WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management

WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management Companion Volume Companion Volume World Conservation Monitoring ...

Author: J.H. Reynolds

23 downloads 598 Views 787KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management

Companion Volume Companion Volume

World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Series Editor J.H. Reynolds

Commonwealth Secretariat

1998

The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, based in Cambridge, UK, is a joint venture between three partners in the World Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring for the Earth: IUCN – The World Conservation Union, UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme, and WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature. The Centre provides information services on the conservation and sustainable use of species and ecosystems and supports others in the development of their own information systems. The United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species, launched at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, aims to support the Convention on Biological Diversity by drawing on Britain’s scientific, educational and commercial strengths to assist in the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s biodiversity and natural habitats. Key tenets of the Darwin Initiative include collaboration and cooperation with local people, capacity building, distinctiveness and complementarity of project initiatives, poverty alleviation, and long-term sustainability. Through training, awareness raising, and research on undervalued areas of biodiversity, Darwin support is particularly aimed at strengthening links between Britain and those countries rich in biodiversity but poor in financial resources. Under the auspices of its Environmental Training for Sustainable Development initiative, the Management and Training Services Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat supports short- and long-term training, internships and institution development for environmental policy makers, environmental ‘operatives’, and environmental information professionals in the Commonwealth, in various areas of the environment including biodiversity and gender. Funding support for training, institution development and publications under the aegis of the Management and Training Services Division is provided by the Fund for Technical Co-operation (CFTC).

Published by


ISBN

0-85092-551-7

Copyright

© 1998 World Conservation Monitoring Centre Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is acknowledged. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purpose is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holders. The views expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those of WCMC or its collaborators. The designations of geographical entities in this report and the presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WCMC, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species, or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Companion Volume. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 17pp.

Typeset by

Bookcraft Ltd, Stroud, Gloucestershire, England

Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by

J.S. Donaldson (Wood’s cycad, Encephalartos woodii); D. & I. Gordon (Mali landscape; Plant study, Ghana; Thai forest; Rock hyrax, Procavia capensis); IUCN/J. McEachern (Diver and fish); WCMC (Ecoregion and Africa maps; GIS work; Workshop facilitation).

Available from

IUCN Publications Services Unit 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK Tel: +44 1223 277894; Fax: +44 1223 277175 Email: [email protected] http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/

Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

THE HANDBOOK SERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3

WORKING DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Companion Volume

v

editor for the handbooks was Jake Reynolds, while Donald Gordon managed the overall project. To the many individuals, both within and outside WCMC who have contributed to the development of materials and the delivery of training in biodiversity information management, a profound debt of gratitude is owed. It is through this collaborative effort that a service is being developed to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of living resources.

vi


BACKGROUND The purpose of the WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management is to support those making decisions on the conservation and sustainable use of living resources. The handbooks form part of a comprehensive programme of training materials designed to build information-management capacity, improve decision-making and assist countries in meeting their obligations under Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The intended audience includes information professionals, policy-makers, and senior managers in government, the private sector and wider society, all of whom have a stake in the use or management of living resources. Although written to address the specific need for improved management of biodiversity-related information at the national level, the underlying principles apply to environmental information in general, and to decision-making at all levels. The issues and concepts presented may also be applied in the context of specific sectors, such as forestry, agriculture and wildlife management. The handbooks deal with a range of issues and processes relevant to the use of information in decision-making, including the strengthening of organisations and organisational linkages, data custodianship and management, and the development of infrastructure to support data and information exchange. Experience suggests that some of the greatest challenges in information management today are concerned with organisational issues, rather than technical concerns in the delivery of information which supports informed decision-making. Consequently, topics are addressed at management and strategic levels, rather than from a technical or methodological standpoint, and alternative approaches are suggested from which a selection or adaptation can be made which best suits local conditions. Nevertheless, in adopting this framework approach, we have tried to adhere to recognised conventions and formalisms used in information management and trust that in producing a ‘readable’ set of handbooks the integrity of the materials has not been compromised.

Companion Volume

vii

Overall, the handbook series comprises: Companion Volume Volume 1 Information and Policy Volume 2 Information Needs Analysis Volume 3 Information Product Design Volume 4 Information Networks Volume 5 Data Custodianship and Access Volume 6 Information Management Capacity Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals Collectively, the handbook series promotes a shift from tactically based information systems, aimed at delivering products for individual project initiatives, to strategic systems which promote the building of capacity within organisations and networks. This approach not only encourages data to be managed more effectively within organisations, but also encourages data to be shared amongst organisations for the development of the integrated products and services needed to address complex and far-reaching environmental issues. The handbook series can be used in a number of ways. Individual handbooks can be used to guide managers on specific aspects of information management; they can be used collectively as a reference source for strategic planning and project development; they can also provide the basis for a series of short courses and training seminars on key challenges in information management. The companion volume provides the background to the handbook series. It also assists readers in deciding which handbooks are most relevant to their own priorities for strengthening capacity. A second series of handbooks is planned to provide more detailed guidance on information management methodologies, including the areas of data and technology standards, database design and development, application of geographic information systems (GIS), catalogues and metadatabases, and the development of decisionsupport systems. The current series deals only briefly with formal system development methodologies, and for more detailed treatments the reader is encouraged to access the wide range of published and electronic resources available in libraries and on the Internet, some of which are alluded to in individual handbooks and reference sections.

viii


A number of computer-based training tools have been developed to accompany the handbook series and are used in the training programme. These are based on a protected areas database, a tree conservation database, a GIS demonstration tool and a metadata directory. They aim to demonstrate key aspects in the collection, management and analysis of biodiversity data, and the subsequent production and delivery of information. They also illustrate practical issues such as data standards, data quality-assurance, data access, and documentation. Each training tool is supported by a user guide, together with a descriptive manual which traces the evolution of the tool from design, through development to use.

Companion Volume

ix

1

INTRODUCTION

Over the past three decades, perceptions of the environment have gone through a number of shifts, often marked by a series of landmark events. For example, the myth of ‘infinite resources’, which pervaded decision-making until the 1960s, gradually gave way to an era of ‘environmental protection’, which focused on the environmental impacts of waste production and over-consumption. This was followed in the 1970s and ‘80s by a ‘resource management’ era, which took a sectoral approach to environmental management. The paradigm of the 1990s is ‘sustainable development’, or the integration of environmental, social and economic goals in an holistic, equitable mix. Landmarks in this progression include the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, also known as the Stockholm Conference of 1972, which spawned institutional mechanisms to address global environmental issues, including the United Nations Environment Programme; the World Conservation Strategy in 1980, linking conservation and development issues; the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987, which gave international recognition to the notion of sustainable development; and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, in 1992. Over this time, increased recognition has been given to the management of information for environmental decision-making, as well as to the strengthening and networking of organisations. These priorities are vitally important to the development of national strategies, plans and programmes in support of international treaties and conventions on living resources, and are reflected both in Agenda 21 and in the articles of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Against this background, the Darwin Initiative project entitled Training in Biodiversity Information Management was approved in 1996. The Darwin Initiative programme has to date supported more than one hundred and forty projects at a total cost of £15 million. This project supports three of the five principal areas on which the Darwin Initiative focuses, namely institutional capacity building, training, and assisting in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Companion Volume

1

2

THE HANDBOOK SERIES

The objective of the handbook series is to support policy and management goals aimed at conserving and sustainably using living resources. The handbooks are based upon the following three principles:

•

Information needs to be timely and available in forms which genuinely support decision-making.

•

Data should be collected and quality-assured once, and then made available for use in multiple information products.

•

Policy-makers, resource managers, information professionals and researchers should attempt to understand each other’s perspectives and cooperate in the production of information.

To fulfil these ideals it is necessary to develop an infrastructure capable of storing relevant data, harnessing professional skills to generate information, and then using this information to influence major stakeholders in favour of conservation goals. Ultimately, the last of these is the only true measure of success. A key requirement is to respond to environmental concerns before they become serious problems. Most countries have some capacity to do this already, although the capacity may not be well coordinated or funded. Remembering that most systems are only as strong as their weakest link, a secondary objective of the handbook series is to help readers judge how far their infrastructure has progressed and identify areas which would benefit from further attention and investment. Although the handbooks are closely interrelated, each has its own individual focus as illustrated in Figure 1 and described below.

2


Figure 1

The focus of each handbook

• Volume 1

Information and Policy

This handbook examines the links between information management and policy, in particular the use which is made of scientific information in the policy-development process. The handbook introduces models for how information can be applied effectively to decision-making (the ‘management loop’), and how information professionals, policy-makers and resource users can cooperate in generating information to address environmental concerns (the ‘information cycle’). Case studies are drawn from India and the UK to illustrate

Companion Volume

3

the connection between information and policy development. Key topics covered in the handbook include:

ü

setting priorities for information management

ü

participation and consensus

ü

supporting good decisions

ü

supporting good policies

ü

the concept of an ‘information cycle’.

• Volume 2

Information Needs Analysis

This handbook provides an outline of the rationale and benefits of conducting an information needs analysis to ensure that investments in information are valued by key decision-making groups. The analysis involves identifying key stakeholders (users); determining their goals with respect to specific issues; identifying constraints on information usage; and determining what information is needed to implement, monitor or review given policies. The underlying goal of the analysis is to achieve a consistent, mutually agreed set of information priorities amongst stakeholders, and to integrate the perspectives of users into a common vision of the way forward. The handbook outlines some practical approaches which may be used to identify the information needs of decision-makers. Finally, a case study is provided on how an information needs analysis was carried out in the forest sector of a tropical country. Key topics in the handbook include:

4

ü

why an information needs analysis is necessary

ü

how information needs are determined

ü

tools and methods which can assist in the process.


• Volume 3

Information Product Design

This handbook reviews the design and development of information products with consideration given to content, complexity, structure and layout, and timing in the delivery. The handbook also reviews data needs, underscoring the importance of developing essential datasets for multiple purposes. A review of processing needs considers steps such as data collection, data storage/quality assurance, interpretation/analysis, through to the compilation and presentation of information products. The handbook then considers the development and marketing of strategic products, potentially involving a range of cooperating partners, and introduces a case study on the World Forest Map. Key topics include:

ü

features of a good information product

ü

policy-relevant information

ü

abstraction, summary and indicators

ü

analysing data and processing needs

ü

product development

ü

packaging and marketing information.

• Volume 4

Information Networks

This handbook outlines the principles of information networks and explores centralised, distributed and managed networks which largely reflect evolutionary developments in information sharing and access. Central to the effective operation of information networks are clearly defined roles and responsibilities of the partners, i.e. custodians, users and the ‘hub’. Partners may, however, play multiple roles and be part of network arrangements operating across different themes and at different levels, from local through to international. Successful networks have a number of features in common: they have a recognised and easily understood purpose; there is an effective dialogue with users; they are flexible to changing circumstances and demands; and they mobilise and build on existing resources and capabilities in terms of the data, skills and Companion Volume

5

facilities of a range of partners in support of common information objectives. Four case studies of information networks developed at the global, regional (East Africa) and national levels (Australia and the UK), respectively, accompany this handbook. Key topics include:

ü

networking principles

ü

network design

ü

partner roles and responsibilities

ü

achieving common objectives

ü

network sustainability.

• Volume 5

Data Custodianship and Access

This handbook deals with the principles of custodianship of datasets, drawing distinction between custodians, owners and users. The rights and responsibilities of custodians are outlined, as are considerations involved in the management of custodianship, including assigning, managing and reviewing custodial responsibilities. A technique is outlined to assist steering committees in the determination of custodianship, and the handbook provides guidance on the development and use of data access agreements. Quality-assurance and access to essential datasets are fundamental principles, while pricing strategies are also considered. The Commonwealth Custodianship Guidelines, from Australia, provide a useful case study of the real life application of custodianship. Key topics include:

6

ü

principles of custodianship

ü

functions of custodians

ü

assigning and managing custodianship

ü

data access agreements.


• Volume 6

Information Management Capacity

Every organisation possesses its own individual strengths, weaknesses and objectives for information management. This handbook examines how to assess the current level of capacity within an organisation, with particular reference to direct assets (e.g. datasets, expertise, facilities) and indirect assets (e.g. management systems, partnerships), providing the basis for strategic planning and investment in capacity building. The handbook outlines components of an institutional survey, supported by a comprehensive questionnaire as an annex, and reviews the analysis and presentation of survey results. An overview of strategic planning is provided, and the handbook considers the key steps in enhancing an organisation’s information management capacity, particularly as it supports wider goals within networks. A case study on national institutional survey in Ghana is then introduced, with reference to strategic planning and policy support. Key topics include:

ü

assessment of capacity

ü

suggestions for analysis

ü

strategic planning

ü

capacity building.

• Volume 7

Data Management Fundamentals

This handbook deals with the development of an efficient infrastructure to underpin information production. The aim is to increase the usefulness of datasets by ensuring that they are flexible, standardised, of a high quality and accessible. A basic premise is that primary data should be managed as the basis for the production of a wide range of information products. The handbook provides a discussion of data standards, validation and maintenance of data, documentation, data security, and the use of quality-management standards. Consideration is given to the selection of information technology, particularly as it relates to the concepts of scalability,

Companion Volume

7

connectivity, compatibility and sustainability. The handbook concludes with a section on database development. A Tree Conservation Database serves as a case study, illustrating many aspects of the information cycle introduced in Volume 1 (i.e. from identification of information needs to the establishment of an information service underpinned by data which are managed following accepted standards and information management procedures). The Tree Conservation Database also serves as one of the complementary training aids to the handbook series. Key topics include:

8

ü

data flexibility

ü

data standards

ü

quality-assurance

ü

information technology

ü

database development.


3

WORKING DEFINITIONS

Working definitions of the following terms are provided to help users understand the text of the handbooks, and as a general reference source. No claim is made that these definitions are universally accepted or authoritative. Application Software fulfilling a specific function on a computer, or an equivalent manual procedure. Can be general-purpose (e.g. a word-processor) or custom-built to undertake specific tasks. Attribute Properties of an entity (e.g. ‘name’ and ‘area’ might be attributes of the ‘Protected Areas’ entity). Audience Benchmark

The target user (user group) for an information product. A measure of performance against a specific target value or values.

Best-practice Voluntary methods of working which are widely recognised as ethical, sustainable and otherwise sound. Biodiversity The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. The term is used interchangeably with biological diversity. Biological resources Includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for humanity. Bulletin board An area set aside in an electronic communications network where messages can be posted and read by a restricted group of members. Also known as a ‘newsgroup’. CD-ROM (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory) Optical technology which enables large amounts of data to be stored digitally on an optical disk in read-only format.

Companion Volume

9

Client-server A computing architecture which offers the advantages of both stand-alone and fully networked architectures. Computing tasks are shared efficiently between a high-powered server computer and individual user’s workstations. Computer network other.

A group of computers which can communicate with each

Continuous improvement A management paradigm in which long-term goals are achieved through a succession of small, individually contributing steps, with frequent review. Data Facts that result from measurements or observations of a phenomenon. Data development Data dictionary database.

The process of building from scratch or upgrading a dataset.

A repository of information about the definition and structure of a

Data-flow diagram A diagram illustrating how information and data flow in a process (e.g. in an organisation). Special symbols depict different types of flow. Data management The organisation, storage, retrieval and maintenance of data in a controlled environment (see information management). Data quality A statement of the quality of the data from which, a datasets fitness for use for a specific purpose may be assessed. Data standards A standard set of terms. Documented norms, rules, conventions and guidelines concerning the data — includes data collection methodologies, definitions, coding and classification rules, representation conventions (units of measure, scale, precision . . .), allowable values and ranges. Database A logically structured and consistent set of data, usually managed as computerised files in one or more locations. Database application

10

A collection of tools which facilitates use of a database.


Database Management System (DBMS) A software package for data management that organises data in a defined structure that is independent of the application programs, and allows multiple users to share common data. DBMS software will normally include a data definition language, and data manipulation language. Dataset A collection of data and accompanying documentation which relate to a specific theme. DBF format The file format originally used by the dBASE product and now commonly used by other applications for data exchange. Decision-maker An individual or group responsible for making decisions (which impact on the well being or management of biological resources). Decision-making The process of arriving at decisions, which may be very complex and involve many organisations and individuals. Digitising table

A device for inputting map features into a computer.

Electronic mail (email) A network (including Internet) service allowing messages and files to be exchanged between users. Entity Physical objects or phenomena that possess attributes or properties (quantitative or qualitative) and may be considered to have relationships to other entities. For example: protected area, soil unit, species, manager, ecosystem and river. Entity-Relationship (E-R) diagram A graphic representation following a mathematical formalism that defines the inter-relationship between entities in a database. Essential dataset A dataset which underpins the development of multiple information products for multiple users. Examples include the national boundary, vegetation coverage and human population statistics. Field A column in a database table containing data values from a consistent data collection or interpretation process.

Companion Volume

11

File

An organised collection of related records.

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) A standard by which a user can access and transfer a file from one host (e.g. computer) to another using an FTP application. File server A specialist computer designed to manage access to shared data storage and management facilities. Flat-file database (‘flat-file’).

A simple type of database containing only one table of data

Geographic Information System (GIS) A software package that enables users to store and analyse spatial data, such as digital maps and remotely sensed imagery. Global Positioning System (GPS) A device which uses satellite signals to calculate the absolute or relative location of a point on the Earth’s surface. Used in aircraft, ships and, increasingly, by biological survey teams, for instance to locate sampling or specimen collection points. Hard copy

Data or information that is printed on paper.

Hardware The physical components of an information system, such as computers, printers, scanners, plotters, and other peripheral devices. Hyperlink

The connections between pages in a hypertext document.

Hypertext Documents which are structured into electronic ‘pages’ connected to one another by means of hyperlinks. Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) A standard language used to create hypertext documents, for instance to format pages displayed using web browsers. Indicator Highly refined information product which quantifies or simplifies complex phenomena, for example a numeric value representing the relative greenhouse gas emissions from different countries.

12


Information Information is derived from the assembly, analysis or summarising of data into a meaningful form. Note: In some common usage there is often no clear distinction made between ‘data’ and ‘information’. In information systems terminology it is common to use ‘data’ for the input to any process and call the output ‘information’ — which may then subsequently be the ‘data’ that is input into the next process. Information management The transformation of data into information, often through a set of processes involving people, equipment and procedures (see data management). Information network A group of partners/stakeholders collaborating with each other for the purposes of generating and exchanging information. Information product One or more items of information designed for a specific audience for a specific purpose (includes reports, graphs, documents, maps, multimedia presentations, for example). Information production The process communicating information products.

of

developing,

packaging

and

Information professional Person involved with information production, for example a researcher, data manager, librarian, statistician, analyst, designer, publisher or communicator. Information service A facility offering a range of information products in support of a particular topic (e.g. forestry). Information system An organised set of people, processes, data and tools for transforming data into information and providing and disseminating information products. Internet A network of computers around the world which communicate using a set of agreed protocols (communication standards). The Internet provides useful services such as email, World Wide Web (WWW), Gopher and File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Living resources

Companion Volume

See biological resources.

13

Listserver An Internet service based on simple email technology, which enables defined groups of users to be reached with a single email message. Primarily used for discussion of a specific topic (similar to bulletin boards). Local Area Network (LAN) single site or institution.

A computer network usually operating within a

Logical database design The conceptual design of a database which is independent of implementation issues. Mainframe A powerful multi-user computer designed to meet the demands of large organisations. Mainframes have been increasingly displaced in recent years by personal computers, workstations and communications networks. Metadata Literally, data about data (e.g. its location, source, content and quality) Also known as co-data. Metadatabase

A database designed to manage metadata.

Modem A device used to link computers over telephone lines. The term is a contraction of modulator-demodulator. Multimedia The integration of many types of data in a single application, including text, sound, graphics, and video. Multitasking concurrently.

A computing environment that enables several programs to be run

Natural resources Naturally occurring commodities used by human beings, for example minerals, soil, water and living resources such as forests, domesticated plants and animals, and wildlife. Renewable natural resources are a subset which regenerate under the right conditions. Normalisation database.

The process of achieving an optimum structure for a relational

On-line database An information service that can be accessed from computers dialling up over public communication networks.

14


Operating system Software controlling access to the resources of a computer, including supervision of other program. Examples of operating systems are Microsoft Windows and UNIX. Personal Computer (PC) A computing platform, intended for use by one person at any time. Can be used either as a stand-alone computer or linked into networks. Major types include IBM-PC Compatible and Macintosh. Physical database A database which has been implemented in a particular hardware or software configuration. Policy A principle adopted or pursued by an individual, government, party or business. Process An activity, function or procedure applied to a resource to create some outcome (e.g. an arithmetic procedure applied to data, or a critical step in a business operation). Prototyping An information system development methodology which develops a partial or ‘mock-up’ version of an information system for user evaluation. Prototypes may be discarded or subsequently developed into an operational version. Public domain Information (e.g. software, databases, methods, standards) which can be used without restriction of copyright, licence and the like is said to be ‘in the public domain’. Query

A request to a database to select and extract data.

Record A collection of related data about a specific topic, treated as a single unit for purposes of data management or analysis. Relational database A database in which data is organised following the ‘relational model’, that is, data items are organised in a set of formally-described tables linked by common key data items. Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) relational data model as its basis.

Companion Volume

A DBMS which uses a

15

Relationship Describes how two or more entities are related to one another (e.g. ‘species’ may be related to ‘genera’ by a ‘belongs to’ relationship). Server A computer or program that provides a service to other programs or users. A network server, for example, enables users to access network resources from linked computers or terminals. Software

The programs that are run on a computer.

Spatial data Data which are associated with specific locations on the Earth’s surface. Also known as geo-referenced data. Spreadsheet Software which allows users to manipulate and analyse data in tabular format, including the use of formulae to derive values in “cells”. Stakeholder Individuals or groups having an interest in the well-being or management of a resource, for example, national and local government agencies, non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations, the private sector, industry, the general public, politicians, individuals and the international community. Structured Query Language (SQL) Widespread database querying language used in many relational database packages. Sustainable use Means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations. Table A physical entity in a relational database in which data are laid out in rows (records) and columns (fields). Theme

A broad data area which may be subdivided into datasets.

Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) A text-based search facility designed for retrieving information from computer networks. Wide Area Network (WAN) A computer network consisting of geographically dispersed computers communicating via media such as telephone, radio and satellite.

16


Workstation High-performance desktop computer designed for intensive technical applications. World Wide Web (WWW) An Internet service enabling users to access information via a graphical, hypertext, interface. Universal Resource Locator (URL) A unique address describing the location of an information source on the Internet. xBASE Data management applications which trace their origins to the dBASE package.

Companion Volume

17


Volume 1 Volume 1






1998


Published by


ISBN

0-85092-544-4

Copyright


Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Volume 1: Information and Policy. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 29pp.

Typeset by


Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by


Available from


CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

INFORMATION PRIORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3

PARTICIPATION AND CONSENSUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4

SUPPORTING GOOD POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5

THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6

SUPPORTING GOOD DECISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7

THE INFORMATION CYCLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

8

RECOMMENDED PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

9

CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.2 The UK Biodiversity Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.3 The Indira Gandhi Conservation Monitoring Centre . . . . . . . . . . . 26

10

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Volume 1 Information and Policy

v


vi



Volume 1 Information and Policy

vii


viii




ix

1

INTRODUCTION

Visions of degraded landscapes, changing climates, chronic pollution and extinction of species have permanently altered our view that the Earth is a limitless resource for exploitation. We now realise that our social and economic goals cannot be pursued regardless of their impact on the environment. Serious challenges lay ahead in translating such awareness into action. In particular, how can we progress towards sustainable development when the gap between current practices and sustainability appears to be so immense? Many nations are responding to this challenge by committing to the principles of Agenda 21, the key output of the Earth Summit in 1992. In particular, they have opted to become Parties to international agreements and protocols relating to biodiversity conservation (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, CITES, Convention on Migratory Species, Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention) and stabilisation of the global environment (e.g. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Montreal Protocol). Five years later in 1997, at Earth Summit II, there was general agreement that enough discussion, negotiating and treaty-writing had taken place, and that the next major step forward would be implementation. Central to the implementation process is the formulation of policies, strategies and action plans to promote the conservation and sustainable use of living resources. The performance of these policies depends on the degree to which they reflect the perspectives of different groups of people and, consequently, on the extent to which government, the private sector and society at large work in partnership. Experience has shown that the best policies result from a process of consultation, consensusbuilding and, if need be, reconciliation amongst affected stakeholders, leading to solutions which balance economic and social goals with the need to safeguard the environment. When pursued intelligently, a commitment to such policies can improve the economic performance of companies and allow longer-lasting benefits to be delivered by governments. Good policies have other features in common, including the effective use of information throughout the policy’s lifetime. Indeed, the transition from exploitation of living resources to conservation and sustainable use requires a major investment in information and monitoring, otherwise it is not possible to say whether we have truly progressed.


1

2

INFORMATION PRIORITIES

Amongst all the potential uses of information in addressing environment concerns, it may be argued that policy-development is the most important, since so many human activities are influenced by the policies of governments, corporations and, increasingly, non-governmental organisations. Environmental information, therefore, needs to be relevant to policy-makers in these sectors who are charged with identifying environmental concerns and finding solutions in complex and diverse situations, such as industries and communities. Not surprisingly, many environmental concerns which affect the lives of ordinary people are not officially acknowledged in government policies, which may lag behind other sectors in society, such as lobbying groups, or be provided with too few resources to address the issues effectively. In the present context, the wider set of environmental concerns (which may or may not be acknowledged by governments and other groups) will be referred to as policy issues. In any particular location, factors such as culture, history, trade, politics, climate, geographic and biological composition affect which policy issues will be most relevant. Box 1 lists a few common issues to illustrate something of their breadth. A key step forward is to establish which issues are highest priority.

Box 1

2

Common policy issues

• •

Conversion of natural landscapes (e.g. forest to agriculture or housing).

•

Degradation of ecosystems (e.g. loss of species diversity or ecosystem services).

• • •

Loss of genetic variability (e.g. wild ancestors of crops).

Decline in commercially valuable species (e.g. timber trees, wild foods and medicines).

Release of exotic or genetically modified organisms (e.g. weeds and pests). Loss of indigenous knowledge (e.g. traditional forest-related knowledge).


Stakeholders may attribute widely differing priorities to policy issues according to their own individual perspectives. For instance, global warming could be one of the major driving forces of environmental change in the next century, but it is likely to receive scant attention in a low-income community challenged with day-to-day survival. Priorities also change over time: they arise, come to the attention of specific groups, and disappear, often to resurface later in a different guise. The key challenge for information professionals is to understand not only what information is relevant at a specific time, but also when, how and to whom it should be delivered, in order to address important issues effectively. Recognising that financial resources for information management are limited, it is vital for information professionals to work alongside other stakeholders in identifying priority areas for information development. To ensure that the interests of an appropriate range of stakeholders are represented — whether these are information specialists, policy-makers, resource users or other groups — a high degree of consultation is desirable during this process. Indeed, the very act of discussing priorities can build important ties between stakeholders as well as sensitising them to the role and value of environmental information in their daily work. One challenge is the scope of the issues under consideration. For example, it would be difficult to prepare comprehensive information on complex topics such as ‘poverty’, ‘population growth’ or ‘deforestation’, since the range of perspectives on these issues (and consequently solutions) is enormous. Faster progress can be achieved by generating information on more focused issues such as ‘loss of breeding habitat for species X due to drainage of wetland Y’ or ‘effect of river pollution on species Z’. The challenge is to be realistic about what can be achieved with the resources available, and prioritise accordingly. Another factor is the lifetime of the issues under consideration. At one extreme, it is difficult to generate information on so-called ‘burning issues’, such as the effects of an imminent road-building project, since they remain topical only for unpredictable, and usually short, periods of time. At the other extreme, research on ‘fundamental issues’, for example the effect of climate change on wild bird populations, may arrive too late to save many of the species under study.


3

It is desirable to forecast issues well before they develop into problems, so that cost-effective remedial action can be organised. The best way of achieving this is to manage (or have access to) data on topics which yield information on immediate priorities, but are also relevant to the study of longer-range phenomena. The capacity to ‘scan the horizon’ for future issues, using a combination of historical experience and up-to-date intelligence, is a hallmark of effective information management.

4


3

PARTICIPATION AND CONSENSUS

One of the reasons why environmental issues are so challenging is that the values attached to natural resources vary tremendously between stakeholders. In some cases values may have evolved over thousands of years of interaction with the environment and be embedded in the spiritual life or culture of a community. In other cases they may have been acquired recently in response to new economic pressures or opportunities. A paradox exists since, in many cases, the signs of environmental deterioration are clear to many, yet there is no consensus on how to respond. Traditionally, economic goals have carried most sway over development decisions, as depicted in Figure 1. One of the reasons for this is that social and environmental values are more difficult to quantify than economic values. For instance, how does one quantify the potential value of an undiscovered species to the pharmaceutical industry, or the detriment to society of a species extinction? Such uncertainty has the effect of encouraging stakeholders to underestimate environmental values in their decision-making. For this reason, large-scale projects may be subjected to social and environmental impact assessments (EIA) before they are implemented, ostensibly to ensure that steps have been taken to minimise non-economic costs. However, confidence in this process is still low in many

Figure 1

Changing visions of development: the search for sustainability

Economic goals

Environmental goals

Social goals

Traditional development


Economic Environmental goals goals

Social goals

Sustainable development

5

countries where such assessments have not been successful in preventing social and environmental damage. Now that the costs of economic development are becoming more widely understood, world attention is being focused on an alternative vision — known as sustainable development — in which economic goals are achieved in balance with social or environmental goals (see Figure 1). This may not satisfy all stakeholders (e.g. those who would wish to see more rapid economic development), but most may expect to benefit in the long term and, critically, the benefits of development will be shared more equally. Individuals, communities, companies, nations and international bodies all make decisions which affect the sustainability of living resources and, consequently, all have a role to play in their conservation and sustainable use. No segment or level of society can be left out, since decisions made by one group can affect the livelihoods of others. Thus, wherever possible, policies aiming to conserve living resources should reflect the perspectives and needs of all stakeholders who stand to win or lose. Even small-scale environmental challenges tend to arouse the interest of many stakeholder groups. Such groups are typically politicians, civil servants, natural resource managers, local government officials, non-governmental and communitybased organisations, business leaders, industry representatives, professional associations, scientific researchers, teachers, the general public, media and the international community. Despite their apparent diversity, most of those involved fall into one of three categories: government, private sector and civic society. Together, these are referred to as the development ‘triad’ (Sandbrook 1994), since they represent the three core interests shaping development policy. In the long term, policies which do not represent all three broad interests are destined to falter, stall or fail. Figure 2 depicts the development triad in terms of its constituent stakeholders. Clearly, the term ‘civic society’ represents all of those who are not actively engaged with government or commercial activities, including non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations and individuals.

6


Figure 2

The development triad

Government: local, state, national administrations; international treaties, protocols, conventions

Civic society: general public; community groups; local, national and international non-profit and non-governmental organisations


Private sector: self-employed; small businesses; companies; trade bodies; consortia; transnationals

7

4

SUPPORTING GOOD POLICIES

For governments to promote the conservation and sustainable use of living resources, a credible policy environment is required, i.e. one in which the planning, regulatory and advisory services provided by the government are understood and accepted by the majority of stakeholders. This is best achieved by involving stakeholders in the policy-development process, by steadily adapting policies in response to feedback from stakeholders, and by reviewing policy effectiveness on a regular basis. Credible policies on biodiversity conservation are required within all levels and sectors of government, and outside government where industries, firms, and communities also have a responsibility to reduce environmental impacts and protect (or sustainably use) living resources. The important parallel between national and local levels, or governmental, private and non-governmental sectors, is that policy-development is an inclusive, participatory activity, depending on high-quality and objective information for success. In this way, decision-making processes are not only made more transparent, they are also shared. Several models have been proposed for biodiversity planning — the development of policies, legislation, strategies and action plans for conservation and sustainable use of living resources (e.g. UNEP 1993, Miller and Lanou 1995). Good information management is assumed in these models, but its precise role, for instance in delivering efficiency gains and cost savings, is not always elaborated. Figure 3 illustrates a generic management ‘loop’ comprising four processes: plan, implement, monitor and review. By making extensive use of information, the four processes enable policy goals to be achieved in a progressive manner through successive iterations of the loop. Joining the loop at the implementation stage, activities are underway to meet agreed targets for conservation and sustainable use, set out in the planning stage. The loop proceeds to monitor the performance of the policy by, for example, obtaining data directly from the environment or with respect to the achievement of policy targets. Performance is then reviewed, leading to the production of clear and concise recommendations for policy-makers on how the policy should be refined in future. Finally, the loop is ‘closed’ for another cycle by planning how the recommendations will be implemented, in terms of objectives, targets, roles and responsibilities. It should be noted that monitoring, review and planning activities would very often proceed in parallel with implementation. This enables continuous, rather than intermittent, feedback and policy-refinement. 8


Figure 3

Management loop for policy-development

Plan: agree objectives, targets, roles and responsibilities

Review: prepare clear and concise recommendations

continuous improvement

Implement: progress towards targets

Monitor: measure performance (successes and failures)

Figure 3 simplifies what, in reality, is a complex, many-faceted process. For instance, the policy being developed may address an issue of national importance, such as the loss of crop genetic variability in an important agricultural zone, or a local concern, such as the restoration of a single eroded hillside. In both cases successful implementation depends on maintaining a steady course around the management loop so that the four components flow into one another. To achieve this it is necessary to concentrate on the core objectives of the policy at all stages and to make sure that all actions contribute to these in some way. An open, participatory approach encourages stakeholders from different levels and sectors of society to involve themselves in implementing the management loop. For instance, policy goals may be developed by consensus at fora established for this purpose; community groups or industry representatives can be asked to help monitor


9

policy performance; and the success or failure of policies, plus options for future refinement, can be determined as a group. When stakeholder perspectives differ greatly, participation may not always be easy to manage. In such cases considerable effort is needed to keep stakeholders focused on policy goals, and not let implementation be diffused. Common constraints on implementation include lack of financial resources, expertise and time, political interference and lack of political will. Clearly, the management loop is not an easy approach to follow, but it does offer a powerful means for developing and implementing policies capable of effectively responding to changing environmental conditions in a controlled, transparent fashion.

10


5

THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

When wrestling with problems like deforestation, water pollution, loss of biodiversity and a fragile food supply, decision-makers are presented with a series of major challenges relating to information. Firstly, they must learn how to discriminate between information sources, which may carry different messages and vary in quality. Secondly, they must learn how to integrate different types of information to formulate a proper perspective on the issues concerned. Finally, they need to clarify information into a series of practical options which may be evaluated. To address these challenges fully may require decision-makers to liaise effectively with the scientific community and make appropriate use of information technology. The unprecedented amount of information which is now available to decision-makers should help them arrive at sounder, faster and more transparent decisions. However, these expected benefits often do not materialise in practice. One reason is that although the amount of environmental information has grown, so has the apparent complexity of the issues which need to be tackled. This is most clearly evidenced in terms of the numbers of stakeholders who now expect to be involved in environment-related decisions, and the challenges this creates in finding a consensus. Realistically, environmental information is only one factor influencing the way in which decisions on living resources are made, and it is not always the most significant. Personal opinions, political and economic dogma, market pressures, and legal necessities also influence decision-making. However, information has the power to be more objective than other influences, especially when generated by recognised means such as the scientific method. The importance of information to decision-making was noted at the Earth Summit in 1992, in the form of a whole chapter of Agenda 21 (Chapter 40). The Convention on Biological Diversity also places information management as a top priority (see Articles 7 and 17), notably in connection with the preparation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (Article 6), and reports on measures taken to implement the Convention’s goals (Article 26). The establishment of a modern theory of decision-making is often attributed to Herbert Simon (see for instance Newall et al. 1958) who postulated a three-stage process: intelligence, design and choice. In the intelligence stage the decision-maker gathers information relevant to the subject or problem; in the design stage alternative courses of action (options) are identified and their consequences forecast on the basis of available information; finally a preferred course of action is chosen. The Volume 1 Information and Policy

11

decision-making process is considered to be ‘rational’ if the choice is based on objective criteria, such as the minimisation of costs or the maximisation of benefits. Whether truly rational or not, whether supported by computer systems or not, the decision-making process will usually be similar to that shown in Figure 4 (adapted from Brookes et al. 1982). Important elements are the information sources, which enable options to be evaluated objectively, and a feedback loop to ensure that the impact of a decision is both monitored and reviewed. The rational argument for conservation and sustainable use of living resources is often very clear. What remains is to raise awareness of this argument over competing interests, so that the ‘gut’ feelings of decision-makers are influenced by objective, not subjective criteria. Brookes et al. (1982) point out that rationality becomes difficult when subjective concepts such as ‘quality of life’ and other cultural values influence the decision-making process. In such cases, there is a risk that rational options may be ruled out before they have been properly considered, by virtue of their cultural or personal unacceptability. Of course, subjective influences do not always work in opposition to the environment. Many indigenous peoples, for example, have belief systems which are naturally sympathetic to conservation goals.

