The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) was mandated by the Plan of Action arising from the 1996 Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. Understanding existing legal and institutional policies for information exchange is critical for implementation of IABIN. This study identifies legal and institutional issues that could strengthen or interfere with IABIN operation and provides recommendations for the design and implementation of the network.

The study was based on an analysis of responses obtained from a questionnaire sent to 76 organizations working on biodiversity issues in the Americas. Thirty organizations from fourteen countries replied to the survey. Most of the responses came from government and non-government organizations, with only one from academia and one from the Caribbean.

The survey shows that most organizations conduct activities in only one of the following levels: international, national, regional or local. Thus, they lack experience in working over multiple levels. More than fifty percent of organizations reported institutional missions consistent with sustainable development principles adopted internationally at the United Nations Conference for the Environment and Development (UNCED 92), thereby facilitating their participation at the international level.

The following themes describe the scope of work of organizations that replied to the survey: Biodiversity and Protected Areas (50%), Sustainable Development (27%), and Policy, Planning and Environmental Management (23%). Most organizations possess enough technical and financial capacity to participate successfully in a network like IABIN. Of those that responded, all had access to electronic mail, 37% had a web site, and 34% had experience with databases. Six countries reported having national environmental information networks that include the biodiversity theme: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and the United States. As new national and regional information networks develop, organizations will be faced with the challenge of balancing information requirements from several networks.

Seventy-seven percent of organizations that responded to the survey reported having no major restrictions to participate in IABIN. Some of the issues mentioned as potential restrictions were legal (legal restrictions to participate as members), institutional (could not share information without an agreement), financial (could not pay a membership fee), and logistics (lack of infrastructure, facilities, trained staff).

As indicated by the survey, organizations generally favor simple formal agreements based on legal authorities for exchange of information. Although ten countries represented in the survey have laws that control the exchange of biodiversity information, only ten organizations reported the need of high level authorization in order to provide access to information. Fifty percent of organizations, mostly non-governmental, reported not having institutional policies for exchange of biodiversity information. Of those that responded to the question on propriety of strategic information on biodiversity (e.g., economic value, medicinal properties, etc.), nine organizations reported having explicit or implicit policies dealing with this issue. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the survey reported that they control access to their information, in many instances, as the result of requests made by their information providers. The Cartagena Agreement (Andean Pact) was the only major international agreement mentioned that could have a potential impact on IABIN operations.

Regarding the cost of biodiversity information, fourteen organizations (48%) reported that they provide information with or without a cost, depending on who requests it and the intended use of the information. For example, a fee might be charged for information used for commercial purposes, whereas information used for academic research might be provided for free. The charges often cited were related to materials and staff time invested in data collection, analysis, formatting and delivery of the information. No organization reported charging for the data itself.

There is considerable interest in data repatriation among those organizations that responded to the survey. Actual experience with such programs is minimal, but the high level of interest suggests that this could well become an effort that could bring concrete results to IABIN in a short period of time.

Organizations that responded to the survey indicated that information circulating through IABIN should have adequate metadata, a mention of the methodology used for its collection, an identified and acknowledged source, and be validated by an authority on the subject. Quality, reliability, and up-to-date information were often cited as important issues.

In general, the number and complexity of legal and institutional policies related to biodiversity information is on the increase. Many of these policies and legal instruments were recently developed and may be poorly understood by data custodians. We recommend that IABIN promotes the coordination of emergent laws and policies on access to biodiversity information and provides support to those organizations working on the development of these policies. Support could include training for participation in multilateral activities and examples of laws and policies that facilitate access and exchange of biodiversity information.
 

Summary of Recommendations

The following are recommended to facilitate implementation of IABIN:

1. Conduct additional studies to obtain information on legal and institutional issues relevant to those organizations not represented in this study (e.g. Caribbean region, academic institutions, indigenous groups, etc.)
 

2. Provide institutional strengthening and human resource training to potential member organizations in order to assist them with challenges associated with globalization and standardization efforts on technological, scientific, political and legal aspects of network management.
 

3. Utilize the internationally accepted environmental principles as criteria for admission to IABIN, so that member organizations reflect these principles in their institutional missions and objectives.
 

