Mol diode ae ab» . RABE

@) (4x) United Nations Environment Programme
(4

7~ PROGRAMME DES NATIONS UNIES POUR LENVIRONNEMENT + PROGRAMA DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS PARA EL MEDIO AMBIENTE

UNEP NPOTPAMMA OPTAHV SALI OB bE AVIHEHHbIX HALIN NO OKPYKAIOWWEA CPEDE

Background Paper (Revised)
Second Meeting of the Environmental Management Group
Geneva, 15 June 2001

HARMONIZATION OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING FOR
BIODIVERSITY-RELATED TREATIES

Note by the Executive Director

Introduction

At its first meeting on 22 January 2001, the Environmental Management Group (EMG)
discussed the issue of harmonization of national reporting and agreed to establish an Issue
Management Group (IMG) dealing with this issue (Decision 3). UNEP was invited to serve as
task manager, focusing on biodiversity-related conventions while considering the relevance of
biodiversity-related aspects of other MEAs. The IMG was asked to look at this issue
comprehensively, taking into account issues such as the best use of lessons learned, the
composition of the group and the number of the countries to be used in a pilot phase. UNEP was
asked to provide EMG with its recommendations at its next session.

This background paper serves two purposes. It provides a report to EMG on the action taken
relevant to this decision since the first EMG meeting, and it sets out a series of
recommendations on action to be taken in the coming months to work towards greater
harmonization of reporting and information management for biodiversity-related treaties.

An earlier draft of this paper provided the basis for an EMG Issues Management Group
teleconference on 7 June, which included the participation of the secretariats of four global
biodiversity-related treaties (CITES, Convention on Migratory Species, Convention on
Wetlands and the Convention on Biological Diversity). Input was subsequently also provided by
the secretariat of the World Heritage Convention and , as well as additional input from the
participants in the teleconference.

This paper will provide the basis for a report to the UN Secretary General as part of the
preparation of documentation and other preparatory activities called for in UN General
Assembly resolution 55/198 on enhancing complementarities among international instruments
related to environment and sustainable development. This is in preparation for the review of
implementation of Agenda 21 to be carried out in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD).

Effective co-ordination and management of MEAs is one of the critical issues that need to be
addressed under international environmental governance, which will be discussed in depth at the
WSSD. This meeting is seen as a critical opportunity to advance further international co-
operation for sustainable development on the basis of concrete commitments at the highest level.

In preparation for the summit, the Governing Council has established an open-ended
intergovernmental group to undertake a comprehensive policy-oriented assessment of existing
institutional weaknesses, as well as future needs and options for strengthened international

Il.

Ill.

10.

11.

environmental governance. The report of this group, which will include input from MEA
secretariats, will be reviewed by the next session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial
Environment Forum, which will provide guidance to the tenth session of the CSD (the
preparatory body for the WSSD) on future requirements of international environmental
governance in the broader context of multilateral efforts for sustainable development.

Definitions

For the purposes of this paper, the following definitions apply. The two terms are clearly not
mutually exclusive:

(i) | Streamlining: The streamlining of national reporting is defined as those mechanisms that
make each individual reporting process or an integrated process easier or more
straightforward for contracting parties to implement.

(ii) | Harmonisation: The harmonisation of information management and reporting is defined
as those activities that lead to a more integrated process and greater potential for sharing
information.

Needs and benefits

As MEAs have multiplied, the number of reports and other information required from parties to
those agreements has also increased significantly. Many countries, both developed and
developing, have regularly expressed concern about the burden this imposes.

Reporting to MEAs serves a variety of purposes:

(i) _ Reports allow the governing bodies of agreements to assess implementation so as to be in
a position to make rational decisions on future priorities and needs, and to provide, or
guide the provision of, additional support where it is required.

(ii) | Reports may contain very specific information. For example the CITES annual report is
very specific in providing the information necessary to determine the nature and volume
of legal trade (also providing indication of potential illegal trade).

(iii) Contracting parties are also frequently asked to provide other information beyond regular
reports, such as expanded detail on specific issues, case studies and experiences, in order
to support development of advice to contracting parties, and to promote the sharing of
information between parties.

Apart from the concern of reporting burden, there are strong concerns that the full value of the
information gathered is not being realised due to limited access and lack of comparability.
Multi-purpose use of information provided in national reports (e.g. for national, regional or
global assessment and planning) would be of significant benefit to national governments as well
as facilitating interagency approaches and actions.

Benefits of harmonization of reporting could accrue to all stakeholders, including national
governments, MEA secretariats and governance bodies, and the world community. Some of
these potential benefits include inter alia:

(i) To national governments
e encourage identification of a consolidated list of obligations cross-sectorally
e identify national priorities on implementation of MEAs in a holistic manner

IV.

12.

13.

encourage participation of all levels of government in implementation and reporting
improve awareness of national obligations and compliance of MEAs

improve ability to assess achievement of treaty objectives and set future priorities
identify gaps in national legislation and policies

assist in annual budget preparation

identify ways to avoid duplication of efforts between institutions

facilitate preparation of national strategic plans to implement MEAs

reduced burden of meeting reporting requirements of treaties

improved information available through secretariats

increased ability to develop and use clearing-house mechanisms and integrated
indicators of sustainability

e improved efficiency and effectiveness of national biodiversity information systems

e improved ability to implement country-driven action responding to MEA
commitments

(ii) To MEA secretariats

e encourage and support governments in the implementation of their own national
priorities

e timely receipt of national reports, enabling the Secretariats to prepare analyses that
help the conferences of parties to assess achievement of treaty objectives and identify
future priority issues

e improved efficiency of information management

e improved efficiency in the use of information technology and communications

e improved integrated analysis capacity and improved ability to coordinate interagency
programmes of work, through sharing of information and experience

e improved linkages with international environmental monitoring agencies, major data
custodians, and regional treaties

e improved basis for decision making by COPs, subsidiary bodies and secretariats

(iii) To the world community
e improved awareness of emerging issues and inter-relationships
e global and regional overviews
e reliable and comparable information for research

Mandate

UN General Assembly: Resolution 55/198 welcomed the work of convention secretariats and
contracting parties in enhancing complementarities among international instruments related to
environment and sustainable development, and encouraged further efforts to strengthen
cooperation and to streamline national reporting. This built on earlier resolutions of the General
Assembly, including resolutions 54/217 and 53/186 which also encouraged convention
secretariats to address practical issues including more effective exchange of information and
supporting efforts at the national level towards adopting an integrated approach to
implementation of environmental and environment-related conventions.

At its nineteenth special session, the UN General Assembly, by its resolution S/19-2, adopted
the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21. The programme included a
recommendation that the conferences of parties to the conventions signed at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development or as a result of it, as well as other conventions
related to sustainable development, should cooperate in exploring ways and means of
collaborating in their work to advance the effective implementation of those conventions.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Commission on Sustainable Development: Consistent with paragraph 38.13 of Agenda 21, the
Secretary-General has made a number of recommendations concerning the streamlining of
national reporting (E/CN.17/1997/6), including the establishment of reporting calendars and the
use of the Internet, which the Commission has actively implemented in its subsequent reporting
cycles following acceptance of the report by the Commission (Decision 5/103).