12


Figure 4

The decision-making process

Awareness of issue

Define objectives with respect to issue Information sources (based on a solid foundation of data)

Specify potential options Review Forecast consequences of each option

Select best option


13

6

SUPPORTING GOOD DECISIONS

The fact that information is available does not guarantee that it will be used. In fact, no benefit may be obtained unless there is an effective dialogue between those involved in the process of generating the information (e.g. scientists, researchers and other information professionals) and those who are expected to use it (e.g. policy-makers and planners). For a variety of reasons this dialogue is often absent or under-developed. The existence of long-standing barriers between scientists and policy-makers, reinforced by arcane scientific literature and ill-informed policies, is one of the contributing factors. Clearly, information may fail to achieve a significant impact on decision-making when it is developed outside of mainstream decision-making processes, rather than emerging from within. For example, a local wildlife society may record the decline in breeding turtles on an increasingly polluted stretch of beach year after year. To raise awareness of the crisis they may hold meetings, write stories in the press, publish newsletters and alert other societies, scientists and concerned groups to the issue. However, until the government commissions its own enquiry into the problem, appropriate and decisive action may not be taken. Disclosing information to the general public can succeed in provoking government (or other elements of society) into action,1 but the way in which the government reacts depends on the internal information it has at its disposal. An understanding of the political climate and cultural values of the country is necessary before deciding which is the most effective means of conveying information to decision-makers. In the above example, a better strategy for the wildlife society may be to seek a working partnership with the government, rather than embarrassing it, with the aim of adjusting policy well ahead of impending crises (this assumes that the government in question is willing to listen and seek advice from wider elements of society). Organisations of all kinds, whether governmental, commercial or communitybased, are driven by their own priorities and needs. Thus, in the midst of a complex privatisation process, under external pressure to fulfil key targets within a structural adjustment programme, it may be difficult, even impossible, to interest senior

1

14

This is known as ‘decision-making by disclosure’ — influencing policy-makers via the public domain, rather than by more bureaucratic channels.


governmental decision-makers in important environmental information. At best they may see such information as a distraction and, more probably, as a waste of precious time. This helps to explain why information generated outside of decision-making circles is often ignored, misunderstood or viewed as a threat, and this does not only apply to governments! For information on environmental issues to be appreciated, those who are expected to use it need to be aware of how and why it has been produced and, preferably, have been involved in some way in its production. Thus, it is important to emphasise the role of environmental information within the day-to-day management contexts of those organisations which have the most impact on living resources. These include stakeholders in government, the private sector and civic society, which have a direct role in managing or using living resources. They also include financial institutions, the media and other sectors which, due to their power, are capable of great influence over attitudes and policy in other areas. An important justification for increased attention to information management is that the contexts in which policies on living resources are formulated are usually complex, and do not respond well to simple solutions. Many viewpoints may have to be reconciled to find the most appropriate way forward, a process which depends on building consensus between stakeholders on the basis of mutual respect and objectively produced information. Information management is also central to performance monitoring, whereby the success (or otherwise) of policy solutions is fed back to enable more effective policies to be designed in future. Review mechanisms of this kind are a standard feature of many economic policies but, in the case of conservation, the expertise and resources needed to collect, analyse and review environmental data are often underestimated. Properly organised information brings transparency and objectivity into the process of decision-making, throwing light on complex issues and providing a means of comparing potential solutions. Specifically, good information empowers its audience by:

• • •

providing a range of options on which to base a decision; discouraging options with predictably adverse consequences; and adding to a common set of agreed facts on which to base discussion.


15

Information rarely achieves these goals unless it is relevant to the needs of its users, is timely (i.e. available when and where it is needed), and can be easily absorbed without the need for special training or technology. For example, information published in a scientific journal serves academics and researchers well, but its presentation and timing may be unsuitable for policy-makers who are focused on operational goals. Similarly, raw data on the status of endangered species may not be usable by busy managers without significant interpretation or integration with other data. In short, decision-making is most effective when it is based on insight, not simply additional sources of information or data. The distinction between information and insight is difficult to draw but, in general, the latter is characterised by a more rounded product, tailored to the needs of the decisions being taken, and very concise (see Volumes 2 and 3). In the case of decisions on living resources, a package of information describing the state of a particular resource, the pressures it faces from human activities, and the effectiveness of current policy and regulatory measures designed to conserve it, could claim to offer a degree of insight beyond what would be provided by information on any of these topics individually.

16


7

THE INFORMATION CYCLE

Many aspects of the management loop introduced in Section 4, particularly the planning, monitoring and reviewing processes, depend on access to high-quality objective information on a potentially diverse set of topics. This provides a rather daunting challenge for information professionals, who may find themselves able to deal with specific themes, but totally unable to marshal the full range of information sources. Indeed, an impressive range of inputs is required to manage information on any specific theme, including the underlying datasets, human resources, facilities and management systems. Multi-disciplinary cooperation is clearly the way forward for successful information production. To help those involved cooperate in a coherent, cost-effective, manner, a guiding framework is useful to focus their contributions on common objectives and targets. Recognising that each country will respond uniquely to the challenge of generating information on environmental issues, a flexible, process-oriented approach is proposed. This breaks down the challenge into a series of small steps which, when taken as a whole, lead to the achievement of major strategic objectives. Figure 5 illustrates how the approach — referred to as the information cycle — covers all the steps necessary to address policy issues in a planned, yet responsive manner. The information cycle is not rigid, nor does it prescribe a solution: variable ordering of the processes is likely due to the completion of certain tasks, the need to revisit processes, or further specific constraints. Where individual processes in the cycle have already been accomplished, the cycle can still be used to suggest next steps or draw attention to missed, or under-emphasised activities. The information cycle can be applied at a range of scales. It could work equally well within a single organisation, a group of organisations, or in a large network of organisations spanning multiple sectors, levels and disciplines (see Volume 4). One thing is certain: at whatever scale the information cycle is applied, a high degree of coordination is required to ensure that stakeholders are kept informed of key results, objectives and responsibilities. An effective way of keeping the information cycle on track is to establish an organisational structure to oversee its implementation. This could be an existing committee, steering group or other body with appropriate representation, or one specially created for the task. Ideally, the body should be closely, if not directly, involved in the policy-development process to ensure that the information cycle is anchored in decision-making machinery.


17

Figure 5

The information cycle

Prioritise the issues demanding information

Review and adaptation

Build capacity through coordination, cooperation and investment

Analyse the information needs of decision-making groups

Progressive empowerment

Design information products and services to address these needs

Agree roles and responsibilities for information production

18


As an example of how the steering group might function, the prioritisation process could be facilitated by forming a working group to draft a list of priority environmental issues for which better information is required. These could be distributed to key stakeholders for review, following which a visioning exercise could be held to develop a consensus on their relative importance and information needs (see Volume 2). The information cycle consists of five processes, one of which — prioritise the issues — should be undertaken before the others since it establishes which issues are the highest priority for information support and, therefore, which should be addressed first. The remaining four processes cover the activities necessary to produce cost-effective information on the issues selected. Recognising that priorities change over time, and that information needs will change with them, a secondary feature of the information cycle is review and adaptation, whereby progress through the cycle is reviewed and new targets defined as appropriate.


19

8

RECOMMENDED PROCESSES

Each individual process recommended in the information cycle is elaborated below. 1.

Prioritise the issues

Recognising that resources for information management are limited, it is vital for information professionals to work alongside other stakeholders in identifying priority areas for information development. To ensure that the interests of an appropriate range of stakeholders are represented — whether these are information specialists, policy-makers, resource users or other groups — a high degree of consultation is desirable during this process. Indeed, the very act of discussing priorities can build important ties between stakeholders as well as sensitising them to the role and value of environmental information in their daily work. Key challenges to be aware of are the scope of the issues under consideration (i.e. complex versus focused) and their lifetime (i.e. ‘burning’ versus ‘fundamental’). Further reading: this handbook. 2.

Analyse information needs

Solutions to environmental issues are usually complex and it is not always obvious how to determine what information is needed to support policy and management goals. This is particularly true when decision-makers have only a hazy idea of their requirements. However, the price for not pursuing this challenge is heavy. Without the ‘right’ information, there is a risk that stakeholders will make inappropriate decisions, with potentially damaging consequences for living resources. Information needs analysis is the process whereby needs expressed in a variety of ways — narrow, broad, technical or bureaucratic — are guided into a consistent, mutually agreed, set of information objectives. A variety of tools and methods exist to facilitate and structure the analysis process. Further reading: Volume 2. 3.

Design information products and services

In reality, many groups of decision-maker are too busy or lack the technical background to process large amounts of data or apply themselves to difficult 20


interpretation tasks. They need brief summaries of complex issues, presented in such a way that they can be absorbed quickly without the need for special tools or expertise. By emphasising presentation issues such as clarity, timing and method of delivery, information products render information useful and usable by its intended audience. The aim is to take account of the constraints under which users operate, and tailor information accordingly. This is why the results are called information products rather than information sources, reinforcing the idea that they provide a specific service to their users. Further reading: Volume 3. 4.

Agree roles and responsibilities

The information needed to conserve and sustainably use living resources is multi-disciplinary in nature, even when confined to a single sector such as forestry or agriculture, and may be required on a dynamic and variable set of topics. The datasets needed to generate this information may be scattered amongst many organisations and sources, making the task of integration and interpretation complex. A further challenge arises when some organisations are unable or unwilling to provide access to their data. Information networks, which are simply assemblies of individuals, groups and organisations with common information objectives, address this challenge by focusing on cooperation. The aim is to build trust and confidence between network partners, who may include scientists, policy-makers and resource managers, leading to improved uptake of scientific information in policy and planning. The success of a network depends on its partners understanding how they are expected to contribute to the network’s goals and, equally importantly, how they stand to benefit from its existence. Their roles and responsibilities for information production should be defined clearly and reviewed as necessary. Further reading: Volume 4 [optional Volume 5]. 5.

Build capacity

Constraints in information management capacity can impede progress towards corporate or network objectives. Clear priorities for capacity building are needed, and the greatest challenge is deciding how and where to focus investments. The latter should, wherever possible, be based on an assessment of where existing capacities are Volume 1 Information and Policy

21

located and how readily these can be mobilised for specific tasks. This can be achieved by surveying the range of data, skills and facilities which are available, and the management systems which bind these together. Typically, some information objectives will be achieved simply by improving coordination between organisations and by sharing scarce resources. Others may require direct financial support to realise. It is the role of senior managers in the organisations concerned to attempt to enable progress in both cases. The aim is to extract the greatest benefit from existing resources as a first step, but to facilitate access to additional resources as required for specific tasks. Further reading: Volume 6.

22


9

CASE STUDIES

9.1

Overview

Since the Earth Summit a number of publications have begun to address the challenge of generating information in support of the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity. These include the Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1993) which provides advice on assessing the conservation status and economic potential of living resources, Guidelines on National Biodiversity Planning (Miller and Lanou 1995), which examines how to develop biodiversity strategies, action plans and reports, and the more specific Guide to Information Management (UNEP/WCMC 1996) and Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998) which illustrate the steps necessary to build a national infrastructure for biodiversity information management. Two fundamental lessons for information management can be drawn from the experiences captured by these publications, and from related projects and activities which have addressed the issue of managing information on living resources following the Earth Summit: 1

Information should be relevant to policy and management goals, whether these apply at the local, national or international levels. It follows that there is a need to find ways of converting the abundant information on environmental, economic and social issues into forms suitable for decision-making.

2.

Information should reflect the real complexity of environmental concerns by involving an appropriate range of stakeholders in the information production process.

In accordance with these principles, many governments in both North and South have developed strategies for improving the accessibility, quality and relevance of national biodiversity information. Two examples follow.

9.2

The UK Biodiversity Database

Following the Earth Summit the United Kingdom prepared a biodiversity action plan in accordance with Article 6a of the Convention on Biological Diversity. One of the Volume 1 Information and Policy

23

key strengths of the plan, which was published in January 1994 (UK Government 1994), is that it draws together existing policies and programmes for nature conservation throughout the country. To advise the UK Government on implementation of the Plan, a Biodiversity Steering Group was established with representation from key sectors and nature conservation institutions. The primary tasks of the Steering Group, which was chaired by the Department of Environment, were to develop costed targets for conserving threatened, declining or otherwise important species and habitats; to suggest ways of improving accessibility and coordination of biodiversity information; to recommend ways of increasing public participation and awareness of the need to conserve biodiversity; and to monitor and oversee implementation of the Plan. The United Kingdom has a rich reserve of biodiversity data resulting from the efforts of dedicated amateurs and government agencies. However, much of this data is not available to decision-makers in a form which is relevant to their needs. There are also important gaps and overall coordination of data collection and management activities is lacking. For instance, policy-makers may be more interested in the reasons why species or habitats are disappearing than their rates of loss (i.e. information on pressures as well as status). This may demand a programme of monitoring and research drawing on a baseline of consistently structured data, which may not exist at the present time, despite the wealth of biodiversity data which have been collected in support of earlier, often uncoordinated priorities. To make more effective use of what data already exist, and to coordinate activities in future, the Biodiversity Steering Group established three information management priorities: to improve access and coordination of existing biodiversity datasets; to provide common standards for future biological recording; and, most ambitiously, to examine the feasibility of a UK Biodiversity Database (UKBD). Planning was driven by the knowledge that the data requirements of most users are actually quite similar and that, as a consequence, the most efficient systems and mechanisms were those which resulted in data being recorded, checked and stored only once, but accessed and used many times for many purposes. Emphasis was placed on prioritisation of datasets for decision-making processes, the management of data quality (validation, security and documentation), and the preparation of data exchange policies. It was recommended that major datasets should be managed to certain standards of content, quality and accessibility by an 24


agreed custodian, and made available to other users for legitimate purposes. This is in direct agreement with European information regulations on freedom of access to information on the environment, which state that public sector holders of data have an obligation to provide access to and ensure the quality of their data. When considering whether (and how) to make datasets available to external audiences, the twin issues of charging for data and protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) are often cited by institutions and individuals as potential barriers. This need not necessarily be so if the right environment for data exchange is created at an appropriately high level, and the characteristics of good data exchange policies are agreed. For instance, the UK Biodiversity Steering Group recognises that different charges and conditions of use of data might be issued to different classes of user as, indeed, is already common practice amongst some of the institutions represented. With regard to standards, three thematic areas were identified: biodiversity standards covering the data content (e.g. species nomenclature, vegetation classifications, threat categories); information standards covering data structures (e.g. the attributes recorded for a species distribution record); and technology standards covering the compatibility and interoperability of information and communications technology. The task of reviewing existing standards and addressing weaknesses with new standards has begun, on the premise that data will continue to be stored on a variety of media (e.g. paper, spreadsheet, database) and communicated in a variety of ways (e.g. by hand, post, CD-ROM, Internet). Clearly, the most significant component of the Biodiversity Steering Group’s information strategy is the UKBD. When established, this will comprise a network of cooperating partners working towards agreed standards of data quality and access. The UKBD will operate at two levels: the local level, where data are commissioned primarily for the development of local biodiversity action plans under the management of a consortium of competent local organisations; and the national level, where cooperation will be largely voluntary and will be facilitated by one body, most probably the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). This approach encourages the provision of relevant information to local planning processes, but also enables integration of high-quality local- and national-level datasets for national biodiversity planning. With so many datasets currently in existence or under development, an important first stage of the UKBD is a stock-taking exercise, or dataset catalogue. Presented in various forms, from a simple text directory to an electronic metadatabase, the Volume 1 Information and Policy

25

catalogue will document what datasets are available, assess their quality and accessibility, enable major gaps to be determined, and help to reduce duplication of effort and redundancy. [Source: UK Government 1995]

9.3

The Indira Gandhi Conservation Monitoring Centre

India is one of the twelve ‘megadiversity’ countries which, together, possess 60-70% of the world’s total biodiversity. Its ten biogeographic zones subsume a very wide range of ecosystems. India has about 7% of the world’s flowering plant species, 14% of the world’s bird species and, overall, 81,000 species of animals representing 6.4% of the world’s identified fauna. Further, one third of its 15,000 flowering plants are endemic to India, plus 14% of its 1,228 bird species, 32% of 446 reptile species, and 62% of its 204 amphibians. The marine habitat covers 7,500 km of coastline extending 200 nautical miles off-shore into its Exclusive Economic Zone. Presently, biodiversity data are held unevenly across the country in different, often incompatible formats. Information based on these data is urgently required by decision-makers and other users for different purposes, such as protected areas management, environmental assessment, land-use planning and development, awareness-raising and education, research, and prioritisation of conservation activities. A particularly important need is access to reliable data on the socio-economic factors affecting the potential for conservation and sustainable use of living resources in the regions around protected areas. Although many institutions collect data useful for biodiversity conservation (some are mandated to distribute this), data are rarely made accessible in reasonable time or in the formats users require, particularly where the data transcend institutional jurisdictions. This is because data are primarily collected for internal use by the institutions concerned, and there is little awareness of the need to build up essential datasets for common, nationally-agreed goals. The Indira Gandhi Conservation Monitoring Centre (IGCMC) was set up by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-India) in May 1994, with the support of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, to support the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources in India through the provision of scientific and management information. IGCMC aims to support conservation by helping to coordinate the management and dissemination of information on India’s living resources, the pressures they most acutely face, and on the performance of 26


government and private sector policies on land use, resource management (e.g. water, forests, wildlife) and protected areas. In cooperation with a series of major data management partners, the agreed mission of IGCMC is as follows: “to support biodiversity and natural resources conservation in India through collecting, managing, disseminating and making accessible relevant data and knowledge, and by providing appropriate technical, analytical and networking services” Considering IGCMC’s priority for producing biodiversity information and its current emphasis on protected areas, its short-term objectives are to gather, interpret and distribute information on threatened plants and animal species, trade in wildlife, wetlands, eco-development planning in and around protected areas, and the distribution and status of habitats and species in the Eastern Himalaya, Western Ghats and Andaman and Nicobar Islands.2 The longer-term strategy is to provide more comprehensive information and capacity building services to a wider range of users, notably in the private sector, by consolidating existing data-management partnerships and developing new ones. IGCMC is implementing this strategy with support from the British Department for International Development (formerly Overseas Development Administration). The sustainable management of natural resources depends on policies which reflect a wide variety of interests. The development of such policies depends upon a similarly wide base of data and information. One task of IGCMC is to increase access to key datasets via the promotion of common approaches (standards) for data management and exchange. This demands excellent coordination between IGCMC and its data-management partners, which can be facilitated by electronic networking. IGCMC has developed a model for the integration of diverse and distributed datasets which makes extensive use of Internet-based communication and presentation tools. These enable the growing network of data management partners to cooperate in the development and delivery of information to specific groups of users. No advanced technology will be required by users other than Internet connectivity, which is growing rapidly in India with significant governmental support.

2

Under the ‘Biodiversity Hotspots’ Conservation Programme of WWF-India.


27

IGCMC is set to play an important role in providing information to decision-makers in many sectors and at many levels in India. One example is the provision of objective information to environmental appraisal committees in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The role of these committees is to review environmental impact assessments (EIA) for major development projects, and approve or reject the projects as necessary. IGCMC will also help the Government of India fulfil its reporting obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Specifically, it will assist in the following areas: preparation of a national biodiversity conservation strategy (Article 6), identification and monitoring (Article 7), environmental assessment (Article 7), forecasting (Articles 7 and 10), in-situ conservation/sustainable development (Articles 8 and 10), ex-situ conservation (Article 9), research and training (Article 12), public education and awareness (Article 13), exchange of information (Article 12), technical and scientific cooperation (Article 18), and scientific and technical advisory committee (Article 25). [Source: S.K. Puri, Indira Gandhi Conservation Monitoring Centre, WWF-India, New Delhi]

28


10

REFERENCES

Brookes, C.H., Grouse, P.J., Jeffery, D.R. and Lawrence, M.J. 1982. Information System Design. Prentice-Hall. Miller, K.R. and Lanou, S.M. 1995. National Biodiversity Planning: Guidelines Based on Early Experiences Around the World. World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, and IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Washington D.C.; Nairobi; Gland, Switzerland. Newall, A., Shaw, J.C. and Simon, H. 1958. Elements of a Theory of Human Problem Solving. Psch. Review, May 1958, pp 151-166. Sandbrook, R. 1994. Annual Report 1994–1995. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. UK Government 1994. Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan. The Stationery Office Ltd (HMSO), London, UK. UK Government 1995. Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report. Volume 1: Meeting the Rio Challenge. The Stationery Office Ltd (HMSO), London, UK. UNEP 1993. Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP/WCMC 1996. Guide to Information Management in the Context of the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP/WCMC 1998. Guide to National Institutional Survey in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. WRI/UNDP 1990. World Resources 1990–92. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.


29


Volume 2 Volume 2






1998

The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, based in Cambridge, UK, is a joint venture between three partners in the World Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring for the Earth: IUCN - The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme, and WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature. The Centre provides information services on the conservation and sustainable use of species and ecosystems and supports others in the development of their own information systems. The United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species, launched at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, aims to support the Convention on Biological Diversity by drawing on Britain’s scientific, educational and commercial strengths to assist in the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s biodiversity and natural habitats. Key tenets of the Darwin Initiative include collaboration and cooperation with local people, capacity building, distinctiveness and complementarity of project initiatives, poverty alleviation, and long-term sustainability. Through training, awareness raising, and research on undervalued areas of biodiversity, Darwin support is particularly aimed at strengthening links between Britain and those countries rich in biodiversity but poor in financial resources. Under the auspices of its Environmental Training for Sustainable Development initiative, the Management and Training Services Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat supports short- and long-term training, internships and institution development for environmental policy makers, environmental ‘operatives’, and environmental information professionals in the Commonwealth, in various areas of the environment including biodiversity and gender. Funding support for training, institution development and publications under the aegis of the Management and Training Services Division is provided by the Fund for Technical Co-operation (CFTC).

Published by


ISBN

0-85092-545-2

Copyright


Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Volume 2: Information Needs Analysis. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 23pp.

Typeset by


Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by


Available from



INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

WHY IS THE ANALYSIS NECESSARY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3

HOW ARE INFORMATION NEEDS DETERMINED? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4

Overview . . . . . . Stakeholder analysis Policy Analysis . . . Policy Support . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

4 4 5 8

USEFUL TOOLS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Overview . . . . . . . . Structured Approaches . Participatory Approaches Process Models . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

10 10 12 15

5

CASE STUDY: INFORMATION FOR FORESTRY SECTOR DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Volume 2 Information Needs Analysis

v


vi



Volume 2 Information Needs Analysis

vii


viii




ix

1

INTRODUCTION

Solutions to environmental concerns are usually complex and it is not always obvious how to determine what information is needed to achieve conservation goals. This is particularly true when decision-makers have only a hazy idea of their requirements. The price for not pursuing this challenge is heavy. Without the ‘right’ information, there is a risk that stakeholders in environmental decisions will select inappropriate options, with potentially damaging consequences for living resources. Information needs analysis is the process whereby needs expressed in a variety of ways — narrow, broad, technical or bureaucratic — are guided into a consistent, mutually agreed set of information priorities. It focuses on a series of basic questions concerning information usage, such as:

• • •

Who are the intended users of the information? How will it influence living resource policy or management? Over what time-scale is it needed?

In the rush to implement technology or shed light on natural phenomena, answers to these questions are sometimes neglected. Information needs analysis addresses this challenge by stimulating a dialogue between the researchers, data managers, analysts and publishers (i.e. information professionals) who are involved in producing information, and the target audiences (users) who need — or are perceived to need — information to improve the quality of their decisions. In the interests of cost-effectiveness, it seems obvious that such a dialogue should take place. However, the frequency of comments such as ‘the government never uses my data’ or ‘the information arrived too late’ or ‘was too detailed to understand’ are testament to this not being the case. The basic questions of what information is relevant at a specific time, and when, how and to whom it should be delivered, are vital to avoid time and money being wasted on information or information systems which are not used — or usable — by decision-makers.


1

2

WHY IS THE ANALYSIS NECESSARY?

Information needs analysis is an important early stage of the information cycle introduced in Volume 1. The analysis provides an opportunity for methods of collaboration to be established between information providers and users. If it is conducted in a consultative, inclusive manner, numerous benefits are gained as follows:

• Cost-effectiveness The earlier that information needs are identified the easier, and cheaper, they are to build into the information production process (see Figure 1). Changing focus during the design stage of an information product is a frequent cause of delay and cost over-run; changing focus during the development stage costs even more, especially when multiple organisations are involved; and changing focus after information has been delivered to its users is yet more costly. At each stage, consultation with users is essential to make sure that the information will satisfy or exceed expectations.

Figure 1

Relative cost of change during information production

Cost of change

$$$

$$ $ Stage Analysis

2

Design

Development

Use


• Efficiency The underlying needs of different groups often overlap, enabling substantial efficiencies to be made in information production. For example, an official in a ministry of agriculture may require a map showing the distribution of wild relatives of crops in a specific location. This need differs greatly from that of a forest officer wishing to know the sustainability of logging operations in the same area. However, much of the baseline data required to build the maps (e.g. administrative boundaries, rivers, vegetation and topography) may be the same. Thus, analysis of information needs can save costs by pinpointing areas of overlap and ensuring that attention is paid to the development of frequently used datasets.

• Cooperation One of the key spin-offs of the analysis is improved cooperation between information providers and users. The process of identifying information needs leads to a greater understanding of decision-making processes by the former, and a greater understanding of the practicalities of producing information by the latter. For example, it may come as a surprise to some scientific groups to discover that there are many factors other than content which determine how information impacts on decision-making. Amongst these are timing, clarity, and the method by which the information is delivered (see Volume 3). Similarly, users are better able to articulate their needs when they understand the challenges faced by researchers, data managers and publishers, many of whom are constrained by lack of human resources and facilities. The analysis process provides a good opportunity for both sides to learn more about each other’s working patterns, leading to more confident, cost-effective working partnerships in future. The overall aim is to encourage the view that information is integral to the decision-making process, not an external luxury or threat (see Volume 1). An indication of the importance of user (information) needs analysis is provided by Richardson (1994), who claims that this step “took 80% of the time of the start-up phase” of the Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) information system in Australia, and that “great self-control was needed not to be ‘busy’ purchasing hardware, software, and data until these matters were settled”.


3

3 3.1

HOW ARE INFORMATION NEEDS DETERMINED? Overview

Much background work may be necessary to review the legal and regulatory framework affecting an environmental issue before beginning information needs analysis. Important aspects to review include the historic progression of policies and practices leading to the current situation; the need to accommodate, not conflict with related policies and plans; and the degree of mutual confidence and cooperation amongst the stakeholders concerned. Such knowledge injects realism into the information needs analysis, and helps identify what information may be needed for practical policy changes. Once this review has been conducted, the process of identifying specific information needs can begin. For simplicity, this process is divided into three parts: stakeholder analysis, policy analysis and policy support.

3.2

Stakeholder analysis

The aim of this analysis is to determine which groups of people have the greatest interest in an issue, or will be affected by its outcome to the greatest extent. These people — the so-called stakeholders — will usually be the primary users of the information which is later developed. For example, if the issue was ‘drainage of wetland Y by farmers and housing developers’, a broad range of stakeholders might potentially exist, including the farmers and developers themselves, plus representatives from the local authorities, interested non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs), the national agency responsible for environmental protection, and politicians. Inviting too many stakeholders to participate in the process of information needs analysis can lead to high overall costs, prolonged consultation periods, introduction of extraneous issues, and the possibility of conflicts arising. Inviting too few stakeholders could imply that some groups have been overlooked or excluded, leading to resentment and increased likelihood of non-cooperation. Stakeholder analyses can be conducted for many purposes and at any level of detail. Table 1 illustrates a simple structure for recording the relevance and special constraints of a set of stakeholders faced with the issue of landscape degradation from intensive agricultural practices.

4


Table 1

Stakeholder analysis

Stakeholder

Relevance to issue

Constraints

Farmers’ interests body

Unsustainable agricultural practices root cause of issue

Meets only twice a year

Local authority

Makes final decisions on land use; influential in promoting best-practice

Very busy; few resources

NGO

Represents local people’s interest in protecting landscapes and biodiversity

Represents only a minority of the local population; few resources

National resource management agency

Encourages compliance of local authorities with national-level policies and standards

Natural resources policy framework under review

Politician

Pushing for economic development through intensification of the agricultural industry

Not briefed on environmental consequences

...

...

...

3.3

Policy Analysis

The information needed to address an environmental concern can be determined by asking stakeholders a series of basic questions to discover how decisions relating to the issue are made and how, if at all, objective sources of environmental information are employed. A variety of questions which could be asked of these groups are outlined below:

• What are your main goals with respect to the issue? This question goes straight to the root of the analysis. It aims to uncover what policy and management goals stakeholders are driven by, so that information of the right kind to assist them can be determined. Information which simply augments the existing pool of knowledge, but is not relevant to stakeholder goals, is unlikely to support decision-making effectively.


5

• How do you currently make use of information? Objective information on the environment may or may not play a large role in determining how decisions are made. For instance, farmers whose lives depend on good yields may feel there is no alternative to clearing vegetation or draining wetlands in order to survive, despite the fact that research suggests that the land has only limited fertility. Similarly, the demand for housing may prove irresistible to developers who, in the full knowledge that irreversible damage to the environment is being done, continue to clear and build. Politicians, too, may be driven more by financial and social necessities, political ideology or international pressures, than by objective scientific evidence. In most cases, the rational argument for conservation and sustainable use of living resources is clear. What remains is to raise awareness of this argument amongst those who perceive themselves as having few, if any, options but to degrade the environment, and to offer insight and alternatives, not criticism, on how to proceed. Knowing how information on the environment is currently used — if at all — helps to decide what kind of information is most needed by stakeholders to embark on more sustainable practices. For example, a housing developer may be grieved to find that their proposed development would ruin the livelihood of a threatened species, but may do nothing about this unless presented with a series of convincing alternatives. The same is true for unsound or damaging technologies, which cannot be phased out until information on cleaner alternatives is available. constraints do you work under which might affect your use of • What information? Naturally, there is a variety of ways in which stakeholders may be constrained in their ability to absorb and use information. For example, a farmer who works long hours in the fields will have neither the time nor background to interpret the latest research results on agricultural biodiversity loss. Unless the information presented is brief and simple, there may be little chance that farmers will take up any recommendations which follow, for example, low-impact farming techniques. Even when legislation is passed or government incentives for best-practice are applied, associated information may still be needed to build new skills and awareness. An effective technique is to identify and sensitise opinion leaders within the farming community, and then support them in the wider dissemination of technology and practices. 6


Similarly, busy politicians and decision-makers in government may not see the value of additional information, particularly when this is presented in too much detail or at the wrong time. They may feel that they have more urgent priorities to attend to. Clearly, there is little benefit in delivering information to decision-makers unless it reaches them at the right time, in an easily interpretable form, and with reputable scientific credentials and sources. For example, if a meeting is scheduled to review and update a national policy on conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, then supporting information must be delivered well in advance and, also, through appropriate governmental channels. If it arrives late, is deemed to be too complex for busy people to comprehend, or it emerges from an unfamiliar source, then it may have no impact at all. Such constraints on information usage are exceedingly common and underline the need for information professionals to understand the decision-making strategies and procedures of those whom they wish to influence.

• What laws, regulations and related policy initiatives affect your activities? Stakeholders at all levels — in government, the private sector and society at large — have varying degrees of knowledge about the policy and legislative framework affecting their lives. In some cases, the way in which decisions affecting living resources are taken is conditioned more by what the law allows, rather than the nation’s or the community’s, let alone environment’s, best interest. Thus, it is important to assess what laws, regulations and related policy initiatives are in place (including, as appropriate, traditional customs, taboos and sanctions) which might affect the issue being addressed, since a refinement of these may be the most effective solution. Many environmental issues have come to light so recently that current policies are inadequate to deal with them. Thus, one of the most important target audiences for information are government policy-makers who, amongst other stakeholders, are responsible for reviewing the performance of current policies and preparing strategic plans for the future (Miller and Lanou 1995). Some laws can be so out of date that they positively encourage citizens to damage the environment. A good example is the practice of clearing public land of its vegetation to demonstrate ownership, which is permissible, even encouraged, in some countries through the existence of outmoded economic incentives. Even modern laws may contain unanticipated loopholes which, unless closed, threaten careful living resource planning.


7

Where formal policy-review mechanisms are in place, it is important to investigate these carefully since they may be operated on tight, inflexible time-scales which must be satisfied. Where no policies exist to address a particular concern, one solution is to identify the decision-making bodies most likely to develop appropriate policies and empower these with relevant information.

3.4

Policy Support

Thus far, the analysis has attempted to reveal stakeholder’s goals with respect to an issue; their current use of (and constraints on using) information; and the strengths and weaknesses of existing policies. The next step is for stakeholders to integrate their various perspectives into a common vision of the way forward. Clearly, this vision may not suit all stakeholders perfectly, but the aim is to find a policy solution to the issue which combines as many social, economic and environmental goals as feasible, given the diversity of views which exist. A key element of this process is consultation, which can be structured using the tools and methods described in Section 4. Stakeholders may require specific information to help them cope with the implications of the agreed policy, particularly where they are expected to adopt new working methods or embrace notions of conservation and sustainable use of living resources. Further information may be required to monitor the performance of the policy, and to assist with its progressive review and refinement (see Section 4, Volume 1). To fully define information needs, therefore, it is helpful to ask a final, direct, question of stakeholders: information do you require to implement, monitor or review the • What agreed policy? It remains to determine what specific information is needed by whom and in what form to enable stakeholders to implement the policy and ensure that it remains responsive to their needs. The content, complexity, structure, timing and method of delivery of this information all determine the speed with which stakeholders will accommodate the changes required (see Volume 3).

8


The questions outlined in this section — relating to policy analysis and support — aim to uncover what information is needed to support conservation and sustainable-use goals. The team responsible for undertaking this analysis should consider distributing their findings to stakeholders for review and comment. Once agreement has been reached on information needs, the next step is to design information products and services to meet priority demands (see Volume 3).


