Those attending:

Introduction

1. The purpose of the meeting was primarily to provide an input to the evolving DFID project on Biodiversity : "Linking Policy and Practice in Biodiversity (LPPB)". Mr Ron Kemp, the new Chairman of the Biodiversity Working Group, welcomed Participants and expressed his gratitude to the Working Group's previous Chair, Dr Ian Gauld, for his time and committment to the Group. Dr Gauld was overseas at present and thus unable to attend today's meeting. Participants introduced themselves.

2. Mr Kemp drew Participants attention to the three main items on the meeting's agenda:
   • DFID's ongoing development of a strategy linking biodiversity issues with peoples' livelihoods, including a presentation of the "Linking Policy and Practice in Biodiversity" (LPPB) project by the project manager, Ms Izabella Koziell
   • A report of the 4th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Bratislava, May 1998, by Mr Jonathan Tillson of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)
   • The draft Terms of Reference for the Forum Biodiversity Working Group

3. Mr Kemp referred to the new draft Terms of Reference for the Forum Working Group, copies of which had previously been circulated. He reiterated that the conservation of biodiversity of tropical forests, and the concerns and rights of forest dwelling people, had brought the Forum into being and remained a key interest. The Forum sought to make the UK's contribution to tackling these issues more coherent and effective. DFID's review of its biodiversity strategy was, he said, a welcome development in the Forum's eyes.
   (The Terms of Reference can be found on the Tropical Forest Forum webpage) http://www.forestforum.org.uk
   Forum activities Working Groups Biodiversity

DFID project :
Linking Policy and Practice in Biodiversity (LPPB)

4. Ms Izabella Koziell, of DFID, and project manager of the "Linking Policy and Practice in Biodiversity" (LPPB) project, gave a brief presentation of her work. She described the context for the project. DFID's Environment Policy Department (EPD) had reviewed DFID's biodiversity strategy in the first half of 1998 - resulting in the publication "Biodiversity Matters". The current project (LPPB), for which the DFID Natural Resources Policy and Advisory Department (NRPAD), are responsible runs from January 1998 to June 1999. It's focus is on the activities of DFID itself.

5. Ms Koziell stressed that the LPPB project is still at a very early stage. In examining the links between policy and practice, the project is seeking to develop links with DFID bilateral and country programmes. In parallel, the DFID International Economic Policy Department are examining the issue of intellectual property rights, and the Social Development Department is considering the problems pertinent to indigenous peoples. The EC/IUCN component of the project is managed by Dr Glyn Davies based in the IUCN Brussels office. Previous DFID biodiversity-related policy initiatives include the "Issues and Options" paper, the 1993 Biodiversity Strategy, "Whose Eden?", and the "Africa Wildlife Policy Consultation".

6. The five corner stones for current DFID biodiversity-related work are:
   • The DFID White Paper: especially the implications of a poverty reduction focus on biodiversity
   • Sectoral policy papers and statements
   • International commitments including the CBD, Ramsar and CITES
   • Partner country needs and priorities
   • DFID's mode of operation, including its project cycle management

7. The purposes of the LPPB project are :
   • To clarify the linkages between biodiversity and management, and to look at the relationship between conservation and development projects
   • To achieve higher levels of coherence and consensus within DFID as an institution with better internal understanding. The project seeks especially to focus on DFID's advisers
   • To integrate and "mainstream" biodiversity concerns into the sustainable livelihoods approach to natural resource management as envisaged by the Natural Resources Policy Advisory Department

8. The LPPB project process involves internal and external consultation and has resulted in the selection of five issues papers to be written. Issue paper co-ordinators will compile analyses for their papers. A series of workshops will be held in South Africa, Bangladesh and Bolivia. In-depth discussions will be held with DFID Advisers on the key issues pertaining to their day-to-day decision making. DFID projects, past and present, will be reviewed and the lessons learned extracted. All this information will be combined in a series of key sheets, supported by the issues papers. These will be distributed to DFID's Natural Resource Advisers and other interested Advisors, and summaries will be provided for DFID's desk officers and administrators.

9. The five issue papers address five sectors:
   • Agriculture (crops, soil and water)
   • Livestock Management
   • Capture Fisheries (inland, coastal and marine) and Aquaculture
   • Forestry
   • Wildlife Management

   The role of the papers is to facilitate internal in-depth discussion within DFID with specialists in each sector, and is not an advocation of the sectoral approach. The five papers will feed into DFID's "mainstreaming" (communications, infrastructure, energy, mining, water) and into DFID's Procedures and Project Management Tools.

