~
Towards the harmonization of
national reporting
Report of a workshop convened by UNEP
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Cambridge, United Kingdom
30-31 October 2000
Y
ALA
—S Li
UNEP WCMC
Jointly organized by
UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Contents
SUMIMALY TOPOL... eeeseseneneneneseneecnenesencassssesessaneseeeseeesenaesseetenenetats l
Background Papers
Guiding principles for national reporting ..............::sseeeeeeeee 6
Reporting: an outcome of information management ..........-.:.-++ 7
National report drafting mechanisms...........:.::csesee eee tees 8
National coordination MechanisMs............::csccceceseseseesesseseeseeeeeees 9
Discussion Papers
Modular reporting. ..........ccccseseseseseeeeeceseeeeeesensssseesenesenseseeeseneaenees 10
Consolidated national reporting ..........cccccceceeereetereteeseseteeseeeeeees 1
Support from regional processes and organizationS..........-.-..- 15
Reporting obligations database ..........:-.:sseessessesesseeeseeeeeeeeeeneees 17
Virtual reporting .......... cscs cceeseseseeeeeeseeereeeseeeerestseaseeeeneneeeeeeneneney 19
Handbook for national repOrting..........cccccceeceeeee eects eseseeeeeeees 22
Annexes
Workshop agenda ...........cccccccceceeseeeres esses eesesesseesseeesessenessenseceetaenaes 25
List of participants............scccccceseeecseseceseseessesseeneesessesseeseenecneeneaas 27
All workshop papers and links to relevant websites can be found at:
hitp:/www.unep-wemc.org/conventions/harmonization.himl
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
http://www.archive.org/details/towardsharmoniza0Ounep
Summary Report
In October 2000 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened a workshop at the
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge in order to explore ideas for a more
harmonized approach to national reporting to international agreements and to develop pilot projects for
testing these ideas at national and international levels. The workshop was attended by representatives of
eight convention secretariats, eight countries, and several international organizations involved in
exploring the potential synergies between international agreements and programmes.
Background
In 1998 the five global biodiversity-related treaty secretariats and UNEP commissioned the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre to undertake a Feasibility Study to identify opportunities for
harmonising information management between the treaties. The five treaties were the Convention on
Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species, CITES, the Convention on Wetlands and
the World Heritage Convention.
The Feasibility Study considered approaches towards development of a harmonised information
management infrastructure for the treaties within their existing defined mandates. Its purpose was to
consider how the secretariats could improve effectiveness and efficiency in gathering, handling,
disseminating and sharing information. Subsequently, contracting parties to four of these conventions
have endorsed the move towards increased harmonization of information management and reporting.
At the same time there have been moves to increase synergy amongst the various agreements made at
the Earth Summit in 1992, the European Environment Agency is working on a project which aims to
streamline reporting systems for the 64 environmental agreements to which the European Community
is party, and UNEP GRID Arendal has been working with the Government of Norway on means to
make reporting to international environment conventions more efficient.
Also concurrently there has been increased focus on regional seas agreements, and the secretariats of
these agreements have met to discuss common concerns, which include promoting “horizontal
collaboration and facilitating stronger linkages with global conventions”.
Workshop objectives
The objectives of the workshop were:
a) To identify and consider options for streamlining and harmonizing reporting
b) To identify and consider feasible solutions for streamlining and harmonizing reporting
c) To develop an action plan and project concepts for pilot testing potential solutions
Workshop inputs
In order to facilitate discussion on a range of issues, UNEP-WCMC prepared a series of background
and discussion papers. All of these papers, which are listed below, were made available on the
UNEP-WCMC website (http:/Avww.unep-weme. org/conventions/harmonization.html) and sent out to
participants in advance of the meeting.
Discussion Papers
1. Modular reporting
2. Consolidated national reporting
3. Support from regional processes and organizations
4. Reporting obligations database
5. Virtual reporting
6. Handbook for national reporting
Background Papers
1. Guiding principles for national reporting
2. Reporting: an outcome of information management
3. National report drafting mechanisms
4. National coordination mechanisms
UNEP-WCMC also presented demonstrations of modular and virtual reporting, and presentations
were made to the workshop on State of Environment reporting (by GRID Arendal), the EEA project
on reporting obligations in environmental conventions (by the EEA) and the EEA Reporting
Obligations Database (by the EEA and UNEP-WCMC). The project website also provided links to
websites on related initiatives.
Each of the convention secretariat representatives introduced the approaches that they are currently
taking to reporting, including the new formats and processes recently developed by both the CBD and
the Convention on Wetlands. Each of the country representatives, and those from other organizations,
were also asked to highlight key issues in their work relating to reporting to international agreements.
Working methods
After preliminary introductory sessions, much of the two days of the workshop was spent in plenary
and in syndicates discussing ideas for improved harmonization and streamlining of reporting, and in
developing these ideas into project concepts for testing the ideas at both national and international
levels. Four of the key concepts were presented to an independent panel of experts for review on the
morning of the second day, and subsequently revised .
Proposed pilot projects
Four pilot project ideas are being developed further for implementation in a number of countries,
testing these ideas with a range of conventions and in different types of country. These pilot projects
are not necessarily independent and discrete, and would need to be implemented in a coordinated
manner. In addition criteria were developed to ensure adequate national coverage and coverage of
each of the different types of agreements.
The Four pilot project ideas are:
a) Modular reporting
The concept of modular reporting is based on the idea that the information required for
implementation of the conventions, and reporting on that implementation, can be defined as a
series of discreet information packages or modules, which between them respond to the reporting
requirements of any given convention. The information required for any given purpose could be
defined as a list of modules.
b) Consolidated reporting
The concept here is to prepare one “consolidated” report that would satisfy the obligations of a
range of international conventions to which the country is party. In the pilot phase this would be
for biodiversity-related conventions to which the country was Party. This could be extended later
to other multi-lateral environmental treaties.
ies)
c)
d)
Linking reporting to State of Environment reporting processes
Many countries already have State of Environment reporting processes. which may or may not be
linked to international reporting requirements. There is clearly a potential to extend the existing
processes to also incorporate the reporting requirements of international agreements.
