Monitoring in ADMADE

Chapter 1: Introduction

Purpose of the Study
Methods
Limitations of the Study
Definitions and Concepts
Roles of Monitoring in CBNRM

Purpose of the Study

'Monitoring,' however it may be defined, is most frequently used as a broad term encompassing a variety of activities, objectives, and stakeholders. In the context of conservation and development projects, an effective system for monitoring is widely acknowledged as important both for contributing to program success as well as measuring the level of success. However even a cursory review of Integrated Conservation and Development Program (ICDP) literature will reveal that 1) monitoring is often designed primarily as a tool to satisfy donor demands for reporting and accountability, and 2) the conceptual framework upon which a project's monitoring system is based is often far less developed than the conceptual framework of other project activities.

This research study was motivated from the belief that information can be used as a tool to improve management at all levels, empower rural communities, and improve the design of conservation program, and furthermore that these roles are equally if not more important than meeting the information needs of external stakeholders. Many rural communities, whose support and participation in the management of natural resources is now universally appreciated, have not benefited as much as they could have from project monitoring systems, which in fact are ultimately used to make decisions affecting their livelihoods. Conservation projects and rural people can not afford to use their limited material and human resources inefficiently in a world where external assistance is limited and competition rewards efficiency and strategic planning.

In this study I have attempted to analyze the monitoring system of ADMADE, in light of the above framework, as a case study of an ICDP that has experimented with ways of involving local communities in monitoring. Specifically, this research attempted to answer:

Who are the stakeholders in ADMADE's monitoring system and what are their information needs?
What are the goals of ADMADE's monitoring system and what strategies have been used in its design? What lessons have been learned?
How rigorous is data collected in ADMADE, and what can it be used for?
What factors determine the quality of data collected by village scouts, and how can data quality be measured?
Where are the weak points in ADMADE's monitoring system and how can these be strengthened?

Like a lot of fieldwork, this research evolved over its course as new issues were encountered and unforeseen circumstances demanded new approaches for collecting data. In particular, the primary unit of analysis was shifted away from individual village scouts to ADMADE Units and the project as a whole. This was primarily due to the fact in practice that little monitoring data is linked to individual scouts, and travel constraints made it difficult to reach a sufficient number of scouts in the field. In addition, conceptually many of the truly interesting and unique characteristics of ADMADE's monitoring program occur above the level of the scout, warranting analysis at higher levels.

A second alteration in the study concerns the assessment of data quality. Originally I had proposed to compare ADMADE's monitoring data with other, more objective, measures of wildlife from third party research. However it quickly became apparent that, with a couple of exceptions, there are basically no other measures of wildlife populations in ADMADE GMAs. Hence the question of rigor of data has been approached more theoretically, by reviewing the methodology of using indices for evaluating wildlife populations, and synthesizing the different types of controls that have been or could be used by ADMADE to ensure data quality.

Methods

This research was conducted in Zambia between October 1998 and June 1999. Additional preliminary research was completed in Lusaka from July to September 1998. The following types of research methods were used:

LITERATURE REVIEW

A considerable amount of literature, both published and unpublished, has been written on ADMADE. Nyamaluma Institute, where I was based for the research, has published a considerable collection of manuals, workshop proceedings, trip reports, monitoring summaries, policy papers, and newsletters. USAID/Zambia, which has been ADMADE's primary donor for its first ten years, also has a large collection of reports and evaluations. Wildlife conservation in Zambia has also been a popular topic for articles from academic journals. A bibliography of the various reports and articles reviewed for this study can be found in Appendix I.

DATABASE ANALYSIS

Nyamaluma Institute, located near South Luangwa National Park, has long been the research and training center for ADMADE. All monitoring activities at the project level are based out of Nyamaluma, and they are the primary repository for monitoring data. Nyamaluma also hosts a state-of-the-art Geographic Information System (GIS) lab, which is used for data analysis and presentation.

While at Nyamaluma, I was given free access to their database of monitoring data and GIS. My analysis of existing monitoring data and observations of the information system eventually evolved into developing an improved database system called the ADMADE Data Manager (see Chapter 4). I was also able to observe day-to-day activities at the research center, and spent a substantial amount of time observing and interacting with Nyamaluma's research staff. Nyamaluma's research officers also serve as extension and training staff, and I benefited immensely from their tremendous wealth of experience with communities and monitoring issues in the field.

FIELD VISITS

For most of this study, I was based at Nyamaluma Institute. I did however accompany Nyamaluma inspection teams to several ADMADE areas, listed below. During these trips, I interviewed scouts, Unit leaders, and Deputy Unit Leaders. I also observed data management practices at the Unit Headquarters, sat in on several quota-setting exercises, and assisted Nyamaluma staff with other data collection activities.