UNEP: The Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of UNEP (1997) identifies one of the
core elements of the UNEP mandate as being to develop “coherent interlinkages among existing
international environmental conventions”. This, and other parts of the UNEP mandate
concerning coordination of environmental activities in the UN system, give a clear mandate for
UNEP to lead efforts to promote synergies among the biodiversity-related treaties. This is
further supported by Chapter 38 of Agenda 21 and UNEP Governing Council Decisions 17/25,
18/9, 19/9c and 20/18b.

Further to adoption of UN General Assembly decision 52/445, the Secretary General established
the UN Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements, chaired by the UNEP Executive
Director. The task force recommended that UNEP continue to support joint meetings of heads of
convention secretariats in order to ensure complementarity and synergy (consistent with
paragraph 38.22(h) of Agenda 21), and that arrangements be made for periodic joint meetings of
representatives from conventions to address cross-cutting issues. The task force report was
submitted to the UN General Assembly as an annex to A/53/463, and noted in resolution 53/242.

Convention on Wetlands: Resolution VII/4 of the Conference of Parties (May 1999) requests the
Ramsar Convention Bureau to collaborate in efforts to harmonise information management
among the environment-related conventions, and in particular to assist the proposed pilot testing
of a streamlined approach to national report preparation. Further to this, the Strategic Plan 1997-
2002 includes a number of actions concerning the reporting process and the implementation of
processes for regularly reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of all Ramsar Convention
institutions, mechanisms and programmes.

Convention on Migratory Species: The Information Management Plan adopted by Resolution
6.5 of the Conference of Parties (November 1999) requests the Secretariat to liaise with
information managers of other global biodiversity-related treaties on streamlining information
management and reporting, and further stresses the importance of increased harmonization
within CMS and its related agreements. Operational objectives within the Strategic Plan for
2000-2005 are also concerned with data required for decision making (2.7) and institutional
linkages with partner organisations (4.4).

CITES: The strategic plan (Strategic Vision Through 2005) and report adopted by the
Conference of Parties (April 2000) gives renewed emphasis to the importance of cooperation
and interlinkages with UNEP and other biodiversity-related conventions (Goal 5). Particularly
relevant are the two objectives that deal with this issue (5.1 and 5.2). In addition, Goal 1 of the
strategic plan is concerned with enhancing the ability of each party to implement the convention,
which includes improving the availability of information on which decisions are made (1.4 and
1.5).

Convention on Biological Diversity: Decision V/19 of the Conference of Parties (May 2000)
requests the Executive Secretary to proceed with the further development and implementation of
the proposals for streamlining national reporting, in collaboration with the secretariats of the
other biodiversity-related conventions. Further to this, decision V/20 is concerned with the
development of a strategic plan for the Convention, which is certain to also cover these issues.

2A

World Heritage Convention: UNESCO’s intergovernmental World Heritage Committee has
recognised the collective interest that would be advanced by closer co-ordination of that
convention’s work with other international conservation instruments, as specified in the
committee’s Operational Guidelines paragraph 139. Specific mention is made of co-ordination
and information sharing.

22. Regional seas: Decision 28 adopted by the UNEP Governing Council at its 21* session

23.

24.

DS:

requested the Executive Director to use global meetings of regional seas conventions and action
plans and other cost-effective consultative mechanisms in the further strengthening of regional
seas programmes and for building synergies and collaboration among environmental
agreements. More specifically, the Secretariat of the Cartagena Convention has memoranda of
understanding with the CBD Secretariat and the Ramsar Convention Bureau which specifically
refer to “exploring the possibility of recommending procedures for harmonising, to the extent
desirable and practicable, the reporting requirements of Parties under those instruments and
conventions”.

Overcoming barriers to harmonization

Full harmonization of reporting and information management amongst the MEAs and related
agencies cannot be achieved instantly. Some of the potential barriers to success include:

(i) At the national level

e fragmented responsibility for national biodiversity information management

e limited understanding of the link between reporting and efficient implementation
of MEAs

e lack of sufficient communication between implementers on the ground and
national focal points or administrative authorities

e differing focal points and stakeholders involved in the implementation of
different MEAs at the national level

e jurisdictional conflicts in implementation of MEAs on the ground

e limited funding and human resources for information management

e different reporting formats, timing and purposes

(ii) At the international level

e limited funding and human resources for information management

e lack of capacity to participate in so many fora on harmonisation and interlinkages
of MEAs

e danger of duplication and overlapping considering the number of agencies and
organisations carrying out activities related to this issue

e uncertainty or debate that makes standards (such as taxonomies) difficult to
achieve

e differing economic, legislative, social, administrative, and statistical systems of
contracting parties

e different reporting formats, timing and purposes

Some of the reasons that make harmonization desirable also contribute to making it difficult to
achieve. Progress in harmonization must recognise these barriers and consider ways of
surmounting them. It is therefore important at one time to have a strategic view, that is to have a
common inter-agency view of an ultimate desirable outcome or target, and at the same time to
take progressive, pragmatic, achievable steps that move towards this target.

Overcoming the barriers requires:
e clear understanding of the purpose and benefits at all levels

i —eee—————
5

26.

27.

VI.

28.

29.

30.

oie

interagency cooperation

multi-national cooperation

information and experience sharing

wide consultation with stakeholders

progressive and incremental steps through pilot projects that solve practical problems
adoption of tested procedures for wider implementation

It is important to appreciate that harmonization does not imply standardisation, but rather
approaches that enable the gathering and integration of information for multi-purpose use.
Attention should be paid to lessons learned and the successful pragmatic approaches already
taken by major agencies, and adopt these as interim measures while true international standards
evolve where these are necessary.

A balance must be achieved between prescriptive reporting, and the recognition that national
reporting should be an integral part of existing national economic and social accounting
processes. Reports should be the output of the information management processes required for
effective implementation of agreements at the national level, not the result of a separate
exercise.

Strategic approach

Scope: The scope of this paper and the actions proposed is the harmonisation of information
management and reporting for the global and regional biodiversity-related treaties, and
biodiversity-relevant aspects of other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).

Vision: A harmonised and streamlined approach to information management and reporting for
the biodiversity-related treaties and programmes that ensures efficient and effective compilation,
management and use of information, reducing duplication of effort at national and international
levels, and increasing synergy in the use of information.

Objectives: The following short and medium-term objectives are recommended for future
implementation of this work:

Short term objectives
(i) To test and review the opportunities and needs for a range of potential mechanisms for
increased streamlining and harmonisation

(ii) | To provide supporting tools and demonstration actions which will assist both contracting
parties and secretariats in the process of streamlining and harmonising

Medium term objectives
(iii) To review the results of the tests and identify how to implement them in the context of the
needs and governance structures of the different MEAs

(iv) To identify further actions to be taken at the national and international levels to increase
streamlining and harmonisation, including inter alia capacity building at the national level

(v) To increase the availability of information resulting from these changes to support all
MEA implementation activities including increasing public information and awareness

National involvement: In order to ensure that appropriate measures are developed and ultimately
adopted, it is essential to involve in the harmonisation process all national institutions
responsible for implementation of the different MEAs on the ground. This will ensure that the

32.

33.

34.

B35);

36.

measures proposed are meaningful at the national level, and also ensure that there are
contracting parties who can “champion” particular approaches in the various MEA governance
fora.

Interagency cooperation: It is essential that international agencies cooperate closely in ensuring
increased access to the information necessary for implementation of MEAs, whether this is
information obtained through the reporting process or other means. Increasing the efficiency and
effectiveness of use of information at all levels should be a major objective of all international
agencies, including MEA secretariats.