Information management and regional support
In combination with those mentioned above, this project will identify ways to improve national
reporting through supporting improved information management at the national level. and
fostering co-operation among neighbouring countries through the use of existing regional
organizations.
There is one other project already under way, which can also be considered as a pilot project in the
context of this work.
e)
Reporting Obligations Database
The concept is to develop a detailed consolidated inventory of all obligations placed on
contracting parties to report information to international conventions. The information would be
compiled in the form of an annotated list of specific "questions" or information elements
demanded (directly or implicitly) by each obligation and each of these questions and obligations
would be keyworded to facilitate analysis. Subsequent analysis of the database should highlight
areas of potential overlap and synergy, and help to guide national information management as
well as definition of reporting requirements.
Other areas discussed
It was generally agreed by the workshop participants that:
a)
b)
Convention secretariats should be encouraged to make available electronic copies of all national
reports over the Internet, and
UNEP-WCMC should develop tools to locate and search all of these reports to provide increased
access to their contents as part of the project website (see below).
The following areas were also discussed by workshop participants, although follow-up on these was
thought to be a lower priority than for the national-level pilot projects.
c)
d)
e)
Compilation of a reporting handbook for a group of conventions (formats, timetables etc).
Development and/or sharing of common glossaries, lists of abbreviations, definitions and
terminology, and the possible future adoption of cross-convention standards.
Review of the reporting requirements of the key international agreements, with a view to
identifying how the range of reports presents the “big picture’, and what else would be required
to complete it.
Review the experience of the Convention on Wetlands in developing a consolidated regional
view with national components, and the extent to which this meets reporting requirements.
Implementation of the following ideas was postponed until a later date, although development of
further demonstrations might be valuable.
g) Test mechanisms for the delivery of modular reporting in a pilot country using a virtual reporting
approach.
h) Test the feasibility of using search and transfer tools on the Internet to download selected
information modules for one of two conventions from several countries.
The following ideas were essentially rejected by the meeting as being either impractical at present or
duplicative of other work.
i) Examination of methods and feasibility for a regional organisation to generate reports on behalf
of member countries based on information already being collected.
j) Preparation of a “global synthesis” report based on the reports to all of the biodiversity-related
treaties.
Finally, while the following two ideas may be useful in supporting countries in their reporting
activities, they are not mechanisms for harmonization per se.
k) Review of mechanisms currently used to prepare and/or submit reports electronically, in order to
share experience more widely.
1) Development of information templates for reporting, based on current reporting requirements to
support report preparation by parties.
Next steps
It was agreed that the following actions need to be taken in order to ensure continued progress in
working towards increased harmonization.
1. UNEP-WCMC should maintain a project website, which would incorporate all relevant papers
and links, and would also provide a secure web forum for discussion and exchange of ideas
amongst project participants.
N
Convention secretariat participants at the meeting should ensure that their secretariat colleagues
and their convention governance and advisory bodies are made aware of the actions being taken.
3. National government participants should seek high-level approval by the end of November 2000
for participation in pilot projects.
4. UNEP (DEC and WCMC) should develop the pilot project briefs in consultation with convention
secretariats and potential pilot project countries, with first drafts completed by early December
2000.
5. UNEP DEC should establish agreements with each pilot project country on implementation of the
pilot projects by January 2001.
6. UNEP, Convention Secretariats and other international organizations should consider what other
supporting pilot projects should be implemented, develop proposals and seek resources.
10.
Ine
All participants should seek resources for implementation of the pilot projects and other relevant
actions, building on the resources already being allocated by UNEP.
The European Environment Agency will provide support to this exercise based on the data,
reports and reporting obligations information compiled as part of their reporting obligations in
environmental conventions project and other related projects. The EEA will also review other
opportunities to support the exercise, including the possibility of hosting a workshop at its
premises in Copenhagen.
UNEP-DEC should ensure coordination of the pilot projects so that they are implemented in a
synergistic and consistent manner.
All players should implement the agreed pilot projects and other actions so as to thoroughly test
the ideas discussed in the workshop. Implementation would be over the period February 2001 to
January 2002.
UNEP (DEC and WCMC) should ensure that each of the countries has the expert support
necessary for implementation of the pilot projects, ensure that the reports of each pilot project are
published in January 2002, and arrange transmission of the results to the “Rio+10” Conference
and the governing bodies of the conventions.
. UNEP should arrange a follow-up workshop to review the results of the pilot projects and other
actions, and to identify an agenda and resources for subsequent stages of the streamlining and
harmonization programme. The proposed dates were 15-16 October 2001.
Outcome
It was intended that as a result of the workshop and its follow up that:
a)
b)
UNEP would be in a better position to respond to the calls from contracting parties to a number of
conventions to work towards reduction of the reporting burden placed on contracting parties and
to increase harmonization and synergy.
Convention Secretariats would have a better idea of the work that needs to be done to implement
the calls for increased synergy and reduced duplication called for by their contracting parties.
National governments would see a series of concrete steps being taken to reduce the burden of
national reporting to international agreements, and to increase the value and use of the information
that they provide.
UNEP, Convention Secretariats and national governments would be working together on a
number of pilot projects to develop and test new approaches for streamlining national reporting to
international agreements.
We believe that this report demonstrates a commitment by UNEP, convention secretariats and
national governments to ensuring these outcomes over the coming year.
Acknowledgements
The summary report was drafted by Jeremy Harrison of the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring
Centre and Robert Hepworth of the UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions.
The discussion papers and background papers were drafted by Jeremy Harrison of the UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre and Ian Crain of the Orbis Institute, working under contract to UNEP-
WCMC.
Background Paper 1
Guiding principles for national reporting
All international conventions require contracting parties to report periodically on the actions that they
are taking to implement the convention. The expected form and content varies widely, and, given that
countries vary considerably in size, biodiversity, capacity and capability, it can be very difficult to
gain a precise definition of exactly what information each country should provide in national reports.