10. The issues papers have recently been commissioned; the Forestry paper will be produced by Steve Bass of IIED, in collaboration with Colin Hughes and Will Hawthorne of the Oxford Forestry Institute, all of whom are currently overseas. Terms of Reference for the papers have been produced, but not as yet finalised. First drafts of the papers are due for submission to the DFID Steering Committee by the end of September. Drafts will then be used to start compiling a Framework Paper which will then be sent out for review and feedback to specialists in the UK and overseas. The Project Manager will then undertake a series of consultation visits to DFID offices overseas in November. Following this visit a second draft will be compiled and discussed at a workshop, revised and then taken overseas to disseminate in a workshop forum. Compilation of final written outputs, i.e. keysheets, CD Rom will take place in May - June 1999.

11. Given the focus of the DFID White Paper on reducing the world's poverty by half by 2015, DFID's stance on biodiversity is as a means of helping to achieve sustainable livelihoods. DFID's current thinking on this theme is formulated in a paper prepared for the DFID Natural Resource Advisors Conference. A mosaic of multiple landuse practices might involve protection, conservation, sustainable use and some conversion. Ms Koziell believed that recognition of the socio-economic context is very important to each intervention and that, in certain situations, a win-win scenario may be achieved involving conservation and poverty reduction. However the benefits arising for the poor from any biodiversity project need to be demonstrable and justifiable.

12. DFID contributes significant amounts of funding to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the LPPB project will seek to strengthen links between bilateral efforts and multilateral activities, such as those of the GEF itself. DFID intends to encourage advisers to take a more proactive approach towards the GEF in providing additional funds to cover global aspects of biodiversity.

13. Ms Koziell stressed that DFID recognises that certain management decisions involve difficult trade offs and that it would therefore seek to structure decisions around such trade offs. However, she noted that, given DFID's focus on poverty reduction, tackling such trade-offs was difficult and complex. The major trade -offs identified are:
    • Long term versus short-term imperatives
    • Quantifiable versus non-quantifiable value
    • Anticipated value versus actual value
    • Local value versus global value

14. Mr Kemp thanked Ms Koziell for her presentation which provided a helpful framework for discussion. He then invited Dr Glyn Davies and Mr Nigel Hunter to provide short summaries of their DFID biodiversity-related projects, prior to discussion.

EC/ DFID/ IUCN project on Biodiversity and Development

15. Dr Glyn Davies provided a brief outline of the "Biodiversity and Development Project" for which he was project leader. It had a focus on African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The project purpose is to develop guidelines and a strategic framework to enable the EC and Member States to better collaborate and work more effectively with developing countries on biodiversity conservation programmes. The project involves a partnership between the European Commission (DG VIII), DFID and IUCN. Dr Davies is based in the IUCN office in Brussels. Whilst the LPPB project (described above), was seeking to put together summary papers for a conceptual framework so as to assist DFID bilateral fund managers make decisions about DFID investments, his own project took the additional step of considering other EU Member States' policies. Not all donors had the same approach to biodiversity given the different national political goals. For example, the poverty focus of DFID was much stronger than that of the German GTZ. Within the context of the project, DFID would hold four workshops: two in southern Africa, one in Latin America and one in South Asia, to assist in the translation of a strategic framework into practical guidelines. In addition to manuals, Dr Davies was hoping to develop case studies and a website.

The DFID Biodiversity in Development Support Network (BDSN)

16. Mr Nigel Hunter, Project Leader of the BDSN, noted that the new DFID projects have succeeded in raising the profile of wildlife issues within DFID, where there had previously been somewhat of a vaccum. The principle behind the BDSN Network was to make existing expertise in managing biodiversity accessible to DFID. The project sought to develop links to both the UK and European skill base. Mr Hunter was collaborating with Dr Davies in Brussels and through IUCN intended to develop links with expertise in developing countries. The professional network would operate using the latest electronic networking facilities - a so-called "virtual office" - such a facility would enable authors to collaborate on the drafting of documents without the need for travel. Mr Hunter believed that such a Network would facilitate better communication and dialogue. Linking policy to practice, he said, enabled lessons learnt to be incorporated back into projects.
    (More detailed information about the BDSN can be found on the Tropical Forest Forum webpage)
    http://www.forestforum.org.uk
    Forum activities Working Groups Biodiversity

Discussion of DFID Biodiversity Policy activities

17. Ms Jane Thornback sought clarification as to whether two sets of regional workshops were being hosted by DFID - a set for each project? Ms Koziell affirmed this, explaining that each would involve DFID and six natural resource managers. Dr Davies added that nationals will be sought to write the case studies.

