|
Workshop
Skills
for Effective Public Participation
When:
Sunday, 29 June 2003, 10:00 AM
Organizer:
David Bidwell, The Perspectives Group, Inc. (dbidwell@theperspectivesgroup.com)
Goals:
This interactive workshop will introduce participants to many
of the skills needed to design and implement effective public
participation programs. Participants will understand when to apply
public participation, what types of public participation makes
sense, how to design effective public participation, and tools
for conducting effective public participation.
Justification:
To meet regulatory requirements or demands of local officials,
conservation biologists and resource managers are often thrust
into the role of planning or implementing public participation
activities. Frustration often results, since many technical experts
have had little training or guidance on how to create an effective
public participation program. In the worst cases, poorly planned
attempts to involve the public in decision making exacerbate public
distrust and create unnecessary obstacles to projects. This is
especially disappointing, because a well-designed and implemented
public participation strategy can significantly increase public
buy-in and, ideally, produce better decisions and resource management
or conservation strategies.
A
good public participation planning process starts with determining
the goals that are to be met and finding the best strategies to
meet those goals. This workshop will teach participants how to
set those goals and how to match appropriate strategies to meet
those goals.
Format:
This workshop is designed to be lively and interactive.
Participants will receive information about best practices in
public participation and then work in small teams to apply these
practices to real-world scenarios. This interactive environment
will also allow participants to share and discuss the public participation
challenges they have faced.
Back
to Top
Cybertracker:
A Data Collection Tool for Land-Managers, Ecologists and Wildlife
Biologists
When:
Sunday, 29 June 2003, 2:00 PM
This
workshop is limited to approximately 30 participants. Although
pre-registration is not required, if you would like to reserve
a spot
in the workshop, please e-mail Jon Poppele (popp0012@umn.edu).
Organizer:
Jonathan M. Poppele, University of Minnesota (popp0012@umn.edu)
Goals:
This workshop is intended to introduce participants to the fundamentals
of CyberTracker through an interactive, hands-on session. By the
end of the workshop, participants will be able to use CyberTracker
for collecting and viewing data, and will have a basic understanding
of how to customize this tool for use in their own projects.
Justification:
CyberTracker is considered by many researchers to be
the most efficient field data collection tool available. It has
proven its value in a wide range of applications. We expect this
system will be of particular interest to land managers, and to
ecologists and field biologists who gather data on spoor and secondary
sign.
Format:
The workshop will be in four stages using the following
formats: presentation; hands-on activities (outside); demonstration;
panel Q & A. Jon Young will give a brief presentation about
CyberTracker, its background and its uses (see abstract). Participants
will then have the opportunity to work in small groups with field
units (which will be provided) to collect sample data in the area
around the Convention Center. We will then use these data to demonstrate
key features of CyberTracker. Remaining time will be used for
Jon Poppele and Jon Young to address participant’s questions.
Back
to Top
Genetically
Modified Organisms
When:
Monday, 30 June 2003, 9:30 AM
Organizers:
James Avevor, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology (jdavevor@yahoo.com);
Simon Obeng, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
(simeonos@yahoo.com);
Ruth Ashiokai, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
(babykai@mail.com); Francis
Osei Yaw, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (oyfrancis@yahoo.com)
Goals:
1) To draw on intercontinental views on Genetically Modified organisms
in general, and 2) Find ways of resolving issues that may arise
out of genetic modification such as Intellectual Property Rights
and germplasm loss.