The following Ten Guiding Principles are intended to assist both secretariats and government
agencies in identifying how to report on what.
1. Base the report on information that is required already by the national focal point to ensure that
the country is meeting the commitments made in acceding to the convention.
N
Ensure adequate coverage of critical priority issues identified by international decision-making
bodies such as conferences of parties, and do not incorporate information of no direct use.
3. Cover what is relevant to implementation of the convention and to assessing effectiveness of its
implementation, not just what is being done as a result of accession.
4. Concentrate on measurable progress since the previous report, where feasible reporting “by
exception” to update previous reports and avoid unnecessary repetition.
5. In particular, emphasise progress in development and implementation of sirategies, action plans
and programmes for implementation of the convention at the national level.
6. Avoid unnecessary repetition of information that exists in other documents and reports, which
can be referred to or appended.
7. Summarise current status and trends relevant to the convention, and progress in development and
implementation of programmes to evaluate and systematically monitor them.
8. Use indicators, preferably those that are internationally recognised and harmonised, to show
progress in achieving targets set in strategies and action plans, and in previous reports.
9. Identify information that will help other nations in their implementation of the convention or
programme, in particular both good practice and bad experience.
10. Design reports that are useful for multiple purposes with minimal modification, for example as
material for local planning, public awareness, or education.
Finally, it is important that secretariats do not change the reporting requirements every period, so that
the information in national reports provides a CORE of information on status that is constant over
time and hence useful for assessing trends and effectiveness of the treaty.
Background Paper 2
Reporting: an outcome of information management
Reporting to conventions should not place an additional burden on countries, whatever their
economic status. The national report should be the direct product of the information systems and
processes used by national focal points to assess implementation of the convention and to develop
strategies and action plans. However, one of the underlying challenges faced by national governments
is the inadequacy of information systems. Poor information systems inevitably result in ad hoc
decision-making and disjointed reporting. As a result, the national reporting process is more of a
burden than it need be.
In order to achieve the objectives of the various international conventions:
a) National organisations should be seeking to improve the ways in which they manage information,
and the ways in which they use that information in their decision-making processes.
b) Databases and data flows should be developed and managed so that they fulfil the implementation
and reporting needs of a range of international conventions, as well as other national needs.
c) Each country should move towards integrated information management, as an essential pre-
requisite to co-ordinated policy development and programming.
Achieving these goals requires action in the following areas:
Analysis of information needs
Design of information products and services
Assessment of available information
Assessment of institutional capacity
Building a collaborative approach to information management
e Identification of appropriate standards and procedures
e Design of information systems and tools
e Development of information networks
e Identification of roles and responsibilities
e Establishing agreements on data access and use
It should be noted that the key issues in the management and use of information are not to do with
hardware and software, but to do with collaboration and cooperation, and the systematic
identification of information flows and the clear assignment of responsibilities.
Countries often request additional funds for reporting. If additional financial support is provided, it
should be to support improvements in information management for the national focal point so that
production of the report is facilitated, not to produce the national report per se. This key point needs
to be recognised both by countries and by those providing support, in order to ensure that the correct
problem is addressed.
Background Paper 3
National report drafting mechanisms
National circumstances vary widely, and there is similarly wide variation in the way in which
contracting parties compile and integrate information into national reports. The following outlines
some of the principal alternative mechanisms and indicates some strengths and weaknesses:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Report drafting as a “one man show”
One individual drafts the report him- or herself based on personal experience and observation,
perhaps asking one or two others to review the report. The advantage of this approach is that it is
relatively low cost; the disadvantage is that it does not build an ongoing capability to report. The
approach only really works in small countries, or countries where the activities in implementing
the convention are relatively limited.
Periodic compilation from multiple sources
The national focal point (or their representative) requests input in a structured manner from a
wide range of sources, including at least all government departments involved in implementation,
as well as relevant NGOs. This is probably the most frequent mechanism for report drafting.
However in many cases this seems to be treated as a one-off process that happens sporadically,
rather than as part of a planned and ongoing activity.
Product of an integrated information system
The report is the product of an information system designed to deliver the information required
by the international agreement. This is the most efficient and consistent way of generating a
report. At present it is most commonly only used for those reports that are “statistical” in nature
(such as species and their products in trade) rather than for actions. The information systems
approach is ideal for integrating the reporting process with national decision making and will
become more effective with increased structure and harmonisation of reporting obligations.
Use of consultants
Some contracting parties use consultants, often those with international experience, to draft the
national report on their behalf, using either mechanism (a) or (b) above. This can be a very cost-
effective approach, particularly the first time a report is drafted. Consultants may often find it
easier to obtain and integrate inputs from multiple government departments than a central
government agency. However it may not ensure long term reporting capability in the national
focal point, unless "capacity building” is incorporated in the consultancy.
Stakeholder involvement
There is a need to include a wide range of stakeholders in the processes that lead to preparation
of reports, to ensure the quality and ownership of the resulting report. This is both a desirable
process, and one that is explicitly requested for certain agreements. The consultation process can
be a very effective way of harvesting the knowledge of the private sector, NGOs, the volunteer
community and so on, but may require a more lengthy report compilation period, unless it is
made integral to a continuous process as in (c).
Some of the approaches described above are inherently more efficient than others. However, one of
the factors decreases efficiency is frequent change in the reporting demands. It is therefore important
to ensure stability in reporting requirements, holding constant a core of information that can be used
to assess long-term trends.
Background Paper 4
National coordination mechanisms
Almost all countries are party to a range of biodiversity-related conventions. As these conventions
potentially overlap in the activities required for their implementation, it is important to ensure at the
national level that there is a degree of coordination. Various mechanisms are used to work towards
this.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Exchange of information
The national focal point (or equivalent) for each convention ensures that his or her counterparts
for other conventions receive relevant information. This is a fairly passive process, and while it
should lead to recognition of areas of potential overlap, it does not lead to a synergistic approach
to implementation of the conventions. There is also the danger that divergent policies may
develop on international issues. This sort of mechanism is unlikely to foster moves to streamline
and harmonize reporting.