9

4

USEFUL TOOLS AND METHODS

4.1

Overview

There are a great many tools and methods which can be applied to information needs analysis. Any particular analysis may require only a subset of these, the most appropriate methods depending on its depth, the nature of the issues being addressed, the range of stakeholders involved, and the previous experience of the team. Most methods are designed to clarify goals and, in some cases, achieve consensus amongst stakeholders with widely differing perspectives. Structured approaches are suitable in situations where information needs are already broadly defined, and the goal is to elaborate these in more detail. Questionnaires are particularly useful in situations where organisations are mandated to prepare information in a prescribed form, and feedback is required from users on the quality of the information supplied, or ideas for future improvements. Structured interviews provide an opportunity to engage users in free-flowing discussions, yet keep to an agenda with a fixed set of questions. Where new information capacities are being developed, perhaps by a series of collaborating organisations, more sophisticated techniques may be employed to engage stakeholders in consultation. Less structure may be feasible during the analyses, leading to the use of alternative, participatory approaches, such as visioning exercises, brainstorming and problem tree analysis. Finally, process models can be employed at any stage in the information needs analysis to illustrate the relationship between information sources and selected processes in an operation. They serve to simplify and consolidate otherwise complex flows.

4.2

Structured Approaches

• Questionnaires Questionnaires are a highly structured method of data collection which can be used in one of two ways:

10


1. As a ‘fill in the blanks’ form, completed with supervision or in the respondent’s own time. 2.

As a checklist or aide-memoire during face-to-face interviews.

A well-designed questionnaire promotes the systematic collection, cataloguing and evaluation of data, which eases the process of summarising basic facts and trends. If applied to the right tasks, questionnaires can be an extremely inexpensive and efficient method of data gathering. Questionnaires are best applied to the collection of facts or opinions on carefully specified issues. They enable information professionals to segment users into classes on the basis of their responses, each class possessing a characteristic range of information needs. They can also be used to ‘screen’ potential users for their relevance to an issue, or to enable identification of key groups for study in more depth. They can also be applied to wider tasks, such as the gathering of basic data on organisations to enable them to cooperate more effectively (see Volume 6). Questionnaires have limitations for open-ended or general analysis of information needs and past experience has shown very low response rates are obtained from ‘blind’ distributions (mailings without advance warning or explanatory material). Response rates can be improved by including a supporting letter or brochure outlining the purpose of the study, together with a sample questionnaire completed as an illustration. Another technique is to have the questionnaire filled out to the maximum extent before it is distributed, to save recipients the bother of entering obvious data themselves (e.g. name and address of their organisation), while encouraging them to update entries that are inaccurate or incomplete. Even with this level of assistance, respondents may leave some questions blank, misinterpret questions, or bias answers according to their own individual assumptions. The chances of generating ‘true’ information from a questionnaire are, therefore, relatively low compared with face-to-face techniques. Of course, response rates can be improved by following up questionnaires personally with telephone calls or site visits (see Volume 6 for a full discussion).


11

• Interviews The structured interview involves obtaining views through direct questioning and discussion. The interview is ‘structured’ in the sense that there are particular topics and/or questions which are asked in all cases, and standard explanatory information is provided in advance. Interviews may be conducted individually or as a group. Individual interviews can be conducted formally (questions are asked and responses recorded on tape or written down), or informally (a questionnaire or checklist is used to prompt discussion on key topics). Naturally, interviewing techniques will vary according to the cultural norms of the organisations and individuals concerned. Group interviews are useful where discussion and consultation are the preferred way to establish answers. As above, a questionnaire or checklist can be used to guide discussions and record answers from individual participants, following which the responses of the overall group can be summarised. As with other kinds of group approach, it is useful to have one person facilitating the discussions (chairperson or facilitator) and another recording what is said (rapporteur). Group interviews often benefit from a short presentation on the topic before opening up the discussion more widely.

4.3

Participatory Approaches

• Visioning exercises Having determined which stakeholders need to be involved in discussions on a particular issue, the next step is to try and formulate a consensus on how to proceed. For instance, this could be through the development of new or refined policies, by means of specific projects, via changes to organisational structures and management systems, or by selected investments and capacity building measures. Visioning exercises bring stakeholders together to develop, and sometimes negotiate, solutions to problems which satisfy many perspectives. The aim is to release ideas, viewpoints and needs from participants, and structure these into a common vision of the problem, its solution and how to achieve that solution. As

12


with any strategic-planning exercise, the exercise seeks answers to the following three questions: 1.

Where are we now?

2.

Where do we want to be?

3.

How are we going to get there?

One of the key requirements of a visioning exercise is experienced, objective, facilitation. The job of the facilitator(s) is to solicit contributions from participants and bring order and clarity into discussions, not to lead participants to conclusions no matter how obvious these may seem to the facilitator. At the end of the exercise, participants should feel that the achievements are theirs alone.

• Brainstorming Brainstorming is similar to a visioning exercise, except that the goal is to accumulate ideas on a topic in a short space of time, rather than attempt to develop a consensus. A facilitator is needed to initiate and steer the session, as well as to create the right conditions for creative thought. In a brainstorming session, all individuals are free to speak and there is particular encouragement to put forward unusual and new approaches. All inputs are recorded. The ideas are then sorted and used where applicable in the context of the topic under discussion. Brainstorming is most useful when defining the initial scope of a policy or plan, when a change in strategy is required, or simply for an infusion of new ideas and inspiration. For example, brainstorming may be useful in trying to identify the key datasets in an organisation, or new forms of information products to influence decision-making.

• Problem tree analysis Problem tree analysis is a useful method for enhancing problem definition so that policies and plans can be formulated to address their underlying causes. The analysis works by inviting those gathered to identify the key problems associated with a shared issue or concern. These are displayed on a flipchart or similar display device in group sessions, or simply noted down on paper in smaller gatherings. With the help of a facilitator, the group then decides which of the range of Volume 2 Information Needs Analysis

13

Figure 2

Problem tree analysis Disenchanted local community

Genetic depletion of timber stocks

Economic prospects of local people compromised

Less potential for tourism

Depletion of forest diversity

‘Mining’ of highvalue timber species in local forest reserve

Huge demand for relatively few species

Lack of awareness amongst wood consumers

Wood suppliers bribe local people to locate the best trees Few sources of income available to local people

Effects

Focal problem

Local people have little say on how it is managed

Causes

Forest is not owned by local people

problems identified is the focal, or pivotal, problem to address. This is placed at the centre of the display, whilst the remaining problems are separated into causes and effects of the focal problem, and are placed below and above it respectively. The problem tree is completed by clustering together similar causes and similar effects and noting the linkages between them. The resulting diagram places an issue into its wider context, in terms of its underlying causes, indicative effects, and related issues. This enables policy-makers and managers to target their investments more efficiently, with consequent improvements in impact and measurability. Problem tree analysis is a general method which can be applied to any form of complex problem definition, including resource management and information management issues alike. Figure 2 illustrates a typical problem tree diagram as applied to the issue of depleting stocks of timber in a forest reserve. In this example, the focal problem is the illegal ‘mining’ of high-value timber trees by non-local wood suppliers.

14


• Working groups/workshops Working groups (sometimes known as working parties or task forces) are small teams of individuals formed to address specific issues and return their results in a specified time-frame. Working groups usually have no further role after their assigned task is complete, and are composed of experts in particular fields rather than representatives of organisations. They are a particularly efficient way of developing plans on specific topics (e.g. a working group on environmental indicators, or application of GIS technology) or with coming up with solutions to difficult problems and uncertainties. Workshops are similar to working groups in having the objective of addressing a particular, perhaps wide-ranging topic. They bring together relevant expertise for a short period (usually one-half to 5 days) with the aim of achieving better mutual understanding of issues. Workshops often incorporate elements of training and, where a wide spectrum of organisations are involved, facilitate sharing of knowledge and expertise. External facilitators may be brought in to keep the workshop to an agenda, maintain objectivity in discussions, and ensure that all participants have an opportunity to contribute. A technique often used at workshops is to divide participants into small working groups to develop specific sub-topics or workshop themes. The size and composition of the working groups may be fixed at the outset of the workshop, or adjusted as it progresses in accordance with individual and workshop needs. Working groups normally present their findings to a plenary session of the workshop after their work is concluded.

4.4

Process Models

Process models (also referred to as data-flow diagrams) can be used to illustrate how information and data flow between the processes of an operation (e.g. an organisation, business or project). The role of a process model is to describe the operation in terms of its elemental processes and to define the flows of data and information which are needed to make it work. A consistent diagrammatic convention is often applied (useful models can also be developed without formal notation). In one common convention, operations can be expressed as a collection of numbered processes shown in rounded rectangles. Each process may be broken down into sub-processes, which in turn may be split further, Volume 2 Information Needs Analysis

15

and so on, with appropriate numbering being applied at each level. Sources of data (and information) used in the process may be depicted using rectangles and may be referred to as ‘datastores’ (this term implies no physical implementation; the data in a datastore may be in one or more databases or manual files). Arrows between processes and datastores indicate the direction of data flow. For clarity, it is conventional that each diagram should contain only a limited number of process boxes (usually 4-6) and datastores. The process model may be used equally well to illustrate an existing or planned operation. Figure 3 illustrates a simplified process model for a land-use planning operation. It is divided into three processes. Firstly, data on leading land-use options are integrated to assess the capability of the land in question. The information resulting from this process is considered by a decision-making body which ranks the options according to agreed criteria. This information is communicated to stakeholders for comment and, hopefully, an acceptable solution is negotiated.

Figure 3

Process model for land-use planning Natural resource database Criteria

Topography

1. Integrate data

Land capacity

2. Prioritise options using transparent criteria

Ranked options

3. Solicit views of stakeholders and negotiate a plan

Tourism potential Agreed land use plan

Urban concentrations

n. Process

16

Datastore

Data/information flow


5

CASE STUDY: INFORMATION FOR FORESTRY SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

In 1995, the British Department for International Development (DFID — formerly ODA) and the forestry commission of a country with a high proportion of tropical forest cover embarked on a five-year support project to strengthen the capacity of forestry sector institutions to manage the country’s forest resources. In mapping out capacity building requirements, monitoring was noted as a priority area but strategic information for policy and planning was not explicitly included. In discussion with the forestry commission, DFID officials noted the importance of strategic information to support the project’s objectives and, as a first step, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) were invited to the country for one month to conduct an information needs analysis for the forest sector. The analysis was guided by a framework known as Forest Resource Accounting (IIED/WCMC 1996), which helps to determine what information is needed by forest managers to improve policy and management planning. Based on extensive consultations with forestry commission staff, other government officials, members of a forest industry body, scientific research programmes and non-governmental organisations (including those representing indigenous peoples), a picture of the current status of forest information was revealed. This included the strengths and weaknesses of existing data, and the constraints on information usage exhibited by different stakeholders. The final stage of the analysis was a proposal for a series of information systems and information products which could be developed to address the immediate and longer-term information needs of key groups. Many constraints were noted on the development of the country’s forest sector, the most pressing of which are highlighted in Box 1. In this difficult situation, the analysis team decided to concentrate only on policy areas and related stakeholder goals of widespread concern, leaving further dimensions of sustainable forest management (SFM) to be addressed over the longer term. Clearly, cost-effective information should, in the first instance, help resolve the ‘burning’ issues.


17

Box 1

Main constraints on the development of the forestry sector

• • •

Overall low productivity of forests.

•

Inadequate revenue structure and inadequate incentives for sound forest management.

• • • •

Market failures (e.g. unaccounted environmental externalities).

• • •

Low domestic purchasing power.

Low timber rents and low profitability of domestic forestry industry. Macroeconomic policy failures (e.g. creation of imperfect competition by subsidising foreign companies with tax breaks, etc.).

Lack of infrastructure and trained personnel. Inefficient processing (due to lack of capital and investment incentives). Poor market access and relatively low export prices (e.g. due to low bargaining power).

Lack of tenure security. Lack of data on forest assets, capability and market value.

Although some of the detailed goals and needs voiced by stakeholders differed, there was a general convergence of ideas in key policy areas. Stakeholder goals were split into six groups, as illustrated in Box 2, each having implications for policy and monitoring. This was clearly a time when many stakeholders in the country were examining approaches to forest management carefully, with most acknowledging that major changes are required to meet the various objectives of SFM.

18


Box 2

Stakeholder goals requiring information and monitoring

Discussions with stakeholders, and analysis of recent documents on forest issues, reveal some key goals for future forest management. Information and monitoring is required for further development and implementation of many of these. Key supporters of the goals are indicated in parenthesis. 1

Supply goals: integrated policy and planning for forest lands

1.1

Introduce a planned approach to concession allocation and use, including forests that are not currently state forests (government, industry)

1.2

Rationalisation of forest/land-use law and regulations (donors, government, industry, NGOs)

1.3

Exploration of non-timber potentials (ecotourism, bio-prospecting, conservation concessions) to be considered alongside timber potentials (government, industry)

1.4

Implementation of EIA in planning forestry activities (government, NGOs)

2

Demand goals: promotion of sustainable forest industry and trade

2.1

Understand market and investment opportunities for timber and other products/services (government, industry, international commercial/ lending partners)

2.2

Sustainable development of forestry, processing and forest products industries (most stakeholders)

2.3

Understand the profiles of prospective investors (government)

2.4

Improved bargaining position in international agreements and trade (government)

2.5

Level playing field for all stakeholders (industry)


19

Box 2 (cont.)

20

Stakeholder goals

3

Use goals: nurturing and monitoring of forest users

3.1

Project/investment proposal development and assessment (government, industry, donors)

3.2

Developing new capacities in the forest industry through training and other development support (government, industry)

3.3

Sustainable development of indigenous communities and their lands (indigenous groups, donors, international community)

3.4

Monitoring forest condition and setting standards for concession management (government)

3.5

Control of chain-saw operators (government, industry)

3.6

Knowledge and control of foreign operations in the country (government, industry, international community, NGOs)

4

Improving participation and accountability

4.1

Increase transparency and accountability in decision-making (general public, government, international community)

4.2

Developing better dialogue and working relations between government and other stakeholders (government, industry)

5

Continuous improvement

5.1

Incorporating research results into policy and management planning (government, research projects, university)

5.2

Strategic, step-wise approach to the transition to sustainability (most stakeholders)

6

Raising and sustaining government revenue from forest use (government)


The most important ‘development services’ for the forestry commission to deliver correspond to the first three1 groups of stakeholder goals outlined in Box 2: integrated policy and planning for forests; promotion of sustainable forest industry and trade; and nurturing and monitoring of forest users. The forestry commission was exercising leadership in developing these services. However, the required information was not available at the present time. Thus, in its final report, the analysis team recommended that the commission develop the following information systems and products in collaboration with its private and non-governmental partners in the forestry sector: 1.

‘State of the Forest’ Review (updated annually)

2.

Forest Assets/Capability Map (updated continuously)

3.

Forest Investment and Marketing Handbook (updated annually)

4.

Forest Concession Management Information System (updated continuously)

5.

Forest Resource Balance Sheet-Stocks and Flows (updated monthly).

Consistent with a continuous improvement approach, each system or product was broken down into a series of small achievable steps to be implemented in phases. The intention was for the forestry commission to work these up into costed proposals for integration into the on-going support project. Although the team did not attempt to prioritise the products, many stakeholders recognised that the forest concession management information system (MIS) was needed most urgently to monitor the increasingly large areas of forest under concession. The goals of the concession MIS, whose main audience is the forestry commission itself and individual concessionaires, are to:

•

Ensure that forest managers produce the goods and services required by the economy, maintain an acceptable level of forest quality, and realise government revenue.

•

Generate accurate, up-to-date assessments of the extent to which concessionaires are complying with agreed forest management guidelines/Code of Practice.

1

The second three groups of concerns correspond to the driving forces necessary to build and sustain the services.


21

•

Ensure that essential data (such as forest inventory) are collected, processed and analysed to feed related information management activities.

The concession MIS consists of a set of principles, criteria, indicators and specifications; a set of assessment methodologies to determine indicators composed of field survey/validation procedures, interviews and document reviews; a set of reporting formats and communication paths; and a database regulating the storage, analysis and reporting of data into timely, relevant information for management and policy-making. Without such an information system it would be difficult to monitor forest management quality for purposes of applying incentives/penalties for good/poor management practices, respectively. It would also be difficult to assess the needs and capacities of forest users, for purposes of nurturing good forest management practice. Thus, it would be difficult to evaluate progress towards sustainable forest management. [Source: IIED/WCMC]

22


6

REFERENCES

IIED/WCMC 1996. Forest Resource Accounting: Strategic Information for Sustainable Forest Management. International Institute for Environment and Development, London; World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Miller, K.R. and Lanou, S.M. 1995. National Biodiversity Planning: Guidelines Based on Early Experiences Around the World. World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, and IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Washington D.C.; Nairobi; Gland, Switzerland. Richardson, B.J. 1994. The industrialisation of scientific information. In: Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J., and Vane-Wright, R.I. (Editors) Systematics and Conservation Evaluation. Systematics Association Special Volume 50:123–31. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.


23


Volume 3 Volume 3






1998


Published by


ISBN

0-85092-546-0

Copyright


Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Volume 3: Information Product Design. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 28pp.

Typeset by


Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by


Available from



INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

DESIGN 1: DEFINITION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

3

DESIGN 2: ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Structure and Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Method of Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Special Considerations for Web-based Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysing Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysing Processing Needs . . . . . . . . . . Special Considerations for Web-based Products

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

12 12 15 17

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Data Development. . . . . . . 4.3 Prototyping . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Strategic Product Development 4.5 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

18 18 19 20 21

5

CASE STUDY: WORLD FOREST MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.1 Overview . . . . . . 5.2 Design . . . . . . . . 5.3 Data Needs . . . . . 5.4 GIS Analysis . . . . 5.5 Presentation . . . . . 5.6 Product Development 5.7 Wider Applications .

6

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

24 24 24 25 25 26 26

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Volume 3 Information Product Design

v


vi



Volume 3 Information Product Design

vii


viii




ix

1

INTRODUCTION

The major challenge in sustainable development is to create a ‘level playing field’ in which environmental goals are given equal status alongside social and economic goals. One way of encouraging this is to provide access to environmental information at all stages of the decision-making process. However, decisions often rely upon a good understanding of just a few key facts or impressions at any point in time. It follows that, to be effective, the information should convey simple, succinct messages which clarify otherwise difficult decisions. Many decision-makers, such as civil servants, company directors, local government officials and individual resource users, are too busy or lack the technical background to process large amounts of data or apply themselves to difficult interpretation tasks. They need brief summaries of complex issues, presented in such a way that they can be absorbed quickly without the need for special tools or expertise. Timeliness is also a critical factor in determining whether information will be effective at supporting decisions. The most salient aspects of a decision may not be taken into account if key information is not available at the right time. By emphasising presentation issues such as clarity, timing and method of delivery, information can be made useful and usable by its intended audience. The aim is to take account of the constraints under which decision-makers work, and tailor the information accordingly. The results are often referred to as information products rather than sources, reinforcing the idea that they are produced with a specific purpose and user in mind (products which are delivered on a regular basis, perhaps via established procedures and mechanisms, are known as information services). Box 1 summarises the main characteristics of an effective information product. The first step in preparing information for decision-making is to understand how decisions are made on the issue under consideration, and use this understanding to deduce the information needs of major stakeholders (see Volume 2 for a full discussion). This enables the information to be made relevant to the policy and management goals affecting the issue. Once this consultative exercise is complete, it is possible to create one or more information products which actively help stakeholders to make better decisions (see the ‘information cycle’ in Volume 1).


1

Box 1

Characteristics of an effective information product

• • •

Designed for a specific audience and for a specific purpose.

• • • • •

Easily and quickly understood.

•

Cost-effective in terms of time, money and administrative overheads.

Relevant to decision-making needs. Available when the ‘window of opportunity’ for decision-making arises (i.e. timely).

Obtained through recognised channels. Based on objective scientific principles and high-quality data. Areas of uncertainty and their significance clearly identified. Accompanied by full acknowledgement of data sources and intellectual property.

Two underlying features of the information cycle are examined in the following sections: product design and product development. The first of these — design — is divided into two further parts, concerning product definition and analysis, respectively.

2


2

DESIGN 1: DEFINITION

2.1

Overview

Many factors determine whether information will be successful in supporting or influencing decision-making, including its content, complexity, structure, layout, timing and method of delivery. All of these may need to be examined during the design process. The goal is to specify an information product in such a way that it can be readily implemented by developers. The design specification is conceptual in nature and does not necessarily say how the product will be generated in practice (i.e. it is independent of the manual or computerised data processing techniques which are employed). The specification may vary in size from a short concept note to a detailed project proposal, depending on the scale of the product and the degree of detail required by its developer. In most cases, it will contain the following elements:

•

a preamble discussing the function of the product, including who the product will be used by and how it will help them to arrive at better decisions;

•

a definition of its content, complexity, structure, layout, timing and method of delivery;

• •

the roles and responsibilities of the team charged with its development; and an indicative budget and time-scale for product development.

Additional technical details may also be included, such as a survey of required datasets, entity-relationship (E-R) diagrams depicting the inter-relationships between key datasets (see Volume 7), and descriptions of the main processing and production techniques to be applied.

2.2

Content

Users require information for a wealth of reasons, and the assessment of what constitutes good or bad information content depends entirely on their individual perspectives and needs. Nevertheless, in considering some of the commonest decisions which need to be made in the environment and development area, such as Volume 3 Information Product Design

3

Figure 1

Insight as the fusion of three types of information

Information on the pressures faced by the environment, for example intensive farming, mining, industrial development, hunting and trade

Insight

Information on the state of the environment, for example unique features, integrity and conservation value

Information on the responses to pressures, for example policies, laws, regulations, customs and interventions relating to resource use and management

the selection of routes for transport or pipelines, strategies to employ in managing conservation areas, and the identification of land for housing or agricultural development, it becomes clear that a very wide range of information sources are involved. For decision-makers to weigh up options and plan activities which balance economic, social and environmental goals, a degree of insight is required into the issues, not simply further sources of information (see Volume 1). Not surprisingly, most models which have been proposed to guide the identification of information content reduce to the same basic elements, namely:

•

information on the pressures faced by the environment, notably from human activities;

•

information on the state of the environment, in terms of the extent, condition and uniqueness of its features; and

4


•

information on human responses to the pressures, for example policies, laws and interventions.

These elements can be represented in the form of a ‘pressure-state-response’ model, as shown in Figure 1 (Bakkes et al. 1994). Insight is depicted as the fusion of information on the three elements — state, pressure and response — which loosely correspond to the questions ‘what is happening?’, ‘why is it happening?’, and ‘what are we doing about it?’, respectively (Hammond et al. 1995). Information on pressures is often deemed to be the highest priority since, from a policy perspective, pressures represent the underlying causes of environmental concerns and are therefore most cost-effective to address. Also, pressures are easier and cheaper to measure since they mainly result from recordable human activities. Box 2 presents an example information briefing designed for a senior forest policy advisor. The briefing, which is just one of many types of information product, describes the background to an increase in timber utilisation in a forest reserve, including the underlying reasons for the increase and its consequences. Two graphs are provided for the advisor. The first illustrates the state of the resource (in this case timber) in terms of the standing volume of high-value species under threat; the second illustrates the chief pressure on the resource in terms of the size of the annual harvest. This enables the user to understand what is happening to the resource, and why it is happening. The second graph illustrates how current policy is failing to check the increase in harvesting rate, which has now risen well above a sustainable level. In order to clarify what response is necessary to address the problem, the graph contains targets for reducing harvesting rate to a sustainable level. Finally, the product contains recommendations for both policy-makers and forest managers.

2.3

Complexity

In their original form, scientific research results are notoriously inaccessible by many groups of decision-maker due to their level of complexity, sheer volume and focus on scientific rather than policy issues. This is quite understandable, since the results may never have been intended for use in policy-making, resource management or by the general public. Nevertheless, much scientific information could be of great value to lay audiences if it was presented in alternative ways.


5

Box 2 Issue:

Example information briefing Over-exploitation of high-value timber species in a forest reserve.

Background: For decades, the forest has supported local demands for timber and other forest products which have been available to local people through licences obtained from the local administration. Recently opened international markets have triggered outside interest in the forest’s assets, leading to an increase in harvesting of just a few high-value species. Local resentment of the outside interests is building, although this is partially offset by money obtained through working for the newly arrived companies. Recent research from the government Forest Officer, charged with implementing the forest’s management plan, reveals that the harvesting rate of high-value timber species has been unsustainable since 1992 and is causing long-term damage to the health of the forest and the economic prosperity of its surrounding community. Research results: Based on the Forest Officer’s data, the graphs below illustrate the trends in typical harvesting level and standing timber volume of key timber species since 1990. Only legally harvested logs are included (illegal logging is thought to account for an additional 10–20% off-take). Standing timber volume was assessed using government-approved forest inventory procedures. 60 40

50 30

40

Harvesting level (m3/ha) 30 20

5

3

Standing timber volume of key species (10 m )

20 10

10

0

0 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Techniques for translating scientific understanding into ‘policy-relevant’ information for decision-makers are currently very poorly developed in many countries. This is partly due to the traditional ‘stand off’ between the scientific and policy-making communities, fuelled by mutual suspicion of each other’s goals and methods, which leads to sentiments such as ‘the government never use my data’ (scientist) or ‘the information was too detailed’ (government). The interface between 6


Box 2

Example information briefing (cont.)

Policy implications: The current harvesting level of over-exploited species needs to be reduced. Potential solutions include diversification to other species, greater taxes and licence fees for non-local companies, or a temporary moratorium on logging operations (this has proved to be extremely effective in other similar situations). The cost to the local community of a degraded forest reserve must be fully reviewed, since this could develop into a serious socio-economic problem. Regeneration schemes could be introduced to boost the forest’s recovery, perhaps as a partnership between the Forest Officer, local community and logging companies. Management implications: The graph below (also based on the Forest Officer’s data) sets interim and long-term (sustainable use) targets for harvesting of the over-exploited species. These should be rigorously met through agreement of fixed quotas for logging, encouragement of the use of a broader range of timber species, and curtailment of illegal logging operations. 40

30 3

Harvesting level (m /ha) Interim target 20

Sustainable use target 10

0 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

2000

science and policy is ripe for innovation of all kinds, and one growing area of cooperation between the two communities is the growing use of environmental indicators in policy-making. Indicators are highly refined (and therefore easily interpreted) information products representing complex phenomena, such as the status of a living resource, the growth of a pressure, or the performance of a policy (see Hammond et al. 1995 for a more detailed discussion). In the extreme case, indicators can be presented in the form of single time-varying numbers which, when properly communicated, can Volume 3 Information Product Design

7

become popular and influential markers of progress towards policy targets. Well known examples from the financial world include the Dow Jones and FTSE indices from the New York and City of London stock exchanges respectively. Another example is GDP(Gross Domestic Product), which has been used to represent nations’ economic performance for many years. One difficulty with representing ecological information in the form of indicators is that the subject of study — human interaction with nature — is complex and does not lend itself to simple or regular assessment. There is, of course, the danger that simple indicators of complex phenomena could prove misleading. However, the need for clear and simple information on such topics is growing rapidly, and new monitoring and assessment techniques are continually being developed. For example, a major review of environmental pressure indicators is currently being undertaken by the European Commission as part of a scheme for monitoring the performance of environmental policy under the European Union’s Fifth Environmental Action Programme (EC 1993). Basic indicators are being defined in ten environmental policy areas, with the aim of ‘greening’ traditional economic indicators in European Union states1 (EC 1996). Two processes guide the extraction of information from their underlying data: abstraction and summary. Abstraction removes unnecessary information by using selected observations as surrogates for the behaviour of entire systems. This is vital in situations where the subject of study, for instance the integrity of an ecosystem or the impact of an industrial process, is too complex to describe completely. For example, the ratio of a forest’s perimeter to its overall area may be used as a simple measure of forest integrity, since the ratio varies according to its level of fragmentation. Similarly, the ratio of waste to output in an industrial plant can be used as a simple indicator of environmental performance. Unnecessary information can also be removed by summarising observations in simple ways, such as sums, averages, densities and so on. Environmental data are

1

The assessment of a nation’s performance in purely economic terms encourages environmentally- or socially-destructive growth to be recorded as progress by policy-makers. More balanced performance indicators take into account environmental and social impacts, such as the consumption of natural resources, the production of waste and pollution, and the welfare of those affected by ‘development’.

8


particularly well suited to spatial summary since, by definition, they originate from different points in the physical environment. Variations in natural phenomena can therefore be summarised over political, administrative or natural geographical units such as watersheds and ecoclimatic zones with relative ease. For example, measurements of pollution levels, ecosystem integrity, or ratio of native to introduced species, can be averaged in space to provide decision-makers with estimates of policy performance in different locations.

2.4

Structure and Layout

Information is traditionally produced as reports, maps, papers, pamphlets, brochures and other media, including Internet, video, audio, slides and posters for large audiences. As well as content, good information products benefit from attention to a range of structural and layout issues. For instance, reports are most easily absorbed if they are structured logically; have a well-defined beginning, middle and end; contain a brief summary at the start (e.g. an ‘executive summary’); have excess detail consigned to annexes or less visible areas, or left out; and make extensive use of navigation aids, such as tables of contents, page numbering, references, and an index. With respect to layout, information products which contain clear, simple information, with plenty of space and features surrounding the body of the message, are easiest to digest. This is as true for a web-page as it is for a written report. Ideally, they should be presented with attractively designed pages which guide the reader through the information presented. Judicious (but not excessive) use of shading, colour and fonts is useful, as are diagrams, tables, maps, charts, graphs, photographs, images, and other ‘features’ which enhance key messages and break up text. Boxes containing summaries of key facts or supplementary information add further value, and examples and case studies help illustrate and consolidate messages.

2.5

Timing

Decisions are often made over extremely short time-scales. Thus, if vital information is not obtained within the brief ‘window of opportunity’ available, it may fail to have any effect on the outcome of the decision. In some respects, timeliness is the most important factor determining the effectiveness of an information product. Events such as policy reviews, planning exercises, and press conferences, simply may not be able to wait for improved information. The implication is that information product Volume 3 Information Product Design

9

designers should understand fully the decision-making process they are trying to support, particularly the time constraints of the various stakeholders.

2.6

Method of Delivery

Selecting an appropriate method for delivering information is extremely important. For example, there is no apparent reason why information downloaded from the Internet should have less value than that obtained from a colleague or official source. Yet it is often the case that information of exactly the same content is treated differently according to its source. There are many ways to deliver information to its intended audience. These vary from covert transfer of information between organisations and people, to release of information into the public domain where all stakeholders, including the target audience, can receive it. Whatever form of delivery is used, steps may be taken to ensure that the target audience is aware of the product, and knows how to obtain it if not provided with it directly. Release of information into the public domain can prompt decision-making by disclosure, in which decisions are forced upon certain groups by embarrassing them into action. A good example of this (introduced in Volume 1) was the release of national ‘greenhouse gas’ emission statistics by the World Resources Institute in 1990. All major countries were ranked according to their level of emissions, causing immediate attention to be paid to emissions policy and, in some cases, rapid alteration of policy. Decision-making by disclosure can work positively in some situations but can be ineffective or counter-productive in others. An understanding of the political climate and cultural values of the country is necessary before deciding on the most effective means of conveying information to decision-makers. For example, a campaigning organisation which releases information to embarrass governments may be quietly ignored in governmental circles; but when a governmental committee arrives at the same conclusions, a rapid policy-shift may occur. Similarly, many companies demonstrating leadership in environmental management do so on the basis of their own insights and predictions, rather than public criticism.2

2

10

For example to avoid fines, legal action or unfavourable media coverage; or to gain a market advantage through being seen to respect the environment.


2.7

Special Considerations for Web-based Products

Because of the relative ease with which information can be made available using the Internet, the importance of good design in developing products is often overlooked. In fact, all of the preceding advice concerning content, complexity, structure, layout, timing and delivery is entirely relevant. Nevertheless, there are other aspects of information product design that are specific to electronic products, in particular the ability to make direct ‘active’ links between related items, allowing users to jump directly from one piece of information to another interactively (e.g. via hyperlinks).


11

3 3.1

DESIGN 2: ANALYSIS Overview

Having defined the information product, the next step is to analyse what datasets and processing techniques are required to develop it. This exercise is an integral part of the design process.

3.2

Analysing Data Needs

Figure 2 illustrates the life cycle of an information product in the form of an ‘information pyramid’. The cycle begins with primary data, which are obtained from the environment through research and monitoring activities. There follows a transition into managed data as the primary data are stored, quality-assured and otherwise brought into a secure, accessible medium. The next transition is into information, which is achieved by analysing and interpreting the data in line with user needs. Finally, specific items of information which are required by a specific user (or group of users), at a specific time, for a specific purpose, are compiled into an information product and delivered to their user. Feedback from users with respect to the value of the information they receive, and their future requirements, enables the provision of a progressively improving service (see Figure 2). The information pyramid portrays a ‘bottom up’ process in which primary data from research and monitoring activities are transformed into information products for specific users. In reality, information production works in the reverse direction since, for any particular issue which users are interested in, the first step is to determine what information is needed, how it will be used, by whom and when it is needed (see Volume 2). This gives the product designer a clear vision of what is required by the user. The next step for the designer is to work down the pyramid to determine which datasets are necessary to build the product and, ultimately, what research and monitoring activities these require. In summary, information needs dictate data needs, not the other way around (this is equivalent to saying that information production should be demand-driven, not supply-led). The process of distilling data needs from information needs is illustrated in Table 1. In this form of analysis, each issue demanding information (denoted by the letter I) is broken down into a series of information needs (denoted by the letter N); and each 12


Figure 2

The information pyramid User

Information product

Compilation/ presentation

Feedback

Interpretation/ analysis

Information

Data storage/ quality-assurance

Managed data

Primary data

Data collection

of these is broken down into a series of data needs (denoted by the letter D). Although every issue gives rise to its own information pyramid, many of the underlying data needs can be seen to be shared (e.g. D2 and D3). In theory, then, it is possible to deduce a core set of datasets which will be in frequent, if not continuous, use, based on anticipated user requirements (see Figure 3). These are known as essential datasets. A good example is a map of a country’s administrative boundaries, which may have application in any product illustrating the variability of an indicator across administrative zones. Table 1

Data needs analysis

Issue Information needs Underlying data needs

I1

I2

I3

...

N1 N2 N3

N4 N5 N6

N7 N8 N9

...

D1 D2 D3 D4

D3 D5 D6 D7

D2 D3 D5 D8

...

overlap

The identification of essential datasets should be a priority for every organisation, so that steps can be taken to make sure they are properly managed and accessible. If this Volume 3 Information Product Design

13

Figure 3

Essential datasets Anticipated range of users

Information products

Information

Information

Managed data

Managed data

Primary data

Primary data

Essential datasets

does not occur, then it could mean that extensive preparatory work is required every time an information product is created, which would be very inefficient and costly. To avoid this, as a general principle data should be stored and quality-assured only once, but made available many times for many purposes (UK Government 1995). In this way, a diverse portfolio of information products can be created from a core group of datasets and processing techniques. In many cases, it may be impractical or undesirable for a single organisation to manage all the essential datasets it requires. For instance, it would be inefficient for every organisation to prepare its own map of administrative boundaries. This would result in proliferation of many different versions of the same map, which would frustrate data sharing and comparison of results. The alternative is to develop partnerships with the organisations who are best placed to manage the datasets concerned (see Volumes 4 and 5). In the case of administrative boundaries, this may be a government department mandated with the task of keeping such a map up to date. Real efficiencies can be gained by sharing data with other organisations. Indeed, the 14


formation of information partnerships, linkages and networks is central to the production of information on living resources.

3.3

Analysing Processing Needs

The information pyramid (refer to Figure 2) illustrates how primary data, obtained through research and monitoring activities, are transformed into managed data, information and then information products. The processes associated with these stages are data collection, data storage/quality-assurance, interpretation/analysis and compilation/presentation respectively. Each has a processing requirement, or set of tasks which need to be applied to the data in order to facilitate progress to the next stage. The types of technologies and skills needed to undertake the tasks should be analysed as an integral part of the product-development process. Some pointers for this procedure are given below.