Justification:
The issue of genetically modifying organisms is rapidly
gaining grounds. GM crops are now known to be grown commercially
or in field trials in over forty countries and on all the continents
of the world. Through genetic modification some human vaccines
against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B have been produced,
fish that mature earlier and some pest resistant, nutrient rich,
drought resistant, crops have been produced. Genetic modification
offers dramatic promise for the future, yet pose some risks and
consequences both known and unknown. It has therefore generated
a lot of controversy in recent times. A number of arguments addressing
issues of safety, ethics, among others have been advanced. Of
much concern to the conservationists should be the issue of the
possibility of tampering with nature and defeating the purpose
of conservation and also germplasm loss. As the GM crops and animals
become well accepted and widespread the present natural varieties
will simply make way for the improved GM varieties and if measures
are not put in place to conserve the present natural types they
will go extinct. Assigning proprietary rights to living organisms,
otherwise considered as a common heritage, should also be cautiously
considered. The workshop will draw on intercontinental views on
GM organisms and find out why some countries are refusing to accept
GM products for instance. Access the possible impact of GM on
nature viz a viz conservation and also answer questions like:
should IP rights be assigned to GM organisms at all? Which type
of IP rights is most suitable: Patents, Plant Breeders Rights,
etc.?
Back
to Top
Development
of a Herptile Monitoring Program for the Lake Superior Basin
When:
Monday, 30 June 2003, 1:30 PM (workshop) and 7:00 PM (discussion)
Organizers:
Lake Superior BiNational Program - Terrestrial Wildlife
Community Committee, Jonathan Gilbert, Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission (jgilbert@glifwc.org);
Gary Casper, Milwaukee Public Museum (gsc@mpm.edu);
Neil Dawson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (neil.dawson@mnr.gov.on.ca);
JoAnn Harnowski, Natural Resources Research Institute, University
of Minnesota Duluth (jhanowsk@d.umn.edu);
Ed Linquist, U.S. Forest Service, Superior National Forest (elindquist@fs.fed.us)
Goal:
The objective of this workshop would be to bring together
reptile and amphibian experts from around the Lake Superior basin
to reach consensus on the direction we should take in initiating
a herptile monitoring program.
Justification:
Reptiles and amphibians have been identified as a critical
group of species to be monitored by State Of the Lake Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC) and the Lake Superior Lake-wide Management
Plan (LaMP 2000). Herptiles are sensitive to anthropogenic perturbations
and chemical contaminants. Many herptile species are in decline
worldwide. Lake Superior is at the northern edge of the natural
range of many herptile species and thus declines in their abundance
in the basin may be indicative of pending declines elsewhere.
They may also be particularly useful for monitoring in the Areas
of Concern (AOC’s) to document progress in remediation and
restoration.
Despite
the acceptance of herptiles as a group to be monitored, little
consensus exists on the most appropriate species to be monitored
and the standardized techniques to be used in monitoring. The
objective of this workshop would be to bring together herptile
experts from around the Lake Superior basin to reach consensus
on proper species to monitor and standardized techniques to use
to monitor these species. The product would be a report that outlines
the discussions and makes recommendations for future actions,
including monitoring methods.
By
linking the workshop to the international Society for Conservation
Biology, we hope to attract monitoring specialists who are already
at the conference and insure that we have a wide range of experts
to assist in this important endeavor.
Format:
The format of the workshop would be in two parts. First,
experts in herptile monitoring will address the participants giving
an overview of existing monitoring programs, and suggest appropriate
species to monitor and standard techniques. Second, participants
would formulate a herptile monitoring proposal for the Lake Superior
basin. The first part (8 - 10 presentations) would take place
during the “workshop” time period (3.5 hours). The
second part would take place after hours in the evening (2 hours).
Back
to Top
Teaching
Ecosystem Management
When:
Monday, 30 June 2003, 7:00 PM
Reservations
are not required, but please e-mail Kristy Manning
(kmanning@islandpress.org)
if you plan to attend this workshop.
Organizers:
Gary Meffe, Editor, Conservation Biology, and University
of Florida (meffe@mail.ifas.ufl.edu);
Richard Knight, Colorado State University (knight@cnr.colostate.edu)
Goals:
Ecosystem management is the contemporary land-management paradigm.
Surprisingly, this realization is only slowly penetrating academic
programs that educate future land and natural resource managers.
