Unit of Sustainable Development and Environment
General Secretariat
Organization of American States

CONTENTS

TABLES

The Second Meeting of Experts Regarding the Establishment of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) was held on January 27-28, 1998, at the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C. Mr. Kirk Rodgers, Director of the OAS Unit of Sustainable Development and Environment (USDE) welcomed the participants on behalf of the OAS in its role as coordinator of Summit follow-up activities. He reviewed the accomplishments of the first experts, meeting (October 6-7, 1997) and wished the participants success in their tasks ahead. He also mentioned the fundamental importance of a secure financial base for the long-term success of IABIN. Ambassador Sarah Horsey-Barr, of the U.S. Mission to the OAS, welcomed the participants in her role as chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainable Development of the Permanent Executive Committee of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CEPCIDI) and said that she planned to inform members of her committee of the results of this meeting. She referred to IABIN as a "vision with an agenda for hemispheric cooperation" on biodiversity decisions. She also expressed the hope that the upcoming meetings of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI), 25-26 March 1998, and the Inter-American Commission on Sustainable Development (CIDS), 9-10 July 1998, would consider a resolution noting the advances in achieving actions called for in Initiative 31 of the Santa Cruz Action Plan.

Dr. Braulio Dias of Brazil chaired the meeting. He stated his belief 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. The task at hand now, according to Dr. Dias, is to develop initiatives at the regional, subregional, and national levels. These should include both governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The Brazilian Government’s offer to host the next IABIN meeting of experts is a continuation of this open initiative. It was Dr. Dias’ hope that the current meeting would produce specific actions to launch IABIN at the meeting in Brazil.

The participants produced the following results during their two-day meeting:

• Identified, reported, and discussed eight Terms of References (TORs) for pilot projects and technical studies related to IABIN start-up activities. It was understood that pilot projects were open to all interested parties, subject to the availability of funding.
• Provided comments and suggestions to improve the TORs and in the process promoted possibilities of collaboration and information sharing on topics of mutual interest.
• Heard two presentations on existing efforts on biodiversity topics: the MABNet experience in the United States Man and the Biosphere Program, headed by the Department of State; and The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) report "Biodiversity Information Networking Initiatives," which included a demonstration of a database software program developed under a TNC contract with the OAS.
• Listened to presentations on financial resources potentially available through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF); the OAS 1999 funding cycle for regional projects, financial commitments for the Brazil meeting, and future OAS efforts to assist the Government of Brazil in preparing for the upcoming inter-American meeting; and the United States Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS/BRD), regarding available funding from an interagency agreement with USAID.
• Discussed and compared available financial resources for project and studies development along with the shortfalls and agreements to seek additional resources. It was estimated that of the US$126,000-132,000 required to fund all the ideas currently being planned by the working group, US$80,000 is currently available. The participants agreed to undertake efforts to seek additional sources of funds to make up for the approximately US$55,000 shortfall.
• Advanced significantly the formation of ideas on IABIN’s structure, coordination, and governance, sustainability, and relationships with other institutions. The participants agreed to provide additional inputs and ideas to serve as a basis for the preparation of a study on IABIN governance and coordination, to be funded by USGS/BRD.
• Undertook extended discussions on the planning of the meeting in Brazil: administrative and logistical planning, including the formation of an organizing committee; Brazilian government support; structure of the meeting; location, dates, duration, number and types of participant; and invitation procedures. It was felt that 100-150 interested experts (from governments, technical institutions, NGOs, and other organizations) would attend. The meeting is scheduled for the end of August or early September 1998. The OAS representatives anticipated that official OAS documents would give governments an opportunity to promote the meeting through official channels. Other possibilities for disseminating IABIN meeting activities might be through the OAS Web server, direct in-country contacts by participants and IABIN focal points, or the LISTSERV set up by the USGS/BRD.
• Prepared a 29-point action plan to ensure timely benchmark achievements in preparation for the Brazil meeting.

1. The Action Plan for Sustainable Development emerged from the Summit of the Americas, held in Santa Cruz, Bolivia in December 1966. Initiative 31 of the Summit called for the establishment of an Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network. Informal discussions between interested governments with input from civil society advanced views on the Network idea. The OAS Unit for Sustainable Development and the Environment, in its coordinating role for Summit follow-up, provided funding to host two expert meetings to formalize the IABIN concept. The first was held in Washington, D.C. on October 6 and 7, 1997.

 

2. The second expert meeting, the subject of the present report, was held in Washington, D.C., on January 27 and 28, 1998. The report is organized by topical discussion rather than by chronological order (see Annex A for the Agenda and Annex B for the List of Participants). A third meeting, to be hosted by the Government of Brazil, is scheduled for September 1998.

