[Taxacom] The loss of knowledge...

[Chris Lyal]

The first point is that we do have a policy backing for taxonomy in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity.  The Global Taxonomy Initiative exists as a policy framework to support taxonomic information, expertise and infrastructure where it is required to implement other parts of the CBD.  There's some good stuff in the CBD texts on the GTI, including support for national museums, collection housing, training and even details such as identification keys.  The fact that 186 countries have agreed that there are an insufficient number of identification keys to bees is something I treasure.  You can find details of the GTI at  http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/taxonomy/default.shtml In addition, many countries have a 'GTI National Focal Point' - you can find out your from a link at http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/taxonomy/resources/focalpoints.shtml
 
That's the good part.  Next a caveat.  One of Eric's original questions was whether botanists (read - taxonomists) need to show the relevance of their work.  The quick answer is often 'yes'.  The needs of biodiversity management for taxonomic information are clear, but the match between what taxonomists do and how they publish it, and the way in which conservationists and environmental managers need to access information, is poor.  Although management of a Bolivian forest might be improved by using my work on the taxonomy and host specificity of a group of seed-feeding weevils, this is not likley to happen if I publish in a European systematics-focused journal, in English, using technical language and few habitus illustrations.  If we are serious about the relevance of our work we need to be able to place it where it can be used by those we believe will benefit.  The next step, of course, is to ensure the benefit by working with the beneficiaries.  A friend of mine once described taxonomy as 'throwing solutions over the wall in the hope that a passing problem picks them up'.  That's no way of designing a project.  Right now the connections between taxonomic work and prioritisation and the wider 'users' of or work are relatively poor - that needs to improve.  To go back to demonstration or relevance of taxonomy, there are a set of case studies 'Why taxonomy matters' at http://www.bionet-intl.org/opencms/opencms/caseStudies/ which can be useful.
 
Back to the GTI.  What we have at the moment is a set of policy agreements within the CBD.  The language used can be cumbersome - they are CBD documents after all, and can need some interpretation.  However, policy only gets implemented if someone wants to do it.  That's where we need to be able to show the funders where taxonomy fits, and how we can work with people in the sectors they are more set up to fund, to ensure that the benefits of taxonomy are utilised.  That means we as taxonomists have to be able to use the policy decisions our countries have signed up to (or at least have contributed to, in the case of the USA, since the US has been very active in the GTI).  Government bodies find it far simpler (although, admittedly, not easy) to release funds if the request is placed in a framework of agreed policy than if it is not.  As examples, the UK government has funded over 50 projects with significant taxonomic component under the Darwin Initiative (http://www.darwin.gov.uk/ - see also www.darwin.gov.uk/downloads/briefing_notes/taxonomy.pdf  and www.bionet-intl.org/.../sites/default/resourceCentre/pdf/Defra_DarwinInitiative_Taxonomy-final_report.pdf <http://www.bionet-intl.org/.../sites/default/resourceCentre/pdf/Defra_DarwinInitiative_Taxonomy-final_report.pdf> ).  The Belgian Government has introduced a funding stream specifically for the GTI, as Yves Samyn pointed out the other day (http://bch-cbd.naturalsciences.be/belgium/gti/).
 
There are problems, of course - getting funds is not easy (but is it ever?), and there can be problems getting the appropriate partnerships.  The issues Doug pointed out - that institution managers need funds to be raised by their scientists - are very real.  Moreover, going down the route of delivering taxonomy to integrate with conservation, sustainable use, and other aspects of biodiversity management means that some of the products do not match traditional academic performance indicators, although the NSF in particular does require the types of outreach that go with GTI-type activities.  

I'm not suggesting that all taxonomic work be directed at biodiversity conservation and sustainable use etc.  However, if we believe that our taxonomic work is necessary for the best management of biodiversity, then we should be aware of the policy background we are operating in, and also that this has implcations for the way in which we undertake and deliver our research.

Cheers,

Chris

Christopher H. C. Lyal, 
Beetle Diversity and Evolution Programme, 
Department of Entomology, 
The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD 
UK 
tel: +44 (0) 207 942 5113 
fax: +44 (0) 207 942 5661 
e-mail c.lyal at nhm.ac.uk 
URLs: 
personal page - http://www.nhm.ac.uk//research-curation/staff-directory/entomology/cv-3569.html 
electronic Biologia Centrali-Americana - http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/bca 
World Catalogue of Weevil Names - http://wtaxa.csic.es/