European Tropical Forest Research Network

Participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity (PAMEB)

Internet workshop 7 - 25 January 2002, and policy seminar 21 May 2002
convened by the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

Summary of Day 3, 9th January 2002

Day 3 resulted in further discussion on Theme 1: 'Why participatory biodiversity assessments?' and 'How to adapt our approach to our objectives?' Once again, we heard how biodiversity assessments are assisted greatly by local participation.For example, a group of botanists-foresters in Southern Vietnam described how they have benefited from participation of local communities in botanical inventory work. They suggest that such participation could be further enhanced by the production of a field guide listing both scientific and local names, which would facilitate greater transfer of (local) knowledge.

But what do the local communities involved gain from involvement in biodiversity assessments? What do they want from involvement in biodiversity assessments? From his experience of working with hunter-gather communities in Tamil Nadu, Southern India, Winfred Thomas describes a situation in which local people,with unrivalled knowledge of local biodiversity and ecology, have significantly more time available for monitoring and conservation of local biodiversity than those government workforces currently responsible the tasks. He reports willingness amongst these communities to learn about and work for conservation efforts.

Acknowledging that the primary interest of these communities is not biodiversity conservation, for its own sake, but food security (the need 'to earn their daily bread'), Winfred believes that both local economic development andecological status could be improved by building on existing local efforts to commercialise non-timber forest products (NTFPs) by introducing the concepts of fair trade and accountability, and he is currently assisting with participatory monitoring of useful species. Of course, there are limiting factors, and workis underway to identify those factors that can help local communities develop their own agenda for conservation and development of common lands.

This view suggests that compensating local people for time spent on biodiversity assessments, which help local Governments or NGOs fulfil reporting requirements, may create a win-win situation. But is this always the case? From her work in the Philippines, Karen Lawrence believes "that non-monetary benefits of biodiversity are valued more by various groups of local people, than monetary. Money is valued by what it allows local people to do, which is more than the value of the money". We welcome further views from other participants on this question, particularly in relation to Theme 5, 'The Potential for Synergy'.

Another major topic of discussion was the attitude of local people towards biodiversity conservation and their perception of its importance. Some participants expressed the opinion that local communities do not always realise the need for biodiversity conservation, or have begun only recently to appreciate its value. Others disagreed, stating that local communities understand fully the consequences of biodiversity loss, but find it difficult to express this understanding to outsiders. If this is the case, then it is important to look further at the process in which local communities participate and to ensure that biodiversity loss is discussed in the context of local understanding of what biodiversity is and local perceptions of the consequences of its loss.

As Karen Lawrence points out, "the ambiguity of the term, biodiversity, is its very strength as it allows people to incorporate their own meanings into it, and the key to conserving it is to understand how it links into rural life systems and strengthen those that sustain biodiversity resources".

Reviewing the process of participation could be appropriate in the community in Uganda in which Leonard Kyamiza works. He describes difficulty in documenting the local goat herdsmen's extensive knowledge of local medicinal plant species. They value their knowledge highlyand are reluctant to share it with outsiders. This comment links directly to intellectual property rights that will be a focus of discussion in Theme 5 (Potential Synergy) & Theme 6 (Enabling Factors).

Two further issues were proposed as focal points for discussion in relation to participatory biodiversity assessment: eco-tourism, and agrobiodiversity conservation. Firstly, it has been suggested elsewhere that participatory eco-tourism initiatives have the potential to improve the economic situation of local communities struggling with daily subsistence, whilst also supporting biodiversity conservation. The second point reminds us of the importance of conserving agricultural diversity and the role certain community members playin conserving traditional crop varieties. The focus of extensive discussion elsewhere, it is widely accepted that the conservation of existing agrobiodiversity acts as a valuable insurance policy for future food securityand genetic improvement, and that local participation is essential in this regard. However, it is less clear how these conservation efforts are to befunded. We welcome discussion on both these points from participants.