In many of the world’s most critical ecosystems, biodiversity is not well-studied and any accumulated information is often out of date or of extremely poor quality. Furthermore, scientific research of biodiversity spans many disciplines and results are often dispersed among journals, museums and universities — or exist solely in the minds of experts. There are many gaps in the scientific knowledge of these areas and existing data is rarely integrated into a cohesive and useful framework.

The Priority Setting approach used by Conservation International relies on the involvement of many stakeholders in order to implement wise conservation actions. Building scientific consensus allows development of a shared vision of what interventions are needed, where and how soon. A successful implementation strategy also requires broad political and institutional support, guaranteeing continued follow-up and implementation. Most importantly, such a strategy should have an emphasis on sound science and should place a premium on involving local and regional specialists.

The approach, implemented in the Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem of West Africa, was based on the lessons of several similar priority-setting exercises that have been completed over the past decade in the Amazon (1990), Papua New Guinea (1992), Madagascar (1995) and Irian Jaya (1997). All of these processes shared a common approach: They were based on a participatory, expert-driven consensus-seeking process that sought to establish an integrated knowledge base for the region and create recommendations for conservation actions.

The Information Phase

The information phase focused around the activities and research of 13 thematic working groups led by a core team of 2-3 experts, who were selected based on their experience and knowledge of biodiversity. Each working group reviewed and consolidated existing information and shared their personal knowledge on various criteria for setting conservation priorities. Prior to the workshop, group leaders worked to integrate existing data for their themes, relying in part on the help of other group members.

An information group was established to develop a database of available maps of the region. The database of more than 20 thematic maps included forest cover, hydrology, elevation, towns and roads. Maps were printed and provided to each of the working groups to overlay during the workshop. The thematic maps provided data to better understand the extent and condition of biodiversity and the geographic threats affecting the region and the ecosystem in its entirety. While a map of country borders was provided for reference, participants used maps that depicted the forest and aquatic ecosystems free from political boundaries. This was done to emphasize the "borderless" nature of biodiversity and the continuity of the ecosystem across West Africa.

The data sets and information gathered during this phase of the Conservation Priority Setting Process became the most complete and current data relating to biodiversity in the Upper Guinea Region. The information and data compiled during the Information Phase of the Conservation Priority Setting Process became the base for the discussions and decision-making that occurred at the Expert Workshop in Elmina, Ghana.

The Expert Workshop

The workshop was held from 6-10 December 1999 in Elmina, Ghana. Participants included 146 scientists, regional experts and government officials from more than 90 institutions. The five-day workshop verified the current state of biodiversity knowledge and established consensus on regional conservation priorities across the ecosystem. Bringing together the best scientists from the region and around the world provided an opportunity to consolidate existing disparate sources of information and repatriate the data to the institutions and experts in the region.

The workshop adopted a highly participatory, flexible and geographically based methodology, using expert opinion to develop consensus on areas of high importance for the conservation of biodiversity. This inclusive process enhanced conservation efforts in the region by establishing linkages between international and local researchers, institutions and donors, thus developing future capacity to proactively address conservation issues.

The workshop incorporated data from many disciplines by drawing from the previous work of the thematic groups. At the workshop, the thematic groups engaged in discussions to build consensus on priority areas, degree of importance, gaps in knowledge and justification for the results. These groups worked independently for two days to produce individual thematic maps that delineated priority areas and documented associated information on forms provided at the workshop. Each thematic group developed a system for ranking priority areas based on critical factors unique to each group.

On the third day, the thematic groups were reorganized into five integrated working groups, which were tasked with evaluating specific geographic regions by examining the areas of overlap among thematic group results. They then delineated final priority areas by degree of importance, threats and socioeconomic influences. Emphasis was placed on building consensus for final priorities not only by the number of overlapping thematic priorities but also based on the context of each priority area and expert opinion on the level of importance. The groups also recommended actions for the priority areas. The integrated groups produced the final regional conservation priority areas and documented associated information on forms provided at the workshop.

Throughout the workshop, results were presented in plenary sessions, in order to verify working group results and stimulate a rigorous exchange of ideas. Flexibility was maintained within the schedule to allow for spontaneous formation of groups, particularly within some of the socioeconomic thematic groups. Additionally, an advisory committee of key senior experts and government and donor representatives from participating countries convened regularly to provide guidance to the process.

Statement of Workshop Participants

PREAMBLE
Based on the expertise of 146 individual biologists, people of various socioeconomic disciplines, government representatives, NGOs, donors and the private sector, this workshop facilitated a detailed analysis of the state of the environment of the Upper Guinea Forest and adjacent coastal and marine ecosystems of West Africa.

BIODIVERSITY IMPORTANCE
This area is one of the most globally important and yet threatened biodiversity hotspots in the world.
Forests are severely fragmented, species are disappearing, and freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems are degraded.
This undermines the natural resource base -- the capital for economic growth and development, and the livelihood source for millions of people.
The participants of this meeting agree to continue the process launched at Elmina by implementing the following recommendations as well as those included in the workshop report:

• National governments consider adopting and integrating regional consensus biodiversity conservation priorities as mapped and confirmed at this workshop.
  
• Donor agencies integrate these expert recommendations on priority areas and actions into their funding mechanisms to focus on the globally important biological diversity of this region.
  
• Capacity to survey, understand and manage regional biodiversity must be strengthened at national and regional levels.
  
• Awareness of the global importance of the regional ecosystem will be promoted.
  
• Develop partnerships to bridge the gap between Industry and NGOs, Projects and Communities, social and biophysical scientists, etc.
  
• Establish a high level intergovernmental mechanism to achieve coordinated ecosystem-wide planning and management

TOP