YI 222AO UNEP Wh Kopaty O|

DEFRA Rationalisation of international nature

: conservation information systems
Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs

Assessment of Requirements
of
UK Policy-Makers

for
International Nature Conservation
Information
October 2001
Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) a) @ &>

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of the Rationalisation of International Nature Conservation Information Systems
(RINCIS) Project is to review international information networks relevant to nature conservation, with
the aim of improving the use of these international information sources and services in national policy
development.

This report is the first of the three principal outputs of the project, and marks the completion of Phase
2 (on 4 October 2001). The primary focus of this Phase was to determine the current uses and needs
of UK policy-makers for international nature conservation information. The report results from an
extensive consultation process with a wide range of UK government stakeholders involving a number
of workshops conducted in July and August along with structured interviews and discussions. A total
of five half-day workshops were conducted in various locations, three hosted by DEFRA and one
each by Scottish Natural Heritage and JNCC. Participation in the Workshops included the relevant
government Departments, Non-Departmental Government Bodies, devolved authorities and nature
conservation NGOs. In total 40 individuals were consulted from 20 organisations.

The objectives of the Workshops were:

e To provide participants with an insight into the principal sources of nature conservation
information currently available, their strengths, weaknesses and future directions.

e To learn from participants what information sources are currently being used, how the
information is used in policy development and decision making, and what barriers and gaps are
perceived.

Six primary uses of international information sources and networks were identified:
e Informing the UK position on international policy issues
e Implementation of international obligations in response to MEAs
e Meeting international reporting requirements
e Implementing enforcement measures
e Assessing emerging issues, status comparison
e International comparisons for setting national priorities

The primary groups of information sources identified are:
e The Convention secretariats
e International NGO networks and repositories
e Species status reference sources
e Taxonomic reference sources
e Information collections related to "sites"
e General Policy and programme implementation sources
e European sources

A number of issues and problems were identified that restrict the effective use of international data
sources and networks. The most significant can be classified as:

Gaps and overlaps - Some key gaps identified:
- Information on sustainable use and markets for biodiversity
- Information on national implementing legislation, strategies and measures in other countries.
- Case studies, good practices and "Jessons-learned" in countries with comparable situations.
- Early warning of emerging issues and policy developments, especially in the EU.

Quality and reliability, appropriateness for policy - In spite of targeted programmes of harmonisation
and integration over a number of years, there continues to be a gap between scientific observation and
the need for integrated predictive cause-and-effect information needed by national decision makers.

Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) ar
(ei

UNEP WC

Need for harmonisation and integration - A major concern of policy makers is the need for
information to be comparable and compatible — i.e. capable of being integrated and summarised. This
raises a number of issues regarding the requirements of stakeholders for increased harmonisation to
enable useful interpretation in a policy context, with implications not only for harmonisation of the
information per se, but also for methods and means of information management and analysis.

Workshop participants were asked to give their views on how best the proposed “Reference Guide”
could serve their needs. There was a wide divergence of views, although one particular theme
dominated - that is the need to ensure that the reference guide must be continuously updated.
Preferences for delivery mechanism varied from "must be on paper" to a “virtual library”
presentation. The conclusion was drawn that a wed-based service was required, with the capacity to
produce paper and CD-ROM outputs. A host service provider will be needed and options, such as the
UK Clearing House Mechanism, will be examined in the next phases.

The need for improved harmonisation and “interoperability” on a number of fronts is well recognised.
Some 20 initiatives to improve harmonisation and integration of nature conservation information and
the operations of the related MEAs have been identified. A number of concerns were raised about
these initiatives, including:

e Is there sufficient collaboration between these efforts?

e Which initiatives are really suitable for enhancing policy-making as opposed to science or the
administration of treaties?

e Are the right things being harmonised? For example are there steps to enable the assessment
of the effectiveness of MEAs in terms of environmental improvement rather than counting
activities?

e Is there too much emphasis on achieving standardisation and complete scientifically correct
answers, rather than pragmatic interoperability — for example with taxonomies?

e Is there sufficient attention to harmonisation of classification systems and terminology and
other standards required to make data and information compatible?

e What is the value and purpose of multi-designated protected areas, and how can approaches
and information management be better harmonised?

The next Phases of the project are aimed at addressing these questions by examining some of the key
information sources and networks, and the array of initiatives to harmonise, streamline and integrate.
In particular, insight and resolution of confusion and uncertainty is sought in the following clusters of
initiatives:

e Taxonomy, species lists
Global treaty harmonisation and synergy programmes
Harmonisation and integration of site related information
Global information networks
Enabling and supporting harmonisation efforts
Harmonisation of reporting

The priority questions for the next phases are therefore:
e What are the strengths and weakness of these initiatives?
e Which of these initiatives are the most viable and worthy of support?
e Howcan the UK strategically influence the direction of these harmonisation efforts and foster
effective international collaboration?

a a
Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) tm
UNEP WCMC

TABLE of CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .0............cccccecccesseecccecccecccsnccsenssscescscesnccesscccenecenceesesnscensserocsasenscseossaesens 1
L.1. Backgroungd..............cceccscecsccececcecececcestsecsrcesscosesessessassseseneeccossccssscscvssnsasasnsacasnenssnsacssersseneeasensees 1
1.2. Approach ........e.ececeececescecsscsscscsssssssvecsessssescassscnsessacececesecsessssssseesscssescacacacececcesosarsterensseseseasens 1

L.2.1. OVErVICW .......0.cccccceccesssssecessescacssensscscccecceccsccessscsssecsecesssassucsaceesecnsossocecscsacscensenseneacaeaaeeons® 1
1.2.2. The Workshop process ........:.:ssssssssesssssesescseesesessseeeseseseeeeerscssscesecsesssseneneneseasaeaencnanenengesecgss 1
1.2.3. Other interviews and disCUSSIONS ............:2:-sscscecessesceseeetseeeeeseecaeeesstecssscaseassessesesnennensentes 2
1.2.4. Questionnaire ............cccceseescsceseeceseececcececcccecesccsccsssecsecsecascaseacsessscnenessssesssseesessensenseaeeneenes a

2. THE NATURE CONSERVATION POLICY PROCESS IN THE UK..........:::eseseseseseeeess 3
DAN OV ET VICWircsettac sc crease areca eae cee cere tae ca cetacean connenetevicnnceererescecensstacececbessertanssa+uatsaeteanmacecarenrenrs 3
2.2. Principal elements ...............sscssececesesceseeecesesscsesccssssescsesescenssscaeseesensaceeeensnsessscsssesasssasenanensensenses 3

2.2.1. Legislation...............:eesecsssesssseesessssssescescssessenscsssseascasenecsceasseseceesssscscassecscasenscssnseasensaceasens 3
2.2.2. Statutory organisatiOns .............sesseecescessesseessesscsseseeseceeecaceeecseeseeessetsseessesaseassessasenseeneans 3
DEDIS™ MING Osiandiland (Owners) ecerececcereecesco-toccctecsceceeoeeceesonsseecscoscacccsocsacnentetenesucecsuessesnsnrsaesacze=eas 4
DIB WIMPrOCESS fOWSIANG GniVersiescccces -sestecceerccteccetesceeessastacseceeesasesacessesccotvcavcssreveeoeatezeesuececmarecanesece 4

3. PRINCIPAL USES OF INTERNATIONAL NATURE CONSERVATION

TINE OR NGAI @ Nieeerererterere et ae areata enter ate tae de Metatck wecnnte vce vaceeessttortucrssacessseacesseentecteneretaese 5
3.1. Informing the UK position on international policy 1SSUes.............:.:cscccceseseseseseeseneeseeeneneeneenees 5
3.2. Implementation of international obligations in response to MEAS. .........:.:sssseseseseeeteeeeeeseneeeees 5)
3.3. Meeting international reporting requirement ...............:::ceccscceseseesesseseseseecacseesesateesaeeseneceneees 6
BFA Cem ETILONCEMENt MEASLES es cere eeeareacte ere r eaten sce c sees cer ecvoescecee cone cunestenss saracesavas saree stbtncescducrsanemtonsete=ts 6
3.5. Assessing emerging issues, status COMPAFISON..............:scceseesceseseeececescsessscesseseaseacsseaeeneeesensenes 6
3.6. International comparisons for setting national Priorities ..............scccscesesesesessceesseeseeseateeeeneenes 6

4. CURRENTLY USED INTERNATIONAL SOURCES. ..........eeceececceseeeeeseeeceeseeeseeneeeeenees 7
ARIAS ON CIVIC Witte crrs cerca cece eae eee eee Ro Ek dab ghd tales LA SED Quee ee Beste 7
AD! | GroupstofenformationtsOuncesmercccrcesr-cesecesceescccscrsresccu csv nccsccnsnctcsnt.tetececessacetentnomratenserssnces 7
Als} Mam D NE WOP AUEINS OUNCES tetetesrerne seca nicecrencatersstasee eects monet 205, obnznnsuteentin «duced soticetenctideaeh= cutersnc@e anes 8

5. PROBLEMS and ISSUES in INFORMATION USE...0....ccccceccescceseeseeseeseeeeecseeeeeenneeeeaes 9
Sale Gapsiandloverlaps Seer eases Saeco acess dan case aaa ce SV eee eee 9
5.2. Quality and reliability, appropriateness for POLICY ..........esecseseceseseecesesesecsesseseeaceccseeseeeceeeaes 10
5.3. Need for harmonisation and integration ................::ccsccsssesscesscesssessceeesseseeessecsecseeesscesssessceesees 11
5.4. User Requirements for the Reference Guide ............eeceeceeceseessescssesescesesssscsesecsesacsesnecseseeatenees 12
5.5. Issues arising from harmonisation initiatives .............cccccsccssesscescesceseesceceoecscescseceascscsseessceees 13

6: SNEX@)STERS and ISSUES too ADDRESS ax. ier. ies Sec eed es eats so eaaeaces es ees 14

ANNEX 1- Criteria for Participation of Organisations and Individuals in the Workshops ... 18

ANNEX 2 - Compendium of Summary Notes of RINCIS Workshops ............ccscscscsesssseseees 20
ANNEX 3 - Organisations and People Contacted .0........c.ccccccccsccscsscsessescsssscscescsceacescescaeeaceaes 46
ANNEX 4 - Information Sources Use Questionnaire ...0....0...c0.ccecccssccesccessceacccsececsscecssseescees 47
ANNEX 5 - Summary of Questionnaire Returns ..............ccccccccscescescssesceceecsceccacecsccaccacescaseesee 54
ANNEX 6 - Summary of Treaties and Initiatives Relevant to UK Policy .......ccccceccccseeeeeees 61

ANNEX 7 - Current Moves to Harmonise and Streamline Information Sources & Services 68
ANNEX 8 - Draft Reference Guide to International Data Sources and Services

Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) =
@) @
UNEP WCMC

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
The overall objective of the Rationalisation of International Nature Conservation Information Systems
(RINCIS) Project is to review international information networks relevant to nature conservation, with
the aim of improving the use of these international information sources and services in national policy
development.

More specifically, the project aims to:

compile information on international information networks and services that deliver
information relevant to nature conservation and biodiversity

critically assess the information holdings and analysis capacities of such agencies in the
context of the needs of policy making bodies of the UK Government

provide guidance on the most effective and efficient use of existing information sources for
policy development

provide recommendations on approaches that may be taken for increasing synergies in the
delivery of information

evaluate and make recommendations on the information organisations and networks that most
merit future support and investment in the context of UK Government needs

There will be three principal outputs of the project:

an Assessment of the Needs of UK policy-making bodies for biodiversity information

a Reference Guide to international nature conservation information sources and networks

a series of Recommendations on how to rationalise the information sources and identify those
most worthy of support and investment

The project is organised in a series of logically connected steps, grouped into five major Phases as
follows:

1.
He
3

4.
oh

Planning, fact-finding and preliminary analysis

Needs analysis of UK Government policy makers

Information gathering and in-depth analysis of relevant international nature conservation
information systems

Assessment and development of recommendations on approaches to rationalisation
Preparation and presentation of the Reference Guide and reports.

This report is the first of the three principal outputs, and marks the completion of Phase 2. It results
from an extensive consultation process with UK government stakeholders involving a number of
workshops, structured interviews and discussions.

1.2. Approach

1.2.1.O0verview

Information on the requirements of UK Policy-Makers was collected in three ways:

Review of policy documents (and other documents) of relevant departments and agencies

A series of small Workshops hosted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
affairs (DEFRA) and other agencies

Structured interviews with key stakeholders, and discussions with others on opportunistic
occasions - such as international meetings and conferences.

1.2.2.The Workshop process

The Workshops were held during July and August, 2001 in various locations as follows:

a cnr eee heater ne ena er ree oy donee pet re ee or ee
Page 1 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) () @
G GO &
WCMC

UNEP

19 July 2001 London hosted by DEFRA

16 Aug 2001 London hosted by DEFRA
21 Aug 2001 Bristol hosted by DEFRA
23 Aug 2001 Edinburgh hosted by SNH
29 Aug 2001 Peterborough hosted by JNCC

The stated objectives of the Workshops were:

e To provide participants with an insight into the principal sources of nature conservation
information currently available, their strengths, weaknesses and future directions.

e To learn from participants what information sources are currently being used, how the
information is used in policy development and decision making, and what barriers and gaps are
perceived.

In addition the meetings served to obtain feed-back on the requirements and ideal delivery mechanism
for the proposed Reference Guide.

Workshop participants were those who use international information sources and services to support
policy development, national decision-making, development of legislation or regulation, and the
implementation of international treaties, EC Directives and other international measures.

Annex 1 lists the criteria that were developed for the organisations and individuals who should
participate.

Annex 2 provides a compendium of the summary notes from the five Workshops, including a typical
agenda.

1.2.3.Other interviews and discussions
It was not possible for all relevant organisations to participate in the workshop process, so additional
on-site interviews were conducted, as well as discussions at other fora in the UK and abroad. Topics
discussed paralleled the agenda of the Workshops. These interviews particularly focussed on DEFRA
and JNCC.

In addition comment and feedback was solicited and received by email.

Annex 3 lists all the organisations and individuals contacted through the workshops and other
discussions.

1.2.4.Questionnaire
The Workshops have provided considerable insight into the use of, and requirements for, international
information in policy development and implementation. In order to confirm that the Workshop
participants were representative, a simple check-box questionnaire on the use of selected information
sources was circulated participants as well as wider audience of stakeholders (a total of 132). Responses were
received from 31 individuals at the time of writing of this report, and will help develop the Reference Guide
and set priorities for future analysis and review steps in the Project.

Annex 4 contains a copy of the questionnaire, and Annex 5 a summary of the questionnaire returns.

Page 2 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) Ty) age
we
UNEP WCMC

2. THE NATURE CONSERVATION POLICY PROCESS IN THE UK

The goal of this project is ultimately to improve nature conservation policy making and
implementation in the UK. It is therefore useful to consider the elements of the current policy process
in order to identify where improvements in international information harmonisation will be beneficial,
and to provide a framework for developing strategic recommendations in later Phases of the project.
This section identifies the principal elements, drivers and process flows.

2.1. Overview

The nature conservation policy process in the UK involves a number of governmental and non-
governmental elements, and operates both reactively (e.g. in response to EC Directives) and
proactively (to develop national policy for the benefit of civil society and to forward UK interests).
There is no one central authority governing nature conservation (no "Department of Nature
Conservation"), but rather policy implementation rests with a number of Departments and Agencies.
Recent devolution of central government powers have vested some responsibility for nature
conservation policy to the authorities of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although not
to the extent of a "federal state" such as Germany.

2.2. Principal elements

2.2.1.Legislation

The principal acts through which nature conservation policy is implemented are the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (1981), and the Environmental Protection Act (1990). In some cases there is separate
legislation for the devolved authorities, like the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order and Nature
Conservation and Amenity Lands (NI) Order.

The UK is also subject to EC legislation, of which the most significant in this context are the EC Directive on
the Conservation of Wild Birds, and the EC Habitat and Species Directives. These are implemented mainly
through national regulation under existing legislation, such as the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.)
Regulations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

The UK is a party to an number of Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) that require or
imply the need for national actions, policies and legislation, and other obligations. The most
significant of these in the context of nature conservation are:

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention)

World Heritage Convention

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern

Convention)

e Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention) and related Agreements (ASCOBANS,
Eurobats, and AEWA)

e Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

A more complete list may be found in Annex 6.

2.2.2.Statutory organisations

Much of the responsibility for policy advice to the Government in these areas, and for the
implementation of nature conservation policy and the provisions of the above legislative framework,
falls to DEFRA. Other relevant Departments include Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (responsible
for enforcement of CITES import restrictions), the Department for International Development (DfID),
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and the Department for Heritage, Culture and Sport.