3. Mr. Rodgers opened the meeting and recalled the consensus reached at the first expert meeting that IABIN (1) focus on the quality of the scientific information that will form the base of the network; (2) give priority to the importance of linkages between science and policy groups; (3) provide civil society an active role in all aspects of planing and managing IABIN; and (4) not become a centralized network and a large bureaucracy but rather be a decentralized network. He noted the Government of Brazil’s offer to host the international IABIN meeting (September 1998) and the encouraging possibilities of grant financing from the Global Environment Fund (GEF).

 

4. The objectives of the current meeting, underscored by Mr. Rodgers, were to make preparations for the Brazil IABIN meeting, to present concept papers for pilot projects, to form an organizing committee, and to examine funding sources for the short and long-term. He stressed the importance of long-term financial sustainability and a practical approach to development of IABIN.

5. Ambassador Horsey-Barr welcomed the participants and reported there will be an opportunity for the recommendations of the experts present to be considered by government representatives at upcoming meetings: (1) the March 25-26, 1998 meeting in Argentina of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI), and (2) the Inter-American Commission on Sustainable Development (CIDS), meeting on July 9-10, 1998. She referred to IABIN as a vision with an agenda for hemispheric cooperation to ensure that biodiversity decisions are based on good judgement and reliable data, and with the potential to become the most advanced initiative in our region in response to the Santa Crux Plan of action for Sustainable Development in the Americas.

 

6. She also expressed her hope for the development of worthy projects, specific recommendations for the Brazil meeting, and specific commitments from each participant. She indicated her intention to report on the IABIN meeting to the Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainable Development as well as CIDI and CIDS.

7. Dr. Dias expressed his appreciation for the remarks of the two opening speakers. He cited the current meeting as an excellent opportunity to make IABIN a reality. On behalf of Brazil, Dr. Dias expressed his conviction that the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are open-ended processes and noted the responsibility of each country to develop decentralized initiatives at the regional, subregional and national levels. These initiatives should involve both governments and non-government organizations (NGOs).

 

8. Dr. Dias stated his belief that IABIN is a biodiversity initiative approved at the highest levels of government through the Summit process. The task at hand is one of determining the optimal technical relationship with the CHM to facilitate the process of technical implementation.

 

9. Brazil’s offer to host the next IABIN meeting represents a continuation of this open initiative. Dr. Dias urged the participants to offer suggestions and recommendations on IABIN regarding (1) structure; (2) tasks for the design of the pilot phase; (3) governance; (4) preparation of documents; (5) linkages with other initiatives; and (6) funding issues.

 

10. Dr. Dias urged those who were attending for the first time to participate in the meeting. He noted that IABIN should not become a burden but be integrated and enhance other ongoing biodiversity information activities, and particularly the CHM process.

11. Mr. Cristian Samper reported on the Clearing-House Mechanism Regional Workshop for Latin America and the Caribbean held in Cartagena, Colombia from October 13 to 15, 1997. It focused on information content, information structure, and particular capacity-building needs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Specific issues, as reported by the presenter, focused on ownership of information, location of information, data quality, and types of information. The participants at that meeting stressed a decentralized structure for CHM composed of thematic and national focal points, and the need for steering committees at the national level.

 

12. IABIN Discussion Points and Statements on Cartagena CHM Workshop:

• Both information content and capacity building must be addressed at the same time. Much information is not computerized.
• Rather than start with all information and go back in time, it was felt that a thematic approach to information collection would be adopted.
• Duplication of efforts is to be avoided.
• The question of information ownership has to be solved at the national level. Not all information is publicly owned; contracts with universities, for example, must be drawn up.
• The UNEP/CEP/RCU Caribbean Environmental Network is not yet integrated within IABIN. The insular Caribbean needs regional as well as national capacity-building.

13. Participants continued the discussion of the IABIN/CHM relationship, addressing the issue of useful modes of cooperation to make the universe of data available to all. It was stressed that IABIN is not designed to be a new body of information or to be duplicative of others’ efforts. One example would be pilot projects focusing on cooperation, compatibility, and common standards of reference for information sharing. A problem common to countries is the subject of invasive species. It represents a shared interest, solves a scientific problem, and addresses collection, use and sharing of data.

