| 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 theme was introduced with a short paper by Jenny Wong, John Healey and Oliver Philips yesterday, in addition to section 2 of the workshop background paper. In the background paper, it was pointed out that all biodiversity assessments are affected by the values of those making the assessments; different stakeholders have different values so it may be difficult to compare their assessments. The theme introduction in particular relates such differences to ways in which distinct taxa are recognised by different stakeholders, and how different values should be taken into account in a multi-stakeholder assessment.
Both these introductions were written by academic researchers and this workshop provides a valuable forum in which to find out whether practitioners see the problem in the same way.
In this regard, Kyamiza Leonard from Uganda raised concerns about the sustainability of biodiversity assessment. In remarks which will also contribute to theme 6 (institutional factors) Kyamiza points out that in order to reduce dependence on outside financial and technical support it is important to empower local communities to conduct biodiversity assessments - to enhance sustainability of their resource use.
The link between local people and local objectives is significant. As Wong et al. state in the theme introduction, 'Divergence in biodiversity values amongst stakeholders and communities may alter the purposes for which they carry out biodiversity assessments'. Is there any possibility that local assessments can contribute to wider objectives, and is it fair to expect them to do so? Such questions will be explored further in theme 5.
Recognising the range of values involved, Adrian Newton, from UNEP-WCMC, warned of the dangers of making biodiversity assessments too complicated, and advocated 'simple approaches to according relative value to different areas' for example through mapping. He provided references to two useful sources:
Continuing the theme of introductions from participants, Herbert Tushabe contributed a description of the National Biodiversity Data Bank in Uganda. The emphasis on scientific assessment and building of computerised checklists and databases serves to remind us that without good taxonomy, we cannot assess biodiversity.
Kyamiza Leonard enthusiastically supported the proposal by Winfred Thomas yesterday, to enhance education in biodiversity, and suggested that this workshop include such a proposal amongst its recommendations. We welcome further comment on this. Linking these remarks to the current theme, we might reflect on the way in which values change with education (see also Keith Rennolls' remarks, day 1).
Looking back at the theme questions, we welcome further discussion of the importance (or otherwise) of quantifying different people's values for different components of biodiversity. Is it necessary to do this, for comparison between stakeholders - or is this making things too complicated, as Adrian Newton suggests?
Pplease note three case studies prepared especially for this theme, on the following topics:
Each relates to the need to explore local values in order to explicitly compare them with scientific values, and provides input on the theme of methods, which starts next week.
Further discussion or case studies from participants who have been exploring which species are most important to local people, would be welcome.
Finally I leave you with a thought from the paper by Douglas Sheil, recommended by Adrian Newton. The paper begins with the statement: 'Monitoring and research activities may hinder rather than improve conservation in tropical countries. Those concerned with conservation-particularly academics and aid agencies too often overlook the practical realities of achieving conservation in the tropics. As a result, many initiatives divert scarce resources away from fundamental management priorities.'
A challenge indeed to participants. In our particular case, is participatory assessment more time or less consuming, more or less useful, than other approaches? And does it achieve more conservation - or community development - than other approaches?