|
|||||||||
| You are here: Home > Publications > Newsletter > Archives > 2005-2-February > | |||||||||
Regional Section & Working Group Updates
AFRICAAfrica & Austral and Neotropical America Sections Transcend Regional Territoriality At SCB's 2004 annual meeting, two southern-hemisphere Sections entered into serious, ongoing discussions to promote the international dimension of the SCB mission. Thanks to the efforts of Delali Dovie (Africa) and Javier Simonetti (ANA), one outcome of these communications will be a joint symposium at the 2005 annual meeting--Enabling, Mainstreaming and Implementation: Putting Conservation Plans to Work in the Southern Hemisphere. The symposium is organized by Africa Section members Richard Cowling (rmc@kingsley.co.za), Andrew Knight (andrew.knight@upe.ac.za), and Delali Dovie (delali@biology.wits.ac.za) and ANA Section members Javier Simonetti (jsimonet@abello.dic.uchile.cl) and Arturo Sanchez (arturo.sanchez@alberta.ca). Expectations are high and we invite you to this groundbreaking symposium. 2005 Regional Meeting The Board of Directors of the Africa Section mandated the organization of a regional meeting in 2005. Our Section acknowledges the significant impact of policy on conservation issues in Africa and hence we are attempting to accommodate policy makers in a science-policy environment. The Section has invited the regional sustainable development initiative body, New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), to partner with us for the meeting. NEPAD recently recognized biological conservation issues in its environment initiative document and is currently considering our Concept Proposal for the meeting. The working theme of our regional meeting, expected to be held in South Africa, is The Challenges of the Future--Identifying Gaps in Conservation and Training for Africans. Please direct all inquiries, including questions about sponsorship, to Delali Dovie and Ronald Abrams (ronwoolf@ix.netcom.com). Section Newsletter Succeeds African Conservation Telegraph (ACT), now publishing the third issue of its first volume, already has made a remarkable difference in the lives of biologically-minded conservationists on the continent and around the globe. ACT captures the realities and challenges of biological conservation on the continent with straightforward articles that emphasize and encourage the potential of our practitioners. Although the length of ACT initially was set at eight pages, the editorial board increased the number of pages in the second issue to 14. ACT rapidly has become a fixture in policy-dominated as well as biological sectors across the continent. Thanks to our contributors, without whom we would not have success stories to tell. Visit the What's New / Newsletter section of our Web site to read or contribute to the newsletter. Contributions are accepted at any time by ACT's editor, Erika Barthelmess, barthelmess@stlawu.edu. Program for Young, Female Conservation Biologists This Section initiative needs your help. We are seeking two to four individuals to participate actively in our steering committee. Program aims include
Web Resources are Growing The Africa Section's Web site, www.conbio.org/africa, offers more resources thanks to the work of Delali Dovie, Alison Ormsby, and the SCB Executive Office. Some sections of the site still are under construction; please send suggestions or information to Delali Dovie or Alison Ormsby (orsbyaa@eckerd.edu). Efforts are underway to develop a Web-based clearinghouse for information about institutions conducting or offering grants for conservation biology research in Africa. The Useful Links page has been updated to include Institutions and Education (a list of universities in Africa), Funding (grant opportunities for conservation biology research), and Research (a list of ongoing conservation research efforts in Africa). Special Issue of Biological Conservation An editorial committee within the Africa Section, led by Nobby Cordeiro, is compiling a series of multiple-author manuscripts based on presentations from the Africa Section symposium at the 2004 annual meeting, Conservation in Areas of High Human Density in Africa. The manuscripts will be submitted to Biological Conservation for publication in a special issue. The papers focus on conservation issues in the Albertine Rift, the Eastern Arc mountains, and the Cameroon Highlands. Thanks to Delali Dovie and Alison Ormsby for their contributions to this update, and to Phoebe Barnard for stepping forward to help establish our Young African Women Conservation Biologist Program. We encourage you to join a standing committee--we have a lot of work to do. Contact Beth Kaplin (bkaplin@antiochne.edu) to find out more about committees and their activities. Beth Kaplin
