Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity - SANBI

Recommendations

Info

which translates roughly to USD 9.75/assessment. Funds were applied to employ a full-time co-ordinator and part-time assistants, cover the co-ordinator’s travel and accommodation expenses, and meet running expenses of general office administration. This investment towards efficient co-ordination and networking ensured collaboration with the right people from the start and the delivery of satisfactory products at the end. SABONET developed a distinct co-ordination model to become effective in delivering the products. It adopted a devolved structure, collaborators had a sense of ownership, there was power to change the direction of the project through assessments via the workshop processes, and people had access to training, thus making the process mutually beneficial. Furthermore, it was pivotal in ensuring that SA- BONET received international recognition for its contribution to plant conservation through the Red List project. The role of volunteers Data collection and building a network of volunteers was probably the most cost-effective exercise of the project (20 percent of allocated funds). A lot of information was already available and all management had to do was find the sources and add to it where necessary. If the project had been conducted outside the botanical community, then we might not have known how to access and build on existing information. Unlike so many donor-funded projects that have to pay for information, SABONET obtained most of the data by involving experts from the region that were willing to share their knowledge to ensure that a useful product could be made available for southern Africa. This voluntary involvement and passion for the local flora allowed for more funds to be channelled towards the training and data dissemination processes. Therefore, funds were used to cover the accommodation and travel expenses of 236 delegates from 128 institutions to attend 15 training, technical and implementation workshops. Consultation was broad-based and involved a wide spectrum of expertise (Table 2). Workshops brought together regional experts to equip them with necessary knowledge of the IUCN assessment process, to run sessions during which a category of threat was assigned to plants of the region and to reach consensus on these assessments. Field observations, ecological aspects, threats and taxonomic information were taken into consideration to make wellfounded assessments. This voluntary “…with a functional network and sound project management in place, future Red List projects in Africa should be able to assess threatened species at about USD 17/taxon.” participatory approach yielded more robust, multi-dimensional assessments than previous accounts that generally relied exclusively on herbarium specimen information and taxonomists. At USD 7.55/species for this exercise, it proved less expensive to determine what species in southern Africa could possibly become extinct, than it did to set up and manage the programme. Workshops for stakeholders Stakeholders that use Red Data list information for on-the-ground conservation constituted nearly two thirds (63 percent) of the workshop participants. They formed an integral part of the process and were actively involved in tailor-making a product for their own purposes and needs. Interestingly, 71 percent of the workshop participants were male. Approximately 60 percent of participants were African and 40 percent were resident Europeans. This is ascribed to the historical legacy that white men have traditionally been the holders of botanical knowledge in southern Africa. Considering the small amount spent on obtaining information about the status of threat of plant species of southern Africa, the costs involved in preparing and making the information available to civil society came as a revelation. USD 84,000, or 54 percent of the allocated funds, were spent on this process. The preparation Boophane disticha. (Photo: SABONET) of the publication involved the skills of consultants to edit the text, design the page layout and develop the database. Production comprised the printing of the book and burning of the compact disc. The list and database were distributed free of charge to all interested parties. The cost of making the information available to the public adds up to USD 21.55/species, which is more than twice as much as it cost to produce the information. This illustrates that a well co-ordinated data acquisition process is cheaper than disseminating it to the stakeholders, which involves the use of specialist services from outside the botanical fraternity. Red Lists are a first step Therefore, it can be safely said that with a functional network and sound project management in place, future Red List projects in Africa should be able to assess threatened species at about USD 17/taxon (excluding the dissemination of information). This is a worthwhile investment considering the amount of information made available through this process and its potential for providing baseline data for future research that could possibly save a species from extinction (Golding & Hurter 2003). However, a Red List in itself is not the answer to conservation problems and is merely the first of many steps to alleviate these (Golding & Siebert 2002). Many countries are mainstreaming Red Data List concepts into relevant policies and legislation in order to strengthen the case for decision-making concerning sustainable development and conservation. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (Bramwell et al. 2002) presents one such vehicle. The approach Down Under In recent years, the Australian Government paid USD 7.8 m towards a national endangered species programme (Source: http://www.budget.gov.au/1999-00/ministerial/ch4/ch4-THREATEN.html). This provided core resources for the conservation of nationally threatened species and endangered ecological communities, primarily through recovery and threat abatement plans. The programmes focus on threatening processes and involve civil society through community education and co-operative research. This is a process that could be followed in southern Africa and in other parts of the continent, but would require a lot of effort because socially and politically, the trade-offs that would be required are too high. 16 SABONET News Vol. 9 No. 1 September 2004