Page 3 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) @ &
WCMC

UNEP

Under the Environmental Protection Act a number of government-funded "Agencies" (Non-
Departmental Public Bodies or NDPBs) were created for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
These bodies are responsible for information gathering, policy advice, and direct programmes of work
to implement nature conservation policy and legislation. They are as follows:

English Nature

The Countryside Agency

The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW)

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)

(Norther Ireland) Environment Heritage Service (EHS).

e The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) serves to co-ordinate the activities of the
four devolved agencies: English Nature, CCW, SNH and the Northern Ireland EHS.

The primary functions of JNCC are to advise ministers on the development of nature conservation
policies in the UK and internationally, and to establish common standards throughout Great Britain
and Northern Ireland for nature conservation monitoring and assessment. This makes JNCC the
primary source of scientific advice to DEFRA and other departments on nature conservation.

2.2.3.NGOs and land owners
Major land owners influence UK nature conservation policy through their land use practices and land
stewardship. NGOs exercise influence through advocacy that reflects the views of large memberships.
The National Trust is one of the most significant land owners in this regard, and the RSPB is both a
significant land owner and effective lobbyist.

2.3. Process flows and drivers
There is no one "process" that would typify the development of nature conservation legislation,
regulation, or policy in the UK. While only sovereign countries (and their constituent parts) can enact
national legislation, the need for new or amended policy may be driven by a number of different
forces internationally and within the country. Policy drivers (in order of importance as deduced from
the Workshops) include:

EC Directives

EC policies and programmes

European regional conventions and treaties

Global conventions and treaties

National economic and political priorities

National social pressures (public opinion as expressed through NGOs, advocacy groups,
lobbies, etc)

e Intemational social pressure (e.g. advocacy of the UN, other international agencies and
international NGOs).

The process elements include issue awareness, issue assessment (including scientific assessment),
public consultation, policy option development, policy implementation (legislation, regulation,
programmes of work) and monitoring of effectiveness. The process would normally be a continuous
loop with these elements operating in the above order - but the starting point and the initiative may
begin from a number of sources - such as from a national NGO or lobby, UK involvement in
international fora (such as the UN), the proposed accession to a treaty, an EC policy proposal made
from a member country, and so on.

However the "issue awareness" may originate, the Government will normally designate a lead
department (usually DEFRA for nature conservation matters). The lead department will seek the
partnership of relevant related departments, seek scientific assessment and policy feasibility advice

Page 4 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) fm =

UNEP WCMC

from the "Agencies"- principally through JNCC - and engage in public consultation e.g. through
national NGOs. This results in policy proposals for consideration of the government, and briefing for
UK representatives to the EC, treaty governing bodies.

Throughout the policy development process, international information sources and networks are
employed (with varying degrees of success) to inform the process on obligations, science, issues, and
measures taken by other countries. The following sections provide an assessment of the current use of
international sources and networks.

3. PRINCIPAL USES OF INTERNATIONAL NATURE CONSERVATION
INFORMATION

Information is required at various points in the policy making process as noted above, and the results
of the consultation process indicated that the information uses can be categorised into 5 broad
headings based on the intended use of the information. These are given in the sections below, along
with examples of use in each case.

3.1. Informing the UK position on international policy issues
The information is used to develop the UK position regarding emerging international policy proposals
- such as new MEAs, or Directives, or extensions and modifications to existing measures. The
information is used as briefing support for UK representatives on drafting committees and official
international bodies.

Example:
EC proposal on sustainable hunting of birds (under the Birds Directive)

DEFRA sought scientific information on the impact on species populations from JNCC,
international sources such as Birdlife International, and on public opinion from international
NGOs such as RSPB, in order to advise official delegates to the EC.

Example:
Accession to the CBD

Broad consultation was required for this umbrella treaty — hence an inter-departmental
committee was struck. Information was sought from a broad range of international sources,
including, IUCN, WCMC, UN agencies, and international NGOs.

3.2. Implementation of international obligations in response to MEAs

Once the UK has become a party to a multi-lateral agreement actions must be taken to meet the
specified and implied obligations.

Example:
CBD

The obvious implied obligation was for a national Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).
Information needs included guidance on the form and content of a BAP, plans and strategies
of other countries, international interpretations of Convention articles.

Example:
Implementation of CMS obligations to prevent the taking of annexed species.

Page 5 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) () @
WO!

UNEP WCMC

Information sought included guidance on species definitions from IUCN and WCMC Species
databases, range state definitions, decisions under CMS Agreements (from CMS Secretariat),
and measures taken in other countries (e.g. hunting and fishing regulations).

3.3. Meeting international reporting requirements

Most MEAs require regular national reports on the implementation of the treaty. Compilation of these
can be burdensome and there are clear overlaps in the demands of the different instruments.

Example:
Reporting to the CBD

Information sought to respond to the reporting requirements includes, reporting instructions
and interpretations from the CBD secretariat, access to reports of other countries, issue
assessment and global status information on species, habitats, social and economic matters
(such as “equitable sharing of benefits”).

3.4. Enforcement measures

Example:
Enforcement of import restrictions on plants and animals under CITES

HMCE uses the WCMC species databases, and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, for reference
on species identification, the CITES Secretariat for competent authorities (for permits),
identification guides and IUCN-Traffic for trends and intelligence.

3.5. Assessing emerging issues, status comparison

Example:
Assessing global trends towards sustainable development

The DEFRA Sustainable Development Unit uses the UN-CSD information service (on
occasion) and scans a wide range of web sources of national governments and international
NGOs to identify actions, policies in other countries to inform UK Sustainable Development
Strategy.

Example:
Comparing relative state of nature conservation in Scotland to Europe

Through a surveillance and monitoring process, SNH have established a number of measures
of conservation status and natural quality for Scotland. They are currently seeking to compare
these measures to the conservation status in European countries. This will require
information from European national sources, and international agencies — available through
EIONET, the EEA, Eurostat, the EC Clearing House Mechanism, and so on.

3.6. International comparisons for setting national priorities

National priorities and policies must be developed in a context that considers the regional and global
picture. Thus it is necessary to seek information on species status and populations, protected areas and
site designation specifics, global and regional issues and that impact on the UK.

Example:
Development of UK Biodiversity Action Plan

A multi-departmental initiative, this required information on the global population and
international status of endangered and threatened species, especially with regard to endemism,

EP @ &

Page 6 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

®

2

so as to set priorities for species conservation and habitat protection and rehabilitation
programmes in the UK. Information sources included the IUCN "Red Books", and databases
of Wetlands International and Birdlife International.

4. CURRENTLY USED INTERNATIONAL SOURCES

4.1. Overview

Because of the devolved "agency" structure of NDPBs, Government Departments do not frequently
make use of international information sources and networks. Instead, information synthesis and
advice is sought from the NDPBs, such as the Royal Botanic gardens, form the Agencies, and from
JNCC which is the main provider of such information. The principal exception to this is the use of
information sources specific to responsibilities under particular MEAs (e.g. CITES) where access to
the information services of the convention secretariat is common. Typically this is related to obtaining
policy and process information, such as meeting agendas and related background papers, national
reports, official resolutions, decisions and minutes, etc. Reference may also be made to official EC
sources, the EEA, and the IUCN Environmental Law Centre for information on the policy and legal
context. Scientific advice and assessment is normally obtained through the Agencies. The Agencies
are the principal users of international sources and networks.

4.2. Groups of information sources

The Workshops provided information that allowed the identification of major groups of most
frequently accessed information sources:

e The Convention secretariats

e International NGO networks and repositories (such as Wetlands International, Birdlife,
TUCN)

e Species status reference sources (such as UNEP-WCMC Species Databases, RBG-Kew,
ICLARM-FishBase)

e Taxonomic reference sources (such as Web-of-Life, Species 2000)

e Information collections related to "sites" including the World Database of Protected Areas
database, Natura 2000 sites, and site-designation treaty services (such as WHC, Ramsar, and
Bern)

e General Policy and programme implementation sources (such as the CSD, UN System-wide
Earthwatch, the CBD Clearing House, WRI, IISD, WWF, UNEP)

e European sources (such as ECNC, EEA, and the European Commission DGs)

Several agencies, and especially JNCC, mentioned the use of very specialised sources and networks -
for example regarding a single species or group. These are often held or co-ordinated by individual
interested scientists or academics.

Most of these sources are routinely accessed through the Internet, although some sources normally
deliver printed outputs (such as IUCN-ELC), and a great deal of printed material is often collected at
official MEA meetings. A least one Department indicated that access to the Internet was difficult.

Many workshop participants also referred to trusted experts, contacts and world authorities for
information.

Surprisingly perhaps, rather little use seems to be made of metadata services (such as the UNEP
Metadatabase, CEISIN, EEA Catalogue of Data Sources) or of referral services such as
INFOTERRA. Bibliographic and abstracting services were principally used to find a likely "expert" to
contact regarding particular issue or species.

Page 7 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

a)

ee

Statistical databases that might be of use for indicators and comparisons are not used frequently
(FAO, Eurostats, OECD, etc), and there was little awareness and no use of the "Global Observing
Systems" - Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS), Global Oceans Observing System (GOOS),
and Global Climate Observing System (GCOS).

, and Annex 6 a summary of the results of the information sources questionnaire.

4.3. The Top Ten sources

To augment the views obtained from the Workshops, particularly with regard to obtaining more
specifics as to information sources currently used, a questionnaire was circulated to participants as
well as wider audience of stakeholders. A total of 132 questionnaires were circulated by email. At the
time of writing of this report responses had been received form 31 individuals. While this is a
relatively poor return (there may be more to come) it served to confirm the general impressions
obtained through the Workshops, that the primary sources were the Convention Secretariats and their
web-sites, and European co-ordinating sources.

Based on the analysis of the questionnaire returns the following are the i0 most frequently used
sources (no relative order implied):

- Bern Convention Secretariat and web-site

- Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat — main web-site

- Convention on Biological Diversity Clearing House Mechanism web-site

- Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) Secretariat and web-site
- Ramsar Convention Bureau web-site

- EUROPA - The European Union Online

- European Commission, DG-Environment web-site

- UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) web site

- European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) web site

- WWE International web site

It is noticeable that the majority of these sites are connected with major Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs). This is perhaps a reflection of the UK’s membership and active involvement in
biodiversity conservation at the international level through these and numerous other MEAs. Also
significant is the number of European-related information sources that figure in this list. Participants
in the workshops stated that Europe was a major driver for the UK and this is reflected in the
responses to the questionnaire. The NGO web sites relate to organisations with quite varied portfolios
of work relating to biodiversity conservation. Both ECNC and WWF are involved in work that spans
many sectors and countries. This is also true of the activities in which UNEP-WCMC is involved that
are both international in geographic scope and broad-based within the domain of nature conservation.

From the above it could be inferred that policy makers are interested in information concerning
international and regional initiatives that directly concern them, and that they also favour sources
offering more generalised nature conservation information with links to more specific information.

The two most frequently visited web-sits appear to be :

- European Commission, DG-Environment site
- EUROPA - The European Union Online

An important issue regarding information provided online is the frequency with which this
information is updated. This frequency may be intimately related to actual changes in the information

ae

Page 8 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001 7
@ @
UNEP WCMC

itself. From the above information taken from the questionnaires it might be inferred that EU web
sites are frequently visited because they are frequently updated, and that this frequent updating is
necessary because of the constant evolution of EC law and policy relating to nature conservation.

Of the sources suggested on the questionnaire the following were the least visited (all returns
indicated "never"):

- Earthtrends, The Environmental Information Portal
- Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS)
- Infoterra Global Environmental Information Exchange Network

There are probably several reasons why these web sites have never been visited by the small sample
of policy makers questioned. It may be that these sites, which focus on nature conservation at the
global level, do not provide useful information for national level policy makers. It may also be
possible that the policy makers questioned were unaware of these sites, as some respondents stated
that they had been previously unaware of several of the information sources included in the
questionnaire. Also, some indicated in comments that they did not have the time to seek information
sources beyond those pertaining to their immediate area of expertise.

Annex 4 shows a sample of the blank questionnaire form, and Annex 5 provides a summary of the
questionnaire returns.

5. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN INFORMATION USE

This section presents the problems and issues associated with the use of international nature
conservation information identified through the Workshops and other consultations. The points are
extracted and summarised from the workshop session summaries and from interview notes — thus a
summary of summaries. For more detail and context, please refer to the specific Workshop summaries
in Annex 2.

5.1. Gaps and overlaps

Although vast amounts of nature conservation information is held in international databases and
networks, it is recognised that there are some significant gaps. Key requirements are as follows:

e High level information on focal points, and stakeholders, with details of who is responsible for
what in other countries.

e Personal contacts are very important to policy makers. A contacts database, that not only includes
key posts but also key named individuals, with some system for updating and maintenance, would
be particularly useful for keeping in contact with those policy makers who are frequently
changing posts.

e Information is needed on sustainable use and understanding markets for biodiversity and
environmental commodities, such as tourism or forestry, with forewarning of developments in
these markets.

e Information on legislation, particularly national implementing legislation in other countries.

e Up-to-date information on and better access to, the text of national strategies, with details of what
each strategy covers and its status.

© There is a need for increased access to and effective use of case studies and good practices and
"lessons-learned" (good and bad) in other countries with comparable situations.

Page 9 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001 eS
e y q ( ) &) @
UNEP WCMC

e Information on the activities being undertaken by other countries, in particular those that share
environmental characteristics with parts of the UK would be extremely useful. This should
include case studies (both successful and unsuccessful), and information on best practice.

e Species identification aids - not just information on the scientific and common names of species
but also the appearance of particular species look like when traded including information on the
common forms of trade (parts, derivatives, typical products, trade names).

e Information on “policy drivers”, for instance emerging social issues and as reflected in pressure
from NGOs and political directions.

e European level information is needed, particularly prior information of policy developments and
information on linkages.

e Information on and from NGOs including data holdings, strategies and agendas, and advocacy of
best practice.

e National reports and other information submitted to MEAs should be made much more accessible
and searchable by topic or content keyword

e Supplementary materials submitted to convention secretariats by national governments (including
cases studies and site reports) should be indexed and made available.

e Information on international funding sources with an environmental search engine

5.2. Quality and reliability, appropriateness for policy

As early as the UN International Forum on Environmental Information in 1991, there have been
concerns about the appropriateness of information for policy making. In spite of targeted programmes
of harmonisation and integration, there continues to be a gap between scientific observation and the
need for integrated predictive cause-and-effect information needed by national decision makers. The
following indicate some of the main issues raised:

e Information should be targeted and made accessible for policy makers who may not be
conservationists or experts in the field to which the information relates. Practitioners require a
different type of information to policy makers.

e It is important to know the source of the data or information. Advice on the quality and accuracy,
the motives and the usefulness (in a policy context) of each information source, provided by either
users or a third party would be useful.

e Information for policy makers should be presented in a summary form rather than in full. Policy
makers are unlikely to read long documents.

e Information is needed on sustainable use and understanding markets for biodiversity and
environmental commodities, and the interactions, such as tourism or forestry, with forewarning of
developments in these markets.

¢ The Reference Guide should link only to those information sources that are kept up to date and
have quality management. At the same time account should be taken of information sources
whose updating frequency is linked to international processes such as reporting cycles,
conferences of parties or seasonal variations.

Page 10 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

gy

UNEP WCMC

5.3. Need for harmonisation and integration

A major concern of policy makers is the need for information to be comparable and compatible — i.e.
capable of being integrated and summarised. One participant summarised the situation well with “The
norm is for data not to be comparable rather than for it to be comparable”. This raises a number of
issues regarding the requirements of stakeholders for increased harmonisation to enable useful
interpretation in a policy context. This has implications not only for harmonisation of the information
per Se, but also for methods and means of information management and analysis.

e In general, information from different sources is often incomparable and incompatible. Increased
harmonisation is needed of nomenclature, standards and terminology.

e An integrated species list for all appropriate international conventions (e.g. CMS, CITES) with
standardised terminology and glossary of terms (multilingual) should be created.

e Linkages and harmonisation of the UN CSD Web site and national sustainable development sites.

e Convention web sites should be made compatible, kept up to date and respond to user needs,
particularly the needs of those involved in implementation activities.

e Information held by secretariats and the European Commission should be made available rather
than just disappearing into a black hole. Report formats should be developed so as to facilitate
this.

e National reporting requirements should be harmonised to ease the burden on parties of reporting.

e It is important to find ways of linking national policies and information systems to international
obligations (particularly European) so that obligatory reports to international instruments are of
use to the implementation of national policy.

e Increasingly there is demand from policy-makers for indicators or measures of "conservation
status", "countryside quality" or "sustainability". There is therefore a need for access to
information on international developments of indicators, and accepted measures.

e Need for improved harmonisation and interoperability of classification systems and nomenclature
e.g. for habitats, vegetation, biotopes, etc

e Harmonisation of data collection is needed to ensure comparability, e.g. harmonisation of the
Natura 2000 monitoring requirements and the Ramsar monitoring requirements. For other
Conventions investigate the extent to which the data for one can answer the questions posed by
another.

e Several organisations/secretariats call for case studies and thematic reports (OECD, CBD, CSD),
it would be useful to have an integrated approach to accessing these case studies and best
practices.

e It would be useful to co-ordinate the development of indicators at the UK level as well as with
Europe. Similarly for nomenclatures and classifications which differ, a common framework
would be easier, perhaps taking into account classifications used by others elsewhere.

e Different definitions for the same thing may be used at the national level, for example definitions
of forests that differ across the EU member states.