ASIAAsia Section activities have been overshadowed by the earthquake and tsunami disaster of 26 December 2004. Although assessment of the human and environmental toll is preliminary, a good summary of the marine and coastal damage is available from IUCN at www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/TsunamiMarine.pdf. In many cases, IUCN hotlinks to affected national members (e.g., India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand) provide detailed local summaries and updates. In addition to these reports, we have been receiving local observations and discussions from both SCB members and online conservation groups in the area. The online group for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/andamanicobar/, has been extremely active. After the tsunami, this conservation group moved immediately into reporting and relief efforts in regions where access is difficult. Conservation organizations have mobilized to help. For example, the island-based staff of Reefwatch India (www.reefwatchindia.org) has mobilized both to collect relief funds and to dispense aid using their staff and boats. It seems that conservationists may be pre-adapted to help with some aspects of disaster relief because of familiarity with the region and--dare we say it?--some skill in coping with emergencies, improvising solutions, creative thinking, and impatience with bureaucracy. We honor all the conservation groups and individual conservationists who volunteered and mobilized so quickly to help relieve human suffering. The immediate focus, of course, is on helping people, but the environmental impact is also tremendous and still is being evaluated. Some islands no longer exist. Needless to say biodiversity is affected, and conservationists already are considering assessment and scheduling reports. For example, I reveived an e-mail from the Centre for Environment Education (India), which is organizing a workshop, Education for Ocean Conservation, as part of the International Conference on Education for a Sustainable Future from 18-20 January in Ahmedabad, India. They plan to convene a special session to assess the impact of the tsunami. Details of the conference and workshop are available at www.ceeindia.org. I am sure there will be many more meetings and reports on this subject. We almost certainly will have a special session on the disaster at our first Section meeting, which wil be held in Nepal in November 2005. Asia Section board member Eric Wikramanayake wrote from Sri Lanka, "As far as I know there really hasn't been a good assessment done in Yala. People are still trying to get a grip on the extent of damage outside--to the people, and to the people who were inside the park at that time (there had been quite a few because it was a holiday). Many people would have got washed away to sea. My guess is that some wildlife would have got washed away as well. Also the wave has left a swathe of destruction about 200-300 meters along the coast. So a lot of wildlife would have been inland from here anyway. But later as we try to put the pieces together." On the positive side (yes, there is one), the protective influence of mangroves was noted. Where mangrove swamps exist, the impact of the tsunami was reduced. Bombay Environmental Action Group is researching this effect and requests information from observers. They write, "Please do give us all relevant details both about the geographical areas/locations that you are referring to--e.g. place name, taluka, district, and also please do give us some information about yourself as well." They can be reached via Debi Goenka, debi@beag.net. These are just a few gleanings from what promises to be a flood of information, meetings, and projects. It is a grim situation, but I was a little amused that at least some of our conservationists started making and posting observations almost as soon as they pulled themselves out of the water. We are a hardy bunch, and this disaster proves it. Section Elections The Asia Section held an election between 15 November and 15 December 2004 for a third of the positions on the Board of Directors. Tom McCarthy, Eric Wikramanayake (fortunately still with us), and I were re-elected for a second term. Ahmed Khan was elected as well, replacing Cara Lin Bridgman. We are grateful for Cara Lin's service during the last three years and hope she will continue to be active in the Section. On 1 January 2005, Pralad Yonzon of Nepal replaced Hito Higuchi of Japan as President of the Section. Hito will be remain active as an advisor. I will continue to serve as communications officer. Linda Olsvig-Whittaker
AUSTRALASIA2004 was the second year in which we presented prizes for the best student talks and posters with a conservation theme at the Ecology Society of Australia conference. The judging panel was impressed with the high standard of student presentations. This year we were faced with a dilemma when the judges could not choose between two superb talks, so we awarded two prizes for the best student talk and one poster prize. Joint Prize: Best Conservation Talk by a Student Optimal monitoring strategies for listing threatened species Liana N. Joseph(1), Chris Wilcox(1), Scott Field(1,2) and Hugh P. Possingham(1)
