ECOSYSTEMS AND PROTECTED AREAS MONITORING IN HONDURAS

This is the monitoring programme of the Honduras protected areas system, SINAPH in Englis.  The Spanish version is posted here.  For downloading: Monitoring Honduras , document with field forms.  This document was written for Honduras, but is applicable anywhere using different indicator species.

DAPVS & SERNA

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

OF THE SINAPH AND BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

Daan Vreugdenhil

Franklin Castañeda

Marco Tulio López

Financed by PROBAP / World Bank / GEF

Prepared by WICE

INDICE

1. INTRODUCTION

2. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE M&E PROGRAM

3. BASIC CONCEPTS

3.1 Main users

3.2 Threats, irregularities and responses

3.3 Characteristics of the Design of the M&E Program

3.3.1 Budgetary constraints

3.3.2 Self-adaptability

3.3.3 Participation of field personnel

3.3.4 Transparency and verification

3.3.5 Participatory design

3.3.6 Central American Database for the Monitoring of Ecosystems

3.4 Monitoring the results and impacts of programs and policies

4. THE M&E PROGRAM

4.1 Sedentary organisms

4.1.1 Terrestrial ecosystems

4.1.2 Marine ecosystems

4.2 Mobile organisms

4.2.1 Species with potential to be included in a monitoring program

5. INTERNAL EXECUTION

5.1 Permanent monitoring by field personnel

5.2 M&E Personnel and Structure

5.2.1 Forest Rangers

5.2.2 The M&E Coordinator

5.2.3 Directors of Protected Areas

5.2.4 Definition of an internal M&E Program

5.2.5 Service rounds

5.2.6 Maps on the Conservation Status of Parks

5.2.7 Standard Service Form

6. EXTERNAL M&E

6.1.1 Baseline

6.1.2 Complementary inventory of indicator species

6.1.3 Specialized M&E

7. DATABASE

8. LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGES

9. PERIODIC OVERFLIGHTS

10. ANNUAL INVENTORY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT

11. NGOs, LINKS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION

12. EVALUATION

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

I. INTRODUCTION

The task of monitoring the SINAPH/MBC of Honduras has been depicted and developed in the context of GEF-financed projects in Honduras, and is described in the project document entitled “Conservation of Biodiversity in Honduras”, paragraph 6.4.3.4, among others:

“There is an urgent need for monitoring both the results of the GEF project and, on a broader scale, the status of biodiversity in the Honduran sector of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.

AFE-COHDEFOR’s Socio-Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System (SEMS) will be strengthened to incorporate variables that will allow us to get to know the potential of biodiversity and to identify critical areas within the Honduran biological corridor. The monitoring system will allow us to assess good management indicators and to establish adequate procedures to correct mistakes.

In order to unify criteria on the monitoring of biodiversity in the biological corridor, adequate mechanisms will be established to coordinate these activities with the monitoring system to be implemented by the Regional Mesoamerican Project of the Biological Corridor.”

The concept of an ecological monitoring program was first developed in 1996 by Dr. Adrian Forsyth in his document, “Monitoring and Evaluation”. Because of its novelty, it has since served as a model concept for many other projects, particularly for the concepts of monitoring and service rounds introduced by Richard Smith, former director of the USA National Park. This resulted in the development of complementary ideas and experiences in the region which have also contributed to the strengthening of the original concepts.

2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE M&E PROGRAM

Any policy for a given country requires its main actors (administrators, beneficiaries, stakeholders, politicians, citizens, NGOs, etc) to be informed of its effectiveness. This implies that the effects of the policy have to be measured and assessed through continuous measuring or “monitoring” program. The challenges of a monitoring program include:

• selection of parameters which reflect the effects generated by the policy

• organization of a monitoring program tailored to the execution measurements of the policy

• long-term continuation of the program

In this respect, the Honduran policy involves the conservation of the protected areas of the SINAPH and the sustainable use of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. The Honduran portion of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor includes the set of protected natural areas under special management regimes (core areas, buffer zones, multiple use, etc.) and interconnecting zones, organized and consolidated as a territorial regulatory system (SINAPH) to offer a series of goods and services to the Honduran, Central American and world society; it also provides spaces for discussion and consensus on the promotion of the conservation of biodiversity and investment in the sustainable use of the natural resources, with a view to contributing to enhance the quality of life of the country’s inhabitants.