Consultation: In order to ensure interagency cooperation and taking advantage of lessons
learned, the strategy should include wide consultation not only amongst the biodiversity MEAs
and their contracting parties, but beyond to other related MEAs and international agencies
experienced in the field (for example trade-related organisations have experience of direct
relevance to CITES). Furthermore, consultation within countries, between the different agencies
and institutions responsible for the implementation of MEAs is a key issue.

Pragmatic approach

Achievable targets: Harmonisation should progress by emphasising short-term achievable
targets. Opportunities to make gains should be taken where there is subject matter that lends
itself easily to harmonised approaches, or where some nations have found solutions that can be
replicated or adapted to similar conditions.

Pilot projects: Pilot projects should involve a few countries, or narrow subject matter areas that
can demonstrate proof-of-concept. These should be carefully chosen so as to be likely to
succeed in a relatively short time frame, and should not merely be demonstrations or models, but
be designed to address specific and current needs, with a view to adaptability to differing
situations. In this regard approaches taken should be linked to existing schedules, standards and
commonly used formats.

Indicators of success: Clearly defined indicators of success should be defined for each pilot
project or incremental implementation step, and all pilot proiects should have critical assessment
and review before expansion, adaptation or replication.

VIII. ‘Progress to date

Sif

38.

39}

There are many initiatives relevant to harmonization of reporting and information management
for the biodiversity-related treaties. The following examples are indicative of the type of work
being done by a wide range of international agencies.

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. IACSD 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

40.

41.

42.

43.

45.

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:

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

e that 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. These

recommendations are built into the actions proposed in this paper.

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 coordination between them, and has also organized 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; revitalizing support to the regional seas
conventions and action plans; making international trade and environmental regimes more
compatible; and streamlining national reporting. UNEP produces a Synergies bulletin twice a
year, which aims to promote collaboration on environmental treaties.

UNEP Environment and Natural Resources Information Network: 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 workshop: 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. The results of this workshop and the progress since on the development of
pilot projects to test approaches to harmonisation of reporting are covered later in this paper.

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

46.

47.

48.

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

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 coordinated approach to
environmental policy making that takes account of existing inter-linkages between
environmental issues. Objectives were to: create awareness at the public, governmental and
intergovernmental levels of the importance of synergies and coordination between MEAs;
survey existing initiatives; foster discussion and interaction among international institutions,
scholars and other relevant stakeholders who can cooperate to identify and examine
opportunities; and identify concrete mechanisms, next steps and feasible win-win paths forward
on this important issue. The main outputs were recommendations on the promotion of inter-
linkages between MEAs in the areas of harmonization of information systems and information
exchange, finance, issue management, scientific mechanisms, and synergies for sustainable
development. Those recommendations related to reporting and information management are
incorporated into this paper.

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:

(i) |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 categorized and key-worded series of questions or information elements
requested.

(ii) | 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.

(iii) 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:

(i) | 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.

(ii) _ 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 toois that facilitate

49.

50.

IX.

51.

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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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 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:

(i) | 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.

(ii) | 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.

Recommended actions

The following paragraphs provide a range of possible actions to be undertaken. Some are
already underway, and others will require a major input of resources before they could be

10

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

undertaken. Each action is described further in an annex referred to in the text. It should also be
noted that there are clearly interlinkages between the different proposed actions.

A. Test methods of harmonising national reporting nationally and internationally

UNEP project: Following the recommendations of the workshop referred to in paragraph 40,
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.
[SEE PROGRESS REPORT IN ANNEX 1]

B. Test a wider-scale harmonised approach for a specific theme or issue

Protected areas: Many international agreements and programmes designate or recognise sites for
one reason or another. These include the World Heritage Convention and the Convention on
Wetlands at the international level, and European Community “Directives” on birds and habitats
and the various regional seas conventions and their protocols at the regional level. Many other
international agreements and programmes identify national protected area systems as key tools
for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. 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. This work is based

on an ECOSOC resolution, and has the backing of the Ecosystem Conservation Group.
[SEE PROGRESS REPORT IN ANNEX 2]

C. Identify ways to build on the related initiatives of others

Global Biodiversity Information Facility: 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 that exists, particularly 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 institution, 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.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 3]

Other initiatives: There is a wide range of other initiatives which could also be discussed, and
where an effective dialogue with those managing the initiative might lead to their work better
addressing the information needs of national governments and MEA secretariats. This includes,
for example, the Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS), and the developing
regional information networks such as the Inter-American Bicdiversity Information Network

(IABIN).
D. Integrate information management at the international level

Review existing information sources: There are many international information sources and
services already available which support the development of policy at the national level, in

1]

57.

58.

59.

60.

particular the development of policy relevant to implementation of international agreements.
However these information sources and services are not necessarily all known to those who
might use them, or complete. The UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions is
therefore currently carrying out a project to review all of the available information sources and
services, and to make recommendations on their better integration and areas where there are

gaps.
[SEE PROGRESS REPORT IN ANNEX 4]

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.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 5]

Species information: There are several components of biodiversity and the actions taken to
conserve it that are relevant to a wide range of international agreements. For example, species
are listed in the annexes to CITES and CMS, the Bern Convention and the EC Birds and
Habitats Directives, the SPAW Protocol to the Cartagena Convention. Many other organisations
also deliver species information over the Internet, including IUCN, UNEP (especially UNEP-
WCMC) and numerous national agencies. In addition programmes on specific issues also deliver
information such as the Global Register of Migratory Species, the Global Invasive Species
Programme and the Association for Biodiversity Information. Collaborative programmes need to
be developed to use the power of the Internet to link information in a manner that is useful. The
ultimate aim is to develop integrated information systems that serve the needs of a wide range of

international agreements and programmes.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 6]

E. Improve access to the experience of others

Case studies and lessons learned: Within the files and archives of MEAs are the valuable results
of case studies, research projects and successful (and unsuccessful) practices related to habitat
rehabilitation, legislative provision, species re-introduction, policy development, protected area
management, sustainable tourism and so on. In many cases these are submitted in direct
response to calls for case studies and other information. A number of tools are now available to
make this valuable experience more accessible. Some of these case studies are already available
through individual MEA websites, but not in a consistent or co-ordinated manner. The concept
is to take steps to develop a “Lessons Learned Library” shared between the MEAs that provides

a collection of relevant, exemplary case studies indexed and easily accessible.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 7]

F. _ Ensure that national reports and key assessments together cover the “Big Picture”

Assessing the “big picture”: Between them the biodiversity-related treaties call for a wide range
of reports covering a significant range of issues. But when all these pieces are put together, how
complete is the picture of the status of the world’s biological diversity and the actions taken to
ensure its conservation and sustainable development? The aim of this concept is to review the
reporting requirements of the key international agreements, with a view to identifying how the
range of reports presents the “big picture”, and what else would be required to complete it,

12

61.

62.

63.

65.