Threatened species lists, such as the IUCN Red List, play a key role in providing legislative protection and determining funding allocation for vulnerable species. Information from monitoring is crucial for compiling and maintaining data on these lists. Despite this, there has been little research into the most appropriate methods for monitoring to adequately detect population changes. Many monitoring strategies, for example, may not sufficiently detect such population declines. Other, more resource intensive, methods may provide greater detail and estimate rates of decline more accurately. However, given limited budgets for conservation, the type and frequency of data collected is often compromised and it is unclear which monitoring regimes are most effective. We use a patch population model and a simulated survey process to investigate the optimal monitoring technique for a locally restricted and low density bird species, the Chestnut-rumped Hylacola (Mt Lofty Ranges; Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri). We compare the success of two commonly used monitoring techniques at correctly categorizing the species given financial constraints. The methods we compared are the 20-minute / 2-ha abundance and the presence/absence survey methods over a range of available budgets (5-200 person-days / year). We demonstrate that presence/absence surveys can be very useful when budgets are small. We know that because managers often have limited budgets, the presence / absence surveys may frequently be the most appropriate method. We use these results to give guidelines for optimal monitoring relevant for detecting change for listing on the IUCN Red List. The application of network theory to the conservation of habitat trees Monika Rhodes(1), Grant Wardell-Johnson(2) and Martin Rhodes(3)
More than 300 species of native Australian vertebrates use hollows in eucalypts for shelter, including at least 43 insectivorous bat species, which use them as maternity, bachelor, migrating, mating or hibernation sites. Hollow formation in eucalypts is a long process that may take place over several hundred years, making habitat trees a valuable resource for hollow-dependent species. However, decisions may have to be made concerning the protection or removal of habitat trees, particularly where they occur in State Forests or urban parks. Unfortunately, limited understanding of the structure of networks of habitat trees prevents informed judgment concerning the importance of individual trees. We applied current network theory to the patterns of day-roost usage of a population of the White-striped Freetail Bat, Tadarida australis (Microchiroptera: Molossidae) in suburban Brisbane. The roost network topology resembled a scale-free network where one roost (the hub) had the majority of connections. This roost network also enabled small-world properties such as high connectivity, short path lengths between roosts and tolerance against stochastic events, such as roost removals. Understanding the network type allows conservation practices to move from descriptive ecology to predictive understanding of complex ecological networks. Ecologists can model the effects of stochastic events or systematic attacks, and apply the appropriate protection for each system. Efficient allocation of resources to conservation planning and management would emphasise the differential importance of roost sites; analogous to protecting vital communication and service centers in human societies. Prize for the Best Conservation Poster by a Student Changes in plant and invertebrate communities as a response to weed biological control Peter Turner
Bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) is a major environmental weed from southern Africa and is now widespread throughout southern Australia. A biological control program for this weed has seen the release in Australia of three biological control agents. It appears these agents will go a long way in controlling this weed, but even with this success of weed control will landscape health be restored following weed control? This is an important question given that the goal of environmental weed control must be to control weed damage not just the weed. Environmental weeds can alter biodiversity, but removal of these weeds in isolation can also result in unexpected changes, with weed management practices themselves altering biodiversity. In March 2004, a PhD project commenced investigating this situation by first quantifying the impacts of bridal creeper. Once impacts have been quantified and the weed is brought under control, monitoring will continue to evaluate the success of this weed control program and to ascertain if further restoration work will be necessary. In addition to monitoring plant communities before and after weed control, invertebrates will be used as ecological indicators of ecosystem health. Invertebrates make good indicators as they interact with other parts of the ecosystem and have short generation times, allowing them to respond rapidly to environmental changes. Results from initial vegetation sampling have shown that bridal creeper is reducing native plant biodiversity. Areas invaded by bridal creeper have higher phosphorus levels and higher soil moisture content when compared to nearby areas free of weed invasion. These results may have important consequences for the restoration of plant communities in these invaded areas. Many studies in Australia have reported a positive association between phosphorus and exotic weeds. If other exotic species are favoured and establish quicker than native species, removing bridal creeper may lead to one weed being replaced by another. Tish Silberbauer