Periodic coordination meetings
The national focal points (or equivalent) meet periodically to exchange information and discuss
areas of common interest. This is probably the most frequent mechanism for coordination
currently, and can lead to a more integrated approach to convention implementation if properly
managed. At its highest level, these meetings can discuss policy and issues ahead of meetings of
the conferences of parties to ensure an integrated approach. These coordination meetings could
also ensure a more integrated approach to reporting if given the right advice internationally.
Convention coordination office
An individual or group of individuals is assigned the role of ensuring coordination. This is an
effective mechanism provided the individual has the necessary authority and budgets to ensure
action can take place. One would assume that to be efficient it would probably be combined with
periodic coordination meetings convened by the coordination office. Such a mechanism could
certainly facilitate increased coordination in preparation and delivery of reports at the national
level.
Common national focal point
An individual or a single team assumes the role of national focal point to more than one
international convention. In small island states this is a common occurrence, but not in larger
countries with more complex bureaucracies. The result tends to be that the individual is
overburdened, but this has the corollary that he or she is very open to any action that increases
harmonization and streamlining.
Integrated programmes and strategies
Development of a common approach to implementation of one or more international conventions
within a country, with organizations working to a single integrated programme or strategy. This
approach could be combined with any of the above-mentioned mechanisms, and would clearly
lead to greater integration at the national level. This could result from or lead to greater
integration and the international level. Finally, it is important to recognise that a key component
of integration, whether of action, policy development or reporting, is the integration of
information management that forms the basis for assessment, priority setting, decision making
and reporting.
Discussion Paper 1
Modular Reporting
The concept of modular reporting is based on the belief that the information required for
implementation of the conventions, and reporting on that implementation, can be defined as a series
of discreet information packages or modules, which between them respond to the reporting
requirements of any given convention.
This concept is illustrated in Figure 1. Each of the small blocks is an information packet. Each of
three national agencies (A, B and C) provides a number of information packets, and each of three
international conventions (i, ii and iii) requires certain information packets in its report. Some of the
information packets are common to all three conventions; some are only used once.
To achieve this approach will require detailed study of the information requirements of each of the
conventions, and the definition of a number of discrete information packets. This would be followed
by pilot projects with a number of countries to test the relationship between the defined packets, the
arrangement or responsibilities within national organisations, and the type of supporting guidelines
and thesauri required.
The primary objective of the approach would be:
e to eliminate duplicate reporting and reduce the effort required for parties to
prepare and submit specific reports to the conventions.
The approach would also potentially:
e improve the quality, availability and usefulness of information for national
purposes;
encourage integrated national approaches and improved information access and
sharing between institutions within party countries; and
facilitate links to other conventions and regional bodies, and improve
information sharing between neighbouring countries.
For full multinational implementation, this process would need to be supported by harmonised
guidelines, nomenclature and thesauri, as well as recommended good practices and information
management methodologies.
Finally, the process can be easily extended to other environmental treaties through the addition of
new information packets.
Essential characteristics of the approach
a) A series of information packets is defined internationally, based on an analysis of the information
required for reporting to a broad range of international agreements.
b) These information packets may be relevant to only one international agreement, or may serve the
needs of more than one international agreement.
c) These information packets would be complementary (non-overlapping), so that information was
compiled only once and in one consistent format.
d) Contracting party reports would be defined (or redefined) as a particular set of information
packets.
e) Each contracting party would regularly prepare (or update) at least the information packets
required by the international agreements it was party to.
f) Contracting parties should clearly specify the national agency responsible for development and
update of each information packet.
g) A compilation of the appropriate information packets would be submitted as the contracting party
report for a given international agreement.
Useful characteristics
a) Information packets should ideally be a subset of national biodiversity information management
products, and therefore part of the existing input to national planning/policy development.
b) Information packets should ideally be produced in a cycle that suits national requirements, and is
in harmony with the reporting cycles of the conventions.
Possible pilot studies
a) Development and testing of the modular reporting approach for site-based agreements (for
example the Ramsar, World Heritage and Cartagena Conventions).
b) Development and testing of the modular reporting approach for species-based agreements (for
example CITES, CMS and its agreements, IWC and Barcelona).
c) Development and testing of the modular reporting approach for other specified combinations of
agreements (for example, Ramsar, CMS and AEWA).
11
Figure 1 — Modular reporting
National
Agency
Cc
National
Agency
B
National
Agency
A
Information
modules
provided
Information
modules
required
International
Convention
(iii)
International
Convention
(ii)
International
Convention
(i)
Discussion Paper 2
Consolidated National Reporting
The concept of consolidated national reporting is to prepare one report that would satisfy the
obligations of a range of international conventions to which the country is party. Examples might be
all the biodiversity-related conventions, all the UNEP-hosted conventions, or even more broadly, all
multi-lateral environmental treaties.
In some ways this is the opposite to the concept of modular reporting (Discussion Paper 1), although
it would almost certainly be prepared in a modular manner through the cooperation of a number of
national agencies.
The primary objective of the approach would be:
e to eliminate duplicate reporting and reduce the effort required for parties to
prepare and submit specific reports to the conventions.
The approach would also potentially:
e Provide a report suitable for multiple purposes beyond treaty reporting
Provide a better overview for broadly-based national policy development and
decision making
Foster coordination and cooperation between focal point agencies
Foster information sharing, open access and other good information management
practices
Raise awareness of the range of treaties to which the country is a party and the
obligations imposed
For full multinational implementation, this process would need to be supported by harmonised
guidelines, nomenclature and thesauri, as well as recommended good practices and information
management methodologies.
A further consideration is that consolidated reporting could be seen as an extension of, or integral to,
national State-of-Environment reporting. The national SoE reporting process could potentially be
adjusted to ensure that it meets the requirements of the treaties, resulting in a national report that
serves a range of national needs and international commitments.