Part of this dilemma can be attributed to the lack of a textbook
on the subject. We have recently published such a textbook, Ecosystem
Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation, that focuses
on adaptive ecosystem management. We propose to introduce the
book and its teaching principles to those participating in the
workshop. Because the book offers several innovative concepts
that will facilitate student learning, it is necessary to explain
these ideas as well as points that need to be stressed to student
audiences. The book is oriented toward problem solving by students
and uses realistic landscape scenarios that encompass many of
the ecological, socioeconomic, and organizational complexities
encountered in real management situations.
Justification:
Because ecosystem management is the principle model for
contemporary land managers, students in colleges and universities
will benefit from taking a course that covers the ecological and
human dimensions that comprise this subject. Because these courses
are just beginning to be offered, however, many teachers may be
unfamiliar with the subject. Using this textbook, with its innovative
approaches to teaching effective land management, may help professors
who are planning on teaching ecosystem or resource management.
Format:
The two workshop organizers will alternate presenting
concepts that will enable potential teachers of courses on ecosystem
management to ensure appropriate coverage of key points. It will
provide examples of teaching techniques and strategies that have
proven effective in ecosystem management. The facilitators have
taught this approach to more than 500 resource management professionals
in 20 settings over the past five years. The workshop organizers
will explore how this approach -- using hypothetical but realistic
landscape scenarios and exercises that facilitate problem-based
learning -- is an innovative way of engaging students in addressing
complex natural resource issues while also inviting workshop participants
to share their experiences with case-study problem-based learning
at the ecosystem level.
Back
to Top
People
and Reefs: ICRAN -- A Partnership for Prosperity
When:
Tuesday, 1 July 2003, 9:30 AM
Organizers:
Seema Paul, United Nations Foundation (spaul@unfoundation.org);
Kristian A. Teleki, International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN)
(kteleki@icran.org)
Goals:
This workshop will illustrate the effectiveness of a complex,
global partnership (International Coral Reef Action Network) in
responding to the needs of communities whose livelihoods are dependent
on the resources of coral reefs. Following a series of short presentations
a general discussion will take place on the innovative approach
which ICRAN is taking and what further actions need to be taken
to address issues related to tropical marine conservation while
ensuring the needs of people and communities are taken into account.
This
will also be an opportunity for SCB meeting delegates to become
familiar with this major coral reef conservation and management
initiative.
Justification:
The International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) is
an alliance which is focusing on the management needs of the world’s
coral reef ecosystems and their relationship to the communities
that depend upon them. ICRAN operates by exchanging traditional
knowledge and current research, and by sharing experiences to
strengthen reef management through peer-to-peer communication.ICRAN’s
alliance or partnership approach to reef management and assessment
has been developed to ensure the future of these valuable ecosystems,
as well as the future of the communities they sustain. This strategy
includes alternative livelihoods, training, capacity building,
and the exchange of current scientific, economic, and social information.This
workshop relates in part to a number of the SCB meeting topic
areas, but specifically it will contribute to the topics of marine
conservation and conservation issues concerning people.
Format:
There will be 5 short talks (5 minutes) followed by a
moderated general discussion amongst the presenters and the workshop
audience/participants.
Back
to Top
Teaching
Conservation at the University Level: Inquiry-Based Exercises
for the Classroom, Laboratory and Field
When:
Tuesday, 1 July 2003, 7:00 PM
Please
note that participation in the workshop will be limited to the
first 50 people to respond. If you would like to register to
participate in the workshop, please send an email to Ian Harrison
(harrison@amnh.org) and
copy your reply to Georgina Cullman
(gcullman@amnh.org) and
Christine Archer (tinearcher@hotmail.com),
who are also preparing the workshop. For more information on this
workshop,click here.
