Potentialities and limits upon the application of community monitoring on Amazon’s conservation units: a reflection from ProBUC

Authors

  • Daniel Carneiro Costa Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM
  • Guillaume Antoine Marchand Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130814228

Keywords:

Community monitoring, Management of protected areas, Community Participation

Abstract

The ProBUC - monitoring program of biodiversity and the sustainable use of natural resources in protected areas of the Amazonas state - is an innovation in the community monitoring process within the Amazon. It is, in large measure, a consequence of the evaluation process and management of protected areas worldwide. Its purpose is to support the management of these protected areas through information obtained by local communities monitoring. In this work, we exposed the methodological details of the operating system of the program and its objectives as the official description made by the government of the Amazonas and the way it was implemented three protected areas. First, the aspects that precede and inspire the creation of ProBUC are presented, starting from the theoretical framework that discusses the conventional monitoring until the appearance of the proposed community monitoring in tropical countries, emphasizing the limitations of both modalities. Secondly, the limitations and potentials of this Amazon program are exposed within a critical evaluation of its functioning. This analysis stems from readings of international authors who discuss the issue of community monitoring direct observations made during field works and interviews with inhabitants of the conservation units within the program in question was established. Our analysis is also reinforced by taking part in in technical review meeting held by the ProBUC´s crew in 2013. It was noted that the viability of this program depends on overcoming key challenges such as financial dependence on international institution, the absence of a permanent technical staff, the huge gap in the treatment of data collected, the limited participation of the community in the daily development of the program-, among others. These limitations mean that the work done by local inhabitants is not located within a government strategy for local development. Furthermore, adaptive and participatory aspects of the program are potentials that need to be valued for its improvement. We conclude that it is very urgent that the state government take ownership of this program and equipped it with the necessary means in order to see its appropriation by the local communities and to encourage the proliferation of other similar regional initiatives-. The construction of ProBUC in this way would be of great value to the consolidation of alternative community monitoring in the complex Amazonian context.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Daniel Carneiro Costa, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM

Graduado em Economia e especialista em Pedagogia e Organização do Mundo do Trabalho pela Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM). Mestrando do Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Ambientais e Sustentabilidade na Amazônia (PPGCASA), da Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM). Atualmente é Técnico em Assuntos Educacionais da mesma instituição. E-mail: daniel_costa1978@yahoo.com.br.

Guillaume Antoine Marchand, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, AM

Graduado em Historia Antiga pela Universidade dAvignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, e em Ciências Geográficas pela mesma Universidade. Mestre em Estudos Latino-Americanos pela Universidade de Paris III Sorbonne-Nouvelle e Doutor em Geografia também pela Universidade de Paris III Sorbonne-Nouvelle.  Atualmente é professor visitante do Centro de Ciências do Ambiente (CCA) da Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM). E-mail: gaelmarch@yahoo.fr

References

ABBOT, JoanneGUIJT, Irene. Changing Views on Change: Participatory Approaches to Monitoring the Environment. In: International Institute for Environment And Development, Londres, UK, 1998. Disponível em: http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=ZeL0o4AF8aAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&ots=XT85gftYu&sig=1jecuGKrhhHiyO8Dts3RvJGQtkI#v=onepage&q&f=false. Acesso em: 3 jan. 2014.

AFRIDI, Farzana. Can community monitoring improve the accountability of public officials? In: Economic e political weekly. Vol. 43. N. 42, 2008. Disponível em: http://www.jstor.org/stable/i40010942. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2013.

BATISTA, Gelson da Silva et al. O uso do recurso pesqueiro na reserve de desenvolvimento sustentável de Uacari, Amazonas, Brasil, subsídios para elaboração do plano de gestão. In: CALANDINO, D.et al. (orgs.). Áreas protegidas da Amazônia. Brasília, DF. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2008.

BORGES, Sergio Henrique et al .Construindo a gestão do parque estadual Rio Negro setor norte, Amazonas, Brasil.In: In: CALANDINO, D. et al. (orgs.). Áreas protegidas da Amazônia. Brasília, DF. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2008.

CUNDILL, George; FABRICIUS, Christo. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: towards a learning based approach. In: Journal of environmental management, n. 90, issue 11, 2009. Disponível em: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709001510. Acesso em: 27 set. 2013.

DANIELSEN, F. et al. Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? Oryx,

- Cambridge Univ Press.

_____________ et al; Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based approaches. In: Biodiversity and conservation v. 14 Issue 11, pp 2507-2542, Springer, 2005. Disponível em: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-005-8375-0#page-1. Acesso em: 14 jan. 2014

_______________ et al. Increasing conservation management action by involving local people in natural resource monitoring. In: AMBIO: journal of the human environment, v. 36, n. 7, 2007.