Essential characteristics of the approach
a) Identify the reporting requirements of each individual international convention, and design a
single report that meets these needs.
b) Develop a structure within the consolidated report that makes it convenient for convention
secretariats to select their specific information requirements from the broader-based report.
c) Develop the procedures necessary for compiling the reporting in a manner that ensures that
duplication is reduced and collaboration increased.
13
d) Clearly identify responsibilities for contributing different sections of the report, and a timetable
for its review and update.
Useful characteristics
a) The report should be compiled to a timetable that meets both international needs and national
information needs for other purposes.
b) Integration of information in the report, or at least the integrated process of developing it, should
lead to increased integration of implementation of the range of agreements covered.
Possible pilot studies
a) Development and testing of the concept in one or more countries by developing a draft
consolidated report from existing reports to a selected group of treaties (e.g. the CMS and
Agreements, the “Rio” treaties).
b) Examining in one or more countries the feasibility of expanding national SoE reporting process to
satisfy the reporting needs of a selected range of treaties (e.g. CBD, Ramsar, Regional Seas
Conventions).
Discussion Paper 3
Support from regional processes and organisations
Many countries are approaching environmental issues on a cooperative basis through regional
associations of various kinds, and are parties to regional as well as international agreements.
Countries therefore may already be submitting reports to secretariats of regional agreements, as well
as exchanging information regionally. This leads to the consideration of the potential for using the
strengths of regional mechanisms to facilitate harmonisation of reporting to international treaties.
The primary objective of this approach is:
e to seek ways to use regional intergovernmental organisations and activities to
support increased harmonization in reporting to international conventions.
Other potential benefits include:
Fostering regional cooperation and information sharing
Sharing of expertise and experience, including assistance to countries with
limited resources
Development of reporting mechanisms adapted to the bio-physical, economic
and social conditions of the region
Facilitating regional overviews and strategy development
Regional agencies come in many forms from very formal legal unions with a substantial bureaucracy
like the European Union, through to semi-formal groupings with little legal or administrative status.
Some have a mandate for dealing with information collection and reporting, and others do not. It is
therefore likely that no one model of interaction will be suitable for all cases. Some potential roles for
a regional agency are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Assistance and support in methodologies and standards
Development of standards and methods of monitoring that are adapted to the needs of the region
Fostering cooperation
Providing a forum and mechanisms for exchanging views and experiences in national reporting
and information management, or organising joint projects on improving reporting
Providing a pool of expertise
The regional agency may maintain rosters of suitable experts, have expertise available directly, or
participate in donor funded projects that bring in expertise suitable for improving the policy and
decision making process in the region
Reporting on behalf of countries
In this role, the regional agency could prepare and submit reports to treaties in a standard format
using information provided by member countries.
15
Examples of regional organisations or mechanisms that may be relevant to international agreements
and reporting include the following:
e Association of South East Asian Nations
Which is currently developing an ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation
e Comisi6n Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo
Which aims to coordinate action to conserve biodiversity in the Central American region
e European Union
Which has established the European Environment Agency as part of the European Commission
e Southern Africa Development Community
Which has established various sectoral offices, including forests and wildlife in Malawi
e South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Which is already working with countries to coordinate national response to CBD discussions
Possible pilot studies
a) Examine methods and feasibility for a regional organisation to generate reports on behalf of
member countries based on information already being collected (e.g. EEA to report to Ramsar
and EU Habitats and Birds Directives, based on information collected through the “Dobris
Process”, Natura 2000 process, and so on).
b) Identify and test opportunities and benefits of a regional organization providing assistance and
support to a range of countries, and fostering cooperating in developing reports. (e.g. CCAD,
SADC, SPREP for the CBD)
c) Pilot test in one Convention to determine if a consolidated regional view with national
components (tables) would meet their information requirements (e.g. Ramsar, CBD, CMS).
Discussion Paper 4
Reporting Obligations Database
The concept is to develop a detailed consolidated inventory of all obligations placed on contracting
parties to report information to international conventions. The information would be compiled in the
form of an annotated list of specific "questions" or information elements demanded (directly or
implicitly) by each obligation instrument (convention, protocol, agreement, directive, etc).
While not replacing the detailed format and reporting instructions of the convention secretariats, the
questions would be as specific as possible in indicating the nature of the information element
required, i.e. at a much lower level than a reporting module or information packet described in
Discussion Paper 1. The questions would also be keyworded using a standardised thesaurus as to
subject matter, and linked to data on schedule and periodicity of regular reports.
The inventory would be structured as a searchable database that links the questions to the text of the
legal authority for the obligation (e.g. convention article or formal decision) and to geographic scope.
The primary objective of the approach would be:
to identify questions that were being asked by more than one international
convention, so that means could be developed to increase harmonization
The approach would also potentially:
result in an overview of the full spectrum of the information demands on a
country
facilitate the development of information packets for modular reporting
draw attention to reporting obligations that might otherwise be overlooked - such
as for the provision of specific information on a non-periodic or exception basis.
assist in assigning responsibility for reporting obligations between national focal
point agencies.
allow for better planning and scheduling of national reports
The Reporting Obligations database concept is most valuable where the required information is in the
form of specific data tables, indicators or lists, but less useful where discursive, vaguely defined or
open-ended reports of activities are requested. It is also difficult for such a database to reflect
demands for "one-off" information or reports specific to agenda items of a single meeting of the
parties.
Essential characteristics of the approach
a) Review all international conventions and associated legal and interpretive text (for example
protocols, decisions, resolutions) to identify all obligations to report.
b) Compile a database of specific "questions" or information elements demanded directly or
implicitly by each obligation.
17
c)
d)
e)
f)
Keyword each question using a standardised thesaurus as to subject matter, and linked to data on
schedule and periodicity of regular reports.
It would be necessary to establish a process to continuously update the databases whenever
reporting obligations or instructions are changed by the responsible authoritative bodies.
Analyse the resulting database to identify areas of duplication and potential synergy, and use this
as a basis for improving reporting processes.
Regularly update the database and use this to adjust reporting and information flow processes.
Useful characteristics
a)
b)
The resulting list of questions is a valuable checklist of what a country should have done in
implementing the range of conventions covered by the database.