Page 11 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @ oa
&

UNEP WCMC

© It would be beneficial if this project could stimulate the international collaboration and co-
operation that will lead to harmonisation. At the moment everyone is selling a product and trying
to be different.

e Better linkages to sustainable development, and indicators of sustainable utilisation, quality of
landscape, rural quality, quality of life etc

e Harmonisation of reporting obligations to MEAs and directives is badly needed. Such
harmonisation could lead to effective "modular reporting", that is, allowing for modules or
"information packets" to be prepared that serve the needs of multiple conventions.

e Integrating training, awareness raising and mobilisation of civil society with policy development
and reporting

e Interoperability of species lists through the Species Dictionary and consistent taxonomies

e Provide an integrated, cross-referenced system of bibliographic and abstracted databases, and
other resources, such as the relevant discussion groups and list servers.

5.4. User Requirements for the Reference Guide
Workshop participants were asked to give their views on how best the proposed Reference Guide
could serve their needs. There was a wide divergence of views, although one particular theme
dominated - that is the need to ensure that the reference guide must be continuously updated.
Preferences for delivery mechanism varied from "must be on paper" to a virtual library presentation
consisting only of hot-links to other web-sites.

The following points are summarised from the discussions:

Update and maintenance

e Extremely important to consider how to keep it up to date - one way is to allow participants to
update their own metadata If constant updating is possible some very useful data can be
included in the reference guide.

eA paper version of the guide would not be ideal. How will the guide be kept up to date and
maintained? Even of it consist only of a series of signposts there is a need to maintain it.

e Not only should the reference guide be kept up to date, it should link only to those
information sources that themselves are kept up to date. At the same time account should be
taken of information sources whose updating frequency is linked to international processes
such as reporting cycles, conferences of parties or seasonal variations.

e Develop a pre-determined system for assessing the validity and/or value of the information
contained in sources

e There should be a limit as to what information is trusted based on the accuracy and quality of
this data.

e The Guide must indicate the underlying quality of the information, original intent, nature of
"peer review" of information

e There can be sloppy quality control on some web sites — no proof reading or checking. All
sites should be closely reviewed for quality.

Web delivery
e AnHTML format guide would be preferred, using weblinks/hotlinks
e If the Reference Guide is a website, could provide a mechanism for people to add sites that

they found useful.
Page 12 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) té =
& @
UNEP WCMC

An online guide would be most useful, with facts about each web site and also opinion on the
usefulness of the site, and the reliability of the information.

A one-stop shop reference guide, giving directions to information sources, rather than holding
information itself, would be very useful.

An HTML format is preferable, but account should be taken of how the guide will look if it is
printed out.

The Reference Guide should be Web-based service, essentially metadata

In the extreme, the Reference Guide could be nothing but hot-links

Search modes

Could an environmental search engine be created, searching through a library of likely
sources with key headings — a kind of virtual library?

There is a need to find a way to capture searches in the system, so that after the first person
has spent two hours finding something, subsequent people searching for the same thing can
find it much quicker.

Important to indicate the temporal scope of the information (e.g. CORINE Biotopes - useful
but now out-dated)

Important to keyword with controlled vocabulary, as well as allow full text searching
Searchable by geographic criteria useful - consider the National Geospatial Data Framework
(NGDF) as model of how to do spatial searches.

Information should be categorised so as to avoid information overload.

Care should be taken that the reference guide does not perform in the same way as a search on
the Internet. The reference guide should be a manageable size.

A search box may not be useful, headings, themes and sub-headings might be more useful for
some users. Groups of information sources rather than keywords would be better.

The UK Biodiversity web site has provided keywords, listed hierarchically, could this serve
as a common nomenclature?

A paper based document with links built in would be useful. The guide should be designed so
that a paper document can be produced with consideration of how it would look if printed out.
If the Reference Guide is in the form of a searchable CD-Rom, not everyone has the facilities
to use it. A desk reference on paper would be useful.

A paper copy is required. It could be updated every 2-3 years, with more regular updates on
the web.

A downloadable document in PDF format is a common solution to web-based information
distribution.

General

Consider UK Clearing House as possible mechanism for Reference Guide

Should be widely accessible, not just to "gsi" (i.e. Government Departments and Agencies)

It may be that the reference guide cannot be delivered by this project, but an organisation like
the EEA could do it. Questions raised by the project may never get answered

It is noted that little use is made currently of metadatabases, so the Reference Guide must be
clearly focussed on meeting the needs of the intended users

5.5. Issues arising from harmonisation initiatives
The need for improved harmonisation and “interoperability” on a number of fronts is well recognised.
Some 20 initiatives to improve harmonisation and integration of nature conservation information and
the operations of the related MEAs have been identified (see Annex 7).

eo ee a
AL!
WCMC

UNEP

A number of concerns were raised:

e Is there sufficient collaboration between these efforts, or do they sometimes operate at cross
purposes?

e Which initiatives are really suitable for enhancing policy-making as opposed to science or the
administration of treaties. For instance, in harmonising reporting are conventions considering
how to make the information more useful for national planning and implementation, rather
than facilitating secretariat “business”?

e Are the right things being harmonised? For example are there steps to enable the assessment
the effectiveness of MEAs in environmental results rather than activities?

e Is there too much emphasis on achieving standardisation and complete scientifically correct
answers, rather than pragmatic interoperability — for example with taxonomies?

e Is there sufficient attention to harmonisation of classification systems and terminology and
other standards required to make data and information compatible?

e How do State-of the Environment studies relate to the development of indicators and
measures of “conservation status”, “landscape quality”, and “sustainable development”?

e What is the value and purpose of multi-designated protected areas, and how can approaches
and information management be better harmonised?

In short - how can the harmonisation efforts be harmonised?

6. NEXT STEPS AND ISSUES TO ADDRESS

The next Phases of the project are aimed at looking in-depth at some of the key information sources

and networks, and at the array of initiatives to harmonise, streamline and integrate.

In particular, insight and resolution of confusion and uncertainty is sought in the following clusters of

initiatives:

Page 14 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) fa

Taxonomy, Species lists
E.g. GBIF, Species 2000, All Species Inventory, BioNet, etc

E.g. the “Rio Treaties” harmonisation, “biodiversity convention" synergies,
UNEP harmonisation pilot projects

Harmonisation and integration of site related information
E.g. related to Natura 2000, Ramsar, WHC, Bern, CMS, MAB, etc

Global information networks
GTOS, UNEP-Net, World Data Centres, BCIS, ENRIN, etc

Enabling and Supporting harmonisation efforts
Terminology, classification systems, indicators, etc

@) @

|

|

Global treaty harmonisation and synergy programmes
dua

UNEP WCMC

e Harmonisation of Reporting
UNEP, EU, EEA, UN-CSD, etc

e Programmes aimed at increased accessibility of case studies and best practices
(no examples at this time)
The priority questions for the next phases are therefore:
e What are the strengths and weakness of these initiatives?
e Which of these initiatives are the most viable and worthy of support?

e How can the UK strategically influence the direction of these harmonisation efforts and foster
effective international collaboration?

The revised RINCIS Programme of Work to address these questions can be found in the Progress
Report, Phases I and 2, October 2001.

Page 15 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001 ?
g y q ( ) @) @ &
UNEP WCMC

Page 16 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

RINCIS
Assessment of Requirements
of
UK Policy-Makers
for
International Nature Conservation Information

ANNEXES

October 2001

Page 17 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) @ &
al
(os

UNEP WC

ANNEX 1 - Criteria for Participation of Organisations and Individuals in the
Workshops

A. Criteria for identifying appropriate organisations for participation in Workshops

General: Organisations that use international environmental information in support of policy
development or implementation

1. National focal points for international agreements and programmes relating to nature conservation

2. Organisations providing support to implementation of these international agreements and
programmes

3. Organisations developing national strategies and policy recommendations with regard to the
environment and sustainable development

4. Organisations developing legislation and regulation with regard to the environment and sustainable
development

5. Organisations responsible for liaison with the EU, EEA, OECD, and other international organisations
with regard to the environment and sustainable development

6. Organisations whose work is influenced by international agreements and programmes on nature
conservation, and who need to take these into account

7. Departments and other organisations providing development support to Governments in other
countries

Page 18 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) gm
UNEP WCMC

B. Criteria for identifying appropriate officials for participation in the Workshops

General: Participants should be senior officials who use or have a need to use international
information sources on nature conservation, particularly for national policy development or
implementation

The participant should have one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Bea focal point or responsible for liaison with one or more MEAs

2. Develop or propose policies or strategies that require international nature conservation
information

Currently use international sources or networks for nature conservation information

4. Draft legislation or otherwise be involved with legal aspects of the environment or nature
conservation that may require international information sources

Oversee the management of protected areas that have international designations
6. Make applications to international bodies for designation of protected areas

7. Responsible for preparing reports or fulfilling other information obligations under MEAs

ee ee
Page 19 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) s
@Ge

UNEP Wi

ANNEX 2 - Compendium of Summary Notes of RINCIS Workshops

During July and August, 2001 the RINCiS project held a series of Workshops with a range of
stakeholders to gain insight into the current uses, problems and needs associated with
international information on nature conservation - in the context of policy making and the
implementation of international policies and treaties.

The Workshops were held in various locations as follows:

Thurs July 19, 2001 London hosted by DEFRA
Thurs Aug 16, 2001 London hosted by DEFRA
Tues Aug 21,2001 _ Bristol hosted by DEFRA

Thurs Aug 23,2001 Edinburgh hosted by SNC
Wed Aug 29, 2001 Peterborough hosted by JNCC

The following pages provide summary notes on the meetings.

Page 20 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) =
@ 6 2
WCMC

UNEP

Typical Workshop Agenda

Workshop on International Nature Conservation Information Sources and Needs
Great Minster House, London
19 July 2001

AGENDA

PART I - Current International Framework for Nature Conservation Information
10:30-11:30

1. Welcome and introduction of participants

2. Brief overview of the project - Jan Crain

3. Introduction to nature conservation information for policy - Jan Crain

4. Current moves to harmonise and streamline - Jerry Harrison

5. Preliminary assessment of information sources - Jan Crain

PART II - Interactive Sessions

11:30-12:30

6. Introduction, examples, and questions to be addressed - Jerry Harrison

7. How information is used in policy development and decision making - all participants

8. International information sources and networks currently used - all participants
lunch break 12:30-13:30

13:30-14:30

9. How can the Reference Guide be most useful? - all participants

10. Solutions Sought - priorities for recommendations - all participants

PART III - Summation
14:30-15:00

11. Focus, summarisation, and future directions
e Principal needs for improved information
e Priorities for sources to be further investigated and assessed
e future steps in the project and how to maximise participation and benefits

PART IV - Informal Discussion - optional
15:00- ...

Small group discussions with the project team as desired to explore needs, opportunities, and specific
guidance on next steps and project priorities

renee ee ee ce PER SF cn ret =
Page 21 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) ) @ &
ui WCMC

UNEP

Workshop on International Nature Conservation
Information Sources and Needs

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Great Minster House, London
19 July 2001

SUMMARY NOTES

Participants:

Guy Clarke — HM Customs and Excise

Chris Miller — HM Customs and Excise

Aphrodite Korou — DEFRA (Sustainable Development Unit)
Jim Ellis - CEFAS

Kerry ten Kate — Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Mark Jackson — Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Jeremy Harrison - UNEP-WCMC
Karen Simpson - UNEP-WCMC
Ian Crain — The Orbis Institute

Current

HMCE:

sources and how information is used in policy development and decision-making:

Information is used for enforcement — the specifics of the law (CITES and EC legislation) and
of the relevant CITES Appendices are required, as well as identification guides. Information
is supplied to DEFRA regarding seizures and intelligence gathered.

The distinction was made between information (such as details of seizures and other actions) and
“intelligence”. Intelligence refers to information of use in establishing enforcement strategies and
priorities. Examples would include information on markets for prohibited species (size and location),
emerging trends (including social and fashion trends) likely to affect trade, poaching and illegal taking
information (where), seizure information from other jurisdictions.

The CITES Secretariat provides useful historical information, but is not found to be up-to-date. It
provides a list of Competent Authorities (e.g. for issuing permits) but this is not terribly useful. It has
started to send out Thematic Notes on what is happening which may prove useful, but it is difficult for
the CITES Secretariat to provide detailed information without offending some member countries.
Sources currently used include CITES web-site and published documentation, reference manuals,
specific contacts and trusted colleagues in enforcement authorities of other countries.

Experts at Kew are used for species identification where needed. Kew’s orchid checklists are very
useful.

Botanic Gardens, Kew:

DEFRA,

Page 22 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

Kew experts are a regular part of the UK delegation to the CBD and SBSTTA, and advise the UK
government on strategies and science.

If nothing is known about a subject at all, a government list of so-called experts is used as a starting
point.

Uses the IUCN Law Centre to see what laws and legal sources there are in a country.

Kew is developing a web-based tool which will provide information on major land owners (trusts,
governments, churches), with links to their websites.

Sustainable Development Unit:
Provides policy advice on issues related to sustainable development, and on the
implementation of international and European policy and legislation.

fag
UNEP WCMC

The UN Commission for Sustainable Development website is not used a great deal — not considered to
be up-to-date. Different sites are used to locate different types of information, based on a regular scan.
There is no specific formal list of sites that are checked regularly. It is achieved through knowledge of
“good” sites and of emerging issues.

Sustainable development search engines are of dubious value.

They have developed a UK Sustainable Development website that has sections on European and
International policies and activities, most recent scientific and political developments. In general, the
website promotes best practices, and points to relevant items on sustainable development elsewhere. It
is intended for global use and is not a directory. An associated discussion group has been developed.
“ENDS” have back-issues of their magazines in a searchable database.

The Unit has developed a sustainable development research network with the Universities of
Westminster and Edinburgh. It provides integrated information which might be useful as an example.

Provides advice to various departments with respect to fisheries and marine biodiversity.

When looking for information on a topic, would look at the literature and then ring someone who is
known in that subject area. Much reliance placed on known experts and personal contacts.

“BIDS” is useful, as is the British Library who order anything they do not hold through inter-library
loans.

Recommendations on making the Reference Guide most useful:

HMCE:

Develop a pre-determined system for assessing the validity and/or value of the information being
provided.

Information is needed on quotas, points of export, etc. In the reference guide, there should be some
indication of whether this type of information is included. Would prefer more direct information.

If the Reference Guide is in the form of a searchable CD-Rom, not everyone has the facilities to use it.
A desk reference on paper would be useful.

Botanic Gardens, Kew:

Could develop questions as indicators to assess the quality of the information (e.g. who put together the
information? was it independently verified?)

If the Reference Guide is a website, could provide a mechanism for people to add sites that they found
useful.

If the Reference Guide is a website, need good design. Part of the usefulness of a site is determined by
how far it can be accessed from another site.

Need to include “BioPlan”.

Should provide information not just for the converted, but also for those making decisions. Need to
confer with users, but also to industry, energy producers, local government, planning people, those
involved in transport and agricultural policy, etc.

Information is needed on the sustainable use, markets and economic value of biodiversity

DEFRA Sustainable Development Unit:

Would use the Reference Guide to identify sites that are relevant to sustainable development, both for
research purposes and to provide advice.
Could address questions through the site (as a discussion forum).

If other databases were added to the Reference Guide, in the future they could be threatened with
removal if they are not kept up-to-date.
A paper copy is required. It could be updated every 2-3 years, with more regular updates on the web.

Issues, problems and areas where harmonisation and synergies are needed:

HMCE:

Page 23 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) @ &
WCMC

UNEP

Often those who deal with enforcement use different terminology.

