Measuring biodiversity outcomes is hard for a simple reason: ecosystems change slowly, field conditions are messy, and the strongest monitoring systems are the ones that can keep producing comparable data year after year. At Forestbase, we build MRV systems (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification) that are practical in real landscapes and still robust enough to support credible reporting for climate and nature outcomes. Adding acoustics to our toolbox is one way we strengthen that evidence
Designing a monitoring plan in the global south
A lot of monitoring frameworks were developed in contexts with high budgets, easy access, and large specialist teams. In many frontier landscapes and remote areas, those assumptions don’t hold. Logistics are hard, access is seasonal, and time in the field is limited. If your monitoring design relies on frequent expert-led campaigns, it often becomes fragile: it may start strong, then slowly fades as costs and complexity accumulate.
A good MRV system is not the one with the most indicators. It is the one that can be repeated with the same quality, at the same sites, across seasons and years. That requires realism about field logistics, staff time, equipment maintenance, and long-term costs.
This is also where community involvement becomes essential. When monitoring depends exclusively on specialists with advanced degrees, it becomes expensive and fragile. Indicators become stronger when local teams can reliably support deployment, basic maintenance, and field routines. That improves continuity and makes monitoring part of day-to-day stewardship, rather than an occasional external audit.
Practical rationale for acoustics in nature MRV
Passive acoustic monitoring uses autonomous recording devices placed in the landscape to capture sound over time. Instead of relying only on short field visits, sensors can record on a schedule for weeks or months across multiple sites. This creates a standardized dataset that captures spatial and temporal patterns.
Depending on the recording setup, acoustics can capture signals from multiple taxonomic groups. This is especially valuable in remote, species-rich systems where visibility is limited and where a short field visit can miss a large share of activity. In practical terms, acoustics turns biodiversity monitoring into something that can be repeated, standardised, and scaled without needing a proportional increase in field staff.
Acoustics fits Forestbase’s MRV approach because it supports measurable, repeatable monitoring that scales.
First, it strengthens local involvement. With the right training and clear field protocols, local participants can support deployment, retrieval, and basic quality checks. This builds capacity and continuity, and it helps keep monitoring grounded in the people who live and work in the project landscape.
Second, it produces multi-variable information from a single data stream. From recordings, we can work toward metrics related to species presence, community composition, functional guild patterns, and activity levels. That means one monitoring effort can support multiple MRV questions, as long as the analysis approach is transparent and conservative.
Third, it helps track ecological health and pressure. Soundscapes change when landscapes are fragmented, degraded, or recovering. In addition to biological signals, levels of anthropogenic noise can also be informative as a proxy for human pressure and disturbance, when interpreted carefully and alongside other evidence.
From rationale to reality: testing acoustics in the field
We are planning to conduct a pilot with eight acoustic sensors in the coming weeks to test how passive acoustic monitoring performs under real field conditions and how smoothly it integrates into our MRV workflow. Acoustics can almost stand on its own, but it really starts to shine when it is combined with other survey methods: adding a continuous, repeatable layer of evidence to a broader monitoring design.