EUROPESection Elections In November 2004 the Europe Section held its annual elections. Four positions on the Board of Directors were open and these were filled by a mix of second-term reappointments and new members; the Board is now truly pan-European with members spread from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic coast to the Bosporus. András Báldi (Hungary) and Renato Massa (Italy) were re-elected, and Cagan Sekercioglu (Turkey / USA) and Pierre Ibisch (Germany) joined the Board. Pierre Ibisch is a professor of Nature Conservation at the University of Applied Sciences, Eberswalde in northeastern Germany. He has extensive experience in tropical forest conservation in South America and is currently involved in reforming an existing Bachelor's degree in International Forest Ecosystem Management and establishing a new Master's course on global change management. As an applied conservation scientist Pierre is particularly interested in the interface between scientific knowledge and policy. Cagan Sekercioglu is a Turkish ecologist, conservation biologist, and ornithologist who is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University. His research focuses on the causes, consequences, and prevention of bird extinctions and he is currently involved in establishing a biodiversity learning center in Kars, Turkey, a biologically diverse but little-known area where the Caucasus hotspot and the Central Asian steppes meet. Prior to his election to the Board, Cagan had been working with András Báldi and the Europe Section Membership Committee as our national contact for Turkey. They have successfully enabled some Turkish NGOs and universities to receive Conservation Biology and as a Board member he will continue in this role. The Board of Directors would like to thank Francois Sarrazin and Fritz Mohren, who stepped down at the end of their term of office in December 2004, for all their work on behalf of the Section. We look forward to continuing to work with them to further the efforts of SCB in Europe. We would also like to thank all those who stood for, and voted in, this year's election. European Congress on Conservation Biology Since the last Section report the Meeting and Policy committees have been hard at work. Eger, Hungary has been chosen to host the First European Congress on Conservation Biology (ECCB) from 23-27 August 2006. We are determined to promote the development and use of science for the conservation of European species and ecosystems, and to make sure that conservation policy is firmly underpinned by the best available scientific evidence. For this reason, and because of the multi-disciplinary nature of conservation biology, we aim to attract a wide array of academics, students, policy makers, stakeholders, natural resource managers, and media and NGO representatives from all over Europe to attend the ECCB. To achieve this multi-disciplinary representation, it is vital that we circulate information widely, not only in the academic channels but also to policy makers, independent scientists, and biodiversity managers. We are asking the Section membership to take an active role in publicizing the ECCB. Please inform your colleges and contacts and direct them to the ECCB Web site, www.eccb2006.org, for up-to-date information. Although August 2006 may seem far away, we are all aware of the lead time required to prepare papers and secure funding. A timetable for the submission of symposium proposals and abstracts will be posted on the ECCB Web site after the Europe Section Board meeting at the end of January 2005. Policy The Section's Policy Committee recently circulated a resolution advocating an expanded role for scientists in reviewing the efficacy of the European Union (EU) nature conservation directives, CAP, and CFP Biodiversity Resolution to members of the European Parliament, the EU Commission, national governments, and selected NGOs. In this resolution we highlight the imminent need for the EU Commission to initiate an expanded review of the evidence on which independent conservation biologists critically examine and assess the effects of the CAP, the EU nature conservation directives, and the CFP in halting biodiversity loss. In addition to this review, the advisory role and direct involvement of conservation scientists in the planning, accomplishment, and evaluation of the practical work should be greatly expand. Only through such a process may the target set in declarations issued at the EU summit in Gothenburg in 2001 and the Rio+10 summit in Johannesburg 2002 of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 be reached. Once again the Board wishes to encourage the participation of Section members in the activities of the Europe Section. To contact the Board with any questions or comments write to europe@conservationbiology.org. Owen Nevin
MARINESection Elections The Marine Section is pleased to introduce our two new board members, John Cigliano and Ellen Hines, and would like to thank retiring board members Carolyn Lundquist and Elise Granek for their dedicated service to the Marine Section over the past three years. John Cigliano is Assistant Professor of Biology at Cedar Crest College (Pennsylvania, USA), where he is Director of the Biodiversity and Conservation Biology program. His research interests include conservation ecology of queen conch (Strombus gigas) and marine reserve design. His main study sites are in the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands. He also has a strong interest in conservation education and works with several organizations that deliver educational curricula to K-12 teachers and students, conservation practitioners, and