DAVIES, Rick. An evolutionary approach to facilitating organisational learning: an experiment by the Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh. In: Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 16, n. 3, 1998, Beech Tree Publishing, I 0 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GUI 2EP, UK. Disponível em: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14615517.1998.10590213. Acesso em: 13 jan. 2014.

EVANS, Kristen; GUARIGUATA, Manuel R. Participatory Monitoring in tropical forest management: a

review of tools, concepts and lessons learned. Center for International Forestry Research, 2008, Bogor, Indonésia. Disponível em: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BGuariguata0801.pdf. Acesso

em: 14 jan. 2014.

GARCIA, Claude A.; LESCUYER, Guillaume. Monitoring, indicators and community based forest management in the tropics: pretexts or red herrings? In: Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008 – Springer. Disponível em: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-008-9347-y. Acesso em: 13 jun. 2013.

GAVENTA, John; CREED, Victoria; MORRISSEY, Janice. Scaling up: participatory monitoring and evaluation of a Federal Empowerment Program. In: New Directions for Evaluation, n. 80, Winter, 1998. Disponível em: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev.1119/abstract. Acesso em: 12 set. 2013.

GHATE, Rucha; NAGENDRA, Harini. Role of monitoring in institutional performance: Forest management in Maharashtra, India. In: Conservation and society, v. 3, issue 2 pp. 509-532, 2005. Disponível em: http://conservationandsociety.org/article.asp?issn=09724923;year=2005;volume=3;issue=2;spage=509;epage=532;aulast=Ghate. Acesso em: 14 jan. 2014

GLASSON, Jhon; THERIVEL, Riki; CHADWICK, Andrew. Introduction to environmental impact assesment. In: Introduction to environmental impact assessment. The natural and built environment series, fourth edition. UCL Press, Londres, 1994. Disponível em: http://books.google.com.br/books?hl=ptBR&lr=&id=NefZAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=.+Introduction+to+environmental+impact+assesment&ots=dnHMQq8F_Y&sig=5uioBsaEifMJQli6VehxHXo2jF8#v=onepage&q=.%20Introduction%20to%20

environmental%20impact%20assesment&f=false. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2014.

HOCKINGS, Marc. Evaluating effectiveness – A framework for assessing the management of protected areas. In: Oxford journals, v.53, n.9, 2000. Disponível em: http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/9/823.short> Acesso em: 27 dez. 2013.

JUNIOR, Sinomar F. Fonseca et al. Programa de monitoramento da biodiversidade e do uso de recursos naturais- ProBUC: a experiência das unidades de conservação estaduais do Amazonas. Manaus, Centro Estadual de Unidades de Conservação, 2011.

LAMMERTS van BUEREN EM, BLOM EM. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest managemente standards. In: Tropenbos Foundation, 1997. Disponível em: http://www.piec.org/pathfinder/Pathfinder_portal/Instruments_Engl/A3Hierarchical_framework/print/CI_framework_PF.pdf. Acesso em: 23 nov. 2013.

REBELO, George; PEZZUTI, Juarez. Percepções sobre o consumo de quelônios na Amazônia: sustentabilidade e alternativas ao manejo atual. Ambient. soc., Campinas , n.67, jun. 2000.Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1414753X2000000100005&lng=pt&nrm=iso. Acesso em: 25 set. 2013.

SHEIL, Douglas; LAWRENCE, Anna. Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration. In: Trends IN Ecology and Evolution, vol. 19, n. 12, 2004. Disponível: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534704002915. Acesso em: 27 set. 2013.

STUART-HILL, Greg et al. The event book system: community-based monitoring in Namibia. In: Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 14, pp. 2611–, 2631, Springer, 2005. Disponível em: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-005-8391-0#page-1. Acesso em: 14 jan. 2014.

WHITELAW, Graham, et al Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. In: Environmental monitoring and assessment, 88, 2003. Disponível em: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025545813057#page-1. Acesso em: 30 nov..2013.

Downloads

Published

2014-09-01

How to Cite

Costa, D. C., & Marchand, G. A. (2014). Potentialities and limits upon the application of community monitoring on Amazon’s conservation units: a reflection from ProBUC. Monografias Ambientais, 13(4), 3663–3672. https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130814228

Issue

REMOA, V. 13, N. 4, SET.-DEZ., 2014

Section

ARTICLES

License

Declaration

Available here

Ethical guidelines for journal publication

The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.