| 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
| Anna Lawrence |
The last day of the full workshop was a quiet one, as the web discussion site was unavailable for most of the time. The administrators of WebBoard have now sorted this out and we have decided to keep the discussion open for the next two weeks. Several of you have written to say you haven't yet been able to contribute and this will give you the time to do so. In particular, because the workshop is financed by the European Tropical Forest Research Network and the (UK) Forestry Research Programme, we are keen to hear your reflections on what all this means for research. Where do we seem to have answers, and where does the workshop indicate that we should, for example, be exploring new methods, or testing the effects of communication between stakeholders?
Those who did manage to log on in the last three days included two who work with international volunteers, in biodiversity assessment. Rich Howorth, of Raleigh International, contributes to several workshop themes in his message, which highlights the importance of motivating volunteers in environmental conservation projects. What may be repetitive work can become attractive through communication of its contribution to broader environmental issues and the scientific process. Rich also discusses the difficulties of managing biodiversity information, especially when attempting to satisfy a range of stakeholders. It may be that the process of information gathering (monitoring) may be much more straightforward than analysis and decision-making based on such data; this observation will find sympathisers among those who have been long involved in participatory processes. Finally Rich mentions a couple of UK examples where biodiversity indicators have been chosen and monitored with the public.
Craig Turner, from another volunteer-based organisation, Coral Cay Conservation, also made a substantial contribution covering several of the themes, based on work with international volunteers in the Philippines. Like Rich Howorth, he emphasises that the objectives of data gathering are set locally, driven by the need for a management plan. He notes the need to be realistic and questions whether it is really local resource users, or in fact the NGOs, who set objectives in participatory work of this kind. In relation to the costs and benefits (aspects related to theme 5, synergy) he notes that local benefits are financial as well as information-based. Craig makes the interesting observation that non-monetary values are often appreciated more locally, than monetary values; but that the ecosystem values of biodiversity may be better appreciated by NGOs.
Highlighting a distinctive aspect of the Negros Rainforest Conservation Project, Craig describes the role of a constant year-round stream of self-financing conservation volunteers and the resources that this makes possible, in terms of information gathering and processing. He makes a strong case for the development of appropriate methods, and asks for feedback on how others achieve scientific validity using participatory data collection. He notes that the workshop has not fully addressed issues of scale and compatibility across scales perhaps this is a priority for future research. Perhaps there are further important contributions to be made by participants.
Craigs final point reiterates the important of communication, and Izabella Koziells message contributes to this by indicating the website where IIEDs catalogue of Participatory Learning and Action resources can be found (see http://www.iied.org/sarl/pla_notes/index.html).
A welcome return to theme 2 comes from Genevieve Patenaude, particularly as her focus is on animals whereas much of the earlier work was based on plants. She describes work in Panama to compare local fauna priorities with those expressed through the IUCN red lists and the CITES, using the example of a rare anteater which is seen as a threat and often shot by local people. She calls for such lists to include indices of priorities based on "local or cultural importance".
We welcome contributions to all themes. The facilitated part of the workshop has now ended; you have kept us very busy writing summaries and posting messages and case studies, and I would like to thank you all for exciting contributions and very positive feedback. We will not make a full summary of the workshop however until the discussion closes in two weeks time. Please make the most of this opportunity, and follow the example of the last few contributions, in reviewing all the themes and contributing further from your own experiences.
Summary week 11 - 16 February 2002
Further contributions by participants
Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Contributions to discussion (5 Feb) - potential research themes, Word (22 kb) or pdf (8 kb)
Howorth, R., Contribution to discussion (25 Jan), Word (26 kb) or pdf (11 kb)
Turner, C., Contribution to discussion (29 Jan) - all themes, Word (36 kb) or pdf (19 kb)