This ambitious goal involves several important aspects. Each one has its own key elements for the collection of data and its unique method for interpretation. The measurement of the effectiveness of the achievement of this mission can be divided into two components:

• administrative monitoring, which includes social parameters, administrative tasks, economic impacts, visitation and visitor satisfaction, etc.

• ecologic monitoring, which is focused on the operation of the ecosystems, geophysical parameters, conservation of biodiversity, etc.

SERNA and DAPVS have already decided to carry out their monitoring tasks according to the above-mentioned division, taking advantage of the administrative monitoring methodology developed by PROARCA/CAPAS for the analysis of their administrative operations and their social successes, as well as the development of a new M&E component to (a) measure the status of the conservation of biodiversity in situ, (b) measure changes, and (c) reveal threats, with a view to responding effectively and measuring the effectiveness of actions taken. This document deals with this second component. Clearly, it will be impossible to draw a strict line between the two; sometimes you tend to delve into the first component without going into any detail, though.

The objective of the ecologic monitoring program of Honduras is:

To provide ecologic monitoring and evaluation for the SINAPH and all the territory covered by the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor which will facilitate information on the status of the conservation of biodiversity in the monitored areas to politicians (ministers, mayors, etc.), management and main actors such as scientists and conservationists, the tourist sector, neighboring communities and residents of the management areas, as well as on the changes and threats to the conservation of the biodiversity so that the administrative entities may respond accordingly and measure the effectiveness of the policies and measures.

It has a modular and decentralized application; it can be well used, individually, by an independent administration of a management area, and can be incorporated into a national information network.

Any M&E system is subject to its own objectives and methods, and its results vary accordingly. In general terms, the current system focuses on a given area and not on the monitoring of development or investment projects such as roads, industrial investments, urbanization, etc., which usually require the collection of specific data. The achievements and changes generated by concrete projects should be monitored and financed within the context of the projects themselves. The system, however, will generate a large amount of data which will assist in the assessment of project achievements, impacts and challenges. It is recommended that – according to need - the database presented in this document be used to render the information compatible and thus maximize the value of the collected data.

3. BASIC CONCEPTS

3.1 Main users

The main users of this M&E Program are the following:

• The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, the national directors of SERNA and AFE-COHDEFOR need information to enable them to formulate, adapt and defend their biodiversity conservation policies before the general public and specific actors (NGOs), and defend / justify any budgetary modification;

• The DAPVS director is responsible for the management of the core of the Biological Mesoamerican Corridor, basically the SINAPH, whose territory coincides with roughly 90% of the Corridor and which includes the most valuable lands of the Corridor. He/she also needs information to make decisions on the administrative and organic management of the SINAPH;

• Financial entities require information on the progress of the projects they finance and on the impact of their programs on the sector which is being intervened in order to justify these investments before their board of directors (national representatives of international organizations, or foreign ministers in the cases of bilateral cooperation entities),

• The directors of each protected area need information on the impact of their interventions on the local actors to justify specific measures (both positive measures which promote economic benefits as well as corrective measures). They also need timely information on changes and threats in order to respond accordingly;

• The “scientific world” needs verifiable and statistically sound ecological data for scientific research which advances ecologic knowledge and understanding, with benefits for humankind and better long-term management;

• NGOs require information to assess the impact of government programs and to apply pressure according to their point of view (which may differ from one NGO to another);

• Local actors (ethnic groups and farmers) demand transparency and information to enables them to dialogue and participate in decision-making processes related to management programs, which may well have a bearing on their rights, economic opportunities and cultural life.

• The tourist sector requires information for its clients, data on environmental tolerance, best visitation options, etc.

• Project executors require data on the effects of their projects, whether they are development or infrastructure projects. In the case of the latter, the data which have already been collected for an area may be part of an in-depth baseline research for an environmental impact study. In the context of the project, the program for the measurement of impact would be intensified.

3.2 Threats, irregularities and responses

The M&E program cannot be designed without considering the different categories of threats to the SINAPH. In this model each protected area to be monitored is treated in the beginning as a decentralized unit, with independent monitoring instruments. The tendency both in Honduras and in the rest of the world is the abatement of natural habitats and threat to, or extinction of, flora and fauna due to the deterioration of the quality of the habitats, invasions of exotic species and over-exploitation. To reduce stress between protected areas and neighboring productive lands, it is critical to develop cooperative programs with nearby communities. The M&E system, however, cannot ignore the fact that there will always be conflict of interests with individuals, communities or groups with special interests who wish to modify and make use of protected areas to their own advantage vis-a-vis national benefit. An M&E system must focus on threats of this nature and give the administration an early warning so that it can respond on the basis of adequate and timely information. The main threats include:

• transformation of natural habitat for agricultural purposes

• illegal exploitation of forests

• destruction of habitats by natural forces

• loss of key organisms because of poaching, illegal commerce of wildlife and over-fishing

• over-visitation by visitors

• fires

• pollution / contamination

• climatic changes

These categories refer to direct phenomena, not to their causes. For example, a road may very well improve the access to a forest, which in turn may lead to accelerated deforestation. In this case, the direct phenomenon will be registered as habitat transformation or illegal exploitation, whatever the cause. People in charge of interpreting data must correlate observed phenomena with their core causes.

