IABIN GOVERNANCE:

Recommendations for the Organization and Coordination of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network

  March 31, 1999

Prepared for the Technical Meeting for the Establishment of IABIN Brasilia, Brazil, April 15-18, 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY *

BACKGROUND *

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS *

GENERAL NETWORK ORGANIZATION MODELS *

REVIEW OF EXISTING NETWORKS *

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IABIN GOVERNANCE *

RESOURCES *

REFERENCES *

ANNEXES *

Annex I: Plan of Action for the Sustainable Development of the Americas *

Annex II: Biodiversity-Related Activities Relevant to the Region *

Annex III: Network Architectures *

Annex IV: Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS) *

Annex V: BIN21: Concept and History *

Annex VI: European Environment Information and Observation Network *

Annex VII: Inter-American Water Resources Network *

Annex VIII: North American Biodiversity Information Network *

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network was mandated by the Plan of Action resulting from the 1996 Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development, held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. To implement IABIN, a series of meetings of experts was held. From those meetings arose the requirement to study various models of information network governance which might provide lessons learned to IABIN, and to recommend, based on the analysis of those models, how IABIN might best be organized and coordinated. This report is the result of that study.

The following existing information networks were examined: Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS); Biodiversity Information Network (BIN21); European Environment Information and Observation NETwork (EIONET); Inter-American Water Resources Network (IWRN); and North American Biodiversity Information Network (NABIN). Other relevant information networks considered included the Biodiversity Information Network–Brazil, the Canadian Biodiversity Information Network, the Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Information Network, MABNetAmericas, and The Natural Heritage Network.

The following were identified as key factors for the success of IABIN:

• Building the trust, confidence and commitment of the network partners;
• Articulating the benefits of joining the network;
• Selecting an appropriate host for the network;
• Acquiring sustainable funding for the network; and
• Encouraging the partners to own and participate in the network.

Summary of Recommendations

The following are recommended for the initial implementation of IABIN. As the network matures, additional policies and procedures may be established; however, an agreement to the general principles of IABIN should be sufficient for the establishment of the network.

1. IABIN should be planned as a managed network.
2. IABIN should be hosted by an agency that has broadly compatible objectives but no mandate which would cause it to steer the network in any specific direction.
3. IABIN should have direct access to at least modest funds to expedite key network developments.
4. Parties to the Plan of Action from the Santa Cruz Summit should form the Members of IABIN. All others who wish to participate could apply to become IABIN Partners.
5. Parties to the Plan of Action from the Santa Cruz Summit should draft an IABIN Agreement of Principles for formal signature by prospective members of IABIN.
6. Non-mandatory operational procedures for IABIN defining protocols and standards should be progressively developed.
7. IABIN should be managed by a Steering Committee and facilitated by Technical Working Group(s) and a Coordinating Support Group (Hub).
8. A Steering Committee for IABIN should be established with membership drawn from IABIN focal points identified by participating governments.
9. The IABIN Steering Committee should meet every six months for three years, then annually.
10. The IABIN Steering Committee should normally make decisions by consensus or, where this is not practicable, by comfortable majority. Implementation of IABIN should not be delayed by the actions of small minorities, unless some higher-order principle is at stake.
11. The IABIN Steering Committee should delegate operational issues to one or more technical working group(s).
12. IABIN should establish a network hub, comprising a small coordinating support group, responsible to the Chair of the Steering Committee, to facilitate development of the network.

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Dr. John Busby, Program Manager, Biodiversity Conservation Information System, through arrangements with IUCN—The World Conservation Union. 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.

BACKGROUND

Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development

In December 1996, the elected Heads of State and Government of the Americas met in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, at the Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development. At that Summit, they signed the Declaration of Santa Cruz and adopted the Plan of Action for the Sustainable Development of the Americas. The Summit represented an effort which put the Western Hemisphere ahead of the rest of the world as the first region to prepare a blueprint on sustainable development within the framework of the global agreements reached at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992.

The Plan of Action included initiatives in the areas of health, education, agriculture, forests, biodiversity, water resources and coastal areas, cities, energy and mining. It committed the Heads of States and Governments of the Americas to implement a number of measures relating to environmental information (see Annex I), the most central of which was:

Initiative 31. Seek to establish an Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network, primarily through the Internet, that will promote compatible means of collection, communication, and exchange of information relevant to decision-making and education on biodiversity conservation, and that builds upon such initiatives as the Clearing-House Mechanism provided for in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Man and Biosphere Network (MABNET Americas), and the Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS), an initiative of nine programs of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and partner organizations.

It is recognized that the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) should be a mechanism for linking existing institutions and information resources in ways that allow them to operate more efficiently and effectively while facilitating the sharing of information on a hemispheric basis.

Implementation of Initiative 31

To implement the initiatives of the Plan of Action, the governments of the Americas entrusted the Organization of American States (OAS) with the role of coordinating follow-up on the various decisions of the Summit. To that end, the OAS convened a series of meetings of experts to support multilateral cooperation in the development of IABIN.

The first Meeting of Experts was held in Washington, DC, at the Organization of American States on October 6-7, 1997. At that meeting, the experts agreed that the network should:

• Focus primarily on scientific information;
• Link the scientific and policy communities;
• Be managed by governments with broad involvement of civil society;
• Be targeted at critical information needs of decision-makers;
• Refrain from centralized approaches, relying instead upon distributed databases and systems.

From recommendations of the meeting, the OAS issued a call for the establishment of IABIN focal points.

The second Meeting of Experts, held on January 27-28, 1998, at the OAS in Washington, DC, included experts from additional countries and non-governmental organizations working on biodiversity in Latin America and the Caribbean. As with the first Meeting of Experts, it was re-emphasized that IABIN is a biodiversity initiative consistent with the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) and the mandates of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and approved at the highest levels of government through the Summit of the Americas process. This meeting significantly advanced the formation of ideas on IABIN’s structure, coordination, governance, sustainability, and relationships with other institutions.

Both of the meetings convened by OAS have been successful in bringing about a common understanding and acceptance of IABIN and in helping Brazil to plan for the 1999 meeting to officially establish IABIN. During this period of implementation, at least eight countries have committed resources and intellectual capital to IABIN as part of the organizational process. Other biodiversity-related activities in or relevant to the Region are indicated in Annex II.

At the Second Meeting of Experts, the organization and coordination of IABIN was flagged for special attention. The present study was commissioned to inform the discussions on the governance of IABIN by providing an analysis of the issues to consider and resolve, documenting the lessons learned from other similar networking initiatives, and recommending alternatives and a model for the governance of IABIN.

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

The successful implementation of IABIN will depend on the development and use of many kinds of information resources from the many groups within the countries of the Americas that possess cultural, economic or scientific knowledge relevant to the biodiversity goals of the Summit. While support from the highest levels of government is necessary for IABIN to succeed, that support alone will not be sufficient. The factors identified below are key to IABIN’s success.

Trust, Confidence and Commitment

Information networks are simply assemblages of individuals, groups and organizations with common information goals. Their purpose is to overcome barriers to data access and use by focusing on the need for and benefits of cooperation. Throughout the world, networks range in size from loose associations of individuals, working on the basis of personal contacts, professional interests and historic ties, to actively managed consortia of government agencies, NGOs, universities and private-sector organizations, all with shared information goals. The over-riding aim is to build trust, confidence and commitment among the network's partners, leading to improved uptake of scientific information in policy and planning.

Partners must feel comfortable with the network. They must believe that it will:

• meet their needs for information, and
• be of high enough priority to justify commitment of resources, both financial and staff time.

Very simply: if trust, confidence and commitment can be built, then the network will succeed. If not, then it will fail.

Benefits of Joining the Network

Each potential participant in a network makes its own assessments of the benefits and costs of becoming involved. Some of the issues they will consider are listed in Figure 1. The rewards of information networking can be substantial and can easily justify the costs involved. For example, more reliable access to data can enable individual organizations to fulfill their core responsibilities more effectively and explore new opportunities and roles. Participation in networks enables information products to be developed with wider support and with greater efficiency. It is a classic "win-win" situation, in which organizations — whether they are providing or receiving data — become empowered through cooperation.