Figure 1 - ADMADE Units visited for research
Lower Lumimba, Upper Lumimba, Munyamadzi, Chifunda,
Kasonso Busanga, Lunga Luswishi Busanga, Mumbwa

Limitations of the Study

Previous evaluations of ADMADE have been criticized for being scant on original data, based on limited and non-representative field visits, and dependent on anecdotal case studies. Although the primary focus of this research was synthesis and not evaluation, it too is not immune from these limitations. The logistics of doing any kind of fieldwork with ADMADE, especially research, are formidable. The areas are far apart, not accessible all year round, and have few or facilities for accommodation. As a visiting student researcher, I did not have my own vehicle and was dependent on catching lifts with staff from Nyamaluma. However the project's transport is limited and usually obligated for other purposes.

Consequently, sample sizes are generally small, data is mostly qualitative, and the areas I visited were not selected based on my research questions. I was not able to conduct interviews or collect data at scout camps other than Unit headquarters, and did not spend any extended periods of time with community members. I also did not have an opportunity to interview any professional hunters or safari operators for their input on monitoring issues, which could have been insightful. Nor did I have the opportunity to accompany scouts on a field patrol to study their movements and search strategies, as I originally hoped to.

On the other hand, the research based at Nyamaluma was fairly comprehensive, as I had open access to documents, staff and the monitoring database. The information stored in Nyamaluma's database and the extensive field experience of the research staff were a rich data source, and helped to increase the validity of findings even when original empirical field data was scant.

Despite its limitations, I believe this research does accurately capture the context and strategies of ADMADE's monitoring program, and has synthesized the major results of a ten-year experiment in community-based monitoring. This work has already fed into three important and successful interventions to strengthen monitoring within ADMADE (see Chapter 4), and I hope will also benefit CBNRM programs elsewhere in Zambia and Africa.

Definitions and Concepts

'Community' and 'monitoring' are two terms which are inescapable in any discourse on community-based monitoring, and yet are rather fuzzily defined and open to different interpretations. Hence it is prudent to establish a few working definitions at the onset to prevent confusion arising from different connotations of these terms.

'Monitoring' is term which often carries a variety of unstated assumptions depending on the user and the context. To minimize the number of qualifications, for the purposes of this paper I am using relatively simple definition of monitoring as the systematic collection of data. Implicit in this definition is that the same type of data is measured on a regular, or at least predictable, basis, and that data is recorded in some way (e.g., on paper). However not implicit in this simple definition are the elements of:

monitoring designed around specific goals
consistency and objectivity in measurement
mechanisms in place for summarizing, analyzing, and disseminating data
other aspects of research design, such as a hypothesis testing, representative sampling, control groups, etc.

Although these elements are certainly desirable in most cases, for discussion it is probably useful to restrict ourselves to a broader definition which only implies systematic data collection. By demanding only general requirements for things we can label 'monitoring', research can encompass variety of activities that center around data collection, and force ourselves to articulate the methodological issues and broader framework in which monitoring plays a role. Thus while 'monitoring' by itself may not a very useful descriptor, requiring ourselves to use qualified terms like 'impact monitoring' or 'the monitoring hypothesis' leads to a more productive discourse.

The term 'community' likewise is a loaded reference which many academics claim exists only in theory. What we may commonly refer to as a 'community' can inevitably be broken down into multiple sub-groups based on divisions of gender, class, livelihood, household, access to resources, political affiliation, etc. When we speak of participation of the 'community', or problems of the 'community', more often than not we are actually referring to specific subset of a group of rural people who may share little more than the same geographic area. Hence while 'community' can be a useful term for general reference, when it comes to specific discussions of community responsibilities, problems, perceptions, attitudes, livelihoods, etc., we are best advised to be as specific as possible as to which group of persons we are referring.

'Information need' and 'information use' are two other terms which I've noticed are often used interchangeably but have significantly different functions and are best kept separate. Simplified, 'information need' can be thought of as the thing you want to know, while 'information use' is why you want to know it. When asking village scouts why they were recording data on field patrols, a common answer I would receive was "to know where the poachers are." While this is a fine example of an information need, knowing the location of poachers is usually not an end to itself, and could not be considered a use of information. However "planning anti-poaching activities," is an example of a use of information which may have been implied in the original answer. In this report, I conscientiously distinguish between information needs and uses, because unfortunately one does not always imply the other and information use is in general the more interesting phenomenon to study.