• Data collection This involves obtaining primary data from the environment through recording and measuring techniques. The equipment and expertise needed depends very much on the specific data being collected. For example, amateur naturalists have proved to be reliable sources of bird distribution data in many countries; the equipment needed is relatively cheap (pair of binoculars, identification guide and transport), and the level of public enthusiasm and expertise very high. However, measurements of water quality cannot be achieved so easily by the public, since they involve standard measurement procedures, specialised sensors and professional training. The main skill required is experience with the particular measurement procedures adopted. Typical technologies for data collection include recording and measuring equipment, preservation (e.g. of biological or chemical specimens), storage, and transportation.

• Data storage/quality-assurance This involves bringing primary data into a managed form through computerisation or other technique for storing and manipulating data. The aim is to manage data in ways which enable them to be applied to a wide range of purposes, for instance Volume 3 Information Product Design

15

through attention to their currency, validity, compliance with standards, documentation and accessibility (see Volumes 5 and 7). This is particularly challenging in situations where it is necessary to integrate multiple datasets for complex interpretation tasks, for instance analysis of the inter-relationships between living resources and the pressures they face from human activities. Common tasks include capture and validation of primary data, conversion between different formats and media, everyday maintenance and documentation. The main skills required are logic, consistency, attention to detail, knowledge of computers and related equipment, and an appreciation of the constraints and needs of data collectors, data analysts and information users. Typical technologies for data storage include filing systems, computer hardware and software, data input and output devices (e.g. scanners, digitising tables, printers and plotters) and communication facilities.

• Interpretation/analysis The purpose of interpretation is to refine data into information or, from a user’s perspective, extract information from data. A huge variety of analytical techniques can be applied, depending on the nature of the underlying data and the form of information output required. These range from simple methods of abstraction and summary (e.g. estimation of conservation value on the basis of observed species diversity) to statistical inference (e.g. prediction of water toxicity using time-series analysis), pattern recognition (e.g. interpretation of vegetation types from remotely-sensed imagery) and ecosystem modelling (e.g. simulation of the viability of a rare species or the effect of sea-level rise on coastal breeding habitats). All techniques have one feature in common: they filter out unnecessary detail, enhance salient features, and otherwise refine information content. Key skills include a firm grasp of the purpose of the analysis (e.g. the policy issue being addressed, the ecological assumptions, the intended uses of the information), plus proficiency in mathematics, statistics, data management and computer software and programming languages. Typical technologies for data interpretation/analysis include computer hardware and software (e.g. databases, statistics, GIS and image-processing packages), and programming languages which enable the design of custom analytical and modelling techniques (although useful, computers are by no means essential).

16


• Compilation/presentation Compiling information for non-technical audiences is often neglected by product developers who are absorbed with the more technical aspects of the data. However, this last process is essential since it forms the bridge between information professionals and the vast majority of users. Typical activities range from editorial control to production, marketing and distribution. Although extensive facilities may be required to integrate information sources and to perform editorial functions, it is important for the process to remain people- not technology-driven. An appreciation of the constraints under which users work, including their priorities for information, helps to ensure that the information produced is useful. The main skills required are writing, editing, graphic design, marketing and distribution. Typical technologies include hardware and software to support desk-top publishing, multimedia and GIS applications, plus printing facilities and electronic communications.

3.4

Special Considerations for Web-based Products

When information is made available on the Internet, or via other electronic media such as diskette or CD-ROM, it is possible to embed ‘links’ into individual items of information (e.g. graphs, text, maps) such that the underlying sources of data used to construct them are made explicit to the user. There is also the option of dynamically updating the information product as fresh data become available. Such data could be collected and managed by another organisation, with a ‘live’ Internet link providing the update – cooperation in action!


17

4

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

4.1

Overview

The design process should result in a specification or blueprint for product development, which is used here to mean the physical production, marketing and distribution of the product. However, products should not be developed in isolation: it is important to ensure that synergies and efficiencies between them are fully exploited during the development process. For example, it may be that several products for different audiences are all derived from the same underlying datasets, in which case the overhead for managing such datasets could be shared. Key questions for managers to address during the development process include the following:

• • •

Who is leading the product’s development?

•

What synergies and efficiencies can be exploited with other products?

Are they fully resourced in terms of data, expertise, facilities and funding? Which other organisations are contributing to the product’s development, and have appropriate institutional arrangements been made?

In addition to these management issues, a number of technical topics are worthy of special attention for product developers. These topics are amplified in the following sections.

4.2

Data Development

The analysis stage identifies which datasets are necessary to build an information product. Ideally, this results in a list of datasets which are either available immediately at the right level of quality within the organisation, or accessible through data management partnerships with other organisations (see Volume 4). However, in some cases, the necessary datasets may not be accessible at the right level of quality, or in existence at all.

18


For instance, a government scientist wishing to predict how climate change will affect the distribution of wetland habitats for migratory birds, may find that only rudimentary, perhaps conflicting, research data are available. Even where good data are available, the facilities needed to analyse them may be too costly to install, or the expert staff needed to operate them not available. When planning how to address essential data needs, a useful first step is to identify and prioritise data development tasks. Table 2 illustrates one method of achieving this. A development priority (useful, important, essential) is assigned to each dataset (denoted by the letter D) on the basis of how essential it is to information production (a higher priority would be accorded to those datasets which are necessary for multiple information products — see Table 1). The current status of each dataset is then described, and the tasks needed to bring it up to a sufficient level of quality are outlined. Finally, organisations which may wish to work as partners in the development of the datasets are identified. Table 2

Prioritising data development

Dataset

D1

D2

D3

...

Priority

Useful

Important

Essential

...

Non-existent

Actively managed

Under development

...

Build from scratch

Update

Update, extend, quality-assure, document

...

P2 P5

P4

None

...

Current status

Development tasks

Partners

4.3

Prototyping

Users often refine their needs for information during the development process, making it essential to maintain a dialogue with them on a regular basis. If this does not occur then there is always the risk that major revisions of the product will be necessary at a later stage. These concerns have led to the introduction of interactive approaches to product development, one of which is known as prototyping. This approach works as follows:

•

a prototype or ‘mock-up’ of the final product is built;


19

• •

users are invited to examine the prototype in order to provide feedback; and the required changes are made easily and cheaply, well in advance of the final product.

The principal advantage of prototyping is that product developers can quickly verify whether their interpretation of the user’s needs is correct. This allows problems to be identified and corrected early on in the development process, before too many resources have been spent.

4.4

Strategic Product Development

Depending on the availability and quality of essential datasets, the time it takes to develop an information product can vary from a few minutes to months or even years. For instance, the development of a national protected areas policy may require a map identifying areas of highest conservation priority, which might depend, in turn, on the existence of a national vegetation dataset. If this is out of date, unreliable, or compiled at the wrong scale, the conservation priorities map might be delayed until it has been updated, replaced or a suitable substitute has been identified. Similarly, the degree to which individuals within organisations, and the organisations themselves, are able and willing to cooperate on information issues can affect product development time-scales significantly. Potential constraints include poorly-developed data access policies and procedures, lack of data and technology standards, concerns over data quality, and limitations in expertise, facilities and financial resources (see Volumes 4, 5, 6 and 7). Box 3 identifies three categories of information product, deliverable over progressively longer time-scales. Far-reaching, strategic products may take several months or years to develop and may require substantial investment in data, expertise and facilities (see Box 4 for an example). To overcome the fatigue which can occur during the development of such products, they can be developed as a series of immediate and interim products which act as milestones en route towards longer-term information objectives. This approach, which is consistent with the continuous improvement loop introduced in Volume 1, encourages strategic objectives to be reviewed on a regular basis, thus reducing the risk of becoming ‘locked in’ to inflexible long-term plans. It also ensures that senior managers continue to be engaged with the process, thus minimising the chance that they will lose confidence and withdraw resources.

20


4.5

Marketing

Even the most expertly-designed information products will fail to achieve their goal unless attention is paid to marketing. There is a growing abundance of publicly-available information, and users are finding it increasingly difficult to discriminate between sources. Good marketing and distribution helps persuade users that it will be cost-effective to use particular sources of information. There is much to learn from the publishing industry in this regard. For example, it is unlikely that a commercial publishing company would neglect to market their books or journals. They understand that, unless a product is advertised, attractive and easily available, it will not fulfil its maximum audience. Ensuring that information is professionally packaged, that it is available without heavy cost or bureaucratic hurdles, and that its anticipated users are fully aware of its existence and availability (if not its detail), all help to increase the extent to which the information will be used.

Box 3

Time-scales for information product development

•

Immediate (2 years): major constraints; essential datasets non-existent, inaccessible, or of insufficient quality; further research and/or monitoring required; overall level of information management capacity low; product development on hold until data become available, research/monitoring completed, capacity enhanced and data management partners organised.


21

Box 4

Example product design and development

Aim: To produce a report for European environment ministers at their meeting in Aarhus, Denmark, in 1988, to assess progress on addressing the environmental issues presented at their meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 1995. Background: This product had a clear aim, there was a political mandate for its development and publication, and there was an undisputed lead agency – the European Environment Agency (EEA published the previous assessment Europe’s Environment (Stanners and Bourdean 1995), and were charged with compilation of the follow-up report and were resourced accordingly). Product design: EEA further refined the aims, scope and objectives of the report, based on advice from various stakeholders and previous experiences. They aimed to produce a report which:

22

•

identified progress on key issues covered by the previous report, including inter alia changes in driving force, pressure and state of the environment;

•

assessed the contribution of each economic sector to each of the environmental issues;

•

covered the ‘prospects’ (including emerging problems) for change/action to support the discussion and re-orient priorities for action; and

•

paid special attention to transboundary issues.


Box 4

Example product design and development (cont.)

EEA collaborated with the Danish National Environmental Research Institute in identifying what information to include in the report (NERI 1996), and reviewed this within the EEA network of national focal points and topic centres (EIONET). There was a clear agreement on content based on what was feasible in meeting a set of clearly stated requirements. Product development: Guidelines for data collection were developed and distributed to national focal points and topic centres, and to a number of international organisations. These provided a basis for:

•

development of questionnaires for collecting data from national focal points and countries outside the EEA network;

• •

capturing data from topic centres and international databases; and developing aggregated databases at the EEA.

There was a clear, though ambitious, timetable for compilation of the data and drafting of the report. The manner of collecting and managing the data ensured that the product was acceptable to its target audience, and a review process was put in place to ensure good use of the data. Product launch: The Ministerial meeting for which the report was produced provided a major platform for ensuring wide interest in the report and, consequently, wide dissemination.


23

5

CASE STUDY: WORLD FOREST MAP

5.1

Overview

In collaboration with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), WCMC compiled the World Forest Map in 1996 – the first digital forest map showing the extent and protection of the world’s forests. The digital data are being maintained at WCMC and the intention is to compile subsequent versions of the map as data are improved and updated over time.

5.2

Design

The map was initially prepared at the request of WWF, to serve as a frontispiece to the Forests for Life Campaign, a global campaign for forest conservation, with the following principle Target Driven Activities (TDAs): 1.

to establish an ecologically representative network of protected areas covering at least 10% of the world’s forest area by the Year 2000; and

2.

to ensure the independent certification of 10 million hectares of sustainably-managed forest by 1998.

The requirement was a global map, which could be reproduced in a range of formats, showing the distribution of the world’s remaining forests, classified into major forest types, together with their current level of protection. Its purpose was to launch the campaign by showing the present status of the world’s forests and to provide a baseline for future monitoring.

5.3

Data Needs

WCMC has been gathering and compiling spatial data on the extent and conservation status of forests since 1987. Initially the focus was on the moist tropics, but this has extended to temperate and boreal forests in recent years. The data are stored in a geographic information system (ArcInfo in this case) and are based on detailed maps and digital files from a range of national and international sources, compiled mainly between the early 1980s and early 1990s. 24


A key challenge when compiling the map was how to combine the great variety of datasets (more than 75), many of which used different classification systems for forest types, into a meaningful and easily-understood product. A broad, pragmatic forest-classification system was applied in order to harmonise all forest categories into one of five groups: Temperate Needleleaf, Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed, Tropical Moist, Tropical Dry and Mangroves. Adopting a global classification system inevitably led to some arbitrary divisions being made, and it was not possible to be entirely consistent. For example, in some areas data for open dry woodlands was not available, and thus was not mapped. In addition to information on forests, all protected areas in categories I-V identified by IUCN (The World Conservation Union), greater than 1,000 ha in extent and covering at least some forest, were shown on the map. Whenever the map is published it includes a disclaimer. This explains that whilst the best available data have been used, they have been taken from sources which vary in accuracy and currency, and which may lead to inconsistencies which will be addressed in future versions of the map.

5.4

GIS Analysis

By overlaying maps of protected areas and forest cover it was possible, using GIS, to analyse the proportion of forest area under protection for each of the forest types. Globally, this produced a figure of 6% of the world’s total forest area protected.

5.5

Presentation

For the purposes of the WWF campaign, the map was entitled ‘WWF World Forest Map 1996’, and included the simple headline message ‘94% of the world’s forests unprotected’ to draw attention to the low level of protection afforded to forests (a target of 10 % of forest protected by the year 2000 was recommended). A table showing the level of protection in each of the five types of forest was also included. The map was released at an international press conference in September 1996, both as a large format poster and on the Internet. In order to draw attention to the campaign, copies of the poster were sent to all Heads of State. In addition to being made available on the Forests for Life web site, the digital format of the data made it Volume 3 Information Product Design

25

possible to include slide transparencies in press packs sent to all major news agencies around the world. The map was also featured on a video news release. As a result, the launch of the campaign attracted huge media interest with versions of the map reproduced in a large number of national newspapers. In addition, more than 80 national maps showing forest cover and protected areas were prepared and presented on the web site via a simple-to-use graphical interface. These were also produced as A3 paper maps by order from WWF.

5.6

Product Development

As mentioned earlier, the digital data are being improved and updated as new data become available. As a follow up, WWF released a series of regional maps a year after the first launch, this time showing the estimated extent of original forest cover, prepared by WCMC from maps of potential vegetation. This was intended to show the distribution of closed forest world wide prior to the impact of modern man, as a baseline from which to calculate total forest loss in the present day. Again, GIS analyses produced figures which gave an indication of current forest cover remaining as a proportion of original forest cover, and the proportion of remaining forest which was protected. These maps were produced as A1 posters and in digital format for a subsequent press launch, and the maps were once more used widely by the media.

5.7

Wider Applications

As well as providing the basis for WWF’s campaign work, the data underpinning the World Forest Map have been used by WCMC and others as a backdrop for a series of related maps presenting information on the status of the world’s remaining forests. For example, WCMC and CIFOR have carried out a detailed global analysis of forest conservation using the data, with the results being available on the Internet. The actual GIS files employed are available on CD-ROM for use by researchers and as an educational tool. The base map has also been used to produce regularly-updated maps showing the locations of independently-certified forests which have been accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Again, these have been made available as paper maps and on the Internet. The base map has also been used as a backdrop for posters showing the locations of major projects for both WWF and the UK Department for 26


International Development (DFID), for use in internal planning and external communication. It was emphasised that the map is updated regularly, rather than being treated as a ‘one-off’ product. For example, it is currently being updated for the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (WCFSD), to include the best available data for open dry woodlands, and to provide a yet more comprehensive picture of the current extent of the world’s forest cover.


27

6

REFERENCES

Bakkes, J.A., van den Born, G., Helder, J., Swart, R., Hope, C. and Parker, J. 1994. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of the art and perspectives. Environment assessment technical report. UNEP/RIVM. EC 1993. ‘Towards Sustainability’ A European Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development, and Resolution of the Council and the Representative of Governments of the Member States, Meeting within Council of 1.2.93, OJ C 138, 17.5.93, pp 1-98, Europe, Luxembourg. EC 1996. Environmental Indicators and Green Accounting: Practical steps towards the implementation of the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Directions for the European Union on Environmental Indicators and Green National Accounting (COM(94) 670 final). Commission of the European Communities DG XI, DG XII & Eurostat. Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D. and Woodward, R. 1995. Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA. National Environmental Research Institute (NERI) 1996. Guidelines for Data Collection for the Dobris +3 Report 1996. Technical Report 1996/1. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Stanners, D. and Bourdean, P. (Ed.) 1995. Europe’s Environment - The Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. UK Government 1995. Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report. Volume 1: Meeting the Rio Challenge. The Stationery Office Ltd (HMSO), London, UK. WRI/UNDP 1990. World Resources 1990-92. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

28



Volume 4 Volume 4






1998


Published by


ISBN

0-85092-547-9

Copyright


Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Volume 4: Information Networks. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 32pp.

Typeset by


Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by


Available from



INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

BASIC PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3

NETWORK DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4

PARTNER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2 Custodians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3 The Hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.5 Multiple Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5

ACHIEVING COMMON OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.1 5.2 5.3

6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Multi-partner Teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Network Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1 Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS) . 6.2 East African Biodiversity Network . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) 6.4 Environmental Change Network (ECN). . . . . . . . .

7

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

22 25 27 29

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Volume 4 Information Networks

v


vi



Volume 4 Information Networks

vii


viii




ix

1

INTRODUCTION

Many groups possess knowledge of a cultural, economic or scientific nature which could be of great value to the conservation and sustainable use of living resources. This may have been built up over many years or generations and represents a significant investment in terms of time, money and intellectual effort. The intellectual property resulting from this investment is often seen as an important asset, to be guarded from outsiders and made available only in exchange for other assets, for example money. It is not surprising, therefore, that the flow of information between different segments and levels in society is often frustrated by political, organisational or even personal barriers. In general, there is a lack of awareness of the benefits of information sharing, allowing the potential disadvantages, including fears about loss of intellectual property, to dominate. This leads to the erection of unnecessary barriers to information sharing based, for example, on the belief that intellectual property will be diluted, misrepresented, or otherwise used to the detriment of its owner when shared. Sometimes such beliefs are well founded, for instance in the case of owners of indigenous knowledge who are fearful of exploitation by drug companies; owners of scientific knowledge, particularly those whose careers depend on publication, who fear plagiarism or lack of acknowledgement; and owners of technological knowledge who fear infringement of patents, copyright and other forms of know-how. Owners of all types of information may feel uncomfortable about sharing their investment until they understand why it is needed and how it will be used. Given that access to information is a vital part of most people’s everyday work (whether this is from different parts of the same organisation or from external individuals, organisations or sources), efficient procedures for information sharing are essential to productivity. For example, human population figures generated by a national census agency may be required by planners in the agricultural and health sectors; forestry department maps may be needed by an environmental lawyer assessing a claim on public forest land; and, calling on generations of experience, a village elder may need to advise his community on the best moment to harvest a wild crop. Such work can be delayed, devalued or prevented by lack of information sharing. A special challenge arises when producing information to address environmental concerns. The information needed to support policy and practices in this area is multi-disciplinary in nature, even when confined to a single sector such as forestry or agriculture, and may be required on a diverse and variable set of topics. It is Volume 4 Information Networks

1

inevitable, therefore, that the underlying datasets will be scattered amongst many organisations and sources, making the task of integration especially time-consuming. Furthermore, if some organisations are unable or unwilling to provide access to their data, there may be no option but to reproduce secondary copies at great expense. Even worse, decisions may be made in the absence of important data because the latter have not been accessible. Box 1 presents a variety of constraints which can hinder the unrestricted exchange of data. In many cases, such constraints will be perfectly reasonable. Where unnecessary barriers are erected, there are powerful techniques for overcoming these based around the principle of custodianship (see Volume 5). A simple method for assessing which constraints may be the most plausible in any given situation is to consider what would happen if a request was made for one’s own data. This helps to anticipate and appreciate the difficulties encountered by others.

Box 1

2

Common constraints on data access

• •

No established corporate policy or guidelines on data access.

•

Physical procedures for retrieving data too complex (e.g. inefficient means of accessing/ compiling/editing/copying data).

• • • •

No funds to process the request (e.g. due to staff costs or costs of media).

Not willing to release data (e.g. for reasons of copyright, confidentiality, security or institutional/personal rivalry).

Request for data is not made clearly enough. Requested data are still under development. Requested data are not fit for release (e.g. not standardised or qualityassured).


2

BASIC PRINCIPLES

Information networks, which are simply assemblages of individuals, groups and organisations with common information goals, overcome barriers to data access by focusing on the need for cooperation. They range in size from loose associations of individuals based upon personal contacts and historic ties, to actively managed consortia of government agencies, NGOs, scientists and private organisations, all with shared information goals. The aim is to build trust and confidence between the network’s partners, who may include scientists, policy-makers and resource managers, leading to improved uptake of scientific information in policy and planning (see Volume 1). The rewards of information networking can be great. For example, more reliable access to data can enable organisations to fulfil their core responsibilities more effectively and consider 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 organisations — whether they are providing or receiving data — become empowered through cooperation. However, it would be naive to assume that active and positive cooperation will happen as a matter of course. Each partner (or stakeholder) must be able to see some concrete benefits in joining the network, whether this is the ability to improve the quality of a dataset, acquire access to other datasets, or enter a long-term relationship with another organisation. As the network becomes established and recognised, further potential benefits are economies of scale, minimised duplication of effort, and external investment on a scale which could not be attracted by individual partners. Information networks require substantial effort to establish and further effort to maintain. Benefits must be perceived as exceeding the costs of participation, for example in terms of the time and resources spent liaising with other partners (networks are unlikely to succeed unless this fundamental principle is understood). When balancing the costs and benefits of entering an information network a key question is ‘what will it cost me to contribute?’, as well as ‘what can I expect to gain?’. Information networks tend to establish themselves in similar ways. The initial push is from non-governmental organisations, professional associations and scientists who are often among the first to become aware of impending environmental issues, and wish to share information and experiences in order to support each other’s activities. Volume 4 Information Networks

3

As awareness of the issues rises, and the activities of the individuals concerned become seen by outsiders as a credible source of information, cooperation is consolidated by harmonising approaches to data management and by developing information as a group rather than separately. Informal networks of this kind can be operated on very low budgets, since they are driven primarily by the personal commitment of individuals. Eventually, however, increased size, prominence and acceptance by greater numbers of users can enable information networks to grow into self-supporting bodies, for instance with secretariats, which are recognised or even adopted by governments. Not all networks develop in this way: some may be initiated directly by governments or industry, or indirectly via externally sponsored projects.

4


3

NETWORK DESIGN

There are two basic forms of information network. The first uses a centralised architecture (see Figure 1) where there is a single organisational unit at the centre of the network. Individual partners communicate and cooperate with that unit, for example by providing specific data and advice, but not directly with other partners. The implication is that the central unit provides all the necessary people, facilities and procedures to generate information products. This is equivalent to saying that the information system is located in one, central location, with partners supporting this as necessary. Centralised data management is efficient in situations where partners work within a single operation, so that individual feelings of data ownership are subsumed by 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 the only practical way forward in cases where individual partners do not have the capacity to manage data themselves.

Figure 1

Centralised network

Universities Finance and economic planning

Agriculture, fisheries and forestry

NGOs

International community

Central unit

Tourism

Network partner

Media (general public)

Research

Trade and industry

Cooperation Control


Environmental protection

Health

5

The second form of network has a distributed architecture (see Figure 2). Partners operate in an unrestricted environment where communication is encouraged between all parties. No attempt is made to coordinate or control the partnerships which may develop; there is total democracy of cooperation. This is equivalent to saying that the information system is spread across all of the network’s partners, i.e. the network is the information system. Interestingly, the two architectures — centralised and distributed — mirror wider changes in information technology strategy over the last decade, from large, centralised computers (mainframes) to small, desktop computers (personal computers) 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.

Figure 2

Distributed network Universities Finance and economic planning


NGOs


Tourism

Research


Trade and industry

Network partner Cooperation

6


Health


There are drawbacks to both architectures. In the first case, the central unit may be perceived as controlling access to data and information products by custodians (see Volume 5). Under such conditions it may be difficult, even impossible, to establish a ‘cooperative spirit’ since, quite correctly, partners expect to retain full rights and responsibilities over their data. With distributed networks, however, partners are not coordinated or provided with direction, resulting in duplication of effort, lack of agreed standards, and generally impeded progress towards common information objectives. The weaknesses of both approaches can be rectified through the formation of a hybrid, or managed network, which allows free communication between partners and provides coordination and other network-wide services through a ‘hub’ (see Figure 3). Unlike a centralised network, the hub of a managed network serves the collective interests of the network’s partners, rather than the specific interests of a single organisation or operation. Usually, the hub would be managed by a committee representing the interests of each partner in the network, plus associated administrative support (WCMC 1994). A dotted line is used to denote the hub in

Figure 3

Managed network Universities Finance and economic planning


NGOs


Hub

Tourism

Network partner


Research

Trade and industry

Cooperation Facilitation



Health

7

Figure 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 centralised approaches. The table below summarises the advantages and disadvantages of each type of network.

Type of network Centralised

Advantages

Disadvantages

Efficient planning and administration.

Partners must be prepared to give up/mandate management of their data to another body.

Useful when capacity of partners is low. Distributed

Managed

Perceived as very democratic. Cheap to set up.

Difficult to achieve long-term results due to lack of coordination.

Efficient planning and administration.

Potentially costly to maintain.

Good communication and cooperation between partners.

8


4

PARTNER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1

Overview

In the current context, the main purpose of an information network is to support the development of good policies, plans and decisions on the conservation and sustainable use of living resources (see Volume 1). To achieve this purpose effectively, partners need to feel comfortable contributing to the smooth running of the network, and know how their contributions are leading to its overall goals. To ensure that this occurs, the roles and responsibilities of the network’s partners need to be identified, fully defined and, most importantly, agreed. In a managed network there are three distinct roles for partners to play: custodians, the hub and users. All the activities necessary to achieve the network’s goals are encompassed by these roles. One or more roles may be undertaken by each partner, provided that the implications of each role, in terms of the services they are expected to provide to the network, are fully appreciated. In practice, partners will determine the roles they wish to play on the basis of how closely their corporate objectives match those of the networks in which they operate and by their physical capacity to participate.

4.2

Custodians

A custodian is an organisation (or other group, occasionally an individual) which is regarded to be in the best position to ensure the quality and accessibility of a dataset, and to advise on appropriate uses thereof (see Volume 5 for a full discussion). Many of the network’s partners will be custodians, some of nationally-significant datasets, such as national census results, vegetation cover, and climatic surfaces, and others of specialist interest, such as the breeding locations of rare species, or the variety of non-timber products obtained by local people from a forest. Proper assignment and management of custodianship is fundamental to the success of an information network, particularly where the management of so-called essential datasets is concerned (see Volume 3). Its principal aims are:

•

to minimise duplication in the collection and management of data;


9

•

to ensure that datasets are available for use as and when required (i.e. they exist and are accessible); and

•

to ensure that they are quality-assured (i.e. valid, maintained, documented and secure).

In cases where the custodianship of an important dataset is in dispute, or was simply never resolved, the network may wish to facilitate a solution in the interests of all of its partners (see Section 4.3). Custodianship of a dataset carries with it certain responsibilities, as presented in Box 2. Each of these contribute to the well-being of a dataset and, thus, to internal productivity gains as well as an increased capacity to collaborate with others. Naturally, custodians may harbour concerns at the prospect of providing access to their data. For this reason they are also invested with certain rights, consistent with broader government, corporate and other applicable policies and agreements, which determine the conditions under which the dataset can be used (see Box 2). Such rights are not intended to prevent legitimate use of a dataset. Indeed, the aim is to foster an environment in which data access is straightforward and encouraged. Above all, custodians must feel comfortable providing data to others, and users should be satisfied with the data they receive.

4.3

The Hub

The hub of a managed network is responsible for facilitating cooperation between the network’s partners. This ensures that the partners are aware of and are comfortable with their roles, and provides the coordination necessary to ensure that they can work together efficiently. Furthermore, the hub can act as a mouthpiece for network products and services and, as a consequence, attract income for the network’s activities. Despite the obvious leadership role of the hub, the network should remain driven by the interests of individual partners, rather than be subsumed into the programme of a single organisation. This can be achieved by ensuring that the hub is directed by a committee of partner representatives which, if desired, can meet anywhere it chooses. It should be noted that, for administrative reasons, it is also wise to establish a small team to carry forward the committee’s decisions. This team, plus their supporting communications and office facilities, are commonly known as a secretariat.

10


Box 2

Responsibilities and rights of custodians

Responsibilities

• •

To build a dataset (with partners, as appropriate).

•

To ensure the quality of a dataset (i.e. ensure that it is valid, maintained, documented, secure).

• •

To provide access to a dataset (to legitimate users).

•

To coordinate the development of a dataset (with appropriate partners).

To maintain a dataset (i.e. keep it up to date, abreast of standards, structured as necessary).

To provide advice on appropriate uses of a dataset (e.g. suggested/unwise/ improper uses).

Rights

• •

To regulate access to a dataset (depending on category of user).

•

To recover costs (e.g. recover market value, investment, cost of supply).

To safeguard intellectual property (e.g. acknowledgement, regulation of copying).

Box 3 summarises the overall responsibilities of the hub. There is a close correspondence between these responsibilities and the main activities of the ‘information cycle’ introduced in Volume 1, which provides a guiding framework for cooperative information production. Indeed, an over-arching aim of the hub is to oversee implementation of the information cycle. The hub delivers its programme through a secretariat, which may vary in size from a single individual (and associated office facilities) to a dedicated team of staff in the largest cases. Box 3 also summarises the responsibilities of the secretariat which enable it to pursue the hub’s — and thereby the network’s — overall purpose. Volume 4 Information Networks

11

Box 3

Responsibilities of the hub

Overall

•

Promote cooperation between the network’s partners (e.g. meetings, workshops, newsletters).

•

Facilitate agreement of the network’s goals (e.g. which issues to address, which users to serve).

•

Facilitate preparation of strategic plans for information production (e.g. information needs analysis, information product design, objectives and targets for the network’s partners).

•

Facilitate implementation of strategic plans (e.g. through formation of multi-partner teams).

•

Facilitate access to data (e.g. through custodianship, data access agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, standards).

•

Facilitate the development of the network (e.g. assess capacity, identify areas for restructuring or investment, seek support).

• •

Market the network’s products and services. Monitor the effectiveness of the network’s products and services.

The hub has no direct need to manage scientific data, since this is the role of individual custodians (see Section 5). Nor has it any need to develop other information management capacities unless these are directly related to its facilitation role. However, given that the hub is responsible for tasks such as preparation of strategic plans for information production, and for facilitating access to essential datasets, it may need to develop its capacity to manage a limited number of datasets. In particular, the hub needs to know where capacities are located in the network, how readily they can be mobilised for specific tasks, where essential datasets are located, what state they are in, and where financial and other support can be obtained to drive the network’s development. Thus, three distinct datasets may be considered: 12


Box 3

Responsibilities of the hub (cont.)

Secretariat

1.

• •

Organise meetings and workshops for the network’s partners.

•

Brief the network’s partners on new opportunities, plans and progress (e.g. newsletters, email).

•

Handle enquiries about the network’s activities, referring to individual partners as appropriate.

•

Maintain copies of the network’s products and services for distribution to users.

•

Manage data on the status and availability of the network’s capacity.

Provide editorial and office support for preparation of key documents (e.g. strategic plans, project proposals, marketing literature).

Sources of capacity

Details of the status and availability of capacity within the network. For example, details of the core businesses, expertise, facilities and particular strengths and weaknesses of the network’s partner organisations (see Volume 6). 2.

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 are commonly known as metadata, since they are, literally, data about data. 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 (see Volumes 5 and 6).


13

3.

External sources of support

Details of national and international sources of external (non-network) development assistance, including funding, technical assistance and access to technologies.

4.4

Users

Users vary, with many having their own individual information needs (see Volume 2). Some of these may correlate closely with each other, in which case the network can produce similar information for multiple users, saving time and resources. However, in the majority of cases, information will need to be tailored to specific users (see Volume 3). One issue is clear: information is useless until it is used. In the current context, this implies that an information network can have no direct bearing on the conservation and sustainable use of living resources unless active use is made of the information it produces. Thus, an urgent requirement for any information network is to define which issues it is trying to address, which users it is trying to serve and, once this has been achieved, actively attempt to recruit these users as full partners in the network. Special attention can then be given to analysing their information needs, and empowering them to make better decisions with relevant and timely information products and services. In general, networks do not purely serve the interests of users; they serve the interests of all of the network’s partners, only some of which will be users. Thus, although users may receive direct support in the form of information products, custodians may receive indirect support in the form of access to each other’s data, specific investments in capacity, or new opportunities for cooperation. All partners in a network should feel that they are being served in some way, either directly or indirectly, just as they are aware of how they are contributing. Users have much to offer an information network. Firstly, they enable a network to project its influence into policy and management domains, through the conversion of information into decisions, then actions and, ultimately, positive effects on the ground. Without users, there is no means of using information to address environmental concerns and, thus, no means of justifying the existence of a network. Secondly, users expose other partners to policy and management perspectives, and wider societal goals, enabling them to understanding more fully how information 14


Box 4

Responsibilities of users

• •

Make rational decisions on the basis of the network’s information.

•

Provide feedback on the relevance, timing and quality of the information received.

•

Acknowledge sources in publications and reports.

Provide advice on forthcoming information needs, including budgets and schedules.

influences decision-making. Greater understanding of the working methods of different partners — whether these are users, custodians or the hub — is helpful in planning effective strategies for dealing with the underlying environmental issues. Box 4 summarises some responsibilities of users.


15

4.5

Multiple Roles

It is quite usual for individual partners in a network to take on more than one role. For example, a national forestry commission may be the custodian of several key datasets relating to timber stocks, forest biodiversity, and demand for wood products, including firewood. It may also be the primary decision-making body regarding the development of forestry-sector industries, plantations, and protection of forest environmental services. This would make it a substantial user of forest-related information produced within the organisation and outside. Further, stakeholders outside of government, for example non-governmental and community-based organisations, may have developed strong, informal partnerships with each other, but be unable to translate these into forest policy and management support. They may welcome the opportunity to develop formal ties with the forestry commission in order to boost their status and acquire an important user. To consolidate this arrangement they may request facilities for a secretariat and steering committee. Thus, very easily, the forestry commission could find itself in the multiple roles of custodian, user and hub, all at the same time. The probability of assuming multiple roles increases with each new network that is created, especially where these overlap in theme or scale. Networks which cover, say, water pollution, may overlap significantly with networks covering the themes of biodiversity, climate change or primary health care. The hub of the water pollution network may be viewed as the custodian of water pollution data in the primary health care network; similarly, the hub of the biodiversity network may be viewed as the custodian of biological data within the climate change network. Thus, single organisations may play multiple roles in different networks (see Figure 4 and Volume 5). The same effect occurs with scale. At the local level, a network of concerned organisations may have formed to address specific environmental concerns. These may be coordinated by an NGO which runs campaigns to encourage action. This organisation, which acts as a local hub, may deliver local information to a high-level committee examining the same issues at the national level. To the national committee, the local NGO is a custodian; but to its local partners, it is a hub (see Figure 4).