Organizers:
Eleanor Sterling, American Museum of Natural History
(sterling@amnh.org); Nora
Bynum, American Museum of Natural History (nbynum@amnh.org);
Ian Harrison, American Museum of Natural History (harrison@amnh.org);
Melina Laverty, American Museum of Natural History (laverty@amnh.org);
James Gibbs, State University of New York (jpgibbs@syr.edu)
Goals
and Justification: Conservation biology educators can
gain much from active-learning approaches, which encompass a diversity
of pedagogical techniques that involve students as seekers, users,
and creators of knowledge rather than passive "receivers"
of information. The use of hands-on, inquiry-based exercises is
fundamental to this active approach. Participatory exercises encourage
students to find solutions to important and meaningful questions
through investigations and collaboration with others. Exercises
may be developed for use in the classroom, the field, or a laboratory.
But
what characterizes a successful exercise? In this workshop, we
will bring together educators to share classroom, lab, or field
exercises that they have developed or used in their own teaching.
We will ask how educators identify good key questions for exercises
that are both relevant to the real world of conservation and can
be addressed given the time and resources available to students.
We will ask how to ensure that students acquire an understanding
of key principles and concepts, develop critical thinking skills,
and learn to communicate their knowledge to others. Finally, we
will ask to what extent exercises can be designed to model aspects
of the process of conservation work -- making decisions in times
of uncertainty, working effectively to achieve consensus among
diverse stakeholders, and integrating a variety of information
types and sources to arrive at solutions.
Before
the meeting, workshop organizers will solicit contributions of
example exercises from among the SCB membership, and will ask
workshop participants to bring additional examples to the meeting.
SCB members registering for the workshop will also be asked to
answer a short questionnaire on exercise development and use before
the workshop, with responses tabulated by organizers and presented
during the workshop. Following a short plenary session to discuss
these preliminary responses, the workshop will split into two
groups (classroom/laboratory and field) to address the questions
listed above in the context of the exercises that have been submitted
as examples. The groups will return to plenary at the end of the
workshop to present a summary of their findings.
Participants:
A hands-on workshop such as this was recommended by the
Society for Conservation Biology Board of Governors in the summer
of 2002. The organizers of this workshop will rely on the contact
list generated at the 2002 SCB “Teaching Conservation Biology”
workshop to solicit submissions of exercises, but will also solicit
contributions from the SCB membership as a whole. Participation
in the workshop will be limited to the first 50 people to reserve
a spot.
Back
to Top
Large
Scale Ecological Restoration
When:
Wednesday, 2 July 2003, 9:30 AM
Organizers:
Amanda Fuller, The Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance
(abf@uwalumni.com); Paul
Zedler, University of Wisconsin-Madison (phzedler@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Goal:
To provide a forum where practitioners undertaking large-scale
ecological restoration projects may discuss common challenges
and solutions on projects 1000 acres or greater.
Justification:
The inspiration for this workshop came from the challenge
of restoring prairie and savanna to large portions of the recently
decommissioned Badger Army Ammunition Plant in Wisconsin. The
Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance has worked for several years
to secure a conservation-oriented reuse plan for the Badger Plant.
The Alliance has organized this workshop to open a discussion
about large-scale restoration strategies, so that people undertaking
large restoration projects at the Badger Plant and elsewhere can
learn from each other.
There
is a notable lack of literature addressing practical challenges
on projects such as these. The theory of large-scale restoration
is well developed (Hargrove et al. 2001), and there are guiding
principles for restoring functional and structural elements at
large scales (Whisenant 1999). Restoration of certain ecological
processes, like fire and flooding, is more feasible at sites of
1000 contiguous acres or more, and large-scale restorations also
hold great promise for reintroduction of wide-ranging species.
However, in many projects, functional and structural priorities
are not set in accordance with ecological theory but other factors.
Budgets, visitors’ needs, land acquisition, research agendas,
or other forces may dictate how restoration is implemented. Theory
should inform the planning process, but practitioners’ information
needs cannot be met by theory alone.
The
most fundamental challenges of a large-scale project are cost
and length of time. These challenges demand novel approaches to
restoration. Practitioners have tried in many ways to “scale-up”
restoration practices to defray costs and speed up establishment
of species and processes. Many restorationists also struggle in
executing and applying research relevant to large-scale restoration,
developing partnerships and financial support, and involving the
public in restoration planning and implementation.
