The Philippines is a megabiodiversity country, but it is also often seen as a country of ecological ruin whose biodiversity is on the verge of collapse. Decades of environmental neglect have pushed ecosystems to their limit, often with deadly repercussions for the human population. Is conservation in the Philippines a lost cause We review current conservation efforts in the Philippines, considering the actions of academics, field researchers, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, the government, and other sectors of society. Remarkably, however precarious the present situation may seem, there have been some recent positive gains and signs of hope. Although there is no room for complacency, we conclude that the diversity of available indicators suggests that conservation in the Philippines, against many odds, shows signs of success, and thus deserves greater attention and increased investment.
Tag: indicators
Indicators for Tracking the Global Goal on Adaptation: Insights from 50+ African Countries
Measurement and tracking of adaptation at the national level is important in assessing adaptation progress towards achieving the Paris Agreement goals. More than 400 indicators for tracking adaptation progress are included in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) of African countries.
Criteria and indicators for assessing the sustainability of forest management
The need for new criteria and indicators for the assessment of biodiversity conservation as part of sustainable forest management of tropical forests has been identified as a priority by many international organisations. Those biodiversity criteria and indicators which formed part of a much broader initial assessment by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (Prabhu et al. 1996) were found to be deficient. This Working Paper contains specific proposals for biodiversity criteria and indicators. These proposals originated from a workshop of experts, and are intended to be adapted and refined for use in specific situations. Criteria and indicators need to be applied at the forest management unit level and those for biodiversity are just one part of a package that includes socio-economic and other categories. Biodiversity is an extraordinarily broad concept and, given the huge diversity of life in tropical forests, it is impossible to make rapid direct assessments of biodiversity in forests in anything other than a superficial manner. It is likely that there will be limited skilled human resources and time for biodiversity assessment in any system of criteria and indicators, so it is important that we design tools that do not require expert application and interpretation. The usefulness of “indicator groups”, “keystone” species and other concepts is still argued among biologists and their utility is questionable. This paper suggests that, in contrast to more traditional approaches to assessing taxonomic diversity, it may be possible to assess the effects of management practices on biodiversity by examining the state of those processes that generate or maintain biodiversity. The indicators and verifiers that we have suggested examine the state of these processes. We recommend that for each indicator, quick and easy verifiers, which we designate “Primary” verifiers are used first, and more sophisticated (“Secondary”) verifiers are used only if clear results are not obtained from Primary verifiers. This paper is merely a first step in creating a suitable framework for applying a proposed a set of forest biodiversity indicators and verifiers. The framework and the indicators and verifiers require field testing, and we fully expect there to be changes resulting from the field trials, which will be reflected in major improvements in their effectiveness. For the sake of brevity we have not discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the verifiers in full. While changes are expected, the approach taken is powerful in that it recognises the relationship between interventions and consequences, and it demonstrates that some indicators are more widely valuable than others.
Principles, criteria and indicators
This concept paper addresses those elements in the people-forest interface which we perceive as critical to sustainable forest management, based on our own training and experience, as well as two field tests of the conceptual framework (in Kalimantan and Côte d’Ivoire ). Initially, we define our use of important terms, like sustainability, well being/needs, and people; and make clear some of our assumptions. We briefly allude to four pertinent conceptual and policy issues, including the role of people in relation to the forest; the significance of maintaining cultural diversity; the relationships among cultural integrity, culture change, and stakeholder participation; and finally, policy issues pertaining to land use, population, and people’s participation. The body of the paper discusses two principles, each with three associated criteria. An appendix lists principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers found useful in our field tests. We conclude briefly by describing future research plans, focused on refining our definitions of stakeholders, testing the importance of inter- generational access to resources and people’s participation in sustainable forest management, and testing the applicability of such criteria and indicators for community forestry contexts.
Ecological criteria and indicators for tropical forest landscapes: challenges in the search for progress
In the quest for global standards, “Criteria and Indicators” (C&I) are among the foremost mechanisms for defining and promoting sustainable tropical forest management. This paper examines some challenges posed by this approach, focusing on examples that reflect the ecological aspects of tropical forests at a management-unit level and assessments such as those required in timber certification. C&I can foster better forest management. However, there are confusions and tensions to reconcile between general and local applications, between the ideal and the pragmatic, and between the scientific and the democratic. To overcome this requires a sober appraisal of what can realistically be achieved in each location and how this can best be promoted. Good judgment remains the foundation of competent management. Data can inform this judgment, but an over-reliance on data collection and top-down bureaucratic interventions can add to problems rather than solving them. These arguments stress compromise, planning, guided implementation, and threat preparedness. Importance is also placed on skills and institutions: the building blocks of effective forest management. The authors suggest some options for improving forest management. Although a wider discussion of these issues is necessary, procrastination is harmful. Action is needed.