16


Figure 4

Multiple roles in information networks C

Biodiversity network

U C

U

C

H

C

Networks with overlapping themes

C H

U

C

C

Climate change network

C U

C – Custodian H – Hub U – User

C

Local network

U C

U

C

H

C

C H

C

C C

U

Networks with overlapping scales

National network

U


17

5 5.1

ACHIEVING COMMON OBJECTIVES Overview

A tangible measure of network success is the number and quality of information products delivered to its users. The question is: how can partners be organised to deliver these products when each custodian has its own objectives, and each user its own agenda? Clearly, the function of the hub is to identify common information objectives and enable partners to achieve them. Within an active network of custodians and users, coordinated by a hub, most of the requirements for information production will be available. For example, amongst custodians many essential datasets will be available, some in better states of integrity and accessibility than others. Much expertise may also be found in the areas of data analysis, integration, and advice on how the data should and should not be used. Amongst users, extensive knowledge of policy and management goals may be available, encompassing all that is needed to design effective information products. Given the complexity of environmental issues, the capacity to design, generate and use many information products may not be available in single organisations, whereas the network as a whole may have all the data, skills and facilities required. The task, then, is to explore ways of managing the various contributions in an efficient, cost-effective manner, which recognises and sustains the commitment of individual partners. One approach is to establish multi-partner teams.

5.2

Multi-partner Teams

Multi-partner teams (hereafter just teams) are a network’s main tool for generating products and services. They enable the network to deliver a programme which may, for example, be modelled on the information cycle introduced in Volume 1. Teams are referred to in a variety of ways according to the terminology of the network in which they operate. Common names include task forces, project (or technical) teams and working groups. They may be applied to any task which the network, through its organising hub, views as priority. They are, by definition, vehicles for cooperation between the network’s partners.

18


The responsibilities of the teams should reflect the objectives of the hub (see Box 3). For example, a team might be established to review the network’s goals, in terms of which environmental issues and users to treat as priority. Another team might develop strategic plans for the design and development of information products, based on a thorough analysis of information needs. A further team might review approaches to data collection and management across the network, including the issue of custodianship, and make recommendations on how methods can be standardised and made more efficient. Alternatively, teams may be thematic in nature, each dealing with a subset of the network’s interests. Although they may lead to new tasks after they are completed, most tasks undertaken by teams are of finite duration. The network forms and manages teams through the administrative support of its hub (see Figure 5). Since this would normally be directed by a committee of partner representatives, the interests of all partners are taken into account when deciding which tasks the teams will undertake. The particular resources required by a team depends entirely on the task it is trying to achieve. In general, however, teams are likely to contain representatives from several partners, each contributing a mixture of data, skills and facilities to the tasks being undertaken. The nature and level of support provided by partners to the teams is a matter for the over-arching hub to decide, and for its secretariat to follow up and arrange. Users of the network’s products and services have an important role to play in the work of its technical teams. As a minimum, they should be consulted with regard to their perspectives, constraints and information needs, when considering how to deliver the network’s programme. Preferably, users should be incorporated as active members of the teams, contributing resources, expertise and added relevance to their work (see Figure 5).

5.3

Network Sustainability

Information networking concepts are applicable at all levels, whether international or local, and on any theme. The Internet, for example, literally has tens of thousands of listservers and newsgroups serving particular interest groups. Admittedly, these are not fully-fledged information networks because they are mainly based upon a loose collection of individuals with access to electronic communications. They may have no agenda as such, nor any ambition to influence decision-making. However, their


19

Figure 5

Operation of multi-partner teams Administrative support from the hub

User Information products and services

Partner

Partner

Data, expertise, facilities

Multi-partner teams

User

Perspectives, constraints, needs

Partner

mere presence is an indication that there is huge untapped potential in participatory information management. Indeed, a revolution in this area is currently in progress. Successful networks have a recognised and easily understood purpose, and are operated only as long as this purpose remains valid (naturally, the purpose of a network may evolve over time). All partners, whether custodians, the hub or users, need to be fully aware of their role within the network, in terms of the benefits they can expect to receive and the contributions they are expected to make. A key factor sustaining their success is effective dialogue with users. The capacity of information to influence decision-making increases when users are aware of why and how information has been developed (see Volume 1). Preferably, they have been involved actively throughout the process of information production, from issue definition to publication. Understanding the perspectives, constraints and information needs of users is vital to engage the support of decision-makers in network activities.

20


Successful networks will build on existing resources and capabilities, rather than developing totally new solutions, ensuring synergy and reducing duplication of effort. Building a network requires more negotiation and interpersonal skills than sheer technical ‘know-how’. Initial investments should be sought on the basis of promised benefits, but successful delivery of these, including notable products and services and the positive effects which result from their use, need to be monitored closely and made visible to potential investors. Investment is likely to be needed in a concrete form for the functioning of a secretariat, for workshops, and for specific enhancements in information management capacity across the network. Finally, information networks must remain flexible. Organisations frequently change their priorities or scope, and are often merged with others or split into separate parts. The composition of a network can be expected to change similarly, with new partners being added, roles changing, and other partners dropping out. The way that the hub delivers its services may also change, for instance the location of its secretariat or the degree of its coordination. Multi-partner teams — the driving force of information production — are inherently flexible in structure, and this flexibility should enable the network to respond to the needs of decision-makers as and when they emerge.


21

6

CASE STUDIES

6.1

Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS)

Overview BCIS is an evolving framework within which the Members’ networks — thousands of conservation experts and organisations around the world — will work together toward a common goal: to support environmentally sound decision-making and action by facilitating access to biodiversity data and information. A consortium of 11 non-governmental conservation organisations and programmes1, BCIS Members collectively represent a comprehensive resource for global biodiversity conservation information. BCIS is developing as a flexible and decentralised network, governed by a common framework that complements and supports other data and information systems, including the clearing-house mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-CHM). It endeavours to foster cooperation amongst its Members and a wide spectrum of other users. BCIS is building on existing data, information, expertise and networks by:

• •

identifying key data sources and promoting accepted indicators and standards;

•

linking experts to help address local problems, support national planning, and inform international policy debates; and

•

building capacity of data owners and managers where needed — South and North — through a decentralised system of data custodians.

1

As of July 1997: BirdLife International, Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Conservation International, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, IUCN Environmental Law Centre, IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, The Nature Conservancy, TRAFFIC International, Wetlands International, World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

22

integrating and disseminating quality data and information to aid decisionmaking;


Characterising the Network Underpinning the development of the BCIS network is the concept of BCIS as a ‘thematic network’ within a wider network including, but not restricted to, the CBD-CHM, i.e. part of a ‘network of networks’. This concept is very helpful in defining and characterising the membership of BCIS. If, as in this case, the thematic network is designed to primarily deal with large regional or global datasets held by non-governmental organisations, then the members are those non-governmental organisations dealing with those kinds of data. Governmental or intergovernmental agencies, or agencies dealing primarily with national level data, would not be appropriate members. Similarly, a national network would comprise governmental, non-governmental and corporate entities holding or using data primarily at or relevant to the national level. Clarifying the subject domain and organisation type keeps the network focussed on its primary purpose and objectives and prevents it from growing large and unmanageable. Network Inter-relationships Since BCIS needs access to data and information that are not held by the component Members, e.g. topographic or socio-economic data, links need to be built to other networks or agencies that hold those data. Thus issues of custodianship and data access agreements need to be resolved both within and between networks. Network Governance Each Member of BCIS is, by virtue of signature by executive management, bound by an Agreement of Principles. This Agreement specifies the Goal, Objectives, Rationale, Principles, Participation and Governance of BCIS. Criteria for BCIS Membership have been developed. BCIS is led by a Steering Committee, comprised of up to two representatives from each consortium member. The Committee currently meets twice per year and operates on the basis of consensus. A formal Terms of Reference Manual for the Steering Committee is being developed. Among other issues, the Manual lists the various responsibilities of the Steering Committee, which are as follows:

•

to develop a long term vision;


23

•

to coordinate fund-raising activities to optimise opportunities and avoid conflicts or duplication with individual consortium member’s activities;

•

to agree membership (including admitting new members and partners to the consortium) and establish management, administrative structures and procedures for electing Chairpersons of the Steering Committee;

• •

to prepare a business plan for developing BCIS and agree priorities and projects;

•

to establish and maintain links with relevant, related initiatives, agencies and programmes and invite observers as appropriate;

•

to oversee development of and agree to mechanisms, guidelines, and/or licensing arrangements for data collection, custodianship, management, validation, quality control and use, including conflict resolution;

• •

to ensure equitable and prudent financial management; and

to allocate management roles and duties and devise monitoring and evaluation procedures;

to establish sub-committees as needed.

The Manual also covers issues of joining and withdrawal from BCIS and the formation and management of Sub-committees. Observers can be invited to Steering Committee meetings, but do not participate in decision making. Network Development A comprehensive Framework has been developed for BCIS, including a Logical Framework Analysis. This includes background information on the origin of BCIS and its Members and the planned BCIS objectives, products, services and activities. In any consortium, it is important for Members to have a thorough understanding of the capabilities and needs of all the other members. In BCIS, an Assessment of the Needs and Capabilities of the Members is being made. This comprises an analysis of the strategic and operational issues in bringing the Member agencies together, the Member capacities and links with each other and to external agencies and programs, any known gaps within the system, and comprehensive profiles on each Member.

24


Products and Services The BCIS framework is being designed to benefit a variety of users and participants. It will enable multiple entry points into the system, ensuring widespread access to BCIS products and services for natural resource managers and decision-makers at all levels. BCIS will offer customised information products to support, for example, national planning and implementation of treaties. The BCIS framework will benefit individual experts and NGOs that comprise the BCIS Member networks. First, these network members will have access to the information management tools, and training to make best use of them. Second, data harmonisation, encouraged under the BCIS framework, will enable easy access to a wide variety of data and information sources not previously available to the network members. Finally, the information delivery vehicles exploited by BCIS, such as the Internet, will allow access beyond the participants and primary users, for example the educational community. Source: BCIS Program Manager, c/o World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1223 277314; Fax: +44 1223 277136 Email: [email protected].

6.2

East African Biodiversity Network

Although East Africa represents a region (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) rather than a single country, its attempts to network biodiversity data have been conducted in such close cooperation in recent years that it is treated as a single entity in this study. In 1991, a number of organisations in East Africa began coordinating efforts to manage biodiversity data. This was achieved by means of annual workshops held in different locations throughout the three countries, in particular Bwindi (1991), Nairobi (1992, 1995), Kampala (1993, 1996), and Dar es Salaam (1994). The results of each workshop were published and circulated to participating organisations (for example, see NMK 1995). The objective of this informal network was to standardise approaches to documenting and assessing biodiversity in the East African region, enabling Volume 4 Information Networks

25

participants to access each other’s data and expertise more easily for use in their own information programmes. Separate working groups (multi-partner teams) were established to deal with the development of standard taxonomic lists and habitat classifications; others reviewed data management procedures (including data exchange policy) and regional training needs. As well as providing an opportunity to review the status of the datasets2 being developed by the network’s partners, the annual workshops enabled participants to present research progress and exchange experiences in seeking financial backing, applying information technology and accessing international datasets. Improved dialogue and coordination is one of the most important features of the network, enabling relatively ambitious information products to be developed, such as a regional red data list for birds and, in future, similar lists for other taxonomic groups. As the network grew, in terms of the number of institutions participating, data holdings and internal capabilities, it became clear in 1993 that tighter coordination was necessary. The annual workshops, however useful, were too far apart to enable agreed targets to be monitored and achieved on time. Indeed, following the meetings, each institution tended to revert to its internal priorities and devote only modest time to regional goals. None of the participating institutions were able to provide the facilities and staff time necessary for improved network coordination. As a result, in 1995 it was proposed to seek support for a secretariat, whose main task would be to enhance communications both within the region and with international organisations, such as IUCN, UNEP, WCMC and WRI. Specific tasks of the secretariat were envisaged to be: ensuring continuity of the annual workshops, including production of proceedings; production of a quarterly newsletter, reporting progress on development of essential datasets, reviews of hardware and software, and summary of international information programmes; maintaining and updating an existing database of institutions and datasets relevant to East African biodiversity; acting as a clearing house to promote data exchange; and identifying data development and other capacity building needs.

2

26

For example, electronic lists of birds and mammals, the List of East African Plants (LEAP), and a regional gazetteer.


A Steering Committee was elected in 1995, with a mandate to develop these ideas into a costed proposal for submission to a development assistance agency — and subsequently facilitate implementation of its objectives. It consisted of representatives from two institutions in each of the three countries as follows: National Environment Secretariat (NES) and National Museums of Kenya (NMK) in Kenya; University of Dar es Salaam (UDS) and National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) in Tanzania; and Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources (MUIENR) and the Uganda Forest Department in Uganda. The initial proposal was limited in scope, since participants agreed that the network should develop slowly and sustainably on the basis of established goodwill and commitment. A range of organisations pledged their support to the secretariat, including the East African Natural History Society (EANHS), the East African Regional Office (EARO) of IUCN and WCMC. Source: Concept Paper, Regional Secretariat for Biological Databases, November 1995.

6.3

Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN)

Overview The Australian Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) is a national facility, using the latest computing technology to provide access to a vast reservoir of information on the Australian environment, and the analytical tools to interpret it. The ERIN unit is located within the Federal Department of Environment, Sport and Territories. The information that ERIN makes available is drawn from many sources and includes maps, species distributions, documents and satellite imagery, covering environmental themes ranging from endangered species to drought and pollution. The information is used by a wide range of individuals and organisations ranging from government to industry, and from research workers to community groups.


27

Characterising the Network The ERIN Program is based on cooperative efforts with those agencies interested in environmental information and effective decision-making. These cooperative efforts are based on the following principles:

•

Environmental information should be made available through a network, so that it is available at the point where it is required.

•

Data should not be stored centrally, but rather in a node where they are under the control of a custodian. This ensures the data will be updated and otherwise maintained by those best able to do so.

•

All data, regardless of type, should be accessible through an easy-to-use interface, incorporating a comprehensive data directory.

•

Analytical and modelling tools should be available through the same user interface as data.

•

Priority must be given to the acquisition of point-based primary, rather than aggregated or interpreted, data. This ensures that conclusions based on those data can be rigorously reviewed, alternative analyses can be performed and baselines for monitoring established.

•

Planning, research, development and management using environmental information must be based on established and well coordinated interdisciplinary and multi-agency collaboration and cooperation.

•

There should be ready access to data, both at reasonable cost and without administrative encumbrances which would otherwise impede responsible environmental decision making.

ERIN launched its public on-line service in 1994, providing access to the ERIN network through the World Wide Web. This has evolved into Environment Australia Online, which can be accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/. Source: documents at Environment Australia Online, including http://www.environment.gov.au/environment/ecpg/erin/about.html and http://www.environment.gov.au/portfolio/esd/csd95/case21.html.

28


6.4

Environmental Change Network (ECN)

Overview Founded in 1992, the Environmental Change Network (ECN) is the United Kingdom’s integrated long-term environmental monitoring network. It is designed to collect, store, analyse and interpret long-term data based on a set of key physical, chemical and biological variables which drive and respond to environmental change. The objectives of the network are as follows:

•

To establish and maintain a network of sites within the UK from which to obtain comparable long-term data sets through monitoring a range of variables identified as being of major environmental importance.

•

To establish agreed protocols for standard measurements of a range of environmental variables, to facilitate the collection and management of data to support integrated monitoring across a range of sites and organisations.

•

To provide for the integration and analysis of these data, so as to identify natural and man-induced environmental changes and improve understanding of the causes of change, and to distinguish short-term fluctuations from long-term trends, and predict future changes.

•

To provide for research purposes a range of representative sites with good instrumentation and reliable environmental information.

Characterising the Network The network is a multi-agency programme sponsored by 14 different organisations, including government departments, research councils and other statutory authorities. ECN operates as a managed network (see Figure 3), although some of its activities require the hub to function more like the ‘central unit’ of a centralised network (see Figure 1). The structural components are:

•

Steering Committee The Steering Committee is ECN’s main policy-making committee and is made up of representatives from the ECN sponsoring agencies. It normally meets annually


29

at one of the sites, though a sub-committee meets more frequently to deal with issues in more detail, and is empowered to take interim decisions on behalf of the Steering Committee.

•

Working Groups Technical matters relating to the core measurements undertaken at the network’s monitoring sites are dealt with by Working Groups set up by the Steering Committee. A Technical Working Group and a Statistics and Data Handling Working Group, each consisting of experts from universities and research institutes, are responsible for proposals for core measurements, statistical procedures, and so on.

•

Central Co-ordination Unit The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is responsible for the management of the network on behalf of all the sponsoring agencies. Day-to-day management is carried out by the ECN Central Coordination Unit (CCU). CCU staff are responsible for coordinating all the network’s activities, including data collection and transmission, and for managing a central database and geographic information system (GIS). The CCU also services ECN Committees, and is responsible for liaison with contributing and external agencies.

Use of ECN Data The ECN database is managed and developed by the CCU. Data are collected by ECN Site Managers according to standard protocols, and are submitted in standard formats via email. Data are then validated and incorporated into the database with associated metadata describing their quality. Data is made available to external users subject to the following conditions of use developed by the network’s partner organisations, both to protect the rights of individual organisations and to ensure the appropriate involvement of the network in projects that use its data. The conditions of use are as follows:

30


•

Ownership The ECN Summary Database and its component datasets are proprietary products of NERC, on behalf of ECN, and thus protected by copyright law. Rights of ownership and copyright in these data are reserved.

•

Allowable uses Users may not: a) transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, give or otherwise dispose of the data; b) release a product or tradable commodity based in whole or in part on data supplied by ECN, unless prior written agreement has been obtained, and any royalties due have been paid; and c) reproduce any digital or numerical data other than for back-up purposes.

•

Acknowledgement Users are required to acknowledge ECN in all reference or publications which involve use of the data. Users must offer ECN acknowledgement and/or co-authorship of any proposed publication arising from the use of the data. ECN will have the right to accept this offer, allow the user to publish in his/her own right, or refuse permission to publish.

•

Data quality and liability Although the data are subject to quality-assurance procedures, ECN are not able to warrant the accuracy of the data supplied, nor do they accept responsibility for determining the fitness of the data for their intended use. The provision of data carries no liability for its accuracy or reliability and ECN or its sponsors cannot be held accountable for any loss, damage, injury or any other occurrence arising from the use of their data.

•

Publications Copies of, or a reference to, any publications which refer to these data should be sent to the ECN Coordinator. Source: ECN’s web-site at http://mwnta.nmw.ac.ukecn/index.html.


31

7

REFERENCES

NMK 1995. Biodiversity in East Africa: Proceedings of the sixth regional workshop on biodiversity databases. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya. WCMC 1994. The Biodiversity Information Clearing House – Concepts and Challenges. WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 2. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

32



Volume 5 Data Custodianship and Access Volume 5

Data Custodianship and Access




1998


Published by


ISBN

0-85092-548-7

Copyright


Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Volume 5: Data Custodianship and Access. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 24pp.

Typeset by


Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by


Available from



INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

BASIC PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3

FUNCTIONS OF A CUSTODIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 3.2 3.3

4

Responsibilities and Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Custodians and Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Custodians and Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

MANAGING CUSTODIANSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Assigning Custodianship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Managing Custodianship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Reviewing Custodianship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Setting Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5

CATALOGUES AND METADATABASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6

DATA ACCESS AGREEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1 6.2 6.3

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Roles of the Hub, Custodians and Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Cost Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7

CASE STUDY: COMMONWEALTH CUSTODIANSHIP GUIDELINES, AUSTRALIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

8

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Volume 5 Data Custodianship and Access

v


vi



Volume 5 Data Custodianship and Access

vii


viii




ix

1

INTRODUCTION

Many organisations are beginning to realise that knowledge is one of their greatest assets. They are also discovering that the costs of maintaining this asset, and exploiting the opportunities it creates, are significant. Given these costs, which may be significant, organisations are looking to gain maximum value from their data holdings. Increasingly, they are using data for multiple purposes and are recognising the need to develop documentation and ensure compliance with established standards. They are also beginning to understand the benefits of sharing data and collaborating with others within information networks (see Volume 4). The development of policy-relevant information on environmental concerns often requires access to a wide variety of data sources, from numerous organisations and disciplines (see Volume 3). If the process of information production is to be efficient and cost-effective, such sources need to be readily accessible, as should the people and tools necessary to convert them into information for decision-making. Preferred sources of data are those organisations (occasionally individuals) which are in the best position to ensure the quality and accessibility of their datasets, and to advise on appropriate uses. These are referred to as custodians.1 If custodianship is not assigned and managed carefully, then users may face a bewildering set of incomplete and incompatible datasets, with inadequate documentation and poorly defined and inconsistent access procedures. As a result, they may find it virtually impossible, within the limited time available, to integrate data into information that will usefully support decision-making. Custodianship is the means by which responsibility for the management of a dataset (or part thereof) is assigned to and accepted by the most appropriate organisation. Its principal aims are as follows:

• •

To minimise duplication of effort.

1

Although most references in this handbook concern the custodianship of data, the term applies also to tools, applications and other technologies which transform data into information, or communicate that information to users (see Janzen, 1993).

To ensure that data are available for use (i.e. they exist and are accessible).


1

•

To ensure that data are quality-assured (i.e. they are valid, maintained, documented and secure).

Custodianship provides a mechanism to ensure that important datasets exist, are maintained and are accessible to legitimate users. It ensures accountability for and reliability of datasets within a specific jurisdiction (e.g. a sector, discipline or theme), thus ensuring that information products used by governments and other decision-makers are accurate, complete, identifiable and auditable. In summary, custodianship is the core of an efficient, responsive information infrastructure, capable of serving the interests of individual organisations or networks.

2


2

BASIC PRINCIPLES

As with other complex issues relating to the management of scientific information, effective progress requires the underlying principles of data custodianship to be understood and widely accepted. These principles, which are presented below, can then guide operational developments:

• •

Data should be managed by the organisation in the best position to do so.

• •

Data should not be duplicated or fragmented in different places.

Data should be managed cost-effectively by staff who understand the data: what it purports to represent, what its characteristics are, how it was collected, what quality-assurance procedures have been applied and its limitations.

Data should be widely available to those that have a need to make better informed decisions.

The above principles are not meant to be interpreted as rigid rules. There may be sound operational reasons why, for example, a copy of a dataset may be duplicated in another place, such as in a network hub (see Volume 4) for purposes of distribution. This may be done because the custodian is not accessible on-line, which could impede access to the original dataset. However, the risk (and cost) of violating custodianship principles needs to be understood. In the above example, the risk is that the distributable copy will become out of date, while the cost implications are that the hub will have to monitor developments in the original dataset and periodically obtain an updated copy. The key is to manage data in such a way that they can be converted into a variety of information products, for a variety of users, thus ensuring that they are flexible enough to respond to the demands of decision-making. Ideally, every dataset has a recognised custodian although, if priorities need to be made, the custodians of essential datasets should be determined first. These datasets are sufficiently vital to the day-to-day operation of an organisation or network that they justify the effort and expense incurred in their collection, storage and quality-assurance (see Volume 3).


3

Essential datasets underpin the development of multiple information products, for multiple users, and are, thus, permanent, or at least of a lasting nature. Non-essential datasets, on the other hand, are produced by ad hoc, undocumented processes for quick results, and may be transient or of uncertain quality (after Janzen 1993, 1995). Unfortunately, many organisations manage essential datasets as if they were non-essential datasets.

4


3 3.1

FUNCTIONS OF A CUSTODIAN Responsibilities and Rights

As outlined in Volume 4, custodianship of a dataset carries with it certain responsibilities (see Box 1). Each of these contributes to the well-being of a dataset and, thus, to internal productivity gains within the organisation as well as an increased capacity to collaborate with others. Naturally, custodians may harbour concerns at the prospect of providing access to their data. For this reason they are also invested with certain rights, consistent with broader government, corporate and other applicable policies and agreements, which determine the conditions under which the dataset can be used (see Box 1). Such rights are not intended to prevent legitimate use of a dataset. Indeed, the aim is to foster an environment in which data access is straightforward and encouraged. Where a custodian does not have sufficient resources to undertake all of its responsibilities, certain of these may be delegated or contracted to other organisations, known as stewards (Janzen 1993). Custodianship, however, remains with those responsible for the content of the dataset.

3.2

Custodians and Owners

Copyright does not protect facts, so it is not clear whether ‘data ownership’ has any legal status. However, the concept is useful when describing those individuals or organisations that have some claimed intellectual property rights (whether enforceable or not) over certain data. In the majority of cases these ‘rights’ are claimed on the grounds of original collection of the data. Although, in most cases, data owners are also the custodians, it is important to recognise that data custodianship differs from data ownership. Custodianship does not necessarily signify ownership, although the distinction is important only when the data custodian is a different entity from the owner. Box 2 presents a variety of situations in which this occurs.


5

Box 1

Responsibilities and rights of custodians

Responsibilities

• •

To build a dataset (with partners, as appropriate).

•

To ensure the quality of a dataset (i.e. ensure that it is valid, maintained, documented, secure).

• •

To provide access to a dataset (to legitimate users).

•

To coordinate the development of a dataset (with appropriate partners).

To maintain a dataset (i.e. keep it up to date, abreast of standards, structured as necessary).

To provide advice on appropriate uses of a dataset (e.g. suggested/unwise/ improper uses).

Rights

• •

To regulate access to a dataset (depending on category of user).

•

To recover costs (e.g. recover market value, investment, cost of supply).

To safeguard intellectual property (e.g. acknowledgement, regulation of copying).

The owner retains intellectual property rights over the data, although these rights can, in practice, be virtually non-existent, as is the case with public-domain data. The owner may choose to delegate some of these rights to a custodian. The custodian may be likened to a trustee in terms of its relationship with the data. The degree of freedom that the custodian has to either use or distribute the data depends on how rights are delegated by the owner. In general, there will be a formal agreement between the owner and the custodian which specifies what the custodian is allowed to do with the data and the circumstances in which the owner needs to be consulted.

6


Box 2

Where data ownership and custodianship differ

•

In most government jurisdictions, data may be ‘owned’ by the supreme executive authority, whereas the custodian may be just one of many agencies created by that authority, designated to act on its behalf.

•

Data may be in the public domain but managed by a custodian organisation acting, at least to some extent, ‘in the public interest’.

•

The owner of a dataset may be one or more persons, for example scientists or naturalists, who originally collected the data, and who maintain ownership rights, but who may be unable or unwilling to manage the data effectively over the long term.

•

The owner may be an organisation that built a dataset for a particular purpose but has since lost interest in managing the data. It may then delegate its custodial responsibilities to another organisation, which becomes the custodian. The original owner may still retain some residual intellectual property rights over the data, which the new custodian would be obliged to respect.

In some cases, the custodian may choose to contract some of their responsibilities to another organisation, perhaps one of its partners in a network. Provided the contracted organisation has no authority to use or distribute the data without approval by the custodian, this arrangement would not ordinarily affect the custodian’s rights or responsibilities over the data.

3.3

Custodians and Users

Properly organised custodianship is beneficial to users of both data and information. For example, confusion over where to obtain accurate data is minimised, and reliable advice on the source, currency and completeness of information products is forthcoming. In return, users should assist custodians by providing feedback on the usefulness of data, and by keeping them informed of their future requirements (e.g. quality-assurance requirements). This helps the custodians plan their data collection and management strategies. Volume 5 Data Custodianship and Access

7

Where a user collects data on behalf of a custodian, with the intention of submitting it for entry into a dataset, this should be done according to the standards and procedures established by the custodian. Users should also return any data that they have corrected or otherwise upgraded and, in turn, the custodian needs to ensure that the upgraded data is made available to subsequent users.

8


4 4.1

MANAGING CUSTODIANSHIP Assigning Custodianship

Custodianship of a dataset is normally accepted by the organisation most familiar with its history, special management requirements and potential uses. Within any particular network, such organisations may be obvious to the network’s partners, allowing custodianship to be confirmed, rather than negotiated, without issue. However, where several organisations claim custodianship of the same dataset, or no custodian is apparent, the network hub, through its steering committee, may decide to commission a review. This could be applied to specific datasets as the need arises or, more ambitiously, it could be extended into a network-wide review (see Volume 6). It is often the case that environmental datasets are significant to a wide range of stakeholders, not just their custodians. This suggests that greater, perhaps national needs should prevail over individual feelings of data ownership, particularly in the case of essential datasets which may be depended upon for projects of national importance. Difficult decisions may have to be made in the short term to guarantee the quality and accessibility of a dataset in the long term. As with all decisions of this nature, it is imperative that they are arrived at transparently and with the full participation of leading stakeholders. Box 3 lists a variety of criteria which the steering committee of the hub could use to determine which organisation is the most appropriate custodian for a particular dataset (note that the criteria are not equally important). One way to apply the criteria in Box 3 is to select those organisations thought to be most relevant in the particular context, and assign numeric values to each criteria according to its relative importance. Thus, statutory responsibility may be perceived as being the most influential factor determining custodianship in a particular network, whereas best financial position might be considered to be the least. This allows the steering committee to ‘score’ potential custodians according to their suitability for the role, as illustrated in Table 1 (custodians denoted by the letter C). Analyses of this kind do not provide sufficient grounds for assigning custodianship in their own right, but may serve to focus discussion.


9

Box 3

Potential criteria for determining custodianship

•

Statutory responsibility for management of a dataset (beware of overlapping mandates!).

• • • • • • •

Greatest operational need for a dataset (e.g. for decision-making). Normally first to record changes to a data item. Requires the highest integrity of a data item (e.g. military precision). Most ‘competent’ to manage a dataset. Best financial position to manage a dataset (beware short-term effects). Most technical or physical resources to manage a dataset. Confidence of users in continuing to manage and develop a dataset (e.g. committed, no ‘conflict of interest’).

When deciding the custodianship of essential datasets, the overriding principle is that each dataset should have one and only one custodian. This is a practical and effective way of ensuring that management responsibility is assigned to every dataset which is valuable to multiple organisations and users. However, some environmental datasets are not easily packaged under a single label, and overlaps in organisational jurisdiction will occur. This can be resolved by designating one organisation as the overall custodian and encouraging others to maintain specific sub-components. An example would be a protected areas agency which manages a dataset containing, amongst other entities, data on the distribution and significance of species within its estate. Whilst it is justified in managing this dataset, the list of names used to reference the species would be managed by a more specialist custodian, such as a national museum or herbarium.

10


Table 1

Determining custodianship

Criteria

Relative importance

C1

Statutory responsibility

5

ü

...

Greatest operational need

3

ü

...

First to record changes

2

ü

...

Most ‘competent’

2

ü

...

Best financial position

1

ü

...

Confidence of users

4

ü

...

...

...

...

...

...

10

7

...

Score

4.2

C2

...

Managing Custodianship

Responsibility for data may need to be assigned at several levels. At the national level, responsibility for data themes may be assigned to separate lead organisations, such as government departments or research establishments. Land infrastructure, for example, including administrative boundaries, topography, settlements, roads and rivers, might be assigned to a national department of survey and mapping, which other national-level organisations see as the natural custodian. At the sub-national level, land infrastructure data may be managed at a higher resolution by local authorities, and be dispatched upwards to maintain the survey and mapping department’s datasets. Thus, in reality, the survey and mapping department is the hub of a land infrastructure network, with responsibility for data management devolved to a series of sub-national custodians (see Volume 4). As such, data harmonisation — the ability to integrate the various sub-national datasets — needs to be resolved, at the outset, by agreeing appropriate data standards and protocols. Network hubs should ensure that they provide sufficient guidance and coordination to custodians to enable them to contribute effectively to the network’s objectives (see Volume 4). Some obvious examples of where guidance may be Volume 5 Data Custodianship and Access

11

provided are the agreement of standards for data collection, storage and quality-assurance, and consistent procedures for data access (see Volume 7). A further complication is that, while a theme may have been assigned to a particular organisation, other organisations may need to develop datasets within that theme to meet their particular objectives, and for which they would become the custodian. For example, the theme vegetation may be allocated to a natural resource management agency, yet the defence department may need to develop a subsidiary vegetation dataset, with attributes that show which areas heavy vehicles may traverse and which they should not because of unacceptable surface damage. When a dataset is modified, for instance by enhancement or integration with other data, then the responsibilities and rights of its original custodian become diluted. Some management process should then define a clear point at which the original intellectual property rights and custodial responsibilities will be deemed abandoned. Essentially, it is a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned as to how to balance the requirements of the organisation that created the derived dataset with the legitimate interests of the original custodian. For instance, a decision must be made as to whether the new dataset is repatriated to the original custodian or whether it should be retained by the organisation that created it (presuming that they are capable of performing their custodial functions) (CSDC 1995).

4.3

Reviewing Custodianship

In becoming a custodian, an organisation needs to consider its data management responsibilities and ensure that it is able to meet them. If an organisation cannot meet its obligations, then it may consider relinquishing custodianship to another organisation. As with the initial assignment of custodianship, reassignment requires active but sensitive management, especially with datasets which have been identified as being fundamental to many organisations and users.

12


It is a good idea to undertake periodic reviews, perhaps every two years, of:

• • • •

the appropriateness of current custodians; progress in building, managing and enhancing key datasets; dataset documentation, including catalogues, directories and metadatabases; and implementation of data standards (see Volume 7).

Network hubs could consider developing a series of performance indicators for custodians, so that reviews can monitor progress against established benchmarks. In turn, custodians could report progress to their network hubs on a regular (e.g. annual) basis.

4.4

Setting Priorities

Resource constraints invariably mean that strict priorities for data development are needed. For this reason, it is important to identify appropriate custodians for essential datasets, and support these where specific investments in institutional capacity are required (see Volume 6). Every country, for example, needs an accurate and stable dataset representing its national boundary. This dataset must be maintained at a resolution and accuracy suitable for all major organisations and programmes, which may require the boundary in a range of scales and projections. One solution is to assign a single organisation, normally a national mapping agency, custodianship for the entirety of this dataset in its various forms. Custodians generally build datasets for their own corporate objectives, rather than for the wider benefit of the networks in which they operate. Thus, ideally, when building datasets, organisations should take into account the needs of their fellow partners, in order to increase the range of purposes to which the datasets can eventually be applied. Where partners require datasets that are of finer resolution, more elaborate or, in general, are of a higher quality than that required for the custodian’s own purposes, then agreement needs to be reached on how to cover any additional costs which may be involved.


13

5

CATALOGUES AND METADATABASES

Custodians are normally expected to document their datasets and to provide summary descriptions to potential users as required. It is generally considered to be good professional practice to document datasets, and custodians should aim to undertake this as a matter of routine (see Volume 7). Typical features to document include the theme, scale, completeness, currency, reliability, precision and pricing strategy of the dataset, plus details of how it was collected, its intended purposes, and the data standards and quality-assurance procedures which have been applied. Within an information network, custodians may be encouraged to submit details to the hub on any datasets which are, at least potentially, available for use by other organisations. The catalogues which result — known as metadatabases in their computerised form — may be published and disseminated widely to assist users in locating the data and information they require. Due to the potentially large number of datasets available within a network, catalogues usually contain only a summary of the dataset’s purpose and quality, plus the contact details of the custodian and advice on access procedures, including any costs involved.

14


6

DATA ACCESS AGREEMENTS

6.1

Overview

Issues relating to data access are some of the most challenging, yet important, for an information network to manage. The challenge is rooted in the legitimate concerns of both custodians and users, as summarised in Box 4. These concerns are held by individuals, project groups, organisations and governments, and cover a wide range of issues. Some of these are genuinely important,2 but others are largely spurious or secondary to other issues, for example mistrust of user intentions or lack of understanding of what the user requires. Unless fully addressed, such concerns have the potential to hinder data access and, hence, reduce interest in cooperation. One way forward is to accompany transactions with formal agreements between parties, offering tangible assurances that the concerns of both sides will be met. A key principle is that data should be made accessible through the custodian, or their nominated distribution outlet, not from a secondary source. Data access agreements need not be viewed as a defensive measure intended to limit access to data. Rather, they are a positive means of increasing trust and fair dealing amongst the network’s or other partners. As confidence grows and data begin to be mobilised more easily, the need for formal agreements diminishes until, ultimately, they may no longer be required. Data access agreements are perceived to be difficult to negotiate, but this need not be the case. A useful step is for the network hub to draft a generic agreement for distribution and adaptation by custodians. In the interests of simplicity, agreements should assume goodwill on the part of users, not bad faith. Similarly, administrative and cost impediments to data access should be kept to an absolute minimum.