The list of questions and the analysis provides further support for development of a modular
approach to reporting (Discussion Paper 1).
Possible pilot studies
a) Develop and test such a database for a limited range of biodiversity-related treaties (e.g. CMS,
CBD, Ramsar, Bern and the EU Directives) and test its use for streamlining national reporting in
several countries, and for the identification of "information packets".
Notes:
This concept is closely based on a current project being carried out by the European Environment
Agency, which is an agency of the European Commission. This covers all of the environmental
agreements that relate to European Union countries.
The UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, working in collaboration with the UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre is currently developing a pilot database of the nature described in
the proposed case study.
Discussion Paper 5
Virtual reporting
Contracting parties to each international agreement periodically submit a report to the convention
secretariat. This is so whether the report is “hard copy” or a computer file, and whether it is sent
through the post or by email. With "virtual reporting" no report is submitted, rather the information
that comprises the report is made available for access by the convention secretariat. This would be
done through a linked series of pages on a national website. Secretariats would access the information
relevant to them as and when required.
At its simplest, the website would simply hold electronic copies of the reports required in order to
comply with international agreements. This could be done whether the reports were prepared and
submitted as at present, or as consolidated reports (Discussion Paper 2), or through a regional process
(Discussion Paper 3).
The primary objective of this simple approach would be to increase access to
information in the reports.
Virtual reporting becomes much more powerful if it is combined with the proposed modular
reporting approach (Discussion Paper 1). Instead of submitting the proposed information packets to
National Focal Points for subsequently submitting to convention secretariats, the information would
be placed on or linked to a national website. Responsibility for each section or "page" of the
information would lie with the most appropriate national agency. Both the updating and reporting of
the information would become an ongoing process, and the convention secretariat could then
download or link to the modules it required when it required them.
Virtual reporting would see countries providing access to their information packets in electronic form
continuously updated in a cycle which suits national needs. The convention secretariats would then
select and retrieve the most up-to-date information packets whether at formal reporting times or as
required for ad-hoc use between reporting periods. Figure 2 provides an illustration of virtual
reporting building on the modular reporting approach (Figure 1, Discussion Paper 1).
The primary objectives of this more sophisticated approach would be:
e to increase national involvement in and control of the reporting process
e to encourage an integrated national approach to information management and access
An important secondary benefit is the creation of a multi-purpose national information
resource that is constantly up-dated and available for research and education, as well as
for national policy implementation. It could easily be linked to national SoE processes.
Whichever approach is used, another advantage 1s that search tools could also be employed to assist
location of information in the reports, including using through the Internet customised search tools
developed by convention secretariats or partner organisations.
One current limitation to the approach is that the telecommunication infrastructure in some
developing countries is not well advanced, hence Internet services are not available or very slow.
19
This situation is improving rapidly. In the short term possible solutions include hosting the Website
temporarily at a donor agency, or at a regional organisation (Discussion Paper 3).
Essential characteristics of the approach
a) Establishment of a national website (or linked network of sites) for reporting to international
conventions and programmes.
b) International convention secretariats accessing the information on the website rather than
expecting tlie contracting party to actually send a document.
c) Information in national reports thereby available to a far wider audience.
Useful characteristics
a) Combination of the virtual reporting approach with modular reporting could lead to significant
improvement in the management and use of information nationally.
b) Information would ideally be produced in a cycle that suits national requirements, and is in
harmony with the reporting cycles of the conventions.
Possible pilot studies
a) Compiling an inventory of electronic copies of all national reports to biodiversity-related treaties
for one pilot country, and the development of a national website that locates these and provides
search tools that provide increased access to the content.
b) Developing the delivery of modular reporting (Discussion Paper 1) in a pilot country using a
virtual reporting approach.
c) For one of two conventions test the feasibility of using search and transfer tools on the Internet to
download selected information modules from several countries.
Figure 2 — Virtual reporting combined with modular reporting
National National
National
Agency
A
Agency Agency
B Cc
Information
modules BBS
provided
National
Reporting
Website
Modules
downloaded
by Convention
International
Convention
(ii)
International
Convention
(iii)
International
Convention
(i)
‘BB
Information rT
modules HES
required
Discussion Paper 6
Handbook for National Reporting
Reporting instructions for contracting parties vary widely between treaties. Contents specification,
reporting formats, guidance and interpretation may be found in convention articles, decisions and
resolutions of conferences of the parties and subsidiary bodies, and less formal guidelines and
interpretation documents circulated by secretariats.
Focal point agencies may often be unsure if they are using the most up-to-date instructions or formats
for a particular reporting obligation, and countries often find it difficult to obtain an overview of the
range of reporting requirements to which they must respond.
A handbook that provides in one place the relevant guidelines and formats for a range of biodiversity-
related conventions (ideally all) would be of great day-to-day practical benefit, as well as being a tool
to promote harmonisation.
The primary objective would be:
e To make national reporting to conventions easier and of improved quality and
consistency by ensuring that the most up-to-date instructions are readily
available
The Handbook would also potentially:
Identify opportunities for harmonisation of reporting frameworks and approaches
Assist in identifying gaps and overlaps in reporting, and opportunities for
streamlining
Encourage the adoption of standards for vocabulary and nomenclature and
provide a convenient means of disseminating such guidance
The handbook could be made more useful by the addition of an overview section on good practices in
information management. This could suggest how contracting parties could most usefully organise
national information systems and collection regimes for reporting to the conventions while
contributing to their own national polices, strategies and action plans.
The Handbook could begin as a simple compilation of existing guidance documents. This would be
of immediate practical value. The Handbook could then be used as a tool to consolidate, harmonise
and rationalise reporting structures and evolve in stages to a guide for modular reporting (Discussion
Paper |) and or virtual reporting (Discussion Paper 5)
Essential characteristics of the approach
a) Reporting requirements, formats and other guidance for all treaties compiled into one document.
b) The handbook must be updated rapidly and rigorously whenever changes in requirements are
mandated by the authoritative treaty body.
c) The handbook would be widely and easily accessible.
to
i)
Useful characteristics
a) Website where the handbook is easily available (e.g. as a .pdf file).
b) Provision of blank proforma reporting formats, and links to sites where sample completed reports
can be obtained would be useful.
c) A common glossary, acronym list, terminology set and cross-convention standards (e.g. for
country naming, geographic region definition, taxonomy, etc would be beneficial.
d) An integrated schedule of reporting due dates.