18. Mr Nick Pyatt sought clarification as to how DFID hoped to reconcile an holistic livelihood approach with the split of the issues papers into sectors? Ms Koziell said this was to facilitate the integration of the concept internally within DFID and with partner countries where government functions are still split sectorally. It would hopefully encourage more rapid uptake. Other partner countries were still split along sectoral lines. Dr Davies felt that separating papers on a sectoral basis could result in a framework on which it would be difficult to build. DFID was least prepared for interdisciplinary linkages and the process needed to develop them. Mr Pyatt suggested that the approach should not be sectoral but complementary.

19. Mr Ben Voysey (ECTF/LTS, Edinburgh) asked Ms Koziell to clarify whether by linkages she meant between sectors (forestry and wildlife management) or whether linkages were concerned with DFID's internalisation of biodiversity issues?. Ms Koziell said the focus was internal - how best to develop a coherent DFID approach.

20. Dr Jo Pires-O'Brien (independent consultant) expressed satisfaction with DFID's aims in this project. Her own extensive research experience in Brazil had convinced her of the great need for integrating social issues and forest conservation and management. She thought a think tank was necessary.

21. Dr Keith Shawe (NRI) advocated strongly for the development of mechanisms for "learning lessons". Institutions, he said, were bad at this. He thought it vital to retrieve information back from people involved in field projects. Ms Koziell agreed, noting that if anyone in the Forum had been involved in DFID projects, she would be keen to interview them. Dr Davies added that project experience need not be confined to DFID projects but could relate to any project involving good co-operative support. Contributions could stretch from lessons learned though to solutions, or simply situations where a problem had been identified.

22. Mr Kemp reminded Participants that, at the last meeting, all had agreed of the need for strong coincidence between biodiversity conservation and meeting the immediate needs of communities. This he felt went to the heart of defining key issues and that it was worth spending a little time thinking about the trade-offs involved when moving policy to practice.

23. Mr Pyatt thought that many of the trade-offs involved concerned "values", i.e. what is quantifiable and not quantifiable, and who is doing the quantifying? He said that academics frequently did not get into the business of quantifying in the same way as local people even though there has often been an assessment of what local peoples' values are.

24. Mr Hunter stressed the need for practical approaches; there was unlikely to be a "Ministry of Livelihoods". He saw a need to develop ways to cope with interactions and to get agencies to break open their barriers. Whilst the trade offs were very real they would not be answered by the time DFID's LPPB project drew up its conclusions. He said that different people try and impose their values and that it was very hard to integrate and exchange those values. Economists, for example, use language that is too simplistic and find it very hard to incorporate cultural and social values. He would like to see the topic of values pursued further by the Forum Working Group. Dr Julian Caldecott supported the need for further analysis of the "values" issue. Mr Voysey said that whoever wins the tender for the DFID funded Mount Cameroon Project will have to understand the "values" of the various stakeholders and balance these values out. Ms Thornback suggested the Forum Working Group pursue the theme of values, perhaps using the Mount Cameroon project as concrete example. She would discuss this further with those interested. Mr Pyatt suggested additional projects which could be considered as case studies, e.g. Manowari/ Mamiwara (???). These projects were in Phase 2, and therefore had more to offer in terms of lessons to be learnt than newer projects.

25. Ms Anna Lawrence (University of Reading) stressed the importance of identifying local perceptions and uses of individual species rather than just biodiversity in general. Her own Darwin Initiative funded project in the Philippines concerned forest-fringe farmers and a comparison of global ecologists' star rating of individual species against the value local people ascribe to those species. Her findings were that local farmers had completely separate criteria in determining whether a species is useful. Her project focused specifically on trees and it was found that farmers valued trees that could be cultivated on farms and not necessarily as part of the forest. She also thought it important to acknowledge that natural resources and trees occur outside of forests. Ms Koziell said that trees on farms would probably be dealt with by DFID's agriculture specialists.

26. Dr Jo Pires-O'Brien drew attention to the long-term nature of sustainable forestry programmes. Her own experience on a DFID-funded project in Brazil had demonstrated that a 20 to 25 year period needed to elapse before results started coming in. In the interim some form of short term financing was therefore essential.

27. Dr Davies warned of the many misconceptions related to biodiversity loss that needed to be unravelled. Ms Koziell agreed that it was necessary to "delink" concepts such as "poverty causes biodiversity loss".