 

14. Such a cooperative approach, as expressed in the meeting by Dr. Dias, is consistent with Initiative 31 of the Declaration of Santa Cruz and builds on the CHM. IABIN was felt to be in line with CHM by providing a building block for the realization of the CHM as a regional effort. It will move the CHM agenda forward by working on technical and scientific issues, formats, and data standards. The CBD/COP 2 decisions regarding a pilot phase for CHM can also be advanced by helping a regional activity like IABIN. Dr. Dias summarized his view, saying the CHM is an open initiative but one needing initial tasks consistent with the Santa Cruz Summit of the Americas, the CBD Convention, and the CHM process. As a group of active members, IABIN must decide on where to begin and not create another burden for the CBD Secretariat. The COP process should be kept informed of the status of IABIN vis-à-vis the CHM and its established reporting mechanisms.

 

15. In viewing IABIN within the CHM context, participants offered examples of its uniqueness as a "network of networks,"a facilitating mechanism, and a forum on issues of connectivity, information sharing, and standards.

16. The participants wanted to know more about country focal points representing different initiatives such as CHM, IABIN, and GEF. The OAS reported that it had written to all OAS missions and to the participants in the IABIN-1 meeting asking them to name an IABIN focal point and, in so doing, to give special consideration to having the same focal point represent both CHM and IABIN initiatives. At the time of this meeting received responses from Argentina, Peru, and the United States. Ambassador Horsey-Barr urged a renewed effort for more responses and the OAS/USDE agreed to keep Dr. Dias informed as focal points are named by countries. It was also pointed out that the GEF has focal points in many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, and their support will be essential once proposals are prepared for funding consideration. Government-sanctioned proposals with GEF representation were essential to the grant-approval process.

 

 

IV. PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PAPERS AND DISCUSSION:

TASKS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PILOT PHASE FOR IABIN

 

Introduction

 

17. One of the outcomes of the first OAS expert meeting was to prepare and deliver background studies and Terms of References (TORs) at this second meeting. Eight were presented at the meeting. Ideas and suggestions followed each presentation so that the presenter could consider their incorporation into the formal preparation of background studies and projects to be presented at the Brazil meeting.

 

18. The group decided that there would be a review process on the revised TORs and the work resulting from them. This review will be carried out through electronic exchanges. IABIN focal points and experts should be involved in this process.

19. The paper proposes a two month study to assess the status and trends of Internet topology and connectivity for an estimated cost of US$10,000-15,000. The World Bank may have good background documentation on this subject. It is considered important to understand the infrastructure to ensure some countries will not be left out of the processes. The findings of the study are considered essential to IABIN’s ability to serve as a "network of networks."

 

20. Discussion Points and Statements on Topology and Connectivity:

• Determining the cost to a user of the network should be a focus of the study since volume use could be an inhibiting factor. The TOR will be modified to include this item.
• The World Bank’s program in this area would be a good source of background information, much of which can be found on its Web site.
• In addition to topology and connectivity, other meeting participants expressed an interest in looking at country costs in terms of human-resource requirements. It was pointed out that such costs are a variable factor depending on how ambitious an effort would be; a starting point would be to consider funding one nodal point at the outset.
• It was proposed and agreed that a draft of the TOR would be made available to participants for additional comments.

21. This study will address the status, trends, and barriers for access to, and exchange of, information. The issues include the status of information on computers and its quality, institutional frameworks, and legal issues such as information ownership and institutional agreements.

 

22. Discussion Points and Statements on Information Exchange:

• Participants offered a wide range of source information on the subject of the study: Botanical Gardens (ITF-2 format), OECD, Mega Science Forum, the G-7 Group, CHM, Australian botanical databases, the Association for Systematic Collection, the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information, National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), Association of Biodiversity Information, the North American Biodiversity Information Network, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) study on Biodiversity Information Networking Initiatives (BINI), and the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM).
• Guidance to the presenter also addressed the feasibility of focusing on a thematic topic in relation to information exchange and barriers. The thematic approach appealed to participants because it would focus on actual models and real experiences. The particular uniqueness of conditions in Latin America would have to be addressed specifically at the country level and at the international level.
• Also discussed was the difference between potentially complex metadata standards and models of information exchange. One participant pointed out that metadata develop standard formats while models on information exchange deal with specific fields of information. The NBII metadata standards, it was pointed out, are compatible with both biological information standards and metadata standards on geospatial data.
• Several participants expressed an interest in a thematic focus for a legal database resource on biodiversity legislation.
• In general, there was a consensus to utilize a thematic approach in the study, taking full advantage of existing information sources, and adopting a practical approach based on the unique conditions in the Americas.

23. The BDM project was a United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) effort involving ten nations worldwide over two and a half years, designed to build local capacities for biodiversity information. It is proposed that Chile’s and Costa Rica’s efforts in this task be documented and analyzed, demonstrating actual experiences involving training requirements, development of metadata standards, and institutional surveys. This information would serve as a case study and as a first step in setting up biodiversity information networks. Two consultants would be involved in preparing the report for a period of two months at an estimated cost of US$11,000.