Possible pilot studies
a) Develop the first stage compilation for a group of conventions (e.g. biodiversity-related
conventions) and make available on the Web to solicit reaction and advice from parties.
b) Test the practical use of the pilot Handbook in a small group of countries to establish proof-of-
concept and obtain feedback on directions for revision and evolution.
23
eset re Ds s\ ss ‘plharanai hori)
j esse re hos Swi heady t) cf rr
im. ant
‘ie sna nr et
i A WAU nett Uigmian Se! «oe 2
(ea een ne 6 ee
x = ach ina spun :
i sinew “i's
a fie ao tia
My Lip aing
Ue oe
Annex 1
Workshop Agenda
Monday 30 October
9.00-10.45
1. Welcome (5 minutes)
2. Introduction and workshop objectives (15 minutes)
3. Current reporting requirements and practices — secretariats (40 minutes)
4. Current reporting practices — parties (30 minutes)
5. Brief introduction to other meeting participants (15 minutes)
11.00-12.30
6. Demonstrations of innovative reporting methods (30 minutes)
7. Discussion of options for streamlining reporting (55 minutes)
8. Brief on expectations of syndicate sessions (5 minutes)
14.00-15.30
9. Circulation of draft project concepts based on the morning session
10. Three parallel syndicates to develop outline pilot project briefs ( 90 minutes)
15.45-17.30
11. Presentation of pilot briefs to plenary and discussion (60 minutes)
12. Syndicates reconvene to prepare revised briefs in light of plenary discussion (45 minutes)
(It is anticipated that syndicates may also spend more time in the evening on the briefs)
Tuesday 31 October
9.00-10.30
13. Presentation of revised briefs to an “expert panel” (90 minutes)
10.45-12.30
14. Syndicates reconvene over coffee to finalise briefs (60 minutes)
15. Plenary session on final briefs and integrated handbook (45 minutes)
14.00-15.30
16. Next Steps including
a) Funding for pilot projects
b) Timetables
c) Steering committee and expert support for pilot projects
d) Project website
e) Publicising the project
f) Publication and dissemination of results
g) Subsequent action
15.45-17.00
17. Workshop action plan
18. Closure of workshop and departure
aS
I vane
Anare? egiy fan wt ie
= _ : anes) Oy ep
! P=. Soa Ls OL 8
jo (uehintin” reteW J Ps
ee nina Ot ii) ails bath w bok iturin “be et .
RP ee 0 vena tow rite reo carte motut) “a ron
(res ie De Cait. pay. Snipers. ins) ;
CPiehiatires * 1 i a edited ato ly Aco wt ee li ic ; : , (
oS he
wenaeint OF, | onileaha ATA | ise ye ee: | wean
_afPerpan? heen SHOT er sterol . =.
ot ngTY pth st a iytucens 0m beh + eu
ie eee arary ye au ‘ea tinea pores peony 1 ‘
2 ( ienatin ony label ve Ou: ae Mr =
| ” 7. f A
f He julie io. ee
7 ‘wewtnanten coma: apna ania
ne ; : saaiciaae canine — when “4
Annex 2
List of participants
Countries
Australia
Ms. Alison Russell-French
Assistant Secretary, Coasts and Clean Seas
Marine and Water Division
Environment Australia
GPO Box 787
Canberra Act 2601, Australia
Tel: (61 2) 62741111
Fax: (61 2) 62741123
email: alison.russell-french @ea.gov.au
Belgium
Dr. Els Martens
Adj-director
Ministry of the Flemish Community
Direction for Nature
Koning Albert II - laan 20, bus 8
B - 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (32 2) 553 7885
Fax: (32 2) 553 7685
email: els.martens @lin.vlaanderen.be
Mr. Marc Peeters
Dept. of Invertebrates
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
Vautierstraat 29
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel.: +32-2-627 45 65
Fax: +32-2-627 41 41
email: marc-peeters @ kbinirsnb.be
Ghana
Mr. E.L. Lamptey
Wildlife Division
Forestry Commission
Republic of Ghana
P.O. Box M.239
Accra, Ghana
Tel: (223 21) 664654/662360
Fax: (233 21) 666476
Hungary
Ms. Louise Lakos
Deputy Head
Department of International Relations
Ministry for the Environment
Foutca 44050
H-1011 Budapest, Hungary
Tel: (36 1) 201 2891
Fax: (36 1) 201 2846
email: Lakosne.Alojzia@ktmdom2.ktm.hu
Indonesia
Mr. Budi Satyawan Wardhana
Policy Analyst for Terrestrial Ecosystem
Management
Deputy Minister for Environmental Management
State Ministry of the Environment, Jakarta 13410
Tel: (62 21) 8517257
Fax: (62 21) 8580111
Email: chmcbdri @rad.net.id
Seychelles
Mr. John Neville
Director of Conservation
Ministry of Environment and Transport
Botanical Gardens, Mont Fleuri
P.O. Box 445, Victoria, Mahé, Republic of
Seychelles
Tel: (248) 224644/635
Fax: (248) 224500
Email: chm @seychelles.net
Panama
Mr. Osvaldo Jordan
Departmento de Conservacién de la Biodiversidad
Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM)
Apartado C, Zona 0843
Balboa-Ancon, Panama
Albrook, Edificio 804, Republica de Panama
Tel: (507) 315 0855 ext. 177
Fax: (507) 315 0573
Email: osvaldo.jordan@excite.com
United Kingdom
Ms. Valerie Richardson
EPINT
Department of Environment, Transport & Regions
4/Al Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SWIE 6DE, United Kingdom
Tel: (44 207) 944 6202
Fax: (44 207) 944 6239
email: valerie_richardson @detr.gsi.gov.uk
Mr. Mark O’ Sullivan
Global Wildlife Division
Department of Environment, Transport & Regions
815 Tollgate House
Bristol BS2 9DJ, United Kingdom
Tel: (44 117) 987 8295
Fax: (44 117) 987 8317
email: mark_o'sullivan@detr.gsi.gov.uk
Convention secretariats and associated expert bodies
Convention on Biological Diversity World Heritage Convention
Mr Anthony Gross Dr Fergus O'Gorman
Environmental Affairs Officer — National Reports Director of the Conservation Education Trust
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological The Community Centre
Diversity Loughlinstown, Co.
