A review of the regionalisation strategy Fatima Parker-Allie SANBI Berlin (Germany) 7 October 2013

Overview Background and Purpose Response and approach What has worked, what has this strategy enabled (highlights) Data Mobilization and Use Collaborative Engagement What has not worked (Drawbacks) Regional Meetings Regional Meeting Funding model Financial recommendation/s How the regions could take this forward

Background At the regional level GBIF Nodes share many similar experiences, which may be very different at the global scale. Thus a regional approach was developed, in response to increasing membership in GBIF and to address some very specific needs: – Demonstrating benefit beyond the national scale, to potentially enable a collective focus on data mobilization and application development at these broader scales. It was felt that this approach could facilitate the development of strategies and work plans. – Allowing more dynamic interaction with the GBIF Secretariat. At the global level, the large number of Nodes made interaction with the whole community very difficult, but organization into regions allows each region to form a position – The representation of a single representative from each region enables more regular meetings (including engagement at the midterm meetings with the Secretariat).

Response and Approach Approach Identified At the GBIF 15 GB meeting (2008), the need for a regional approach for liaising with participant nodes was identified and was endorsed by the Governing Board Approach Adopted approach formally adopted in 2011 at GB18 The GBIF Governing Board approved the setting up of a Nodes Steering Group with representatives drawn from six regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania. Meetings Implemented

Regionalisation Presents many Opportunities Opportunity to enhance capacity-building – Reinforce sharing of expertise between relatively close partners – Regional workshops and meetings Opportunity to develop Work Programme priorities – Identify alignments between national interests – Develop collaborative projects – Incorporate regional priorities/projects in GBIF Work Programme Opportunity for inter-region collaborations – Capacity building activities between regions – Data repatriation activities Opportunity to align funding – Approach agencies and foundations based on regional outcomes D.Holbern (joint SC and Nodes meeting – Lillehamer)

Key Highlights of the Regional Approach In Africa, a strong regional collaboration has developed and the region is working towards a data-science interface. The vision is to position itself within the AU, supporting its S&T action plan. To support a data-science interface a project to mobilise policy relevant data for Africa is taking place, which will provide direction for future funding opportunities through the JRS. Africa has also established a Science Committee and identified a thematic priority project to mobilise invasive alien species. A lot of co-investment of approx. € has been spent by African government to support the GBIF regional meetings and strategy, and a regional coordinator has been appointed as of 1 st Oct. The African Nodes are developing a biodiversity informatics developing curricula and making linkages with Universities to initiate collaborative biodiversity informatics research programmes in Africa (support data use projects). Oceania: The Atlas of Living Australia has solid infrastructure & strategy that has potential for reuse by other participants of the region and globally. A significant number of data records has been made available in the Oceania region (>1.7 million records from New Zealand and more than 34 million by ALA).

Europe: Collaboration of the Nodes on a demo project on (aquatic) invasive species. This collaboration includes many practical aspects of the GBIF WP like tools to improve the data quality, the use of DarwinCore extensions, use of the Nodes Portal Toolkit (NPT) modules, metadata publication, filtering and presenting GBIF data, fit-for-purpose issues, etc. Many Nodes have mobilised large amounts of data and Europe is playing a lead in the publishing of data papers, thus making data discoverable. An inventory of digitizing activities will be created to inform regional and inter regional priorities. Asia: The two collaborative scientific initiatives have been initiated : 1) Making species checklists at the national level, including invasive, Red List, endemic species and migratory birds (in support of the Aichi targets), and (2) Updating fish databases to assess fish biodiversity loss and risk in Asia; To increase use of GBIF mediated data, each Node has to establish closer partnership with national scientists, and promote the publication of scientific & data papers Key Highlights of the Regional Approach

N. America Has undertaken a strengthening and expansion of the GBIF data provider network and architecture in the region, including developing methods for including DNA barcoding data within GBIF. It also has strong taxonomic expertise – ITIS, EOL Latin America: Significant technological advancements. Some projects and initiatives have been identified as opportunities to develop software applications jointly across the region and with other countries. For example, the Nodes Portal Toolkit (NPT) and the customization of the portal of the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). Several Latin American countries and Spain have already expressed interest in participating in these developments. Also of interest is the further development of the Plinian core to support the publication of species data. Experts from Columbia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Spain are working on bringing the Plinian Core to the next level.