Need to find some way to share information and intelligence and get the “big picture”.

Would be useful to have a list of people with enforcement knowledge/experience around the world.
Would be useful to know in advance the details specified in laws of other countries.

An update of the CITES identification guide on the web would be useful, with photos (rather than
drawings).

e In addition it is important to know not only what something looks like in the wild, but also how it is
commonly traded (parts, powders, products), trade names, etc.

Need to be able to identify the national focal points and statutory authorities for enforcement
Consistency between CITES species list, and EC lists, definitions

Botanic Gardens, Kew:

e Information is needed on sustainable use and understanding markets for biodiversity. Need
input from the private sector and industry associations.

e Need to pull together all stakeholders and join together all those involved in such a way that
they understand each other.

e Need to find a means to locate the focal points for different Agreements/Conventions in each
country.

e Need to locate/identify where people fit into the global picture, identify focal points and
stakeholders.

e To identify someone with knowledge in a particular field, a government list of experts is a
starting point. But it must be kept up-to-date.

e Would like to see an integrated, cross-referenced system of bibliographic and abstracted
databases. A list of list servers would be useful.

e Need standardised terminology. It would be useful to have a source indicating how words are
being used.
Would like to see all legal texts on-line.
Although convention secretariats should be encouraged to promote implementation, lateral
input is required from other sources to manage data.

e Would be useful to find up-to-date national strategies.

DEFRA Sustainable Development Unit:

e Not all countries have government-maintained sustainable development websites.
e Wants integrated sites between industry and government.
e Want to find new ways of working and to be able to find up-to-date national strategies.
e Information on how to improve monitoring and reporting
e CSD website (or similar) needs information on best practices, case studies etc.
e Need place to find strategies and action plans, national reports
CEFAS:

e Need standardised terminology.

¢ Would be useful to be able to search by sea area to find what conventions/agreements apply
in particular areas.

Suggestions for additional participants:

Natural History Museums of Scotland and Wales
Marine Conservation Society

WWF (Sally Nicholson)

Zoological Society

Zoological Federation

ICES (their scientists would be users)

John Innis Centre (provide some policy advice on crops)

Page 24 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) (a) ag

UNEP WCMC

RIIB

NIAB — National Institute of Agricultural Botany

(Martin Smith and John Tillson can identify who they use when deciding policy)
Nick Mabey and Anabel Mallens of FCO.

Suggestions for additional sources for Reference Guide:

IIED — International Institute for Environment and Development (UK)
IOPE

International Association of Plant Genetic Resources

National Criminal Information System (statutory authorities)
Oceanography institutes

BIDS — Bath Information and Data Services

KIB -

EC Wildlife Trade Reference Database

IISD — International Institute for Sustainable Development

Human Development Report

Sustainable Development Resource Network (UK) Dr. Malcolm Eames
STARS at Grid Arendal

ICES — International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
International Plan of Action for Sharks

Sea Mammal Research Centre

Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) (Keith Hiscock)

Marine Bird Association

BioPlan

Ee een aa
Page 25 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) ) @ &>
WCMC

UNEP

Summary of information needs:

Big Picture — Find ways to provide and share information on what fits where at the highest level.
Information on legislation, focal points, stakeholders and experts is also needed, with details of who is
responsible for what. Networks to link experts might be helpful.

Understanding — Information is needed on sustainable use and understanding markets for
biodiversity and environmental commodities, such as tourism or forestry, with forewarning of
developments in these markets.

Legislation — Provide information on legislation, particularly national implementing legislation in
other countries and international treaties.

Bibliography/list servers — Provide an integrated, cross-referenced system of bibliographic and
abstracted databases and a list of list servers.

Integrated species list — Create an integrated species list for all appropriate international conventions
(e.g. CMS, CITES) with standardised terminology and glossary of terms (multilingual).

National Sustainable Development Web sites — Including CSD web sites and a list of national
sustainable development sites with links.

Recommendations to Convention etc web sites — Sites should be up to date and respond to user
needs, particularly the needs of those involved in implementation activities (Note, particular relevance
to CITES enforcement).

Strategies Access — Provide up to date information on and better access tc the text of national
strategies, with details of what each strategy covers and its status.

Species Identification — Not just information on the scientific and common names of species but also
what particular species look like and how these species are traded (parts, powders, products, trade
names).

Page 26 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) fe) > ye
M7
Se) @ >
UNEP WCMC

Workshop on International Nature Conservation
Information Sources and Needs

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Eland House, London
16 August 2001

SUMMARY NOTES

Participants:

Richard Ferris — Forestry Commission, Forest Research, Woodland Ecology Branch
Simon Foster — DFID, Environmental Policy Department

Sharon Laws — DFID, Environmental Policy Department

Sandy Moss — FCO, Environment Protection Department

Geoff Jasinski — DEFRA — FISH IIB

Mike Pienkowksi — UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF)
Gillian Dare — Overseas Territories Department

Richard Partington — The Countryside Agency

Simon Rowley — DTI, Office of Science and Technology

Jeremy Harrison - UNEP-WCMC
Tim Johnson —- UNEP-WCMC
Alistair Taylor - UNEP-WCMC

Current sources and how information is used in policy development and decision-making:

UKOTCF

UK Overseas Territories have produced a database concerning biodiversity conservation. This database
currently contains information on strategic conservation priorities, sources of information on a range of
conservation issues, and a database of projects and potential projects. This information can be accessed
online. The information was gathered through a process of consultation with the overseas territories.
Limited resources mean that not all the information gathered is publicly accessible. Each record consists of
a basic summary page of key information, with web links to further specialist sources, which will change
more often.

Searching with global search engines often results in thousands of hits, most of which are useless.

Overseas Territories Department

Different people use different terms to describe the same thing. Using the wrong term may mean you fail to
find the information you want or find only part of it.

FCO

It takes too long to find information and contacts.

DFID

Global search engines are useful if you know where to start. Different search engines can produce different
results.

DFID makes use of information on the policies of other agencies in order to establish more integrated
working methods. Much of this information comes through personal contacts and through meetings
attended by other departments.

In the area of poverty reduction personal links are formed at meetings so that information can be exchanged
on the lines other agencies are taking and their policies.

DEFRA

Work on closer collaboration between government departments is underway.

a a a a
Page 27 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) @ &
, t
Cc

UNEP WC

Countryside Agency

Almost no online information is used; the main source of information is the library.

There is a great deal of information regarding protected areas but it is impossible to get hold of. This
information should be made accessible.

EUROPARC attempted to introduce an expertise database and exchange mechanism for those working in
protected areas management. The database contained details of who was doing what in Southwest England.
However it did not prove very valuable. Few users took the time to use the new system and instead
continued to use their old networks of contacts and information sources.

Recommendations on making the Reference Guide most useful:

UKOTCF

Could an environmental search engine be created, searching through a library of likely sources with key
headings — a kind of virtual library?

There is a need for contacts information. Currently this is erratically generated and includes both official
and unofficial sources. A system for checking whether named individuals still occupy certain key posts is
needed with provision for updating this information.

Partners and centres could be used to pull in data and supply information. This could include attributed
opinions (capturing rumour and attributing it).

Although the reference guide is stated to be for “policy-makers” it is practitioners that a great deal of
information is aimed at. The information is more of a practical rather than a policy nature.

It would be useful to know which individuals occupy which key posts. This is difficult to achieve given the
quite frequent rotation of civil servants. It would also be useful to know whom the key individuals are, i.e.
the people who get things done regardless of which post they are in.

Most useful would be taking the information that is available and making it understandable to policy-
makers.

There is a need to find a way to capture searches in the system, so that after the first person has spent two
hours finding something, subsequent people searching for the same thing can find it much quicker.

The way information is presented is important. Summary information is easier to deal with than Starting
directly from key documents

Overseas Territories Department

Information should be targeted and made accessible for those people it is aimed at. Policy makers are not
conservationists and may not be as computer literate as the information providers

The policy advisors who use information to generate advice may well not be experts in the particular field
to which the information relates.

Information is needed on sources of funding and expertise. Information on model legislation and
implementing activities would also be useful. This might include examples of successful sustainable
development projects.

Basic information is needed on "who does what" across government departments. Currently information on
contacts is inherited from predecessors and taken with you from post to post. It is often difficult to build a
new set of contacts in the short term. There is a need to know, within government, who to contact.

Although experts should know key people in their particular field, the target audience for a database of
experts should be those who are not experts but who need access to expertise networks.

It would be useful to be able to search for other people’s experiences in areas related to conservation.

There is a need to know what the underlying motivation is of certain information sources, i.e., whether they
have an official mandate or are unofficial research efforts by NGOs or other research institutes.

FCO

Information on how other countries implement conventions would be interesting.

Will this be the mother of all reference guides? How can it be narrowed down and who will decide what to
include?

There should be a limit as to what information is trusted based on the accuracy and quality of this data.

If constant updating is possible some very useful data can be included in the reference guide.

Page 28 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) (a) oy

UNEP WCMC

DFID

e Information should be categorised so as to avoid information overload. Huge documents are not useful,
single sheets containing targeted key information are easier to deal with.

e Access to scientific papers, such as those held by BIDs and research material on various topics, searchable
by subject and author, would make the guide very useful.
The reference guide should help cut down on the time currently wasted while searching for information.
Useful to know where money is being spent on projects and where there might be geographical, political or
thematic gaps in conservation activities.

e With only restricted time available to read documents, the length of these documents is important. A 2 page
document is much more likely to be read than a 20 page documents.

DEFRA
Could provision be made for adding your own sources and information to any service?

e Could the reference guide be used to list sources and what they do?

Will publications be listed?

Care should be taken that the reference guide does not perform in the same way as a search on the Internet.

The reference guide should be a manageable size.

e It may be useful to know what other people are doing in order to be ready for changes, for example in
international agreements.

Countryside Agency
e There is a need for information on trends and future issues and the best approach to influencing policy
development

e It’s useful to know who to link up with in order to discuss or establish joint policies.

Forestry Research

e Shared records of web sites used might be useful

e There should be different levels of information, the most detailed being a full dataset, with other levels
containing either a subset or a summary of this information.

e Could RINCIS serve as a hub mechanism, a framework for improving data access that directs technophobes
in the right direction through an easy access front-end?

e A review section so that users could provide feedback on the system would be useful.

Issues, problems and areas where harmonisation and synergies are needed:

Overseas Territories Department

e Can terminology be harmonised? What about multilingual terminology? Ideally a multilingual thesaurus
would be used. (GEMET?)

e There are many different reference guides. What is needed is one directory of web guides and funding
sources with an environmental search engine.

e The Science Research Council has an annual directory of people working in particular fields. This might be
a useful starting point for a guide to important individuals.

FCO
e Any product should be more than just a link. An overview, “the big picture”, of how these information
sources and conventions fit together could be provided.

DFID
e There is aneed for tools to locate information and the means to get hold of this information.
¢ Could peer review be used to verify the quality of data on the Internet?

DEFRA

e Filtering and targeting should be used to avoid duplication and information overload

e Might an umbrella organisation be needed for all government departments?

e Information feeds should be maintained. The “it was on email” problem should be avoided.

Countryside Agency

De ee
Page 29 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @ @ &>
WCMC

UNEP

A directory of the big picture is needed with links to commitments and what they mean, as well as the
issues they address.

Is there a proposal of who should keep the information clean and up to date?

Does the scope of “Nature Conservation Information” as used by this project, include landscape
conservation information? If so this might be an opportunity to consolidate the various definitions of
“Jandscape” currently used.

Forestry Research

What information do customers/end users need about data? What format should it be in so as to facilitate
access? Is there a need to know where information has come from and what is the detail, quality and
reliability of this information? It is important to know the source. There is not enough consultation with end
users.

Spatial data is sometimes a hybrid compiled from several data sets that may have been individually
modified. It is important to know the history of the individual sources of data and how they have been
modified in order to assess the reliability of the final product

Suggestions for additional sources for Reference Guide:

P.

UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum database

age 30 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) M) rag a2

UNEP WCMC

Summary of information needs:

Big Picture — Find ways to provide and share information on what fits where at the highest level.
Information on legislation, focal points, stakeholders and experts is also needed, with details of who is
responsible for what. Networks to link experts might be helpful.

Targeting — Information should be targeted and made accessible for those people it is aimed at.
Policy makers may not be conservationists or experts in the field to which the information relates.
Practitioners will require a different type of information to policy makers.

Quality — It is important to know the source of data, the quality and accuracy of this data and the
motives behind its collection.

Presentation — Information should be presented in a summary form rather than in full. Policy makers
are unlikely to read long documents.

Understanding — Information is needed on sustainable use and understanding markets for
biodiversity and environmental commodities, such as tourism or forestry, with forewarning of
developments in these markets.

Contacts — Personal contacts are very important to policy makers. A contacts database, that not only
includes key posts but also key named individuals, with some system for updating and maintenance,
would be particularly useful for those policy makers who are frequently changing posts.

Implementing activities — Information on the activities being undertaken by other countries, and by
other government departments working overseas, including case studies, would be extremely useful.

a
Page 31 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) (eo) @ &
tc
ic

UNEP WC

Workshop on International Nature Conservation
Information Sources and Needs

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Temple Quay House, Bristol
21 August 2001

SUMMARY NOTES

Participants:

Richard Hepburn - DEFRA — GWD

Alistair Ferguson — Environment Agency, Environmental Strategy Directorate
Robert Ford —- DEFRA — CITES and zoo policy

Linda Smith - DEFRA — EWD, Habitat Conservation and Ramsar

Debbie Jackson —- DEFRA — EWD, Scientific Advisers Unit

Neale Oliver - DEFRA - EWD Natura 2000 Team

Ian Crain — The Orbis Institute
Tim Johnson — UNEP-WCMC
Alistair Taylor - UNEP-WCMC

Current sources and how information is used in policy development and decision-making:

DEFRA —-GWD

DEFRA relies on JNCC for advice

Need to know what information is most reliable.

For some MEAs (CMS) reports are never available in time for analysis or comparison. National Reports
may be left behind at the conference of the parties rather than taken home.

National reports are a way for NGOs to monitor the activities of countries, as they are public.

Some other sources include English nature, Wetlands International and WWF.

It can be very difficult to obtain information on activities in other countries. It has not been possible to get a
full European view.

Is it possible to have a Europe-wide survey of ihe quality of information available?

DEFRA — EWD

The biggest questions go to JNCC, which operate as government advisors, interpreting data, EWD deals
with lesser ad hoc questions and may provide a quick briefings to senior officials and politicians.

EWD uses UNEP-WCMC for information and statistics on species status and also uses both the JNCC site
and the ETCNC site.

EWD’s work is more species and habitat focussed, so information sources such as WRI and FAO are not
used.

e Some reporting formats are not conducive to qualified answers, e.g. the Ramsar Yes/No tick boxes.

e Reports provided to the European Commission must be in electronic format.
Use their own sources for the purposes of implementing directives. Not aware of the activities other
countries but very interested if other countries are doing things differently.
There used to be a European forum for discussing the implementation of directives.
Implementing activities may be revised in the light of what other countries are doing. However the
Commission does not encourage discussion with other countries and does not provide feedback when
informed of national implementing activities.

DEFRA — CITES

DEFRA relies heavily on JNCC/Kew to come up with good science. Other sources used include the CITES
Secretariat as well as organisations like Traffic International, IUCN, and UNEP-WCMC. Reports from

Page 32 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) fod
@ 6 @
Cc

UNEP WC.

many sources are used, after being debated in a public forum, to generate policy. Politics can be more of a
driver than science.

A problem is that there is no structure to policy-making. The UK may take the lead in certain areas, but
only because we have the political will.

Data is used in developing proposals for CITES. NGOs raise concern about an issue, scientists verify and
confirm these concerns using scientific data. Scientists are very closely involved in criteria review and to a
certain extent drive policy. This is not so much the case for the International Whaling Convention where
politics may outweigh science.

At CITES COP new issues emerge and information is supplied by supporting NGOs.

The message of pragmatic NGOs may be obscured by the messages put forward by protectionist NGOs.
Policy can be a pure emotive reaction to popular issues resulting in a protectionist government policy on
these issues and sometimes pressure on other countries.

A lot of research is commission for the purposes of informing policy

Environment Agency

Little biodiversity information is used. That which is used relates to England and Wales, and the regulation
of pressures. The two main arenas for information use are conservation, in which JNCC is the main source
of information, and Europe, where EIONET is used. In relation to the aquatic environment other sources
such as Waternet are used.

