| 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
Setting
the scene
Discussion results
Case studies
Further contributions by participants
While only 2-10% of all the species on Earth are known to science, scientists recognise that full surveys of biodiversity are not feasible with the meagre resources usually made available for biodiversity planning. They also recognise that even among scientists there is a lack of agreement about which assessment methodologies should be applied, and the various indicators that might act as proxies for biodiversity. This reflects not only the variety of biological contexts, and how to represent them within one assessment, but also differences in viewpoint about what is important.
Much conventional biodiversity assessment has been species-based but increasing attention is being paid to the functional aspects of biodiversity, enshrined in the 'Ecosystem Approach' advocated by the CBD. There are also a plethora of methods for measuring genetic diversity, however, many of these remain costly and time-consuming and, as a result, are applied only in very specific contexts.
There are differences among scientists, and between them and decision makers, in terms of the components of biodiversity that they want to focus attention on. There is some participatory biodiversity assessment, all related to local management. There does not seem to be any work as yet linking local people's assessments to global needs.
The CBD provides a framework in which local and indigenous perspectives on biodiversity should be accommodated. To date however more progress has been made with scientific biodiversity assessments, because they were able to build on centuries of biological exploration methods. After the Earth Summit (Rio 1992) the Global Biodiversity Assessment was initiated, and published in November 1995. This was an enormous job involving 13 teams of scientists, led by Vernon Heywood, and is described as 'an independent, critical peer-reviewed, scientific analysis of all the current issues, theories and views regarding biodiversity, viewed from a global perspective.' Complementing the scientific focus of this book, another entitled Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity (edited by Darrell Posey) was published in 2000, representing an important step in recognising ethnically differentiated perspectives in biodiversity.
There is a need for multiple indicators for biodiversity, including aspects of ecosystem function and services. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), together with World Resources Institute and other major international institutions, are now coordinating the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which links biodiversity and ecosystem assessment, and recognises the need for multi-scale, multi-stakeholder assessments.
In addition to the focus
on ecosystem assessment, there has been increasing interest in the involvement
of non-scientists in biodiversity assessment. Evidence from the available documentation
and from workshop participants highlights several areas of experience:
During the E-conference we hope to learn more about how indicators are selected and used, and the impact of this approach and its utility for local people.
Ethnobiology has much to offer yet we do not find that participatory biodiversity assessments commonly involve ethnobiologists. Either the E-conference will bring more cases to light, or we must discuss ways to enhance the contribution of this kind of knowledge.
Some interesting examples have come to light which involve training local people in data gathering, not only for local purposes but as a resource for wider biodiversity planning and as a means to enhancing their status in decision-making. Some of these projects are represented by participants in this workshop and we look forward to hearing more from them.
The CBD requires biodiversity to be taken into account in impact assessments and this has led to high demand from the private sector for guidelines on the subject. The CBD paper notes that relevant stakeholders or their representatives, and in particular indigenous and local communities, should be involved in the development of guidelines and in the assessment processes relevant to them - clearly providing an important opening for participatory assessment and monitoring of biodiversity.
This theme will address the following questions:
Barrance, A., J. Gordon and K. Schreckenberg, Conservation through Use of Mesoamerican Dry Forest Tree Species: looking for overlaps between Bioquality and Use Rankings, Word (65 kb) or pdf (53 kb)
Howorth, R., Raleigh International & Biodiversity Assessment, Word (37 kb) or pdf (23 kb)
Novotny, V, Assessment
of biodiversity in megadiverse tropical countries: problems and a solution.
Word (34 kb) or pdf
(20 kb)
See also: Parataxonomist
Training Center, Papua New Guinea and Ecological
research in Papua New Guinea
Tangara, L., P. Ibisch, Diseño e implementación de un Sistema de Monitoreo de Fauna para el Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado, Bolivia, involucrando a los Guardaparques como actores principales, Word (47 kb) or pdf (44 kb)
Additional links on this theme
The Aarhus Convention Newcastle Workshop, Public Participation in Making Local Environmental Decisions. Good Practice Handbook, pdf (222 kb)
DETR - Crown Copyright
Bell, S., Integrated Management of European Wetlands, Project (EVK2-CT2000-22001) description, Funded by 5th EC Environmental Action Programme, Word (31 kb) or pdf (21 kb)
Casebow, A., Sustainable Farming in Guernsey, Word (49 kb) or pdf (39 kb)
CUBOS, El Bosque Seco y el Anteproyecto de Ley General Forestal en Honduras, pdf (85 kb)
With courtesy of DFID - Forest Research Programmme
Gordon J., A. Barrance, K. Schreckenberg, Tree Diversity Conservation in Mesoamerican Dry Forest, A briefing paper for international conservation agencies. DFID Forestry Research Programme 2001, Word (619 kb) or pdf (1.15 MB!!)
Jennings, S., R. Nussbaum, N. Judd and T. Evans, The High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit, edition 1, December 2003, ProForest, pdf ( 3 Mb!!)
By courtesy of Proforest, http://www.proforest.net
May, P.H., A.N. Gillison, Executive Director, Instituto Pró-Natura, A. Gillison Biodiversity Consultant, Yungaburra, Australia, Participatory biodiversity assessment in Northwest Mato Grosso, Brazil, Word (23 kb) or pdf 8 kb)
Rennolls, K., Participatory monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity; a first view from the statistical side, CMS, University of Greenwich, k.rennolls@Greenwich.ac.uk, Word (31 kb) or pdf (18 kb)