66.

including information from other major assessment projects (Millennium Assessment, GEO,

GIWA) and national level State of the Environment reporting.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 8]

G. Organised inventory of obligations

Reporting obligations: The aim of this project, which has already been initiated by the European
Environment Agency, is to develop a detailed consolidated inventory of all obligations placed
on contracting parties to report information to international environmental conventions. The
information will be compiled in the form of an annotated list of specific information elements
demanded (directly or implicitly) by each obligation instrument (convention, protocol,
agreement, directive, etc). The obligations would also be key-worded using a standardised
thesaurus as to subject matter, and linked to information on schedule and periodicity of regular
reports. The inventory would be structured as a searchable database that links the information
required to the text of the legal authority for the obligation (e.g. convention article or formal

decision) and to geographic scope.
[SEE PROGRESS REPORT IN ANNEX 9]

Other potential supporting and demonstration actions

The following paragraphs provide a range of possible additional supporting actions for
investigation and consideration. Some of these are already underway, others would require an
input of resources before they could be undertaken if they were thought to be useful actions.

Joint website of the biodiversity-zelated conventions: This webpage was established two years
ago as a mechanism for locating related information on each of the five convention websites, but
has fallen into abeyance. The website will be resurrected as a collaborative exercise between
UNEP and the five treaty secretariats.

“Handbook” to reporting, incorporating existing formats, rationale and timetables: Reporting
instructions for contracting parties vary widely between treaties. Contents specification,

reporting formats, guidance and interpretation may be found in convention articles, decisions
and resolutions of conferences of the parties and subsidiary bodies, and less formal guidelines
and interpretation documents circulated by secretariats. A resource that provides in one place
the relevant guidelines and formats for the biodiversity-related conventions would be of
practical benefit, as well as being a tool to promote harmonisation. This resource could be a
published book, but is likely to be more useful as an Internet resource, possibly linked to a CD

ROM for those countries which have difficulties with Internet access and use.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 10]

Reporting timetables: MEA secretariats might give consideration to reviewing the reporting
timetables of the MEAs with a view to more careful scheduling, which would in particular
benefit SIDs and other countries with relatively small infrastructures. The information might
also be presented in a reporting calendar on a regular basis.

All national reports accessible on the Internet: The concept is to introduce a common approach
across the conventions for making available information submitted by parties. Some of the
elements of this include the standardisation of the approach, format and linkages of secretariat
web-sites, a shared website acting as a gateway to convention specific information and
harmonised methods of document managing and archiving, so that the documents can be
systematically searched, transparently across MEAs. Parts of this are already being implemented

by some MEA secretariats, so there are already some lessons that can be built upon.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 11]

ne eT
13

67.

68.

69.

XI.

70.

71.

WZ

Metadatabase of official documents and information papers of MEAs: The development of a
metadatabase (index or directory) is proposed that would provide a means to search for any

official document (including national reports) of the MEAs selected by subject keyword, time
period, region etc., and obtain overview contents and instructions on how to obtain the
document. This would require an agreed vocabulary for keywording and a consistent document

identification system across agreements.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 12]

Harmonisation of terminology and classification: Important support for improved access to and
usefulness of information would result from the development and/or sharing of common

taxonomies, glossaries, lists of abbreviations, definitions and terminology, and the possible
future adoption of cross-convention standards. Some of these, for example standard taxonomies,

would be far more difficult to implement than others.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 13]

Develop demonstrations of streamlined reporting through electronic means: Modern information
technology has now reached a stage where it can routinely and reliably be used to make national

reporting more efficient and effective. Actions are proposed to test out the use of electronic
report submission, submission through prepared pro-forma reports, and multi-purpose reports
with elements common to several MEAs, leading to a demonstration of the concept of “virtual
reporting”. This will build on and promote many of the activities already being carried out by

convention secretariats, helping to ensure more wide use of the lessons being learnt.
[SEE CONCEPT NOTE IN ANNEX 14]

Mechanisms for improving institutional interlinkages at the international level

Achieving many of the actions noted above and maintaining the successes will require standing
linkages between the MEAs in a number of areas, including inter alia:

e further harmonisation and interlinkages of websites and other information dissemination
consistency on information management practices and technologies

co-ordination of scientific methodology considerations (such as indicators)

co-ordination of the use of nomenclature, definitions, harmonisation of taxonomies, etc.
developing and co-ordinating a joint capacity building programme in information
management and related Internet technology

e management of a shared lessons-learned library

In the short term improved institutional interlinkages may be accomplished through the UNEP
synergies meetings, ad hoc meetings of technical bodies of the MEAs, and collaboration
between secretariats both bilaterally and multilaterally. In the longer term, structural changes are
required to make these linkages effective and permanent. An assessment of needs for
interagency standing subsidiary bodies is called for - particularly in the areas of information
management. Unifying or sharing scientific support bodies should be examined as well,
especially with regard to taxonomy. Also, recognising that secretariats often have limited
resources in information systems, it potentially would be operationally efficient to jointly

engage specialised service providers to support these endeavours.
[SEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN ANNEX 15]

Further to this, a key point to bear in mind is that harmonisation of implementation of the
different MEAs is a far more important issue. Harmonisation of information management and
reporting are tools for furthering this process. This paper deals with one part of a far larger
issue.

14

XII.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

National coordination mechanisms

Improved co-ordination of convention implementation at the national level is essential for
efficient and effective response to all of the international obligations that countries have taken
on. Integration of information management at the national level is one tool for achieving this,
and for delivering reports in a better manner. Various mechanisms are used to work towards
greater co-ordination at the national level.

Exchange of information: The national focal point (or equivalent) for each convention ensures
that his or her counterparts for other conventions receive relevant information. This is a fairly
passive process, and while it should lead to recognition of areas of potential overlap, it does not
lead to a synergistic approach to implementation of the conventions. There is also the danger
that divergent policies may develop on international issues. This sort of mechanism is unlikely
to foster moves to streamline and harmonize reporting.

Periodic co-ordination meetings: The national focal points (or equivalent) meet periodically to
exchange information and discuss areas of common interest. This is probably the most frequent
mechanism for coordination currently, and can lead to a more integrated approach to convention
implementation if properly managed. At its highest level, these meetings can discuss policy and
issues ahead of meetings of the conferences of parties to ensure an integrated approach. These
coordination meetings could also ensure a more integrated approach to reporting if given the
right advice internationally.

Convention co-ordination office: An individual or group of individuals is assigned the role of
ensuring coordination. This is an effective mechanism provided the individual has the necessary
authority and budgets to ensure action can take place. One would assume that to be efficient it
would probably be combined with periodic coordination meetings convened by the coordination
office. Such a mechanism could certainly facilitate increased coordination in preparation and
delivery of reports at the national level.

Common national focal point: An individual or a single team assumes the role of national focal
point to more than one international convention. In small island states this is a common
occurrence, but not in larger countries with more complex bureaucracies. The result tends to be
that the individual is overburdened, but this has the corollary that he or she is very open to any
action that increases harmonization and streamlining.

Integrated programmes and strategies: Development of a common approach to implementation
of one or more international conventions within a country, with organisations working to a

single integrated programme or strategy. This approach could be combined with any of the
above-mentioned mechanisms, and would clearly lead to greater integration at the national level.
This could result from or lead to greater integration and the international level. Finally, it is
important to recognise that a key component of integration, whether of action, policy
development or reporting, is the integration of information management that forms the basis for
assessment, priority setting, decision making and reporting.

15

16

Il.

Il.