However, active cooperation does not happen spontaneously. Each network partner must become convinced that tangible benefits will result from participating in the network. Easier access to services and expertise from other partners can be very effective in improving the quality of their own datasets, obtaining easier access to other datasets, mutual support for fundraising and skills development, and developing long-term relationships with other partners. As the network becomes established and recognized, further potential benefits are economies of scale, higher public profiles, minimized duplication of effort, and external investment on a scale which could not be attracted by individual partners.

Information networks do require substantial effort to establish and further effort to maintain. Benefits must be perceived by both donors and participants. When balancing the costs and benefits of entering an information network a key question for each potential member is, "What will it cost me to contribute?" as well as, "What can I expect to gain?"

Host Arrangements

Long-term strategic networks do not arise spontaneously. Experience has proven that volunteer networks are not sustainable without considerable individual commitment. Networks require active facilitation by professional staff who are able to concentrate on that task.

A general characteristic of multi-agency networks is the tenuous nature of their hosting and funding arrangements. There is a general reluctance to establish new institutions to run networks, so each network coordinator or secretariat needs to be hosted by an existing institution. This can create difficulties where:

• the network objectives closely match those of the host, in which case there could arise at least a perception that the host might "capture" the network and use it to further its own mission, perhaps to the potential detriment of other network partners; or 
• the network objectives do not match those of the host, in which case the host may become unwilling or unable to provide appropriate infrastructure support for the network.

To avoid these problems, the host should be an agency or organization that has broadly compatible objectives with the network but no motive to shape the network to its own exclusive purposes.

Funding

Apart from funds to pay staff and overhead costs, successful networks have access to two kinds of funds: 

• funds to host meetings and workshops and to make key interventions in places where lack of resources inhibit key stages in development, e.g., where expertise is required to troubleshoot a problem, where a piece of equipment is needed to expedite a project, where training is required in a particular technique, etc.. While the majority of these kinds of issues are routinely handled through work programs negotiated with the partners, exceptions always arise (particularly at certain stages of government funding cycles). If the network has no way of solving these, key stages in network or product development can be delayed, sometimes for months. These funds are modest, but essential.
• short-term grant or project funds to support major developments. These are not essential, but dramatically accelerate network development by getting priority attention from key partners. Although not effective in "buying" loyalty in the long term (interest tends to wane when the funds run out), they can generate momentum sufficient to sustain the network in the medium- to long-term. The risk is that the rush to secure and spend the funds crowds out the attention that needs to be paid to the principles and protocols necessary for ensuring the network is properly designed and truly sustainable.

Ownership and Participation

The key challenge in building an effective and efficient collaborative network is achieving the optimal balance between ownership and participation by all those groups that need to be involved. The network partners need to feel comfortable with the operation of the network and to know how they contribute to its overall goals. Roles and responsibilities of the various partners therefore need to be identified, fully defined and, most importantly, agreed!

With government initiatives, it is appropriate that governments have a major role in the network development. However, in order to achieve objectives that are broad in scope, extensive and active participation by many other sectors of society is essential. In cases like this, the network will not succeed without wide participation.

The best way to satisfy government need for management control and to build mechanisms to facilitate wider participation is to establish a governance structure that meets the needs of all groups that must be involved.

GENERAL NETWORK ORGANIZATION MODELS

The governance structure and principles of operation for IABIN will depend on the topology or model of the IABIN network.

Information networks are of two basic forms. The first has a centralized architecture, where a single organizational unit is at the center of the network. This architecture implies that the central unit provides all the necessary people, facilities and procedures to operate the network and generate information products. The information system is located in some central location, with partners supporting this as necessary.

The second form of network has a distributed architecture. Partners operate in an unrestricted environment where communication is possible between all parties. No attempt is made to coordinate or control the partnerships that may develop; there is total democracy of communication. The information system is spread across all of the network’s partners, i.e., the network is the information system. The Internet is the ultimate example of a distributed network, where a minimal set of fundamental standards supports massive but unfocused flows of data and information around the globe. (Note that electronic communication is not essential to network functioning in general.)

The limitations of both approaches can be minimized through the formation of a hybrid, or managed network, which retains the benefits of unrestricted communication among partners while providing coordination and other network-wide services through a "hub" (see Annex III, Figure 3). Unlike a centralized network, the hub of a managed network serves the collective interests of the entire network’s members, rather than the specific interests of a single government or organization. Usually, the hub would be managed by a steering committee, representing the interests of various participants in the network, plus associated administrative support (WCMC 1994). The hub is a facilitator, not controller, of the network. The hub can thus be located anywhere, or even moved from time to time. Because the hub has primarily a facilitating role, its staff and budget requirements are modest, certainly by comparison with the scale of the network being managed. A good measure of success of the hub in serving collective interests is the number of bilateral partnerships, that do not directly involve the hub, that the hub facilitates. This feature distinguishes the managed network from more centralized approaches.

The characteristics and weaknesses of these models are further discussed in Annex III.

REVIEW OF EXISTING NETWORKS

One challenge with developing IABIN is that there are no examples of operational networks of the kind that IABIN is envisaged to become. The scientific community has been operating large-scale collaborative networks for several decades, with varying degrees of success. On a more restricted level, scientific collaboration has of course existed for centuries. The vast majority of such networks, however, have had a relatively narrow focus, and those involving many collaborators have tended to run, at the most, for only a few years. Another feature is that any information infrastructure developed to support a project has generally been left to decay once the project has finished.

Other networks are at relatively early stages of development, and it is too early to tell if they will prove both successful and sustainable.

For the purposes of the present study, a number of existing networks, each having one or more features or lessons learned that were relevant to IABIN, were examined. These were:

• Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS) [Annex IV]
• Biodiversity Information Network (BIN21) [Annex V]
• European Environment Information and Observation NETwork (EIONET) [Annex VI]
• Inter-American Water Resources Network (IWRN) [Annex VII]
• North American Biodiversity Information Network (NABIN) [Annex VIII]

The salient characteristics of these information networks are compared in Table 1; further descriptions and analyses are included in the respective annexes. Other relevant information networks include the Biodiversity Information Network–Brazil (BINBr) (http://www.bdt.org.br/bdt/index/binbr/) the Canadian Biodiversity Information Network (CBIN)(http://www.cbin.ec.gc.ca/), the Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Information Network (IBIN)(http://www.ibin.org), MABNetAmericas (http://www.mabnet.org/mabnet/home.html), and The Natural Heritage Network (http://www.heritage.tnc.org/).

 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IABIN GOVERNANCE

Analysis of the networks above, and consideration of the objectives of IABIN, has led to the following set of recommendations concerning the organization and coordination of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network:

1. IABIN should be planned as a managed network.

Managed networks strike the optimal balance between centralized and distributed networks. Centralized networks have difficulties securing commitment from network partners. While effective in delivering formally agreed products and services, such as country reports for the State of European Environment, they otherwise tend to be unresponsive and inflexible. Distributed networks have difficulties agreeing upon and delivering priority products and services. While very flexible and fast-moving, like the Internet itself, they are also unpredictable and largely unmanageable.

2. IABIN should be hosted by an agency that has broadly compatible objectives but no mandate which would cause it to steer the network in any specific direction.

Most networks examined had hosts that supported but did not dictate the direction of the network. The exception was EIONET, where the host was explicitly mandated to manage the network to achieve specified objectives. BCIS secretariat staff were hosted across several agencies, all of which were non-interfering and very tolerant of their activities. Other secretariats are hosted in agencies with similar characteristics. It is important that network partners have no grounds for concern that the host might be motivated to "capture" the network for its own purposes.

