Ethnobiology of Europe Meeting
9th International Congress of Ethnobiology
Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom
18 June 2004
10:10- 12:30
Minutes
R.K Puri and D.G Donovan
Introduction by convenors
Raj Puri (rkp) opened the meeting and explained the objectives of the meeting to 30 attendees. This exploratory meeting was simply a means to meet other researchers of ethnobiology in Europe and discuss the potentials for collaboration in research, teaching, and training. RKP emphasized that there was no intention here to set up a formal network or establish some new institution, which might compete with other initiatives. At minimum we would like to develop a list of people and projects that can be circulated to everyone interested, possibly even a website for swapping information. If greater awareness of each other’s work and individually arranged collaborations arose from this, then that would constitute success. RKP emphasized that if a network emerges, so be it, but it should do so organically. As examples, RKP mentioned British Council funded academic study exchanges between Kent and Christian Vogl’s (CV) group at Vienna, including faculty and students, and a training workshop in quantitative methods now in its third year. There is a possibility of expanding the workshop to an annual weeklong field school to be held in the Alps, to be open to students from Europe.
Comments from the audience
There was discussion about the purpose of the meeting, with some participants wanting to see concrete steps arising from this meeting. Others wanted to find willing collaborators for specific projects that are in the planning stages. The definition of “Europe” and the inclusion of Mediterranean countries and the Near-East was mentioned. RKP suggested we put this issue aside since anyone could be interested in collaborating with us and if people identify themselves as working in Europe then so be it. There is no need to bound a set of relationships between individuals and institutions, though some funding bodies might restrict applicants to EU or EEC countries. A Website was mentioned, where we could share information about:
- Ongoing research and development projects
- Research possibilities
- Possibilities for comparative research
- Useful bibliographic references
- Funding possibilities
- Resources in various ethnobotanical collections
It was suggested that the group could also do more concrete things such as
- Compile literature
- Develop research methodologies
- Organize a field school for training European students/teachers in research methods
- Set data collection standards (see IPGRI’s work in this area; also the data collection standards for economic botany)
- Organize faculty/staff exchanges
In this context, it was noted that in addition to collecting information on the production and/or use of various plants, scientists needed to collect samples or information on associated special tools or agrarian technologies.
Personal introductions
All participants introduced themselves and explained their interests in Europe, including where and what they were currently working on. Many also mentioned specific plans for the future. This information has been compiled into a table (see list of participants).
Research Priorities
After introductory discussions, the group broke into separate small discussion groups to discuss specific possible areas of research collaboration. These included:
- Wild and culinary plants
- Home gardens
- Transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge and plant materials
- European policy issues in ethnobotany
Reporting back to the assembly as a whole, the specific groups raised the following research questions as areas of possible collaboration:
a. From the Policy Issues Group, there was interest in investigating:
- The effect of European land use and conservation policy (CAP) on the proportion of wild lands in the landscape and the prevalence and use of traditionally used-wild plants from those areas.
- The potential impact on the vegetative landscape of reducing CAP subsidies on certain crops
- The effect of GMOs on farmers and wild organisms; and people’s perception of the same
b. From the Transmission Group, there was interest in:
- Migrants and their knowledge transmission, and transmission of materials
- Transmission at the local level
- Long-term transmission: investigating historical texts and comparisons with today
- Revitalization of the use of traditional plants and the development of niche markets
c. From the Home Garden Group, there was interest expressed in the topics of:
- Land race conservation
- Agrobiodiversity
Also from the Home Gardens Group came specific recommendations were
made to develop lists of:
- available literature
- existing databases
- institutions active in this research
It was noted that these tasks would be relevant to any and all groups.
d. The Wild and culinary plants groups were already planning to collaborate
and start to exchange data. They also suggested that the would be looking at
- use of wild plants by migrants and in urban areas across Europe
- use of wild plants in Eastern European countries, effects of soviet withdrawal (in comparison with Western Europe and Cuba)
Funding
Rory McBurney of Royal Botanic Gardens Kew gave a summary of the European Union funding scene as follows: In general the EU supports multinational projects that link countries and institutions, they generally fund networks of researchers or help to establish them.
Specific support programs: for mega projects; for narrowly focused research by consortium of 15-45 institutions; 2-3 million Euros over several years; selection seems to be based on issues related to European policy issues; Latest call for proposals (EU 6) ends in September. Usually have 9 months to submit a proposal. Can sometimes piggy-back on other proposals.
Network of excellence: funds for administration, scholarships, conferences; lump sum spread over several years; may be used to set up network or consortium as in item (a).
International co-operative projects: for 3 or more collaborating institutions; 1-3 million Euros over 3 years; specifically encouraging collaboration with Eastern Europe.
Several website addresses were given for information about funds.
www.ukro.ac.uk
www.cordis.lu
Follow Up
Sonia Vougioukalou, a doctoral student at Kent, volunteered time and effort to establish a website at the Centre for Social Anthropology and Computing in the Anthropology Department at U. Kent. RKP will advise and collate information from participants. We will establish a separate email account to send information. No list serve is planned at this point.
Ideas for the WEBpage include:
- List of Institutions and researchers active in the EU (as in list of participants)
- Literature and Databases for each subject and country (help to break down language barriers)
- Current projects (abstracts or proposals or reports)
- Calls for collaboration/jobs
- Links to other important sites
- List of funding sources or opportunities
Meeting was closed at 12:30 and attendees retired to a café for lunch and further discussions.
back to main Ethnobiology of Europe page