Highlights of the Regional Approach Data Publishing All regions have seen a steady increase in published biodiversity data (both species specimens and observations), most data is published by Voting Participants;

Highlights of the regional approach Data Use All regions are driving use of the data available, which is reflected in the steady increase of published scientific articles using GBIF-mediated data globally. Those regions that publish most biodiversity data (North America and Europe) are also publishing most scientific articles using GBIF-mediated data (also about biodiversity in other regions). Most regions are moving towards targeted regional projects on data mobilization and use. Some thematic areas include : – Invasive Alien Species (Africa), – Freshwater aquatics (Europe), – mobilizing check list data in support of Aichi targets and assessing fish data to look at biodiversity loss (Asia)

Data Mobilisation, Use and Relevance These types of regionally targeted data mobilization and use cases, can provide excellent support to the key priority areas identified. Targeted mobilisation of data for the thematic projects will ensure that data gaps can be filled and that datasets are as near to completion as possible, so that they can be analysed. This can in turn be used to support key research and policy objectives. These projects will provide a proof of concept that GBIF data is relevant and useful for initiatives such as IPBES 5 Candidate Areas for data mobilization ~ large scale data for monitoring and assessment ~data to support work on Invasive Alien Species ~global distribution data for plants ~taxonomy ~Global cyber-infrastructure for all bio inf & alignment with other BI initiatives DAK for Birds

GBIF and IPBES IPBES to operate at science-policy interface GBIF operates at data-science interface Deliver data sets aligned with IPBES assessment needs Need to handle survey data, presence-absence, etc.

Collaborative Engagement Mentoring Programme: Many GBIF bio-diverse participant countries has made great strides in making data available via the internet. One of the key enabling factors has been through collaborative engagement. The GBIF mentoring Programme has been very valuable, in bringing countries together in support of the N - S and S-S engagement. Countries and International Organisations have all benefitted from this programme which promotes collaboration and capacity development. Outcomes: Many countries have uploaded data to GBIF, some have developed data portals nationally, some have customised/reused existing portals and others are in the process of developing products (checklists). Many countries globally have benefitted through more collaborative activities, and more data has been made available via GBIF in support of science and policy. Since mentoring projects, 55 Participants, ~ Euro core funds Much larger in-kind contributions from Participants

Drawbacks of the regional approach Participation Although for most regions (Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America) the GBIF regional approach is working, two regions (North America and Oceania) struggle with a regional approach mostly because of a low number of Participant countries (two in both cases). Although some International Organizations align well to the regional structure, for others the regional structure is not suitable. More clarity about the role of Associate Organizations could lead to increased commitments and contributions within GBIF. This will also help strengthen the North American regional Nodes strategy in particular. Staff Capacity Regional approach is being conducted through an expansion of existing National Capacity. Both in terms of staff time and National resources. This is not sustainable for coordination and especially as the networks grow. The role of the regional representatives, especially in large regions are challenging in terms of the workload. This is done alongside the job of National Coordination and it can become difficult to balance efforts at both levels. Clear roles and responsibilities need to be in place between the regional representatives, and the secretariat, to facilitate regional action and improve coordination. Funding While the regional approach has been endorsed by the Heads of Delegation, the funding model needs to be revisited.

Regional Meetings There have been three rounds of partial GBIF core funding to organize regional meetings in 2008, 2010, and A fair amount of additional funding was secured by regions to organize meetings, especially in Africa and Europe (in ) and also in Asia (2012 & 2013). In total, this has resulted in approximately 20 formal region meetings. Concerns have been raised with regards to the funding model for regional engagement

2012 Regional Funding Model In principle a maximum amount of EUR is available to support each Regional Nodes meeting. If EUR is not sufficient for organising a regional meeting and no other sources of funding is available, Nodes are requested to contact the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Nodes Committee and the GBIF Secretariat to discuss alternative solutions. The drawbacks experienced in the organisation of regional meetings based on the existing funding model are as follows: Regions are very heterogeneous in the number of participants. Some regions have as many as 39 participants (country, associate country and/or international organisations), whilst others have as little as 2. Thus needing very different resource allocations. Some regions have Infrastructural limitations (transport and logistics) such as large geographic distance and low airline connectivity which provides a challenge. This includes expensive airfares due to large geographic distance between nodes and low airline connectivity resulting in more expensive travel. Support from government in some instances are limited due to alternate country priorities, thus securing additional sources of funding is a challenge.

Review of costs associated with the 2012 regional meetings Comparison of costs between the different regions based on the 2012 expenditure reports. The numbers in the shaded columns represent the number of participants which attended the meetings

A more equitable regional meeting funding model The figures below represent the full cost of a future regional meeting (including all country participants and Int. Organisations). Based on a country by country allocation, the highest cost is approximately € (39 participants). The lowest cost is approximately € (10 participants). Figures reflect that € is not an adequate for organising meetings, and provides a challenge in itself to secure a host and to develop a budget where no matching funds can be secured. We therefore recommend that this regional meeting budget be increased, and is a core part of the budget. A more equitable model, would ensure that rather than apply a blanket approach to allocating funding, where there are more countries per region – this allocation should support the GBIF members. Where there are fewer member countries, less resources are needed. It is therefore proposed to implement a more equitable model that takes into account the needs of all GBIF participants, so that they can attend the regional meetings. This should be reflected in the call documents, so that adequate support is available upfront, and a meeting host can be secured. There is in fact no regional meeting budget in the GBIF Workplan 2014 – thus putting a lot of work and efforts at risk. N. America (13)Africa (22)Asia (10 )Europe (39 ) Flights € € € € Accommodation € € € € Meeting Logistics € € € € Grand total estimated meeting cost € € € €

Benefits of Regional strategy Small groups makes it easier for participants to engage and contribute, enabling regions to agree on joint actions, prepare recommendations and take decisions. Face to face interactions (regional meetings) are efficient in facilitating the sharing of expertise & best practices, & in initiating or consolidating collaborative activities - followed up by other means - or teleconferences. Regionally, nodes share opinions, needs, and priorities, easily and get meaningful feedback from their colleagues in the region. This also provides space for, & attention to, issues specific to a certain region (power cuts in Africa, huge cultural & language diversity in Asia) All the regions agreed on action plans, defining priority areas for collaborative activities (1‐2 yrs), & mechanisms to formalise regional interactions. These strategic plans provide a baseline for follow up and implementation. Affinity & Specificity Small groups Face‐to‐face interactions Action Plans & regional interactions

GBIO components Foundations and Context Open access and reuse cultureBiodiversity knowledge network Persistent storage and archival Data standardsPolicy incentives UnderpinEnhance Content Field surveys and observations Sequences and genomes Collections and specimens Published materials Remote-sensed observations Discovery and Access Fitness-for-use and annotations Taxonomic framework Integrated occurrence data Aggregated species trait data Comprehensive knowledge access Models and Visualizations Multiscalar spatial modeling Trends and predictions Modeling biological systems Prioritizing new data capture Visualization and dissemination Organize Analyse and Interpret Refine

Outcomes of the Regionalization Strategy MDG’s IPBES CBD 2020 Aichi Targets WCMC – biodiversity indicators Many nodes are operational Bridging the research – policy- decision making divide Regional and international Partnerships Leveraging Funding SEP2DEC, JRS GBIF Infrastructure IPT, NPT, standards & tools Data Mobilization and Use cases identified > Participation Training/Mentoring activities supported by GBIF funds, which has levered huge in kind support

Key Questions for the Nodes on taking regional engagement forward – Does the Nodes community feel that the regional work is important? – What are the key advantages? – Is it working well or what are the problems? – What are the key things that would help drive this mechanism better? – Can we afford to loose the regional approach? – How do we take this forward?

Thank you to all Participants, NSG and the secretariat