Roles of Monitoring in CBNRM

CBNRM projects are by their nature complex enterprises. Stakeholders usually include everybody from rural communities, government departments, private industry, donors, and NGOs. Not too long ago the conservation and development goals of CBNRM projects were commonly thought to be mutually exclusive. The context under which CBNRM programs operate is equally complex. There are economic forces at play, as well as cultural, ecological, institutional, and political dynamics. Indeed its is amazing there are a few examples, including ADMADE, where CBNRM actually seems to be a successful strategy. For such ambitious undertakings to work, we must really understand not only the dynamics of the natural resources at the center of the picture, but also the interactions between all the other parts and actors.

Monitoring is an important element of CBNRM projects not only for its benefits to management, but also because it can help illuminate the different interactions between the players and forces in CBNRM. Unfortunately, all too often the design of a monitoring system is based around donor or government reporting requirements. However that function of monitoring is just the tip of the iceberg. A well-designed and implemented monitoring program can perform numerous functions at a variety of levels, described further below.

Ensuring accountability
Despite the many sophisticated evaluatory and planning functions of monitoring, simple accountability remains one of the most important roles of monitoring. Ensuring that quotas are not violated, that scouts use their food and ammunition for the intended purposes, and that community funds result in community projects, are all examples of the accountability function of monitoring. This role is important not only to ensure that scare resources are used efficiently, but also to sustain trust and confidence amongst such a diverse group of stakeholders. Many of the strategies of CBNRM are based on partnerships which require mutual faith and understanding among parties that often have a long history of conflict. Timely and accurate information can help serve as the bridge between parties and keep the whole program moving forward. At the donor level, demonstrating accountability for project resources is a legal requirement and a precursor to future support.

Adaptive management
Like accountability, adaptive management exists at different scales within a CBNRM approach. At the resource level, monitoring provides needed feedback for guiding management operations, such as targeting law enforcement, setting harvest levels, developing work plans, and improving the efficiency of management efforts. At the project level, monitoring data helps to identify weaknesses, target interventions, identify new opportunities for collaboration, develop training programs, and guide policy development. Because CBNRM is still a relatively new and largely unproven technique for conservation and development, monitoring helps us to learn as we go so that the best set of management practices and program structures are identified.

Building local management capacity
We live in an information era, and although many conservation and development professionals would prefer otherwise, rural communities are not isolated from the effects of rapid change and globalization. The price of agricultural products are largely set by international markets, marketing even in rural sectors is increasingly competitive, and development planning at the community level is an information intensive exercise. In short, rural communities in the developing world that lack the capacity to plan and manage their own enterprises will most likely be left behind.

Developing skills in collecting and using information for management is one of the most important components of capacity building. One of the spin-offs for communities participating in CBNRM projects like ADMADE is hopefully an increased capacity to work as a group and feel comfortable with information-based decision making needed to deal with the challenges of the future. The skills it takes to cohesively make decisions on quota setting, land-use issues, planning a new classroom, etc., are the same skills which can be applied to collectively market agricultural crops, plan health interventions, create small scale business plans, or more effectively lobby government for increased services.

Public education
All CBNRM projects need to increase awareness of the program, its goals, and strategies. CBNRM programs are somewhat unique in that they depend on certain behaviors being adopted by the entire community, not just a small group of people directly involved in the program. Using monitoring data in education programs provides an important tool to convince people of the merits of the program and justify management practices. Monitoring public awareness, attitudes, and behavior can also help identify the need for and effectiveness of education programs.

Testing new interventions
CBNRM programs have few time-tested models to follow, and most have to pioneer their own techniques. Monitoring is critical to planning or evaluating new interventions. Whether the experiment is a new method to discourage poaching, new community structures to increase representation in community decision making, a new training program, or changes in land-use practices, monitoring provides the information to identify, plan and evaluate new techniques at the community and project levels. Without sufficient monitoring data, development of new methods is certainly going to be more haphazard, more controversial, less likely to succeed, and harder to replicate.

Evaluating a conceptual framework
All CBNRM programs are based on a conceptual framework, a theory that explains why a system is in the state it is, and how changes can be made. For example one piece of ADMADE's conceptual framework says, "Local people will have little interest in conserving wildlife if it doesn't have economic value. So if we give wildlife economic value, local people will be interested in protecting wildlife."

Conceptual frameworks constitute the fundamental building blocks of CBNRM programs, and the effectiveness of a program can be often directly linked to the validity of the framework. Many project failures can be directly traced to flawed or incomplete conceptual frameworks. Monitoring data can help evaluate and improve conceptual frameworks. For example, after several years of trying, a project may realize that their conceptual framework was somewhat simplistic. For example it may be found that people will be interested in conserving wildlife only if it has economic value and that value can be applied to their basic survival needs such as food security. It is this type of learning process, made possible by monitoring, that allows conservation and development to evolve and improve as a field.