The Environment Agency provides information to the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the
purposes of state of the environment reporting. The Agency is tending to operate as a data warehouse,
trying to provide consistent information.

The Agency’s role is that of influencing and providing information rather than using information. However
if information is provided in a useful format the Agency may switch to being a net user. For example
regarding the Water Directive, it is important to know what European partners think. However it is not
currently possible to get this information from either EIONET or Waternet.

More than just a list of species is needed in terms of information. In the area of linking regulatory activities
with indicators and target setting there is much work to be done. This is not the same type of information
that JNCC is asking for.

Expected to give good advice to DEFRA on such issues as ecological quality targets

Wildlife Crime Inspectorate

Recommendations on making the Reference Guide most useful:

DEFRA — EWD

A reference guide would be useful given the dispersed and fragmented nature of information sources. An
online guide would be most useful, with facts about each web site and also opinion on the usefulness of the
site, and the reliability of the information.

Either a third party or, over time, users could point out failings with particular sites.

Difficult to predict types of queries without knowing what’s out there.

A search box may not be useful, headings, themes and sub-headings might be more useful for some users.
Groups of information sources rather than keywords would be better.

The UK Biodiversity web site has provided keywords, listed hierarchically, could this serve as a common
nomenclature? EUNIS has not been successful because it was not promoted, and CORINE was similarly
unsuccessful.

If the reference guide had a broader scope might it become unmanageable? If the reference guide is not
carefully focussed it will be pointless and we may as well just use the Internet as is. It would be better to
produce a high quality product with a more limited scope.

DEFRA — CITES

It would be useful to have hotlinks to other sites. Would there be a search engine or category searches only?
Much of CITES is species, geography and biology related, and so queries would reflect this. Also queries
might be taxonomic, geographic and bibliographic.

It is difficult to produce global policy without global agreements on common data standards.

pe yy A EO OR A
Page 33 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) Cy @ &>
Mae dy
VS DOC
; (es

UNEP WC.

Environment Agency Oo ID
e How intelligent would the reference guide be? NBN software can query multiple databases using intelligent
software and search engines.

DEFRA -GWD

e Comments in the light of government policy could be useful, and closer to users.

Issues, problems and areas where harmonisation and synergies are needed:

DEFRA —-GWD

e Isa“one stop shop” for UNEP treaties possible in practice?

e Funding and future plans are big issues, especially regarding projects we might want to put money into.

e We need to be pointed to funding sources with information about availability. This information would also
be useful for convention secretariats.

DEFRA — EWD

e It might be easier to produce a reference guide that points people in the right direction for information
rather than providing all the information itself. This must be backed up by standards.

e It’s very difficult to know what’s out there and whether it is comprehensive. The major gap in information
is actually knowing what there is available.

A major problem is pulling data together to make a coherent picture. Comparisons are difficult.

It is important that data comes in a useable format. National reports to Convention Secretariats should not
just vanish into a black hole. Secretariats are in the best position to specify the format of reports and
therefore to collect and deal with them.

e There are problems with completeness and compatibility of information resources. It is also difficult to
know about the quality of information, how recently it was updated and its accuracy. Peer review could
play an important role in addressing these problems.

e The norm is for data not to be comparable rather than for it to be comparable.

e A catalogue of data sources would be useful

e It would be interesting to see different types of information included.

e Information needed about sources includes: who maintains, quality -good for what purpose, quality -
evidence of peer review, aims and objectives.

DEFRA — CITES

e Information harmonisation is needs, is this beyond the scope of this project? Will this project do no more
than identify gaps?

e Information should be easy to access; a “one stop shop” is an attractive proposition but is it realistic? Other
priorities are funding and taxonomy.

e Need for improved harmonisation of classification systems and nomenclature

Suggestions for additional sources for Reference Guide:

¢ WWF may be more experienced in the international context and holds a significant pool of
information.

Page 34 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) cay
@ @
UNEP WCMC

Summary of information needs:

Compatibility and comparability — Information from different sources is often incomparable and
incompatible. Increased harmonisation is needed of nomenclature, standards and terminology.

Quality — Information on the quality, accuracy and usefulness of each information source, provided
by either users or a third party would be useful.

Availability — While there may well be gaps in the information that is available, there is more
significantly a lack of knowledge about what information is available. A reference guide, perhaps in
the form of a catalogue of data sources, might address this

Distribution — Information held by secretariats and the European Commission should be made
available rather than just disappearing into a black hole. Report formats should be developed so as to
facilitate this.

Implementing activities — Information on the activities being undertaken by other countries, and by
other government departments working overseas, including case studies, would be extremely useful.

Policy drivers — While accurate, accessible, useable and up to date scientific information is an
important policy driver, it should be recognised that pressure from NGOs and political will are also
very important drivers, sometimes independently of scientific data.

One Stop Shop — A one-stop shop reference guide, giving directions to information sources, rather
than holding information itself, would be very useful.

Page 35 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) () @ &
UNEP WCMC

Workshop on International Nature Conservation
Information Sources and Needs

Scottish Natural Heritage
12 Hope Terrace, Edinburgh
23 August 2001

SUMMARY NOTES

Participants:

Dr. Marion Hughes — Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)

Scot Mathieson — Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) — Director Communications
Cameron Easton — Scottish Executive, Ecological Advisers Unit

Vicky West — Forestry Commission, Statistics Unit

Mike Dudley — Forestry Commission, International Policy

Ian Crain — The Orbis Institute
Alistair Taylor - UNEP-WCMC

Current sources and how information is used in policy development and decision-making:

SNH

Page 36 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

SNH’s role extends beyond nature conservation to landscapes, recreation, amenity values and sustainable
development. An example is SNH’s work concerning the impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy on
landscape and biodiversity in Scotland.

Priorities are set in the light of priorities at the European level. Work in non-European areas is in decline.
Devolution has had a big effect and has generated a need for prior warning of developments in Europe.
SNH is liasing with other countries such as Finland over the designation of sites. Other collaborative
activities include sharing information about species management techniques, case studies, and the exchange
of species for the purposes of reintroduction.

Conservation issues may be translated into funding schemes and SNH is keen to know about grant schemes
for species identified in Biodiversity Action Plans.

SNH’s activities are driven by the availability of resources, the requirements of the Scottish Executive and
Scottish Parliament and statutory requirements.

SNH is responsible for giving advice, for example a report on different approaches to landscape issues that
contributed to the development of national park legislation.

The Common Agricultural Policy has a significant impact on SNH’s work. SNH needs to know about
related activities in other countries and international developments affecting European policies, such as the
WTO.

Priority issues for SNH are requests from the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, and SNH’s own
Corporate Strategy, backed up by a 20 year Natural Heritage Programme that includes policies focussing on
natural heritage.

SNH follows a pro-active approach to seeking information, which is very different to just gathering
information.

Information relating to the implementation of international conventions may come from the European
Union as well as from the convention secretariats.

The information source used depends on the topic under consideration, or the specific species or policy
involved. SNH has its own species experts. JNCC’s role is that of nature conservation co-ordination at the
UK level.

JNCC was recently contracted to EEA to assess the information needs of international conventions.

Interest in indicators is increasing. Indicators should be useful and relevant, and standardised/harmonised
regionally.

SEPA

SEPA's work is directed by the Scottish Parliament and Executive. The biggest drivers being EC Directives
in the areas of water management, pollution control etc.

A major international area is Natura 2000. However SEPA is almost never asked to gather international
information. Only national information, at the Scottish and UK levels, is of direct interest.

International trends in the areas of coastal management, wetland use and management is of interest for the
purposes of policy support. Information from the EEA and European Commission is used and recently
information from Wetlands International/Ramsar.

Specific examples of information requests are inquiries regarding the reintroduction or translocation of
species as part of aquatic BAPs. These inquiries are usually passed straight on to SNH.

SEPA will be taking a greater interest in the international level, for example the world-wide decline in
amphibian species and its implications for Scotland. At present however 99% of SEPA’s day to day data
needs are fulfilled by national sources.

A great deal of work has been carried out on indicators, it would be very interesting to see what other
countries are doing in this area.

Areas of interest are indicators, coastal zone management, best practice, processed information and reports
that have been published, preferably in downloadable format.

A lot of top-down information comes from international NGOs such as WWF in the form of advocacy for
best practice.

Scottish Executive

The important issue is providing information relating to the implementation of international agreements.
The information required will address what we need to do in Scotland, what are the status and trends of
conservation in Scotland itself

At the international level, the information that is of interest relates to the global significance of species
present in Scotland

The internationally available information that may be interesting to the Scottish Executive may sometimes
be information previously provided by the Scottish Executive to the United Nations.

The SE do not set out to gather information, but rather rely on information inputs from supporting agencies
and NGOs.

Work that concerns information for biodiversity conservation has almost nothing to do with the Convention
on Biological Diversity. It is mainly oriented to the requirements of the UK BAP, and the implementation
of the BAP using the information gathered to set priorities for Scotland.

Indicators can be useful, however although many are created in the UK, Scottish ministers may decide to
ignore these and develop their own.

The European Environment Agency is looking into what it considers useful for Scotland. However the
Scottish Executive may well look elsewhere, as it has a different agenda to the Agency and a more
conservative outlook.

SNH and SEPA supply supporting information to the Scottish Executive. Historically this was
DETR/DEFRA’s role. The exact nature of the relationship between DEFRA and Scotland has not yet been
stabilised following devolution.

Forestry Commission

International Policy Department acts as a filter for information, passing on useful information to policy
makers. They are expected to have taken everything into account and may be challenged by NGOs such as
WWF

There is recognition by some international conventions that a lot should happen at the local level.
Convention Secretariat web sites are very useful, as is the CSD web site and the UNFF forestry site.

There is a need to know about issues, although translating international issues for local people may be very
difficult.

The Forestry Commission works with DEFRA and DFID on forestry issues.

A European perspective on forestry is very useful and helps with establishing a co-ordinated EU line on
forest policy. With the CBD there is less co-ordination. The EU line filters down into national policy
through EC Directives.

(ene eee ee
Page 37 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) an @ &
):
WCMC

UNEP

It is important to look at sectors outside of forestry within the context of the CBD. Some foresters can be
very insular.

The UN can seem to lack co-ordination, with a multitude of agendas. UK issues need to be on that agenda
but unless you are actually engaged in UN processes they can seem very distant.

There is a need to hard sell international developments to policy-makers. The EC does this to a certain
extent through EC legislation.

A great deal of personal contact goes on between forest managers and people negotiating the agreements.
This is an important interface for the exchange of information.

Reporting obligations are key as to where the burden of gathering information falls. The obligations dictate
what information is being called for. E.g. FAO’s Forest Resource Assessment 2000 — a single questionnaire
that replaced the multiple questionnaires emanating from ITTF and OECD and was less of a burden on
policy makers. Will this information be useful for policy-makers?

Forestry Commission is involved in efforts to create a collaborative partnership between FAO, ITF and
other forest organisations.

Forestry statistics are mainly used to provide data about the UK to European organisations. This data may
be used for the purposes of comparisons.

Recommendations on making the Reference Guide most useful:

SNH

A paper version of the guide would not be ideal. How will the guide be kept up to date and maintained?
Even of it consist only of a series of signposts there is a need to maintain it.

We should look to integrate ali issues not just nature conservation alone.

In Europe integration is now important. There is a need for links to integrated environment developments in
Europe including the Cardiff strategy, a European Council Strategy that addresses biodiversity.

It would be useful to know which other countries are facing similar issues/problems to us. Could the
reference guide be interrogated in this way?

Ed Mackey is working on the TRENDS report, which reviews how trends in the UK relate to trends in other
countries in Europe.

SEPA

An HTML format guide would be preferred, using weblinks/hotlinks.

A downloadable document in PDF format is a common solution to web-based information distribution.

Web links to press releases would also be useful.

Might the guide take the form of a database of networks? If I want to find the common name of a species,
the reference guide should tell me where to go to find it.

What will be the raw material? The information itself or a summary of the information?

Scottish data is now looked at separately by the EEA.

Scottish Executive

Page 38 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

Prefers not to use the Internet. A paper based document with links built in would be useful. The guide
should be designed so that a paper document can be produced with consideration of how it would look if
printed out.

It is difficult to define typical queries. We don’t know what we want until we need it.

Might it be useful to define some types of users? UN/National/Governmental/Agencies/off the wall
enquiries?

Social and landscape issues should be included with nature conservation.

Policy-makers are not very interested in taxonomy, but in what works in terms of policy measures.
Taxonomic information is targeted at a different type of user.

Geography is being recognised as important following devolution in Scotland. In the area of biodiversity,
DEFRA has accepted that devolution has happened and instead of UK targets, country based targets are
being used.

Civil servants are now asking about Scotland’s position within a wider international context, not just within
the context of the UK.

@6e@

UNEP WCMC

Forestry Commission

Even if you maintain the links, you need to check whether the web sites to which you are linking are being
updated, and you must make subjective judgements about what you are linking to.

There can be sloppy quality control on some web sites — no proof reading or checking. Although how the
document looks when printed out should be considered, editing with internet tools is easier than with a
document, so a balance is needed.

Do not want to have to go through 20 pages of search results in order to find information. The structure of
the reference guide is important, what people will use it, what issues will they be using it to address?
Protected areas/forests, CBD/Ramsar?

The guide should start from a broad viewpoint and then narrow down.

There may be some overlaps with the social aspects of conservation in some areas.

The English are now following the approach used in Scotland (SNH) with the creation of DEFRA

All policies should take biodiversity and sustainable development into account. The information that is
needed should include, as well as international information, access to information on case studies, both
those with positive and negative outcomes.

Policy-makers have their own personal networks for acquiring information, the reference guide should
create links to new networks.

It may be that the reference guide cannot be delivered by this project, but an organisation like the EEA can.
Questions raised by the project may never get answered.

The Forestry Commission has always collected data separately for Scotland, and aggregated this with other
data to generate a UK figure.

Issues, problems and areas where harmonisation and synergies are needed:

SNH

Harmonisation of data collection is needed to ensure comparability, e.g. harmonisation of the Natura 2000
monitoring requirements and the Ramsar monitoring requirements. For other Conventions, can the data for
one answer the questions posed by another?

Several organisations/secretariats call for case studies and thematic reports (OECD, CBD, CSD).

The European Commission is a big data gatherer. Also the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe)
SNH is prioritising work using the work programme of DG Environment. Northern Ireland tends to deal
with what comes to them in a reactive way, as resources are not sufficient for a more proactive stance. They
do get involved in cross-border international work with the Republic of Ireland and work towards an all
Ireland view.

Scottish Executive

UK National Reports to Ramsar Secretariat tell me nothing as a user, but the site reports are fascinating.
However it is these which are the most difficult to get hold of.

NGOs should be involved in creating the reference guide. They hold data and play an important role in
setting the agenda, e.g. IUCN, WWF, RSPB, Birdlife International etc.

The information requirements of the Scottish parliament may be very different to those of the Scottish
Executive.

It would be useful to co-ordinate the development of indicators at the UK level. Similarly for nomenclatures
and classifications which differ, a common framework would be easier, perhaps taking into account
classifications used by others elsewhere.

Different definitions for the same thing may be used at the national level, for example definitions of forests
that differ across the EU member states.

Forestry Commission

Some websites are updated on a cyclical basis, which may reflect a data gathering cycle, e.g. national
reporting. This should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to include a web site in the
reference guide.

Will harmonisation mean reducing everything to the lowest common denominator? Data holding
organisations need to co-operate and collaborate. It might be worth looking at where international

Fatt a a A I I
Page 39 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)
© @e

UNEP

organisations do collaborate currently. Harmonisation is the end result of collaboration — organisations need
to work together.

e At different levels within the policy-making structure, people need different types of information. We need
site reports, and protected areas management information.

e Can this project benefit both the UK and the international community by creating the collaboration and co-
operation that will lead to harmonisation. At the moment everyone is selling a product and trying to be
different.

e Regarding harmonisation activities, the information I want is what work is being done and who is working
on it.

e How can we make sense of what’s out there? The guide may need to be arbitrary but must also be
consistent in order to help the reader.

Page 40 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) ) fag

UNEP WCMC

Summary of information needs:

Compatibility and comparability — Information from different sources is often incomparable and
incompatible. Some form of harmonisation is needed of nomenclature, classification, standards and
terminology.

Updating — Not only should the reference guide be kept up to date, it should link only to those
information sources that themselves are kept up to date. At the same time account should be taken of
information sources whose updating frequency is linked to international processes such as reporting
cycles, conferences of parties or seasonal variations.

