| 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 |
Today saw further discussion of Theme 6: Enabling Factors, which focuses on institutional and political enabling factors for participatory monitoring and evaluation.
Discussion of Theme 6 was initiated by introduction papers written by Madhav Gadgil and Kate Schreckenberg. Madhav's paper focused on PM&E in the Indian context, and stimulated discussion from Irene Guijt, Bianca Ambrose-Oji and Jeanette van Rijsoort. One particular focus, was the assertion that the real impact comes from outside and that local communities are often the losers.
Doug Sheil and colleagues at CIFOR took this as the starting point for much of their research in Kalimantan. Faced with problems of poor understanding amongst policy and decision makers on how to address community needs, knowledge gaps between communities and outsiders, and knowing that outsider-led interventions often cause undesirable impacts and conflicts, the team see themselves as "intermediaries in ensuring a better recognition of local needs".
In his posting to the workshop today, Doug describes many aspects of this research and invites us to focus on broader issues and to see our discussion of developing an enabling environment for joint biodiversity assessments in the context of more ambitious aims. In his view, the primary focus is to create "enabling environments for better outcomes (for stakeholders, for the environment, for the future etc.)". Creating an enabling environment for joint biodiversity assessments may play a role, but it is not an end in itself.
In her introduction, Kate Schreckenberg gave us a clear overview of PM&E enabling factors grouped under the following headings: common framework of understanding, communication, capacity building, policy and institutional changes, and financial support. Since Kate's introductory paper was not summarised yesterday, I shall pick up on a few of the points that she made.
Kate highlights the need for a common framework of understanding to enable all stakeholders to work together to communicate ideas and to agree on objectives for PM&E. Such a framework would aid communication within communities and between them and outsiders and authorities, and between scientists of different disciplines.
Integral to this common framework of understanding and to ensuring that PM&E results, from different projects and areas, can be compared meaningfully and usefully, is the requirement of those involved in PM&E studies to define clearly what definition of biodiversity that they are using and the scale at which it is applied. This is an important point that has been identified and discussed by a number of workshop participants.
Kate points also to the need for "an overall theoretical framework highlighting the key issues that need to be taken into consideration when planning different types of participatory PM&E" which "could then be used as the basis for the development of more specific national and local-level guidelines" to assist practitioners, decision makers, and communities with biodiversity assessments.
Linked to this point, we heard today from Imam Basuki who calls for communication at an international governmental level to achieve a common framework of understanding of the importance of biodiversity and its conservation. He hopes that with this common understanding, they can cooperate internationally in formulating supportive policies for PM&E that could be implemented by appropriate NGOs or institutions on regional or local levels. Imam believes that international efforts should also promote simple and sustainable ways of consuming natural resources, using the same mechanisms of mass media and politics that have to date largely supported the excessive consumption of these resources.
Imam reminds wealthy nations that they must assist poorer ones in combined efforts to achieve sustainable ways of life. In his view, PM&E is a first step in this direction.
Of course, we cannot have a discussion of enabling factors without turning our attention to funding - both for compensating communities for engaging in PM&E activities and, if PM&E is to extend to responsibility for managing an area of biodiversity, for ensuring the long-term local management of local natural resources. Kate mentions a number of national and international funding options, including those cited in the CBD report for the forthcoming, 4-8 February 2002, meeting (see 'further contributions' under theme 6).
In Winfred Thomas' view reliance on external funding for monitoring can be problematic, since it does not ensure long-term monitoring. Currently, most monitoring is undertaken on a short-term basis within a project context, and monitoring activities finish with project completion. Winfred proposes an alternative means of powering and funding monitoring in India, which involves a range of people already monitoring resources to various degrees for their own ends. For example, farmers, school/college students, and those involved with marketing vegetable/agricultural products. His proposal constitutes a nationwide program of monitoring local environments, including biodiversity assessments, involving participation by those in public health, education, agriculture, revenue and trade.
Within the education system in India, Winfred envisions support from the existing National Service Scheme (NSS), which trains students in various community-support activities on a regular basis throughout the year. He also puts forward the idea of a National Level Environment Information Network that would recruit biology, environmental science and computing students nationwide to collect, store and share biodiversity information. Such an ambitious scheme would depend on changes in educational policy, on establishing bodies for organising activities and analysing data, and on individuals/institutions being willing to share data.
Tomorrow will be the last day of the workshop. Primarily, we will be looking at wrapping up the workshop and discussing what has been achieved and what are the ways forward. However, this does not mean that we would not welcome further comments on any of the workshop themes (indeed, Theme 3: Methods is stimulating much on-going discussion). In particular, we would appreciate further comment on Theme 6. As pointed out in the background paper to the workshop, this theme covers largely uncharted and challenging territory, which offers all participants the opportunity to develop valuable recommendations based directly on their experience and reflections.
Finally, I must also remind you that we need to identify areas for future research. All ideas welcome!