It should be noted that in the future, the protected areas in Honduras could very well be confronted with other types of threats, such as invasion of exotic species, epidemic diseases and other factors. Currently, however, these are minor concerns, except maybe in the case of aquatic and insular ecosystems which are particularly sensitive to invasive exotic species and diseases. In light of the objectives of the project, the main components of an M&E program are:

1. to determine the degree of benefit for, and coexistence of, local communities with the SINAPH as a whole and the protected areas in particular

2. to monitor administrative management

3. to assess the experience of user-visitors and determine their impact on the terrain in high visitation sites

4. the annual inspection of the status of the maintenance of the infrastructure and equipment

5. to monitor and measure the integrity and conservation status of the prioritized areas of the SINAPH/BMC under active management, and particularly the status of national coverage

6. to monitor the status of indicator organisms

7. to record and identify anthropogenic intrusions and disturbances of the habitat and analyze their immediate causes.

This document deals particularly with components 5, 6 and 7.

3.3 Characteristics of the M&E Program Design

Above all, an M&E program should be a tool for park management, designed to maintain the viability of managed areas. The M&E program should thus exhibit the following characteristics:

1. low cost and high cost-efficiency

2. facilitate management and administrative adaptability, and have self-adaptability

3. incorporate field personnel

4. transparent and able to be verified, internally and externally

5. designed through a participatory process

6. compatibility with the Central American Database for the Monitoring of the Ecosystems

3.3.1 Budgetary constraints

Protected area managements everywhere are subject to strong pressure to execute costly research studies and monitoring and evaluation programs. Main actors (scientists, NGOs, international donors, etc.) in countries all over the world recognize the need for a monitoring program, but each one wants his particular parameter of interest to be monitored. It will never be possible to satisfy the needs of all the users, however, so it will always be necessary to decide which data, from which clients, can be generated by a general monitoring program. Experienced administrators have concluded that a management administration should not spend more than 10% of its budget (including costs of the time invested by internal personnel with their equipment, such as transportation, computers, buildings) in monitoring programs and applied research addressed to the evaluation of data. This practical rule of thumb significantly reduces the scope of a monitoring and applied research program. The current program will lend support to the selection of parameters to be monitored and their intensity. During the first monitoring workshop, the DAPVS director emphasized that he was not going to be able to initiate all the parameters of the monitoring programs in all the areas simultaneously, so his plan is to apply different components according to a prioritized schedule.

3.3.2 Self-adaptability

Self-adaptability is mandatory in the Honduran socioeconomic context and in light of the dynamic nature of the threats to the ecosystems. On the basis of historical tendencies, we know that the threats to protected area systems change continually, and the monitoring program must be able to adjust accordingly. It is important, however, that the changes be compatible. It is a bad-monitoring practice to discontinue a program after a couple of years and start with something new. A monitoring program should be discontinued only if the original methodology cannot generate the expected information or if the information is no longer relevant or important. In the face of a new situation, it is better to analyze the extent of the program’s usefulness and look for a method which is both useful and allows compatibility between the collected data and new data. Funds permitting, of course, it is always possible to include additional data.

3.3.3 Participation of field personnel

The importance of field personnel participation will be explained later on in the document.

3.3.4 Transparency and verification

NGOs, research institutions and the media have vested interests in the conservation status of protected areas. It is therefore important that the data produced by the M&E program be shared. Since the interpretation of the data is always dependent on the analyst’s vision, it is essential that NGOs, research institutions and other actors have access to the data in order to voice their opinions about its validity, offer advise on the methodology and produce their own data in order to have a second opinion, if they so wish. It is therefore recommended that the information on the databases be of public property and that the stored data be distributed freely, preferably through Internet.

3.3.5 Participatory design

A monitoring program in not an end in itself. The data is generated for different users with interests which might well be parallel but different. Only through a participatory design can the benefits of the program be maximized and the users agree that the program has limitations in its scope.

