| 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
| Izabella Koziell |
Theme 6 is focusing on how to generate more supportive policies and institutions; what might the capacity building priorities be; and, what forms of communication will generate the greatest positive impact.
In his introduction, Maghav Gadgil presented perspectives pertinent to the Indian context. He looked to the role that participatory monitoring could play in creating a more positive relationship between local people and state authorities. He implied that enhanced exchange between these two groups, through participatory monitoring activities, may help raise awareness and lead to reducing the 'corrupt' and 'destructive' practices of state authorities. Jeannette van Rijsoort agreed with him and went on to explain that empowerment through participatory monitoring was one of the key objectives of the project in Yunnan, China.
Madhav Gadgil also emphasised the need to create the right incentives, e.g. some sort of service payments, through participatory monitoring activities, to motivate local people to act as local stewards. Furthermore, he mentioned that involving people in participatory monitoring of biodiversity could help provide a good basis on which to establish more participatory systems of governance. But, Irene Guijt felt that involving local people in monitoring activities per se does not really constitute anything democratic unless there is a forum within which the result of the monitoring is discussed amongst all stakeholders.
Madhav then pointed out that formal scientific institutions could be greatly enriched by drawing on folk knowledge, as long as this knowledge is properly protected and its strengths and weakness clearly understood. On conventional education, he pointed out that it could be greatly enriched by folk knowledge. He felt that key enabling policy and institutional factors rely on a willingness of state authorities and the scientific establishments to empower local communities and acknowledge the value of locally generated information; and on the educational establishment's willingness to broaden the education experience.
Irene Guijt also raised a point about the root causes of biodiversity impacts. These are a result of policies and institutions external to the problem area. She uses an example from Papua New Guinea where local biodiversity loss was caused not just be local mis-use but by the government policies that allowed companies in forest areas without controlling their felling methods. Getting logging companies to be involved in participatory monitoring activities is not an easy task. Yet their role in creating positive results is crucial. Thus participatory monitoring should not focus only on local people but in the participation of all stakeholders, if the aim is to trigger policy and institutional change.
Jeannette van Rijsoort provided an example from the Yunnan project in China whereby maximum stakeholder participation, especially from key sectoral departments, such as forestry, energy, agriculture etc. was achieved through establishing a committee for drafting the management plan for the nature reserve. On this point, we also need to recognise that there are much 'higher' level forces, e.g. international trade regimes etc., that also drive biodiversity loss at the local level, how can we involve stakeholders at this level? Jeannette van Rijsoort also discussed the challenge of moving the forest department in Yunnan away from top down approaches, to adopt a more facilitative role.
Anna Lawrence provided some background on the CBD context relating to decisions made by the Technical Working Group on Forests of the CBD. This group has stated that 'classification, monitoring, and reporting must occur on all scales and must involve all stakeholders (in particular the indigenous and local forest communities and not only the scientific community) to place forest biodiversity in proper context.' However, their priority work areas do not explicitly focus on participatory monitoring of biodiversity.
Brian Spoor raised some interesting points regarding his experience in Scotland. He felt many issues being raised were not dissimilar for Scotland. He felt that perhaps the differences in attitude and values relate more to the tensions between the scientific culture and local cultures than the relative economic status of various players. He asked whether people from the arts, entertainment etc. may be better able to engage people emotionally in nature conservation than scientists? He provides a useful website reference: http://www.biodiversitystories.co.uk.
On methods, Jenny Wong and Bianca Ambrose-Oji discussed in quite some detail methodologies they used in Cameroon to generate a better understanding of peoples' perceptions of the value of biodiversity. Jenny also highlighted some of the difficulties faced in expressing the more intangible and ethical aspects of biodiversity, often associated with global values. She stressed that there is a need to find ways of communicating these more clearly and objectives, perhaps by converting them to use values, e.g. bioprospecting values, or explore how local people express intangible values.
I drew attention to a publication on local and global values in biodiversity assessment that I have co-authored with Sonja Vermeulen at IIED, see under Theme 2.
On case studies, a case study from Bolivia (in Spanish) entitled 'Diseño e implementación de un Sistema de Monitoreo de Fauna para el Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado, Bolivia, involucrandoa los Guardaparques como actores principales' has been contributed by Lourdes Tangara and Pierre Ibisch, see under Theme 1. The title in English is 'Design and implementation of a fauna monitoring system in the Noel Kempff Mercado National Park, Bolivia, involving the park wardens as principal actors' and the case describes the choice of indicators, and the preparation of training materials, to enable the park guards to participate in the monitoring.