| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
Internet workshop
7 - 25 January 2002, and
policy seminar 21
May 2002
convened by the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford
| Bianca Ambrose-Oji |
During the last week the workshop discussion forum was open, a number of participants found the time to post some closing comments. It was interesting that these generally focused on social issues, which examined the nature of power structures within society and power structures between different domains of knowledge (between indigenous and 'scientific' systems, and between positivist and pluralistic approaches).
Drawing our attention to biodiversity in a peri-urban context Rishi Aggarwal calling from Mumbai in India, echoed some of the contributions in one of our earlier themes, and talks about the difficulty of valuing environmental services and the intangible benefits of biodiversity important to those in urban areas, including forests acting as environmental sinks and producing benefits for health and stress reduction. Without these values being taken into account easily, Rishi goes on to emphasise the difficulty of engaging people in a process of M&E and activism because of the costs this presents in time and other resources, particularly if people do not hold knowledge of the ways biodiversity links to these functional values. Finally, Rishi exposes the difficulties of engaging and linking government institutions with local people and finding ways which convince such agencies that biodiversity values may be more than purely financial.
RG Lowe uses his experiences in Nigeria to make the point that regardless of the institution charged with responsibility for forest management and biodiversity protection (all of which have limitations) management and monitoring of forest biodiversity requires a long view, careful consideration of methods and techniques, and an enduring commitment to carry out monitoring and management responsibilities. He also refers to power relations which can work to protect biodiversity, and suggests that the role of outsiders - which might include researchers or development professionals - can act as a powerful force for facilitation mediating not only knowledge, but objectives and social outcomes of forest management initiatives.
Iain Davidson Hunt brings these issues together, and looks to the future, considering the way forward in the way we set our research agendas. For Iain, a cleavage remains between the objectives, interests and values attached to biodiversity between local communities and external researchers. In his opinion we need to look towards finding effective ways to broaden scientific perspectives and to find ways to negotiate mutually beneficial M&E or research programmes between scientific disciplines as well as between researchers and communities. In short, the collection of biodiversity 'data', formulation of criteria and indicators of biodiversity, and the implementation of M&E systems are less important than considering and strengthening decision making processes which reach negotiated outcomes.
And finally, Stas Burgiel informs us all of the discussions held in Montreal last week, where the Ad hoc Open-ended inter-sessional Working Group on Article 8(j) of the CBD have been considering ways in which participatory mechanisms for assessment can be linked to the development of policy planning and implementation. Stas points us to further information and documents.
To close we would like to thank everybody who has contributed to the workshop in various ways, posting discussion comments, providing background and case study documents, visiting the website, and communicating with the organisers. We will be in touch with you all again as we move towards producing workshop proceedings and materials, and to let you know about the policy seminar we hope to be holding in May.
Thanks for your support.