ANNFXFS

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1
Testing methods of harmonizing national reporting nationally and internationally
Progress Report
Introduction

As the first step to address the need to harmonize reporting processes under Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs), UNEP is implementing a project entitled "Streamlined
National Reporting under _Biodiversity-Related Conventions: Pilot Case Studies in Selected
Countries". The project is an umbrella project encompassing six pilot projects to be implemented
with interested countries, including Belgium. Ghana, Indonesia, Panama, Seychelles and UK. UNEP
is currently in touch with Spain to explore the possibility of its participation in the project.

Scope of the project

The biodiversity conventions included in the project are the five global conventions, i.e. the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Convention on Wetlands), Convention on Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (CMS), and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
World Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention).

The Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol under the Convention for the
Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena
Convention) will also be considered in the pilot project of Panama. If Spain participates, its pilot
project will be supported by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the
Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) and could include addressing the
reporting requirements under the SPAW Protocol of the Barcelona Convention.

Summary of project aims and expected outputs

The pilot projects will test the four main methods of streamlining national reporting that were
identified in the workshop (October 2000, Cambridge) which explored ideas for a more harmonized
approach to national reporting to international agreements. The workshop was convened by UNEP
(Division of Environmental Conventions and UNEP-WCMC).

Each pilot project will produce the following:

(i) a report (or reports) that satisfy the reporting requirements under the biodiversity-related
conventions to which the country is a Party for a selected period

(ii) a report on the national reporting mechanisms (institutional frameworks and information/data
flow) for the biodiversity-related conventions and in some cases, state of the environment
(SOE) reporting, including:

e description of the reporting mechanisms that exist and the information management
systems used for the preparation of each report;

IV.

10.

ANNEXES

e description of the linkages between the reporting mechanisms for the biodiversity-related
conventions (and in some cases the SOE reporting mechanism);

e gaps in information and data existing in the country;

e recommendations, including the necessary actions to be taken by the Government, on
how to streamline the national reporting under biodiversity-related conventions and, in
some cases, including the linkages with the SOE reporting mechanism, can be ensured or
improved;

e recommendations on how the information management system for the reporting can be
improved, including possible information support from outside the country.

Based on the results of the pilot projects the following outputs will be produced under the main
project:

(i) _ preliminary consolidated reporting format for the global biodiversity-related conventions.

(ii) a set of guidelines on establishment of coordinated national reporting mechanisms for the
biodiversity-related conventions.

(iii) a report on regional mechanisms for supporting the countries to fulfill the reporting
requirements under biodiversity-related conventions: the case of Panama and Central
America.

It is intended that the analysis should also, in the future, help the COPs ensure that reporting
requirements focus on the minimum set of useful data for implementation of the conventions.

Implementation and financing of the project

The project will be implemented by the UNEP Division of Environmental Convention working in
collaboration with the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (which will provide the
necessary technical assistance) and with cooperation of the secretariats of the relevant biodiversity-
related conventions. The project is funded by UNEP (US$135,000) with in-kind contributions of
countries involved in the project and relevant MEAs. Further funding may be received from
participating developed countries and other donor countries.

The pilot projects have been prepared in the form of draft Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
between UNEP and the participating developing countries. The draft MOUs were sent to the
countries on 19 April 2001 as a basis for comment and further discussion. The developed countries
will finance their own work and are considering supporting, both financially and substantively, the
implementation of the pilot projects in the developing countries.

Paucity of funds has precluded the selection of more countries for the implementation of the project.

An attempt has however been made to select one country from each continent. The selection of one
Small Island Developing State (SIDS) - Seychelles - is significant. In most of SIDS there is usually
one focal point coordinating, and reporting on, the implementation of several conventions.

Se eee
ANNFXFS 18

I.

II.

II.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 2

Testing a wider-scale harmonized approach for a more specific theme or issue:
protected areas

Progress report
Introduction

Over the past three years there have been a number of studies and meetings aimed at harmonizing
and sharing information between international agreements and programmes. All stakeholders agree
with the need for careful planning and cooperation in information management to ensure increased
synergy in the use of information and reduced duplication of effort. Given the range of international
agreements and programmes that are concerned either directly or indirectly with protected areas,
there are clear opportunities for promoting and demonstrating increased harmonization of
information management and reporting.

Scope of the project

The UN List of Protected Areas: Protected areas form part of each nation’s strategy for dealing with
the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and landscape. These areas vary considerably in
their objectives, the extent to which they are integrated into the wider landscape, and the
effectiveness with which they are managed, but they nonetheless provide powerful evidence of a
nation’s commitment to conservation and sustainable development. Recognizing the importance of
such areas, the UN Economic and Social Council adopted Resolution No. 713 (XXVID in 1959,
which called for the preparation and maintenance of a list of national parks and equivalent reserves.
The United Nations List of Protected Areas includes all national protected areas that meet certain
criteria.

International agreements and programmes: A significant number of international treaties and
programmes call on nations to protect or conserve areas for specific purposes. Many of these give
international recognition to specific sites, for example the World Heritage Convention and the
Convention on Wetlands are both concerned with protection of specific sites, and at least 11 other
global and regional agreements and programmes recognize or designate specific protected areas.
Other treaties define a need for protected areas without giving recognition to specific sites, for
example Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity requires each Contracting Party to
“establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve
biological diversity” and to manage them effectively.

Summary of project aims and expected outputs

The overall aims of this project are to report on the current status of the world’s protected areas, and
to promote the harmonization of information management and reporting for those international
agreements and programmes concerned with protected areas.

This will be achieved through the preparation of a new-format United Nations List of Protected
Areas which not only lists the world’s protected areas and presents synthesis and analysis of the
information, but also seeks to meet the related information needs of a range of international
agreements and programmes concerned with protected areas.

19

ANNFYXFS

IV.

10.

11.

Ade

ANNEXES

There are two major events which provide a specific focus for delivery of the new format UN List
and associated reports. These are:

(i) | World Parks Congress: The Fifth World Parks Congress will take place in South Africa in
September 2003. This ten-yearly meeting of the World’s protected area professionals will
include assessment of the world’s protected areas, their management and their future needs,
and the international mechanisms that support them.

(ii) CBD Conference of Parties: Protected areas as a tool for conservation and sustainable
development will be one of the main issues discussed by the 7” Conference of Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, when they meet in 2004, and will presumably also be
discussed at the preceding SBSTTA meeting.

Outputs will include a state of the parks report (or reports), list of sites, and recommendations on
future information collection, management and use programmes incorporating the needs and
capacities of national and international agencies.

Implementation and financing of the project

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre developed a series of concept and discussion
papers which have been reviewed by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA),
the expert body which brings together the world’s protected areas professionals. The WCPA
Steering Committee has agreed to play a strong role in helping to guide implementation of the
project.

UNEP-WCMC and WCPA have together approached the key UN agencies (UNEP, FAO and
UNESCO) directly seeking their support and greater involvement. The concept was subsequently
presented to the Ecosystem Conservation Group at its meeting in Nairobi in May 2000, where it
received wholehearted endorsement from the members.

IUCN has provided UNEP-WCMC with the financial support necessary to develop guidelines, work
programmes, quality control strategies, etc, and to prepare and implement a funding strategy.
Meanwhile UNEP is exploring opportunities for locating resources from within the UN system, and
is considering options for appointing a Junior Professional Officer in Cambridge to work on the
project.

The next stage will be to involve the secretariats of international agreement and programmes with
an interest in protected areas, so that the whole project helps to meet their information needs, as
well as promoting these agreements and programmes and providing an opportunity for integration
and cross-comparison of information on the sites recognized by each.