Participants
will include representatives from several sites around the Midwest
where restorations of thousands of acres are being undertaken,
such as Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Neal Smith National
Wildlife Refuge, The Nature Conservancy’s Kankakee Sands
Project, and Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Anyone with interest or experience
in large-scale restoration projects is encouraged to participate.
Registered
participants will identify three or four high-priority questions
or issues in advance. These issues will set the agenda for the
workshop and will include subjects such as: Weed control; High-volume
seed production; Native seed germination; Volunteer recruitment;
Seed processing and storage; Achieving biological targets in hydrologic
reconstruction; Harvesting and planting technologies; Restoration
planning and setting spatial priorities; Economic sustainability;
Large-scale monitoring; and Long-term maintenance.
Format:
The workshop will be in round-table format. We will begin
with a round of brief introductions and project descriptions.
The agenda will be issue-driven, and several participants will
give short (10-15 minute) presentations focused on individual
issues or challenges that the participants have identified ahead
of time as being important. After each presentation, we will open
discussion on that issue (15 minutes) and representatives from
other projects will have the opportunity to ask questions and
share their own experiences. This structure will focus the attention
on several important topics and allow for the free exchange of
information about specific challenges and solutions at each project
related to large-scale restoration.
Back
to Top
Conservation
Biology and the Social Sciences: New Possibilities for Collaboration
When:
Wednesday, 2 July 2003, 1:30 PM
Organizers:
J. Peter Brosius, University of Georgia (pbrosius@arches.uga.edu);
Tracy Dobson, Michigan State University (dobson@msu.edu)
Goals:
1) To promote productive interdisciplinary dialogue between various
social and biological science disciplines working within the conservation
domain; 2) To demonstrate how the social sciences as a whole can
play a key role in the development and implementation of conservation
policies, paradigms, and practices that are simultaneously effective,
just, and equitable; and 3) To foster the construction of bridges
between social and natural sciences to enhance collaboration between
them.
Justification:
Few issues in the field of conservation biology have
been subject to more debate than the question of how to balance
the preservation of biodiversity with human needs. One way this
is manifest is in the relationship between conservation biology
and the social sciences. Social scientists stress that conservation
that does not take into account livelihood and equity issues is
less likely to be effective in the long-term, and most support
a strong element of local participation in conservation. Many
conservation biologists, while recognizing that local communities
cannot be ignored, are nonetheless concerned that too much emphasis
on livelihoods and equity dilutes the main goal of conservation
initiatives: preserving biodiversity. Much is at stake in how
this issue is resolved.
Whatever
position one takes on this question, it is clear that engaged
dialogue between conservation biologists and social scientists
is necessary to achieving its resolution. The purpose of this
workshop is to bring together social scientists from a range of
disciplines to explore how and where we can seek common ground
amongst ourselves, as well as to discuss how we can work collaboratively
with conservation biologists to promote forms of conservation
that are simultaneously effective, equitable and just. We are
a diverse group of social scientists, and we work at multiple
scales to address the historical, political, psychological, cultural
and economic dimensions of conservation. Our approaches illustrate
the multiplicity of the “human dimensions” of conservation,
and the importance of developing a holistic understanding of conservation
problems. Through this dialogue, we hope to forge connections
between practitioners representing disparate disciplines and to
seek common points of engagement with conservation biologists.
Format:
Participants will give 20 minute talks focusing on the
contributions and methods of their own discipline in achieving
conservation.
Participants:
J. Peter Brosius, Anthropology, University of Georgia
Robert Costanza, Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Tracy Dobson, Law and policy, Michigan State University
Nancy Langston, Environmental History, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mike Mascia, Political science, Duke University
Lisa Naughton, Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Devon Pena, Sociology/Anthropology, University of Washington
Caroline Saunders, Psychology, Brookfield Zoo
Discussants:
Louise Fortmann, Rural Sociology, University of California-Berkeley
Kent Redford, Biology, Wildlife Conservation Society
|
