Email: potts@biology.ucsc.edu
General Impressions:
My overall impressions were extremely positive at the time, and,
since leaving São Paulo, my feeling that a São Paulo
program has a very good chance of being established successfully
has both persisted and been strengthened. I was particularly impressed
by the participants' serious commitment to the concepts of biodiversity
and to the importance of documenting biodiversity as a step towards
management and conservation. I was also impressed by their willingness
to work together for long hours, despite varied backgrounds, to
identify common goals and approaches. While there were certainly
differences of opinion about what should be done, and about how
it should be done, there seemed to be remarkable agreement about
the major purposes. The tone of the workshop was extremely positive
- I have a strong sense that São Paulo has a strong core
of people willing to make the personal efforts necessary to establish
a biodiversity program. And there was a healthy awareness that
idealism must be tempered by practicality and a realistic assessment
of what can be achieved with limited resources.
Comparisons:
The discussions seemed similar to those I've heard recently in
other parts of the world. Despite all the talk in recent years,
few well established biodiversity inventory programs exist anywhere
in the world. The exceptions are in parts of western Europe and
North America, and in a few homogeneous societies like Australia,
in programs that seemed well represented at the workshop. I suspect
that the stage of development of the São Paulo program
is as advanced as those in much of the rest of the world, and
that if its goals remain focussed and manageable, it could develop
rapidly into a model that might be copied elsewhere.
Much of my experience has been in California where, despite several
decades of environmental concern, establishment of local, state
and regional biodiversity programs is getting off to a slow start.
Many overlapping, and often contradictory activities are trying
to deal with pieces of California's diversity (particular habitats,
taxa, jurisdictions, institutions etc), but there has been little
coordination. A statewide coordinating body was created only
2 or 3 years ago (the California Biodiversity Council) but it
has yet to provide recognizable leadership. Partly this reflects
lack of political desire and unwillingness to provide resources,
but it also reflects widespread confusion about how to bring political,
scientific, private sector and public interests together. I do
not foresee effective statewide agreement on biodiversity programs
developing in California in the near future. São Paulo
may be much more successful because the initiative seems to be
coming from scientists, rather than from a democratically appointed
body intended to be representative of the whole society.
There are many physical, climatic, biogeographic, economic, demographic,
social and other similarities between California and São
Paulo that may influence development of statewide and broader
biodiversity programs. But one advantage for São Paulo
is less involvement with the development of computer and information
technologies. I believe California committed itself (as a society)
much too quickly to large centralized, mainframe computer systems
and centralized databases, and now has so much invested there
that it is having severe difficulties recognizing and changing
to the flexibility of the loosely connected PC systems that were
discussed extensively at the workshop. By initiating your program
with current technology, São Paulo may actually achieve
integration much sooner.
I've been primarily concerned with marine programs in California,
but also globally in the context of coral reefs. The emphasis
in São Paulo on terrestrial biodiversity, with a tendency
to consider marine biodiversity as an afterthought is common elsewhere,
and is consistent with the relative knowledge of marine and terrestrial
systems and the numbers of people working in each system. Your
inclusion of substantial numbers of marine scientists in the workshop,
and the clear desire to establish common bases for documenting
all forms of biodiversity seemed to be an especially healthy component
of your workshop, I strongly encourage you to stress the similarities
uniting all taxa and habitats; I suspect the differences between
marine and terrestrial biodiversity are largely ones of habit
and convenience based on different levels of knowledge, rather
than fundamental differences between them.
While my presentations to the Workshop tended to emphasize differences
between marine and terrestrial systems (e.g. differences in higher
taxon diversity; current state of knowledge; access and technological
requirements; costs etc), these differences should not be exaggerated.
I see no major obstacles to combining products of marine and terrestrial
programs under common standards and protocols. The linearity of
coastal records is similar to the linearity of streams and riverine
vegetation, and should not create special recording or mapping
problems - other than selection of appropriate scales for expressing
the data. The concentration of marine records at a handful of
sites along the São Paulo coast indicates major gaps in
present knowledge, but should not impede collation or distribution
of these data, and may well help to justify more comprehensive
sampling patterns in future. The 3-dimensional structure of the
sea is not unique: analogous issues (on different scales) arise
in freshwater, soils, forests, etc., and the fluidity of the medium
and rapidity of habitat and distribution changes can all be dealt
with be ensuring that appropriate standards for precision and
accuracy of collection data are followed.
Specific Comments and Recommendations (in no particular order):
Most of these were discussed at the workshop, so I won't expand
on them in detail.
- Recognize the distinction between manipulating existing data
and information, and the gathering of new data. Set clear priorities
about how much effort and resources should be applied to each
aspect.
- Recognize that many gaps will take a long time to fill, but
that lack of knowledge should not slow other parts of the program.
- Recognize the inherent variation in quality and reliability
of existing data and collections; set realistic limits on when
efforts to improve the quality of older data are not justified
by the benefits gained.
- Emphasize establishment and maintenance of quality standards
for all new data and collections; and publicize these widely throughout
the active scientific and management communities.
- Recognize practical limitations and set achievable goals that
maintain the quality of what can be done.
- Emphasize databasing techniques and standards that will remain
flexible and can accommodate continuing developments. Thinking
in terms of metadatabases that maintain compatibility and interchangeability
among smaller, more or less independent systems seems essential.
- Establish criteria for routine deposition of voucher specimens
during environmental impact, ecological and other non-taxonomic
studies.
- Emphasize objective, preferably quantifiable data in all databases,
rather than terms that unconsciously involve ecological or other
interpretations. Similarly, avoid abbreviation and/or coding of
data.
- Distinguish among: data based on specimens; observations by
experienced workers based on (at least implicit) comparisons with
specimens; and records not based on taxonomic determinations by
experienced workers.
- Clearly recognize the differences between "precision":
and "accuracy", and establish criteria for defining
and applying these concepts consistently.
Topics that Deserve More Attention:
There were a few important issues that I felt were rather neglected
at the workshop, and which I urge you to consider in greater detail
in future planning.
- Public and Political Education and Support:
While these are
very dependent on the political, cultural and social expectations
of the local community, I feel strongly that long term maintenance
of a high quality biodiversity program in São Paulo will
require public interest and political desire to provide appropriate
funding, training and employment. This needs to be pursued actively,
and maintained by outreach, informational and educational efforts
at many levels.
- Regional and International Contexts:
Species do not recognize
political boundaries. While it is necessary to work within political
units, taxonomic identifications and evaluations require knowledge
of the species and related taxa throughout their enti re biogeographical
ranges. While it is often difficult to justify funding for activities
beyond political boundaries, the scientific importance of pursuing
them should be built into all aspects of the program.
- Relevance to Society:
It is important that the scientific
community as a whole (not necessarily as individuals) can articulate
the importance of all aspects of the program to different sectors
of society affected by it.
- Museums and Public Displays:
I'm not familiar with the public
roles of museums in São Paulo and Brazil, but I believe
these can be essential for attracting and maintaining political
and financial support for biodiversity. Modern displays and educational
programs directed at school curricula, children, parents, environmentally
concerned citizens, administrators etc. can be very effective
at building an educated electorate that will establish adequate
and continuing political and funding priorities for biodiversity.
Obviously this takes time, and may not have much effect in the
initial stages of establishment of a program; but since biodiversity
programs will run for many years and decades, educational investments
in public programs should become increasingly valuable. Conversely,
poor and inappropriate public displays, unrelated to current and
future societal and environmental concerns, may have strongly
negative effects by alienating sections of the society that should
be supportive.