the general public. Ellen Hines is Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Human Environmental Studies at San Francisco State University. Most of her research encompasses issues surrounding coastal marine mammals and integrated coastal management in developing countries. She has been working in southeast Asia for the past six years with a focus on the dugong and Irrawaddy dolphin along the Andaman Sea and eastern Gulf Coast. For the past three years, she and her students also have been mapping resources in Turneffe Atoll, Belize. Ellen is active in the Society for Marine Mammalogy, Oceanic Society, Mangrove Action Project, and Sirenian International. At the first conference call meeting of the new Board in December 2004, the six members were appointed to the following officer positions: President, Elliott Norse; President Elect, Glenn VanBlaricom; Policy, Rob Wilder; Science and Education, John Cigliano; Membership, Norm Sloan; and International, Ellen Hines. At their second annual retreat, to be held in March or April 2005 in Seattle, Washington, USA, the Board will to continue to work on planning for SCB's 2006 annual meeting, into which the Third International Symposium on Marine Conservation Biology will be integrated. 2004 Section Board Meeting The Marine Section's Board of Directors held its first official board retreat in Woodside, California, USA from 15-16 November 2004. We discussed strategic planning for the next few years, particularly focusing on involvement in SCB annual meetings. If you are interested in assisting with the 2006 meeting, please contact marine@conbio.org and we will let you know as information becomes available. Short Course at 2005 Annual Meeting A short course in marine ecology and conservation will be held in Brasília just before SCB's 2005 annual meeting. The course will be taught by Section members Carolyn Lundquist (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand) and John Cigliano and by Conrad Pilditch (University of Waikato, New Zealand). Turnout is expected to be high, and we hope this and other short courses will introduce course material that otherwise may not be available to students and conservation practitioners. Journal Subscriptions In 2005, we will continue to use support from The Christensen Fund [see SCB Newsletter 11(1)] to subsidize SCB memberships and subscription costs for SCB journals (Conservation Biology and Conservation In Practice) for marine conservationists who reside outside of North America. We have performed an initial application process for the funds with applications due 31 January 2005. We look forward to awarding memberships and subscriptions to as many marine conservationists as possible. Marine Conservation News: United States Update After several years of intensive study by a U.S. National Ocean Commission, along with a parallel Pew Commission, a large number of recommendations have been made to the White House for surprisingly wide-ranging changes to U.S. marine policy. The proposed changes also have consequences for global and international action for the seas. Both Commissions recognized that current ocean governance is not effective. The goods and ecological functions that oceans provide traditionally have been taken for granted in an unsustainable manner. Which recommendations will be accepted and implemented by the White House and Congress? The Commission recommended that billions of future dollars from offshore oil and gas revenues be diverted from the U.S. Treasury to fund a broad range of new ocean and coastal-oriented programs. Acceptance of this recommendation may seem unlikely in an era of deficit spending and market-oriented approaches towards marine resources. However, although the National Ocean Commission was dominated by politically influential representatives of extractive industries, their position had a strong conservationist tone and was robust in its calls for action. The White House's Council on Environmental Quality only recently was provided with the Commission's report; to date, it has made minor statements embracing select recommendations with little net effect. Adoption of significant changes, which would result in actual application of ecosystems management and a science-based approach to marine policy, requires considerable political will and funding. Although proponents of the status quo are formidable, the Commission's recommendations are widely recognized as the first comprehensive review of marine policy in decades. The next two years will be highly telling as to how the Executive and Legislative branches prioritize conservation of biodiversity, ecosystems management, and science-based decision-making. The Marine Section's Web site (www.conbio.org/marine) includes links to science and policy updates created by other organizations that have given us permission to use their material. The Web site also includes links to marine job announcements, funding, section activities, listserv information, and other marine conservation areas of interest. Carolyn Lundquist, John Cigliano, Rob Wilder, and Ellen Hines