Over the past two years, SABONET has taken steps to improve and expand conservation activities on the ground. SABONET has initiated an activity to address problems regarding the cultivation of threatened species ex situ, and provided participating botanical gardens with USD 3 000 each to initiate Threatened Plants Programmes and USD 1 500 each for internships to visit centres of expertise (Siebert 2003). However, these are running expenses for an 18-month period only. It is hoped that this will trigger further funding, which raises the question: what are the resources required, such as longterm financial investment and stakeholder consultation, to conserve a threatened species by achieving sustainable conservation impact on the ground? The extent of resources required for conservation impact are difficult to estimate; hopefully successful projects in this field could provide useful guidelines. Observations about human nature ❚ The age-old adage that limited funds promote resourcefulness was proven true again. A small budget forced project management to be critical of unnecessary activities and to focus resources on high priorities. ❚ A proverb proved true, namely ‘the less time you have, the more you do’. Workshops were organised throughout the region over one year, and approximately 2,000 first assessments were completed relatively quickly. SABONET News Vol. 9 No. 1 September 2004 ❚ By forming part of a bigger network, namely SABONET, the Red List project was propelled into a situation where competent people were already known. This allowed management to select the right people for the job. ❚ It is always assumed that if you don’t pay, you won’t get the best. SABONET has shown that in southern Africa experts have no problem doing voluntary work and they are passionate about and committed to the objectives of the project. ❚ At an early stage regional and national workshops proved extremely useful in enabling people to contribute from the start. This saved much time and contributors felt that they received something from the project in exchange for their knowledge. Acknowledgements Janice Golding (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford) is acknowledged for commenting on the manuscript and Ulf Gardenfors (ArtDataBanken, Sweden) for information provided. Elsabe Malan (SABONET Regional Office, Pretoria) kindly provided the financial figures used for this article. IUCN-ROSA funded the SABONET Red Data Lists through their NETCAB Programme. GEF/UNDP provided co-funding. BRAMWELL, D., RAVEN, P. & SYNGE, H. 2002. Implementing the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Plant Talk 30: 32–36. GOLDING, J.S. 2000. Picking up the pieces: Red Data Lists in southern Africa. Bothalia 30: 213–214. Table 1 Breakdown of the cost of assessing threatened species in southern Africa Description Activities Cost (USD) 1. Project co-ordination Country visits, running expenses, salaries 40,000 2. Data collection National workshops, technical meetings 31,000 3. Information dissemination (see below) 3.1 Publication - preparation Database, graphic design, editing 10,000 3.2 Publication - production Book (3,500 copies), CD (1,000 copies) 52,000 3.3 Publication - distribution Postage, stationery, courier 22,000 Total expenses 155,000 Table 2 Expertise involved in assessing threatened species in southern Africa Grouping by discipline/profession % No Conservation research 18 43 Conservation management 14 33 Field botany (e.g. consultants, amateurs) 31 73 = Users of Red Data lists 63 149 Taxonomy (affiliated to herbaria) 27 63 Horticulture 5 12 Genetics 5 12 = Producers of Red Data lists 37 87 100 236 GOLDING, J.S. 2001a. Compiling the SABONET Red Data List. SABONET News 6: 162–168. GOLDING, J.S. 2001b. Southern African herbaria and Red Data Lists. Taxon 50: 12–21. GOLDING, J.S. 2002. Southern African Plant Red Data Lists. Report Series 14. SABONET, Pretoria. GOLDING, J.S. & HURTER, P.J.H. 2003. A Red List account of Africa’s cycads and implications of considering lifehistory and threats. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 507–528. GOLDING, J.S. & SIEBERT, S.J. 2002. Threatened plants of southern Africa. Plant Talk 30: 40–41. GOLDING, J.S. & SMITH, P.P. 2001. A 13- point flora strategy to meet conservation challenges. Taxon 50: 1–4. GOLDING, J.S. & TIMBERLAKE, J. 2003. How taxonomists can bridge the gap between taxonomy and conservation science. Conservation Biology 17: 1177–1178. GROOMBRIDGE, B. & JENKINS, M.D. 2002. World atlas of biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the 21 st century. University of California Press, Berkeley. HUNTLEY, B.J. (ed) 1998. Inventory, evaluation and monitoring of botanical diversity in southern Africa: a regional capacity and institution building network (SABONET). Report Series 4. SABONET, Pretoria. IZIDINE, S.A., NHANTUMBO, I. & GOLDING, J.S. 2004. Integration of Red Data List concepts into the policy framework in Mozambique. Report Series 23. SABONET, Pretoria. PITMAN, N.C.A. & JORGENSON, P.M. 2002. Estimating the size of the world’s threatened flora. Science 298: 989. SIEBERT, S.J. 2003. Progress report: enduser workshops, threatened plants programme and internships. SABONET News 8: 26–30. SIEBERT, S.J. & MÖSSMER, M. (eds.) 2003. Letters to the editor. SABONET News 8(1). SABONET, Pretoria. SIEBERT, S.J. & SMITH, G.F. 2004. Lessons learned from the SABONET Project while building capacity to document the botanical diversity of southern Africa. Taxon 53: 119–126. SMITH, G.F., STEENKAMP, Y., KLOPPER, R.R., SIEBERT, S.J. & ARNOLD, T.H. 2003. The price of collecting life: overcoming the challenges involved in computerising herbarium specimens. Nature 422: 375–376. —Stefan J. Siebert Department of Botany University of Zululand Private Bag X1001, KwaDlangezwa 3886 E-mail: ssiebert@pan.uzulu.ac.za 17
Page 1 and 2: Newsletter of the Southern African
Page 3 and 4: letter from the editors EDITORS: YO
Page 5 and 6: Establishing National Botanical Gar
Page 7 and 8: Source of land Drakensberg and East
Page 9 and 10: years’ experience of the National
Page 11 and 12: Table 1. Summary statistics of Sout
Page 13 and 14: Karoo Gardens. Veld & Flora 77(3):
Page 15: The impact of years of post-colonia
Page 19 and 20: B. kirkii C.B.Clarke = B. contexta
Page 21 and 22: C. indecorus Kunth var. namaquensis
Page 23 and 24: (= Scirpus setaceus L.) (= Scirpus
Page 25 and 26: R. corymbosa (L.) Britton var. cory
Page 27 and 28: Olukonda, Rautanen 2. Pycreus P.Bea
Page 29: Plant taxonomy in the 21 st Century

Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity - SANBI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?