2

Custodians need to ensure that data which are genuinely sensitive for reasons of privacy, confidentiality or security, are adequately protected. An example would be detailed descriptions of the locations of threatened species that are at risk from exploitation.


15

Custodians are responsible for advising users on the potential uses of a dataset. They may also recommend specific permitted uses or, conversely, excluded uses of a dataset. This may occur when, for example, the custodian believes the data are unsuitable for certain purposes due to uncertainties or ambiguities in the dataset. It also provides a means for custodians to safeguard their intellectual property. Varying conditions may be applied to different classes of user (e.g. government, NGO, research, commercial). Typical provisions to consider when drafting a data access agreement are presented in Box 5.

Box 4

Typical concerns over data access

Custodians

• • • • • • •

Will the dataset be misused? Will intellectual property be respected? Will the cost of supply be recovered? Who will be liable in the event of a problem? Will professional credibility suffer from the release of the dataset? Could confidentiality be breached by the release of the dataset? Does the transaction comply with internal network guidelines?

Users

• • • • • 16

Is the dataset fit for its intended use? Will it be available at the right time? Will onerous conditions be imposed on its use? Is it available in a form which can be easily handled? What, if anything, will it cost?


In the event that incorrect data are provided by a custodian, or they are used for an inappropriate purpose, liability could fall on the owner of the data, the custodian, a third party which has provided the data, or all of these. The situation is most serious when ‘negligence’ is detected, for instance when it is established that data were poorly maintained or falsely documented. Exposure to liability is an emerging issue. The most likely grounds for liability are where dataset documentation is misleading, deceptive or negligent, or where there has been a violation of the provisions of a data access agreement (see Onsrud 1989 for a discussion).

Box 5

Typical provisions in a data access agreement

•

Whether data are available for single or multiple uses, and what those uses are.

•

Whether data can be retained by the user following its designated use (risking independent updating or duplication), or whether they should be destroyed (incurring subsequent costs when the data are needed again).

•

Whether the data are available for non-profit or profit-generating use and, if the latter, whether any royalties would flow back to the custodian.

•

Whether users may give the data to third parties (the latter would normally be referred back to the custodian unless prior consent was arranged).

•

Whether copies of any publications, products and other outputs derived (even in part) from the data should be sent to the custodian.

•

What form of acknowledgement the user should employ (in cases where data have been interpreted several times before use, a long list of acknowledgements — known as an ‘audit trail’ — may be necessary).

•

Some form of disclaimer that protects the custodian from legal liability in the event that their data prove to be unreliable or are used for an inappropriate purpose (legal advice should be obtained).


17

6.2

Roles of the Hub, Custodians and Users

The primary role of the hub is to enable the network’s partners to realise the benefits of cooperation. In terms of data access, these benefits comprise value to the user through access to essential data; value to the custodian for being of service (paving the way for future exchanges and access to value-added products); and value to the network for having enabled the transaction. The hub can help to realise these benefits by facilitating the negotiation and management of data access agreements. This could be achieved through the preparation of a generic agreement embodying the principles of cooperation it wishes to invoke, i.e. that environmental data are available to all stakeholders, for non-commercial purposes, at minimum cost and with minimum administrative or other impediments to access and use, whilst protecting the legitimate interests of custodians. In cases where access to an important dataset is not being provided satisfactorily, the hub may wish to scrutinise the restrictions imposed by the custodian and recommend new operating procedures. Experience has shown that many restrictions imposed by custodians are unnecessary, even arbitrary, and can impose severe constraints on data access. The hub’s advice will need to be consistent with government policies relating to information access and exchange. Where current policies are inconsistent with the principle of wide information availability, with environmental decision-making likely to be less effective as a consequence, network hubs have a role in advising the government accordingly. Custodians are responsible for developing policies on data access which are consistent with the broader policy frameworks in which they operate. They need to ensure that the provisions in their data access agreements are necessary to protect their legitimate interests, and do not have the unintended consequence of inhibiting reasonable use of the data by other users. Users are obliged to comply with conditions prescribed by custodians. This is crucial if the spirit of trust, so necessary to the successful operation of a network, is to be built and maintained. Users may also provide feedback to custodians in the form of advice of any errors or deficiencies encountered in the data, and an indication of their future requirements, enabling custodians to continually improve their service. 18


Finally, there are two responsibilities which users would ordinarily uphold even if not specified by agreement. Where practicable, copies of any information products derived fully or in part from a dataset are provided to the custodian; and the source(s) of the data used should be fulsomely acknowledged.

6.3

Cost Recovery

Very few organisations have a corporate objective to collect data merely to sell data. Data-rich organisations are generally in the business of selling the value they add to data. In other words, the collection and management of data is a means to a larger corporate end. As such, the cost of building and managing data is a cost of doing business or, more simply, a business overhead. Certainly these costs need to be recovered by selling products and services to clients, but not necessarily by charging total costs to external data users. When raw data are provided to a user, without any significant added value, then the question arises as to what proportion of the data management overhead to charge to that user. Normally, there is no argument that the marginal costs, to the custodian, of providing those data can be charged to the user; the issue is what is a reasonable price for data that already exist (particularly where collected at public expense), but which were not created for the user or in the expectation that the user would require them. Unfortunately, the development of information networks is sometimes inhibited by market-driven ideologies which authorise the cost recovery in data transactions. The consequence of this is that organisations which could contribute to the resolution of important environmental concerns are unable to do so because they lack the resources to purchase the relevant data. The resources available to environmental organisations, particularly NGOs, seldom reflect the significance to the community of the issues at stake. This is largely due to a failure of the market to internalise environmental costs and benefits. Within a network, cost barriers should be kept as low as practicable to facilitate data exchange. However, depending on the financial positions of the organisation concerned, and the types of user who require access to the data, different strategies for cost recovery may be applied. Not all of these are monetary-based, as illustrated in Box 6.


19

One way of facilitating data access in hostile policy environments (e.g. over-bureaucratic or market-driven) is to develop datasets in partnership with other organisations, or to barter data and other services (see Volume 4). There is no reason why such arrangements should not include commercial partners.

Box 6

20

Strategies for cost recovery

• • •

Supply data totally free.

•

Recover incremental costs (i.e. of managing the data and combating depreciation).

•

Recover development costs (i.e. the initial investment in building the dataset).

•

Recover ‘market value’ (i.e. the maximum cost which the user will pay).

Supply data free to reciprocating users (i.e. barter). Recover immediate cost of supply (i.e. time, consumables, energy etc. to process the request).


7

CASE STUDY: COMMONWEALTH CUSTODIANSHIP GUIDELINES, AUSTRALIA

Australia has formed the Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee (CSDC) as the peak coordinating body (network hub) for spatial data management at the national level. It consists of senior governmental representatives. One of its tasks has been to draft the Commonwealth Custodianship Guidelines setting out the Rights and Responsibilities of Spatial Data Custodians and Lead Agencies (http://www.auslig. gov.au/pipc/csdc/csdcguid.htm), the executive summary of which notes: “The principle of custodianship should be applied . . . as a matter of good practice, convention and convenience. It is simply the only way that data can be managed in an orderly fashion . . . The identification of custodians and the effective operation of custodianship are necessary for the successful management of government spatial data... To help improve [the management of . . . spatial data] the Committee will implement a system of lead agencies and custodians of Commonwealth spatial data, and outline their rights and responsibilities . . . These guidelines are designed to assist lead agencies and data custodians in developing improved practice in spatial data management . . . A lead agency will be responsible for government-wide coordination of a data class or category. This includes development of standards, and coordination of data acquisition so as to avoid duplication. The CSDC will provide policy guidance and oversee the lead agency system. Lead agencies will be identified for broad categories of data after negotiation within CSDC . . . CSDC will maintain a register of spatial data custodians. The Register will define the custodian agency or agencies and data category, data items, geographic coverage and any other feature necessary to define the dataset . . .” The Guidelines discuss the distinction between lead agencies and custodians, noting that the responsibilities of a lead agency are primarily those of policy-development and coordination, and detailing a set of specific objectives for cooperation. Clearly, in this example, lead agencies correspond to network hubs for the thematic areas in


21

which they have expertise. The CSDC itself corresponds to an over-arching hub seeking to coordinate the efforts of lead agencies. The custodian of a dataset is described as ‘the nominated body, or person responsible for the development and/or the management of that dataset, and who has the right to determine the conditions on which those data may be used or released’. The Guidelines stress that: “All spatial data collected . . . forms part of the . . . corporate spatial data resource. Individual agencies involved in the management of the spatial data act as custodians on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Government delegates operational responsibility for the data, and for implementing Commonwealth policy with regard to it, but retains the ultimate responsibility for the data. Custodianship is not necessarily synonymous with ownership of either the data nor the copyright of that data.” Among the benefits of custodianship, the Guidelines note that improved coordination assists in the avoidance of duplication of effort and the unnecessary costs which this causes, thus achieving greater benefits from the investments in data development which are made. The assignment of custodianship is recognised as being a complex process, requiring formal negotiation and documentation of the outcome. A list of essential datasets, together with suggested lead agencies and possible custodians is located at http://www..auslig.gov.au/pipc/csdc/csdccust.htm. Lead agencies are highlighted as a mechanism to facilitate higher-level coordination of data themes, including developing broad initiatives, future projects and agreement of standards. Each identified lead agency is responsible for disseminating information about its category of data, particularly to potential users, and for promoting access to the data. This includes seeking to remove impediments to and improving the efficiency of data transactions. A major role of the lead agency is to avoid duplication of effort in data collection, by providing avenues for communication between the network’s partners and mechanisms to identify and coordinate data collection activities. However, the lead agency is not empowered to determine priorities for data acquisition; that is the right of the custodians.

22


The Guidelines further note that standards for recording and managing data need to be considered, both by lead agencies and custodians. In particular, standard methods for selecting features and attributes, for assigning meanings and values, for ensuring data quality, and for regulating data transfer are noted. Indeed, it is recommended that custodians seek compliance with established quality management standards in order to ensure the quality of their datasets. In this example from Australia, custodians are entitled to levy a charge for access to their data. The amount charged depends on several factors, including Government charging directives, the costs of collecting, storing and distributing the data, market rates, the intended uses of the data, and the conditions of any pre-negotiated arrangements. More information about the Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee (CSDC) can be obtained from http://www.auslig.gov.au/pipc/csdc/csdcmain.htm. Details of the policy governing data transactions is available at http://www.auslig.gov.au/pipc/ csdc/csdcsdti.htm.


23

8

REFERENCES

Janzen, J. 1993. Management Guide to Custodianship. Ministry of Forests, BC, Canada. (http://mofwww.for.gov.bc.ca/isb/datadmin/s35.htm) Janzen, J. 1995. Presentation Summary: Corporate Data Categories. Corporate Spatial Database Meeting, November 20/21, 1995, Ministry of Forests, BC, Canada. (http://mofwww.for.gov.bc.ca/isb/datadmin/summpres.htm) Onsrud, H.J. 1989. Legal and Liability Issues in Publicly Accessible Land Information Systems, Proc. GIS/LIS, Vol. 1. pp 295-300.

24



Volume 6 Information Management Capacity Volume 6

Information Management Capacity




1998


Published by


ISBN

0-85092-549-5

Copyright

© 1998 World Conservation Monitoring Centre and United Nations Environment Programme Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is acknowledged. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purpose is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holders. The views expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those of WCMC or its collaborators. The designations of geographical entities in this report and the presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WCMC, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species, or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Volume 6: Information Management Capacity. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 48pp.

Typeset by


Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by


Available from



INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

3

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

4 5 6 8

Overview . . . . . . Status Report . . . . Dataset Catalogue . . Analysis of Linkages

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

10 10 11 12

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Information Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Development Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CASE STUDY: BIODIVERSITY DATA MANAGEMENT (BDM) PROJECT, GHANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

6

. . . .

STRATEGIC PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1 4.2 4.3

5

. . . .

ANALYSING THE RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4

Overview . . . . . . . Factors to Assess . . . Method of Assessment Questionnaire Tips . .

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The BDM Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institutional Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ghana Biodiversity Data Management Strategy.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

23 24 25 26

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

ANNEX 1

SAMPLE COVERING LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

ANNEX 2

SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Volume 6 Information Management Capacity

v


vi



Volume 6 Information Management Capacity

vii


viii




ix

1

INTRODUCTION

The phrase ‘information management capacity’ means different things to different people. To some, it applies only to the hardware and software necessary to build databases and information systems. To others, it encompasses the political commitment, constructive policies and public support necessary to apply information to the resolution of environmental concerns. This document employs a pragmatic definition of information management capacity, namely the direct assets available to an organisation in terms of its data, expertise and facilities, and indirect assets in the form of management systems and partnerships with other organisations (see Box 1). Direct assets are relatively easy to quantify, since they are physical in nature and can be documented. Indirect assets, which serve to consolidate the direct assets, are more subjective in nature. For example, two organisations with roughly similar data, expertise and facilities may perform very differently due to variations in the quality of their management systems, although it may be difficult to quantify exactly why. An organisation’s management systems dictate the efficiency of everything from task allocation and scheduling, to project design, strategic planning and cooperation with external partners. If the systems work, then all of these aspects run smoothly; if they don’t, then productivity may suffer.

Box 1

Elements of information management capacity

Direct assets

• • •

Comprehensive data on appropriate themes.

•

Expertise and facilities to compile and communicate information to users.

Expertise and facilities to store, maintain and quality-assure data. Expertise and facilities to integrate, interpret and convert data into information.

Indirect assets

• •

Management systems and procedures to coordinate information production. Liaison, cooperation and partnerships with external organisations.


1

Constraints in information management capacity can seriously impede progress towards organisational goals, limiting the contribution that organisations are able to make to addressing environmental concerns. Considering the magnitude of the challenges affecting most countries in this area, building information management capacity can be seen as an issue of national importance. However, it is almost inevitable that ‘needs’ for capacity building will outweigh what can be delivered with available resources. This applies to individual organisations and networks alike, and equally to government, non-government and private organisations. Clear priorities for capacity building are needed, and the greatest challenge is deciding how and where to channel investments. Taken as a whole, the capacity of a network of organisations depends on the individual capacities of its partner organisations. Thus, when attempting to strengthen the capacity of a network to manage information effectively, typical aims are to address critical gaps in capacity, supplement (not duplicate) existing capacities, and seek efficiencies through closer cooperation between the organisations concerned. These are strategic aims and, consequently, require strategic planning. Clearly, investments in capacity building should, wherever possible, be based on a survey of where existing capacities are located and how readily these can be mobilised for specific tasks. This can be achieved by assessing the capacity of the network’s partner organisations, for instance with respect to the range and quality of the datasets they manage, the human resources which they possess, and their ability to access technical and physical facilities. The survey contributes directly to the process of strategic planning, which involves identifying which types of capacity are critically lacking, which are in need of strengthening, and which areas would benefit from closer cooperation. This allows objectives, targets, roles and responsibilities to be assigned to organisations in such a way that their goals are achieved in concert with the needs of the network — and society in general — for information. The main justification for the effort expended on this process is to provide enhanced support to users, such as decision-makers in the public and private sectors. A diverse range of tasks are encompassed by the phrase ‘information management’, and most organisations will take considerable time to achieve their maximum level of effectiveness in this area. Ways need to be found to accelerate this process for the benefit of the organisations concerned, and also the networks in which 2


they operate. Efforts to build information management capacity need to be carefully prioritised. They also need to be well-coordinated. Within an organisation this is the responsibility of senior mangers; within a network it is normally achieved through a steering committee plus associated administrative support (collectively known as a hub – see Volume 4). Figure 1 presents a three-stage process for building information management capacity within a network. The process assumes that the network’s goals have already been defined and that the information needs of its user base have been determined; in short, that the network is being effectively coordinated and managed. The aim is to transform a situation in which biodiversity information is inconsistently handled, incomplete in coverage and difficult to access, into one in which relevant and timely information products are available to defined sets of users.

Figure 1

Building information management capacity

Survey Assess the capacity of the network’s partners

Inconsistent, incomplete access to biodiversity information

Plan Prepare strategic plans to address weaknesses, inefficiencies and overlaps

Implement Initiate, monitor and review implementation of the plans


Coordinated delivery of information products and services

3

2

INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY

2.1

Overview

When large numbers of organisations are involved in a survey, it may become very demanding in both cost and time. Taken from the design of the questionnaire to the analysis of the final results, a survey conducted at the national level, for example, covering upwards of 50 organisations, could take up to six months to complete. For this reason, it is essential to engage the full support and resources of the network’s partners, by making it clear to them why the survey is being conducted and how it will be used to benefit them. Specifically, participating organisations can expect to:

• • •

develop ties with other organisations;

•

review (and, potentially, address) internal strengths and weaknesses in information management capacity.

help plan the development of the network; understand better where to obtain data and information on complex, cross-sectoral issues, such as conservation and sustainable use of living resources; and

To ensure that the survey is taken seriously, it also needs to be recognised as being completely impartial (i.e. beneficial to the network as a whole, not specific organisations). Thus it is desirable for the survey to be overseen, if not actually implemented, by a steering committee, body or other group which represents the interests of the network’s partners (e.g. a network hub). This group can be charged with the task of initiating the survey, and ensuring that its results are employed to the maximum effect. In many cases, a comprehensive survey of capacity may be unnecessary. The main requirement is to determine the availability of necessary capacities, rather than all capacities, some of which may not be needed. A key question to bear in mind when conducting the survey is ‘what capacities will be needed by the network to deliver its goals?’, as well as the more elementary question of ‘what capacities currently exist?’.

4


2.2

Factors to Assess

The survey should empower managers to review and, perhaps, restructure their information management activities in such a way that their corporate goals are consistent with those of the networks in which they operate. It should address all of those capacities outlined in Box 1, plus additional capacities where these are relevant or specific to local conditions. Aspects of an organisation which might be considered for inclusion in the survey are summarised below (these are expanded in the sample questionnaire presented in Annex 2).

• Institutional details Basic institutional details need to be recorded, for example the full name (with acronym if applicable), address and further contact details. The overall mission of the organisation, plus details of specific programmes and projects, should be described as they relate to the network’s goals. In particular, brief suggestions on how the network is expected to contribute to the organisation, and vice versa, should be solicited. Finally, details of the individual or group completing the survey should be obtained, for example their role within the organisation, and their contact details for follow-up.

• Direct assets 1.

Datasets

Summaries of the datasets for which the organisation acts as custodian, for example their theme, scale, completeness, currency, reliability, precision 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 employed. Particularly important datasets (i.e. essential datasets – see Volume 3) should be highlighted, as should priority data needs. 2.

Expertise

Descriptions of the expertise available to the organisation which is of most relevance to information production, for example the number and education/ training-level of researchers, data managers, librarians, statisticians, analysts,


5

designers, publishers or communicators. Particularly strong or relevant expertise should be highlighted, as should priority needs. 3.

Facilities

Descriptions of the main facilities accessible by the organisation to enhance information production, for example measuring equipment, computer software and hardware, data input and output devices, and physical facilities (e.g. dedicated premises, transport). Particularly useful or relevant facilities should be highlighted, as should priority needs.

• Indirect assets 1.

Management systems

The best evidence for effective management systems is productivity, and a good means of measuring this is by reviewing the organisation’s portfolio of projects as they relate to the provision of data and information to users. Particularly impressive or illustrative projects should be highlighted. Weaknesses in management systems, where these are widely recognised, should also be described. 2.

Partnerships

Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) provide indirect evidence of external partnerships, although these do not guarantee cooperation in themselves. Further indicators include the extent to which data and other commodities are shared with other organisations (e.g. lists of data sources), the number of joint projects, and the degree to which common standards and policies for information management are employed. Organisations should be encouraged to prepare diagrams illustrating the nature of their linkages with other organisations, in particular those which involve the transfer of data and information (see Section 3.4). Productive partnerships should be highlighted, and weak ones also noted.

2.3

Method of Assessment

One of the earliest tasks for the group undertaking the survey is to define its scope, in terms of both the number and type of organisation to include. In the simplest case, 6


this may be the membership of an existing network focused on conservation or environmental issues. Under such circumstances it may be desirable nevertheless to include additional organisations — both nationally and abroad — where these have important contributions to make (e.g. data holdings). Where no existing network is established, a policy of inclusion is normally the best strategy. This may lead to a larger, more diverse survey, but avoids the possibility that some organisations will feel neglected. In countries with rich institutional structures, where a policy of inclusion would lead to an impractically large workload, the survey may be conducted in two stages. Initially, a letter of invitation is delivered to all potential organisations explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to decide whether they would like to participate. The letter may also invite each organisation to describe briefly how it expects to help mobilise biodiversity information. Many organisations will decide not to participate at this point, saving both themselves and the survey team much work at a later date. Once the task of selecting organisations has been completed, the next challenge is to identify specific people within them to take charge of the survey. These people are sometimes referred to as focal people or focal points. Various options are then available for implementing the survey. The simplest option is to produce a questionnaire and distribute this to focal points in the selected organisations. The main problem with questionnaires is that they have a notoriously poor response rate. Various techniques exist to improve this (see Section 2.4) but, even when these are employed, the response rate still may be too low to be effective. Some form of active engagement of the organisations is usually necessary. Various suggestions are presented below.

•

Before distributing the questionnaires, invite participants to a workshop to discuss the purpose, time-scale and method of completion of the questionnaire. This provides an opportunity to engage them in the process and assist by reviewing the questionnaire.

•

Telephone or visit each of the selected organisations after the questionnaires have been distributed, or invite them to a ‘surgery’ where their reservations or difficulties can be addressed.

•

After most of the questionnaires have been returned, invite participants to a further workshop to review the survey’s findings, and consider how these can be transformed into strategic capacity-building plans.


7

In complex cases, more intensive site visits may be necessary to assist with the completion of questionnaires. For instance, it may be necessary to conduct individual or group meetings, brainstorming sessions and other fora in order to generate the required level of commitment. Interactive dialogue is especially useful when addressing the more subjective aspects of the survey, such as the requirements the organisation has of the network, or the success of its external partnerships. Ideally, the survey encourages staff to review their personal and corporate strategies with respect to information management and consider how efficiencies can be made.

2.4

Questionnaire Tips

Typically, a response rate of less than 10 percent is likely from a questionnaire sent out ‘blind’ without any forewarning, involvement or contribution by the receiving organisation. This figure can be improved upon substantially by anticipating the problems which may occur. One of the simplest ways of improving response rate is to ensure that the questionnaire is written in an appropriate language. Naturally, this applies mainly to international surveys, but also applies to individual countries where multiple languages are spoken. Further ways to improve response rate are described below:

• Generate interest Organisations are unlikely to commit a lot of time into filling out questionnaires unless they perceive that tangible benefits will be gained. Benefits should therefore be made explicit in a covering letter, together with an indication of why the involvement of the organisation is essential to the survey. Annex 1 presents a sample covering letter based on several excellent examples drawn from surveys world-wide (for example, see Government of the United Kingdom 1995 or Government of Sri Lanka 1996a). Where possible, questionnaires should be sent to a specific unit or individual focal point in the organisation who can be relied upon to take appropriate action.

• Make it brief Questionnaires should be kept as short as possible and should remain focused on questions which directly support the network’s developmental goals. Wherever possible, questionnaires should be completed as far as possible before they are 8


distributed (e.g. the name and address of the organisation is already printed). It is far easier and more compelling for recipients to correct existing data than to enter details from scratch.

• Make it clear The thematic scope of the survey should be made clear, the questions simple, and jargon or confusing terms avoided. For example, the term ‘biodiversity’ would need to be defined since it commonly has several meanings, including all lifeforms, the diversity of lifeforms, or simply the conservation of living resources. A good way of clarifying how the questionnaire should be completed is to include an ‘example’ questionnaire which has already been filled out by another, perhaps fictitious, organisation.

• If all else fails . . . On rare occasions, questionnaires will not be returned due to lethargy, low priority or suspicion of motives. One solution is to publish an interim set of survey results showing blanks where organisations did not respond. When these are sent to the organisations concerned, accompanied by details of a final publication date, a rapid response may be forthcoming, since few organisations would wish to be seen as uncooperative.


9

3

ANALYSING THE RESULTS

3.1

Overview

The results of the survey can be analysed in a number of ways depending on the circumstances in which it was conducted and the requirements placed on it by the lead organisation. In general, the analysis profiles the organisations concerned in such a way that capacity-building activities can be planned in a consistent and transparent manner. This is especially true if the analysis is to be used to allocate or redistribute resources, for instance financial resources. Typical outputs from the analysis include a status report, a dataset catalogue and a summary of institutional partnerships. It is tempting to see the survey results as a pool of data suitable for statistical analysis. For example, one might determine that 43% of the organisations surveyed were equipped with the Windows operating system, whereas only 10% were equipped with UNIX. Similarly, one might determine that 15% of organisations managed biological datasets, whereas only 5% managed data on human social conditions. Whilst these statistics help identify general trends across many organisations, they do not assist significantly with the planning process. Indeed, the main reason for conducting the survey is to determine the capabilities and needs of individual organisations to enable strategic planners to identify specific investments, efficiencies and areas for increased cooperation.

3.2

Status Report

At minimum, the main results of the survey should be summarised in a report suitable for distribution to participating organisations. This injects transparency into the survey process and compensates organisations for their efforts in completing questionnaires. If successful, the status report could be updated on a regular basis and form the main vehicle for documenting the growth of the network. Simple diagrams, maps, charts, and tables may be used to express how information management capacity is distributed across the organisations surveyed. Typical questions that the report may wish to address include:

•

What range of datasets is available to the network and in which areas are data lacking?

10


•

What (if any) standards are applied to the collection, storage and quality-assurance of data?

• • •

What expertise is available and in which areas do the greatest shortages occur? What range of facilities is available and what specific facilities are needed? Which facilities are in common use across the network (e.g. software and hardware, laboratory equipment, communications facilities)?

In addition, the status report highlights areas of duplicated effort, areas requiring closer cooperation, and under-utilised capacities which could be mobilised in support of the network’s goals. These topics could be covered within a more comprehensive discussion of the network’s strengths and weaknesses, which might also summarise the productivity (or otherwise) of the partnerships between individual organisations. Narrative text, as opposed to charts and tables, is usually the best form in which to present these more subjective assessments of information management capacity.1 Optionally, the status report could also contain specific plans for developing information management capacity (e.g. investments, efficiencies and cooperation). This is the realm of strategic planning (see Section 4), where available capacity is compared with what is needed to enable the network to deliver relevant and timely information products to its user base. The actual survey data, if presented at all, is usually consigned to annexes or included as a separate volume. Naturally, an executive summary should be prepared to highlight the report’s key findings.

3.3

Dataset Catalogue

Potentially the most useful output of the survey is a catalogue or directory of datasets (Medyckyj-Scott et al. 1996). This helps users to locate the data and information they require, and provides sufficient description for them to decide whether or not the dataset is appropriate to their needs (for example, see WCMC 1994 or Government of Sri Lanka 1996a). If a dataset catalogue is to be generated from the survey results, it is suggested that a separate form is prepared for describing

1

Ample time should be provided for participating organisations to review the report before it is published and distributed widely.


11

datasets. If this is done, the dataset catalogue can be assembled easily by collating and editing the dataset forms when they are returned, without needing to extract this information from lengthy institutional details (see Annex 2). Naturally, brief details of the custodian should be included on each such form to facilitate access to the data by prospective users (see Volume 5). Not all datasets described in the questionnaires need to be included in the catalogue. For example, there is little point including those which, for reasons of corporate policy or lack of capacity, are not physically accessible to external users. In addition, datasets which are so specialised that they have little bearing on the network’s goals may be excluded. The aim is to create a catalogue that presents a set of useful datasets, as opposed to an exhaustive list. This, together with accuracy, will build the reputation of the catalogue. In summary, the following questions may be asked of the final catalogue:

• • • •

Does it enable users to locate datasets easily? Are all the listed datasets relevant to the network’s goals? Are all the listed datasets accessible? What mechanism has been established to keep the catalogue up to date?

Dataset catalogues can be published in several ways, for example as hard-copy publications, as computerised databases or as an on-line information service, and may be disseminated widely to promote their use (electronic versions are often referred to as metadatabases, since the raw data are metadata or, literally, data about data). As the profile of the catalogue rises, and it becomes the main method by which users locate data, many organisations will wish to submit new details to keep the catalogue up to date. In this way, the catalogue can become virtually self-sustaining, rather than relying on specific project funds or donations.

3.4

Analysis of Linkages

Cooperation between organisations, variously referred to as linkages, ties, partnerships and collaborations, can be represented using special-purpose diagrams, such as the one shown in Figure 2. The diagrams follow a convention in which organisations are represented by ovals and paths of data flow by arrowed lines. Standard lines depict other types of cooperation, such as the sharing of expertise or 12


facilities. Labels expressing the general nature of the cooperation may be used to clarify the diagram as shown. Figure 2 illustrates how a national forestry department (labelled O1 in the diagram) views its linkages with other selected organisations. In this case it receives data from the forest producers association (O2), an industry body, and provides data back to this organisation and the environmental protection agency (O3). A non-data linkage is maintained with a university research institute (O4), in this case involving the secondment of a member of staff. Similar diagrams could be produced by all those organisations participating in the survey, revealing interesting inconsistencies when two organisations perceive their inter-relationships in different ways. For example, in the current case O1 may illustrate its provision of data to O3 (see Figure 2), but the latter may not recognise this if the supply is uninformative or unreliable.

Figure 2

Example linkage diagram

Utilisation records sent from O2 to O1 Audited summaries returned to O2 O2 Forest producers association

O3 Environmental protection agency

O1 National forest department

Annual forest utilisation statistics submitted to O3 for review

Data management expert seconded to O1 from O4 O4 University research institute


O

Organisation Data/information flow Non-data linkage

13

As well as providing a good opportunity for self-assessment within an organisation, linkage analysis can be applied at the network-level to reveal areas requiring closer cooperation, or areas where duplication of effort may be occurring. To do this, the linkage diagrams produced by individual organisations must be reviewed, harmonised and merged into a single composite diagram, such as that shown in Figure 3. This may involve significant dialogue between the organisations concerned as they agree a common position on the nature of their linkages (each linkage in the composite diagram should be acknowledged to be correct by both parties).

Figure 3

Composite linkage diagram

O2

O3

O4

O1

O5

Data/information flow Non-data linkage

The composite diagram is a useful way of summarising the linkages between a group of cooperating organisations. However, when large numbers of organisations are involved, the diagram can quickly become overloaded. Thus, for clarity, it may be necessary to separate it into a series of simpler diagrams representing cooperation on specific themes.

14


Composite diagrams can be interpreted in several ways. For example, organisations which generally supply data may be important custodians. Organisations which generally receive data may be important users; and organisations which generally maintain non-data linkages may be important facilitators of the information production process (see Volumes 4 and 5). Notable absences of cooperation are equally revealing, particularly between organisations which are known to possess similar goals (and may be duplicating each other’s efforts) or have complimentary skills and equipment which could be shared. In summary, linkage analysis clarifies where cooperation is occurring and, also, where it could be occurring.


15

4 4.1

STRATEGIC PLANNING Overview

Having assessed the distribution and quality of existing capacity, the next step is to create plans for the development of new capacities to achieve organisational and the network’s goals. The survey prepares the ground for this endeavour, ensuring that these plans reflect the true needs of participating organisations for investment and cooperation. The results of the survey are not the only source of information needed for strategic planning. Indeed, the reason why the process is referred to as strategic is that the new capacities which the network builds are intended to address its long-term, collective needs, as well as the immediate priorities of individual organisations. For this reason planning is guided not only by the results of the survey, which highlight areas in which capacity building may be required, but also by the results of earlier processes which have identified the overall goals of the network (the processes in question are amply described in the ‘information cycle’ introduced in Volume 1). Active consultation and consensus-building may be necessary to determine the network’s goals, which then translate into the definition of a series of priority products and services for the network to deliver to its users (see Volume 3). In the case of a biodiversity information network operating at the national-level, the main goal may be to support government policy-making in the area of sustainable use of living resources. This may translate into a series of one-off information briefings on current issues of concern (i.e. products), plus a commitment to continuously monitor agreed ecological parameters (i.e. a service). A complementary goal of the network may be to reduce the loss of sensitive habitats through ill-informed development planning. This may translate into a series of map-based products illustrating the location and value of sensitive habitats, for use by construction companies and local authorities. Once the network’s products and services have been agreed, it is possible to analyse what capacities are required to deliver them, for instance in terms of essential data, expertise and facilities. This process is very important since it sets targets for capacity building across the network which, once reached, enable it to achieve its goals effectively. Strategic planning then becomes a relatively simple task: match the capacities outlined in the survey to those required, and prepare a strategy to 16


move forward (see Figure 4). As with other strategic exercises, this process can be summarised in terms of three underlying questions as follows:

• • •

Where are we now? Where do we want to be? How are we going to get there?

The first question is addressed by the results of the institutional survey; the second by analysing which capacities are required to deliver the network’s main products and services; and the third through the preparation of an information strategy.

Figure 4

The strategic planning process

Where do we want to be?

Analysis of existing capacity (from institutional survey results)

Where are we now?

Analysis of required capacity (for delivery of products and services)

How are we going to get there?


Strategic planning

Information strategy: operating principles roles and responsibilities objectives and targets development plans

17

4.2

Information Strategy

Typically, a network information strategy contains a statement of operating principles, covering the goals of the network, its membership, form of cooperation and organisational structure. It goes on to describe the major products and services which the network aims to deliver, and the users for whom these are designed (for example, see BCIS 1996). The roles and responsibilities of the network’s partners are also highlighted and, where appropriate, specific objectives and targets for information production are assigned to them. Finally, the strategy contains plans for the development of the network’s capacity in areas which have been identified as crucial to its success (for example, see Government of Sri Lanka 1996b, Government of Egypt 1997 or Government of Thailand 1997). These may include extensive detail, for example projected sources of data, job descriptions and procurement plans, confined to annexes. It may be possible to implement parts of the strategy simply by improving coordination between organisations or sharing scarce resources. Also, the value of ‘free’ resources for capacity building should not be underestimated. For example, Internet-based literature, self-teaching tools, training materials and ‘source books’ for skills development are widely available from governments, non-governmental organisations and international organisations. Nevertheless, many information strategies will require direct financial support to implement and it is the role of senior managers within the network, coordinated by its steering committee, to enable access to financial resources in such cases. Potential sources of financial support are presented in Box 2.

4.3

Development Plans

Development plans are the heart of the information strategy. They range from brief concepts for small-scale projects, up to detailed proposals for the development of the network’s data, expertise, facilities and partnerships (i.e. the areas covered by the survey). In order to maximise the benefits of network participation, individual organisations may wish to extend the development process to the operation of their internal management systems. Typically, a development plan would include a set of clearly-defined objectives and targets for capacity development, plus preliminary indications of costs, time-scales and management responsibilities. Plans could be generated for the 18


Box 2

Sources of financial support for capacity building

• •

Direct contributions from the network’s partners.

•

Implementation of joint projects with government, industry or international organisations.

• • •

Government grants or incentive schemes.

‘In-kind’ contributions from the network’s partners (e.g. the exchange of data, expertise or other services).

Support from bilateral and multilateral development assistance agencies. Funds released by efficiency savings or from changes in government priorities.

network as a whole, or be prepared for individual organisations — provided these also address the needs of the network as a whole. When presented in the form of sound business cases, development plans may prove useful in helping to convince potential sources of financial support to invest in the network. Key areas in which to build information management capacity are reviewed below. The reviews necessarily are brief since, in any particular situation, local conditions, needs and perspectives are bound to dictate precise requirements.