Subsequent to this information will be compiled during 2002 from national and international
sources using the agreed procedures and quality control measures, and in discussion with
appropriate UN agencies and international agreement and programme secretariats. The analyses,
lists and assessments will be published in various formats in 2003 and 2004 as input to the key
meetings identified earlier.

ee eee
ANNFXFS 20

Il.

Ill.

ANNFYXFS

ANNEXES

ANNEX 3

Identify ways to build on the related initiatives of others:
the Global Biodiversity Information Facility

Concept Note
The role and purpose of GBIF

GBIF has been established through an intergovernmental process in order to enable users
throughout the world to discover and put to use the vast quantities of global biodiversity data that
exist. The agreed programme priorities of GBIF are to:

e create an Internet-based catalogue of known names of species

e digitize data on species information in museums and herbaria

e create interoperability of databases and search engines for accessing these data

e build capacity in nations for implementation of GBIF

Participation in GBIF

The GBIF Memorandum of Understanding allows for two types of participation, Voting Participants
and Associate Participants. UNEP has been accepted as an Associate Participant in GBIF, and
intends inter alia to contribute in the area of species information for implementation of MEAs.

UNEP has identified as its GBIF “node” the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, which

already conforms with GBIF’s definition of a node. UNEP-WCMC will therefore:

e take the lead in UNEP’s operational involvement in the GBIF

e participate in GBIF Board Meetings as an Associate Participant

e ensure UNEP’s compliance with the GBIG Memorandum of Understanding, including the
responsibilities of a GBIF node

e actas a focal point for the involvement of other UNEP divisions and agencies

Objective of UNEP participation in GBIF

UNEP, as the administrator of several multilateral environmental agreements on species or with a
species component seeks, in cooperation with GBIF, to enhance the quality and quantity of species-
specific information available to parties, secretariats and those who directly implement such
international agreements.

UNEP recognises the species information impediment to effective implementation of such MEAs

and will enter into discussions with parties, secretariats and a range of other organizations to define
and implement a “Joint Conventions Species Information Service” within the framework of GBIF.

21

Il.

Il.

IV.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 4

Integrate information management at the international level:
Review existing information sources

Progress Report
Introduction

National governments need international biodiversity information for a variety of reasons,
including, inter alias: to put national conditions and plans in perspective; to set priorities; for
strategic planning and policy development; to effectively implement national obligations under
MEAs; and to effectively respond to evolving global and regional issues.

Since the development of GEMS in the 1970s there have been growing numbers of international
efforts of environmental data assembly, integration and exchange, both regionally and globally. It is
difficult for national governments seeking to utilize these networks and services to locate the best
sources, and to decide which information systems or networks are most worthy of support and
enhancement.

A project has been initiated by the UK Department of Environment Transport and the Regions,
called “Rationalization of International Nature Conservation Information Systems”, with the intent
of shedding light on the availability and suitability of information.

Scope of the project

The project is considering ways of rationalizing, and making better use international information
networks, with the general objective of improving the Government policy development process in
nature conservation, both domestically and internationally. All major information sources and
services will be reviewed, especially those relevant to the biodiversity-related MEAs.

Summary of project aims and expected outputs

More specifically the project aims to:

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

e critically assess the information holdings and analysis capacity of such agencies in the context
of the needs of policy making bodies of the UK government

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

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

Implementation and financing of the project

The project is financed by the UK government and will be executed by the UNEP-WCMC and the
Orbis Institute, working in collaboration with UNEP GRID Arendal and the European Centre for
Nature Conservation. The one-year project began in May 2001 and a series of interactive workshops
are planned for early July 2001 to analyze information use and needs in the UK government.

ANNFXFS 22

Il.

Il.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 5

Integrate information management at the international level:
ECOLEX

Concept Note
Introduction

Government officials, lawyers, academics, non-governmental organisations, and researchers need to
locate and analyse legal instruments and materials related to environmental management.
Recognising the necessity for a single gateway to this information, the UNEP Governing Council
(Decision 18/9) called upon UNEP and IUCN to join forces in providing access to international and
national environmental law information.

Summary of progress to date

ECOLEX was designed to use IUCN's Environmental Law Information System as its core archival
system and link this data to full text information available with UNEP's Computerised
Environmental Law Information Base and other authoritative sources.

Users can search using subject area, keyword, country, or date. ECOLEX includes information on
multilateral treaties; national legislation; European Union instruments; international "soft law" and
related documents; law and policy literature; and judicial decisions.

The service is designed to provide users with access to: a locator mechanism; a distributed system
of specialized environmental law information databases; two levels of Internet access (general and
specialized); products such as CD-ROMs, disk-based information and paper publications; and links
to other databases, expertise and more information.

The full-suite of the prototype ECOLEX databases is now available on the Internet for a limited
period. included are references and full-text, where available, of multilateral treaties, national
legislation, EU instruments, soft-law documents, law and policy literature, court decisions, and
fauna and flora protection under international and national law.

Future development

Add this section based on the outcome of the steering committee meeting in The Hague at the end of last
year, which also reviewed the project document for phase two of the project. Need input from Mr.
Alexandre Timoshenko (UNEP) who is chair of the ECOLEX Steering Committee. Content needs to be
oriented to incorporation of FAOLEX (i.e. further integration) and ways in which the service can be
improved (and integrated with other services) to serve the needs of the MEAs.

23

ANNFXFS

I.

Il.

Il.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 6

Integrate information management at the international level:
Species information

Concept Note
Introduction

Individual species are listed in the annexes to CITES and CMS, the Bern Convention and the EC
Birds and Habitats Directives. Many other organisations also deliver species information over the
Internet, including IUCN, UNEP (especially UNEP-WCMC) and numerous national agencies. In
addition programmes on specific issues also deliver information such as the Global Register of
Migratory Species, the Global Invasive Species Programme and the Association for Biodiversity
Information. Collaborative programmes need to be developed to use the power of the Internet to link
information in a manner that is useful.

Objective

To develop distributed and integrated information systems based on existing services and
programmes that serve the needs of a wide range of international agreements and programmes.

Proposed activities

Review the information on species already available to convention and programme secretariats, and
plan ways to make it more accessible on the Internet.

Review the information already managed by organizations and programme such as UNEP-WCMC,
ECOLEX and the European Environment Agency, to identify the best means to link the species
information made available by convention secretariats to convention appendices and annexes, taking
account of the need to deal with differences in accepted taxonomies.

Identify other information sources on species which could be readily linked to this information, or
which could be modified to do so.

Review with convention secretariats and technical bodies the information that is required to support
policy development for implementation of the different agreements in a synergistic manner.

Implement in a staged manner information services on the Internet that support implementation of
international agreements at national and international levels.

a ee———eEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

ANNFXFS 24

I.

II.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 7
Improve access to the experience of others
Concept Note
Objective

The objective is to promote and facilitate the sharing of experience from case studies, whether
positive success stories or examples of what to avoid. A number of the MEAs currently have some
of the case studies available through the Internet, but there is little consistency in this — even within
one MEA, and no uniform way of searching for relevant case studies across conventions. The
objective is to integrate case studies called for under a range of international agreements and
programmes into an effective “Lessons Learned Library”.

Proposed activities
A. All MEAs make case-studies available through the internets

This requires an internal review in each secretariat to select appropriate material from project files,
national reports and nomination submissions, responses to previous calls for case studies, and so on.
These would be posted on a special section of the convention web site.