Potential Forum input to the evolving DFID biodiversity strategy

28. Mr Kemp, in referring to Ms Koziell's presentation, in particular the schedule for producing the Issues papers, thought it valuable for the Group to discuss how best the Forum could contribute to DFID's strategy review. He reminded those present of key issues, including the trade offs of short- and long-term conflicts. He felt that, given the Forum's mandate to assist in making the UK's contribution more coherent and effective, the Working Group should do something specific as part of the UK DFID consultation process. He suggested three potential inputs were possible:
    • Input by the Forum Working Group to the DFID Issues paper on Forestry
    • Consideration of the Limbe Conference recommendations in the context of DFID's Linking policy and practice in Biodiversity (LPPB) project (See Para 31)
    • A Forum Workshop on the subject of enhancing biodiversity through sustainable livelihoods

    Input to the Issues Paper on Forestry, Biodiversity and Poverty

29. Re Terms of Reference for the Forestry Issues Paper. There was discussion as to whether it would be possible for the Forum Working Group to have an input and comment on the Terms of Reference for the Forestry Issues Paper. Ms Thornback noted that it would certainly be possible to circulate these to the group electronically if they were made available to her. It would also be conceivable to hold a further Working Group meeting in August to discuss these TOR's, though she felt that unless there was a substantive presentation of the issues to be explored within the paper then there may be no value in a meeting but instead Participants could send comments back to DFID electronically. Ms Koziell thought that the final Terms of Reference might be available after 8th August. She knew that Steve Bass was keen to receive feedback and would be able to partcipate in a short meeting on the topic if it was felt useful. Participants felt that if it was useful to get together again to discuss the Terms of Reference then they would certainly be willing. Mr Voysey thought there was added value in physically bringing working group members together, rather than commenting electronically.

30. Re Draft Issues Paper. The first draft of the Issues Paper was likely to be available for comment by mid September. Working Group Participants felt strongly that they wished to have the opportunity to comment on this draft paper and were willing to come together to discuss it. A substantial presentation by the Issues paper authors followed by discussion was felt to be the most constructive model to follow. If at all possible the draft paper should be circulated several days ahead of time.
    (Ed's note : the meeting is likely to be in the week of 21st of September)

    Limbe Conference recommendations

31. Mr Kemp noted that conservation outside of the protected area system had been a consistent thread in Forum discussions. and he thought that a useful action would be to revisit the Recommendations that had emerged from the Forum/Earthwatch/EC conference on African Rainforest Biodiversity held at Limbe Botanic Garden, Cameroon, in January 1997. The Forum's Biodiversity Working Group had contributed to the development of the Conference Agenda, and four of the eight Working Group Chairmen had been Forum Biodiversity Working Group members. The conference had drawn strongly upon African experience and African participants took a leading role in discussions. Mr Kemp reminded Participants of the four working groups that had convened at the Conference:
    • Biodiversity inventorying and monitoring
    • Participatory approaches to forest management and conservation
    • Institutional frameworks for forest conservation
    • Valuing the forest

    Each Working Group had produced a set of recommendations (attached in Annexe One; also posted on the Forum webpage.)
    http://www.forestforum.org.uk
    Forum Activities Working Groups Biodiversity

32. The Limbe Conference had discussed many issues relating to trade offs and he thought it would be useful to reconvene the Chairmen of the four working groups (Mr Ron Kemp, Dr Glyn Davies, Dr David Brown and Dr Ian Gauld) for further discussions and to consider the conference's recommendations in the light of DFID's newly expressed policy and strategy. He thought this could be done in August and September to feed into DFID's development of key Issues papers.
    (A copy of the Limbe Conference Proceedings can be obtained from Mr Julian Laird, Earthwatch Europe, 57 Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6HJ. E-mail info@uk.earthwatch.org)

33. Dr Davies agreed with Mr Kemp's proposal, and saw it as an opportunity to make more widely available the broader substance of the Limbe recommendations At least half of the Limbe Conference participation had been African and offered a different perspective on key issues. The main aim of his own project was to cover as broad a range of contexts as possible. He saw the Forum's approach as a helpful tool in terms of its lateral context and what's likely to work best.

34. Dr David Brown (ODI) thought it a good idea to reconvene the Chairpersons of the Limbe Conference though he felt that other Forum Working Group members should have the opportunity to contribute their ideas to the process. Ms Thornback said that the Recommendations could be circulated electronically to the Group, as well as be put up on the Forum webpage, thus facilitating comments back to the Chairpersons.