NORTH AMERICAOpportunities to Comment on Neon Planning for the U.S. National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, is on a fast track. A distinguished body of scientists, engineers, and educators has been selected to serve on the committees that will shape the blueprint for NEON's implementation. Members of the biological community will have a number of opportunities to review and comment on draft materials as the NEON Design Consortium produces documents early in 2005. In September 2004, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) finalized a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation to develop a detailed NEON planning document by June 2006. The NEON Design Consortium, which has more than 150 committee and subcommittee members, formally begins its work with meetings in January, March, and June 2005. The committee reports will identify continental-scale science questions that NEON will address, sensor technologies and cyberinfrastructure that will be required, and how to realize NEON's potential for educating new generations of scientists. The eight subcommittees of the Science and Human Dimensions Committee will focus on invasive species, land use, biodiversity, biogeochemical cycles, climate change, infectious disease, hydrology, and emerging issues. Additional subcommittees will develop NEON's approaches to research infrastructure, information technology and communication, and sensors and sensor networks. Education subcommittees will address NEON opportunities for education in grades K-12, at graduate and postdoctoral levels, and informal education. The latest news about NEON, including a full roster of NEON's Design Consortium members, is available at www.neoninc.org. Draft documents will be posted online for peer review shortly after each of the three meetings scheduled in 2005: 4-6 January, 15-17 March, and 7-9 June. Dan Johnson
Focus on Economic Growth and Ecological Economics The focus of the North America Section report this quarter is economic growth and ecological economics. With human population and consumption levels as high as they already are in North America, it is difficult to conceive how biodiversity conservation may succeed in the face of ongoing increases in population and per capita consumption. Yet, economic growth (increasing population times per capita consumption, typically gauged by gross domestic product) is the overriding goal in the domestic policy arenas of North America, as well as in much of the rest of the world. Many economists and politicians with little training in ecology argue that there is no conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. The reasons for making that argument seem more political than technical, as described in numerous articles and books on political economy. The reasons are also self-evident: economic policies designed to maximize growth rates are highly beneficial to corporations and other business interests, which wield tremendous influence over political campaigns in North America. On 16 August 2004 the North America Section adopted a position, "The Steady State Economy as a Sustainable Alternative to Economic Growth." The position describes a fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. The position has the potential to help the public and policy makers to incorporate ecological thinking into their views about economic growth as it affects biodiversity conservation. A draft North America Section position was originally proposed at the 2003 annual meeting in Duluth, where it was discussed by members in the open meeting. David Wilcove, then President of the North America Section, suggested a one-year period in which to circulate the draft among Board members and general members of the North America Section. The draft was circulated and resurfaced at the 2004 annual meeting. The Board of Directors fell one person short of a quorum, but expressed enthusiasm for a position statement that focused on its support for a steady state economy in North America as a viable and preferred alternative to economic growth. Subsequently, following some minor revisions, the position was passed by a 6-0 electronic vote of the Board of Directors, with some members abstaining. The North America Section's position on economic growth is similar to a position adopted in 2003 by the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics. A month after the North America Section adopted its position, The Wildlife Society adopted a similar position on economic growth. The American Fisheries Society is currently considering a position, and a similar effort has just begun in the Ecological Society of America. The North America Section feels that, if the ecological professions are to have any hope of influencing macroeconomic policies that affect the rate of economic growth, they will need to be united by similar positions explicating the conflict between economic growth and the various aspects of ecological integrity, including biodiversity conservation. Of course, ecological economics addresses more than the issue of economic growth. The three broadest categories of subject matter in ecological economics include "scale" (the size of the economy relative to the ecosystem, or the economic growth issue), distribution of wealth (the equity issue), and the allocation of resources (the efficiency issue). At the 2004 annual meeting, the North America Section Board members determined to encourage collaboration among conservation biologists and ecological economists, and much has been done along those lines already. Most notably, the North America Section has helped to develop a symposium for the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics 2005 conference in Tacoma, Washington (20-23 July): Conservation Biology and Ecological Economics: Scale, Allocation, and Distribution. An approximately equal amount of symposium time has been allocated to conservation biology and ecological economics, and all talks will have a prominent nexus between these two sustainability-oriented disciplines. We encourage conservation biologists to attend the conference. More details will become available at the conference Web site as the conference draws near: www.ussee.org/conference. Brian Czech and Steve Trombulak