 

24. Discussion Points and Statements on BDM Project:

• Exchanges between the participants and presenters pointed out some of the challenges encountered in setting up a national network. Funding constraints to expand the initiative to other areas were a problem. Approximately 80 percent of the work incorporating information into metadata standards was manual work. Although participating institutions were at first reluctant to share information, the benefits became apparent through training programs and a realization of the overall benefits from belonging to a network. Legal issues were kept to a minimum.
• The presenters noted that the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) plans to hold a workshop for participating countries so that lessons learned could be exchanged. The date has yet to be finalized.
• It was strongly suggested that the presenters might include The Bahamas in their study since The Bahamas was part of the original BDM program. Although the presenters felt the inclusion of the Bahamas would be difficult, observers felt that even an analysis of problems encountered with that program would be extremely instructive and useful. The presenters were asked to consider the costs of presenting the study at the Brazil meeting. They were encouraged to follow up with the UNEP Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNEP/ROLAC) to seek financial support.

25. This study proposes addressing the issue of justifying the development of IABIN from the perspective of a long-term, financial sustainability. The proposed two-month study is estimated to cost between US$18,000 and US$20,000.

 

26. Discussion Points and Statements on Business Case Analysis:

• Participants offered a variety of views on this topic. An interest was expressed in approaches the private sector uses to collaborate with the government sector. It might be possible that the private sector would sell information through IABIN; the consultant would have to factor this into the study. As an example, the ecotourism industry has amassed much information of potential use to IABIN.
• One participant illustrated how governments can benefit. If a company receives information from the government, such information may have a positive economic impact. The government benefits because the benefits accruing to the company are plowed back into the economy.
• On government policy regarding the dissemination of information to civil society, it was pointed out that the U.S. Government makes information widely and freely available, not necessarily to increase profits of the private sector.
• The business case was just one of other pilot projects to be presented, at the Brazil meeting. It was emphasized that the process to select the pilot projects should be an open one and that other pilot initiatives were also welcomed. It was clearly understood that the business case is fully dependent on the design concept and actual products and services of IABIN.

27. The study proposes to develop a pilot project focusing on data on birds of the Americas in much the same way as NABIN has done with regard to the birds of North America. As a project with scientific value, it would also contribute to the purposes of IABIN and the Clearing-House Mechanism to promote an open exchange of data on this subject.

 

28. Discussion Points and Statements on Birds of the Americas:

• Migratory birds are of special interest in Argentina. All bird information in Colombia will be computerized by the end of 1998.
• It was suggested the study include birds of the Caribbean, but costs could be prohibitive if the approach did not begin modestly involving fewer countries. The proposal’s database and approach could be a case-study demonstration to be presented at the IABIN meeting in Brazil.

29. Non-native invasive species are a growing problem in the hemisphere, as is the difficulty in sharing information on the subject across frontiers. As a starting point, the study proposes to focus on vascular plants of the Pacific Rim countries of the Americas. At the same time, it would focus on the information challenge and cooperation, and on the technical challenges involving nomenclature differences. The cost to develop a detailed pilot project is estimated at approximately US$15,000.

 

30. Discussion Points and Statements on Non-Native Species:

• The participants expressed a strong interest in this subject. Invasive species are a problem not only in Pacific coast countries of the hemisphere but also in Atlantic coastal countries and in the Caribbean. A hemisphere-wide study would be very complex and cost-prohibitive; for this reason a modest approach focusing, for example, on vascular plants or fresh-water fish would make the pilot project more manageable. This approach would also open the study to participation by a larger number of countries. Other participants suggested a country-focus study, which may have hemispheric interest. It was also pointed out the subject of such a study should be one having a substantial and potential impact on the economy of a country or countries.
• Such a pilot project would also have merits in terms of complying with Initiative 31, to help decision-makers and not to become just an effort to exchange information. It was stressed that one of the needs for such a study is to enable decision-makers to know how to manage the problem itself and how to restore affected areas. The information has enormous value for private and national areas, farmers, and indigenous communities.
• The Panamanian participant posed the hypothetical implications of invasive species regarding the opening of the Pan American Highway between Colombia and Panama. The group discussion produced a consensus that the TOR should be modified to include woody plants and freshwater fish invasives, subject to the availability of additional funding. It was also agreed that any other participants concerned about these issues are encouraged to participate in the study.

31. Cases of hanta virus illness have appeared in Bolivia, Mexico, Paraguay, Argentina, and Chile. The illness affects public health, and educational programs to stop it are needed. Ecosystem changes may be promoting the illness as people arrive at frontier settlements. There is a need to investigate the environmental and ecological factors of this problem. The general purpose of the study would be to obtain data needed to change, or to minimize changes in the ecosystem which promote the proliferation of forest dwelling rodents transmitting this virus. Issues to be looked at include grain harvest and storage techniques, the improvement of health and sanitation conditions, the management of planting to minimize contact, and the rehabilitation of affected zones.