B. Develop tools for integrated access across MEAs

This will require improved means of identifying the content of the material in a consistent way,
including a standard “cover sheet”, standardisation for country and region identification, and more
specialised key-wording vocabulary for these lessons learned — for instance, incorporating a
standard taxonomy and more detailed terms related to habitat rehabilitation, management plans,
threat mitigation and other specific items.

C. _ Establish a prototype lessons-learned web site

This could be developed as a separate web site or as part of an inter-convention web site and would
serve to test the methodology and delivery of information, and to attract input from other agencies.

D. Further implementation

The most valuable lessons-learned will be from national activities, and so establishing links to the
lessons-learned case studies of national sites is a logical next step. To encourage this, a set of
themes could be drawn up (e.g. for Best Practice Guidelines for CITES implementation for new
parties and others) and efforts would be made to collect relevant material from the Parties in the
short term. From the experience of Ramsar, once a prototype site is established, national and
international agencies are willing to submit additional material and/or provide links to existing sites
with case studies and examples of good practice. Guidelines must be developed for acceptance of

lessons-learned or links.

Finally, the Lessons-Leaned site could be linked to the CBD Clearing House Mechanism following
the testing of the prototype and adjustment according to experience. The ultimate goal is that the
lessons-learned network becomes a useful node in the overall CBD Clearing-House Mechanism.

ooo
25

ANNFXFS

I.

Il.

Ill.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 8
Ensure that national reports and assessment together cover the “Big Picture”
Concept Note
Introduction

For many years now, national reports have been flowing into the MEAs with the main purpose of
enabling the assessment of the state and effectiveness of the implementation of the particular treaty.
However, it is not currently clear to what extent national reporting to the suite of MEAs provides
the “big picture” either of the collective degree of effectiveness of the treaties, or of the overall
global status of biodiversity?

Objective

The aim is to review the reporting requirements of the key international agreements, with a view to
identifying how the range of reports presents the “big picture”, that is a global overview, and what
else would be required to complete it.

Proposed activities

The first stage is to conduct a study that will examine the information content of the national
reporting requirements against a framework of issues of concern in biodiversity and nature
conservation. The analysis could be expressed through one or more matrices of information
elements verses the particular MEAs and the perceived information needs. A summary matrix would
indicate the range of information required and the extent to which it presents a complete picture of
the state and issues of global biodiversity.

Once established this matrix would lead to recommendations on improving and streamlining
reporting, including:

e areas of duplication

e additional reporting elements required

e areas where existing treaties or treaty provisions area inadequate

e opportunities for rationalisation of treaties

The resulting information would then be reviewed by an expert meeting involving both convention
secretariats and contracting parties to different MEAs, who would confirm (or otherwise) the
project findings, and recommend ways to implement the recommendations.

A further stage would be to also look at the ways in which international assessment processes and
programmes such as the Millenium Assessment, GEO, GIWA and the Forest Resouces Assessment
also contribute, and the extent to which these assessments are acceptable to contracting parties in
assessing the status of biological diversity.

8.0 006©€0

ANNFXFS 26

I.

Il.

Il.

ANNFXFS

ANNEXES

ANNEX 9
Organized inventory of obligations
Progress Report
Introduction
The concept is to develop a detailed consolidated inventory of all obligations placed on contracting
parties to report information to international conventions. This database could then provide the basis
for analysis of duplication and potential synergies.

Scope of the project

The project would cover all reporting obligations, both legal and moral, relating to international
agreements and programmes, including questionnaires and requests for statistical information.

Project summary and expected outputs
The information would be compiled in the form of an annotated list of specific "questions" or
information elements demanded (directly or implicitly) by each obligation instrument (convention,
protocol, agreement, directive, etc).
While not replacing the detailed format and reporting instructions of the convention secretariats, the
questions would be as specific as possible in indicating the nature of the information element
required. The questions would be key-worded using a standardised thesaurus as to subject matter,
and linked to data on schedule and periodicity of regular reports.
The inventory would be structured as a searchable database that links the questions to the text of the
legal authority for the obligation (e.g. convention article or formal decision) and to geographic
scope.
The resulting database would facilitate analysis of reporting requirements.

Implementation and financing of the project

This project is being carried out by the European Environment Agency for all of the environmental
agreements and questionnaires that relate to European Union countries.

ee ee
27

ANNEXES

ANNEX 10
“Handbook” to reporting, incorporating existing formats, rationale and timetables
Concept Note

Reporting instructions for contracting parties vary widely between treaties. Contents specification,
reporting formats, guidance and interpretation may be found in convention articles, decisions and
resolutions of conferences of the parties and subsidiary bodies, and less formal guidelines and
interpretation documents circulated by secretariats. Focal point agencies may often be unsure if they
are using the most up-to-date instructions or formats for a particular reporting obligation, and
countries often find it difficult to obtain an overview of the range of reporting requirements to
which they must respond.

2. A “handbook” that provides in one place access to the relevant guidelines and formats for a range of
biodiversity-related conventions (ideally all) would be of great day-to-day practical benefit, as well
as being a tool to promote harmonisation.

The primary objective would be to make national reporting to conventions easier and of improved
quality and consistency by ensuring that the most up-to-date instructions are readily available

The “handbook” would also potentially:

(i) identify opportunities for harmonisation of reporting frameworks and approaches

(ii) assist in identifying gaps and overlaps in reporting, and opportunities for streamlining

(iii) encourage the adoption of standards for vocabulary and nomenclature and provide a
convenient means of disseminating such guidance

The “handbook” could be made more useful by the addition of an overview section on good
practices in information management. This could suggest how contracting parties could most
usefully organise national information systems and collection regimes for reporting to the
conventions while contributing to their own national polices, strategies and action plans.

The “handbook” could begin as a simple compilation of existing guidance documents, either in
paper format or as a series of weblinks. This would be of immediate practical value. The
“handbook” could then be used as a tool to consolidate, harmonise and rationalise reporting
structures and evolve in stages to a guide for modular reporting and/or virtual reporting.

The “handbook” would have the following essential characteristics:

(i) reporting requirements, formats and other guidance for all treaties compiled in one document

(ii) must be updated whenever changes in requirements are mandated by the authoritative treaty
bodies

(iii) would be widely and easily accessible.

The “handbook” would have the following useful characteristics:

(i) website with links to all formats and guidelines

(ii) provision of blank pro-forma reporting formats, and links to sites where sample completed
reports can be obtained would be useful.

(iii) common glossary, acronym list, terminology set and cross-convention standards

(iv) integrated schedule of reporting due dates

ANNFXFS 28

Il.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 11
All national reports accessible on the Internet
Concept Note
Objectives

Improve the usefulness of national reports to all stakeholders by ensuring that all reports are
available and easily accessed on the Internet.

Proposed activities

Each MEA undertakes actions to place electronic version of all national reports submitted on the
Internet, including consideration of the extent to which capture of the previous backlog should be
attempted.

Develop tools to effectively search the material across conventions. This will require improved
means of identifying the content of the reports in a consistent way, e.g. by adopting a standard
thesaurus such as ENVOC for keywording the reports, a standard “cover sheet’, standardization for
country and region identification.

Coordinate between the MEAs to ensure that the formats and information technology regimes are
sufficiently similar to allow search engines to operate.