3. IABIN should have direct access to at least modest funds to expedite key network developments.

While network partners are generally willing to implement negotiated agreements, there are always unforeseen obstacles (or opportunities) that arise. Partners are generally reluctant or unable to commit resources beyond what has been formally agreed, so unexpected contingencies can delay key developments, sometimes for months. Funds to quickly host an expert workshop, repair or replace broken equipment, or to fly a specialist in to troubleshoot a problem, should be readily accessible. An example from BCIS was where two agencies had agreed on a data transfer, but there was no budget to cover the staff time required. The transaction was not a high priority for the data supplier, so nothing had happened for several weeks. The BCIS Secretariat was alerted to the problem by the recipient, donated the staff time and the transfer occurred that day.

The efficiency and effectiveness gains can be considerable, given the modest amounts involved. Tangible benefits include minimizing or overcoming potential delays in delivery of agreed products. Intangible benefits include building confidence among partners and users that the network is competently managed and thus worthy of their continued involvement.

4. Parties to the Plan of Action from the Santa Cruz Summit should form the Members of IABIN. All others who wish to participate could apply to become IABIN Partners.

Participation in IABIN should be open to all those who can add value to the network. The network, however, will need to manage this participation in order to ensure network objectives are met, standards maintained, IABIN policies and procedures implemented, and network operations remain efficient and effective.

IABIN will need to win and maintain the confidence of users that it is a source of reliable data and information on biological diversity. It is vital, therefore, that IABIN members, in particular those claiming to act in its name, understand their responsibilities in this area and, through their activities, bring credit on the network. This implies that some kind of membership, and criteria for membership, will need to be established.

Network Membership Models

Perhaps the closest network membership model for IABIN is the European Environmental Information and Observation Network (EIONET) [see Annex VI]. EIONET is a formal network established by a Council of Europe Regulation. It currently consists of 35 National Focal Points (NFPs) of the European Union member countries and those of the Phare (Central and Eastern European) countries, and also 9 European Topic Centres (ETCs). NFPs are units in national environment ministries or other authorities, whereas ETCs are contractors of the European Environment Agency (EEA) that cover thematic areas such as air, water, soil, and nature. EIONET is coordinated on a day-to-day basis by EEA staff.

The high-level policy framework for EIONET is largely established by the Annual Work Program set for the EEA by the European Commission. Operational network policies are set, within this framework, by the NFP/EIONET Group, comprising representatives of each of the National Focal Points, chaired by a senior EEA official, which meets for two days three times per year. This group acts effectively as the steering committee for EIONET.

Active participation in EIONET governance is restricted to NFPs and ETCs. Individual agencies are regarded as largely passive sources of data and can influence network policies and procedures only through their respective national focal point.

The EIONET model does not translate directly to IABIN. The European Commission and the European Environment Agency have no equivalents in the Western Hemisphere. One characteristic of the EIONET model is that, because participation in governance is so restricted, most agencies are uninterested in or unaware of their involvement in the network. Data flow is thus largely limited to meeting the explicit requirements of European Union directives or other formal programs. Such a network would have great difficulty meeting the varied information needs of all the Initiatives arising from the Santa Cruz Plan of Action [Annex I].

The Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS) brings together 12 international organizations and networks concerned with the conservation of biological diversity [see Annex IV]. All members have formally signed an Agreement of Principles, which covers broad policy principles, participation and governance. Members have also formally endorsed a Terms of Reference Manual that specifies criteria for membership and partnership, representation on and operation of the BCIS Steering Committee, sub-committees and working groups, staffing and functioning of the BCIS Secretariat and high-level financial regulations.

Criteria for Membership have been formally agreed. BCIS is governed by a Steering Committee comprised of up to two representatives from each Member. This Committee meets twice per year and, because of the wide range and complexity of issues coming before it, a premium is placed on continuity of participation.

The Biodiversity Information Network (BIN21) is organized very differently. It is an international collaborative network of agencies involved in the management and presentation of biodiversity information [Annex V]. It was established as an informal network of participating "nodes." It is a very inclusive model that encourages participation from all who have potential value to add. The various nodes communicate by email, in particular via a discussion list, and two workshops have been held. There is no mechanism for setting any overall network priorities or conducting projects, no formal governance structure, no explicit membership criteria, no binding policies or procedures, and participation, being voluntary, comes largely from comparatively few active members. Nonetheless, BIN21 has proved to be a very effective mechanism for exchanging ideas and best practice in the management and presentation of biodiversity information.

A Membership Model for IABIN

The challenge with criteria for membership of networks designed to support a very wide range of information needs is to strike the right balance between the need for accountability and quality control and the need to secure wide and active participation. It is suggested that, with IABIN, a two-tiered structure, comprising Members and Partners, might be a useful way forward.

Members would, at least initially, comprise individuals identified by each participating Western Hemisphere government as their national IABIN focal point and who agreed to comply with IABIN principles and procedures. Many governments in the region have already identified IABIN focal points. It is suggested that these focal points might either constitute an IABIN Steering Committee or form a pool from which the membership could be drawn. If the latter, then criteria to ensure regional balance and related issues would need to be established.

The Partners would comprise all others — Government agencies, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, commercial enterprises, etc. — who wished to participate and who agreed to comply with IABIN principles and procedures.

Criteria for Membership

Apart from nomination by a participating government as their designated national IABIN focal point, membership criteria might comprise two-main components: A formal commitment by their government to comply with an IABIN Agreement of Principles; and a non-binding commitment to comply, to the extent practicable, with current IABIN operational procedures.

Criteria for Partnership

Partnership would be open to all agencies and would comprise only a non-binding undertaking to comply, to the extent practicable, with current IABIN operational procedures. Applications would be made to and approved by the IABIN Steering Committee.

5. Parties to the Plan of Action from the Santa Cruz Summit should draft an IABIN Agreement of Principles for formal signature by prospective members of IABIN.

An IABIN Agreement of Principles document should be drafted by the parties to the Santa Cruz Plan of Action. It should outline the objectives for IABIN, the broad strategies by which the objectives will be achieved, and the intentions of IABIN members to: contribute, in collaboration with others, to the achievement of the objectives; respect intellectual property rights and other obligations and agreements.

This document should not obligate any member to commit resources of any kind or to act or not act in any specific way. It should allow eligible countries to join or withdraw from IABIN at their initiative, subject to reasonable provisions for notice, disbursement of resources and protection of intellectual property.

6. Non-mandatory operational procedures for IABIN defining protocols and standards should be progressively developed.

IABIN Operating Procedures should be developed by or on behalf of the operational governance structure established for IABIN, and formally endorsed by it. These procedures should describe the protocols and standards by which IABIN will operate. Each member will be expected to operate in a manner consistent with these procedures, to the extent practicable. The procedures should not be mandatory, since this could conceivably constrain participation by those who lacked the resources or expertise to be fully compliant.

7. IABIN should be managed by a Steering Committee and facilitated by Technical Working Group(s) and a Coordinating Support Group (Hub).

As a managed network, IABIN would require a governance structure. Suitable governance structures for managed networks comprise: a steering process (normally a steering committee) comprising key stakeholders that deals with the highest levels of network policies and procedures; a technical advisory process (normally one or more technical working groups) that deals with the majority of operational-level issues and is open to wide participation; and a network facilitating process (normally a "hub," including a small team of dedicated staff).

8. A Steering Committee for IABIN should be established with membership drawn from IABIN focal points identified by participating governments.

Role of the Steering Committee

The steering process for a managed network sets overall network policy and monitors network implementation. It is an executive committee that has the authority and responsibility to allocate and manage network resources. It also has a significant role in securing adequate resources for the network. It needs to have the following characteristics:

the authority to make policy decisions and commit network resources;

broadly representative of the domain (in this case participating governments);

have strong links to decision makers in member organizations;

broadly acceptable to wider network participants;

operational rather than political.

Tasks

The steering process needs to oversee the development and implementation of IABIN principles, policies and procedures, in particular to:

establish procedures for conducting the business of the Steering Committee;

develop a long-term vision for IABIN;

oversee membership (including admitting new Members and Partners);

manage any withdrawals from IABIN: agreed period of notice, rescindment of financial commitments made under the name of IABIN, termination of any IABIN agreements or contracts;

oversee development of and agree to mechanisms, guidelines and licensing arrangements for data collection, custodianship, management, quality assurance, documentation and use, including conflict resolution;

agree to and oversee execution of the IABIN Implementation Plan;

set criteria for, endorse and monitor the progress of IABIN projects;

establish and oversee technical working groups;

establish and supervise the hub, including establishing management and administrative structures and supervising staff recruitment;

ensure equitable and prudent financial management of network funds;

oversee establishment and implementation of monitoring and evaluation procedures;

maintain links with related initiatives, agencies and programs.

Operation

Steering Committee members should represent the broader interests of IABIN in addition to their origin. Consistency of representation should be given high priority by Members.

9. The IABIN Steering Committee should meet every six months for three years, then annually.

The Steering Committee would initially need to meet relatively frequently, while network policies, etc., are being developed, then less frequently as the network matures. This process could be expected to take several years. Where practicable, business should be conducted by correspondence.

10. The IABIN Steering Committee should normally make decisions by consensus or, where this is not practicable, by comfortable majority. Implementation of IABIN should not be delayed by the actions of small minorities, unless some higher-order principle is at stake.

The Steering Committee would need to develop some protocols that would guide its operations, in particular its decision-making procedures. Where practicable, decisions should be reached by consensus. However, in complex political and administrative environments, this may not always be possible. It is important that IABIN implement best practices and not be constrained by lowest-common-denominator solutions that could ultimately prove inefficient and costly.

While unanimity is desirable, particularly to secure commitment to decisions, it is perhaps even more important that no single interest group is able to exercise a veto and thus impose significant delays and costs on IABIN implementation. Occasionally, however, some higher-order issue may be at stake. Resolution of such issues may be beyond the mandate of the Steering Committee and would need to be referred to external bodies or executive management.

11. The IABIN Steering Committee should delegate operational issues to one or more technical working group(s).

The Steering Committee should delegate as much work as possible to subordinate working groups in order to spread the load and to encourage wider participation in IABIN. The Steering Committee would largely act as an interface between IABIN and participating governments. It would be responsible for high-level policy and general oversight, but should seldom involve itself in operational details. Most of the real work in IABIN would be done by technical specialists meeting in Technical Working Groups (TWGs).

Role of Technical Working Group(s)

The range of technical issues that IABIN will need to resolve is so great that a number of TWGs will most likely be required. TWGs will:

advise on best practice in data and information principles, policies and procedures;

facilitate development of IABIN projects;

assess and advise on capacity building needs of network participants.

Infrastructure Issues

Potential issues for resolution within IABIN, each of which may require its own TWG, include: data principles and management procedures, including collection, storage, quality assurance, backup, protection from inappropriate access, etc.; custodianship (essentially who manages what and why); data access (including intellectual property rights); metadata; core datasets; techniques, tools and technologies; development and monitoring of pilot projects; priority areas for IABIN infrastructure development.

Membership

The Steering Committee should review the issues listed above, decide which of these require Technical Working Groups, and facilitate their establishment. However, the Committee should also encourage any groups of organizations or individuals to form TWGs on topics within IABIN’s domain. These TWGs would then need to be endorsed by the Steering Committee through a straightforward and transparent process. The key principle is that membership of TWGs should be open to anyone who can "add value." Contributions from scientists, non-government organizations, government experts, the corporate sector, etc., should be actively sought. Meetings should take place largely by correspondence, with occasional technical workshops as required.

12. IABIN should establish a network hub, comprising a small coordinating support group, responsible to the Chair of the Steering Committee, to facilitate development of the network.

• Sources of capacity — Details of the status and availability of capacity within the IABIN network. For example, details of the core businesses, expertise, facilities and particular strengths and weaknesses of the network’s partner organizations.
• Sources of data — Details of the status and availability of datasets which are significant to the network’s goals. For example, details of their theme, scale, completeness, currency, reliability, accuracy and pricing strategy, plus an indication of how they were collected, their intended uses, and the data standards and quality-assurance procedures which have been applied. Such details should be available in a metadatabase. When compiled as a catalogue, they enable users to locate the datasets they are looking for and judge whether the data are suited to their needs.
• External sources of support — Details of national and international sources of external (non-network) development assistance, including funding, technical assistance and access to technologies.

RESOURCES

The Report of the Secretary General [of the Organization of American States] on Bolivia Summit Implementation noted that the GEF should provide support to IABIN, which is a priority for the hemisphere. Notwithstanding this, resources need to be secured to support the activities of the hub, to facilitate the development of the network, and to underwrite IABIN projects. These resources need to be both short-term seed funds to establish the hub and long-term program funds to sustain it.

Finding the resources necessary to build and sustain information infrastructure has proved difficult for all networks. Investing in infrastructure is necessarily long term, and a sustained period of investment is usually required before the benefits begin to demonstrably exceed the costs. Many external funding mechanisms either operate on shorter time frames or lose confidence before this point is reached. For similar reasons, internal funding such as member contributions are equally difficult to secure and sustain. Individual agencies and governments are already overcommitted. It is very difficult to justify reallocating scarce resources to invest in new and unproven initiatives that seem to take years to deliver any results.

The costs are very visible — staff time spent in innumerable coordination meetings, funds disappearing to some external Coordinating Support Group that appears to do very little, the need to re-tool information systems to cater for new standards, etc.

The benefits, on the other hand, always seem to take a long time to become apparent. However, if the network is properly planned and well coordinated, the benefits are substantial. Not only can a network produce the kind of integrated, value-added information products that would be difficult or impossible for individual agencies or even groups of agencies to produce, but there are other benefits also. Chief among them are the possible gains in effectiveness of existing program expenditures. The problem with many programs, particularly in government, is that they operate independently, often in ignorance, of other related programs. There is thus considerable duplication and overlap, especially "reinventing of wheels" and repeating the same mistakes. A strategic framework like IABIN could minimize all of these inefficiencies. The coordination mechanisms and a focus on "best practices" can realize substantial effectiveness gains that, in themselves, could more than cover the costs incurred, even if no identifiable network "products" were produced.

The various elements necessary to build and sustain IABIN are listed below, along with some potential funding sources.

Table 2. Funding Requirements and Potential Sources

REFERENCES

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo. <http://www.ccad.org.gt/>

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. <http://cec.org/>

Declaration of Santa Cruz de la Sierra and Plan of Action for the Sustainable Development of the Americas. <http://www.oas.org/EN/PROG/BOLIVIA/sumiteng.htm>

European Environment Information and Observation NETwork. <http://www.eionet.eu.int/>

Final Report : Meeting of Experts Regarding the Establishment of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network, October 6-7, 1997, Washington D.C., General Secretariat, Organization of American States. <http://www.nbii.gov/iabin/meetings/oas_1.html>

Final Report of the Second Meeting of Experts Regarding the Establishment of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), January 27-28, 1998, Washington D.C., General Secretariat, Organization of American States. <http://www.nbii.gov/iabin/meetings/oas_2.html>

Inter-American Water Resources Network. <http://iwrn.ces.fau.edu/ > ; <http://www.oas.org/ EN/PROG/iwrn.htm>

Report of the Secretary General on Bolivia Summit Implementation, Washington, D.C., March, 1998. <http://www.oas.org/EN/PROG/SGREPORT/sgrepeng.htm>

WCMC 1994. The Biodiversity Information Clearing House — Concepts and Challenges. WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 2. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. <ftp://ftp.wcmc.org.uk/products/wcmc.publications/2.clearing.house/chm.html>

World Conservation Monitoring Centre 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. [8 volumes] Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London.

ANNEXES

ANNEX I :

PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAS

Virtually all Initiatives in the Plan of Action require or imply access to and use of environmental information, including biodiversity information, both within and beyond national borders. The following initiatives, extracted from the Plan, are particularly worthy of note. The establishment of IABIN is addressed in Initiative 31.

Initiative 1. Strengthen programs to increase access to safe drinking water, control, and improve air quality, and upgrade health conditions with a view to reducing mortality and morbidity among children and mothers, and establish environmental quality standards with the participation of civil society.

Initiative 3. Promote mechanisms of hemispheric cooperation for the exchange of information and experiences on national policies and measures to reduce the effects of environmental problems on child health.

Initiative 5. Encourage changes in educational and communication policies, guidelines, and curricula to include instruction in sustainable development tailored to the different needs and realities of the Hemisphere, taking into account, where appropriate, multicultural and multilingual realities, and ensuring that they contribute to developing a social awareness of sustainable development. To this end, it is important to foster and create networks and mechanisms related to the exchange of experiences, teaching resources, and innovations in education and communication on this subject.

Initiative 6. Promote the inclusion of disease outbreak response and disaster planning, preparedness, and mitigation in national development plans; seek to establish, as appropriate, regional emergency response teams and regularly test contingency plans; and promote the establishment of appropriate building construction codes that include regulatory and enforcement mechanisms through the sharing of technical information and expertise.

Initiative 7. Encourage the development and implementation of national and local strategies and, if appropriate, land use plans aimed at promoting sustainable agriculture.

Initiative 10. Seek to establish, as appropriate, education, information, training, and research programs and promote the exchange of best practices, to foster innovations in agricultural technology, including models for integrated farming systems that emphasize productivity, profitability, efficiency, and environmental protection. These programs should address the needs of small-scale farmers, poverty eradication, improved nutritional standards, and food security.

Initiative 11. Seek to establish, as appropriate, research programs which examine whole systems including ecosystem, whole farm, and watershed analysis approaches and develop economic and yield data for sustainable agricultural practices.

Initiative 12. Promote the conservation and restoration of soils through the application of technologies and economic policies to reverse soil degradation processes and to remedy the problems of significant soil erosion including in mountainous areas and, when applicable, problems that result from misuse of natural resources. Promote also hemispheric cooperation for implementation, as appropriate, at the national and regional levels, of the 1994 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, with special attention to the appendix related to our region.

Initiative 13. Seek to develop, as appropriate, the capacities of local communities and of rural organizations such as farmer-initiated cooperatives, inter alia through information and training, in order to foster conservation and sustainable agriculture through programs in areas such as integrated pest management, soil conservation, water quality, crop diversification, and waste management.

Initiative 14. Promote national efforts and regional cooperation to improve the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture.

Initiative 17. Continue to participate actively in the international dialogue on forest issues initiated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. In this respect, it is necessary to give full attention to all the program elements included in the terms of reference approved by the Panel.

Initiative 18. Seek to establish, implement, and monitor, as appropriate, national plans and programs for the conservation and sustainable management of forests.

Initiative 20. Cooperate in the development of policies and comprehensive strategies for achieving sustainable forest management, bilaterally and through programs such as the International Model Forest Network, as well as consider ways and means to address the critical areas related to the transfer and development of environmentally sound technology, on favorable terms as mutually agreed.

Initiative 21. Support criteria and indicators at the regional, subregional, and national levels as mechanisms for assessing progress toward sustainable forest management. Continue to participate, as appropriate, in the ongoing initiatives relating to the development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, such as the Tarapoto and Montreal processes.

Initiative 24. Develop, as appropriate, national policies and regulations on access to and protection of genetic resources, including endemic gene pools, and promote research on the identification and economic valuation of biological diversity.

Initiative 25. Promote, as appropriate and in accordance with existing legislation and agreements, and with appropriate input from local stakeholders, the identification of cross-border protected areas and national parks which the respective neighboring countries consider to be critical sites for biodiversity conservation. Further, promote cooperation among those countries with a view to improving the sustainable management of those areas.

Initiative 26. Promote research and training programs on conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Initiative 27. Promote the exchange of innovative experience on partnerships for the management of protected areas.

Initiative 28. Consider, in accordance with the terms of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, ways and means for the effective protection and use of traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous people and other local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as for fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from such knowledge, innovations, and practices.

Initiative 29. Pursuant to the objectives of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, promote discussions on biological diversity at the inter-American level to propose substantive strategies with a view to overcoming the challenges related to the conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological diversity in the Hemisphere.

Initiative 31. Seek to establish an Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network, primarily through the Internet, that will promote compatible means of collection, communication, and exchange of information relevant to decision-making and education on biodiversity conservation, and that builds upon such initiatives as the Clearing-House Mechanism provided for in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Man and Biosphere Network (MABNET Americas), and the Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS), an initiative of nine programs of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and partner organizations.

Initiative 47. Seek to establish, strengthen, and implement, where appropriate, specific programs, laws, and policies to protect public health by ensuring that drinking water is free from microorganisms, heavy metals, and chemical contaminants harmful to human health.

Initiative 50. Promote hemispheric cooperation at all levels, including through the use of existing transboundary agreements and initiatives, in the conservation, management, and sustainable use of water resources and biological diversity. This would include the exchange of information and experiences on issues related to inland watersheds, river basins, and sub-basins.

Initiative 54. Develop and strengthen at the national and regional levels, as appropriate, research and monitoring capabilities pertaining to the conservation of inland, coastal, and marine water resources, especially in relation to environmental health parameters, including sanitary water quality criteria and the health status of coral reefs, mangroves, and sea grass beds. In this regard, consideration should be given to the work being done in the region, which should be continued. Data collected will be incorporated into a study that will document the current state of health of the coastal and marine environment; establish benchmark indicators for assessing the effectiveness of national, regional, and international instruments and initiatives; and identify and categorize land and marine-based sources of pollution.

Initiative 55. Develop and implement environmental education and awareness programs to promote sustainable use of coastal and marine resources.

Initiative 56. Promote the development or strengthening, as appropriate, of institutional capabilities at the national level or, where specific agreements exist, at the subregional level, especially in land use planning, coastal zone management, coastal engineering, environmental impact assessment, environmental protection and natural resource management laws, hydrography, fisheries and marine affairs management. This should be supported by promoting the establishment of a marine environment center for the Caribbean and the design and development of model legislation which could serve as the basis for national legislation that would provide an integrated and sustainable approach to the management of coastal and marine resources. Such model legislation should be consistent with relevant international treaties to which states are party and enhance the effectiveness of government policies and programs.

Initiative 57. Cooperate in the development, strengthening and implementation of pollution prevention programs and regional disaster mitigation plans, including contingency and response arrangements to combat oil spills and other forms of pollution which have an impact on water resources. This should include mechanisms to reduce current levels of marine pollution and, where necessary, the development and implementation of sanitary water quality criteria and effluent standards and guidelines.

Initiative 58. Develop programs at the national and regional levels, as appropriate, to implement the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, as well as seek to implement the relevant recommendations of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) as developed at the 1995 Tropical Americas Workshop.

ANNEX II:

BIODIVERSITY-RELATED ACTIVITIES RELEVANT TO THE REGION

The Report of the Secretary General on Bolivia Summit Implementation, produced by the Organization of American States in 1988, included reports of activities or achievements relevant to the planning and development of IABIN.

• A number of multilateral agreements play an important role in the hemisphere, including: The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR); the Convention on the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage; the Convention on the Law of the Seas; the International Treaty on Trade in Tropical Woods (ITTA); the Program for Regional Seas of UNEP; the UNESCO Program on Man and the Biosphere; and the Amazon Treaty. More recently, the Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development has also launched a number of initiatives directed towards the preservation of biodiversity.
• There has been a growing realization that decisions on development and sustainability depend on access to well organized information. The secretariats of various of the multilateral agreements recognize they could collaborate more closely to gain synergies, avoid duplication and reduce the burden of reporting carried by the Parties to the conventions. The five biodiversity-related treaty secretariats [CBD, CITES, Ramsar, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or the Bonn Convention) and World Heritage] and UNEP commissioned the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) to undertake a Feasibility Study to identify opportunities for harmonizing information management. The study considered effectiveness and efficiency in the gathering, handling, disseminating and sharing of information and identified three programs of work to improve information management:
• development of a harmonized conventions information resource;
• streamlined national reporting to facilitate national reporting to, and implementation of, the Conventions;
• development of a shared lessons-learned network.
• The United Nations "UNGASS Program" for the implementation of Agenda 21 recently stressed that there is an urgent need to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the fair and equitable distribution of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. UNGASS highlighted certain specific threats, including the destruction of habitat, overexploitation of both marine and land environments, pollution, and the inappropriate introduction of exotic plants and animals. Various ways to combat these threats were also the subject of agreements at Santa Cruz.
• Many countries in the hemisphere have adopted national biodiversity strategies, strengthened their research and development capacity in the area of biological resources, and introduced legislation on access to genetic resources. The Andean countries have enacted regional laws and are developing national legislation. Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Mexico are also planning to either introduce or amend legislation on this subject.
• In early 1997, UNEP began a review of existing legislation in the region, as an essential component for an exchange of information to serve as a basis for further developing the body of law on the subject, so that the many complex provisions of the Convention can be applied. During 1998, the UNEP and IUCN environmental law programs have been planning a Joint Environmental Law Information Service.
• There are also various studies in progress on enhancing the economic value of biodiversity, and research project on the industrial demand for genetic resources and an analysis of the European market.
• In accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, specific strategies on a global or regional level aimed at furthering scientific knowledge of the biological diversity of forests, agriculture, and seas and coastal areas either have been or are being defined. The Conference of the Parties at its Fourth Meeting endorsed the Global Taxonomy Initiative and it is now going into effect. In addition, at the third meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the Conference of the Parties, the adoption of a preliminary series of indicators for biological diversity was recommended. This is a field in which work is being done by a number of countries in the hemisphere.
• An important achievement in the Americas in recent decades has been the creation of systems of protected areas, which reflects a key strategy for ensuring the long-range preservation of biodiversity. Its significance is reflected in the fact that the diversity of ecosystems can only be guaranteed in situ. A more recent development has been the identification and establishment of protected cross-border areas. In recognizing the importance of the network of protected areas, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity provided advice to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) recommending that this should be one of the mayor areas for project financing by the GEF. The following projects are mentioned among those financed in the region: the regional Meso-American system of protected areas, buffer zones, and biological corridors; the establishment of a global representative system of protected marine areas; action for a sustainable Amazon region; regional strategies for the preservation and sustainable use of natural resources in the Amazon; and national projects to support the establishment and development of systems of protected areas, such as Brazil’s Fund for Biodiversity, conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development in the conservation areas of La Amistad and La Osa in Costa Rica, and the programs of protected areas in Mexico and Guyana.
• In addition to projects for protected areas, the GEF has also financed various national projects for the protection of biodiversity, such as the following: consolidation and implementation of the program for management of the coastal area of Patagonia to preserve its biodiversity; protection and sustainable use of the biological diversity of the bio-geographical Chocó in Colombia; preservation of biodiversity in the Lake Titicaca watershed; the integrated project for the protection of biodiversity in the Sartsún-Montagua region of Guatemala. Finally, the World Bank and the IDB have co-financed various projects in Latin America and the Caribbean related to preservation of biodiversity.
• The First Latin American Congress on National Parks and Other Protected Areas, which took place in Santa Marta, Colombia, in 1997, stressed the importance of the initiatives agreed to at the Bolivia Summit and the close relationship between preservation of biodiversity and management of national parks. It also highlighted the role that the OAS should play as a forum for moving forward the various recommendations emanating from the Congress, and especially those related to biodiversity.
• The Convention on Biological Diversity has identified as priority goals for the Americas the preservation, maintenance, use of and respect for the traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous peoples and other local communities, and the equitable distribution of the benefits so derived. This topic was discussed at length in the Global Workshop on Indigenous Peoples and Forests, which took place in Leticia, Colombia, in December 1996. Ways to achieve this objective have been discussed in various forums and workshops sponsored for the most part by local non-governmental organizations. Also, a Workshop on Traditional Know-How and Biological Diversity was held in Madrid last November. However, five years after the Convention was concluded, little progress has been made in this area, which is of particular relevance to the Americas, a habitat with a great diversity of indigenous peoples.

ANNEX III:

NETWORK ARCHITECTURES

Information networks are designed in two basic forms. The first uses a centralized architecture (see Figure III-1) where a single organizational unit is at the center of the network. This is a "command and control" model, where network operations are firmly focussed on top-down priorities. Individual partners largely operate according to instructions from the central unit and communicate and cooperate with that unit — for example, by providing requested data and advice — rather than directly with other partners. This model implies that the central unit has the necessary people, facilities and procedures to generate most if not all of the network information products. It may provide resources to partners, at least to cover their marginal costs of providing network goods and services. It also implies that the information system is primarily located in the central location, with partners supporting remote elements of the network, as necessary.

Figure III-1. A Centralized Network

Centralized data management is very efficient in situations where partners work within a single operation or narrow subject area and where individual feelings of data ownership and control are subsumed by voluntary or mandated commitment to wider corporate objectives. It is also useful in situations where, for security reasons, data must be managed under tightly controlled conditions (e.g., in a bank). Finally, it is a practical way forward in cases where individual partners do not have the capacity to manage data themselves.

The weakness of this model is that independent-minded organizations and individuals respond very poorly to command and control policies and can be extremely reluctant to participate in networks of this kind. This can also be the case with individual government agencies, even when a whole-of-government decision has been made to establish such a system. Partners can be reluctant to contribute unless all their marginal costs of doing so are covered. Covering such costs can be very expensive for the central unit. Furthermore, the partners lack motivation to address any problems that arise; they tend to sit back and wait for the central unit to solve them. Therefore, with certain exceptions such as those outlined above, the lack of motivation by the partners and high costs borne by the central unit generally leads to the failure of centralized networks.

Figure III-2. A Distributed Network

The second form of network has a distributed architecture (see Figure III-2). Partners operate in an unrestricted environment where communication can occur freely amongst all parties. No attempt is made to coordinate or control the partnerships that may develop; there is total democracy of cooperation. The information system is spread across all of the network’s partners, i.e., the network is the information system. Interestingly, the two architectures — centralized and distributed — mirror trends in information technology strategy over the last decade, from large, centralized computers (mainframes) to small, desktop computers (personal workstations) communicating with each other via ever more extensive electronic networks. The Internet is the ultimate example of a distributed network, albeit chaotic and unfocused, although electronic communication is not essential to network functioning in general.

Distributed systems are extremely flexible and are rapidly able to explore new areas and exploit new opportunities. They are particularly effective in research and development environments and are very cheap to establish and maintain, since virtually all the costs are borne by the partners. Under such conditions it is not difficult to establish a ‘cooperative spirit’ since all the participants are highly motivated and actively seek opportunities to exchange data and experience.

The weakness of this model is that there are no mechanisms to ensure that the network develops to meet priority national or wider needs. Partners are neither coordinated nor provided with direction, resulting in fragmentation and duplication of effort, gaps in data coverage, lack of agreed standards, unresolvable disputes among partners and generally little progress towards common information objectives.

Figure III-3. A Managed Network

The weaknesses of both approaches can be rectified through the formation of a hybrid, or managed network, which allows unrestricted communication amongst partners and provides coordination and other network-wide services through a facilitating ‘hub’ (see Figure III-3).

