Back to CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2001 SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY ANNUAL MEETING: CALL FOR SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS

ASSESSING NETWORKING NEEDS FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY IN AFRICA: A SURVEY BY SCB AND AAAS

Several months ago, SCB and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) launched a collaboration to improve access to and exchange of information by the conservation biology community in Africa. To inform this initiative and ensure that it is driven by African needs, we widely distributed a survey to both SCB members and non-members working on conservation issues in Africa [see SCB Newsletter 7(1)]. The following is a summary of the 34 surveys received from SCB members. An additional 82 surveys have been received from non-members.

All of the respondents are active in Africa conservation biology; 22 are Africa-based and 12 are U.S.-based. Thus, our response rate for members currently based in Africa is approaching 50%, with more surveys still being received. A majority of respondents (20) described themselves as researchers, and many are affiliated with universities. Twenty-six respondents belong to other conservation groups, ranging from local groups (e.g., East Africa Natural History Society) to large international groups (e.g., The Nature Conservancy). Their motivation for joining SCB overwhelmingly was to subscribe to Conservation Biology and to support/participate in a professional conservation biology organization. Very few mentioned participating in the annual meetings or receiving the newsletter as motivating factors.

When asked why very few African members participate in the annual meetings, almost every respondent cited financial limitation. One respondent pointed out that in many cases one must present a paper to receive funding; this may limit attendance. At this time, there are no funds for scientists to attend meetings as observers. Several respondents also stated that the issues covered were of little relevance to their own work and/or that SCB is perceived as not African or not relevant to Africa concerns. One respondent suggested changing the format of SCB meetings from an annual global meeting to an annual regional conservation conference supplemented by global meetings every two to three years, to ensure local relevance while maintaining global partnership within the organization.

To explain the limited participation by African members in SCB, a majority again cited a perceived lack of relevance and dominance by North America. One wrote, "There is an issue of relevance, but it is not that the issues covered aren't relevant, or that we're not interested in participating - rather the problem is that the society is perceived as primarily American and almost exclusively first world and is thus perceived as inaccessible and disinterested in African ideas and issues." A majority of respondents (26) favored creating an Africa section within SCB as one way to make the organization more international and relevant to African members. Suggestions for increasing SCB's profile in Africa included distributing Conservation Biology to libraries in Africa, holding meetings in Africa and networking with African organizations, offering complimentary memberships, making a more proactive effort to reach African professionals, and putting Conservation Biology online with free subscriptions to some African countries.

Respondents lauded the usefulness of an Africa regional body for conservation biology: in particular, an Africa section of SCB, affiliated with SCB and open to anyone working on conservation issues in Africa. A web site for collaboration, annual meetings in Africa, increased focus on the social/human dimensions of conservation, and increased representation (with funding) on the editorial board and governing board were highlighted as priority actions for the Africa section.

Many respondents helped distribute the survey. We especially thank Carolyn Baker (Zoological Society of Southern Africa), Holly Dublin (World Wildlife Fund), Lisa Molloy (Wildlife Conservation Society), Scott Miller (Smithsonian Institution), and Jim Krosschell (Blackwell Science) for their assistance.

M.A. Sanjayan and A. Bornbusch

Back to CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2001 SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY ANNUAL MEETING: CALL FOR SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS