IABIN-GEF PROJECT Lessons Learned in Four Years of Implementation Boris Ramírez and Rita Besana IABIN Secretariat IABIN Vision Meeting Washington, DC, 28 – 29 October, 2008

Background and Objectives The activities implemented have been based on the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) How the PIP has been interpreted has greatly influenced how well the activities have addressed the needs With this in mind we will highlight what went well and what could have been better

IABIN Is IABIN Necessary? Fills gaps: Standards, tools, training, grants Bridges DP – FP Bridges Regions Integration of different type of data Is IABIN feasible? Concept is proven Needs a lot of coordination (general & national) Needs Funds Data Providers Thematic Networks Focal Points Coordination Global Networks

Project Planning What Went Well Letters of support/co-financing to obtain GEF funding from 78 organizations

Project Planning What Could Have Been Better Organizations who gave co-financing letters should have been informed of the responsibility they were acquiring to report on a semester basis on the co-financing they offered -- very few sent co- financing reports during implementation because it required work and they gained nothing from project Too much time was allowed to pass between the obtaining of these letters and any communication with the organizations (2003 to 2005) – many of the people who signed them were no longer there

Project Planning What Could Have Been Better Consultants who carried out the Regional Analysis in 2003 promised to send reports to the organizations but none were sent – this caused initial distrust in IABIN during project implementation. Final reports should have been sent to all participants. Same thing happened with initial Consultant for Mid Term Review

Physical Host of the Secretariat In City of Knowledge, Panama What Went Well Support in facilities, utilities, equipment, administration of donations, introduction to potential donors, secretarial assistance Panama is centric and convenient in terms of travel, not too expensive CoK Hemispheric Hub for other organizations (UN, Red Cross, etc.) and offers many opportunities for networking Panama offers good quality of life for the Secretariat staff vis-à-vis the salaries paid

Physical Host of the Secretariat In City of Knowledge, Panama What Could Have Been Better Better choice of building/internet access provider other than CATHALAC

Project Implementation Plan (PIP) What Went Well Requesting a 2:1 co-financing from CIs to implement the TNs – a first for a GEF Project

Project Implementation Plan (PIP) What Could Have Been Better Implementation of pilot projects in selected countries would have achieved a greater involvement from at least some countries -- better results with the funds available instead of spreading thin among 34 countries

Project Implementation Plan (PIP) What Could Have Been Better The contractual relationship with the Coordinating Institutions should have been better thought out in the signing of the agreements given requirement that each CI contribute 2:1 funding Implementation of Components was planned to happen at the same time while the results from Component 1 were needed to implement Component 2 and Component 3

Implementation Strategy What Could Have Been Better The Hemisphere has Regions with different interests, degree of development, integration and capacity – it would have been better to be able to target regions depending on their needs and the ability/resources of IABIN to respond to those (e.g. In the Caribbean there is a great technological obstacle which IABIN could have addressed) It would have given better results in some countries to have identified the few/key data providers and target them directly

Implementation Strategy What Could Have Been Better No funds earmarked in the PIP for outreach to potential donors nor potential data providers Naïve concept of how to achieve sustainability Requiring the Director to fundraise for his/her own salary when there were no products yet ready to sell nor resources to cultivate donors Expecting that requiring co-financing from CIs would cause these to become “owners” of the TN and to carry out their own fundraising to maintain it

Selection of a Technical Secretariat What Went Well Good division of knowledge, skills and experience to complement each other Multidisciplinary team Team work In-depth knowledge of IABIN, its stakeholders, the implementation of the GEF Project Contacts in the global conservation and bioinformatics community Main face of IABIN Oversight of the Thematic Networks Outreach to potential data providers Organizational memory Insights for IABIN´s future

Technical Secretariat What Could Have Been Better Closer follow up with Coordinating Institutions

Project Implementation What Went Well OAS as a Convener IABIN Member Countries respect the OAS and respond to its summons Opened opportunities at Summits and other Fora Good management of administrative processes

Project Implementation What Could Have Been Better Decision-making Process OAS made almost all the decisions – conceptual, operational and administrative Unclear Roles and Responsibilities between OAS and Secretariat Stronger Involvement from the IEC would have made a difference

Project Implementation What Could Have Been Better Decision-making process More communication between OAS Project Manager and Secretariat staff for purposes of coordination, planning Face-to-face meetings for planning and/or supervision (none were carried out)

Project Implementation What Could Have Been Better Decision-making Process – how it should be IEC – conceptual and overarching decisions Secretariat – Operational decisions, day by day OAS – Establishment of administrative systems, management of contracts and agreements, enforcement of procurement rules and payment of bills

Outreach What Could Have Been Better Many people/organizations see IABIN as only the GEF Project. Initiatives that are not part of the GEF Project are not considered as important for the Secretariat to cultivate (FAO Panama, CIDES, DGF) Participation of Secretariat in international initiatives would give IABIN a wider range (GBIF, GEOSS, etc.)

Procurement Process What Could Have Been Better Contracting of some of the key players would have been easier without having to open up bids – the strong players in the Hemisphere were known and could have been approached directly Data content grantees could have been approached directly for a more uniform distribution of data providers from all countries

Selecting a Consortium Led by a Coordinating Institution for Each Thematic Network What Went Well Powerful idea of synergy of a Consortium Experts/Leaders in their area Leveraging for IABIN – technically and financially Diversifying the risks – requesting a 2:1 co- financing from each CI

Establishment of Thematic Working Groups What Went Well Information Technology TWG made possible the interoperability of the TNs Added synergy and great knowledge to each TN Created and cultivated camaraderie among members of TNs and others (e.g. GBIF, UT, etc.)

Development of Long-lasting Bioinformatics infrastructure What Went Well Standards and protocols for each TN Software – Data interoperability and exchange, data digitizing, portals, web templates Unique contribution – Ecosystems

Capacity Building What Went Well Grants to make data accessible Training in the use of data digitizing and other tools Unique contribution – awareness of alien invasive species even among scientist One-to-one proposal development (only with PATN data providers)

Focal Points What Went Well IABIN's main face in the country Link to country's individual bioinformatics needs Main point for dissemination of information at the national level

Focal Points What Could Have Been Better Only a few Focal Points respond and get involved Many Focal Points attend meetings but rarely participate of discussions. Other times they send a substitute who has no background on IABIN Great amount of time spent in sending messages with no response from FPs No notification to OAS/Secretariat when a Focal Point changes or when an address, phone number or other contact information changes – Secretariat and OAS have difficulty in reaching Focal Points without current information

Focal Point What Could Have Been Better IABIN is a low priority for some FPs – other initiatives take their time and attention If FP is not interested and does not carry out follow up, trainings and other capacity building are wasted Opportunities missed for countries

Project Administration What Could Have Been Better Contract process too slow (e.g. donations that were approved in December 2007 have not yet been signed) Legal processes caused several contracts to fall off (e.g. Catalog, ETN) – flexibility should prevail Extremely complex processes – OAS-Secretariat- CIs-WB. OAS has to convince WB, WB takes its time to respond (sometimes months).

In Spite of Everything… All of Us Together have come far! A recent review of Project Objectives Shows they will be achieved by end of Project Thank you for your attention