4. IABIN member organizations should have:

· The potential for technical and scientific capacity in information processing and acquisition.

· Strategic and political capacity to contribute to the development of national environmental policies.

5. IABIN member organizations should have:

· Technical expertise in the areas of biodiversity and development of environmental policies.

· Capacity to manage human and financial resources for institutional strengthening.

6. Conduct a quantitative study of the informatics capacity of organizations that participate in IABIN.
 

7. Include the following aspects in the legal and institutional framework of IABIN:

· Legal instruments that facilitate interactions among member organizations.

· Standard institutional agreements or IABIN-institution agreements with enough flexibility to be adaptable to the particulars of member organizations in terms of extent, responsibilities, and allocation of human and financial resources.

· Availability of financial resources for institutional strengthening (e.g. capacity building and informatics resources).

· Decision on whether admission and stay in IABIN will be free or have a cost.

8. Establish criteria for the kind of information to circulate in IABIN. Some criteria that could be taken into consideration are:

· That the information not be protected by laws, decrees, resolutions or clauses in institutional agreements.

· That the information not be declared as confidential by the institution participating in IABIN.

· Establishment of uniform criteria for classification of biodiversity information as confidential.

· Establishment of a confidentiality time period for the information.

· Establishment of responsibilities for the "owner" and the "custodian" of the information.

· Defined mechanisms to resolve difficulties that could arise when an institution's biodiversity information system is integrated into a national environmental information system.

9. Incorporate the following provisions to facilitate participation of organizations that require approval by a national authority in order to share information with IABIN:

· Incorporate into IABIN the national authority in charge of biodiversity.

· In those cases where the above is not possible, establish a mechanism that facilitates institutions getting approval from their national authority to share information with IABIN.

10. Conduct a study on harmonization of national legislation on biodiversity in order to identify legal bottlenecks and find solutions. Solutions should be incorporated into the legal design of IABIN.
 

11. Include the following aspects in the design of IABIN:

· Mechanisms for cooperation between members of IABIN and their information providers.

· Mechanisms for cooperation among members of IABIN.

· Mechanisms for cooperation between members of IABIN and IABIN itself as an entity.

· Responsibilities of the Parties.

12. On the issue of propriety of strategic information on biodiversity:

· Provide institutional strengthening on this issue to members of IABIN.

· Incorporate specific clauses on propriety of strategic information on biodiversity in agreements between IABIN and other organizations.

13. Leave the issue of assigning a cost to biodiversity information as a national and institutional prerogative.
 

14. Conduct an in-depth analysis of the following:

· Legal frameworks of those countries with legal tools specific to access of biodiversity information (e.g. intellectual property laws, industrial property laws, etc.).

· Institutional agreements with clauses on the restrictions imposed by "generators" of the information.

15. Analyze those international agreements (e.g. Cartagena Agreement or Andean Pact) that could impact the functioning of IABIN.
 

16. Design IABIN in a way that allows it to possess the following characteristics:

· Reliability.

· With data originated from well-known sources.

· With acknowledgment of authors and sources of the information.

· With pertinent and relevant information.

· With up to date and truthful information.

· With data that is validated.

· With information of uniform quality.

17. Incorporate into the design of IABIN the necessary mechanisms to obtain the following information:

· Methodology used to obtain the information.

· If there was validation of the information by a national authority competent on the subject.

· Professional and/or institutional background of the person or entity that generated the information.

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Celeste Acevedo¹, Paraguay, and Richard Warner², USA. General assistance to the authors was provided by G. Aguilera. Translation services during the course of the study were provided by E. Pacheco and M. A. Morales. Funding for this study was provided by the United States Agency for International Development, Project # 598-0780, "Environmental Support Project," under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior. The International Biological Informatics Program of the U.S. Geological Survey provided project management for this study.

¹ C. Acevedo. C.C. 3267 Asunción, 1209. PARAGUAY. Tel./Fax: 595-21-905542. E-mail: jpinazzo@mmail.com.py

² R. Warner. 10401 Chesterwood Drive Spotsylvania, VA 22533.UNITED STATES Tel/fax: 540- 786-6360. E-mail: OMARINC@aol.com