 

32. Discussion Points/Statements on hanta virus project:

• The proposed study has merits because it combines both health and conservation issues.
• The regional implications of the study are appealing. The proposed study has been presented to the Chilean Government. Argentina has an interest but cannot confirm the availability of funding at this time. Participants suggested the OAS contact the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) as a possible source of financial support and report back to the Brazil meeting organizing committee.

33. The presenter reviewed a project on tropical plant classification. Brazil, along with the governments of Mexico and Colombia, plans to approach the GEF and private and other public sources for financial resources to move ahead studying over 90,000 plant species. The study would take an estimated 15 years to complete. The study, which entails capacity building and information gathering and dissemination, is endorsed by Brazil and is under review by Colombia and Mexico. A workshop will be held in June in Brazil to design a financial package. Other ideas to be discussed will be taxonomic questions and formats. A project proposal is expected by year’s end. It was emphasized that this effort was not a closed proposal; others who are interested were urged to express their interest. The presenter will update participants at the Brazil meeting.

5. OTHER PRESENTATIONS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

33. The presenter reviewed the progress of the MABNet program, a part of the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program at the U.S. Department of State. Its goal is to create and support an electronic network to connect biosphere reserves in the Western Hemisphere. The program standardizes measures and requires comparability of data and compatibility of data systems. On a regional scale and on a long-term basis, the program transects 340 biosphere reserves in eighty-two countries, covering 218 million hectares. The biosphere consists of a core zone and buffer and integrated monitoring programs. There is worldwide access with 72 common databases. The service, located at a university in California, receives 3,000 "hits" per month and reaches a potential US$20 billion ecotourism industry.

 

34. Because MABNet is specifically noted in Initiative 31, IABIN planning should continue to maintain on-going communication with MABNet progress. In response to participant interest for additional information on MABNet, the presenter announced he would send additional information by mail to all participants.

36. The Nature Conservancy provided a summary of its draft report, prepared under a contract with the OAS. The study develops a Microsoft Access 97 database, covering 52 Biodiversity Information Network Initiatives (BINIs) and 104 topics. The presenters indicated that IABIN will require more analysis to determine the kinds of potential information users; however, 50% of the foci are on biodiversity topics for science and policy-making sectors. The study focused on technical data, not on environmental policy and regulation. A visual presentation on the operation of the database was also shown to the participants. In addition to the TNC report, participants were provided a "Quick Start Guide for the Operation of IABIN’s Biodiversity Information Management Initiatives (BINI) Database."

 

37. Discussion Points/Statements on TNC Report:

• Participants from Argentina and Guatemala offered to test the database and report their findings to an appropriate forum. The OAS proposed sending several copies of the database to key institutions with the aim of soliciting peer-review comments. The OAS proposed completing this exercise before June 1, 1998, to permit sufficient time to prepare an analysis of the database, which will be presented to the upcoming Brazil meeting (mailing of CD-Rom before March 27; April-May, peer review process; June-July, report preparation).
• Governance issues ands the availability of the database in html format were brought up. It was reported that conversion to html is possible with the current database. The issue of maintaining the database until a permanent site is established was raised. The OAS will probably place the database on its Web site and provide limited support to update it during 1998.
• The participants expressed great interest in the database, which is still in the prototype stage. The OAS indicated that further work would be required, perhaps under a small contract with TNC, to continue to populate the database. That possibility, however, is not certain at this point; its evolution will depend upon available funding and the desires of the users.

38. The presenter informed the meeting about the resources and methodologies for Global Environmental Facility grants. The GEF focuses on four areas: climate change, biological diversity, the ozone layer, and international waters. The GEF structure responds to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change, the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and the International Convention to Combat Desertification. A 32 member council approves projects every six months. The implementing agencies of the projects are the UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank.

 

39. The Bank is very interested in the needs for information management and transfer, and in capacity-building in the countries. In general, the IABIN/CHM linkage holds great promise. Discussions indicated that a well-designed proposal for GEF support to the IABIN process would be well received. Participants were reminded of the importance of obtaining endorsement by the CHM focal point to ensure that IABIN is supportive of the CBD.

 

40. The GEF representative explained the two project implementation windows:

• The mid-sized grant process, which has a US$750,000 limit on funds and a comparatively simple submission process since the proposal does not go to the Council; and
• A large GEF grant averaging US$6 million. This type of proposal undergoes more scrutiny; it goes to the Council and may require endorsement from the Secretariat.