Implementing activities — Information on the activities being undertaken by other countries, in
particular those that share environmental characteristics with Scotland, would be extremely useful.
This should include case studies (both successful and unsuccessful), information on best practice and
reports that can be downloaded.

Europe — European level information is needed, particularly prior information of policy
developments and information on linkages. The EU is an important driver of policy in the UK and it is
important to have an EU perspective on conservation issues.

Format — An HTML format is preferable, but account should be taken of how the guide will look if it
is printed out.

National Reporting — National reporting requirements should be harmonised to ease burdens on
parties, reports should include information that is relevant to national useful to policy-makers so that
the reports can serve multiple purposes.

NGOs — NGOs should be involved in setting up the reference guide. They play an important role in
setting the agenda for nature conservation and advocating best practice and may also hold important
data.

Se a
Page 41 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) iF
99)
(oy

UNEP WC

Workshop on International Nature Conservation
Information Sources and Needs

Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Monkstone House
City Road, Peterborough PE1 1JY
29 August 2001

SUMMARY NOTES

Participants:

Paul Rose - Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JINCC)
James Williams - Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JINCC)
Cynthia Davies - Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)
Keith Porter - English Nature

Dr. James Munford - National Biodiversity Network

Alistair Taylor - UNEP-WCMC
Dr. Ian Crain — The Orbis Institute

Current sources and how information is used in policy development and decision-making:

JNCC:

JNCC is primary support agency for policy development for DEFRA, as well as collating and
analysing information for reporting requirements, national and international.

The scope includes marine and coastal areas and extends to indicators.

Now recognised that policy makers want information, more so than in the past. JNCC often
called upon to defend reports and recommendations with supporting information.

Policy decision makers ask in effect "what information have you got" (on a particular
subject), "What can you get, and at what cost?" Therefore there is a great need to know about
available information sources

There is a need to consider linkages of national information collection and international
reporting obligations, and not have reports being an end in themselves.

Information is used for targeting of national programmes, e.g. agricultural subsidies, or
estimating consequences, e.g. of invasive species

A broad range of sources are used including EEA, and UNEP-WCMC, and a great number of
specialised sources (e.g. species specific) including academics, experts, NGOs and so on
Information is needed on methods (best practices) of information collection

Information now used (e.g. for Ramsar and AEWA) to set targets and then assess against
targets.

To tackle issues need to know approaches and implementation mechanisms of other countries
and make better use of case studies and European experience, especially in like countries.
With regard to indicator development DG-Research may be more important than DG-
Environment

National Biodiversity Network:

Principal drivers for infraction requirements are national, to deal with national issues.
Decision makers often prefer not to have the background information, especially if it conflicts with

political directions. That is, policy is not normally information driven, but results from public pressure
rather than international issues. "The art of the possible"

a5

Page 42 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) ce =” ye
WCMC

UNEP

Information is needed for "reporting" (i.e. monitoring), but again this is driven largely by national
needs.

One main push is Habitats Directive, hence SSSI system is moving towards a European site
description.

English Nature:

Politicians are looking for general indicators of "countryside quality" as well as measures at
all designated sites. Problem may be that indicators show declining quality of existing sites -
when the correct action would be to move the site with changing ecology (e.g. due to climate
change) to continue to protect the ecosystem.

What is needed is indicators that show where change is occurring related to primary sites and
specified Annex species and so on.

Important to use international information to support national goals

DEFRA want to be able to set national targets that are attainable - like 95% of sites having
"favourable conservation status" by 2005. Need scenarios

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology:

Sponsors national programme of site monitoring (ECN)

Challenge is to integrate national and international information - using information that currently
exists. EEA to use EuNIS for reporting (descendent of CORINE).

Important to be able to put national information in international (European) context. Provides advice to
various departments with respect to fisheries and marine biodiversity.

Recommendations on making the Reference Guide most useful:

JNCC:
e

Reference Guide should be Web-based service, essentially metadata

Extremely important to consider how to keep it up to date - one way is to allow participants to
update their own metadata

In the extreme, the Reference Guide could be nothing but hot-links

Important to indicate the temporal scope of the information (e.g. CORINE Biotopes - useful
but now out-dated)

Make accessible by policy area and by convention or directive

Important to keyword with controlled vocabulary, as well as allow full text searching
Searchable by geographic criteria useful - consider NGDF as model of how to do spatial
searches. Also note "Magic" - DEFRA standards for spatial data.

Should be widely accessible, not just to "gsi".

JNCC is primary support agency for policy development for DEFRA, as well as collating and
analysing information for reporting requirements, national and international.

e Search capacity is essential but must be simple to use
e Use of a "web-crawler" to find additional useful sites is possible
e Should link with more detailed level of information i.e. to databases where relevant
e Guide must indicate the underlying quality of the information, original intent, nature of "peer
review" of information
e Consider UK Clearing House as possible mechanism for Reference Guide
Page 43 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) ty) @
4
UNEP WCMC

Issues, problems and areas where harmonisation and synergies are needed:

e More availability of and ability to use case studies

e Consolidation/integration of methodologies and good practices

e Means to identify emerging issues and early warning - avoiding contradictory objectives "protecting
things others are killing off".
Harmonisation and interoperability of classification systems - for habitats, vegetation, biotopes, etc
Harmonisation of reporting so that national information serves international obligations

e Better linkages to sustainable development, and indicators of sustainable utilisation, quality of
landscape, rural quality, quality of life etc
Improved access to information on how other countries implement obligations
Harmonisation of reporting obligations - to allow modular reporting
Integrating training, awareness raising and mobilisation of civil society with policy development and
reporting

e Interoperability of species lists through the Species Dictionary (NBN)

Suggestions for additional participants:

Institute of Biology

Linean Society

IEEM Natural History Museums of Scotland and Wales
Johanes Vogel

Ministry of Defence - Div C-Aldershot

WWF

RSPB

Birdlife

Private Sector - e.g. Shell

Suggestions for additional sources for Reference Guide:

IIED — International Institute for Environment and Development (UK)

Page 44 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) oH =
WCMC

Summary of information needs:

Specialised Information Sources - JNCC require and make use of many specialised information
sources, for instance experts or networks organised by academics on single species or groups. These
sources are important for assessing the status of particular species, or policy implementation issues.

Quality — Information on the quality, accuracy and usefulness (in a policy context) of each
information source, provided by either users or a third party would be useful.

Policy Drivers - Policy drivers are largely national, and hence information needs are also national,
although must be adapted to meeting international obligations.

Linkages - It is important to find ways of linking national policies and information systems to
international obligations (particularly European) so that obligatory reports to international instruments
are of use to the implementation of national policy.

Increased Use of Case Studies - There is a need for increased access to and effective use of case
studies and good practices and "Iessons-learned" (good and bad) in other countries with comparable
situations.

Information for Indicators - Increasingly there is demand form policy-makers for indicators or
measures of "conservation status", "countryside quality" or "sustainability". There is therefore a need
for access to information on international developments of indicators, and accepted measures.

Accessibility and Sustainability - The "Reference Guide" should be a widely available web-based
service, with a management process that ensures constant up-date and maintenance.

Availability of National Reports - National reports and other information submitted to MEAs should
be made much more accessible - rather than a "black hole" from which nothing can be retrieved.
national submissions

ee
Page 45 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) (e &>
&
WCMC

UNEP

ANNEX 3 - Organisations and People Consulted

Organisation
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Alistair Gammell
Dr David W Gibbons
Jim Ellis

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH Cynthia Davies
DEFRA - Biodiversity Convention and Darwin Initiative Marian Jenner
Jonathan Tillson
DEFRA - CITES and Zoo Polic Robert Ford
DEFRA - European Wildlife Division (EWD) Linda Smith
Neale Oliver
Debbie Jackson
Richard Hepburn

Robert Vagg

DEFRA - Sustainable Development Unit Aphrodite Korou

DFID - Environmental Policy Department Simon Foster
Sharon Laws

DTI - Office of Science and Technology
English Nature | Keith\ Porter | ae eae

Environment Agency - Environmental Strategy Directorate Alistair Ferguson

DEFRA - FISH IIB
DEFRA - Global Wildlife Division (GWD)

Sandy Moss

Forestry Commission - Forest Research, Woodland Ecology Branch Richard Ferris
Mike Dudley
Vicky West |

HM Customs and Excise Guy Clarke
Chris Miller

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Paul Rose
Dr Tony Weighell

Steve Gibson
Lawrence Way

National Biodiversity Network Dr James Munford

Overseas Territories Department Gillian Dare |

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Kerry ten Kate |
Mark Jackson

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA Scot Mathieson
Scottish Executive - Ecological Advisers Unit Cameron Easton

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Dr Marion Hughes
Edward MacKe

The Countryside Agenc Richard Partington
UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) Mike Pienkowksi

Page 46 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) a ey
UNEP WCMC

ANNEX 4 - Information Sources Use Questionnaire

DEFRA — RINCIS Project Questionnaire

The recent Workshops have provided us with considerable insight into the usage of international
information sources. To follow up in more detail to assist with developing the Reference Guide and to
set priorities for future steps we would appreciate it if you could indicate your usage of the following
information sources, by checking the boxes in this form. Please feel free to comment on your use of

the information source or on the source itself.

Also, if there are any significant sources you use that are not listed here, please add them at the end.

African Eurasian Migratory Waterbird
Agreement (AEWA), Secretariat homepage

Agreement for the Conservation of Cetaceans in
the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and
Contiguous zone in the North and Baltic Seas
(ACCOBAMS), Secretariat homepage

Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in
Europe (EUROBATS), Secretariat homepage

Agreement on the Conservation of Small
Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas
(ASCOBANS), Secretariat homepage

Association for Biodiversity Information (ABI)
homepage

Bern Convention Secretariat homepage

[Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never
Comments
L_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_JNever
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_|Rarely
[_]Never
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
(_INever
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
_]Never
Comments
[_|Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_]Never

Comments

Page 47 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

@ 6 &

UNEP

Biodiversity Conservation Information System [_ Frequently
(BCIS) web site [Rarely

[_|Never

Comments

BioNet International [_ Frequently
[_JRarely
[_JNever
Comments
Botanic Gardens Conservation International [_]Frequently
(BGCI) web site CRarely
[Never
Comments
Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat — | [_]Frequently
Information Service [Rarely
[_]Never
Comments
Convention on Biological Diversity, Clearing | [_]Frequently
House Mechanism (CHM) CRarely
[_]Never
Comments
Convention on International Trade in Endangered | [_]Frequently
Species(CITES) Secretariat [elRarety
[_JNever
Comments
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory | [_]Frequently
Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Secretariat CRarely
[_]Never
Comments

DIVERSITAS [_]Frequently

[_JRarely
[_}Never

Comments

Earthtrends, The Environmental Information [_]Frequently
Portal
[_JRarely
[_]Never

Comments

Page 48 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

@® 6 &@

UNEP

TUCN/UNEP ECOLEX [Frequently

[_]Rarely
[_]Never

Comments

EUROPA, The European Union Online [_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_]Never
Comments

European Commission, Development Directorate [_ Frequently
General web site Crarely

[_]Never
Comments

European Commission, Environment Directorate | [_]|Frequently

General web site (Gikarely
[_]Never
Comments
European Community Clearing-House [_]Frequently
Mechanism (ECCHM)

[_]Rarely
[_]Never
Comments
European Environment Agency (EEA) web site [_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never

Comments

European Environment Information and [_]Frequently
Observation Network (EIONET) CRarely

[_]Never
Comments
- European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and [_]Frequently
Biodiversity fllRarely
[_]Never
Comments
FAO — online Biodiversity Information [_]Frequently

[_JRarely
[_|Never

Comments

Page 49 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) ag
G) QO D>
UNEP WCMC

FAO - online Fisheries Information [_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_|Never

Comments

[_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_|Never

Comments

[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never

Comments

[_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_]Never
Comments
[_ Frequently
[_JRarely

[_ Never

Comments

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

Global Environment Facility web site

Global Forest Information Service

Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS)

Infoterra Global Environmental Information [_]Frequently
Exchange Network [Rarely
[_]Never
Comments

[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
L_|Never

Comments

International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED) Resource Centre

International Institute for Sustainable
Development (IISD) “Linkages”

International Species Information System

Page 50 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) eS
@ 6 &
UNEP WCMC

International Tropical Timber Organisation [_]Frequently
(ITTO) web site CRarely
[_ Never
Comments
International Whaling Commission (IWC), [_]Frequently
Secretariat web site Clrarely
[_]Never
Comments
OECD Online [_|Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never
Comments
Ramsar Convention Secretariat web site [_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_|Never

Comments

UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum [_]Frequently
[_ Rarely

(UKOTCEF) Information Database

[_]Never
Comments
UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre | [_]Frequently
(UNEP-WCMC) web site Crarely
[_]Never
Comments

United Nations Educational Scientific and [_]Frequently
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) web site falRarcly

[_|Never
Comments
UNESCO World Heritage Centre [_ Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_]Never
Comments

United Nations Framework Convention on [_ Frequently
Climate Change (UNFCCC) web site [Rarely

[_]Never

Comments

ar
Page 51 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @ @ &>
x )
WCMC

UNEP

[_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_ |Never
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_|Never

Comments

[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never

Comments

[_]Frequently
[_]Rarely
[_}Never

Comments

[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_|Never
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never
Comments
[_]Frequently
[_JRarely
[_]Never

Comments

World Bank, Environment and Development
Division web site

World Resources Institute (WRI) web site

European Centre for Nature Conservation
(ECNC) web site

Birdlife International web site

Centre for International Environmental Law
(CIEL) web site

Wetlands International web site

WWF International web site

Please feel free to suggest additional information
sources that should be included in the Reference
Guide

Page 52 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @} @
Wwe 4

UNEP WCMC

a a eee eS ee
Page 53 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) an Bw
UNEP WCMC

ANNEX 5 - Summary of Questionnaire Returns

132 questionnaires were dispatched by email. At the time of writing (04 October 2001) 31 responses had been
received.

The following table summarises the returns received using a from similar to the original questionnaire (Annex
4).

The "Top 10" and those least used are highlighted in bold.

African Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Frequently — 1
Agreement (AEWA), Secretariat homepage Rarely =3
4

Agreement for the Conservation of Cetaceans in | Frequently — 1
the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and
Contiguous zone in the North and Baltic Seas

(ACCOBAMS), Secretariat homepage

Rarely — 3

Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Frequently — 1

Europe (EUROBATS), Secretariat homepage

Rarely - 7

Agreement on the Conservation of Small
Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas
(ASCOBANS), Secretariat homepage

Frequently - 1

Rarely - 5

Association for Biodiversity Information (ABI)

homepage Rahal

Bern Convention Secretariat homepage Frequently —3
Rarely —9
12
Biodiversity Conservation Information System
(BCIS) web site
Rarely - 4
4

Page 54 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

@ G&D

UNEP WCMC

BioNet International

Rarely — 2

Botanic Gardens Conservation International
(BGCI) web site

Convention on Biological Diversity, Frequently — 2
Secretariat — Information Service
Rarely — 11

13

Convention on Biological Diversity, Clearing | Frequently - 1

House Mechanism (CHM) Rarely - 9

10

Convention on International Trade in Endangered | Frequently - 4

Species(CITES) Secretariat Rarely — 5

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Frequently - 2
Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Secretariat | Rarely —8

10
DIVERSITAS Frequently — 1
Rarely - 1

Earthtrends, The Environmental Information
Portal

ITUCN/UNEP ECOLEX Frequently — 1
Rarely - 7

i

Page 55 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @ iE Ace
UNEP WCMC

EUROPA, The European Union Online

Frequently - 7
Rarely —7

14

European Commission, Development Directorate
General web site

European Commission, Environment
Directorate General web site

European Community Clearing-House
Mechanism (ECCHM)

European Environment Agency (EEA) web site

European Environment Information and
Observation Network (EIONET)

European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and
Biodiversity

FAO - online Biodiversity Information

FAO — online Fisheries Information

Frequently - 6
Rarely - 8

14

Frequently — 2
Rarely —2

Frequently - 1
Rarely - 7

Rarely - 9

Frequently — 1
Rarely — 2

Frequently — 1
Rarely - 2

Page 56 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

i)

UNEP

ae

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

Rarely — 2
Global Environment Facility web site Frequently - 1
Rarely — 2
3
Global Forest Information Service
Rarely — 1

1
Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS)
Never
Infoterra Global Environmental Information
Exchange Network
Never

International Institute for Environment and Frequently — 1
Development (IIED) Resource Centre

Rarely —3

International Institute for Sustainable
Development (IISD) “Linkages”

Frequently — 1
Rarely —2

3
Rarely — 1
1
Rarely - 1
1

SON a rs 8 Eee
Page 57 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @ @ &
WCMC

UNEP

International Species Information System

International Tropical Timber Organisation
(ITTO) web site

International Whaling Commission (IWC),
Secretariat web site

OECD Online

Frequently — 4

Rarely — 1

5

Ramsar Convention Secretariat web site

UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum
(UKOTCE) Information Database

UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (UNEP-WCMC) web site

Frequently —1
Rarely — 10

11

Frequently — 1
Rarely — 5

Frequently — 3
Rarely - 8

11

United Nations Educational Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) web site

UNESCO World Heritage Centre

United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) web site

World Bank, Environment and Development
Division web site

Rarely - 5

Frequently - 1
Rarely - 1

Page 58 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001)

@

UNEP

&) @ &

World Resources Institute (WRI) web site Frequently — 1

Rarely — 1

European Centre for Nature Conservation Frequently - 1
CNC) web sit
Us ucisite Rarely — 9

10

Birdlife International web site

Centre for International Environmental Law
(CIEL) web site

Wetlands International web site

WWE International web site Frequently — 2
Rarely — 8

10

Analysis
Top 10 most visited information sources:

- Bern Convention Secretariat and web-site

- Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat — main web-site

- Convention on Biological Diversity Clearing House Mechanism web-site

- Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) Secretariat and web-site
- Ramsar Convention Bureau web-site

- EUROPA - The European Union Online

- European Commission, DG-Environment web-site

Page 59 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) S F
UNEP WCMC

- UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) web site
- European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) web site
- WWE International web site

It is noticeable that the majority of these sites are connected with major Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs). This is perhaps a reflection of the UK’s membership and active involvement in
biodiversity conservation at the international level through these and numerous other MEAs. Also
significant is the number of European related information sources that figure in this list. Participants
in the workshops stated that Europe was a major driver for the UK and this is reflected in the
responses to the questionnaire. The NGO web sites relate to organisations with quite varied portfolios
of work relating to biodiversity conservation. Both ECNC and WWF are involved in work that spans
many sectors and countries. This is also true of the activities UNEP-WCMC is involved in which are
both international in geographic scope and broad-based within the domain of nature conservation.