Unlike the ‘central unit’ in the centralized network, the hub of a managed network serves the collective interests of the network’s partners, rather than the specific interests of a single organization or operation. Usually, the hub would be managed by a "steering committee" representing the interests of all partners in the network (WCMC 1994). The steering committee itself can be accountable to higher-level authority, such as a national governmental or an intergovernmental mechanism. The network would operate under protocols and procedures as agreed by the steering committee, facilitated by staff in the hub. The hub requires a limited number of professional staff, plus associated administrative support, in order to effectively achieve the various tasks delegated to them by the steering committee. A dotted line is used to denote the hub in Figure III-3 to reinforce its role as facilitator, not controller, of the network. A good measure of the success of the hub in serving collective interests is the number of bilateral partnerships it helps to form. This feature distinguishes the managed network from more centralized approaches.

The table below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each type of network:

[Source: modified from WCMC 1998]

ANNEX IV:

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION INFORMATION SYSTEM (BCIS)

In April of 1995, IUCN-The World Conservation Union invited representatives from several partner organizations to meet and discuss organizing and sharing the massive amounts of biodiversity conservation data and information held within their dispersed networks. The Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS) emerged. Founding Members subsequently agreed to:

BCIS Concept

 Founded on principles of partnership, BCIS brings together 12 international organizations and networks concerned with the conservation of biodiversity. The Members seek to pool data, information, and expertise, in order to better guide decision-making, to:

• assess the extent and nature of threats to species, habitats and landscapes;
• assist nations, intergovernmental agencies, conservation organizations and the commercial sector to identify, prioritize and implement conservation objectives; and
• build technical capacities at the national and local levels to enable equitable and representative inputs into issues of conservation concern.

BCIS is an open partnership that builds on existing resources and expertise. It recognizes the concerns of those who contribute data and information — the data owners — and extends access to its species, ecosystem, and legal and protects their rights and interests through a "data custodian" model. BCIS information tools and methods are cost-effective, practical and transferable to developing countries (i.e. non-proprietary). BCIS supports conservation at all levels, assisting individuals and organizations to build data and information management capacity that meets their needs and is sustainable. Finally, it integrates information resources using emerging information and communication technologies to inform natural resource and conservation policy at the national, regional and international levels.

With its clear conservation focus, BCIS complements other biodiversity information initiatives and supports biodiversity-related conventions. At the national level, BCIS will support national biodiversity inventories, provide key conservation indicators and help mobilize biodiversity data and information needed to implement conservation objectives.

BCIS will improve and support communication between data owners and custodians, and with governments and organizations concerned with conservation. It will build the technological capacities of all participants, and encourage use of compatible methods of collecting and managing data and information. The result will be enhanced ability to exchange and disseminate information and ensure access to better data for better decisions.

BCIS is not about reinventing technologically driven wheels, but rather about making existing wheels run further and faster.

The Members

BCIS Members are international non-governmental organizations with recognized experience in networked biodiversity data and information collection and/or information management at the global and/or regional levels. Members have missions directly related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity:

• BirdLife International
• Botanic Gardens Conservation International
• Conservation International
• International Species Information System
• IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management
• IUCN Environmental Law Programme
• IUCN Species Survival Commission
• IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
• The Nature Conservancy
• TRAFFIC International
• Wetlands International
• World Conservation Monitoring Centre

BCIS Products and Services

Accessible Biodiversity Conservation Data, Information and Expertise: A principle of BCIS is to provide conservationists, government officials and others with access to important information about conservation of biodiversity. BCIS Members will work together to identify key elements of biodiversity data and information that can be drawn from the Members' networks and the best means of accessing and distributing them. To allow for easy integration, the most appropriate electronic mechanisms for data distribution and exchange will be developed and used.

Global System of Data and Information Services: BCIS will assist nations, international institutions, conservation organizations and the commercial sector to identify, prioritize and implement conservation objectives. The system will enable rapid responses to requests for biodiversity information from governments or industry (for example requests to assess environmental impacts of proposed development projects).

Building Technical Capacities at the National and Local Levels: BCIS will facilitate provision of tools and services to BCIS data custodians and others to build their capacity to manage and share biodiversity data and information. These will include methodologies for data collection, guidelines and standards for information management, technology for processing and accessing information, and mechanisms for quality assurance and validation. In addition to supporting data management efforts of the BCIS partners, these technologies will assist, for example, a country wishing to develop a national biodiversity inventory, or a field researcher seeking information about comparable experiences in other parts of the world. Thus BCIS will be both an information resource and a mechanism for expediting technology transfer.

 BCIS will assist data providers in three ways: 1) data management resources will be made available to data providers (for example, the SSC expert network on palms, a BirdLife International national organization, a TRAFFIC regional office) to assist them in managing their own data more efficiently; 2) data providers will be able to share and exchange data with each other, providing them with more complete information, or "value-added" data; 3) through the national-, regional- and global-level BCIS information products, data providers will gain knowledge about the wider conservation significance of species, protected areas or ecosystems of concern to them. Data providers will thus be better able to prioritize, advocate for and implement conservation activities at the community, national or international levels.

ANNEX V: 

BIN21: CONCEPT AND HISTORY

 Concept

 The Biodiversity Information Network (BIN21) is an international collaborative network of agencies involved in the management and presentation of biodiversity information. BIN21 was set up as an informal, collaborative and distributed network consisting of a series of participating "nodes." BIN21 aims at complementing existing or planned actions.

 Historical Background

 Two workshops were held by the scientific community, policy makers and non governmental organizations to discuss the implementation of a Biodiversity Information Network. The first workshop, "Needs and Specifications for a Biodiversity Information Network" (Canhos, et al, 1992; http://wwwbdt.org.br/bin21/ws92/index.html ), discussed the broad issues and established the start of a working process. The second workshop, "Linking Mechanisms for Biodiversity Information Resources" (Canhos et al., 1994; http://www.bdt.org.br/bin21/proceed94/proc1.html ), was convened to implement the concept at the technical level. Both workshops were sponsored by UNEP and the Brazilian Government.

In order to ensure global participation, a discussion list, biodiv-L@bdt.org.br, was launched prior to the first workshop (June, 1992) and is active until today (637 subscribers). Discussions include the establishment of BIN21 and worldwide initiatives on collecting, storing and disseminating biodiversity information and data. A "read only" version of biodiv-L is available at http://www.bdt.org.br/bdt/biodiv-l/.

BIN21 and the Clearing-House Mechanism

BIN21 has been actively involved in the discussions of the Clearing House Mechanism to the Convention on Biological Diversity. [Further details can be found on the web site.]

International Cooperation and Local Efforts

As a result of the convention, several information efforts and specialized networks were established at country, regional and international levels. Initiatives such as ERIN (Australia, http://www.environment.gov.au ) and INBio (Costa Rica, http://www.inbio.ac.cr/ ), were launched prior to the Rio meeting in 1992 and are excellent country level examples. As a result of BIN21’s collaborative efforts, new national developments sharing the decentralization concept emerged as BIN21 nodes:

• FINBIN, the Biodiversity Information Network in Finland (http://www.metla.fi/biodiversity/finbin/metla-finbin.html ) has a National Focal Point and its administrative functions under the Ministry of Environment. Information in FINBIN is public by nature and the most important activity of FINBIN is to move information to public-domain databases in the Internet for open access.
• CBIN, the Canadian Biodiversity Information Network (http://www.doe.ca/ecs/biodiv/biodiv.html ) was developed in response to the Convention and the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. The development is being led by the Evaluation & Interpretation Branch and the Biodiversity Convention Office of Environment Canada and a variety of other government and non-governmental organizations.
• BINBr, the Biodiversity Information Network—Brazil (http://www.bdt.org.br/bdt/index/binbr/) aims at facilitating the access to relevant information by government and society, with the view of promoting the conservation and sustainable use of the country’s biological diversity. BINBr is a distributed and coordinated system, and aims to promote collaboration among existing centers. All efforts of BINBR are being carried out in order to complement existing or planned actions, at both national and international levels, cooperating with BIN/21. Different from other initiatives, the implementation of BINBr is being coordinated by an NGO (non-governmental organization), the André Tosello Foundation for Tropical Research and its Tropical Database (BDT, Base de Dados Tropical).

