can generate information exchanges, promote greater participation in decision making, and increase the alignment of management strategies;

• Balancing the needs and interests of local and governmental actors is essential to ensure the relevance of information and the sustainability of monitoring;

• Monitoring 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;

• Among 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.

4

General results from the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve1

1 Based on sampling described in Table 3. Percentages refer to total number of households, with the exception of the results on educational services.

2 Colocações are household plots, historically subdivisions of larger rubber plantations in the reserve.

3 The Bolsa Verde programme is a PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) scheme of R$ 300.00/quarter.

80% of households state they are aware of the rules of the reserve’s Land Use Plan

75% of households (colocações2) currently have land conflicts with neighbours

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

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

67% of households raise cattle, 71% of these for beef, and 29% for milk production

Pink Cedar (Cedrela odorata), Jitó (Guarea trichilioides), and Amarelão (Aspidosperma vargasii) are the most targeted timber species

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)

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

5

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.

1. Introduction

4 Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus sustainable forest management, conservation, recovery, and enhancement of carbon stocks.

5 Carbon Environmental Incentive System programme.

6 The REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards for Acre were developed with the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) and CARE International.

7 Extractive reserves are a protected area category that fall under Conservation Units for Sustainable Use.

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).

AcreBrazil

Peru Bolivia

Extractive ReserveChico Mendes

Figure 1. Conservation units for sustainable use in Acre, Brazil

Brazil

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.

6

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.

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.

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

8 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).

9 Results from Danielsen et al. 2013 show that forests can be monitored by communities with the same accuracy as scientists.

10 Communities are heterogeneous, with differing opinions, needs, and access to power.

Figure 2. Community monitor from North Rupununi, Guyana

© G

CP

7

11 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.

12 The census SEMA/ICMBio registered 1,766 family units in the reserve in 2009.

13 Around 11% of the reserve has been deforested (ICMbio): http://d3nehc6yl9qzo4.cloudfront.net/downloads/guia_resex_chicomendes.pdf

14 State government actors (IMC, SEMA, CDSA), federal government actors (ICMbio, UFAC), civil society organization (CTA), etc.

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.

The objectives of the project were fourfold:

(1) Build local monitoring capacity and generate awareness and learning opportunities among community members;

(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;

(4) Develop best practice on the use of technological tools in community forest monitoring models.

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;

(2) Community wellbeing;

(3) Forest governance.

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.

2. Community forest monitoring in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

Figure 3. A community monitor and her family in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

© D

avid

Sab

ogal

8

Table 1. Community monitoring framework

Theme Indicator Relevance

Forest-based production15

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. Livelihoods16

Rights of use17

Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation

Agricultural production18

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 servicesKnowledge/awareness of services; perception about quality of service; number of participants/beneficiaries.

Co-benefit generation20

Basic social rights

EducationNumber of schools and location; average number of students and gender representation; modes of access; types of services and existing infrastructure in the schools.

Health carePerception 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.

Benefit sharing23

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)24

Good governance & participation25

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.

15 Rubber (CVP, natural latex, FDL); nuts (processed); Açaí; traditional and commercial hunting and fishing; wood charcoal; timber extraction.

16 Principle 3, criterion 3.1 d: checklist of the SISA’s social and environmental safeguards monitoring manual (IMC 2013).

17 Principle 1, criterion.1, of the checklist.

18 Shifting & perennial (e.g. fruit) agriculture.

19 Cattle, small animal husbandry (e.g. poultry), aquaculture.

20 Principle 2, criterion 2.1 of checklist.

21 Management council, Associations, Community representative bodies and households.

22 Community Development Plan, Management Plan, Land Use Plan.

23 Principle 2, criterion 2.1 of the checklist.

24 Principle 1, criterion 1.3 of the checklist.

25 Principle 4, criterion 4.1, 4.2, 4.3; Principle 6.

26 For hunting, nut and timber extraction, fishing, pasture and farming.

27 Programmes include: Pequenos Animais; Florestas Plantadas; Piscicultura; Subsidio da borracha; PGPM; PNAE; PAA; Bolsas; Credito Habitação; Energia (Luz para todos, e solar).