3.3.6 The Central American Database for the Monitoring of Ecosystems

The Map of the Ecosystems of Central America, which consists of seven national maps, was produced in the context of the Central American regional project. The map is organized in a GIS and a Central American Database for the Monitoring of Ecosystems. Valuable data which will form part of the management area baseline has been collected in the context of this project. This database has been developed for the storage of ecological conditions of a specific site in a given moment. Its initial design is geared mainly to sedentary conditions, such as vegetation in a given site. Its conditions were developed firstly by botanists, and the fauna and management concepts are lacking. Among other things, this component will endeavor to add some of the concepts which are currently missing.

3.4 Monitoring Results and Impacts of programs and policies

The analysis of satellite images with the GIS program enables the monitoring of the deforestation process and the comparison of historic situations. The application facilitates the computerized detection of changes in vegetation coverage and a clear visual presentation. The methodology does have its setbacks though, and its value increases in combination with other forms of monitoring. One of the main problems of the GIS application is its slow reaction to the situation in the field because of the process required by a GIS: image taking, analysis of the availability of new images in Internet, purchase, arrival in the country, analysis by GIS analysts, and reporting to responsible parties. The methodology usually involves a considerable amount of time between the change in the field and the successful shooting of the image by the satellite which, in many cases in wet tropic areas, causes problems because of cloudiness. Many months usually go by between the shooting and the purchase of the image, and between the moment of the purchase and the interpretation, which can last up to a year. One and sometimes two years go by between the moment of a new deforestation area and its discovery by a GIS analysis on the basis of a satellite image. After such a long interval of time the situation has been consolidated and therefore does not leave much room to solve problems and take appropriate measures. Besides, in the scale of the economically feasible images (such as LANDSAT), partial and small scale deforestations are frequently below the sensibility detection.

A GIS analysis with satellite images is therefore a solid application for documentation and historical analysis and is thus suitable for understanding the results of the project and management and conservation policies in the medium and long term. Surely, the process is getting better and better with the fall of the prices of LANDSAT 7 images from $5,000 to $600. RADAR images can also enhance the speed of the process because they are not dependent on cloudiness. The CCAD/NASA project is experimenting with this, but the author believes that the GIS systems will not be useful for rapid detection purposes and early warning systems for a long time to come.

After having worked for two years in the production of the Map of the Ecosystems of Central America, and taking into consideration the constraints of the official channels of government and international entities, as well as technical limitations of the process itself, the author strongly believes that, for rapid detection and early warning of specific violations to the protected areas, a GIS system is still much too slow and insufficiently detailed to facilitate immediate answers. This situation can obviously change overnight, but at the moment an M&E program is needed, with direct observation and immediate feedback through a permanent observation program in the field, using periodic fauna inventories. In the meantime, the method based on remote sensing/GIS is both suitable and necessary for large scale change processes in the Biological Corridor as a whole, and to measure the success of policies and projects.

4. THE M&E BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

4.1 Sedentary organisms

4.1.1 Terrestrial ecosystems

To establish a point of reference for the accomplishments and weaknesses in the management of the SINAPH/MBC, a baseline study is needed. The conservation of biodiversity is generally achieved through the conservation of ecosystems and not through the conservation of individual species. Vegetation is the expression of multiple ecological interactions, both historical and current, between climate, geology, topography, terrain, water, fire, fauna and human activities in any region of the world. Because of its dominance of the biomass in terrestrial ecosystems and its tendency to systematically cover the physical terrestrial surface, and because it is relative stationary, vegetation is the best indicator in ecosystems. The simplest and less costly method to monitor the ecological well-being of the SINAPH/BMC is through an assessment of the status of plant coverage which is representative of an ecosystem. To maximize natural plant coverage is to maximize the potential for the conservation of biodiversity. This proxy represents what is minimally necessary, but it is not enough to attain the objectives of the prioritized areas of the SINPAH/BMC and the DAPVS/SERNA policy.

In the 90s, Honduran ecologists identified the need for a better description of the vegetation than the one offered by Holdridge’s old map, which distinguishes among seven categories of vegetation for Honduras, on the basis of climatic criteria. This 70s map does not reflect the real situation of vegetation, only its potential. Therefore, a modern ecosystems map, which included aquatic ecosystems, was commissioned to botanists S.F. Iremonger and C. Nelson, with aquatic inputs from this author. The types of vegetation were classified on the basis of physiognomic and ecological characteristics of the site, using the UNESCO classification system, and published by Mueller Dombois, 1974. Life forms that are present and can serve as indicator species, as well as the structure of the vegetation, were considered to define the physiognomy. Ecological characteristics may refer to elevation (lowland, submontane, lower montane, higher montane), relief (flat, rolling, abrupt), nearness to water masses (coastal, riverside), wetland regimes (marshes) and salinity, type of substratum (rocks, accumulation of organic material, etc.)