Establish a common web-site or entry portal that will enable searching and selecting reports across
the MEAs.

7 ee
29

ANNFXFS

I.

Il.

Il.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 12
Metadatabase of official document and information papers of MEAs
Concept Note
Introduction

A metadatabase refers to an automated searchable index or directory of information about
information - a means to search and locate available documents across a range of custodians.

Many, but not all, MEAs currently make national reports and some secretariat documents available
electronically, but systems vary and there is no way to search across MEAs for information - for
instance by issue, or action or species. Having a metadatabase would greatly improve the access
and usefulness of national reports. The concept is that this catalogue would extend to all relevant
documents, not only national reports and case studies, whether in electronic form or on paper.

Objective

To facilitate availability and exchange of information from MEAs and inter-linkages between
MEAs by developing a metadatabase that covers all MEA official documents — those submitted by
parties, and those related to governance of the convention.

Proposed activities

The anticipated activities would include the following:

e design a the structure content and format for a metadatabase

e adopt standard thesauri (shared between the conventions)

e adopt standards for geographic identification (consistent country and region naming, etc)

e adopt standards for document naming and numbering (meeting minutes, decisions, resolutions,

background papers, membership lists, etc)

keyword all reports for subject matter content using the standard thesaurus

e add to the metadatabase information on how to obtain or access the reports (in both electronic
and paper form)

e develop cooperative processes to maintain and manage the metadatabase jointly, through a
central web-site

Searching for information that is relevant to a particular inquiry would then be a simple operation
which could be conducted from one common point, with the option to include or exclude documents
pertaining to specific conventions or time periods. This would lead naturally to increased
harmonisation of information management practices generally between the MEAs.

ANNFYXFS 30

ANNEXES

ANNEX 13
Harmonization of terminology and classification
Concept Note

Harmonisation of the terminology (both technical and administrative) between the conventions
would provide a number of benefits, including enabling useful on-line searches, and effective
metadatabases, and as well contribute to improved understanding and communication of
information.

Areas in need of harmonisation or standardisation include:

country naming and coding

region naming and coding

official/legal terminology (party, accession, signatory, nomination, listed, etc
ecological classification systems and terms (ecosystems, bio-geographic zones, wetland and
vegetation classification, land-use and land cover, etc)

taxonomy - to the extent possible adopt standard species names, spelling etc
protection level

species status (endangered, threatened, etc)

keywording vocabulary

abbreviations

In many cases it should be possible to adopt an existing terminology set, such as the ENVOC
vocabulary for keywording, IUCN protection categories for protected areas, and so on.

In other cases, such as species taxonomy, finding a standard, or even a harmonized approach will
take longer and rather more adjustment.

Guidance and tools to assist parties to adopt these conventions will also be needed and should be
developed through interagency co-operation.

jee
ANNFXFS 31

Il.

Il.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 14
Demonstrations of streamlined reporting through electronic means
Concept Note
Introduction

Various MEA secretariats are already experimenting with the use of “electronic” means of
submitting reports, including on diskette and using web forms. At the same time countries are
increasingly using national websites for delivering information at the national level.

Contracting parties to each international agreement periodically submit a report to the convention
secretariat. This is so whether the report is “hard copy” or a computer file, and whether it is sent
through the post or by email. The concept of "virtual reporting" has also been proposed, where no
report is submitted, rather the information that comprises the report is made available for access by
the convention secretariat. This would be done through a linked series of pages on a national
website. Secretariats would access the information relevant to them as and when required.

An important secondary benefit is the creation of a multi-purpose national information resource that
is constantly up-dated and available for research and education, as well as for national policy
implementation. It could easily be linked to national SoE processes.

Objective

The pilot projects and demonstrations described here aim to build on this experience, in particular
to:

(i) promote the sharing of experience relating to submission using electronic media

(ii) demonstrate the potential value and application of “virtual reporting”

Proposed activities/Pilot studies

The anticipated activities would include the following:

e encourage the submission of national reports on electronic media, especially in proforma
formats established by the MEA

e review the effectiveness of trials of direct submission of reports as email attachments, in lieu of
paper or electronic media

e pilot test the establishment of a national websites (or linked network of sites) for assembling
national reports to international conventions and programmes. At its simplest, the website
would simply hold electronic copies of the reports required in order to comply with
international agreements.

e conduct further pilot tests of which would see the convention secretariat accessing the site (on
instructions form the Party) to obtain the information needed for meeting reporting obligations,
i.e. moving towards full “virtual reporting”.

ANNFXFS 32

DP

ANNFXFS

ANNEXES

ANNEX 15
Mechanisms for improving institutional interlinkages
Recommendations

It is clear that achieving and maintaining the desired harmonisation will require on-going means for
the five Convention Secretariats to exchange views and co-ordinate actions at the working level,
especially with regard to information systems and harmonisation of reporting. This can be achieved
in a number of ways, including standing committees, working groups, advisory groups, and shared
service providers. The following are some suggestions for the key processes:

A. Co-ordination of scientific methodology considerations and the use of nomenclature,
definitions, harmonisation of taxonomies, etc.

Suggestion: A joint Scientific Advisory Committee to address issues of harmonisation of
taxonomies, species lists, and scientific methodologies. This shared committee could be considered
as scientific advisors to all the Conventions - for instance providing advice to the SBSTTA of CBD.
The participation of appropriate international NGOs is also suggested. In addition this Scientific
Committee could convene a sub-committee to deal with issues of harmonisation of nomenclature
and scientific definitions.

B. Developing or adopting a consistent terminology, thesaurus and key word structure

Suggestion: This could be a specific task for the above noted sub-committee, with the assistance of
an international NGO familiar with thesaurus and metadatabase issues.

C. Harmonisation and inter-linking of Web-sites and other forms of information
dissemination, developing and maintaining guidelines on virtual reporting sites, and
management of a shared lessons-learned library

Suggestion: A joint Working Group on Information Technology consisting of the "information
officers" or "IT Managers" of each convention, with the assistance of a shared international
information manager and/or technology consultant. There would seem to be considerable advantage
to having an external agency manage the tasks required, under the direction of the Working Group.

D. Developing and co-ordinating a joint capacity building programme in information
management and related Internet technology (process d above)

Suggestion: A joint working group, which identifies common capacity building needs, seeks shared
funding, and engages shared resources to implement capacity building programmes.

222 (ene
33

‘ea Ht OPE
fey AUN ES Ri Opn ae cpa rh ee it

cote

i

fovek yomdiow: wit ih Daxsihong coadiibinn os ape buviaty vaeeaice o seietteswrao! sh dintes

De ‘pal e9 teen et yt irene yt Lega ial iret tae amas eS Be toi! PANE +"We ; : ;
i HLIN fresno aia min Ge PAMRER Patri: GP aw i?

ony Ui Rosie helniabiiad Sela ay ee | aah)

RR eee ea genres GiGi
ener nh a Raval Ri tos HVE, ‘ibieit
Ms i uy ' Pte

ivy
ore

arene i! reas a sori or
coy aa A eae increment ena PUN) acide
sii ae chy RW NaH Paw i 3
nye col AM, a Mh tenctiintiatat xieiiqer, gg TF

Pies fi: bits ry

ae ahi ah tea, hth apni
HEI “Gehl i ()
eth CO Vinee N wine)
vitisneags Biel vary
i ob eae hw

a)