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

21-23 January: Key theme 5: Synergy

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

Setting the scene

This is where we come to the crux of the workshop: is it possible to conduct biodiversity assessments with multiple stakeholders, such that all benefit (perhaps even in a win-win situation)?

Little has been written about this and we feel that it is here that the workshop has most potential to contribute to exciting new possibilities. In order to achieve synergy we feel at least four issues have to be addressed:

• The communication pathways and mechanisms between stakeholders;
• The costs and benefits for those involved in sharing data;
• Issues of politics and power relations (relevant, although difficult to tackle);
• Issues of institutional inertia and development.

There is a general feeling that scientific and local assessments of biodiversity are complementary, and that taken together they are more valuable than conducted alone. But this assumption is questionable and its validity may be highly context specific. We need to consider the ways in which different stakeholders could gain or lose out. Such considerations are particularly important for the rural poor in developing countries who are often seen as a source of information and labour, but do not always see the rewards of such contributions. Possible benefits include increased awareness, pride in ownership, and enhanced ability to improve management strategies or even control illegal or unwanted activity.

There appears to be a tendency for information to flow in one direction, to the scientists, when conducting participatory assessments. Is there a way in which scientific information on the biodiversity resource could be made more accessible to and useful to local people?

Alternatively, if there is value in integrating local knowledge into large scale assessments where the data may not be directly of use to the local people themselves: is there a SMART (simple/specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and trackable) procedure which helps us to engage with local people in a way that makes it clear what the job is and allows clear payment for work done or benefits shared and still gives room for adaptation of indicators to include locally generated values?

If these advantages are to be achieved, there will need to be effective communication linkages both vertically and horizontally. We have not seen an analysis of these issues in the work available to us and expect that it will be an important focus of the workshop, to examine the relations between suppliers and users of information, influencing factors, and ways in which linkages can be both supported and protected from misuse.

This theme will address the following questions:

• Are different assessments (perhaps conducted within different value systems) comparable and if so how? Are there ways in which biodiversity assessments by different stakeholders can be effectively integrated to support more useful decision-making?
• What do we mean by 'more useful' - more equitable? Cheaper? In other words, who might benefit from such an approach, and how? Who might lose out, and how?
• What are the areas of common or contrasting experience in tropical and temperate countries? What can each learn from the other and how could efforts be shared in future?
• Are there any examples of real attempts at integrating different kinds of biodiversity assessments? What worked, and what did not? Why?
• When is it unnecessary (or even counterproductive) to attempt participatory biodiversity assessment?
• What further work is needed to understand the potential for synergy between different assessments?

Introduction

Koziell, I., Potential for Synergy, introduction to theme 5, Word (29 kb) or pdf (11 kb)

Discussion results

• Summary of Day 12, 21th January 2002 by Sasha Barrow
• Summary of Day 13, 22th January 2002 by Bianca Ambrose-Oji

Case studies

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)

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)

Rijsoort, J. van, J.F. Zhang, Development of Participatory Resources Monitoring in two nature reserves in Yunnan, P.R. China, Word (98 kb) or pdf (44 kb)

Further contributions by participants

Additional links on this theme

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., The Changing Practice of Traditional Ecological Knowledge Research In Canada: Partnerships and Processes in Northwestern Ontario, Word (270 kb) or pdf (297 kb)

Dechaineux, R., Community Experiments with Sustainable Management of Wild Frogs in Salavan Province, Lao PDR, March 2001, pdf (146 kb)

Foppes, J., R. Dechaineux, Non-Timber Forest Products in Lao PDR: a practical application of the ecosystems approach?, Case study for the pathfinder workshop “An Ecosystem Approach under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); from concept to action”, Malaysia, 30/10 to 1/11 2000, pdf (78 kb)

Foppes, J., S. Ketphanh, Forest extraction or cultivation? Local solutions from Lao PDR, Paper presented at the workshop on the evolution and sustainability of “intermediate systems” of forest management, FOREASIA, 28 June- 1 July 2000, Lofoten Norway, pdf (117 kb)

Sheil, D., Contribution to discussion (21 Jan), Word (24 kb) or pdf (9 kb)

Van Heist, M., Contribution to discussion (22 Jan), Word (26 kb) or pdf (11 kb)

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)