In 1999, the CCAD sponsored the production of an ecosystems map for all of the Central American countries, financed by the World Bank / Government of Honduras /Government of The Netherlands, whose starting point were the existing maps in the UNESCO system. In this context, the maps of Costa Rica, Belize and Honduras have been updated with new images, more field studies and with terminological synchronization with the rest of the countries of the region.

The demarcation of the ecosystems was carried out on Pre-Mitch and Post-Mitch LANDSAT TM satellite images, printed on a scale of 1:250,000. The process of plotting lines between areas with different types of ecosystems was done by botanists, with the assistance of experts in the analysis of said images and the use of all basic information available (vegetation maps, climate, elevation, etc. publications, national experienced professionals).

More specifically, a detailed method was developed to characterize ecosystems in the field. The field methodology employed in each confirmed site was the square or parcel method, which has been used by several researchers in different sites and moments in time, among which are Hopkins, 1950; Fournier, 1970; Cruz Pérez, 1974; Rosales y Salazar, 1976; Oosting, 1984; López et al. 1992; Dallmeier, et al. 1992. They all state that for this method, the sampling unit for the collection of data admits any form (square, rectangle, circle, etc.) and size (from 1 cm2 to several m2 or km2), depending on the type of vegetation and the objectives pursued by the researchers. They also acknowledge that it is one of the most reliable and appropriate methods for determining the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of vegetation, as well as its floristic composition, structure, density, frequency, and coverage through its basal area, highlighting the importance of each one in the study site. Since the square method is a useful one, this research used 25m radius circles (50m en diameter) as sampling units, and within this area data were collected to characterize all biotic and abiotic aspects of each site, nucleus or georeferenced parcel.

In the context of the national and regional mapping project, the generic description of 25m-radius parcels has been sufficient. In the context of the monitoring of protected areas, the region’s botanists (including Honduran botanists) concluded that the gradual selection of permanent parcels, well chosen within the protected areas in order to be able to detect changes in the composition of species within the ecosystems of a protected area, is required. In-depth studies will be encouraged through cooperation agreements between universities, in which DAPVS will facilitate transportation and lodging facilities so that professors and their students may visit the parcels, preferably on an annual basis.

4.1.2 Marine ecosystems

Generally speaking, the monitoring of marine ecosystems is very expensive and outside the scope of protected area management. It requires the use of boats, permanent marine measurement platforms and high maintenance equipment. Only a few countries in the world have in-depth marine monitoring programs, such as the United States, Canada, Norway, The Netherlands and Germany. In general, coastal countries devote themselves more to the monitoring of fishing production, a task which is being carried out in Honduras by the Directorate General of Fishing and Aquaculture (DIGEPESCA). These data are always interesting and an annual analysis is recommended in the context of biodiversity conservation.

Coralline ecosystems and other bentic ecosystems are sedentary by nature, and can be monitored with permanent parcels. There are methods for the registry of coralline parcels which are still unknown to the author. What’s important is to choose representative sites. It is likewise important to map whitened corals in order to follow their progress or recuperation. Since sub-aquatic monitoring is extremely expensive, it is necessary to seek out collaboration from voluntary entities and diving schools. Bentic ecosystems are generally monitored in the context of water quality concerns. These studies are expensive and outside the scope of DAPVS/SERNA.

A specific element related to the management of marine ecosystems is the spawning of marine turtles. Even though the information we have on them does not say too much about the status of the sea directly, it is important to have a record of spawning and hatching successes, more so because its conservation is a specific concern. Since 1995 there is an on-going project in the biosphere of the Rio Plátano for the conservation of ????????????tortugas baula y caguama ?????. For more than 15 years there has been a program in the South for the conservation of the dolphin turtle. All the necessary data are being recorded in the context of these two projects. The collection of these data is important and it is advisable that DAPVS do its best effort to ensure that data collection is not interrupted in the future.