41. The GEF also offers preparation funds for its large grant program:

• Block A grant, which has a US$25,000 limit for activities such as consultants and workshops.
• Block B grant, with a US$350,000 limit, involving more in-depth preparation of a proposal within a one-year timeframe. This may be more appropriate for IABIN as expressed by the presenter.

41. The GEF presenter concluded by noting that the proposal process is country-driven, official, and must have the endorsement of the GEF focal points.
42. Discussion Points and Statements

• The participants raised a number of issues related to multiple focal points within a country and the need for multiple endorsements (e.g., CHM, IABIN, GEF); the absolute need for a GEF focal point endorsement and the procedure for securing this support; endorsements for regional versus national level projects; and concerns over competition for GEF grants.
• The participants also sought to clarify what was meant by "incremental costs" potentially fundable by the GEF. The representative pointed out that incremental costs are those that are above normal country costs related to an investment project. For example, exchanging information with others could be considered an incremental cost, or the additional costs of relocating a road around an area with important biological diversity so that it will not cross a sensitive site.
• Ms. Cotter volunteered to assist those countries interested in pursuing GEF funds by forwarding technical information requested to complete the proposal development process.

44. The Ambassador addressed participants on basic time lines and requirements for submitting project proposals requesting OAS multilateral funds. She mentioned the need for liaison with the OAS National Offices. Countries pledge funds annually and must deposit these funds with the OAS by September 15. If a country does not fulfill its pledge, proposals from that country are not eligible for approval.

 

45. Project proposals must be submitted by July 15 through the national focal point and the OAS National Office. By September 30, a technical review committee, elected by governments, evaluates proposals requesting funding. CEPCIDI then decides which proposals to fund by October 30. Funding is available in January of the following year once a memorandum of understanding is approved. The OAS will circulate the criteria for eligibility and evaluation for funding in support of development activities through the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI) to all members of the organizing committee of the Brazil meeting.

46. Mr. Rodgers the OAS approved a US$45,000 contract to the Andre Tosello Tropical Research and Technology Foundation in support of the upcoming Brazil meeting. These funds will be used in the preparation of a background paper on topology and connectivity, estimated at US$15,000, and for participants’ travel and per diem and report preparation, estimated at US$27,000. Any available balance will be used in support of other background papers in accordance with the terms of the contract (technical writing).

 

Future OAS role in IABIN Meetings: Mr. Kirk P. Rodgers

 

47. Mr. Rodgers reminded the participants that the future role of the OAS in the IABIN process will be limited and based upon available funding. Funding in support of IABIN is directly related to proposals submitted to the General Secretariat as outlined in paragraphs 44 and 45 above. The organizing committee, under the direction of Mr. Dias and Mr. Samper, will prepare a funding requestes for 1999 moneys in support of future IABIN activities if it is considered desirable.

 

48. The Chairman of the meeting, recalling that the Brazil meeting is tentatively planned for September, 1998 suggested that countries and civil-society organizations begin to discuss the details of any proposal for continued OAS financial support to IABIN immediately. Other participants concurred with this point of view and further suggested that an effort be mounted to gain formal recognition for the efforts to comply with Initiate 31 of the Bolivia Plan of Action from both the CIDI and CIDS meetings (March and July 1998).

49. Ambassador Horsey-Barr of the United States also pointed out that the Bolivia Summit gave strong support to public participation in decision-making process. The OAS/ISP project (Inter-American Strategy for Public Participation in Environment and Sustainable Development Decision-Making in the Americas) has secured US$1.2 million from a variety of sources (GEF through UNEP, the OAS, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and UNESCO) to test its methods in three pilot projects in Dominica, Honduras and Peru. It was suggested that the public participation process in IABIN might attract some funding from this project in the future.

 

USGS Financial Commitments: Gladys A. Cotter

 

50. Ms. Cotter informed the meeting participants that the USGS/BRD had received a USAID grant of US$64,800 for the preparation of papers for the Brazil meeting:

• Development of detailed plans for two initial pilot projects.
• Development of a program (work plan).
• Development of a technical issues paper (standards and protocols).
• Development of a paper on legal and institutional questions, property and privacy issues.
• Development of IABIN governance paper.

49. In reviewing proposed studies and estimated costs with available and allocated funds, it was determined that the group lacks approximately US$46,000-52,200, and perhaps as much as US$55,000, depending on whether some projects and studies are combined or scaled down. Discussion comments suggested combining some studies, asking UNEP to fund the BDM project, and the OAS to fund the business case analysis. Dr. Dias said Brazil had funds for the meeting but not for document preparation. The OAS funding time frame regarding continued funding after the Brazil meeting was noted again. Ms. Cotter noted that terms of USGS/BRD grant prohibit moving for the money pilot project from its agreed-to category.