• Data A network’s datasets need to underpin the products and services it wishes to generate. The mobilisation of data on essential themes should therefore be one of the network’s top priorities. An early task is to determine which datasets are essential to the network’s operation, and to ensure that the custodians (i.e. primary sources) of these have the capacity to manage them effectively. Capacity building can then focus on the twin objectives of improving the quality and accessibility of datasets.


19

Responsibility for managing datasets can be identified using the principles of custodianship (see Volumes 4 and 5). Other fundamental techniques, relating to the storage, standardisation and quality-assurance of datasets, can also be applied to the mobilisation of datasets after management responsibility has been assigned (see Volume 7).

• Expertise A network’s expertise should reflect its needs for generating products and services, and may be very wide ranging. They include the basic skills necessary to collect and process data, but also embrace the areas of publishing, communication and management, plus specialist areas, such as computer systems support, programming and electronic communications. Skills development can be addressed through a variety of learning processes, including formal education and training courses, lectures, seminars, informal workshops and discussion groups, and ‘on the job’ coaching sessions. Secondments, study visits and self-study breaks are also popular and useful. Depending on the topic, some learning environments are more appropriate than others. For example, training in the use of computer software may be delivered directly in the workplace, perhaps using real problems to illustrate how the software is used. Conversely, training in matters of corporate policy and management may need to be tackled in discussion groups free from the everyday distractions of the workplace. In general, highly applied topics, such as the generation of information for policy-making, benefit from a combination of experience-sharing and formal instruction.

• Facilities The network’s facilities should support its needs for information product development (see Volume 3). Typical facilities embrace the equipment necessary to gather and process data, through to the facilities needed to publish and distribute information. Although computer equipment (including communication technologies) tends to dominate discussions of information management facilities, the need for physical infrastructure, such as buildings and transport, should also be considered.

20


Requirements for facilities are best specified in functional terms (i.e. the tasks which need to be done), rather than focusing on particular equipment brands or models. The latter change very rapidly and should be selected on the basis of proven experience or following independent advice. A process of tender is often applied to the procurement of equipment, allowing quotations from a range of potential suppliers to be compared in advance of purchase (Aronoff 1991). Organisations may wish to share the burden of acquiring and maintaining facilities by doing so as a group, particularly where they are expensive or used only intermittently (e.g. specialist data collection or processing devices). When acquiring new facilities, due consideration should be given to training needs, running costs, maintenance and technical support. This is particularly relevant to computer equipment which, although not always essential, can significantly enhance information management capacity (see Volume 7).

• Management systems The management policies, systems and procedures adopted by the network’s partners bind together its physical assets into a cohesive information management capacity. They govern the quality of the contributions made by individual organisations to the network, and affect the degree to which constructive partnerships are formed. Organisations evolve a particular style of doing things, based upon their histories, the personalities of their staff, and the degree to which they are constrained by bureaucracy and resources. Like human cultures, organisational ‘cultures’ evolve naturally and need not necessarily be changed unless they are ineffective. Where this is the case, change is often encouraged to emerge from within the organisation, perhaps with external facilitation, unless exceptional circumstances prevail. For example, the organisation may not be fulfilling its obligations to provide access to data, or may be failing to ensure the safety of its staff. Organisations evolve their management systems in line with market demands, the expectations of society, and the opportunities created by new technologies. Sometimes this results in job losses, although it can be argued that the efficiencies gained serve to enhance the productivity (and therefore the prospects) of the organisation in the long term. The pace of change has quickened over the last two decades, such are the opportunities presented by global markets and information


21

technology. For example, many organisations have decided to replace their traditional management hierarchies with flexible, self-regulated teams. When deciding how to enhance the management of an organisation, staff at all levels should be engaged in consultation. Almost certainly, it is their vision which will unlock the potential of the organisation. Consultation should not be rushed, since it may take considerable effort to assess, reconcile and consolidate the different views expressed. Typical areas to examine include project management, reporting and control, performance assessment, time management, management of human resources, and management of external cooperation.

• Partnerships Partnerships between organisations are a relatively unexploited form of capacity, with many organisations still preferring to duplicate each other’s activities. Making partnerships an obvious, attractive way of doing business is one of the greatest challenges for an information network, and much progress still has to be made (see Volumes 4 and 5). Partnership generally occurs at two levels: the management level, where formal agreements may be signed to develop or confirm long-term alliances; and at the operational level, where data and expertise can be given, bartered or sold to address urgent and immediate challenges. At the management level, formal ties, such as Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) and ‘twinning’ arrangements, provide helpful frameworks in which to plan cooperative activities. At the operational level, cooperation can be facilitated through various cooperative activities, including joint project teams, shared training courses, seminars, workshops, formal secondments and by encouraging informal communications between staff. Ideally, the sharing of data, expertise and facilities should become an everyday activity amongst the network’s partners. This can be promoted through the agreement of consistent principles, policies and procedures for cooperation, and by building trust through common objectives and a spirit of fair dealing.

22


5

CASE STUDY: BIODIVERSITY DATA MANAGEMENT (BDM) PROJECT, GHANA

5.1

Overview

Several policies and programmes exist in Ghana for sustainable development of natural resources and the environment. Ghana’s Vision 2020, for example, sets the framework for Ghana to become a middle income country by the year 2020, recognising that success will depend on the integration of science and technology in the various development programmes to ensure the integrity of the environment. The National Environmental Policy seeks, among other objectives, to maintain ecosystems and ecological processes essential for the functioning of the biosphere, and to ensure the sound management of natural resources and the environment. Other framework documents include the National Forestry and Wildlife Policy (1993), Ghana Wildlife Policy (1994), and the Forestry Development Master Plan (1996), which provide for the establishment of a viable system of ecologically-representative protected areas, and seek to increase public awareness of the benefits of conservation and biodiversity. Further, a policy and legislative framework for bioprospecting is currently in preparation. Key project initiatives include the Ghana Environmental Resource Management Project (GERMP), which commenced in 1993 for five years and whose primary objectives are to support implementation of the National Environmental Action Plan (1988), and to strengthen the capacity of both government and society at large to manage environmental resources. A component of this project is the development of an environmental information system for: 1.

the collection of information to monitor environmental quality against agreed threshold levels; and

2.

for the collection, interpretation and presentation of topographic, present land use, land ownership, land suitability and meteorological information determined by the needs of information users, planners and managers of environmental resources (World Bank 1992).

Other landmark initiatives include the Forest Resource Management Project (World Bank 1988), and its successor, the Natural Resources Management Project Volume 6 Information Management Capacity

23

aimed at sector policy reforms, management strengthening and institution building to facilitate the sustainable use and development of forest, wildlife and natural resources. Actions Ghana has taken specifically in support of the CBD include the Biodiversity Country Study, which is providing baseline information on the status of biodiversity in the country, the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, and the Biodiversity Data Management Strategy, which is an output of the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project.

5.2

The BDM Project

In order to assist countries with the implementation of the CBD, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in collaboration with WCMC and others initiated a GEF-funded project entitled Biodiversity Data Management Capacity in Developing Countries and Networking Biodiversity Information (BDM). The overall objective of the Project is to facilitate the building of national capacity for biodiversity data management and exchange as required by the CBD. Focusing on developing countries and initially on biodiversity data compiled in the parallel Biodiversity Country Studies Project, it aims to mobilise these data as a key instrument in building advanced national capacity for planning biodiversity strategies and actions for conservation and sustainable use. The Project provided for ten countries (including Ghana) to participate in the following activities:

•

conducting a national institutional survey, to report on the existing national capability for data management;

•

preparing a national plan for the management and application of biodiversity data in support of the CBD;

•

developing a series of basic guidelines to support efficient information management; and

•

compiling a resource inventory as a ‘toolbox’ of available methods and technologies from which countries can draw upon selectively to suit their needs, involving both North-South and South-South cooperation.

24


The Project is now almost complete in Ghana. Key outputs include the Institutional Survey Report and the Ghana Biodiversity Data Management Strategy.

5.3

Institutional Survey

In support of the Ghana Biodiversity Data Management Strategy, an institutional survey was conducted focusing on three main topics: 1.

the information management capability of organisations within Ghana, notably the availability of human resources (expertise) and technical facilities;

2.

linkages between the organisations surveyed, notably those involving the transfer of data (including some overseas);

3.

the national coverage of datasets on biodiversity themes.

In compiling the survey report, over 120 organisations (government, research/academic organisations, information centres, NGOs and international agencies) were approached, using a questionnaire similar to that provided in Annex 2. In addition, a national workshop on the institutional survey was held in July 1996. It should be noted that Ghana was one of three counties (with Poland and Thailand) which tested and reviewed the preliminary questionnaire developed for the Project by WCMC. Of the organisations approached, 30 were fully assessed in the report. Some of the major findings were as follows:

•

There is a need for both facilities (e.g. hardware, software and electronic communications) and human resources (e.g. computer scientists, information analysts) in the majority of organisations surveyed.

• •

The use of computers for managing biodiversity data was generally low.

•

There is a high degree of dataset complementarity between organisations surveyed and the data are generally considered to be well maintained.

There is a relatively high degree of data flow between organisations, with around half considered to be major providers and users of biodiversity data.


25

• •

Most datasets are available during working hours.

•

It would be beneficial to extend the study to organisations that did not initially respond.

Although there is a wide range of taxonomic groups, biomes and land-use categories covered, gaps in dataset coverage do exist and are present due to lack of funds, absence of trained manpower, and unavailability of equipment and/or laboratory facilities. Further, whatever data exist tend to be scanty, scattered and not in forms that lend themselves well to policy-relevant analysis.

The full survey report, providing results and analysis, is given in Oteng-Yeboah and Bamfo, 1996.

5.4

Ghana Biodiversity Data Management Strategy

A key output of the BDM Project in Ghana is a strategy for how to translate the country’s biodiversity data into information products and services for decision-makers capable of influencing implementation of the CBD. The Strategy comprises the following sections:

• •

Introduction: provides background to preparation of the Strategy.

•

Biological resources in Ghana: an outline of the resource base of the country, conservation concerns, and resource management, particularly in the context of the wildlife and forestry sectors.

•

Biodiversity information: key issues in the production of information in support of decision-making, potential users of the GBDMS, and definition of priority information products and services are considered. The standard products which are suggested include:

National development context: this section considers development of the Ghana Biodiversity Data Management System (GBDMS) in the context of Vision 2020 and current environmental policy.

1.

26

Ghana Biodiversity Report: envisaged to be a series of reports on specific natural resource conditions, changes and policy measures which affect biodiversity; WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management

2.

Biodiversity Data Compendium: an indicator-based product aimed at collating and presenting accurate and reliable data and other facts related to biodiversity in Ghana, and providing a tool for referral, forecasting and action planning;

3.

Ghana Biodiversity Update: intended to be a bulletin to inform on the status of implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity; and

4.

National Biodiversity Assessment: an annual report to review issues and problems affecting biodiversity; highlight key concerns; present data; outline achievements of on-going interventions; document new knowledge and experience; and propose new policy directions and follow-up actions.

•

Data resources: following from the institutional survey, this section provides an overview of data types available in the country and further requirements in the production of priority information products.

•

Data handling: consideration of system requirements in the development of the GBDMS, which is envisaged to be a distributed network of integrated information centres and custodians managing and sharing data in accordance with agreed procedures and standards. The GBDMS, in being a GIS-centred data management system, is to build on and complement the spatial framework developed for land-related datasets within the Environmental Information System under the GERMP initiative. A prototype GBDMS will demonstrate how such a system can be used to highlight biodiversity and sustainable development issues.

•

Management of biodiversity data: considerations include the national framework for managing data within GBDMS (e.g. through constitution of an inter-agency Steering Committee; Technical Committee to oversee development of the system, with responsibilities such as identifying and prioritising data and information requirements, carrying out needs assessments, identifying data gaps and recommending relevant custodians, developing quality standards, along with procedures and protocols for data exchange, and making inputs into national environmental information policy; establishing a network of data centres, and a GBDMS hub to facilitate the flow of data and information), issues of custodianship, data management standards and guidelines, and data exchange, with attention being given to GBDMS adopting a standard framework for standardising and harmonising date to enhance exchange and use.


27

•

Capacity development: the final section considers institutional strengthening, human resources and training, network strengthening, and technology issues. The long-term goal for institutional strengthening is to build a strong, self-sustaining basis for the management of biodiversity data in Ghana. Actions necessary to implement the GBDMS over a three-year period are outlined and an indicative budget is presented (RSAU Draft).

To date, the institutional survey has helped to identify those organisations most appropriate to serve as data centres and custodians of priority datasets. The development of biodiversity data infrastructure under GBDMS will involve further detailed surveys of organisations and their data holdings. This will allow for an assessment of capacity, identification of important data gaps, and will enable capacity building within the GBDMS network for the production of priority information products.

28


6

REFERENCES

Aronoff, S. 1991. Geographic Information Systems: A Management Perspective. WDL Publications, Ottawa, Canada. BCIS 1996. Biodiversity Conservation Information System: Programme Description. BCIS Steering Committee, Gland, Switzerland. [http://www.biodiversity.org] Government of Egypt 1997. Biodiversity Data Management Plan. National Biodiversity Unit, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Cairo, Egypt. Government of Sri Lanka 1996a. Directory of Information Sources for the Management of Biodiversity: 1996. Biodiversity Cell, Ministry of Transport, Environment and Women’s Affairs, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Government of Sri Lanka 1996b. Framework Biodiversity Action Plan: Development of Database, Collation of Available Information and Identification of Information Gaps. Final Submission. Ministry of Transport, Environment and Women’s Affairs, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Government of Thailand 1997. Thailand’s Biodiversity Data Management Action Plan. Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand. Government of the United Kingdom 1995. Biological Recording in the United Kingdom: Present practice and future development. Volume 2: Appendices. Department of the Environment, London, UK. Medyckyj-Scott, D., Cuthbertson, M. and Newman, I. 1996. Discovering environmental data: metadatabases, network information resource tools and the GENIE system. Int. J. Geographical Information Systems. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp 65-84. Oteng-Yeboah, A.A. and Bamfo, R.K. 1996. Ghana Biodiversity Data Management Institutional Survey – Final Report. Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Accra, Ghana. RSAU (Draft). Ghana Biodiversity Data Management Strategy. Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Accra, Ghana.


29

UNEP/WCMC 1998. Guide to National Institutional Survey in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. WCMC 1994. Availability of Biodiversity Information in East Africa. Compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. FAO, Dar es Salaam. World Bank 1988. Staff Appraisal Report: Ghana – Forest Resource Management Project. The World Bank, Washington DC, USA. World Bank 1992. Staff Appraisal Report: Republic of Ghana – Environmental Resource Management Project. The World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

30


ANNEX 1

SAMPLE COVERING LETTER

This letter represents the output of a fictitious National Biodiversity Committee attempting to survey sources of data and expertise which could contribute to the preparation of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.


31

Survey of Biodiversity Information in support of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Why are we conducting a survey? The Government has embarked upon the preparation of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to provide a framework for the conservation and sustainable use of the country’s rich heritage of living resources. As one of the first steps in this process, we are attempting to survey sources of information which may be of use to policy-makers and resource managers in the public and private domains. In particular, we aim to identify key gaps in data, expertise and information management facilities which need to be addressed for improved availability of biodiversity information. It should be stressed that the Government does not intend to use the survey results to relieve organisations of any of their data management responsibilities. Rather, the Government is attempting to help policy-makers, resource managers, researchers and the general public to gain access to information about biodiversity more easily than they have been able to before.

What benefits will this bring? Two important products of the survey will be distributed to all of those taking part, and more widely as appropriate. These are as follows: 1.

Catalogue of Biodiversity Data Sources, containing details of key datasets and information sources relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of living resources. Once this is published, the Government intends to update it annually. The catalogue will summarise information about:

• organisations managing biodiversity data • major datasets and information sources which are available (including access procedures)

• relevant sources of expertise. 2.

National Biodiversity Information Management Plan, detailing priority investments, efficiencies and collaborative programmes which will be implemented to enhance the management of biodiversity information.

In addition, your involvement in the survey provides an opportunity to review the current state of your information management capacity and to consider what steps, such as investments, efficiencies and partnerships, are required to enable your organisation to respond more effectively to national needs.

32


How will the survey be implemented? The survey will be implemented through the use of two separate questionnaires, relating to institutional details and datasets respectively. Only one copy of the former should be completed per organisation (or sub-organisation as appropriate). Multiple copies of the latter may be completed, one for each major dataset managed by the organisation.

Will any help be available? To help you complete the questionnaires, we have organised two half-day workshops during which we will walk you through the questions and address any difficulties you may have. If you would like to attend one of these workshops, please try to complete as much of the questionnaire as possible beforehand so that your difficulties are clearly identified. In addition to the workshops you are welcome to telephone this office at any time to discuss all aspects of the survey on 0129 228943.

When should the questionnaires be returned? Questionnaires should be returned by September 1 1997, providing ample time for organisations to complete the forms and subject them to internal review. Remembering that this is as much your initiative as ours, we do hope that you respond both fully and quickly to the survey. Thank you and good luck,

Chairperson National Biodiversity Committee


33

ANNEX 2

SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

Comprising:

Form 1:

Institutional Details

Form 2:

Datasets

Two separate forms are provided since most organisations have more than one, perhaps many datasets to describe, whereas institutional details need to be recorded only once. Before using this questionnaire, the organisers of the survey may consider reviewing and adapting it to suit local conditions.

34


Form 1

Institutional Details

(fill in one copy of this form per organisation or sub-organisation as appropriate) CONTACT DETAILS Name of organisation:

Acronym:

Full postal address:

Telephone number:

Fax number:

Email:

Web-site:

Name of host organisation(s) (if applicable): Contact person:

Position:

Telephone number:

Extension:

DESCRIPTION Which of the following best describes your organisation (tick any which apply)?

0 0 0

Governmental Private Profit

0 0 0

Semi-governmental Non-governmental

0 0

Local authority Charity

Non-profit

Other (please specify):

At what levels does your organisation operate (tick any which apply)?

0 0

International District (or similar)

0 0

National Local

0 0

State (or similar) Community



35

DESCRIPTION (CONT.) What is the core business of your organisation (tick any which apply)?

0 0 0 0 0 0

Facilitation Trade

0 0

Industry

Resource management Environmental protection Information/monitoring Outreach

0 0

Coordination

0 0 0 0

0 0

Regulation Service

Administration Consultancy

Nature conservation

0 0 0

Policy Research Lobbying

Law Education/training Campaigning


What is the annual turnover of your organisation in US$ (optionally tick one)?

0 5M

How many staff does your organisation employ (tick one)?

0 250

Enter the mission statement of your organisation:

Note any programmes or projects which may be relevant to this survey: 1. 2. 3.

Does your organisation have an information strategy? Does it have a data quality policy? Does it have a data exchange policy?

36

0 0 0

yes yes yes

0 0 0

no no no


INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Indicate whether your organisation manages/uses/needs any of the following information: Manages Land use

Forestry Agriculture/livestock Fisheries Nature conservation Indigenous peoples Tourism Water Mining Energy Transport Urban planning Other (please specify) ......................................... .........................................

Ecosystems

Forest Woodland/scrub Grassland Heathland/moorland Freshwater Coastal and marine Dryland/desert High altitude Other (please specify) ......................................... .........................................

Species/genes

Mammals Birds Reptiles/amphibians Fish Insects Other invertebrates Bacteria Viruses Plants (higher) Plants (lower) Germplasm/tissue Genebanks Other (please specify) ......................................... .........................................


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Uses

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Needs

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (CONT.) Manages Social/ economic/ political

Culture Health, welfare and equity Land tenure and property Demography and population Policies, plans and laws Public administration and governance Trade and industry Sustainable development Other (please specify) ......................................... .........................................

Physical features

Hydrology Geology Soils Topography Climate Other (please specify) ......................................... .........................................

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Uses

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Needs

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPERTISE Indicate the number of staff in your organisation with expertise in the following areas: Post Graduate graduate

Diploma

Short course

School leaver

Total

Strategic planning Project management Quality management

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

Data collection/monitoring Data entry/quality assurance Data analysis Technical writing Graphic design/publishing Communications/marketing

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Management information systems Geographic information systems Database development Systems management Local area networks Internet access/web-site

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

38


EXPERTISE (CONT.) Post Graduate graduate

Diploma

Short course

School leaver

Total

Public education/awareness Training/workshops Other technical assistance

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

Forestry Agriculture/livestock Fisheries Nature conservation Indigenous peoples Tourism Water Mining Energy Transport Urban planning

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Environmental protection Environmental impact assessment Environmental economics

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____

Health, welfare and equity Land tenure and property Demography and population Policies, plans and laws Public administration Trade and industry Sustainable development

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Ecology Biogeography Conservation biology Taxonomy/systematics Hydrology Geology Soils Climate

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

.................................................

____

____

____

____

____

____

.................................................

____

____

____

____

____

____

.................................................

____

____

____

____

____

____



39

EXPERTISE (CONT.) Which areas of expertise does your organisation most need to develop?

1. 2. 3. FACILITIES Indicate what facilities your organisation owns or has access to (in good working order):

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Communications

Telephone Fax Email accounts Internet access points

Computers

IBM-PC 386 or lower IBM-PC 486 or higher UNIX workstation Macintosh


.................................................

Operating systems

DOS Windows 3.1/3.11/95/NT UNIX/Linux Macintosh Local Area Network


.................................................

Geographic information systems

PC-ARC/INFO Workstation ARC/INFO ArcView MapInfo


.................................................

40

yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

yes yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0 0

no no no no no

users: users: users: users: users:

yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0

no no no no

users: users: users: users:

yes yes yes yes

no no no no

total: total: total: total:

no no no no

total: total: total: total:

.................................................

0 0 0 0 0

.................................................

0 0 0 0

.................................................


FACILITIES (CONT.) Database Management xBASE Systems Access Oracle

0 0 0


.................................................

Related software

Image processing Statistical/modelling Desktop publishing Graphics/presentation


.................................................

Data input/output

Digitising tables Scanners Plotters Colour printers


.................................................

Field survey

Vehicles Global positioning systems Laptop computers


.................................................

Miscellaneous

Library Photocopier In-house printing


.................................................

yes yes yes

0 0 0

no no no

users: users: users:

yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0

no no no no

users: users: users: users:

yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0

no no no no

total/size: total/size: total/size: total:

yes yes yes

0 0 0

no no no

total: total: total:

yes yes yes

0 0 0

no no no

books: total:

.................................................

0 0 0 0

.................................................

0 0 0 0

.................................................

0 0 0

.................................................

0 0 0

.................................................

Which facilities does your organisation most need to acquire or strengthen? 1. 2.


41

PARTNERSHIPS Please provide details of the most important networks, steering groups or committees (relevant to biodiversity conservation) with which your organisation is involved: Network, steering group or committee 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Coordinate

Facilitate

Participate

Support

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Estimate how many organisations regularly provide data or information to your organisation: Provide details of the most important of these as follows: Organisation

Data or information provided

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Formal agreement/MoU

0 0 0 0 0

yes yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0 0

no no no no no

Estimate how many organisations regularly receive data or information from your organisation: Provide details of the most important of these as follows: Organisation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 42

Data or information provided


0 0 0 0 0

yes yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0 0

no no no no no


PARTNERSHIPS (CONT.) Your organisation may also share other resources, for example expertise and facilities. Provide details of the most important of these as follows: Organisation

Nature of cooperation


0 0 0 0 0

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

yes yes yes yes yes

0 0 0 0 0

no no no no no

Please provide details of any partnerships which are being planned in the near future: Organisation

Proposed cooperation

1. 2. 3.

CONCLUSION How could your organisation contribute most effectively to a biodiversity information network? 1. 2. 3. What would you expect from such a network? 1. 2. 3.


43

Form 2

Datasets

(fill in one copy of this form per dataset managed by your organisation or sub-organisation as appropriate) CONTACT DETAILS Title of dataset: Contact person:

Position:

Telephone number:

Extension:

DESCRIPTION Source of data (tick any which apply):

0

Primary research

0

Acquired copy

0

Public domain

0

Mixture

0

Mixture


If not primary research please indicate the original source(s):

Form of data (tick any which apply):

0

Hardcopy

0

Audio-visual

0

Electronic files


Type of data (tick any which apply):

0 0 0 0 0

Books/reports Forms/notes/tables Pictures Card index Maps

0 0 0

Sound recordings Photographs Video/film

0 0 0 0 0

Word processor files

0

Mixture

Spreadsheet Database GIS coverage Other digital files

Other (please specify): 44


DESCRIPTION (CONT.) Geographic coverage of data (tick any which apply):

0

International

0

National

0

0

Local

0

Community

0

State (or similar) Dispersed

0 0

District (or similar) Mixture

Specify more exactly:

Thematic coverage of data (tick any which apply):

0 0

Land use Ecosystems

0 0

Physical features Species

0 0

Social/economic/political Genes

0

Mixture

Post-1900

0

The future

Specify more exactly:

Time period of data (tick any which apply):

0

Pre-history

0

Pre-1900

Specify exactly from:

0 to:

PURPOSE For what purpose was the dataset originally built? 1. 2. 3. Indicate any uses it has been put to subsequently: 1. 2. 3.


45

PURPOSE (CONT.) Are there any uses of the data which would be unwise or improper? Use

Unwise

0 0 0 0 0

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Improper

0 0 0 0 0

Indicate the current limitations, uncertainties and errors in the data: Limitation

0 0 0 0 0

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Uncertainty

0 0 0 0 0

Error

0 0 0 0 0

What is the life-expectancy of the data (tick one)?

0 Everlasting 0 >10 years 0 Immediate future only

0 >5 years

0 >1 year

0 >6 months

DATA DEVELOPMENT When did the development of the dataset begin?

Describe how the data were originally obtained:

46


DATA DEVELOPMENT (CONT.) Indicate which data standards were followed, if any: Data standard 1. 2. 3. Describe the main processing, interpretation and quality-assurance tasks which were later applied: Task applied

Processing

0 0 0 0 0

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Interpretation

QA

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Which of the following best describes the status of the data (tick one)?

0

Complete

0

Nearing completion

0 Under-development 0 Early stages of development

DATA MANAGEMENT

0

Are the data actively managed?

yes

0

no

How many people help manage the data (tick one)?

0

None

0

0

1

1–5

0

>5

0

>10

How regularly are they updated (tick one)?

0 0 0

Every day Every six months Every ten years

0 0 0

Every week Every year Never

0 0 0

Every month Every two years No need

0 0

Every quarter Every five years

Other (please specify): When were they last updated?


47

ACCESS PROCEDURES Which of the following best describes access to the data (tick one)?

0 0

0

0

Unrestricted Restricted to some Unavailable for external use

Restricted to most

Where access is provided, which of the following applies (tick one)?

0 0

Free

0

0

Free to most

Free to some

Charged

Where charges are made, how are these determined (optionally tick one)?

0

Cost recovery

0

0

Cost plus overhead

Market value

Where access is provided, in what formats are the data available (tick any which apply)?

0 0

Hardcopy Internet (FTP)

0 0

Floppy disk Magnetic tape

0 0

0 0

CD-ROM DAT

Email Private network


Has the dataset been documented for external users?

0

yes

0

no

Where access is provided, briefly describe the recommended access procedures:

THANKS Congratulations on completing this questionnaire. Your efforts are much appreciated. Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible.

48



Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals Volume 7

Data Management Fundamentals




1998


Published by


ISBN

0-85092-550-9

Copyright


Citation

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management. Volume 7: Data Management Fundamentals. Reynolds, J.H. (Series Editor). Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ix + 33pp.

Typeset by


Cover design

Michael Edwards

Photography by


Available from



INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

DATA FLEXIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3

DATA STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 3.2 3.3

4

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Types of Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Development of Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

DATA QUALITY-ASSURANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Quality-assurance Procedures . 4.3 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Documentation . . . . . . . . 4.6 Data Security . . . . . . . . .

5

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

10 10 12 14 15 16

USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1 5.2 5.3

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Selecting Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Database Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6

CASE STUDY: TREE CONSERVATION DATABASE . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Target Audience . . . . . . . 6.3 Information Needs Analysis . 6.4 Database Design. . . . . . . 6.5 Applications Development . 6.6 Data Standards . . . . . . . 6.7 Data Quality . . . . . . . . . 6.8 Cooperation and Partnership

7

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

25 26 26 28 28 30 30 31

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The generous support of the United Kingdom’s Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species has provided for the development of a comprehensive programme of training in biodiversity information management. This programme comprises an international training team, drawing on expertise from collaborating organisations around the world; the preparation of a training resource in the form of a handbook series and related materials; and the development of computer-based demonstration tools. Training is being promoted through the delivery of post-graduate modules, and through regional and national workshops which have received additional support from The British Council, British Airways Assisting Conservation Scheme, and contributions from participating organisations. The programme has been appropriately titled Darwin Initiative Training in Biodiversity Information Management. Development of the handbooks has also benefited from experiences gained through the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, administered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and related initiatives supported through the European Union (EU) and European Environment Agency (EEA). Indeed, Volume 6 draws extensively on one of the key outputs of the BDM Project, the Guide to National Institutional Survey (UNEP/WCMC 1998), developed in consultation with participating countries, the BDM Advisory Committee and the UNEP management team. The concept of an information cycle was developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The handbooks have been published through the generous support of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Fundamental to the development of this programme have been the partnerships established with training organisations around the world. These organisations have worked collaboratively in hosting workshops, in reviewing the handbook materials, and in providing guidance on how regional and national training needs can be met most effectively. The training programme has significantly benefited from the input of numerous individuals working in the field of biodiversity information management. Among these individuals, particular mention goes to Professor Ian Crain and Gwynneth Martin of the Orbis Institute, Ottawa, Claire Appleby, an independent consultant, and to Drs Jake Reynolds and John Busby of WCMC for their insightful work in developing the handbook series. Thanks are also extended to Laura Battlebury for her tireless administrative and logistical support. The series Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals

v


vi



Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals

vii


viii




ix

1

INTRODUCTION

Organisations which are assigned — and accept — responsibility for managing datasets are known as custodians (see Volumes 4 and 5). They will normally be regarded as being in the best, or most appropriate position to do so. The custodianship of essential datasets is especially important, since these are needed by many users for many purposes (see Volume 3). Examples include the basic demographic, geographic and biological data underpinning the analysis of human impacts on the environment. The key requirement is to manage data in such a way that they can be readily converted into a variety of information products, for a variety of users, thus ensuring that they are flexible enough to respond to the demands of decision-making. This is a difficult challenge for custodians, but one which pays off with an efficient information infrastructure. The goal is to collect, store and quality-assure data just once, but access them many times for many different purposes (UK Government 1995). In order to reap the benefits of efficient infrastructure, including lower costs and better services to users, custodians require certain basic capacities. These may need to be strengthened, perhaps in collaboration with other organisations, to ensure that the right balance of data, expertise, facilities, management systems and partnerships is available (see Volume 6). However, capacity alone does not breed efficiency; some fundamental insights and processes relating to the management of data must also be considered. These are summarised below and are examined in later sections.

• Data flexibility Data should be stored in their primary form, not classified, aggregated, or otherwise interpreted, so that they can be employed in the widest possible range of applications.

• Data standards Data should be collected, managed and distributed following agreed standards or conventions. This reduces transaction costs and facilitates comparison of results in space and time.


1

• Data quality-assurance Data quality — which is a measure of the fitness for use of a dataset for a specific purpose — may be assured through a number of processes, including data validation, documentation and protection.

• Appropriate use of technology Data should be managed within an environment that is conducive to data storage, processing and retrieval. Information and communication technologies are ideally suited to this task, and should be applied as appropriate and sustainable.

2


2

DATA FLEXIBILITY

Environmental data record phenomena in the physical environment. Some of these recordings are factual, for example the grid reference of the place where a species was observed, the dimensions of a tree, the weight of a log, the annual precipitation at a site, or the absorptive capacity of a soil profile. These are all primary data based on facts which can be measured against stable, widely accepted standards. Secondary or derived data are obtained from primary data by a process of classification or interpretation, either at the time of measurement or later. Examples include species name, vegetation type, forest canopy extent and climatic zone. Derived data are not a substitute for primary data, and should not be stored permanently unless the primary data used to create them are also available. This is because derived data slowly degrade in value and, ultimately, become useless as concepts and paradigms shift. For example, if the only data on species distribution is an outline drawn on a map, this may become redundant if the species is split or otherwise disaggregated following a taxonomic revision. A better approach would be to store the primary data relating to the identification and location of the species in the field, so that new outlines can be derived as necessary. Primary data are much more flexible than derived data. They can be used for a wider range of applications because they have not been modified for a specific function. For instance, daily rainfall measurements in millimetres from a local weather station can be used to assess local climatic fluctuations. They can also be fed into national or international climate monitoring programmes, or be integrated with other data to assess the capability of an area to support biodiversity. If the rainfall measurements had been classified at time of collection into, say, five secondary categories (e.g. very low, low, medium, high, very high), then this flexibility would have been lost, resulting in fewer potential applications for the data (such categories may be too coarse or meaningless in other contexts). To ensure that data remain flexible, they should be collected and stored in their primary form, not classified, aggregated or otherwise interpreted. However, this rule does not need to be implemented rigidly; it may be subjected to intelligent assessment in each case. No one, for example, would refuse to store the names of species, even though they are susceptible to change. The process of deciding which type of data to store involves risk assessment. Given the high costs of collecting and managing data, the benefits of doing so needs to be balanced against the risk that data will become obsolete or prove to be inflexible. To assist with this judgement, Box 1 highlights the Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals

3

key characteristics of primary and derived data, and compares these with the information that both can be used to generate (see Volume 3). It should be noted that perceptions of primary data and derived data vary considerably, according to the particular individuals or organisations concerned. For example, derived data to a scientific researcher may be regarded as primary data by a policy-maker, and be subjected to further analysis and interpretation. Despite differences in perception, the principle of storing primary data holds true within any particular domain, although between domains it may not.

Box 1

The nature of data and information

• Primary data These are facts which result from measurements or observations about the world, referenced to stable, widely accepted standards. The latter include absolute measures, such as units of length, volume or density.

• Derived data These are data obtained from primary data by a process of classification or interpretation, either at the time of measurement or later. They may be referenced to absolute measures but more commonly relate to professionally agreed conventions and products, for example maps which comply with an accepted structure and format.

• Information This is altogether different to data: it is the knowledge derived from the analysis, integration and interpretation of data, including ‘expert’ opinion. Unlike data, which may be applied to a range of purposes, information is produced for a specific purpose and has a short shelf life. Because of its transient nature, information should not be stored in databases unless this is judged to be cost-effective.

4


3

DATA STANDARDS

3.1

Overview

Standards enable people to communicate with each other in recognisable ways: languages are a good example. In the present context, data standards refer to agreed methods of collecting, managing and accessing data amongst a group of organisations. In the same way that language standards enable more efficient (and cheaper) communication, data standards enable more efficient use of data. The chief advantages of data standards are as follows:

• Lower transaction costs If data are available in standard formats, based on standard collection methodologies, users can absorb them more easily into their work. However, if standards are not applied then data may be perceived as incompatible, inappropriately focused or otherwise unusable. In summary, lower transaction costs are associated with accessing and using data when they are managed according to recognised standards.

• Comparison of results Without agreement on data standards, organisations tend to employ their own methods of collecting and managing data which, due to differences, complicate integration of the data with other sources at a later stage. Even within an organisation, methods may be applied inconsistently by different groups, or at different points in time. Data standards overcome this problem by enabling comparison of results in space and time, and between different sources.1 Admittedly, reaching agreement on data standards is a time-consuming, largely intellectual, activity requiring concrete and determined action to succeed. However, there is no other realistic way of reducing transaction costs or maximising the value

1

This is particularly relevant to the study of natural phenomena which, due to their incremental nature, tend to reveal themselves over long periods of time.