4.2 Mobile organisms

Habitat monitoring through the measurement of sedentary parameters is essential but not sufficient. It must receive inputs from mobile parameters to complement the integrated biota of the ecosystems. This requires information from populations of fauna species to become acquainted with the well-being of integrated ecosystems. But how do you determine what to monitor and what not? One thing is clear: it is not possible to monitor biodiversity in a broad sense. For example, the majority of biodiversity exists in the form of invertebrates, which are practically unknown to science. Therefore, certain fauna representatives must be selected as substitutes of biodiversity in general.

One of the problems when working with populations is that many wildlife populations undergo considerable natural fluctuations and consequently the data are useful only after a series of data have been collected for several years (at least 10). These consecutive series only exist for certain species and a continuous monitoring requires expensive scientific methods. Statistically less reliable but organizationally feasible is the collection of data by field personnel: mainly park rangers. They can observe and record the presence and geographical position of a selection of species which reflect the ecological well-being of an ecosystem. This objective requires the selection of a set of indicator species which, as a whole, possess the majority of the following characteristics:

1. well identifiable taxonomy

2. well understood ecology

3. representative of the main ecosystems

4. Species must facilitate simple and standardized methods of data collection in the field, which can then be easily verified

5. A typical and measurable behavior in relation to disturbances or relevant environmental changes, and a fast response

6. Patterns observed in the indicator species must reflect the behavior of other populations of species

7. Include species of tourist importance so as to attract interest to their monitoring (charismatic)

8. Include species which, by their behavior, are indicative of the presence or absence of hunting pressures

9. Play an ecologically important role

10. Financially feasible

Obviously, two taxa qualify for these criteria: birds and large mammals. Birds are well known and there is an abundance of experience readily available of the status of bird populations through mere observation. Zoological macro fauna – particularly deer, agouti, tapir, large felines, red coatis, peccaries and monkeys – because it is subject to poaching, may also work out well in a set of indicators. Marineros (personal communications, 2000) provides evidence of the fact that the degree of visibility and shyness of species whose timidity greatly diminishes in the absence of poaching, are important indicators of success in the reduction of poaching. Some examples include deer, agouti, red coatis, peccaries and monkeys.

Concern about the viability of macro fauna populations will definitely decrease as the extension of natural habitats outside the protected areas decreases. In particular, species with large territories such as feline, tapirs, the Harp Eagle, ???guacamote????? and the King Buzzard are at risk of inbreeding and other risks inherent to isolated populations. In order to completely understand their conservations status, these animals merit special monitoring. Nevertheless, because the monitoring of their populations requires in-depth research, it is very expensive and requires long-term financial commitment to be valid. This type of monitoring does not seem to be financially feasible for DAPVS/SERNA. This could only be achieved through external collaboration, with a university perhaps, who has its own program and financing. What can take place is specific observation in the context of the park rangers’ service rounds.

The SINAPH needs to generate income from visitations in order to be able to pay for its management. Lately, the SINAPH’s success in doing conservation of prioritized areas depends, among other things, on its ability to generate income from eco-tourism. Consequently, it needs to conserve “star” species which attract visitors, such as the large mammals and birds with a lot of color. Species which are economically important merit special attention in a monitoring program.

The use of key species in an M&E program is also relevant for the long-term ecological viability of the system. For example, monkeys, large ungulates such as the peccary and the deer, and fruit-eating birds act as seed scatterers. If they are decimated by poaching, the regeneration of tree species in climax forests will not be possible. This will result in the decrease of food resources for other species of fauna and ecological degradation. This is why it has been argued that many areas with intact habitats are not ecologically viable because of the disappearance of key animal species, thus also loosing their economic viability.

It should be noted that the phenomenon which an indicator species represents should not be able to be observed in a better way through other parameters. For example, it makes no sense to monitor deforestation through a typical bird belonging to agricultural lands, if we can better detect deforestation, and with much more precision, by direct observation. On the other hand, it is not that easy to measure the initial stages of deterioration in corals, but the invasion of algae is an important indicator that conditions are deteriorating.

4.2.1 Species with potential for a monitoring program

In an initial effort, the mammals of the Field Guide to Mammals in Honduras (Marineros y Martínez, 2000) were analyzed, as well as the birds in A Field Guide to the Birds of Panama (Ridgely & Gwynne, 1993), A Field Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica (Styules, Cs., 1995), and The Birds of Mexico and adjacent Areas (Edwards, 1998). On the basis of these guides, the ability of the best candidates was assessed for monitoring purposes. Some herpetic species of special concern were added. Table 1 shows a list of pre-selected species as well as some of their key characteristics for a monitoring program.

Table 1: Potential indicator species with key monitoring characteristics¹