A list of all BIN21 nodes can be found on the web site http://www.bdt.org.br/bin21/montreal.html.  

BIN21’s Future: Evolution or Death?

BIN21 is an international collaborative network of agencies involved in the management and presentation of biodiversity information. As such, many of its aims are similar to those of the proposed Clearing-House Mechanism. The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity could utilize many of the BIN21 experiences in its setting up of the Clearing-House Mechanism.

The development of the Clearing-House Mechanism under the Convention has prompted a re-evaluation of the goals of the BIN21 vis a vis the Clearing-House Mechanism. BIN21 members consider that it does have a continuing role to play in the furtherance of information exchange within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Considering the recent technological developments, BIN21 could best support the aims of its participating members and those of the Convention by functioning as an international collaborative test-bed to design and evaluate informatics tools and methodologies (new applications based on currently available tools as well as emerging technologies). Many of these are now being developed by participating nodes of BIN21 and the BIN21 network provides a unique opportunity to trial these in a cooperative environment. The results of much of this technology will feed directly into the Clearing-House Mechanism and be compatible with the aims of the Convention in providing a mechanism for technology transfer between nations. A good example would be in the area of testing distributed systems, interacting with existing initiatives such as the Dublin Core (http://purl.org/dc) and the G7 GELOS (Global Environmental Locator Service (http://ceo.gelos.org/).

Up to now, BIN21 has been operating on a voluntary and collaborative basis with ongoing activities being funded by institutions and/or countries. In order to address the new role as a testbed for information technologies, funding will have to be considered.

Further information about BIN21 and its participating nodes can be found at the BIN21 home page on the World Wide Web (http://www.bdt.org.br/bin21/bin21.html).

ANNEX VI:

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION AND OBSERVATION NETWORK

Introduction

Council of Europe Regulation 1210/90 established the European Environment Agency (EEA) and also aimed at the setting-up of the European Environment Information and Observation NETwork (EIONET). The 15 Member States of the European Union (EU15) plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are currently members of the Agency.

EIONET was created as the main vehicle of the EEA to collect data, information and knowledge for the process of reporting on the state of environment. In addition to the EEA, the Regulation indicates that the network consists of:

• National Focal Points
• Main Component Elements
• European Topic Centres

and describes what they are and their main roles.

As part of the work program, and with initial funding from the DGXIII IDA (Interchange of Data between Administrations) Programme, these elements are being connected together in a telematics network, also called EIONET or Telematic EIONET. EIONET is therefore both an organizational network and telematic network.

Organizational Network

At the centre of EIONET is the European Environment Agency (EEA). It collaborates with groups in each member country called National Focal Points (NFP). The NFPs are appointed and funded by Member Countries and are in charge of national cooperation with the EEA and national coordination of activities related to the EEA work program. There are National Focal Points (NFPs) in each of the 18 member countries of the EEA, and this network is being extended to encompass 12 of the Phare countries.

Main Component Elements (MCE) are nominated by Member Countries and are nationally funded institutions/ organizations that, at the national level, are regular collectors and suppliers of environmental data and/or possess relevant knowledge regarding environmental science, monitoring or modeling;

National Reference Centres (NRC) are not mentioned in the Regulation but have been defined subsequently as a special subset of MCEs. NRCs are also therefore nationally funded institutions/organizations which may be nominated by Member States to play a role in technical coordination within their countries and cooperate with ETCs established to cover various topics.

European Topic Centres (ETC) are institutions/organizations that are contracted by the EEA to execute tasks identified in the Multiannual Work Programme. They are agreed unanimously by the Management Board after a competitive expertise/capacity selection process. Guiding principles for selection should be cost-efficient use of existing and potential capacities in the Member Countries, and avoidance of duplication of work and capacities.

The ETCs designated to date are multi-institutional (multi-organizational) consortia consisting of a Lead Organization which provides the ETC Leader and a number (currently between 3 and 15) of Partner Organizations (ETC Partners). Thus, an ETC Consortium consists of ETC Lead Organization and ETC Partners.

The Agency has a contract (agreement) with the Lead Organization for each ETC who may then sub-contract some tasks to its ETC Partners. Tasks may also be sub-contracted to others outside the ETC Consortium with the approval of EEA.

The ETC therefore works as an extension of the Agency to develop the work program on that topic and works with the ETC Primary Contact Points (NFP or NRC) to facilitate and develop work in the Member Country relevant to that topic.

With a few exceptions on specific topics (for example not all countries will be interested in marine and coastal environment), each ETC works with all Member Countries to help develop the work program and deliver the agreed data, information, reports and other products/ services. Each Member Country has to fund its own contribution to the work.

ETCs (Lead Organizations and Partners) therefore are different from NRCs (and MCEs). They are funded from different sources and they have different roles and responsibilities within the work program.

It is therefore not essential to be in an ETC consortium to participate in a topic within the work program. However it is possible for one organization to be involved in a topic as an ETC Lead Organization or Partner and as an NRC (or MCE); the former on behalf of, and funded by, the EEA; the latter on behalf of, and funded by, the Member Country.

Each ETC Lead Organization has an agreement with the Agency for a period of three years renewable annually. The work to be done and the funding available under the agreement is specified each year in a series of technical annexes in line with the annual work programs.

The first five ETCs were designated in December 1994 and a further four have since been designated. Topics and lead organizations are as follows:

Telematic EIONET

The core of EIONET began as an Intranet that connected a total of 40 National Focal Points, European Topic Centres, and Phare NFPs with EEA. However, the Intranet concept was soon abandoned for a more flexible Extranet architecture that also allows hundreds of National Reference Centres, Topic Centre partners and European institutions to actively participate. Beyond this, EEA coordinates some collaborative activities, such as information locators and global clearing-houses, in the public and semi-public Internet.

The functionality on the EIONET is provided by the full range of Netscape server technology on Unix. In order to achieve a full-function network, the services will be built with a layered approach so that more advanced forms of communication build on top of the basic ones (Figure VI-2). At the top of the services there is a groupware package called CIRCLE (Centre for Information Resources for Collaboration on Environment). It ties all the other services together, and provides the shared group collaboration areas for projects, which are called Interest Groups. CIRCLE is a generic service that has been developed by European Dynamics S.A. for the IDA Programme. It is being installed on all EIONET servers.

Figure VI-2. The layered architecture of EIONET’s services.

Several key aspects of these layered services are worth mentioning. Electronic mail has become a major contributor to information overload lately. Therefore, more structured forms of communication such as discussion forums and project homepages where documents are uploaded, are being implemented. A full-blown distributed directory service across all the hundreds of EIONET organizations is also essential. In document management, the webmaster has been bypassed entirely, and users themselves do document uploads to Interest Groups on CIRCLE servers.

Out of the vertical applications being built on top of EIONET platform, the most central is Catalogue of Data Sources (CDS), which consists of a data directory, address database and a multilingual thesaurus. It serves as the key link to all the other data sources on EIONET.

Information Technology and Telematics Advisory Group (ITTAG) consists of experts nominated by the National Focal Points. The Commission Services concerned with Information Technology and ETCs can also delegate observers to ITTAG.

The mandate of the ITTAG is:

• to help establish and assist in the organization of an operational telematics network between the elements of EIONET;
• to provide a technical basis for data and information integration; data models, codification standards, integrative technologies and interchange protocols;
• to help define EIONET Information Technology applications, to steer their implementation, to help assure a consistent systems approach, specifically with regard to meta-information and thesaurus.

The table below shows all the Interest Groups across EIONET in alphabetic order, their descriptions, nodes where they run, their status, and contact information to the leaders of the group for membership applications. General users are requested to consult EEA=s EnviroWindows service.