Econ

omic

dev

elop

men

tCo

mm

unit

y w

ellb

eing

Fore

st g

over

nanc

e

9

28 AMOPRESENA, AMOPRECARB, AMOPREX, AMOPREB and AMOPREAB.

29 Based on the SEMA/ICMBio census of 2009, that registered 1,766 households in the reserve.

30 The final number of trained monitors was 36.

2.2 Capacity building

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.

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.

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.

Table 2. Allocation of monitors by municipalities in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

Municipality Population (No. families29)

Community monitors30

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

Figures 4, 5, & 6. Technological training and area-defining with community members

© G

CP

© G

CP

© G

CP

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.

10

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.

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.

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.

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 This methodology was adapted from experiences among Makushi indigenous communities in Guyana. For more information visit: http://forestcompass.org/how/resources/case-study-report-community-based-monitoring-systems-redd-guyana

32 It is important to consider whether phones are waterproof and have sufficient memory for storing data collected.

33 www.opendatakit.org

34 http://www.smap.com.au/

35 Digital forms can reduce the number of errors by eliminating transcription.

36 A subdivision within each municipality based on remnant rubber plantation boundaries in the reserve.

Figure 7. Technology-based monitoring system used in the project

4. Off-line data

collection (ODK)

3. Digital form transferusing WiFi (Tp link)

1. Participatory questionnaire

development

2. Creation and management ofdigital forms (Excel & Smap)

7. Cloud storage

(Dropbox)

8. Data sharing and reporting results

6. Data processing and analysis

(Excel, Smap, ArcGIS, Google Maps Engine)

5. Data transfers from phone

using WiFi (Tp link)

11

Legend:

Observations/households interviewed

Figure 8. Data points recorded in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

Table 3. Monitoring cycles and sampling

Monitoring themes

Collection period

Data source N° forms (households37)

Suficiência amostral2014 2015

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F

Impact of public policies Interviews 931 (53%) 3%

Settlement dynamics Interviews 931 (53%) 3%

Access to infrastructure Observations 637 n/a

Local environmental perceptions

Interviews 326 (18%) 5%

Education and health Observations;

Interviews8938; 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%

37 Considering the census in 2009 by SEMA/ICMBio that registered 1,766 households in the reserve.

38 Visits and interviews in education centres in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.

12

Table 4. Project implementation schedule

Participation39

Activity Duration CommentsLow Medium High

Developing the monitoring framework.

Nov. 2013 – Jan. 2014; Sep. 2014

• Balancing local and external monitoring needs, interests, and priorities is necessary to maintain relevance and align results to existing initiatives at different scales.

• 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.

Participatory recruitment of monitors40 based on capacity and profile41.

Dec. 2013 – Jan. 2014

• Selection must be made by the community bodies, based on the profile defined with partner institutions.

• A “before and after” evaluation must be made to understand the availability and commitment of each applicant.

Training monitors through 11 workshops (on monitoring themes, technology, interview methods and logistics).

Mar. 2014 – Dec. 2014

• Periodic capacity assessments are important to inform the training process, and standardise knowledge and skills among monitors.

• Fostering knowledge exchanges between monitors is also crucial in training; along with the availability of capacity-building materials (e.g. PDF files on smartphones).

Community communication on monitoring activities, results and next steps.

Mar. 2014 – Feb. 2015

• The dissemination of information is fundamental to building local support and avoiding misunderstandings of monitoring objectives.

• 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.

Data collection based on digital forms (ODK) and smartphones.

Mar. 2014 – Dec. 2014 (Monthly)

• Community participation is paramount for developing and defining monitoring methodology.

• Georeferenced data can provide insights on the spatial distribution of monitoring activities as well as track performance of monitors.

Data analysis and visualisation using Smap, Excel & ArcGIS.

• It is necessary to understand the compatibility of the results (i.e. data format), to allow integration with other existing data sets.

• Processing and analysis requires time because of the variety of audiences, and must be verified by community stakeholders.

Reporting of results in 20 different meetings.

Sep. 2014 – Nov. 2014; Feb. 2015 – Apr. 2015

• 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.

• It is criticaal for community members to participate in reporting, to ensure ownership and local endorsement of monitoring model.

Data sharing with different stakeholders.

• It is important to establish data sharing agreements between communities and stakeholders, so that data rights are respected and local ownership is maintained.