 

50. Other funding issues were also noted:

• The Birds of the Americas project has funds to prepare a proposal but not for project implementation.
• The USGS/USAID funds originally contemplated the development of two pilot projects for a total of US$15,600. However, the non-native species project (vascular plants) is currently estimated to cost the total amount available. If an additional pilot project on another taxa (fresh-water fish invasives) were to be developed , an additional US$15,000 would be required.
• The hanta virus project in Chile needs support from other governments, and resources to coordinate the project for around US$5,000. Chile looks forward to other countries’ interest in the initiative. Mr. Meganck said he will make an initial inquiry in PAHO. Dr. Martinez agreed to contact PAHO in Argentina. Both will report any findings to Dr. Dias.
• The tropical flora study in Brazil does not require additional funding.
• Dr. Martinez agreed to examine the feasibility of a pilot project on bio-legal information. This subject is considered important because legislation sharing among nations could be of value to decision and policy makers. He indicated his intent to seek funds to design the TOR.

53. Table 1 summarizes the status of resources to carry out pilot projects and studies identified to date for the Brazil meeting.

 

54. The future role of the OAS in facilitating expert meetings was discussed. Dr. Dias indicated that as long as GEF funding remains a possibility, the OAS should be involved to assist with logistical support required to prepare and submit the proposal. The organizing committee will coordinate the type of project proposal to be submitted to the GEF.

 

55. The Argentine participant indicated his desire for collaboration with other countries. If there is an agreement on the same topical issue, he cited his interest in approaching the GEF.

5. PLANNING FOR STRUCTURE OF BRAZIL MEETING:

56. There was a common belief among participants that the development of IABIN should proceed in a practical manner and that the Brazil meeting should set the stage for practical collaboration, and be open to all governments and NGOs. There should also be a focus on building national networks, some of which are already under way. Projects should be viewed as a way to grapple with compatibility problems.

 

57. Dr. Dias summed up noting that the outputs (studies and pilot projects) of the Brazil meeting should include the following:

• Pilot projects that involve collaborating on scientific technical issues of common interest to countries and decision-makers, address compatibility and comparability of data, and produce results in a short time frame.
• A medium-term work plan for IABIN.
• Management of the IABIN system as it relates to topology, connectivity, and capacity-building.
• Governance and structure of IABIN.
• Proposal on financing that will ensure sustainability.

58. In general, five criteria could define the types of products (projects) to come out of the Brazil meeting: (1) topics requiring international collaboration; (2) projects which are concrete, small, focused, and of interest to all parties in the region; (3) issues in projects linked to policy issues; (4) feasible projects offering the potential to show results in a short period, perhaps one to two years; and (5) projects containing a strong technical input.

 

IABIN Governance and Financial Sustainability

 

59. The governance of IABIN merited special attention among the participants. Various approaches and suggestions were offered for consideration: the development of a model scenario for an ongoing structure, the preparation of a document offering different alternatives and models of governance in an options paper; and the consideration of existing models such as CHM, NABIN, and CARINET. It was asked whether IABIN might be a project-approval entity with a capacity to say no. Participants asked if IABIN would be governed by governments, universities, and NGOs. It was also suggested that interim working groups could be set up provide input on the governance topic, or that papers be prepared in advance so that working groups could report back to the author.

60. With regard to IABIN’s decision-making ability, several participants pointed out that the approval of Initiative 31 of the Action Plan of Santa Cruz implied that IABIN would eventually have decision-making authority itself. This is because IABIN was already approved at the highest level by the heads of state at the Bolivia Summit. The activities under way through this series of expert meetings are determining the next implementation steps. Therefore, the presence of government representatives empowered to allocate resources at the Brazil meeting is very important.

 

61. Closely linked to the issue of IABIN structure and function was the issue of its sustainability. Participants urged caution on the governance issue and on related costs if IABIN is to become institutionalized and accepted without developing a large bureaucracy. IABIN should be viewed as a decentralized, cooperative structure, not as a centralized one. Accomplishing the task at the minimal overhead level is directly related to the sustainability issue.

 

62. Given the importance of governance issues related to IABIN, Ms. Cotter stressed the usefulness of inputs from all the participants present. She underscored its importance, noting the commitment of US$9,200 from USAID funds to develop a study on governance and coordination of IABIN.

63. The participants formed an organizing committee to coordinate planning actions for the international IABIN meeting in Brazil. The primary communication method for planning would be via Email. The USGS agreed to establish a Listserv and inform all participants as to the address via Email.

