| 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
| Sasha Barrow |
In the introduction to theme 4 the authors point out that the era of gathering biodiversity data for its own sake has largely been replaced by a focus on issues of who needs the data and for what purpose. It is in the context of this change, that we have seen the adoption of participatory methodologies in biodiversity studies. The authors acknowledge progress in the use of these methods, but highlight remaining problems with methods of data analysis and dissemination, particularly in relation to satisfying the varying information needs of stakeholders. The type of biodiversity data (biological, socio-economic, cultural, etc.) required by users is as varied as the range of those users (policy makers, scientists, local communities). In order to gather such a wide range of data, the authors remind us of the importance of interdisciplinary work and of overcoming the inevitable communication problems that such work can entail. In their paper, the authors discuss varying stakeholder information needs, and methodologies used to elicit them, in the context of the participatory approach developed by Tropenbos Colombia over a 14 year period, and detail those lessons learnt from the experience.
We hope that the introduction to Theme 4 will stimulate other participants to provide a brief summary of what they would like to obtain from a biodiversity assessment. As Anna Lawrence pointed out yesterday, the workshop involves a wide range of participants, from local NGOs, government, international institutions, and others, with wide ranging needs and objectives relating to biodiversity assessments. If all participants could provide answers to, or views on, the questions put forward in the introduction by the workshop organisers ('setting the scene'), the workshop would be in a firm position to take on Theme 5.
Stepping back from Theme 4, we heard also from Doug Sheil (CIFOR, Indonesia) who offered thoughts on several of the workshop themes from his experience of working with Dayak communities in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In addition to submitting two summary papers on CIFOR projects, he draws specific points relating to the differences in needs and perceptions between different stakeholders, and the varying complexity of those needs. The motivations and information needs of a mining company may be simply understood and expressed, but those of a long-established rural community are more elusive and specific efforts need to be made to uncover and understand them. What kind of efforts and methods are required? Ideally, such knowledge would be obtained through experience over long periods of time but, of course, such opportunity rarely arises. Thus, we must find appropriate methods. Most biological surveys use specific methods to answer specific questions, therefore simplifying the complex web of community needs to a series of simple questions. The danger with this approach is that it can leave broad, urgent questions unresolved. Acknowledging this weakness, Doug and his project colleagues developed simple and systematic survey methods to take on broad questions, and to identify what is “important” to the local communities of the project area. This was seen as a first step, towards “seeking a means of increasing the legibility of local priorities and views to outsiders (and possibly vice versa)”, in a process that is put forward as an iterative one. For further details of the methods please see the publication of Sheil et al (2002) under theme 2 and 3.
Finally, John Palmer of the DFID Forest Research Programme reminds us of the information (reporting) obligations of Parties who have signed and ratified the UN Framework Convention on Biological Diversity, and of the suggestions in the latest report (to the SBSTTA) of the technical working group on the Forests Programme of the CBD.