From the above it could be inferred that policy makers are interested in information concerning
international and regional initiatives that directly concern them, and that they also favour sources
offering more generalised nature conservation information sources with links to more specific
information.

Most frequently visited web sites:

- European Commission, DG-Environment web-site
- EUROPA, The European Union Online

An important issue regarding information provided online is the frequency with which this
information is updated. This frequency may be intimately related to actual changes in the information
itself. From the above information taken from the questionnaires it might be inferred that EU web
sites are frequently visited because they are frequently updated, and that this frequent updating is
necessary because of the constant evolution of EU law and policy relating to nature conservation.

Least visited web-sites:

- Earthtrends, The Environmental Information Portal - (Never)
- Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) — (Never)
- Infoterra Global Environmental Information Exchange Network — (Never)

There are probably several reasons why these web sites have never been visited by the small sample
of policy makers we questioned. It may be that these sites, which focus on nature conservation at the
global level, do not provide useful information for National level policy makers. It may also be
possible that the policy makers we questioned were unaware of these sites. Some respondents stated
that they had been previously unaware of several of the information sources included in the
questionnaire, and some also said that they did not have the time to seek information sources beyond
those pertaining to their immediate area of expertise.

Page 60 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) @
XS
WCMC

UNEP

ANNEX 6 - Summary of Treaties and Initiatives Relevant to UK Policy

I
Treaties Related to Nature Conservation Relevant to the UK
(Ordered by Date of Adoption)

Title Date of Place of UK Entry into
Adoption | Adoption | Signature |Ratification| Force
onvention and Statute on the Regime of Navigable 20.04.1921 | Barcelona, 02.08.1922 | 31.10.1922
aterways of International Concern Spain
onvention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora | 08.11.1933 | London, UK | 08.11.1933 14.01.1936
in their Natural State
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 2.12.1946 | Washington, | 02.12.1946 | 17.06.1947 | 10.11.1948
ICRW) DC, USA
Agreement for the Establishment of the Asia-Pacific Fishery | 26.02.1948 Baguio, |28.02.1949! 28.02.1949
ommission (APFIC) (under the FAO) Philippines

5

onvention on the International Maritime Organization 06.03.1948 | Geneva, CH | 06.03.1948 17.03.1958

IMO)
Fontainebleau, 1967
France
Agreement for the Establishment of a General Fisheries 24.09.1949 | Rome, Italy 20.02.1952
ouncil for the Mediterranean (under the FAO; operative
18.04.1951 18.04.1951 ett’ 01.11.1953
International Plant Protection Convention (under the FAO) | 06.12.1951 | Rome, Italy | 06.12.1951 | 07.09.1953 | 03.04.1952

Plant Protection Agreement for the South-East Asia and 27.02.1956 | Rome, Italy | 29.03.1956 | 03.12.1956 | 02.07.1956
Pacific Region (under the FAO)

Protocol to the International Convention for the Regulation | 19.11.1956 | Washington, | 19.11.1956 04.05.1959
of Whaling (under the ICRW) USA

‘onvention on the Continental Shelf (The 1958 Law of the | 29.04.1958 Geneva, 09.09.1958 | 11.05.1964 | 10.06.1964
Sea Conventions were largely superseded by the 1982 Switzerland
CLOS)
onvention on the High Seas (The 1958 Law of the Sea 29.04.1958] Geneva, | 09.09.1958 | 14.03.1960 | 30.09.1962
onventions were largely superseded by the 1982 UNCLOS) Switzerland

20.03.1966

09.09.1958 | 14.03.1960
or

onvention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living 29.04.1958 Geneva,
esources of the High Seas (The 1958 Law of the Sea Switzerland

‘conventions were largely superseded by the 1982 UNCLOS)

30.09.1962

North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention (superseded by the ithdrawals
onvention on future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East

Atlantic Fisheries)

> 31.12.1977

24.01.1959 | London, UK
01.12.1959 01.12.1959 |31.05.1960?| 23.06.1961
USA

e Antarctic Treaty [part of the Antarctic Treaty System
ATS)]

N
=)
S
a
=
ie)
fon
rv)

Fisheries Convention 09.03.1964 | London, UK 15.03.1966

rh ee
Page 61 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) es @ ry
UNEP WCMC

Date of Place of UK Entry into

Adoption | Adoption | Signature |Ratification| Force
Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna 02.06.1964 | Brussels, 01.11.1982
and Flora (part of the ATS) Belgium

onvention for the International Council for the Exploration | 12.09.1964 | Copenhagen, | 12.09.1964 | 04.05.1965 | 22.07.1968
of the Sea [operative mechanism: International Council for

e Exploration of the Sea (ICES)]
International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic 14.05.1966 |Rio de Janeiro, No N 21.03.1969

unas (under the FAO) Brazil

onvention on the Conservation of the Living Resources of | 23.10.1969 | Rome, Italy No N 24.10.1971
he South-East Atlantic (under the FAO)

tit le

e)
10)

[Protocol to the Convention for the International Council for | 13.08.1970
he Exploration of the Sea

onvention on Wetlands of International Importance 02.02.1971 | Ramsar, Iran | 06.09.1973 | 05.01.1976 | 21.12.1975
[Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (The Ramsar Convention)

onvention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (part of | 01.06.1972 | London, UK | 09.06.1972 | 10.09.1974 | 11.03.1978
he ATS)

onvention for the Protection of the World Cultural and 23.11.1972 | Paris, France 29.05.1984 | 17.12.1975
[Natural Heritage (under UNESCO)

onvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of | 03.03.1973 | Washington, | 03.03.1973 | 02.08.1976 | 01.07.1975

ild Fauna and Flora (CITES) USA

onvention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living 13.09.1973 Gdansk, 28.07.1974
[Resources in the Baltic Sea and Belts Poland

16.02.1976 | Barcelona, 12.02.1978
Spain
24.10.1978 Ottawa,
Canada

01.01.1979
ouncil Directive on the conservation of wild birds 02.04.1979 | Luxembourg
79/409/EEC) (The ‘Birds Directive’)
onvention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of 23.06.1979 Bonn, 23.06.1979 | 01.10.1985 | 01.11.1983
ild Animals (CMS) Germany
onvention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and 19.09.1979 Bern, 19.09.1979 | 28.05.1982 | 01.06.1982
[Natural Habitats (The Bern Convention) Switzerland

onvention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea

A gainst Pollution (Barcelona Convention). New title:
onvention for the Protection of the Marine Environment
land the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean

onvention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the
[Northwest Atlantic Fisheries [supersedes the International
onvention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Washington, 08.02.1949), which was terminated on
02.08.1979]

onvention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living | 20.05.1980 | Canberra, | 11.09.1980 | 31.08.1981 | 07.04.1982
[Resources (part of the ATS) Australia

onvention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East) 08.11.1980 | London, UK 17.03.1982
Atlantic Fisheries [supersedes the North-East Atlantic
Fisheries Convention (London, 24 January 1959)]

onvention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North 02.03.1982 | Reykjavik, 01.10.1983
Atlantic Ocean Iceland

Page 62 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @ i :
XN

UNEP WCMC

Date of Place of UK UK Entry into
Adoption | Adoption | Signature |Ratification} Force

rotocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected 03.04.1982 Geneva, 23.03.1986
Areas (under the Barcelona Convention). New title: Protocol Switzerland
oncerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological
[Diversity in the Mediterranean
nited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 10.12.1982 |Montego Bay, 25.07.1997 | 16.11.1994
CLOS) Jamaica
onvention for the Protection and Development of the 24.03.1983 | Cartagena de Yes Yes? 11.10.1986
[Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (The Indias,
‘Cartagena Convention’) Colombia
iatemational Tropical Timber Agreement (TTA) 18.11.1983 Geneva, 29.06.1984 | 18.09.1984 | 01.04.1985
Switzerland
onvention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and | 24.11.1986 |Noumea, New] 16.07.1987 No 18.08.1990
[Environment of the South Pacific Region Caledonia
rotocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife | 18.01.1990 | Kingston, | 18.01.1990 18.06.2000
o the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Jamaica
[Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (under
e ‘Cartagena Convention’)
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty] 04.10.1991 |Madrid, Spain Not yet
The Madrid Protocol) (part of the ATS)
Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe 04.12.1991 | London, UK | 04.12.1991 | 09.09.1992 | 16.01.1994
EUROBATS) (under CMS)

ouncil Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and Brussels,
of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC) (The ‘Habitats Belgium

e Forest Principles (Non-Legally Binding Instrument)
under UNCED)

nited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 17.06.1994 | Paris, France | 14.10.1994 | 18.10.1996 | 26.12.1996
CCD or CCD)
Apreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian 16.06.1995 | The Hague, | 23.09.1996 01.11.1999
Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) (under CMS) Netherlands

Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the | 04.08.1995 | New York, | 27.06.1996
nited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to USA
i re a

e Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks
Page 63 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) E> Js
° @ G &

land Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

A preement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black
Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area
ACCOBAMS) (under CMS)

he Inter-American Convention for the Protection and
onservation of Sea Turtles (IAC)

IMemorandum of Understanding Concerning Conservation
and Measures for Marine Turtles on the Atlantic Coast of

IMemorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and

29.05.1999 | Abidjan, Cote
June 2000 Kuantan,

Management of Marine Turtles and Their Habitats of the Malaysia

Indian Ocean and South-East Asia (under CMS)

e European Landscape Convention 20.10.2000 |Florence, Italy
onvention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery} 20.04.2001 | Windhoek, |20.04.2001°*
[Resources in the South-East Atlantic Ocean Namibia
Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels | 19.06.2001 | Cape Town,
ACAP) (under CMS) South Africa

"Acceptance

7OS/CP: Original signatory/Consultative party

Including Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the British Virgin Islands.
4On behalf of St. Helena and its dependencies, Tristan Da Cuhna and Ascension Island.

Page 64 Policy Maker Requirements Final(040ct2001) lO ee!
@ @ @
UNEP WCMC

II
Initiatives and Programmes
on the Conservation of Biological and Landscape Diversity in Europe
(Preliminary)

Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Helsinki Commission
Environmental Action Programme (HELCOM)
(under the Helsinki Convention)

To improve the quality of the Baltic Environment, for
example, by the designation of marine and coastal protected
areas.

UNEP To improve the quality of the Mediterranean environment
by implementing the Barcelona Convention 1976, including
through a Protocol on Specially Protected Areas. To protect
the environment and to foster development in the
Mediterranean Basin.

UNEP To provide special protection for endangered Mediterranean
species and habitats vital for their conservation.

To provide a strategic conservation framework and practical
guidance to all nations in order to (1) maintain essential
ecological processes and life support systems; (2) preserve
genetic diversity; and (3) ensure the sustainable utilization
of species and ecosystems.

UNCED Outlines priorities and guidelines aimed at sustainable
development, to be implemented at the national level.

UNESCO To develop, within the natural and social sciences, a basis
for the rational use and conservation of the resources of the
biosphere, through such measures as the creation of a
worldwide network of Biosphere Reserves.

Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP)
(under the Barcelona Convention)

MedSPA (under the Barcelona
convention)

World Conservation Strategy and the | IUCN, UNEP, WWF
subsequent Strategy for Sustainable

Living (Caring for the Earth)

Agenda 21

Man and Biosphere Programme

European Conservation Strategy Council of Europe

Pan-European Ecological Network Council of Europe
(EECONET)

To provide governments with the basis for developing
policies to safeguard and manage natural resources.

To develop a Europe-wide ecological network for the
conservation of nature (To be implemented within the
ministerial process of the Pan-European Biological and
Landscape Diversity Strategy).

Environment Programme for Europe | UNECE, EU, UNEP, To prepare the intergovernmental environmental programme
IUCN for Europe, following Dobris and Lucerne.
European Nature Conservation Year | Council of Europe To develop a public awareness campaign in 1995 on
(ENCY) 1995 "conservation outside protected areas".

European Network of Biogenetic Council of Europe To conserve representative examples of Europe's habitats,
Reserves biocenoses and ecosystems through a network of biogenetic
reserves.

TUCN Parks for Life: Action for TUCN To ensure an adequate, effective and well managed network

Protected Areas in Europe of protected areas in Europe.

Fifth Environmental Action European Commission | The EU's programme of policy and action on the

Programme (1992) DG XI environment and sustainable development.

CORINE Information System European Environment | EU system to develop a database on European environment,
Agency

including for nature conservation.

Page 65 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @ @ &
ee 4
(os

UNEP WC

Environmental Action Programme for | Task Force established | Endorsed by the Ministerial Conference Lucerne 1993 to
Central and Eastern Europe (1993- by Ministers with EU, promote environmental protection measures in central and
1995) OECD, World Bank, eastern Europe.

and EBRD

To promote the establishment of 18 transboundary protected
areas.

Ecological Bricks for our Common
House of Europe Initiative

C/o European
Ecological Movement,
Global Challenges

Network

Institute of Sustainable
Development

Based on Poland's experience, to create sustainable
development zones in Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Russia and Ukraine.

Environment Programme for the Task Force for the To conserve the Danube River Basin.

Danube River Basin Programme

Black Sea Action Plan UNEP, UNDP, World Environmental protection programme for the Black Sea
Bank region.

Ministerial Conference on the North | Danish Ministry ofthe | To protect the North Sea ecosystem.

Sea Environment

MEDPAN European Investment To strengthen links between managers of protected areas.
Bank. World Bank
DG xI

Mediterranean Technical Assistance | World Bank. European | 2nd Phase of the European Programme for the
Programme (METAP) Investment Bank Mediterranean, to reverse present environmental
degradation.

Green Lungs of Europe (1993)

Nicosia Charter (1990) European Commission __| To provide closer co-operation on sustainable development
in the Euro-Mediterranean region, including nature
conservation.

To prepare a common Arctic Environmental Protection
Strategy.

Arctic Initiative Working group on the
Conservation of Arctic
Flora and Fauna

Nordic Arctic Conference C/o Nordic Council of _ | Environmental protection of the Arctic region.
Ministers

Danube River Basin Global World Bank Environmental protection for the Danube River.
Environment Facility (GEF)
Programme (1991)

Danube Delta Biodiversity GEF World Bank To protect the Danube Delta ecosystems. :
Project |

Agreement on the Protection of the International To protect the Rhine from chemical pollution.
Rhine against Chemical Pollution Commission for the

Protection of the Rhine
(ICPRP)

Ministerial Declaration on the Sixth The Common Wadden To co-ordinate the conservation of the Wadden Sea
Trilateral Governmental Conference Sea Secretariat

on the Protection of the Wadden Sea
NATURA 2000

European Commission _| To establish a network of protected areas throughout the
European Union, designed to maintain both the distribution

and abundance of threatened species and habitats.

