ETFRN Workshop: Participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity (PAMEB)

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

10-12 January: Key theme 2: Values and biodiversity

Setting the scene
Introduction
Discussion results
Case studies
Further contributions by participants

Setting the scene

Scientists dealing with biodiversity divide into two broad groups, the natural scientists (biologists, zoologists and ecologists) and the social scientists (economists, anthropologists, and sociologists), and each of these groups apply different value systems to their assessment of biodiversity. There is one further broad categorisation of values that is applied by both groups, which differentiate between values that stem from direct use of biodiversity and those that stem from indirect use or non-use values.

Values held by natural scientists are by and large structured by value criteria concerned with rarity, 'naturalness' and the connectivity of habitats and vegetation types. For non-use values the natural science community has found it more difficult to apply value criteria, although these values are certainly recognised. At the international level there has been a reluctance to make explicit, and promote the management of protected areas for non-material values.

Within the social science community, the economists have led the development of explicit assessments of biodiversity. They have sought increasingly sophisticated ways to quantify values associated with biodiversity in the form of comparative money measures, which attach value to both use and non-use components of biodiversity.

The value of biodiversity has often been taken as equal to that of the value of biological resources. It has been difficult to assess and evaluate the additional benefits of diversity over and above the value of the resources themselves, and this can mislead decision outcomes.

The CBD recognises that some components of biodiversity are of more immediate importance than others, and its own values are implicit in the priorities listed in Annex I. of the convention, on identification and monitoring:

Ecosystems and habitats: [those] containing high diversity, large numbers of endemic or threatened species, or wilderness; required by migratory species; of social, economic, cultural or scientific importance; or, which are representative, unique or associated with key evolutionary or other biological processes;
Species and communities which are: threatened; wild relatives of domesticated or cultivated species; of medicinal, agricultural or other economic value; or social, scientific or cultural importance; or importance for research into the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, such as indicator species
Described genomes and genes of social, scientific or economic importance.

The objectives for biodiversity assessment based on local values have been linked to participatory or collaborative conservation management, poverty alleviation and economic development. There are limitations as to how far local values are incorporated beyond supplying local price data (or similar measures), or the categorisation of indirect or intangible values, and many of the published economic studies bemoan the paucity of empirical data on which to base their calculations.

Although there is value in producing lists of the different products being used by various groups in particular communities, and being told these have a cultural or other loosely defined value attached to them, there is a distinct need for more quantitative assessments that decision makers and policy makers will actually feel have direct relevance and value to the kinds of decisions they are taking within the CBD framework. Research that tries to incorporate use values with indigenous concepts of what might be rare, important, or culturally significant, in a form that provides the quantitative and spatial data useful to decision makers and planners is very rare.

There is a need to find the common ground among different participatory biodiversity assessments, and explain some of the differences which arise.

This theme will address the following questions:

To what extent can or should stakeholders' different values affect biodiversity assessments?
How can we make these values explicit?
How does research in this area help to conduct practical biodiversity assessments?
What are the challenges and how can they be addressed?

Introduction

Wong, J.L.G., J.R. Healey, O.L. Phillips, Incorporating values into biodiversity assessment and monitoring - an introduction to some current issues, introduction to theme 2, Word (44 kb) or pdf (32 kb)

Discussion results

Summary of Day 3, 9th January 2002 by Sasha Barrow
Summary of Day 4, 10th January 2002 by Anna Lawrence
Summary of Day 5 and 6, 11th and 12th January 2002 by Bianca Ambrose-Oji

Case studies

Ambrose-Oji, B. , A. Lawrence, J. Wong, R. Lysinge, P. Fraser, J. Hall, H. O'Connor, J. Healey, Obtaining local values for biodiversity: Protocols used by the ERP Mount Cameroon project, Word (378 kb) or pdf (121 kb), Appendices, Word (170 kb) or pdf (39 kb)

CIFOR (Sheil, D.), Biodiversity, landscapes and local interests & Understanding local peoples' perceptions of what is important in the landscape', Word (33 kb) or pdf (14 kb)

Lawrence, A., B. Ambrose-Oji, R. Lysinge, and C. Tako. 2000. Exploring local values for forest biodiversity on Mount Cameroon. Mountain Research & Development 20(2):112-115. Made available courtesy of Mountain Research and Development, pdf (1.10 Mb!!)

Lawrence, A., R. Barnes, K. Paudel, Y. Malla, Biodiversity values inferred in five communities in Nepal, Word (61 kb) or pdf (29 kb)

Wong, J. , R. Lysinge, D. Kenfack, J. Healey, J. Hall, 1: Naming and recognition of species in participatory biodiversity inventory, ERP project R7112 - Development and promotion of improved methods for identification, assessment and evaluation of biodiversity for tropical mountain environments, Word (141 kb) or pdf (56 kb)

Wong J., B. Ambrose-Oji, A. Lawrence, R. Lysinge, J. Healey, 2: Ranks, counts and scores as a means of quantifying local biodiversity values, ERP project R7112 - Development and promotion of improved methods for identification, assessment and evaluation of biodiversity for tropical mountain environments, Word (188 kb) or pdf (51 kb)

Wong, J., B. Ambrose-Oji, J. Hall, J. Healey, D. Kenfack, A. Lawrence, R. Lysinge, N. Ndam, 3: Generating an index of local biodiversity value, ERP project R7112 - Development and promotion of improved methods for identification, assessment and evaluation of biodiversity for tropical mountain environments, Word (98 kb) or pdf (32 kb)

Further contributions by participants

Additional links on this theme

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Contribution to dicussion and useful references (14 Jan), Word (32 kb) or pdf (11 kb)

Forest Action, Contribution to dicussion (15Jan) Incorporating values of biodiversity, Word (22 kb) or pdf (8 kb)

IFPRI., A Spatially-Based Planning Framework for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods and Land Uses in Uganda, 2003, pdf (5.6 Mb)
Reproduced with permission from the International Food Policy Research Institute http://www.ifpri.org, Copyright IFPRI.

Lawrence. K., Contribution to dicussion on values (15 Jan), Word (29 kb) or pdf (13 kb)

Lowe, R.G., Comments on summary of days 5 and 6 on "values" (17 Jan), Word (26 kb) or pdf (12 kb)

OECD, Environment Policy Committee, Working Party on Economic and Environmental Policy Integration, Working Group on Economic Aspects of Biodiversity Valuing Management for Biodiversity in British Forests at the Forestry Commission, Case Study: United Kingdom, February 2002, pdf (35 kb)
Currently available online
OECD Copyright, 2001. Reproduced by permission of the OECD

Patenaude, G., Contribution to discussoion on theme 2 and 5 (28 Jan), Word (23 kb) or pdf (9 kb)

Sheil, D., Contribution to discussion (17 Jan) - Thoughts on reducing the understanding gap, Word (26 kb) or pdf (12 kb)

Sheil, D. et al. 2002, Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people's perspectives in forest landscapes. Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jakarta, Indonesia, available as pdf in English (2.4 Mb)

Sheil, D. 2001, Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: realities, priorities and distractions, Conservation Biology, 15(4) 1179-1182)
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041179.x/pdf/

Utkarsch, G., Documenting Traditional Knowledge: People´s Biodiversity Registers (contributed by K. Basnet), pdf (61 kb). By courtesy of ICTSD (http://www.ictsd.org)

Vermeulen, S. and I. Koziell, 2002. Integrating global and local biodiversity values: a review of biodiversity assessment. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK., pdf (658 kb)