Results of CBMIS are starting to be realized at the local, national and international level. At the local level, the primary aim of data collection and monitoring is to strengthen the local knowledge base for territorial resource management and community development. In this respect, local communities are using the data for their own strategies and to address their needs and aspirations. In all the cases above, the development of community-based research and monitoring activities has contributed to strengthening the institutional capacities of local communities and to developing concrete activities to protect and sustainably use their territories and resources.

One of the most common tools used has been community mapping. Maps produced by the communities demonstrate their traditional occupations and customary use of resources in their territories and are often used as the basis of a territorial defence strategy. They are likewise used as a tool at the local and national levels to assert more secure land and resource rights and to support the communities in dialogue and negotiation processes with outsiders who want to access forests traditionally inhabited or used by them. For example, community maps have contributed to renegotiation of protected area management plans in Cameroon and Thailand, exposure and monitoring of illegal logging in Cameroon, and negotiation with mining and logging companies in Guyana, Suriname and Cameroon (Forest Peoples Programme 2011). In more recent years, they have also been used as the basis for territorial sustainable development planning, as illustrated by the Wapichan case in Guyana.

Outcomes also include a better understanding and appreciation of indigenous practices (such as rotational farming, which is still the subject of much dialogue and debate), overcoming biases toward and incorrect assumptions about indigenous practices and land use patterns, and a better understanding of the sustainable nature of various customary practices by indigenous peoples and local communities – for instance subsistence hunting versus illegal poaching, hunting or fishing. Community-based documentation has demonstrated that indigenous areas (including SELPS) are not open-access areas, but regulated commons, based on collective ownership and use, and have their own effective ways of governance, management and monitoring, based on customary rules and laws. Some of the communities have been able to influence policy and legal reforms through the data and information produced. As illustrated in the second case study, in Thailand, for example, work on the relationship between cultural identity and customary natural resource use (particularly rotational farming) has contributed to the adoption by the Thai Cabinet of a Resolution for the Revitalization of Karen Way of Life in 2010 and for consistent implementation of the resolution. In the Philippines, as a result of monitoring work at the local level, the Philippine Traditional Knowledge Network (PTKN) and Tebtebba Foundation became involved in review and revision of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

Community efforts have resulted in greater appreciation and support also at the international level, to date particularly related to the CBD and IPBES. A Decision at the COP12 meeting (October 2014) welcomed the initiatives and contributions from the CBMIS network [For instance Decision XII/12, para 6: “Welcomes the work carried out under the Working Group on Indicators of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and other international organizations, in particular the Community-Based Monitoring and Information System approach, to operationalize the indicators on the status of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and customary sustainable use of biological diversity, to assess progress towards implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets”], and the 8th Meeting of the Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions referred to CBMIS as “a significant initiative to complement data being generated through national reports and through other means about the implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan” [See Document UNEP/CBD/WG8J/8/L.2 (Progress report on the implementation of the programme of work for Article 8(j) and related provisions and mechanisms to promote the effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the work of the Convention)]. Parties at SBSTTA-17 also noted that “citizen and community based initiatives have an important and growing role to play in helping deliver in-situ monitoring”. It was likewise noted that “local knowledge and monitoring efforts are often a critical source of information, complementing scientific approaches and frequently covering different temporal and spatial scales. Respect, trust, equity and transparency are essential for enabling monitoring that draws on combinations of indigenous, traditional and scientific knowledge systems” [UNEP/CBD/COP/12/2 (SBSTTA17 report), annex 1].

The 4th Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-4, October 2014) complete report, executive summary, and technical background papers included a number of CBMIS case studies and information based on community-based research and materials, and suggested actions in support of community-level initiatives and contributions. At COP12, the CBD also took a very important step in recognising and supporting customary sustainable practices of indigenous peoples and local communities by adopting a Plan of Action on Customary Sustainable Use [Decision XII.12, pages 3-10]. Emphasis will now be on implementation of the plan and CBMIS can certainly play a role in both implementing the plan and monitoring progress up to 2020 and beyond.

The IPBES process is another example of a global assessment process that has embraced CBMIS to balance the conventional science bias. The IPBES has formed a Task Force on Indigenous and Local Knowledge to develop and test approaches and procedures for working with different knowledge systems, although the task force is still in the initial stages of work.

CBMIS approaches and methods have also begun to be acknowledged for their effectiveness and level of sophistication by independent academic institutions. Recent research (Finn Danielsen et al., 2013) to assess monitoring possibilities for the Convention on Biological Diversity 2020 indicators, and those of 11 other international environmental agreements, concluded that of the 186 indicators in these 12 environmental agreements, 69 (37%) require monitoring by professional scientists, whereas 117 (63%) can involve community members as “citizen scientists”. The research further concluded that promoting “community-based and “citizen-science” approaches could significantly enrich monitoring progress within global environmental conventions”(Finn Danielsen et al. 2013). Similar analyses by the same research team, published in the journal Ecology and Society, showed that communities living alongside the world’s tropical forests can estimate an area’s carbon stocks as effectively as hi-tech systems, and that local communities are able to monitor forest biomass up to the highest standards of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [See http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24713215]