5

of expensively produced data. Data management is a resource-intensive activity, and it can be disappointing to discover that otherwise well-managed data are unusable due to lack of standardisation. This can be avoided by building in conformity from the early stages of a data management project, with the intention of widening the potential range of uses of data which are developed.

3.2

Types of Standard

Standards may be applied to all aspects of data management, from data collection and storage, to quality-assurance and distribution. They define accepted formats, structures, systems and procedures for managing data. Mostly, they define only minimum requirements, allowing those following the standards to exceed the requirements as appropriate. For example, a standard method of recording species’ distributions might require observers to provide a location, date and species name for each observation. Observers would be welcome, however, to record any number of other factors in addition to this minimum set. Some of the potential range of data standards is described below.

• Collection Recording/measuring techniques for specific themes (e.g. biological records, human impacts, policy performance, sustainability); classification systems (e.g. soils, vegetation, climate, species names); criteria for assessing threats to biological resources.

• Storage Core data models/database structures; storage formats and media; methods of data retrieval; use of information technology; maintenance procedures.

• Quality-assurance Validation, maintenance and security procedures; documentation formats.

6


• Distribution Product definitions (e.g. map keys, acknowledgements, symbols); reporting formats; data transfer formats (interchange standards); protocols for electronic communication of files. It is not always feasible or even desirable for organisations to adopt every type of standard. They may have their own, highly effective ways of managing data which could become compromised, possibly disrupted, by the blanket introduction of new and unfamiliar standards. Where increased efficiency is unlikely to follow the introduction of standards, they should not necessarily be pursued. There is one group of standards which will almost always bring efficiencies, at very little cost. These are interchange standards, whose purpose is to streamline the transfer of data. The introduction of interchange standards has very little impact on the way organisations collect and manage their data internally, but has a strong impact on data mobility. Interchange standards focus mainly on the formats and media in which data are transferred. Because they apply solely to the distribution of data, interchange standards are simpler and cheaper to implement than wider-ranging standards. A number of interchange standards already exist for the transfer of biological and geographic data. For example, the International Working Group on Taxonomic Databases for Plant Sciences has developed an International Transfer Format for Botanic Garden Records (Hollis and Brummit 1992). Interchange standards also exist to regulate the transfer of spatial datasets, which are often highly complex due to the varied nature of the data.2 Most of these are based on the formats developed by the manufacturers of geographic information systems (GIS), for example the export formats of ARC/INFO and AutoCAD software. Such standards are privately controlled (i.e. they are proprietary) and may not necessarily reflect the needs of data users. Non-proprietary standards have been developed to address this concern, although they are not yet in widespread use. For example, the Spatial Data Transfer Standard

2

For example, raster data, vector data, three-dimensional data and attribute data.


7

(SDTS), which is coordinated and promoted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), consists of specifications for the organisation and structure of digital data transfer, definitions of spatial features and attributes, and encoding instructions for data transfer (Wortman 1992). The SDTS was approved by the United States Department of Commerce in 1992 (NIST 1992), and has been adopted by several other countries.

3.3

Development of Standards

Information networks provide an opportunity to reconcile existing standards — and agree new ones — in the interests of mobilising data for collective goals. Their development can be facilitated by one or more technical teams, arranged by the network’s hub, who are tasked with reviewing and agreeing standards covering essential themes, and for publishing them for use by the network’s partners (see Volume 4). Data standards are so important to a network that they cannot be overlooked, taken for granted, nor left to specialists who do not fully represent the network’s interests. Recognising that progress towards formally accepted data standards can be slow, organisations often develop their own, interim standards. The latter, sometimes referred to as de facto standards, are commonplace across many scientific themes, often having arisen to suit particular data collection and management priorities. Wherever possible, interim standards should build on existing standards within their theme, rather than risk duplication. For example, international initiatives have so far proposed at least seventeen definitions of sustainable forest management, many of which could be translated into national standards for forest monitoring (WBCSD 1996). As the profile of interim standards is raised, and increasing numbers of organisations begin to adopt them, they may be vetted by the organisations concerned and formalised through publication. A good example of this process is the East African Biodiversity Network, now in its seventh year, which has successfully developed biological recording standards at a regional level. The network, which brings together biodiversity professionals from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, was originally established “in response to the need for biologists and conservationists to develop compatible working systems, from the database formats themselves to having common lists of scientific names” (NMK 1995).

8


A number of working groups were set up to develop data standards appropriate to the region. Taxonomic working groups are developing checklists and other standards for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, aquatic invertebrates and plants. A working group on important bird areas is responsible for listing, prioritising and surveying key sites; other groups are developing a regional gazetteer, habitat classifications, database structures, and policies on data exchange and training. At the international level, the International Working Group on Taxonomic Databases for Plant Sciences (TDWG) was established by the International Union of Biological Sciences in 1985 to explore standardisation and collaboration between major taxonomic databases (Hollis and Brummit 1992). The group brings together all the major working taxonomic databases into a loose confederation. Through a series of international workshops, TDWG has developed a number of standards including the International Transfer Format for Botanic Garden Records (ITF) and a World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. The latter provides four nested levels comprising continents, regions, countries and botanical recording units.


9

4 4.1

DATA QUALITY-ASSURANCE Overview

Data quality is a relative term, for which there are no absolute measures. In practice, data quality is a measure of the fitness for use of a dataset for a specific purpose, and cannot be determined before that purpose is known. For example, a topographic map at a scale of 1:500,000 might be considered ‘high quality’ for national-level planning purposes, but ‘poor quality’ for local planning. Thus, the quality of a dataset is clearly affected by its accuracy and validity, but is not necessarily defined by it. The complexity of natural phenomena means that many environmental measurements are uncertain or subject to error. For example, it is inevitable that some species will be mis-identified in a large-scale biological inventory, even if the highest professional standards are employed. Similarly, the inference of vegetation categories from remotely-sensed satellite imagery will never be 100 percent accurate. Such uncertainties may or may not be a cause for concern, depending on the intended use of the data. Box 2 distinguishes three common forms of deficiency in environmental datasets which may affect data quality. Recognising that most environmental datasets contain deficiencies, it is vital for custodians to pass on an understanding of these when a dataset is distributed for external use — otherwise users may not be able to derive the maximum benefit from it. Clearly, a description of known deficiencies is only one item of information required by users to employ the dataset fully and safely. Others issues to document relate to the accuracy of the data, the standards which have been followed, and the processing techniques which have been applied (see Section 4.5). Procedures aiming to improve the quality of a dataset can be applied from the moment it is collected through to the time that it is distributed for use. These procedures, which are collectively known as quality-assurance procedures, are designed to satisfy the needs and expectations of users.

4.2

Quality-assurance Procedures

Quality-assurance refers to the overall process governing the quality of a product, from the time that it is originated to the time that it is used. In the present context, the 10


Box 2

Forms of deficiency in environmental datasets

• Limitations Limitations are structural deficiencies in a dataset which become clear when it is used for purposes other than originally intended. A good example is the use of a map with an inappropriate scale.

• Uncertainties Uncertainties are introduced when variables are measured against a non-objective standard, for instance when an area is classified as belonging to a particular habitat type which, itself, may be poorly defined.

• Errors Errors are introduced when variables are measured incorrectly against an objective standard, for instance when the depth of a lake is recorded with the digits in the number accidentally transposed, or with the wrong units (e.g. feet instead of metres).

process begins with data collection and ends with distribution of information to users. Quality-assurance procedures can be applied during all stages of this cycle. These include procedures to validate, maintain, document and secure data. It is the responsibility of custodians to ensure that these procedures are implemented in line with accepted standards and user demands (see Volume 5). Policies, judgements and decisions all depend on them doing so. Within an organisation, quality-assurance procedures should be defined within a quality policy that is well understood by appropriate staff. The policy should set challenging objectives and targets for staff to achieve, such as specific levels of numerical or spatial accuracy in data collection, allowable error rates during validation, or consistent standards of documentation. The targets need to be consistently applied across the organisation and be measurable for monitoring and review. As well as internal review, organisations should also seek feedback from users of its products and services. The combination of internal and external reviews Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals

11

allows the organisation to correct deficiencies in data quality and continuously improve its quality-assurance procedures. Figure 1 illustrates the essential steps of the quality-improvement process (adapted from BSI 1994).

Figure 1

Quality-improvement loop

Continuous improvement Agree quality policy

Management review

Set objectives and targets

Monitor and correct

4.3

Implement

Validation

Uncertainties and errors are introduced into a dataset in the natural course of data collection. The aim of validation is to eliminate these completely or reduce them to a background level where they do not interfere with the use of the data. Validation can be a labour-intensive and tedious task, but it is nevertheless a critical quality-assurance procedure. Key activities include:

• • 12

testing the accuracy and reliability of data prior to storage; and introduction of tools and methods to regulate data entry.


Basic tests should be run on data items before they are permanently stored (e.g. before new data items are added to existing datasets). These enable suspect or unusual data items to be identified and brought to the attention of experts for independent assessment. Box 3 describes some basic tests applied to species distribution records prior to inclusion in a large national dataset in Australia (Chapman and Busby 1995). Another good example of the expert assessment process is the validation of bird distribution records in East Africa. Here, national experts validate the vast majority of bird distribution records generated by field survey activities, but very unusual records are processed at the regional level by the Ornithological Sub-committee of the East Africa Natural History Society (Reynolds et al. In press).

Box 3

• • • •

Example validation procedures for species dataset

Records checked to see that all required data fields are present. Scientific names checked for validity. Grid references of terrestrial species checked for being over land, not water. Presence of a species in a certain location tested against a prediction based on bioclimatic factors, and outliers selected for further investigation.

Errors can be introduced into a dataset when it is stored, for instance in a computer. Common errors include the entry of incorrect numbers into a spreadsheet or incorrect boundaries into a map. As an illustration, take the entry of species data into a computer database. Suppose that a particular data entry screen has 10 fields (e.g. family, genus, species, common name, threat category, etc.), each taking, on average, 8 characters to fill. If the success rate of the typist is 99 percent, then the probability of the whole screen being completed correctly is, surprisingly, only 45 percent.3

3

If the probability of a single character being typed correctly is 99 percent (0.99), then the probability of 10 fields, each with 8 characters, being typed correctly is 0.99 (10x8) = 0.45, which is 45 percent.


13

Such errors result largely from lack of care and attention by human operators, and training will help to reduce these. However, they can be reduced even more effectively through the introduction of tools and methods to regulate data entry. These promote consistency and enable operators to identify errors at the earliest detectable moment, so that they do not propagate or become buried in large volumes of other data. A key feature is automatic validation, which involves performing ‘reasonableness’ checks on data items as they are entered, such as the geographic feasibility of a grid reference or the physical possibility of a particular measurement. Unreasonable values (e.g. a land-based animal observed at sea) can then be reported to the data entry operator, who can correct simple mistakes or seek expert advice as required. Even more effective at reducing errors are tools which allow the operator to select values from a set of pre-defined choices, eliminating the possibility of typographic errors completely. Automatic validation is especially useful in situations where consistency of data entry cannot be guaranteed, for instance when data are entered into large datasets by many different staff.

4.4

Maintenance

Most datasets become obsolete if they are left unmanaged for long periods of time. Measuring techniques may be improved, leading to more accurate and reliable data collection; new standards may be agreed, meaning that old structures and assumptions are no longer acceptable; and new formats, media and technologies may be evolved to manage data more efficiently. Unless a dataset is actively maintained, it may simply be overtaken by events leading to a gradual reduction in its usefulness. Key activities include:

• • •

keeping it up to date; making sure it is kept abreast of significant standards; and adapting its structure, format and storage medium in line with user’s needs.

Keeping data up to date involves establishing a routine for continuous, or at least regular, enrichment of a dataset with new data. Many projects fail to take account of this, with datasets being created to serve only immediate project objectives, rather than long-term capacity needs. This is inefficient, since new projects may have to build similar datasets from scratch. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a 14


professionally-managed dataset is that it is maintained not only for immediate uses, but also for other applications — now or in the future — which could potentially benefit. As with other strategic approaches, this can create a funding challenge in the short term. Earlier sections revealed the importance of data standards. These also evolve over time as new opportunities for standardisation are created through information networks and individual partnerships between organisations. Where relevant standards exist, they may be applied to datasets in order to ensure consistency and reduce transaction costs; where they evolve, datasets should evolve with them to maintain these advantages. Over time, increasing numbers of users may apply a dataset to their tasks. Feedback from users, for instance their impressions of the strengths, weaknesses and overall usefulness of the dataset, can be used to adapt the structure, format and medium in which it is made accessible. Note that the dataset itself can be managed in whatever form is discovered to be most efficient by the custodian, but it should be made accessible in the form which is most acceptable to users (see Section 3.2). The opportunities created by rapidly-changing information technologies, storage media and low-cost communications, impose a continuous challenge on those attempting to maintain datasets. However, it is far more important for data managers to maintain the content of their data than worry about keeping up with the latest technology; from a user’s perspective, all that is required is a simple and cheap source of quality-assured data.

4.5

Documentation

When a dataset is released to an external user, knowledge of its limitations, uncertainties and errors is lost unless this understanding is passed on in the form of documentation. As well as knowledge of its deficiencies, users may require a host of other items of information in order to employ the dataset fully and safely. In the past, custodians rarely devoted much attention to documenting their datasets. This was because the latter were usually built for one specific project by people who well understood the nature of the data, including its deficiencies. At the end of the project the data were archived, filed or neglected. Today, however, datasets may be used many times for many purposes, and documentation is regarded as a Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals

15

strategic asset enabling custodians to maximise the value they derive from a specific data source. One of the driving forces of this change is the growth of information networks which depend on organisations being granted simple and cost-effective access to data. In summary, custodians document their datasets for two important reasons:

•

to increase internal effectiveness by clarifying the function and quality of their datasets; and

•

to facilitate use of their data by others.

Box 4 lists some potential aspects of a dataset to document. The fundamental principle to follow is truth in labelling. This means that the dataset should be exactly as described and of a quality which is suitable for its stated and implied uses. Assessments of the completeness and accuracy of documentation should be undertaken periodically, especially in the case of essential datasets (see Volume 3), preferably by an independent auditing team.

4.6

Data Security

A range of operational procedures are necessary to guarantee the security of a dataset. This applies whether or not data have been computerised. Indeed, if they are not in electronic form, then it may be considerably more difficult to manage them securely. In general, threats to electronic data security tend to be greatest where the physical environment is hostile to computing equipment (e.g. extremes of temperature, high humidity or dust), where electronic interference is strong (e.g. in hospitals, industrial plants, locations near transmitters), where power supplies are uneven or unpredictable, and where informal and therefore virus-prone computer networks are the primary means of data transfer. The most important requirement is to protect data from accidental erasure, which may occur due to human error in copying and reorganising files, updating records or other ‘maintenance’ procedures. Erasure may also occur due to mechanical failure of disk drives, or logical faults caused by power failures or fluctuations. Computer viruses also pose a threat to data security, although this is often greatly over-estimated (they certainly are a nuisance however).

16


Box 4

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Aspects of a dataset to document

Title/theme. Contact details of custodian. Intended/unwise/improper uses. Accuracy/resolution/scale. Data collection methodology (or original sources of data). Data structure/model. Data management standards followed. Processing and interpretation techniques applied. Known limitations, uncertainties and errors. Currency of data. Life expectancy (e.g. date of next update). Quality-assurance procedures applied. Quality targets. Access conditions/procedures/costs. Available formats and media.

Box 5 describes a number of protective measures which help to combat threats to data security. Such procedures can be elaborated within the overall quality policy of the organisation, or be prepared separately in the form of an operating manual. Specific plans to cope with emergencies should also be considered, for instance hardware malfunction, fire or theft. Organisations should accord a high profile to data security. On occasion, an entire project or programme has been forced to close due to loss of essential data. This occurred once in the South Pacific when a freak wave


17

struck the office of a custodian, eliminating its data. No copy of the data was maintained off-site.

Box 5

18

Procedures for protecting data

•

Regular (daily, weekly and monthly) backup of all critical data on removable electronic media (magnetic tape or optical disk).

•

Storage of backup media off-site (away from the workplace) in order to restore data after damage or theft of key equipment.

•

Periodic test restoration of backed-up data to ensure that the procedure is effective.

•

Periodic test recovery from simulated virus attack, hardware malfunction or other disaster.

• •

Regular virus-checking with up to date software.

•

Power regulation via the use of uninterruptable power supplies, surge protectors and radio interference filters.

Avoidance of unlicensed or borrowed software, computer games or other personal software.


5 5.1

USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Overview

If applied in an appropriate and sustainable manner, information technology can lead to considerable cost savings and efficiencies in an organisation. Alternatively, if technology is allowed to dictate strategy, costs are likely to rise and existing work patterns may be disrupted. Such situations demand a fundamental re-appraisal of the role of information technology. In essence, information technology should support, not drive data management objectives. Although data can be managed without modern information technology, the latter has some important advantages over manual techniques. For instance, computers can be used to store large volumes of data and perform very rapid and complex analyses. They can also be used to validate data as they are entered and be used to produce multiple and varied reports from the same data. These advantages widen the range of purposes to which the data may be applied. Information technology also brings certain disadvantages, particularly in the form of additional complexity and costs. Almost every item of new technology brings with it a maintenance, support and training overhead. Box 6 highlights several situations which, on balance, would benefit from the appropriate use of information technology.

5.2

Selecting Technology

In any given situation, the best type of information technology is that which is most appropriate to the tasks at hand — both now and in the future. In particular, the issues of scalability, connectivity, compatibility and sustainability need to be closely examined (see Box 7). Following this analysis, the advantages and disadvantages of different technological solutions should be tested under realistic local conditions before procurement takes place. Although useful, manufacturers descriptions, magazine reviews and specialist information services (e.g. Internet newsgroups and bulletin boards) should not be relied upon for strategic procurement decisions. It should be noted that some characteristics of information technology are subjective, such as the ease of use of a software package or the quality of a scanned Volume 7 Data Management Fundamentals

19

Box 6

Situations where information technology could be ibeneficial

•

Data contain relationships which are too complex, or are too great in volume for the capabilities of manual filing systems or word processors.

• •

It is necessary to integrate data from several sources into a combined output.

• •

Data require extensive searching, sorting or updating.

There is a need for the data to be shared amongst more than one user in a single organisation, or with other organisations.

Frequent and varied reporting of the data is required.

image. Thus, selecting technology purely from a list of features is unlikely to be satisfactory. Like before, a real-life test is the best way of determining whether technology will be suitable under the expected working conditions. A wide range of options exist for managing data. These include single (stand-alone) computers running local copies of data-management software; locally-networked computers with shared software running on a file server (i.e. a Local Area Network or LAN); client-server architectures4 which integrate the best characteristics of personal computers (friendly software and quick response) with the best traits of file servers (high storage capacity, fast data processing, good security); and fully-distributed databases consisting of a series of remote computers linked via permanent or dial-up communication lines (i.e. a Wide Area Network or WAN). The decision as to which option to select should be taken after a thorough examination of the factors summarised in Box 7. Clearly, the nature and extent of the data to be stored will influence this decision greatly, as will the degree to which the data need to be accessed electronically by internal and external users.

4

20

This option is becoming increasingly popular for medium- to large-sized organisations relying heavily on data management for their core business.


Box 7

Considerations when selecting information technology

• Scalability As the number of users, records or attributes grow, an application that once performed well on a low-cost computing architecture can deteriorate in performance quickly. Typically, stand-alone or small network computer architectures are most likely to suffer from this problem, which explains the rise of more sophisticated architectures, such as client-server.

• Connectivity To enable rapid exchange of data between individuals and organisations, electronic connectivity is desirable. This could take the form of a group of locally-networked computers sharing a common storage area, or more sophisticated dial-up communication lines to external services, such as the Internet and private networks. The capacity to connect computers together into more powerful resources is increasingly recognised as the key to rapid access and use of data.

• Compatibility The issue of compatibility is diminishing as manufacturers evolve a range of standard specifications for their IT products. However, the specifications — which are often proprietary in nature — are still too varied and numerous to discount the problem entirely. As far as computing platforms are concerned (i.e. computer hardware plus operating system), major decisions include whether to adopt IBM-PC compatible computers which running derivatives of the Microsoft Windows operating system, or larger workstations running the UNIX. Since the technologies are changing so rapidly, there is really no ‘best’ solution other than to adopt a platform which has proved to be reliable and useful in circumstances similar to those anticipated, working on the principle that, in such cases, compatibility issues are unlikely to cause serious disruption. continued overleaf


21

Box 7

Considerations when selecting information technology (cont.)

• Sustainability For information technology to deliver long-term improvements in effectiveness, sufficient funds and expertise must be available for users to exploit its potential fully and not be disadvantaged by its costs in terms of training, technical support and maintenance. Technology which has proven effective under the prevailing conditions is usually the wisest choice.

One of the most common forms of software used to manage environmental data is the relational database management system (RDBMS). These offer flexibility and performance at modest cost, although they are not designed to manage large-scale textual sources (these are more effectively managed in a word-processing package). Other key software include geographic information systems (GIS), which store, integrate and analyse spatially-referenced data, and tools such as spreadsheets, statistical packages and special-purpose environmental modelling software.

5.3

Database Development

Database development involves designing and building the systems necessary to manage one or more related datasets. Generic methods have been proposed to develop databases, and the ideas presented in following paragraphs attempt to simplify and summarise these. For clarity, database development is partitioned into two phases: database design and applications development.

• Database design This involves identifying the structure and functionality of the database. The required sources of data are made clear, and the integration and processing techniques needed to achieve the desired outputs are identified. The design process gives rise to a functional specification, which is independent of both hardware and software, and does not assume any particular method of physical 22


data organisation (in practice, the technology available — which may be constrained by budgetary limitations — may affect the design of the database). An important part of the design process is data modelling. This is the analysis of data objects and the identification of the relationships among these data objects. A common approach is to use entity-relationship (E-R) diagrams, as developed by Chen (1976). Quite simply, an E-R diagram depicts the contents of a database: an entity (shown as a rectangle) is an object (or ‘thing’) about which data are collected; and a relationship (shown as a line) shows the connections between the entities. The nature of the relationships between the entities indicates the number of occurrences of one entity that may be associated with a single occurrence of the other. Three types of relationship are possible: one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many. For example, the entity ‘Protected Area’ may contain data such as the protected area names, legal status, size and so on. There may be a relationship to a ‘Country’ entity, indicating that each protected area is located within one or more countries (i.e. a one-to-many relationship). Although protected areas normally fall within the borders of a single country, being aware that it is possible for them to straddle more than one country has important implications for design. Indeed, failing to establish the correct relationship at an early design phase could restrict the development of the application at a later date. As discussed in Section 2 of Volume 2, it is vital to identify problems in the design phase, before large investments have been made in implementation. In summary, the design process provides:

ü

a stable base from which to coordinate the development of the database, including the selection of appropriate equipment for implementation;

ü

a conceptual model which is free of implementation considerations, and which can be used as a point of reference when adding to or modifying the functionality of the database; and

ü

a baseline from which an optimum physical data organisation can be produced.


23

• Applications development This involves creating a fully-functioning database using the data management software selected for implementation (see Section 5.2). Entities in the database design become tables in the software, and attributes become table fields. The way in which relationships between the entities are dealt with depends on which software is used; if it does not support some types of data relationship, then this has to be resolved by altering the database design. Each field in the database is documented in terms of its purpose, data type, size and order in its corresponding table. When pooled across all the tables of the database, these definitions are known as the data dictionary of the database, and provide a description of its content, format and structure. After the database tables have been created, they are populated with data. If the data are already computerised, this may be achieved by directly importing them into the database, plus associated re-structuring and formatting. If the data are only available in hard copy form, they will need to be entered manually into the database via the keyboard or, in the case of maps, images and structured text, via other input devices, such as scanners, digitising tablets and related software. Most data management software packages enable developers to customise data entry procedures, for example by enforcing certain formats and validating or correcting data items as they are entered. This concept can be extended to other procedures, such as the querying and reporting of data, and saving data to removable media (e.g. a floppy disk) for back-up or delivery to users. The combination of data entry, querying and reporting features, security features and, of course, the underlying data tables, is known as a database application. Database applications need not be created perfectly at the first attempt. Indeed, there is an advantage in developing prototype applications over a short time frame, and at low cost, in order to provide users with a means of refining their needs from the database. Prototyping was discussed in Volume 3 in the context of information product development, but it is equally useful and, perhaps, more essential during the development of databases. The aim is to allow problems to be identified and corrected early on in the database development process, circumventing costly modifications at a later stage.

24


6

CASE STUDY: TREE CONSERVATION DATABASE

6.1

Overview

With support from the Government of the Netherlands, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and the Species Survival Commission (SSC) are working closely with a range of other national and international organisations to develop a global information service on the conservation and sustainable-use of trees. Reliable and up-to-date information on the distribution, conservation status, local uses and economic values of trees is a priority requirement for the planning of sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation. The Tree Conservation Information Service aims to be of value to individuals and organisations whose decisions rely on access to high quality data and accurate information. Whether determining the best use of local land or negotiating the obligations of an international treaty, authoritative data and information on tree species will inform the process and increase the likelihood that sustainable practices are employed and negative environmental consequences are minimised. The service is underpinned by a Tree Conservation Database, developed with the following objectives:

•

to enable the collation of data on the distribution, conservation status, local uses and economic values of tree species worldwide;

•

to provide a low-cost software tool for the management and reporting of these data; and

•

to provide the basis of a tree conservation information service on the Internet.

The database will be distributed to users in electronic form to enable storage, editing, analysis and reporting of tree-related data. It will also be analysed centrally to produce outputs such as a World List of Threatened Trees (using the new IUCN threat categories).


25

6.2

Target Audience

The Tree Conservation Information Service aims to help governments make informed and justifiable decisions on the conservation and sustainable use of trees. In addition to national governments, the information service will serve the needs of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), industry and other groups.

6.3


Before building the information service, considerable time and effort was invested in consulting with prospective users and collaborators (see Volume 2). Early in the project, a tree and timber database questionnaire was prepared and posted (July 1995) to over 500 organisations, representing national governmental forestry and conservation departments, bilateral and multilateral development agencies, national and international non-governmental organisations, research organisations, forest product trade organisations, and individual experts. The questionnaire had two main aims: 1.

to identify priority needs for the Tree Conservation Information Service; and

2.

to determine the availability and quality of existing data sources.

Following this exercise, the information needs analysis became more interactive. Scientific and technical experts were brought together at a workshop, which provided further opportunity to identify key data requirements and the types of information products the service could provide. A range of possible questions which the service could shed light on, and which could be addressed potentially by the Tree Conservation Database, are listed in Box 8. Following this consultative process, the broad categories of data to be included in the database were analysed (see Volume 3). These included data on taxonomy, species distribution, conservation status, local uses, trade, threats, legal protection, contacts and other data sources.

26


Box 8

• •

Potential issues to be addressed by the database

Is the species of conservation concern? Has the species been evaluated for the new IUCN threat categories? – if so, what is the category and criteria by which it was assigned? – what information is available to support the threat category?

• • • • •

What is the distribution of the species?

• •

Is the species legally protected – regionally, nationally, internationally?

•

What are the implications of specified human actions and/or natural phenomena?

•

What current actions are being taken to manage tree species, and how effective are they in achieving their objectives?

•

Which individual or organisation holds, has access to, or can generate the data or information relevant to a specific issue?

What are the uses of the species? Is the use of the species sustainable? What are the current levels of trade in the species? What are the types, levels and values of use that are being made of the species?

What are the administrative and legislative structures pertaining to the conservation/sustainable use/management of tree species in any particular context?


27

6.4

Database Design

On the basis of the information needs analysis, and on-going discussions with other organisations and SSC specialist groups, a functional specification was developed for the database. This included an entity-relationship (E-R) diagram, table and field descriptions, plus a description of all the required functions and outputs of the database. The E-R diagram, which illustrates the links between the main data tables and look-up tables, is illustrated in Figure 2. In terms of functionality, the main outputs (products) of the Tree Conservation Database were conceived at an early stage. These range from simple list-type reports, to more complex fact-sheet summaries and statistics. To provide flexibility within the database, there are comprehensive user- defined reporting capabilities. Standard reports and statistics include:

• • •

species lists by distribution and/or threat category;

•

total number of endemic species by taxonomic group and/or distribution.

species summaries by taxonomic group and/or distribution and/or threat category; total number of species in each threat category by taxonomic group and/or distribution; and

Each report can be printed and/or saved as a text file (and then, for example, used in a word processor) or as a delimited file (and then, for example, used with a spreadsheet). Reports may be written to file in many standard formats, including plain text, delimited text, dBASE and Excel.

6.5

Applications Development

A prototype database application was developed using data management software (RDBMS) familiar to WCMC staff. The prototype enabled an interactive approach to database development, and ensured that the final database correctly met user expectations. It was built quickly and cheaply, and served to focus attention on user requirements at project workshops. Following review of the prototype, it was possible to make final decisions on the database design, plus the hardware and software to be used for implementation. The 28


Figure 2

Entity-relationship (E-R) diagram for the database

Family

Genus

Species

Country distribution

BRU distribution

Common names

Red List

Habitat

Ecology

Threats

Uses

Legal

One-to-one relationship

One-to-many relationship

selection of hardware and software was also guided by the need to link effectively with other applications, including geographic information systems (GIS). In addition, it was necessary to run the database in single-user and multi-user environments, and to ensure compatibility with the latest generation of Windows-based network environments, especially Windows 95 and Windows NT.


29

6.6

Data Standards

The database employs standards in three main areas, as described below:

• Taxonomy Through the use of look-up tables, only valid entries of family and genus name are permitted, according to Brummitt (1992). In addition, the inclusion of scientific authority aids identification of particular species.

• Geographic areas Country names follow those specified by ISO (International Organization for Standardization) in standard ISO 3166 (codes for the representation of names and countries). At the sub-national level, areas are named in accordance with the internationally-agreed Basic Recording Units (BRU), described by Hollis and Brummitt (1992) and endorsed by the Taxonomic Database Working Group (TDWG).

• Threat categories The IUCN categories and criteria (adopted by the IUCN Council on November 30, 1994) provides a system for classifying the conservation status of species on a global scale. Species are evaluated and classified into one of eight categories: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Lower Risk (LR), Data Deficient (DD), Not Evaluated (NE). The criteria by which the categories are applied are specified for each species.

6.7

Data Quality

The project’s approach to data quality-assurance is essentially an ad hoc process, complemented by more thorough, structured reviews. In particular, the Tree Conservation Database allows data to be added and updated continuously, to reflect on-going changes in the assessment of the conservation status of species. As environmental conditions change, and as new research broadens the knowledge-base, 30


then such re-evaluations are often required. The Tree Conservation Database caters for new assessments and new data by allowing modifications to be made, whilst retaining the original data. Effective back-up is a further important issue addressed by the database. Although users and organisations may have their own back-up procedures, it was felt necessary to provide a special-purpose back-up option within the database, to compliment these other processes. In some cases, access to the database may need to be controlled and, for this reason, password entry is included. Once a user has successfully logged into the database, the functions available to them are also determined by their privilege settings, of which three are defined as follows:

• • •

basic user (view only; no access to database administration tools); user (add and edit data; no access to database administration tools); and administrator (all functions).

6.8

Cooperation and Partnership

Cooperation with other organisations is an important feature of the Tree Conservation Information Service, aimed at maximising the contribution of the project to related initiatives. For example, important partnerships were developed between WCMC and IPGRI and between WCMC and FAO, relating to the following initiatives, respectively:

•

REFORGEN database system. This global database (developed by the Forest Resources Division of FAO) is designed to house information related to the world’s forest genetic resources.

•

TREESOURCE. This global information system on forest genetic resources represents a collaborative effort between FAO, the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) and IPGRI, and has been designed to provide readily reliable and accessible information on forest genetic resources.


31

7

REFERENCES

Brummitt, R.K. 1992. Vascular plant families and genera. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London, UK. BSI 1994. Draft BS ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems – Specification with guidance for use. Technical Committee ESS/1 – Environmental Management Systems. British Standards Institute, London, UK. Chapman, A.D. and Busby, J.R. 1995. Linking plant species information to continental biodiversity inventory, climate and environmental monitoring. In: Mapping the Diversity of Nature. Miller, R.I. (Editor). Chapman & Hall, London, UK. Chen, P.P. 1976. The Entity-Relationship Model – towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp 9-36. Hollis, S. and Brummit, R.K. 1992. World geographical scheme for recording plant distributions. Plant Taxonomy Database Standards No. 2 v.1.0. Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA. NIST 1992. Federal information processing standard publication 173. National Institute of Standards Technology, United States Department of Commerce. NMK 1995. Biodiversity in East Africa: Proceedings of the sixth regional workshop on biodiversity databases. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya. Reynolds, J.H., Tushabe, H. and Kasoma, P. In press. The Establishment of a National Biodiversity Data Bank for Uganda. Journal of East African Natural History Society. East African Natural History Society, Nairobi, Kenya. UK Government 1995. Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report. Volume 1: Meeting the Rio Challenge. The Stationery Office Ltd (HMSO), London, UK. WBCSD 1996. A Changing Future for Paper: An independent study on the sustainability of the pulp & paper industry. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.

32


Wortman, K. 1992. Spatial Data Transfer Standard: The Key to Data Sharing. U.S. Geological Circular, 1992


33

WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management

Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

National Security, Volume 2 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

Handbook on Ontologies, Second edition (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Economics and Information Systems, Volume 1 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Handbook on Information Technology in Finance (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Innovative Quick Response Programs in Logistics and Supply Chain Management (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Biodiversity

Information Technology Project Management

Management Information Systems

Information, Organization and Management

Business Information Management

Information Security Management Handbook

Information Security Management Handbook

Information Security Management Handbook

Designing Management Information Systems

Information Security Management Handbook

Outsourcing Management Information Systems

Information Technology Project Management

Information Systems for Emergency Management (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Information Quality Management: Theory and Applications (Information Quality Management Series)

Handbook on Business Process Management 2: Strategic Alignment, Governance, People and Culture (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Information and Knowledge Management: Management Extra

Handbook of Hospitality Human Resources Management (Handbooks of Hospitality Management)

The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (Blackwell Handbooks in Management)

Biodiversity, 2004

Management Information Systems, 6th Edition

Information Resources Management: Global Challenges

WCMC Handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management

Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

National Security, Volume 2 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

Handbook on Ontologies, Second edition (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Economics and Information Systems, Volume 1 (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems) (Handbooks in Information Systems)

Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Handbook on Information Technology in Finance (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Innovative Quick Response Programs in Logistics and Supply Chain Management (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Biodiversity

Information Technology Project Management

Management Information Systems

Information, Organization and Management

Business Information Management

Information Security Management Handbook

Information Security Management Handbook

Information Security Management Handbook

Designing Management Information Systems

Information Security Management Handbook

Outsourcing Management Information Systems

Information Technology Project Management

Information Systems for Emergency Management (Advances in Management Information Systems)

Information Quality Management: Theory and Applications (Information Quality Management Series)

Handbook on Business Process Management 2: Strategic Alignment, Governance, People and Culture (International Handbooks on Information Systems)

Information and Knowledge Management: Management Extra

Handbook of Hospitality Human Resources Management (Handbooks of Hospitality Management)

The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (Blackwell Handbooks in Management)

Biodiversity, 2004

Management Information Systems, 6th Edition

Information Resources Management: Global Challenges

Recommend Documents