39 Participation of community members (leaders, monitors, etc.) in the different activities performed.

40 AMOPRESENA, AMOPRECARB, AMOPREX, AMOPREB and AMOPREAB.

41 Education, physical aptitude, local knowledge, leadership, character of voluntariness, time available, etc.

13

42 http://www.ipsamazonia.org.br/metodologia

43 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.

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.

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.

3.1 Community wellbeing

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 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.

3. Results & discussion

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 agriculture, 14% for livestock, and 1% for fish farming.

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.

Results box 1. Water use in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

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.

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.

Figure 9. Water treatment and the occurrence of diarrhoea in the reserve

0 20 40 60 80

20

40

60

80

100

Assis Brasil Epitaciolandia Brasileia

Rio Branco Capixaba

Sena Madureira Xapuri

42% 62% 36% 61% 77%

56% 33% 28% 82% 27%

100

80

60

40

20

% H

ouse

hold

s in

terv

iew

d

% Treating water prior to consumption

% Identify diarrhoea as a health problem

14

© N

eil P

alm

er (C

IFO

R)

15

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.

Results box 2. Forest-based production (Brazil nuts & rubber)

Community perspectives

“

“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. ”

“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 ?

Legend:

Households harvesting Brazil nuts

Figure 10. Households harvesting Brazil nuts in the reserve in 2014

3.2 Economic development

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.

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.

16

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).

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

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.

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.

Figure 11. Households actively rubber tapping and those that access, or have accessed, the rubber subsidy in 2014

% Households currently rubber tapping

% Households that access, or have accessed, the subsidy

Results box 2. Forest-based production (Brazil nuts & rubber)

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.

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

44 In comparison, the 2009 census (SEMA/ICMBio) found that 45% of households extracted rubber (801 of 1,766 households).

45 For more information read: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_a4_report_wild_rubber_web__2_.pdf

46 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.

Community perspectives

“…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!”

What are the main conflicts in your community?

0 20 40 60 80

20

40

60

80

100

% Households

Xapuri

Sena Madureira

Rio Branco/Capixaba

Brasileia/Epita

Assis Brasil

52%

0%

18%

14%

77%

44%

3%

20%

18%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17

© D

iego

Lou

renç

o G

urge

l

18

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).

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.

Results box 3. Forest governance and reserve management

47 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.

48 All percentages are based on a total of 551 interviews.

62% are not part of any association

49% participate in meetings, and 47% feel they are important

47% participate in community gatherings, and 84 % value them

55% think that ICMBio fulfils it’s role in the reserve

Associations

Community representative

bodies

Community households

ICMBio63% are aware of the Management Plan; 21% of these think it works Management Plan

30% know of their community development plan; 74% say they participated in developing the plan

Community Development Plans

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

Land Use Plan

67% feel represented by the Management Council Management instruments Management Council

Figure 12. Reserve management structures and perceived effectiveness48

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.

Figure 13. Types of illegal activities occurring in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

0

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80100

Brazil nut harvesting 23%Timber extraction 8%

Fishing 13%

Hunting 41%

Farming 10%

Pasture 5%

19

4.1 Opportunities

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.

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

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

4. Impacts and next steps

49 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.

Figure 14. Trained community monitors of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

© G

CP

20

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

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.

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.

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.

Figure 15. A resident of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

© M

arin

a Lo

ndre

s

21

AMOPREAB Association of Residents and Producers of the Chico Mendes Reserve in Assis Brasil

AMOPREBE Association of Residents and Producers of the Chico Mendes Reserve in Brasileia and Epitaciolândia

AMOPRECARB Association of Residents and Producers of the Chico Mendes Reserve in Rio Branco and Capixaba

AMOPRESEMA Association 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 Cernambi Virgem Prensado or pressed raw rubber blocks

FDL Folha Defumada Líquida or smoked liquid latex sheet

FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent

GCP Global Canopy Programme

ICMBio Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation

IMC Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Services Regulation

INPE National Institute for Space Research

ISA-Carbono Environmental Services Incentives – Carbon programme

NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

ODK Open Data Kit

PDC Community Development Plan

PRODES Amazon 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

UCEGEO Central Unit for GIS and Remote Sensing

ZEE Ecological Economic Zoning

Acronyms & abbreviations

References

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)

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.

22

© N

anda

Mel

onio

23