35. Ms Koziell suggested that the application of the Limbe recommendations follow the structure of the Terms of Reference of the Forestry Issues paper. She would supply the Forum Secretariat with a copy of the Paper's Terms of Reference, once they were finalised. She saw this as a useful exercise in terms of lessons learned. Furthermore, it would assist in identifying regional resource people for the regional workshops.

Forum Workshop

36. Mr Kemp raised the additional possibility of a one day workshop on forest biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods later in the year or early next year, bringing together as many people from different viewpoints as possible.

37. Mr Hunter agreed that there was sufficient topic for a Forum Workshop, in particular he favoured the topic of values as being a central theme. Mr Voysey mentioned that the Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests (ECTF) would be hosting a one day seminar on 25th September with the principal theme of private sector issues. He suggested that the Forum could use the occasion for a meeting.

38. It was agreed that Ms Thornback would contact Group members as soon as possible with the timetable for the various activities.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Report on the Fourth Conference of the Parties, Bratislava, May '98
Update on the CBD Forests Programme

38. Mr Jonathan Tillson from the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) gave a brief presentation of the events at the Fourth Conference of the Parties (COP4) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Bratislava, Slovak Republic, in May '98. The COP began with a Ministerial Round Table - an attempt by the Slovaks to revitalise the Ministerial segment - it was not terribly successful due to few ministers attending; they discussed integration and the role of the private sector. Subsequently, the two weeks of the COP negotiation involved a long agenda and a large number of people. The UK played a central role because of its Presidency of the EU, and was therefore not just promoting the national position but co-ordinating that of the EU. Mr Tillson himself chaired contact groups (in which the real negotiations take place) on national reports (which Parties had been requested to complete by the end of last year) and the work programme of the Convention. Mr Tillson provided the Forum Working Group with copies of the CBD forest decisions. He said that progress on forests has been found not to be sustained and to be disappointing. The priority of the UK and the EU was now to see real progress. Forest work would be a priority theme for COP 6 but would also be on the agenda as a "standing item" at COP 5.
    The COP4 decisions, including those on forests, can be found on the CBD website.
    (See the Tropical Forest Forum webpage)
    http://www.forestforum.org.uk Forum activities Working Groups Biodiversity Relevant other websites

39. Other thematic areas on which decisions were reached at the COP included: inland water biodiversity, and marine and coastal biodiversity, and included further negotiation of a Biosafety Protocol to be signed in February next year.

40. Mr Tillson brought copies for the Forum Working Group of the UK's first national report to the CBD, as well as the "First Darwin Report", a report analysing the projects funded by the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species.

41. The presentation to the CBD by the new Executive Director of UNEP, Klaus Topfer, had been controversial and it had seemed as if UNEP desired to perform a role in some aspects of implementation which certain countries perceived to be their own.

42. One of the most controversial issues was the implementation of Article 8j on indigenous and local knowledge. Brazil objected to the participation of indigenous groups on the contact groups. However, further discussion of this issue will take the form of an open-ended intersessional working group. Other objectives of the COP were equitable benefit sharing on which there were commitments to further work and intersessional meetings. The review of the performance of the Global Environment Fund (GEF) had turned out well.

43. Mr Tillson said that the DETR holds occasional consultative meetings in the UK with interested UK/CBD stakeholders. Such a meeting took place just prior to COP 5 and another will be held on 24 July. Anyone interested in participating in such meetings should contact Mr Tillson at DETR.

Discussion of the CBD

44. Dr Davies referred to the CBD objective of benefit-sharing and, given DFID's Whitepaper, his interest was in benefit sharing and biodiversity as a whole, and not just with such resources as medicinal plants. Mr Tillson said that genetic resources were interpreted under the CBD in the broadest sense. He noted the sensitive issue of national governmental sovereignty within topics such as access.

45. Dr Bob Cheke (NRI) requested Mr Tillson to summarise the main points of the biosafety protocol. Mr Tillson explained that it was an attempt to regulate transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms with a commitment from Parties to finalisation in February 1999. Quite what the text will look like when finalised is as yet unclear. Mr Tillson said that if anyone was interested in further details concerning the Protocol they should contact him or his colleagues at DETR.

Any Other Business

46. No other business was raised.

Date of Next Meeting

47. The Working Group would meet at a date when the Biodiversity, Forests and Poverty Issues Paper commissioned by DFID was advanced enough to provide a substantial basis for input and discussion. Likely to be mid-September.
    (Eds note: likely to be the week beginning September 21st).