Page 66 Policy Maker Requirements Final (94 Oct 2001) {} i
Wee

UNEP WCMC

The Action Plan for the Conservation
of Marine Turtles in the
Mediterranean (RAC/SPA)

The Pan-European Biological and
Landscape Diversity Strategy

Council of Europe,
UNEP

To establish an international framework for co-operation for
consolidating and extending existing schemes and
programmes in the conservation field.

The Emerald Network Council of Europe To implement a network of Areas of Special Conservation
Interest (ASCI). For EU member States Emerald network
sites are those of the Natura 2000 network (The Emerald
Network constitutes the prolongation in the non-EU and in
the EU-accessing countries of the Natura 2000 Network
launched by the European Commission in application of the

"Birds" and "Habitats" Directives)

To protect and conserve cetacean habitats, including
feeding, breeding and calving grounds; and to protect,
conserve and make possible the recovery of cetacean

populations in the Mediterranean Sea Area.

The Action Plan for The Conservation
of Cetaceans in the Mediterranean Sea
(Within the framework of the
Mediterranean Action Plan; under the
Barcelona Convention); (superseded
by the 1996 ACCOBAMS agreement)

To ensure the conservation of macroscopic marine
vegetation species and vegetal assemblages in the
Mediterranean by implementing management and legal
protection measures.

To avoid loss and degradation of the seagrass meadows, and
of other vegetal assemblages of importance for the marine
environment, as marine habitats that are essential to the
survival of many Mediterranean species, and to keep them
in favourable conservation status;

To ensuring the conservation of marine vegetal assemblages
that could be considered natural monuments.

The Action Plan for the Conservation
of marine vegetation in the
Mediterranean Sea (Under the
Barcelona Convention)

WCMC

UNEP

ANNEX 7 - Current Moves to Harmonise and Streamline Information Sources and
Services

Commission for Sustainable Development

At their sessions during 1994-1997, the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development
(IACSD) discussed the issue of harmonising national reporting. They concluded that the issue was
difficult to address for a number of reasons relating to whether the report was voluntary or binding in
nature, variations in periodicity and the nature of the information requested. [ACSD recommended
that the next step that needed to be taken was to streamline the requests for information that were
being made to national governments.

For some years the Commission has made every effort to encourage countries to submit their reports
on the implementation of Agenda 21 in electronic format, and provides guidelines and forms for
completion. The information received through the reporting process is compiled in the UN system-
wide sustainable development website, where information can be accessed on a country-by-country or
issue-by-issue basis. In addition to this, an interactive database on national information is being
developed to facilitate submission of national reports to future CSD sessions as well as to optimise the
use of national reports and therefore the exchange of information.

UNDP and the Rio Agreements

In 1997, UNDP convened an expert meeting to explore ways to create synergy between and among

the Rio Agreements. This meeting was based on two fundamental principles developed in

consultation with participants and stakeholders, including representatives of the Secretariats of and

Parties to the instruments:

- a recognition of potential synergies among the instruments must be an integral part of the
planning process and implementation for each; and

- strengthening and building in-country capacity is essential to the producing synergy in the
implementation of the agreements.

Working Group 4 covered the issue of information and reporting requirements, and recommended a

number of key actions for national and international attention. Subsequently UNEP fostered semi-

annual meetings to further explore synergies. (See UNEP below)

UNEP Feasibility Study

In 1998 the five global biodiversity-related treaty secretariats and UNEP commissioned the then
World Conservation Monitoring Centre to undertake a feasibility study to identify opportunities for
harmonising information management between the treaties. The 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, and the
secretariats have made some follow-up since that study was completed. The study recommended a
range of actions incorporated into this paper.

UNEP

The UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions convenes regular meetings of convention
secretariats to promote co-ordination between them, and has also organised several expert meetings
on collaboration and inter-linkages. UNEP’s five priorities for work in this area are: promoting
information exchange amongst secretariats; strengthening collaboration amongst the conventions’
scientific and technical bodies; revitalising support to the regional seas conventions and action plans;
making international trade and environmental regimes more compatible; and streamlining national

Page 68 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) iP @
ea a

UNEP WCMC

reporting. UNEP produces a Synergies bulletin twice a year, which aims to promote collaboration on
environmental treaties.

UNEP Environment and Natural Resources Information Network (ENRIN)

This programme helps to build capacity for making the environmental assessments needed for state of
the environment reporting. It promotes co-operative networks at the regional level that can serve as
conduits for the flow of data and information needed for regional and global assessments, policy
making and planning.

UNEP Pilot Projects

In October 2000, UNEP convened a workshop to explore ideas for a more harmonised 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 organisations involved in exploring the potential
synergies between international agreements and programmes.

Following the recommendations of the workshop, UNEP is implementing a series of national pilot
projects to assess different approaches to harmonised reporting for the global biodiversity-related
treaties. These pilot projects will cover: consolidated reporting to a range of agreements; modular
reporting approaches; and the link between reporting to international agreements and the state of
environment reporting process. An additional pilot project will address information management to
support delivery of reports, and assess the support that might be valuable from regional organisations.

UNEP Biodiversity Planning Support Programme workshop

In May, UNEP and the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development convened
a workshop on “Legislative Complementarity and Harmonisation of Biodiversity-related MEAs”. The
workshop was attended by representatives of the CBD and other biodiversity-related treaties, and nine
countries. The objective of the workshop was to discuss key areas of overlap and synergy between the
biodiversity-related conventions, as part of a programme to:
e facilitate a harmonised, integrated and cost-effective approach to implementing the CBD and
other biodiversity-related conventions at the national level;
e contribute to improving policy, legal and administrative co-ordination at national level in
order to comply effectively with international obligations; and
e publish and dissemination of a set of best practice
guidelines on co-ordinated implementation of biodiversity-related conventions at national
level.

United Nations University

The UNU and its partners have convened two conferences (one global, one regional) to assist in the
development of a synergistic and co-ordinated approach to environmental policy making that takes
account of existing inter-linkages between environmental issues. The objectives were to:

e create awareness at the public, governmental and
intergovernmental levels of the importance of synergies and co-ordination between MEAs;
survey existing initiatives;

e foster discussion and interaction among international
institutions, scholars and other relevant stakeholders who can co-operate to identify and
examine opportunities; and

e identify concrete mechanisms, next steps and feasible win-win paths to move forward on
this important issue.

Page 69 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) é Fo
.T
UNEP @ (o

The main outputs were recommendations on the promotion of inter-linkages between MEAs in the
areas of harmonisation of information systems and information exchange, finance, issue management,
scientific mechanisms, and synergies for sustainable development.

European Environment Agency

The EEA is working on a range of projects that are looking at reporting obligations and mechanisms
at national and community level. These include the following:

The EEA Reporting Obligations Database currently under development aims to inventory all
obligations, both legal and moral, resulting from reporting requirements and expectations as a
categorised and key-worded series of questions or information elements requested.

As part of EIONET, the EEA is testing mechanisms for compilation of information from multiple
sources over the Internet, particularly for use in “state of environment” type reporting for the
European region.

Streamlining Project: The EEA is also working on a project which aims to streamline reporting
mechanisms for the 64 environmental agreements to which the European Community itself is party.

Convention secretariats

The secretariats of the global biodiversity-related treaties are aware of the need to increase access to
the information that they manage, and to streamline and harmonisation information management and
reporting. For example:

CMS: Over the years CMS and its various agreements have developed approaches to reporting and
information management that, although similar, are not integrated. The CMS Secretariat is now
leading efforts to synthesise and integrate the information contained in the national reports provided
to the secretariats, and is developing a more integrated approach to reporting on migratory species.
CMS is also following Ramsar in moving towards reporting more closely linked to the strategic plan.
The more thorough synthesis of the national reports is also leading to a helpful review of
implementation.

CBD: The CBD Secretariat has taken a lead in ensuring that not only are all the reports submitted to
the secretariat available online, there are also search tools that facilitate access to the information that
the reports contain. In addition, the second round of national reports are formatted to provide a
checklist of those actions that a Contracting Party is obliged or requested to undertake as a result of
Convention Articles or conference decisions, moving away for a text-based report to a questionnaire.

Ramsar: For many years the Ramsar Convention Bureau has provided Parties with clear guidance on
how to prepare national reports. In 1999, 107 out of a possible 110 Parties submitted national reports
(three were exempt), and all of these reports are available online. The guidelines have evolved over
the years, and now focus tightly on the strategic plan. The latest version of the reporting tool is now
also being developed as a planning tool for implementation of the strategic plan at the national level.

CITES: CITES has provided “Guidelines for the Preparation and Submission of CITES Annual
Reports” since 1994 (comprehensively revised in 1999), and is now exploring how the quality of
annual reports might be improved, how the data might be better presented and used, and how to
ensure timely submission. The Secretariat has begun studying the submission rates and contents of
biennial reports, with a view to developing guidelines for these reports too.

World Heritage: The World Heritage Convention has only recently begun a periodic reporting
process, and is currently reviewing the results of regional reports for Africa and the Arab states, with a

Page 70 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) GY) @ a
wee :
Cc

UNEP WC

view to learning from what has been done so far. Experiments are beginning on reporting using web
templates, and some discussion has been entered into on linking this to management of information on
individual sites on the Internet.

Regional seas conventions

Nairobi Convention: The Contracting parties to the Nairobi Convention, meeting in May 2000 to
assess progress in implementation of the CBD Jakarta Mandate in the Eastern Africa region, compiled
information country-by-country on the action taken. Their report, and the process used in compiling it,
was presented as a potential model for all regional seas conventions and action plans to report to CBD
on progress made in the implementation of the Jakarta Mandate.

Cartagena Convention: Discussions on reporting will take place at the next meeting of the Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee. The value of integrating the SPAW Protocol reporting process
with the reporting to other biodiversity-related treaties is well understood, and consideration will be
given to the formats and processes used by at least CBD, Ramsar and CMS and how to integrate with
these approaches.

State of Environment reporting

The EEA, UNEP GRID Arendal and the Danish National Environmental research Institute have
collaborated on development of the State of the Environment Reports Information System covering the
Pan-European region. This is an Internet based information service providing an overview of SoE
documents (paper reports, Internet versions and policy related products) developed by each country.
The service also provides an overview of environmental issues and sectors treated in SoE reports, and
information can be accessed by either issue or country in a similar manner to the UN system-wide
sustainable development website.

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has been established through an
intergovernmental process with the aim of increasing access to the vast quantities of global
biodiversity data, especially that which exists in museums and herbaria. The agreed programme
priorities of GBIF are to: create an Internet-based catalogue of known names of species; digitise data
on species information in museums and herbaria; create interoperability of databases and search
engines for accessing these data; and build capacity in nations for implementation of GBIF. GBIF is
essentially a scientific facility, and UNEP anticipates working alongside GBIF members in
developing species information databases. Specifically, UNEP seeks, in co-operation with GBIF
members, to enhance the quality and quantity of species-specific information available to convention
secretariats and to contracting parties in support of implementation. This should also allow better and
more uniform approaches to taxonomy, and taxonomic listings.

ECOLEX

Initially a collaboration between IUCN and UNEP, and now involving FAO, this Internet-based
information service provides access to basic legal and adherence information on all of the
environmentally-relevant international agreements (both global and regional). However this
information is not linked to other information relevant to each of the agreements, and does not provide
links to the websites of the convention secretariats. Also, at present, ECOLEX only includes
international agreements and provides no links to the national legislation implementing each
agreement within each country. Consideration needs to be given to how the existing service can be
extended to serve the needs of convention secretariats and contracting parties.

World Database of Protected Areas

Page 71 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) fe
Xl

UNEP WCMC

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre is working with other UN agencies (particularly
UNESCO and FAO) and with IUCN on a project to compile information on the world’s protected
areas in a way that meets the information needs of a wide range of agreements and programmes. A
key issue is the rationale behind multiple labelling of sites under Conventions and Agreements — there
appears to be room for a more strategic approach here. This work is based on an ECOSOC resolution,
and has the backing of the Ecosystem Conservation Group.

CBD- Clearing House Mechanism

The Convention on Biological Diversity has established a "clearing-house mechanism" to ensure that
all governments have access to the information and technologies they need for their work on
biodiversity. The clearing-house is co-ordinated by the Executive Secretary and overseen and guided
by an Informal Advisory Committee (IAC) set up by the Parties to the Convention. In addition, a
network of national focal points for the mechanism is being established to address matters relating to
technical and scientific co-operation. The clearing-house seeks to increase public awareness of
Convention programmes and issues. It is establishing an Internet-based system to facilitate greater
collaboration among countries through education and training projects, research co-operation, funding
opportunities, access to and transfer of technology, and repatriation of information.

UNEP Biodiversity Data Management Project

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), in collaboration with the then World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), designed and submitted to the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) the project proposal entitled “Biodiversity Data Management Capacitation in
Developing Countries and Networking Biodiversity information (BDM)” in 1994. The long-term
objective of the project was to enhance the capacity of developing countries in data management to
support the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by improving the
availability of reliable, up-to-date scientific information to support biodiversity management and
planning in developing countries. The project sought to build the information management capacities
of nations through the provision of support to national organisations generating and maintaining
biodiversity data. The project was completed in 1998, although follow-up actions are planned.

Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN)

The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network is a recent intergovernmental initiative to
promote greater co-ordination among Western Hemisphere countries in collecting, sharing and using
environmental information. IABIN is an initiative of the Summit of the Americas on Sustainable
Development and was mandated as Initiative 31 of the Action Plan resulting from the December 1996
Summit in Bolivia. The Inter-American Committee on Sustainable Development (CIDS) of the
Organization of American States endorsed IABIN in a resolution passed in October 1999. As of
August 2001, twenty-six countries in the Americans have designated official IABIN Focal Points to
co-ordinate national efforts to implement the network.

IABIN works closely with other regional and global biodiversity information networking initiatives,
including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, the North American Biodiversity Information
Network, and the Clearing-House Mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity. IABIN will

continue to establish co-operative linkages with other regional and global initiatives such as GBIF

Species 2000
The Species 2000 Programme was established by the International Union of Biological Sciences

(TUBS), in co-operation with the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) and the
International Union of Microbiological Societies (TUMS) in September 1994. It was subsequently

Page 72 Policy Maker Requirements Final(040ct2001) gary ax A.
Qe
UNEP WCMC

endorsed by the UNEP Biodiversity Work Programme 1996-1997, and associated with the Clearing
House Mechanism of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

The aim of the Species 2000 project is to create a uniform and validated index to the world's known
species for use as a practical tool in inventorying and monitoring biodiversity world-wide. This will
enable users world-wide to verify the scientific name, status and classification of any known species
through species checklist data drawn from an array of participating databases. The service will be
made available as part of the Clearing House Mechanism under the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity

UNEP-Net ("REDLANDS Initiative")

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has launched its Environment Network Web
site, UNEP.Net. UNEP.Net intends to deliver authoritative environmental information from a broad
range of information and data providers committed to making their information freely available to the
whole spectrum of users of environmental information.

In addition to its own data sets, UNEP.Net uses data published through ESRI's Geography Network
www.geographynetwork.com) and data from the European Environment Agency, World
Conservation Union, U.S. Geological Survey, and World Wildlife Fund. Application development
was provided by Conservation International, the World Wildlife Fund, and ESRI.

The site provides a forum for scientific and technical peer review, as well as insights on
environmental issues to the global community. It facilitates the exchange of ideas, information, and
data.

All Species Inventory

"All Species" is a new organisation, established in 2000, that will attempt to catalogue every living
species on earth within one generation (25 years). This survey, which will include microbes, will
enlist the support and co-operation of scientific organisations around the world. The survey hopes to
address the ever-slippery issue of deciding which varieties are species or subspecies or mere variants,
and to overcome the sheer physical hurdles of surveying such areas as the Congo, the Amazon, the
Deep Oceans, the Coral Reefs, Soil and Benthic Sediments, and Islands (oceanic and continental).

Page 73 Policy Maker Requirements Final (04 Oct 2001) @) @ &
WCMC

UNEP

ANNEX 8 - Draft Reference Guide to International Data Sources and Services

This Annex is not provided in paper form at this time.

It can be downloaded from the project web-site: www.unep-wemc.org/conventions/RINCIS.

Page 74 Policy Maker Requir ements fF inal (04 Oct 2001) ‘Cr @ >

UNEP

Are to eat Refernive tiadde io imbereaay

ie ee ny eet fap t

a

ed Pie thes