393 St. Jacques, Office 300 Dublin, Ireland
Montreal, Quebec, Canada Tel : (3531) 28 27 920
Tel : (1 514) 288 2220 Fax : (3531) 28 27 921
Fax : (1 514) 288 6588
Email : tony.gross @biodiv.org International Whaling Convention
Dr Nicola Grandy
CITES The Secretary
Ms. Marceil Yeater International Whaling Commission
CITES Secretariat The Red House
15 Chemin des Anemones 135 Station Road
Case postale 456 Impington
CH-1219 Chatelaine Cambridge CB4 9NP, UK
Geneva, Switzerland Tel : (44 1223) 233 971
Tel : (41 22) 917 8139/40 Fax : (44 1223) 232 876
Fax : (41 22) 797 3417 Email : iwc @iwcoftice.org
Email : marceil.yeater@unep.ch
Cartagena Convention
Mr John Caldwell Mr Timothy J. Kasten
219 Huntingdon Road UNEP-CAR/RCU
Cambridge CB3 ODL 14-20 Port Royal Street
Tel : (44 1223) 277 314 Kingston, Jamaica
Fax : (44 1223) 277 136 Tel : (876) 922 9267
Email : john.caldwell @unep-wemc.org Fax : (876) 922 9292
Email : tjk.uneprcuja@cwjamaica.com
Convention on Migratory Species
Mr Doug Hykle Barcelona Convention/
UNEP/CMS Secretariat Mediterranean Action Plan
United Nations Premises in Bonn Mr Atef Ouerghi
Martin-Luther-King-Str.8 Expert on Marine Biology
D-53177 Bonn, Germany MAP Regional Activity Centre for the Specially
Tel : (49 228) 515 2401/2 Protected Areas (RAC/SPA)
Fax : (49 228) 515 2449 Boulevard de l'Environnement
Email : cms @unep.de B.P.337 - 1080 Tunis CEDEX
Tel : (216 1) 795 760
Convention on Wetlands Fax : (216 1) 797 349
Mr Nick Davidson Email : car-asp @rac-spa.org.tn
Deputy Secretary General
The Ramsar Convention Bureau
Rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland
Tel : (41 22) 999 0170
Fax : (41 22) 999 0169
Email : davidson @ramsar.org
Other organizations
GRID-Arendal
Mr. Svein Tveitdal
GRID-Arendal
Longum Park
PO Box 1602, Myrene
N-4801 Arendal, Norway
Tel: (47) 37 03 56 50
Fax: (47) 37 03 50 50
email: tveitdal @ grida.no
European Environment Agency
Mr. José-Luis Salazar
Project Manager
Legislative Instruments, International Programmes,
Conventions
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
DK-1050 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Tel: (45 33) 367161
Fax: (45 33) 36 7199
email: Jose.Salazar@EEA.eu.int
United Nations University
Dr. Hari Srinivas
The United Nations University
53-70, Jingumae 5-chome, Shibuya-ku
Tokyo 150-8925, Japan
Fax: (81 3) 3406 7347
Email: srinivas @hq.unu.edu
BirdLife International
Nicola Crockford
European Treaties Officer
The Royal Society for Protection of Birds
The Lodge
Sandy
Bedfordshire SG19 2DL
Tel + 44 1767 680551
Fax + 44 1767 683211
email : nicola.crockford @rspb.org.uk
IUCN Environmental Law Centre
Ms. Tomme Young
IUCN Environmental Law Centre
Godesberger Allee 108-112
53175 Bonn, Germany
Tel: (49 228) 269 2243
Fax: (49 228) 269 2250
email: tyoung @elc.iucn.org
IUCN
Mr Craig Hilton-Taylor
IUCN
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
Tel : (44 1223) 277314
Fax (44 1223) 277136
Email : craig.hilton-taylor@ssc-uk.org
United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions
Mr. Robert Hepworth
Deputy Director, DEC
UNEP
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 2) 623260
Fax: (254 2) 623926
email: Robert. Hepworth @unep.org
Ms. Nalini Sharma
Assistant Programme Officer, DEC
UNEP
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 2) 623264
Fax: (254 2) 623926
email: Nalini.Sharma@unep.org
UNEP Division of Early Warning and Assessment
Mr. Dave MacDevette
Chief, Environment Assessment and Reporting
DEWA
UNEP
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 2) 624526
email: Dave.MacDevette @unep.org
30
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Mr. Jeremy Harrison
UNEP-WCMC
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
Tel: (44 1223) 277314
Fax: (44 1223) 277136
email: Jerry.Harrison@unep-weme.org
Dr. Ian Crain
UNEP-WCMC
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
Tel: (44 1223) 277314
Fax :(44 1223) 277136
Email : ian.crain@unep-wemce.org
Dr. Mark Collins
UNEP-WCMC
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL, UK
Tel: (44 1223) 277314
Fax: (44 1223) 277136
email: Mark.Collins @unep-wemc.org
Mr. Alistair Taylor
UNEP-WCMC
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
Tel: (44 1223) 277314
Fax :(44 1223) 277136
Email : alistair.taylor@unep-wemc.org
Ms. Karen Simpson
UNEP-WCMC
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
Tel: (44 1223) 277314
Fax :(44 1223) 277136
Email : karen.simpson@unep-wemc.org
+i ¢
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11