• Caribbean/Barbados: Ms. Glenda Medina
• Central America/Guatemala: Mr. Carlos Rodríguez Olivet
• Central America/Panama: Mr. Iván A. Valdespino
• North America/U.S.: Ms. Gladys Cotter
• South America/Brazil: Dr. Braulio Dias, General Coordinator
• South America/Colombia: Mr. Cristian Samper
• OAS: Mr. Richard Meganck/Mr. Jorge Rucks

63. Dr. Dias noted that support for hosting the meeting in Brazil will come from the Ministerio do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hidricos e da Amazonia Legal (MMA) and the Ministerio de Relaçoes Exteriores.

 

Dates and Place

 

64. Dr. Dias said that Brazil will establish the exact place and dates for the meeting; however, the end of August or the beginning of September 1998 is the target date.

 

Structure of the Meeting

 

65. The participants offered a variety of suggestions and comments on the organization of the Brazil meeting. Activities to consider include a demonstration and exhibit area, presentations of background papers and studies, and a session on drafting decisions and recommendations.

 

 

Size of Meeting, Number of Invitees, Types of Participants

 

66. Dr. Dias indicated that Brazil anticipates the size of the meeting at about 100 with a maximum manageable limit of 150 people.

 

67. Participants suggested possible invitees: NGOs; CHM and GEF focal point representatives; the donor community and foundations; various data custodians such as museums; other like-minded entities involved in information networks such as OECD and NABIN; interested government personnel with decision-making capacities; and technical experts. Other innovative possibilities could include invitations to the commercial sector (chambers of commerce and software developers such as Microsoft).

 

68. NGO participation was deemed valuable and to be encouraged; their involvement in decision-making, however, would be examined in more detail at the Brazil meeting.

 

69. The participants noted that there is often a very significant dropout rate between actual invitations and attendance. It was noted that in order to have 100-150 persons at the meeting, at least 300 invitations would need to be issued.

 

70. The availability of financial support might affect attendance. Financial support for travel will be limited, and this may affect attendance. Options for optimizing the use of travel funds could include full travel for a few key persons who could not otherwise attend; payment of ground arrangements through a package with a hotel; and partial grants.

 

71. Some thought each country should limit participation to one country person and a technical specialist while others said there should be no cap on the number of participants from any one country or the total number of invitees at the meeting. Others suggested that the meeting should be primarily technical and small in number. It was also suggested that exhibits be included as part of the meeting activities.

 

Invitation Procedures

 

72. It was suggested that invitations be issued in the name of the Government of Brazil. Even though the OAS is providing a small amount of financial support, the meeting is not an official OAS meeting. The OAS can suggest persons to invite, but ultimately Brazil and each government should decide on how the invitations are to be handled.

 

 

Disseminating the Results of the Current IABIN Meeting.

 

73. Several participants inquired about how the results of the current meeting will be brought to the attention of governments in the region. Mr. Rodgers informed the group that IABIN progress through the results of these expert meetings will be incorporated into the Secretary General’s report for the March 9-10 CEPCIDI meeting and afterwards, and brought to the attention of the Buenos Aires CIDI meeting of March 25-26. Ambassador Horsey-Barr noted earlier in the meeting that the Secretary General’s report on Santa Cruz will probably be sent to governments before the Santiago Summit. Sustainable development is not a main a discussion item at this Summit, but there are opportunities to highlight IABIN through the CIDI and CIDS processes if governments so decide.

 

74. Other participants mentioned the idea of their informing foreign ministries and environmental ministries on the results of the current meeting, including the assigning of focal points. Another participant inquired about the possibility of using the OAS Web site. Mr. Rodgers noted cost and other constraints regarding this possibility; nevertheless, the OAS would investigate this.

 

75. The continuing work of the experts group will be delegated to the IABIN organizing committee. Communications and feedback on the progress of background papers and other follow-on activities will be sent via Email.

 

VIII. FOLLOW-UP ASSIGNMENTS

76. See Table 2.

 

IX. CLOSING

 

77. Dr. Dias adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. on January 28, 1998. He thanked all at the principal table and the participants for their active participation in the meeting deliberations.

 

78. On behalf of the OAS, Mr. Rodgers thanked the USGS/BRD for taking the responsibility of preparing a draft of the meeting report for review by the OAS/USDE and for its their continued support to the IABIN process, leading up to the inter-American meeting in Brazil. The OAS will assemble the report with appropriate annexes for distribution. Approximately 50 copies will be available.

* NOTE: Due dates are for illustrative purposes only. They were not formally established at the meeting.

\\OAS3\SYS\REGDEV\COMMON\BIODIVER\IABIN2.DOC