FRESHWATER WORKING GROUPThe Freshwater Working Group has launched its electronic newsletter. Excerpts (with minor modifications for a broader audience) are printed below. The complete newsletter should be available soon at the group's Web site, www.conbio.org/freshwater. Information on registering to receive future issues via the group's listserv also is available at the Web site. Our active Symposia and Workshops Committee is happy to report that freshwater conservation will be well-represented at SCB's 2005 annual meeting. Six of the 24 symposia that will be presented at the meeting (including two that were organized by Freshwater Working Group members) have primarily freshwater themes. Among the topics addressed by these symposia will be the effects of frontier expansion on the ecology and biodiversity of the Amazon River, conservation of Amazonian varzea (whitewater floodplain) systems, and case studies in freshwater conservation from five of SCB's Regional Sections. There also will be freshwater presentations in other symposia and in contributed paper and poster sessions. Miguel Marini, chair of the 2005 local organizing committee and of the Symposia and Workshops Committee, said, "Freshwater and capacity building will be the two major topics of the meeting. My feeling is that the meeting will be a must for the freshwater people." We hope many of you will attend and add your expertise to this important freshwater conservation event. The Social Committee has been in contact with SCB's Executive Office and is working to secure funds to host a social in Brasília. Look for updates on the listserv and Web site. The Freshwater Working Group's Student Affairs Committee has developed a multi-part mission and goals for 2005. The mission is to increase student involvement in the Freshwater Working Group and the issues it represents, to help coordinate communication between students and professionals / academics in the field, and to provide a forum through which students can address particular questions or needs. The goals for this year are to create a list of student members and then advertise the working group among them to increase membership, launch a student-only listserv, host an event at the 2005 annual meeting to faciliate networking between students and professionals / academics, and create a list of potential funding sources that might enable students to travel to Brasília. The Extra-SCB Outreach Committee is exploring the possibility of hosting a joint North American Benthological Society (NABS) / SCB activity at the 2005 NABS meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. If you are interested in becoming involved in any of these committees, please see the Freshwater Working Group newsletter for contact information or write directly to Robin Abell, robin.abell@wwfus.org. Please also contact Robin if you have ideas for topics to discuss at the third annual Freshwater Working Group meeting during SCB's 2005 meeting. Robin Abell
SOCIAL SCIENCES WORKING GROUP2004 Workshop The Social Science Working Group (SSWG) sponsored the workshop Challenges and Opportunities for Social Science in Conservation Action at SCB's 2004 annual meeting. Mike Mascia (WWF, michael.mascia@duke.edu) opened the workshop by describing the genesis and goals of the SSWG to some 80 workshop participants. Helen Fox (WWF, Helen.fox@wwfus.org) then presented the results of a Web-based survey that she and her colleagues conducted regarding the role of the social sciences in biodiversity conservation. Building on recommendations from Helen's presentation and from the 2003 social science workshop, workshop participants met in four breakout groups to brainstorm about steps the SSWG might take to strengthen the contribution of the social sciences to biodiversity conservation. Participants identified 64 activities as possibilities, selected 23 to develop further, and submitted work plans for 11 of those 23 action items. The complete list of the proposed action items is posted on the SSWG Web site, www.conservationbiology.org/sswg. If you would like to assist with any of these activities, please contact the lead person listed on the SSWG Web site or e-mail the interim Board of Directors at SSWGBD@conbio.org. 2004 Business Meeting Immediately following the SSWG workshop, the SSWG held its first business meeting. The meeting focused on selection of an interim Board, selection of committee chairs, and discussion of a proposed amendment to the SSWG bylaws. Eleven individuals were selected to serve as an interim Board that will manage SSWG activities until a SSWG Board is elected later this year. Biographical information is posted on the SSWG Web site.
