Back to To D.C. or not D.C.? That's the question

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to Interested in African conservation? SCB and AAAS join forces

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SCB: A SURVEY OF EUROPEAN MEMBERS

Following the survey of Latin American members of the SCB undertaken in late 1999 [see Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 6(4):8], a similar survey was conducted among European members. Of the 266 questionnaires mailed during December 1999, 87 (33%) had been returned by the end of January 2000. Replies were received from 15 of the 20 countries represented in the region.

Almost all members had joined SCB in order to receive the journal. A majority also wanted to be part of a professional conservation biology organization. Other reasons for joining SCB were to keep abreast of developments in conservation biology and to have access to news and opinions from international perspectives.

The questionnaire first asked why so few European members attend SCB's annual meetings. Financial constraints were important, but timing also was an issue. For many university academics, June meetings conflict with examinations or field work. Other reasons were that meetings seemed to be dominated by domestic U.S. affairs and that session themes were of little relevance to many Europeans. Since there has not been a tradition of European attendance at the meetings, these trends may have increased. The reasons why few European members participate in SCB affairs were similar. Many nominees for elected offices were unknown to European members and the issues that SCB is involved in appear to be of limited relevance.

The most popular option for making SCB more international was formation of a European chapter. Numerous members also supported major changes in SCB's structure and governance. The formation of an independent sibling society was not met with enthusiasm; a large majority of members prefer a stronger international society. A sibling society was not favored because belonging to both would incur a still greater financial burden, and because conservation issues are generally global and not regional. National level organizations generally were the least preferable option.

The most popular ideas for regional activities were a regional newsletter and periodic European SCB meetings. Once again, many respondents commented that increasing regionalization in SCB activities is undesirable because the science and practice of conservation biology should be global rather than regional; moving strongly towards regionalization was viewed as a retrograde step.

Latin American members, by contrast, strongly supported the idea of a regional body. The Board of Governors currently is considering various options for restructuring SCB to reflect these views and achieve better international representation in all of SCB's activities. In the meantime we are initiating surveys in additional geographic regions.

If you would like a copy of the full survey report please write to me at georgina.mace@ioz.ac.uk.

Back to To D.C. or not D.C.? That's the question

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to Interested in African conservation? SCB and AAAS join forces