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

Key themes and discussion results

The workshop discussion focused on 6 themes (themes titles lead to the theme documents with the introduction notes and discussion results):

1. Objectives of PAMEB
2. Values of biodiversity
3. Methods and tools
4. Information needs
5. Synergy
6. Enabling factors

1. Objectives of PAMEB, 7-10 January
As a way into discussing some of the more complex themes the workshop started with a fairly open topic, in which participants were invited to communicate from their experience:

• What is the objective of the participatory biodiversity assessment? (and is it survey or monitoring)?
• What information is being collected and how?
• Who is doing it? Who plans / collects data / analyses / uses the results?
• What worked / didn't work? Why?

2. Incorporating values, 10-12 January

• 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?

3. Processes, methods and tools, 14-16 January
A more practical theme in which we aim to share methods which have been useful to you, for participatory surveying or monitoring of biodiversity, or for understanding other people's values.

• Which methods and tools have worked well? Why? What did they achieve?
• Which methods and tools have been tried and did not prove particularly successful? Why not?
• How can the useful methods and tools be combined in processes which include all the relevant stakeholders?
• How does the success of methods and processes vary according to context (e.g. do some approaches work better in rural communities in developing countries, while others are more successful with groups from wealthier countries who have more recreational time)?
• What further work needs to be done?

4. Clarifying information needs, 16-18 January
Thinking about the kinds of information obtained through the processes already discussed in previous themes:

• Who are the users of biodiversity assessments?
• What form do they need biodiversity information in and why? What purpose do they put that information to?
• Where do they currently get the information they need? Is it in the form which is most useful to them?
• Are there other sources / types of biodiversity information which would be useful to them? This may include conscious information needs, and may also include information which they are currently unaware of 'needing' but which might be useful to them, or change the way in which they make decisions.
• How could biodiversity information from other stakeholders' assessments be usefully communicated? What might be the outcomes (both advantages and disadvantages)?
• What are the research priorities in this area, and how can they be addressed?

5. Potential for synergy, 21-23 January

• 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 unconstructive) to attempt participatory biodiversity assessment?
• What further work is needed to understand the potential for synergy between different assessments?

6. Enabling factors, 22-24 January
Taking into account recommendations arising from previous themes, the workshop now focused on the institutional environment, i.e. policy, institutions and communication.

• How does existing policy (national and international) support successful participatory biodiversity assessment?
• Are there cases where policy makes such assessments difficult?
• What is needed to better implement supportive policy?
• How do institutional structures and relationships affect the success of participatory biodiversity assessment? How can we build on the most supportive examples and address constraints?
• What are the priorities for capacity-building? What should be the processes and content of such capacity building?
• What recommendations can we make for communicating results of biodiversity assessments, so that they are useful to particular stakeholders in particular contexts?

Wrap-up and ways forward, 25 January
At the end the opportunity was provided to give feedback on the workshop and its usefulness, make recommendations, and identify priorities for further work.