Selection of committee chairs. The SSWG bylaws identify nine topical committees to help govern our affairs. During the course of the business meeting, individuals were identified to chair several of these committees. If you are interested in contributing to one of these committees, please contact the interim Board.
Proposed bylaws amendment. A proposal was made to amend the SSWG bylaws to expand the SSWG Board from nine to 11 members by adding two at-large positions, one of which would be reserved for a student. Following the business meeting, the SSWG membership overwhelmingly approved the amendment. Of the 65 votes cast on SCB's Web site, 63 (97%) were in favor of the proposed amendment. The amended SSWG bylaws call for a Board with seven dedicated seats and four at-large seats. Call for Nominations The SSWG seeks nominations for Board members. The Board governs the affairs of the SSWG, such as organizing SCB symposia and workshops, sponsoring student awards, and developing social science tools for conservation practitioners. Future activities will build on ideas generated at the 2004 SSWG workshop (see above), as well as the results of upcoming SSWG workshops and the interests of SSWG members. We seek nominees for ten open positions: six to represent each of six social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, geography, political science, psychology, and sociology) and four at-large positions, one of which is reserved for a student. Self-nominations are welcome; no nominations should be submitted without the permission of the nominee. To prevent complete Board turnover in 2007, elected Board members will initially serve either a one-year or two-year term. Beginning in 2006, all Board members will be elected to two-year terms. For the duration of their term, Board members will be expected to serve in at least one SSWG leadership position (e.g., an officer of the Board or chair of a committee). In their final year of office, Board members may stand for reelection. Please send your nominations to Katrina Brandon by 1 March 2005. Nominations should include a curriculum vitae and a one-paragraph statement of interest (250 words maximum). Nominations also should indicate the Board positions(s) for which the individual is nominated (e.g., anthropology, at large student). We particularly encourage nominations of graduate students and of individuals from outside the United States. Elections will be held via the SCB Web site in a few months. Student Award Competition Applications are invited for awards of a one-year SCB membership. The SSWG, with support from The Christensen Fund, offers this competitive award to undergraduate and graduate students in developing countries who have interests in both conservation and the social sciences. Fifteen students will receive a one-year SCB membership and subscriptions to Conservation Biology and Conservation In Practice. Award guidelines and application forms are available at www.conservationbiology.org/sswg. If you have questions regarding the application process, please contact Kimberley Marchant. Completed application forms must be received by 15 February 2005 at 5:00 P.M. U.S. Eastern Standard Time (Coordinated Universal Time -4 hours). 2005 Annual Meeting The SSWG will sponsoring two or three sessions at SCB's 2005 annual meeting. Interim Board member Nejem Raheem and colleague James Tolisano (jtolisano@pronatura-usa.org) are organizing the symposium The Use of Environmental Valuation for Conservation in the Developing World. This symposium will illustrate the potential for environmental economics to advance biodiversity conservation in developing countries. Using examples from throughout the developing world, presenters from both the northern and southern hemispheres will illustrate the contributions that applied environmental economics can make to more effective biodiversity conservation in developing country contexts. Adrian Treves (Wildlife Conservation Society, atreves@wcs.org) and Mike Mascia are organizing the workshop Social Science Tools for Conservation Practitioners: Current Opportunities and Future Directions. This workshop is designed to (1) introduce participants to a suite of social science tools currently available to assist conservation practitioners and (2) identify the social science tools that practitioners need (e.g., needs assessment). Following brief opening presentations, the workshop will emphasize small group brainstorming and interactive dialogue. At the time of writing, a second SSWG symposium was under consideration by the 2005 program committee. This symposium, Conservation and the Social Sciences: Lessons from the Field, would feature case study presentations that highlight the successful application of social science tools and approaches to conservation problems. These success stories from across the social sciences and around the world would serve as models for conservation scientists and practitioners. Mike Mascia
|
|
||
|
|
||
Copyright © 2010 Society for Conservation Biology (SCB)
Direct questions, comments, and technical problems to the webmaster SCB is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization |